The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12201976 - Sup Rec Vol 220 z 1 i f i s 1 I i I I i BLACKH A K El-TIROI:I-ENTAL H-PACT REPORT FLANNINe comame1011.OIO[MI ANTHONY A. O[NA[SU0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OtRtCT011 O/ ►LANNINO R DONALD It. AND[RsoN, MMA.A PLANNING DEPARTMENT LS A [RR T ,COM►ASLIA,MA1111Rt[ RICHARD D.NILD[SRAND,WALNYT C091R VICHARD J.J[NA.[L SOMAN" COUNTY ADMINISTRATION SUILOINO. NORTH WINO :.IAM L.MILANO.F9T/MYOe ..K STODDARD, PRImme"D P.C.sox 001 ANOR[W N.YOUNG.ALANe RECEIVED MARTIN[E. CALIFORNIA 04005 ►HON[110.3000 APR 1040 191-G CLERK IS . G&ROSIA UPERV ISOR$ CO. .... __Ze_..&...Do ut The Final Environmental Impact Report herein submitted for the Blackhawk Ranch rezoning (1840-RZ) is available for review. The Draft E.I.R. was certified on May 28, 1974 by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission after public hearings. The preliminary development plan, and the rezoning from A-2 to P-1 for the project was also approved, and these decisions were adopted at that hearing. The Final E.I.R. consists of the County Staff Draft E.I.R. document and considerable amounts of supporting data, both oral and written, which either preceded or supple- mented this document, as well as communications which were received commenting on the Draft E.I.R. Hence, these documents are all considered to be an integral part of the Final E.I.R. They include: the Contra Costa County Planning Department Block- hawk Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report 1840-RZ of February 6, 1974; Contra Costa County Planning Department Economic Supplement 1840-RZ Environmental Impact Report of April 11, 1974; Contra Costa County Planning Department Economic Supplement 1840-RZ Environmental Impact Report of May 28, 1974; Contra Costa County Planning Department Responses to Comments on the Draft E.I.R. for Project 1840-RZ of May 23, 1974; Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 1974 - March 12, 1974 - March 26, 1974 - Apri 1 23, 1974 - May 14, 1974 - May 28, 1974; James A. Roberts Environmental Report (JARA) for Blackhawk Ranch of August 28, 1973; Ecological Impacts Studies, Incorporated Environmental Report (ECIS) for Blackhawk Ranch of January, 1974; Lowney, Kaldveer Associates Geotechnical Reconnaissance for Blackhawk Ranch of November 15, 1973; Slope Class Mop (April 11, 1974) and Slope Analysis; General Plan Analysis Submittals; Letters submitted to the Planning Commission in Response to the Environmental Impact Report Planning Commission Hearings; Kirker/Chapman Blackhawk Ranch Hydrology Report of November, 1973; and Kirker/Chopman Slope Class Map (April 11, 1974) and Slope Analysis (March 12, 1974). Microfilmed with board order • -2- Copies of the Final E.I.R, conglomeration are available for public review at the Contra Costa County Planning Department Office, the Office of the Clerk of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Contra Costa Public Libraries in Pleasant Hill and Danville. The total report or selected portions are available for reproduction through the Contra Costa County Planning Department Office at a cost of S.10 per page. Sincerely yours, Anthony A. Dehoesus Director of Planning r � Melvin J. Bobier Planner III • MJB:ms CC: File 1810-RZ BLACKHAWK RANCH (PROJECT 1840-RZ) ENVIRNOMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM EXHIBIT M Blackhawk Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report 1840-RZ, Contra Costa County Planning Department (2-6-74) 1 Economic Supplement 1840-RZ Environmental Impact Report, Contra Costa County Planning Department (4-11-74) 2 Economic Supplement 1840-RZ Environmental Impact Report, Contra Costa County Planning Department (5-28-74) 3 Responses to Comments on the Draft E.I.R. for Project 1840-RZ, Contra Costa County Planning Department (5-23-74) 4 Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 1974 5 Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 1974 6 Planning Commission Minutes of March 26, 1974 7 Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1974 8 Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 1974 9 Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 1974 10 James A. Roberts Environmental Report (JARA) for Blackhawk Ranch (August 28, 1973) 11 Ecological Impacts Studies, Incorporated Environmental Report (ECIS) for Blackhawk Ranch (January, 1974) 12 Geotechnical Reconnaissance for Blackhawk Ranch, Lowney, Kaldveer Associates (November 15, 1.973) 13 Slope Class Map (April 11, 1974) and Slope Analysis General Plan Analysis Submittals 14 Letters submitted to the Planning Commission in Response to the Environmental Impact Report Planning Commission Hearings 15 Hydrology Report for Blackhawk Ranch, Kirker, Chapman and Associates, November 1973 16 Slope Class Map (April 11, 1974) and Slope Analysis (March 12, 1974) of Blackhawk Ranch, Kirker, Chapman and Associates 17 • t3c�aao o�c�¢,r ! ��hur des po, n ses A tJ p �}1"t q th Y'1n e N Y'S 18 1e- 2 , • _�'' �1 a)eiioj 1. r r,1 -• 1/'J� a �•�, � .`IJ• r:iC..M1�1./ Ys-�_ r. �'t•�_l f - ��` , :✓'�1`r• .;r' ✓•�, _.. � •.�•Si ,� rte' •1 � ',1 �. �. ''•��. 'i,�, t /: � ?``.f••l , ,�\!t'. /' � '1 _!`..:i �•.� '-' •+� �': '�' ' •,:.' '.'..:'' r: - Vii'•- •• -1,I ,� -..+.. -''•r°, `.� :.::•.l' MN. ^r 1, �{1'�[ .y o�o V,''r� f. s.'S1'. •��.+ � �S , .J._.,-,� (- ,r��. �' J ,.•n''��,,.�.�� r ./'-; 4l ,• ^�' _.:.%-�:�' ,a - ,ti:��:;ice•: � �. T .F••ifr•a" -"'_ t • g -jY. . ."J'.+'i:•g• ,;� � �` ,•••• •; `�. EXit gS t` FT' : :arA"r'..:.•,.... `• t 1 �f t - t ( �•'�. ,,,��,:.� t;L t f i`' - tA'�yy�ii""' �' .. •� , •r r', ,. ��+/"•' I { •�•Lf, 4 ',, {f fir, � ;C '; q• t ;: ^:~:.•~ 1 'o ;,`(+' •1• ,�?• �f � •y_,/ .• � ` �.,; 0 . •`-' .'rll'•f A .�!: �•/ •. � '♦..,,�/""jyp•Ia r} /. �. \„�.,,�-•,,,, ..• 4s�•'//_r. l �-.,,,!'��. :r=•t'.• •�-.. Al �' .:y:�rt'�� _- r:. ,j •• jet `�/,:�� `�'- r r, � ,'". -` ♦ �"� �r/:' ;'. T y} `�1••t�M � i'�r; t •� .. .•'-•�..,•�r�1,,:' '�•%,�'� n••" 't.y..r -rr �,^""•r,. _ -�7i^_„�-,. ' tr • A.. 2. t Q '� �.,^- ^� :��•• � •�,• u gin• , tot1 r: .. t 1 .\..r ..'// •I -'-�. t�� 1•-r-•-. �•,t✓,•-� :'�• t. ;r�n ..,:r,' �� .\r'- 4 ._ 1 :• WX vie VL `.O� .X v' ,t •'�; /,jam I •t .ti. /' -� �\ �" �•�• :,,�,�.•�9 �,..• ,r �� W% ._"� y y. ��„_,,...- `; , ti,t.;t. .�:S.j. t t?r}jii+w�•, •,L .J 1� '`_�' .t'-: - ':•_::•. ••,. '�,��,�''' .-b' Jl �' _ , :.. t _•`j� ('' .1�''i w,i r�t,•''�y `�.�- I , '%+,±`, 1 'S rw�'. e��al �� • ` \ ...i . '�:•'��+ ':°. . .�,{{ f P7��••S":�.��..-.-+ui•�:i%'`._- -.11 •/�, /_� •.i.'' i� -1 �nv� ^; t;O�.00� �� .., `�. ~t /,.. .c•? �•°'tl. � ,;, {{`��I ,'YtJ-'• I `,t .' /•,,•�`•'.'•-•'f �. r t 1pjh .� �.^-' ti f�,•�' �, Y SIJ .y f�• • ',•��','.,� i �.i j' :r, ,t;;wi • { - ••` •, • •` .1, 111- .�",J �/.• :�. .%. •. r� ,�,—•-,` � ,� '' •'. • �� '.;'•;,,t i`�. ;•\.'., � t--=: ' x•;22_ ��.., ;r :�%' / .'•r��•?.t��• '.;1.� 4( 'i Ott.� J-'.:.`.� ;•.--'^'� �•. .� CONTRA COSTA BOUNTY AREA N.NI 6.,,. Y' —40101" tat.11 c{.tNi .� favi! ' t\tftlr ► it{Nisi !!L/.K i w fat.{t 1 lt.tlff. tall less ♦ t ` rlfll. 1101. • '*ter..�� M ur aarlr 09./"� • �, r'It�w��. lot 46 c� Regional Mop I Figure PROJEC1 LOCATION "1 l ti, . ,.�.�'- ( .�"'.+-s i •'s`r�• t •• ................. wabut 10, IA lk ari / r •wig � 'j.�•�(�' �wird i ''�y\ �Z• ........._.. � rr"'err r ' ..r gill•. �•'1 `�� 1`��• i� r1 t ` � < < o• a ,x,u i 2Ut Jt�h W N � n :u K i t eL �► e � o� �P, 4c L,cc rY ` 6M A.Liel,enpQ SMD d ej �y K OA t i o « IY a 9 V u a Y t ti aSiN it AA 49 61 IL Ad U YiM J � 1J K r,1 tif N ' I� 1 �• 0 121 Ay/ i=•• •y Mt N J � � Ise � t t O N p ' $ git 0 • N • N ` � �2 pp O • �t V r �t 1R11L.E OF CONTENTS • Page A. Introductory Discussion 1. Project Description 1 2. Environmental Inventory of Region • a. Physical Description '3 b. Existing Use and Surrounding Area 3 c. Utilities and Coen.unity Facilities 5 d. Circulation 5 • e. Legal• Policy and Institutional Constraints 7 f. Soils and Geology 13 g. Hydrology and Water Quality 20 h. Vegetation and Wildlife .21 1. Ascreation and open Space 27 J. Socioecono-nic Characteristics 29 k. Air Quality and Noise :A 1. Paleontological, Archaeological and Historical Aspects 32 S. Environmental Impact Analysis 1. Tho-Environmental ::mpact of the Proposed'Action a. Reginal Considerations 34 • b. Urb• n Sarvices 43 c. Agricultural Considerations 46 d. Physical impact - Geologic and Seismic Irpact 47 e. 'Paleontological and Archaeological IMact' 51 f. Vegetation and Wildlife Impact • Sl g. Climace and Air Quality S5 h. Hydrology and Water Quality i. Traffic Analysis . 39 j. Economic Fiscal Assessment 60 - 2. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If This Proposal is Implemented 63 3. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Developer 64 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 68 S. The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 71 6. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes 14hich Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be ImpInmented 72 7. The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action 72 S. Organizations and Persons Consulteds Documerits Utilized 73 9. Qualification of the .EI.R. Preparation Team 74 A. Introductory Discussion 1. Project Description Under rezoning application 1840 the applicant, Blackhaak Development Company, is seeking to rezone approximately 4,800 acres from (A-2) general agricultural district to (P-1) planned unit district. The project site is located at 121055' west longitude and 37049' north . latitude near the center of Contra Costa County, approxir..ately 19 miles southeast of Ilartincz (the County seat) , five miles east of Danville, and four miles south of Mount Diablo. The property is t-3rdered by Mount Diablo State Park on the north, Blackhewk Road on the southwest, Tassajara Road along portions of the property on the south, and nunerous private land ownerships on the remaining sides. The project i- in the area commonly known as Green and Tassajara valleys. The project consists of 36 parcels of land which are identified later in the report. most of the project lies within Census Tract 3551, with portions also extending into Census Tract 3462. The applicant proposes to provide 4,546 dwelling units in a planned unit development which is oriented to golf and equestrian country club facilities. An inter-mix of single family detached, single family cluster and multi-family units is proposed. Some commercial fac- ilities, elementary schools, and two golf courses are to be included in the project. Functional areas of the project are identified in Figure ]. The developed portion of the site is to extend over 2,071 acres of the site with unimproved open space occupying .renaining acreage. Figure 1 shows a generalized breakdown of the proposal. _ Recreational facilities to be developed include the following: 1. A private country club located in the center of the project with an 18-hole golf course and a swim and tennis center. * 2. A second 18-hole golf course located at the east end of the project. ' 3. An eauestrian center located in the upper northwest portion of the developed area. 4. Equestrian, bike and hiking trails within considerable open space. Development Phasing The applicant anticipates build-out over a 12 year period. A specific phasing plan has been defined in the Economic Appendix, but because of a need to adapt to changing market demand, transportation facilities, and economic conditions, this phasing plan could easily vary. The applicant has indicated that the project will start at the west end of the site where water service is available and proceed to :he southeast. FIGURE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project comprises roughly 4,800 acres. The developer proposes to include the following land usess units/ Residential Acres Percent Units Acre Estates 170 3.5 51 0.3 Single Family Detached 857 17.9 2,155 2.5 Single Family Cluster 179 3.7 1,958 11.0 Multi-Family 19 0.4 382 20.0 Subtotal 1,225 25.5 4,546 3.7 Ce�nercial Retail 23 0.5 Office 14 0.3 Subtotal 37 0:8 Public ' Public Facility 3 0.1 Schools . -31 0.6 Subtotal 34 0.7 Golf Courses, Two 375 7.8 COMmunitX Open Space 2,129 44.3 Final Project Total 3,800 79.1 4,546 1.19 Dedicated Open Space 1,000 20.9 h • TOTAL SITE 4,800 100.0 4.546 0.95 No specific design is available for the commercial facilities. For analysis purposes, the following areas have been assumed: retail, 225,000 square feet; offices, 290,000 square feet. i� i There is also a possibility that given the proper market conditions, the developer will proceed on several of these areas at•the same time, rather than sequentially. Developer Stated Design Constraints The applicant states that the development will be restricted, to areas with slopes of less than 25 percent. In addition, buildings are not to be constructed on exposed slopes, ridgetops, or knolls, and will be sited to avoid extensive grading. Roadways are to be aligned to respect site features and visual amenities. T. Environmental Inventory of P.eaion a. Physical Description .The project, due to its size, is located ih both Sycamore and Green Valleys, as well as extending up Short Ridge and onto the flanks of Mount Diablo. Ground surface elevations generally vary from a, low of approximately 620 feet (Mean Sea Level Dattrn) on the south edge of the parcel near Blackhawk Road, to a maximum of 1,965 feet at a peak ,n the.no:theast corner of thn property. The topography is shown on the front cover of this document. The alluviated valleys are relatively flat, but the predominant slope on the project site ranges from 30 - 50%. The site is crossed by several. small streams SMt. Diablo is a strong visual feature in the landscape. Due to its height and it is a highly visible and important part of the County's aesthetic qualities. To date, the foothills of this mountain are relatively development free. Travelers on Blackhawk ani Tassajara Roads presently have an uninterrupted view of Mount Diablo from the South. b. Existing Use and Surrounding Area Most of the 4,776 acres which comprise the project site are being utilized for cattle grazing. At present, there are approximately 400 cows and 400 calves on the property, or a little less than one head of cattle per five acres. Cattle are kept on the ranch through- out the year with grass forage supplemented with hay during the winter ' months. The hay is produced on approximately 200 acres of land on the sourthern half of the property. r In addition to hay, approximately 100 acres of the ranch is planted in English walnuts grafted onto black walnut stock. These trees are maintained and annually harvested. There are four large ponds located in the central part of the ranch and numerous small ponds scattered throughout the ranch. The large ponds were constructed approximately 45 years ago and are used primarily for irrigation. The smaller ponds are fed by springs or seasonal runoff and are located in a number of the small drainages that exist on the property. These smaller ponds are used primarily for stock watering. - 3 - 5's TAs few buildings located an the ranch include a small ranch house presently being- used as an office by Blackhawk Development Company, a large hay and horse barn, and several small sheds and storage build- ings. These buildings are located in the central portion of the ranch along Sycamore Creek. A small group of buildings including the ranch, foreman's house is located on the east side of the ranch along the west branch of Alamo Creek. The area surrounding the project can be characterized as follows: to the north - rugged hills terminating in Mount Diablo and the State Park along the northern property line; to the east and south - rolling hills and farm lands. These areas are predominately used for grazing. There is no significant residential development at present in either direction. -The major areas of development lie to the west along the 1-680 corridor extending eastward toward Blackhawk. The nearby contmuni- ties of Danville, Alamo, and Diabl-, are currently experiencing heave{ residential growth, most of which is law density, high cost single- family development. The pattern of development in 'the Diablo area has been essentially determined. On its eastern edge are the South Gate Road to Mount Diablo and Athenian School which lies between the Diablo community and •191ackhawk Ranch. Because of the rugged terrain, little if any devel-opment is expected to take place along the southern side. of Diablo Road as it extends toward the project site. The developed area already exists from the 1-680 freeway at &'n Ramon to the intersection of sycamore Vallev Road and Tassajara Road some 1-1/2, miles to the east. This valley extends eastu and to Blackhawk Road and the south side of the project area. Currently, there are a few scattered houses and farms along its length. The current develop- sent in the Sycamore Valley lies approximately 3 miles to the west of the south central corner of the Blackhawk property. This develop- wept is predominately low density conventional single-family housing. In the immediate vicinity of Blackhawk Ranch there are a number of small privately developed ranchettes. There are a group of 11 homes located to the east of Blackhawk Road just north of its intersection with Tassajara Road abutting the Blackhawk property line. There are N� homes located at the southeast end of the project area along and north 1 of Tassajara Road just east of the intersection with Lawrence Road. Several undeveloped parcels exist in the immediate vicinity of Black- hawk Road. At present this area is characterized as agricultural. While minor subdivisions are scattered throughout this portion of the County, this proposal would be the first major project extending the urbanized area into the valleys east of the San Ramon Valley proper. r z t !S • e. Utilities and Community Facilities The facilities currently on-site are typical of the rural area adjacent to Mount Diablo. There is no Centralized sewerage service; there are no community facilities; and water service is only suffi^.lent to serve the existing structures. d. Circulation The section following is descriptive of the existing road system only. The traffic and capacity problems are highlighted in the impact section and the appendix. 7fie road system in the vicinity of the subject property is primarily of a rural nature, consisting mostly of un- divibad, narrow (less than 24 feet of pavement) two-lane roads. El Cerro Borlevard, the section of Diablo Road between the freeway and Camino Tassajara (ora= carter mile) , and part of Sycamore Valley Road--from Camino Tassajara for about one mile west--are .the only four-lane segments in the system. All of these three provide access to Interstate 680, and all are over a mile and a half from the subject site. Hlackhawk Road, Tassajara Road, and South Gate.Road are *the only existing paved roads in the immediate vicinity of Slackhawk Ranch. Blackhawk Road and Tasbajara Road connect the south and west sides of the property with the community of Danville and Interstate 660 by way of Diablo Road. South Gate Road crosses the property on the north, but provides no vehicular access to the property due to the steepness of the adjacent slopes. South Gate Road also serves as one of the two access roads to Mount Diablo State Park. Other sur- face streets in the vicinity are shown in Fig. 2 and include - El-Cerro Boulevard, Sycamore Valley Road, and Dougherty Road. Interstate 680 represents the major transportation route in southern Contra Costa County. The weekday traffic flow on • Interstate 680 in the vicinity of Danville is predominately to the north in the morning and to the south in the afternoon. The average daily traffic is greater to the north of Danville than to the south, indicating that Danville is probably a major point of departure and return for commuter traffic. Numerous dirt roads are located on the Blackhawk Ranch pro- perty. ro- rt . These roads are used pe b y y ranch personnel and as fire roads. In their present condition, a few of these roads are passable only by vehicles with four wheel drive. Witty the exception of cow and deer trails, no trails are located on the property. - 5 ` �. 'Figure 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC .:01,17DITIONS •! Lane ti . 15 mph 2 Lane 50 t 75 mph 2 Lane �► One 25 mph curve 35 mph 7 140 — _350 One 20 mph curve 2 Lane 25 mph.01 9001,090 •` !"L..f . Oruw�L4c a 3 00 �A. �CACKHAWK. _ P. • r� ,tom q• _ �• •�. - ,.r•.• ,.. • 7 r 200 S� � �•} _ . 2 i 4 Laner' ' 45 mph al 1`- 2 :.ane 2'"80 65 41 500 Onem35 mph curve CArw 1, 640 lM 2 Lane 65 mph Estimated Current Traffic Volume • Vehicles Per Day (J.J.Forristal) - 6 - •. Legal, Policy' and Institutional Constraints. The application for this project is to rezone the property to P-1, Planned Unit District. The applicant wishes to build single family detached, single family cluster, and multi-family units on the project site as well as have 37 units for commercial and office use. County General Plan Conformance Section 65860 of the Government Code requires that zoning be in conformance with the County General Plan. 'care importantly in this case, the intent and purposes 'section (84-66.004) of the Planned Unit District (P-1) or the County Crd-inar.:e Code states "The Planned Unit District is irtended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, building structures, lot sizes, and open spaces while 'insuring substant..sl compliance with the general plan' .. ." This combination of state law and county ordinance provides a strong mandate from which to judge project compliance to the adopted general plan. To summarize the implications of this, the following concepts must be in agreement: the kinds of land use the densities of land use • the contemplated forms of development the facilities and services the access and circulation facilities the environmental factors. In order to make this determination, a review of the county general plan was made. This property is covered by three different adopted general plan documents which together con- • stitute the general plan for this area. (Figure 3) AY&MSO-DANVILLE AREA GENERAL PLAN This plan describes the type of residential development that is contemplated in the following manner: "Residential • 1. Residential densities on the valley floors should range from 1 to 3 families per net acre (maximum) , except for those areas in and immediately adjacent to the communities of Alamo and Danville where selective multiple residential is indicated. Z. 7be steep hill areas (of over 20% slope) , where develop- ment is feasible, should range in density from 0 to 2 families •(maximum) per net acre.* - 7 - ►� ECIS • E-73317-1 Figure 3 RELATIONSHIP OF BLACKHAtv'K TO CONTRA COS'T'A COUNTi PLANNING ARrAS • •. . .. . .•.• . • :•.• •ff bfff Offff ffffff . • • . • • •; �•�•�• • ., AREA—=8 • ' �'�-; ' ;z.: ' •�•� �r ••• • • • • . • 1 •• '•• • • ••••• ,•},'• f ' 1 •� :*3 .••;.� .r N.��.�, ..,�• .'. ,;. �•••ir ,.•. .'... ..... ... .�.�. ,'.� Atemo W. . • • •';: ;••�.�..�.�� ills ,....,: t.. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . �r;,,�:..:�. / . 7 . • \ x. , • ,.,.,• • /,•tom ' .'.'.•.'.''''•''''•'''. .'t-f"+�.� Romon • • �:: ••a :r' ,,?:' • Open Space Y• >'•' Areas Slated for Dedication '�„ - 8 - 3. All hillside development should be strictly controlled ao as to prevent marring of the natural landscape by excessive cutting and filling. 4. A population of 50,000 is considered optimum for this area. A higher density would, of necessity, alter the character of the area considerably and would dictate a change in the objectives of the plan." SAN RMION AREA GENERAL PLAN The San Ramon Area (Community) General Plan does not extend as far northas the Blackha:ck property boundary. It does, however, add detailed open space uses that abut single. fanily residential areas on the Alamo-Danville General Plan. 'finis creates a boundary problem which requires clarification before developrent proceeds in this area. The plan also specifies -that sir..-ile family resi- dential is appropriate in valley areas and that hillsides should remain open. •1963 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN 7hAs Plan has been superseded by the above-mentioned Area General Plans west (including some of the Ranch) . and south of the pro- ject site, but it is the residual plan covering the eastern • portion of the Ranch and much of the surrounding area. It is similar :o the Alamo-Danville plan'in that it shours some of this area as Low Density Residential (0 to 3 fartilies per net acre) . It further states on p. 24 that "Other than these few exceptions, medium, high density and multiple family developrants will be within or very near to urban centers and the industrial areas where employment will be found." Over half the land in the Blackhawk Ranch area and most of the greater Tassajara Valley is shown as extensive agriculture. On page 25 the intent of the plan further states: "Open Space As urban development pushes into the open countryside wood- land and farming areas rapidly disappear. Urban expansion will continue, but covering the entire landscape with a *This is properly interpreted as meaning that there are some areas (very level) where, say, one-half acre lots night be appropriate, and there are other areas where multi-acre lots would be appropriate. It does not necessarily mean that an average of one housing unit per acre would be permitted over entire areas shown for residential development. - 9 - sprawl of houses and other structures should be prevented. • Some of .our open spaces must be preserved, and it must be preserved at places where it will do the most good. Sub- urban expansion shol:ld follow a logical pattern. Urban scatteration and sprawl must be contained and discouraged. Preserving liberal amounts of open spaces at selected loca- tions, including parks, golf' courses, woodland, range land, and wherever possible the best agricultural land, is a major goal of this plan." OPEN SPACE-CO14SERVATION PLAN This component of the County General Plan (which modifies the Land Use Element) , although much debated, did little to change the general plan picture of this area as it was finally adopted.* One action was to state that parcels which straddled the open space line on the Plan would be allowed to apply for development before 1980. The °final definition-of what is to be open space and what could develop--according to .tne adopted land use elements of other plans--would be resolved at the time of application consideration. Since the time of adoption of the Open Space Plan the developers have purchased over an additional square mile of property which is now inclL.3ed in the proposal. This further complicates the action re:ating to projects strad- ling the open space line. • Based on an analysis of the above factors, it is clear that the proposed project as submitted has conflicting land uses wit,i the adopted plan, contains densities that exceed those antici- pated by the plan, and would requi_e facilities that currently aren't covered in the General Plan. Basically what is proposed "'Al is a whole new community east of existing development. This was not anticipated by the existing General Plan. It is clear that the project as submitted is not consistent with the existing Contra Costa County General Plan. In addition, the proposal does not reflect the timing of development as projected by the General Plan. Compliance -to Plans of Other Agencies and Groups • The State Department of Parks and Recreation has been reviewing its Mt. Diablo State Park acquisition program. In late 1973 the department made public its current thinking on the appro- priate future boundaries of the State Park. The State plan places the Wall Point area and the property north of South Gate Road as in the State's I-lost Important Acquisition category; the land in the extreme northeast of the project consisting of roughly 320 acres is shown by the State as a Desirable Acquisition. (Figure d) The project proponents have indicated a willingness to dedicate *This change was minimal in this area since the previously mentioned plans are the open space plan with one exception. That exception is that all agricultural preserves were added as open space at the direction of the Board of Supervisors and concurrence by the Planning Commission. 10 - s 41 t4 10 roe 1 t �i � e' `` a r • 1 • .� it' i!z tN� , x w►` •tom.• t 04 • .• CE � av tJlf..'a J • �'•. tX1, 14 40 • ►� `♦ .a• r t �� • ^.yam_. •rr`l �, i' .�� :1 •� 1!r' .1 a� �� 14.E .`j•. .,�` �,'�.� `�;,� ie - tits• .. r< :'ti;�`( . ~� .til �. �,` .. .' Y, � `••,.•.�-' `� ChtO R. �^'. •� Nu tit, .t , f•'•.' ;`•.s �.•-tf��a ',. .16 •ate • • �` � y .♦ �' '� . :` • ► . .�1 r .•t ./ i' �' 0 /1 ',. �. •:,,•: ��c r K •�;'i;,. it ,� voco 1C. slot •- .�. .� � art• •,x SOO GOP Ova .�► �•a •••r••• •• • r,a•r = Q rter • Z� ,�. - r`a&r`r Q. 1r ,�a�•r+spa+ �' ►mar'►•'r • 1000 acres to the park. . Additionally, the State shows as an appropriate acquisition another major area of the subject property. This boundary appears to correlate with th•. 1000 feet elevation contour, which, for the most part is above the proposed development areas and is shown in the Blackhawk Ranch proposal as community open space. However, while the project proponent has stated his willngness to donate 1000 acres to the State Park only 705 acres were actually Identified. The additional 300 acres the proponent has considered 'donating would probably come from the area he defines as community open space. . The Save Mount Diablo Committee, a local citizen group dedicated to preserving Mt. Diablo, has recommended that the State pro- posal is too conservative and that the park should extend south to Blackhawk Road and include the area which is proposed to be in Phase I of the project. A Local Mass Transportation Agency has been proposed to provide mass transportation service to much of Central County. This proposal has many steps that need to be taken before any such agency is voted upon by the people. At the request of Black- hawk Development Company the project site was included in the proposed boundaries of the transit county service area (T-2) as • approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission. This proposed service area will go to the County Board of Supervisors for con- sideration. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted "Regional Plan 1970 1990" shows much of the Blackhawk Ranch site as permanent open space. A small portion of the site is contained in a subcategory of open space, the Controlled Development areas. These are areas that the plan says should remain open for as long as possible, if not permanently; they can be considered for urbanization after 1990. The project appears to be in con- flict with the adopted regional plan. :. The San Ramon Valley Unified School District Facilities Plan 1973- 1983, which was recently developed, has numerous references to the Blacxhawk Ranch project. It appears that this plan anticipates that the development of Tassajara Valley area is years away. The Facility Plan on page 54 estimates that there will only be an ad- ditional 200 housing units over the 50 existing units by 1980 (their area 12) . Most of their project site is found in area 12. Consequently, ' the recently adopted school facilities plan might require revisions to serve the project site if the project is approved. A Scenic Routes Element has been approved by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and goes before the Board of Supervisors for • adoption on February 19 of this year. It recommends that Black- hawk Road, as well as, Camino Tassajara Roads be considered Scenic Minor Thoroughfares and Collectors. If this becomes county policy, the projects design will have to be reviewed relative to the goals of this portion of the County General Plan. - 12 - • f. Soils and Geology Structure and Stratigraphy The Blackhawk parcel is on the southwest flank of the Mount niablo uplift. Bedrock has been tilted to a near vertical position on the Site. In general the oldest rocks are exposed at higher elevations ' at the north end of the property; the bedrock units become progressively younger to the south. The geologic units exposed on the parcel fall into three distinct categories that differ in age, origin, and engineer- ing characteristics. These categories are, from oldezt to youngest: older Tertiary bedrock, Orinda Formation, and Quaternary deposits. The geologic structure and the stratigraphy of the Blackhawk project area is shown in Figure S. The geology and engineering characteristics of each of these units is discussed below: Older Bedrock , This category includes the three oldest rock units exposed on the Blackhawk parcel. In order of decreasing age, they are the Domengene Sandstone (Td) consisting of sandstone with minor siltstone, claystone, mudstone and conglomerate; Sobrante Sandstone (Ts) consist— ing of interbedded siltstone and sandstone; end the San Pablo Group (Tsp) consisting of interbedded sandstone, shale and siltstone. The upper portion of the San Pablo Group is the �:eroly Sandstone (Tn) . It is shoran as a separate unit on the U.7. Geological Survey man of this area. The engineering characteris*ics of these formations are sununazized in Table Orinda Formation The Orinda Formation (To) underlies the southern half of the Blackhawk E parcel. •It consists predominantly of weakly consolidated clayey siltstone, fine-grained silty sandstone and nudstone. The slopes are moderately steep over much of this area. Within the outcrop belt of the Orinda Formation, hillsides are furrowed with gulleys and pockmarked with landslide scars. The geotechnical report indicates that some of these landslides are over 1000 feet long and several hundred feet egide, and approximately 60 major slide areas have been mapped by the consultant. It should also be recognized that the mapped slides represent only a portion of the unstable areas in the project area. The engineeridq characteristics of the Orinda Formation are summarized in Table Quaternary Deposits This category uncludes the young alluvial deposits (Qal) which overlie the bedrock. In general these deposits consist of poorly sorted, unconsolidated mixtures of silt, clay and sand with minor gravel. These deposits consist of valley bottom deposits, alluvial fan deposits and landslide deaosits. Their approximate distribution is shown in Figure 6 and their engineering characteristics are stunmar- ized, in Table �c - 13 - Ct(♦ • •f • � I. • 7w.. s ' / •Qt .elf •s!1.,7 ♦ KJ ' • �.`~ •� f Vw ti 60 �P \ 1L Vp� �, •• •. r/. \�,•' \ •"ia ••f•• JO •.� rq,� ♦..,,,e,i• +I....�� , QL• .• .1 � / t` •' •• •' ••' �S � \, � NNS •I '� 'y' � A/ "''".:. '�•. V ;l'i�• ,'. ,i 6rJ f�'•��u. `.,t `«♦�♦...�,a •••1`.-'..y:. ,• ~ ..„•' T1"`.'.` ;+„'�Y.=�' •\i`••�•�1�'�.,,,,.1.�'+•�J''1 IX'O,�'•°' / hu vt''�y l;�,,J"•!<l _,,•�`1�. ^�...,.,.,, .R`' �,_X:nom �.`\[ti 1,'.. �; •.•� �• .r ` `. \is >� l•14�\\ �,' �� ``•``w...,,,�"•••�'J�+,I,,,r',i�;,� t3�.7`..-.,,.,�-�"�-"^-,—•i'"�'\`�'� . Q1 v!`•�', '„"�„ /'.•fit �:F• \�• \ `4• 7 M�1 � ,”;T"IT^`r�-. ) ` .�� Til w•"3i \+° .•,�,y.r . /'O'r.�+��,{ ♦, ,`,'�1•• •.. .. t . I • .� 1•� � '•�""�. � y'�i�J •\ �� y"'.:1�a, •.,+••��....\+" '•i '"amu �. �''`sy-.•r "•': �'*}'��„ •`•t �„••^� ..". `i:S`' t:..�� `►...., •'a.� 4s_�1,.`•.a' '•. `51: eJ�♦ �4V .. .+ " !,; ""� at w` `4.r � •111'' • •\;.;'�• ♦\+\.. .a Ihi ..• � 1C+•'y � ' . • 'o• 1 s 1 u lam.�C�♦ •�• ;. \ .. to t7* '�` •• \ t 1 !s TO vw .,tea. •. T° t,l ... •� _ 40 'y, �r �♦ "' Ric 7Q r .'"1`• ^h Ott. X111 f _j �b c•+�,'Gf�,, .�. ._ \rte. t,vr,r! t� ' ��• �� •� ,. /' •' 'To 'f"��rl/ • L• �/}vim- .. •. •f �•'f+ •��"" s ,�`\ "� ��.�...l,i}'•.� ".w' +1 tam kw On '�(,r, • V r� r "-�.�r+.• 'J N -•a•ts+ �».\1,I .r��/�O/' i r yt. / .-Stl�w?._.�v'ti/" n �: X70.t, +``. � •-G" r /\f/�r.�.�.•�1jp, t t ��-'`r. t if' t \�\.\ •+'a, �� i / :is v J% ..° y` '!« { , •♦ 'tom i i• If tt . •'- �,�,.'.:'-� ;Com: ,�� ► 1.o fCMAP RgA Qat �nav;um f3 L,pc K WWf�` t �o Q�ii a Fi9\uxe 5 , ,,(max Q •j.n Fj,�lotjl5ond'Stone 'fop San P6111" void 510"e1 -1A- •Ca 'v"obronte Stops r sari Qpm��thG Cw • + r° 'tdu► Figure 6 WIDSLIDE nuns ao te Ell ev • i •1 'Vr',a� ♦ �• V V 1 •tel •,\,•' '.,.� \'• '" � A/ { I\ � Yi r\'J � �..;�lt;'• .�i;, t • � •.\ l � •.-�•�� .oma./// ^� ,. \\✓✓__ � ; • .� +_ �'`%'frJ i� 'sj S.r'V� �•+w••`,;j\ r �` �• .-aVF;� � r•p J .. Yl M y y y Seismicity iNo known active or potentially active fault passes through the subject parcels and consequently the potential for surface faulting on the site is considered remote and an intensive study would be required to more clearly define the potential for faulting on the site. however, the site is located within one of the most seismic- ally active regions in the San Francisco Bay Area and the County. Active faults which are sufficiently near the site to produce damaging levels of ground shaking include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Pleasanton and Concorc Faults. And although this is a lengthy list, there is no reason -to believe that it is complete. Because of the continual seismic activity in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a very high probability that the site will be impacted by severe (damaging) levels of ground shaking during the useful life of the proposed development. The most detrimental effect from such s*iaking would be additional slumping or landsliding on the hill slopes and possibly liquefaction in the valley areas should well graded, loose, • saturated sands be present. It should be emphasized that it is possible that .large magnitude earthquakes could cause renewed movement of exist- ing landslides and/or neva landslides in the hill areas, particularly if such eartIquakes .we:e to occur during the wet season of the year. Hazards Interpretation The purpose of the following discussion is to identify the major geological obitacic. to development on the Blackhawk parcel. In essence, it attempts to evaluate the suitability of the parcel for development from a geotechnical perspective. The compatibility of the Blackhawk land use plan with hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions will be discussed in the "Impact" section of this report Preliminary Evaluation The geotechnical reconnaissance report ii.dicated that the property can be divided into three broad classes based on its development potential. The following discussion summarizes the findings of that report (Lowney-Kaldveer Associates; November 15, 1973) . Area A - Developable by Conventional Methods. The valley bottom areas and ge tiv sloping fan deposits can generally be developed using conventional site grading and foundation design provisions. The distribution of areas considered to have a high development potential by the geotechnical consultant are shown in Figure 6 Using a planimeter to estimate areas, Area A was found to con- stitute approximately 900 acres (about 20 percent of the total project area) . The problems associated with development of valley bottom areas and gently sloping fan deposits can include the following: ' (1) Expanisve Soils (2) Encroachment of landslides onto .stable areas (3) Seismically triggered ground failure (problems related to differential subsidence, liquefaction, ground lurching, landsliding, etc.) (4) Erosion and/or sedimentation (5) Flooding The mitigations proposed by the developer will be discussed later in this report. Area 8 - Developable with !•'oderatr;. to Extensive Development Problems The lower flatter slopes in the Orinda Formation can be developed providing they are not located on or adjacent to large landslides. These areas will require the use of extensive grading, including regrading of shallow earth sharps and other potentially unstable condition-. The -extent of site investigations required will be greater than for Area A, with particular attention directed toward long term slope stability and proper surface drainage. For hazaras interpretation see discussion of Area C. Arca C - Undevelopable As indicated above, there are many local areas within the property that are underlain by or in proximity to landslides which are of such magnitude that development of these areas would involve a high degree of risk and be very costly. The landslide areas are generally shown on Figure 6 ; however additional landslides = ' ~ are likely to be encountered in future detailed studies of specific areas. .,he relatively steep terrain along the deeply incised canyons in the Orinda Formation and the steep resistnat slopes to the north are also probably undevelopable because of the inherent instability associated with grading in these steep areas. Our experience in landslide areas in the Orinda Formation and related formations indicates that long-term stability is difficult to achieve even if extraordinary and expensive precautions are incor- porated into the site grading qLd drainage. Difficult design and construction problems should also be anticipated during the develop- ment of the above areas in relatively steep terrain. No development is proposed in these areas other than a golf course, however. The geotechnical consultant was unable to clearly differentiate Areas 8 and C because of the reconnaissance nature of the investigation which was undertaken. However, approximately 60 major slide areas were mapped by the consultant. It should be recognized, however, that the distribution and density-of landslide deposits is only a crude index to slope stability. The activities of man are capable of triggering instability on marginally stable slopes, and hillsides are particularly vulnerable to failure when the ground is wet or during severe earthquake shaking. -27- • TIME • GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION AND ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS; BLACKHAWK PARCEL• CONTRJ. COS'"A COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Generalized Stratigraphic General Lithologic Remarks (includes slope Section Description stability, earthquake stability, etc. ' , Quaternary Deposits Valley bottom Predominantly younger Loose, water-saturated deposits fluvial deposits of deposits possess many adverse fine sand, silt and engineering characteristics. silty clay. Grades including low seismic stability, into fan deposits. granular material may have high liquefaction potential Moderate potential for expansion in clayey soils. Pan deposits Unconsolidated, Moderately sorted, permeable, fine sand t and silt; gravel becoming more abundant towafd fan heads and within canyons. LandslideShallow and deep Stabilized, dry slides may be deposits slides. includes relatively safe; active debris slides, slump • and/or wet slides extremely blocks, and earth hazardous. Hazard greater flows. Composition on steep slopes. Earthquake and age of slide may trigger landsliding. highly variable. Orinda Formation Poorly consolidated Slope stability poor; abundant fine-graveled sand- slides in both soil and rock; stone, clayey silt- long term stability difficult stone with minor to achieve even uhen extra- amounts of conglom- ordinary precautions are erate and tuff; incorporated into site rapid facies changes. grading. Marginally stable slopes subject to failure during earthquake shaking • Table continued Older Bedrock San Pablo Group (Neroly Predominantly marine Slope stability condition Sandstone) sandstone, with moderate to good. Generally interbeds of shale, stands in 1:1 cuts with siltstone and minor minor sloughing. Locally conglomerate. upper forms slopes so steep that part includes some development may be difficult. • non-marine beds. For limitation, see discussion • of Domengene Sandstone. Sobrante Sandstone Siltstone and Slope stability and foundation shale with some conditions vary with material, firs-grained sandstone. • but generally good unless shezred or weathered. Gener- ally stands in 1:1 slopes with minor sloughing. For linita- tions see discussion of Dcmeiigene Sandstone. Domengene Predominantly Slope stability generally Sandstone' indurated bedrock, good; stands in 1:1 slopes including shale, with minor slouching. Fcunda- . Siltstone and tion conditions vary r-ith sandstme. 'material. Limitation% Subject to landsliding where intensely sheared • or weathered; dip slopes _ hazardous - should be cut at lower angle than dip • of beds. Eartha_uake stability high .(i.e. hard bedrock such as Great Valley rocks tend to attenuate earthquake waves, reducing ground notion) . q. Hydrology and Water Quality • Hydrology ' The western part of the Blackhawk property drains into Green Valley Creek and therein to San Ramon and Walnut Creeks, which ultimately flow into Suisun Bay. The central and southwestern part of the property drains into Sycamore Creek, also part- of the Walnut CreeY drainage basin. The eastern part of the property drains south into Alameda County and into the Alameda Creek system which flows into San Francisco Bay south of Oakland. Fourteen minor water sheds have been defined on the property, most of them are dry during the surmer and fall. Major water sheds and drainage are shown of Figure The heavy rains of winter and e_rlv. spring mean that there is a con- siderable volume and velocity of water moving through these small creeks after storms. It is characteristic of such streams to erode in the higher steeper reaches, and to overflow their banks in the lower, more local areas. At the present time, portions of Sycamore Creek have been improved by the Soil Conservation 'service to a capacity adequate to carry the runoff of a 50 year storm (a 2e risk in any rainy season) . This is considered adequate for • agricultural land uses. Unimproved portions of Sycamore Creek are very sensitive to extremes in the volu.-a and velocity of high water flows. This is due to a relatively ' ste6p gradient and the highly erosive soils through which the creek passes. At the present time many portions of Sycamore Creek have excessively steep and eroded banks. The Green Valley Creek system, including both the east sand west Lunches which originate in the Diablo ?ange, presently has an inadequate capacity in its lower reaches near the central San Ramon Valley. Flooding occurs in • the vicinity of Stone Valley Road and Diablo Road where a number of subdivisions presently exist. The Flcod Control District plan for the Walnut Creek drainage basin includes further construction on this creek, some of which is pre- sently being undertaken by subdivision developers as a part of the development of their properties. San Ramon Creek, into which Sycamore and Green Valley Creeks drain, is presently considered to have an adequate capacity to carry the runoff from anticipated low-density development in the San Ramon Valley area. However, channel improvements may be required in the future to correct problems of bank failure and erosion where homes exist close to the creek channel. -20- . Ground water ' Not a great deal is known about the quality and quantity of ground water on the Blackhawk property. In this part of Lie County, ground water supplies are typically not adequate for irrigation without serious depletion of the supply. Also, ground water in this area is typically from fair to poor for domestic purposes, being high in total dissolved salts. The boron content, while not high enough to be considered toxic to humans, is often high enough to be a limiting factor in agriculture. Water Quality Surface waters on the Blackhawk property may be somewhat contaminated from cattle manure. The greatest degree of such contaminations occurs downstream from areae in which animals are concentrated, such as feed lots and corrals, not where relatively few ani.•anls graze freely over a large area. h. Vegetation tad Wildlife Inventory Vegetation . 2he project area is located within'the Californian biotic province (Munz and Keck, 1959) . Tte region characteristically has a mild climate, hot and dry summer, and certain typical plants that are discussed in the following paragraphs. Plant Associations The vegetation of the project site can be subdivided into four basic plan` associations: valley grassland, streamside wood- land (riparian) , foothill woodland (including savanna) , and chaparral (Munz and Keck, 1939) (see Figures 7 and 8) , Vhile each of these associations has its o.,-n basic flora, there is generally not a definite dividing line which distinguishes one from another. The most notable exception might be chaparral which is often clearly defined. Some plant species are characteristically found in only one association, while others are found in all four associations. The valley grassland plant assbciation• is distinguished by open grass covering hills and valleys. The species found in this association are typically introduced annual grasses, although previous. to man and his activities it was characterized by native bunch grasses. The valley grassland is typical of the southern portion of the property in the larger valleys and along the low hills. i A Wp°dian • stl:ean •♦ � g °tr111 a j^XX •.'^u� � M tBLACKHAtyOAD i • t „5 • 11 I i `fit tti r va-4,. r. • a►�p11� ..Z1' ' • 8 1` CO3'��Nl�1ES tie pppl�contl t B1�t SUroy (of pssoc;ates •�.� �' •slur+• �r,��,~'�x.1�� • •`�1`,��✓.,11, 5`�`�•;�/'�•`••••••�1,�� '��1 '=tiny\:�• ;�j'`'`,�- �•� �/ f . , �"" ',,.`„��.: .L�• yi• .tl,� 1 �• f/{/jai/ ��;�'in'I1\f,�f. v•r;,V•L. < � � •.I •w,'� ••/j L«,o:.M� �t3:��'t ��rt! f” .{.. �.\��'"1 �f\ w s }� . !,ly•y .. • /fes +` -TASSAJARA ROAD r At higher elevations on the ranch and at locations near seasonal sources-of water and streamside woodland the vall•iy grassland blends into the foothil-' woodland plant associations. These associations are characterized by a variety of hardwood trees, predominately coast live oak and California buckeye. The density of trees in the foothill woodland association becomes less as the distance from seasonal or annual water sources decreases. The trees also become more numerous at higher elevations and on the northwest exposures. The chaparral association is found on the upper, steep slopes on the ranch. In these locations, 'it is generally separated from open grassland by distinct lines. Many of the shrub species that are do.ninant in the chaparral association are able to survive reoccurring fires by sprouting from fire blackened stumps. Some of these plants, especially the chamise are quite abundant irmediattly following a fire, then become less common as they are crowded out by other species. Agricultural Crops In addition to the relatively natura] vegetation on the site, approximately 200 acres are used for h.,y production and approxi- mately 100 acres are planted with English walnut.: on black walnut stock. The hay is harvested fr•)m nine .fields mostly r`n .the southern half of the property, with a production of 10,500 bales in 1972. All of it is used to feed cattle and horses on the ranch during the winter. Walnuts are planted in two separate orchards, the largest located immediately east of the ranch buildings. These orchards were planted between 90 and 50 years ago and produced approximately 50 tons of English wal- nuts ih 1972. Fire Hazard There are three basic fuel types found in the project site: (1) grass, (2) grass-woodland, and (3) chaparral. In addition to these fuel types, wind, slope, and fuel moisture content are major influences on fire hazard. The greatest hazards are associated with periodical high and very dry north winds. Suppression is relatively easy in types 1 and 2 when access is goods however, types 1 and 2 fuels are flash fuels and fire spread is rapid. On the steeper slopes spread is more rapid; in addition, motorized suppression vehicles are handicapped, increasing the odds of an escape into a major fire. In addition, type 3 fuel, the chaparral, occupies the higher elevations on steeper slopes. 17'herefore, the chances of in- volving these heavier fuels increase .greatly when fires have moved into the steeper areas. Fires in steep chaparral areas -24- - are usually very difficult to suppress because of inadequate access, rapid spread, and the great deal of heat that is involved. Under the worst conditions a "fire storm" will occur where the fire has created microclimatic conditions favorable for its own contin- uing spread (e.g. , strong convection currents, high temperature. Fires in fuel type 3 can often be easily suppressed when small through the use of aerial retardant bombing. In summary, the potential existing fire hazards in the project area are highest on Vie steeper lands nearest t-it. Diablo State Park in type 3 areas where the fire potentials are realized by mixing man's activities with a naturally fire prone environment. The potential existing hazards are lowest on the valley floor in fuel types 1 and 2. Wildlife . The wildlife found in the project area is closely associated with the food, cover, and water that exists there. The necessary requirements for wildlife survival -can be grouped into the various -habitats which more or less correlate with the slant communitien discuss-:d in the previous section. The four principal natural habitat types on the property are' grassland, streamside woodland, foothill woodland ;including savanna) , and cha:arral. There are also soma. extensively modified , man-made habitats on the site. SGrassland Habitat The grassland habitat is comprised.mostly of annual plants that tura dry and brown in the summer. Many grassland animals move to more moist habitats or go into estivation (a period of summer hibernation) at this time. Small animals, insects, liz7.rds and snakes, small birds, and rodents are the dominant wildlife species associated with this habitat. Certain F._edatory birds patrol this habitat in search of food. Foothill woodlands and Savanna Habitats These habitats are found on the middle elevation slopes of the property and are a gradation of the valley grassland plant association into the foothill woodland and savanna associations. The wild- life characteristics of these habitats are sirdlar to those • described for the grassland, but larger ma=nals, such as deer and coyote, moderate sized song birds, and game birds occur more frequently. This habitat is especially favorable to the soaring hawks. Coyotes are probably abundant on the project site. In fact, one was sighted during a field trip in the fall. Streanaide Woodland Habitat The streamside woodland habitat is found along the drainages and cattle watering ponds on the ranch. It is one of the richest habitats in terms of wildlife numbers and diversity and stays green and relatively cool throughout the year, in narked contrast with the surrounding grasslands. The extent of the streamsi.de woodland is greatly restricted by the seasonal nature of water availability, for the drainages generally dry up during the summer. This habitat is valuable to wildlife throughout the year by providing. nesting sites, seasonal and daily migration routes, abundant cover, and a variety of food resources. The stream- side woodland is particularly important during the hot dry summer when many animals move down into the woodland during the heat of the day. Amphibians, numerous bird, and mammals such as deer and raccoon utilize this habitat extensively. Burrowing rodents are also 'more common because of the presence of softer alluvial soils. Chaparral Huoitat The chaparral habitat, found along the upper slopes of the project site, is composed of numerous brush species. This • habitat is favorable to wildlife during the wet seasons of the year, providing ample food, especially browse for deer, and cover. Many of the wildlife species that utilize the chaparral during these months migrate to more moist plant communities or regions during the suminer. Birds, rodents, and various reptiles are the dominant wildlife .species that occupy this habitat. ?!an-Made H bitats In addition to the existing natural habitats on Blackhawk Ranch, numerous man-made wildlife habitats exist on the property. These include the four central ponds, the walnut orchards, and the ranch buildings. The central ponds are bordered in part by cattails and marsh vegetation and serve as ideal habitat for aquatic associated birds such as the red- winged blackbird, killdeer, and occasional shorebirds and amphi- bians. They also serve as a year-round water source for the wildlife on the property and a wintering site for ducks and geese. The walnut groves provide nesting, roosting, and food resources for mourning dove, California quail, and deer. The ranch buildings likewise serve as nesting and roosting sites tor, swallows and various species of bats. In terms of recreation, deer are the most important wildlife species. A large number- of the deer collected by hunters in Contra Costa County are taken in the vicinity of Blackhawk Ranch. A good sized deer herd exists on the ranch with most -26- of the animals spending their entire lives within a mile of the place where they were born. on some parts of: the ranch, deer may reach a density of 29 to 35 individuals per square mile. They feed primarily on grass in the winter and browse in the sum r. Some minor movement of deer from Mount Diablo doe occur down drainage channels to tho lower parts of the ranch during the winter, but generally there is very little movement of the deer in the area. Mountain lions may occasionally be found on the upper portions of the property. These large cats, while not abundant, are not uncommon in the Mount Diablo area. At least one large female has been sited in this area of Contra Costa County by East Bay Regional Parks personnel. Rate or Endangered Species The California Department of Fish and Game r,.cognizes two animal species which probably exist on the site (At the Crossroads, 1972) . ftese are the Alameda striped racer and the California tiger sala- mander. However, there is one species of bird, the Black-chinned Sparrow, which is recognized by local expe•:ts as bung at least depleted in the area. In addition, Golden Eagles, a• depleted species, are known to frequent the Mt. Diablo area. These birds nest at the higher • elevations and forage at all elevations. The endangered Bald Eagle is not known to occur in the. area. 'The• current status of rare and eneangered plant species on or near the project site is unclear. Cert:in annual plants so designated by the Native Plant Society may occur in the area. Dr. Mary Bowerman, author of "Flowering Plants of Mount Diablo" was contacted relative to the possibility of rare or endangered plants on the subject property. Dr. Bowerman indicated that the most probable plants of interest were dormant at the time and it would be spring before they would be readily detectable. • i. Pe rc eation and Open Space The northern portion of the project site abuts Mount Diablo State Park. In fact, South Gate Road which crosses the project site is a state facility and actually a part of the park proper. The park has been undergoing expansion during the past few years mostly through acquisitor; additional expansion is expected to occur. The existing area residents are currently served by .two golf courses the Diablo Golf and Country Club and the Round Hill Country Club. A third golf course in the area is under active consideration as part of the Devil ttountain proposal. -27- INVENTORY OF MAJOR OPEN SPACE j� Figure wALNut t�ctK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES t; 1 BLACKHAVIK LEGEND - Cl MAJOR PARKS \� • ® WATERSHED LANDS MILITARY LANDS =r µ'°" "" •" """" " '"' i'• � t.riu iHtl t.Y"Il/U""I". H/N 1/1 "1 © AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES .Y' (;:;;S;,1 /1111 Yl oil.•.:11,":` —28— • The project site and most of the surrounding- area can' be considered open space in the sense that the area is utilized agriculturally. The project is contiguous to several agricultural preserves. The open space-conservation plan ado;ted in June, 1973 gave some add- itional County committment to these agricultural preserves by showing them as major open space areas on the plan map. j. Socioeconomic Characteristics The San Ramon Valley Area has been one of the fastest growing regions within Contra Costa County. From a population of 2,120 in 1940, it more than doubled by 1950 to 4,630 persons, and nearly tripled in population by 1960. The Valley then doubled once more during the 1960-1970 period until it reached a figure of 25,927 according to the 1970 Census. This constituted a growth of 1,123% over the 1940-1970 )eriod and represented an annual compounded growth rate of 8.7% per year. In contrast the entire County grew at an annual total growth rate of only 5.9% during the same period. The 1970 Census data shows the median family income in the Valley to be $17,510, .-3ver $5,000•cr 40% more than the Countywide median of $12,423. The housing value was also higher than the Countywide figure. • -Another majc•.- difference between the San Ramon Valley and the re- mainder 'of the County is the lack of employment base in the Valley. While the County itself does not have an employment base large enough and sufficiently diversified to retain but 61% of its labor force, only 45% of Valley workers labor in the County. Valley workers com- mute to jobs outside the County at a rate 43% higher than the county- wide average. Eighty-seven per cent of this out-commuting is done by automobile (this is comparable to the countywide average) but due to their location in the southern portio: of the County many Valley workers must travel longer distances to the San Francisco and East Bay job markets. In view of the recent petroleum-related transportation and energy crisis the high rate of out-commuting and lengthy distance to work could create severe economic pressures on San Ramon Valley residents and possibly the County population as a whole if additional mass-transportation facilities will be necessary. This mould be especially true if such costs were to be underwritten by public funding. Due to the rapid growth that has been occuring in the valley the San Ramon Valley Unified School District has been confronted with serious school capacity problems. According to the District Superintendent, over $17 million has been spent -to construct new school facilities during the past eight .years, and $30 to $40 million additional school buildings will need to be constructed during the next ten vears in order to meet demands. At present the school • district has one of the highest school tax rates in Northern California and is having difficulty meeting its operating expenses. It is attempting to minimize its own capital, facilities bonding requirements by joining the State Schools Bond Act Program, • An overburdened school system and an attendant high school tax..rate have been the costs of the rApid population growth experienced in th Valley. According to a report prepared by- consultants to the school district this situation will not be ameliorated in the rear futare but could only be intensified by further rapid growth. k. Air Quality and Noise Air Quality Air quality in the San Ramon Valley region' is not as hich as could be desired for areas of human habitation or for agricult::re. Top- ographic and climatic conditions in the San Ramon Valley and the side valley branching off from it along Stone Valley R,.ad and Camino Tassajara, make these areas extremely susceptible to concentrations of air emissions, lead4.ng to polluted air. Oxidant, fc=ed in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight, is of particular concern to . the Hay Area Air Pollution Control District because of its potential for health and crop damages.. As Figure 9 shows, the n---*-er of days when oxidant levels exceeded the state standard of .10 in the vicinity of Blackhawk property was approximately 40 days in 1971. Annual differences are due to variations in seasonal ac- cording to the BAAPCD. Although an "episode", oe dra:-atically evident incident of damaging pollution levels, is not kno:,•n to have occurred in this area, the typical "whisky-brc•rn" smoz. haze is fre- quently in evidence at lower valley elevations throug::c•_= the central county valleys during the summer and fall smog season. Vehicular _ _.. traffic .is believed to be responsible for more than 80% of the air emissions leading to smog and oxidant. Noise The ambient noise levels experienced at the project site are very low. The only on-site sources are cattle and vehicles using the ranch roads. Some sound is audible from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's transmission lines which cross the eastern :-rtion of the property= but this can be heard only if the obs6rver is irmediately adjacent to the transmission lines. Off-site noise sources are also minimal and consist prir..arily of vehicular traffic on Blackhawk Road, Tassajara Road, and South Gate Road. As previously noted, traffic levels on these roads are low, hence their present noise production is low. Noise originating from residences and the Athenien School to the west of he property is audible at low levels on the western edge of the property. -30- Figure 9 REGIONAL,AIR BASINET ' ;S;;:t>�';•':v Wil; .. Clayton _ .? Pleasant 0 0' Hill ,0 'Lafayette ?: ::,;ra''`''w•• �"ti•� Mt. Diablo �© <•: >X :<: ioeo• Alamo Danville _ . San ri Ramon : :::::• •zit ,� ` a;::''�%?:; ....,,.,- * : HaywardLivermore z Pleasanton. Numbers refer to the days per year with .10 ppm • dr higher oxidant, based on 1971 SAAPCD•data . ; -31- 1. Paleontological, Archaeological, and Historical Aspects Paleontology Mr. Bruce Hanson of the Museum o: Paleontology at the University of California at Berkeley, performed .a paleontological survey of the project site. His survey report was submitted with the project ap- plication and provides the basis for this analysis. The project area is known for its abundance of fossil leaves, invertebrates, and mammal remains (Figure 10) . The fossils have been the subject of scientific investigations since late in to nine- teenth century. Initial attention was directed toward fossil leaves and marine invertebrates, and paleontologic activity reached a peak in the late 1930's following the discovery of the rich accur..ulation of fossil mammal remains, now called the Blackhawk Ranch Quarry. Research on material from this and other localities on the ranch has led to numerouL scientific publications. The property continues to'provide educational experience as well•as scientific in:ornation . as it has since the early 1930's. The geologic rect•rd on the site spans nearly E) million years. Two separate '.nvasions of marine seaways and subsequent iresho:ater t lakes and streams left sediments which enclosed the remains of a great variety of plants and animals. . These fossil remains, most of which are now regarded to be of fete Miocene age, are most abundantly distributed in 'a bread hand extending from the northwest and into the project site. Rich beds of marine elaris, "sand dollars," and snails occur in the northern, older part of this band. Fossil leaves of terrestrial plants are less co7mion, but tend to be concentrated in layers at several levels rear the ednter of the band. Vertebrate fossils are known from several local- ities on and near the site, but are known to be abundant only in a WNW-ESE trending zone about four feet thick just west of the center of the project site. Any fossil which remains deeply busied in sedimentary rock is virtually safe from destruction. Eowever, when natural processes of erosion or the activities of ran remove the overlying rock and bring the fossil near the surface, it begins to be subjected to a variety of new conditons, nearly all of which threaten its existence. The natural processes of physical and chemical weathering, growth of plant roots, and soil creep may destroy fossils, even before they are exposed at the surface. If the slow process of erosion does expose a fossil, the same process will destroy it i.-" allowed to continue: Trampling by livestock or other large animals will hasten the fossil destruction. -32- t , i l *`4. ar' �M� •'..,/ :� �' r- ";t ! .•'./� ,♦ • !� •' l.w:: .1M .-+~ �� rigura 10 � /�• ••ate, •.f.•��•�� ,; �+^ ! t' ,\ •t�� +``''' �R'•I� `\�"s• - • •� •~ ."� , ' �\��t.-.+/^.•"^i•f~U/4► '••�d!• '� !^ `•!• jr •(i' '•11 fi J✓t •y1'�R.J ,`1.... ��',\�,� '• •4,,��'a �•� a r i�..! ,i 1 l j i{ ` h �1 e+ '. .Y�. 1 ` K;'t�. •tY�� r �� ., 3 l ( .j• , ter` :' 1' ♦• }. ' � � a'•• �• ••�`•. .- .a rv,�f 1 ,t ' ,.,, (,. a:... Wit. - ��• ,iv`2•• ..�1 i•`} .-R:••gar ti,.� ^r Y t'r•.f: 'i. % 1. ...,.l{ �o�f r f l'� '`�` F1i •��'' •'i,.•,' .i�•R`�la::.� ''�,1,� .J 1i y�,.• j•�. �... i` C - .;4.�','• Jam=+-- ,.r!'` i'�'; .<1. t, '�,,;�•`-JJ...;�,�; ,,;vL�• •� `�,.,,�:.�' •- '•"�^ •• ;}��' � � .�:•'•• „J ,~l:� - t. ��. .��r•i t'. '�� _"M:-- 1•*.a.1„ •M•.,1•• � ''�>]. •-Q` •~"j.% -.�`':. ..�..%' s�... ••'a1T f�„�• �,---,h ?i t �J.l 4 '� a �:�,,;� � �`...;=wMr S •.+ '•n: •i + r'`i•^v,,,,.:...:... .4 •. �,•'� 1 1,. i••+, �•. r�; ! /t..•y.. �,^l \'. ��'� ;e':'.la;:" '� ire .';/:i'. •� " \ ,r✓^ryi ., ,'.41 �• ' .h IJ,/ , '^ .,�,.,�^ 1�^' "• ` j}fes••' or- AY r- A•,� a.` .r',.«!• •�i .. .Jas li s4 r �. e • R'I'"/ 1 , •�• :l 1 Y '' .• ' �'1 • j•• •••�: �.�+ tis .— yt�,7 •1 �. '' ••�--^ F \'• ti•' r .��".•' ,, r .. IL Wy /,��• •� .,1` �1.'• �• �',�w`y.+.�'C1• I ,....J ••�`�,��i�� •{:..R .►Yi,.•',.'t""•;:,• 'l,';�a,•�. ''� �' •�•1r_.. *' 'l�+' t jam ' « rlt; j,• t. i ;� :� •L.� �_ .r _ i.; _ •�« �.,�� t J �, °I .y� •.�•y..s',;f ,r .."1 r ' tri •..•...� *.n•.,Ta� ,± 1'�"'� i�. •:. "•s �;�.I'•/ '�' '.a'�c � 1` �• '.OQ `v• ti`,^.',j.. ��'L•M;-�;; c• ^;tow •= •``-� �'"a.'•r+ .Ct3aro ., :. ��t Y `, �••`a`e /�` p'•. r,,' '��,•: •., o�� _�i• Y', '`��`c"i� Hi II )}/ M�' `J „ •* •, �• M..--r�;,, V. �Si-}• r M '1• �i,. •r i • " r •,� / •,{4! „4• � �,4:i + ��` �+ca . O 1 e •�'- aV ! -\. ' ••1 `�.� •' �_'• � a• :V' J, ``n _ • ''_ �•Y V. �� _Z1= . i -b a ••�'• z•"'��•`%'•:^♦ v a•�. �•N t\, •J ar f - =��- .{ti �.�•dti�,•'�...-�4/ I+'1 .��*..;�__:�_ .;.:.f -i'_. '*: y �__!�_._... • . _. ,.i_:.`1`�..a+...._..,,_,^• ....elf�`:' ••J, _ •r`'•.�'�J • / .•j"' � `✓ 1• •�'sl 1r�a'•.�un..1'l►•.� .,�', ~"•r•••11_.-i� ; ; '/�a � � IRM' ' � .y ^ .._"'.. j�"„"�...-_{_.�...• fn Jf � � f�. ..' 1 • y1�I: =T•t �:i',r�Y � ♦^ L1t r s•'%'" i'• ••�•":_i" ��.. 0 �''� r"'r M ^^��v: ` CV IN �.., ;` 'U ..� (; .• •� 4 .�.�'/ 'o' ,,,� Paleontological survey neap of :.�1 j '► ',' .,_ ''�' ^ ` !'l l` �' ' the southwestern slope of Mount ~�� ./ ! t- (: •, :� •}' ` e ' Diablo (Museum of .Paleontology. ' •":''' ' '' '� �' ' -` wig' University of California tit ` . .. .» �...1•`-• i._.__ ._,_ t,•J17, ;i. *w: .• `:i rr,�=♦! I �1 :'� `; f � , , ' • oDesignates site / 0 ,:, His.....to L Relatively little is known of the Indiana of Contra Costa County In general. The indians were of the Costanoan group which belonged- to the Penutian family. It is generally felt that the indians of the Mount Diablo region were of the Bolbones tribe. Their existence on the project site has not been verified. During the Spanish exploratory period, both Portola (1772) and de Anza (1776) passed by Avount Diablo; Portola car,:ced near the present town of Danville and de Anza traveled east c` Mount Diablo while returning south to San Francisco Bay. a ; After Mexico secured its independence in 1821, a series of land grants were awarded to various pers6ns throughout the State of . California. :,Sore than 17 of these were within Contra Costa County. The project site was not within any of these. However, four Mexican land grants surrouLled the site. On the north was the Arroyo de los Nueces y Bolbones (more co-^only known as Rancho San Miguel) , to the east was the Canada de los Vaqueros, to the west was the Rancho Pacheco and on the south was-Rancho San Ramcn. One of the grantees of the latter rancho Gose Maria Amador) has been credited by some as the author of the nave Noun'- Diaalo. By the latter quarter of the 19th Century these Mexican land grants had been almst completely taken over or parcelled to angl•a landowners. • Archaeology ; The archaeological recdkd for the southeastern slope of Mount Diablo Is very scant. Only a single record in the vicinity is recorded by the Archaeological Research Department of the University of California at Berkeley (CCO 21) . Few surveys have been done in this region of the County. B. •Environmental Impact Analysis 1. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action a. Regional Considerations Population Granth and its Socio-Economic Impacts The Blackhawk Development Company proposes to build 4,546 units • housing 14,662 persons in the San Ramon Valley over a 12-year .development period. This is a sizable addition of population to the Valley. The San Ramon Valley has had one of the highest recent historic growth rates in the County, doubling or tripling its population every ten years. -34- • SAN RAMON VALLEY: HISTORIC POPULATION GROWTH; 1940-1974 Percent Cumulative Year Population Increase Percent Increase Apr. 1, 1940* 2,120 - - Apr. 1, 1950* 4,630 118.4 118.4 Apr. 1, 1960** 12,702 174.3 500.0 Apr. 1, 1970** 25,927 104.1 1,123.0 Jan. 1, 1974* 34,450 32.9 1,525.0 **U. S. Bureau of the Census figure. *Contra Costa County Planning Department estimate. This rapid growth has not been without its toll, however. This rapid rate of growth served to create an unbalanced housing market a weak employment base, a high rate of out-commuters with' longer. .trips and a school district over-urdened with students. 1970 Census data show a median family income of $17,500 in the Valley, over $5,000 above the countywide median of $12,423. FAMILY INC(2•IE DISTRIBUTION SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCY.COL DISTRICT SAN RAMC:: W' LLEY TOTAL COUNTY • Percent Percent Income Families Vist. Families Dist. Less than $1,999 168 2.4 5,135 3.5 ;2,000-$3,999 165 2.4 7,541 5.2 $4,000-$5,999 231 3.3 9,124 6.2 $6,000-$7,999 228 3.3 11,704 8.0 $8,000-$9,999 378 5.4 16,522 11.3 . $10,000-$11,999 539 7.8 19,556 13.3 $10,000-$14,939 1,124 16.2 25,914 17.7 $15,000-$24,999 2,568 36.9 39,334 26.9 $25,000-$49,999 1,349 19.4 10,301 7.0 $50,000 or more 203 2.9 1,348 0.9 Total 6,953 100.0 146,479 100.0 Median Income $17,510 $12,423 Median housing value was $38,900 in the Valley, over $13,000 more than the countywide median; median contract rent was also sub- stantially higher, being $178 in the Valley and $124 countywide. Median values, however, do not fully portray the unbalanced character of the Valley's housing supply. The following tables illustrate the distribution of housing value and rental rates according to 1970 Census data. -3S- • 1970 CENSUS HOUSING VALUE " SAN RAMON VALLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Value of Owner Percent Percent Occupied Dwellings Units Dist. Units Dist. ._�.._ Less than $5,000 2 - 229 0.2 $5,000-$9,999 5 0.1 1,771 1.6 $101000-$111999 19 0.3 6,909 6.3 $15,000-$19,999 127 2.1 19,207 17.6 $20,000-$24,999 560 9.0 24,199 22.2 $25,000-$34,999 1,715 27.6 31,432 28.8 $35,000-$49,999 2,400 38.6 18,371 16.8 $50,000 or more 11,385 22.3 7,042 6.5 Total 6,213 100.0 109,160 .00.0 Median $38,900 $25,700 'Source: U. S. Bureau of the 'Census. RENTAL RATES SAN RADION VALLEY CONTRA COSTA COU?:TY Contract Rent of Renter Percent Percent Occupied D,:ellings Units Dist. Units Dist. Lela than $40 11 1.2 11118 2.1 •$40-$59 13 1.4 4,469 8.6 $60-$79 31 3.3 5,434 10.4 �;_•_= $80-$99 36 3.9 6,122 11.7 $100-$149 205 22.1 18,147 34.8 $150-$199 306 32.9 11,675 22.4 $200-$249 113 12.2 2,588 5.0 $350 or more 142 '.5.3 1,368 2.6 No cash rent 71 7.7 1,248 2.4 Total 928 100.0 52,169 100.0 Median $178 $124 Sourcer U. S. Bureau of the Census Only 2-% of all owner occupied dwellings in the Valley were valued under $20,000 in 1970 compared to 26% countywide, while over 60% were valued over $35,000 compared to but 23• countywide. This -34- sasme situation was found to be true in the rental market, with • only 11% of the units renting,under $100 in the Valley compared to 33% countywide, wt•ile 26% rented from $200 dr more compared to only 13% countywide. The factors relating to income, housing value and rental rates illustrate that the rapid growth in the Valley produced a middle to upper income. suburban community. While the majority of the Valley's work force is highly paid white collar workers, as evidenced by their income distributions 45% of the employment base in the Valley in 1970 was in the low paying categories of retail trade and services. * Another 14% work in government or public education jobs, white• collar certainly, but not highly paid occupations. Thus nearly 60% of the jobs avail- able in the Valley do not pay well enough in order to qualify these workers for housing there. This is borne out by the fact that fully 55• of the Valley's labor• force carmute out of the County for work. Perhaps even mare interesting is the fact, that 19% of the Val_ey's employment base was.in the const-ruction, sector-- the sector most impa^ted by economic recession or changes in the money market. • With 55• of the work force in the Valley commuting out of the County. -for work and 87% doing that by private automobile, the recent pet- roleum related transportation and energy crisis could create severe economic pressures on San Ramon Valley residents, The rapid gro:vth in the Valley has also sc ierely impacted their local school system. The following table illustrating the Valley's age composition shows that 43% of their population are under 20 years old, the population group either going to school or prepaAng to go compared to 39.6% for the County. This hick rate of young people is likely to continue since a comparison -of the General Fertility Ratios* between the Valley and the County snow that from 1960 to 1970 the Valley's GFR was 12% higher than the County's. According to a recent report prepared for the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, the impact of this rapid residential growth has resulted in a shortage of adequate school housing *The General Fertility Ratio, or GFR, is defined as the number of • children under 5 years of -age per 1,000women in the child-bearing ages of 15 to 44. Relative comparisons of GFR with known birth- rates is an extremely good indicator of an area's birthrate. -37- POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY AGE • • SAN RADION VALLEY, APRIL 1, 1970 AGE RAMON VALLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Population Percent Population Percent Number Distribution Number Distribution 0 - 4 1,910 7.4 46,322 8.3 5 - 9 3,096 11.9 58,748 10.5 10 - 14 3,499 13.5 61,744 11.1 15 - 19 2,651 10.2 53;890 9.7 20 - 24 1,009 3.9 37,648 6.7 25.- 29 1,570 6.0 37,403 6.7 30 - 34 1,448 5.6 33,978 6.1 35 - 39 1,922 . 7.4 34,288 6.1 40 - 44 1,994 7.7 37,881 6.7 45 - 49 2,038 7.9 39,354 7.1 50 - 54 1,700 6.6 •33,257 5.9 55 - 59 1,095 4.2 26,237 4.7 60 - 64 645 2.5 19,528 3.5 65 - 69 467 1.8 13,880 2.5 70 - 74 350 1.3 10,609 1.9 75 + 533 2.1 14,172 • TOTAL 25,927 100.0 558,389 100.0 Median Age 27.5 - 27.8 - SOURCE: ,Prepared from 1970 U.S. Bureau of Census by Contra Costa County Planning Department -36- • • since the tax base has not yet caught up with the demand for classroom space even though the District maintains one of the highest tax rates in Northern California. ?his reF•)rt con- tinues by stating that there wall be a partial catch-up of the tax base to housing, principally due to the low birthrates of the late 1960s and early 1970s, but that this will only be tem- porary. However, it needs to be clarified that even if these low rates were experienced countywide, th_y could have never reached that low a level in the valley since the GFRs point out that the Valley's fertility decline was only half of the County's during the decade of the 1960s.• The School District report concludes with.: "However, this is expected to provide only a temporary relief since new births are once again expected to innrease in the near future. It is therefore probable that as larger numbers of students staxt to enter the schools in the eai '.y 801s, the District will once. again find itself with a tax base that is insufficient to pro- vide new housing. This situation will probably occur periodically over the next several decades until com- munity maturity is reached and a larger tax and popula- tion base is achieved to support new ,chool construction over a long time period."' . *Systems Planning Corporation, San Ramon %jalley Unified School District Faci- Pl`_1973-1983, november 1973, p. 161 Project Effect on -Regional Population Growth and socio-Economic Impacts These growth induced situations will not be ameliorated it the San Ramon Valley if residential growth of the same type as exists in the Valley continues to be built. The Blackhawk Ranch is one such proposal. This project proposes to have nearly 15,000 people on a 4,776 acre planned unit development in housing requiring an average income of $25,000, about $5,000 higher than the current 1974 average for the Valley. This will intensify the trend of upper-income housing in the area. The only employment base being proposed for the pro- ject is that for low-paying service jobs in the commercial and retail trade sections and some jobs for low and moderate income office workers, none of whom could qualify to live in dwellings on the Ranch. No employment opportunities are being proposed for those people who would purchase dwellings on the Ranch, they will have to travel else- where for work. The lack of an employment base of this type will continue to impact an already critical financial sit•:ation for the, . School District by placing continued reliance on the residential tax base for its revenue. ' The Blackhawk Ra..ch, however, is not the only project of this type proposed for the San Ramon Valley. The following is a list of pro- jects, •some of which have received approval from the County Planning Commission, and others which are merely .proposed and in sum total • .present a magnitude of impact similar tq that of the Blackhawk Ranch. Recently Approved and Proposed Projects in the San Ramon Valley No. No. Project )Acres Units Bishop Ranch 1,100 2,500 Devi.& Mountain 623 685 Sycamore 245 680 Kaufmann' & Broad 166 486 Dame 138 308 White Gate 184 257 Gentry 101 250 ' Tibros Scott 104 193- Gentry 30 119 Gentry 33 112 TOTAL 2,724 5,390 Blackhawk Ranch 4,776 4,546 The sum total of these projects excluding the Blackhawk Ranch, would be to raise the population in the Valley to 60,000 by 1990. Including Blackhawk this figure rises to 75,000 Oersons - this is triple thb 1970 population of almost 26,000, and is a conservative estimate • since smaller projects and custom home development are not included In that figure. If these smaller projects .are counted in and the effect of the natural increase of the population-is counted, the Valley could easily top 100,000 by the year 2000, if not sooner. While the County is estimated to grow 51% to 840,300 by 1990 it Is inconceivable that the Valley can solve'-its growth related problems. -40- It it triples its population by absorbing 1 out of every 6 persons countywide. Other recently proposed projects are Survive with 1,000' units and Centex with 750 units. These projects could raise the Valley's • population to a mimimum of 80,000 persons rather than the 75,000 shown on the following graph (Figure 11)• r Figure 11 HISTORIC AND PROJECTED POPULATION ORChTTH (February 1, 1974) ! �) ( •• go . — } co c� 4 coma 700,000 3- `_ 500,000 30Do 000 ^ 200 id 100, � . 90,0(}0!•- 80,000+ % x 6.0�,000! -�`; - �_.___• _.. ._. 1---- w`�-'- ,''' �"'�:� 00 -50$000�—_y:Mf — �� • ._ ..�'..�' ..._ __ _ ___ ,....._ a .�_-__ _ _- _ E-. - MK 4 30,000 '^ --- SAN Rr111OH--VALLEY-- 201000 10,0001. 59000(' �- " _ ------- 3,000 : ' _ ton: -�-. : __.�_ :�_,_._ "~ ____� 3,000 2OW _ .. 11000 —1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 19?0 2000 YEAR SOURCE*& Contra Costa County Planning T)cpartment -42- • B. Environmental Impact Analysis 1. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action b. Urban Services Service Areas A development of any appreciable scale requires adequate water, sanitary sewer service, and transportation service. These are the • key urban services. In effect, the boundaries of the jurisdictions which supply these services will dictate where development can occur. This means that there will be pressure from areas just outside the boundaries for a "slight" extension of services. By extending urban services to Tassajara Road, Blackhawk -Ranch w:'_1 create growth pressure on the entire Tassajara Valley. (Figure 12) Most of the area of the Blackhawk Ranch site proposed for residen- tial development is within the EB:JD boundary and the developer is negotiating with the district for annexation of that portion of the project east of present district boundaries and south to Tassajara Road. (Figure 13) The Board of Directors of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District has recently indicated its willing- ness to supply seater service to the Blackhawk Ranch. L:-FCO must • rule on any proposed expansion of tie EDNOD boundary and ultimate service area and upon any sanitary district proposal to annex the project area. Utility Services Publicly controlled private services such as the porter compat:y (PG&E) and the telephone company, are required to provide service upon request. :nese service companies may encounter difficulty in providing hookups and service in the future. PG&E 'is subject to the same fuel energy shortages faced by the rest of the nation. Blackhawk energy demands in the period from 1975 through 1480 will probably come from. about 2,000 dwelling units in the site areas rl, N2, and #4. Based on the proportion to population, total power service demands for Blackhawk represents 27% of the total potential residential energy Femand for the Alamo-Danville planning area (-8) . This will •generate a short-term adverse inpact on both PG&E and current users. • The significance of the impact will be a direct function of timing of chemical and fuel availability. The long-term effects will be a direct contributuion to the cumulative effect of power demands. Water Supply The total Blackhawk Ranch project will require about 2.2 million gallons of standard drinking water per day. EBMUD officials have indicated that this requirement is within the capacity of the existing San Ramon Valley delivery system. Only a small portion . of the project, however, to approximately 650' elevation can be • -43- Fig+ire 12 PROJECT LOCATION •�. i .i ,'t -.`Y.d_/ i .+.-i^�1) '1,��;'' i............... ! VI mflut IS, I kw . • t ,. � r..'w'"'« .moi. .,� ,�1� .._.•. .._....__.__ `�. ' "• � \ ii -44- , 1 Figure,13 BLACKHAWK RANCH ..... . WATER SERVICE i Ot.M : : _., ......... �—• Blackhowk, project boundary, 4800 Acres �—�---- EBMUD boundary, 3100 Acres Urban development areas, outside EBMUD boundary, (531 Acres) Area which can be served by existing storage facilities- -45— served by the Diablo Storage Reservoir which lies west of the pro- ject site. (Figure 13) Three reservoirs with a total capacity of 11 million gallons will be required on the project site. ERWD estimates that the entire service area will require between 361 and 421 million gallons per day by the year 2000, cc-,.pared with 210 million gallons currently delivered to the district. This increase will result partly from population growth and _part•ly from increased per capita consumption of water. nV.-. District estimates that a total of 315 million gallons per day � available from already developed sources. If the District' • : ejections are correct, the entire district, including the San Ramon . !ley, will force a water shortage between 1982 and 1986, requiri:;g the development of American River Sources. Wastewater The proposed Blackhawk Ranch development will contribute approx- imately 1.5 million gallons of sewage per day to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District treatment plant located near the intersection of highways 4 and 680. Current plant capacity is approximately 3C mgd (million gallons per day) and the current flow is approximately 24 mgd. At present growth rates, flow to the plant is increasing at a rate of 1.5 mgd per year. A plant improvement program is under way which, when completed in 1976, will increase the plant's capacity to 45 rgd pr1mary treatment and 30 mgd secondary treatment. In additon, the plant will produce 30 mgd of reclaimed water for industrial use. Another expansion of 15 mgd is planned for 1980. The District's expansion program is planned to insure that plant capacity will exceed the demands of projected growth, and effluent quality is expr:ted to meet current and anticipated Regional Water Quality Board requirements. Solid Waste The proposed development will generate approximately 30 million pounds of solid waste per year at full develop,nent. Currently, the Valley Disposal Service collects solid waste generated by Blackhawk Ranch. After development, the Diablo Disposal Service will provide this collection service. Both disposal services use the same landfill in Martinez for disposal of the waste material. The useful lifetime of the landfill is estimated to extend through the year 2020 and Blackhawk Ranch will not appreciably alter this projected time span. c. Agricultural Considerations This project could be the first major project in a basically rural and agricultural area: This project would put pressure on other land holders to consider development as an alternative to ranching. -46- It,will put utility connections closer to the now distant ranchers. Since tax assessment are based somewhat on development potential, this project will put increasing financial pressure on Tassajara Valley landholders. Development of the ranch will result in its loss for agriculture. The developer plans to deed sore_ of the proposed undeveloped por- tions of the project site to the proposed Blackhawk Road horse owner's association. In this event some of the land could continue to be grazed. d. Physical Impact Geologic and Seismic Impact In an earlier section of this report the geologic setting of the Blackhawk project area was described, including the geotechnical consultant's e-:aluation of the development pot2nlial of the entire 4,800 acre parcel. The purpose of the following discussion is to evaluate the proposed Blackhawk land use plan in terms of its geologic and seismic setting. General Background . The 'Blackhawk project area lies in the rugged foothills of the Diablo Range, an area which has experienced recent and continuing . uplift. This geologic setting has had a �tofound influence on the intensity of geologit- processes occurring on hillsides in the project area. Thus landslides, erosion and sedimentation are major obstacles to development, particularly in areas under- lain by rocks of the Orinda Formation. *Additionally, because of its location in an area of high seismicity, ground shaking and seismically-triggered ground failure are potentially hazardous • to human activities in this region of marginally stable hillsides. Because of these phenomena, an understanding of the nature and dis- tribution of existing or potentially hazardous conditions is essen- tial for harmonious, safe and efficient land use, facilities and services planning. Development Potential of Earth Materials, Blackha%,Y Project In the geotechnical reconnaissance report prepared by Lowney- Kaldveer & Associates (Nover.•,ber 15, 1973) , the Blackha4:k project area was divided into three broad categories based on degree of development difficulty: 1. Valley bottoms and gently sloping fan deposits (and flat ridge crests) - considered to be developable by conventional methods 2. Lower, flatter slopes of the Orinda 'Formation, provided • they are not located on or adjacent to large landslides - • -47- considered to be developable with moderate to extensive • development problems. Z. Areas underlain by or in proximity to large landslides and steeper slopes of the OrinAa Formation - considered to be undevelopable. Relying largely on the aforementioned geotechnical data, the bedrock formations and surficial deposits in the Blackhawk. pro- ject area have been divided into four categories according to their slope stability and hence development potential. To emphasize the qualitative nature of this classification, each slope stability • category is dasignatied by a Roman numeral. These categories are, in order of decreasing stability: I Valley Bottoms and Gently Sloping Alluvial Fan Deposits. (Highest stability) . Considered to be develoi::ble by. con- ventional r..rthods. Prohlers include (a) ey,p:nsion of surface • soils, (b) encroachment of slides on.to developable areas, and (c) control of surface and subsurface drainage. II Sloping Terrene of San Pablo Group rocks C"oderate stability) . Slopes stability characteristics of the San Pablo Group rocks are generally better than those of the Orirda Fo^atior.. Din slopes and hillsides underlain by weathered or sheared rock are hazarcaus. This group fo_-ms slopes so steep that de:•elocment is • diffi•:ul:. in many areas. De•:elopment may be possible with moderate to extensive problems but it will require the use of extensive grading. III Sloping Terrene of Orinda Formation (Low stability) . Loerer flatter slopes considered to be developable provided they are not located on or adjacent to large landslides. This unit is developable with moderate to extensive develorment problems and it will require the use of extensive grading. Steeper slopes are probLbly undevelopable because of the inherent-instability associated with grading in these areas. IV Landslide Deposits (Lowest stability) . The mapped landslides are of such magnitude that development of these areas would involve a high degree of risk. Long term stability would be difficult to achieve, even if extraordinary and expensive precautions were incorporated into site grading and drainage designs. Probably undevelopable. • Development Potential Mapping, Blackhawk Project Area Utilizing the aforementioned slope stability classification, as well as the geologic map prepared by the geotechnical consultant, a development potential map of the Blackhawk project area was con- structed (figure 14) It should be recognized that successful areal delineation of stability classes rests 'on adequate knowledge of the distribution and properties of surficial deposits and bedrock. It is believed that the geotechnical reconnaissance was . inadequate for the intended purpose of the map, which was to evaluate the compat- ibility of the Blackhawk land use plan with the geologic and -4b- 1•... U c ► i.: C; •VI on vs go J it U V IJv14 G t: IJ 4 Q ' w W t PJ 1. u C' O .7 O rl • - - -I •`• ( \.� % C. +t O •u F 41 O h iii 4 oVI cj 4j U• u C1 U U u r. .. 0 1. C C U ti i u u 'ti '� •�, IA U U i N u i .vii u e vt n o rt r' a u j tj 4 CJ �w+w�wR.ows��.:.i.."•.r. C% >. P. l M U N 4 :. It U'•� Ir r+ 1• r/ �� LIo ••�•.• 41 N .. 17 ZI u o r o b 93 w u> to u a I. o r•Cl V4 Q Qo ,. ►. ont. o . uo .. t. n .Cute fs auw a a, r; .. Figure 14 -49- • engineering characteristics of the ground. To facilitate this Comparison, the four slope stability categories were mapped on a base which shows the road system proposed by the developer. In this way the areas proposed for development can be approximately Identified. Limitation and Uses of Development Potential Map It should be emphasized that the Development Potential Map can only assess the relative susceptability of broad areas to damage related slope failure, erosion and sedimentation. The vulnera- bility of specific building sites and structure to damage from landsliding and related processes is determined in part by the nature of the man-made disturbance that occurs. It also depends on the topographic, geologic,hydrologic and engineering character- istics of the ground beneath the site. The principal use of the Development Potential M&p is in comparing and contrasting slope stability categories with the proposed land use plan. Because many simplifying assumptions must be made in any analysis of this type, the following conclusions must be con- sidered preliminary: 1. The majority of development is proposed for areas underlain by valley bottom deposits acid gently sloping alluvial fan • deposits. These areas are considered to have the highest stability (I)' and are generally believed to be suitable for development. At the appropriate times detailed investi- gation will be needed to more accurately identify developable areas and evaluate local ground conditions. 2. The density of 'landside deposits, which is a crude measure _ of slope stability, indicates that all development in sloping • Orinda Formation is an area of low stability (III) . Detailed studies will be needed to accurately identify developable areas and very detailed individual investigations will be needed for each of the areas found to have development poten- tial. Moderate to Extensive Development 'problems are antici- pated. 3. Significant amounts of development are indicated in areas mapped as landslide deposits (see Figure 6 ) . These areas are considered to have the lowest stability (IV) and pro- bably have no development potential. Seismicity The potential earthquake hazard on the Blackhawk project areas can be divided into two broad categories: ground shaking and seismically triggered ground failure. Because of the high seismicity of the San Francisco Bay Region it is reasonable to assume that the site will be impacted by at least one major earthquake during the economic life of the project. Provided that the foundation and critical slopes are stable, most residential structures should be able to withstand -50- strong ground motion without exposing occupants to an unacceptable level of risk. The most detrimental effect from such ground shaking would be seismically-triggered ground failure. Moreover, it should be recog- nized that landslides do not require .a steep slope on which to form, particularly during earthquakes. Many occur on slopes that are virtually flat and the surface- on which they fail-may be very shallow (one or two feet) or as much as tens or hundreds of feet below the surface. Since the effect of earthquake shaking is to trigger land- slides on marginally stable slopes, areas underlain by landslide deposits and steep slopes - particularly in 'the Orinda Formation are very hazardous. e. Paleontological and Archaeological Impacts If the project is apprrved without any provision for safeguarding the fossil sites from destruction, valuable sciei..:ific and educational materials will be lost. Pilfering and vandalism could occur because the main quarry site is located a short distance from proposed devel- opment. The site should be given to either the State of California Parks Department or the University of Californ' a. Its preservation is essential. Thomas L. Jackson from the San Francisco State University Department of Archaeology, conducted a survey of the project site and stated ' that no visible remains were detected. lie concentrated his efforts in-the "likely" areas (i.e. along streams and other water courses) . Mr. Jackson did an extensive survey of the 1,500 acres to be poten- tially developed and a brief survey of the remainder of the project .,� site. He recommended that further investigi-.tion be done by a qualified archaeologist during any eventual construction phase. f. Vegetation and Wildlife Impact Vegetation Development of the subject property will result in significant alter- ation of the vegetation found on the site in the approximately 1,500 acres proposed for development. Development will only occur on the lower elevations of the ranch with slopes less than 25 percent. These areas are generally covered with introduced annual grasses of the valley grassland plant association. ' Within the potentially developable portion of the grassland, the existing vegetation will be replaced with residential, golf course, and greenway landscaping. Non-native vegetation will probably com- prise the largest portion of the plants used in residential land- scaping.' Water from residential lawns in the old walnut groves may have secondary effects upon the remaining walnut trees by subjecting them to increased levels of water which may create problems associ- ated with root disease. Alteration of the composition and distribution of the vegetation will occur as a result of development and the cessation of cattle grazing. This would essentially preclude the discovery of any rare or endan- gered annual plant species. Fire potential on the project site will-change as a result of •uhe prc?used development. However, it is difficult to determine whether the fire hazard will be increased or decreased. The number of fires started on the property will probably increase because of the increased population, but the probablil.ity of early detection and suppression will also increase because of the larger population, greater fire protection capacity, and proximity of fire protection equipment. Similarly, the creation of green belts and golf courses will reduce the total amount of highly flamable fuel in the development area. The cessation bf grazing may produce a thicker, :-..ore fully developed grass and, consequently, fires which are slower burning but harder to suppress may result. Wildlife Without the present complex of plant associations (natural or man- made) the animal components now present on the project site will be significantly altered. Many native animal species are unable to adapt to areal which are man altered or influenced. The adap- tation of certain species to grazing land took many generations - some animals made a successful transition while others did not. It is ironic that the most successful species are often those which man eventually considers as nuisances (grounds:uirsels, coyotes, mice, • and insect spocies too numerous to mention) . The cosmopolitan organisms which adapt well wherever man goes are the ones which can be expected to do well in the areas to be developed on the project site. Houses, garbage cans, fish ponds, underground utility vaults, storm drains, and ponds and domestic landscaping all create habitats for noxious animals or aven animals dangerous to man. Examples of these animals would include, house flies, some mosquitoes, flees, house mice and Norwegian and roof rats. Many of these organisms "out-compete" native species and eventually displace them entirely. The result may be an 'attempt by man to control these noxious organisms, often by using dangerous chemicals. Rare, Endangered or Depleted Species Of special interest are the possible impacts upon rare, endangered or depleted species of animals. The California tiger salamander is found in Contra Costa County and is being considered for placement on -the depleted species list by the California De:art^ent of Fish and Game since present land use patterns are reducing its previous range. Suitable habitats exist on the project site for the species. Presuming this species is present, the project development could have a direct impact upon it. Specific impacts will depend on the detailed design of proposed ponds and the retention of existing impoundments for watering cattle and those along the creeks and other drainages. -52- • The other important factor will be water quality, particularly the effects of toxic substar^.es and petroleum products in the runoff from the residential areas that could enter. the ponds used for breed- ing sites by the salamander. In general the impact could be positive or negative depending on the detailed development designs around the ponds. It will be positive if more ponds are created, the water quality is not detrimental, and adequate terrestrial habitat• exists around the margin of the ponds. The impact will be negative if exist•- ing ponds are filled or destroyed and water quality deteriorates. The Alameda striped racer is listed as a rare species by the Calif- ornia Department of Fish and Game. The.normal density of this snake is apparently very low, even in areas in which it is known to occur. Therefore, actual verification of the existence of this species on the property is very unlikely, even if it is present. The primary habitat of this snake is the chaparral habitat and adjacent grasslands. The greatest impact on this species will probably come from altering the habitat of its food source, i.e. small rodents, frogs, lizards, birds, and other snakes. The bald eagle is knuwn' to nest in forty sites in California, none of which occu:• in Contra Costa County. The nearest location of a known nesting site is in Lake County (California Department of Fish and Game data) . Nesting and feeding areas for this species apparently do not occur on the property. Nesting and resident populations are normally found near lakes where they feed on dead fish that are washed ashore. The more northern populations of bald eagles do migrate during the winter and are known to be visitors to the larger lakes in California during this season and it is a possibility that they fly over the rroject area. The feeding territory of Golden Eagles will be decreased. The num- ber of Golden Eagles which patrol the area is not known but there will be a continued reluctance to feed in areas where man exists. The Black-chinned sparrow is a small bird which builds small cup- like nests in low bushes predominantly in chaparral habitats. This bird is diminishing in numbers in Contra Costa County, but the exact reason is not clear. Its decrease in population may be related to a depletion of a specific food or an over abundance of a major pre- dator. Although most of the appropria4te habitat will remain if the present development plan is approved, this bird may be subjected to greater population declines due to the close proximity of man. Further depletion of food sources may occur and the introduction of domestic cats (should houses be built) may contribute to further predation. Special consideration should be given to the mountain lion whose numbers are apparently depleted. Suitable habitat for the mountain lion on the project site is round in the chaparral and streamside woodland zones. Population size .is closely dependent upon their. chief • food, deer. A mountain lion normally eats a deer a week. They are far-ranging and hunt in a radius of thirty to fifty miles. No signi- ficant direct impact on the mountain lion is anticipated since the -S 3- chaparral habitats are not to be developed and limited development is planned for the strermside woodland habitats. However, the mere presence of man within the range of a mountain lion has a tremendous Impact. The odor of man and his appurtenances will serve to drive the animal away from civilizatioi.. Another impact will be the pre- sence of domestic dogs which not only chase the lion food source, the deer, but may also chase the lion itself. The coyote is not always considered a beneficial animal. Although this animal is implicated as being a serious predator upon livestock, this aspect of its behavior has not been clearly documented. It is clearly irportant as a predator upon sick or very young deer and serves to limit deer populations to the•point at a:hich they do not consume all of their food source. The coyote is also a very important predator upon the California groundsquirrel which man considers a nest species. Thus, two factors seem to be quite important with respect to the existing coyote population in the area. The County had a pre- dator control progidm in operation which was discontinued in the Fall of'1970. A rodent control program is still 'beirg conducted. The predator control program had a direct effect by reducing the coyote populations in areas where they have apparently bothered livestock. Indirectly, the rodent control program has had an effect on coyote populations b reducing the abundance of their prey. The coyote is found in all of the habitat types found on. the property. Devel- opment of the grassland area will have an impact which :ill cause a reduction in suitable habitat. If, as 'a result of the development, • the rodent control program in the area is discontinued, there could be an increase In coyote population even though a sub- stantial• portion of suitable grassland habitat is developed. The County rof=nt control program included the use of 1080 a non- specific poison which could be accumulated by predatory and scaven- ging animals. The use of this chemical has been discontinued and replaced with a trapping and burrow fumigatirn program (using tlethyl bromide) . Thus, the bioaccumulation problem has been essentially eliminated. Another compound is occasionally used in conjunction with this program. This is an anticoagulant which is specific for rodents and has no known accumulative properties which could endanger predators or scavengers. Based on currently available data and the biotic map (Figures 7 and 8) , it is apparent that the major areas of possible encroachment upon high value biotic com,nunities is the riparian communities along the water courses. Nearly all of the planned development of the proposed project will take place on the lower, open grassland portions of the property. This represents the lowest degree of impact to the wild- life resources of the property since it leaves the majority of the streamside woodland habitat and all of the chaparral and higher ele- vation grassland habitats intact. Those wildlife species that occupy or use the areas of planned development or that are intolerant of human disturbance will be displaced. These animals will be displaced either to a less disturbed portion of the property or to adjacent parcels, or they may experience a population reduction. Development of the site represents a potential secondary impact to wildlife -54- species by increasing the recreation use of non-development portions of the property and by increasing the collection of these animals by people. g. Climate and Air Quality The transfer of over a thousand acres of land from rural uses to urban-suburban development will change the climate and air quality of the property itself and the surrounding area. Changes are caused directly from such development conditions as increased reflections and heat-absorbing surfaces, an increase or decrease in the vege- tative cover, and changes in the annual hydrologic regime as a result of storm drain systems and summer irrigation of lawns and gardens. Indirect changes caused primarily by the heat and pollutant materials emitted by a great increase in vehicular traffic may have a greater impact• off the property than on it. Changes which can be expected to occur with a significant degree of development include higher summer temperatures and humidity, winds fragmented into a more turbulent pattern, higher temperatures and lower humid_ty along the arterial corridors, and a reduction in the duration of fog. Instruments are not available to take precise measurements .of these changes. The proposed development, and possible future development • in the vicinity, are not believed to change climate and weather con- ditions to a sioticeable degree, that is, to a degree that would affect plant growth or the adaptability of existing species, or to affect human comfort. Given the sometimes unsatisfactory quality of the air throughout the region,• any proposal which :could result in a greatly increased increment of vehicles should be carefully considered from the point of view of veh.' ,ular impacts on -ir quality. The Bay Area Air Pol- . lution Control District is preparing a computer system to calculate these effects. The system is expected to be operational within the next two years. Until precise measurements can be made, all that can be said with certainty is that the introduction of vehicles leads to higher levels of vehicular emissions. In this area, oriented around the automobile and in a natural setting which is conducive to the concentration of emissions in the air means, the local impact of many added miles of vehicular traf gic would be greater than if the same traffic were located in a less impacted air basin. h. Hydroloccy and Water quality The onsite and off site effects of development on hydrology and water quality depend on many variables. In the absence of specific engineered plans for ameliorating disturbances to the hydrologic patterns only general statements can be made based on available develop- ment plans and the effects which have occurred elsewhere in the vicinity of the Blackhawk property and along the water courses which originate on Mount Diablo. The mitigation measures noted in Section B. , 4. , Mitigation Alternatives, if implemented, could be most effective in relieving the anticipated impacts described here. Short-term Impacts During the years of construction and for several years thereafter, 'surface runoff carries very large amounts of silt. This increases the volume of soil and water which must be carried in existing channels, and may lead to channel erosion, bank erosion, damages to riparian vegetation, ar-i flood damages downstream frim the project site. The west and central parts of the Blackhawk property drain into Green Valley and Sycamore Creeks, thence into the San P.amon - Walnut Creek systems which empties into Suisun Bay. A laroe •percent of sediments • resulting from construction in the Walnu.': Creek basin is deposited in lower Walnut Creek from which it must be dredged in order to maintain the capacity of this channel. Average annual dredging costs are $200,000. The easterly part of the Blackhawk property drains into Alamo Creek, ro and south into the Alameda Creek system which empties into San Francisco Bay south of Oakland. Channel improvements on Alamo Creek in this County are not anticipated, and a watershed zone and plan for improve- ments have not been formed. Flooding problems exist on Alamo Creek, however, and adding to the volume of material in the channel would tend to increase flood damages. Sycamore Creek is very sensitive to any changes in the volume it must carry. Portions of it are presently inadequate to handle existing runoff. Because of highly erosive Ails, increases in the silt load could lead to' bank erosion as well as additional flooding. Green Valley Creek is now inadeeuate in certain developed areas downstream from the Blackhawk Property. Additional silt loading a:ould tend to worsen any such problems. The effect on unimproved reaches would tend to increase channel erosion, vegetation losses, or other condi- tions which may be present. -56- Long-term Impacts • Development increases surface runoff. Impar vibus -urfaces (roofs and paving), steepening slnpes through grading for structures and roads, replacement of rough vegetation by mowed lawns, efficient storm drain systems which carry runoff rapidly to waterways, and dry-season irrigation of lawns and gardens, all contribute to increased flows in the creeks. Because of the great increase in the value of property in flood prone areas when they are developed, a degree of: flooding Which would be acceptable on agricultural land could inflict many thousands of dollars in damages to developed property. These two factors, increasing flooding and decreasing tolerance for flooding as an area develops , are responsible for the demand for engineered channel improvements in urban areas. It is usually not possible to determine precisely row much development-induced additional runoff can be accepted by a specific creek before engineering works are required. The Blackhawk property development proposal includes roads, homes, and golf courses located to a great extent along the strewn channels. This pattern is typical• £or development in areas of difficult terrain. Even though it permits less overall movement of earth, the short and long-term results of grading and other con&_tions noted above may have strong negative impacts on the caps•:ities of existing channels, particularly on the project property itself. The degree of development in the entire Tassajara Valley- is more mportant for long-term effects on creeks downstream from the Blackhawk pr:iperty. The necessity to enlarge the capacity of roads to serve a large Tassajara Valley area population woald affect existing natural water ways adversely. In narrow valleys road widening often results in the need to make radical changes in water wa}s ( perhaps undergrounding them ) in order to accommodate the road. The grading required for roads, sometimes resulting in very steep earth banks, also adds to the volume of water and silt the channel must carry. Costs of Channel Improvements The Flood Control District preliminary calculations for existing runoff from the Blackhawk property are slightly lower than the runoff cal- culated by the consultant because the Flood Control District uies differing storm estimates for different sizes of watersheds rather than basing all calculations on the 50 year storm (a 20 risk in any year) . It is not possible to calculate the post-development runoff in the absence of precise drainage plans. Given the present inadecuate capacities in the three major drainage basins, Green Valley, Svcarore, and Alamo, even minor increases in surface runoff may worsen existing flood and erosion problems. -57- Flood Control Zone 3-B, the walnut Creek Basin, has a drainage plan which is being constructed through time, partly by the District and partly by land developers. Flood control works constructed by developers ,to the standards set by the District are maintained by the District. Sone 3-B presently pays a County-wide District tax of $.02 per $100 in assessed valuation, plus $.15 per $100 assessed valuation to Zone 3-B. The portion of the Blackhawk property which lies in the Walnut Creek basin (Green Valley and Sycamore Creeks) are included in Zone 3-B. The portion of the Blackhawk property which lies in the Alameda Creek basin (Alamo Creek) is not included in a Flood Control Zone and taxing sone at this time. If the development of the BlackhawY properly resulted in the need to construct off-site channel improvements on Alamo Creek in this County, a Flood Control Zone, plan, and tax would have to be established. Since such zones are delineated on a vater- shed basis, more than 10,000 acres of predominately agricultural land in the Alamo Creek watershed, presently -taxed $.02 per $100 assessed valuation to the District, would also Kaye to pay up to $.18 tier $100 assessed valuation for a zone tax. Some of this area is presently in the Agricultural Preserve program. Channel impro%*ements aie costly. Improvemrrts on smaller creeks may cost from $350,000 to over $500,000 per Nile requiring en- gineering and construction, for an unlined earth channel or an earth channel with rock rip-rap. imIprovements or larger streams, such as San Ramon Creek, cost approximately a2,5C0,000 per mile. • Concrete lined channels are eve-i more costly. Additional costs are involved in enlarging existing culverts or installing new ones. $300 per foot is an approximate cost for these. Average annual maintenance costs are approximately 6% of total project costs. If unconventional means of retarding surface runoff are constructed on a property such as Blackhawk, the on-site and downstream benefits in reduced s:.lting, flooding, and vegetation losses could be con- siderable. However, the Flood Control District is not empowered to maintain check dams, debris basins, and so forth. Maintenance costs would have to come from some other source than Zone 3-B taxes. Nater Quality Surface waters on the Blackhawk property may contain contaminants from cattle manure. The greatest degree of such contaminations occurs downstream from areas in which animals are concentrated, such as feed lots and corrals, not where relatively few animals graze freely over a large area. Post development, waters downstream from barns or developed areas can be expected to be further con- taminated from animal wastes, and polluted from the chemical nutrients used to maintain lawns and gardens. Toxic materials such as insect poisons and herbicides may also find their way into creeks and have adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife. ' -58- In a letter of April 25, 1973, the golf course designers explain _ their intention of constructing small ponds along the golf course ' to act as storm wale+ catchment areas and settlement ponds for silt during construction. After couple lion of the golf course, the ponds would act as settelment and breakdown ponds for fertilizers used on the golf course. Whether or not such ponds could alno function as storm water catchmen.t's and silt basins for residential construction surrounding the golf course would depend on Ulo-ir design capacity. Construction on'other parts of the property woul.cl not benefit from ponds on the golf course. The use of such pond!% for the settlement and breakdc.•;n of fertilizers would 'benefit all. downutrea.^l waters. Persistent toxic chemical materials used in lawn "M intenance, however, would not remain in the ponds long enough to decompo,;e unless all outflow were stopped for a considerable length of time. In that case, the ponds could quickly become stagnant and objection- able in a recreation area such as a golf course. i. Traffic Analvsis .The base data used for traffic assessment) is conservative and appears to be overstated with regard to trip generation by a fnetor of 10-15%. The analysis is complicated by the uncertainty related to implet•entation of a Sycamore Valley Road extension (Figure 16) . The data is presented in the form of schematic diagrams.. These figures identify roE-As which are appreciable affected by the Syca- more Valley Road extension. slackhawk Ranch traffic assignment and distributions for the period covered by the first three phases of the program (short term to 1979) and for the post-1990 conditions are presented in Figures 15 ant] 16. The short-term effects of the Sycamore Va'ley Road extension are a reduction of about 50% of the Blackhat1k Ranch load on a nurb er of the roads serving the project. The long-term effect of the Sycamore Valley Road extension is to increase volumes on the section of Blackhaweast of the Sycamore Valley Road intersection and the section of Camino Tassajara west of the Sycamore Valley Road inter- section. The bulk of the remainder of the local roads, excluding Sycamore Valley Road, will have reduced traffic volumes should the Sycamore Valley Road extension be implemented. A similar presentation is used in Figures 17 and 18 to illustrate traffic volumes of Blackhawk traffic in combination with other forecast traffic for the short-term and long-term time periods. These figures also show an appreciable improvement is gained by implementation of the Sycamore Valley Road extension. The preceding analysis deals with total daily volumes. Peak hour capacity effect is one of the most critical parameters indicative of the condition of a traffic facility. )Appendix D of the James A . Roberts Associates Report. -59- Short-term and long-term capacity effects are shown in Figures 19 and 20 in terms of the ratio of predicted peak hour traffic to a value equivalent to service level "C" on that section of road. • A value of 1.0 indicates no problem, while a value of 2.0 would indicate appreciable impact on the facility. in this analysis, values between 1.0 and 1.2 are defined as adverse irra•;t, while values above 1.2 to 1.23 are defined as significantly adverse impacts and indicated by " on Figures 19 and 20. Prior to 1979, significant adverse impacts on a n=ber of roads, as indicated in Figure 19,' are forecast. The analysis results (Figure 20 ) suggest that the project will ultir.ately require expansion of the existing Sycamore Valley Road section and the proposed Crow Canyon Road extension. Current empy-=is on alter- natives to dependence on private automobiles may partially eliminate this problem. Extensive road improvements and construction will continue to be costly. The burden of cost will be -placed upon ejvelocers and the public. The ability to fund such activities in the future is uncertain. J. Economic Fiscal Assessment • Fiscal Factors Impacts which relate to the revenues generated by to project and the costs associated with public goods and services demanded by the project from local government units and spe- cial districts are sumiarized by service area below. schools - The project will have a negative effect on capital costs while the effect on the operating costs of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District vary depending on factors used to calculate school enrollment, personnel overhead a-.a facility maintenance. The project's assessed valuation aril! not increase the District's bonding capacity sufficient;:: and so will require renewal of the District participation in the State school construction loan programs. Acceleration of the "build-out" rate would aggravate the impact on the school district, while stretching the time frame and lowering project size could well help the District in meeting its classroom housing need. -60- Fire Protection - The land on which the proposed development Mould take place is served by both the Danville and Tassajara Fire Protection Districts. It is estimated that the present tax rate for the District app_ied to. the project will produce sufficient revenue for 1 to 2 stations equal in size to thc•;e presently being operated by the Danville Fire Protection Dis- trict. This would provide sufficient coverage, but the need for a comprehensive study concerning the location of stations on Blackhawk as well as the rest of the San Ramon Valley is needed. Police Protection - Police protection for the project area would be provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office. The cost of providing police protection to the proposed devel- opment cannot be estimated at present since it is not now pos_ible to determine the type, amount, and extent of police coverage necessary to service the Blackhowk Ranch. The amount of County revenue attributable to Blac'•hati•.k residents that could create a "credit" for police services cannot be determined due to administrative and budget complexity. County Service area P-2 was setup to provide additional police support to work with the youths in -the Co-miunity. Two additional sergeants have been funded through P-2 to -fill thi3 need. Though should be given to prospect of the projc•=t site annexing to P-2 • as a condition of development, so that its residents might benefit from this program also. Sanitary Services - The project area lies near'the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District boundaries drd could possibly be annexed into the District. Capital costs attrib- utable to the project total about $5.2 Trillion, all of w,Ach must be advanced prior to project completion. Most of these costs will be ,placed upon project residents although revenue bonds will not have to be floated by project residents. Annual tax revenues of $189,000 will pay this back in 27 years. Water - The bulk of the property proposed for development is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utilities Dis- trict. About $4 million in capital costs will need to be covered in order to develop the project. If 'revenues applicable to capital costs are allocated to bond retirement, about $3 million of the $4 million cost could be bonded, leaving a net capital .cost of $1 million. The developer is required to advance 60% of the capital costs according to practice in the district, there- by ameliorating the cash flow problem. Roads - Major roads serving the area of the proposed project are the responsibility of Contra Costa County and the costs of the road improvements are estimated to be about $9 million. Since Contra Costa County's annual budget for road inprovments is approximately $1 million, these improvements represent problems of finance and planning. Development of Blackhawk Ranch will increase the pressure for implementation of these road improvements. Other Public Services - The analysis focused on estimates of the impact of the proposed development on the six r..ajor • public service entities in the area. Other such entities, such as the community college district, also would be im- pacted, but were not analyzed. Economic Factors - Any office development serving other than community needs faces a locational disadvantage in comparison • to other possible sites in suburban Contra Costa Ccunty which offer more ready access to major freeways and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. More eco:iomic analysis will be required to evaluate the eco- nomic viability of the two golf courses since there will be at.least five golf .:ourses in the area. F?hile tc�-o crocery stores coild probably be supported by the p_oject's residents the econ:,mic viability of the remainder of the 16*o retail trade centers may be in doubt. Development of the project will adversely impact the school district financiall}.. Blackhawk will cause the District to float more bonds —an its' assessed valuation will allow, thus forcing the Distriqt to rely on State Bond aid, utilize more portable classrooms or double up on existing facilities. While a total of about 1,900 service jobs were identified as spinoffs of the project these are jobs paying salaries insuf- ficient to enable these workers to reside within the project. These service workers will need to be inported %-.-wile persons residing on the Ranch will be forced to sees: emplo,,ment else- where, thus aggravating an already heavy reliance on out-com- muting and auto transportation. The combination of new low and moderate income fobs wlL„ nearby housing resources for the employees will have the following adverse impacts on the County: Increased traffic volumes, plus long trips for commuters. Increased fuel energy consumption, and other traffic-related effects. Pressures for expansion or development of additional housing resources for low and moderate income households in other parts of the County. Social and geographical. segregation of the County population. -62- 2. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if this Proposal is Implemented The implementation of any large development project involves a myriad of adverse environmental effects. Many of these effects can be part- ially mitigated or are normally accepted as unavoidable. The following list outlines major anticipated adverse impacts of the proposed Black- hawk Ranch development project. a. It will bring the first major development into a existing rural valley. b. It will more fully strain the infrastructure of the whole San ` Ramon Valley with some substantial public costs probable. c. The increased burden placed on the school system to provide adequate facilities without lowering the existing level of service will be a hardship to the San Ramon.Valley Unified School District. d. A significant increase in traffic will be placed on existing rural roads. This will result in congestion .if off-site road improve- ments are not made. The provision of needed read improve=ments will cause inconvience to those living• closz.r to the existing roadways. There could be substantial public cost in providing needed road improvements. • e. . The southern view of Mount Diablo ill be' modified fro- one of a rural scene to that of opbn space mixed with develop-ent. The view from the State Park will reflect• development along the moun- tainside. f. Urban services will be extended into new areas and will be 4vail- able for connection to other properties. g. A hardship will be placed onto adjacent agricultural landovmers trying to make a living through ranching. Higher assessed valuations as well as increased problems with household pets (dogs chasing cattle, etc.) may result in ranchers seeking development as an alternative. The project proposal shows development and roads stubbing next to agriculture preserves; this will provide additional development pressure on these parcels. h. The problems of energy consumption -- both for automobile use and for home consumption will be increased -- in an energy short era. i. There will be construction noise and dust associated with the project. J. There will be the loss of existing wildlife habitats. k. Any further southward expansion of Mount Diablo State Park outside of those areas to be dedicated by the project will effectively be ruled out. -63- 1. There will be additional commuter related traffic resulting in added pressure on the roads leading to Interstate 680 and BART as well as pressure on these facilit4.es themselves. M. Air pollution will increase in the greater San Ramon-Amador Valley, an area already plagued with air pollution problems. n. Adverse impacts associated with design would have to be described in subsequent EIR's as more detailed site plan data becomes available. 0. A twelve year' buildout is associated with the project. Since all building materials will have to be hauled in on presently rural roads , this will cause noise and disruption to existing residents for an extended period of time. of equal concern is the ability of these roads to wit)-stand the extensive movement of heavy •equip- meet to service the development. p. The proposed design has several elongated sin.le entrance residential roads, super cul-de-sacs, which unless inte.rconnected could be hazardous to proposed future residents in times of emergency or disaster. • q., One of the proposed transportation solutions, the Sycarore Valley Road extension, i,.ould cross an existing agricultural preserve on Short Ridge, a valuable open space resource in its.o%•rn right. v. Even though the developer states his intention not to build on slopes over 25% and limit the grading, a large amount of earth will have to be roved. The amounts are not known since no 9xading • plan has been submitted, -but the total quantities could be large and the result may appear like a conventional contouring operation. -64- 3. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Developer .- These are not implementable unless they are set forth as conditions by the Planning Commission and a method for enforcement is used anu they ata to be reviewed at the site plan level of the project. a. Grading Operations Effects. Implementation of a policy which will prohibit development on ridgelines and sloes over 25 per cent. b. Grading for Roads. Proposed uses of roads which are not as wide as the specified County standards for roads. Requires specific approval of County. (joint County/developer action) c. Potential Soils Problems. Further investigation of soils and goo- technic problems as part of design package for each project area. Developer to agree that certain problem sites will be abandoned if data indicate that excessive problems exist. d. Loss of Paleontologic Resources. Transfer of ownership to public agency. Preliminary negotiations have been initiated with the University of California to transfer ownership of the key locations of paleontologic materials to the University. The State Department of Parks and Rec eation has indicated interest, as well. (joint County and developer action) e. Loss of Archaeological Sites. In•the event that archaeological remains are encountered during construction, a qualified arch- aeologist will- be notified to determine the disposition of the finds. f. Loss of Vegetation. i. Existing vegetation will be retained on the nondeveloped slopes (except in the golf course area which will be planted in blue grass and native shrubs and trees) . ii. Water courses will retain the existing vegetation; and devel- opment within these drainage areas will be minimal, consisting' of road crossings and recreational facilities. iii. Native trees and shrubs will be included in landscape plantings of the golf courses and greenways. iv. Where possible, specimen trees, both native trees and esta- blished orchard trees, will be retained on the developed sites and care will be taken to protect these trees during construction. V. Design for fire protection will include facilities for pro- tection and access to both the developed sites and the natural vegetation of the open space element. g. Construction Noise. The developer plans- to restrict the size and use schedule of contractor heavy equipment to minimize construction noise. -65- • h. Fire Protection: 'A fire substation site will be reserved at a centrally located point in the proposed development. i. Erosion/Sedimentation. I. Heavy construction equipment will be totally excluded from operating in the stream courses. At points where equipment must cross a stream, temporary drainage works such as culverts will be installed to protect the streambed. „'hen construction is complete, the temporary drainage works will be removed and the area reseeded to grasses typical of the area. Attempts will be made to schedule actual construction activities to coincide with the dry months - April through October. ii. Grading, filling, and clearing of vegetation .-:ithin the con- trol of the developer will be restricted to the dry season of the year. III.' Slopes over: 25 per cent will not be developed and development on slopes will incorporate specific. design features to con- trol slop-related erosion. iv. Specific .-)lans will be developed for the control and handling of runoff, including the use of sedimentaticn basins where nec- essary. Surface drainage will be conveyed by means of non- erosive str>>ctures to stable areas of. Sycar..ore and :;est Branch • Creeks. Mh ere needed, energy cissipatrrs rill be used to pre- vent bank erosion. v. As part of the detail design of each area,. inves:ications will be made relative to the need and placement of debris basins In do;.n-canyon drainage areas to insure protection against seismically-generated mudflows. vi. Re-vegetation of exposed areas will be completed prior to each rainy season. Temporary erosion and sedimenraiton control measures will be implemented if re-vegetation is not satis- factorily completed by the rainy season. j. Off-Site Runoff. Road widths, road sections, and related non- vehicular circulation systems have been designed to keep paved surfaces to a minimum and to avoid concentrations of runoff by providing for direct infiltration of runoff at the roadside through the use of gravel shoulders and green-belt areas (this will require County approval of "non-standard" project roads) . The storm drain- age system will be designed to take advantage of ponds on the pro- posed golf courses or in other drainages to control off-site storm- generated flow rates. k. Open-Space. Seven hundred and five acres of land which is currently included in the proposed Mount Diablo State Park plan will be dedi- cated to the State. Two thousand, three huildred.and ninety-five acres will be placed in permanent open-space (private) . The developer, however, has stated a willingness to donate 1,000 acres. -66- 1. School Facilities. Dedication of three elementary school sites. Reservation of three additional school sites. Possible Mitigation Measures a. School Facilities. Dedicate rather than reserve the three additional sites including two intermediate schools and one high school (developer action) . b. Traffic. Build Sycamore Valley Road extension bl the end of devel- opment phase #3 (joint County/developer action) . c. Fire Protection. Negotiate with developer to offset incremental fire protection costs until development in surrounding area be- comes sufficient to support the incremental cost difference. d. Use of Water and U astewater Effluents. (The developer is still evaluating this measur.�.) Implementation of a wastewater re- clamation scheme that envisions the use of parti,.11y treated wastewater for golf course irrigation and• related purposes (developer action) . e. Air Pollution/Energy Consumption. Encourageme..t of pedestrian and non-vehicular traffic on an internal bgksis ')y providing a conplete and.integrated circulation system so that local trips from resi- dence's to commercial services, etc. , are rot necessarily vehi- cular trips. Encouragement of some form of p•.iblic transportation • between Walnut Creek and San Ramon. Establishment of on-site recreational facilities (joint developer/County/local mass transit district action) . -67- 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project •. Project Alternatives i. No Project: This could be accomplished in several fashions. The applicant could withdraw the request or it could be denied for consid- eration of other future optional uses. fi. Williamson Act: For tax year 1973-1974 the unimoroved Ranch lands are paying about $90,000 in tax revenue to all governmental units. This should rise to about $150,000 per year in 1974-1975 since the land is presently being reassessed. The present o%ner could apply for inclusion of part or all of the site for agricultural preserve status. This Mould have the effect of reducing the annual propertl tax revenue on the project to a level of from, $3j000 to $18,000 depending on amount placed under Ccn=ract. This would cause an attendant loss of property tax revenues to the County and other local governmental agencies. iii. Public Gw^ership: Public ownership of the project site or major portions of it by the State for additions to Mount Diablo State Park as recan ended by several local citizens grow:.:. At•p�esent State =�:.-ds do not appear to be available for this purchase. There would be a loss of property tax revenue to local government from this proposal. However, since there would then not be a requirement to invest public mories in the project this would be to the definite bene- fit of most of the taxing agencies. • iv. Commercial/Industrial.Development: The property is located some distance from consumer and whole- sale markets and such uses would probably represent =ore signi- ficant local and regional impacts on circulation syste_:.s and other public facilities. The economic return from develogment to the County, however, would probably be increased. This alternative is not compatible with the existing general plan and not considered to be economically viable at this time. V. Low Density Single Family Project: A low density single family project could be developed. This would be more in line with what the Alamo-Danville General Plan envisioned for the part that it showed for residential development. 1, project with 1,225 dwelling units would sell for an average price of over $100,000 in todays dollars. A detailed analysis has not been taken • on the profitability of this type of development, but it would provide a much reduced impact on the area's infrastructure. vi. Reduced Project Size: A project of roughly 3,000 dwelling units split between single family and cluster facilities could be. accomodated easily un the project site. This alternative would minimize the more extreme effects the project would have on the area's infrastructure. It would allow some design varial-,les that could moderate the growth inducing impact of the project site by.buffering adjacent open space area. vii. Deferred Development: This alternative could occur by many actions. What this might accomplish would be to time this development so that other pro- jects are more fully built out before this project's requirements for school and other services becomes immediate. This might an- swer the concerns of some local citizen groups that existing services will suffer due to the already large number of pre- viously approved projects in the greater San Ramon Area. I.. Design Treatment Alternatives i. Structuring the community to meet the following principles Create an active village center which would be a focal point • for the entire community. This center could be located in the heart of the community in an area of high amenity. A location adjacent to the lake and country club would be ap- propriate. The village center could contain a nunber of elements. These elements could be organized around a village square or village green which could provide space for out- door fairs, exhibits and displays, music, and public gatherings. Create relacively distinct residential neighborhoods, each with its own identity. The size of the neighborhood would depend on the nature of the terrain. Neighborhood population . would vary depending on the relative magnitude of single- family detached and cluster and multi-family housing. As a policy, the neighborhood of higher densities would be located closer to the center of activities, the commercial/office center, and the country club area. Develop community facilities within each neighborhood which would satisfy recreation and social needs of the residents. These common facilities could include both indoor and outdoor recreation areas. NOTE: With a more central major community commercial center and the development of small-scale neighborhood grocery stores, it would be appropriate to eliminate the commercial center at the east end of the project. This might also prove more economically viable. -69- Develop higher density small unit size housing adjacent to the village center. These units would offer a choice to those . residents desiring to live close to commercial and community ac- tivity. Young singles and couples, as well as senior citizens, would be attracted to this kind of accommodation with "close in" convenience. Develop a small-scale grocery facility within or between neigh- borhoods. This small ("7-11" type) store could be operated by the major supermarket in the commercial center. Such a facility would provide: much greater convenience for the residents and reduce auto trips to the main center. ii. Provide housing with a broader range of costs to accommodate lower income families and individuals. This would offer those who work in the community the choice of residing where they work. This may take the cooperation and commitment of the county, such a: incentives for the developer by way of increased densities, and using such tools as )uilding rental units in single-family houses, use of' direct subsidies (either Federal, State, or County) or County assumption of certain on-site and off-site costs in order to reduce the effective development costs per unit. The developer could also subsidize some units by increasing the costs-of o,-her more expensive .dwellings by a marginal amount. iii. . Introduction of an additional single-family detached condomin- ium•type housing which would be developed in clusters. The houses would share common open space and parking facilities. Densities would average 5-6 units per acre. Adoption of this alternative would permit better utilization of the land and minimize accommodation for the automobile, as well as offer the potential of shared common recreation and social facilities. iv. Locate elementary school sites more central to the areas they serve. This can be done without compromising current siting qualities. v. Locate two junior and one senior high school on the site. Dem- ographic data indicates sufficient school-age population to demand these facilities. This would add to the identity of the development as a whole community and could provide conven- ient additional educational and cultural accommodations for adult residents as well as for students. -70- 5. The_Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of !fan's Environment and • ° the Maintenance and Dnhancer..ent of Long-term, Froducitvity A commitment to this project is a commitment to a new connunity which is near the San Ramon Valley adjacent to .'aunt Diablo State Park and isolated from other areas by topography characteristics. This proposed development clearly represents a considerable change in land use and would preclude use of the land for ope- space or intensive agricultural use in the future. 'The project area; in its present condition, is useful as a scenic, Agri- cultural, and open space resource. In addition, it supports a varied biotic con'aunity. Development of the ranch will cc:z_•�nit a portion of the land to residential, corr,•ercial, or recreaticnal uses for an indenfinite number of years (2,071 acres) . Delay of the project would give the County and- the other jurisdictions time to update their policies and land use plans in the light of current conditions. On the other hand, delay of the project would tend to increase the unit costs due ::o inflation. Delay of t}:e projE-t would also relieve future urban growth pressure in the south Co,Wrty creating needs for im- proved tra'ffic facilities and other public utilities and facilities to service this and other projects in the service areas. In the short-term, providing for these services may have adverse fiscal impacts for taxpayers and the developer. . Although a- high proportion of the land is-proposed for open space (3,481 acres including golf courses, etc. )., the visual amenities of the landscape and considerable natural vegetation and habitat wouli be altered by grading, landscaping, gol-f courses and hom.: site improvements. While site topography and location may not favor use of the land for intensive farming or grazing operations these same features offer a worthwhile future alternative use as protected natural open space and quite possibly for recreational use. The general area is attractive to inhabitants because of its rural qualities. If all the available open space with its native wildlife in the valley were urbanized, even at low densities, this amenity would be considerably curtailed. Governmental agencies do not have sufficient resources to procure and maintain all desirable open-space acreage. An alternative approach is necessary to preserve as much of the site as possible for open space. Any project which allows for no development on much of the site clearly provides a beneficial impact to the future residents of the County. This is partially made possible by the topography of the site, which makes building expensive and often uneconomic in some areas. -71- 6. Any Irreversible Environmental Chances Which would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented Population densities will tend to c' ange the character and intensity of land use in the vicinity of Mount Diablo. Pollution will be generated and may need to be ameliorated. Traffic volumes and energy demands will increase. Consumption of nonrenewable resources such as concrete, steel, copper and fossil fuels represent irreversible changes dosses) . The development of the land for residential/commercial/recreational uses can be considered an irreversible change inasmuch as the commitment of substantial resources and land area nakes removal unli),ely. The visual amenities of the landscape and considerable natural vegetation and habitat would be significantly affected by grading, landscaping, and home site improvements. Wildlife habitats and vegetation on the project site and more part:cularly in the vicinity of the areas proposed for development will be changed or lost. In terms of practical economic and political realities, any potential use of the land for public purposes will be lost. 7. The Growth-Inducinc Impact of the Proposed Action Development of the project will add to existing pressures to develop surrounding ranches and probably raise assessed valuation (tares) on neighboring properties which are generally used for agriculture. Moreover, the approval of this project on land, designated by ABAG in 1970, as "controlled development" (not currently desirable for develop- ment) , will set a precedent for current development of land which is not planned to be considered for development antil 1990 as well as partly designated as major open space in Contra Costa County's Open Space/ •" Conservation Plan. This becomes particularly important because of nearby agricultural preserve lands. -Residential growth to the north is limited by Mount Diablo State Park. Improvement of traffic facilities such as Crow Canyon Road extension �- may encourage development of the many parcels in the valley areas. Sycamore Valley will provide the most immediate area for growth with some1,800 acres of developable land along the valley floor extending from the inter- section of Sycamore Valley Road and Tassajara Road to Lawrence Road. Pressure for gra:.th throughout the general area known as Tassajara valley will be generated by the project. Gro:otb. in the area will be only some- what restricted by the topological and geologic conditions in the valley area. The critical factors will be whether utilities will be extended into these areas which will allow much more intensive use than currently exists. This development will stub end into properties such as the t+agee, Bettencourt, and Edmonston Agricultural Preserves and put extreme pressure on these properties to develop. The land between the State Park and the project, about 300 acres, will also be put under pressure to develop. In short, if approved this will open up the Greater Tassajara Valley area for continued.growth. -72- • S. Organizations and Persons Consulted; Documents Utilized The following persons were consulted during preparation of this resort. Thomas Dudziak Contra Costa County Public Works Department Michael Walford Thomas Burlingame Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water District Ernest Murphy Alameda County Flood control District Owen Eide East Bay Municipal Utility District Barney Jacobick John McBride Richard Rego Gary Odafer Kirker Chapman and Associates Ernest L. Seeman James A. Roberts & Associates Ron Bush PG&E Joseph Connery •LAFCO . Captain Blodgett Danville Fire Protection District Mr. Dalton Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District Mr. Glenn Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department Mr. Freitas San Ramon Valley Unified School District Mr. Brooks Contra Costa County Highway Department Mr. Svoboda Office of Local Assistance, California Department of Education Ken Mitchell California Department of Parks and Recreation -73- 9. Qualifications of E.I.-R. Preparation Team • ' a. ECIS Project Manager for the EcologicLl Impact Studies, Inc. effort was Mr. George J. Coe, President of ECIS. He holds a B.A. in Engineering and has directed the preparation of more than 40 E.I.R. projects. Arthur G. Schwartz, PE, Vice President of ECIS, was technical director for the project and has also participated in more than 40 E.I.R. pro- jects. Preliminary ec'bnomic analyses were prepared by James A. Roberts & Associates. The Economic/Fiscal Analysis was prepared originally by Gruen Gruen & Associates and revised and appended by the County Plan- ning Economist. The following ECIS personnel and associates participated in this program: Michael Kaplan, Architect, AIP Community Planning Michael Stickney Syste•is knalysis Dr. Irwin Rem on, Reg. Geologist Geology, Hydrology Dr. H. Thomas Harvey Ecology Russell 'Pearson Traffic/Transportation Sys. Charles Salter Acoustics • Dr. Rameshwar Singh Drainage, Hydrology b. James A. Roberts Associates The qualifications of the James A. Roberts Associates staff are pre- -�- sented in their report of August 1973 prepared for the Blackhawk Development Company. C. Contra Costa County Planning Department The following Contra Costa County Planning Department Staff assisted in the revision and editing of preliminary drafts: Administration Staff A. A. Dehaesus, AIP, Director of Planning Charles A. Zahn, AIP, Chief, Advance Planning Division Project Staff Melvin J. Bobier, AIP, E.I.R. Team Coordinator: Impact Analysis James W. Cutler, Comprehensive Planner: Impact Analysis Dave Hubbell, Planner: Utilities and Community Facilities Harlan Menhin, Assoc. AIP, Planning Economist: Socioeconomics, Economic and Fiscal Analysis Dr. Darwin Myers, Registered Geologist: Soils and Geology Kathy Robinson, Environmental Design Planner: Hydrology, Air and Water Quality Dr. Dale Sanders, Planning Ecologist: Vegetation and Wildlife, Archaeology and History 91OLIOGRRPHY Anon. 1972. At the Crossroads, A Report on California's Endangerel and *;.are Fish and Wildlife. State of California, Department of Fish and Game. Brabb, E. E., Soneman, H. S., and.Switzer, J. R. Jr.,. 1971, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Mt. Diablo-Byron Area, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties, California. U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Davis, H. E., 1965. A Short History of Contra Costa County. San -Ramon Valley Unified School District, Danville, California. Kunz, P. A., Keck, D. D. A California Mora, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963, 1681 pp. - 1 Comm COSTA`CouslYP1 vilaw bEPmma ' NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF WIRONMIEE.•KTAL IMP= REPORT' i CO;:TP•A COSTA COUNTY -;PAWNING DEPT. Responsible Agency . _ . . Division C014TRA 1040-RZ Project Title County Administration Bldg. •� Pince F_ _,,nnhar -q��. �rISt9._..^.r �.._contr;i r"Ll A�aress City County Zip Dale sanders 415 228-•3000 2024 Contact Person Area Code Phone Ext. PROJECT DESCiIiTIOti OR NATURE, .PURPOSE, A+ND BENEFICIARIES Under iezoning 'application 1840 the applicant, Blackhawk Development Company, is seeking to rezone approximatelf 4,800 acres from (A-2) general agricultural district to (P-1)' planned unit dist-ict. The project site is located at 121055' wait longitude and 31044' north latitude near the center of Contra Costa County, •.pproximatel�.' 19 miles southeast of Martinez (the County seat) , five Wes oast of Danville, and four miles south of 'Mount Diablo. :he property is bordered by Xount Diablo State Park on the north, Blackhawk Road on the southwest, Tassajara Road along portions of the property on the south, and nur..erous private land ownerships on the remaining sides. The project is in the area commonly known as Green and Tassajara Valleys. the project consists of 36 parcels of land which are -identified later in the report. Most of the project lies within Census Tract 3551, with portions also extending into Census Tract 3462. The applicant proposes to provide 4,546 dwelling units in a planned unit development which is oriented to golf and equestrian country club facilities. An inter-mix of single family detached, single family cluster and multi-family units is proposed. Some commercial fac- ilities, elementary schools, and two golf courses are to be included in the project. Functional areas of the project are identified in Figurail - The developed portion of the site is to exto%d over 2,071 acres of the site with unimproved open space occupying remaining acreage. Danville Contra Costa Project Location City Project Location County 10 days Tive Veriod Provided for Review . . Same as above Address L' ere C:•;y of Draft W Is +Wai1:•b1e 7� 2(/x.1 Date po;;ted: s�' �.,G-�,•-- Fi�rd !1y: mer IAY WATER EAST BAY MumaPAL UTILI7Yo/STR/CT arso aowftc sT4189r. OARLA%,.b. CA Ouaa •(*IS, Sai•3e00 WM.J.STrPmc.%9 ...r.Lti........ +.•.... March 26, 1974 Mr. Melvin J. Bobier Contra Costa County Planning Department P. 0. Box 951 Martinez CA 94353 Dear Mr. Bobier: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft Environmental im- pact Report entitled, "1840-RZ Blackhawk Ranch". The District has the following specific comments: 1. On page 41, under Service Areas - A portion of the proposed development is outside rB1UD oundaries, which requires annexa- tion as a precedent to 'obtaining water service. The area to be annexed in this case is also outside EBMUD's ultimate serv- ice area, which adds an additiondl factor that. must be carefully reviewed in determining whether or not this area could be annexed. • 2. On pages 43 and 44, under Mater Su ly - The average annual water use for the proposed Black awk Ranch project is estimated to be 3.2 MGD. The exact water use will depend on the final develop- ment plans as approved by the county. The District -can provide water service up to elevation 650 feet for a small portion of the project with existing facilities within current EBIIUD boundaries. Three new reservoirs with a combined capacity of 13 MG, and their pumping plants, would be required to provide water service to the remaining portion of * the proposed Blackhawk Ranch project that lies within the Dis- trict's ultimate service area. The entire last paragraph under Water Supply should be deleted since it has no bearing on this project. in addition, the state- ments and figures quoted are incorrect. The District currently Is reviewing its population and water use projections. 3. On page 61, under Water - The entire paragraph should be rewritten as follows: "A portion of the proposed development is outside EBMUD boundaries, which requires annexation as a precedent to obtaining water serv- ice. The area to be annexed in this case is also outside EBMUD's Z�.� Y �:1 1 ROARO 0/0/RLC10Ri 0R W111 w.eavear R.I.C.rnIMI.ROR[RI V.NANA R.YrCC I069009M I.A.C.CARRING104.0. NON•AAO**DOW 9040.CNARLrO J.%RIG+► Mir. Melvin J. 8obier -! March 28, 1974 ultimate service area, which adds an additional factor that must � . be carefully reviewed in determining whether or not this area could be annexed. The developer's participation in the cost of constructing the , water system facilities inside EBAIUD boundaries is covered by District Regulations; if water service is extended into areas that must be annexed, such participation will be established by the Board of Directors at the time of annexation. o 4. On page 67, under d. Use of Water and Wastewater Effluents The County may wish to recommend that any deve opment make use of water conservation measures, thus assuring that water con- servation is built into the project; .i.e. , water saving appli- ances, low water requirement landscaping, etc. EBMUD strongly recommends water conservation and would gladly work closely with any developer in this regard. Since Contra Costa County is the lead agency in this project, the en- vironmental effects of the necessary new water distribution facilities should be considered and be specifically described within the Final EIR for 1840-RZ Blackhawk Ranch. Please contact the District about these facilities. Very truly yours, C airma Environmenta Committee WJS:eh ' cc: B.V.Jacolick D.G.Larkin J.N.Plumb J.L.McBride Ott tied d �r• � • •• �,�•• r...: �"/ ,, � a. . . t A -.,./._tom• �! �.. ..�+�...:.7.i� . ,7 .� y ,....l...ess--•y�+�: fi �S- •� ••': :: 1 `"' 6552 Cion Road . Coneord.California 51521 - Tda~. 1+151882.2266 �.,;;;:: a.: PIN V-1"I ' .� v R 4 �i..«'i�. .. 'i . ••• !"!i' April 1, 1974 - .. .` we- Mr. Melvin Bodier Planning Department Contra Costa County Administration Building Martinez,. California 94553 RE: Draft #1, Environmental Impact Report 1940-Rz (2/6/74) BLACKHAWK RANC11 DEVELOPkXNT ' Dear Mr. Bodier: 'fie Contra Costa Resource Conservation District has recently received a copy of the above Environmental Impact Report from a group of citizens concerned about the Blackhawk Ranch Development. The RCD feels it impera- tive that they comment on this report and feel• that since this project has become a matter of public concern that comments will be submitted to both the Planning Department and to the concerned citizens who secured the report for the district. • Background information concerning this ranch may be helpful since the CCRCD has been assisting in establishing a conservation program on this particular ranch for well over 20 years starting with the Force family, pro- ceeding through the Castle-Cool: Corporation, the Petersons and including the present owner. A conserv::tion plan was pripared for the Blackhawk Ranch as a cooperator with the district in 1945 and that plan has been revised and updated over the years. The district recognizes that the impact upon the environment caused by the development of the 4,800 acres would have a very significant effect. One of their first concerns is that a productive ranch will be lost forever as far as food production is concerned. We recognize the fact that food is the number one asset this country now has. Taking figures from the report, the 400 calves mentioned, when raised to marketable size of 700 lbs. , would produce 280,000 lbs. of beef. Sold at the current market price of $.40 per lb. , this would generate $112,000 of income. Fifty tons of walnuts produced at $.30 a lb. , or $600 a ton would add another $30,000 and approximately 300 tons of hay grown on the 200 acres .at $80 per ton would add another $24,000 for a total of $166,000 of agricultural production. Using this figure and a rule of thumb to show the agri-business production of .approximately 4.5 times the amount of the original produce, this would generate a three-quarters of a million dollar agricultural product which is significant in itself. The loss of this ranch would wipe this figure off the books. J, Mrs th1vin Boater• , Page 2 April .1. 1974 Proceeding with the report itself, we feel the report Is Inadequate for the folioaing reasons: There are at least two erroneous -statements made, one on Page 3 concerning Irrigation from the four large ponds. Over the years In working up the conser- vation plan, revising and amending it, there has never been in Erie knowledge of the district's technical staff, any irrigation done from these vonds. They were built by Mr. Force solely and primarily for livestock water and wildlife enhancement. On Page 20 a statement is made "at the present time, portions of Sycamore Creek have been improved by the Soil Conservation Service to a capacity adequate to carry the runoff of a 50-year storm." This .is not a true statement. The Soil'Conservation Service, In 1963, did improve 100 feet of the outlet end of Sycamore Creek where It mats San Ramon- Crack. Historically, Sycamore Creek has flooded during almost every heavy rain. There is no mention of specific soils as to their erodibility, shrink-swell characteristics, infiltration rate, ate. , however, soils were mentioned in a very general way. Figures 15 through 20 are missing. These evidently show the road extensi6.1r, • planned for Sycamore and Crow Canyon and would be necessary to fully eV&lUaLe the report as -far as the topography through which these roads would pass, the addi- tional paved surfaces involved and the possibility of accelerated erosion from road construction. There are no site grading plans included or design of roads within the pro- ject. This information is necessary in order to evaluate the passibility of accelerated -erosion, the location of erosion control structures to prevent sedi- mentation and to determine drainage patterns. The report does not indicate that the existing erosion control drop structures in Sycamore Creek, which had been constructed by the ranch owners, will be modified to accomodate the increased volume of runoff. Proceeding with the comments an particular pages: Page 2 - Figures indicate there will be approximately 400 acres of imper- vious surface in the development. This would be the roofs, patios and so forth of the dwelling units, but does not include road surfaces. In a study conducted by thi district several years ago it indicated that for every 12 units built, the roofs, patios, etc.., constituted one acre of paved surface. Nothing is mentioned of the antecedent moisture conditions concerning the lawns or the golf courses or any of the recreation areas that may have irrigated laran. This would be a factor in accelerated runoff. A well watered lawn will not absorb the saw amount of natural rainfall as a dry barley field at the be- ginning of the rainy season. Consequently, additional runoff can be expected early in the season. Kr. Melvin DodieT • Pale ' April 1, 1974 Page 3 - Irrigation from the four ponds has been previously mentioned. On the sate page, the term "exposed slopes" needs further definition. It is our impression that any slope in the out of doors is exposed. If this means newly cut slopes, than it should be so-stated. Pages 10 and 12 - The statement is rude that this project is not con- sistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan and is in conflict with the MAG regional plan. If either of these two plans are to be meaningful, then .it is our feeling that. any project approved in the county should be consistent with these .plans, .atherwise all public funds used to prepare .these plans will have been wasted. Page 13 - Indications are that the Orinda formation is pock-marked with landslide scars with 60 major slide areas having been mapped in that particular formation. Pate 17 - This page mentions expensive soils, erosion and/or sedimenta- tion and flooding. It would appear that on these pages soils should have been t mentioned specifically. Again, we would recommend that staff consult with our technical staff in the soils portion of these reports. Page 20 - The statement concerning the improvement of Sycamore Creek . has been mentioned. It might be added that the majority.of the work dont. in -Sycamore Creek was done by private landowners in cooperation with the RCD, particularly. for. erosion control. There are numerous erosion control structures along this creek, both on the Blacichawk and daanstream through the old S•:ood pro- perty and on toward Danville. The statement is also made that San Ramon Creek is presently considered to have an adequate capacity to carry the runoff from anticipated low-density de- velopment in the San Ramon Valley area. In 1954 the Soil Conservation Service, In cooperation with the RCD and the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, began work in the Walnut Creek Watershed. A number of large erosion control drop structures were built in San Eamon Creek to prevent additional erosion and flooding. In 1958 and again in 1962 during two very heavy storms, there was enough flow in San Ramon Creek to tax there structures to their limit. Mater was within inches of going over the top of the entire structures, rather than through the notch. Since 1958 and 1962, thousands of additional homes have been built in the upper part of the Walnut Creek Watershed. It is vert doubt- ful, at this time, that should we have another storm comparable to the April 2 storm of 1958 or the Columbus Day storm of 1962, that these structures would be adequate to, in fact, carry the additional flow from the hundreds of addi- tional paved acres. Page 40 - It is significant to note that should San Ramon Creed: be ade- quate to carry the runoff from the Blackhawk Development, there are, either approved or proposed, projects Which would more than double the nuc:ber of units : proposed for the Blackhaak. These taken into consideration would, in addition to the existing homas in the area, almost certainly cause flooding along San Raawn Creek and its tributaries. ;w57t� ih�•rxs��1?r; l ��at �i' �'v'�I57t 'C:.�r-,LY r `'r+r 'v � �r+2 +� �f < a Ml. 1�Y1YiA ,Odias Pop 6 . April 1. 1974 Pop 65 Item 3. !•litigation Measures Proposed by the Developer. lander f.ii. , it mentions water courses will retain existing vegetation etc. This would be almost impossible with the increased runoff that Sycamore Creek and its tributaries would have to carry. There would have to be work done in the creek In order to accomodate the additional flow, therefore the existing vegetation would have to be removed from the creek and reseeding or ie-vegetation done in order to minimize additional erosion. Item 3. , f.v. , Design for Fire Protection - Neither in this paragraph nor In previous ones concerning fire suppression, has anything been mentioned about the use of fire retardant plants. The district would suggest that these be seriously considered and used in both landscaping around buildings and as a peri- - taeter'around the entire development, if it should be approved. Page 66 - Item I. Erosion/Sedimentation - The items and sub -items con- twined under this section should, in the opinion of the district, be strictly en- forced and made part of any building permit that might be issued. In the district's experience, too many hundreds of acres of land being developed has laid open all winter and created tremendous sediment problems which are costing the people in this county millions of dollars a year to dispose of. Item i.-iv. - It might be well to consider erosion control drop structures rather than simply energy dissipators because Sycamore Creek does .carry a size- able bedload of silt. This was recognized back in the 30's consequently the con- struction of the drop structures from approximately 1939 up until about 1960. • In summary, the district would be interested in seeing a more comprehensive study mads of this proposed project which would include more definite detail (in- cluding site plan maps) and information concerning road placement, grading pat- terns, fire control, whether or not existing conservation structures will be im- proved and maintained and whether or not topsoil wall be stockpiled to be reused. We are concerned about the loss of wildlife along with the man-made habitat that has proven so beneficial over the years. Our doubts that the structures in San Ramon Creel. can carry any added flow are substantiated by a,statement made by the Department of the Army, Corps*of Engineers. In their Information Str=ag, Walnut Creel:'Proiect, dated March 1974 the Corps states, "Critical flood and streambank erosion problems exist on Walnut Creek and its tributaries. Existing channels lack sufficient capacity to contain floodwaters from major storms, and as a result floodflocas cause streambank erosion and damage to structures and utilities. Continued develop-ment within the flood plain results in increased runoff, adding to the flood and related problems." Finally, we repeat, we consider this report to be inadequate, one upon which a decision could not be based and would further emphasize the recommendation that our technical staff be contacted at any time in the preparation 'of these reports. Very tt my yours,, , • L��;:,��/.. (./'' /fes` �•?��c%' TNOW W. NOLIIES, Fasource Coordinator . CONTRA• COSTA RESOURCE CO:VSERVaim DISTF.ICT TWil/m 1p , f ECON%jIC SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION 1840-RZ ENVIRONi►1CNTAL IMPACT REPORT • EXHIBIT #12 BLACKHAWK FINAL E.I.R. Prepared by THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning April 1•1, 1974 TABLE OF CONTENTS , page INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I PROJECT DESCRIPTION S CHAPTER II PROJECT-SERVING EMPLOMENT BASE 12 CHAPTER III PROJECT-RELATED TAX REVENUE 15 CHAPTER IV PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COSTS 20 CHAPTER V OM4.SPACE USE OF THE PROJECT 34 CHAPTER VI PROJECT PHASING--PUBLIC COST AND REVENUE FLON 38 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This supplement was prepared by the Contra Costa County Planning Department to increase the coverage of economics subject matter • in the Environmental Impact Report for project 1840-RZ. Preceding economics studies done for the project left unanswered some questions on the population that the project's housing is to serve, the creation of jobs, and, most importantly, the relationships between the creation -of public costs and the flow of tax/fee revenues from the project to the agencies and districts serving it. These subjects are covered here in their order of mention. With respect to the matter of the relationship•between the public costs incurred by a project and the off-setting revenues it may generate, traditional approaches to economic -analysis provide inade- quate information for decision making because of the following weak- nesses: I. They neglect to attribute (pro-rate) cost% of existing public facilities and installations to the project; e.g., the cost "share" of existing sewage treatment- plant capacity absorbed by the project or that of new plants iequired. • �� Z: They often neglect to account for the costs of precipitating major off-site public installations; e.g. , 'road improvements to serve a wider area but necessitated- by the project. 3. They neglect to account for the costs of the "gap" -or "lag" between the time that public costs are incurred and revenue:: • from the project are realized; e.g. , the point when a new school facility must be built and the time (if ever) when the' project is sufficiently built-up to cover it. This report covers aspects of all three of the above, but only to the extent that this was- practical under limits of time and readily avail- able information. Also, it was obviously beyond the scope of this .supplementary investigation to de�ielop a new and thoroughly definitive *nalytical system. Despite those limitations, however, the report provides insights into the economic context of project 1840-RZ. Significantly, the report finds that a large public "subsidy" in the fours of services and capital investments is required at the onset of the project and, although the amount in per-housing unit terms is substantially reduced byprdject completion, the project still does not "pay for itself' at initial full development. In other woras, even at full development revenues from taxes, fees, and utility charges rust be supplemented by • revenues from older developments and other land uses to provide the funds for necessary roads, utilities, and schools. t• 7h is subsidy situation is hardly unique with project 1840-RZ, in fact, the subsidy amount per housing unit might well 'be treater for projects with lover value housing. Probably, project 1830-RZ has higher, or at least more identifiable, facility costs because of semi-isolated location. Certainly, its magnitude means that a large public investment must be made in -the near future if the pro- ject is approved, and this aspect is critical. The question is how much of a financial burden the taxpayer (or service customer) can or should be obligated to take on for a privately initiated project? ANALYTIC PRM1EIlDRK The economic analysis of a major development project must consider many areas of impact. While many of these impacts are not purely economic, but they do however, have their base in a population profile Of project residents and those of the surrounding community. This profile relates heavily to the price and type of housing being offered and to its location within the surrounding community and the region. These characteristics 'help in predicting nany of the project residents public service needs. A determination of these needs allows comparison of public service costs to that of revenue that could be generated by the project. A project, hot-.,ever, cannot be examined in a vacuum, since its area of impact can be considerable. there are two types of public services that c•)uld be demanded by a • project, those financed directly through general property tar reve- nue and those paid for additionally by user charges or fees. The most expensive of these services associated with a residential pro- ject are most often roads, schools, sewers and water service. These are provided by the County or a special eistrict created solely to provide this service and are considered public or quasi-public as the case may be. An examination of these services and their actual costs relative to revenues generated by the project are made in the following text of this Supplement. ASSMPTIONS The analyses in this report are based on the following set of assump- tions unless otherwise noted: 1. Already established public and quasi-public entities such as those providing sewers, water, schools and roads, will continue to per- form their service functions (tax rate limitation legislation could however, impact public service agencies' ability to respond to necessary service demands). Z. The State School Building Aid fund will continue to nake funds aysilablo to public school districts on the same basis as it has in the past (this hinges on voters continuing to pass statewide bond issues for school construction) . • 3. Local practices realting to financing of public services will con- tinue into the future (limitation on methods of financing extension . 2 of public services into new 'growth areas could constrain develop- ment potential) .. 4. Where bonding of capital facilities is required, it is assumed that bond issues will be approved by the voters (passage of all types of civic bond issues, especially that for school districts, has become increasingly more difficult and could linit construc- tion of capital facilities) , S. Project specifications, timing and scale of development are taken from application materials submitted by the developer (these are subject to change in the course of the review process and market conditions may cause variation in project specifications) . 6.. Revenue, expenditure and capital requirement figures are all cal- culated in constant 1974 dollars (availability of grant programs or lack of them, to fund specific improvements could alter the base costs figures) . If the above premises are substantially violated, much of the economic analyses found in this Supplement would, of course, be substantially altered. t FINDINGS 1. The project proposes to house an *additional 15,400 new persons in the San Ramon Valley in 4,546 dwelling units averaging $56,000 on 4,776 acres of land over a 12 year period. Only 1,225 acres would be for residential use giving a density of 3. 7 units per acre. 2. Project residents will create a demand for basic population-serving needs, notably grocery and drug shopping and medical and dental needs. Other commercial uses are proposed for the site; virtually all but a handful of processional jobs will not be geared for pro- ject resident:. since t,►e salaries paid would be considerably below that required to purchase a duelling in the project. pork-related commuting will thus not be minimized. 3. Tax revenue that could be generated by the project at full develop- ment would approximate $9 million. I'his would be split between fifiteen different local taxing jurisdictions (as .they are now constituted) with the school district and the Count;- receiving the bulk, with $4.7 million and $2.3 million in revenues, respec- tively.' . 4: The project is not now within the boundaries of the present servic- area of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary Services District. If extension of sanitary sewer services were made to the project, a requirement of $5.3 million in capital costs would be attendant. 11tis is $1,170 per proposed dwelling unit. S. Vie project is now partially, within the boundaries of the Fast • Bay Municipal Utility District. If water service were, however, extended to cover the project, about $4.4 million in capital costs would be required. Mis is about $1,000 per proposed dwelling unit. 3 6. The project lies entirely within the boundaries of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and would require.the expenditure of at least $10 million in net capital costs. Gross capital costs would run about $12 milli•.m. While much of these capital expenditures could be paid by State Building Aid Bond Act mopies the school district must continually pass bond issues in order to qualify for this aid. Non-passage-of these bonds mould force double (or triple) sessions and more local support of school facility development. Gross capital costs for schools to service project rosi- dents mould run $2,650 per dwelling unit. The project should provide operating expenses sufficient to maintain the level of educational services now prevalent in the school district after all necessary capital costs are met. 7. The County Public Works Department has estimated that $8.2 million in road improvements would be necessary to provide an adequate road system for the project residents. This is about $1,810 per project dwelling unit. B. Capital costs for necessary sewer, water, school and road services for the project could run as high as $30 million or $6,600 per dwelling unit. This figure could well be hil-her if capital costs for fire, police, and other miscellaneous public service are con- sidered. 9. 1973-1974 market value of the inimproJed lands on the project total • $2.8 million and are presently producing about $90,000 in tax rive- nue for all taxing jurisdictions covering the area. 1974-1975 market value could conceivably be $4.8 million, based on a higher — presumed price paid for the land by the project proponents. 'Ibis would raise current tax revenues to about $154,000. 10. An alternative to the project as proposed would be placement of the, lands into a Williamson Agricultural Preserves agreement with the County. This could drop the unimproved land value to about $334,000 and tax revenue to about $10,700, thus reducing direct expenses by the developer for holding the land. • 11. The land within the entire project site will probably carry a market • value of about $4.8 million wbon reassessed. Purchase of. the 2,000 or so acres of potentially developable land could possibly be made for considerably less. 12. An' analysis of various capital expenditures for roads, sewers, water, and schools shows that the viability of the project hinges on the considerable support of public and quasi-public agencies to subsidize the project until sufficient revenues are generated by the tax base to pay for these necessary improvements. This time lag can often be of long duration considering it includes the project "build-out" period as well. 13. A subsidy of nearly $5 million is required to build the necessary roads, schools, sewers, and water service during the first phase of the project or nearly $13,000 per project dwelling. This per unit subsidy drops to $4,1S0 by project completion when the full tax base is available to help offset costs, but the overall sub- sidy has risen to about $20 million by then. 4 1 • CHAPTER I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project, application 1840-RZ, propvses to build a fairly extensive residential project in the San Ramon Valley. Due to the project size and relatively high price for dwellings, the project's logical primary trade area would be the central five county (San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Mateo) San Francisco-Oakland SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statisticsl Area). Thus, use of detailed SMSA population statistics to supply a profile of project residents will be made and the data adjusted when necessary to reflect any particular character- istics of the San Ramon Valley. This project profile will then be used. to determine the economic impacts of the project with regard to the various suppliers of major public goods like sewers, water, roads and schools. PROPOSED LAND USE The project application, 1840-RZ for Planned Unit Development, proposes the construction of 4,546 dwelling units on 4,176 acres of land about five miles east of Dan11ille. Table 1 describes the proposed project's land use, if approved. Proposed are two golf.courses, one office and two co=,iercial development sites, and 2,150 acres of comwunity open space. 950 acres of land are proposed for • dedication to the Mt. Diablo State Park Systen if the project is approved as prbposed. 4,546 residential dwelling units are also proposed and could be built on 1,224.5 acres for a den:•ity of 3.7 units per acre. PROPOSED HOUSING STUCK TO BE PROVIDED According to information submitted by the applicant and Gruen Grue•. and Associates*, four types of housing structures are proposed rt varying sizes and prices. This mix of housing stock suggests a certain type of home purchaser or renter. The figure of 400 of home price equalling current salary has been used as a standard by the home loan industry for a long time period, but due to recent rises in interest rates, this figure now approximates 450. Table i provided by the applicant and Gruen Gruen and Associates specifies the housing stock proposed for project 1840-RZ and implied base income of its residents. PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING According to the developer, the project is proposed for development over a 12 to 15 year period. The phasing information presented in Table 3 was supplied by the developer and Gruen Gruen and Associates. Minor *Appendix E-1, ECIS Report E-73317-1, Economic- Assessment of Project 1840-RZ by Gruen Gruen F, Associates. S TABLE l: PROPOSPO LAND USE, PROJECT 1840-RZ • Dwelling Residential Uses Units Acres Percent Single Family Estates 51 170 3.6 Single Family 2,155 857 17.9 Condomin itris 1,958 178.5 3.7 Multi-Family 382 ' 19 0.4 Sub-Total 4,546 1,224.5 25.6 Commercial . Retail Sales 22.5 0.5 Offices 14.5 0:3 Sub-Total . 37.0 .8 Public Public Facilities 2.5 0.1 School Sites 31 0.6 Sub-Total 33.5 0.7 Open Space Golf Courses 376 7.9 Open Space retained in private ownership 2,150 45.0 . Proposed for public dedication* 955 20.0 Sub-Total 3,481 72.9 PRWEC•r TOTAL 4,776 100.0 *A five acre site of paleontologic significance may be offered by the applicant to the University of California. 950 acres are proposed to be deeded to the i•1t. Diablo State Fark contiguous to the project if the development is approi•cd as proposed. Source: Dlackhawk Development Company; Gruen Gruen $ Associates. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. TABLE 2: PROJECT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING MIX Implied Aggregate Average Base Household Type of Unit Number Sales-Price Income Sales Price Income Single Fhmily Estate 51 $100,000 $45,000 $ 5,100,000 $ 2,295,000 Single Family Detached 2,155 70,000 31,500 150,850,000 67,882,500 Condominiums 1,958 45,000 20,250 88,110,000 39,649,500 Apartments 382 25,000* 11,250 9,550,000 4,297,500 Total/Average 4,546 $ 55,800 $25,110 $253,610,000 $114,123,500 *Average rent would equal $250 per month. This is about the same as the principal, interest, taxes and insurance on a $25,000 home with a 30 year -8o mortgage. Source: Blackhawk Development Company; Gruen Gruen & Associates. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. TABLE 3: PROJECT PHASING • Total at Phase Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completion Residential Estates Units 17 17 17 - - 51 Acres 57 57 56 - - - 170 Single Family Units' 355 360 360 360 360 360 2,155 Acres 143 143 143 143 143 142 857 Condominiums Units - 361 "7 751 3.39 - 1,958 Acres - 33 46 68.5 31 - 178.5 Multi-family Units - - - 162 - 220 382 Acres - - - 8 - 11 19 Zbtal Units 372 738 884 • 1,273 699 580 4,546 Acres 200 233 •245 • •219.5 174 153 1,224.5 Resi1entisl Cumulative Units 372 - 1,110 1,994 3,267 3,966 •4•,546 4,546 By Phase Acres 200 433 678 897.5 1,071.5 1,224.5 1,224.5 Schools Acres - - 10 10 - 11 31 • Public Fac. Acres - - - - 2.5 2.5 Commercial Retail Sales Acres - - 15 - - 7.5 22.5 Offices Acres - - 14.5 - - - 14.5 Urban Use Cumulative Acres 200 433 717.5 947 1,121 1,295 1,295 Remaining* Acres 3,438 3,205 2,920.5 2,691 2,517 2,155 2,155 Open Space Golf Courses Holes 18 18 Clubhouse Acres 188 188 *Excludes 955 acres stated by developer may be deeded to the University of California at Berkeley and Mt. Diablo State Park System. Source: Blackhawk Development Company; Gruen Gruen Associates Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department . I 7 • alterations have been made to make the numbers total correctly. It must, however, be noted that unless a specific phasing plan were made part of the propr•sed project's conditions of approval, the proposed phasing plan would not be binding on the developer. Construction of 322 single family detached units is proposed for the first phase, rising to 738 in Phase 2, with the addition of condominium construction. The pace continues to rise through Phase 4 when over 700 of the housing will be completed, one golf course finished, the office development complete, and the major shopping area developed. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES A demographic determination of the project's probable residents (based on data for the San Francisco-Oakland SMSA) needs to be made. This profile is very dependent on the type and price of housing services that will be offered by the project. In turn, this profile is essential in ascertain- ing, for example, the population of the pro'ect as well as the demand for certain public goods such as the need for schools to educate project children. An examination will first be made of apartment dwellers, then condominium purchasers and finally single family home residents. Large complex apa:•tments in the San Ramon Valley held an average of 2.06 persons per unit in 1970, according to 1910 Census data. This is identi- cal to that of the comparable countywide figure and would appear to be applicable to apartment units in the project. The $45,000 market price of the proposed condominiums implies an income of $20,250.* This conpares in price- to many of the single family homes pre- sently available in the area surrounding the proposed project. According to 7970 Census data, the average family size for occupants of duplex, triplex, and fourplex units in the San Ramon Valley was 2.96, a figure 250 above the couiityi+ide average of. 2.37 persons for comparable dwelling units. This is in keeping with national trends of family si^e generally increasing with income:; median income in the San Rdmon Valley was 410 higher than the countywide average. Since condominium units have an even higher appeal for families than do duplex type rental units, a figure somewhat above 2.96 persons per occupied dwelling unit could well be ex- pected for the project's condominium units. Using the five county San Francisco-Oakland SIMSA as a data base (since it is defined as the primary market area for the project), the average husband-wife family size with head of Household under 35 (the primary ma-'-k t for condominiums) was 3.20 persons according -to the 1970 Census. his would appear to be an appropriate number for use in assigning population to the project's condo- miniums and is only marginally higher than 2.96 persons. Tlie project also proposes to construct 2,15S single family detached homes selling for $70,000 and 51 estate type homes selling for $100,000 and up. These imply incomes of $31,500 and $45,000 respectively. Day Area 1970 Census data may be also used to define a profile of these home purchasers by examining appropriate statistics. *This is 451% of purchase price. 8 ,a • 1. The average family size for families with incomes of $2S,000 or more was 3.62 persons in 1970. 2. Families with heads of household in the 35-54 year age category (the prime target group of this type of housing) averaged 4.03 persons in 1970. 3. The average number of persons living in single family detached housing in the San Ramon Valley averaged 3.68 persons in 1970 accord- ing to available 1970 Census information. An average of these three family size factors is 3.78 and would appear appropriate for determining a profile of the occupants -of all single family detached housing proposed for the project. Taking the applicable persons-per-unit figures for-the different types of housing proposed for the project and applying them against 1:no%%n age distribution information is the basis for Tables 4 and 5 prepared from 1970 Census data and information supplied by Gruen Gruen and Associates. These tables illustrate an age profile of the proposed project residents and show that the project could be expected to generate 4,932 school aged children, 1,559 pre-school children and 8,901 adults. COHMERCIAL SERVICES . • 22.5 acres of retail sales use and 14.5 acres o office space use are proposed for the project according to material supplied by the developer and Gruen Gruen and Associates. About 225,000 square feet of gross leas- able space wouid be made available for retail sales and about 290,000 E,-- square feet of office space. The viability of the retail trade space is dependent upon its location, the variety of stores, and particular mix of products made available in addition, whether or not project residents develop enough shopper's preference to shop there rather than at the commercial establishments in Alamo, Danville,, and other nearby shopping areas. Judging whether or not 290,000 square feet of' office space is too much or too little to be local-serving for the project is difficult at tris point. However, it should be noted that this size a complex would pro- vide space for some 1,000 or more wor}:ers and is thus not scaled to the proposed project but to a larger area within the region. Due to the project's location, problems of access, and need to draw from within the region, this office space might experience some competitive disad- vantage. A smaller site with a complement of local-serving medical and dental offices might well prove more appropriate to a residential com- munity location. SUHMARY The project application 1840-RZ seeks to provide the County with an addi- tional 4,546 dwelling units on an area of 4,776 acres with attendant re- tail and office space facilities. A population of about 15,400 would 9 TABLE 4: PERSONS PER ilOUSEHOLD BY AGE GROUP BY UNIT TYPE FOR-PROPOSED PROJECT Persons Per Household Dwelling Pre- Unit Tyne School K-5 6-8 • 9-12 Adults Total Single 'Family .45 .60 .33 .40 2.0 3.78 Condominiums .2S .3S .27 .33 2.0 3.20 Apartments .20 .27 .08 .08 1.5 2.06 Applying the above matrix to the appropriate number of units of each type yields a population estimate for the development completed as proposed. Table 4 shotes this result. Source: Gruen Gruen and Associates; U: S. Bureau of the Census Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department • TABLE S: POPULATION EST MATE BY AGE GROUP FOR PROPOSED PROJECT Dwelling Pre- Unit Type School K-5 6-8 9-12 Total Adults Total Single Family 993 1,324 728 882 3,927 .4,412 8,339 Condominiums 490 685 529 646 2,350 3,916 6,266 Apartments 76 76 31 31 214 573 790 Total 1,559 2,085 1,288 1,559 6,491 8,901 15,392 Percent Distribution School Aged Children - 42.3 26.1 31.6 100.0 - - Total Population 10.1 13.6 8.4 10.1 42.2 57.8 Average number of school age children per household: 1.09* Average number of persons per household: 3.39** *The comparable 1970 Census figure for the San Ramon Valley School District is 1.11. .4AThe comparable 1970 Census figure for the San Ramon Valley School District is 3.53. Source: Gruen Gruen and Associates; U. S. Bureau of the Census Prepared by Contra Costa County I -anning Department result with a mix of M- adults and ago children. The average sales price of a dwelling in the project would be about $56,000 end require an income of $2S,000 for purchase. The project is proposed to be built over a twelve to fifteen year period and woald haves- to drabs on the immediate central Day Area counties for a primary narket trade area. rt CHAPTER M. PROJECT-SERVING EMPLOYMENT BASE The placement of people into a new portion of the County would probc)ly create t%e need for additional services in the immediate area of the project site. Sone of these workers might have to be imported from other areas of the County while some other workers might prove to be Ir.oject residents. Project residents not working on the project would generate a great amount of. corLnuter outflow to other portions of the County and Bay region for work. COMMERCIAL EINIPLOYMENT The type of retail trade use proposed for the 'project would generate employment in at least one major local-serving grocery store and a 4 large variety-type drug and discount store•. Other auxiliary local- serving stores would probably be of the following types: liquor sales, florist shop, sporting goods, a jewelry, gift and novelty store, spe- cialized boutique-type apparel ,store. These types.of stores would appeal to the demographic characteristics of the project residents and probably be local project-serving in nature. These types of retail trade establishments do not, however, provide an employment base for the bulk of the project's residents earning in the . $20,000 plus -range in annual salary. While major grocery stores pay a• current (1973-74) average annual salary of about $10,000 and large drug discount stores about $7,000, the smaller auxiliary shops pay employees from 9bout $3,000 to $7,000 in current annual wages for work often part- time :a nature. These salaries on their oi%m are insufficient for a worker to buy or rent -in the project. Store owners and nanagement employees might be able to do so, but the), are a small minority of all workers. Workers for these stores would, therefore, have to be imparted from surrounding cornm►n►ities or cone front project resid•.,nts seeking second - jpbs to supplement family or individual incomes. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT According to estimates proposed by Gruen Gruen and Associates, the 290,OOC square feet of office floor space proposed for the project could provide space for from 860 to 1,760 employees. 71►is• type of sub urban office-type development pays an average of about $7,000 in current (1973-74)- annual salaries, while self-employed professionals like doc- tors and lawyers earn much more. These professionals could affort to live in dwellings on the project while the remainder of the office workers normally would not. RECREATIONAL DIPLOYMENT According to estimates prepared by Gruen Gruen and Associates, the development of two 18-hole golf courses and the associated clubhouse facilities could generate about 30 jobs directly associated with their management and maintenance. The other recreational facilities proposed for the project could yield a like or greater amount of additional 12 employment. Average annual salaries run about $7,000 in current 1973-74 dollars. Again, only management employees and the resident professional sportspersons normally could afford to live in the project. CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT If the project is approved as requested and built fiver the proposed twelve to fifteen year period as proposed*, a substantial amount of construc- tion activities Mould be required. If the project is constructed with present day building techniques, as estimated by Gruen Gruen and Associates, about 7,500 total person-years of construction work would be required, or about 625 per year. However, it is doubtful that present construction methods will continue into the future since labor and material costs have risen so markedly in the past few years. Later, much of the project housing and commercial building may well be constructed on the site in a factory type situation and erected into place. This type of arrangement could cut annual employment to as low as 100 workers per year at the project site. These workers could reasonab:y be expected to come from the ranks of those presently working in the region. AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT According to information supplied by the developer and Gruen Gruen and Associates, there are presently about ten�jobs that would be lost if the ,project were .totally converted from its present agricultural use to that of the proposal. It is doubtful that project.,re:idents would wish to allow a farming and/or grazing operation to copt.inus on their co=unity open space lands, so it is probable that the loss of these agricultural jobs is irreversible if the proposed project is built. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT Many general governmental services that will be required by project resi- dents will be provided by county government and contributed to by project residents through levied property taxes and rebate of other miscellaneous tax dollars by the state and federal government. Translating this ser- vice requirement into jobs and payroll is beyond the scope of this report since it is more highly dependent on the needs of the entire San Ramon Valley and that of the County as a whole. .This project will specifically require fire protection. services. 'The exact number of new jobs created to service the project .is indeterminate at present and highly related to the placement, of existing and projected fire stations in the San Ramon Valley. The project will significantly impact the lo:al unified school district by creating a demand for more district staff. The particular amount and mix of teaching. support and administrative staff necessary to service the needs of the project's school children has not as yet been determined. *Unless made a part of the PUL) approval, the developer or his successors would not be bound to the phasing proposal. 13 UTILITIES The utilities companies--water, sewage and solid waste disposal--that.- will be asked- to service the project provided it receives approval, may need to expand their operations staff. Since significant capital investments will be necessary to provide certain services to the project, it may he assumed Oat permanent staff will be needed to maintain those facilities. SUNNARY The project will create demand for a local population-serving employment base composed primarily of merchants and employees in the retail trade area and in office-type service employment. Recreational development of por- tions of the project will result in the creation of additional private employment opportunities. Governmental entities serving the project will need to expand employment in order to adequately service project residents. This may also be true for the utility companies. It is assumed that most of these workers will riot be paid wages sufficient•to allow them to live in the project due to the relatively high income required to purchase a dwelling on the project. 14 CHAPTER III: PROJECT-RELATED TAX REVENUE The provision of services to any residential development has histori- cally been accomplished through the revenue associated with the levy of property taxation. An'examination and quantification of the amount of property tax revenue to be raised by a project is thus important if a critical examination of the public costs and revenues associated with a project is to be made. CURRENT TAX REVENUE The 1973-1974 market value of the project, as currently proposed for development, is approximately $2,790,980 (excluding improvements) accord- ing to information available from the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office and by pro-rata estimates of parcels previously assessed. The proposal lies within six tax rate areas With differing tax rates. This is summarized in Table 6. Current taxes paid on the land only within the project are equal to (current assessed value of 697.745 multiplied by the weighted average tax rate of $12.P54 per $100 of assessed value) $89,688 or about $90,000. This is about. $19 eer acre in tax revenue. Table 7 summarizes all par- eels within the proposed project and shoes their acreage and current Assessed market vzlue. A fairly wide variance in the per acre market • values between parcels can be noted. TABLE 6: CURRENT TAX RATE AREAS. ANI) (MARKET VALUE--PROJECT 1840-RZ Tax Assessor's Market Rate 1973-1974 Value Within Area Tax Rate Tax Rate Area 66006 $12.899 $ 217,600 66008 12.021 395,400 66011 12.749 188,820 66016 12.939 77,320 66050 12.908 377,140 66053 13.058 1.534,640 Total/Ave. $12.854 $2,790,980 Source: Contra Costa County Assessor's Office Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department If the project, as proposed, is approved, then• information provided by the developer and Gruen Gruen and Associates would be' appropriate in ascertaining the project's tax base for revenue purposes. The following information developed by land use type has been supplied by the developer and Gruen Gruen and Associates but modified somewhat in the area of land Svalue. These changes were based on- presumed -or exact County Assessor's land market value. 15 1 TABLE 7: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL INVENTORY, LAND VALUE ONLY--PROJECT 1840-R2 Assessed liarkee Value Tax We Assessor's Parcel !tu=ber Acreage cash-Value Value per Acre Area ;94-060-02 .209.47 57,880- 1 . 14,470 276.32 66016 1�'.-090-01 70.00 19,440 4,860 277.71 66016 '194-090-03 60.92 28.240 7,660 463.56 66053 194-090-04 6.50 3.000 750 461.54 66053 194-090-05 38.20 17,600 4,400 460.73 66053 203-020-06 363.93• 400,500 100,125 1,100.49 66053 203-020-07 2.10 1,940 485 923.81 66006 203-020-08 100.50 20,840 5,210 207.36 66006 203-030-07 '85.64 19,900 4,975 232.37 . •66006 203-040-07 227.09 2840460 71,115 1,_52.63 66053 203-040-03 34.81 64,640 16,160 •1,856,94 66053 203-040-09 -10.00 31,020 7,755 3,102.00 66053 203-040.10 187.12 54,000* 13,500* 286.58 66006 203-040-11 222.28 252,520* 63,130*• 1,136.04 66053 203-050-13 32.30 27.320 6,830 845.82 66050 203-050-14 127.70 107,880 26,970 844.79 66051 203-05U-26 20.00 46,300 11.575 20315.00 66011 203-050-49 25.67 59,500 14,875 2,317.88 66006 203-060-01 28.48 9,260 2,315 325.14 66053 -203-060-02 '26.52 S,320 1,330 322.03 66050 203-070-01 120.00 55.560 13,890 463.00 66050 =t' 203-010-03 1.17_ 1,380 345 '1,179.49 66050 203-OSO-01 305.75 142,140 35.535 464.89 66053 203-030-02 19.09 8,840 2,210 463.07 66030 203-030-03 10.28 4,760 1,190 463.04 66053 203-050-05 117.43 278,720 69,630 667.70 66050 ,203.080-06 212.29 78,700 19,675 370.72 66011 : 203-090-03 111.24 22,660 5,670 202.07 66011 203.01,10-11 269.85 61,480* 15,370* 227.83 66006 203-100-03 280.00 41,140 10,285 .146.93 66011 203-100.04 160.00 29,640 7,410 185.25 66003 203-100.03 80.00 14,620 x.' 3,705 155.25 66003 203-120-01 480.00 96;860 24,215 201.79 66003 203-130-n: 244.00 254,080 63,520 •1,041.31 66000 215-OSO-03 .31.19 72,220 18.055 2,314.49 65053 215-030-04 163.17 116,400 29,100 713.37 66053 TOTAL 4,775.69 $2,790,980 $697,745 $584.41 . *Pro-rata estimate obtained from previously assessed parcels. Source: Contra- Costa County 1973-1974 Assessor's Office tax rolls. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. 16 : RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT If the developer's estimate of housing market value is accepted and held constant in 1974 dollars, then the total residential market value of the project, upon completion, would be $2S3,610,000. CODAIERCI.AL DEVELOPMENT Project plans call for the commercial development of 37 acres. These have a current market value of about $6,000 per acre, or $222,000 for all 37 acres. Accepting the developer's proposal and Gruen Gruen and Associates' estimate of square feet of floor space (225,000 in retail trade and 290,000 in office space) and construction costs ($21.45 for retail trade and $20.65 for office space), improved values of S4,826,250 for retail trade and $5,988,500 fc•r office space are calculated. The total market value for land and buildings is thus $11,036,750. , OPEN SPACE/RECREATION USES A total of 1,735 acres not proposed to be dedicated to any public agency are slated, according to the developer, to be held as unimproved commu- nity open space. About 400 more acres, accordii:g to the developer, are proposed to be improved for active recreational use. An additional 376 acres are proposed for two golf courses. 'The developer and Gruen . Gruen and Associates estimate the value of the golf course and improved open space/recreational lands and buildings to be +.o3 �h $4,000,000. The unim- proved open space, according to presumed assessment values and previously recorded sales of land with similar topography, can be assigned a nark-et value of $500 per acre for tax assessment purposes. This value is then $877,500 for the 1,755 unimproved acres, bringing the total property tax revenue base to $4,877,500 for all open-space/recreation uses proposed for the project. SU10tARY OF PROPERTY TAX BASE AND REVENUE If the development as proposed is approved and all the above calculations concerning potential market value are realized, then the following table would summarize the project's tax base at full project completion. A tax rate of $12.854 per $100 of assessed valuation is assumed, the present composite tax rate for the project lands. TABLE 8: PROJECT 18407RZ PROPERTY TAX BASE NPON PROJECT COMPLETION Potential Potential Potential Market Assessed Annual Land Use Value Value Tax Revenue Residential $253,610,000 $63,402,500 $8,149,000 Commercial 11,036,750 28-79,200 354,700 Open Space/Recreation 4,877,500 11219,400 156,700 Project Total $269,524,250 $67,381,100 $8,661,200 Source: Blackhawk Development Company, Gruen Gruen $ Associates , Contra Costa County Planning Department Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department 17 TAX REVENUE IMPACT ON DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT Distribution of the annual tax revenue From the project is based on the relative property tax rates of the various special districts serving the project site. Table 9 was prepared based on composite tax rate informa- tion collected from the current 1973-1974 Tax Rate'Area Code Book pub- lished by the County Tax Collector's Office. OTHER TAX REVENUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROJECT Other tax revenues accrue to various taxing jurisdictions due to the many miscellaneous fees paid by individuals in a community and to sales tax paid on the purchase• of most retail goods that are 'rebated back by the State. These many rebates go principally to the County General Fund in the case of unincorporated populations, as the proposed project is pre- sently. This amountsto a total per capita figure of about S7.32. The 1$,400 persons projected for the project would thus represent $112,670 in Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee revenues to the County from the State of Cali- fornia. Federal Internal Revenue Service 1973 income tax guidelines imnly mininum tax- able retail trade expenditures of 20.6% on a family income of S25,000. This does not reflect major purchases and so a figure of 2S% mould probably be more reasonable in ascertaining sales taxes paid -by project residents. Project residents would have an average househol•1 income of $25,000 per year in current 1973-1974 dollars according to data submitted by the developer, ,or an aggregate income of $114,124;500 for the project. This would imply $28,531,100 in retail sales and $1,569,200 in current sales tax revenue (at S.5%) . About $142,600 would go directly to BART and $116,300 to the County General Fund. This revenue and fees rebated from the State would raise annual County General Fund revenues attributable - to the project, if completed as proposed, from $1,906,900 to $2,263,170. SLADIARY The proposed project could generate up to $2.'3 million in annual revenues' to the County if information supplied by the developer proves correct. Other taxing jurisdictions could receive as much as $6.9 million more annu- ally in additional monies. While these numbers appear substantial, it is not possible to determine from them alone the relationships between public revenues and governmental costs necessary to build and serve the pro- posed project. lg • TABLE 9: PROJECT CO.IPLE�IOS--ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR THE TAXING AGENCIES COVERING PROJECT 1840-RZ Tax Rate Annual Tax Agency Per $100 A.V. Revenue County Tax $ 2.830 $1,906,900 County Flood Control .020 13,500 •. County Water Agency .010 6,700 Danville/Tassajara Firel .936 630,700 BART .587 395,500 Bay Area Air Pollution .017 11,500 East Bay Regional Park .159 107,100 County School service .158 106,500 San Ramon Unified (operating) 6.071 4,090,700 • tan Ramon Unified (bonds only) .906 610,500 5 County Community College .898 605,100 Mosquito Abatement .021 14,100 County Res. $ Conservation . .001 700 Miscellaneous2 .240 161 ,700 Total $12.854 $8,661,200 Neighted average of Danville Fire'at $1.054 and Tassajara at $.344. Miscellaneous: Alamo/Lafayette Cemetery District, East Bay Municipal Utility D-.strict, Contra Costa Water District. These districts do not completely cover the Ranch and as such their share of the miscel- laneous revenue cannot be computed. Source: Contra Costa County Tax Collector: 1973 Tax Rates . Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department 19 ti CHAPTER IV: PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COSTS PUBLIC COSTS REQUIRED TO SERVICE THE PROJECT Private development projects require the provision of governmental ' services, utilities and other quasi-governmental functions in order to be viable communities, necessities without which a project could not actualize. Governmental services provided through the County must be extended before there are any project residents; utility services also must be provided before there are any project resi- dents and the various quasi-governmental units must plan full ser- vice for a development before all future residents reside there. Nott all public costs are reflected in property tax rates, but in other charges such as utility hook-up fees. This creates a situation in which present populations must "subsidize" growth and de veloprrent of a project requiring extensive governmental service to build an adequate infrastructure before the full tax revenue base is there to pay for it. 20 There are obviously two different kinds of costs associated with urban growth: the capital or front money costs associated with constructing the necessary facilities to accommodate the residents of a project, and the operating expenses that are raised through a project's tax base and through user charges. Operating revenues must at least equal expenses in order to maintain public facilities and provide residents t•:i.th services. The following material discusses some of the necessary public and utility costs associated with the project if it is fully developed as proposed. Chapter VI draws a comparison of project phasing and tax revenue in each phase vis-a-vis the respective public development costs. FIRE PROTECTION The project lies within the Danville and Tassajora Fire Protection Dis- tricts. The present tax rate for the Danville District which covers the majority of the project is $1.054 per $100 .of assessed valuation, while ' the Tassajara Fire District which covers a small portion of t}:; eastern end of the project has a rate of only •$.344 per $100 of assessed valua- tion. A weighted average of these two tax rates is about $.936 and • would result in annual revenues of $630,700 in 1973-1974 currant dollars upon completion of the project. • At present the Danville Fire District employs a staff of 42 located at 3 stations and has an annual budget of about $888,000. It is not feasible at this time to estimate the number of fire stations and personnel to service the project since it is surrounded by several existing fire dis- tricts. .A new pro-'act of t„is type could well require a comprehensive study reviewing the location of all present fire stations in the entire San Ramon Valley. It is apparent, however, that from 1 to 2 fire stations could be operated from the ultimate annual revenue raised for this purpose since approximately' $300,000 is the cost of one fire station in the Danville Fire Protection District. The capital costs associated with the project's needs would have to be raised through a bond issue or through bank loans. An additional property tax rate to recover these capital costs might then be necessary. POLICE PROTECTION The project is located in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department is responsible for police �l • protection for all areas not covered by municipal police departments • and operates out of a single office in Martinez. However, if growth in the San Ramon Valley continues at a rapid rate it may be necessary to build a new sheriff's station there and the project would contribute significantly toward this need. Total costs for •iolice services for the project cannot be detemined at. present since this v ould be highly dependent on the type and amount of police service required as well as what additional capital investments would be necessary. SANITARY SERVICES The provision of sanitary services, a public utilities or quasi-govern- mental function, i� made on more of a "pay-ss-you-go" basis than that of other more purely governmental services. • These costs are also more directly borne by the users in that hook-up fees are charged and monthly bills for services must be paid by the residents. A small tax rate must also be borne by the prof"t residents. The project is within the potential service area of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary Services District. Numerous costs must be borne by the developer and project residents if service is to be supplied. The project must first pay a share of the -apital iniestment in the existing facilities--accomplished through an annexation fee of $400 per acre. According to information supplied by the developer there are 2,071 acres of residential, commercial, active recreational and golf course use on the project that would need to be serviced.' Fees on this land would total • aboat $830,000. Additional costs to b:• bowie by the developer are the costs necessary for collector and surer trunk lines to connect the project to the existing system. If not, a fee of $300 per dwelling unit Mould be assessed for a total of $1.4 million. Tlie project must also pay its share of district capital improvement opera- ting costs--covered by a $.20 tax rate and a $.U8 rate to retire bonds. This would raise the overall property tax to 513. 1.34 from the present $12.554 per $100 of assessed valuation. In addition, the project must pay its share of future improvement i-.-hick result at least partially from the project itself. Capital improvements are also funded by fixture fees, which would total about $1.5 million for the project. Central Sanitary District expansion.efforts include a renovation of the existing plant to upgrade the quality of treatment at a cost of $53 million. Al-so, the District is presently expending $12 million for a program to reclaim .30 million gallons of water daily. For these ongoing projects Federal and State contributions account for about 8So of the cost. There- fore, the District's share of the $65 mWion is about $10 million. The District hopes for, but cannot be assured of, such assistance for the future projects in the planning stages. Plans call for expansion of the capacity of the plant by 15 million gallons by 1976, to be followed by a second expansion of 15 million gallons by 1950. Costs are now estimated at $30 million for this total project.* • The project would be a major contributor to the growth which is the impetus for the above described capital investments. These expenditures are there- fore partially attributable to the project. Improvements will provide for *it is not known at this time when San Ramon Valley growth will necessitate a parallel trunk line connection between the valley and the treatment plant in the Martinez area. a 30 million gallon additional capacity and water reclamation and troat- ment at a District cost of $40 million or a per gallon capital investment of $1.33 for sewage treatment attributable to the project. The District estimates that the average generation of scieage is 100 gallons per person per da;-, but that 150 gallons is the engineered design capacity. Tile capital investment per person is thus $200, and for project 1840-RZ, $3.1 ,million. The project will cover costs necessary for sanitary services to be extended to the project through the payment of annexation and sewer trurnk fees. The project does not, however, generate sufficient revenue to offset the costs of district expansion through collection of fixture fees, falling short some $1.6 million.' Upon project completion the $.08 tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation would raise only $S3,900 per year to offset these costs, taking 30 years to make up this deficit. Thus monies from district opera- tingexpenses contributed by other users must be taken to make up this deficit. Since provision of sanitary services is user-oriented and since the developer will either advance much of the necessary district fees or pass then on to the project residents, it is logical to assign the total sanitary services development costs of $5,330,000 for the project directly to the users. With 4,S46 dwelling units, this comes to. $1,170 per dwelling in capital investment. ' WATER SERVICE The-bulk of the project is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBAUD) . Application has been made .to include project areas outside of the District bou7daries, but no decision on this applica- tion has yet been made. To be consistent with other analyses, the entire project is assumed to be -part of EBMUD in tYe future. .(However, if the District does not expand to include the entire property, the fiscal impacts would differ consider- ably) . At present EBMD has a property tax rate of $.159 and if extended to cover the project upon completion would yield annual tax revenue of $107,000 per year. Capital costs which are the responsibility of the District include those for pumping, storage and major transmission lines, however, the developer must advance 60% of this money. The developer pays for connecting lines, hydrants, and service installation as part of the project development costs, Where the development poses an unusual burden to the District, additional requirements may be imposed. The estimated costs of water service facilities below are order of magni- tude costs only and have been supplied by Gruen Gruen and Associates and modified by the County Planning Department.. 23 TABLE 10: NATER SERVICE TO THE PROJECT AT FULL DEVELOPMENT Component Number Unit Cost Total Reservoirs* 3 million gallons 2 $500,000 $1,000,000 S million gallons 1 750,000 750,000 Pumping Stations 3 100,000 300,000 Transmission line (feet) 31,000 75 2,325,000 4,375,000 *Eleven million gallon need based on 2,400 gallon capacity per housing unit. Sources: EBMUD, Gruen Gruen & Associates, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department EBMUD has four sources of revenue: water sales, property taxes, annexation fees and contributions by developers in aid of construction. 7h a project developer would have td contribute 60% c= the $4,Z75,000 in capital costs or $2,625,(100 -- this will eventually be refunr:ed. Annexation fees con- tribute toward the retraining capital costs and would be about $414,200 for the 2,071 acres requiring water service. Water sales and property tax revenues are applied both to operating costs and to capital costs and would result in about $350,000 and $200,000 in annual revenue, respectively, at full project completion. Thus the developer must advance $3,039,200 to EMM with the remaining to be -contributed by their other water use subscribers. Since all but the annexation fees paid b\• the developer will be refunded by EMMUD, the re- maining capital costs $3,960,S00 rust be borne by all of EBMUD water users until the appro�.'.mate $200,000 per year in revenue attributable to capital costs retires this principal. This would take at least 20 years. It can be assumed that the developer, in order to maintain a positive cash flow basis, will raise this cash advance from home purchasers in the pro- ject and so pass on costs of $3,039,200 over the 4,546 dwellings or 5670 per unit. The remaining $1,335,500_equals $300 per unit. This is almost $1,000 per unit in water service capital costs. SCHOOLS The provision of school services is the single most expensive government service provided for at the local level and one of the most complex finan- cially. The San Ramon Valley Unified School District, the school district encompassing the project site, has recently been beset by financial diffi- culties. These are mostly related to the need to purchase and construct necessary school sites and improvements for a rapidly growing school age population. . • Chapter I identified the number of school age children which the project is estimated to generate at full development. 95% of these school age 24 children will be assumed to attend the public school system and 5% private. The expected enrollment from the project at full development thus totals 4,686 pupils -- 1,981 at levels K-S; •1,224 in grade 6-8; 1,481 at the high school level. To accommodate these students, the School District will have to build and administer nes: schools. The following table estimates the number of schools and square feel of school space needs required by the project at full development. This information concerning school standards has been supplied by Gruen Gruen and Associates, the State of California Department of Education and the San"Ramon Valley Unified School District. TABLE 11: SCHOOL DISTRICT -FACILITIES NEED FOR THE PROJECT UPON COM11u.'rim School State Space District Standards Total Space Type of Students/ Standards Blackhawk Rmich Project Square Feet Needs School School Acreage A.D.A.* Schools Acres Per A.D.A. Square Feet K-S 650 10 1,981 3.0 30 SS 108,955 6-8 760 20 1,224 1.6 32 75 91,800 9-12 1,600 42 1,481 0.9 38 85 125,885 Total - •4,686 S.5 l60 326,640 Note: "A.D.A." means the number of pupils in average daily attendance. A.D.A. has been calculated as 950 of the potential maximum enrollment, Source: Gruen Gruen 8 Associates, State of. California Department of Education, San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. This space needs estimate can be multiplied by $35 per square foot, according to the Local Assistance Office of the State Department of Educa- tion, in order to calculate capital costs for buildings and other attendant costs. Land acquisition costs are calculated at about $6,000 per acre. Thus total capital costs to service the project with adequate schoolsites would amount to at least $12,032,400. The project proponent has stated an intent to dedicate one school site of ten acres to the school district. Also, if the recent discussions between the School District and County Board of Supervisors result in the enactment of a proposed bedroom tax requiring a dedication fee of $225 per bedroom after the first bedroom in any dwellin. unit, approximately $1,837,800 in additional revenue could accrue to the School District. However, the District would still be some $10,135,000 short in terns of required capital revenues. Capital impro•:ements for schools are generally financed by bonds, the issue of which must be approved by the district voters. (District voters turned down the most recent board issue for $8 million on March S, 1974) . The bonding capacity of a unified school district in California is set at 10% of assessed valuation. This being the case, Project 1840-RZ, estimated to have an assessed valuation of $67,381,100 upon completion, 2S :• would increase the School District's bonding capacity by $6,738,100. 'this' _is still $3,396,900 less than the net necessary capital needs. The fact that a substantial portion of these capital costs can be bonded does not mean that districtwide bonds for the project's schools will pass. This is an especially critical issue since many of these school facilities need to be made available as soon as the project begins con- struction but no project voters will be there to vote in favor of passage. The project does not generate enough bonding capacity-to support the provision of the school facilities which would be required even at ultimate development. Thus, it represents a potential liability to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRX'USD) in tei7s of its capital costs. The District has decided to rejoin the State Local Aid Building Program but must continually be bonded to capacity in order to remain. The availability of State loans for school construction does not, how- ever, diminish the over-all fiscal impact of the project, but merely transfers the burden from the local to the State level, thus shifting the subsidy of the project to a statewide basis. It should be brought out, however, that according to a State Department of Education official the State Aid would not have to be offered •if students (and their fami.- lies) were not migrating to areas like San Ramon from areas like Oakland, Concord, and Hay►iard where decreasing enrollments have created excess • classroom capacity. This migration has caused severe problems in many other areas throughout the state. Thus, the project falls a net of $10,135,000 and a gross of S12,032,400 short of meeting its capital facility requirements for the school dis- trict. While it can be argued that the provision of school service to California children is a statewide collective public good (e.g. Serrano- Priest decision) this is first of all only with regard to property tax based school district operating expenses and not capital requirements. The last State Local Aid Building Program Bonds that were passed state-. wide were tied to the 1933 Field Act requiring schools to meet the earthquake standards specified there. t't'ith excess classroom capacity in many school districts statewide it may be increasingly difficult to pass state bonds subsidizing school construction in rapidly growing areas. If the full amount of the capitLl requirements were transferred to the project developer and thence to the project residents, a fee of $2,650 per dwelling unit would be required. For the fiscal year 1973-74, the tax rate for the San Ramon Unified School District is $6.07 for operating revenues (a separate rate is used for capital debt retirement). With the $160 million assessed valuation of the District for the .fiscal year, that tax rate would produce $9.7 rillion in operating property tax revenues, or $837 for each of the 11,583 students presently in the. school system. ("This t does not take into account State per-capita pupil subventions or other related revenues) . 26 The e.,timated assessed valuation at 1973-74- dollars for the project is $67.4 million and the expected numb-,,r of students is 4,686. If the some tax rate is applied to the project, operating revenues of $4.1 million are generated, or about $875 per pupil. While this is margi- nally (4.S%) higher than present districtwi"de"per pupil property tax revenue, it is not of significant importance since it is all lumped into districtwide operating revenues. While the project does fall short of meeting its capital requirezients, it does appear to meet the present necessary level of districtwide operating expenses. ROADS Critical to the viability of any project, and especially this one, is the provision of necessary new roads ,and improvement of existing routes in order to provide necessary access for project residents. In the case of proposed project 1840-RZ, the public tomes necessary to pro- vide adequate road access for the project residents is considerable, totalling $8,215,500. This figure is based on projected traffic volume informatian origina ly prepared by John J. Forri: tal, Consulting Traf- fic Engineer, ani submitted in a report prepared for the project site by James A: Roberts Associates, Inc. , and received by the County Plan- ning Department on September 20, 1973. This material is shoum in Tables 12 and 13. • The County Department of Publi6 Works, based on the above traffic volume information and project phasing information submitted by the developer, prepared cost estimates for the "roadway improvements sig- nificantly attri'lutable to the proposed project. Table 14 shows the estimated trip end generation figures by phase for the various land uses proposed for the project site. About 71,000 annual trip ends are estimated for the total project upon completion with almost :0,000 trip ends or 56% attributable to the residential land uses. County Public Works has studied the improvements necessary to provide adequate road services to portions of the San Ramon Valley lying northerly of Crow Canyon Road and east of I-680 based on projects proposed for development. Table 15 shows only those necessary Val- ley improvements related to the proposed project. They total over $11.5 million, while the project comprises 71% or over $8.2 million in public costs. Table 16 illustrates the necessary costs for project related road improve- ments based on the phasing plan submitted by the developer. The pre-pro- ject costs-have been estimated at $1 ,670,000 and are comprised solely of the proposed Sycamore Valley Road Extension. The largest outla% for road improvements (based on the project's phasing and not necessarily in the order that might be required by actual road construction) would be over $2.5 million in Phase 4. Total cumulative road improvements would 27 • run about $8.2 million for the project, no matter how the project is, phased. SMMARY The public costs in current 1973-1974 dollars necessary to service this project are considerable and would require extensive subsidiza- tion of the project and its residents by various public and quasi- public agencies. Identifiable capital requirement costs attributable to the project amount to some $5.3 million for sewerage services, $4.4 million for water service, $12 million in school sites, buildings and other miscellaneous capital equipment and $8.2 million in road improve- ments. The great proportion of these costs, while directly assignable to the project and benefitted only by project residents, will not be paid for by them. They will be subsidized- by the many present users of these services who will be taxed not only to retire costs incurred for servicing themselves but will be taxed- to help pay for all or part of the costs associated with providing service to. the project. Annual property tax and user - revenues payable to most of these servicing agencies will, however, probably be sufficient to neer the operating expenses attributable to the project, but only after 1,roiect completion. This is due onl; to the fact that the amortizing of the attributable capital requirement costs are not included in the operating expense payments. • If they were, the project would also not be meeting its operating expensss. 29 (anOTl Arod) i ' uoTlotdtuo:) uodn 0o m h w o a N .4 1n V •o t- to 4o o 401 t-- M .9 cc u V u 4 x 4 a .d 00 « %Dtnmm %V0% t- Mm 0 %DN0t- 0 awnlOA '313 MM M y 4t0 4�f M •Q a v N d 4r1 M M a Q •�' •3: 1 a d -3ray 330[ox4l44 u •s" U a 0 0 .0 O $4 U $4 44 (moH xraa) ° a1 '' f-,c .1» •-4 VI •. OuMIOAate 0000000V0000O000000o , 4b •0 � ro Ira• •c3 G1 •ct M N tq O t-- -4 to V' V a 1n 00 G� M t+1 N a% -3ray paaaaC NVCOvvoOLnOaVt-- Oetht- NLn00r- 1` O •44 N d O O "4 4'4 . N .•4 i to u td .O -oad OGGT 0o cd M 41 WoumTo� OO1nOO C0 intn00000. 000 i > � N 4n Ln .-4 O O to O V v 4n O m cn V 1 1 V C V 1in ' 00�A18S a s Ln t- r- tl- 4n 4n Mt- M In 4.n a %0 a s C e O o- .O •rl Vf r. u ; W 4j .-1 rs Co 44 10 Q - - • •C7 W v •i +'j4j O u3pj�� 10 M - %lot %0 a - M - . - O t~ c1 14 aC zuawaArd 1 1 x 1 1 1 •a N N 1 00 00 0o O 00 1 a) r4 ro u VS a - - - NNN - •-441 .4N I I NN - 1 u N4-4 C , 4 W SuT3sjx3 o o le V a 0 o x 0 4v to 41 N N N N N N N 41) 010 H y .•� r-% U ;c to d td .'� M o .04 O O H • ••4 'r4 •.4 .�e > •.4 444 v rl a it7 N rJ a i� :a a tow u • -v 1 4y t3 u O O r•4 •.4 14 44 .0 10•� O .SC >. ro 4; O. •r% .-4 H t3 H 4J W -4 C4 4.4 . 1 3 a) 44 C& >. t; Y. 4^. O O U O 43 3 'tl 0A .4 Ott 14 u 4.1 O L:1 > >.••4 10 4J F to O b Cd .0 -O •-4 rS v 14 h >. 'Ij cl (=. •-4 4.1 .0 W O r•1 to O > a4 O0 .•4 u d 14 C • r3 N u O O IA [-• OG .0O H u O > C1 C ro .0 t3 r3 -O O rs p .4 .!4 14 >, t4 " 0 .0 C.�. H 1; O C� I a td 4s4•n U 2� •r, N 44 •r4 O rS 5 >.•44 0 0 U -410 U • N O o h r1 44 .4 U -4 • •,�4 V A O c1 U O M cJ r3 14 0 �c ce O In 3 ^ r3 of U c1 .0 () O 4� O .-t 1 w H N 1 O 14 O 0 Gl 0 0 0 k 'A 14 H P N 'tS > 4-4 td - U Cr :3 c -4 V t c3 N >1 r 41 td -0 O .41W I to •r1 ^• >� 1 U • HU C •nH n 0W u •vi N U } &4 .-4 CO I C4 0 :3 u U 'd C o 'O 4 4 r 7 1 'o E o -4 U r- 19 H .O V1 b .-4 V1 >>•-4 r3 u 00 9:4 U tr, a O = 'o O W Q >. ed to 'C3 ` >..0 VI en .-4 O H %0 b 'O V1 "O .D 41 r-4 r4 CJ U 4.1 ID Q •.4 cd C r 4 W CS c3 I el C4 S C C 3 y ."f• •.i u r-4 U O C 14 a1 r-4 Q f-+ M - ••-1 H > r1 QO O r 14 U •r4 > O rs - O .- 14 4 to .4 ca -O .14 ..4 1 1 >. >. t3 1.4 .� .] •r4 4 6 S U •r4 ,a .-4 r. 4� r1 1 1 14 O cd 44 C4 0 3 C +-1 N U 1 :�: N O r4 4j N 43 U O > td H > 44 O 14 VS W 44 Cl 14 r, t3 -S 14 r~ u O 41 N C14 O O O O •n 14 O O O O O U U -�4.4 0 0 4'4 00 a 00 00 0 O C .0 •� C L .0 r0 0O .14 n 0.N r3 r- -r-k 14 • 4 fA O a %D 0 U U NN ^'1 c3 U 4-1 N 3 = to J U 4J L) C V1 .0 O 14 O V1 Ft O v tn N u t3 to) (A O z In C3 •.•4 O 4a $4 4-j O Cd N CC C4 CS .4 14 rS O ••4 >%►-4 rJ cd 14 O c3 O .-+ J 41 O � O c3 QJ"4 0-4Nr4 ►-41- W0 W ZQNMW WUHMr4tl Q• • t t 41 x 4ON 4 � vEA 4� � tn Q V 4; ^'!. W y 3 'U O .4 O •� 4G17 'O ,• W W O 'O r4 V1 O O C u O -u W /�0 /fid lid •ryb 'U 'O q H > u .41-0 h O O > 1 t t t 'r O >• h t3 t . >, 3 O Cry C) N t3 >, b -d -D 0 -0 ro O O O j _0 U U O 14 r- u •.4 R .n 4n a .-4 4b 43 rs H cd to CL' Gf. C r. .4 .4 14 .4 •'4 4-_ .] 44 Q. y. >% O 0 t 0 O O O 40 O O O -4 .4 C) 4.1 > 14 •.4 -0 1~ 0 0 O 'L1 *a 'a -Ot� � � C .^'- 4. O C C = = rs S3 41 N VI 14 U 4J G U r-4 r4 CO 0 tb M r3 O O O > > ^. O •.4 U 41 C 14 = .. 4••4 .4 O O O O x .4 CS h r3 0 >. >. >. >. >. = x to C 0 r, O N Ib rs O 04: a x x S 14 14 14 14 C C C 4J 4•► U U U H u = •14 > a 4•4 > > H PS 7 0 w M d ed eJ M 14 14 14 $4 ..'4 W 0 O 0 .4 .4 .4 .4 . .3 c3 cs • -4 .. 04 .0 O U U .0 .0 .O .O u u A A 4n to 's c4 c.: r. 1:1 4D C3 O 0 O 0 0 O c1 7 0 L4 N N O O O O 7 u u cd H EQ-4 � 0anLD W GQ QGccco I- Ef+4F0000a, 0w :n Z • t 29 uoya*Tdwoo uodnco a+ as LA a N c .r aD n Il! o u!a1 0.4 M Ln .' 1 h+ a omnlOA 3T3 `tsM .► erlntrn �o �cwrNvweLn N� v' 1"�1 � I�i "'vM n � o °iF! -3921-3u� 330i0.>td p .c1 a u a (ano}! 190d) �1 p 4 r-%ani eumloA 3,10 zrccootnMCoa0 (DMaMLonM %Do � coioOvo f .G1+ "r m M .. M « LST 3 C N NCS aaNc0fl- OlN0 ottfwMLAc00oM •-1 'C3 O 10 H ... .•4 r r4 .-1 .-1 N ., >°'H 1 ami r .a M -oxd 0661u $4 til a M C0S x •u•1 p bb>, vi m . fit! 1`+ 41 p •-1 1~ U qac± N aulnlpA oom00000LnOacoo . coo r4+ � :* cs W to to -4 O 0 Ln to 0 .c1• Ln in G1 G'1 a / i a a a -4 U N td H p 83 A2�$ LO n n n n LnLl/1` t/1 Lntd o 4) a.0 c) o .- « - VI 10 N U 41�xA! a o v v a c o 1044 0 •,d 4+ 4j •-+ 3uaatoAli `o "1 ` .o a - M - - - - oo Wo a a k a d I l a 1 1 1 4,t c4 N 1 co coco0 0 0 1 u rlb 1r h Sut35 X• '� - NNN - 1-1 - 1 I 'NN - a VR41 e: •:1 P. � � Od aata c 0 KOOO4L >� NN 10 3vs p ed 04 M > O h1 a pNaR a - a :iu 'aoq r-e• .•i .at > •rt + • W N to M•.•e W p OC •"�� 'L! di 4+ 111 '� 1~.d tQ 4d U - pG oe a u o' C cs •'•1 CC 9-1 ri 3 0 bd s~ >.Ce; C x p O u O r3 e p V ao 4 •w•1 m V Hct >.W -o a > .M iJ -o V O r•V c3 O > .a4 td 0 .•d U eu 14 C h '1 G 0 N P ' AG ,p p hd uO ►* t:i C: 'O .sA p 7 O O .� Ad k is a 1 ti t'! Lb Pn u J L4 V Rid .H o C3 t; •P4 t 3 .n u V .-d 10 U 1r O O $ 4 d •-+ t:1 .-d • •r•1 O <L A O V V C3 O It $4 't3 3 = p N x O r3 "Uto to N N -t3 W-J > r♦ ,1 = H k I O 14 0 c4 ri G] v O O N I C3 .4 C4 O E .4 a 1 co k >, ci .0 N N •,-d O V td "Cf O .-%LQ 1 'U •n h >. 1 U i-- U C n rd 044 W to n 1:4 O cd U U 'O C: o O 1 1 n ci +-1 'tl E 0 -4 u O .-d N >,.-•t t; U W C4 U N O 4) .0 O O f. >. VS Va '.'� > >,.a N to •-d O F. .D to U r-d •-d O U N V V •.i N. t, .-1 U tU ty ! c3 C 3a :: �» 3 i3 •1 U +-d v O O f+ d w M E" c • t f-• > C3 = O O F $4 'u r4 > O h O IN "-1 tsS ., A 'CI 1 •: r-t >, >, ri k ++ •+I 3 O -H _0 .d tN eb i 1 k o cd 44 Cd U 3 s; 4•+ t+ U i .+ o .-d 4.+ IH Cl Cj ,✓ .> VJ ►d > 4.1 O 1•4 :% 44 44 C3 14 c3 to 1, r-. U O N Fd S o ao •nc+ o a o .: o o a -,wo a.cv cs u v, fl rl 00 G c4 do h C) C- .t: .-d E -,kg .a M O 00 V1 •n F+ •.•d to �. N %D 9 %Z� 0 U U 41 43 ,O m U 4J 4t 3 tis N %D V) '3 O 1,4 G• N O N U VI N c3 u c3 to to a O to C: .0 E •H a W H 41 O C4 M O w td c3 a •••t >.•-4 m c3 H O .t a : u N O O O O ii" wV) wr-tFWe�'W xC3V) Cat: 1.) UQr V) ►-+ O OCJ O Mt_ •u 11 it O � v a � ci ►] tn d A 4+ 4J 4d C1. S 'c3 -i O < u'� r1 b 2 > w u �°, � h eQb est e� *O "cs 'cr cts as .. M tx cc a b*o4u *ts -j o o a -j -j chi O h°d C u •4 r- .n 0 .- a. 1 ed to C% C3 r '1 4 C {' h 7 .-d H .04Q O 61 >. A Q • 4 O p p O O a a s •-1 Q 4' > k -H ;3 '•d d p a ". 'O '� 'O � .L' C C 0 to Va 1. U 41 U U .-1 +-1 to h ed c1 r3 ' .. oao > a o •H eluotrXI M M Wp id O O O .a� .:L C3 r 3 I n >1 >. >. >, a. V 1-1 td ed p -0 a a 3 3 14 $d :r C ^. dd N 0 � U � 14• > O F. `o > > oppooc .c �, �, UUU ao 44 U3 eu c u --1 .. -4 -4 ,4 .44 r r, s 3 - E ••1 "a b p U tJ .O O.0 .O . u u 0 to N N 3 1 x «0" .13E H ti o u m " 0 c3 t3 h 0 to n to Q O O pO O u E a N �H7WOCGGmpwoHt� E- E VfJtJO � N 0 z 30 m a m N N m .-1 �• vi M t10 0 o u VVI4 I 0 O � r•1 M �D N O M 01 et M O O N f�• •f] N N N tt .Ol 0 '. • .D N a•1 r•1 O N q• h t� '00 IA M O M %D %D td �D N t- Ln M M M h M 01 t` .r .-1 N In N ct N oo m oo O 9••4 O m m O • ° w w w w w w w w w w (, H .-I IJI N CI M ID r- M O O N r•1 to .•/ M � n ,O u N O Go co M m U) -0 %0 c! �D 1 % 1 N OD Ch n M 1N0 1 1 . 01 o M .•1 et .•1 N 1- e4 O a ° 0 r4 O 00 Oo so co Vr N 41 O 1` N O at t- .r cd M 1 140 %D 1• N 1 1 1 1 IA M CO %o Fa M N Ic '� ' 11, aci O u r V O co 0 a co 0o N %Db R. O M to Q1 N N N M o et 1 10 0 tT tt ai 1 1 1 1 tT qw h L'.1 bG A w w w n •4 M M �Oj .H1 IOn r4 M M V) F rn oo O O OI %0 to M V et o >, h M M •-t %D O 1 1\ N 1 N O t to M M .a Cl w w w w 4.J :3 •••1 �•-� 0 v1 n H N M O . x N H O •-1 0o 00 M 41 C Go O to M M 1` to u y N P'1 %D co 1 %D 1 1 1 1 N -H '7 • M N �D 'N •-4 t N h ^ P-4 t:4 1 W O A a oo Ion M c001 rn M e .c r tel p. .-I .-t In 1 1 t` 1 1 1 1 N to M M 4-j o ^ {� •� Ad 0L] M M •-1 . 1 to N 4HJ ' k rs O a .p•1'•r o 0 z fl •N M b h o O O O 410 <v O O Q1 Of •-1 M v) F--' 0 44 t:] ta0 m u ••••1 O f` to n M O an 06 .o 4+ r-4 O vi 4 In U. ^' o ^' n co u o 2 4 U 4J p � :a F+' 41 vs r— U G R K•1 N �• eti U N O •A •. •r4 •r•1 R W m 41 x M Ou. •HI � • 4 b V V V a s; t•J 10 4 ON � V V O V V V V 1~! V r 6 q5 $ to < < < < a o 'P4 v zW v w.+ Q cs W 00 fJ CS O N (7 h k tau td O A +S -r4 .-i "O W q U es w i+u .. H N ti i r4 u ° •° k Q. w V +.Vi lug o <F. a 0 0 C •.@1 to a V ••1 V r1 o N J F+ F' N O � •» ed •r4 4 y •.4 N ti O 1+ F > •C .er-1 N La. LL � Ea N W to Ci O F N tai W = V4 ••moi O b O •d •� u U W NN V V oVC O ° $ t t t') y O O OON1A O O vs p MAOOl 10 ha O V-4 V ea N M VN N . P4 N r4 H 4.1bN O 41 ted � n N � O N O .r O �N H O O h M N t+ 'O N 0 � a� E• ac w 0 CD. N 00 V V O OF-4 rd W 4 r1 O O O O w w w ww w O. a ri 4-1to O a .-t C to � �+ ... a o 0 0 0 �, o N n N a. w w w w .•� N V4 N M N .�-rt ^+ V v! y C SO .] �y ~Q N O A b •*1 to~. U O •.ter V-4 .c u o u m A v � �v q oe ap c" o y e `� � c% 'a �° CJ .A u ., Q O s Oa H ..i V N � o .OeCY° U : C a U .9 ' .0 d o A r- n, .o >p. u 0 r7 ....� .ti co H u O 0 0 O cd F. �G u 0.4 W Cd A •� N gn U 0 E . U to • —.-jU — P-4 V N 19 vs to O H 6W ag @ 3 Fs 0 U .L O O O v► O O O pp O M E+' "• V H H f i O H 41 LL6 td H O H O H Md H -a u a c� � 41 V-4 o -oma V w� 0 0 �y0 id c u v H O a � � N Yu~ v U o ,C qQQ 41 V U .tOr a rH7 O w o a H v 'u B rna U 32 Lob AS N N P4 P4 w w i► Vel p O Myu VMt N M• w N 0-4 ft P-4 so ?, 44O �-± O O . fit d N N 00 0 44M j3• w N 4! 09 00 to a to ii N t p d o o a g *t N M0 a a o ty p n w w a M .O 8 3 y y94 to 04 �o ' «+ 8 ie '° GO 9 Ix N M O N A. 1+ $ go a• a t7 a ••yyr .'►� a etf p' .w p�qq' N M tl o� •ai to et+ .O a M 4 N1 �o IN M N aeq VI ? V1 O a au r.a 31 oe O N U rt .M-) n V N in re • ,p u to t% a ~ `od uu � w e4 •N u+n O •:4.�N � 64 a •-e «3 0 «+ N •o �' ao o •rOi p u «+ u ..i rue w 0 > r- a f3 O W "�i {�yty 1+ 0 � Q•.•+V na 4 > toC4 k tj Q N h a a 'm b M N +�1 •-i R• N N V► Q, O .ed O f ` 04 N N u •� co" t Or.•� G lu t+ pa C P-4 fd u 009 C GOO O .0 U a N z M d d N h R: O' .•i C 44 Ci 3 pNp `vii fA O O K M 4 Vel y to G ,C 14 N fa! u � to a 9 : j " � '� o a a f '" Ou Ov, •.� > O Q t� A k oO a1•.4 O .moi •� W N V •4 A M i3 f F•� V rf �Oj a � N M �t t11 a 33 i, CHAPTER V: OPEN SPACE USE OF THE PROJECT PUBLIC COSTS AND REVENUES The purpose of this chapter is to explore some of the assessment and tax revenue issues surrounding retention of all or part of the pro- ject land for various open space use. The open space costs are based on data stq)plied by the developer and the Contra. Costa County Assessor's records. At times this chapter delves into the area of current assessment prac- tices utilized by County assessors and contrasts these figures to the current land value. State regulations preclude County assessors from being able to continually review and substantially change the assess- ment of large parcels of vacant land unless deed transfer of sizable portions of that or nearby land have been transacted. If a lengthy span of time has occurred since the date of last reassesLment on a large parcel of land, a large gap could well exist between the current market value of the land according to assessment and that of a recent purchase price. 1973-1974 vs. POSSIBLE 1974-1975 MARKET VALUE The Assessor has placed a market value of $2.8 million for the current 1973-1974 tax year on the land only, within the project,• a figure con- . siderably less than the $4.8 million purchase price that the developer asserts was paid for the 4,775.69 acre project site. Assessors have historically and by law used the sales price of large land holdings as the new basis for raising the assessment of those ° lands. In the case of the project, it would appear that the assumed purchase price of $4.8 million would approximate the market value placed on the land Burin;., the 1974-1975 tax year. This being the case, it could be expecte•1 that the tax revenues from the project land would rise from the present $90,000 to about $154,000. This would also serve to substantiate $4.8 million as the current value of the project site. Further increase in ranch land values could be due to a combina- tion (.f the following factors: (1) continued price inflation of com- modities and resources, (2) higher speculative land value if the land is rezoned for development as proposed, and (3) imputed.investment return on the land as a commodity. It however, within the realm of possibility that the speculative value of the ranch lands could be decreased if the proposed rezoning does not take place. PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CONTRACT One of the land use alternatives to the project is that of the project proponents placing all or most of the project site into a Williamson Act Agricultural Preserves Agreement with the County. This could be a viable project alternative if the present rezoning application is M denied or if the project scope is revised- to include some type of per- manent agricultural operation. . 34 According to information obtained from the County Assessor's Office, project "land values" could drop to $334,320 in current 173-1974 dollars if the project site were covered by an agricultural preserve agreement. Thus, property tax revenue would be reduced to only $10,700 per year, a reduction of about $80,000 from its current 1973-1974 level and about $145,000 less than estimated 1974-1975 revenues. this annual loss in tax revenue is, however, minimal when compared to the nearly $30 million in capital requirements needed to extend urban services to the project. ($30 million is an investment of 207 years' tax return at $145,000 per year.) PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: PUBLIC O NERSHIP . Another lani use alternative to the proposed project is that of pur- chase of the project site for public ownership and perpetual open space. Table 17 was preparad based on data .supplied by the project developer concerning the asserted $4.8 million• site purchase price, and records of the County Assessor's'Office for the 1973-1974 tax year. All or portions of the project could be considered for public purchase with the resultant alternative of a smaller or no project. The present project proposal includes an offer by the developer to dedi- cate 950acres of land as additions to eft. Diablo State Park if the pro- ject is approved as proposed. This is•hilly, uidevelopable land and carries an average market value of about $500 )er acre, for a total of $475,000.* The tax revenue impact of placing these undevelopable acres into the State Park System is minimal, however, since only $15,3^0 yearly would be .lost in revenue to all agencies and only $3,400 to the County General Fund. Purch,-se of the entire project for public ownership would mean the outlay of at least $4.8 million for site acquisition and an annual loss in property tax revenue of about $154,000. Howeve•r, this loss is mini- mized when it is taken into consideration that many of the districts now providing service to the undeveloped project lands would no longer be required to do so and the small loss in revenue would have little impact on their budget. The revenue loss to the County General F-.n d would be only $34,000 annually or only $7 per acre. To'oversimplify a complex situation in order to makes a point, acquisition of the site at $4.8 million urould save the $30 million in public investment neces- sary to actualize the project. ** *These lands include parcels 194-060-02; 1b4-090-01, 03, 04, 05; 203-100-04 and portions of parcels 203-090-08, 10 and 203-100-03. A current inflated figure for a 1965 sale of comparable lands to the State Park give $522 per acre. **Purchase of the entire site is not, however, the only action that could • be taken to minimize an adverse economic impact on the public pocketbook. Purchase of some 2,000 acres of.land most potentially developable Mould, for example, virtually obviate the project •with the remaining, 2,800 or so acres continuing to be held by the owner for. agricultural use. This could considerably lower acquisition costs for public ownership. 3S IAM 1/: MAKIIL•1' VALUL' UP I'KWI:VI 154U-K6 Id1NW IM W UN INIVIM4%IIUM SUPPLIED BY THE PROPONENT AND EXTRAPOLATION OF 1973-1974 ASSESSOR'S MARKET VALUE ' Assessor's Per Acre Total Parcel Cash Cash • Number Acreage Value Value 194-060-02 209.47 4 542 $ 113,445 194-090-01 70.00 544 38,102 194-090-03 60.92 908 55,351 194-090-04 6.50 905 5,880 194-090-05 38.20 903 34,496 203-020-06 363.93 1,100 400,323 203-020-07 2.10 1,811 3,803 203-020-08 100.50 .207 20,804 203-030-07 85.64 495 38,966 203-040-07 227.09 2,455 557,306 203-040-08 34.81 1,857 64,642 203-040-09 10.00 6,080 60,800 203-040-10 187.12 566 105'910 203-040-11 222.28 2,227 495,018 203-050-13 32.30 1,659 53,553 203-050-14 127.70 1,656 211,471 203-050-26 20.00 4,000 80,000 , 203-050-49 25.67 4,000 102,680 • 203-060-01 28.48 637 18,142 203-060-02 16.52 631 10,424 203-070-01 120.00 907 108,840 203-070-03 1.17 2,312 2,705 203-OPO-01 305.75 911 , 278,538 203-080-02 19.09 908 17,334 203-080-03 10.28 908 9,334 203-080-05 417.43 1,309 546,416 203-080-06 212.29 727 154,35 203-090-08 112.24 396' 44,447 203-090-10 269.85 447 120,623 203-100-03 280.00 288 80,640 203-100-04 160.00 363 58,094 203-100-08 80.00 363 29,047 203-120-01 480.00 355 170,400 203-130-01 244.00 1,823 444,812 215-080-03 31.19 2,314 72,174 215-080-04 163.17 1,398 228,112 • TOTAL 4,775.69 $1,013 $4,837,167 Source: Project Developer, Contra Costa County'Assessor's Office. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. 36 • SUMARY There exist two open space alternatives for the project as proposed: (1) retention of all or part of the project site in agricultural use or placement into a Williamson Agricultural Preserve Agreement with the County, and (2) purchase or dedication of all or part of the site for public ownership. Placement of the project in an Agricultural Pre- serve category would reduce the property tax revenue currently paid by the project but would obviate the County and other public entities from having to make a nearly $30 million investment to actualize the project. Purchase or dedication of all or part of the project for public owner- ship would involve the expenditure of at least $4.8 million for site purchase, an annual loss in County General Fund revenues of $34,000 but obviate $30 million in public improvement costs. (This would be a positive benefit to cost ratio of better than 6 to 1 for the public purchase alternative.) ' t 37 • ©IAPTER VI: PROJECT PHASING--PUBLIC COST AND REVENUE FLOW •� As currently proposed by the developer, the project would be built over a 12 to 15 year period. A 12 year phasing plan was submitted by the deve- loper for use by Gruen Gruen and Associates., and it is this plan that has been followed in computing the flow of property taxes to offset thO public outlays. Table 18 shoes how the annual property tax revenue varied at the end of each phase of the proposed project. The.amount of annual property tax revenue to the school district for opera- ting expenses would be about $4,090,700 per year upon project completion and about $610,500 per year toward retirement of pre-existing school bond debt: However, this amount of revenue will not be flowing to the school district during the initial project phases but only upon project comple- tion. Table 19 quantifies school demand generated by the project during each 2 year phase. Table 19 points out that while a small' number of students from the project * could be bussed to other district schools during the initial phase, this overload (and possible double sessions) could not last long. Allowance of a 2 year lead time for the district to build the necessary facilities is made. Table 20A shows the necessary operating expenses to service the project school children during each phase. The necessary capital expen- ditures are shown in Table 20B one phase early :.ince monies or a bond • issue need to be made available ahead of housin- ne•.-d in order to prevent a serious school facilities overload. Unfortunately, this is also ahead of large-scale property tax revenue from the project. Based on the information shown in Table 20A it can be seen that during each of the project phases sufficient property ta;. revenue will be avail- able' from the project to cover district operating expenses for project school children. By project completion, a net operating surplus is seen; ::owever, this surplus cannot be credited back to the project or neces- sarily applied to retire capital debt since all district revenues are simply part of one large revenue pool. Table 20B examines the capital expenditures that would be faced by the • San Ramon Valley Unified School District in building the required school facilities to house the school children generated by the project. A total of over $12 million in capital costs would be needed by project completion, while only $610,S00 would be raised in property tax bonded indebtedness revenue by project completion. These revenues, in fact, would be used to retire earlier districtwide bonds since no bonds could be passed to house 1840-RZ children without i two-thirds approval of all district voters. Dedication of one elementary school site, as promised by the developer, plus compliance with the school district's bedroom tax revenue program would still leave the district over $10 millioi: short in meeting pro- ject capital requirements. These monies ►;ould 'i�eed to be raised and could be either through a bond issue or by a .special levy on the project residents. 38 Table 21 details the costs necessary to provide sanitary services to the Sproject site. A total of over $4.4 million must be invested in order to fully serve the project at ultimate development. Revenues of the district will, however, be some $1.4 million short at the end of Phase 6 when the project is complete. These additional monies wlil have to conic from other sanitary services subscribers or through special levies and/or higher tax rates applied to project residents. Table 22 shows a flow of funds analysis for the project with regard to County General Fund expenditures. This table does not include operating and capital expenses from the general fund to service project residents since these figures could not at this point be calculated exactly, except for significant road improvement costs which are shown in Table 16. The provision of water to the project is obviously a necessity if it is to actualize. In this case, if the projec*. were entirely within the water district, which it is not at present, the developer would be re- quired to advance 600 of the capital costs as•shown in Tat•le 23. These dollars will, however, eventually be refunded. Nearly $4 million in capital expenses must be borne by all -East Bay Municipal Utility District users to bring the project to full development. Even at full development the project will only generate some $200,000 toward capital cost retire- ment, leaving an additional 20 years to pay back this subsidy. SUMARY The preceding information has focused on the public and quasi-public costs associated with the development of proposed project 1830-RZ. MA le these figure% are particularly applicable to this project, the methodology used to derive them .can be used for analyzing other costs associated with areas of development requiring the extension of new public service infrastruc- ture. New residential growth in areas not previously developed does not usually raise sufficient revenues to fully pay for the capital costs requires. Subsidies by the general public and by users of quasi-public services like sewers and water• are required from early project construc- tion through ultimate development and for many years after. The large capital investments presently required to actualize projects must be considered in 'the light of diminishing public-economic resources and the need for additional residential services. The phasing and loca- tion of such growth is the key issue here since this must• be discussed with regard to the minimizing of adverse economic and taxation impacts. In the case of project 1840-RZ, Table 24 illustrates that the approval of this project would require almost $13,000 per dwelling unit in pub- lic gubsidies to actualize the project's first two-year phase. This is a conservative estimate since many local service costs which could not be easily quantified here were not included in that figure. Thus the true dollar cost per dwelling unit that must be advanced to initially actualize this'project is upwards of $13,000, a figure more or less applicable to other similar projects requiring the construction of ex- tensive new infrastructure. MM a Table 24 docs show the Ler dwelling • subsidX decreasing, to only 54,340 at project completion, the total dol- lar subsidy has risen from S•1.8 million at project start to nearly $20 million at ultimate development. , 39 • The issue with regard to new residential construction, particularly in areas not previously developed, thus concentrates on the amount of resi- dential growth the general public can afford or should be o:.ligated "to buy". 40 O N Y LALn %DaN %a O V V C1 tp1 N M V %D O Q.19G w w w w w O Q �N el %0 t- 00 H U bN %Otlo0r-1 ai M .4t- MMco O N V V Mri0N1M a v, > �r,0MvLn -.0 ' W U a A� U N V .••1 •b-1 tl O Ntl'1 to N U •rl W "4 O ty hNt` .4Mto W H ti $4 p.t �J w w w w w w y a .Lr y H Nr� MCAtn r4 0-4NN N h ••• r4 44LL. •C1 O - O r-4 r4 M TiMO V Ct •5 lid V NI.I ltd a 7• N Ln 0 V) to -q N 't O 00 r♦ ed 1 .-/ d p� w,1 r�w w w r-1 w to 'r1 r-t N'O Ch let� .r 1-1 •ri y+ 6 9: r•1 . •i � u r•�/ i•t N tl M 01 to fV CO rl u CA rl V H O O C r 1 .-1 M O O t+1 tl ;f O A VI O C1 •-•1 r-4 rl to VI vida�yy t N • Q h to ot: u7 towwO 'u V O t•+ � VI U O t•J O •04 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 4 4) • re a V •rl N to M to U1 O O O to E ►r 0 V N U E M V •rl %D .-1 Vr r-1 O O U r•1 •re > V o CO! r-i r NNMtl �! O 9 Cd LL. O .rl �N 0 o G h N u v) �4 V R. rC u u •ri V O. H U cd M 4) ..7 u cd W r-1 O U a7 aw �+ UA 8 Mw W'v u C. C5 M M c7 fr W w C V6� yh-AV) P-4 o ri N t- Ql Ql N P. �.•ri Ln O OiM GO .- Mt70O N , 1 ♦I t01 .rl M M M n ao @•.-1 WM+ E `D •-1 •-c ed > E cr♦S u 00 OO to M N O R. 'rr O 0. H H I I M M IM O r-1 U WO 1.4 U V C1 C1 C1 r-1 4#11), N N 1-I 41 v-4 W C Vt .`� b K GU h N V R. U O •4 01 0 EC`- .U O V N O C rr -ri VI 4.1 O R. �y {+ V 41 W O 'r/0 -4 •-1 N M -�u to U � tA W a O x 0 O LLI u cd N 1•4. U O > •.+ oln0tn00 u to 0v > U) w 0 •r4 A U N N to M M to " --1 N r-1 td 3 E-• r O to O tl tl m O W Ad O H I X c3 li w w w w w w 3 1+ r'1 N D ►-1 �D In r q V DIP " N V �D C1 O N N M O M e0 N .1 o .-•i v M .-1 M 00 r, In 0 .11 M -A N %0 .400Nto c0 N X O O O OM NMOltlt- O A ul N •� r-i N NX O H V I w w w 03 x lL O U IrY�. N tu3V V w E �L r4r1 •1 oo n U A a a A A C n .a 00 N tip b b � uul 'ty ..l u a u .. V a d a N a. to u a �+ .00 � NMQMO u uy1 O N 6 :P- Cd ••fNFnvNlD O kF+ N no N4 ` u3 Q. I"! N A. Z to G. r/ N 41 TABLE 20A: PROJECT 1840-RZ PHASING--SCH00L DISTRICT•OPERATING EXPENSES 2 Year District Project Property Operating Surplus Per Phase Operating Expense Tax Revenue Surplus Dwelling Unit 1 $ 394,200 $ 451,100 $ 56,900 153 2 1,063,800 1,111,700 47;900 43 3 1,846,400 2,014,100 167,700 84 4 2,839,900 2,976,900 137•,000 42 5 3,476,100 3,602,400 126,300 32 6 3,922,200 4,090,700 168,500 37 Source: Gruen Gruen $ Associates; State of California Department of Education; San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. TABLE 20B: PROJECT 1840••'4Z PHASING--SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES* Project Property Capital Deficit 2 Year Gross District Tax Bonded In- Capital Per Dwelling Phase Capital Rcquirements debtedness Revenue Deficit L'nit 1 $ 1;197,700 $ 67,300 $ 1,130,400 $3,039 2 3,333,500 165,900 3,167,600 2,854 3 5,911,700 300,600 5,611,100 2,814 4 8,822,800 444,200 8,378,600 2,565 S 10,753,000 537,600 10,215,400 2,575 6 12,032,400 610,S00 11,421,SJ0 2,512 *Bedroom tax revenue is not counted here; however, if it were considered, than about $1 .8 million in ultimate additional capital revenue would be forthcoming from the project. Source: Gruen Gruen 4 Associates; State of California Department of Education; San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. 42 w ry •A e« svn a e�"•� tJ +-v M H N N a O M 0 ' w. d •,4 W tt tit3 et �D tX3 }0 W w V-4 N Oar � co Q+ aG M �T et M el M w w w w w w w V-4 r1 H r•l r 1 •+f w•t v O O 0 0 O 0 1R 0 w 53 ow o '.4a0 00 •ry w w w w w H O 0r•1 M M 00 a m �1 & N •-4 M M M .-4 M Y Y} J•i w w i u a4J (n to H t� t 41 > •r4 w 41 41 0 0 0 0 a ►.� ro AOi K cri .`no n N by t?Oi ani er' 'j to w w w w w t A 0-4129 41 000 iM9 -t N Nom! e► tn r! N P O 04 • a„ # Ei K %0 N Lnho• oo O V-9 V•r1 YG oo %D M O %D h co N ��.► Q•COir, V V %D +O 00 t+0 •7 tin W to {� V > to ...t M tiQ mr�1 .MO -1 CJ d v c` g'a t`'• `"' ro p k 0 a .r4 a i ,ou 0 c0.2 a ooa 0 V W h M O M h O •w r•1 d r•i d O N 0 u3 to t70 o G L3» H at > F+ O N .D to h a 0 1•a >. +-+ N O O w M .G O M N ct} + •r1 j•1 U U) c`oi e w a "' 0 t , a N u� a w tea+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 �° 43 0p 0 O b a C' N fU p «r• B u to -4 O o at N N N e3 N i+ sn v u3 h t771 h et i9 0 040 no T: Y. V! N N M et et QOI tO.i t3 0 iti t7 .O 10 64 .-� N M .r i/► tCi N a U) Ate» 43 TANLC 22: PROs= RL•VENUES TO Tl1E COU.nyl Property Tax Motor Vehicle2 Sales Taxa .Ilighway Uscrs4 Total • Phase Revenues In Licit Fees Revenues Gas Tax Revenues Revenues , 1 210,270 $ 10,290 10,620 = I3,460 $ 244,640 2 518,230 29,180 30,120 38,150 615,630 3 938,900 51,490 53,150 67,320 1,110,S60 4 1,387,660 81,480 84,100 106,520 1,659,760 5 1,679,270 99,390 1O2,Si10 129,940 2,011,190 6 1,906,900 112,670 116,300 147,300 2,283,170 (This assumes that the project phasing scliedulc as advanced by tFie developer will be followed and that the following population will be living at the project at the end of each phase: Phase l 1,406 Phase 3 7,034 Phase S 13,578 Phase 2 3,986 Phase 4 11,131 Phase 6 15,392 2A 1973-1974 per capita figure of $7.32 for Streets and Highways Sections 2104 and 2106 revenues was used even though recent trends show a marked reduction. 3Per capita sales tax revenues are approximately $7.56. This figure tines the pro- ject's resident population has been used to calculate sales tax revenues at the end of each phase attributable to the spending patterns of,project residents. 4A 1973-1974 per capita figure of $9.5.7 for Streets and Highways Sections 2104 and 2106 revenues was used even though recent trends show a marked reduction. ----------••--------------------------------------- ---------------------- NOTE: If road- improvements attributable to this project were to come from all revenues indicated above, then the follo;:ins deficits would occur at the end of each phase if revenues from the- project were the sole source of • applicable funding: Phase 1 $1,917,360 Phase 3 $4,188,140 Phase S SS,068,810 Phase 2 $2,159,320 Phase 1 $4,693,240 Phase 6 $5,932,330 The subsidy on a per dwelling unit basis would then be the following: Phase 1 $5,154 Phase 3 $2,100 Phase S $1,278 Phase 2 $1,945 Phase 4 $1,437 Phase 6 $1,305 However, present county policy limits the construction of road project funding to revemics derived from the Users 'Pax Revenues. Based on these applical>le revenues only, the subsidies during each project phase would become the follow75- : Phase 1 $2,148,540 Phase 3 $5,231,680 Phase S $6,950,060 Phase 2 $2,736,850 Phase 4 $6,246,480 Phase 6 $8,06S,200 • The subsidy on a per dwelling unit basis would then be the following: Phase 1 $5,776 Phase 3 $2,624 Phase S $1,752 ' Phase 2 $2,466 Phase 4 $1,912 Phase 6 $1,775 Source: James A Roberts & Associates Report to County Planning Department on Project 18.10-IiZ, September 1973; Gruen Gruen & Associates; Contra Costa County Uepartmcnt of Public Yorks; Contra Costa County Planning Department. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Departmeq. 44 • 41 4il u 0 u o Ln q* o 1, 000 � w w w w w w •�4d C h to O %O tf p p, q M O N N 'N-1 4 41 t w w w w w H to Cd �••� r^1 rl r1 r-� be c3 N H N td O ,� Cs. a7 N to 4 '""t .-I � .�+ yt 1 N O O O O O O E ' � O a E-• O O +n to %0 1- M O a Er-4 O ri H U to r-1 Ol h r4 O H •r.4 N U w w w w Ln Of M fn i-4 a 'cd 0 cd M 00 Lf) 000 M h O 9-4 O a E a Ln C H U C 4J r4 r-4 N .� O rC to to N d A+ a •H 03, 41 w +J C c3 N N O > N C 'b H Qom. O cS H fJ cdCpU a � U c cd H >, a o •� +' C r4 9 U 4J -4 a a rl O u N d oU H N H ano O w .r O O O 0 O 0 O b to h M tA ,On a cd N N N N N N � O C O O y .r .D R. rn -4 .i r•, -4 .•I .-t c3 O HN H w ccl H U � to 44 VC C C 3 A W •r+ x 41 b rul .00 41 4) O > C U q O H > {Or d� v a O u W rri N V b 0 Cd • r 0 a ' Cd a ..� ~ p cd H U C Cd v +jI.O.V -r4 -4 p c: ed 41 a O u rCI H wCIS 1 V u 'a h •0 .a a w ¢ ai0 Cd in C ~1+ j4 � o HPU 4j b cH to i t O C a r� a y CLO o O W td -4 -4 a '0 o 0 o O ai + H 4 H 4 A � U 1-4 a d > o a o 0 0 o a cd a � .14 9 O 0 •r1 O W N M M to M M O N s~ a• 3 C.-4 a 11 %O N N N N .0 O O a Cd4J 1-4 tW b >1 U • 4 H N N %O �D �O rV N .�L u u H H -4G. a ,O a •-t N N N N N o•-t d O r„t C b O A9 dccS O H r1 C7 4JH ra•I H CD - to .+ O I CL > co H E U Imo• J) 0 �+. A a v u mar u V rn N z >` u +� H cs ° C O w 'd o •o o O O0 4-3 %0 10 v ba -+ :3 - U d O O O O O O NO 1; a r-4 C ;Z G wO ty r[.r /d 1n O O O O O H O t: cd � 0 N r4.+J t/) w w w w w w a s O O � •rl N N M U9 In M M C .� W H 3 H C CY Ar H O $ N r-4 rl r- f� f� 1� N +1 a L3. O r1 Oa a V U O f` M M M M 4-4 C H C 0 (A '� > r-/ +! y U w N M IV V 14 Q O c3 00 r- N a• rc .3 U >. N b 4J u O R7 N E = •D M aa1 o w to a H tn •O N F+ V es 0 � ' a >- Cd ••� N M v V[ %O ~ .L dul > F p 0 4J 96 0 45 TABLE 24: CUMULATIVE ATTRIBUTABLE CAPITAL DEFICITS, PROJECT 1840-RZ• 2 Year Capital Deficit Per Phase Deficit D►velling Unit r 1 $ 4,767,760* $12,820 2 7,731,420 6,970 3 12,399,310 6,220 4 15,564,510 4,760 S 17,722,220 4,470 6 19,729,830• 4,340 *Includes pre-project costs of $1;670,000 for the Sycamore Valley Road Extension. Source: Blackhawk Development Company; Gruen Gruen & Associates; James A. Roberts & Associates; East Bay Municipal Utility District; State - > of California Department of Education; San Ramon Valley Unified School District; Contra Costa County Department of Public Works; Contra Costa County Planning Depart- ment. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. 46 This report was prepared by the Contra Costa County Planning Department. Anthony A. Dehaesus, AIP, Director of Planning Charles A. Zahn, AIP, Chief, Advance Planning Division Harlan L. Wenkin, AIP, Planning Economist ECONOMIC SUPPLEMENT APPLICATION 1840-RZ ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT REPORT FINAL DRAFT x -- EXHIBIT #3 • Prepared by BLACKHnt•-1': F2::=kL E.I.R. TM: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLAN'NING DEPARTME11T • Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning flay '2$. 1974 ; FOREWORD In response to the questions raised concerning the Preliminary Draft of the Economic Supplement, Chapters IV and VI have been substantially re- drafted. Other sections have had minor revisions, but the major findings still stand. TABLE OF.CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 CHAPTER II PROJECT-SERVING EMPLOYMENT BASE 12 CHAPTER III PROJECT-RELATED TAX REVENUE 15 CHAPTER IV PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COSTS 20 CHAPTER V OPEN SPACE USE OF THE PROJECT 37 CHAPTER VI PROJECT PHASING--PUBLIC COST AND REVENUE FLOW 41 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE • Ibis supplement was prepared by the Contra Costa County Planning Department to increase the coverage of economics subject matter in the Environmental Impact Report for project 1840-RZ. Preceding economics studies done for the project left unanswered some questions on the population that the project's housing is to serve, the creation of jobs, and, most importantly, the relationships between the creation of public costs and the flow of tax/fee revenues from the project to the agencies and districts serving it. These subjects are covered here in their order of mention. With respect to the matter of the relationship between the public . costs incurred by a project and the off-setting revenues it may generate, traditional approaches to economic analysis provide inade- quate information for decision making because of the following weak- nesses: 1. They neglect to attribute (pro-rate) costs of existing public facilities and installations to the project; e.g.-, the cost "share" of existing sewage treatnfent plant capacity absorbed by the project or that of new plants required. • 2. lbey often neglect to account for the costs of precipitating major off-site public installations; e.g. , road improvements to. serve a wider area but necessitated by the project. 3. They neglect to account for the costs of the "gap" or "lag" between the time that public costs are incurred and revenues from the project are realized; e.g. , the point when a new school facility must be built and the time (if ever) when the project is sufficiently built-up to cover it. This report covers aspects of all three of the above, but only to the extent that this was practical under limits of time and readily avail- able information. Also, it was obviously beyond the scope of this supplementary investigation to develop a new and thoroughly definitive analytical system. Despite those limitations, however, the report provides insights into the economic context of project 1840-RZ. Significantly, the report finds that a large public "subsidy" in the forms of services and capital investments is required at the onset of the project and, although the amount in per-housing unit terms is substantially reduced by project. completion, the project still does not "pay for itself' at initial full development. In other words, even at full development revenues from taxes, fees, and utility charges must be supplemented by • revenues from older developments and other land uses to provide the funds for necessary roads, utilities, and schools. 1 • • This subsidy situation is hardly unique with project 1840-RZ, in fact, the subsidy amount per housing unit might well be greater for projects with lower value housing. Probably, project 1840-RZ has higher, or at least more identifiable,. facility costs because • of semi-isolated location. Certainly, its magnitude means that a large public investment must be made in• the near future if the pro- ject is approved, and this aspect is critical. The question is how much of a financial burden the taxpayer (or service customer) can or should be obligated to take on for a privately initiated project? ANALYTIC FRMIEh'ORK The economic analysis of a major development project must consider many areas of impact. While many of these impacts are not purely economic, but they do however, have their base in a population profile of project residents and those of the surrounding community. 'Phis profile relates heavily to the price and type of housing being offered and to its location within the surrounding community and the region. These characteristics help in predicting many of the project residents public service needs. A determination of these needs allows comparison of public service costs to that of revenue that could be generated by the project. A project, however, cannot be examined in a vacuum, since its area of impact can be considerable.. There are two types of public services that could be demanded by a project, those financed directly through general property tax reve- nue and those paid for additionally by user charges or fees. The ' most 'expensive of these services associated with a residential pro- ject are most often roads, schools, sewers and water service. These are provided by the County or a special 6.istrict created solely to • provide this service and are considered public or quasi-public as the case may be. ' An examination of these services and their actual' costs relative to revenues generated by the project are made in the following text of this Supplement. ASSMIPTIONS The analyses in this report are based on the following set of assump- tions unless otherwise noted: 1. Already established public and quasi-public entities such as those providing sewers, water, schools and roads, will continue to per- form their service functions (tax rate limitation legislation could however, impact public service agencies' ability to respond to necessary service demands). 2. The State School. Building Aid fund will continue to make funds available to public school districts on the same basis as it has in the past (this hinges on voters continuing to pass statewide ' bond issues for school construction) . • 3. Local practices realting to financing of public services will con- tine into the future (limitation on methods of financing extension 2 of public services into new growth areas could constrain develop- sent potential)'. ' 4. Where bonding of capital facilities is required, it is assumed that bond issues will be approved by the voters (passage of all types of civic bond issues, especially that for school districts, has become increasingly more difficult and could limit construc- tion of capital facilities) . . S. Project specifications, timing and scale of development are taken from application materials submitted by the developer (these are subject to change in the course of the review process and market conditions may cause variation in project specifications) . 6. Revenue, expenditure and capital requirement figures are all cal- culated in constant 1974 dollars (availability of grant programs or lack of them, to fund specific improvements could alter the base costs figures) . If the above premises are substantially violated, such of the economic analyses found in this Supplement would, of course, be substantially altered. FINDINGS 1. The project proposes to house an additional 15,400 new persons in the San Ramon Valley in 4,546 dwelling units averaging $56,000 on • 4,776 acres of land over q 12 year period. Only 1,225 acres would be for residential use giving a density of 3.7 units per acre. 2. Project residents will create a demand.for basic population-serving needs, notably grocery and drug shopping and medical and dental needs. Other commercial uses are proposed for the site; virtually all but a handful of professional jobs will not be geared for pro- Jett residents since the salaries paid could be considerably below that required to purchase a dwelling in the project. Work-related commuting will thus not be minimized. 3. Tax revenue that could be generated by the project at full develop- ment would approximate $9 million. This would be' split between fifiteen different local taxing jurisdictions (as they are now constituted) with the school district and the County receiving the bulk, with $4.7 million and $2.3 million in revenues, respec- tively. 4. The project is not now within the boundaries of the present service area of the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary Services District. If extension of sanitary sewer services were Cade to the project, a requirement of $3.7 million in local capital costs and $6.2 million total •capital costs would be attendant. This is from $800 to $1,370 per proposed dwelling unit. S. The project is now partially within the boundaries of the East Say Municipal Utility District. If water service were, however, extended to cover the project, about $4.4 million in capital costs would be required. This is about $1,000 per proposed dwelling unit. 6. The project lies entirely within the boundaries of the San Ramon Valley Unified- School District and would require the expenditure ' of at least $10 million in net capital costs. Gross capital costs would run about $12 million. While much of these capital expenditures could be paid by State Building Aid Bond Act cronies the school district must continually pass bond issues in order to qualify for this aid. Kon-passage of these bonds would force double (or triple) sessions and more local support of school facility development. Gross capital costs for schools to service project resi- dents would run $2,650 per dwelling unit. The project due to recent legislative mandates should provide operating expenses sufficient to maintain the level of educational services now prevalent in the school district after all necessary capital costs are net and neither provide surplus or deficit revenues. 7. The County Public Works Department has estimated that $8.2 million in road improvements would be necessary to provide an adequate . road systen for the project residents. . This is about S1,810 per project dwelling unit. S. Capital costs for necessary sewer, water, school and road services for the project could run to $30 million or $6,600 per dwelling unit. This figure could well be higher if capital costs for fire, police, and other miscellaneous public service are con- sidered. 9. 1973-1974 market value of the unimproved lands on the project total $2.8 million and are presently producing about 590,000 in tax reve- nue for all taxing jurisdictions covering the area. 1974-1975 market value could conceivably be $4.8 million, based on a higher • presumed price paid for the land by the project proponents. This • would raise current tax revenues to about $154,000. 10. An alternative to the project as proposed would be placement of the lands into a Williamson Agricultural Preserves agreement with the County. This could drop the unimproved land value to about $576,000 and tax revenue to about $16,500, thus reducing direct expenses by the developer for holding the land. 11. The land within the entire project site will probably carry a market value of about $4.8 million when reassessed. Purchase of the 2,000 or so acres of potentially developable land could possibly be made for considerably. less. 12. An analysis of various capital expenditures for roads, sewers, water, and schools shows that the viability of the project hinges on the con- siderable support of public and quaisi-public agencies to subsidize the project until sufficient revenues are generated by the tax base to pay for these necessary improvements. This time lag can often be of long duration considering it includes the project "build-out" period as . well. 13. A local subsidy of $3.7 million is required to build the necessary roads, schools, sewers, and water service during the first phase of the project, or $9,800 per project dwelling unit if possible and/or • refundable developer contributions are considered. This per unit subsidy drops to $3,840 by project completion after project build out, but the overall subsidy has risen to over $17 million. With full costing considered this overall subsidy rises to $26.6 million. When total costs such as State and Federal grants to agencies associated with the first phase would be aver $7.8 million or some $21,000 per first phase dwelling unit. CHAPTER I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project, application 1840-RZ, proposes to -build a fairly extensive residential project in the San Ramon Valley. Due to the project size and relatively high price for dwellings, the project's logical primary trade area would be the central five county (San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Mateo) San Francisco-Oakland SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statisticsl Area). Thus, use of detailed SMSA population statistics to supply a profile of project residents will be made and the data adjusted when necessary to reflect any particular character- istics of the San Ramon Valley. This project-profile will then be used to determine the economic impacts of the project with regard to the various suppliers of major public goods like sewers, water, roads and schools. PROPOSED LAND USE The project application, 1840-RZ for Planned Unit' Development, proposes the construction of 4,546 dwelling units on 4•,776 acres of land about five miles east of Danville. Table 1 describes the proposed project's land use, if approved. Proposed • are two golf courses, one office and two•commercial developiment sites, and 2,150 acres 'of community open space. 9S0 acres of land are proposed for `. dedication to the Nit. Diablo State Park System if the project is approved as proposec:. 4,546 residential dwelling units are also proposed and would be built on 1,224.5 acres for a density of 3.7 units per acre. PROPOSED HOUSING STOCK TO BE PROVIDED According to previous information submitted by the applicant and ECIS*, four types of housing structures are- proposed at varying sizes and prices. This mix of housing structures are proposed at varying sizes and prices. This mix of housing stock suggests a certain type of home purchaser or renter. The figure of 40% of home price equalling current salary has been used as a standard by the home loan industry for a long time period, but due to recent rises in interest rates, this figure now approximates 45%. Table 2 specifies the housing stock proposed for project 1840-RZ and implied base income of its residents. PROPOSED PROJECT P1LASING According to the developer, the project is proposed for development over a 12 to 15 year period as shown in table 3. Minor "Appendix E-1, ECIS Report E-73317-1, Economic Assessment of Project • 1840-RZ by Gruen Gruen $ Associates. • S TABLE 1: PROPOSED LAND USE, PROJECT 1840-RZ Duelling Residential Uses Units Acres Per cent Single Family Estates 51 170 3.6 Single Family 2,155 857 17.9 Condominiums 1,958 178.5 3.7 Multi-Family 382 19 0.4 Sub-Total 4,546 1,224.5 25.6 Commercial Retail Sales 22.5 0.5 Offices 14.5 0.3 Sub-Total 37.0 .8 Public Public Facilities 2.5 0.1 School Sites 31 0.6 Sub-Total 33.5 0.7 Open Space Golf Courses 376 7.9 Open Space retained in private ownership 2,150 45.0 Proposed for public dedication* 955 20.0 Sub-Total 3,481 72.9 PROJECT TOTAL 40776 100.0 *A five acre site of paleontologic significance may be offered by the ' applicant to the University of California. 950 acres are proposed to be deeded to the Mt'. Diablo State Park contiguous to the project. if the development is approved as proposed. Source: Adapted from ECIS Report E - 73317-1 Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. TABLE 2: PROJECT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING MIX implied Aggregate Average Base Household Type of'Unit Number Sales-Price Income Sales Price Income Single Family Estate 51 $100,000 $45,000 $ 5,100,000 $ 2,295,000 Single Family Detached 2,155 70,000 31,500 150,850,000 67,882,500 . Condominiums 11,958 45,000 20,250 88,110,000 39,649,500 Apartments 382 25,000* 11,250 9,550,000 • 4,297,500 Total/Average 4,546 $ SS,800.' $25,110 $253,610,000 $114,124,500 *Average rent would equal $250 per month. This is about the same as the principal, interest, taxes and insurance on a $25,000 home with' a 30 year 8001 mortgage. Source: Adapted from ECIS Report E-73317-1 Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. 6 TABLE 3: PROJECT PHASING . 2btal at Phase Project 1 .2 3 4 5 6 Completion Residential Estates Units 17 17 17 - - - 51 Acres 57 57 56 - - - 170 Single Family Units 355 360 360 360 360 360 2,155 Acres 143 143 143 143 143 142 857 Condominiums Units - 361 507 751 339 - 1,958 Acres - 33 46 68.5 31 - 178.5 Multi-family Units - - - 162 - 220 382 Acres - - - 8 - " "11 19 Total Units 372 738 884 1,273 • 699 580 4,546• Acres . 200 233 245 -219.5 - -174 253 1,224.5 Residential Cumulative Units 372 1,110 1,994 3,267 3,966 4,546 4,546 By Phase Acres 200 433 678 • 897.5 1,071.5 1,224.5 ' 1,224.5 Schools Acres - - 10 10 - 11 31 Public Fac. Acres - - - - - 2.5 2.5 Commercial Retail Sales Acres - - 15 - 7.5 22.5 Offices Acres - - 14.5 - - - 14.5 Urban Use Cumulative Acres 200 433 717.5 947 1,121 1,295 1,295 Remaining* Acres 3,438 3,205 2,920.5 2,691 2,517 2,155 2,155 Open Space Golf Courses Holes 18 18 Clubhouse Acres 188 188 *Excludes 955 acres stated by developer may be deeded to the University of California at Berkeley and Mt. Diablo State Park System. Source: Adapted from ECIS Report E - 73317-1 Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department • alterations have been made to make the numbers total correctly. It must, however, be noted that unless a specific phasing plan were made part of the proposed project's conditions of approval, the proposed phasing plan would not be binding on the developer. Construction of 322 single family detached units is proposed for the first phase, rising to 738 in Phase 2, with the addition of condominium construction. The pace continues to rise through Phase 4 when over 70% of the housing will be completed, one golf course finished, the office development complete, and the major shopping area developed. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES . A demographic determination of the project's probable residents (based on data for the San Francisco-Oakland SNISA) needs to be made. This profile is very dependent on the type and price of housing services that will be offered by the project. In turn, this profile is essential in ascertain- ing, for example, the population of the project as well as the demand for certain public goods such as the need for schools to educate project children. An examination will first be made of apartment dwellers, then condominium purchasers and finally single family home residents. Large complex apartments in the San Ramon Valley held an average of 2.06 persons per unit in 1970, according to 1970 Census data. This is identi- • cal to that of the comparable countywide figure and would appear to be applicable to apartment units in the project. • The $45,000 market price of the proposed condominiums implies an income of :., $20,250.,; This compares in price to many of the single family homes pre- sently available in the area surrounding the proposed project. According to 1970 Census data, the average family size for occupants of duplex, -triplex, and fourplex units in the San Ramon Valley was 2.96, a figure 25% above the countywide average of 7.37 persons for comparable dwelling units. This is in keeping with national trends of family size generally increasing with income; median income in the San Ramon Valley was 410 higher than the countywide average. Since condominium units have an even higher appeal for families than do duplex type rental units, a figure somewhat above 2.96 persons per occupied dwelling unit could well be ex- pected for the project's condominium units. Using the five county San Francisco-Oakland SNISA as a data base (since it is defined as the primary market area for the project), the average husband-wife family size with head of household under 35 (the primary market for condominiums) was 3.20 persons according to the 1970 Census. This would appear to be an appropriate number for use in assigning population to the project's condo- min4ums and is only marginally higher than 2.96 persons. The project also proposes to construct 2,155 single family detached homes selling for $70,000 and S1 estate type homes selling for $100,000 and up. These imply incomes 'of $31,500 and $45,000 respectively. Bay Area 1970 Census data may be also used to define a profile of these home purchasers by examining appropriate statistics. •This is 45% of purchase price. a 1. The average family size for families with incomes of $25,000 or more was 3.62 persons in 1970. 2. Families with heads of household in the 35-S4 year age category (the prime target group of this type of housing) averaged 4.03 persons in 1970. 3. The average number of persons living in single family detached housing in the San Ramon Valley averaged 3.68 persons in 1970 accord- ing to available 1970 Census information. An-average of these -three family size factors. is 3:78 and would appear appropriate for determining a profile of the occupants of all single family detached housing proposed for the project. Taking the applicable persons-per-unit figures for the different types of housing proposed for the project and applying them against known age distribution information is the basis- for Tables 4 and 5 prepared from 1970 Census data and information adapted from SCIS Report E-73317-1. These tables illustrate an age profile of the proposed project residents and show that the project could be expected to generate 4,932 school aged children, 1,559 pre-school children and 8,901 adults. CONDIERCIAL SERVICES 22.5 acres of retail sales use and 14.5 azres' of office space use are proposed for the project. About 225,000 square feet of gross leasable space would be made available for retail sales and about. 290,000 square — feet of office space. The viability of the retail trade space is de- pendent upon its location, the variety of stores, and particular mix "LL of products made available in addition, whether or not project residents develop enough shopper's preference to shop there rather than at the com- mercial e4tablishments in Alamo, Danville, and other nearby shopping areas. Judging whether or not 290,000 square feet of office space is too much or too little to be local-serving for the project is 'difficult at this point. However, it should be noted that this size a complex would pro- vide space for some 1,000 or more workers and is thus not scaled to the proposed project but to a larger area within the region. Due to the project's location, problems of access, and need to draw from within the region, this office space might experience some competitive disad- vantage. A smaller site with a complement of local-serving medical and dental offices might well prove more appropriate to a residential com- munity location. SUMARY The project application 1840-R2 seeks to provide the County with an addi- tional 4,546 dwelling units on an area of 4,776 acres with attendant re- tail and office space facilities. A population of about 15,400 would 9 TABLE 4: PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY AGB GROUP BY UNIT TYPE FOR PROPOSED PROJECT Persons Pei Household • Dwelling re- Unit Type School K-5 6-8 9-12 Adults Total Single Family .45 .60 .33 .40 2.0 3.78 Condominiums .25 .35 .27 .33 2.0 3.20 . Apartments .20 .20 .08 .08 1.S 2.06 Applying the above matrix to the appropriate number of units of each type yields a population estimate for the development completed as proposed. Table .4 shows this result. Source: Gruen Gruen and Associates; U. S. Bureau of the Census Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department TABLE 5: POPULAT'16N ESTIMATE BY AGE GROUP FOR PROPOSED PROJECT' Dwelling Pre- w;,, Unit Type School K-5 6-8 9-12 Total Adults Total Single Family 993 1,324 728 882 3,927 4,412 8,339 Condominiums 490 68S S29 646 2,350 3,916 6,266 Apartments 76 76 31 31 214 573 790 Total 1,559 2,085 1,288 1,559 6,491 8,901 15,392 Percent Distribution School Aged Children - 42.3 26.1 31.6 100.0 - Total Population 10.1 13.6 8.4 10.1 42.2 57.8 100.0 Average number of school age children per household: 1.09* Average number of persons per household: 3.39** *The comparable 1970 Census figure for the San Ramon Valley School District is 1.11. **The comparable 1970 Census figure for the San Ramon Valley School District is 3.53. Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department . . 10 result with a mix of 58% adults and 42% children. • The average sales - price of a dwelling in the project would be about $56,000 and require an income of $25,000 for purchase. The project is proposed to be built over a twelve to fifteen year period and would have to drain on the imediate central Bay Area counties for a primary market trade area. i 11 CHAPTER 11: PROJECT-SERVING EMPLOYMENT BASE The placement of people into a new portion of the County would probably create the need for additional services in the immediate area of the project site. Some of these workers might have to be imported from other areas of the County while some other!workers might prove to be project residents. Project residents not working on the project would generate a great amount of commuter.-outflow to other portions of the County and Bay region for work. COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT The type of retail trade use proposed for the project would generate employment in at least one major local-serving grocery store and a large variety-type drug and discount store. Other auxiliary local- serving stores would probably be of the following types: liquor sales, florist shop, sporting goods, a jewelry, gift and novelty store, spe- cialized boutique-type apparel store. These types of stores would appeal to the demographic characteristics of the project residents and probably be local project-serving in nature. These types of retail trade establishments do not, however, provide an employment base for the bulk of the project's residents earning :in the $20,000 plus range in annual salary. UlUle major grocery stores pay a current (1973-74) average annual salary• of about $10,000 and large drug discount stores about $7,000, the smaller auxiliary shops pay employees from about $3,000 to $7,000 in current annual wages for work often pait- ""' time in-nature. These salaries on their owm'are insufficient for a worker to buy or.. rent in the project. Store owners and management employees might be able to do so, but they are a small minority of all workers. Workers for these stores would, therefore, have to be imported from surrourding communities or come from project residents seeking second jobs to supplement family or individual incomes. ` N OFFICE DEVELOPMENT According to estimates adapted from ECIS Report E-73317-1, the ` 290,000 square feet of office floor space proposed for the project could provide space for from 860 to 1,760 employees. This type of sub- urban office-type development pays an average of about $7,000 in current (1973-74) annual salaries, while self-employed professionals like doc- tors and lawyers earn much more. These professionals could affort to live in dwellings on the project while the remainder of the office workers normally would not. RECREATIONAL EMPLOYMENT According to estimates adapted from SCIS Report E-73317-1, the development of two 18-hole golf courses and the associated clubhouse facilities could generate about 30 jobs directly associated with their management and maintenance. The other recreational facilities proposed for the project could yield a like or greater amount of additional 12 . employment. Average annual salaries run about $7,000 in current 1973-74 .� dollars. Again, only management employees and the resident professional sportspersons normally could afford to live in the' project. CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT If the project is approved as requested and built over the proposed twelve to fifteen year period as proposed*, a substantial amount of construc- tion activities would be required. If the project is constructed with present day building techniques, as adapted from SCIS Report E-73317-1, about 7,500 total person-years of construction work would .be required, or about 625 per year. However, it is doubtful that present construction methods will continue into the future since labor and material costs have risen so markedly in the past few years. Later, much of the project housing and commercial building may well be constructed on the site in a factory type situation and erected into place. This type of arrangement could cut annual employment to as low as 100 workers per year at the project site. These workers could reasonably be expected to come from the ranks of those presently working in the region. AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT According to information supplied, there are presently about ten jobs that would be lost if the project were totally converted from its present agricultural use to that of the proposals It is doubtful that project residents would wish to allow a farming and/or grazing operation to con- tinue on their community open space lands, so it is probable that the loss of the,e agricultural jobs is irreversible if the proposed project is built. GOVERWENT EMPLOYMENT 'Many general governmental services that will be required by project resi- dents will be provided by county government and contributed to by project residents through levied property taxes and rebate of other miscellaneous tax dollars by the state and federal government. Translating this ser- vice requirement into jobs and payroll is beyond the scope of this report since it is more highly dependent on the needs of the entire San Ramon Valley and that of the County as a whole. This project will specifically require fire protection services. The exact number of new jobs created to service the project is indeterminate. at present and highly related to the placemept of existing and projected ' fire stations in the San Ramon Valley. The project will significantly impact the local unified school district by creating a demand for more district staff. The particular amount and mix of teaching, support and administrative staff necessary to service the needs of the project's school children has not as yet been determined. *Unless made a part of the PUD approval, the developer or his successors would not be bound to the phasing proposal: 13 • UTILITIES The utilities companies--water, sewage and solid waste disposal--that will be asked to service the project provided it receives approval, may need to expand their operations staff. Since significant capital investments will be necessary to provide certain services to the project, it may be assumed that permanent staff will be needed to maintain those facilities. SINAIARY The project will create demand for a local population-serving employment base composed primarily of merchants and employees in the retail trade area and in office-type service employment. Recreational development of por- tions of the project will result in the creation of additional private employment opportunities. Governmental entities serving the project will need to expand employment in order to adequately service project residents. This may also be true for the utility companies. ' It is assumed that most of these workers will not be paid wages sufficient to allow them to live in the project due to the relatively high income required to purchase a dwelling on the project. 14 • CHAPTER III: PROJECT-RELATED TAX REVENUE The provision of services to any residential development has histori- cally been accomplished through the revenue associated with the levy of property taxation. An examination and quantification of the amount of property tax revenue to be raised by a project is thus important if a .critical examination of the public costs and revenues associated with a project is to be made. CURRENT TAX REVENUE The 1973-1974 market value of the project, as currently proposed for development, is approximately $2,790,980 (excluding improvements) accord- ing to information available from the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office and by pro-rata estimates of parcels previously assessed. The proposal lies within six tax rate areas with differing tax rates. This is summarized in Table 6. Current taxes paid on the land only within the project are equal to (current assessed value of $697,745 multiplied by the weighted average tax rate of $12.854 per $100 of assessed value) $89,688 or about $90,000. This is about $19 per acre in tax revenue. Table 7 summarizes all par- cels within the proposed project and shows their acreage and current • assessed market value. A fairly wide variance in the per acre market values between parcels can be noted. TABLE 6:•' CURRENT TAX RATE AREAS AND MARKET VALUE--PROJECT 1840-RZ Tax Assessor's Market Rate 1973-1974 Value Within Area Tax Rate Tax Rate Area 66006 $12.899 ; 217,600 66008 12.021 395,400 66011 12.749 188,820 66016 12.939 77,320 66050 12.908 371,140 66053 13.058 1,534,646 Total/Ave. $12.854 $2,790,980 Source: Contra Costa County Assessor's Office Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department is TABLE 7: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL INVENTORY, LAND VALUE ONLY--PROJECT 1840-RZ • Assessed •V rket Value Tax Rate Assessor's Parcel `:=..ber Acreage Cash-value Value per Acre Area 194-060-02 209.47 $7,880 14,470 276.32 66016 .194-090-01 70.00 19,440 4,860 277.71 66016 • 194-090-03 60.92 28,240 7,060 463.56 66053 194-090-04 6.50 3,000 750 461.54 66053 194-090-05 38.20 17.600 4,400 460.73 66053 203-020-06 363.93 400,500 100.125 1.100.49 66053 203-020-07 2.10 1,940 485 923.81 66006 203-020-08 100.50 20,840 5,210 207.36 66006 203-030-07 85.64 19.900 4.975 232.37 66006 203-040-07 227.09 284,460 71,115 1,252.63 66053 203-640-08 34.81 64,640 16,160 •1,856.94 66053 203-040-09 •10.00 31,020 1,155 3,102.00 66053 203-040-10 187.12 54,000* 13,500* 288.53 66006 203-040-11 222.28 252 ,520* 63.130* 1,136.04 66053 203-050-13 32.30 27,320 6.830 •845.82 66050 203-050-14 127.70 107,880 26,970 844.79 66053 203-0SJ-26 20.00 46.300 11,575 2,315.00 66011 203-050-49 25.67 59,500 14,875 2,317.88 66006 • 203-060-01 28.48 9.260 2.315 325.14 56053 203-060-02 96.52 5,320 1,330 322.03 66050 _ 203-070-01 120.00 - 55,560 13,890 463.00 66050 203-070-03 1.17- 1,380 345 '1,179.49 66050 203-OSO-01 305.75 142,140 35.535 463.89 66053 203-080-02 19.09 8,840 2,210 203-030-03 10.28 4,760 1,190 463.04 66053 203-080.05 X17.43 278,720 69.630 667.70 66050 .203-OSO-06 212.29 78,700 19,675 370.72 66011 203-090-08 11.2.24 22,680 5,670 202.07 66011 203-0000-10 P69.85 61,480* 15,370+x ' 227.83 66006 203-100-03' 280.00 41,140 10.285 146.93 66011 203-100-04 160.00 29,640 7,410 185.25 66003 203-100-08 80.00 14,820 3,705 155.25 66003 •203-120-01 480.00 96;860 24.215 201.79 66008 203-130-01 244.00 254,080 63.520 •1,041.31 66008 215-OSO-03 31.19 72.220 18,055 . 2,314.49 66053 215-030-04 163.17 116,400 29,100 713.37 66053 • TOTAL 4,775.69 $2.790.980 $697,745 $584.41 --- . *Pro-rata estimate obtained from previously assessed parcels. Source: Contra Costa County 1973-1974 Assessor's Office tax rolls. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. 16 i • RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT If the estimate of housing market value in Table- 2 is accepted and held constant in 1974 dollars, then the total residential market value of the project, upon completion, would be $253,610.,000. COWiERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Project plans call for the commercial development of 37 acres. These have a current market value of about $6,000 per acre, or .-$222,000 for all 37 acres. Accepting an 'estimate of square feet of floor space (225,000 in retail trade and 290,000 in office space) and construction costs (521.45 for retail trade and $20.65 for office space) , improved values of 54,826,250 for retail trade and $5,988,500 for office space are calculated. The total market value for land and buildings is thus $11,.036,750. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION USES A total of 1,755 acres not proposed to be dedicated to any public agency are slated to be held as unimproved community- open space. ' About :400 more acres are proposed to be improved for active recreational use. An additional 376 acres are proposed for two golf course and improved open space/recreational lands and buildings to be worth $4,000,000. The unim- proved open space, according to presumed assessment values and previously recorded sales of land with similar topography, can be assigned a market value of $500-per acre for tax assessment purposes. This value is then $877,500 for the 1,755 unimproved acres, bringing the total property tax revenue base to $4,877,500 for all open space/recreation uses proposed for the project. SUMMARY OF'•PROPERTY TAX BASE AND REVENUE If the development as proposed is approved and all the above calculations. concerning potential market value are realized, then the following table would summarize the project's tax base at full project completion. A tax rate of $12.854 per $100 of assessed valuation is assumed, the present composite tax rate for the project lands. TABLE 8: PROJECT 1840-RZ PROPERTY TAX BASE UPON PROJECT COMPLETION Potential Potential Potential Market Assessed Annual Land Use Value Value Tax Revenue Residential $253,610,000 $63,402,500 $8,149,000 Commercial 11,036,750 2,759,200 354,700 Open Space/Recreation 4,877,500 1,219,400 156,700 Project Total $269,524,250 $67,3810100 $8,661,200 Source: Contra Costa County Planning' DepartmeAt and adaptations from SCIS Report E-73317-1 Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department 17 • TAX REVENUE IMPACT ON DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT Distribution of the annual tax revenue from the project is based on the relative property tax rates of the various special districts serving the project site. Table 9 was prepared based on composite tax rate informs- tion collected from the current 1973-1974 Tax Rate Area Code Book pub- lished by the County Tax Collector's Office. OTHER TAX REVENUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROJECT Other tax revenues accrue to various taxing jurisdictions due to the many miscellaneous fees paid by individuals in a community and to sales tax paid on the purchase of most retail goods that are rebated back by the State. These many rebates go principally to the County General Fund in the case of unincorporated populations, as the proposed project is pre- sently. This amountsto a total per capita figure of about $7.32. ,The 15,400 persons projected for the project would thus represent $112,670 in Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee revenues to the County from the State of Cali- fornia. Federal Internal Revenue Service 1973 income tax guidelines imply minimum tax- able retail trade expenditures of 20.6% on a family income of $25,000. This does not reflect major purchases and so a figure of 25% would probably be , more reasonable in ascertaining sales taxes paid by project residents. • Project residents would have an average household income •of $25,000 per year in current 1973-1974 dollars according to data submitted by the developer, or an aggregate income of $114,124,500 for the project. This -- would imply $28,531,100 in retail sales and $1 ,569,200 in current sales tax revenue (at 5.50) . About $142,600 would go directly to BART and $116,300 to the County General Fund. This revenue and fees rebated from the State would raise annual County CAneral Fund revenues attribut=able to the project, if completed as proposed, from $1,906,900 to $2,283,170. Smz1ARY The proposed project could generate up to $2.3 million in annual revenues to the County if information supplied by the developer proves correct. . Other taxing jurisdictions could receive as much as $6.9 million more annu- ally in additional monies. While these numbers appear. substantial, it is not r possible to determine from them alone the relationships between public revenues and governmental costs necessary ur'build and serve the pro- posed project. l8 TABLE 9: PROJECT COMPLETION--ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR THE TAXING AGENCIES COVERING ,PROJECT 1840-RZ Tax Rate Annual Tax Agency Per $100 A.V. Revenue County Tax s 2.830 $1,906,900 County Flood Control .020 13,500 County Water Agency .010 6,700 Danville/Tassajara Firel .936 630,700 BART .587 395,500 Bay Area•Air Pollution .017 11,500 East Bay Regional Park .159 107,100 County School Service .158 106,500 San Ramon Unified (operating) 6.071* 4,090,700 • San,Ramon Unified (bonds only). .906 610,500 County Community College .898 605,100 • Mosquito Abatement .021 14,100 County Res. f, Conservation .001 700 Miscollaneous2l ' .240 161 ,700 Total $12.854 $8,661,200 . 1Weighted average of Danville Fire at $1.054 and Tassajara at $.344. ?Miscellaneous: Alamo/Lafayette Cemetery District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Water District. These districts do not completely cover the Ranch and as such their share of. the miscel- laneous revenue cannot be computed. • This rate will change depending on the level of local tax base support necessary and allowable to support school services. This is the rate for 1973-74; the tax rate for' 1974-1975 is estimated at about $5.50. ' This rate would therefore raise approximately $3,700,000. Source: Contra Costa County Tax Collector: 1973 Tax Rates Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. 19 • • CkAPTER IV: PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COSTS PUBLIC COSTS REQUIRED TO SERVICE THE PROJECT Private development projects require the provision of governmental services, utilities and other quasi-governmental functions in order to be viable communities, necessities without which a project could not actualize. Governmental services provided through the County must be extended before there are any project residents; utility services also must be provided before thele are any project resi- dents and the various quasi-governmental units must plan full ser- vice for a development before all future residents reside there. Not all public costs are reflected in property tax rates, but in other charges such as utility hook-up fees. This creates a situation in which present populations must "subsidize" growth and development of a project requiring extensive governmental service to build an adequate infrastructure before the full tax revenue •base is there . .to pay for it. 20 There are obviously two different kinds of costs associated with urban growth: the capital or front money costs associated with constructing the necessary facilities to accommodate the residents of a project, and the operating expenses that are raised through a project's tax base and through user charges. Operating revenues must at least equal expenses in order to maintain public facilities and provide residents with services. The following material discusses some of the necessary public and utility costs associated with the project if it is fully developed as proposed. Chapter V1 draws a comparison of project phasing and tax revenue in each Phase vis-a-vis the respective public development costs. FIRE PROTECTION The project lies within the Danville and Tassajara Fire Protection Dis- tricts. The present tax rate for the Danville District which covers the majority of the project is $1.054 per $100 of assessed valuation' Tassajara Fire District which covers a small portion of the eastern end of the project has a rate of only $.344 pdr'•$100 of assessed valua- tion. A weighted average of these two tax rates is about S.936 and would result in annual revenues of $630,700' in 1973-1974 current dollars upon completion of the project. (However, if the project were actualized and totally annexed into the Danville Fire, District, the tax rate of r $1.054 would probably prevail, resulting in annual revenues of about $710,000 annually upon project completion). AV-present the Danville Fire District employs a staff of 42 located at 3 stations and has an annual budget of about $888,000. It is not feasible at this time to estimate the number of fire stations and personnel to service the project since it is surrounded ley several existing fire dis- tricts. A new project of this type could well require a comprehensive study reviewing the location of all present firs stations in the entire San Ramon Valley. It is apparent, however, that from 1 to 2 fire stations could be operated from the ultimate annual revenue raised for this purpose since approximately $300,000 is the cost of one fire station in the Danville Fire Protection District. The capital costs associated with the project's needs would have to be raised through a bond issue or through bank loans. An additional property tax rate to recover these capital costs might then be necessary. POLICE PROTECTION The project is located in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department is responsible for police protection for all areas'not covered by municipal police departments and operates out of a single office in Martinez. However, if growth in the San Ramon Valley•continues at a rapid rate it may be necessary to build a new sheriff's 'station there and the project would contribute significantly toward this need. Total costs for police services for the project cannot be determined at present since this would be highly dependent on the type and amount of police service required as well as what additional capital investments would be necessary. 21 • SANITARY SERVICES The provision of sanitary services, a public utilities or quasi- governmental function., is made on more of a "pay-as-you-go" basis than that of other more purely governmental services. These costs are also more directly borne by the users in that hook-up fees are charged and a property tax levy. The project is within the Potential service area of the Central Con- tra Costa County Sanitary District. Numerous costs must be borne by the developer and project residents if service is to be supplied. The project must first pay a share of the capital investment in the existing facilities--accomplished through an annexation fee of $400 per acre. This fee is used to supplement the Sanitary District's Construction General Fund to help pay for past capital improvements and is ultimately passed on to the project homeotim er as part of the costs of home purchase. According to information supplied by the developer, there are 2,071 acres of residential, co,-Liercial, active recreational and golf course use on the project that would need to be serviced. Fees on this land would total about $830,000. Additional costs to be borne by the developer are the costs necessary for col- lector and sewer trunk lines to connect 'the project to the existing system. If not, a fee of $300 per residential dwelling :unit tivould be assessed for. a total of $1.4 million. The project must also pay its share of district capital improvement- operating costs--covered by a $.55 tax rate and a $.084 rate to retire existing bonds. $.30 of the $.55 rate is to meet operation and mainte- nance expenses for the District While $.25 is to fund capital improve- ment programs. • In:lusion of the r*•oject in the District's service area would raise the overall property tax rate from the .)resent S12.854 per $100 or assessed valuation to 513.488. Thus the taxes on a $60,000 home within the project would be $95 greater per year with this change in the tax rate. The project must also pay its share of future capital improvements which result at least partially from the project itself. Capital improvements for the treatment plant expansion and upgrading, for example, are also funded by fixture fees. These are assessed at approximately $300 per dwelling unit and wobld total about $1.5 mil- lion for the entire project site. Central Sanitary District expan- sion efforts include a renovation of the existing plant to upgrade the quality of treatment at a cost of $53 million. Also, the District is presently expending $12 million for a program to reclaim 30 million gallons of water daily. For these on-going projects federal and state contributions account for about 850 of the cost. Therefore, the Dis- trict's share of the $65 million is about $10 million. The District hopes for, but cannot be assured of, such assistance for the future • projects in the planning stages. Plans czll for expansion of the 22 capacity of the plant -by 15 million gallons by 1976, to be followed by a second expansion of 15 million gallons by 1980. Costs are now estimated at $30 million for this total project.; The project would be a major contributor. to the growth which is the impetus for the above described capital investments. These expendi- tures are therefore partially attributable to the project. Improve- ments will provide for a 15 million gallon additional capacity to 45 million gallon capacity and water reclamation and treatment at a District cost of $22 million or a District per gallon capital invest- ment of $.49 for sewage treatment attributable to the project. These are the local or District costs only. The $22 million of local monies is• being matched by $74 million in federal and state grant monies, raising the total investment to $96 million in the District's capital improvement program or $2.13 per gallon in full costs. While this $74 million could possibly be vi6wed as a state and national subsidy for the Central Contra Costa'.Sanitary District, this is not a unique situation. Other burgeoning suburban areas nationwide have and are continuing to receive grants of this type. IYhile it can be argued that this is no more than a return of tax dollars paid by these same suburbanites, it is also evident that those•.living in areas with suf- ficient existing capacity are not benefitting directly by these grants and are thus seeing their dollars go into the subsidization of sub- urban needs until such time as these dollars can be raised from she • new tax bases. The Central .Contra Costa Sanitary District estimates that the average generation of sewage is 100 gallons per person per day, but that 150 gallons is the engineered capacity for sewerage pipeline design. The local capital investment per person is thus $49 on a 100 gallon basis, while :he total local state and federal investment is thus $213. A project of 15,400 persons on a pro rata basis therefore has a local capital investment of $754,600 and a total attributable cost of nearly $3.3 million, or over $2.5 million in direct federal and state grants- in-aid. • Since the District is considered to be a quasi-public agency, it cannot, on a long-term basis, lose money extending services to any project but must eventually recoup its costs. If monies from other district sub- scribers are required to provide all necessary front-end dollars to actualize project 1840-RZ, these dollars will eventually be repaid, most often after the completion of the build-out period. The District has-set its tax rate at a level necessary to maintain or improve the present quality level of services to its subscribers, so it can be assumed that sufficient operating revenues will accrue from the project to cover those costs. • *It is not known at this time when San Ramon Valley growth will necessi- tate a parallel trunk line connection between the valley and the treat- ment plant. 23 WATER SERVICE The bulk of the project is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). Application has been made to include project areas outside of the District boundaries, 'but no decision on this applica- tion has yet been made. To be consistent with other analyses, the entire project is assumed to be part of EBMUD in the future (however, if the District does not exl)and to include the entire property, the fiscal impacts would differ consider- ably). At present EBMUD has a property tax rate of $1.59 and if extended td cover the project upon completion would yield annual tax revenue of $107,000 per year. These revenues, however, .are used solely for fire pro- tection services for watershed and other properties. Capital costs which are the responsibility of the District include those for pumping, storage and major transmission lines; however, the developer must advance 600 of this money. The developer pays for connecting lines,' hydrants, and service installation as part of the project development costs. Tf'here the development poses an unusual burden to the District, additional requirements may be imposed. The estimated costs of water service facilities in Table 10 are order of magnitude costs only and have been supplied by EBMUD and the County Planning Department based on a figure of 2,400 gallon capacity per . housing unit. The 11 million gallon reservoir' need is probably conser- vative •since it does not consider the need for golf course or other recreatignal water uses. Depending on the physical location of a reservoir and the topography of the site and area to be served, three or four tanks would be required. _..,-„.. -TABLE 10% WATER SERVICE TO THE PROJECT AT FULL DEVELOPMENT Component Number Unit Cost Total 11 million gallons (Reservoirs) $1,750,000 Pumping Stations 3 100,000 , 300,000 Transmission line (feet) 31,000 75 2,325,000 4,375,000 Sources: EBMUD and Contra Costa County Planning Department. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. At present EBMUD serves approximately 1.1 million water users in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. According to planning studies prepared for their agency, EBMUD could serve an estimated capacity of 1.3 million persons by the year 2000. It is expected that approximately 150,000 of these persons will be in Contra Costa County and 50,000 in Alameda. However, EBMUD is not prepared to serve outside their present boun- daries and recognizes that the project (1840-RZ) 'could not be actua- lized without water service. Thus, annexation of the remaining portions 24 ' • of the project not presently within District boundaries is necessary for the project to be built as presently proposed. In order to provide service to residents of Phase I of this proposed project, a new reservoir would probably need to be constructed. This can often take two to three years unless the project developers were willing to build a temporary system at their own expense, which might be accomplished within one year. EBMUD has four sources of revenue: water sales, property taxes, annexa- tion fees and contributions by developers in aid of construction. The project developer would have to contribute 600 of 'the $4,375,000 in capital costs or $2,625,000--this will eventually be refunded. Annexa- tion fees contribute toward the remaining capital costs at $200 per acre. At present 3,100 of the 4,776 acres of the project are within EBMUD service district boundaries for a commitment of $620,000 in annexation fees. A pre-payment of $140,000 has'previously been made. Thus, if the entire project is incorporated within HMO's ultimate service boundaries minus the 950 acres spoken for possible dedication to the State Park system, a total of $765,200 in annexation fees would be col- lected on 3,815 acres. Thus the developer must eventually advance $2,625,000 to EBMUD to fund capital improvements with the remaining contributed by their ' other water use subscribers. Since all but`the annexation fees paid by the A eveloper will be refunded by HMO, the remaining capital costs of $3,609,800 must be borne by all of EBMUD water users until the ap- proximate $200,000 per year in revenue attributable to capital costs . retires this principal. It would take 45 years to retire a 5% bond of $3.61 million with payments of $200,000 per year. It can be. assumed that the developer, in order to maintain a positive cash flow basis, will raise this case advance from home purchasers in the project and so pass on the costs of $3,390,200 over the 4,546 • dwellings or about $750 per unit. The remaining $984,800 equals $220 per unit. This is almost $1,000 per unit in water service capital costs. SCHOOLS The provision of school services is the single most expensive government service provided for at the local level and one of the most complex finan- cially. The San Ramon Valley Unified School District, the school district encompassing the project site, has recently been beset by financial diffi- culties. These are mostly related to the need to purchase and construct necessary school sites and improvements for a rapidly growing school age population. Chapter I identified the number of school age children which the project is estimated to generate at full development. 95% of these school age 2S children will be assumed to attend the public school system and S% private. The expected enrollment from the project at full development thus totals 4,686 pupils -- 1,981 at levels K-S; 1,224 in grade 6-8; 1,481 at the high school level. To accommodate these students, the School District will have to build and administer new schools. The following table estimates the number of schools and square feet of school space needs required by the project at full development. This .information concerning school standards has been supplied by the State of California Department: of Educa- tion 'and the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. TABLE 11: SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES NEED FOR THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION School State Space District Standards Total Space Type of Students/ Standards Blackhawk Ranch Project Square Feet Needs School School Acreage A.D.A.* Schools Acres Per A.D.A. Square Feet K-5 650 10 1,981 3.0 30 S5 108,955 6-8 760 20 1;224 1.6 32 75 91,800 9-12 1;600 42 1,481 0.9 38 8S 125,885 Total - 4,686 S.S 100 326,640 • Note: "A.D.A." means the number of pupils in average daily attend m:ce. • A.D.A. has been calculated as 95% of the potential maximum enrollment. Source: State of California Department of Education, San Ramon Valley Unified School District, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. This space needs estimate can be multiplied by $35 per square foot, according to the Local Assistance Office of the State Department of Educa- tion, in order to calculate capital costs for buildings and other atteh dant. costs. Land acquisition costs are calculated at about $6,000 per acre. Thus total capital costs to service the project with adequate schoolsites would amount to at least $12,032,400. The project proponent has stated an intent to dedicate one school site of ten acres to the school district. Also, if the recent. discussions between the School District and County Board of Supervisors result in the enactment of a proposed bedroom tax requiring a dedication fee of $225 per bedroom after the first bedroom in any dwelling unit, approximately $1,837,800 in additional revenue would accrue to the School District. However, the District would still be some $10,13S,000 short in terms of required capital revenues. Capital improvements for schools are generally financed by bonds, the issue of which must be approved by the district voters. (District voters turned down the most recent bond issue for $8 million on March 5, 1974) . The 'bonding capacity of a unified school district. in California is set at 10% of assessed valuation. This being the case, Project 1840-RZ, estimated to have an assessed valuation of $67,381,100 upon completion, 26 would increase the School District's bonding capacity by $6,738,100. This is still $3,396,900 less than the net necessary capital needs. The fact that a substantial portion of these capital costs can be bonded does not mean that districtwide bonds for the project's schools will pass. This is an especially critical issue since many.of these school facilities need to be made available as soon as the project begins con- struction but no project voters will be there to vote in favor of passage. The project does not generate enough bonding -capacity to support the provision of the school facilities which would be required even at ultimate development. Thus, it represents .a potential liability to the San. Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) in terms of its capital costs. The District has decided to rejoin the State Local Aid Building Program but must continually be 'bonded to capacity in order to remain. The availability of State loans for school construction does not, how- ever, diminish the over-all fiscal impact of the project, but merely transfers the burden from the focal to the State level, thus shifting the subsidy of the project to a statewide basis. It should be brought out, however, that according to a State Department of Education official the State Aid would not have to be offered if students (and their fami- lies` were not migrating to areas like San Ramon from areas like Oakland, Concord, and Hayward where decreasing enrollments have created excess classroom capacity. This migration has caused severe problems in many other areas throughout the state. Thus, the project falls a net of $10,135,000 and a gross of $12,032,400 short of meeting its capital facility requirements for the school dis- trict. While it can be argued that the provision of school service to California children is a statewide collective public good (e.g. Serrano- Priest decision) this is first of all only with regard to property tax based school district operating expenses and not capital requirements. The last State Local Aid Building Program Bonds that were passed state- wide were tied to the 1933 Field Act requiring schools to meet the earthquake standards specified there. With excess classroom capacity in many school districts statewide it may be increasingly difficult to pass state bonds subsidizing school construction in rapidly growing areas. If the full amount of the capital requirements were transferred to the project developer and thence to the project residents, a fee of $2,650 per dwelling unit would be required. 27. . • At this point in a traditional fiscal analysis one would take the current tax rate or operating expenses being levied in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, multiply it by the projected assessed valuation of the pro- ject and thus derive projected district revenues. .What one would then con- clude would be that since the homes proposed for the project(average value $56,000 plus vs. $47,000) are more expensive than those of the district average and there are less school children per household,(1.09 vs. 1.11) then this new residential project will obviously generate a revenue surplus for the school district. In the past, this paper surplus helped school districts handle the ever increasing costs associated with new developments,but since the passage and effect of Senate Bill 90 in 1972, this is no longer the case. 'the effect on the financing of school operating. revenues by SB 90 and the Serrano-Priest decision mandating equal educational opportunity throughout the state have had a profound limiting impact on school district's ability to raise revenues. Traditional fiscal analysis examines the impact of a proposed project by viewing what change it may have on the tax rate-if the rate goes up, the project creates new costs, if it goes down then it creates a surplus. This method of approach is now an inadequate framework since the tax rate is no longer the important independent variable but is now manipulated by such things as (1) allowable per pupil (ADA) funding limits by the State, (2) •a ceiling per ADA on revenues that may be raised from the local tax base, and (3) complicated factors defining revenue limits based on funding programs and the local cost-of-living factors. • The Serrano-Priest decision guaranteed an equal educational opportunity; SB 90 set a limit. on ADA revenues that could be raised from the local tat base. Together these two important pieces of legislation are being used to equalize ADA expenditures and not tax rates statewide in a purposeful atte,m t to equalize the quality of educational opportunity. "Rich" districts are not allowed the full cost-of-living adjustment while "poor" districts receive higher factor increases in allowable spending limits. . The number of projected students for a district is simply multiplied by the allowable revenue limit. This eventually results in an amount of revenue that may be raised from the local tax base. The tax rate is then determined by ' examining the local tax base available in the district: This means that no matter how expensive a housing development, or how many children originate there, all residential projects get thrown into the entire districtwide pool and the exact amount of allowable revenues are then raised---no surplus and no deficit, just one big pool with a guaranteed right for an education. This changes all traditional approaches to fiscal analysis with regard to school financing. Even homes worth $100,000 or more cannot generate a surplus since legislation forces them into an overall pool and limits the amount of school- taxes that can be raised per pupil. In a proposed project like 1840-RZ with homes some- what above average in value and school children below the average, the impact • on school operating revenues is marginal since while the project may serve to lightly lower the tax rate, project residents cannot tax themselves over this limit. In school districts bonded to capacity a special tax override election must be held and passed in order to raise extra operating revenues. • Thus it can be seen that prediction of school enrollment levels are useful as order-of magnitude estimates and only to be used for predicting the need for additional capital facilities. Even if total enrollment were only 4,000 pupils rather than the projected 4,686 students, this would only effect total capital facility requirements and lower need to $10 million from the projected $12 million, but this chanfic in enrollment level will still not effect a surplus or deficit operating revenue situation for the school district. It may be argued that with the present continuing decline in fertility and family size being experienced on the local, state and national level lower school enrollment figures might well be more appropriate than those presented. This argument, however, does not hold up for a number•of reasons: (1) the persons per divelling factors by type of household used in this report come from a unique special tabulation run by census tract extracted from the 1970 Census data and not otherwise available in any printed document, (2) Bay Area wide 1970 Census data were used as a crosscheck on the figures derived, and (3) special information on projected levels of fertility available through State of California demographic studies were examined regarding long run, trends in fertility. The examination of all this data led to a conclusion that while fertility and thus school children per household was presently on the decline, this situation would begin to reverse itself, level off, and eventually approach the experience of the 1968-1970 period over the long run. Thus us•e of the available unique 1970 Census data for school child generation rates and subsequent new facilities demand is a conservative estimate. 29 ROADS Critical to the viability of any .project, and especially this one, is the provision of necessary new roads and improvement of existing routes in order to provide necessary access for project residents. In the case of proposed project 1840-RZ, the public monies necessary to pro- vide adequate road access for the project residents is considerable, totalling $8,215,500. This figure is based on projected traffic volume information originally prepared by John J. Forristal, Consulting Traf- fic Engineer, and submitted in a report prepared for the project site by James A. Roberts Associates, Inc. , and received by the County Plan- ping Department on September 20, 1973. This material is shown in Tables 12 and 13. The County Department of Public {Yorks, based on the above traffic volume information and project phasing information submitted by the developer, prepared cost estimates for the roadway improvements sig- nificantly attributable to the proposed project. Table 14 shows the estimated trip end generation figures by phase for the various land uses proposed for the project site. About 71,000 annual trip ends are estimated for the total project upon completion with almost 40,000 trip ends or S6% attributable to the residential land uses. r7 County Public Works has studied the improvements necessary to provide adequate road services to portions of the San Ramon Valley lying northerly of Crow Canyon Road and east of I-680 based on projects • proposed for development. Table 15 shows only those necessary Val- ley Improvements related to the proposed project. They total over • $11.S million, while the project comprises 710 or over $8.2 million in public costs. Table 16 illustrates the necessary costs for project related road improve- ments based on the.phasing plan submitted by the developer. The pre-pro- ject costs have been estimated at $1,670,000 and are comprised solely of the proposed Sycamore Valley' Road Extension. The largest outlay for road improvements (based on the project's phasing and not necessarily in the order that might be required by actual road construction) would be over $2.5 million in Phase 4. Total cumulative road improvements would t 30 run about $8.2 million for the project, no matter how the project is phased. SUMMARY The public costs in 'cttrrent 1973-1974 dollars necessary to service this. project are considerable and would require extensive subsidiza- tion of the project and its residents by various public and quasi- public agencies. Identifiable capital requirement costs attributable to the project amount to some $3.7 million for.sewerage services, $4.4 million for water service, $12 million in school sites, buildings and other miscellaneous capital equipment and $8.2 million in road improve- ments. The great.proportion of these costs, while directly assignable to the project and benefitted only by project residents, will not be paid for by them. They will be subsidized by the man), present users of these services who will be taxed not only to retire costs incurred for servicing themselves but will be taxed to help pay for all or part of the costs associated with providing service to 'the project. Annual property tax and user revenues payable to most. of these servicing agencies will, however, probably be sufficient to meet the operating expenses attributable to the project, but only after project completion. This is due only to the fact that the amortizing of the attributable capital requirement costs are not included in the operating expense payments. -If they were, the project would also not be meeting its operating -expenses. 31 (ano}f xead) + uoy2oldwoD uodn ooaot; No %cN .4t- •, •cnt. W at- M %000 •+ t 4 tt %D %D 0 -4 %0 %D M GO M ND 1:1t- MGotn %ONOh %O V * N •r 1 N Qwnjop 9t3 MM Me► aoMM � 'V � NttMMM �CI � � x C 14 . -Jell Iaa[oad w o •s" 0 o c03 .•1 0 'V (ano" xead) u ° 0 41 ,-�M eum10A a?3 00000bov00000000000 o ,, � 0 coli k a�oa[ v ^ r t•, N w 0 1. ., L'1 %D C V to o Ql Ln tn N C1 O •rl v 'o G k 3 1. P N v co �7 N* Co Ln O V c 1- O v tll tl Ln Ln 00 h (` > 3 n O O is -oad 0661 ,-. ., .., .., .. N ... _ O H td 0 M 0 NO � r,-4n v In aoLno040Ln000000 OOO � C, 'f rs � M D aum10A N . In L7 rr O O Ln O •tT It N C;1 cl, O i7 I 1 v -zt of 1 N E 0 k .-+ V 80TAaOS vo %D Ln 1` n r-Ln Ln N 1` Ln Ln Ln\0 W \0 \D C •>~ O O x Y .-1 a H to ou 41 W N •-1 Cs t0 W td to O ¢ v o v tt v o o 'nz 44 u V• •.i N 41 �D M - \D % v _ _ _ M _ _ _ - _ CO O O t. c3 k aZU9glaAed 1 I C 1 1 I v N N 1 CQ 00 00 0 0 0 1 IV r1 -0 r rs V' - NNN •- - 1 .-4 .•1 N NU N 1 1 N - 1 44 C •H ?X G`. O 0 v et at O O Y, C V 0 41 8U ZS a NN NN N N N U F 'tl w •� M O H 4a O O V r. N 0-4 O •� 4a r3 Oi' t"aq (/� aro b x • • v C) a 41 b444 U a a a ro ro u E 1; C rs •r, a •-4ice s oacz >,a C K 1° o o k u z " V3 3 ro as .-1 c3 •-+ u M O w k > >,•r+ b u k Id O •O 0 .0' 'O •r :1 k es >, 'O cs •••1 41 F O r•4 tb 0 > x n M U O k rs H u O U n ? R1G .O O k U O > ... ^ 'O ,C 0 c3 'O O n o r, a k >. to 0 'O r; k C 0 2 1 U 0 M•nUC - •n 41 4+ •,1 O 0 C it ►a C) 0 O m U V t: ]Ci 4 7 L.-s L. ? C O N C 0 t0/1 v h 44 -4C V C 41 k k t O 1•+ o = Z 0 n o O H n .-4 L+ N N '0 LO r-t 0 .-1 C0 C4 -3 c .: U 1 0 k >, Cl. rs .O 41 n •.•1 O cl 1,0O •n WI 'O •--� -• >, I U FU C •n F rs O w o n n (, > C4 1-4 Cl 1 S O C 'J U -3a O 't1 1 1 ; r3 1 41 •1 Q O ••-LC) r. 1-t .0n - 110 •-• n >, � - vooG • • Un • O u .0 -30 0 Ln 'o > -.] LA tr .-• O k D 'CI 10 n '3 •0 41 .-1 .-d Is U 4� W U U ••1 C-' •- CS 4 .1� . 3 C C 3 n 1 -3 c3 = •.1 u 14 0 C C k [pQ4i a .raF car, -4J- . > rs ::4 o of k u ..1 > o Cl - o k •-1 td r-4 A -5 a •A " >, ?. 0 H x 41 •n 3 V •rl .n rr C. U Cs 1 I k 0 0 t" = U 3 0 i1 H U 1 3 4.1 O .-1 N w 0 U > to k > 4.t O t. 7: W 4-4 t•3 k Id y s k n u O 4/ k CI: O O O •r, H O O O = 0 0 0 V •n 44 O " C.N 0V V1 H O n4 co U co co rs G C ^ r, = G .0 00 00 .14 n •n k • 4 n �D C %10 \0 n U U 41 41 C U 41 41 3 tO n 0 u 41 V C fA O 40•+ � 4V O , N V n k U n n O O n • c3 C .0 O a 41 ^L C4 O r•+ k .1 0 .- >,•y c3 r3 k o rs o = -1 J 41 C o c3 04 trv) ►.. ►-, Fwucwz ^ cnowLQuQ • cn1-, co ., - a rjV- -r♦ 0. > H U U 41 w O W s KK bcs ``'. 3 h — N '� c •-• t;H 10 W W O 'O .i V1 O O C U O � 'L1 '7 k W. OG 'O H 'r C: W A rs h 1010 ro r� O O > s s s s t cl c3 O 41 >, !, 3 O t4 V 4+ t•1 >, p OC C4 Ci •C 10 'O 'O "D -a O O O ro ^3 V V O H U •.L C A n C4 0-1 1's H -3 h M M C' cz C: 0 0 _n -4 H rl -4 O M O s s 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O •-4 -4 IJ 41 > � •.1 b k O V O ro ro 1010 C = C = C z = cl m 41 0 n k U 41 u V r••1 .•� C1 h 0 m r3 O O O > > " O •••1 U 41 C k .0 •. .•r . O O O O x :t 0 O O 13 >. >, >, >, >. -3 L K In = o r. O N t0 -s O w W. a x 3 3 :+ H I+ k C C C 4+ 4+ V V U F 0 ••4 > 0.x �-1 > > k m n 7 0 0 c3 H H k H .- k 0 0 0 0 .0 U U U V V O O L.1 W d C V .•+ .-r .r :t 75 0 .G X E •-4 b O V U .0 .0 .0 .0 U u in n n H• 3 3 3 W ca c3 c3 C w ee O 0 c3 0 cs c3 rs m nn 'A 0 o 0 0 o m u u ra F d G 41 k -4 ..r -4 ..i -4 .-. .. 0 .1 c3 k k k O 0 >. >, -1 0 H o4' NC7 W QGQmwi- UUUQQ0W vs z 32 ' (anoN a(ead) : a uolloTdtuo:) uodn In cm o,.o v v to a et M 0 t` in o M Cl. Mus .[ • `:c s N y W BwTOA 3T 44 a 3u d) E -JVJ,l, 43afOsd 0.0 .0 n, aka h t3 N 44 .0 3 In (anol{ ahead) a n 6ttlT1 a OT o0000000aG? 00000Ci C7OO '�' '0 `" `t '-' .r3 ro t o vaaus �� e� aoc� :re� Incn �cs ... �. tr ... r v ., b es ro p M N N C1 �1' eT N OO t� C1 iV 0 0b r'tT cl 0% to 00 cc In O • N G •3eay pa�3a[ ., r, .-� .-, «-, r1 N �+ > 3 0 0 -Old 0661 u c4 ro O In G to � r,1 v, v �C cv 3 onIoj v In 65 nLno,Tm00) (71 � t t •or � o voi °' M t4 -4 G s3? aoiA.xag� %o %o to 1` n t, F, ,n us n to to to +Q 10 as •: 0 U � A ' r>~ +r4 0 G %_.� 4j r-4 cd M 44 to In 0 In 10 a y3PTii v o tx v er o a14.4 Wrq u 1p 7+ ,o m •V � � et - - - M - « - - CO 0 O r ro 1-4 W r-4 3uawaAud I 1 I 1 I 'Ct N N 1 00 00 00 00 1 a r4 10 � td t0 ► N N N - r41 .••1 r•1 fV 1 1 N N - U. 41 W t~ •ri CZa OUTISTx3 o o tr v v o C" u ari v41 v� h 43 S N isi M > O 1.4 G • G U C 0 C y�ttej33 r 1 •r 1 •r4 -V. > •rq 0 44 ti t4 G 4.4 G U = r4 P 44 o a Ms's •cro .k o 0 4-) t4 44 U • �: CG 3 L3 'Sy • CIG to 04 3 43 u Q» j C C K H 0 U �.•rc 'OU G !$d t0 O V r3 .0 b r-4 0 U $d c3 7, "3 K3, r-4 4-I F• a r-4 rs O > a ro td -4 U G Ir O u 4) $1 OG .d O N U O > ca C 10 : 'C O td 10 C4 fr C :7 CC iG ro cG n:i -" = 4J 4t W4 O cJ r r,.s 'iti•r4 m G 10 G 1.4 O C 41 r1 G r t s .r1 - ► 0 CI O cy U G rJ ro p b 3 ce. O ') 3 '" G Cd C? r,i 1 ce H N I O p O C4 r3 a v. O O $4 r 1 N N 'O t O.4 > 0-4 C3 r-4 u cd ro IE! •-1 G • 1 : $, }, '3 � W O 44 G VI V) ? a �4 C3 1 I '_O O cd U 0"0 K O C t I; 4J 10 E 4 .p N 'O ... -4 N `..-4 r3 G 00 �^' J O G O .010 O C y. ro VI b > >,.0 V! u r-4 O y " C � 3 � � 4* r-4 G rj >; U 41 i+ ' aJ G •r4 O C C4 U c3 M I cs a -- -- . 43 r-4 O E"' Gt3 .-4 •rl } r3 C.' O f t G •r1 > O ro O k ri ro .I'C� b .+G .•3 w >, >, cd i. 4J •n 3 G •rI .n r•1 s~ U cd i I k o ro 44 C.'. G 3 C a+ w U 1 4J 0 r-.`� U k 40- +iG+ p r3 H } 44 O $4 044 44 f• .^ V3 $4 p In C� O A t. O O O .0 O O U J •-� J C3.N cd G vs •ri 00 G co 00 m U ^' .0 r^4 F .14 "' C :0 VI •r-r $.4 •rt n C7 V %o = t0 V 0 U G 41 45 .0 a U 4-1 +� 3 N 4� G V4 .0 O f.4 G O In U N k ed U 0 (n0 O = n C .0 H 044 k N �7 CY. 4•1 rd C" rJ r•1 k r,! O •r4 >,r-4 m 0 6 C .^. O � U 4� C�' O rS W 1•41) ~ *.4 wuwz0wcoU4wur: "r Vl G OU rrolu' 'U > i+ U 43 i•+ O Q• # # O G ti V7 tM4N V ^O G• 3 # 4J C to W w 0 r�4 0 0 0 G U O "Y W toted•� •d 'a 'D � � t'Od H > N r 4 � 0 O a > # # # # # c9 vs r # ro O GO G 4J ro >. ex 43 vbb 'd1010 O o OG a f+ t» U •r4 C .0 0 114 .••4 to co CIS0 r3 C% = = .� .. .-y s� H H 5 O 4J O • # O O O O O O 0 , > 1.4 •r4 'v sr av e a 'o 10 'O -a x Cd cG Cc W CA C C ^. : � h 4.4 0 0 H G 4J G G rt N to 0 M 0 r3 O o O > C o •r4 G N C �4 a •• r_4 r-4 O O O 0 .% .SC 0 m 0 0 }, >. >. >+ M „CC x to C G cd O M ed to Op C A ce = 3 3 k k k k C C 4.i as G U F 4) = •r4 > R.a .+4 > > 4 a 0 CO Cl 0 CS 0 c3 s. sr fi W •I r a f•4 0 0 0 0 .G .0 •r-r r1 r-,•rz U U L,3 G G O 0 0 0 r 4 .” •-4 sG at ro ro ro ro = : = •1O = G 43 .o .0 .0 ,.0 U U VI V! 0 m 3 3 3 i C w pQq to O 43 0 0 r3 rs 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C J O l' ac Vl Lam? W Q A G G c4 t0• H EM EO+ U LS tJ x t 3 V3 x # 33 • O 00 d IID N N ♦a .•1 h QI N to d O O �u A O M N M N O CIAM o► a 40 �M 0 N Y1 �-1 rl d N tt h h el0 to M �O Gn +A V' N q{ 0 LA h In M M M h M, Cf h V-I .-. � ! 4!•/ tri 411 V N ala Cs co O .-4 0 aw L> ° a w w N w w M w w h w 1.w w � ~ N P-4 M M M h hO = H to to ff�Q M Ch cM W4, N A M Uvi ri U tG 1 %D 1 N co h 1 1 et .Ni t7 C:: a 0 O oho h 0 a) 1- 1 +4 41 N 1 W N 1 1 I 1 M to co 10 UO+ M N W .-t .-t h U p t� .0 v7 94 O tel to � N N N M of 1 47 Im CA et m 1 i I 1 CTs V h- L:d w w M r- 4 M M M -H1: eyq H cl .wa h O to N W Gi M tls •-1 O rf 0o O a at %0 to M v rt •. o fr M .•4 V O i h N 1 N d I to to M H ed w w ow w w w 41H + u M e h .-•I f' rl t� cn h C• i, ►s N M °C:. H N O te) 41 a CIO a Ln M s N 0-4 % CIO 1 %0 i I I. I 1 1 � Ohs NA •U1 � a M N �D CH, br P-4 I Q• '1•'1 W 00 U9 M Cil Ql M tel t, M Ct. 9-4 •4 in I 1 h I 1 1 1 M to M tn tJ O h N Ln u7 4J H Ln •a v v} a4Jo 0 -4 7 1.4 0 1. �: u N +' GO. O $4 0 O O m at .-4 O O O tri to H k A 41 es 0 44 to A. u .-+ C7 h to t,. LA O to 00 o w C O Cd tw1� N m ts. C7 r- 41 a ° C 4J v 10 P. rte! t~ In 1.4 tai U U tML} H 41 V4 ►moi QyJ .p 1-4 er`' . +1 C3 r= ¢. w ~ H •r4 •044 r •r4 c cam. w a a 10 N O 0-4 Itl O U tl a f♦ k H N ° ••4 G e4 V) ls i < a �4 a r4 r- • �a . w u •.4 .0 at c opos ° l9 N c 00 U C3 O u .1 0 C.3 1:3 41 V-4 1044 es aai w Q N N .0 N .4 N •v1 to H H to O • Felt to •r4 N rn .4 C3 h O N N LL] A .v-I a w w c a U) w In u a tom- E '` N w •. u u •t s+ .ui :+ a 41 o -+ a •V4 u w C c c co .e .a 0 44 .-4 . � � in in tv •at sn a a o c0� a v z �,~, 34 t eu H 4JO 0 O O O O 0 0 0 Q4 O O O O Otn 'ti w w w O M t 01 -4 O w w N 'O w w O IO c0 O O O' O to CD IQ 0 P14 U coot� M r- M N M %0 N �p H w w w w y .-/ N .-1 r-4 00 .r.t 1 44. ch r1 d O e •O 4./ M r•1 O M O e.r O n; a O tel Mt- t- t0 M O t� .0 H t e� o a w H 'a 14 00 O 0 rJ 3 ? v O O O O O O . O0 � .moi H O O Cl O O O O O O �O O r1 O O O O O O O O .0 H O O O O O M O tori ti ttn >, W r-i v O n -1 M r %D M U O H 0 E WH C4 tj tn V U x ted b r •0q to H >'y 10 0O cd a0 cs V U a+ v Z •,4 R cd 'O � G C 'O O W co p� CO. b A O cd cd 0 O rs C b W LP4.0 rs H ►-� 44 o to tx° o ,0 > a o .1410 -d 0 0 Q N y}0.� a cd 0 rd 0 H a :c rs C.)r-4 V � d O H S OCd 00 � H nO SCO U = M V O 00 0 rs r-c E W O rs rs O .X U tx %D U C cd cd O 3 n vt >. V rs U 1 c .14 cd H U O rs 0 O cs H 0-4 z 41 .-c u H rd >1 M+ H Ln cs rs r-i rJ 1-c tw O H Fd`t O ►-t W cs A n V) to U n 9 U Co O•r1 U rs N O E E � E (A E w E F E 3 E vOi C).to ." C) to O O O to O O O O O to H r- N A W O H H O H cd H O H O H H H cd h to u t!1 L4 u. N w H w v LL. N w Utn CS 4-J }� V. 4 U O a F h H U d > Ei v �• b �• 7 0Cd o � v X O 'v ' b O 'O d s; '�P= 7 cs oo °G o .-i •° a `J cD u 0 •o a a q a cd to O �. a as cd o > o H r•+ c 0 0 a° i co r- o N 4) 4J He :3 O x •� •N ai OHO W .0 0 U .0 r-/ V cnd 0 N O 4J O 910 rs ..V W W Q OBD H U W O to 0.O' r-s •• U cH! 0 14 • 3S Q a�tt• p u tt� 4S co W Y N' v• N F rt %4A O O • C 4D � N r t .wP► •G f,. V O a N 0 O r4 r to C) � 'w u t N to 7 •t3 O e3 • •Oct "� Q M V N N gyp. V r�� qA v d W96p'G. ' w �" o tf1 N N C 0 44 F v Y' N M N c• v N v 15 J00 M �O v t0.1N O40t _A r4t9 is N1 4j b p O O G�N O .C► �' M tM- 'µ Ln •O N N t w W U N 00 N eS 0 44A V +R W es ,4 H +'' W U 0 N N N yiO Nt. y ,''• �� O G•U 7 G• C% eA G• V p . O O v N O IPp ,NO r4 7 � d .-w H .N.4 V w vt+ o p V N ; 00 Vpp � G Off' � H F v oc C► W' N 3p U y�0r. O O i4 N ..44 � O v N G O v V V O a N tN! d O O 0 9 O w' w 40V 46 Pod �o a Nye ac Na d > o a N .r1 tN M •V .fir+ rA v 36 03. p '� V 6 � N CHAPTER V: OPEN SPACE USE OF THE PROJECT PUBLIC COSTS AND REVENUES The purpose of this chapter is to explore some of the assessment and tax revenue issues surrounding retention of all or part of the pro- ject land for various open space use. The open space costs are based on data supplied by the developer and the Contra Costa County Assessor's records. At times this chapter delves into the area of current assessment prac- tices utilized by County assessors and contrasts these figures to the current land value. State regulations preclude County assessors from. being able to continually review and substantially change the assess- ment of large parcels of vacant land unless deed transfer of sizable portions of that or nearby land have been transacted. If a lengthy span of time has occurred since the date of last reassessment on ,a large parcel of land, a large gap could well exist between the current market value of the land according to assessmeit. and that of a recent purchase price. 1973-1974 vs. POSSIBLE 1974-1975 MARKET VALUE The Assessor. has placed a market value of $2.8 million for the current 1973-1974 'tax year on the land only, within the project, a figure con- siderably less than the $4. 8 million purchase price that the developer asserts was paid for the 4,775.69 acre project site. Assessors have historically and by law used the sales price of large land holdings as the new basis for raising the assessment of those lands. In the case of the project, it would. appear that the assumed purchase price of $4 .8 million would approximate the market value placed on the land during the 1974-1975 tax year. This being the case, . it could be expected that the ,tax revenues from the project land would rise from the present S90,000 to about $154,000. This would also serve to substantiate $4.8 million as the current value of the project site. Further increase in ranch land values could be due to a combina- tion of the following factors: (1) continued price inflation of com- modities and resources, (2) higher speculative land value if the land is rezoned for development as proposed, and (3) imputed investment return on the land as a commodity. It is, however, within the realm of. possibility that the speculative value of the ranch lands could be decreased if the proposed rezoning does not take place. PROJECT ALTEMATIM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CONTRACT One of the land use alternatives to the project is that of the project proponents placing all or most of the project site into a Williamson Act Agricultural Preserves Agreement with the County. This could be a. viable project alternative if the present re:onifig application is denied or if the project scope is revised to include some type of per- manent agricultural operation. 37 • According to information obtained from the County Assessor's Office, ' project "land values"could drop to $576,000 using a capitalization rate of 10% and an average land. rental value of $12 in current 1973-1974 dollars if the project site were covered by an ,agricultural preserve agreement. Thus, property tax revenue would be reduced to about S18,500 per year, a reduction of about $70,000 from its current 1973-1974 level and about $135,000 less than estimated 1974-1975 revenues. This annual loss in tax revenue is, however, minimal when compared. to the nearly $30 million in capital requirements needed to extend urban services to the project. ($30 million is an investment of 222 years' tax return at $135,000 per year. PROJECT ALTEMATIVE: PUBLIC 01M RSHIP Another land use alternative to the proposed project is that of pur- chase of the project site for public ownership and perpetual open space. Table 17 was prepared based on data supplied by theproject developer concerning the asserted $4,8 million site purchase price, and records of the County Assessor's- Office for 'the 1973-1974 tax year. All or portions of the project could .be considered for public purchase with the resultant alternative of a smaller or no project. The present.project proposal includes an offer by the developer to dedi- cate 9S0 acres of land as additions to Mt. Diablo State Park if the pro- ject is approved as proposed. This is. hilly, undevelopable land and carries an average market value of about S500 ,per acre, for a total of $475,000.* The tax revenue impact of placing these undevelopable acres =� into the State Park System is minimal, however, since only 515,300 yearly would be. lost in revenue to all agencies and only $3,400 to the County General Fund. Purchase of the entire project for public ownership would mean the 1 outlay of at least $4.8 million for site acquisition and as annual loss ' in property tax revenue of about $154,000. Hoi-rover, this loss is mini- mined when it is taken into consideration that many of.the districts now providing service to the undeveloped project lands would no longer be required to do so and the small loss in revenue would haVe little impact on their budset. The revenue loss to the County General Fund could be only $34,000 annually or only $7 per acre. To oversirmlify a complex situation in order to make a point, acquisition of the site at $4.8 million would save the $30 million in public investwent neces- sary to actualize the project. " *These lands include parcels 194-060-02; 194-090-01, 03, 04, O5; 203-100-04 and portions of parcels 203-090-08, 10 and 203-100-03. A current 'inf 1 ated figure for a 1965 sale of comparable lands to the State Park give $522 per acre. **Purchase of the entire site is not, however, the only action that could -be taken to minimize an adverse economic impact on the public pocketbook. Purchase of some 2,000 acres of 'land most potentially developable would for exampl6, virtually obviate the project with the remaining 2,600 or so acres continuing-to be held by the owner for agricultural use. This could considerably lower acquisition costs for public ownership. 38 TABLE 17: MARKET VALUE Or PROJECT 1840-RZ LANDS BASED OW INFOItMATION SUPPLIED BY THE PROPONENT AND EXTRAPOLATION Of 1973-1974 ASSESSOR'S MWET VALUE Assessor's Per Acre Total Parcel Cash Cash • Number Acreage Value Value 194-060-02 209.47 $ 542 $ 113,445 194-090-01 70.00 544 38,102 194-090-03 60.92 908 55,351 194-090-04 6.50 905 5,880 194-090-05 38.20 903 34,496 203-020-06 363.93 1,100 400,323 203-020-07 2.10 1,811 3,803 203-020-08 100.50 207 20,804 20.3-030-07 85.64 455 38,966 203-040-07 227.09 2,455 557,506 203-040-08 34.81 1•,857 64,642 203-040-09 10.00 6,080 60,800 203-040-10 187.12 566 1050910 203-040-11 222.28 . 2,227 495,01.8 203-050-13 32.30 1,658 53,553 203-050-14 127.70 1,656 211,471 203-050-26 20.00 4,000 80,000 203-050-49 25.67 4,000 102,680 • 203-060-01 28.48 637 . 18,142 203-060-02 16.52, .631 10,424 203-070-01 120.00 907 108,840 203-070-03 1.17 2,312 2,705 4; R 203-080-01 305.75 911 278,538 • 203-080-02 19.09 908 17,334 203-080-03 10.28 908 9,334 203-080-05 417.43 1,309 546,416 203-080-06 212.29 727 154,335 203-090-08 112.24 396 44,447 203-090-10 269.85 447 120,623 203-100-03 280.00 288 80,640 203-100-04 160.00 363 58,094 203-100-08 80.00 363 29;047 203-120-01 480.00 355 170,400 203-130-01 244.00 1,823 444,812 215-060-03 31.19 2,314 72,174 215-080-04 163.17 1,398 228,112 TOTAL 4,775.69 $1,013 $4,837,167 -Source: Project Developer, Contra Costa County Assessor's Office. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Depasrtment. 39 . SUMIARY There exist two open space alternatives for the project as proposed: (1) retention of all or part of the project site in agricultural use or placement into a Williamson Agricultural Preserve Agreenent with the County, and (2) purchase or dedication of all or part of the site for public ownership. Placement of the project in an Agricultural Pre- serve category would reduce the property tax revenue currently paid by the project but would obviate the County and other public entities from having to make a nearly $30 million investment to actualize the project. Purchase or dedication of all or part of the project for public otirner- ship would involve the expenditure of at least $4.8 nillion for site purchase, an annual loss in County General Fund revenues of $34,000 but obviate $30 million in public improvement costs. (This would be a positive benefit to cost ratio of better than -6 to 1 for the public purchase alternative.) 40 CHAPTER VI: PROJECT PHASING--PUBLIC COST AND REVENUE FLOW As currently proposed by the developer, the project would be built over a 12 to 15 year period. A 12 year phasing plan was adapted from SCIS Report E-73317-1 and it is this plan that has been followed in computing the flow of property taxes to offset the public outlays. Table 18 shows how the annual property tax revenue varied at the end of each phase of the proposed project. The amount of annual property tax revenue to the school district for opera- ting expenses would be about $4,090,700 ger year upon project completion if no change in the tax -rate were to occur and about 5610,500 per year toward retirement of pre-existing school bond debt. However, this amount of revenue will not be flowing to the school district during the initial project phases but only upon project completion. Table 19 quantifies school demand generated by the project during each 2 year phase. Table 19 points out that while a small number of'-students from the project could be bussed to other district schools during the initial phase, this overload (and possible double sessions) could not last long. Allowance of a 2 year lead time for the district to build the necessa-:y facilities is •• made. The necessary capital expenditures to protide school facilities for project children are shown in Table 20 one phase early since monies or a bond issue need to be made available ahead of housing reed in order to prevent a serious school facilities overload. Unfortunately, this is also ahead of large scale property tax revenue from the project. Table 20 examines the capital expenditures that would be faced by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District in building the required school facilities to house the school children generated by the project. A total of over $12 million in capital costs ,could be needed by project completion, while only $610,50D would be raised in property tax bonded indebtedness revenue by project completion. These revenues, in fact, would be used to retire earlier district wide bonds since no bonds could be passed to house 1840-RZ children without a two-thirds approval of all district voters and so cannot be counted toward reducing the gross project school capital requirements. Dedication of one elementary school site, as promised by the developer, 'plus compliance with the school district's bedroom tax" revenue program would still leave the district over $10 million short in meeting pro- ject capital requirements. These monies would need to be raised and 'could be either through a bond issue or by a special levy on the project residents. Table 21 details the costs necessary to provide sanitary services to the project site. A total of some $3.7 to $6.2 million must be invested in order to fully serve the project at ultimate development. Revenues of the district will, however, be some $.6 million short of making up the local con- tribution and $3.1 million short of the total contribution at the end of sPhase 6 when the project is complete. These additional monies will have to come from other sanitary services subscribers or through special levies and/or 41 • higher tax rates applied- to project residents until they can be made up after project build out. Table 22 shows a flow of funds analysis for the project with regard to County General Fund expenditures. This table does not include operating and capital expenses iron the general f;:nd to service project residents since these figures could not at this rc nt be calculated exactly, except for significant road improvice-.ent costs which are shown in Table 16. The provision of water to the project is obviously a necessity if it is to actualize. In this case, if the project trere entirely within the water district, which it is not at present, the developer would be re- quired to advance 60' of the capital costs as -shown in Table 23. These dollars will , however, eventually be re_unded. $3.6 million in capital expenses must be borne by all East i,ay .1-:unicipal Utility District users to bring the project to full develorr..ent. Even at full development the project will only generate some $200,000 toward capital cost retirement, leaving an additional 45 years. to pay back this subsidy if 5% bonds could be floated by EBMUD. SUNVARY The preceding information has focused on the public and quasi-public costs associated with the development of proposed project 1840-RZ. While these figures are particularly applicable to this project, the methodology used . to derive them can be used for analyzing other costs associated with areas of developm-nt requiring the extension of new public service infractruc- Lure. New residential growth in areas nut previously developed does not usually raise sufficient revenues to fully pay for the capital costs required. Subsidies by the general public and by users .of quasi-public services like sewers and water are required from early project construc- tion through ultimate development and for many years after. ,The large capital investments presently required to actualize projects must be considered in the light of diminishing public economic resources and the need for additional residential services. The phasing and loca- tion of such growth is the key issue here since this must be discussed with regard to the minimizing of adverse economic and taxation impacts. In the case of project 1840-RZ, Table 24 illustrates that the approval of this project would require $9,500 per dwelling unit in public sub- sidies to actualize the project's first two-year phase. This is a conservative estimate since many local service costs which could not be easily quantified here were not ir.: '.u3ed in that figure. Taking all other grants or other than local subsidies into account gives a true dollar post per dwelling unit to actualize this project of upwards of $21,000. While Table 24 does show the local per dwelling unit subsidy decreasing to only lit project co:;.;) etion, the tctal dollar subsidy has risen fro7i j3.6 million at project start to over S1' million at ultimate develorr..ent. While at full cost consideration the subsidy has risen to 526.6 million or $5,860 per dwelling unit. 42 The issue with regard to new residential construction, particularly in areas not previously developed, thus concentrates on the amount of resi- dential growth the general .public can afford or should be obligated ' "to buy". 43 u o ?' �J tAM < Mh � N ? NU1 �M ONTO 0 d V C1 MNM %O 0 as w w w w w 0 yN V %Dh0p ftz v "C1 O N %D et 00 .••1 O N ev etM .tl-� OMM �! d .-04 f` 00MGlOn • ) � H.-4M < N %D LU V Ln U .4 �' aol� vcViC4 (t; u W FI 0. N hNt` .-1Mm >0 91 "rl Mmm %D 4Mfr a rq u4 04 N >. ° r4 ,. 0 �. O .r, x u V �Q co •• M I� lA � w btd °+ o � � Q1v Ln N .-1 C 00 •. r4 1 r4 y' 12 O •-i.4 1--1 V-4 r-1 > .-1 et cl m x N to •••1 to N O� r. E C:) .-1 r4 .-g a V y O O •rq 000000 W U a •r4 s y V Mo °N Nrq � -4 � o ° W Cd r4 w w w w w w 0 U $4 Q• O ••4 "4 N •rl .r{ U N F1 -r4 M N N M < !f 0 rz t7 w O •r4 i•1 N 7 a wl P-4 h H U r7 U 0 P4 a g c•� K, V•U a U W •• ili Q K U r4 f� h � M tel iOi1,'3+ •.1 M -441 .4Nn '1C1N •^ IVV1 QOO z O C00 r4MMOoON U Orz C YS •rl M M M f- to •,Oj rl .-1 aes ri O O F N 1 1 MMMO .N4 R h V w w w w 44 r4 O a Qi C1 t1 .-4• cl. 41 gn 0 � U O ate1 tau+ � U O d N CY. .-4 •r•1 N N U 401 W 00 ••4 9-4 N M E cy 41 O CL U O K N .0 U O .•r .1 to 1.1 r4 •ice+ Ln M -4 Ln gJ 41 y U fLU n w ti 3 N V M � vvv� �o w O f7 F 1 ° ci -4 :b.% U 11 ea U $4 'O W m cl N N M O N 4 .-g 4•1 r-1 < M .4 M 00 .4 Lr) - 4J•rl N .4 00 N M -1 64 vs 1- O O C M N M t1 < 1` cl .0 g C N •� .-4 N N k U 1 ON U K E Nd {h -. r UG C V f13 O ° .. .OD W U. 0 .„1 C U co N 00 10 Ch �r N 'b .-1 14 b V 64 0 gun �� NG. .-i 0 &n W M O. }4 co qq N %D U 0V� O a a �+ e1 .-1 N M 1* M %D O O Lui !'+. N LL �6 (4 0. 1-+ NGL Z N B. 44 cc 14 AX p•N = U a0Lf) 000 v a H N0G0% � t~ � V 0 w w w w w w � V•~.O O tS V!M N N N N W .MjW t:4 >u 41 0. 0rG .00 V is o 6N► .�+j o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e P.-HU hlnt- coOC` W VvV 01M .-INIn N N 0 •r4 O C w M O 00 r\ O .Or fn u U .-� O .-I t7 M 00 O N .w •�w > .ss o aoA .c • W o u .. a .� V w N i� C N O .aU •�U u) M0000M %0 Ln LF) N O u G C �N N N NN td to �1 W Cd > iLA •r�1 GeG to O LL7A b,C 1 �. W • O• N ~ O 0000p0 ►i w avu Mt�°• C) c00 E`�• v •`1+' • U p t- cotnW NN A.•.1 00NvvooM O O rn-r4 4 'OW ? •o N If;t` 01 �•1 U cid VV N U v H 40Y CA V H 9=1 41 N sn P v •rt u �E+ to) N fs N 1-1 a+ a es Au 0 W •;a ted e0i o ii9: v ,4 o 0 0 0 0 o P..-r Uo.o.ra.0••o o .� A4:4 o a V) '"'M C) oNIn 0a -H0 r. v1 0. U U x '•I Ln O C tom• O i •d > U V O Q M .•4 U .� C7 1O a U O N.-•i MIT N %0 t!1 P .O•I H °q k IA 44 . 4 PC X Q• 41 � a �t1 s o 4J O 4+ M a00000 u �•4 N v u • 0000co a to a c •� p� h�tri w w O Q t7 V N O G v 4! h W) .•o N M N 0.4 O .A U N 09 O) M .+ N I/l M •P4 .y M 01 00 t- 0 @ Uta N Q .•4 w w w w w w .. to . 4Mrl Ia0ON ou N o a ® a ryq r'4j 0 P-0 P-4 uu CA u N � ub O N N ►•/ N V uV) wo u ti tom'• eq a a s .•4 N M V 4n �0 h a 4S t G ttf G 9) t0 l{ E c m 0 O a cs a o •*� .-4 G •.t 0 W O 00 -T o, M to ^ ttl > is 'V R G1 to M It 1-► O H ttt R t1 07 0 •rt 1++ N U N a0 tls N N c0 OG E+ R ow %D C1 R O 11, 1~ U > w w t� w ".7 u H t7 t) •-1 `T 00 r-1 r-1 r-1 v 40 N r-1. 603V� O H t8 1 u•.r4 wv .. . .. 0 V O N h 000 00-4 Q M C V4 t` a 0 •, cd > N N %04 D oa Ao 00 O J O O O O %no N O S N tD to R O O t0 V tT •rt I.t {J 164 M NO O r-t M r-t uNwu. to . H O o O O a a o c> o' o a o rpt %0 O N wt O0 O r'iM• O of i� v O G 0 b7 00 LA R0 M �.Ot t- N 01 r1-4W r t .r( F- tll w w w w w w /ti w w w w w w N C 4.j: to H 41 41 V1 N t`- C %D R N �l tT N U9 to O O ti is W r-t tJ H Vt = .-t t- tel M R Irt Q LA M Ol to t7 -4 -3 � tJ td •r1 k U U th m to M R r-I is i" P1 N r-t r•t r-t •t 4.3 D+ U } �, w w w w w •► „^'„ 4•i p w w w w w + t.7 •f+ ►+ L j th NI IRT to LA W +u M v M M M tH M G 0 tf Gi 41 0 C) Ai to C C ri E-• t.r d r- -4 G. G ti W t►7 4J r-t r-� 4J 41 O O O Cl O O •r t LYO G O O O O C: R r-t M N t71 r1 ^.• r-t M i - **+F - G to to M N Q mo 00 R '� +► O 1 r-1 •ri � v w w w w w w t..i + w •w w .► w Sd 1 t N 00 M O N N o0 J M CO r-1 r-t M t11 t, O to r-t V e3 N Z 7D to r-t ri in r-t �M t7 1-- M O to 0 A co •rt H d V z et O 00 N tD R R +O %D V Ln •H C? 61 G > w w w w w UH O 14 ,Oa u A+H M N N tri M Q H t�'+f► u 'L 0 u $$4 r iH+ 0 / G 4944 41 ,. O U•. O O a 0 p O V A N •n- �D O O r1 00 co G 'O N w w w w ,► +N 1- 4�+ 10+ +-t M1 00 W ai V N C6 tri .•t M m V 0 i► r4 M 64 m rr M tl $4 tq }+ .-r tv Ks v tts w chi u 0 0 r: «-i •o iGt f•• tv A. 46 TABLE 22: PROJECT REVS.%UES To im commy, Property Tax tiotor Vehicle? Sales Taxa Ilighoy• Users4 Total Phase Revenues 'In Lieu fees Revenues Gas Tax Revenues Revenues 1 $ 210,270 = 10,290 $ 10.620 13,460 $ 244,640 2 S18,230 29,180 30,120 38,150 . 615,630 3 938,900 S1,490 53.150 67,320 1,110,S60 .4 1,387,660 81.480 64,100 106,520 1,659,760 S 1,679,270 99,390 102,590 129,940 2,011,190 6 1,906,900 112,670 116,300 147,300 2,2S3,170 1This assummcs that the project phasing schedule as advanced by the developer will be followed and that the following population will be living at the project at the end of each phase: Phase 1 1,406 Phase 3 7,034 Phase 5 13,578 Phase 2 3,956 Phase 4 11,?31 Phase 6 15,392 2; 1973-1974 per capita figure of $7.32 for Streets and Highways Sections 2104 and 2106 revenues was used even though recent tren?s show a marked reduction. 3Per capita sales tax revenues are approxi-ately S7.S6. This figure tines the pro- ject's resident population has been used to calculate sales tax revenues at the end of each phase attributable to the spending patterns of project residents. 4A 1973-1974 per capita figure of $9.57 for Streets and IfIghways Sections 2104 and 2106 revenues was used even though recent trends show a marked reduction. ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: If road improvements attributable to this project were to cone from all revenuds indicated above, then the following deficits would occur at the end of each phase if revenues fro- ti-c project were the sole source of applicable fundir.g: Phase 1 $1,917,360 Phase 3 S4,168,140 Phase S SS,068,810 Phase 2 $2,159.320 Phase 4 $3,693,240 Phase 6 $5,932,330 ..:.,.,: The subsidy on a per dwelling unit basis would then be the following: r Phase 1 $5,154 Phase 3 $2,100 Phase S $1,278 - Phase 2 $1,945 Phase 4 $1,437 Phase 6 $1,3.' However, present county policy Brits the construction of road project funding to revenues derived frog+ tea --:::cap• Users Tax Revenues. Based on these applicable revenues only, the subsidies during each project phase would become the following: • Phase 1 $2,148,530 Phase 3 55.231,680 Phase S $6,950,060 • Phase 2 $2.736,850 Phase 4 $6,246,480 .Phase 6 $8,06S,200 The subsidy on a per dwelling unit basis would then be the following: Phase 1 $5,776 Phase 3 $2.624 Phase 5 $1,752 Phase 2 $2,466 Phase 4 $1,912 Phase 6 $1,775 Source: James A. Roberts G Associates Report to Cotutty Planning Department on Project 1840-RZ, September 1973; Contra Costa County Department of Public Works; Contra Costa County Planning Department. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. al • TABLE 23: FLOW OF FUNDS--WATER SERVICES • Required Dollar Ad- vance by Developer Annexation Fees Required 60% of Capital Costs (Contribute to- 2 Year Capital (This will eventu-. ward Capital Costs) Phase Costs ally be refunded) Revenues 1 5 2,012,500 $ 1,212,000 $ 765,200 2 3,775,000 29265,000 765,200 3 49375,000 2,625,000 765,200 4- 4,375,000 2,625,000 765,200 5 4,374,000 2,625,000 765,200 6 40375,000 2,625,000 765,200• Mater Sales $1 Project Deficit Deficit Per Dwelling Unit Property. Tax (With Devel- (Without De- (With Devel- (Without. De- Revenue Applicable oper Contri- veloper Con- oper Contri- veloper Con- Capital Costs bution _ tribution) • bution) tribution) 31,590 $ 30710 $ 1,215,710. $ 10 $ 3,270 = ,58,150 686,650 2,951,650 620 2,660 89,960 894,840 3,519,840 . 4S0 1,770 135,770 8490030 3,474,030' 260 .1,060 179,130 805,670 3,430,670 200 870 200,000 784,800 3,409,800 170 750 At the end of the 6th Phase or 12th year, a capital deficit of nearly $800,000 still remains. However, since EBMUD will be refunding all developer contributions, ' it is more appropriate to examine the column showing project deficits without developer contributions. 1The golf courses and commercial uses are assumed to contribute approximately $100,000 in annual water use revenues upon project completion. " NOTE: Phase 1 would require the construction of half the transmission lines and the S million gallon reservoir. Phase 2 would require the completion of the 31,000 feet of transmission line and a 3 million gallon reservoir, with the final reservoir constructed during Phase S. This sequencing could vary depending on project layout_ design and topography of the area to be served. This could also affect the number Of tanks and their capacity, but these estimates are conservative and of the appropriate order of magnitude. Source: East Bay Municipal Utility District; Contra Costa County Planning Dept. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department. • 48 44 'D •r � tia a ti e .P4 w a F! .,aa u o a CA w rN, Go 3 ai ci .r, r4 a yrs w � i . Q v Q r' +�' ' . !� p� t� to >, M Cs c4 a M �. cl ao N > 41 O N a cd P4 o o a a. o o au. a • 1� $4 to • N •0 N 0 La in H til O c w w w w. w I w a u u ani h o a .-4 a ao Of M O � aQ N ao ,u7• N W Wt }� .2 Lts 4 G t� N h .�• v � O N Ow G4 A ei P-4 a .i .-0 N N N 44 0.41 A N a O` a O C4 00 M U v 0 O a ani `� ri k ,N H O 04 a � a o 44 11 qp O N O 'd' N u7 N G Q M u H N C1 N N O t'* H to 8 u ;V4M %O %O d d u H V H is d QN .o cd 0.O + u 0 a u a a C( vl' M L/7 N 40 O • U 00M P4 N to N a •rl •rl w w w w w w b ,777.444 a F} N u u p. >4 cs .y N M u1 0�! i 4a) This report was prepared by the Contra Costa County Planning Department, Anthony A. Dehaesus, AIP, Director of Planning Charles A. Zahn, AIP, Chief, Advance Planning Division Harlan L. Menkin, AIP, Planning Economist a s0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT E.I.R. FOR PROJECT 1840-RZ (filacrhawk Development Corporation) May 23, 1974 • EXHIBIT $4 BLACKHAWKFINAL E.I.R. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pfe Introduction . . . . . . . . , l Regional Considexations (Scenic Routes, viewshed, State Park, Growth-inducing impacts) . . . . . . 2 Urban Facilities (PG&E, Water, BART, Library Service, Sewers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 11 Agricultural Considerations . . . 23 Physical Impacts (Grading, Soils & Geology) . . . 29 Vegetation and wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Climate and Air Quality (Climatology, Noise, Air Pollution) o . . . . . . . 53 Hydrology and Water Quality (Flood Control and Drainage) .' . 73 Traffic Analysis (Traffic Impact, lload Funding) 78 . Socioeconomic Cant;idarations . . . . Conclusion o a . . . . . . . . . 94 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT E.I.R. FOR PROJECT 1840-RZ (Hlackhawk Development Corporation) :May 23, 1974 Introduction With the enactment of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 'and its subsequent guidelines, local agencies were given the responsibility for the preparation of E.I.R.s (Environmental Impact Reports) for public projects. AB 889 further extended this responsibility to private projects. In March of 1973, the County of Contra Costa adopted guidelines for the "Processing Procedures of Environmental Impact Reports and Public Projects". In accordance with these guidelines an E.I.R. was prepared for project 1840- RZ and a notice of completion was posted on February 14, 1974. This E.I.R. was circulated to agencies and the public. Hearings -on the E.I.R. were held in the County Supervisors' Chambers on March 26 and April 23 of 1974. As a result of these public hearings ,verbal testimony and written comments were received pertaining to the contents of the Draft E.I.R. Consequently, a Final E.I.R. was required, A F*nal E.I.R. is described as follows by the adopted County guidelines. "Final FIR means an FIR containing the information specified in the draft FIR plus a section for comments received. in the consultation process, and the response of the Responsible Agency to the comments received." The policy of the County has been to handle these responses• in one of two manners, The Draft E.I.R. may be revised to incorporate such comments and 'the lead agency responses (Contra Costa County) or the responses may be added to the Draft E•.I.lz. Because of th length and complexity of the Draft E' I.R. the Planning Department Staff has chosen the second method. The Draft •E.I.R. was prepared from information provided by the JARA'Report prepared one year ago for the applicant and the SCIS Report prepared late in 1973, at the request of the County. Additional information was obtained from public agencies ,from field trips to the site, fron local experts in various fields of expertise and from published documents. much of the information contained herein has been made available by the persons speaking at the public hearings and by persons responding in writing. The afore- mentioned information, together with what was dliscussed in the Draft E.Z.R. forms the basis for this expanded environmental impact analysis which con- stitutes a Final E.I.R. The responses will generally follow the sequence within the Impact Analysis section of the Draft E.I.R. (S.l.a. - j., pp. 34 - 62. THE GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS OF 1840-RZ During the public hearing process several questions were raised concerning the growth-inducing impacts of the project. The environmental impact report stated the growth inducing potential in general terms because of the large area under consideration for which detailed land suitability studies have not been done nor are likely to be done until someone proposes development of a specific site. The text of the original growth-inducing section is printed below. "Development of the project will add to existing pressures to develop surrounding ranches and probably raise assessed valuation (tares) on neighbor- ing properties -hick are generally used for agriculture. Moreover, the approval of this project on land, designated by AErG in 1970 as 'controlled development' (not currently desirable for development) , will set a precedent for current development of land which is not planned to be considered for development until 1990 as well as partly designated as major open space in Contra Costa County's Open Space/Conser:•ation Plan. This becomes particularly important because of nearby agricultural preserve lands. Residential growth to the north is limited by Yount Diablo State Park. ZnsyLuvwjat'fIL of U'affic facilities such as Grow Canyon eoaa exterslon may encourage development of the many parcels in the valley areas. Sycamore Valley will provide the cost immediate area for growth with sor..e l,&JO acres of developable land along the valley floor.extending from the inter- section of Sycamore Valley Road and Tassajara Road to Lawrence P.oad. Pressure for growth throughout the general area kno:.,n as Tassajara Valley -will be generated by the project. Growth in the area will be only so.mie-: at r,=- • stricted by the topological and geologic conditions in the valley area. The critical factors will be whether utilities will be extended into these areas which will allow nuch more intensive use than currently exists. This development will stub end into properties such as the R:agee, 9ettencourt, and Edmonston Agricultural Preserves and put extreme pressure on these properties to develop. The land between the State Park and the project, about 300 acres, will also be put under pressure to develop. In short, if approved this will open up the Greater Tassajara Valley area for continued growth." There are at least 4,000 acres of very developable land along the valley floor adjacent to Tassajara Road to just beyond Finley Road including smaller valleys branching off of Sycamore Valley along Dougherty Road, Lawrence Road and Finley Road. Several thousand additional marginally developable acres lie on the hillsides bordering these valleys. Z ' • If Blackhawk Ranch is developed, the basic public fadility-and utility Infrastructure would be extended to this land. Although growth is basically a supply and demand function, the supply of housing (availability) often stimulates demand and the direction of growth. The establishment of a public utility and facility infrastructure makes it easier for an entrepreneur to develop land, because development costs are reduced and approval probability increased with the availability of the infrastructure. The following calculations estimate the growth potential of the area in its most obvious terms, residential units and population. These are based on the 4,000 acres with obvious development potential. Of course, the potential of individual parcels will vary dependent on the desires of the owners and particular site constraints. At the same time, some less developable land (based on slope steepness) may be developed as part of a larger parcel. Therefore, the calculations are rough estimates based on general assumptions, but they do indicate an order of magnitude. Assumptions (1) No catastrophic eve,.ts will- change the development potential of the area. (2) The entire area would be developed at h low density minimum lot size (average) of 15,000 square feet less 20% for roads. • Given 4,000 acres less 20% for roadways 3,200 acres 15,000 square foot loi: minimums 2.32 units per acre 3,200 acres X 2.32 units per acre = 7,425 units 7,424 units at 3.78 persons per unit = 28,062 population It is possible that the Blackhawk development could stimulate an additional • 7,425 units 'and an additional 28,000 population. It is.impossible to determine the timing of this additional growth although 20 years appears to be the earliest possible development. The additional growth would obviously require many supporting facilities such as schools and commercial uses. In regard to schools, the development could generate 9,875 additional school age children which would require 12 schools; 7 elementary, 3 intermediate and 2 high schools.l 1Based on San Ramon Valley Unified School District average number of students per school by type. 3 A further ramification of growth in the area would be the basic conflicts which exist between agricultural production and residential development. �• '!'hese effects will be realities whether or not the County or the property owners make attempts to retain. the agricultural productivity of the area if the Blackhawk Ranch is developed. There are factors which inhibit the future viability of agricultural opera- tions in the County. The problem arises from their competitive position relative to other growing areas in the state and nation. Labor costs are higher in the County compared to most other agricultural areas. This is due to available industrial jobs and higher pay scale. Land values are higher resulting in higher taxes. Water costs are higher than the average. Residential development suited to suburban and country living, not commercial agricultural production will erode the agricultural values of this area. Increased suburbanization increases land values and the demand for urban services such as water, sewers, fire protection and schools, all of which have a' direct effect on the local tax structure.. Constantly increasing taxes make it economically unprofitable for many farmers to remain in agri- cultural production. The enormous dollar and resource demands required to support urban develop- ment contribute to the economic and environmental pressures on agriculture. The profit squeeze on farmers and ranchers is intensified when agriculture land is taxed to raise funds for services acid facilities required by. urban populations. The higher selling value of land for development or speculative • < 1 l: 1. •�. a•CG: 7 L �.. L.. zha l.. ,t r 41..- ---- ....ni 1.�.'• ,1V1UL�ly --I..CJ '1 _1.L,C.C.- I1 LVL Ciilr VilL 1.v _. �, v(�. anA v.• �• .rt.... for agricultural purposes. Residential development has a low tolerance for agricultural pesticides and herbicide sprays and for the odors and fly problems common with live- stock or dairy operations. Complaints concerning these annoyances from homeowner_ not engaged in agricultural pursuits make it difficult for nearby farmers and ranchers to carry out their agricultural operations. Also, 'additional development will mean increased automobile useage which has a negative effect on agriculture. In the Hay Area over 60% of emissions came from motor vehicles. Motor vehicles cause the largest emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Oxidant, or photochemical smog, results from a chemical reaction which takes place in the atmosphere between nitrogen dioxide and organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. The most obvious effects of oxidant are reduced visibility, vegetation damages, and eye and respiration irritation. The Diablo Range is less subject to concentration of air pollutants because of the land elevation. !Areas over 1,500 feet in elevation are especially free of pollutants trapped under the inversion layers of present. If large numbers of vehicles use the mountain, however, local areas of polluted air can be expected to occur in valleys and canyons. , 4 Mt. Diablo State Park Several questions were raised concerning lit. Diablo State Park. One of the main issues revolved around the ability of the Park to accommodate more people - some of which will be generated by the proposed project. After discussions with Mt. Diablo State Park personnel it was apparent that there is a question in their minds as to the ability to accommodate the existing public use of the Park. There has been a tremendous increase this last 6 months in the utilization of the State Park facilities. For example: in January of 1973, there were 13,000 paid attendances while in January of 1974, there were 40,000. Additionally, during the first half of the present fiscal year (July 1, 1973 to January 31, 1974) 194,421 persons paid to enter lit. Diablo Stafte Park while during the total -fiscal year of 1972- 73 only 140,406 persons utilized the Park. A further comparison can be made for the corresponding first 1/2 of the 1972-73 and 1973-74 fiscal years. There was a 54,000 increase in attendance for the current fiscal year over the first 1/2 of the preceding year. Why this increase? Park officials feel there are generally two reasons. First pertains to the recent gasoline shortages. People began to use the nearby Mt. Diablo State Park in preference to traveling greater distances with the accompanying nuisance of obtaining gasoline. The second reason is related to the relatively good t:,eather experienced during this last year. There were more "clear" days and Park officials feel that this is a prime motivating force which draws persons to the Park. There is an additional factor which may contribute to the current increase in Par}; attendance. • There is an apparent* increase in nixing wnirn na's been reflected in Mt. Diablo State Park by a greater utililzation of existing trails. There is no current data which estimates the precise carrying capacity of Mt. Diablo State Park. Park personnel are now wdrking on such a study. If the current attendance continues to increase at such a rapid rate, the State Parks and Recreation Department may be forced to place a limit on the -number of persons which can be- allowed to enter the Park at any one time (several national parks have instituted such a system) . lentil recent years, Mt. Diablo has generally been underutilized and any compari- sons between individual parks would be illadvised especially in light of the recent tremendous increase in attendance. Questions were rais3d as to the physical integrity of the State Park and of the mountain itself. Answers to these questions would 'be frought with value judgements and any conclusions would be based on a minimal amount of concrete data. It is the Planning Staff's opinion that these cruestions should be answered by persons more knowledgeable in the area of park land acquisition, establishing buffer zones, and mountain physiography. In short, any comments the County staff might make could more accurately be answered by the State Parks and Recreation Department. They have, in effect, answered some of these questions. On page 11 of the Draft E.I.R. is a map of the projected future acquisitions for Mt. Diablo State Park. There is a 1st through 3rd ranking system based on importance of acquisition. The •,all Point area of the project is listed as a most important acquisition, the Dan Cook Canyon south to South Gate Road is a desirable acquisition and the remainder of the project site which the Park speaks to is shown as land 'for appropriate acquisition. 5 ;• Viewshed e A question was raised as to the view of Mt. Diablo from the pr.)ject site. ' The questioner quoted a statement in the .SARA Report which is apparently incorrect as to the existing viewshed. The mountain is apparently visible from Blackhawk Road along its southeasterly route (Map following page) . In a letter to "Save Mount Diablo", a local group dedicated to the pro- servation -of Mt. Diablo znd to expansion of the State Park, Mr. Robert Myer, chief deputy director, replied on behalf of Mr. Mott, director of the State Department of Parks and Recreation: "We have noted your reasons for including the 'window on Mt. Diablo' concept from Blackhawk Road in our acquisition program. There is value in this concept, and we have included provision for this among the projects which are being evaluated for inclusion in the 1974 Bond Act program" (March 6, 1974). It is unclear if some provision for this "window" on Mt. Diablo will be provided by the developer. At the current time there is no inclusion of this concept in the conditions of approval for 1840-RZ. If such a provi- sion is not made and construction occurs without adequate consideration of the "window" concept, the view of Mt. Diablo could be impaired for travelers along Blackhawk Road and, thus, would be of little value for in- clusion in the 1974 Bond Act program. 6 • FIGURE 4 I el -r"tf! ., • # � .• �••• `r •fir`\' •� ~' y.` `}- � �• . r i} .fir � � kOSS/+ t:•' \ ••e+ • ,t\�• � • t'.�rj ,� • K,• •• ••/,T't• �lr":•�i• ami. •#y `i ; S• •ijii�..•aJ• `i: ,' • jr 44 ' rti,``1i•,..',,,,i� � .a.Mt� Y r�t�� ti � •: .• ♦'l/PPF f� '\ Aq IV .j fir•! �.R.�_l T/l/� '. :� ., R=t•.,+��•_s.� t�.t•�1)%. J'• � ,;., .'1 +• r• •i y1r4 ��,�: r• BUCKHAn ROAD '\ N • it/ {ti•// 'r ' . • ve to t • 'tl i . �`[• ,+ Orf I��I� .`" , �/ ,.,+ �tr��4� � ,{ j " - • t�rri•��tt$;r t .� RatsT'w6 $Taft rata 93u+4964T.. .. r �\ �r�: • lo.c or lutc •...i.Tt.cn/"�,r,""�• ♦ �t '►• '.. •, 1\�: Volt ir•orta.T .t0u•siTVNi • �'•M• NT. DIAGLq STATL ►.MK fr.rr:ti. ....a c.•t• •• i Ot*Attirttit pr tat.$aN�s:C+Wf ' •r Otlt.a$tt SCOVi S4110%.S • irrAO•Aiatt fCOutliTiiM `. �•� � �• , r • Scenic Routes Element Was not the Scenic Routes Element required by law to be adopted by the beginning of 1974? Since the Element has not be adopted, is it lawful to approve a major development without first adopting that Element? We would request an opinion from the County Counsel on this question, unless it becomes-.mooted by action of the Board of Supervisors. To fullfill section 65302, of the Government Code, cities and counties are required to adopt scenic highways elements. (SB 1257; Chapter•1632) The element adoption is required by September 20'• 1974, or one year after adoption of the enabling legislation. The Scenic Routes Element supplements both the Recreation Element, adopted in 1970, and the Open Space and Conserva- tion Element adopted in 1973. Although adoption is mandatory, no penalty exists for delinquency. It is not the intent of the legislation to suspend or preclude development along proposed or adopted routes. "A scenic road plan is intended to add considerations of roadway aesthetics and, mainly, road corridor appearance to the scope of a city or county general plan. This Scenic Routes Element is an initial scenic routes (mean- ing highways, roads, and streets) plan for Contra Costa County that has been developed to identify a basic countywide network of potr ential scenic . tC, to nrn.rir7n a nn74n,r Fnr cnG nein rnt!teF im 7Pm-ntAtinn nrnoram hu County government, and to provide a means of coordination between agencies of the County and those of other jurisdictions engaged in scenic routes `- planning. This plan is now intended to comply with the State requirement as we11 •as the needs of the County's planning program. "As a product of the- County's comprehens've planning program, this plan is intended to provide an instrument of coordination between the County and other units of government. One channel of coordination is with the State and its scenic highway program which is administered by their Division of Highways. This Scenic Routes Element includes the State' recommendations for Contra Costa County and proposes the addition of other state highways in the County to the State's Master Plan of State Highways Eligible fcr Official Scenic Highway Designation. A second channel of coordination is with the cities of Contra Costa County who are preparing their own general plan scenic roads plans as a result of the State's mandating legislation. This initial Scenic Routes Plan can be used as b context for their efforts, while the later refined County plan can include their proposals. "The state roads that are in, and those that are recommended for inclusion in, the State Scenic Highway System together form the skeletal network for the County Scenic Route System. One major requirement for local roads to be considered for official designation is that the local road must be shown as a scenic highway on an adopted general plan.. Thus, adoption of this Contra Costa County General Plan Scenic Routes Element plan will make the roads described and shown in this document, and shown on the Plan Map (Map 2), eligible to be officially designated scenic highways if they other- wise meet the requirements of the state program. 8 "The designation of roads comprising a county scenic route system provides _ the necessary policy direction to local staffs to conduct corridor studies and prepare implementation measures to retain and enhance the scenic qualities of these roadways and their visual corridors." The following County routes contain the scenic qualities necessary to meet the goals of this program and would be directly effected by the Blackhawk development: South Gate Road Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard Diablo Road SOURCE: Contra Costa County Scenic.Routes Element-in hearing. . r o31%n^ o i N cc s �o o aa.0r wW + Via- xx z N 'ni.ry ox ' 6 Q UW o NDN � v+ . vov�i+,.r t vu • P tea• V ° • v W � � AIII• •` i Rd. • � . a o ra v �pc1 i D .pa t� do • .9 p EN . /jD' b o, r ,p• • Z• c a i • C. U O•Vo Q`�• u, ' c cc a �O a0 ! ,n 1 • P.G. i E. s Short term adverse impacts on finite natural resources (energy) could essentially be considered those effects causing a strain or shortage on resource availability And/or supply. The long term impact is essentially extinction and is inevitable In the consumption of a non-renewable resource. lbe Blackhawk development would cause a. short term adverse:impact as long as it represents a strain on meeting energy demands or causes shortages in service. A complex of variables is involved in consumptive patterns• of energy resources which make an estimate in terms of a single project per year productivity very difficult to predict. Electricity and gas power in the San Ramon Valley is presently supplied by two sets of P.G. & E. towers and lines originating at the Pittsburg power plant. The two systems traverse the Blackhawk Ranch within an existing P.G. & E. easement right-of-way. The two systems, the Pittsburg-moraga and the Pitts- burg-San Mateo, are both 230,000 watt (230 KV) lines. At some time in the future new energy- systems will be required to meet power demands in the San Ramon Valley, both because of and inspite ofd the Blackhawk development, should it be approved. That is, increaseO. po%:•er generation would supply Blackhawk in addition to increasing demand in the San Ramon Valley. P.G. & E. is presently investigating means .of supplying the electrical energy requirements of the San Ramon Valley for the late.1970's. One solution �:ould • be an additional 230,000 volt (230 KV) tower line between the Pittsburg F•3wer. Plant and the San Ramon Substation. A possible route for this additional transmission line is parallel to and easterly of the two existing dc-able circuit tower lines that cross the Blackhawk Ranch. When power demand is sufficient, a new substation would be necessary to serve the Blackhawk,Ranch. It is estimated that this may a^.cur some time between 1980 and 1985. The location of the substation has not been determined, how- ever it would presumably be within the existing easement. • WATER-EBMUD Three types of water storage structures may be considered: 1. above ground, concrete or steel tank. 2. same as #1, burried. 3. berms - concrete structure surrounding a tank to divert flow in case of an emergency. The District can provide water service up to elevation 650 feet for a small portion of the project with existing facilities within current EBMUD boundaries. Three new reservoirs with a combined capacity of 13 MG, and their pumping plants, would be required to provide water service to the remaining portion of the proposed Blackhawk Ranch project that lies within the District's ultimate service area.* *East Bay Municipal Utility District response to EIR 1840 RZ Two reservoirs would be located on eastern and western portions of the property at 950 feet elevation and would service areas within 850 Feet - 650 feet elevation. The third tank would be located to the north at an elevation of 1150 feet and would service the largest area within 1050 feet - 850 feet elevations. Specific localities have not been determined and would depend upon the number of units to be served. Individual sizes of the reservoirs have not been determined. The northern reservoir would be the largest and serve the largest area. The sizes would .depend upon the number of units to be served. The average annual water use for the proposed Blackhawk Panch project is estimated to be 3.2 MGU. The exact treater use will depend on ti-e ~'.inal development plans as approved by the County.* The environmental impact of the water reservoirs would essentially stem from short term construction associated effects and perhaps visual ef-fects thereafter. *.East Bay Municipal Utility District response to EIR 1:840 RZ d 12 •� ' - e! y'C I' !w•i �.� 1 •+rwrwcfSEr� .. •':, ,;,' , .- � '• "" ._ � ,_.��}N tit if cr CL sem` � .� 7- W _ ♦•' .. •''�'` r • .. � t: l / jam..• .. .. •air 11 �' �=�t) � •. .,t n,"L e�%/ t'i _..-• '^� vi' •��\ �• ••.4 :.;.a 1 •f ._. ^ �' ,111 • C�'i •�.:, i, _it j ., t, j J moi• �. / :L%J I .-.. _ , i _ .y*`;r' ;1 J ✓ iyti.�✓{/�o,,: � - j, :: 'tr j, r it y 41 i, WO u • re`s. .L .`•` •�, �'!. �` V Q= Lj in cn ., t _,).i. ;/f :R t' '�.•� "'` -,��-�'- :••f_. �r. J �Cc:wjxttt: toco to CD . ...r.y.t; • • W .� ' ' ?' ,�>:•��'jJl iJ •�i' •ftp' t� �, c< •.�,•`�••j•.t i '' i,"f ___ f .... � .�r i Sewage Three major drainage basins are located on Blackhawk Ranch property (Section g. Hydrology, Draft E.I.R.) . From west to east they include Green Valley, Sycamore and Alamo basins (see Figure) . The project would be served by the Contra Costa County Sanitary District, whose service presently terminates short of the Blackhawk project. Before the project could be initiated this area would have to be annexed. The Central Sanitary District Master Plan includes only the Green Valley and Sycamore basins within its planning area boundaries. From a planning and facilities standpoint, one-third of the Blackhawk property is not included in future development plans. When possible, sewage disposal in the County is conveyed by gravity flow; otherwise pumping (a force main) is required in order for confluents to reach the sewage reclamation plant southeast of Martinez. Both Green Valley and Sycamor: basins drain by gravity into the Walnut Creek drainage basin and ultimately into Suisun Bay. The Alamo basin, however, drains southerly into Alameda County and is separated from the Sycamore basin by a ridge. Jurisdiction overlaps as the watershed crosses County lines. Furthermore, development of the Alamo drainage basin's natural south- erly course wo•.ild essentially open up (make available facilities which presently preclude development) approximately 1,000 acres of developable land within the basin, outside of Blackhawk boundaries which has not been anticipated or planned. Therefore, pumping into the Sycamore basin would be necessary to alleviate this conflict and impact. It has been estimated t:lat at least 3,0GJ acres of undeveloped land south and east of the project would be made open for development by the availability of sewage facilities. :his represents a considerable amount of land above and beyond the 2,071 acres that would be served by sewage facilities. The growth inducing impacts inherent in facility extension into unserviced areas is great. This growth would essentially impose a potential pressure on the Central Sanitary District to service areas beyond present planning horizons. 24 j i• :1 `S • , <<; ? ••• Pry `-.i .� •; � i1�"' �•• -1, �.� � � 1 .. 1 'r ri.. • +t'''� +` r. •mil '� � �''�•.• 1 ... � 't'.n. 1 t .'__",/ rJ'�.-!`_'+•�,,,,� ` i \. � } �l f i' a � f • . ,•.;��'�"'�'• `' .� S'�� ..•.•� � �'. t•J:•`• '!-•- ))). yr .-J�. f. / � „ � 00 It ; s �I--\.•,:.%t• f .� `�( �af•t`�';.�' S-.„�...••'"\,,,,w',{•t•-- •'��fI'",t' \/j •a '`� t•h+.•.. `•..✓ l t'�>r n `�• -� r v. t,r 41 �'`� - 1 \-.....rte[, ,_'''`��'-,'• �" •l >:'•�, ; • ,• .j/,• ;.., r -•tet r�-•��r._;.:;_. -,. �;,� �'--••,;'-�' . �:,:r'•:� t �:•,.,� � '`f,;•i '.`• s' ..'•'�\f"':,�/.: '�in�.�./�,,,, ""'"",`'�.�-•I-'• lam' `�i .At„', 'r ! ' 1 r: �, ; ..`•• It ',lam/tie..t ✓ ^�r! ��• �•n� -tet .,,. l.�A} ' f` �, r, �.. •� t, �}J. , Y--t ItIt �.: :� •� `f�r,f :fit . "� n --��. t :'j t`�+,J 3� t { `tel, r y tv it It It [•� ,.! tel• i�"/'��..++ � .iJ>' �, .` „ `��,•t, r � � aA•"• ' / ! �,:-^ _ �:; r, 'til'; `-y :c, ��',.• \j ! f ±l• ,; .R DART Questions were raised as to the ability of BART to handle the additional commuters which may be generated by the project should it be approved. Although the Concord to MacArthur and ultimately San Francisco line is- the busiest route, from a peak period overcrowding standpoint, BART staff fools that there is no immediate capacity problem. r However, BART has completed a patronage projection study which estimates that 2',000 one way trips will come from the San Ramon Valley in 1975 and 7,800 in 1990. A survey is currently underway to determine present use and point of origin (home) on the Concord line. When asked to estimate }•atronage which might be attributed to the proposed project, BART staff suggested that 1/2 of the dwelling units would produce patrons co:amuting to the San Francisco or Oakland business districts (i.e. + 2,000 users or 4,000 one way trips) . whether this amount would create an adverse impact on BART service at buildout time is not known. The 1990 estimate is based on 18,,000 dwelling units (DU) of which the proposed pr:,ject would account: for 25% of the total :4,500 DU) . However, the DU number is -conservative. It was projected in the Draft E.I.R. that with the proposed project the area population would be 75,000 or 20,270 dwelling units (75,000 -r- 3.7 • persons per DUI . From this calculation it could. be estimated that 20% of the projected BART usage will be attributable to the Blackha k project. Two cars per. train were recently added and four additional cars nay be added in. the future making a total of 10 cars per train. There have been recent deliveries of cars and the District now has more than 400 cars on hand to add to the system. It is anticipated that the San Francisco •:onnection. will be accomplished within 6 months. However, many San FranciEco commuters are currently using BART to the MacArthur station c:•hcre they transfer to AC Transit and on to San Francisco. The exact number of additional patrons which can be expected when the San Francisco line is c=nleted is not cur- rently known. Again, BART feels it can handle the additional patronage by adding cars and by increasing the trzin frequency. A comparison of the December, 1973 patronage rate shows that the Concord line has fewer patron than the other lines but in general, this line has experienced more patronage than was originally projected (+ 9% of total patronage) . One area of critical concern is the parking capacity of BART stations. The stations which will be affected by the proposed development are: walnut Creek (92-99% parking capacity) , Lafayette (+ 100€ parking capacity) and Orinda (82% parking capacity) . It is apparent that up-grading of parking capacity at certain stations will be required. As a result, a study is currently under way to determine how best to handle parking and access pro- blems at the Walnut. Creek station. It should also be noted that BART is actively supporting and promoting a feeder-bus transit system to their stations. This could significantly reduce the pressure on parking at stations. The Livermore-Pleasanton, .Nayward bus-feeder system is currently under study. • Meanwhile the Local Mass Transit Authority (WITA) is currently under con- sideration in Contra Costa County. This system will serve the San Ramon Valley and interconnect with BART terminals. The prospects for these systems is currently unkno%m. The applicant has ;^equested inclusion within the LMTA district. Whether this area will be included within the ultimate district boundaries is unclear at the present time. ,y 17 Medical Facilities No medical facilities other than private physicans exist in the San Ramon Valley. The nearest hospital facilities (those facilities which provide medical services such as emergency room- care, surgery, long term care, and have a 24 hour professional staff ) are located in Walnut Creek: Kaiser Hospital, a private hospital with 150 beds, is approximately 12 miles from the Blackhawk Ranch; John Muir Memorial Hospital, with 157 beds, is approximately 15 miles away. Convalescent hospital facilities exist in the San Ramon Valley and in Walnut Creek. Nearby hospital facilities in Alameda County include: Laurel Grove Hospital Castro Valley Approximately 18 miles from Blackhawk Eden Hospital Castro Valley Approximately 18 miles from Blackhawk Veterans' Administration Livermore Approximately 20 miles Hospital from 31ackhawk = Valley Memorial Hospital Livermore Approximately 20 miles from Blackhawk Convalescent hospital facilities are alailable in Castro Valley and Livermore. lg• Solid Waste Disposal The adequacy and life span estimate of solid waste disposal at the Martinez dump site (Acme Fill) wis concluded by recent engineering studies conducted by. Bechtel Corporation. The life span was determined to satisfy future solid waste disposal requirements until the year 2020, according to the types and sources of refuse generated within the County along with disposal methods currently available. The following factors and criteria were considered in -the concluded estimate: The Acme Fill dump contains approximately 572 acres. Present Fill Rate It is estimated that an average of 508 tons of refuse per day are being disposed of at the Acme Fill Dump. Bechtel Engineers hr.s estimated the ultimate capacity of this site to be in excess of 28,000 acre feet and as of 1970 about 2,000 acre feet had been utilized. Salvage It is estimated that approximately 100 cubic yards of used tin cans are currently being salvaged annLally at this site. } Future Needs Refuse Loading ' Based on the projected population for this study area, the following quantities of refuse can be anticipated to be delivered to the Acme Fill Dump. 1980 360,000 tons 1990 440,000 tons 2000 520,000• tons � 2020 680,000 tons 1Solid Waste-Disposal-Preliminary Report, a report to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District, Bechtel Consulting Engineers, San Francisco. 19 r The Acme Fill Dump located just east of Martinez, is the only "general use" refuse disposal site in the Central Study Area. The Central Study Area encompasses some 45 percent of the County's land .area lying easterly to Port Costa and westerly of Mallard Slough. Included within the study area are the incorporated cities of Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Concord, Clayton, Pleasant Hill, and Martinez. The unincorporated communities within this- study area include San Ramon, Danville, Alamo, Morage, Orinda, Pacheco, Vine Hill, and Clyde. Collectors Seven private companies collect residential and commercial refuse for disposal at the Acme Fill refuse disposal site. These companies are: 1. Orinda-Moraga Refuse Disposal Service 2. Lafayette Garbage Disposal Service 3. Martinez Sanitary Service ; 1 4. Pleasant Hill-Bayshore Disposal Service 5. Concord Disposal Service 6. Valley Disposal Service 7. Diablo Disposal Service The seven firms listed above provide the refuse collection and disposal service for 1970 estimated population of 297,700.. Disposal rethods As 'public concern with mounting quantities of waste produced by our affluent society has increased, emphasis is being placed upon developing technology to provide solutions to the problems of processing and disposing of ever increasing quantities of refuse. Energies have been invested in the follow- ing techniques: Sanitary Landfill: The controlled placement of refuse within a limited area, followed by compaction and covering with a suitable thickness of earth. A land area so fillet] can often be put to other limited uses (e.g. , recrea- tional areas, airports, roads, light industrial, agricultural) providing consideration is given to the potential settlement factor and to the potential danger from the production of methane gas. 20 • Incineration% Substantial reduction in the volume of waste is achieved. r� by burning refuse at high temperatures producing "inoffensive gasses and an ash residue which may be reclaimed for a variety of uses." • p'yrolypis: Destructive distillation is carried out on organic wastes in a closed retort with an atmosphere almost completely devoid of oxygen. Useful products can be recovered depending ,6pon the nature of the organic refuse. ° Composting: Solid organic refuse is treated through aerobic, biological decomposition. The end product is a nuisance-free hu.•nus*usable as soil conditioner or fertilizer base. ° 1iQclamation: Refuse -reclamation can be generally defined as the re- Utilization of the resources contained in and represented by the solid wastes generated by today's society. Reclamation Depending upon the degree of reclamation applied, this last method can range from a partial to virtually a complete solution to refuse disposal, and the above-mentioned incineration, pyrolysis and composting can be considered elements of reclamation. It is here that emphasis must be placed if a true solution to the mounting problem of waste disposal is to be found. i . Library Service It is recognized that there is growing pressure on the existing library facility in Danville and its ability to serve the needs in the San Ramon Valley area. Additional library space .is needed to serve both the current and projected population for the area as is demonstrated by rapidly increas- ing use of the existing branch outlet in Danville. In the past three years circulation has increased from 134,083 in 1970/71 to 159,268 in 1972/73 or a 11% increase. During this same period the book collection grew from 30,000 to 35,000. Continued growth in the San Ramon Valley area insures continued growth in tho use of the SRV library and a commensurate growing pressure on the existing facility in Danville. Although construction of an enlarged Alameda County library branch outlet in the city of Dublin may ease somewhat the pressure in the extreme southern portion of the San Ramon Valley, it would not adequately solve the lihrary needs for a majority of the current or projected population in San Ramon Valley. Review of both existing population concentrations and Projected growth during the next ten to fifteen years points to a current need for an addi- tional library outlet somewhere along the 680 Freeway corridor between Danville and San Ramon. AlUiuuyh uehur library uutlet6 may be needed during the next ten to fifteen years the uncertainty of development at this time makes it difficult to -- s determine exact locations. If the Blackhawk Ranch development is fully implemented as riow planned, this could be one such location. 22 AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL OF BLACKHAWK RANCH 1. Existing Use The Blackhawk Ranch is presently composed of approximately 4,800 acres. Most of the site is utilized for cattle grazing. At present 400 cows and 400 calves are on the property. During the winter months the cat- tle's diet is supplemented with hay, which is gro;vn on a:proxi.rately 200 acres of land on the southern half of the property. One hundred and forty-two acres of the site are planted in English walnuts grafted onto black walnut stock. 2. Soil In order to evaluate the agricultural potential, it is necessary to categorize soil types and the available acreage of each. There are 13 soil classifications on the site (Source: 1973 Soil Conseriation Service Survey, Contra Costa Resource Conservation District) . These soil classifications can be grouped into 2 basic categories (see table below) . At least 1,000 acres are inaccessible or unuseable because of excessive slopes or rock outcroppings. Therefore, calculations for agricultural potential are based on 3,800 acres. Soil Types Total Acreage CroD SLitab litv2__ GROUP 1 AaF, ChA 3200 Range, wildlife, DdE, DdF watershed, hay LeF, LcF and grain. LhF, LhE, Re GROUP 2 CeA, Cc 600 Range, hay, grain CkB, DdD and walnuts. 1The ranch is composed of 4,800 acres of which approximately 1,000 .are unusable for agricultural pursuits. 2Source: Contra Costa Conservation Resource District As indicated by the preceeding chart, the soils in group 1 are primarily suited for range, wildlife and watershed with some slight potential for hay and grain production. Most of the area covered by t1his group is also on slopes over 30%. The soils in group 2 have good potential for grain, hay and walnuts in addition to rangeland. Walnuts are pres- ently raised on soils classified CcA and CkB. 3. Assumptions and Qualifications . a. The useable acreage (for agriculture) for the. site is 3,800 acres. 23 • b. The cattle would be raised to yearlings, approximately 700 - 800 • pounds, before they are sold to feedlots.l e. The ranch could continue to produce their own calves or purchase them. This is very significant in that the usual calf weighs 400 pounds and would cost the ranch $160 each at $.40/lb. if they chose not to have a calving operation. Both alternatives will be anal- ysed. d. The market fluctuates considerably for agricultural products . Both 1972 and 1973 figures compiled by the Contra Costa County Depart- ' ment of Agriculture and present marketing prices will be used to develop potential production value. e. The useable rangeland on the ranch is considered of high quality although not as good as lands further south in•the Tassajara area proper. A good rule of thumb for area per grazing animal is 4 or 5 acres without diet supplementation (Source: County Agriculture Extension Service) . f. Based on the chart, 600 acres is available for hay and walnut pro- duction. Therefore, the productive acreage of each could be sig- nificantly increased. g. The basic figu_es derived will be gross sales dollars, and will not rcf!cct per-F ^.r:! .^.Q.cts and revenues, i .e. , breeding, net., trees, water, hides, wages, etc. h. Hay crops- are usually rotated on a yearly basis alternating with bar- ley, grain hay and volunteer hay. Therefore, the yearly tonnage yield and dollar yield would vary. i. This report is not a profit/loss statement for the ranch, but rath- er an estimate of its gross agricultural produjtivity potential. . 4. Calculations of Agricultural Potential Cattle (purchase of calves) 3,200 acres 52acres per animal 640 animals could be supported to yearling weight. IIt is standard practice for the feedlots to fatten cattle to 1,100 - 1,200 pounds within six months for sale to meat processing plants. Five acres per head of cattle without diet supplementation is a "rule-of- thumb" factor provided by the County Agricultural Extension Office. 24 Costs 640 animals at $.40 lb.l (Average wt. 400 lbs.) $102,400 Revenue 640 animals at $.40 lb. (Average wt. 750 lbs.) $192,000 Difference $192,000 - $102,400 = $89,600 Cattle (on site calving operation) 3,200 acres 42acres per animal 800 animals (400 cows + 400 calves) • Revenue 400 animals at $.40 lb. (average wt. 750 lbs.) _ $120,000 In 1973, the wholesale price for beef (feedlot sale to packing plant) was $.475 per pound.3 ' :he current wholesale cost to a retailer is $.72 a pound for a dressedout, 600 pound carcass. At this stage, 400 animals would generate . 240,000 pounds of beef and $172,800 and 640 animals would generate 384,000 pounds of beef arS $276,500. In 1972 and 1973, the average value of grain hay and volunteer hay was $35 per ton. The average yield was 1.25 tons ;ger acre. The ranch recently had 200 acres allotted for hay production. This could be increased to 400 acres on the basis of soil suit-Lbility. In 1974, first cut hay prices approximated $72 per ton. Hay feed retailers anticipate a continuation of high feed prices primarily due to demand and baling wire costs.4 lthe price of cattle fluctuates considerably, however, the pound price for calves and the pound price at sale time to feedlots is usually similar. The revenue generated depends on weight added. , 2Four acres can be used when cows and calves exist on the site. This is the existing use. 3Fully fattened to 1,100 - 1,200 pounds. .4 SOURCE: Brentwood Feed and Supply Company 25 Using the 1972-73 figures, the low gross income forecast for, hay for the ranch would be $17,600. Based on more recent prices the income woiuld be $35,000. YIELD PER PRICE PER DOLLAR TOTAL TOTAL ACREAGE ACRE TON PER ACRE TONNAGE INC0-%E 400 1.25 tons $35 $44 S00 $17,600 1972-73 400 1.25 tons $72 $90 500 $36,000 1974 Walnuts At present, 142 acres are planted for walnuts. (Source: Soil Conservation Service Conservation Plan for Blackhawk Ranch) . Soil suitability information indicates an increase to 200 acres for Walnut production would be feasible. In 1972,• the average walnut yield for Contra Costa County was .724 tons per acre with a market value of $514 per ton. , In 1973, the average walnut yield increased to .928 tons per acre with an increase to $545 per ton for market value. Walnut production has failed to keep pace with demand in recent years. More and more orchards are removed each year without an equal amount of replace- ment of new orchards. Therefore, the 1974 figures will probably exceed the 1973 figures. To be conservative the following calculations are based on the , • 173 fiy'iiY�o. YIELD TONS PRICE TOTAL TOTAL ACREAGE PER-ACRE PER TON YIELD INCOME 200 .928 $545 186 tons $101,400 SUMKARY CHARTS ; TOTAL YIELD VALUE • PRODUCT ACREAGE YIELD PER UNIT TOTAL REVENUE Cattle 3,200 400 head $300 $120,000 Hay 400 500 tons $ 35 $ 17,600 .' Walnuts' 200 186 tons $545 $101,400 TOTAL $239,000 26 , REVENUE PER ACRE PRODUCT ACREAGE TOTAL REVENUE REVENUE PER ACP.E Cattle 3200 $120,000 $37.50 Hay 400 $ 17,600 $44.00 Walnuts 200 $101,400 $507.00 All Useable 3800 $239,000 563.00 All 4800 $239,000• $50.00 5. Taxes The 1973-74 market value of the ranch is approximately $2.8 million according to information available from Contra Costa County Assessor's Office. The weighted tax rate for the tax rate area in. which the ranch lies is $12.854 per $100 of assessed value. Current taxes paid on the land are about $90,000. This is approximately $19 per acre: Based on the owner's stated purchase price of $4.8 million, which is likely to be the 1974-75 market value used by the Assessor's Office, the ranch would pay $145,000 in taxes or approximately $32 per acre. Placement. of all or a portion of the Blackhawk Ranch into a Williamson Agricultural Preserve contract would sharply reduce the arount of taxes collected from the land. The reassessment of the ranch's market value from $2.8 to $4.8 million would not effect its agricultural value which P. is used for tax computations under an Agricultural Preserve contract. The County Assessor's Office is currently utilizing a land rental range of from $2 to $12 per acre for grazing land when reassessing land proposed for inclusion in a Williamson Agricultural Preserve contract. The exact land rent figure for cattle operations is dependent upon the capability of the land to support a given number of head of cattle per year. Because the ranch has the potential to produce a significant walnut crop which would have a higher agricultural value than cattle, and because this report does not intend to over-estimate the tax reduction that would accompany an agricultural preserve contract; a higher rental of $12 is . used for the calculations. Under Williamson Act provisions, the market value of the ranch would be reduced to $576,000 using a capitalization rate of 10% and an average land rental value of $12. At this market value $18,500 would be paid in taxes. This is approximately $4.00 per acre. At the assumed 1974-75 assessed valuation of $4.8 million, the ranch would pry taxes equivalent to $32 per acre. Whereas the agricultural revenues could approximate $50 per acre. The $18 per acre remainder of $76,400 may not be enough to operate the ranch profitably when all peripheral costs are accounted for. 27 if the ranch were placed,under an agricultural preserve contract, the i taxes per acre could drop to approximately $4 per acre. The $46 per- acre tax-revenue remainder would give the owners $220,800. This dollar revenue could make the ranch a profitable operation. This would however, forego the opportunity of development Maich would provide profits sub- stantially higher than agricultural use. •With an investment of 4.8 million the investor would expect a return of at least 10% or $480,000 per year. If the $220,800 were all profit, which it obviously is not, the return would be only 4.6%. SOURCES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED Brentwood Feed and Supply, Brentwood Gursky and Sons Feed Lot, Antioch Agricultural Extension Service , Contra Costa Resources Conservation District 1973 Agricultural Repoz:, Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture 1973 Contra Costa Soil Survey Economic Supplement to Blackhawk E.I.R. Grading Several questions were raised concerning project grading in the public hear- ings on the draft E.Z.R. Some of these cuestions were specific in nature and required expert knowledge in that area. Consequently, the Grading Engineer in the Building Inspection Department of Contra Costa County was asked to respond to the questions raised. In an inter-office, memo, dated 'May 22, 1974, additional comments to the Draft E.I.R. and the questions are addressed. The memo is included in this document. 29 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT Inter - Office Memo Planning Department TO: Attn. Hel Bobier DATE: Hay 22, 19?k FROM: R. J. Kraintz, County Building Inspector By: James A. Searfus, Grading Engineer SUBJECT: BlackhaiA Ranch - EI? In response to your requests for additional coraents.regarding the above, we offer the following: The primary question as to how much land can be developed and which specific areas are developable cannot be accurately answered without a detailed sous and geologic in- vestigation. The investigation report should clearly Identify those major landslide areas upon which no homes, roads or storm drain facilities should be constructed, and those areas vhich can be stabilized by reconstruction. A detailed geologic investigation report, in- eluding maps, should be prepared for the areas of proposed develop;lent. If such a report is not feasible for the entire project at this time, then a co_-i.t�ent _ should be mane to aeveiop the project in stages and the soil sjgeoiogic repom p•epareu for Stage I. A comprehensive grading and drainage plan should be prepared for the areas (Stage I) covered by the soils geologic report. Such plans should incorporate all reco=endatinns contained in the soils/geologic report. Review pf these reports and plans by the County should reveal the answers to quest-ions regarding the limitations (upon development) imposed by geologic factors and soils conditims. To be representative, Stage I development plans should include both hillside and flat- land areas. In addition, a preliranary grading and drainage plan should be sub:aitted for the hill- side area bounded by Blackha:..ic Road and Tassa;;ara Toad , and the valleyfloor encom- passing the main drainage basin. These plans would reveal the impact of mass grading of hillside areas and the extent of storm drainage control. Without the above plans, both detailed and preliminary, it is not possible to answer questions re&arding,mass grading, drainage, silt control, or stability. Secondary, but nonetheless important factors are those that will result if, and when, approval for construction is given. Specifically, they are dust, erosion, sedimen;a- tion, and noise (both on-site and off-site from gradin& equipment and truck traffic to and from site). These factors cannot be eliminated completely, but can be minimized by adequate miti&ation measures. Such measures as specified houri of operation, specified 30 Planning Dept. — Attn. Mel Bobier Page 2 May 22, 1974 construction traffic routes, detailed erosion control plans (reviewed by both the Flood Control Staff and the Resource Conservation District Staff), staging or phasing plan and dust control criteria. In :summary, it is nearly impossible to estimate the physical and visual impact of this development, both within the confines of its oun boundary and on adjacent lands, unless grading plans, soils/geologic reports and a "staging" plan is submitted. s JAS:dm . SOUS AND GEOLOGY (Inventory) At public hearings before the County Planning Commission, three questions were raised which pertain to the content of the Soils and Geology Inventory of the Draft E.I.R. The following discussion is intended to address these • specific points and to supplement the discussion which is presented in the Draft E.Z.R. 1. Question: Several named faults surround the project site. These faults are riot mentioned in the text of the report, although they are shown on the Map on page 14 (Draft E.I.R.) . Mention is made of the Calaveras, San Andreas and Pleasanton faults only. Response: The discussion which appears in the Draft.E.I.R. indicates that no known active faults cross the Blackhawk parcel. Consequently the potential for surface faulting is considered to be remote. The four faults mentioned in the Draft E.I.R. are all considered to be active faults by.the U. S. Geological Survey and the California Division of Mines and Geology, and each is capable of producing damaging levels of around shaking. The "named" faults shown on Figure 5 (page 14 of Draft E.I.R.) will now be discussed. The Mt. Diablo fault is a thrust fault which is mechanically related to the emplacement of the serpentine core of Mt. Diablo. There is no direct field evidence that unequivocally shows the Mt. Dia1310 fault to be active. There is strong evidence, however, that logically leads to the conclusion that the Mt. Diablo fault is potentii-.11y a:,tive. Specifically, the Diablo Range has been uplifted by an estimated 1,000 feet during the past 2 or 3 million years (Christensen, 1965) and geologic studies conducted.by geologists re- tained by private developers have indicated that at least some of the radial and concentric faults on the flanks of Mt. Diablo are active. With regard to the Slackhawk project area, it should be emphasized that the Mt. Diablo fault does not cross the Blackhawk property, it is more than a mile from areas proposed for development, and owing to the mechanism of faulting it is- unlikely that the Mt. Diablo fault will be the source of damaging earthquakes. The Riggs Canyon fault is a northwest trending fault which is located approximately two miles from areas proposed for development on the Black- hawk parcel (see Figure 5, page 14) . This fault appears to be related to the growth of Mt. Diablo, and based on its geometric relationship to the Mt. Diablo uplift it is reasonable interpreted as a radial fault. While detailed knowledge of this fault is lacking, there is no reason to believe that it differs significantly from the general case. Typically, radial faults are normal faults, and vertical offfsets are greatest near the cen- ter of the uplift, with displacement dying out away from the uplift. Be- cause of the short length of individual fault traces, it is predictable 32 • that only small magnitude earthquakes would be associated with adjustment on such faults (probably magn$tude 4.0 or less) . Consequently the Riggs Canyon fault does not constitute a legitimate obstacle to the proposed development. The Sherburne Hills Fault is a generally east-west trending bedrock fault which is located approximately two miles south of the Blackhawk parcel. -The Sherburne Hills Fault, like the Riggs Canyon Fault, appears to be related to the growth of Mt. Diablo, with the north side of the fault being uplifted relative to the south. Based on its geometric relationship to the Mt. Diablo uplift this fault is reasonable classified as a concentric fault. During 1974 a geologic report subs tted by a developer for another project indicates that the trace of the Sherburne Hills fault is narked by a young, fault-related topographic features. Because of the mechanism of faulting and the short length of the fault, it is predictable that only small magnitude earthquakes will emanate from this fault. It is not con- sidered to pose a threat to an; structures which might be built on the Blackhawk property. The Tassajara Fault is a north-west trending bedrock fault which is located southeast of the Blackhawk parcel. As presently mapped, this fault is approximately 3 miles long and does not bisect the Elackhawk property. (A projection of th Ls fault to the northwest :would cross the 3lackhawk parcel but would not bisect any area proposed for develo:maa_.) With reference to its movement history, the fault appears to offset rocks of lower (?) Pliocene aQn but its effect on Holocene alluvium in the valley bottom areas is unknown. Because of its short length the Tassajara fault is not considered to be capable of storing sufficient energy to generate damaging earthquakes. 2. Question: It is noted that the map on page 49 of the Draft E.I.R. that only three areas of the project are to be built on major landslide deposits. How- ever, it may readily be seen from a U.S.G.S. map that aLmost all of the slopes within the project site have napped landslides, land slumps, or earthflows of sizable magnitude. • Response: The Draft E.I.R. presented a rather detailed discussion of the impor- Unce of landsliding and other forms of slope failure within the pro- ject areas (see page 15-17) . This text relied heavily on the geotech- nical report prepared by Lowney-Kaldveer Associates, dated November 15, 1973. It should be recognized that the U. S. Geological Survey Map is based solely on photointerpretation and the landslides shown on the U.S.G.S. map have not been field checked. Moreover, the U.S.G.S. map was produced as part of a study of the entire San Francisco Bay Region. Conversely, the consultants were retained to evaluate soils and geologic conditions on the Blackhawk parcel.. the U.S.G.S. mapping was a resource which they utilized, but their investigations significantly refined and updated the published map. Nevertheless, the density of landslide de- posits shown on the U.S.G.S. map can be used as a crude measure of the overall stability of hillsides in the project area. Since the question raised during public hearings specifically addressed itself to the U.S.G.S. 33 � ��:..:; •,i, • f .' `�+t ♦` � t \? �. -� i",, t,t A .1;3,.tr� •}tN X. �4•r 1\�t.i )�,lt t � ,.� �;'•:♦, I •,"T„bgt: t ,tt.',; .��t4 V,�i •'i��w; �'f��Y..,"�,�''!{ i,i�� r�rp''/I�:•} ;t��i/I,'.�� . • '' �.`�`�.,J•�.,t�,' ,t+,'.,• w „K,\ f... C!: //�� `'.ti..\t• _ a,J.r o!\,'ri ..✓.� •'-;as. .�.`��f7.�r.`:.•.�.,• •��w. •�'� y��Y ��~ 's. Y'/ti ,.T.:, .♦.L�,.i.\•:' 's' .irt'1.Il�ti�a \ v\, ..r', , 1�+,.. •�,� 1 t s'�* : ! r ,••>t'.r .�'Cr 1. .h,. i `1 ��:� �"�r • '!�� f1bis It It .'>•�: r ir'-i.r111..�, •V' '/(r '� Y+'`•.�.) I/l� �;� t� �i!.ROd.�,^�-.----«.�+��, �:'• 4_" 1!rl' � ..•: t.\'��Sr2.r, 1'y'1�y.�},�ltt'L•♦?�I: 4� i+ I :ijl.,t .'-•r•-'rbc' � 1.*.�t•�.. �Y .t' -%~w....,at."�i-_.• �.r^ :�._,,,..._•} ! ,MR ' t fit, ;♦•�'�\� � .1 M1i'i., ,tJ' ../'.�� , l , tl`s'.'. l -''. tt 'v..•/ .` i• N...e a '! ::ter, •r•,v/! r/+•�-/`,(�.� - `�.`�r {:�• +'--«•.'�.-� {11 t,,.3 i•Y ,t` �<� `''*r•�„t`!f �� .r�..�.t.rf♦,�,� Z i 1 .� t - �� ..,. t sl ✓�� yr \J•t CO .�» �' , . _ k ,ti..e-•�� ,\•t ; i \-I' ( rl,��` {,•"r'`' � l/:�•`;Ir� 't� � 1t 1 ,�}�� r _ ',L-�.�-_° t��tt7 � t t•�.�., -J" �ti�.� • rst� � ,'/�� t�ti� .' rf ' ;;J .r�� •a r' `, t �, '. •� .' � b;�,,�� a''t �L t•/"---. 't �l. �j .i' `•��; ,'�,�d/J'' !t'ft,::��•'�'I�i` 1fit}'� ./` t31(.:�,(r 'Lj ... '1 .f.t� '.!' / „ .ti.�`, / �r�•'�'1. , .�!j!•' � !l�:it:»!- .t(, `�.f� ,{ \•�• ,_7/f,.��t 1i1i •Ii', '�• t ;'.4,I1�`�••.',V.t,'j.i�: i,�!��a .r'„Jr `..��• . 1, 1 may+/� ; �� ',(t'• �i r1,�j .'•f ,.�s �,1�l l.f 1\�,��' ,��'' �r't rig',t� •i• {� •t ' , '�• . �..e00,•{�. r..� �i� s ��-^•„�,'•,�i j•. ,✓ t ,t L_,•►^G ( //p r. •�P i'J' �' s' �:��, '.:....i'd '1•'Y;,. .� .,w `rd. pit 't :ut, �,, - •%' :�;, ��'. 1,.; rt�� •I ' �\ r ,-rL. ;� • 't "�1 -r•'/�. ;.\,` o,,,7t,0 (1'i �� \. ;.,. i.' ''�t� ;\ ��".ti. ,r•' --..ri.l� 20._ t '�;: 'r: r , ; ' ��,' J•`• ,t~ t':'��•�� '•t�'� j•�SCy;,-'r�' !}�i'!'�11/f ,,•:,tti� ., r`,• ,.�� , ' !t! •..� t t ;�' / •' �- it t s � � :,err• J �'' /• .r ,�a e = `/ •!�}'.'�' z { �1,t{( jar•'•� 1�('`'�,�\t t�� Ii ��' -l. i. ,`t�'~-••,,,••.'•':.\�i�•` �} �'•� .•�,ti:t:�«tiIC :3tiit -�: '` r;,.�"'.'�'. .:- t.j't�' ••t.j .V/-,/ /'r �41�' `' �t i' :: `.1: •-U6• I`��..t'_ t/,rr.Jsz•,{I. t:t' � (.•r tr '•'''•'ti 4',':`.'.. f '•�+� �.:� '�:r tv � .\tT.�.�' `•^J�J::Y, 'L' _ •.•�.•:':•••.• t �9'r �� r.� �� 4i •y �t �J:+^i,,"d ,jr. �`• -.\ `'. '� (t fi•" ---•444"' •. '/ ` .r'..•.•.V:.}t.• :.f.�•, .l �,�••� ^• -,: r (` .,, t •� {�`� \ t,' ,tv. t It '•r .:.:1 •�'-�j`•. 1nr•.. `-' jI (r� / f \c t _''�,.t •i� t t\ J r!!t � �-ry. .� !.. jj �.�j�. t''. CC ii `s t'.•.,, ,' 1' i-l'�'7 7 1 -'1.•- . !•.� 7�u. � _ `11` •1� :•i�:i::•. `,ts'. ,`•_t.` � _J`�.....�V" •y �•' ••r-. •.' t' _ :�: +r-' � }' `••L~ tit •:.. _ •�:•:: C I .t/•'•• t. - �t .t•ii �':;t�:• �'r;� :•�• .`\. t � { �+ i tit' j1 �' �•.\//tt�' it_ I:� f/'♦�.•' C'-::��./,;,.('••�� > `i+.�` t'`� �`.�,� j�•: jam'' ..i� {• i J✓✓ ..\\� ��!`". .` '� "`. \ •, 1j ,'.•'r::;(: '` x,•.. 1,1, ''��-�'�.�•�=• -.' '��._� •�' '1•.Jc-"�: •}�!� \` �'`. ,�h 'f •,,-...F. , •'• c `1 .�y�.:� 4�:.-`� • :�- .•!�, til J ! �•• r '" o ' � •i': � _��'':�•. , .. ' %' `i� _ r JJJ�i+ 11 '�( t� t•� 11 ! '','.'' j. J /o t, ' Irl� , . . "�'y;^ , r`1y '.""!:i t�`'t.r.._ ...,-.>.:,,i�,. ..:,.;:�:i.::.,: •'o:,:•: Jb •. - l !t _ :k"_ •' ',� PRELIMINARY PHOTOIN -, '►' �+ +�~ ,'• ' t w LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS EFPRETATION MAP OF ' +;1 , ��• _ .� { ,'� .3 y : BLACKHAWK RANCH AREA _,1•t , ;.� '�`.\ ! ' �. , ;-1. fit• . =tl: fir;: SOPRCE: u.S. Geological Survey � - • landslide map, this .map has been reproduced'in the following figure. The slide deposits are outlined by a dark heavy lines the direction of movement of the slide is- indicated by an arrow. To facilitate compari- son of the Blackhawk development plan with the distribution of land- slide deposits, areas proposed for development are generally delineated by a dot pattern. Visual inspection of-the figure confirms that a sig- nificant amount of the proposed development lies in floodplains area and upland valleys which are not -underlain by landslide deposits. Al- though most of the proposed hillside development does not appear to be underlain by landslide deposits, slope stability is an important factor in the sloping terrain. It should be apparent that detailed soils and geologic studies will be needed to accurately identify develop- able areas within each phase of the development : should the rezoning be approved. 3. Statement: The Draft E.I.R. and its predecessors do riot present adequate soils stability information. Such information should include size distri- bution and scattered compression and Atterberg limit tests. Response: The soils on the portion of the Blackhawk'property which is proposed for development are of two main types: the moderately shallow, heavy- textured, silty clay or clay loam residual soils developed on the sloping j hillsides underlain by rocks of the Orinda Formation, and the deep heavy textured black clays in the alluvial valleys. As noted by Dr. Rudolph Ulrich, these soils have many adverse characteristics, including moderate to high shrink-swell potential and moderate to high erosion potential.* However, it sho..ld be recognized that the engineering characteristics of Blackhawk soils are similar to soils derived from the disintegration of Orinda Formation rocks elsewhere in Contra Costa County. Rased on past experience, it is predictable that most valley bottom areas and gently sloping fan deposits can be developed using conventional site grading and foundation design provisions (see page 16-17 for discussion of soils and geologic problems in these areas) . The lower flatter slopes in the Orinda Formation. Can be developed with moderate� to extensive problems, provided they are not underlain by or in proximity to, landslides which are of such magnitude that development of these areas would involve a high degree of risk and be very costly. The soils of the project site are depicted on the following map. If the rezoning is approved, detailed soils and geologic reports will Se required for each phase of the development. The nature of the field studies and laboratory work which is undertaken will be guided by site conditions. Preliminary studies will accurately identify developable areas and recommend appropriate site grading and drainage designs. *S so 1973 Soil Survey of Contra Costa County for a more detailed discussion of the characteristics of soils and their limitation. ;�' ;a � _� mss''` •f'' '►. J `.� � i ,, �• �,...�.-� .�: Nl low 91 Of 001 •2.•.t;•rte f., :`' ��,� ;•;•�\a'. �.i• � '� \. t�..\`' S .. -� � '.r'`/ v '•t�.,�/ } Jar'`--• i 1 `S `•• ` . •'•. �'�•''.'.i .�'•''• '1�''�. !.1 , •,oma"t ,t a � ,• �'s ••� �p��/v�•1 cdc ' vy�.��'i '�-•iy e-i � t.1 ' �.:i to (�" Y ! `t'i`' 't.Y ati '1"`.i+`'`_ _ • gin. ,»•... ( �4 �..•, ;i `17- a £ :/ `' .. 40. lit �,•� 1 •' •ice' ►f' ` �� 4':i %. J co •,...:.•� ilg of Y coi Ca q `it r GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS During tFa review period, written and/or oral comments were received by the Planning Commission on the Environrental Impact Analysis Section of the Draft E.I.R. Specific questions directed to soils, geology and seismic impacts will now be discussed. 1. Statement: The Draft E.I.R. does not analyze the grading which will be necessary if this project is approved. The Draft E.I.R. indicates that slopes *which are steeper than 25% will not be developed (see page 66) but .the development plan map indicates lots on. slopes in excess of 25%. Response: Since no grading plan has been sub.-dtted by the developer, it is not possible to evaluate grading impacts at this time. However, it should- be recognized that if the rezoning is approved, E.I.R.s will be re- quired for each phase of the development. ' At that time developable areas will be accunately identified, grading and drainage plans will -be established. This information can then be analyzed in a systematic manner. At present only general statements can be made regarding the nature and impacts of grading which might result from approval of the rezonings. As the Draft E.I.R. indicates, the lower flatter slcces of • the Orinda Formation are considered, '.n cenerai, to be develcparle but will• require the use of moderate to extensive grading. . Valley cottom areas are generally developable uy conventional methods and will not — require massive grading. 2. Statement: Based on an analyses of slope (made by Mr. Donald Hoffman) , there is approximately 500 acres of less than five percent slope and 450 acres between 5 and 10 percent slope on the Blackhawk Ranch property. The testimony goes on to indicate that most of the Blackhawk parcel is underlain by steep slopes and is undevelopable. Consequently it is inappropriate for the developer or the Planning Commission to utilize the 4,800 acre figure in determining allowable densities. Response: Page 16 of the Draft E.I.R. indicates that approximately 900 acres of the Blackhawk Project area is underlain by valley bottom deposits and gently sloping fan deposits. (Slopes in these zones are predom- inantly less than 10 percent.) Thus, estimates made in the Draft E.I.R. are in close agreement with the findings of Mr. Hoffman. Such areas can generally be developed using conventional site grading and founda- tion design provisions. With regard to the development potential of steep slopes the Draft E.I.R. suggests that the lower, flatter slopes • (less than approximately 20 or 25 percent) are developable, provided they are not located on or adjacent to large landslides (see page 48) . 37 r Development of steeper slopes will require massive grading. The question of appropriate density for the development is not strictly a function of geologic and soils conditions on the property. However, from a geologic perspective it is true 'that acquisition of "goat country" high on the flanks of Mt. Diablo does not enhance the development potential of valley bottom areas: T . • 38 } VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE There have been numberous comments on the contents and conclusions of the draft E.I.R. prepared for 1840-RZ in regards .to vegetation and wildlife. Public testimony and in letters received by 'the Planning Department form the basis for the following response to these questions. -In addition, new Information has become available since the writing of the Draft E.I.R. in February of 1974. This information will also be presented in the following discussion. (See Draft E.I.R. Sections A.l.h pp 21-22 and' Sections B.l.f. pp 51-55 and B.2.j. p 63.) The following persons 'responded to vegetation and wildlife issues of the Draft E.I.R. either in writing or by giving verbal testimony or both: Dr. Mary L. Bowerman, Ms. Bobie Myer, Mr. Bruce Elliott, and Mr. Richard Thall. The suggestion was made that it appeared as though Dr. Bowerman's book entitled "The Flowering Plants and Ferns of Mt. Diablo" had. not been consulted in regards to rare or endangered plant species, in the JARA Report. This statement is apparently correct (p. 46 of the JAM report states that there are no rare or endangered species of plants on the Blackhawk Ranch) . This is apparently un- true and a discussior of this matter is included in this document. Questions were raised as to whether a more extensive survey of the annual plants has been done and whether one will be required. The answer is no to • the former and appaLently "no" to the latter. A question was raised as to the quality and depth of the JARA survey - how was it done and by whom? From dis- cussions with JARA personnel it is apparent that the survey was done by a wild- life expert and not a taxonomic botanist and the route of the survey was indeed restricted to that shown on the map on page 21 of Appendix C-1 of the ECIS re- port (this map is included in this discussion) . The observation is correct that the eastern portion (i.e. Alamo Canyon) was not surveyed. Further, it is un- clear as to whether the survey was conducted on foot or strictly from a motor- ized vehicle. It is not known if the applicant will be required to perform an extensive floristic survey (area specific or season specific) . The timing required for such a survey, should it be made mandatory, is not known. The question of controlling domestic cats was raised. The planning staff has been unable to resolve whether there has ever been a specific leash law for cats. Whether or not tame or feral (wild) domestic cats will have a signifi- cant effect on wildlife in the project area has not been resolved. One area in which domestic cats may have an impact would be if they came in contact with native cat species - Bobcat or Lion. Scientific evidence currently suggests there is the possibility that diseases of domestic cats (i.e. Leptospirosis) may be transmitted to wild species and this could have a significant effect on populations. If` such a disease became established in the Bobcat or Lion popu- lation an epizootic (epidemic) level of disease could conceivably "wipe out" the entire population in the area. This is particularly true if the wild cats • have no natural or acquired resistance to these diseases. There are numerous examples of diseases being transferred from domestic animals to wild animals as well as the reverse. Many of these examplew occur between humans and wild animals as well. 39 ECIS - »��-► i • •EOICATEO(WIN SPACE i ct t i 1 i I � t j • 1 , ! •IOTIC SURVEY ROUTES % • t 1 t c Figure C-1 ' APPROXIMATE BIOTIC SURVEY ROUTES Wer l A. RWeris! le •1 090"190OrcNSIACE �• WALA "� 1 • IA00 1.$" �.00• Ir 1 40 , �• Ms. Bobie Myer stated that the Draft E.I.R. was inadequate'as it did not reflect the amount and variety of wildlife occurring on the project site. Although the original JARA Report included a list of animals which might occur on t:.e site, the Planning Department has taken the view that it is better to discuss in greater detail the various habitat types and give examples of the types of anL-pals found Within them and how the project is likely to affect each habitat. In addition, lists of species are easy to obtain from texts but such lists do not give enough information to enable one to draw valid conclusions. The staff feels it is better to discuss what is presently known as opposed- to what may have been found in a textbook decades ago. A discussion of some of the animals Ms. Myer mentioned follows later in this document. A number of questions were asked pertaining to the method by which r.,ildlife information was acquired: how much time was spent in the field, were' seasonal changes considered? The answers to these questions would be with the prepara- tion of the JARA Report. The County Pla;ining Department staff has been unable to precisely ascertain the intensity and range of work which was done by jARA. Several staff members have field checked the project site and its environs on numerous occasions. Howvver, no systematic intensive survey was conducted by the County Planning Department. Questions were' asked as to what steps will •be taken to protect wildlife, what . will be done to protect the ponds from pollution and preserve them for wild- life? .These questions have not been specifically answered and it is not, krow-n whether answers will be required. Ms. !dyer questions what will be done to pro- tect the endangered Tiger Salamander and Alameda Striped Racer. As is stated in the Draft E.I.R. , it is not known whether these two species do exist on the site. Indications are that there is a strong li;:elihood that they do because the requir•d and preferred habitats exist. At least some of these habitat areas will be destroyed; to what extent and haw critical it will be for the survival of -these species if ine,?ed they do exist, is not known. What will be done to protect them from collectors? This too, is not knoem. What will be done to protect the deer? The applicant proposes mitigation measures which may help maintain deer populations on at least portions of the site (Draft E.I.R. p 65) . Whether retaining streambeds, planting sone native plant species for landscaping, etc. will be sufficient to insure the retention of existing populations is a matter of speculation. Nliat will be done to protect wildlife from domestic pets, espe:ially dogs? This is not known. Ms. 2•1yer correctly states that dons are a problem in this area. They will probably continue to be and the completion of the proposed project will certainly intensify the problem. Mr. Bruce Elliot from the State of California Department of Fish and Game stated that his department found the E.I.R. seriously inadequate; so much so that the department requested a meeting with the sponsor and the County Planning Depart- Ment to discuss the E.I.R. There was a great deal of confusion on the part of the County Planning Staff and the applicant as to what was to take place as neither had received any communication to this effect. On Tuesday, May 14, 1974, the Planning staff met with several staff merbers from the Department of Fish and Game, including the speaker, to resolve the issue. The problem appeared to be one of terminology and familiarity with State Clearing House forms which are sent to other State agencies along with Draft E.I'.R.s. There had been a nisin- terpretstion of these forms and no letter had been sent. The result of the 41 • aforementioned meeting was, that a letter will be written and sent to the County shortly which will express the position of the Department of Fish and Came. The letter is included-in this document. In a letter dated April 25, 1974, Mr. Ri^hard Thall posed several questions of the Draft E.I.R. He asked what pressures will be placed upon the fauna and flora and what species will be pressured most? These concepts are discussed at some length in the impact section of the Draft E.I.R. '(pp 51-55) and later in this document. The writer included a list of 16 species and groups on which he felt population density information should be provided. Such data is not currently available and it is not clear if it will be provided in the future or if.it will be required of the applicant. He stated that specific density and location information, and mitigation measures sho:sld be provided for the Tiger -Salamander and the Alameda Striped Racer. The writer asked what will happen to other animal populations around the mountain as a result of the pro- posed project and what proportion will be able to adapt to such development and what will the mortality rate be? There are no specific answers to these questions. The requirements for providing such information is discussed in the final paragraph of this section. The writer refers to a study of the Valley Oak (quecus lobata)which was a part of a report prepared for the U. S. Army Corps of Erginaers for the Walnut Creek Watershed prepared by Ecoview. Quoting from this report(P. 113) : "The valley oak woodland, whose entire distribution lies in central and . and northern California, is almost extinct. kan;; thousands of acres of these trees have been systematically removed for agricultural and sub- urban development throughout its entire rase, for reasons similar to those that apply to the Walnut Creek Drainage Basin. ECOVIEW considers these retic stands endangered. Steps shouZd Pe taken to preserve selected remaining stands .nd to give them sufficient buffer zones so that seed- Zings can reestablish themselves and resurrect this plant community. " Stands of this associati.on exist in the project area from the Community of Diablo easterly between South Gate and Blackhawk Roads. Construction and development in this area could jeopardize this habitat. Oak trees are very sensitive to impervious surface encroachment and changes in ground water ane'. drainage patterns. Their root systems do not adapt well to drastic changes such as cut banks and changes in the ground surface within the drip zone such as sidewalks and pavement. It is not known to what extent the proposed pro- ject will pose such a threat because specific plans are not currently available to facilitate such an evaluation. DISCUSSION OF RARE, ENDANGERED OR DEPLETED PLANTS The following discussion is based upon questions brought out by respondents to the Draft E.I.R. and upon additional information concerning issues brought out in the Draft E.Z.R. . � The table following lists the flowering plants. which are considered rare, 42 SIA11 O1 CAUVORNIA—MOURCf3 AG[NCV RONAIO REAOAN, Govern., DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Post Office Box 47 � Yountville, California 94599 MAY 23 11 AN 114 . jy 23, 1974 . „ Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning Contra Costa County Planning Department Post Office Box 95 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the environmental impact report prepared by your staff for the Blaclr-lhao:k Lranch develop- went project and find it adequately describes .the project and its impact on wildlife. However, there are several concerns we wish to express. Preservation of streamside vegetation is of utmost importance. This habitat type is one of the most seriously depleted in the County, the State, and. the Nation. It supports a greater density and wider-variety of wildlife species than almost any other kind. It serves as a nesting cnd ....b u zu amu• birds and mai:wlata M71{11:11 IJify lUCdgU 1u'L' UUL UIl Lite hillsides or grassy pastures. We realize the developer plans to stay back from the actual stream courses except for necessary road cross- ings. We appreciate his intent but believe this streamside strip should also receive some form of legal protection. The ponds that are present on the rcnch attract many wildlife species to the area normally found only considerable distances array. These ponds should be preserved, or if destroyed, replacement ponds should ! be developed. If the project is allowed to proceed as planned, there would be an additional general loss in wildlife within the 2,071 acres of actual human occupancy. Proper mitigation for this loss of habitat should be provided by the developer. We wish to stress also the point that thistranch now acts as a buffer zone for the 11t. Diablo State Game Refuge, Mt. Diablo State Park, and potential park expansion. Current habitat is presently unspoiled bur subdivision development would eliminate any probability of its ever being returned to an open space status. With other undeveloped lands closer to Interstate 680 and its adjacent population corridor, it would seem inappropriate to remove Blackhawk Ranch from its status as a high wildlife-open space area. 1 Hr. Anthony A. Dehaesus •Z- May 23, 1974 Again, it is our hope- this development will not be approved. If, i however, it is permitted to go ahead, we would like to work with : your Planning Department and project personnel to develop proper wildlife mitigation. Thank you for requesting our comments. • 'Si � erely.,. ' ol .�. , r�Regional Manager Region 3 44 COMMON NAME 'SCIENTIFIC NAME LOCATION FOUPD California Black Walnut Juglans 11indsii Stream sides along flanks of lit. Diablo Diablo Helian.thella Helianthella castanea Wall Point Ridge, Inner Black 11ills, Oyster and Fossile Ridges Large-flowered Fiddleneck Amsinckia grandiflora Low hills and grass lands ' surrounding tit: Diablo Caper-fruited Tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum caeparideum Low hills surrounding tit. Diablo Mt. Diablo Manzanita Arctostaphylos auriculata .• Black Hills, hall Point, Sycamore and Alamo Canyons Mt. Diablo Fairy Lantern Calochortus pulchellus Oyster Ridge, Sycamore Canyon, Curry-Cave Trail Fragrant Fritillaria Fritillaria liliacea Sycamore Canyon, Curry-Cave Trail Brewer's Dwarf Flax Hesperolinon (Linym) Bre%•reri Curry Canyon, Curry-Cave Trail • Contra Costa zriogonum triogonu.^r truncatum Aiar•.o canyon . Birds-on-nec:t Cordylanthus nidularius Dan Cook Canyon, Emmons Canyor. Heart—leaf Manzanita Arctostaphylos Andersonii Chaparral below 2;200 feet California Hazel Corylus rostrr.ta vara East Fork Alamo Canyon Californica Climbing .Nemophila Pholistoma aurita Alamo and Sycamore Canyon Fairy Bells Disporum Hookeri Alamo Canyon Fat Soloman Smilacina racemosa var. Alamo Canyon amplexicaulis Nettle Hesperocnide tenella Sycanore Canyon DS:lc V6-44 •' ('� R is � , \ :.•��'•••�1"'��?..�y .�:� `.t'� .•�:. Ir rte;.t�,. �.` � �l•::i' :N ,1'r` t.. ,'ter^:--%�+� M 0 . ,zz •' •:% y:i:'�� _ •ten`..«`��-'!'• `j�! �'1}f{,��'�- I �'•^: �,,.t• .�";'•'. �,.J / ' .:;,,,,.:: ir o o t j;.i�: s�, t•: ► 1�rl�F1•=-''j �' i � :�• . '' �1l 1 � �, ,7•_• _� '�!� `• • `� S r••+'•�'�:17 / ••�•:, ,v•�;l U • :,,.°f'• fir•}: ::1•,. � I��, r`�, /' •! ` ..�,...-' i �-�' ••'••1 •, _ `� `..' .S /:•/.i •••/''i �'•i�� •Vii•'{` S♦)-t.�-� U _ Si• �1"..�'".:•-"- i,:/).,'-� ., r`•" :.1:t.��•.a �r � •��' .•' ..� ."ir.I,•-r aI .fir!•� � ' ow ;• •�. _ t= L .�. ,� � 1. (/• , / -1.!•.t^ i; • -;� �'.�?"'✓ ;' 3.•+f- " �1t''�,•,��1�' 3 )';.a� t .f.�',/,..'. y) I r% i•'''? f'/ , %�•':j. v '• g a-'�'y ',.,d ,��;a-'',�.Sid}. "•� ��•' •-•.'•`''. •i ,.`• 1�' `•1 � •.•, j//" 1.1 ' �`-~ � � �•. •.7• •..mit• t •�. _ :. .• .i. : . ` J � r• � l s �j' � � V t '� f.: ,�•': _ �;�.::• a ��:, • d. mss.�t f r'1�•. . .f• / _f•_(•, � �,�'/• �•,' `• . .1\♦t 4e/%� i � :tif�! .} •i. ,.., .\ •; ,G• �.2'��..-tet ,. .-'• � �' ,.� _/��•�'',�.� f-=•�'^_,'" ,' � .••; r ._-,f:• •• •�11"•:••' .`�J ":•�'r'.+i o'i'"'i' ...! ��''�\` i ...i'�ra�siir;'iK.✓'" ��• .�' ,!/• �� •' �, f/r,,.: 1'i •':J�`„�,;;✓r•t--,:� �.."' •.1`r ( v/i.�,• {�-"^•'',�/•° �Nt�!-',� •r( �J.l 'J J11,,,t-••"'�` J u •.' ; •i: !• i.�'•�.rty' );. '�.,r J � '�\'".r ,�1.: -'i�:/�. ."1�.�.� t •w,. `� �.•".` '{s 'n,..'?iI-! f'.t. � / • .:::`.tib'' ;�i�� ``% '..l�.•.� �'� •°:;�. � �.•�-=`.��= '' � � '''�• t,' 'J 't "�. • • .ply � y � 1.'�'.1 .T r.;� - f •• %;. - 'X t•. ��. .=,'rt , Jam,-;� • t:• •� r�� {.--•'r'-^,�y^f�l,' =a t':• 'Y.it ". S, .l� },.,;-'��•,i.,f •---'"= • = f{° _ _�•� �,•1� •'••..��11/l i •.� "•f��; N• ♦mak,.'. �\...�1t• ``j�, 'y� •s:.v'-'j r `. •?'�• �. tuAl 1 , • %.,, '•�"' .1 .._ .•� .• � _ � r �. ,_� �•� -�� ;'..rte.t � cr t' wr, tl .,. enylt0 ^ Q(t ' .•,,•,'{Lb's' ,r."'�I� •-`c �1 vc= O N •�'" =.1 ami re'.�,/r�•. '/r.�'%:.}i i ', G Gt Q"p .�' i i 4 ''• 3 ,, .,,: ,..;%'r� , ,•:'.' f; imp,° 1. 1•,� t. -� !}�w t J" ,.v•• �•�,. Y•• � ,rr� .•. i, y. 1 `�/ t. �./:•t..% „ • •L r /� , QQ g 46 �,.' :• . f,•'" r...:.:.; -.' � ;,� '•;�.••:.,t' o d' � :''� `.• )fit':: ', if; r � aYe �'wk, Kia• k. %:--r ` r:!.=,�' �'f; :'/,�.1 ,,�.1 ~p• ;a `1J i t'i. r'• ,. R a°y�'a �•� ••; ,p�� + 'f+/ 71 X11'. ;+� ,ti • `**�:Jf�,,.J.-��ffrr, .!' •'t•'.:.', ;, •:\ • ' r endangered, or depleted by the California Native Plant Society and by the • definitive treatise on Mt. Diablo plants, "The Flowering Plants and Ferns of Mt. Diablo", (Bowerman, 1944) . In addition Munz and Keck 1963, "A California Flora" was consulted as to current nomenclature and statewide ranges of the plants considered. Many .of the plants on the table are known to occur on the • project site while others' are suspected and have a high probability of occur- ring there (see map included) . This conclusion is &awn on the basis of eleva- tion, habitat type, exposure, slope, and topography. A discussion of the method by which the presence of these unresolved species could be verified occurs in the final paragraph of this section. Bowerman (1944) and Munz and Keck (1963) should be consulted for further specific information of the species involved. Mention should be made of a unique stand of conifers which exist upon and near the project. In the Mt. Diablo area the Knob-cone Pine exists solely in the eastern Black Hills region (se:. accompanying map) . This tree grotis in chaparral areas with the exception of the two knolls east of Cave Point. Because of the danger of chaparral fires, these stands could be easily obliterated unless careful management was carried out, especially following such a fire. Indeed, a fire in the 1930's eradicated much of the previous range of the Knob-cone Pine in the area. Greater urbanization on the lower p:,rtion of bit. Diablo could increase the probability of chaparral fires. This is of particular con- cern in this region of Mt. Diablo because fire access is less than ideal. The increased probability for grassland and chaparral fires due to the proposed • oroient is uncertain (see pages 24-25 and 52 of Draft E.I.R. for a more detailed discussion of this subject) . DISCUSSION OF RARE, ENDAINGEP.ED OR DEPLETED ANIMALS =-. Thp. foliowing discussion is in no way an attempt to cover all animals which could be considered,rare, endangered, or depleted. The basis by which such a designation is ascribed to an animal, even at the local level is often based more on a lack of knowledge than on positive informat_'on. Several of the species discussed are those which local experts feel should be considered rare, endangered, or depleted based on their in-depth knowledge from years of field observation and from investigation into the changes which have occurred in relationship to the abundance of appropriate habitats. The reader should refer to the bibliography for more detailed information regarding the species discussed below. Ri.ngtail This 2-1/2 pound relative of the raccoon is a unique animal found in the western United States and Mexico. Its nearest relative, beside the raccoon is the Coati, which is found in southern Arizona, .southern New Mexico, and Mexico. The ringtail forages along stream and lake borders in chaparral areas or rocky cliffs and ridges. It has a secretive nature and is chiefly nocturnal thus rarely seen during the day. It is generally omnivorous and feeds on insects, small mammals, birds and fruit. The ringtail resides in hollow trees, caves, under rocks piles, in dens and in abandoned buildings. Population density may range as high as 5-10 per square mile. The ringtail is considered a wholly beneficial animal. It has been decreasing in abundance rather rapidly in recent years. 47 Badger • The Badger is a stout bodied, 'short-legged predator with a reputation for being an aggressive animal. It is, in fact, seldom seen because it is generally nocturnal and feeds chiefly on small rodents. Its reputation probably comes from its appearance in capitivity, where it may snarl and hiss in a .threatening manner. It is in reality, a very beneficial animal as it destroys many rodents which may Be considered pestiferous. It is generally found in open grasslands where it constructs its den by burrowing. This animal apparently is widespread throughout much of central and western United States and portions of Canada and northern Mexico, but has been de- creasing in numbers in Contra Costa County. Bobcat' This medium sized cat (15-35 pounds) has a short tail and ear tufts and lives :.n rocky areas, chaparral and woodlands. It is mostly nocturnal and solitary and is a predator of small mammals, birds, and it will eat carrion. The bob- cat makes dens in rock crevices and hollow logs. This animal may range 25-50 miles but its normal territory is within a 2 mile radius. This is probably and entirely beneficial animal. Mountain Lion The Mountain Lion is discussed on pages 27 and 53 of the Draft E.I.R. After • f!lrther rho A1PxandPr T.i ndRav 1411seum. it was revealed that at least one pair of these large cats occurs in the Black Hills region of tit. Diablo. Much of. the project site is on the crest and southern slopes of the Black Hills. -� Should this project be approved, the effect of human habitation and the sphere of influence of man'will have a detrime-tal impact on the ability of this impor- tant and seldom seen animal to survive. Red Fox ' The Red Fox does not occur naturally on or near Mt. Diablo. However, they have been released in the Danville area in recent years. These foxes were formerly pets purchased by homeowners and then released. The origin- of these specimens is probably Texas. It is not currently known if these Red Foxes will survive and serve as a starting point for a new population. Grey Fox The Grey Fox is an endemic species in Contra Costa County and is apparently quite numerous in certain areas of the tit. Diablo region. It is generally found in chaparral, rim rock areas, and in open forests gr woodlands. It is chiefly nocturnal and secretive in nature. This is an omnivorous fox which eats small mammals, insects, birds, eggs, fruit, and .acorns. It is an important predator of rodents which are often considered pests (mice, rats, and ground- squirrels) . It lives in dens in hollow logs, beneath boulders and sometimes in ground burrows. It may range up .to 50 miles. This is probably a wholly beneficial animal. 49 Berkeley Kangaroo Rat This small unique creature has occurred on Mt. Diablo in the past and was recently sighted on the mountain. This is apparently the only kangaroo rat found in Contra Costa County (the Giant and Santa Cruz Kangaroo Rats are found further south) . This kangaroo rat is a resident of grassy open areas and may be found on slopes with sparse chaparral. This habitat occurs on the project site. Its presence there has not been verified. Prairie Falcon The Prairie Falcon is a scarce predatory bird in. Contra Costa County. It nests in can in open mountains, plains and prairies. This bird is wide ranging and builds its nest in cliffs. The Prairie Falcon has been sited in recent years in the project area and members of the Mt.' Diablo Chapter of the Audubon Society feel this species nests in the Black Hills area. Golden Eagle The Golden Eagle 'is discussed on pages 27 and 53 of the Draft E.I.R. However, several things should be mentioned further. This large predatory bird has been known to nest on the upper regions of the project site. It is found in open mountainous regions, roothills , canyons and plains. It requires a large feeding range which may include the entirety of the 'p_oject site. Almost any human activity in the way cf urbanization will surely contribute to the decline of a.t.: ..__.. t:..J v •�.., 1.: 1 v.. ,. a.t... .a.L. 'a., nn f ::`. %.Alia ii.PVLbanV —ird -and i :; lA✓iii b�' W zurvi c bn ..hc soul" uldc o ✓i�.✓+v• Sage Brush'Lizard The Sage Brush Lizard occurs on Mt. Diablo as an isolated population which is distantly removed from other populations of this species (i.e. foothills of the Sierra Nevadas) . This lizard occurs in brushy areas of manzanita and other chaparral vegetation which is interspersed with open ground or rocks. It is generally restricted to higher elevations but its exact lower limits on t•ft. Diablo is currently unknown. It may occur in the higher elevations of the pro- ject site. It generally feeds on insects and other anthropods. Alameda Striped Racer ' This snake is discussed on pages 27 and 54 of the Draft E.Z.R. Since the writing of that document new information on this rare and endangered species has been brought out. Further information on the distribution of this snake is documented below. The California Department of Fish and Game has records revealing that three sightings have been made in the project region: Curry Canyon, Alarm Creek, and west of the mountain summit near Dan Cook Canyon. In addition, local ex- ports such as the personnel of the Alexander Lindsay Museum state that the snake has been sighted in the project area near the Black Hills and the' lower chaparral areas on the southern slopes of Mt. Diablo. Additionally, a graduate student working on a Ph.D. dissertation at the University of California has sighted the snake a half dozen times in the last three years in the Mt. Diablo area. Thus, it appears that there is a high likeliHood that the Alameda Striped Racer does occur on the project site. Unless the potential range of the species is protected as open space and an adequate buffer zone is established, the approval 49 �• of this project could jeopardize the existance of this animal in the southern . portion of Mt. Diablo. This snake is chiefly a foothill, chaparral inhabitant which is active during the day- feeding on frogs, lizards, other snakes, small mammals, birds and probably insects. The exact home range or feeding t2rri- tory of the snake is not known; neither is it known whether or not the snake can tolerate even the remote proximity of man; Insects One group of animals for which information is almost completely lacking is the insects. Some experts feel that there are a great number of insects which have become rare, endangered or even extinct because of man's activities. Indeed, even the backyard naturalist, if he has been observant through the years, could have noticed that several of the once plentiful and beautiful butterflies are rarely seen in suburban and rural neighborhoods. It is seldom that one will observe the Black Swallowtail, the Mourning Cloak or the California Sister flitting about in the early morning. The food sources for the caterpillars has diminished and the extensive urban use of pesticide has probably depleted Insect numbers -- often those that do no harm and may have ecological as well as esthetic value. Implementation of the proposed project will probably put greater pressure on the beneficial insects and favor - not intentiohally - the more adaptable and often prolific cosmopolitan species which have adapted to human activities. Unfortunately, these are often nest species which man feels'he must use chemical, • pesticides to control - this can often have a further detrimental effect on the environment. California Groundsquirrel Control On page 54 of the Draft E.I.R. there is a lengthy discussion involving the groundsquirrel control program of the Contra Costa County Agriculture Department. The use of methyl bromide as a burrow fumigant is the current major method of control. However, there are secondary effects which should be discussed in- volving the use of this general poison. Many species of animals use ground- squirrel burrows beside the squirrel itself. A few examples are: snakes, . small rodents, lizards, •salamanders, numerous insects and many others. Because of the general toxic properties of methyl bromide, these animals will also be killed when burrows are fumigated. Of special consideration should be the rare or endangered animal species which may inhabit the burrows. The Alameda Striped Racer, the Berkeley Kangaroo Rat, the California Tiger Salamander are several examples. They may seek refuge in inhabited or abandoned groundsquirrel burrows. The approval of this project may put greater pressure upon the County Agricul- ture Dopartr.:ent to intensify their control program for this " pest" species. Groundsquirrels and urban development are generally incompatable. The squirrels can damage road and flood control structures as well as feed on domestic land- scape plants. They will not be tolerated in backyards or golf courses. Conclusion • There are numerous other plants and animals which may be rare, endangered or depleted for which there is no current information regarding their distribution and abundance. These may be species which depend on ponded water (i.e. the ponds 5o ,• on the project site - such, as many plant species, the spadefoot toad, the pond turtle, certain resident as well as migratory birds and many insects) . Species associated with the stream courses or the Valley Oaks would require study to determine the presence of and the population density of the numerous organisms wnich would be associated with these habitats. It is currently un- known what the effects of the proposed project will be, should it be approved. It would require extensive field surveys by qualified biologist_, knowledgeable • in specific areas of expertise. This would require studies over several seasons and many hours of compilation of data. At the present time it is unknown if .such studies will be required of the applicant. I • • 5 • v Bibliography Opler, Paul A. and Langston, Robert L. 1968. A Distributional Analysis of the Butterflies of Contra Costa County, California. Journal of the Lepidopterist's Society. volume 22 pages 89-107, May 1968. Ferrell, George T., 1971. Endangered Wildlife of California and the San Francisco Bay Region, published by: The Yorthern`California Committee for Environmental Information, P. 0. Box 761, Berkeley, California 99702. Munz, Philip A. and Keck, David D. A California Flom. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1963 (2nd printing) 1681 pages. Bowerman, Mary L. The Flowering Plants and Ferns of Mt. Diablo, California. The Gillick Press. Berkeley i944, 290 pages. •` Burt, William Henry and Grossenheider, Richard Philip. A Field Guide to the Mawals. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 1964, 284 pages. Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 1966, 279 paces. Peterson, Roger Tory. A Field Guide to Western Bi2ds. Houghton Mifflin Co. , • YVJ VVI► iJVJ, IVU i•uy$$. -' • 52 Climatology i• Due to insufficient facilities, time and funding, it is presently not possible for the County of Contra Costa.to generate a computer analysis, simulating specific effects of the Blackhawk project on local -climatology. However, ; general well-documented climatic change resulting from the conversion of natural landscape into an urbanized state can'.be predicted and expected. Th*e interchanges of heat through time occurs at every place on the earth's surface. This exchange is the transfer of heat to and from the surface by radiation, conductivity, and convective processes. The.manner in which these processes are affected by urbanization include: (1) changes in the physical surface, (2) heat production, and (3) tumidity. Urbanisation changes the physical surface of the land, notably by construct- ing buildings and paving, in the process covering and waterproofing the land, increasing its thermal admittances. This waterproofing involves a hydrologic change with climatic consequences. Since rapid runoff leaves paved surfaces dry, most of the time between rainfalls, less moisture is available for evaporation. This is significant because the evaporation Process absorbs heat from the air and hence has a cooling effect at the earth's surface. Thus, urbanized areas do not have this mechanism of heat loss. Urbanized areas have a higher thermal admittance due to lzcking vegetation and replacement with •:oncrete. A naturally vegetated ground surface receives • haat dur—l"" +hn eiw onA _^^ie nFf -.h "inht 1 ,Ir acts as an insulating blank. The flow of heat both into and out of the natural surface is reduced; less heat 's stored 'in the soil. Vegetation tends to reduce suzface temperatures. In contrast, the paved urbanized area has high thermal conductivity and heat storage capacity. The effect is main- tenance of relatively nigher temperatures. Urbanization also alters the roughness of the earth's surface and by modifying movement of air flow at _he surface, generally effects the overall climate. Wind speeds are generally reduced . However, local eddies are created by structural interference thus increasing turbidity. Further, effects of turbidity reduces the ability of the wind to flush air pollutants. The introduction of man and his heat producing activity (combustion, heating, metabolism) also contributes to the overall climatic heat budget. It is not known to what extent the proposed Blackhawk development will contribute to the worsening situation. The resolution of this question would, indeed require the type and extent of study the questioner suggested. 53 • AIA POLLUTION Numerous persons spoke at public hearing and responded by letter to the issue ' of adverse air pollution inpacts which the proposed project might cause. In addition, two public agencies responded to the Draft EIR sections dealing with this issue. All respondents found the Draft EIR lacking in some respect (pages 30 and 55) . The question was raised as to the effect of the air pollution on agricultural crops and human beings. Certain crops are known to be very sensitive to cer- tain airborne pollutants. Examples are: lettuce,. tomatoes and various trees, i.e. Monterey Pine and Coast Redwood. Specific information regarding the type and level of these e`fects is very technical and somewhat tentative in certain cases. Whether crops would be affected, which are currently grown or could potentially be grown in the project area, is not known (walnuts, grain and "wild" pasture) . The effects of air pollution on human beings has been fairly well documented in "heavily" urbanized areas. Most detrimental effects appear to be related to inducing respiratory disease, such as emphysema. There i.s evidence that tera- tological diseases may be induced by certain airborne pollutants. One area of human discomfort which is apparently linkerl to air pollution is related to ' allergic diseases. Hay fever and asthmatic illness have been inc.rLminated in this regard. A comment was made that the conclusions which were drawn in the Draft EIR re- garding air pollution was drawn from too few monitoring stations. This is true. However, the Livermore and Walnut Creek stations are the only ones from which data were 'available (BAAPCD) . The staff agrees that lata are insufficient to express what the specific impact of the proposed project might be. Answers to this question could best be answered by the experts in the field. With this in mind, the following discussion is based on comments to the Draft EIR from the State of California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Pol- lution Control District (BAAPCD) . At the suggestion of the Air Resources Board, the Planning Staff attempted to calculate the number of 'miles traveled per day by residents'of the proposed development (see enclosed letter) . It became obvious that this would be an im- possibility within the time frame available. A detailed study would be required to make even the simple calculations to determine the niaber of grams per mile per day or tons per year of pollutants which could be attributed to the proposed project. Some of the parameters which would require specific data are : allo- cation of the present traffic to access roads, allocations to proposed exten- sions of existing roads, distribution of traffic to major employment areas (San ,Francisco, Oakland, Livermore, Walnut Creek, etc.) ,distribution of traffic to various non-employment destinations, allocation of traffic to several BART sta- tions, and many more. Once the average length of a single trip per day by a Black- hawk resident was *calculated and this were multiplied by the average number of trips per day (10 X 4,500 = 45,000) ,it would be relatively easy to calculate the•project's contribution to the pollutants in the air. However, this would not resolve the regional considerations which were raised by the BAAPCD. It 54 Me.morawdum Honorable John R. Teerink Dols s !larch 18, 1974 � Director " • Department of Water Resources Subjocfs Blackhawk bevelopnent 1416 11inth Street Company - Rezoning - Martinez Sacramento, CA 95814 Oontra Costa County ' SCiI. No. 74022541 Attention: Mr. Ken Fellows From i Air Resources hoard This project proposes rezoning to allow development of over 4,500 dwelling units on a 4,800 acre site in Contra Costa County. The report also lists recent-ly approved and proposed projects in the San Ramon Valley which increase the tital proposed additional dwellings to zver 9,000 units.. As noted in the retort, it is expected that the population in the valley will increase frc-t to 26,000 recorded for 1970 to as much as 100,000 in• the year 2000. Full ccnsideraticn must be given at this time to the effect the subject project will have on air quality. The proposed developmen'. is located in an area where air quality standards Are exceeded many days throughout the year. The air quality section Of the subject environmental impact re^ort recognizes that any proposal which res'.:lts in a • greatly increased increment of vehicles should be carefully considered frc.m the point of view of vehicular impacts on air quality.. Approximately 1;000 additional vehicles could be introduced into to can Ramon Valley as a result of this project. To evaluate the impact of these vehicles on air quality it will be necessary for the report to include an esti.^ate of the addition&l vehicle trips and miles traveled per day. The rercrt should then develop an estimate of the additional e.iissions generated and cc-.Pare this with existing air quality. Computation of the estimated total emissions generated by this project and a discussion and comparison ,thereof with present air quality in the project area will enable decision makers to arrive at in informed conclusion as to wi.et'rer this project in light of others is compatible with health levels of air quality for the citizenry. William C. Lockett, Chief Evaluation and Planning ' R•ECE•iVEp MAR 2 5 . O6ic_c o4 Fi�nnin3 d► , P.txvrch •• 55 ' is not known what the present resident of the San Ramon valley contributes to air pollution. Without some 'detailed knowledge on this matter, it would be im- probable that a proportion or degree of impact to that air basi*.i could be as- signed to the proposed project. The tables on the following page were supplied by the Air Resources Board; these can be used to detemine the amount of various pollutants which vehicles can be expected to contribute to the air on a grams per mile basis (1970 and 1990) . The 1990 figures presumably make the assump- tion that vehicle pollution control devices proposed for future years will be required. The BAAPCD commented at length on the Draft EIR and raised some questions which the Planning Staff felt it could not answer, if, indeed, there were answers. After sp-veral discussionp, the District graciously consented to provide ad- ditional guidance to facilitate answering these important questions. In a letter dated May 15, 1974 (enclosed) , the District acknowledged this request and enclosed "Guidelines to Air Quality Impact Analysis of Land Use Projects" (also enclosed) . In this 13 pag.: document are found the criteria, methodology and calculations which the District feels would enable one to determine the im- pact which a project would have on ambient air quality in the immediate area and a region. Again, 'to obtain the desired information, it could require extensive studies which the time frame for the preparation of this document would not allow. Specific information on the current pollutant level:: on or near the site (San Ramon Valley) are -not available. Neither is such specific information on daily and seasonal wind factors available. There are a multitude of additional factors which would need to be clearly defined before an accurate assessment of the pro- .i- ro- 5--.. s-----� ,u ,. ..._e.. .i- , .2-- .a - 1.3 u8 vu�aiiicu. Tl-wltl i5 I itC uvi et+Llai iut tewiviny lill S<r' Utl— known impacts at the project unit EIR.stage should the project be approved. There would be an adequate amount of time to accomplish the necessary research to lead to a clearer picture of the impact of the proposed development, possibly before construction of the first units. •__•__,_, rvK tN/u FOR ALL AIR BASINS •(lased on 7-mode Cold Start 'rest Cycle) 1970 VEHICLES HCCO ` NOx i Light Duty 6.0 49.6 5.3 Heavy bury 13.5 122 6.4 Diesels 4.3 26.0 43.0 Evaporation 2.5 - - • Crankcase 0.66 - - - AVERAGE MOTOR VEUCLC EMISSIO'N' FACTORS I.N. GR&S/MILE FOR 1990 FOR ALL AIR BASINS 1'990 VEHICLES . HC CO , NOx Light Duty0.2 3.0 0.4 (0.4)1 Heavy Duty 1.3 29 4.0 (1.S)1 Diesels 1.0 10.0 15.0 Evaporation 0.2 - - - Crankcase negligible - - • r BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTRQ DtSTRtQT • April 17, 1974 -Ono n• ;1D s :2 w AIANCOA COUNTY Mr. •' )• 1f,f,A► con Dale Sanders �, f, "•�'„ I)o•ri�� Contra Costa-county Planning Department ,�a rp '!f; MMA C05TA COUNTY County Administration Building lrt,erliw. -Pine and Escobar Streets y " Martinez, CA 94.553 -4 =�- IdAItrN COUNTY pilot R.A•rifonl T • ..• •� a,r.0�8,rm.n) RE: Draft Number 1, 2/6/74 , Envirorit•aental. IL.pact- < '.041%[met Report 1840-RZ (Blackhawk Ranch) NAPA COUNTY ,0,r. uDear Mr. Sanders: lcAn lutfuiful SAN iRA1:s L, Al COUNTY We h,- .,e reviewed the above-referenced EIR, received lci.;�t. l.lioto /ftcr "") from the Contra Costa Count Planning D2 ar V le::t On (sfcnrf It y o p SAH 0ATe0 COUPLTY February 151 1974. We have also revie;.ed the follow- ing ollow- ing two EIR s prepared on the Blackhav,. Ranch project: • WIrRn.SSrm1.m> SANTA CLARA COUNTY1. B1•ackhawk Ranch Draft Environmental Ir mac- Report, vrr) lVCallsriLh August 1973, by Janes A. Roberts .1 ;societes , inc . el (This report is cited on page 39 in EIR 1840-PAZ•) ; 6OLA1:0 COUNTY •, ; l.cf•L.mo. Robinssol,fld 2. Environmental impact Report , Blacicha k anch; Report 1�umber E-73317-1, Januaxy 1974:, by Ecolo- gical Iripact Studies , Inc . ("bile personnel who ,bell 144114t prepared this report are listed on page 74 in EIR 1840-P.Z.) We hope you find the following obscrvations useful in your evaluation of this project. �. First, we concur with the comments e;-pressed in EIR 1840-RZ regarding a) the pollution vo•cential and the number of days that oxidant standards v-are er ceeded in the project area (p. 30) , b) the increased pressure that will occur as a result of this project for ed- ditional development in the vicinity of the oroject (p. 72) and c) the long automobile co- ute dips that will be rade by project residents to jobs located outside of the County (p. 29) . x, ?Moreover, in a section headed "Mitigation" in the James A. Roberts Report, we note the absence of in- formation concerning the feasibility of establishing a public transportation system that wouldl d elinace T "a significant portion of the potential vehicle miles" traveler? (p. 77) . With_ respdct to this point, we question whether the density, layout and location of the project are conducive,to the establishment of effective Vi.2 reduction measures. 939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109: • 141517'1.6000 Second, we agree with the statement that "any proposal which would result in a greatly increased increment of vehicles should be care- ful] considered from the point of view of vehicular impacts on air quality'' (EI1:-RZ, p. 55) . We also agree that "The most significant single source of conteminants generated directly by the development will be fro:• vehicular traffic'' (James A. Roberts Report, p. 74) . xn our opinion, revisions to the entire air quality impact analysis (including pages 73-77 'in the James A. -Roberts Report) are necessary in order to determine the anticipated location and duration or pro- 3ected pollutant concentrations and their relationship to air quality standards. To achieve a more meaningful air quality analysis, we suggest the following: a) that the projected emissions in Table .H (James A. Roberts , p. 76) be compared to emissions for the County, or a smaller piann_.ng area, rather than to total emissions generated w.-I.thin the entire "San Francisco Area Air Basin, -b) that projected emissions be translated into pollutant- concentra- tions, .c) that air pollutant concentrations also be estimated adjacent to roads that will be heavily traveled as a result of trazEfic gener- ated by the project and that ir. o=ation be set forth desc_ibir. existing and futt.:_-e development t::at ;.tight be impacted adi`cent • to such roads . For example, air quality impact analysis .;rased on a traffic analysis) should focus on the extended periods of peak-hour conjestion that will result along Crow Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley Road at their intersections with I-680. In this regard the EI R does not indicate i) that 1995 Department of Transportation projections snot-: that I-680 will be operating at ten to eighteen percent above capacity at peak hours , ii) that there is cor.7iderab-e uncertain v retarding the viccning of .Sycamore Valley road, and iii) that many streets in tine vici- vity of the project cannot handle projected volumes before and, in some cases, aster 1979. Additionally, we request that the total number of trips generated by •the project be inaicated, as well as the trip lendth .factor used to calculate total V.T. We will be happy to answer any questions pertaining to this matter. • Sincerely, Milton Feldstein Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer HF:ac / 59 13AY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT . r,•�: . Nay 15, 1.974 - ALAMEDA COUNTY ,•`•°h' R°'' RNM 1.Plor.n�hl Mr. Dale Sanders ' Contra Costa County Planning Department CONTRA COSTA CC)I1NTY RoDerl W.Iln�er County Administration wilding • 18MISP•4rint Pine & Escobar Streets MARIN COUIIIY Martinez, CA 94553 Peter R Angoni (Vice Choomen) Stephen►re,er RE: Environmental Impact Report 1840-RZ (Blacl:hawk NAPA COUNTY Ranch) john T.pqui(e MR Tu``u' Dear Mr. Sanders: SAN FRANCISCO COUNIY lL.Alulo Peter Lmevt you have requested that we elaborate on the methodology that could be used in respoi:Gi,n3 . to coi,,,men' s rais--d in -SAN IAATFO COUN1Y our letter of April 18, 10,74. The -attached guidelines Robe"" 51 C'" werr.nsleinlem° prepared by our staff reprhsent a simplified, but quantitative, approach that we Leel will be helpful SANTA CLARA COUNTY in your analysis . The guidelines are self-•explaaa- Victor G(.° N•IliemR.,ele„eh tory and references are incluced. SOLANO COUNTY limes Lem°, We will, of course, be -lad to answer- any further Rebut Scofielj questions . ' •.nunrr♦ PMIVeV "d°M Poteenn.¢h ' (thoorneeI S iricerel`r . Wben IMiller Milton Feldstein Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer 14F:ac, Enclosure Pb C • 177 V A `P? Vo e ' 93n ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORN14-94109 • (4151771-6000 60 Guide=l=ines for Air Quality D.npact Analysis of land Use Projects in;:roduci:ion The Distract is called upon on rainy► -occaasions to review the air ruali6y analyses contained in environ.-:e:itul i:.i:)ac'V reports P.nd Similar doCirrient5, or to sum.,esti procedarz-, for perior:;inE; such analyse3. in so loin,;, our '�orinci'-)al lC^a+ rC::':a?::t is that t:iC true na faire of the i:.:»act be :.:.Cie eviGe:1t i:h*.Oli;�:i the USC Of rei,:Vamkn; Ua lwa and acct oted calcula'-ion toc;,nicues. feoi that ii; oriel' to rC(:uirc,, ent'-I, '-ha Lnalysis z.-.us' beC:L'�.:iv:'v:.V+VC: �IiU 7,.411..;, 1)1.0vide a de.sc r iptioli of the ) oajcct I S :":a_Ct :t:1C R .:ill leiId ue:ll �Ot:; a.p:Jlicablay a:.ibiun—: ail. cuality :1uaa4.1, . -U'-h- Cf OY'C e:::eect ��^at an air c:uc.li'cy a:analysis ;r ily be Ci0I1::� �'ol• a .l .loll tant- i related to 4 3'a.L'..lhC:?i U and for t e &--J::C:L.f is avora-- i1"i- 'i;i.It1C3 it p'3;'Oar i.,'i.e 'i.0 t:1C Sta�.nG.?.i"u. ui::C3 potent- al a..i..'Lc C':.l:alb,, iia a7,,3C't. Cia1S3iO:1S :.:3.y be O'f r.:Oliila3 .i:.:iCi iYitly be close to or removed fror.; the project sit-e, ::e also exp'Oet '-fiat t1e ana,.ly::is !•;ill be done oil as riaL::bar of.G1i7ro;Ji•_'�ve .�ip.a'v::.a.l scales. i''inaal.ly, to fa;.cil'.l.ia?.te a ti';.e..1y a:1.^.' :.:C�:7=:i �f ill response .iro:: rev:i e*,.X!r P,, we expect t--- pre^Se:aatiO:i of reo;,4'.-U-3 to be con- cise, contai=n only the in_ow.-.a :ion nacessc.r'; to rave,.l the nw'U,ure Of the L.;.paCt'- and be ca')aibie of bC-i:"1_; IL"1::Cr.;:.0co by Je'r:ions ?:it:h A T.il:i111iallrl o- i:�?Cli," l Cal erre:fisc. D010 "GO Z-"e i:.u. i.2.'i::Of.i •:ii:�C* ?'11th res?eCt �o ti::ia:, f-,nd •: 6- '-Ci•C11:1i.CaC-I 'i1.3!:�;i•- f cos bob::1 on the part- of 'v1.a per Stine 1)r::J„^: _:1;; _+.:pGc'u re?1Ui"-S i'.iii� V/1 Vlll': !l ail V VL V11C 1 a� :.V la:l/ J, al C: '1C;L1 V.....V• ci ul l'.V V as a.awi V1 V ...v+i V' can be' •derive:: from the use of :._-.;pl�f icd, s�a_:.d2.rd�zeci and prefera- bly rrianrhal techniques for the air gaality analysis. With rer rd to our expectations as qutlined above, we have prepared a sot of guidelines for the a;CCO:.:pii5 and prCsunta- taan of an air anality ir,pact analys=is i..n a n-.-:.iter :"tich G;-Oa tl••,r facili'i:ate revie:•r by this ar oncy I-LI.ie _procedure ?•;:lic:i ?';C liL; % invol:'es the calculation o: oollutant- concentrations rci;ul- i._Lf;!,, froli project asuoCtia-%'-I 'd cmi3sions w::d '- 2 :7resa:natant:ion of calculation _asalts in format urhich enables a read;; comparison of pro jce t-r elated pollutant co ;':it:h %.7:plicaole ail' CL:ali- ty Li'i.a.ndar dz. A set of sii:Ole for:•iu'lL s is :.tl ,eJ a.a:Cl for use in accomplisihinZ the analysis by those resources. .aIle i us-a4 oz' more sophisticated techniques is in no -..;ay discouraged, hoi-rover, if there is reason to a>m. ect an i.:mrovemen V in the qua.li Coy of the -results. SuC;gested net-hods for project impact calculation 1. Datcrrdne rmnual average rate of enission from the . ro;ject, Zt, and f rorn pro,—;cell; related ve:l cular traffic, in units of gravis per second, on - he annual averaffe, as follows : a. Calculate enaissions from pro f ec t-related vehicle rra*.le- • age using crission factor and speed correction factors provided in Table 1 and 'i6gurc 2. An average route speed m.ust. be assumed. b. Calculate emissions from vehicle idliar- usins the 61 : i emission factors in Table 2 with the assumption of three minutes of idling per project trip and. c. Calculate emissions from all other project sources using the procedures outlined in reference 1. L;-,iissions from elevated stacks with the Doint of e.-._ission more than 10 ne-,Cers above grade should not be included hero' but should be analyzed as described in paragraph 7. 2. Using the sane procedures, determine annual c:;lission -,-ate,,:,;,, within a one kilometer by one kilo:.eter square surroundinG 1-he project. In the case of a geo-raphically e.:tensive i�roject site, -deterrii:inationS of annual e:r�i�:i:Q:1 ra-e Zho�.ild be l:;ade separ- ately for e:.ch of a •nv,:bar of one-'%i1o:-:.eter by one-:Ci so:Teter squares contered on areas of project relayed c-miss:ions such as parkinC, areas, shopping areas and freer%ram :interchan res carrying large nurribers of project ve .cle trips. 3. Calculatethe regional i"nact, Cr, of the total project emissions, using the formula Cr = 0.It2st (l) vhere Cz, is pollutant concentration in units of microLxrcrns per cubic meter for a one hour a.vcra ing The calculation in f orrwala 1 a.ss unes that the re iO al £:tale impi'ct :: trations and emissions as described in references 3 and 4. . Calculate the roadside concentration of carbon monoxide using the for::uIa Crs - 0.00VP (3) :•here V is the project plus Eon-project traffic volune in vehicles per hour, both hays, and F is aii e::,15:;iG:'1 faCtG: l;iil.a of (;r111:u per mile obtained from riSure 2 and Table 1. Ca.2.ate C�.� for each road lint: on �rhich the nea c flour *traffic vo'_t:�.� exceccls 2000 vehicles per hour and on which project- related tri':f f_c account:, for 10 perccnl Or more of the Uea:S !'four volu;.;e. ;o a sep%.rate Ca.lcul.a.- tion for the pew:: 'hour and uea;: 8-hour 1 iOda of G� r.^.'i,tell in the Year fo'lo;ring project- cor.:plct*--on -,.nd in year o= peak pro-;cct tit 1] 7.:ti0.1 :ii t:1i:t a ten year period f oll o,...r:� o,cS`• cor,';11Crt:i.Ui1. In cal.culc:t,in1; t-Iha emission f Ctoi, L1SC an F ':vr.^.�3 :G:te SpvCd O 10 Irph for the 1-hour ave-rar"na time and ave•ra:;a o:= peak 'speed ELpnrGprii. .e for the link for the 8-hour �ave:�c.`,:.n v'.::.e. 1'Oliula (3) is based on a ,.,odel presented in reference D an",p 'provides" a conservative estimate of the "::.ixing cell" conte=:.:c ion on the road assuminer a 2 Teter per second V:ind at it ';he road. , The mixi.n o cell concentration is azs-.;::;e:. L:t;=valent to t- he concentr_,tion.at roadside. An estimate• o.' ccr.ccn monoxide concon- tration at a.,;riven distance f roc, the roads' de_ :.,e ::wde by using the forruia CX n Crsx-n (4) where n=0. 21 for the 1-hour averaging tire and r.=0.25 for the 8-hour averaging time. • 6. Enter the calculated values of C,., C, a;d Cr.,; on Source : lm. act Surarary Form iso. 1. Enter the calcis-1 a-Ed ai,;e of Cr. the redo;al - t, zn the space ander the ;:cacir.o " _.egional" and on the line co r espond:ing to the 1-hourB.vC iu.o'_:i LD t.-L:7.3. Obtain the regional scale i,.-,,-.:)acts for o;.her avera-ink ti:.:as by using; the Avera ih.- tires conversion factors in 'a1Jle '3' t.1-1c c(alCUlt ted Ij Values of C "'he roadside :i,:.Ua.cts, in the s ace3 under the hcad- . inn "RoadsiCie ' and on the line correspondinf- to -;,-,he is JproJr7.at%e (1-hot;_• or 8--hour) averaging, tire. Enter calc :=-ted va.lucs of local concentration under the heading "Local" and G:-: lire correspond- in.". to the 1-year averagin; ti,,,e. Use Table 3 -,.it:. other avg, Limes. 7. Identify all major point sources (stac'::s) associated :tith the project and enitting in excess o: 25 pounds per flour of any pollutant during a ny one hour :'Then opera t_n at full Ca`),LCity. For each such point source, enter data and nerfof.-I calculations as indicated on Source impact Sw.-mrary Por:,c :o. 2. calculations on this form are doLigned to provide a corker;ati:'e es;;irr.ztc of ti1C I.a::iii:111T, urowld level concentration 1'CSul'i.i.:.- irO:.t GL, A e-11S31onu under a dveI'sGia::pe01'olO�,1Ca1 conditions co nsistinc- of a Turner $ 'stability cateLory and a 2 meter per second. ...Ind speed. Calcula- tions on the for:; are based on references 2 and 9. , 63 . "u 7ep:'.2 cp:-)roach to ihipact interpretation and discussion The procedures outlined above ;rere dcsiGned to enable .persons ? with limited resources and li.niited e.xnertise to make a conzervative and quanti-fied estimate of a Uro jest T s air quality impact in the manner of a :Lirst approximation. By co;r�.-)aring the calculated values to t1le applicable air quality standards at the aworoprixtce avcra :inz* tlilleS, ti�C' r latl VC COntrl✓Lit iOn O p-0 eCi. cliiiso,ions t0 the dCt;i^a- dation of air duality can be ascertained on three spatial scales. The significance of the i.;.pact can be L;wu;ed by conyideri2 ;; relative contribution of project miss .ons in light of "ho co:ntri- butions fro:ct all other Sources she area in Uuc:.i'i G:i. In lieu of so,)iiisticated modeling o c the d-snecr,ion of regio:::: c.e pollutant er::i-..,.iy.,. • .- t.,,o �e"�i:Gas c._ l. Jlw ,�cJt.GU for Gb'iial.i.1.:. the back ro'tuid pollution levels resultin;; from non-project c-;,iss`Aons: a. Obtain statistics on local air quality from t'e i'ollu- tion Control Dist-ri.ct. Such statistics are derived from a: cor- in-, sta't`.i01iS and are r".oSt anplicable tv t-na ir-uniodiate vicin- i:y o:' such a St-al'-,ion. If the nearest sti_t• in an area iiitii Git,n'?L_".. cantly different physical, r.ieteorolo;;_ca.l or source dens-"-;r C..,,.riLC- teri.s tics, the data si.ould not be c::;;_�:;Olateci t0 the pro'ect Consideration mi�h;, be riven. hO never, to us-.n' data fro-,,-, a sta t,iGn Bich, "1�1-i:ou-h• far r e:;.oved f1 ro the p�o"ect Site,' is locateiA in an arca with silAlar Character:i.s'ics. ,• ' b. '•:oriel the local non-Q rojec;: ezissiono using simplified I techniouct. The same f orl;iula (2) w*,^.yctl :as used to obtain an eSti- ma�e of project impact or, tiie local scale can be used wi'h non- project er..issions in the same one-,cilo:.:eter square to nro••: .de an 6stil-ate or locally Venerated bac'N'rGUna, Except in the cc.se of suspended Uar Viculate, it is not uirE._z sonab3 e to assui-,-c the bull: of the local backGround for pri:.ary contaminants, Cs'•)^�.�asay carbon mono`xidc� is due to emissions in the i-amediate vicini—Ly of tine source. Ir, the case of particulate, a conservative estir,:wte of 35 micro-rant►s per cubic rr.elk-.er zay be made for backgrou-nd fro:i sources ou..wlde the ,local ore-kilo,....z.:,.er scuare. TTo -f ied mr•.ti;OdS e;:iut at present for -o:: • TABLE !s ;,age vehicle e:"ission f"aetors rrfor Uhe San Francisco Bay Area ve�.lcie mgr. 1.•Y I.IS J.L O.. 1G.:•\IG��J .r.i ur4..:J •.:.l.�V o-ni.pu•cation other yaar CO Organics ,;0_ so Particulate 45.2 6.7 5.4 0.16 o.44 1975 36.1 5.1 4.1 0.18 0.42 19706 31.3 4.5 3.9 0.18 0.39 19 l7 27.6 3.9 3.6 0.18 0.30 1978 23.2 3.3 3.3 0.18'. 0.33 19'19 19.8 2.9 3.0 0.18" 0.31 1980 16.8 2.4 2.8 6.18 0.28 1983- 14.9 2.1 2.6 •0.18 0. 20 - 1982 13.3 1.9 2.5 0.is 0.24 _ • -� 3 12.2 1.8 2,4 6.18 0.23 1(,84 11.4 1.7 2.3 6.18 0.22 1935 10.8 1.6 2.2 6.18 0.21 1980 1o.4 1.5 2.1 • 0.18 0.20 1987 10:1 1.5 2.1 0.18 0.20 19003 9.9 1.5 2.1 o.18 0.20 1�$9 9.9 -1.4 2.1 0.18 0.20 1990 9.7 1.4 2.0 0.18 0.20 .6.ply t ese mac moors by v!"i3 B��JY'0�::.^.'`i,.: seed correction iuC�Or A. from ioAr ure 2 'i,o obtain the ennission iclCto:' :o: a oi.ven ave'L'a5e !'onto Pac-cor3 are bated on viv Ca'Iiiornic. A.-,.r -.2.0sources Board `l-;..Ode Test, Cycle. 6S ' •r • TABIC 2 Ming ve :ucic emissiOn fac'-ors** based on rvf cr oncCs 7 1., %A 8) ! co;lljpil•i:�l�:i0A J�nission 'actors in 7yiC.aii$��:ua�u�4 J ✓car I c0 . 0manics lox sof; Pz i- -'culate Other i 1974- 20.2 1.34 0.11 0.05 0.10 1975 14.5 1.20 0.09 0.05 0.10 1970 12.2 1.02 0.08 0.05 0.10 1977 10.4 0.86 0.07 0.05 -0.09 1978 9.0 0.74 0.06 0.05 0.08 1979 7.5 o.62 0.05 0.05 0.08 i9tS0 6.4 0.53 o.o4 0.05 0.07 {�{ 1931 5.8 o.48 o.o4 , • 0.05 0.00 0.43 o.o4 0.05 0.00 4.8 o.4o 0.03 0.05 0.00 4.5 0.37 0.03 . 0.05 0.05 { 1935 4.3 . 0.36 0.03 0.05 0:05 ; 1950 4.2 0.35 0.03 0.05 0.05 1987 4.1 0.34 . 0.03 0.05 0.05 s X938 k.1 0.34 0.03 0.05 0.05 { 1.939 4.o 0.33 0.03 0.05 .0.015 199C1 4.o 0.33 0.03 0.05 0.05 These .fac•cors snoaln nog be corrected fo-r.speed., 66 • Table 3 4'• Conversion factors :o: coneertration vs. avera." :u ti:t:3� Averw&D-L .e 1-hourr 3-hour 8-hour 24-hour 1-r, l-year Factor 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.1 *.Lli 'L,-6 Kahle, i:Cle' CG:'?Cv:1i::u^:�:i.G:1 ValuC -G� t.:z -110Ui i VCS�7.�r:_',,j ti--.e is, assL*,ned a ror.,,.alized vc.:ue of 1.0 c::s :C01• hAe other i;:'.e &ss*..v:Seii :�:�%.�i`fe' b'.7.1.i:L?S. t•i. U:S].31;� LllvL:LOZc, CO:.CenvlF:.1,..O.:S a - 'v:3 VC.r-_-o ;.:i Lvaiarr-n, : ,e mimes s OLl1Q be CO:.oa_( L?1'�LA 'GO Ue :. u:v �_G:G: :.Ons G:Ca�eG ver �uD.LC 1. r.. . Lit J i the 1.-l:O:.i_ concehiv�c^.uiC:1 is ._0J 'r ..', fog .:i. � V C d^I:Oui CO:iCLaii.ii:'L'iG'!'J i11i1 be v1:Zi7 as 70 r;��:;.' a d, Conversely � 'I.IiL -Hour cone@i1i:r2tLG:1 is 70 iln�l: , v:.v 1-:.O�i Va.lae .'iii? GC 100 1 ie v.;duez in tI-A—is te.).-..e are based G:Z ::.%vEL•i?.j. in referm.Ces 2 and } 6. 67 111 061• • '. , (..1�. i• �,! i.l;r $!i:.l.t. }� a': 'I:. :1.{ { 1 {• r.:i.,.' •' r !,: �' • •t �i f"{•.i .i 1•t''�/�.,) .t.'i..`.:.».».i{.! '.!;'�.i:.F ! �i7••i t»i{�.._•...., r.'.: _::(��+ ;...t i«•:.!"•• ' r"{ . 6�i1 .•, �i +� .;i. il' ...t. i � ft l 1-.,t~'i•«•..t t {~,...t, � (• ; ( �• / N, !t s e ,i CI h .l r 1: C/ `fit. ii i:l: �._�. �w� _:' t,.:».r_!: * +•i.�. t._. " •ri C►• —{ 1cni N J: l; 11 ^- t,�- .a,:. ni�.,�^•t •+ { •'' `�,. ;.. f 1• .�..�. •� ; ii • J•�.':L 'i't^_.�:•2. _((�� :.r'yl,.:a -ILL: r...1:1..,i l.� i� • i' n' .i: •1 I r , V J>•• •! is 'li!.._:�•�• .,. CJ:::• .,. : ,_ ' !_�•t-.Y'. : !. �,•!'N,;Qr •+1: 1.•�1 i �•,l: ,'�-�� (__�'i:..:}".i_ ;~ •r.,s:i'i 1 f'�:�.'{_'i.e'..�' ,j.• .i~•r_;..r.�.� 1 }„•• ! i ••;•it,,1•, .t.} H r„l U1;_` t t a :1'.:�.`,.:! .:'.•. j 't : i`i` 1.•j..'� /• ^i :�;..._ .: t� � 1 t ,3 ,'•r°-1 r ,�� •�•. _.� ' �'� t.•ta •:.I..t:i•.:..•._.: . ..L_. � t !•1.f P 1 �L L ' i�•rl N� tti to .!`', r),• it .'�'~�' t'.�4'^I.:..s,i... -';=;it' ( � i ,•'J•r ,' ';_ {� ',r r� J � i —I-:s.:f!~-'.t �': ' •:I•t' 't,?:i: t!;; 4•t G) CJ i'� .rt'.�i C�'4; .t� O,�i.;� I.i 'I y i" a' 1 }. •� ,' 1�"itf" �- .1 .; 'f;' .� { f' 't;•.f. , !'� Q , , � 1�l di :I} t, i4 .".i r', 6}� _' _ t I.i'.�•. '+..,..i i _ :. . i i t ;��'i ,..i. .1..._.,•.,��.. •C v a, i rt• t) ••'� ;.i,i,f1 C.} ,~t'I i ";'a , �t_:..� ,,.i;.t•-.-4...,�. .s_ ..!i. �...-1 on t}r„+ t' :;; ►lir •.• .�!'U l".''� :. (j , , (, j•.`t',',. ^� i j : •!• � -,•' '),•--�• , �-�� 1 ril t.,.j ••, � P.i 'NlC) •fa:, �i.i:�.:.i,fh.aS._J + ': 't '! ..i t !.• , _� - ! '• its t9 *i•} •t•: ' ,:L �.. i'rlwl :! •! -i��.' t' { 1 ! �3 � Ni �Sr 0).C) -1 U u '.: ~(~ l_I:.��`:�_�!• .( � '•i 1 ! •t••• 1 ,_1. .,. !. '{ t: � 'f�� ;i• t't •"i'.::r C'•. _t.ir i�.. ,, .{',� .,t_!. }'.: / (4 .,` (.� 1.-! _� 11. a, •r ,!!', '' _wri T. •� '7 ri C;,.CV iv tA'+ri'tfti. : ,!'' ' ! i. .i 'r •ii, •• �°•;:•tt.::` ll .j tr. ,. t :: •' � U fv ,� .-�'•i ! '{ :, {' .�, y� .�• i! ! :=•'l. !.ttlt ,, ' ,� + + ' 'l�{ �'' � 1�.�,'' t�•) (••'''• •! �,'!+, i 1 CJ � '•t of ... .t: '' •!. _..� �� .�.'i..I:_�� !'..l /_._I.ti��__ («} 1._'._� i , it.`!.,'i: _. © •.. � t� • iii 0) i ' .j , •,_.!'.i."i... ...... -) -- t'�_1.•'..;.. .j" !._. � _., l ;• � ! ._. '1 1 . t , r"{ `, 1,`. , 2..t '!":•. :;. i a!=:t_ ^�i 1 {. .',i • .t ,. ,.! .j i.. I t '! 1 1:) t t.7 :Jr(J i ,. ''�•r.l: t y ':,`i. ,''ryt ._ l.'..' , t•...t. t .'.. , � .t.' � ,. • .;. .t `t••'•i 'i' t •1, ``�'i ra �= Ci 1;•r q+ ; � •i.�.�!" ,.,..t j'''.�`;.��.11��i 1 .'•.',.�_.L:,mfr,.;! �.._.,;, _'.{ .f�! I, • .. •.'M_..... . .� �r r •t, :i� •Nr�' rq�•'.� .•. ! :ii ' ! i �:.( _,.'�..1 f t r; t/ , i ! i t j 'i ��i t 1_.,._ ! •1� ' til r `f:,.�•r, t i , ,1,: ;i • i., f � .,_..,_i'_”' - 1 ((.!:i`:i"• i' , t I ,^`' t� G� •'i U+!� N •, .;• ( .�{1 i •. t r,—it1 ! ! } ,- i..'•f t.j�'.:1 '!• tt .i:.-:i + .i . ; , i 6� • 1'i'1+ h+ •rj { ( { 7,.i :�: t.,.l., ) ' 1�- !t . i { i • r ....t .-.�.'._._...._ ,. � ,!- .i�'• !`I__.....-.,t t ( ., i :�::.t�t! .i� t• i•,• ! '! , '., i. i;,;.: ' yi ( i �. : 7 ( •�,: :1 r,t ii} • Ly+Gl � • � •t!,t•.i.} 7 ..j'.l; .f !'''I��f,:•:i��:( 1 ! ,t;',� 'i 'tj !!i l:,rf '.) � i' (rt. ,) •1 !'I j'e t r� t,,, t _.. _ •-r r,•� � ► ; '�,:�•i:il';:1' i,�:��:i+.i��fi'C I`iii ry! ( ;..1'^'�.= :i. •��. • ' ! 1 :1� 1 ` ` :ii. , i1 •i'' , ,. 11 �,LLL,t r' ! r. l! :j' t :f:�:.!:_ '1 �_ .t' •.•!. ' f o i�J 1✓ y !•• V:i r'1 17!. .'...,: �. . . ..,r.f•_�_. .� ,... ti .� �..~i , i. .� - �.•� � `t •! I :. : � •. •, !•'{ U !'•; Yl C) • - I .a+w '.www w w,•�r w �. w w wwrs•«e�+w.• w w .• • .: ,•.i w� , i .j",,.,,. .! '!' p:.'it ,i �'� t.•a i ,i .�,:.1• 7 .'-'! 1 .�.'�.'(' ! _ :7 _t _ ••i r Z! W Ini ( {,+ ''t .':.,. 1,.a_:_:! � 1..� ! l::�•__•!_lr::_1_,_. or w IF: ;to �, �{ { t ! i:I ! { 1 .1.,_�•�, t 1 .i.'..�_.• t 1 •� ' r t fob. f ! i t'l� �- ; ' „ ` i : i r ,. . ' !._.�._ti t•, 1 ! ( , i 1 ------- it O t) ,"� :j':ti (ti::�^�':r'' tt ti.'� } !:'' �� C �l. { s� i.�.l �.::i •;-� i".� :,i :.�'. .� n'' •� u C)' N .� �.; :��"!' .7 tqq :i'' �'1 .�. �, .�:a'i..i_1_� ^ ` I•, !•1 ( �_{ .l l r ! : t l,r �, !; J•. r U U .� ';l',4�''' + !.,..`,��.�:' •!`I�aa ! ;.X l.':,'i'..�;�:.'.,(i r.i'!+il�i:.l-� l.f •1 ., •f• It ' ''• •��'.i { ,' ' i ,,(• ,�. :� !• j. ,�l��;�•i• � M.•��+ ` '`t,t� ! ti.i:!f.'i71i t•� i• i:i 1, �• '. • .' r;l 1 { ,•r ai.i:.;.r;� i,.t� 7i!,tt� '.�•i i '1' t �:j' j _' j'!;'!ft ' �. i."�::;�• i i' ! .,t'; `� „ '�" Cti O t!-i .-! 7 �•�.:�.�� ;1•:! �. i1{i:.'.:•.Lt!tt i.�: '•::i''::�:4�:+ •` Ia_`+ �j�(i�� ,.�1i'�••I}i.t ,• �•'i.i'•� j'i�, 1 ,� • !;i Q r•• !,` ('• i � 1 l.t�l.•"i :i�i.'... wi ; '• 1 t �r• ,._ '�•1. _I,::.!. .•i{ '.i 1. l ( , "! S � t .� ift •r• t." +.!. �;•''; �'/• !"•f-77 C - !�_yi_,.,-.;•_� '.i« t..!__t�! •��_.11.�.,_.!!'-.�Li.7 l._.�...,'��'1'_l-.t i` ..,•:; {- } „� F i ('`'' F •.�.'l: '!: —�' 1 l '! 't ( .�.. _.i;.:wl!_.i: f f.1_e.:.t_'._t.f' t .i. _t N t �, qi i 1'a 1. '' _ I +. . 1.._L.i.:.i:t 'i' ly �..'�' 1.{.f �_ i,:ia. ::'. 't. ..S_�• f�� i i + !•ris .t i,•.-�i•:;t.•'I:,_._�_ ��•I.!.: 7'i•i..:�.1.'� :• 1'`••�:'i { � I, r.-i+ . + .) ,• :�tr' ' ,r i -,•-.•• ':. rte/j i.; l.:i. , 1 '. ., u �i(• ; ! f,:!!,•' :��::t,.':t:i.;�, •Cj." .i.s,• `•�: ..i $'AAA, .i. .t :{ +l.ti;'. ,I• i (� s•wt '`!: st+ •'« .-1 (/) �� _�+�,ji,.;t. .;'.,. !,,�..:i: , ;t,i ;,�:6_f.tj:,�''•:�' :_ r•.'•�+;�••� �.�. ,�••.Gi {. ; rtl'' '�..� .f••ii CJ •�/..1.'.,`i•''� _: t"'!i..:'�• !, l; t• ...•,._!,�.�.:._' 1:,.�1;�..�-•.! {:`..i.... .t•i�!!•• •�'• :._. • C;r �.: i. .,.f .i :a,: Vit;' i7.��.I:� � :�. •;,•' :�'i •7' ';•' ... t i ! � ' / ' •i'. 'i'••i•.'1 ra�. :�V . : �/ ii { �� ('.�•...i.:f.I • i!�'j'i;r��i:t �i'!j. '.!•� I_'11:• .',�+••, •�il�-,i�,�.i: {`! i '':t-,r� �:•t ,t :to. +;� I i. i�t,' 1.�.��. �1 ��!,'�;1, ; ,:'•!. 4 .�" _ ! •!• 'i i f ,rti ; ! Sr,li j'1. � . it' ( } ./•�' _�iws.. !•; i' , s..1..+...:�::�{ I y. :.+_i.w: .._... ..•Y/{)h IO NAV , A N C�/r11Y h tD N V , A N ii0ip r•to N K n N Rt: • •r •--•-•--ter-:• .Spead CGi:CCvivXl curves . t f ; � U`Vi.a.ZI VVi.i�wti1 •�..1...CU1AiwJ. —r• Zo NOTE: CURVES DEV.E.LO?'t D TROY;ES"S OF PIK :5;5(UN NN'TROLLED)Vii;,CLES, fit:CV.'i j TES1S iN ATE TIilaiI iuR07 2 i1P?_L1Ci 3:L;TY;0 Co.NT.33:LE V.:.i;0LE5 i.NCL6Di,%C i ! TIJGSE E%tv 1�v iii l h C71,!•LYiil, ✓LVICGS L�i�dA,:•I bw,IVi.a n(IG ? �• •1 .17 i�1 C •1 ,u •uA6 l.LG1TiGSS;G iil1S L�Cu�6c1�• --( . AVERAGEROUYZ SPLE3•si/d _ r ! 69 r CIO u O O.C; Cl•rl 44 r. •ef i3 h0 w4� r3 U'o 0t�o $4 r% M Porl ' r•{ 30 A,r.t104-4 ral 00 b d Cd+f 0 10 H rN r PT WO O-rl IG O c,'7 l rrrI0 ul '•0in i) bU O 10 0 li cU 'd d to!ica V •rt-r c3 U •-a r (i Iu: .) 0. O 44 ri cS � + O tS 0 , `r +cs 'U!ri o o 3 Qj r-i UCicv > N k U PC O � .s~ d � G{ A. to 0 t>)-.-1 0'r7 9 Odt•I ,, c3•f-) ta ol�s� W000 14.31 {+ 0 N >~ (1) 0 tU*c: :y O O O t v!r •C i 'tn i� •N p .0 •O O f 4 1"+ 0 N G 1 Q)'d O 04--14-) f, >~i� CJ r-:"r.),J•rl q,� c + N ✓s O •1 .0 !~' O .� U O rl rt r: 0 .•a 0 + 4,u> OC)vc{ Cv!•iUr: UC-4W ••-i "+ P .r. I:-ti'i = ,,'. '+f t? cl r i C; O C � -ri r3••-a O t0 •:) 1) C) O t::, ci t..,r, fc c3 to c34rri 0 U as Ur-I•-t 1 !: 0 is a 'J> N r01 U rl V'•O O ti� •rt P4 1-f Q U r fy r3 LOi' (;.0 rt•r1 ' to cc,.> to N U 43 U C):0 k-) '.i Cr1 �'. s~ P, O WPI.-i .,' C C) Sr) O U ,-;10-A•r: O .-I.i~ 0 ;-1 C) }> O c3' �; 4• .i> U P 0 k•r> taa IH 4-)•r.> N v -ri to +) U.,.{ p t) •t1 �,�'�? < 4+ ri m o UU Urs4ay s A P �.•cl 10�t (i) c+ O '' �k ~ � 4v r3.:: Wit,, :^ Utu d U •.'i ti�r7� ; �. { k U z-1 >>-3 �-O:O c3 c3 C; -i•> �:r-i r' rS i P• -} O O r►r!-I C} Ci 1a I!-i •,-I 1:) -HQ C3 t-f Q 4.) 0 i` rt!O 1.., 43 d 04 tz, t1 t3 • 1 1$ tri 1-4 til tCi ) 0 P-4 G O G) '0 ^, 0 a ri ci U) tS to H ,CC P Ci C) lP W C) 0-4 Cd CS C) O r—f—,5 •rl r; 4.1 C, a C 0 0 r.1•r;j,'" 5-1 •r: 0 ..��..�� rqO�cs •:J r N F: t t +zs c l cJ G'o o �, Ot ) r, ri t11 1 64-) a o to t� '0 a t. C)s•, G) 6i :,-, `f 0 C,C3 > O•C: -ri • U •rl r3'0 4f i� -ri C4.3 toI C) is ;•> d0) O O O O O 10 -' O O %.0 v) 0 U !~`•-+ " 0 0 � ard 11C. w w to -ri 0 O'> Cs o 0 1 O O O O a O 4-; rf to w H o O ri WN H m H ri 4a-ri )~ ci i Ci O rl•l-> :i O O ri U r5 t.I t? C:!U 0 • Qi O�.�' _4 !"{ C3 C:r-, r: 0 iC." iw•� P O ri'U i) C)• � ^ 4i CS r-i :-i a 0 0 •rj 44.1 C9 i••. ;� Cs .(; Lo`O 10 "1 0 4-) H•{r', a0U •-rlp1l '� PI rS S•1 �t tS tt? ti fti fy ii W i t iy la 1' f'• 04-3 •rl i 0 s:: C) 0 -P '•l ti O fr O U to f G 1 O .O l Z ty�'O csO O ed O O a! O i6 0'O ri 0 to I> u�a;� 0 O O O O tT O 0 O ,C O .0 U 0 0 P to •r'.V-; � u ;•> k= •O�+ •r{•{� '?•ri f f 1 1 �(? 1 t 1 �' i. 1 Cr C a 'W •ri,n rt U Q N is a-> r-1 GO rte{ t+r'1`-•• r-{ ri r-4 CU ri' N r•i U r-i rl �00 U i+ 0 .,� rf r.'d P, r o ° 03 14 W41� •o� �1 ' >C Orf is cJ•ri i.�PI L7 Sr >~•�'1 el O U v {�' •� c0j O� i7 s �'ri O*is w ;S U O K O O 4'1 4'1 v 4.1 >: is•rf c) k t•t V •3 .)D O •��+ fy N i� :� C1�.N •r 1•± E: -ri O c C. rJ `.--a d J •• Rte{ Q O 4N rd 44.9 ri�O 44 ;4 as 69 U 4J G.t : -ri.O .C, .p REF'EPWICES 1, ComYl ation of Air' Pollutant an3ssion F-actors, latest'. edition, -;!?A/OAP publication, 'Research Triangle Parc, alorth Carolina. 2. Turner, D.B. , 1969; Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Esti- mates, U.S. Public 'ienlnh Service ion Pio. 999-AP-20' , 3.: Gifford, P.A. and S.R. 'Rana; 1972: Modeling'Urban Air Pollution. Atmostiheric Rnviron�:ent. Vol. o, PerGamon Press, London. 14. Thuillier, R.H. , 1973 : Air Ou2.lzty_Sta.ti.stics in 1-and Use Planning, Applications,_Proprint, T, ird Coni . on Prom, and Stagy. �in At::ospheric Scic:ce, Boulder Colorado, Sure 1973. 5. Beaton et al. , 1972: Air Ov41it�►:' n�i3.L, Cal f ornia Div, of Highways, 1:aterials and Research Dcpart:,ient, Sacramento, California. 6. Larsen, R.I. , 1971: A Mathematical I--'.odel for RelktingA•.i.r Quality Measurements to Air quali-�Ly Standards,+BPI�TOni' Publ. _ 7. A Study of E-missions from Light D�itkly Vehicles in Sir. Citic•; • �F'/1 Publica�i�n ivTo. AP`i'L-1.x+97. � . • $. Geomet Corp. , 1973: Sources and 11elated Co;,:plex Source Characteristics, for LPA antler •Coritrac� ;�o. oS-02-I09�:. `'', - . 9• Briggs, G.A. , 1969: Plune Rise, AEC Critical Review Series, 4t►k Ridge, Tennesee. 71 Noise Noise eminating from heavy construction equipment and trucks normally exceeds' acceptable noise level standards according to the Department of Housing and Urban 'Development criteria. The Department's Noise r,ssessment Guidelines do not constitute established policy. They are used as a screening tool such that assessment can be standardized and objectively evaluated However, the developed criteria does not represent a- control on noise abatement. In the case of Blackhawk, construction would be done in phases. Heavy equip- ment would probably be moved to the site via Sycamore Valley Road, Tassajara Road and Blackhxwk Road. The equipment would most likely remain on site until either each phase of construction is completed ,or remain until all construction is completed. Actual construction noise would be more or less spread out over the entire. buildout period. ** Adjacent residences would experience the highest noise levels. The "observer" parameters are those that affect the relationship of the receiver's position to the vehicle-roadv ay or construction noise source. The major factor in this category is the distance from the observer to the iliyilwctY uL l:utt6LLut;Lluis: Lt1C y1CaLCL Ll1C uLaLaltuv-, Li1C lu%Y" LUC 111.14aC level. A doubling of the distance from the highway or construction (for example, going from 200 feet to 400 feet, or from 2,000 feet to 4,OCI feet) will reduce the noise level. at the observer's position by about 4 dB. Beyond distances of a mile, the drop-off rate is about 6 dB per doubling of distance. The- additional attenuation results in part from the effect of atmospheric absorption of sound.. '. The following information regards noise levels for automobiles and trucks relative to traffic volumes. Highway noise increases as the number and the average speed of automobiles on it increase. For example, if the automobile traffic volume should double, the noise level from automobiles would increase by about 3 dB. Should the speed decrease to half, the noise level from automobiles would decrease by about 6 dB. The engine-exhaust system and the tire-roadway interaction are prominent contributors to. the overall automobil'b noise. Truck noise behaves differently. An average truck generates levels about 15 dB higher than a car; the noise contribution from a single truck is approximately equal to that from thirty cars. Because trucks are usually operated at nominally constant engine rpm, the engine-exhaust noise does not change with road speed; truck noise is therefore virtually independent of the vehicle speed. The condition of the true). muffler is very important, however; levels 15 dB higher than average can result from improperly muffled trucks. Construction noise would add significantly to cummulative noise levels. Again, not enough specific information is available to assess the level of : roject generated noise which can be attributed to the proposed project. 72 Flood Control and Drainage Numerous questions pertaining to flood control and drainage arose during the public hearing on the proposed project and in submitted written material. Since the 'expertise to answer these questions existed within other public Agencies, several were asked to assist the Planning Staff in preparing responses to these issues. The primary duty was taken on by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. In addition, a great deal of assistance was provided by the Contra Costa Resource Conser- vation District. The comments from the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District follows in the enclosed inter-office memo: 73 ' PUMLIC WORK: DEPARTMENT ; ',..;..•..v:+ :' CONTRA COSTA COUNR C F.I V F p M271974 TO: A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning COUTR:• Attention: Mr. Mel Bobier PLANNING ''G" :kT1ArM �, FROM: T. E. Burlingame, Assistant Public Works Director, Flood Control Planning SUBJECT: B I ackhawk Ranch Environmental Impact Report 1840-RZ Answer To Cornments Our File: 93-1840-RZ-EIR The Draft EIR for -the Blackhawk Ranch Development and various comments thereto have been reviewed and the followinc corments are made. 1 . Regarding - Thimble Farm letter dated April 23,. ,1974 subsection "Creeks": a. Paracran�h 2 and 4. To prepare the table requested in paragraph 4 would require all or most of the information requested in paragraph 2. The Traffic Table referred To in paragraph 4 is based on facts that are easily obtainable and relates to all roads with The same general characTer. Since creek channels are unique to themselved, a general table is not possible and would have to be generated for each case. The production of, a table for creeks Ilial 1ILl1V ii11Giiyi+ ui+v,�:i aUt of th.^, ".la:4h'�•ilr Ranrh 1w0ij1d reOulrt- a costly survey, computer and staff review all aT taxpayers expense. The detailed, finite information gained would be of very limited value since it would only define"T overly precise terns, what is already -known - namely that the. channels are inadequate to serve present flows. This was noted by Mr. -Hoffman who experienced 6 inches of waTer in his home 15 years ago. The present runoff in the creeks hbs not been measured and in the opinion of this office such informLtion is not necessary to write an adequate EIR. Regarding the costs of channel improvements. These figures are given on page 58 of the EIR and appear to be reasonable. b. - Paragraph 5. The B-4 mentioned on page 56 of the report appears to be . in error. Mitigation measures are in Section B-3. . c. Paraaraoh 6. This statement is- contained within the first paragraph of page 57 of the report which is slightly ambiguous. It could be interpreTed to mean that a channels capacity to pass any given flow without flooding is difficult to determine or it can be interpreted to mean that it is difficult to determine at what stage of development the public will no longer tolerate flooding and in turn demand engineering remedy. If the first interpretation is what the writer meant Then Mr. Holmes is correct - since the capacity of a channel can be determined. If the second interpretation is correct, the numerous social and economic factors involved make it almost impossible to predict or determine when improvements will be required by the people. 74 . r A. A. Dehaesus 2 May 22, 1974 Planning Commission d. Paraoraah 7. While it is true tt,at precise drainage and grading plans are necessary to calculate the actual runoff that would occur, we feel that the preliminary -hydrology presents enough information to write an adequate EIR. e. Returning to paragraph 4. The improvement of certain reaches of Sycamore and Green Valley Creeks have been included, •for years, in the adopted plan for the Walnut Creek Basin (Zone 3B) . These improvements will, at least in part, be funded locally through Zone !/38. The remainder of the channel (s) would be improved by 'developers as the area adjacent to the channel (s) are urbanized. In summary, whil:: the information requested in the Thimble Farms letter could be determined, it would require more time to dovslcp than is available and it would be at considerable expense to the taxpayer. I•t is our opinion that this information is not necessary to write an adequate EIR. 2. Renardino jrr. H2ffXan'2 comments: The flooding conditions that exist alone the lover reaches of Sycamore and Green Valley Creeks haS been of concorn to this office and is the reason for •the inclusion of portions of these creeks within the approved drainage plan for the Walnut Creek Basin (Zone 36). The improvements proposed for these channels is based upon a -watershed developed in accordance with the general plan. the improvec,enTs are normally such that an increase in flow can be accomdated without flooding occurring. The flood area plan by the Corps of Engineers reflects, tc the best of our knowledge, existing channel conditions. Therefore, these charts -•• - would not be valid after channel improvements, have been completed. Furthermore, the'Corps of Engineer's" flood area plan is based on a 100 year runoff. The County Ordinance Codd'requires protection only from a 50 year runoff. There- fore, we are of the opinion that consideration of factors that exceed that which is required by local code is not necessary for an adequate EIR. 3. $egardino Doctor Hc!torigve5 comments portaininn to, pace 57 of the EIR: This question was raised in the Thimble Farm letter and is answered in our earlier comments. 4. Regarding lAr,Y�nIme's comTents: While it is true that only a small portion of Sycamore Creek was improved by the Soil Conservation Service, reach between San Ramon Creek and the crossing of Sycaliore Valley Road 'is adequate in accordance with the County Code, to the best of our knowledge. Different levels of storm protection are available. Primarily the level of protection to be achieved is determined by costs, social and political pressures. The County has adopted several levels of protection, depending on watershed siza, for the development in unincorporated areas. The prosection, level for this project in accordance with the Coun•;y Coda, would be for a 50 year runoff which is basically the same level of protection that the Soil Conservation District provides in their improvements. The Corps of Engineers has',to the best of our knowledge, always made recommendations on a 100 year runoff. Therefore, using their figures, the structures and improvements i San Ramon Creek would be inadequate. Mr. Holmes coment that "Walnut Creek and San Ramon Creek are inadequate to carry any storm runoff period N A. A. Dehaesus 'May 22, 1974 Planning Commission • in its present state", is suprising since a publication printed in 1966 • 'by the Soil Conservation Service called "The Walnut Creek ;;atershed Story and assembled under the direction of Mr. Holmes*states that "the creeks are now fit and ready to cope with winter floods. With costly floods harnessed and our business, residential, and farming areas safeguarded, prospects for a greater era of development and progress are bright and promnisins." The report further states that "To do the job, space age flood control under-iakings Iiko the Walnut Creek 11atershed Projects, are scientifically planned, professionally built. York plans are completed only after careful study and fact finding." Therefore, it would appear that these channels were designed to handle the 50 year runoff. That is the level of pro'ection required by the County Ordinance Code and the levet to vrhich the �ialnut Creek Basin plan was adopted. Therefore, it is of. the opinion of This office, that consideration of factors in excess of these required by local ordinances is not necessary for an adequate EIR. �. Regarding coMments made by Ecu renn h=scc i atcs: Their coc!-"ent on page 4, item 4, refers to the same page of The EIR as others did and r,as Therefore been answered. This office hopes that the azove corrmenTs will be of use as you prepare the Final EIR for the Blackhavrk Ranch. RSC/BDJ:sv 76 The Planning Staff feels that additional comments are in order. The amount of information necessary to adequately protect future residences from flooding may be in question at this stage of planring for the Blackhawk project. However; several things should be emphasized. One: the foregoing document states that the existing "channels are inadequate to serve present flows". Two: providing the detailed channel and flooding information will be in order -.in the subscquent E.I.R.s for the various development stages of the project. Additionally, precise drainage and grading plans should be provided at the development stage to provide adequate F..I.R.s for each unit. Thus, the District's assumption that providing the infor- mation necessary to precisely define necessary channel and flood control measures will fall upon the public is not the only solution. The subsequent project E.I.R.s for each unit will be provided at the expense of the developer and these issues can be resolved at that time. t.fter lengthy discussions with Mr. Thomas Holmes• of the Contra Costa Resource- Conservation District several flood and drainage questions were resolved. Historically there have been a number of'-flood control and erosion control projects involving the drainage ways on or near the project site. Public agencies became involved with such projects during the 1930's when Federal public works were instituted under the Civilian Conservation Corps. Seven erosion control struc•:ures were built in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Several more were constructed at a later date partially with Soil Conservation Service funds in con unction with the County Flood Control District. These projects were done on a volunteer basis with the local lando:•rners. The ' remaining structures and the drainage channels are currently at capacity for agricultural land use. For example, Blackhawk Road periodically floods and Sycamore••Creek has gone over its banks in recent years. Do::-nstream from the project site several improvements have been made. A flash dam was constructed on the Woods ranch and Sycamore Creek has been improved 600-800 fent upstream from San Ramon Creek. The issue of -project impact upon the Alamo Creek or Tassajara Creek t•:ater- shed is not so easily defined. The prevailing policy has been to not contribute to flooding or to alter these creeks because they drain into Alameda County. This issue too, must be carefully studied at the project phase E.I.R. level! 77 Traffic Several specific questions were raised as to the physical conditions and ability of Diablo Road to' carry existing and potential traffic. The Contra Costa County Public Works Department was asked to respond to these questions. ,heir response follows in the enclosed inter-office memo. 78 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA C0[1NTY DATE : May 23, 1974 TO: A. A. Dehaesus, Planning Director FROM: �! Victor W. Sauer, Public Works"Director By: J. Michael Walford, Assistant Pubr lic Works Director, Land Development SUBJECT: Blackhawk Ranch Environmental Impact Report. The following is in response to questions raised in the public hearing of the Environmental Impact Report by Dr. Darwin DatwyIer.as noted spec ificaIIy on pages 30. 31 and 32 of the official transcript. We have made a field review of the conditions affecting the existing roadway in question, that being Diablo Road between the intersection of Green Valley Road and Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard. I. SI ht Distance. The minimum sight distance due l to laterac5structions was estimated at 150 to 200 feet which is sufficient to allow safe stopping at about 25 miles per hour by a normally alert motorist. At two locations, warning signs have been installed to indicate sharp curves and winding rc=ds ahead.. No advisory speed limit signs exist. The Ordinance and posted sgeed lir.1it over this stretch of read is 35 miles per hour. Safe passing sight distance Is only rar- ginaliy available and was estimated at 20% of the length of the road. The minimum distance for safe passing sight distance at 35 miles per hour is 1 ,300 feet. ` 2. Design Speed. When clocked with a traveling vehicle, the average speed of a number of cars traveling this roadway during off-peak hours on '.!arch 21 average between 35 and AO miles per hour. The roadway is ordinanced and posted for maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour as established by Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 304 In 1954. 3. Lateral Clearance. A•'significant number of objects of various types restrict lateral clearance, such as mailboxes, utility poles, bushes, yreas, signs and markers, roadside ditches, driveways and their culverts. For the most part, useable shoulder does not exist, though several turnouts are available for parking off the pavement in dry weather. For the sake of capacity calculations, the lateral clearance was conservatively estimated at zero. The existing pavement widtN measured at several locations, averaged 21 feet or 10 1/2 feet per lane. 4. Shoulder Factor. Though some turnouts exist, and in some areas a small shoulder 2 feet (+) is available, it was judged that that area is sufficiently interrupted by objects noted under "Lateral Clearance" to allow a conservative assumption of useable shoulder width at zero. The combination of lane width, shoulder factor, and lateral clearance results in a service volume equal to 66' of the basic • capacity. A. A. Dehaesus -2- May 23, 1974 5. Grade Factor. For a length of about 1/4 mile, the average grade was estimated at 4 with a• short Intermediate stretch at a maximum cf 6%. The remaining portions of the roadway are best described as gentle grades and/or gently rolling. The grade factor, the length of the grade, and the estimated percentage of trucks and through buses (estimated to be 50P) further reduce the basic capacity by 7) and 5%, respectively. 6. Seed. As stated before, the speed at non-peak hours was estimated at 35 to 40 mlIes per hour. Of critical importance in the -calculation of service volumes Is the operating speed at which the peak-hour traffic flows. As this condition has not yet been experienced, the operating speed •was estimated at 85n of the 40-mile-an-hour off-peak speed or 34 miles per hour. At that speed, the basic capacity is further reduced by 59,60. To illustrate the- sensitive nature of the operating speed, if the operating speed were reduced to 28 miles per hour, the basic capacity would be reduced by only 18% or providing a service volume which is twice that at the 34 mile-per-hour speed with all factors considered. 7. Capacity Analysis. The service volume of the roadway was analyzed as for a two-lane highway under the guidelines of the Highway Capacity Manual of 1965, Special Report 87-of the Highway Research Board. Under these conditions, the service volumes -for a continuous stretch of read, as would exist between Calle Arroyo and Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard, would be between 426 and 853 vehicles per hour, dependent upon assumpi i ons mdrie .for i he uper'd i MY SNUau a; Addit;onaliy, It was felt the most limiting condition of the capacity of the roadway would occur at the major intersection at Green Valley Road so that inter- section was analyzed on the basis of ultimate signalization with a G/C factor equal to 0.50 as was assumed by Forrestal (this represents the green time avail- able to any particular lug of traffic beir,g considered) . Again using the Highway, Capagity Manual as the guide, the approach width of a lane 10 1/2 wide, the capacity was determined to be 426 vehicles per hour; however, the approach lanes to th•e Intersection at Green Valley Road are wider, and using the same manner of calculation with a 20-foot approach, the capacity increased to 600 vehicles per hour. In this particular instance, the latter figure is probably the most realistic. Conclusion. Considering the existing physical situation of the road within the limit specified and the ability to correct minor deficiencies relating to sight distance, it is judged that the service volume of'.750 vehicles per hour at Level C proposed by the Environmental impact Report for Diablo Road between Green Valley Road and Blackhawk Road is a reasonable figure. TLD/bhp 80 Road Funding Questions arose as to what the affects would be of channeling funds from other public works projects toward construction of Blackhawk induced programs. The projected road maintenance, construction and right-of-icay budget for 1973-74 for the Contra Costa County Public Works Department was $8,875,958. The sources of these projected funds are: State Highways Users - $5,SG0,000; State Aid for Conatruction - $1,676,718; Federal Aid for Construction - $223,900, Other Federal Aid - $72,994, and portion of the County Public Works Services Budget (part of $3,453,657) . In addition, vehicle code fines contributed $845,000. This run-down generally reflects the expenditures and revenues for County road work, but it would be extrem..21y difficult to draw conclusions as to which, if any, public works projects would be affected by allocations toward completing Blackhawk road improvements. To do so might be foolhardy as it is not known what future contributions can be expected from State or Federal sources to supplement County Revenues for roadwork. If either or both Sycamore Valley extension or Crow Canyon Road extension are constructed, no new interchanges or modifications to present interchanges will be needed. Upgrading of Highway 680 south from Concord to Stone Valley' Road is to 6 lanes. Plo construction further south to the County. line is anticipated in the future. In a letter dated March 21, 1974, %r. W. S•l. Russel of the State Department of Transportation spoke to trio future tuneing of Highway 680. The letter is included in this document. I "sixn o! CA1110MIA—ILUMNE0 ANP 1CAinivArArruN AV.rtbr DEPARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION' District 04 �:�'�.'.l'1 • + •/�.' .,..•r P.O. Rox 33GG Rincon Annex �•- it Francisco, CA 94119 It,nR-2 5: !Q •ft1Tl��': 1 ,,� March 21, 1974 o4-Ala,CC•-680 20.0/21.9 • 0,0/25.0 From Rte 580 to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge o4205 - 39276o Mr. A. A . DAhaesus planninr� Director County of Contra Costa Administraticn Building Martinez., CA 94553 Dear Mr; Dahaesus: Thant; you for the opportunity to review the environmental ir,,pact report for Vi a Black Hawk Ranch' southeasterly of Danville and easterly of Freeway Route 680. Page 1 states that 11546 d-ae lling units aie proposed in this development. The table on page 40 indicates some additional 14500 residential units have recently been approved or proposed in the , San Rax.on Va.l.ley, These: 9000 units will i cneratu ttUmt (rj, vehicle travel. trips per clay. - There may be even more trips if these developments create pressure on other adjoining; areas 'Co develop. Figure 2 on page 6 indicates that connection to -State Route 680 may be expected vla Crow Canyon, Sycamore Valley, Diablo a;-:d Stone Valley.-Roads and El Cerro Boulevard . These local streets and roads can be improved to handle the traffic demands; congestion then can be expected on the free,,-,,ay interchanges that serve the arias, and pn the freeway itself, • This review also included the report dated August 1973 by James A. Roberts Associates, and the report dated January 1074 by Ecological Imp?ct Studies, Inc. Thc!se reports ,-;ere received with copy of Black Hawk Development Company 's transmittal letter of February 26, 19711 to the County 's Planning Program. The Cou»t,y should bear in mind that the State Nigh•:ay revenue is decreasing and that only projects %-Which are prcc;ra .-imed can be budgetcd. This situation was explained at the meeting :in Martinez on January 111, 1974. As the Program Guide does not 82 Mr. A. A. Dehaesus ' Page 2 March 21, 1974 include any improvements on Route 630 or the interchanges between Crow Canyon Road and Stone Valley Road, no State expenditures can be counted on in the foreseeable future unless approved projects are replaced. Very truly yours, T. R. LOU,IERS District Director ,ri) W. �•1. RUSSELL Senior r gineer' - project Development cc : Mr. Victor, Sauer , Public Works Director r 83 ECONOMIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTIONS At public hearings before the County Planning Commission, several questions were raised which pertain to the contents of the economic and socioeconomic sections of the Environmental Impact Report on the Blackhawk Ranch. The following discussion is intended to address specific questions to supple- ment Draft E.I.R. information. While this information is written in essay form, it generally follows the order of questions following: 1. Does not the Blackhawk development perpetrate/extend economic segrega- tion? 2. Does not the Blackhawk development perpetrate/extend racial segregation? 3. Where will the people work who live in Blackhawk? 4. What are the short and long term governmental cost consequences of the Blackhawk project? 5. What would be the economic impact of this development on the surrounding area? ' • iii E.I.R. ducuments the Contra Costa county/San Ramon Valley. tamily income and housing value differences. "The 1970 Census data shows the median family income in the Valley to be $17,510, over $5,000 or 40% more than the Countywide median of1$12,423. The-housing value was also higher than the Countywide figure." The Blackhawk development reinforces economic segregation. since the late 1960's new single family housing at prices moderate and low income families can afford has become virtually non-existent in Central Contra Costa County. There has been an abrupt rise in the price of most of Contra Costa's existing single-family housing because of construction cost increases which are higher than general price increases. The Bay Area Council's Northern California Real Estate Renort research indicates the construction cost of model high- quality dwelling units has increased from $23,100 to $33,500 from 1960 to 1970. This is almost twice as fast as the costs of most goods and services. Combined with this is the sharply increasing price of lots due to diminish- ing supply of land and increased pressures of demand. lPage 29, Blackhawk Environmental Impact Report, Contra Costa County, 2-6-74. 84 Moreover, high interest,almost double since 1960 - and property tax rates also make it more difficult for low to moderate income families to become home buyers. Both assessed valuation and general and special district tax rates have risen. According to the County Appraiser, in general, Central • County single-family homes have increased almost 11% a year in value. These trends for the whole County accelerated in the San Ramon Valley vhere consumer demand and land values have risen at a proportionately greater rate. 77ie units to be built are very costly and as mentioned in the E.I.R. , will generally require families with minimal irco.nes of $25,000 a year to qualify for hgme loans for these units. There are inadequate Federal programs and no State programs to mitigate these problems. However, there may be some Federal aids available to "new toms" such as Blackhawk to encourage economic and social integration. These are intended to be self-contained co=t pities containing employment opportunities, services and a mix of income groups. This could be explored as an alternative by the developer. Areas of low to moderate income groups, such as Fest Pittsburg, Pittsburg, San Pablo, and Richmond are less centrally located in Contra Costa County than in counties with large core cities. But in the San Ramon Valley - of which Blackhawk is part - low and moderate income families are not so much locked into segregated neighborhoods but are essentially non-eristant. The County currently has no local incentives for encouraging moderate and �• low priced 'housing. These local incentives ray tai:e the form of density houses, -of modification of developmept stanz-'ards such as road width, of density rights transfer, or of County housing subsidies. Governmental costs for capital improvements and operating costs of services resulting from the development of Blac}:hare are well documented throughout the Economic Supplement of the E.I.R. Since both grass and net imparts are considered in the analysis, tax implications are carefully considered, - as well. While there are some employment opportunities in the San Ramon Valley, the • great majority of Blackhawk wage-earners will commute considerable distances to employment centers. Moreover, it is unlikely that the service wor;.ers in .the development and nearby shopping centers, and teachers working in the schools could afford the housing being proposed. Consequently, two- way commuting will be encouraged from this form of development: Managers and professional residents toward employment centers and service workers and teachers employed within the development towards areas where cheaper housing is availabel. 7be Blackhawk E.I.R. roughly described the employment base profile for the San Ramon Valley. "Another major difference between the San Ramon-Valley and the remainder of the County is the lack of employment base in the Valley. While the County Itself does not have an employment base large; enough and sufficiently diversified to retain but 61% of its labor force, only 45% of Valley workers labor in the County. Valley workers commute to jobs outside the County at a rate 43% higher •r ' than the Countywide average. Eighty-seven percent of this out-commuting is done by automobile (this is comparable to the Countywide average) but due to their location in the southern portion of the County many Valley workers must travel longer distances to the San Francisco and East Bay job markets. In view of the recent petroleum-related transportation and energy crisis the high rate of out-commuting and lengthy distance to work could create severe economic pressures'on San Ramon Valley residents and possibly the County population as a whole if additional mass-transportation facilities will be necessary. This would be especially true if such costs were to be underwritten by public funding."1 There would be a considerable increase in San Ramon Valley purchasing power and sales tax from residents of' the Blackhakk development as well as miscel- laneous fees such as inlieu gas tax. These are documented in the Economic Supplement on page 18. Page 29, Blackhawk Environmental Impact Report, Contra Costa County, 2-6-74. d6 HOUSING NEEDS The questions to which this response relates include the following: 1. What are the housing needs according to price level, of the county residents? 2. Is Blackhawk designed for other than County residents?. 3. If there is a need for more housing in the County, could these needs be filled by building on land where services are already available - i.e. , by infilling? 4. How many acres are available for infilling in the San Ramon Valley and in the County? S. What is the demographic rate in the San Ramon Valley? (Definition of demographic rate.) 6. Is the developer seeking to create a market? A recent residential market study in the Sari Rzxmon Valley— see quote below - indicates there is a market for homes. HoOever, the scale of Blackhawk (and the oroDosed housing nrinp..sl is Sllrh that i_te• mt i0ret !mist be Pr'_."I" for other than County residents. The market does not truly represent County needs - which are composed of Contra Costans living in substandard Musing or paying above 25 percent of family income for rent (see Tables for house- holds needing :lousing, 1970) . "3: Housing Demand The major factors influencing bot the quantity and the quality (value) of new housing demand for the EMA are new household growth, employment growth, births, deaths, marriages, dissolutions, demolitions of current housing stock, changing urban structure (which for the EN'A is very significant due to the ' migration from the Oakland area) , newer housing styles, •changing social pre- ferences and the changing age structure. Net household growth in the E,,L4 is created into an effective demand by a concurrent growth in employment opportunity. These sources of demand create the primary long-term source of demand; however, the effect of this demand can be felt not only in the time period of the creation or growth of the new households, but in later time periods as these households, age structures and preferences change in terms of tenure or demand for housing by various housing types offered in the community. The change in age structure, particularly as households mature, changes both the preferences and needs of the household, and primarily relates to a change in tenure from rental housing to ownership housing. The inadequacy of the present housing inventory, particularly in the Oakland area and especially relating to maturing families with growing households lENA (Effective Market Area) Alameda and Contra, Costa Counties 67 who no longer prefer to live in the highly urbanized and congested area, and seek a more suitable environment in which to rear their families, has provided = the support of new housing demand greater than would be expected from net household growth alone. This housing demand is further motivated by the intro- duction of new innovative housing designs, together with strong economic conditions that provide for a high rate of savings and the availability of mortgage funds. however, with the rise in •interest rates throughout California and the nation as the money supply tightens will tend to some- what constrain demand factors in the coming months. "As indicated by the Table, total demand for the EMIA from 1973 through 1976 is projected to be 9,700 units annually. This demand is projected to stem from several sources, but primarily from: the growth of new households within the EMA, internal new employment-generated demand and demand resulting from employment growth in the Oakland employment centers. Outlined in the Table is a value distribution of the effective ownership housing demand that will accrue annually to the ENMA for the 1973 through 1976 period. Overall demand was derived from an analysis of new household growth within the ENA, new employment growth projections both within the E1•MA and the San Francisco- Oakland SPISA, population growth statistics as derived by the California Department of Finance, the Changing urban-suburban migration patterns within the Bay Area and the changing demographic trends withir. the overall Bay Area.,, LMA OWNERSHIP HOUSING DEVSAND • (ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES) 1973-1976 Price Range Annual Average Weekly Averse % Under $25,000 2,406 46.3 241.8 $25,000-30,000 29347 45.1 24.2 $30,000-35,000 1 ,765 33.9 18-.2 $35,000-45,000 1,591 30.6 1G:4 Over'$45,000 1,591 30.6 16.4 - TOTAL '99700 186.5 00.00% Source: Market Profiles �,• SOURCE: Pages 37, 38, and -39 of Site Feasibility and Product P.ecommenda- • tions for Sunrise Corporation, July 1973, Xarket Profiles Marketing and Management Consultants. Need for housing based on standards is a relative measure which partially change over time and are 'partially dependent on the assumptions of the indi- viduals setting them. The Association of Bay Area Governments' housing report "Estimates of Housing Aeeds: San Francisco Bay Area, 1970," lists the following assumptions in calculating existing housing needs both in Contra Costa County and the Alamo-Danville area: units lacking one or more plumbing facilities units with substandard heating equipment overcrowding units with more than 1.01 persons per room overpayment; where gross rent is 25 percent or more of family income. The following tables indicate that both the County and Alamo-Danville area's housing need is more prevalent in renter-occupied units than in owner occupied. Fpr the Alano-Danville area 36% of the renter unit need is for housing renting below $150.00, while for the County this is 50% of renter unit need. The owner-occupied housing valued below $35;330 showed the greatest demand �• Countywide. This was also substantiated by the former sunrise study' cited, which also showed 67% of the owner-occupied units needryd to be below $35,000 in value. In the Alamo-Danville area the ce.ner-occupied housing need %•"as for 50% below the value of $35,000, reflecting the high-median income and high housing costs of the area. HOUSEHOLDS NEEDING HOUSING, 1970 Contra Costa County OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED 7btal Units . Total Units House Value Needed Rent Needed less than $5,000 23 Less than $40 145 $5,000 - 9,999 95 $40 - 59 1,699 $10,000 - 14,999 337 $60 - 79 2,598 $15,000 - 19,999- 849 $60 - 99 21975 $20,000 - 24,999 1,102 $100 - 149 9,079 $25,000 - 34,999 1,321 $150 - 200 7,342 Greater than Greater than $35,000 1,150 '5200 3,614 No value 690 No Cash 200 9UTAL 5,567 TOTAL 27,652 • Area of Alamo-Danville (U) OV1NER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED Total Units Total Units !louse Value Needed Rent Needed Less than $5,000 4 Less than $40 0 $5,000 - 9,999 6 $40 .- 59 1 $10,000 - 14,999 0 $60,- 79 24 $15,000 - 19,999 3 $801- 99 47 $20,000 - 24,999 22 $100 - 1,49 145 $25,000 - 34,999 48 $150 - 200 137 Greater than Greater than $35,000 81 $200 131 No Value 1 , No Gash 4 TOTAL , 161 TOTAL 489. SOURCEi Association of Bay Area Governments, "Estimates of Housing heeds: San Francisco Day Area, 1970". . 90 BUILDING COMPLETIONS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE SAN RAMON VALLEY April 1, 1970 - January 1, 1974 Single Multiples - Multiples - Census Family 2-4 units in 5+ units in Total Tract Units structure structure. Units 3440 25 - - 25 5451 1,564 52 184 1,800 3452 529 56 131 716 3461 105 - 105 3462 299 20 22 341 TOTAL ' AREA 2,0522 123 337 2,987 SOURCE; Data compiled by Contra Costa County Planning Department, January 1, 1974. f i 91 r However, the aforementioned housing needs of County residents, if tabulated, • would be incomplete in terms of real needs. The economics of housing problems meet be defined gn a regional level. Contra Costa County is not an island. Therefore, in planning for the County it is necessary to consider the housing needs and problems of those who live "elsewhere" in the Bay Area. Every developer attempts to create a "market" by advertising and product styling and image creation. It is likely that the Blackhawk market is a Bay Area; i'.e. , regional, market. As opposed to just neeting the needs of the area. By and large, it appears logical that the upper cost portions of Blackhawk housing will probably draw from the regional maret, the middle portions will draw from mixed regional and current County residents who are moving to more expensive housing and moderate and lo•..er costs 11-Mmes, if they were to be provided, would draw from a large proportion of County residents if special incentives were made availalAe for then to buy or rent in the San Ramon Valley. By and large, infilling is a more efficient way of adding ne•i housing stock than by developing in a new area. It saves public .capital costs for major extensions of urban lands between the already urbanized _ortion of the San Ramon Valley .and Blackhawk become more available. in the =an Ramon Valley', there are considerably more appropriate locations than B?ac hawk closer to Highway 680 which would provide more logical s=ace for urban growth. The following is a breakdown of land in the San Ramon Valley indicating deve]noahle land rincPr t•.n t•hP FRn corridor than Biackhal•:e Sas:d. SAN RAISON VALLEY DEVELOPABLE LAND (Census tracts 3440, 3451, 3452, 3461, 3462) Total Acres - 40,361 acres Developed - 7,500 acres, December 31, 1974 Slope 0 - 30 - 20,861 acres Slope 30+ - 13,000 acres 0 - 30 Slope - 28,059 acres 70• 30+ slope - 12,302 acres 30% (Project area - breakdown'of developable/nondevelopable found on page 16 of the Blackhawk Environmental Impact Report.) The demographic rate - or more specifically population growth rate - of the San Ramon Valley was documented in the Blackhawk Environmental Impact Report - under socioeconomic characteristics; 92 *The San Ramon Valley Area has been one of the fastest growing regions within Contra Costa County. From a population of 2,120 in 1940, it more than doubled 'by 1950 to 4,630 persons, and nearly tri-)Ied in population by 1960. The Valley then doubled once more during the 1960-1970 period until it reached a figure of 25,927 according to the 1970 Census. This constituted a growth of 1,123% .over the 1940-1970 period and represented an annual compounded growth rate of 8.7% per year. In contrast, the entire County glrew at an annual total growth rate of only 5.9% during the same period." ' 1 Page 29, Blackhawk Ranch Environmental Impact Report, Contra Costa County, 2-6-74 • 93 , CONCLUSION Many of the questions raised as a result o^ hearings on the Draft E.I.R. for project 1840-RZ, do not currently have adequate answers. Indeed, severi-1 will require considerable research and study to resolve. However, it is the Planning Department staff's opinion that if the project is approved, all effort should be made to obtain answers to these questions at the project phase E.I.R. preparation stage. 94 26 February 1974 • Tuesday . 1S T H E A R '[ NI G . .... EXHIBIT #S BLACF,TA*NK FINAL E.I.R. ..... J REZONING: PUBLIC HEARING: BLACKHAWK CORPORATION (Applicant Owner) - 1840-Rw Requests to rezone 4,77St acres fror. General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District (F-1). Subject land is described as being located . Approximately S miles east of Danville and 4 miles south of Mt. Diablo and Is bordered on the north by Alt. Diablo State Pars:, on the southwest by Black- hawk Road, on the south by Tassajara Road and is commonly referred to as the black-hawk Ranch, MR,- DERAESUS: On this application, you will recall that at last �,eekts study session meeting, we distributed a memorandum indicating how this • application relates to the General Plan. Staff has come to the conclusion that it does not comply with the General Plan and that's a consideration the Commission will have to resolve. 1 would suggest that we simply raise this issue at this tine and in that memo. The Cor..nission may wish to continue this particular question to March 12th for further discussion, review and possibly resolve that question and, further, this evening' I would suggest that this evening be set aside primarily for the purpose of allowing the applicant to make his presentation since is the largest project that has come before this Commission that I know of, and '1 think that considerable amount of attention and consideration needs to be given this project. We have set aside the entire evening of March 26th so you can fully discuss the project with further input from staff, comments from 17S the public on the project; if you sustain the staff's opinion on the general plan, then of course you would need to hear the general plan as to whether it should be revised to accommodate this development or otherwise; so, on the 12th, if you agree with the schedule, you could hear the project itself. I offer this suggestion to you as a means to .expedi'te the hearing this evening in view of the two long items on tonight's agenda since I do think that this matter deserves a full evening of your attention. CIAIPNAN JEHA: Okay, it is your suggestion that we hear the applicant. If there's a question of the general plan---and I don't want to hear that to- g ht---we can hear that on 'March 12th. The applicant I understand has close o a 2 hour presentation so we're just going to hear him tonight. Those who re here in objection, if .there are any, and I imagine there are, should listen, take notes since when we continue this, we will then hear the objectors; but, I don't propose to hear. both .tonight. So, on March 12th we will hear the discussion of whether the plan does comply with the general plan or does not and then on March 26th, we will determine then whether we continue hearing this project or whether we start hearing the general plan revision. Does the staff have any objection to that? MR. DEMESUS: Did you say if you determine that the general plan needs to be reviewed that the review would take place on March 26th? CHAIP.IM JEHA: Either we will schedule it or--- MR. DEHAESUS: As a start, I could agree with that; CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes, because I know the staff has to make a study. I under- stand that; but, there's no use 7n hearing the rest of the Blackhawk matter until there's been a general plan revie%.. and some results of that review have been brought forth and we can go forward; but, if it turns out to be in viola- tion as you think it might be, we're talking about a whole new ball game. On•:the other hand, if it isn't in violation, we can just continue with the .hearing. MR. DEHAESUS: Also, the E.I.R. , has been distibuted and I would expect that if you wish to hear either the general plan or the project, you could start discussion on the environmental impact report--- CHAIMMAN JEM: That has nothing .to do with* the actions we take. Ile can vote on that to be adequate after you respond to any-questions brought up. Isn't that correct? MR. DEHAESUS: If questions are brought up during the course of the hearing; then staff Mould have to respond to then. 'Then the Commission takes their action following our response. CHAIMLAC14 JEHA: Okay, does the applicant care to start with his presentation? MR. ROBERT CARRAU, Box 807, Danville, California. I'd like to clear up a few general questions before we get into our actual presentation. I 've had a number of phone calls in the past month or so asking the question: h'ho is Blackhawk Development Co? 11here are your sources'of funds and just who the company is. Very briefly, the company is composed of three people, myself, I live in orinda and I've been building in Contra Costa County for approx. , 15 years, 176 . my partner, Bill tbrse, who also lives in Orinda. He's a•lawyer, specializing the development practice and we have a third partner who is not active in the company but only in an investment business. There are no outsiders within the company. I would like to set those rumors to rest right now. We have had some criticism in the press on the project. We believe the � —' press has had an open mind, etc., with the information that they've had available; but, they have not had an Opportunity to see both sides of the question. Hopefully, we will be able to clear up some of those questions r them tonight. We do not agree with staff's position on the general plan question. We feel both from a legal standpoint and also from a planning standpoint that we are inconformance with the general plan and we will get into that in more detail later in our presentation and as per the Chairman's request on the night of the 12th. Weave been working on this project since June 1972, that's almost two years. We had our first conversations with the planning staff in that month. At that time, we started investigating a number of consulting firms to see what their thoughts were on this particular piece of property and the need for housing in Contra Costa County. Our application is into your Commission for P-1 Zoning. We are applying. for a planned unit district under the advice of Mr. Dehaesus your planning director and we concur with his ideas that a piece of property like this ishould be developed under a planned Unit method. We have extremely low density. probably the lowest density project that has ever gone through in Contra Costa County. We have a density of .9 units per gross acre---.9 units. Under the definition in your P-1 Ordinance, our density per acre is 1,0 units per acre. That's on the net basis under your P-1 Ordinance. There is a definite need in the forcoming future for housing in Contra Costa County. The ABAG Study for Contra Costa County proposes a need for 119,234 additional single-family units in Contra Costa County between now and 1990. We don't know where those are going to go; but, we feel that we have one of the most desirable pieces of property for it. It's a tremendous advantage to the County to have as large a piece of prcperty as this to plan and I would like to give you some examples of what could happen if you didn't have a p:kce of property like this. We could have come in on the westerly end of the ranch and taken a t"Pical 100 acre piece of property, apply for an R-15 subdivision. It probably would have been blessed by this Commission because that's the flavor of the commun- ity out there; there's no large impact accorded to it and we probably would have been out of here a year ago and would have been'building houses by now. But, that's not the way to plan a piece of property. We acquired as large a piece of property as we could, retained the best consultants we could to give the valley the advantage of having a piece of property big enough to -' plan so you }:now what's going on next to you; so you can handle the probbms that are inherent in any development such as schools, roads, commercial facil- ities necessary and I think at this time, I would like to have my partner, 177 Bill Horse come up and as 1 said, Bill has been in the development business for about 17 years. Thank you. WILLIMf MORSE, Attorney, P.O. Box 807, Danville, Calif. We're partners in this endeavor. I'm prepared to speak on four basic subjects. The first was the general plan question which has been resolved for this evening. I had preliminary remarks to make; but, I'll reserve those until the March 12th meeting. owever, we do have a memorandum submitted to us by our attornies concerning the legal aspects of it and we'd like to present that to you now for your files and your consideration. Dan, would you--- (copies were given to each Commissioner). The second subject is in regard to the E.I.R. We're not going to go into detail on it primarily since the Cow.mission has not had it long enough to digest. We would like to see that there is a period of time during which the public can comment on the E.I.R., extended through the March 26th date so that sufficient eomnent will be c,ade on the E.I.R. The insufficiency on the E.I.R. , although initially could be a problem of the County is really out problem because should the E.I.R. Found to be insufficient, we would be the ones to suffer. I'm assuming a favorable ruling from the Commission and the Supervisors on our zoning. That would give three meetings, including tonight, for all those to comment on the E.I.R. , and I think that's sufficient so that you will have a complete record on the matters addressed to in the E'.I.R. Again, we've prepared some information---we have prepared copies of two other E.I.R. 's that have been prepared and submitted on this project. I would like to read from our letter addressed to the Chairman. (Letter is dated February 26, 1974, signed by William A. D;orse, Executive • Vice President. It is on file with the subject application). The above mentioned letter refers to: (1) Report of James A. Roberts Associates dated August 1973 (JARA). (2) Report of Ecological Impact STudies, Inc. , dated January, 1974 (SCIS). We also have other copies made available which will be available to the public if they %..ould call us at our office at 837-1571, we will see that they get copies of the two E.I.R.'s that 1 have mentioned---837-1571 At this time, I would like to give some general comments concerning the location of the ranch and some of the significant features about it. First, we have before us a composite of quad sheets based on USGS for the general area from Lafayette on the west, Concord on the north, the south end of the San Ramon Valley on the south and about midway in the Contra Costa County to the east. You can see the location of the ranch with respect to the area that we're describing. The eastern---western most boundary of the ranch is located where I have my pointer and it is immediately adjacent to all utilities. There's sewer, water---as a matter of fact, there's a water line that runs out and serves the ranch. It's insufficient capacity for our development 178 i i but it is there and houses ire operation and together with the Peterson's • house use it. The Athenian School is immediately to thewest of the propnty which- formerly was a part of the ranch. When we purchased the ranch, this" little square out of it was retained by the Petersons because that's where their home is located and they have retained it and they live there on that -site. It's approximately 300 acres in size and contains some fairly tough land topographically-wise together with a really beautiful home with formal gardens, etc. Immediately across the street from' the Athenian Schooi is the Diablo Country Club development which has been there for a great number of years and is a very splendid and beautiful housing area. To the south end of the property, which touches Tassajara Road at two points as ,it meanders it'-s .way through the Sycamore Valley .and out towards what used to be the little town of Tassajara. The ranch is also partially bisected by Blackhawk Road which comes into being at the edge of the property. Diablo Road leaves the freeway and proceeds easterly then northerly, northeasterly until it reaches an intersection with Stone Valley Road at a fire station and Green Valley School. It then proceeds on out past the Diablo Country Club area to a point where Southgate Road leaves Diablo Road, proceeds up northerly and through the ranch property on into the State Park and on up into the mountain top. (Further roads in the immediate area were pointed out and their destinations explained to the Commission; 680 Freeway was also indicated on the maps) . You can see that the northerly part of the property is in the foothills of _ Mt. Diablo and the southern part is in the low-valley areas that have been used historically for grazing purposes. The ranch---we still call it a ranch---is in a number of utility districts. First of all, it is serviced by P.G.& E. , and the telephone company as all of the area is. It is within the boundaries of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and has been paying taxes to the district for a number of years without sending any children to school. It's also within the boundaries of the Danvilb Fire District except for a small part lying on the eastern edge. In our discussions with the district and specifically with Chief Blodgett of the District, it has been our recommendation and his recommendation also, that subsequent to our zoning exceptanee at this property---that this portion of the property be de-annexed from its present district and annexed into the Danville Fire District. It is felt by the district and by us that the area could better be served by the Danville Fire District. The ranch is also served by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The Board of Directors of the District have voted and adopted a resolution annex- ing the ranch---the developable portions of the ranch into the district sub- ject to the establishment of the boundary lines by LAFCO . What LAFCO is desirous of doing-,-well, I'll explain that after I've talked about the East Bay Municipal Utility District which supplies water to the ranch. Back about 10 years ago---as a matter of fact, 10 years ago---the ranch was owned by Castle $ Cooke, developers and have a lot of other interests in the 179 islands. They had plans to develop the ranch . They annexed into the sewer district and paid $140,000 in annexation fees. The portion of the property • that they intended to •develop---that annexation was some 3,107 acres. We're not planning to develop the same property that they had planned. They were to develop a number of the higher elevations in this section (indicat- ing on map) , which we do not propose to do. Ile are limiting our development basically to the valley areas; so, we have proposed---but in addition, we have some portions of the ranch that we desire to develop that were not within their development plans. As a result, we have petitioned to EW;UD for an amendment of their boundaries to detach the lands that border the orth of our property from the district in exchange for approximately the same amount of acreage which is S30t acres to add in that we plan to develop. Our thinking is that we can develop that 530 acres and at the same time preserve the integrity of the higher lands which then couldn't be developed if they are not in the district because you can't develop without eater and we would then be forever preserving the higher elevations from development. That could also be done by dedication of the development rights which will be discussed later; but, it's an exchance of land we don't want to develop and I'm sure that the general public doesn't want us to either and I 'm sure you gentlemen don't either. So, that's the story on EBh1UD. Now, LFACO is desirous of having the boundaries of all of these districts to be coterminous. They don't want the sanitary district boundary designated on the water boundary,etc. , so their desire is to see that that is made co- terminous and in that connection, they also are desirous of and have adopted a proposition that includes us in the Central County Transit District, that pottion of the ranch that would.be defined as co-terminous with the CBKUD and Central Sanitary District lines. The ranch also• pays taxes to BARTD and receives about the same service from BARTD that the rest of us get, I think---there isn't any BARTD and there aren't any riders which is true for a large part of the county. Those are may comments concerning the location of the ranch and concerning the utility districts involved. Are there any questions of me concerning them? (No questions were directed to Dir. Norse) . Thank you. MR. CARRAU: Thanks, Bill. Bill has given you a general run-down on the ranch, where we're located, the different utilities that will service us, etc. I •would like to make one point that Bill brought up just to say it again. That is: 11.e are contiguous to existing development. We're not going way out in the woods and building someplace. It's an extension of natural services and natural development from what is existing now. I have to make another comment because vour Chairman came up to me before the meeting and asked me why I didn't have a tic on tonight. The reason I didn't is because about 15 minutes before the meeting, we were trying to put that map up behind the Commissioners which was quite a chore. That may, by the way, seems to be large and blasting, etc. , but the reason we had that exhibit prepared is that it shows you the work that we have done to plan this project so we know how many units will go on it. This isn't one of those types of things where we say we want 5,000 units and hopefully we'll settle for 6,000 as a negotiating thing. {le have retained a team of 180 consultants that have gone in and actually done &.tentative map on 5,000 acres. A unit will fit and fit compatibly on every one of those lots shown up there. About the only way we could make it representative to you was to do it, on a 200-scale map which we dicL Enough of that. In planning the ranch, we did a great deal of time putting a team together. .The planning has been done by the team concept---everybody gets a voice and there's no dictatorship and as developers, we have probably had the least to say on that. I think as you hear some of the people speak, you will under- stand why. You can see that we have retained Livingston F Blayney from San Francisco, Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey, Kirker Chapman, Von Hagge & Devlin, James Roberts, Lotaney-Kaldveer, Associates. That bottom line, I think, is very important, which says: "Numerous comnunity- groups and individuals in the San Ramon Valley who assisted us in our planning for the ranch." These are some of the groups we've contacted in the San Ramon Valley, We've contacted the Save Mt. Diablo Committee. After meetings with there, they appointed a sub-committee to work with us specifically on our problems on the ranch, We enjoy what we feel has been some very good cooperation between that committee. The Alamo Improvement Association. Ile had meetings with them. 14e've also had then: out on a field trip to the ranch. The Scenic !Highway Committee. The San 'Ramon Valley Planning Committee. We've had them out on a field trip. 1.'e've talked to the Monte Vista High- school Board; the San Ramon Valley Unified School District; the Diablo Property owners Association; Supervisor Linscheid's liason committee; the Association to Preserve Danville Boulevard; the San Ramon Valley !Horseman's Association; the Twin Creeks Homeowners Association; we spoken to the Athen- ian School , the Danville Rotary; the Calif. State Park & Recreation Commiss- ion. We've had a TV debate with the Valley Action Forum; talked to the San Ramon Valley fidmee.imers Associatio::. The Valley Action Forum and the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee have asked us to come back to their group when this commission establishes their conditions on our development so we can discuss them with them and get local input. I''d like to give an example because people say, well, yes, you've talked with all these people; but, what have they contributed? I don't want to mention any names; but, ttlb Chairman of one of the committees in the valley, during the early stages of our planning, she came to me and said that she didn't like where our cluster units are; I think they should be in a different location centered around the activities, the country club location, etc. We talked to our planners about this and it turned out it was a good idea; ( so, here it is. This is where the major emphasis on cluster units are. That's just one example. We've had many, many people come to us with comments iand what you see there is an evolution of all these different things. There are three women in the audience, Wayne's wife, Bills's wife and my wife who also contributed because they let us out at night for all these meetings! 181 Okay. The first consultant we have up there is Livingston $ Blayney, City and Regional Planners. They are probably known as the most environmentally sensitive planners in the nation. I would like to quote from their brochure, one paragraph regarding land use and zoning studies: "Assignments are accepted to study the desirability of zoning changes from the community standpoint with the understanding that Livingston & Myney's conclusions may not conform with the client's interests." think that's self-explanatory to what they will do if they don't like a roject or don't think it sound, they!re going to turn you off. They've een involved in literally hundreds of projects and probably the best known in Contra Costa County was the Orinda General Plan review---I 'm sure Commiss- ioner Anderson is familiar with that; the studies- done for BARTD, environ- mentally they were the responsible parties for the. Palo Alto Study. We have Jack Davis with us tonight who is an associate in the fire of Living- ston & Blayney; he's been working with us as the project coordinator for Livingston $ Blayney for about the past 18 months. He is a graduate land- scape architect. Jack. JACK DAVIS, Livingston & Blayney, 40 Gold Street, San Francisco, Calif. I bring you greetings from Livingston & Blayney. As Bob pointed out, our role in the study was as urban planner and critic and at many times, a thorn in his side; nevertheless, it is true that whenever he made a suggestion or recommendation which wasn't exactly what otherwise might be done, Mr. Carrau was willing to go along to do what we had recommended. We hada number of interesting and very specific assignments in the early stages of the study which included in participating in comprehensive site studies and analysis, review of public agencies and private land owner's plans and and ysis of those plans and development trends in Contra Costa County and the San Ramon Valley; review of zoning and other pertinent development reg- ulation; review of slope studies, geologic studies; access studies and util- ities studies. We had a major nle in determining what portions of the site were suitable for development and what portions should be retained as permanent open - space. We also had a major role in determining what ecological environmental issues were involved in the study. We had a major role in suggesting appropriate land uses in helping to deter- mine what areas should be devoted for recreational purposes and for critiquing the development design studies of other team disciplines. Wd also performed other planning roles as needed which included such things as population projections; school enrollment; projection and school site needs and related types of studies. Early in our work, we came to the conclusion that this property involved many unique challenges and many unique constraints. We also determined that the character of the surrounding area required very sensitive treatment of this site so that the qualities of the map-grow area would not be drastically changed. {ie also felt that because of these peculiar characteristics and some marvelous ones in many respects, that a very strong design element was need from the outset; so, we recommended the inclusion on the team of land- scape archtects and Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey were selected to fill 182 t this role. Because of the unique characteristics of *the site, we also suggest- ed that there be special planning and design guide lines. These were needed in order to preserve the features of the site that are visually significant in the region and sub-region particularly those that are associated with Mt. Diablo State Park, to maximize the inherent. recreational and open space 'opportunities on the site and to insure that the development plan for the property responded to the present character and quality of the Danville- Diablo area. Special significance was given to any slope, hilltop or 'ridge line visually associated with Ott. Diablo and areas that might be desired by the State Park Department of Parks and Recreation as future additions to the State park. We have a map which shows (map was located and displayed for Commission)--- Although the map is small-caled, it was prepared by the State Department - of Parks & Recreation, it- shows along the- southerly-edge, portions of the Blackhawk property which the park and recreation department have included in their priorty schedule for additions to the park. Thtse can be seen on the large scale drawings. The green areas northerly of the property between the area proposed for development and the present state park. In terms of special planning and design guidelines that we felt were needed at the off-set to guide the design of the property, we included the follow- ing: (1) We felt the development plan should be highly responsive to the natural topogrpahy and environmental qualities of the area. Development should be .' concentrated mainly on the level valley floors and moderate slide-sbpes. The enclosure provided by natural bowl formation should be used to advant- age. Roads and structures shourd not be located on steep hill sides over 20% and in no case should they be located on a ridge line. We felt it particularly important to avoid roads going over the ridge lines because from the distant views, these become very prominent, particularly when viewed with Mt. Diablo in the background. Natural creeks and u ooded drainage ways should be preserved as part of the open space system. Wherever possible, • these features should be for pedestrian and/or riding trails where they will not cause removal of trees or destruction of biotic communities. The road system should be designed to minimize grading and to avoid extensive cut or fill slopes. Vl*here graded slopes cannot be avoided, they should be replaced, prferably with indigenous plant materials. The present character of the natural landscape should be retained as much as possible. Large native oaks and other indigenous trees should be preserved and extensive urban landscaping should be avoided on visible hillsides. (2) The development plan should respond to the present rural character of the Danville-Diablo area. The most exposed developable portions of the property should be predominantly single-family residential; overall lot sizes should average at least 15,000 sq. ft. and no lots with rare except- ion should be smaller than 10,000 sq. ft. Lot sizes should be adapted to topographic restraints with the largest lots on the steepest slopes; each lot should have a building site not requiring conventional graded house pad and not requiring a graded driveway ascending " a visible slope. For significant portions of lots containing slopes in excess of 15", parking should be located at or near the front property line and access to the dwelling should be by stairs and/or elevator. On these 183 sites should be custom designed and there should be no pool where site grad. ins would be necessary. Areas designated for townhouse cluster or apartment ' development should bear a planned relationship to adjoining uses. Some of. these areas should include a mix of both types and the size of the areas and the density of developments should be in scale with similar developments in near-by communities. Access to these sites should not be through a single family residential area where it can be avoided. 11herever possible, the townhouse and apartment sites should adjoin a significant natural open space area or a portion of the golf course. With credit only for the golf course d other open space areas that make a real contribution to the general eighborhood amenity by reason of scenic value or recreational value or roximity to dwellings, residential densities should not exceed two units per gross acre over the entire property; the density should not exceed one (1) unit per gross acre---it turns out to be 0.95. Within the limits--imposed by public-safety requirements, traffic needs and required county standards, the road system should be designed to retain the rural qualities characteristic of the present road system in the general area. The number of intersections with peripheral county roads should be Dept to a minimum and lots should not front on these roads. L'herever poss- ible, open space in the form of setbacks, natural creeks and drainage ways, trails or portions of the golf course should adjoin existing county roads and where feasible the same criteria should apply to the principle in inter- ior access roads. Through preservation of the natural landscape or plantings, principal entrances to development, entrances to various $ub-units or clusters and focal points of — various kinds should be visually identified. Natural or landscaped corri- dors with no fences, buildings or other structures other than man-m'-de land- scape features within 100-ft. , on either side should adjoin major entrance roads. Commercial and office development should be limited to neighborhood convenience shops and professional offices adequate to meet the day to day needs of residents on the property and the immediate vicinity. Outlets that draw from a larger service area and typically generate signifi- cant amounts of non-local traffic on the county road system should not be permitted. These were the guidelines around which we all directed our attention tct the design of the plan, which Mr. Hanamoto will describe later. Another conclusion which we came to very early in the study was one that our clients conformed with and that is the whole approach to this property should be through the planned unit district procedure provided in the zon- ing regulations. Each residential area depicted on that map was selected on the basis of ndtural and/ar design amenity available on the site or in adjoining areas. All recreation, public facility and open space areas are linked by open green spaces incorporating riding and hiking trails. In order to test the sites selected for cluster development and apartment development, prototype plans were designed by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey even though they went much further than planning generally would be required for this type of pro- ject in order to determii:e (1) that the site would accommodate the }ands of development being proposed, (2) that adequate amounts of green space could be provided within each of these micro-areas as well as in the larger amounts shown on the map, (3) each unit did have an amenity not only included within its own design but as part of the major plan as well. 184 The major recreational activities incorporated in this plan are the golf courses, of which there are two; riding and hiking; a large stable area and swim club-tennis complexes. Very close to every part of this property is an opportunity to participate in one or more forms of these recreation outlets. A major recreation feature of the plan is the amount of open space available for passive recreation including riding, hiking and just sitting and looling. On the plan, the natural and developed open space areas account for about 75% of the total property. A total of 4,546 residential units are proposed which include S1 estates and the net density of the estate area is 0.33 or I for every three (3) acres. . .Single family conventional at a net density .of .2.51 units per net acre, ' a total of 2155. Single family cluster residential at densities ranging from 7-14 units per net acre, a total of 1,953 and apartment units at densities of about 20 units per acre, a total of 382. The net density of the entire project is 1.05 .and this is in accord with the planning department's formula for computing net density and the gross density is 0.95. Using the school district's generation factor, which they developed in a recent survey- of comparable development and costs in Contra Costa County, it developed that school generation in the K-6th grade level would be 2,374 children. Also using the school distict's•optinum capacity figures for a school plant, three (3) school sites would .be required. These sites were "Teviewed with the school district officials. The plan also provides for convenience commercial areas, conveniently lo- cated insofar as topography will pernit to all of the residential areas. Although the commercial area so devoted may appear to be somewhat on the high side, the larger area does include some sl-,ping land ti:hicn ::ould not be developed at this same density---as a typical shopping center would and also allows space for other community type uses that might be located in this center. IVe feel that the result of all these studies is a plan that ti•re as city and regional planners can recommend to you as being extremely sensitive to the opportunities and constraints provided on the site; that it respects the relationship of nearby Mt. Diablo and that also respects the characteristics of the present surrounding area. Thank you very much. MR. CARRAU: Thanks, John. I 'd like to have our landscape architect cone up and give his presentation. However, I would like to say that I think it very rare that you will ever see a landscape architect being in on a straight zoning matter like this on a project as large as this. They usually come into the picture much later; however, because Livingston and Blayney and the many fights we've had with them about this, they decided and we finally concurred that the disciplin of landscape architecture was needed at this stage of the develop- went. It's very expensive but they convinced it that it was necessary; so, we retained the fir.m of Royston, E anaroto, Beck and Abey. TASe}•'re an extremely well-known firm. At the last count I have, they had uon 25 national awards in all categories. They're landplanning as well as landscape architecture. 185 We are fortunate in having Asa Hanamoto as our contact with the firm--- as a matter of fact, with all the firms, we are working with the principal. Asa is a landscape architect, belongs to many, many professional societies including the American Society of Landscape Architecture and the Urban Land Institute. ASA HANMIOTO, SO Green Street, San Francisco, California. I'm a principal in the firm of Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey. ] think Jack Davis has pretty much covered some of the basic criteria that as used for planning; but, I would like to add some of the concepts that ere used as it basis for the actual phyiscal planning for the ranch. I think the element of how landscape architecture fits into land planning, we feel is very inportant in that we take a look at what the land looks like i and how it effects human use and habitation and ;:hat we looked at once we -got all of our information, such -as slopes, geology, soils, steunr courses, native trees., ridges, all these natural constraints that are related with the site were considered in our planning effort. The environmentally sensitive areas were identified and one of the first things we ran into which is sort of typical of developer and planning coil- flicts was the fact that many of these ridges which are adjacent to the developed areas, are prime developable areas in that they command the highest prices as far as lot sales are concerned and when we mentioned that we would not recommend building on those particular- ridges because of their sensitive nature from the views from the public areas, This %.as one of our first con- frontations between what we felt were ideal plan situation vs. , the economics of the development; however, we were able to convince then of the validity of-our point of view insofar as, the preservation of the important ridge lines, to beep them open to be compatible with the foothills which are in the upper or northern area of the ranch so that they ;jade a compositionwith- out infringing upon the aesthetics of the whole country-side. We felt that was a very important design consideration and the developer agreed with us eventually. This is just an example of some of the conflicts that tee planners run into in working with hard-headed developers; but, we are fortunate in this particular project in that the developer had an open mind and we fad that the product we have produced really is an outstanding planning job in that it is not strictly a true subdivision in the sense that it's plotted out and the whole site is used. We felt that the preservation of the slopes, the stream-ways, the visual• conposition of the land with 'Olt. Diablo were all important factors which should be preserved and these were the primary design constraints within which we worked. As mentioned, the areas were studied more in detail than at the 200-scale to make sure that some of the elements insofar as density was concerned was really realistic. So, we took some typical areas and developed then at much larger scale and I will go to the board to illustrate some of the elements I 'm talking about. The single family example that we picked is by the 7th and Sth hole, right off of Blachhawk Road going (indicated on-200-scale map)--- MR. CARRAU: While Asa is doing that, 1 might mention that this example . he's using, we have actually developed a grading plan on this area so this isn't just taking a piece of property and hoping to put houses on it. It's an actual grading plan with quantities and take-offs and the diagrams have 186 • been prepared which Asa used to come up with his examples. MR. HANAMOTO: As mentioned, this is Blackhawk Road (indicating) ; this is the 8th hole; this is the other golf course-.--we do have golf courses on both sides of our entry way. The road itself at this particular point is 100-ft. , right of way as our major road system. Most of our major collector streets are 80-ft. , or 100 ft. , right of way, minimum; so, we have a situation where the road at the entrance is surrounded on both sides by green. i The houses (indicating) , we have taken a section through here (indicating) Ad this shows a typical section 100-ft. , right of way. 1,'*c proposing a 100-ft. , right of way section there but a very narrow street section of 24-ft. , paved section with 8-ft. , gravel shoulders. The primary reason for that was that on all of our major collector streets, we do not have any curb cuts comming into our particular collector streets and there are no curb cuts in through here (indicating) , and all of the houses that front on this all have access away from the street itself so all of these houses are served other than from the major collectors, We have a few exceptions; but, I thought I should show those as to hot, we would propose that those be handled. The reason ue picked this particular section was to show those few which do occur are on this particular road. In this situation where we have a major street, hoe are proposing that a common drive serve two units at one tire so instead of having five curb cuts along in that particular area, we'--e proposing that they be limited to two (2) , so all of our streets as you drive along will not have any cars backing out onto them so that we feel this is a great amenity so that there are no causes for parking along the street since all the accesses willbe off of secondary streets. The question then arises as to how come the streets are so narrow. We • have two concepts that we felt were rather valid in this case. To put in a typical section of curb and gutter street sections at the required widths, we felt would be out of character with the arca; that maybe this particular area ought to be looked at in the light of a different concept insofar as drainage is concerned. We're proposing that instead of curb and guttering all of our paved surfaces, catching them and putting them in to culverts and shooting it down to the Bay,, perhaps there's some validity in having the paved section of road have wide areas of gravel so that the water hitting the paved surfaces can get into the gravel perculate down into the land itself so that we recharge our water below grade so that we're not losing it all and shooting it doh•:n to Bay. That was one idea. The other idea and purpose of the gravel section is that whenever one has car trouble, you can pull off the road and.have ample room to Pet by, Iliese are the two functions for the gravel section. Ile felt this was a departure from your standards and that we would highly recommend this particular approach. I feel that there isn't much that is more shocking than driving down a country road and then turn into a subdivision and then you are driving down a 40-ft. , wide section of subdivision road. It really doesn't make much sense. We're approaching this from an aesthetic point and hopefully 187 a compatible approach to some of our problems of water. The section also differs from the typical engineered road way in that within the 100-ft. , right of way, most roads are set with the center line at the SO-ft. , mark. Ne!re proposing that the center of the road actua W be off-set so that we can accommodate a trails system on one side with pedestrian and bicycle trails. All of our major public facilities not only have road connection but also have the bike-mays and pedestrian ways all along our public facilities connecting so that the children and people living in the area will have an aiternative Bray of getting to all the public facilities. ISO Iwithin this section that we took, the dark lines are possible fences I at might be built to enclose backyards, with the pathway leading to it, he plantings and planting area separating that from the auto traffic ways. !On .the other side, there .are to be .no .fences, just the front-yard type of situation. These are some of the elements that we have been. working with as landscape architects in light of what the eye sees; how it effects the land and how it functions insofar as people living in the area. Now, this is the 8th hole of the golf course• and we have a cluster develop- ment that we were asked to look at. When we first put out the cluster de- velopment, an arbitrary figure of 14 units per acre was proposed for that property. I,;e studied it an then recommended that 14 is not feasible and felt that there should be more open space and reco;.mended a reduction down to 10 units---14 would have crowded it and would have eliminated some of amenities related to each of the units since each of the units have a view of the golf course with ample green space around it. In this case, we thought of compounding the cars so that they with the living units would have some separation. Ile know that these units will work this way in actuality. This may not be the final plan; but, at least, we know that based on the constraints of the road, the property line and the golf course relationship, we know these will work. This is how we as landscape architects and as part of a planning team develop- ed what we feel to be a very fine plan. Now, I guess my question is whether I should review the whole plan itself and if I do, I will have to be at that large 200-scale map on the wall behind the Commission. 1 will leave that up to the Commission to decide. • CHAIRMAN JCHA: Yes, wiry don't you come up here. You can use this microphone and I will sit down over there (indicating area). MR. HAN910TO: I think I will speak without the microphone since it's a little easier that way. Blackhawk Road (indicating on 200-scale map) is our main access to the pro- ject. The major entries occur at these points---there is one major entry here (indicating all three on the map but did not identify them by street or road name). " -In all casco we either have a golf course or do not have a golf course but provide a minimum 100-ft. , right of way at the three entrances. In most of these three entrances, we are going into about 130-140-ft., wide entry ways 188 grid we carry our 100-ft., right of way at least one-block .in so that we have a very wide nice entrance street in all cases. In' seleral places, you have a situation where the entry way adjoins the golf course; so, these will be very elegant entrances to the project itself. As I mentioned, the school facilities are shown in blue color on this large map. They all have proposed a hiking-pedestrian-bicyle way to the school site from the roads leading to the sites so that all will have that safe access for the school children and they will not have to cross major streets. The aspect of pedestrian-bicyle ways is also carried along Blackhawk Road to tie in with the County system, hopefully, so that these ways will tie in down at Tassajara Road. .,Of course, all of the units that ,are nestled. into our valley areas will have access into the open spaces so that we do not have land-locked situations where people and children cannot get to the open spaces because of the people living in that area. The concept of keeping the ridges open and keeping development below our 2S- grade has been followed and this is the pattern that has evolved from the constraint of slopes. In some of the areas, for instance, there is less than 20% up in the flatter areas; however, we thought that it important that we keep the upper areas free because of the relationship with '•1r. Diablo Park so that all 'of our developments are pretty u ell related with the constraints Of the slopes, slides, vegetation and the strean-ways. One. of the things you would see in the crea •is the beauty of some of tin vegetation along the stream ways and this we felt was very important to the aspects of our design constraints so that we have proposed that all of the streams be fairly well preserved and that any work done in them be done to preserve the trees and the character of the urea so that if some sor t of water control devices are required, they be done in sympathy with what we designers hope to achieve. We definitely are nog going to have a-ly concrete • channels. Another important aspect design-wise as related to the preservation of the ridges, early in the prograri, the engineers told us that with a very slight grade, we could get up to almost every one of these ridges and have houses looking down from those particular ridges---in fact, that was one of the first plans that someone came up with and we were appalled. We took a look at all of the contours to see what they were doing with that and we found that this might be great for whomever was selling or building there; but, as far as the visual aspects from the streets and the vallies, it was really a calamity; so we fought that and were able to vin the battle so all of the housing will be down below so the eye does not see these homes perched all along these high ridges. This we felt to be a very important design consider- ation and we were lucky to have a builder who is sympathetic to our thoughts. In the center, the country-club area which is gained from the main entry i road, which road is also the connector to the other section here (indicating on map). •• Around the intense use area, ate do have cluster housing. The cluster housing is to be primarily in this area but we do have some here (indicating) , some here---this happens to be in a draw off of Blackhawk. i;e have multi-family 189 here (indicating). (Three other cluster units were also indicated on the map). We alsp have some multi-family and a small commercial center here (indicating 3 on map) . Our primary uses evolved in that fashion together with our equestrian - center up in this particular area (indicating) . One of the things that the E.I.R. mentions is the digs that the University has conducted on the ranch itself and that dig is right in here (indicating) . It's an archeological dig and that is in part of our open space system; so, that will be preserved. basically, we feel that the plan as it has evolved, the green spaces that you see in and amongst the yellow coloring, really are the ridge lines that we are preserving so that what you see is the pattern of the higher areas in green and the developed areas in the yellow and which is pretty much the pattern as far as topography is concerned; so, in reality, this particular development is separated by a ridge so that as you enter on the road, you'll see this but you won't then be able to see any of this (indicating). So, what we have here is a series of small developments nestled in the vallies so that even though on this plan you see it in one planned view, in reality when this is all de- veloped, you will just see portions of it as you go buy each one of these little valk es and the predominance of the higher ridges and the green spaces behind it will dwarf the human development so that the environment itself will really feel quite open and green. Our recommendations of minimal grading together with planting of natural trees and a restoration of all grading, we feel will actually make this particular �^ area very desirable insofar as compatibility with the landscape. So, basically, we feel that the plan is a sympathetic approach to land de- velopment. When we first got into the project, they were talking about 10,000 units and I said, "My God, what happened---who's talking about 10,000 units." Ile were able to develop the constraints of the land and within those constraints, we feel we have developed a plan that not only is sympathetic to the environment but we feel will be an envirovuaent in which people will be able to enjoy both their homes and the surroundings that exist within the area. Thank you. MR. CARRAU: Thank you, Asa. I haven't brought this up before; but, I think it a very important point in that we're talking about a very large development; but, you got to remember that it's not going to happen over night. It goes back to having a large piece of land that you're able to plan. This is a 12 to 15 year project and all of a sudden, you're not going to have 4,000 units. I hope that you will keep that in mind in your deliberations. The next consultant on our team--- CHAII2N1AN MA: I am going to interrupt you at this point. I 'feel that the Commission would like to take a break at this point. Volien we convene, you can have that next consultant give his presentation. (The Commission then took a 10-minute break) . MR. CARRAU: Our next consultant is from the firm of Kirker, Chapman & Assoc. , who are engineers. I think you will note that all the consultants we used regardless of their specific disciplin are planners, which we think is very important. Kirker, Chapman have done what we consider to be some of the finest projects 190 . around. The did Stonegate Woods in Hillsboro. They were also involved in some fine commercial developments. They did the Del Vonte Shopping - Center in Monterey and I think one of the best jobs they've ever done was for the Silverado Country Club in Napa. They were the engineers for that and they are now the consultants for the engineering district up there. They are specialists and we figure their best specialty is in utility work and we're fortunate to have a principal who is our client contact, Bill Chapman. Bill is a graduate with honors in engineering; lie has an architect- ral background; he's very active in his field belonging to many professional societies and was the 1972 president of the peninsula c>>anter of the American Public Works Association. lie has been in municipal work- being a former pub- lic works director for a -city do►•m the peninsula. Bill, MR. WILLIAM CHAP!•,A.`;, Kirker, Chapman 4 Associates, 111 New Montgomery St. , San Francisco, Calif. Right now is the time that you've been waiting for on pins and needles Just to hear about things like sanitary sewers. I know you've looked forward to that and now is the time! CHAIMMI MIA: I couldn't care less; but, if you want to say it, go ahead! MR. CRAM N: Our function here is to make sure that uIhatever is planned, works. It's obvious to everyone that before you can Clave a subdivision, you have to have water, you have to have a sanitary sewage, you have to ! have streets that function, you have to have an adequate fire water supply and this is our function here. It's really a delight to work on a project of this type because I think it's going to be something that not only our firm will be proud of but the County ,R a„ of Contra Costa and particularly this Commission is going tobe proud of when they see it in its finished state as emphasized by the fact that the of;ner has avoided the tenptation to build on that bea;:tiful prominance, the top of the hill and leave that alone and instead develop the canyons and the vallies to avoid the visual impact. With respect to Hater, we propose to use East Bay '4ud water in this develop- ment. There is a reservoir approximately 3,000-ft. , down the road in that direction as seen on -the map---on Diablo Road. That mould be the source point. We have discussed it with MIUD and they have indicated that from that point there would be no problem. We would be developing two pressure zones, meaning an addition of two existing---rather, .ttyo new reservoirs in the area. The sanitary is one where we would have a pick-up point having a capacity of some 1,500 homes near the intersection of the Athenian School. Further, we could flet some more sanitary capacity along Tassajara Road right behind the Chairman's head---about 2h riles down where v e can pith up more capacity from there. We have had discussions with Central Sanitary District and they feel capable that with the improvements they are presently planning, there would be no capacity problem with respect to the sanitary sewage. _. Sanitary is one of the areas that is kind of a self-preserving entity, it always has been in the industry insofar that their charges for either annex- ation fees or a charge that they call a "water shed fee" compounded and added 191 to the connection fee is something that brings in enough coney to them so that when you are speaking in terms of problems downstream, whether : they be pumps or be the plant or outfall line itself,.these funds which are quite enormous would finance those improvements needed to handle a development of this size or any size. - Drainage is always a question on a project such as this. One of the fine i points of drainage is what happens downstream, say, in Green Valley Creek? You don't want to get into the typical civil engineering, corps of engineers method of pave the channel, pave the bottom because that really does not look too good. This is something that we do not want to do. The fact of the matter that any increase in the major creek through that area would only amount to 6.7: of increase in flow is probably best deter- .. .mined -by the fact -that very little in.overall proportion to the. drainage shed which provides water here is actually being developed and, again, in proportion. So, in effect, we do not increase the run-off effect; we do not put so much of a rain coat over the top of the earth such that more water flows off and 6.7% we feel is not going to be any problem whatsoever. One of our functions is to work very closely with Asa tlananoto or the planners and to make sure that grading in this area is not going to be that which we've seen so much in California, the typical cutting of the hill in a nice geometric fashion and there it is. This is not something that we want to do nor will it happen; nor' do I think it will happen by the very nature of the development as.you see it here tonight insofar that we are not moving up the side of the mountain, meaning that there will be no cut slopes. Insofar as we are filling in the canyons, we are not develop- ing an), fill or cuts on the slopes whether they be geometric or they be _ rounded; but, in the case in point where we do come in and find that there is• a fill sbpe, these are going to be rounded and I think the future kids will go out there and think that it's great to find this beautiful natural plateau on which to build homes and other structures but in fact, they will have : ccn created. I have tieo pictures that I would like to pass out to you insofar as they show two channels that we worked on (Photos were presented to the Commiss- ioners and viewed by them. They are not on file with the subject material) . The channel that you're looking at is a man-made channel to some degree. There is rip-rap in there; but, I dare say you will have a hard time find- ing it because it's covered over by natural growth including ivy. The idea here is that any creek or water shed within the Rlackhawk Ranch is going to be treated in the most natural possible manner as indicated in, those photographs. Now, less youthink for a minute that I 'm showing you something that's a dinky little creek, it is very easy to handle, the flow in that particular creek, which happens to be in Silverado is approx- imately twice the capacity in the flow of water compared to any of the creeks that -would be in this area here. Another important point with respect to handling the drainage is that if you loot: carefully at the map, you will find that sonic of the main streets that do follow the bottoms of the canyon, that do parallel creeks, have as lots on one side of them, lots which really do not have frontage on that one particular street. They do not have frohtage insofar that their front- 192 ate is away from the major- street, from a street behind the major street; therefore, these lots will not have any driveways comming into them and then the creek itself is free to remain natural. I hope that you will see i a loi of that in Blackhawk. Again, Green Valley Creek is going to be a very small impact of 6.7% and that's the highest. Some of the other creeks throughout this area, their increase is as low as d%; so, I think I can say that that is a rather insig- nificant increase. Thesketches that fir. Hanamoto has put on the wall depict what I was saying relative to the creek paralleling the street and because of that, there is no frontage. This is not an inexpensive way to do it. It is a more expen- sive way to do it. It retains the aesthetics; but, it also costs more money because the main is building a road which instead of allowing frontage on both sides, in fact there is no frontage so he's building a street for free, you might say. So, gentlemen, in summary and in trying to.be brief, we think that we have covered any problem that there might be with respect to water supply; with respect to sanitary; with respect to drainage. We hope to work very closely with respect to the grading and working with the landscape architects. I think with your years of experience in work- ing with many,many projects within Contra -Costa County, if you look care- fully at the map you're going to find characteristics in the street pattern, handling the drainage, not building on the top of the slopes, that creates something that is more expensive not less expensive and because of that amenity, tiro hope that you can take that into consideration in any future deliberations that you may have. 'Thank you very much. MR. CARRAU: Mr. Chairman, as you recall, I talked with you during the recess you took and you told me that you would like to close this off as soon as possible; so, I think I will dispense with a couple of our other consultants because they are not really a part of our hearings tonight. Lowney-Kaldveer Associates, who are our geological consultants---let me say that in our E.I.It, , Bill Morse passed out tonight, wa consider part of that tonight--there's a completedetailed soil reconnaissance done show- ing where any seismic activity is located, etc. James A. Roberts have been mentioned and they are the ones who did the original environmental impact report and I'd also like to mention of someone who is very important on our team and that's Dan Van Voorhis who is an attorney and our consultant on environmental law and zoning. T9night, 1 think one of the most important things you should be aware of is our golf course design. This whole project was designed around recrea- tional amenities. We retained the firm of Von ilerge & Devlin, golfcourse architects and they are one of America's foremost golf course architect- ural firms;. they've worked from Australia to the Bahama s. Itic have Bob Von llegge with us tonight and he is personally responsible for the design ' of our courses. Bob, MR. ROBERT VON NEGGE, Doral Country Club, 'Miami, Florida. I think the history of this project probably dates back to me before any of these others. I started heading west with the idea of creating a country club community in this area some time ago. It was 3' years ago and we decided 193 that Mr. Peterson, the owner of Blackhawk Ranch at that time, had the most perfect site for what.we were looking. We negotiated with Mr. Peterson and then we found out that our other pervious committments wouldn't allow us to tie this one down. In the interim period, 1 think my enthusiasm rubbed off on Messrs. Carrau and Morse and subsequently, this is the result of it all. I feel that this property represents the most magnificent opportunities to create one of the most complete tactical examinations for the game of golf anywhere. It's uniquely located in relation to the market area for the game; 't' in an area that is sorely short of this recreational facility. The ationa1 Golf Foundation lists this area out of atotal of 216 areas as probably 10th from the top of the list which really needs golf facilities in relation to the demand. A golf course can easily be justified and supported for every 16,000 popula- tion figure. On that basis, this area is about 64 golf courses short. The golf course, other than the recreation facility, our company bag has always been one in which we specialize in the best unilateral use of the golf course and the marriage to the development. That means that we try to create a country-club atmosphere providing these people with a depart- ure from the everyday life style emersing them in greens and blues but also to give them something to look at if they live there. The golf course in this particular instance, and for the most part, deals with the low and fragile drainage areas. It acts as a conveyor of the water and this is a prime consideration. There has not been a better method de- vised than hybrid turf to convey fragile areas and water run-off. These golf courses also improve the views since they will be at a lower level than the residences built in the area. i We have been allowed to do any thing we could to create the best possible golf course and still marry itto the development and, therefore, we have a: great variation in the topo for the course. The golf course Itself will pot be used for the U.S. Open. It is designed to accommodate that kind of guy who will live there. It will have the capability of examining the widest ranges; but, on the other hand, it's not meant to attract large crowds. The planting and decoration of the golf course after it is completed will be totally indiginous with what's occurring there right now. It should look like someone besides the golf course architect who put it there. It should look like it will have been there forever and I promise you we will give it our best efforts to do that very thing. Thank you very much. MR. CARRAU: The theme of this whole presentation tonight has pretty much emphasized recreation. The golf course is very, very important as well as other things; but, in trying to make this Mort tonight, I would like to ask {Wayne Hawkins to briefly tell you what we will do in the way of other creation and why we have planned it. I might mention, too, that tWayne is one of the principals in our Company. tie is better known for other things but prior to our association, he was very active in the banking field and his expertise in economics as well as in recreation makes him ideally suited for the area .he's handling in this in our company. Wayne, 194 j MR. WAYNR HAWKINS (No address given). Recreation, as has been stated, is • a very important part of our project and recreation is part of the fastest growing segment of our life styles today. Golf, equestrian, tennis, are leading the explosive recreation field. We have themed our project through recreation and because of this, we feel we're going to have one of the best projects in the country. Bob Von Hegge told you about the golf course. I would like to explain to you what/ else we are incorporating in our project and why. We worked with our land planners and many consultants in trying to design the best possible recreational facilities available. Equestrian probably was the number one criteria after golf and the reason for this is that Contra Costa County has one of the highest horse populations of any county ....in.the United .States and because of the energy crunch, it looks like the people.will return to the horse and right now there are more horses than there are automobiles in the United States. We have planned and are planning an equestrian center that we think will be the best around. We have talked to many consultants; we have travelled around the country; looked at the best facilities; we're planning; an indoor and. outdoor arena; we'd like to board approximately 100 horses and would like to have the finest stud service in Contra Costa County. CHAI MAN JEHA: Is that recreation or---.-? (Tumultuous laughter from aud- ience) . MR. HAWKINS: Dick Jeha thinks recreation is going to a movie! (Additional laughter). `� •_ lie have worked very closely with the people of Contra Costa County. 14e've worked with the Contra Costa Horsemen's Association, the San -Ramon Valley lloisemen's Association, the Danville Junior Horsemen; worked with the people from Mt. Diablo State Park; we've incorporated trails throughout our project and into the State Park. Ile have established a westerly entrance into the park through our project and we are now r:orking; on a public access to the State Park through the eastern part of our project. • We think this is very important because it gives people in Contra Costa County a chance to ride their horses from their homes into the State Park. Asa Hanamoto talked about the internal trails; we've incorporated horse and bicycle trails throughout the project so that kids can ride their horses from their homes or the equestrian center into the downtown shopping center without going over any major thoroughfare FA. Along with the equestrian facilities, we are incorporating; many hiking and bicycle trails. Again, bicycles are taking; over from the automobile and in 1973, more bicycles were solei than automobiles; so, we think it inportant to incorporate the horse and bicycle trails along; with the pedestrian trails. We are also working on some jogging courses throughout the project and they will have little sub-stations where you can stop and do push-ups and chin- ups to keep physically fit. . The third criteria that we expanding upon is the tennis facilities. Tennis is probably---it is the fastest growing participant sport in the United States today. There are over 13,000,000 tennis players now and by 1960, 19S they expect to have over 15,000,000 tennis players in the United States. • We are incorporating a major tennis facility with the country-club activit- ies as well as having smaller tennis complexes in the condominiums and in • jj� the cluster areas and at the schools. ,Along with this, we're incorporating hand-ball and squash and of course, swimming is a very active part of our program. In conclusions, we have spent many months planning the recreation facilities for the Blackhawk Ranch and because.of these facilities, everbody we show the project to wants to live here. Thank you. MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I have two subjects to discuss at this time. The-first in reference to the dedications that we would pro- pose in connection with our zoning application. The first is the dedication of a paleotological dig that was mentioned by Asa Hanamoto that exists on the property. We have been in contact with and working with Dr. Joseph T. Gregory, who is •a director of the museum of paleotology at the University of Calif. , Berkeley. Coming in tonight, I noticed that Dr. Gregory was coming here also. I didn't know if he was and I asked him if he would make a few comments on the importance of this dig which we propose to dedicate to the University of California, along; with the access right of way so they can get to and from it from a public road. Dr. Gregory, would you make some comments, please? DR. JOSEPH T. GREGORY, 3550 Eastview [)rive, Lafayette, California. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I 'll be brief. About 40 years ago, >., a. very large concentration of the bones of ancient land animals eras found on the Blackhawk Ranch and for nearly 40 years, our classes from the Univer- sity of'California---and I believe from a good many other educational insti- tutions around the Bay Area, have been going out, visiting the ranch with the help and concurrence of the various owners to collect the fossil bones from this site and to study their occurrence. The occurrence is particularly interesting because these fossils which are so rich here arc fairly closely associated with remains of fossil plants; also rather rare for the most part and ct higher levels on the slopes of bit. Diablo, there are extensive series of marine beds with fossil shell fish of various sorts; so, it is possible here on' the south side of Mt. Diablo to see a section of the history of the development of the land in this central part of California and the various kinds of life that was here over the past. When I learned that the ranch was proposed for development, I made contact with Mr. Carrau and 'Mr. Morse and have been discussing ways in A.rhich this site might be preserved with access to it for educational purposes might be maintained and they have proposed that the land can be deeded to the University and if this is done, why ire will be able to continue these sorts of educational uses that we have had in the past. There are also possibilities r . . that something more in the nature of a public exhibition could be developed on this site; but, this would require financing which at present the Univer- sity doesn't have. Thank you. MR. MORSE: Thank you, Dr. Gregory. The other area that we propose for dedi- cation would be dedicated to fit. Diablo State Park. All along the north end of the Blackhawk Ranch is the State Park lands. We would propose to dedicate 196 • 300 acres which is the land Wall .Point and the canyon that lies on the nottherly side of the Southgate Road together with the Blackhawk Ridge' and some of the higher lands located on the eastern portion of the prop- ' erty. This totals to 950 acres. We had been telling people it would be 1,000 acres and then we designated some areas.and it turned out to be only j 700. so we've come back with the 950 acres. There is a zone of land which is in the- darker green that is within the ultimate boundaries as proposed by the State Park system which was shown n this other map and it would be between the State Parkboundary and the roperty that we're developing. We've been approached to deed that to the park and our position is and has been that as you heard from Asa Hanamoto, Jack Davis, etc. , we're trying to I create a community here where the people can have the open space for hiking or standing around feeling the air and we think that if the State Park comes right down to our borders---after all, the State Park could fence it off and our people wouldn't have that opportunity and we've considered that a vital part of our promotional program and we really want to retain this to be a part of our overall plan. That's all I have on that. Thank you. MR. CARRAU: I think that just' about does it other than for a couple of remarks, Mr. Jeha. I want to say that we're not trying to avoid the problems that are inherent in a project of this size. Tonight,we. have brought out the planning, what the project is going to be, etc. Ie recognize that there are problems and . we. are not shying away from them; but, problems lie primarily off-site. We've had a number of comments made on schools; we've had a number of comment's made on roads. Ile have extensive figures; extensive facts; what we consider are solutions to these problems. I think more properly, these problems and solutions that we have should be brought up when we got into the Jiscussions on the E.I.R. , which I understand will be at two subsequent meetings. We're not trying to avoid these problems because we understand them and know they'mthere, etc. Tonight's hearing was basically on the project and the planning itself. We have a number of friends here tonight---not personal friends but proponents of the project. I sant to take this opportunity to thank them for coming down tonight. I understand that the Chairman doesn't want to recognize any of their comments when I am finished. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes, what we're going to do is to extend the hearing tonight with just the presentation that tie had then we will continue the matter to March 12, 1974, to discuss the question of the General Plan and then we will continue it again after that to March 26th. At that time the whole evening will be devoted to Blackhawk and if you have any other speakers, they can be presented at that time---you can finish your presentation, ask anyone who wants to speak in your behalf to speak and then we will hear from those - who might have adverse co=ents and then you will have your rebuttal. Roughly that's the schedule we will follow. MR. CARRAU: Okay, we're with you on that; but, so that I understand proced- urally, the comments on the E.I.R. will be taken up through the 26th so i0 days will be allowed to run, is that right, -Tony? Okay, thank you very much for your time and we'll see you on the 12th. 197 i CRAIU-1AN JE11A: All right, gentlemen, if you have no objections, I would • like to continue this to March 12th at which time we will discuss the Gen- eral Plan with the understanding that's all we will discuss at that hearing ( and then it will be continued to March 26th. ` CO101. COMPAGLIA: There will be no other items on the agenda? CHAIIL`dAN JEHA: On the 26th of March, this will be the only item on the agenda. Would someone make a motion to that effect? Upon motion of Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Compaglia, it was moved that the public hearing on the rezoning application of the Blackhawk Corporation (1840-RZ), be continued to the meeting of March 12, 1974, to discuss the General Plan compliance only; to March 26th for con- clusion of the presentation and opposition and discussion of tiro E.I.R. AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Compap,lia, Stoddard, '. Milano, Young, Hildebrand, Jeha. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. , i ' 12 March 1974 - Tuesday — E)G1IBIT 06 _ BLACKHAW K FINAL E.I.R. REZONING: PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED FOR GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION: BLACKHAWK CORPORATION (Applicant b Owner) - 1840-RZ The applicant requests to rezone land from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (P-1 ). Subject land is described as follo:rs: 4,775; acres located approximately 5 miles east•of Danville and 4 miles south of Mt. Diablo. Subject property is bordered on the north by Mt. Diablo State Park, on the southwest by Blackhawk Road, on the south by Tassajara Road and is cdmmonly referred to as the Blackhawk Ranch: San Ramon Area. (2/26/74) CHAIRMAN JEHA: Before we get into this item, I giant to make a few remarks and I think that the Corrmissioners should have a chance to reflect on it. What we're hearing tonight on the Blackhawk application is not the C1ackhawk PUD; but, what we're hearing tonight is the question of whether this appli- cation substantially consistent or not consistent with the General Plan, Now, our staff wrote us a memo stating that *in their opinion there is a possible conflict with the General Plan with this application. The applicants, of course, who have been proceeding on this for the last year, feel that they' ve been pro- ceeding on the basis that it is in conformance, substantial conformance with the General Plan. So, what's before us tonight is that question and not-the cuestion of this whole development because if we determine that this is sufficiently not in- consistent with the General Plan, then on the 26th, we will continue with our full hearing. If we find the opposite, then we have the problem :)f having to have. General Plan hearings prior to hearing it. My feeling is, and I would like to see this hearing tonight be based on this course of events, and that is: (1 ) We hear our staff arho have comments to make and then we will hear from the applicant who is the one who claiming that our staff is incorrect. I don't want to make this into a full dravin out hearing on the merits of Blackha,-.,k. I don't plan to and I want to limit the discussion on those two groups of speakers. I have talked to some of the other Commissioners and they indicated that they might not want to do* it quite that tray, that they want the aeneral public to speak on this; so, what I 'm going to do is to ask the Corrissioners to voice their approval or disapproval of this concept of this proceeding to night. If the majority of the Commissioners want to have everyone tall. on this, vie will do that. If the majority feel that tie should limit it to the staff and to the applicant who is vitally concerned on this and who is proceeding over the past year that it is in conforTiance with the General Plan to state his case to re- putie our staff, then erre will at least get the feelings of this Coninissior on proceedings; so, I don't want to make it in the form of a motion but we will start with Mr. Stoddard. Mr. Stoddard, hots do you feel---do you prefer to go on the course of activity that I suggest or do you want to have it fully opened? C0101ISSIONER STODDARD: No, I think we should like to hear from the staff and the applicant only. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Compaglia? COF341SSI0!!ER COt4PAGLIA: w'ell, I,'m in agreement that we should restrict the presentation to the fact that it is or is not in conformance with the general plan;,however, I feel• i t should be an open.hearing. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Milano? CO11MISSIONER MILANO: ttr. Chairman, I more or less agree with you. I think we would probably have to have a full-scale hearing on it anyway; so, I would agree with you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah, well , you all know hoar I feel . Mr. Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: !'r. Chairman, when it comes to a rezoning, one of the essential findings we have to make is that there is substantial acreement with the general plan. One of the reasons for holding public hearings is to thoroughly air -the proposal , the pros and cons of the application. I really think that we would be out of order if we tried to make a decision tonight whether or not this particular matter vias in accordance with the general plan. I think what we have to do is to decide that after the hear- ings have been held. Now, I'm willing to hear arguments just on this point; but, I an not going to say whether or not I think the project as a whole or the project as possibly subsequently amended is or is not a part of the general plan. 1 think that has to viait until all of the pedple have spoken on it and all elements have been considered and this* would be one of the final consider- ations before vie make a final determination on the application. CN1►IRh'Ai! JEHA: Thank you. Are you saying in your way what I have been say- �, ing? CoNVISSIONER YOUdG: No, I don't think so! fa CNAIRFtAiI JEHA: 111r. Anderson? COh�IiIS5I OiiER ANDEP.SOi!; 1!el'1 , I agree vii th Mr. Compagi i a and 11r. :li 1 ano. I think that vie should, for the benefit of all concerned, alle-d full public hearing on this matter as far as---limited to the discussion that we're talking about tonight. But, at the same time, I think we should have anybody who v:ants to speak, speak on this matter. CHAIRMAi! JEHA: On just the general plan? COMMISSIONER AUDERSON: Yes, on the general plan aspect. CHAIRMAA JEHA: Thank you. Dick? CON-IISSIONER HILDEBUND: fir. Chairman, I too feel that it's a very basic issue and that any input whether it be from the public, the staff or the applicant would be appropriate for us to base our decision on. Mr. Younq has raised a. very interesting point ,:hi ch is: How do ,•ie kno-,r whether it conforms to the general plan or not unless vie know specifically or enough about the project itself. I would agree that at the last meeting vie decided, what we decided, I still -- feel that we should hold to this, to have this meeting to base our decision on whether it conforms to the general plan or not. My point is , we need enough information to base this opinion and 1 feel it should come from all sides. CRAIRMA14 JEHA: We're trying to determine tonight whether it is or is not inconsistent with the general plan, you know, materially inconsistent because we will find when vie hear this whole matter, we will make findings as to its conformance to the general plan. That's after.the hearings of the 26th and probably six more hearings after that. What the staff is telling us tonight is that they recommend that vie should find this not consistent with the general plan and that vie don't have hear- 709 gs until we have general plan studies and revisions.' I MViSSIONEP, IiILDEBRAi�D: Well, at any rate, I feel it should be open to anyone Who wants to speak. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, all right, the majority of the Commission wants it open so•we will. I will ask the staff to make their presentation and then we will ask the Blackhawk people and anyone else who wants to speak on the subject. Novi, we're just talkinq about the general plan. S'e're not talking about the details of this specific planned unit development. Mr. Dehaesus, would you like to carry on. MR. DEHAESUS: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Commission can decide this evening, for instance, that the project is not consistent with the general plan; however, to make a decision, final finding that this is consistent with the general plan, that you would have to near out the entire application. I understand this is what you're saying?' CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah, all we' re saying tonight is---we're not saying that it �- t is, we''re just saying that there's enough evidence for us to make a dete nnin- ation that it is not substantially inconsistent with the general plan. MR. DEHAESUS: You vion't decide that it's consistent this evening; but, you may decide that it's inconsistent? CRAURI'.Aii .JEHA,: Yes. In other words, our action tonight is if make the find- ing that it's not substantially inconsistent with the general plan, vie continue with our hearings and at the end of the hearings, vrc make our findings. On the other hand, if are say it's inconsistent, there's no point in holdinq any hearings since we've already determined the outcore of this hearing at this point and tide have to go into general plan hearings.' That's airy I didn't want to get into full Bearings on this point since I don't think---I think it would be premature since that's the final thing vre're going to have to determine if vie go ahead with it over the course of the hearing. COi•tt•l. CONPAGLIA: I don't think are have to determine anything tonight, Mir. Chairman. CHAIPJ W4 JEHA: Okay. Well , let's go---you make your presentations and--- MR. DEHALSUS.: You have our materials on this subject. This evening, I %las handed a report by the applicant concernino some further arguments contrary to our position. I want to mention that because are have not had tire to re- view those arguments and I would say that just glancing through it, there are some things that we would like to talk to at some future time. I don't think---well , we could be prepared off the top of our heads; but, I viould rather be more prepared since this is an important issue as has been pointed out. To start off, I would like to ask Mr. Zahn of our department to present our position to you and following that, I would like to make additional comments. MR. ZAHU; Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Can you all see the cards we have on the easel? There are basically two reasons for entertaining a general plan review for an area. One is when a project is inconsistent with the general plan. Staff has given you a memorandum to the effect that project 1E40-RZ is inconsistent ►lith the General plan for this area and a substantial portion of my presentation will address itself to items that are found in that memorandum. � i he second reason for entertaining a aeneral plan review for an area is when here are unresolved development policy questions. .ole hope to bring out in the course of this presentation that there are a number of developrent policy questions existing in the vicinity of this proposed project; therefore, the general plan revievr of the area is in order. In this connection, I might note that a review of a development project is not an appropriate substitute for general plan -revie-,i inasmuch as the develop- ment project review addresses itself primarily to on-site considerations whereas , a general plan revievr would address itself to the context, the physical and serivice context in which a project lies. Now, one of the comments that has been made is that planned unit develop- ment 1840-RZ consi ti tutes a new tovin or a nevr community. Ey that, vre do not mean a 1arse self sufficient new town which would entail a population • larger than 18,000--- COI•'N. COINPAGLIA: Ilr. Chairman, if I may interject here a minute---where do you get this "nevi tov:n" business? The 6lackhavrk Ranch---it's the blackhawk Ranch. Let's refer to it in its proper context. I think that vie're talking about the alackhaik Ranch and if it constitutes a town, let's call it that; but, let' s not bring up something that has never been referred to before as • far as I 'm concerned. MR. DEHAESUS: Well , Mr. Chairman, I think this is some of our determination and I would like to have Mr. Zahn complete his staterent because to us, this is a new town; it's a new community; it requires those kinds of facilities. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well , what Mr. Compaglia iS meaning is that the terwinology "new town" in the planning verbalese is a new tovin, homes, recreation, commercial , industrial---something like some of the new towns that were built--- 14R. DEHAESUS: It's not planning verbalese. It's just simply what it says. The Blackhawk Ranch simply means that it's a ranch. CHAIRIIAN JEHA: Well , I don't aaree with that. I consider "new town" mean- ing a---to have a certain definition. 11.r. Compaglia is trying to say that in the way vie have been lead and educated by the many planners to believe what a new town i s, it's not what lir. Zahn .is referring to as a "nevi town". Is that what you're trying---- COI•74. COMPAGLIA: I just think that we are talking about a Blackhawk Ranch development with some 4,000 homes. flow, you put. this up here as "new town" and this is what--- C0101. ANDERSON: We11 ,Mr. Chairman, I think that what we're talking about--- 00101. COMPAGLIA: Well, maybe you think it but I don't. I CORI. ANDERSON: Well, I think that what we're talking' about is that we all realize that as the Chairman said, this is an adversary proceeding between the staff and the applicant and so this is the-staff's presentation---- CHAIRIIAN JEHA: Mr. Zahn, you were going to qualify what you meant as "new town". Would you go ahead and do that? MR. ZAHN: Yes, sir, if the term "near community" would help, are will use in nets community" instead. At any rate, the area we're -talking about is shown this map in the outline I 'm giving to you, approximately 4,800 acres of and; so, the size of the -site is under consideration. Population is another. If developed to the densities proposed; if this area were to be incorporated, at the present time, it would constitute a city and would be eleventh in size in Contra Costa County between Pinole and Martinez. Another aspect of it is that as a predominantly upper class, middle income community, providing a variety of housing, recreation, Golf courses, it's own shopping centers and to a limited extent, it's own employment office such as is proposed on the plan. Furthermore, it is at the present tine somewhat isolated by virtue of the State park to the north, agricultural preserves on the north, east, south and on -the vest; so; it' s this form of isolation combined with topograph, combined with population which lead us to indicate that this is, in effect, a new community in the San Ramon area. Now, in bringing up the matter of general plan compliance, it's well to ident- ify what- the general plan components are. Here, a:e are talking not so much about the 9 required elenents of the general plan but rather the area plans _.. that constitute together the general plan this project and its vicinity. In this connection, the project itself is shown on this card outlined in red. The area color by the San Ramon Area Plan adopted in 1967 is that to the west of the line indicating here. In other words, the property is bisected by that planning area boundary. To the south, below Camino Tassajara, is the San Ramon Area General Plan adopted in 1971 . As the Commission can see, this is, by and large, south of the project. The residual of this area, that indicated in three, is the 1963 land use and circulation plan, which plan in essence shovied this area up to the Alamo-Danville General Plan line as open space. Now, overlayed on this illustration is the boundary of the open space areas from the Open Space Conservation Plan adopted last June. I think it's apparent from this plan, from the overlay on here, the area sho',In in green and in comparison with the actual land uses shot-in on this cor.posito plan for the site, this color indicating open space, that in teres of the general . plan catagories effecting the site, the Open Space Conservation Plan with respect to area, spacial coverage, makes comparatively little difference. The plan that is really relevant .here is the Alamo-Danville General Plan and this project may be considered part of the Alamo-Danville General Plan and an extension of it, because as I said earlier, this was shown as open space. Onc of the considerations in preparing general plan compliance is population. The Alamo-Danville General Plan makes the statement to this effect, as part of the adopted text: The population of 50,000 is considered optimum for this area. A higher density, would of necessity, alter the character of the area considerably and would dictate a change in the objectives of the plan." CHAIRMAH JEHA: Who says that the 50,000 population is the optimum? What's . the basis for that? MR. ZAHN: The basis for the 50,000 is the various residential areas that are delineated in this Alamo-Danville General Plan. As to "who says", basically, it's your Commission and the Board in adopting that plan. 4AIR' VAW JEHA: I had a reason for askinn that question. As I read the heneral plan, the two plans since this project encompasses two general plan !areas, the population based on our general plan figures is something around :110-120,000. This- is where I want it clarified as to where you get 50,000. Are you talking just about the Alamo planning area and not considering the San Ramon Planning area? MR. ZAHN: I 'm not considering the San Ramon planning area which lies south of Camino Tassajara. I will point out again that this area is shown in open space; so, it's that area east of the area boundary line viould have very little population and area services. CHAIR14AN JEHA: Okay, the other question is' that when we were discussing the Open Space Plan, as you so well recall., the question of Blackhawk cane up and the Commission agreed that---well , some of us wanted to leave Blackhavik out of the Open Space plan and then it would be determined that if the border line of the open space plan went through a project, that the whole project could be considered as developable; so, I can't understand your rationale now in eliminating it completely and coming up viith sorre of your figures. It would seem to me that in considering Blacl:hat-ik Ranch, you're considering the whole project regardless of the planning areas because I think it flo%.is in two planning areas and if you were to take population figures, to be equit- able, you would be taking them from both planning areas. Your numbers and my numbers don't add up. MR. ZAHN: One would consider the population figures from the two planning areas; however, when areas are sho-an in open space,. there is very little net population to be considered. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes, but in using that argument, I think it is very inconsis- tent with the wishes of the Commission at the time vie discussed this whole question of open space and the Blackhawk Ranch. Messrs. Anderson and Stoddard unfortunately were not on the Commission at the time; but, we went through those tortuous nights and we were assured by Mr. Dehaesus, by yourself, that if a piece of property was bisected by this line, we could consider it as part of the developable area and the Blackhawk people were here asking to be eliminated out of it---I think the Board probably in- cluded it back in. MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, let me clarify my assurance to you,as you put it, of last June. The Planning Commission did send a recommendation to the Board drawing the open space line around and excluding the Blackhawk properties from open space. . o We did not recommend that; but, that's what the Commission adopted. This was . ;:• sent to the board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors took a different position. The Board of Supervisors drew a line through the middle of Black- hawk which indicated that a portion of Blackhawk was to be open space and a portion is to be developed. Now, which portions are to be accordingly allocated was to be determined through the public hearing process in the future. That was referred back to the Pianning Commission. The Planning Convission concurred with that position and that's what the open space plan is now. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah, but that doesn't imply, Mr. Dehaesus, that in terms of this type of hearing, the whole area that's on the other side of the--- MR. DEHAESUS: I'm simply clarifying what the Open Space Conservation document says, which has been officially adopted by the County. CHAIRMAN JEHA: I don't interpret it quite the same way you do; but, go ahead. MR. DEHAESUS: Well , I 'm sorry you disagree; but, that's the official position. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well , I mean that it implies that it can be heard and it can be considered and it's not to be completely--- MR. DEHAESUS: I think this is what I said, that through the public hearing process, you would determine which parts of Blackhawk would be open space and which part would be developable. CHAIRMAN JEHA: But you've left it out completely in your figures and that's what I 'm trying to ascertain. MR.• ZAHN: Mr. Chairman, I would further point out that there are a number of properties that are bisected-by the open space line including the Devil Mountain property and this project has a number of other considerations when one of the projects was being revievied was where the line would fall or actually fell , under development conditions.- Again, to go back to this point of population. %'he area plan frc..i which we • have figured this was part of the adopted text and is the 1967 area plan for Alamo-Danville which mentioned this 50,000 population figure. On the card I have on the easel , existing non-residential development is shoo-in in red, essentiall Alamo and Danville (indicating on map). Tile existing residential areas---keep in mind this is general and we have a more detailed land use map on tine wall which gives it in a parce)-by-parcel survey in 1970. Anyway, in 1970, these yellow areas shown on this card, were developed and they contain a population of approximately 21 ,000 in 1970. Since that tfime, there have been a number of projects that have core in to the office. Some of these have been approved; some are up for consideration. The larger of these are shown in the brown color on this map. If the housing units represented in those projects---if these projects were all developed---the persons per household figure was 3.57, which is the present average of this entire area, one would add approximately another 15,000 people through. those. The Blackhawk Ranch proposal would have or add approximately another 15,000. In other words, we are up to that 50,000 figure already for which this plan is based and there is very subtantial area yet undeveloped shot-in on the general plan for residential use. Furthermore, there are areas within the solid colors that are undeveloped. I would indicate.again that the population • figure on which the present general plan is based is already being exceeded. Now, in terms of the land area involved in the general plan considerations, �he present general plan categories could indicate low density residential indicating) in this yellow color, this in the Alamo-Danville General Plan is qualified as 1-3 units per net acre. The areas that are shown in the hatched colors, are all range expansion areas. These were areas that were to be reconsidered at such a time as they became ripe for development. There are those kinds of areas in the plan then there are the areas shown as open space and here one may have their choice of plans either the most recent Open Space Conservation Element or the preceding plans for the area. On the generalizing of the land use proposals and not considering the density for the moment, on the Blackhawk proposal , one would find development extend- ing diagonally throughout the project area. In other words, an extension of about 2 miles or more over where the present line between open space and development is now shown on the general plan. The staff would consider 2 miles to be a substantial change in concept. In addition, the Blackha•dk proposal sho-as approximately 35 acres at these two locations for office and commercial use. It may well be that com.paratively Targe shopping areas are appropriate to a development of this size. The Point is that these are in themselves large areas and in no way accounted for in the present general plan. Next, there is the matter of slope cata,-ories. In addition to the usual general plan provisions covering densities within residential areas , the Alamo-Danville General Plan makes reference to the densities related to 3 slope categories. In the areas shown in yellow on this map, we're talking about areas that are under 201 in slope and 'nere in the Alamo-Danville Gen- eral Plan, it indicates that where othe raise appropriate to the context, the density range in this area should be from 1-3 units per net acre. It goes on to say that "where feasible, that in the areas of higher slope, that 0-2 units per net acre would be appropriate." This does not mean a mid-range of 1 . It means that the development densities are keyed to slope. We have in this area (indicating) some areas of moderate slope. These are shown in the brown color on the map. These are areas from 20-25% slope. We have further shown on this map, areas of 26% or greater slope. Whether you- pick 26N or 30a, generally, in those slope ranges---slopes above those ranges , land is considered to be developable, undevelopable rather in the normal sense. I thing, you can see that a great proportion of the are4 that we're concerned with in the project and in portions of its vicinity, are of these very high slope areas. In other words , the kind of densities that may be appropriate in unit count or may be appropriate for any given project must be considered in the light of these slope categories. To relate the project's proposals of density to the area general plans and specifications, recall that slope of densities in 1-3 units per net acre and 0-2 units per net acre for the area we're talking about. The project under review shows the areas that we have colored yellow on this map, density ranges from three tenths of the unit to 2.5 units per net acre. In other words, generally the kind of thing that was being talked about in • the area plan. It also shows in the light brown color areas where densities would.be from 7-14 units per net acre. Further, it shows some additional areas, the dark brown color on this map, where densities would be in the vicinity of 20 units per net acre. An important aspect of general plan project relationships is services. Be- cause the kind of project that is being discussed is not that which is in- dicated on the plan map, the text of the plan does not go into detail with respect to schools , utilities, roads, etc. However, these are considerations in relating the project to the general plan. I would like to give a few comments with respect to the utility situation. On this map, the project boundary is that which I 'm indicating with the pointer. Now, first of all , with respect to sewage service, the present area served by the Central Sanitary District is shote on this map in the -green color and because sewer expenses are what they are, this area pretty much corresponds to the present area being served. At the present time, there is a small sewer main of approximately 8-inches at this location (indicating). There is another in the vicinity of Sycamore Road of approximately 15-inches in diameter. Now, normally, the flow of a sewer system i.s by gravity. Let's briefly con- sider the effect of the extensions of this system into the project area on the drainage basins in this vicinity. First of all , the Green Valley drainage basin on the northwiest. This area is essentially served by Central Sanitary District at the present time. It adjoins ti--c Sycamore drainage basin. Presumably, as development would be extended on the project, one would then pick up that drainage basin. Both of these basins flow into Walnut Creek. At the present time, too, with the boundary of this district, is the limits -- "` of the present published plan of that utility district; however, as service would be extended easterly, one pic'•s up the Alamo drainage basin and the Tassajara drainage basin, basins which normally flow into Alameda Creek, granted again that sewage can be pumped; but, one is also opening up areas through the extension of those services. With respect to the water utilities, at the present time, there is one small water line on the property. The area shown in blue, although not providing service with that exception is in East Bay Miur'cipal Utility District, b;hether a district should be annexing land in advance of development is one of the questions that is now being faced up to in various parts of the country although we have an existing situation herd'. I would like to point out that an extension of these utilities partic-ilarly as major utilities might be extended along Camino Tassajara, opens up large new areas to development . In other words , one doesn't consider this project in isolation but in the context to areas being opened up. The areas below 26% slope are shown on this map in yellowy. There is *for example, an area of about 1 ,000 acres undeveloped at this location (indicating on map). Another 1 ,000 acres at this location (indicating); another 1 ,000 acres shove here (indicating) , and it goes on. So, the extension of utilities into this -- area would open up new areas for development and in other words ; there are some very substantial development policies involved there. Finally, there is not only the metter of our general plan but the regional plans. Since the matter of- the relationship between the number of housing • units proposed by the developer and the Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Element has been brought up, one might also consider the relation- . s ship to the most basic part of the Regional Plan which. is the land use element adopted some time ago. Now, this land use plan is more general than ours, appropriately so. It in- dicates predominantly residential development and community center develop- ment in South San Ramon, Danville, Alamo. area along I-680. It shows an area indicated on this plan in stripes that of controlled development. Many people looking at the map only and ,not perusing the tela would say that this means a planned unit development or review of a development plan or something ike this. It does not according to the terms of the text. hat it says is that this area should be considered for post 1990 develop- ment. Finally, there is the remainder of the area in green shown as permanent open space. The location of the project site is shown in the striped technique on this map and only a portion of it covers the area shown for development, most of it is in the area shown for post 1990 development and the remainder of it is in the area shown for permanent open space. Many other aspects of this project with relationship to the general plan that could be mentioned; but, I think perhaps this is enough at the present time and I would be happy to answer any of the Commission's questions. Thant: you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, Mr. Zahn. Are there any questions of Mr. Zahn? C0114. ANDERSOH: I have a question. On that map that you have in the middle there , I'm not sure---I can't recall right now; but, as I recall , the applicant's view of the amount of slope over 265 is not in agreement with yours. I may be wrong; but, somehow, I think their position is different. Is it? MR. Z0111 It may well be different. We utilized the materials that were supplied by the consultant for the environmental impact report. We used the materials developed in our own office. It is granted that this is cen- eralized; but, I think that you will find that the areas shown generally correspond to those areas of higher slope. COMM. ANDERSON: Yes, but they have indicated that they are building only on lands with no more than 25%. Is that correct? MR. ZAHN: They have indicated that they are building on the lower slope areas; but, what we are discussing here first is the calculation of allowable units and its relationship to the statements in the Alamo-Danville General Plan as to the permissible number of units per acre related to slope. There tends to be the situation where one takes the acreage of the gross acreage of project and---dell , one unit for each acre---the land is reason- ably level , rolling, etc. , but where one has very high areas of slope, these would not develop into one acre lots in the normal circumstance and one should not be considering such gross measures of permittable densities. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Are there any other questions? COE.M. ANDERSON: Is this the staff's complete presentation? CHAIRMAN JEHA: No, I think Mr. Deheasus wanted to make some comments. ,. MR. DEHAESUS: Yes. Thank you. I really appreciate your consideration! _ First of all , I understand---I think in view of the presentation that we have just made through 11r.Zahn, I think it's pretty clear that our decision in this matter was not done in a few minutes, a few days or a few weeks; that this has been given considerable consideration; but, I would want to point out rather clearly that all that ;.;e are discussing here and all that we are pointing out to the Commission is the general plan question, the relationship of this particular development to the general plan; that this has been considered for quite some tire. I e bring this up to you now since this is a fact in our own minds that this kind of development was not anticipated by the general plan. I think we have to raise this issue and vie have to present this to the Commission this way so that all the points are considered in- this respect. As I said at the original presentation, this is the largest development that the County has had before it. It will create quite an impact on the valley, and when I talk about impact, I 'm talking about the external effects of this development and I 'll repeat again that the General Plan did not anticipate this and we're not just talking about the Blackhawk Ranch or the 15,000 people it may generate; we're talking about all the other factors involved here and what this would induce in the area. If the plan 'had anticipated this kind of development, it would have so in- dicated through the text and through the map which is part of the general plan. In this regard, vie will also be-going into the environmental impact report and the project itself and I don't think that we could consider this as just another subdivision as some people would like to have us think and it has been pointed out that why can't ►;e just start out with 100 units or so and that would be in compliance with the general plan. - Let me tell you that 100 units out here would require us to look at the entire area in anticipation of all the other units that 100 units would beget and I 'm talking about the 4, 5, 6 or 7,000 units. I think we would really be remiss if we did not take this into consideration in the general plan review and consider vilidt the total impact of this develop- ment would be and revise the plan accordingly if that be the order. The question here as I pointed out is the general plan question and it's not the project question. I think that has to be very clearly distincuished .be- eause if vie do get into the general plan question, it may very we-11 be that this area mioht be identified for some development and maybe for some develop- ment as proposed; but, that has to be well determined and well described and well anticipated in terms of what its impact will be on the area and accord- ingly all the services and facilities, etc. , sbould be at hand, which are not. in this case. As I said, I briefly have gone through the statement presented to you today and to me this evening and there are a number of errors in that and some mis-statements of fact which we would want to discuss with you a little more later on. 1 think our memorandum on this is fairly clear and covers the points that and do not make the situation any easier. These are the issues and these are the points that -have to be considered and I think the Commission and its res- ponsibility should take this kind of view and take a look at it. ,• C0101. ANDERSON: Since this application has been submitted since last June t, or July and since direction of the Board of Supervisors cane some time last c — year, why wasn't a general plan review instigated a little sooner than this coming April? MR. DEHAESUS: It's a question of scheduling, primarily. There are other studies going on in the county that had to be completed or fairly v,ell com- pleted before we could get on to this one. It's just a question of work- load, staff, etc. , and vie now find ourselves in this position. ith regard to the B1 ackhavik development, the apil i cati on vias submitted last fall . It has been .discussed, talked around for about a year prior to its submittal ; there have been a lot of local meetings and a lot of people thought the applicant had been submitted but it viasn't. We had some prelin;inary dis- cussions with the applicant and I might say that we pointed out to the appli- cant some of the problems involved in this development; so, he viell knew that situation. As a matter of fact, vie put it to him rather simply in some cases and lie then proceeded to review it with the people locally and discuss it with them. A lot of these discussions tool; place without benefit of the environmental impact report which is now before the CorLnission andaithout benefit of the entire project being displayed. The hearings are now taking place and we've had other projects ahead of this as you know since you've been here for many long evenings. Well , these begin to sound like excused but -they're really not. The environ- mental impact report has taken some time to produce. Itnyaay, since the matter of the application has been submitted, I think i.t is before you in good time. COMM. ANDERSON: So , you advised them almost immediately then about the pro- blem of the general plan? 1.1R. DEHAESUS: lie didn't put it quite that way. We put it another way. I think they understood. I don't viant to quote and unquote. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Are there any other questions of Mr. Dehaesus? (110 further questions were directed to Mr. Dehaesus). All right, will the Blackhavrk people startvrith their cormnents. Again, let me remind you that we're talking about the question ti:Ilether there's sufficient evidence for this Commission to make a determination whether this project is not inconsistent with the general plan and vie .don't viant to get involved on the merits of your subdivision as such but on its relationship to the general plan. MR. WILLIAM MORSE, 401 tlinor Road, Orinda, California. We agree that the question is conformance with the general plan. We just don't agree with { Mr. Dehaesus on the answer. 1 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Would you give your name, please. 11R. MORSE: Yes , my name is Bill Horse, I'm executive vice president of Black- hawk Corporation, the developer in this case. need to be considered, Also, I think it should be very carefully pointed • I out that as part of the Board approval of the Open Space Conservation Plan last year, that one of its instructions was that a review of the area of the San Ramon General Plan take place especially in regard to the growth that has been going on and has been anticipated. This we are about to do and it will take some time although I hope not too much of an extended time period because there are a lot of problems that need to be resolved in the valley and develop- ments like this certainly don't make it any easier to resolve the problems and if developments like this is to take place, then it should be integrated and coordinated and brought into the general plan process so that all the problems that this will bring out may be properly identified and hopefully resolved. Again, there seems to be some indication that maybe we have prejudiced vievi about this or a biased view; but, let me tel-1 you here that our intentions are purely objective and we want to see that this is done on an objective basis and proceed along those lines. Again, I think we would be remiss not to point these things out to you, But, I feel that up to this point, it is fairly clear of what needs to be done and I hope that the Planning Commission agrees. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, Mr. Dehaesus. Vie will now hear from the audience and I would like to have the Blackhavik people speak first. COMM. ANDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question of Mr. Dehaesus about when in his opinion would a general plan review commence and how long would it take? MR. DEHAES'1S: We viould schedule it to commence in April and through this month vie will be selecting a committee. Ile expect to complete that this week. We will be inviting the people to participate in this citizens' committee and vie expect to have our first meeti nq in April and vie expect to proceed on a monthly basis and perhaps more often than a monthly basis until completed. We expect to expedite the program; but, I think that as you know, in a review of the general plan, it viould be for the entire valley. Questions may be developed which viould extend the discussions and even some controvercial points 'may develop and, of course, this would take more time to resolve. We do expect to have some full-blown discussions regarding the valley and in, some cases, we may take some positions that viould create a whole lot more discussion so that these points are raised. Hopefully, vie think we can resolve it within a year's time. As you know, a lot of general plan reviews take a littlq. more time than that. The reason I say this is 'vie expect to push it' because of the problems in the valley and because of the pending development that is being requested. Whether this development is to proceed or not, we don't feel that these people should be.delayed too long in getting answers to their questions. The growth has been one of the highest in the area; it's been upwards of 10% for quite some time now and since 1940 its doubled every 10 years and in one 10 year period, it went considerably higher than that. But, if you compare this with average county growth which is about 3%, you can see that we need to take a whole new look at the valley and determine %,there its direction ought to go. This development and other developments would make the problem that much more I mould like to respond to 6 couple of the points that Tony said here at the end. One is---I think it was tor. Anderson's question about why something i � hadn't been done insofar as the study was concerned when the Supervisors had directed him and his staff to do it. He said they were busy on other things but I don't know of any other study that the supervisors directed them to do. If they were doing them, I would think that they would have done thein at that time. Secondly, our proposal was submitted in July and not in the fall---on July 25th after a number of conferences before the submittal which vie held with staff to determine their feelings about it. At no time was the question of our compliance or non-compliance with the general plan raised and I think that Fir. Dehaesus tust said that to you also. e have addressed ourselves to the question this evening and that is really were we expected or are we a neer town. I mean, does the general plan antici- Pate the development of Blackhawk, population, density- services, etc., and that's what we're addressing ourselves to this evening. First, I would like to call upon our attorney Dan Van Voorhis to go into some of the details of what is the general plan. Everybody talks about the general plan; well , let's now find out what is the general plan so then we can talk about whether or not we comply. Dan, would you please--- DANIEL VAN VOORHIS, Attorney, 1325 Locust Street, Walnut Creek, California, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm representing Blackhawk. We have prepared a number of---vie don't have the money that staff does; so ours are just typed and blown up and they don't shove up very well ; but, anyway, we have copies of 'em to distribute around. (Copies of this material men- tioned viere distributed to each commissioner by fir. Morse). CHAIR"AN JEHA: Are you going to refer to that chart? If so, viould you use the hand microphone so that everyone can hear what you say. Thank you. MR. VAN VOORHIS: Ah, at this time, we're going to flip it and I have a copy before me and if you don'tnind, it would be better for me because like to spread out here. Preliminarily, I would like to indicate a couple of thoughts we' re intend- ing to address ourselves precisely to the questions raised by staff and a lot of time this evening was spent admonishing everyone to confine themselves to what the general plan is and what it is not and the basic thrust of our argument is about 95% of staff's discussion had to do with everything else by,the general plan. Unfortunately, two members of this body are new; but, five are not. You were here at the time of the open space hearings. As a matter of fact, at the last hearing, I distributed to this body a resolution or copy of the minutes at the time you passed the open space plan. Fir. Dehaesus indicated this evening that at the time you passed it, it was your intention to allow the whole of the blackhaw k property to develop and I believe that was his statement but that the Board changed that. flow, if you will review back to the precise resolution on the evening in question, what you will find out is that Mr. Art Shelton made the resolution setting } forth the rule which we have- set forth---4layne, I'm sorry; I'm skippinq ahead, • but rule on Page r3. This is the resolution made by Mr. Art Shelton, former Commissioner. This rule reads as follows which has reference to the '63 plan which you people thought should be the base plan to operate under. 1 "It is expressly understood that the lines defining open space are imprecise when a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open space, the entire parcel may be considered for development to the same extent that it would have been had the landholding lain entirely outside of tire line defin- ing open space." Now, I admit I am an attorney; but, I can't figure any reason in the world other than the reason that this body had for that language. b!e were here. There were dozens appearing here; there ti•rere dozens of hearings before the Board and as far as -we're concerned, the plain meaning of that language is that this body unanimously with the support of the Sierra Club and tiie San Ramon Valley Planning Committee voted to allow the Blackhawk project to pro- ceed. As far as I'm concerned, the courthouse is rocking at this tire because staff, in our judgement, was disappointed in the outcome. They didn' t like it. They wanted us colored green at first, yellow later---yellow r,eaning study---they didn't like it. So, what are they doing? As far as I'm concerned, they are unilaterally atter,ating to amend an order of this body and/or the Board of Supervisors.- Specifically, on the day that the open space issue was voted on by the Board � of Supervisors , Supervisor Warren Boggess specifically asked ..r. Tony Deliaesus the'question: "Will this rule inserted by Mr. Shelton allow Blackhawk to proceed?" Answer: "Yes" Now, we've got another result and as far as we'r.: concerned, this really is . the bottom line. Now, I'd like to go back and talk about the Blackhawk plan as it reslates to the General Plan, and, by the way, the language that Mr. lia-v,'ki ns has pulled there is part of the general plan of this County and specifically, we have to go back in time. Mayne, to the 1963 plan, which is i•lap 0:1 that we have shown there and on this map. On this map, you will see, in yellow-- actually, the open space line and just for contrast, the brown line, . is the area sliarn for development. The next thing that happened a:as in 1961, the Alamo-Danville General Plan was reviewed. Then, the open space line was expanded to include all of t;ie area within that area. The line was pushed over to the edge. The people in Alamo- Danville, the only part of our property that they had anything to say about, classified it allow low-density residential. Novi, for reasons which aren't totally clear' to us, Area #9 didn't include us and Area r8 didn't include us. 1-!e're in no-man's land; but, neverthe- less, the one part of our land which was adequately dealt with by the people was, indeed, classified as low-density residential. The next thing that happened, and this perhaps is where we net back to the open space rule, is that the open space plan of 1973 was passed unanimously by this body and by the Board of Supervisors over staff's protestations, • of course! That rule that I referred to earlier in effect extended the theoretical open-space line as indicated. Again, by virtue of the rule that says "when a given land holding is bisected by the line, the whole project may be considered for development to the same extent it would have been had it lain entirely outside the line definiing open space." Now again to re-emphasize, I can't imagine what possible reasoning for that language there was other than to extend the designation of log-density resi- dential over the whole property. I didn't think that this body intended to color us white, pink or some other color. We had a big yellow map up here a'nd this body as a matter of fact at one time literally had us in yellow ¢ntirely. Staff suggested that perhaps the better thing to do was to have la definitional rule and Mr. Art Shelton came up with an literally read into :the record that rule; so, I think any suggestion that there was any change in that rule between this body and the Board of Supervisors is just not the the fact. Okay, the next thing that happened, and perhaps I should go back an indicate this: This property was purchased by Blackhavik in 1972. They added a piece in April of 1973, which was about 800 of the 4,800 acres which was the McGill property and by Court order, that ;ale was final in April 1973. The purpose for that addition was to allow for access to Tassajara Road. In any case, this was prior to the adoption of the open space plan. Going back then, in time, the Blackhawk people and myself approached County staff with reference to the plan and, frankly, from the beginning, there was opposit- ion. It has never really been articulated, quite candidly other than they -; wanted us to go away and I 'm sure there are many people in the audience that share this view. Interestingly enough, there are many people who do not. In any case, staff in effect came up with the open space plan of i-larch 1973, which in effect colored the entire bIackhawk property green notwithstanding the '63 plan. They just said none of it shall develop prior to 1980. We submitted an application to this body and renewed it before the Board of Supervisors again with 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 hearings. Commissioner Youno was heard to exclaim that there probably have been no more discussions over a matter than this open space hearing. Staff made all its good arguments about utilities, drainage, ABAG and all of those kinds of things; then, the long and the short of it, this body again decided that it didn' t want to go that way; that it didn't want to,.go with staff. As a matter of fact, the reason it didn't want to go with staff is because staff had a theory which was that they were going to have everyone and all the groath in Contra Costa County jammed in next to everybody else and the people that live in tiie County and the people that vote on this Board and the Board of Supervisors didn't think that was a good idea. Whether they want to change it or not, that's fine and maybe they should; but, I believe it's staff who should ask for a change of the general plan not us becuase thatt the general plan. r In any case, we filed our plan in July 1973 and i!r. Hawkins will show you the effect of the plan vis-a-vis open space. The long and the short of it is---by the way, the orange area shows the total developing area. As a matter of fact, there are considerable portions of open space within the so- i called developing portion. As a matter of fact, the E.I.R. says---this is one thing staff doesn't disagree with---73% of our project is in open space and we can't find anything more consistent with the open space plan than this. Everybody talks about open space but we're doing something about it. Basically then---I should, perhaps, go back but I had to, I believe, get down to what I believe is the bottom line. Either this Commission believes that it amended the Open Space Plan to allow us to go or it didn't and if it did, then we are consistent with the general plan. If it did not, then we are not consistent and I that that's a very simple question and I think the record speaks for itself. In any case, the---oh, yes, one collateral matter also. The Board of Super- visors did not direct a study of the San Ramon Valley as it related to the General Plan. I have a copy of the Board resolution in my brief case and If Mr. Dehaesus or anyone would like to see it---what the Board of Supervisors asked the Planning Commission to do---and, by the way, this was requested by the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee---is that the people of the valley as well as people in most urban areas are more concerned about open space as it relates to them physically, personally; neighborhood parks, that hill where my kids play, etc. Staff's great open space plan didn't even speak to it; didn't have anything to do with it. So, the Board of Supervisors in response to the Valley Planning Committee, who waw this issue, and the Board reacted by saying: "Study open space and do something about open space with- in the urban area ..,,here people are. It -doesn't do much good to save the side of a hill if nobody's ever going to see it and use it. Save it for the people." • In any cast- , the principal legal issue before you this evening---by the way, I agree with what ultimately has core out of here---first of all , I think all ' legal opinions with regard to this matter should ultimately be decided by County Counsel and nottheAdvance Planning Section or anyone else. It . should be decided by County Counsel . But, my view is that the law is quite clear in requring that this body have before it all of the evidence and all of the facts and all of the conditions before it can make a determination on the question of general plan compliance. • 1 appreciate and agree with Mr. Jeha's idea that it would be nice to have some preliminary indication; but, nevertheless, we don't see how this body can decide that question until all of the evidence is in, including but not limited to, conditions which may change the plan itself. In any case, therule of law, by the way, stuff has dropped this argument. Thetis been a lot of argument about agreement. Everything in the world has to be in agreement for a general plan, !;ell , that just isn't the law. The law is as in your second chart, pardon re, the first chart is the la:•,, applic- able to planned unit developments. Basically, the law in Contra Costa really hasn't changed very much because for some time now your PUD Ordinance, Sect- ion 84-64.002 has required all PUD's be in substantia-1 compliance with the general plan. Everyone or a lot of people would have you believe that there's been a profound mandate from the State of California; but, there hasn't been much of a change because you had to find ,and the Board has had to find sub- stantial compliance with the general plan in every single PUD that you have passed. The next chart pertains to consistency and this is what the State law did mandate and basically, what it says is that zoning must be consistent with the general plan. Okay, now that's where that ordinance stopped prior to 1973 but in 1973, at the request of the League of California Cities, an I emergency amendment was passed to add the language that is on the printed page. Basically, what it says, the printed language, and this is the legis- lative definition of what consistency is, it says: "A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the general plan if the various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies , general land use and programs specified in the plan." Ithink that's a very important point. They don't talk about a one-on-one ratio. They talk about "compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses." This was, as I understand it, submitted because some planning departments viere running about believing that "consistent" meant equal , in agreement, etc. , so the League of California Cities sponsored this amendment. Basically, it is my personal view that the reason staff finds this project not complying with the general plan has to do with basically four points: Point #1 is the point referred to previously pertaining to compliance. We believe that vie are generally in compliance with the general plan, that vie are substantially in compliance with the general plan. We don't have a one-on-one ratio; but, vie think we are very close. The second reason we believe the staff is amiss on this general plan analysis is, again, and this goes to Chart r3, Mayne, it's refusal to recognize the effects of the language that this body passed t-iith reference to defining the open space line, i .e. , that the land split by the open space line viould be deemed dev(•.lopable in its entirety just as though it were outside the line. The third major error which vie believe has lead staff amiss , is failure to completely apply this particular situation, the concept of the planned unit development. On Chart #4, we select another important piece of language out of the 1973 open, space plan and this language to sum it up says that---vial l , w:;t w perhaps I should read it: "There are areas v;ithin the urban grovith area for which the conventional sub- division of land is inappropriate. These areas generally include significant woodlands, steep hillsides and hazardous geological areas all of %ihich require a special degree of sensitivity in site planning and development. The planned unit district approach should be encouraged for those areas." It is our contention that this language in your general plan now, and it is in your general plan, that element is as much a part of your general plan as any other language that you will find because it was processed as an arrendment to the general plan, that language encourages planned unit districts. As a matter of fact, we believe it goes farther to incorporate, in effect, by reference, the spirit and intent of the planned unit district ordinance. The ways of computing densities, the uses, etc. The next Chart, #5, we believe is probably the most interesting or one of the most interesting. This is a comparison of alackhawk with other PUD's and low- density residential areas in this County approved by this body and in which no general plan change was required. Starting at the top, we have the Orinda- woods project. Very famous! There was 2.3 dwelling units to the net acre. Okay, no general plan change was required. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in speaking on that case, ruled in a very off-handed way---I'm not even sure if they realty ruled on- it; but, just slid right over the general plan question and found no problem whatsoever with the fact that they were using a PUO with transfer densities that netted more and all this kind of baloney. The basic fact of the matter is as the Supreme Court recognized, the concept of the PUD with transfer densities and that's better than I thought are were going to do. Tte next one is Tribros-Scott which is also---and the next three are in the Alamo-Danville area---and, by the way, these are all hill areas; these are J'ike ourselves, 2.4. Whitegate, approved without a general plan change, 1 .6; Devil Fountain, 1 .3 and I suppose this is why staff might not want to talk about our plan; but, we come in at 1 .1 units to the acre; so, therefore, if this is true---and there may be a slight mathematical error here and there; but, are've gone over it several times and I think it safe to say that Black- hawk is probably the lowest density PUD ever. attempted in this County. Projects recently approved on land of 25% slope and under in comparison to Blackhawk, and this is also a rather interesting chart, and this talks about land which is essentially flat and it's not fair to co m pare them on a one-tO- one ratio because our land is not flat. As a matter of fact, our land is rather irregular. Later on, yoj will see, fir. Horse will present Mr. Odaffer with a slope study which staff did not have available to work with, which is a literal measuring of the slope of every foot of ground in the Clackhawk PUD. That slope study will show that we have 2,099 acres of land below 255q, and if you figured our density based on 'that, it would come out .to 2.17 units per acre ; so, if you arere to compare this with the Bishop Ranch, Sycamore, Kaufmann & Broad, Gentry, etc. , you would find generally speaking that our--- not only generally speaking, in all cases, our density is significantly lover than any of those projects compared to flat land and that's giving us absolutely .__ no credit for any of our hill areas, zero credit, forget about our hill areas. We will let the people on tit. Diablo enjoy that. The fact of the -ma tter is, forgetting about our hill areas, considering our flat land only, we net out at---gross out at 2.17 which is belovi that of all other projects approved. The one question I have on the general plan is the Bishop Ranch and even excluding that, it's so closely average it doesn't make any difference. The next chart which is very, very interesting, is a direct quote from this staff which has to do with this staff's computation of densities pursuant to its passage or pursuant to its writing the environmental impact report on the Devil i,ountain project. As you know, staff was very, very upset about Devil Mountain and fought them all the gray; but, 'interestingly enough, here's what appears in the staff generated environmental impact report; to alit: "The project falls within an area designated low desnity residential" which really is exactly what are are in the same planning area, everything else, okay. The maximum zoning permitted in this designation is P,-15. Ikay, fine, which . is a maximum density factor of 2.9 dwelling units to 'the gross acre. If you take our desnity or our gross acreage of 4,800 and multiply it by •2.9, you come out with about 12-14,000 units. Of course, we' re not asking for that; but, that's what the staff's analysis at-that time which was just 6 months ago and staff at that time made the point that that's hoar you figure densities under the general plan. Obviously, we're getting some new rules. They might be good rules; but, they are not in the general plan and they've not been used before. All right, now the--- CHAIRMAN JEHA: I think, Mr. Van Voorhis, just to set the record straight, what the staff was saying was that in R-15 Zoning, you could conceivably get , 1,440 units or whatever it is, not that you should or that you would--- MR. VAN VOORHIS: Oh,. I agree. Oh, I'm very sorry about that. In fact, I should have read the rest of the quote which is: "...consideration must be given to the fact that most of the site is not developable due to steep slopes, therefore, a lower density than the average allowed for in the general plan appears more appropriate." The point I'm making here tonight is not anything other than what the general plan is. I 'm not saying that it shouldn't have been lower on that one and it syouldn't have been lower on us; but, yourpoint is well taken, Mr. Jeha. The next major error, and I think it's a very large error, which staff has engaged in and I don't direct this at Mr. Dehaesus because he has to delegate things to people to work things over or at anyone in particular. When I talk- about errors, I suppose they are made in good faith or done for a cause they believe is right. The fact is, they're still errors. In any case, probably the major final set of errors that occur in staff analysis and which was rampant throughout her. Zahn .s very effective presentation, is that staff wants to read into the general plan a tremendous number of rules , policies and objectives that just aren't part of •your general plan. tle've not phased growth; we've got timing growth; we've got stopping growth v,,hen new to%•rns show up; we've got all sorts of rules; but, they aren't in there and I defy staff to pull 'em out. They are always implied and these lands of things; but, they're not in there. If they want to have that be the general plan, then they ought to propose to this body and the Board of Supervisors that the•general plan be changed. but, for no:-), we' re talking about this general plan for this county, for this time and it reads the way we' ll show you here and nothing about r.�w to%ins. As far as the new to:•rn concept goes, I don't have an accurate assessment of '. the precise number of units that this body here has passed within the last 5 years or the Board has passed within the same period of tine. But, I would suppose that it would male up several new towns , ten times bigger than Blackhavik. I suppose staff would have us believe that a 100 unit subdivision which totals 5,000 units, after they've approved 50 or 500 of them is of less impact than one well-planned subdivision. We submit that the contrary is the case; but, in any event, there's nothing in your general plan about ne%i toon- ism, including but not limited to the fact1that vie don't believe that they've got the definition right. In any case, the key thing to do is to talk about the general plan language and its unfortunate in these remarks I've had to spend so much time talking about other than the general plan language because it's rather simple, really. But, the necessity for this arose in my view out of the errors of staff. The 7th chart is a compilation of the objectives of the various plans which are applicable and just for review purposes and to refresh you, Planning Area 08 runs, includes about 1 ,950 acres and on the other side is covered under the '63 plan which is the residual plan, that is in effect Z,COO acres. I don't intend to read all the policies and objectives and principles set forth in your general plan. But, I would suggest that generally speaking, it con- .. tains a very strong statement of providing quality housing for people; it fully anticipated growth in the central area; it fully anticipated that Walnut Creek and the San Ramon Valley would grow as they have grown. In any case, those are the current policies and objectives of our general plan and if somebody wants to change them, they perhaps should; but, v►e're talking about this general plan now. The next Chart, #8, is to show you the intent of the planned unit district which we contend the intent of which has been incorporated into your general plan by virtue of the open space plan which says that in hill areas, you ought to use the PUD. Well , I don't know whose PUD they %.,,ere talking about other than your PUD so they must have intended to• incornorate the intent of the PUD: so, Chart ?8 then shows the intent and purpose of the County PUD. It is rec- ognized that a large scale integrated development provides an opportunity for a cohesive design where flexible regulations are applied; whereas, the appli- cation of conventional regulations designed primarily for individual lot de- velopment to a large-scale development may create a ronotinous and stultifying neighborhood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationships of various uses, building structures, etc. This is the PUD as you know it; as you've been applying it; this is the PUD we' re applying • for and I think that's enough said. The next is Chart #9, which is generally a little more specificity on the uses permitted in the PUD and, perhaps, the final chart that I have this evening, Mr. Worse, Vice President of the company and also an attorney will speak to you further on some density coi;putations. My function at this particular time is to explain to you what the general plans---there are two applicable here---say about ho,► we' re supposed to compute densities and the 1963 General Plan provides for 0-3 families per net acre. i. Very simple. Ile have 2,240---I 'm not sure that's richt---okay, I have checked--- Oh,, I see, that's 2,240 net acres---Alamo-Danville General Plan 1 ,967 units and it says "valley floors under 20%) should range from 1-3 per net and areas over 200' should -rarge from 0-2. Ve••y simple. So, if you're under 20%, 1-3. If you're over 20'a where developable, where develop rent is feasible, you are in the classification of 0-2. By the way, there's one thing that seems to have gotten confused in the pro- cess with the term "per net acre". As used in this County, it means that you take the gross acreage and you subtract a figure---roads , schools, commercial , etc. , and then divide your density into that and that is "net acres." That is how it has been used in this County for years. As a matter of fact, the PUD Ordinance memorialized this method of computing of densities. All right, then, the analysis of slope and %the computation of number of acres , Mr. Morse will work with you on that. I have one other thing and that is the commercial. Lot of talk has been had as how we can have commercial in a low density residential area. Frankly, it's our position that it is wholly consistent with the PUD concept to pro- vide neighborhood commercial as a convenience to people; to cut dorm on traffic and all of the other purposes for which one night have neighborhood commercial . If our general plan is so inflexible as to now alio-a 1% of the entire acreage of this project to be devoted to neighborhood commercial , then I think the term "substantial compliance" is meaningless. It's our view of the Government Code which specifically allows for uses so long as they are compatible with the general land uses of the plan may be allot•►ed. We feel a small amount of commercial of this nature is clearly within those limits. So, having established the concepts of principally of. transfer density as we • find it in your open space plan and as is decided in the Orindawoods case, we will then proceed to go into the density computations. Thank you very much. (Charts referred to during this presentation were not presented for the record). CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, Mr. Van Voorhis. Are there any questions of Mr. Van Voorhis? (tto questions were directed to Mr. Van Voorhis by the Commiss- ii ners). t RJIORSE: Gentlemen, I 'm sorry we had to go into that, legal gobbledygook; but, e needed to show what is the general plan. Now, we are going to get into whether or not what-we are proposing complies with that general plan. Back to the basic question now amid that is: Were vie expected---does the general plan anticipate that this land would be developed with the type of density, the number of units, the number of'people, etc. , on it. First, I'd like to talk about density. and I 'd like to have Gary come up here, please. In order to determine what you build and where you build it, you need a slope classification map. We looked at the one the County had done which Mr. Anderson questioned and validly so. It did not acurately depict the slope classifications on the property. Mr. Gary Odaffer from our engineers has had the slope classification map prr_- pared and I would like him to pick up the microphone in front of him and tell you what went into this preparation and what it says. -- COMM. ANDERSON: Why don't vie get out that other chart of the County which -they have presented so we can compare that with this. MR. GARY ODAFFER, Ki rker, Chapman & Associates, 111 New tlontgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94105. We're the engineers and planners on this particular job and the owners asked us to have a slope classification map prepared and I think are should speak on the subject for a moment so that you can understand what vient into the preparation of this map so that it will give more of a valid approach to some of the data that Mr. Horse will present following my discussion. The map was prepared and it was based on aerial topography flovin at 5-ft. , contour intervals by Towle & Co. , San Francisco. This in turn was then analysed by a digital computer method of slope analysis done by Conarc Designs Systems of San Francisco and vie've given you a hand-out which is a compilation from materials in addendum r2 prepared by the computer analysis fir,. What it really shoves and what we've done is gone ahead and rendered the map after it was prepared. If you examine this later, you will see that there are small modules and each one has a letter in it which indicates a slope classification and these are based on .3 acres---in other words, less than 1/3 of an acre analysis so you can see it's fairly concise as far as analysis is concerned. We then rendered the map and all of the area-in the burnt oranne color and it is under 25% slope. Those areas over 2510; are rendered in the pale green. Now, if you compare this with the County's map, you can see that there are a lot of areas in the upland areas which are under 25:: Here again, they are much more generalized than ours is. Our is quite finite in approaching this ` based-on 1/3 acre modules. I think it important that you view this map with these large areas under 25t when Mr, gorse relates some of his figures. Now, what we've come up with is the fact that out of 4,800 acres, over 2,100 acres are under 25' slope. The remainder of about 2,600 acres are above 25" slope. Mr. Morse has some comments concerning these slope classification figures as they relate to the various planning areas and residual areas. I think that oUr role in this in preparing it has been as concise as possible in preparing a slope analysis of this type. Thank you. MR. 11ORSE: Thank you, Gary. Gentlemen, if I could have your attention to the County's map for a moment. As discussed previously, our land lies in two planning areas so I'm going to be discussing the density for them separ- ately. The one area is part of the Alamo-Danville General Plan, %-rhich is designated by this grey line on the County's map (indicating on rap). The other area as we pointed out previously is covered by the 1963 General Plan which is in effect at this time. in the County. Wayne, if you i,rould no to the next chart---the chart is in the packet in front. of you gentler,.en and briefly it shows the range of densities that the general plan authorizes for the sections of ala .kharik. In sw,-.ming it up, it would i allow the range to be from a loll of 597 units to a high of 10,517 units. The itemization is there and it is correct. The question then is: Does Rlackhavik with 4,546 units fall within the general plan provisions with its density. In other words , does 4,5+6 fall somewhere within the range of 597 and 10,517? The answer is obvious and the general plan---as a matter of fact, lir. Zahn gave you the itemns of density, hoa you compute it and that is exactly spelled out so that it's clear that we fall within that range of density. All right, so, now we resolve that the general plan anticipates and anticipated the units that we have proposed for the project. Wayne, the next chart, please. There are some alternate r.ethods of calculat- ion which are also in front of you; but, to briefly sum there up, they show what happens if you consider the line for Planning Area =8 uas moved out and all the ranch went into Planning Area =8, which we don't think happened; but, that is an alternate method. In any event, that range would alloy Blackhawk to develop with 45-46 units. There are also two other calculations which tell you the same thing and the result is always the samne; that alackharrk would be allowed to develop under the general plan with 45-46 units. flow--- CHAIRMAN JEHA: With 4,500 - 4,600 units? Or, 4,546? 14R. MORSE: Four Thousand five hundred forth-six,•yes,- sir. Okay, the quest- ion now then is: Does the general plan anticipate that the 14,662 people that the staff's E.I.R. rN projects will live on Blackhawk, to be there---does the General Plan antici- pate 'em? Well , in the first place, the general plan---there is no ruling in the general plan that says---a population ruling---there is no provision that says you can only have a certain number of people. You are familiar with the Petaluma case; it's illegal to do that so the general plan doesn't do that. However, thereare two provisions in the planning area 8 and planning area 9 general plans. The reason vie're lumping those two together which is really the San Ramon Valley is because in the E.I.R. , the County staff does that and the figure of 10" growth mentioned by ter. Dehaesus earlier---in the valley, he was talking about Planning Areas 8 and 9; so, when vie tali: about population, it seems that staff and ourselves want to talk about population for the whole valley. All right, the next chart just has quotations about or from the two plans, Planning Area ;8 plan says that they expect a population of 50,000 persons to reside in the planning area 8 section with the 20-25 year planning period and not as vias stated by her. Zahn that 50,000 people forever within the plann- ing period 50,000 people. The planning period was up to 1990. As far as Planning Area #8, the San Ramon Area, it projects a population of 65,000 people. So, we have a total of 115,000 people projected by the general plan for the San Ramon Valley. Okay, how many do viethink will be there and what effect does Blackhavii: have on that? The next chart shows you the population of the valley---the whole valley, 25,927 in 1970. This is from the actual census figures as staff pointed them out in the E.I .R. Staff further estimates in the E. I .P.. , that the population in 1974 is 34,450, which is an annual growth of 2,272.8 people. Mr. Dehaesus said that the growth was continuing and vie believe that the valley will con- tinue to grow at the same rate; so, if you project that to the year 1990, you would have 70,815 people. If you assume that none of those people lived on Blackliaw k---we don't assume that---Lut if you assume that since that's what County says, then just add all of the Blackhaeik people and we' re still talking about only 85,000 people and the general plans , one done in 1967 and one done in 1971 says that they expect 115,000 people by 1990. l;e' re only talking about 85 ,000 people which is 29-30,000 people short of what was planned for and what staff considers to be optimum. Okay, so they expected the unit, the general plan anticipated the number of units and the general plan anticipated the number of people. Now, there isn't anything in the general plan that says anything about services with roads, sewers and all that stuff; but, it't' important to talk about it even though it isn't part of the general plan. 9 a So, by way of response to staff, we would point out that---I will need the road map, Wayne--- Gentlemen, if you will bear with me just a moment, I 'viant to shove you why Blackhawk was not only anticipated but was planned for by the road system. Incidentally, people way that there is a.road problem; but, there isn't any road problem out at Blackhawk. There will be if vie develop, possibly; but, w there isn't any now. Okay, the heavy lines are the road system serving Blackhawk at this time with the exception of the Crow Canyon Road extension. The Crow Canyon Road extension is provided for in the General Plan. The General Plan says that should be built. The general plan also provides for another road that would be the extension of Stone Valley Road through Blackhawk in connecting with the State Park road into the State Park. We haven't shown that in there because we don't think that ought to be built. All right, the numbers shot-in, the top number is the present road capacity. The middle number is the present traffic and the bottom number is the present traffic plus all the Blackhawk traffic that would be generated. All right, now, why do we show you this in connection with the general plan? We want to show you that services were anticipated and- that's what we're talk- ''ng about. Not that it's there but that the general plan anticipated that it lould be there. The general plan calls for four-laning of Stone Valley Road; four-laning of Green Valley; fourrlaning of E1 Cerro; four-laning of Diablo Road; four-laning of Tassajara; four-laning of Blackhawk; four-laning of Crow Canyon Road and four-laning of Dougherty Road. All of that's called for in the general plan; all of it has been implemented by the County in planning for the four-laning. Now, our numbers show that those roads don't need to be four laned; but, nevertheless , the general plan Prov ides for and anticipates it. Very important. What do you need Crow Canyon Road Extension for if Blackha•;rk is not going to develop? It's in the general plan. The people that drevi the general plan anticipated Blackha;rl: would develop and that's why that road is there. Also, why viould Blackhawk Road need to be four laned if there wasn't .going to be any development of Blackhawk? Is the development out here (indicating) further in the open space area be- yond our property? No. It is here, right where Crow Canyon Road Extension ` comes right into the property so that the people from Blackhavil; can -feed right out to the freeway along the four roads that po out. And, incidentally, the capacity of those four roads, the average daily traffic volume of those four _ roads wnen developed in accordance with the general plan would be 68,000 cars day. We will venerate approximately 1/3 of that; so, not only v.,ere we anticipated for development by tine general plan but so was this whole valley that hlr.Zahn said v:oul d grow if vie developed. It's been anticipated by the general plan. Now, we're not discussing, as you know and you've been admonished by lir. Dehaesus , we' re not discussing whether you'.re going- to let us develop or not; but, %shat we' re discussing is whether or not development was anticipated by the general plan. Ile say it was. As a matter of fact, the wording in the next chart clearly sets forth that in 1967, the Alamo-Danville general Plan anticipated the easterly connection of Crow Canyon Road to Tassajara Road. That's what that road is all about, ouh development. Thank you. Novi, gentlemen, with respect to schools, let me quickly show .you that the general plan anticipated the development in the area with respect to schools let me quickly show you that the general plan anticipated the development in the area with respect to schools. The general plan has a recreational element to it which you haven't been told about tonight but it's there and it sets forth three specific school-park sites, sites. that viould be combination school and park. One of them is located here (indicating on map) on our property. The other one is located here (indicating) adjacent to our property and the other one is located down here (indicating) on our property. So, the general plan anticipated three school sites at those locations. I ask the question: What are the schools for if there are not going to be any people there? I'm really trying to make this as brief as possible; but---I kno,.,r it' s been lengthy. I want to point out several other things. We've talked about the availability of ven ter. The ranch w,as annexed into the water district in 1964 and $141 ,000 was paid in annexation fees to cet the water service, to develop the property. The reservoirs were too. The first phase was to serve up to 850 feet in elevation and the second to serve up to 1 ,050 feet. Ide' re not pyen going that high. Incidentally, I would want to clear un one mistake earlier and that is that Mr. Zahn mentioned that the sewer line at the intersection of Sycac•.ore and Camino Tassajara was a 15-inch line. 4.ell , gentlemen, that happens to be a 27-inch line. The severer line fully anticipates the developnent of the road right out Camino Tassajara and would include us. They made the developer put in a 27-inch line to carry the develoncent 'that was anticipated not only along Camino Tassajara but from us as well , . Okay, did they know we were coming? In 1957, Castle 6 Cooke owned this land, they're a development company. They contacted all the county agencies; they drew an extensive master plan for the developnent of the property which in- eluded residential , co iercial , industry and schools. They didn' t ego through with the development but they went throuch it all ; they annexed into the water district and all those things were done aack• in 1957; so, it's been well anti- cipated all this time. I would remind you that at the meeting two weeks ano, we set forth all of the districts that we' re in---the school district, the transit district, fire dis- trict and all those districts that are necessary and required to haye a develop- ment; so, we point out to you the basic elements of the general plan, why v;e 'conform and we' re willing to answer any questions if you have any. CHAIRI'AN JEHA: Thant: you, Mr. Morse. Do you have any more people to speak? (No further people representing the applicant spoke). Are there any questions to be asked by the Commissioners? (110 questions were directed to 1'•1r. Vorse by the Connissioners)•. All right, is there anyone else to speak on this subject? LINDA MOODY, P. 0. Box 635, Diablo, California 94528. I 'm representing Amigos de Diablo and I believe I 'm authorized to say that I also speak for the Deferred Growth Corrmi ttee. I'll be very brief. You've heard the legal arguments that fir. Van Voorhis makes. 1 have a memorandum here that applies to those arguments. I w;on't go through them. I 'll give you copies. I assume you'll read them. (Copies wrere presented and are on file with the application). CHAIRMAN JEIIA: You can hand them to Mr. Hildebrand and he'll pass them down to the rest of us. MRS. MOODY: Fine. I might say that I sympathize with you for having to hear all this talk about what the general plan does or does not say. It only takes about 10 minutes to read the general plan for Alamo-Danville. i recommend that 1 , you read it. That's all I have to say. Thank you; CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this subject? MR. -JAKE HAILLON, P.O. Box 36, Danville, Calif. I'm representing the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee. Our committee does not have a position on whether or not this complies with the general plan. But, I have a brief statement that I would like to read: r "Based on recent environmental impact reports released and the reported con- flict with the County General Plan, the up-coming review of the San Ramon Valley General Plan and recent legislation regarding rezonings, the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee is reviewing its position taken earlier with ronard to the Dlackhav,,k development. While the committeesuoported in principle the concept presented by blackhawk, in light of the foregoing, it is felt that the community interests will best be served by renewed hearings on the project with personnel from Ulackhawk and the County Planning Staff participatinn. The first hearing will be field on I•';arch 28th, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. , at the Vista Grande Elementary School on Diablo Road. It is requested that all interested parties attend." Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to make a statement? BETTY J. ROBERTS, 292 Smith Road, Danville, California. I 'm with the Ceferred Growth Committee. Mrs. F;oody has given you the statement to read renardi ng the Amigos de Diablo and Deferred Growth Committees concerns legally so we hope you will read those. We feel that the County is about to begin reviei•r of the General Plan for the i_ San Ranson Valley and I understand this review will look into development timing or phasing as it relates to available facilities and services. This "-� review will take some considerable time, it's been mentioned about a year. With recent patterrs and tempo of development as indicators , much development could take place or be committed prior to completion of the general plan re- view. This may very well prejudice the review in a deleterious way or render it obsolete. The valley badly needs a general plan review and noir that it is about to take place and in viewi of ail the questions raised about this project, it is very much apparent that this project was not anticipated and certainly does not comply with the existing general plan. If this project does proceed with out benefit of a general -plan review, then it could prejudice the review in a deleterious tray. • Therefore, the Deferred Growth Committee respectfully requests that you arrive at a decision indicating non-performance b Aween this project and the existing general plan. Thank you. CIIAIRI•IA14 JEHA: Thank you. Anyone else %.rishing wishing to add something? BEVERLY J. MESSINEO, 9791 Broadmoor Drive, San Ramon, California San Ramon Homeowners Association. r Our board is unanimously opposed to the rezoning and development of the Blackhawk Ranch area. V1e have reviewed the County's environmental impact report and the two E.I.R. 's done by independent companies. All maps we have studied shot! nearly 2/3 of the Blackhawk land to be in area that eras declared as open space by the County in 1973. This development is totally out of con- text with the present County General Plan. It would create a city.of 12,000 to 15,000 people on the slopes of tit. Diablo. There is no logical pressure for developing this area. It would be a typical leap-frog development of an area better left in open space. Again, the problems of the San Ramon Valley is presently facing with schools, parks and air pollution show that a new city is the last thing our valley needs. We feel it is time for our community to decide if it needs or even wants this development. Therefore, we support the position of the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee asking for a local public meeting and more community input on this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this issue? JANET S. SWOPE, 2100 fit. Diablo Scenic Boulevard, San Ramon, California. I 'm representing the San Ramon Valley unit of the Diablo Valley League of Women Voters. Our unit has spent several months studying land use in the San Ramon Valley and We have adopted some positions which arerel,evant to the property being considered tonight. We support an immediate review of the general plan and we understand it is imminent. Ve urge the Planning Corr.-mission .to postpone rezoning such an enormous piece of property until any review and subsequent revision is finished. The property of the 61ackha.:k Ranch is not really conticuous to any presently developed residential or cor..,:.2rcial area and, therefore , does not .represent merely an extension of the present nornal growth of Danville. == Because of the size of the development and the location, the rezoning' of this property will drastically change the present character of the area and will certainly generate pressure to rezone adjacent, thousands of acres adjacent to the property. This request, therefore is so far reaching that it seems only reasonable to -postpone such rezoning considerations until the general plan has been reviewed. There's one other point we'd like to make which I'll condense and that is that from the ABAG Issue paper #3, entitled "Zoning and Grovith in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is also part of the general plan, Contra Costa County "is at the present time---sha,,s a zone population of 220% over its planned population for the year 1990," We -emphatically question the need for rezoning under those conditions just described. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? MR. CRAIG FLEMING, 2655 Lyon Circle, Concord, Calif. 94518. I just want to say that this County has had enough of the problems with newcorners---over- population, low employment base, heavy commuting without the aid of an effect- : ( ive mass transit system and all other headaches of suburbia. People come to our county to escape urban pressures but are finding them here, too. We can't exactly call the central county area the country setting much longer as pockets of open space are closing-up fast. Developers will want every acre of flat land they can get. They ignore slopes i► over 26% just because it's uneconomical to develop them. Soon, we'll have • I another Los Angeles. People thought Pasadena would remain a suburb; soon, it was engulfed by a tide of people. We must not give real estate opportunists a chance to flood this county, too. I'm sure you're at-.,are of the nroblems involved in adequately supplying this planned cowinuni`y the necessiry servic^S. Iis "nr ,^ , . economic gains will balance the increased burden it�puts u-,en suci► se►•v1 :; and the people arho presently use these services. t;i l l it :.•e ►•.c•r h ti;e C-':-_1 1 The developer's mitigation measures are worthless. They act like it's a big deal just to donate 1 ,000 acres to tit. Diablo State Park but they couldn't use that land any�,iay because it's steep, in excess of the 26% grade and un- developable. We should halt this development to find alternatives, perhaps include the land in the planned Ridge Land National Part: proposed by Congressman Pete Stark; or, perhaps as a State Park. The developers have labeled people for Rational Planning as radical . Is it radical to want better services for the people living here now rather than pack more people into this County just to get a better rate of return for the stockholders -of the development company? I hope the Commission will stand up against the rezoning of Blackhawk Ranch. A •general plan is redundant if certain developments are to be excluded from it. I don't think these people have the right to im'pose on the people of this county, either since the services are in a pretty bad shape as they are right nova. Thant: you. CHAIP,htNil JEIIA: Thank you. All right, is there anyone else wishing to speak? •,-1-- If there is, I aunt them to confine their statement to the subject of the general plan. If anyone has some comments on the general pla►i that could be helpful to this Con-mission, are %•;ould avant to'hear frcm you. If you want to tall. about the project, are a:oul d just•ask ,you to wait until the 26th if are hear it then or when we hear it then and reserve your comments on the project at that time. MR. ALLAN GIDD (no address given). I just want to say that putting any kind of development that near a State tart; is really absurd and if the general plan calls for any such kind of development that near a State Park, youmight as well sell the part: to a laundromat or something because, you know, you can't have anything like that arhich is absolutely incompatible. The general plan would have to be changed if it allot-is for sor.•eVi i ne like that. The de- velopment would force the whole part; area which is already too small and is now forcing the animals to flee from the houses that are already in the area and would just ruin the park. If the general plan allovis for that, then the general plan has to be changed. Thank you. No one else appeared to speak on this subject matter. CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right, gentlemen, this is now before you. COMIM. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments to make. First of all , I think it should be clear that the applicant always has the right to apply for a change in use and if an applicant coes to the staff and discusses his project, then it is in order for the staff_to aiarn the applicant if it appears that the application is at variance with the general plan. However, it's the applicant's right always to i.nsist on a hearing and after • •r the staff has called attention to a possible conflict with the neneral ',)I an. • I think that is really all the staff can or should do. After that, it be- comes •a matter for the Commission and ultimately for the board of Supervisors to decide. So. here we have an applicant who has come to the Commission and is submitting an application for a •change in use. We have to hear it and one of the decisions we have to make is whether or not this does conform in principle to the general plan Now, until all of these hearings are over, I don't really see how we can make this decision. If at this present point we said this is not in accordarce with the general plan, then we would be making an arbitrary decision based on insufficient input. For one thing, we haven't heard from a great many people who would like to speak, people who may point out certain features which are objectionable or are favorable. ' Secondly, there is this point that when a decision is made, it is not necess- arily one given decision; it may be a decision for the applicant; it may be a decision to turn down the application entirely; it could be a decision which would apply conditions or- would modify the applicant's proposal in some way. Therefore , until you get to the very last basis, you cannot say whether or not viiiat is being reco wended or being denied by the Commission- is in accor- dance with the general plan. So, my point is this: That vie have now had a hearing, a hearing �,rhich zeroed in on the question of the general plan. tie novi should go on to the continua- tion of the hearings vie had two weeks ago when vie heard from the applicant. We 'have already continued that hearing to Harch 26 and I think tonight vie should let the matter rest, continue on I;arch 26 and hear from those who wish to express their viewpoint either fur or against the application. CHAIRMAtI JEHA: Do you want to make that a motion so vie can go on record? COMM. YOUNG: That is my motion then---in short, that we merely continue our hearing as previously planned to itarch 26th. COMM. MILANO: Second the motion. COMM. HILDEBRAiID: Mr, Chairman, on the Question, I'd just ask for a point of clarification. At the beginning , vie talked about the wording that County Counsel apparently gave you this afternoon, that the thing vie were to consider is whether this is at odds or inconsistent with the general plan. The motion before us, by implication, does this mean that we find that there is no glaring inconsistency with the General Plan? Is this what we're saying? CHAIRI.1All JEHA: ilo, that's not what Andrew was saying. Andrew---that's what I would have said---I thought we were going to discuss---but, what Andrew is saying, and I concur with him, that we are just going to continue with the hearing so that we can come to a conclusion as to whether this is going to be in compliance with the general plan or not.. C0114. YOUiIG: Mr. Chairman, I'll expand my remarks slightly by saying that if the applicant cane in for example and asked for a heavy industrial use in an area of the County which on the general plan was ear marked for low density .� residential, obviously that would require a change in the general plan. If the applicant comes in with something which might meet the requirements of the general plan, then I think it incombent onus to view the application on its merits and not to arbitrarily find that it is or is not in accordance with the general plan. CHAIRIIAN JEHA: I agree with that and---Well , fir. Westnan, what we are doing, does that meet'your standards as far as County Counsel 's Office? FIR. WESTMAN: Well , what's before you is a request for rezoning. The Planning Staff presented the proposal but rather than conducting the substantive hear- ing on the rezoning, you should have a preliminary determination as to whether the---to use the words of the applicant---that the application is patently in- consistent with the general plan. , You've evidently heard some evidence and determined no to address yourselves to that question; but, instead to reject the staff's proposal and proceed with the substantive hearing. CHAIRMAR JEHA: All right, then our motion is in order? MR. WESTD'AN: Yes. CHAIR11AN JEHA: All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Young, seconded by Commissioner Milano, that we continue this hearing to 111arch 26th as it was scheduled prior to now. !__... MR. DEHAESUS: As I understand it, the question still remains, unresolved. _..__... CIIAIR11A11 JEHA: Yes. In other words , it will be resolved, hopefully, on the basis of the information, the input of the continued hearing. Will you.please call the roll. AYES: Conmiissioners - Young, Anderson, Hildebrand, Milano, Compaglia, Stoddar.1, Jeha. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - tone. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. Jr 26 March 1974 - Tuesday 3 � HEARING . _ EXHIBIT #7 BLACKHAWK FINAL E.I.R. REZONING: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: BLACKHAWK CORPORATION (Applicant t Owner) - 1840-RZ Requests to rezone 4,7751 acres from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) ; property located approximately 5 miles east of • Danville and 4 miles south of Mt. Diablo: Sari Ramon area. Subject property. is bordered on the north by 14t. Diablo State Park, on the southwest by Blackhawk Road, on the south by Tassajara Road and is commonly referred to as the Blackhawk Ranch. (2/26/74), CHAIRMAN JENA: This is a continued public%.hearing. At the last meeting, the applicant was speaking, giving his presentation but we had not called for other speakers who were in favor of---we had just confined it to the applicant. So, what we're going to do tonight is to let the applicant finish his pre- sentation and then we're going to hear the opposition and then of course, the applicant can make his rebuttal. So, we will start out with the appli- cant and I presume you're going to wind up your presentation and then have other speakers who will speak in your behalf? MR. ROBERT CARRAU, Box 807, Danville, California. Good evening. - I 'm with the Blackhawk Development Company. For the purpose of time, I will not gp through the comments that we have r • to the staff's E.I.R. It 1s primarily just errata and addendum and I don't think It would take the Commission's time now to.go through it; but. I do want it in the record as our comments on the E.I.R. that was prepared by the staff. We have had meetings in the past week or so with the staff and. l think it should be noted that they are working now and we are planning conferences during the next two weeks to arrive at some conditions in case this Board decides to actfavorably on our project and we have a tentative schedule set up with Mr. Dehaesus, I think, to have something finalized by the week of the 10th or the 11th. MR. DEHAESUS: Moreor less. MR. CARRAU: What? Mostly less, please. So, we will have within the con- ditions, we' ll finalize some of the items that have been a question to some of the people here in the audience. 1 won't take any more of your time; but, my partner, Bill Morse, has a couple of things and we should then be about through. MR. WILLIAM MORSE, P. 0. Box 807. Danville, California. First, with respect to the general plan question, both Dan Van Voorhis and 1 spoke and we gave you memoranda; but, we failed to include that in the record and I would like to include that in the record at this time. (Material presented was entitled: EVIDENCE G ANALYSIS REGARDING GENERAL PLAN COMPATIBILITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 1840-RZ, 9LACKHAWK, MARCH 1974. It is on file with the subject application) . Part of tonight's hearing concerns itself with the input from the public for the purpose of assisting staff at arriving at a sufficient E. I .R. , to give the public input. Weleve asked D�. James Roberts who prepared what we call the "Java" report and we've asked him to come this evening to talk for a moment about the E.I .R's and particularly the sufficiency. Dr. Roberts' firm, James A. Roberts Associates, Inc. , was hired by us 'after receiving permission to do so from the County and they prepared the "Jana Report"for us which-we submitted to the County. (Jana Report was presented at this time and is on file with the subject application) . It is our position as you know from before, that the Jara Report and the E.C. I.S. Reports should ,be a part of the total package constituting the E. I .R. For a moment, I would like to discuss Dr. Roberts background. He's had 19 years of experience in applied land using planning. He founded in 1968, the firm of James A. Roberts Associates which now has a staff of approximately 25 people. Dr. Roberts teaches at four University of California extension courses for the California Transportation 'Agency and also teaches the E. I .R. preparation on a television series which has concluded and he's in the process now of preparing the format for another television series which is broadcast in the Say Area on land use. Dr. Roberts teaches the National P.ark. Service Environmental teams-on planning and I.I.R. preparation and is the consultant to two Northern California counties and one city. With that. 1 would like •to ask Or. Roberts to ' cam forward. DR. JAMES A. ROBERTS, 7128 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite A=1. Carmichael . Calif. -- 95608. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to read into the record a statement related to the E. I.R. 's which you have before you. 1 would also like to submit copies for you at this point. (Additional copies of the Jara Report were submitted to each Commissioner). I Since you have the full statement, 1 will not read it completely. 1 would like to su-marize. its highlights, however. The statement relates to the four documents you'have before you. First is the Blackhawk Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by my organ- isation. Second is the Blackhawk Ranch Environmental Impact Report prepared by the firm of Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. , or as 1 refer to it in the report, "E.C.I .S." Third, I 'd like to refer to the Blackhawk Ranch Environmental .lmpact Report, that is your 1840-RZ, Contra Costa County Planning Department prepared and fourth, 1 would like to refer to the addendum on the Economic Report also prepared by the County. Let me read the conclusion: "It is our opinion that the four reports '`' ` taken together constitute an adequate environmental impact report as required by the guidelines adopted by your County and as recommended by the State. Our reasons for this conclusion are outlined In the following paragraphs. "By reference and direct quotation, the county's report includes all of the reports'cited above. It is our opinion that each of these three reports is a complete environmental Impact report in and of itself. However, they each have a number of significantly different characteristics which we recommend warrant their consideration as a combined EiR. Taken in the*chron- ological order in which the reports were prepared,' those characteristics are: "First, the conclusion related to the JARA report. It Is our opinion that r the JARA report provides an excellent analysis of the natural environment, the constraints it poses for land use and the impact of the proposed pro- ject on the natura4 environment. "Second, the conclusions in relation to the ECIS Report, it is our opinion that the ECIS report provides an excellent basic environmental analysis of the socio-economic environment and the related impacts of the proposed project thereon; and (' Third, related to the County report. It Is our opinion that the County report including reference 4 provides excellent information on the exist- Ing plans effecting or effected by the project. A report on the region's and projects economic desiderata and statement of staff's answers to the topical questions related to the proposed project. "You will note that in each of the reports. we refer to---or in this analysis, this letter, the basic information contained in what they refer to as the environmental impact or environmental inventory analysis and the topical question. It is our conclusion that the four reports taken together constitute an adequate environmental impact report on the subject proposed project and 1 would like to add one final note. It Is that in our experience over the last few years and months, this is one of the most complete reports that we have seen. Thank you. MR. CARRAU: Mr. Chairman, that concludes our presentation; however, I do think there might be some proponents here for our project. Thank you. MR. ERIC NASSEITINE, 820 Camino Amigo, Danville, California. I 'm speaking tonight on behalf 'of the applicant, not so much *to obtain an immediate approval as for two other reasons I consider to'.be very important. First, many of us in the San Ramon Valley, myself included, have presumed to comment on our growth process and we have pointed out what we have con- sidered to be failings of the planning . We have asked for greater atten- tion to particular issues and for greater cooperation from developers. t4hen that attention and cooperation is forthcoming, I feel that it must be acknow- ledged. We cannot suggest criteria with the implication of approval if they are met and then withhold the approval or change the argument. So, I wish to acknowledge that Blackhavik has presented an exemplary approach to the in- tegration of their plan with the community. The second reason is that having heard some of the emotional , faulty and Irrelevant arguments from some of those in opposition, I am not willing to allow that to allow that to comprise any significant part of the ex- pression of community opinion. Valid opposition aimed at specific issues Is one thing; opposition f.or the sake of opposition is something else. feel that we must do two things: Recognize the good points of a develop- ment and- seriously address in detail any demonstrable adverse impacts, nut just dismiss the project or any project on the basis of generalities. Personally, I find a great deal of excellence in the Blackhawk Plan. The Implications and the impacts of Blackhawk range far beyond a subdivision approval or the use of that particular piece of land. The interaction with and the effect upon our community will be substantial . Therefore, a number of key questions are extremely pertinent at this time and I 'd like to pose some of them. First of all , witin our community, we have to decide whether vie are going td be serious about planning and solving community issues or if vie are in fact simply going to try to keep more people from moving into our valley. Another way of asking that is: Is it the absence of development that we are seeking, or is it in fact the basence of serious community problems due to development? Considering the growth of the San Ramon Valley, how does the Sycamore Valley relate to it? Will the Sycamore•Valley ultimately be developed? If so, how should we plan for it? Or, what kind of development should take place there? When and how should it begin? Now far should it extend to the east? Then, finally, If there any alternative to the Blackhawk plan which. 15 years r from now will result in something better?. _ 1 would like to address those points; but, first 1 would acknowledge that there is some sentiment in the valley to seriously address these and other questions. On the part of some, it is predicated on' a "don't do anything until we have a complete plan" attitude. That could take a lot of time and' the degree of •concurrence and the answer is very uncertain. We have a general plan review about to begin and we are extremely pleased that the planning staff will allow a local committee to work with them. That is badly needed; but, it is not clear that we should stop everything in the meantime. To stop everything in the meantime implies that a.,e are starting from zero and we surely are not. All we are looking for is a flexible, workable plan. 1 think we already have an appreciation for what is good ind what Is bad. What we want to see incorporated in that plan and what we want to avoid is clear. If there are valid questions about the propriety of a particular develop- ment, then the general plan review is the best way to resolve them. The questionable projects should indeed wait; but, 1 see no merit in penalizing those developments which are beneficial or exemplary. It seems very likely to me that the plan could be a far more effective and useful document if Blackhawk were used as a cornerstone for fugure development of the community In general and for the Sycamore Valley in particular. I will try to justify that thought at the same time as i address. the questions I have raised. - Growth Is,' has been and all indications are that it will continue to be a ' problem or ma in the San Ramon Valley.j p y If we want to exert some positive Influence on what otherwise has a tendency to• be a chaotic and disruptive process, we need to specify whe?•e and how this growth should occur. Where this growth will occur is not that difficult to foresee. Some in-- filling and maybe a lot, but this cannot accomodate all the expected growth. San Ramon Valle cannot 9 y grow to the south and it cannot grow to the north. It cannot grow very much to the west and it shouldn'c since • that would be at the expense of the Las Trampas Ridge and its slopes. Clearly, the growth has to proceed to the cast and the major route can only be through the Sycamore Valley. It seems clear to me that both the natural course of development and the existing general plan recognize that the Sycamore Valley will develop. There are those who would seal off this valley completely for now and keep it open temporarily. But this forces accelerated in-filling of the San Ramon Valley and core than that, forcea the development of marginal lands---land which othe mise might not be de- veloped. When we talk about planning, we are discussing primarily the remaining open land. Certain segments of this land we would like to keep open. If this is indeed one of our planning objectives, then are ought to avoid creating pressures to use up all the land at a rapid pace. To me, the most important lands to consider right now are the Las Trampas Ridge on the west and the Sherburne Hills on the east. I think the most disastrous event of the past year for the San Ramon Valley has been the development of the western slopes of the Sherburne Hills. This represents to me anyway a monumental failure of the Open Space Element so far as the San Ramon Valley is concerned and .l see no hope to save the rest of these hills as they stretch to the south forming the visual boundary of the valley If we seal off the most logical growth avenues. Development will go to the east and if not alongTassajars Road then to the Sycamore Valley, then it will go up and over these hills. It seems to me then that the' question we should concentrate on are the questions of how the valley should develop and how we should plan for it. We do not need a year's review to tell us that we do not want a repeat of the growth patterns of the San Ramon Valley and the Sycamore Valley . We can certainly do better than that. We do not want a sprawl through that valley subdivision by subdivision. Rather, we should preserve the quality of that area by taking large parcels, as large as possible for specific planning. We should take the floating zone approach, the PUD to optimize Each development to the particular piece of land and also to acquire a great deal of additional control over the implementation of the plan. ,The developers should bear an equitable share of the burdens of service created by the developments. If we take this approach, we can retain the quality of that area and we can indeed claim that the growth is pro- gress. The point is that Blackhawk is consistent with that entire approach and in fact would act as a dynamic precedent for it over the next 15 years. Another point of relevance that is important to all of us is to attempt to make the open space element a meaningful document. I believe that can best be done by strong attention to the open space provisions within de- velopment proposals. This is pertinent here because much of the criticism ' of Blackhawk centers on open space concerns, and also because the Black- hawk Plan contains unprecedented attention 'to open space. There are really only two ways available to us to provide open space with- in developable areas. One is to buy it, for which I unfortunately see no community support. Even if we could do what Marin County has done and pass a bond issue, we could never acquire all the important land. • The other alternative is to have the land donated or dedicated in conjunct- Ion with the development of adjoining pieces. That in all probability is our only way; but, we can very definitely use that to our own advantage. We, or more properly, you, can make such dedications the prerequisites to rezoning or subdivision approvals in that area. You and we together can formulate a general plan which reflects this approach. For some time nag there's been a desire for improved planning and develop- ment within our community; a desire to orient development more to the community and its environment; a desire for greater cooperation between the developers and the community and the project design and the sharing of burdens. Blackhawk, I see ,most of those desires realized. The school problem has been better addressed by Blackhawk than anybody else except possibly Devil Mountain. The open space aspects are better than any we may ever see. Although the proximity to Mt. Diablo is indeed a concern, all of the land In the ultimate acquisition plan for the State Park, which falls within the Blackhawk Ranch is being donated---not sold, donated. The areas to be developed are not in any way to' detract from the view of Mt. Diablo from the valley. The County E.I .R. maintains that the flood control measures proposed are more than adequate. The roads may be a r problem and this needs attention; that Is probably the most critical problem In the San Ranon Valley right now. It appears that the extension of Sycamore Valley .Road, Crow Canyon Road could alleviate most of that problem in the case of Blackhawk. The size of Blackhawk is a benefit to the planning and 1 would certainly rather commit to one good. 15 year'Plan for all of it than to see that land developed acre by acre in piecemeal fashion and spend countless trips .to Martinez during the next 15 years on each individual, item. And, what if Blackhawk should be denied, what then? What incentive is there for a developer ever again to work this closely with the community, to donate open space and school sites?. So many do not and yet they continue to build. What is it that we gain by a denial that is so important to us to risk that? Despite all this, it is still not possible to flatly advocate approval--- not for me, not for the community, not for you 'because we do not yet have all the specifics and all the conditions. But, for me and for the ca-imunity, I think it is time to recognize and acknowledge the attempts that have been made to- integrate future develop- ment effectively with the community. It isalso time to stop limiting our statements to only what we are against. It is high time we said what we are for and what we viant to become in the San Ramon Valley. That, I thli,k, is really my purpose here tonight. I would like to say what I am 'for. I am for the type of development that Blackhawk represents. '�— I am for the approach to the consideration of ccmmunity impacts which they have followed. I am for the dedi :aticn of substantial of open space, the dedication of school sites or monies. I am for development with a favorable cost/benefit ratio -to the community. . I am for innovative, Integrated planning. And, most of all , I am for a progressive community which can address its issues positively. Thank you. (Slightly modified form of this speech was presented by Mr. Hasseltine and is on file with 1840-RZ) . CHAIRHAN JEHA: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for the applicant? MR. RON BUTLER, 1918 Alvina Drive, Pleasant Hill , California. I represent approximately 2,000 members of the Operating Engineers, Local 0'3, who live In Contra Costa County, some of whom are here tonight. The preceeding speaker made very good points. I- would also say that we feel this land will be developed unless the State or the County is willing to condemn it for parks or open space. I feel this is a very desirable development and vastly preferable to mile-after-mile of tract houses. Thank you. MICHAEL A. FISCHER, Attorney, 21 Anderson Circle, Walnut Creek, California. I'm Chairman of the Ht. Diablo Regional Group of the Sierra Club and speak- ing on behalf of that body here tonight. I 'm sure that some people here are going to be quite surprised to see the I Sierra Club in support of the Blackhawk project; hawever, anyone with a true understanding of what the Sierra Club stands for and knowledge of why the Sierra Club is the premier environmental group i'n the country today, should not be surprised. hany people consider the Sierra Club a negative body, one that only says "no". Indeed, in this county, we have not been that way. We have actively supported a number of issues which we have con ' sidered worthwhile. We have also'opposed a number of issues, including several developments that have been before this Commission. This opposit- ion should not paint the Sierra Club as a negative body; rather, it should speak poorly of the types. of developments so proposed. The Sierra Club has always been willing to meet with developers and to dis-' cuss and negotiate in mutual good faith on various concerns. Until Black- hawk, this had never been done. Instead, some developers tried to make all environmental considerations seem either minor, unrealistic or down right ridiculous. This unfortunately caused a reaction against sonic en- vironmentalists who came to think of all developers as land-grabbing money- hungery thieves. Of course, neither' of these positions is true. The Sierra Club has always maintained that development by itself is neither good nor bad. Rather, the question is whether given the type of develop- ment proposed, the characteristics of the land involved and both its immed- late and general surroundings, development is appropriate. Perhaps because of our environmental interests in regard to development, we have tended to oppose development that others might have supported. Nevertheless, our position has.often been vindicated. Some developers might say that this great environmental concern precludes any accommoda- tion by a developer with the Sierra Club. Our support tonight for Black- hawk disproves this. These introductory remarks are being made in order that no one misunderstand what is occurring tonight. The Sierra Club is not doing a turnaround. The Sierra Club is not becoming pro-development; rather, the Sierra Clul, to- gether with Blackhawk have been able to accomplish a first in the history of this. County; namely, the development of a parcel of land with a sensitive eye to avoiding to the greatest extent possible, every major environmental problem. , Finally, before going into the specifics concerning our support of Black- hawk, 1 -would like to issue both an invitation and a warning : to other developers in this county. The invitation is to come talk with us before yodreirrevocably committed to your plan. Let*us discuss various concerns environmentalists may have about your development. This will result, I believe,- In a better county . for us all. Now, for the warning: Developers should not be mislead into believing that slight cosmetic environmental concessions can gain Sierra Club support. Indeed, on some parcels, we might not be willing to support any development. It depends on the individual parcel. However, developers should also be warned that they can no longer tag the Sierra Club as negative obstruction- Ists and wild-eyed unrealistic idealists. Blackhawk disproves this and we don't imagine that anyone will be fooled in the future. Now, I would like to give you -some background concerning the Sierra Club's support of this project. When I first heard of this proposal , my basic Instinct said to oppose it. liothing that big in that particular area would beteneficial. There are just too many problems. Then, I noticed some very hopeful signs. The developers came and spoke to various groups. They were willing to talk about the problems; they even recognized them as • problems and they asked us what other problems we saw. They have hired some of the most sensitive consultants in an effort to meet these problems- and have recognized that although their very size tended to frighten some, this size also made it feasible to take some very positive steps with an , eye to lessening and eliminating many of the development's impact. Ever since this development first came into public view, the Sierra Club has studied it and discussed it with other environmental groups. We have also toured the site, discussed it with the developer, discussed it with other parties and reviewed all three environmental impact reports. We have considered all objections and impacts as delineated in those reports as well as our own objections. As a result, we had a number of concerns which are covered in the memorandum of agreement .and in reading that agree- ment. I would like to emphasize some of the points it makes. One of our major concerns was that of public access to the private preserve of some 1 ,500 acres of the project. As a result of our negotiations, not only is the public to have access to all 1500 acres of this preserve ex- cept for a 200-ft. , wide buffer zone immediately adjacent to the developed areas; but, this 1 ,500 acres is being donated to the Mt. Diablo State Park subject to a recreation and grazing leaseback for 99 years. Thus, over 2,500 acres, considerably more than 1/4 of the present park size is to be added to the park. There Is one cloud on this and it is a very big cloud. Blackhawk must be given a waiver of their park dedication fees in view of this donation or they may revoke the donation. We support .this waiver in the form of an ordinance amendment of limited future applicability because of the unique citing of Blackhawk, the impor- tance of the land being given and the value of the land which is in excess of the park dedication fee requirement. We shall,, at a later time, be submitting for your consideration a proposed ordinance amendment; however, this point is mentioned now so that no one misunderstands what needs to be done to make this gift of land a reality. We are also concerned with the inter-related problems of traffic, road. Improvements and air pollution. To this end, we propose that Blackhawk adopt a feeder bus system by the time 1 ,500 units are occupied---if there wasn't already such a system if the area. , The elimination of the commuter traffic will go a long way towards allevia- ting the traffic and pollution problems. Blackhawk has agreed to this. A'third major concern we had was the growth inducing impact of this de- velopment on the Tassajara Valley. Blackhawk had a mutual concern in this regard, not being required to build oversized utility lines or extensive road improvements, both of which are expensive. As a result, we are to- night asking not only this Commission but the Public Works Department, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the East Bay Municipal Utility District to provide that roads, sewers and water be so sized as to be no bigger than necessary to serve the project and some of the intervening area to the west. This, together with the-County Open Space line should Insure that the fact of Blackhawk's development does not increase the pressure on the Tassajara Valley.. There were other concerns we had, some • of which are embodied in the agreement and others which were already solved by the developer prior to negotiations. 1 will -let 'the agreement itself speak of these points. In addition to supporting the project in general, we' are supporting three very specific aspects of the project. The first two, parkland dedication fee waiver and utility sizing have already been discussed. The third is our support of Blackhawk's concept of road building concerning landscaped rights-of-way, gravel shoulders, no curbs , gutters and sidewalks and the provision for hiking and riding trails. We commend this concept both to this Commission and to Public Works and ask that Public Works keep in contact with us concerning this aspect of the plan. I -would now like to read you the agreement. I will leave copies of the agreement for your use and I will be happy to ahswer any questions after I 've read the agreement. I might add that the agreement is a legal document. It's a contract and as such, I .hope you will bear with me through sonic of the legalistic phrases that it uses. It's entitled: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. "This agreement entered into this 26th day of March 1974, by and between the Mt. Diablo Regional Group of the Sierra Club, hereinafter referred to as Sierra Club and Blackhawk Develop- ment Co. , Inc. , hereinafter referred to as• Biackhawk, as follows: "Whereas, Blackhawk is seeking to rezone from A-2 and R-20 to PUD, approx- imately 4,800 acres of unimproved land in an unincorporated area of Contra Posta County near Danville under Contra Costa County RZ Number 1840, ` "Whereas, the Sierra Club has for over 1 and 11 years been following this project closely with reference to internal and external environmental con- siderations through independent study and E. I .R. .anal;sis, both the JARA, the FC1S and the County E. I .R. 's and through meeting and conversations with the developer, the advance planning section of the County Planning Department, San Ramon Valley Civic &Environmental leaders, other environ- mental groups and through intercourse with planning consultants and County civic leaders; "Whereas, Sierra Club recognizes that housing needs must be met only in conjunction with sound environmental. objectives, "Whereas, Sierra Club has never before supported any development project In Contra Costa County; "Whereas, Sierra Club appreciates the unique level of cooperation, profess- ionalism and environmental sensitivity demonstrated by Blackhawk, their consultants and their plan and recognizes the area-wide significance of this project; "Whereas, the Sierra Club agrees to support the Blackhawk project in con- sideration of Blackhawks performance of the terms and conditions below set forth, it being understood that this agreement is a memorandum of a more formal or complete agreement to be finalized within the next 30-days." .1111 spare reading you the more formal one: "They parties mutually agree as follows: M That in consideration for the agreement setforth herein, the Sierra Club agrees to endorse and publicly support the Blackhawk project RZ-1840 including current densities and such future conditions as agreed by Blackhawk that are not -Inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement and to urge the position setforth in Paragraph f9 below. (2) That this agreement if various elements in the implementation thereof shall in all cases be subject to the approval of the governmental agency or district charged with jurisdiction over said element or item of implement- ation. (3) That Blackhawk, at its option, shall be released from the terms of this agreement if they do not obtain zoning as presently requested by July 15, 1974, or if upon such rezoning suit is brought by any person to challenge any aspect of such rezoning procedure or upon breach of this agreement by the Sierra Club. (4) That the Sierra Club shares what it understands to be the interests of the Save Mount Diablo Committee, Senator John Nejedly, the California Dept. , of Parks b Recreation, the Contra Costa County Parks Council , Contra Costa County and all concerned citizens in completing the acquisition of lands within the ultimate boundaries of the Mt. Diablo State Park and Blackhawk agrees to materially help fill this objective by increasing the size of Pit. Diablo State Park by more than 25% by deeding outright to the State of Calif. , all of its approximately 2,500 acres within said zone of ultimate interest of land, as more particularly described the continuous lands not being de- veloped by 01ackhawk, as flown on the Blackhawk PUD on file with Contra Costa County, subject to the following tems and conditions: (a) That a buffer zone not to exceed 2,000-ft. , in width contiguous with the private development line be maintained by an assignimal and divisible permanent exclusive easement back to Blackhawk. (b) That Blackhawk be given an assignable and divisible 99 year lease on such. remaining lands at S1 .00 per year, to use said lands for grazing purposes and recreational use only, excepting the lands totalling 1 ,000 acres previously permitted for dedication." 1 can explain that it means that the 1 ,000 acres that they originally planned to dedicate will not be subject to the lease. That will 'be an outright dedi-. cation. "(e) That the deed to the State contain a restriction that the land so deicated shall not be again let to any other persons; shall always be used for park purposes and shall not be used by motorized vehicles, for non-farm uses or contain any major construction or picnic areas, It being the intent of all parties that said lands shallbe kept forever in their natural state. (d) That the general public be given access only from the non-leased State Park side of said parcel where such access would not adversely effect to a substantial degree the leasehold interest." We're concerned there mainly about grazing and -people. "(e) The deed to the State of the above property shall be executed with- in one year of zoning but shall be subject to existing mortgages which shall be cleared by Blackhawk as each contiguous unit develops or within 6 years whichever first occurs. it being understood that Biackhawk shall make all principal, and. interest payments i on all Bucy mortgages. (f) The above donation of land is conditioned upon Blackhawk not - being required to pay parkland dedication fees as required by County ordinance. Blackhawk agrees to involve Sierra-Club In the proceedings leading to such waiver. (S) That the Sierra Club is greatly concerned regarding air pollution caused, created, by gasoline fuel internal combustion engines and Blackhawk agrees that unless a local transit district containing Blackhawk, as now being suggested by I.M.T.A. , is formed and furnishes feeder bus service within the District, not earlier than the occupancy of 1 ,000 units and not later than 1 ,500 units, Blackhawk will provide to the residents of Blackhawk project a local mass-transit feeder system to BARTD or the nearest BARTD feeder line during 7 o'clock A.M. , to 9 A.M. . and 5:00 P.M. , to 7:00 P.M. , Monday through Friday, as long as such system is feasible after one year of operation with the system being deemed not feasible, if and when utilization by Blackhawk residents during the indicated hours of operation averages less than 40% of capacity during any.continuous 6 month period of time. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent Blackhawk from establishing a system prior to the above times; that such earlier starts shall not be used In determining feasibility. If such system is not feasible, then prior to discontinuation such system shall be modified by such reasonable methods if any so as to produce an average use above 40% of capacity during the indicat- ed hours within a reasonable time; that in addition to the local trar•sit previously referred to and the systems of trails and bike paths called for In the plan, Blackhawk will continue its process of outstanding and creative planning by giving consideration to a local tram system and energy saving methods of construction and development. (6) 'ihe Sierra Club shares what it understands to be the concern of the Contra Costa County, the Valley Action Forum, the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee and other persons concerned with continued pressures for develop- ment of the Tassajara Valley, southeast of the southeasterly corner of the Blackhawk project and Blackhawk agrees to use its best efforts to help permanently relieve 'this pressure by filing all applications resisting all conditions and using all other means to help insure that ail services in- cluding roads and utilities are sized and installed so as to service no more than Blackhawk property and the properties in the Sycamore Valley north- westerly of Blackhawk Road and its intersection with Tassajara Valley Road. . It is understood that the final decision of sizing, etc. , rests with numerous districts and agencies and that this clause is not intended in any way to create or increase Blackhawk's obligations to such agencies. Blackhawk agrees to work with and involve the Sierra Club in the negotiations meetings and hearings leading to decisions of districts and agencies with respect to sewage, water and roads. (7) That the Sierra Club has reviewed the Blackhawk Plan including densities and commends it to the' pubiic with the exception of the 7.5 acre commercial center located at the far southeast tip of the 'property and the further ex- ception that the other central commercial center be so restricted in size and *type as to serve by Its nature essentially only residents of the, project. y Blackhawk consents to conditions from the Planning Commission or Board of -Supervisors provided the Commission and Board sommove and these conditions, . t would be: (1) deleting the 7.5 acre southeastern conm+ercial center and ra- placing it with residential development comparable to that shown for the area surrounding said area, (2) restricting said central commercial center In size and type of services so as to serve by Its nature essentially only residents of the project. Notwithstanding the above, it Is understood that the tali acreage or square footage so allocated for commercial may be used in one place or in several locations so long as said use's neighborhood and so long as no center is located In the southeastern 1/4 of the project. (8) That the Sierra Club is interested in a continuing relationship with the Blackhawk project to insure maintenance of the planning and architectural quality" of the development provided for in the current plan and Blackharik agrees to create and continue a local archltectural review committee to in- sure such compliance and further agrees to appoint one member as selected by the executive committee of the Mt. Diablo Regional Group of the Sierra Club to sit permanently on such committee. (g) That the above listing b the total listing of major environmental re- quirements for approval which the Sierra Club finds necessary after a full consideration of all environmental factors but Indicates the following: (a) Sierra Club in reaching the pos;tions herein stated has fully con- sidered- the General Plan consistency arguments and the alternative of deferr- Ing Blackhawk pending a General Plan review and has rejected same. �,-- (b). That the Sierra Club supports Blackhawk concept of street construct- Ion, no curbs, gutters and sidewalks, unique drainage system, hiking and riding trails and urges Public Works to give every possible consideration to these proposals. (c) . Traffic projections and road requirements previously publicized by Public Works should be re-adjusted to reflect lower densities for the area, long-termed maintenance of the open-space line at the southern edge of the Blackhawk property, long-term energy shortages and the effects of the local transit system herein referred to." And, it Is then signed by myself and Ray Sloan on behalf of the Mt. Diablo Regional Group and by William Morse and Daniel Van Voorhis on behalf of Blackhawk. CHAIRMAN JENA: Mr. Fischer, I 'd like to say as Chairman of this Commission thbt I think the stand you took tonight is quite an important one, not be- cause you're particularly approving this particular project but because It makes It publiclyknown to all people who are developers that they can approach you; that they can work out with your organizations possibly a positive posture on your part and it will give them heart because I think In many cases, many people feel they have to deal with environmental groups, they figure they're going to be treated negatively and why waste the time. _t I think tstand you *took tonight is extremely Important for this County and for t State because it shows that organizations like yours---especially with the stature your organization has---is available to work on a positive basis with developers and I think you .shouid be thanked. COMM. ANDERSON: Old you pass out copies of that agreement to your people, Mr. Fischer? MR. 'FISCHER: Yes. COMM. ANDERSON: On the architectural review committee---as you recall, you . -- stated you had a seat, were granted a seat on that architectural review committee? MR. FISCHER: That is correct. COMM. ANDERSON: And, who makes up the other two or three seats? MR. FISCHER: I don't think the actual form has yet been established as to the committee. My understanding is that is still under consideration. Our concern with the seat was not so much for a matter of control but for a matter of in-put. , CHAIRMAN JEHA: Are there any further questions of Mr. .Fischer? (No further questions were directed to Mr. Fischer by the Commissioners) . Do you have anything further to say, Mr. Fischer? MR. FISCHER: Nothing. Thank you. DR. 808 BROWN (No address given. No green slip submitted for the record) . I 've been in the valley, practicing in the valley for about 10 years and have been very concerned as shown by my participation as first President of the Service Alliance, member of the Parks F Recreational Corporation, the community Center Corporation since its inception and Pres. of the original Board of Directors of Discovery House. !� I am here out of my concern for the valley and out of my contempt for what's gone on as far as what's gone up until now in the sort of hodge-podge of tracts that I 've seen developed since I 've come here. 1 have no doubt in my mind having ridden over this on horse back that this Is one of the finest examples of planning I 've seen any place in the Bay Area, any place at all for that matter. .4 1 think that this is a beautiful development and certainly it has a lot of conditions that must be satisfied and that's up to the various groups that are in charge; but, to deny this would be to deny us a chance to have a stirling example of a fine development of very beautiful land and to pre- vent our valley from following down the path it has over the last years that I 've been in it. Thank you. MR. GEO. CARDINET, JR. , 5301 Pine Holbw Road, Concord, Calif. I 'm a member of the East Bay Trails Council , the Calif. State Horsemen's Assn. , and resi- dent of the County for 45 years and have served on the Citizen's Task Force for the East Bay Regional Park District and also the Land Resources Committee of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. 1 mention this because it shows and illustrates my concern and also knowledge of the great potential that Contra Costa County has and the efforts being made to realize it. One of the great components of this future grand design for Contra Costa County, of course, is saving Mt. Diablo. The Blackhawk Ranch proposal here effectively protects and preserves the important' west flank of Mt. • Diablo. If for no other reason I advance to you on behalf of the County that this should be a governing concern. i would also like to reiterate what the previous speakers have pointed out. The unusual sensitivity of the promotors of this property have shown for environmental concerns and the public's concern on environmental problems, their- sensitivity to this and seeking out all components of .the community to counsel with and finally come up with this plan. We, speaking for the horsemen and the various trail users, we want to thank them for this. One parting observation: Thirty years ago, Contra Costa County Develop- ment Association came forth with a trail plan for Contra Costa County. Twenty-nine years ago, that trail plan was adopted by this Commission, it being the first element of a recreational plan ever adopted in Contra Costa County.. One of the lines was from Mt. Diablo State Park down through the San Ramon Valley and on over into the East Bay hills. This development effectively furnishes the link after 29 years and actually will activate the plan that this Commission approved 29 years ago. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, Mr. Cardinet. How many more speakers are there for this application? I see that there are three more speakers. MR. FREDERICK BREAR, 3645 Blaekhawk Road, Danville, California. I 've been a member of a family who has lived in the San Ramon Valley for over 50 years. 1 , too, have seen many developments which many of us have opposed. Those who really love the beauty of this area can only endorse such a wonderful plan as this because it will , in effect, change the development from what It has been. -- 1 would concur with the statements made by others, particularly Dr. Brown; but, 1 would also underline one important thing: These people have hired and have the stamp of approval on their project by some of the leading firms in the United States and I think we' re mighty fortunate to have that kind of stamp of approval on a project that requires tremendous engineering - and architectural and landscaping development and planning. Thank you. MR. GENE ANDERSON, 536 Highland Drive, Danville, Calif. l 'm with the San Ramon Valley Horsemen, I 'm the Trails Chairman. I just want to commend them for the comrmittment for trails and horses. We had an opportunity to ride that and we're very pleased. Speaking for myself personally, I think It's very good. Thank you. DR•. •JOSEPH L. HIRSCH, 300 Diablo Road, Danville, Calif. I 'm Chairman of the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee. In September of last year, the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee went on record in support of the planned unit development concept in principle for the -Blackhawk Ranch. Since that time, three environmental impact reports have come out and have been made available to the Commission, the committee and public. We now have some questions relating to this; so, our approval or our conceptual approval of the Blackhawk Ranch are predicated on these. -"" We have addressed these to the developer, that vie do have questions related to the environmental impact reports and the developers have seen fit to say that they would be more than pleased to meet with us again. We have a tenta- IiD • • tive date set up for March 28th; but, there is a time problem as well as a problem of availability of experts for the Blackhawk Ranch itself; so, we have tentative set up another date which is April 3, 1974, at the Monte Vista Highschool little theatre. - The reason I 'm here is that I would like to make sure that if Planning Staff could be present at that meeting, we would like to have there to answer questions we have relative to the Staff's position as.well as to the Black- hawk Ranch position. We would also like to suggest at this time that the Commission not take any permanent stand and not .close any of the hearings either relative to the E. I .R. , the question concerning the General Plan •until the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee has a chance to bring forth their recommendations to the Comma ssion. That's my request at this time. 1 hope you will take those into consider- ation. Thank you. MR. JOHN R. WARD, 3555 Blackhawk Road, Danville, Calif. I was born and raised in the County. My residence is Blackhawk Road and I represent about a dozen homeowners who also live on Blackhawk Road. We are more directly involved with this project than anybody else hern, 'in- eluding Bob Carrau---he just works there. We live there. I think Bob lives in Orinda. Anyway, we are interested in preserving our homes and preserving thy: way we live. We live out in the sticks and we' like it. We have met with the Blackhawk Ranch people and they appear to be cooperative and concerned about our problems. We have some special problems that involve us person- ally that we would like some protection on so that we don't lose our homes and nur way of life. Number 1, the road systems; If Blackhawk Road were widened into a four-lane road, that would wipe out most of us; so, we propose that the Blackhawk Rd. , stay the way it is; that other means on the Elackhawk Property be developed for roadsfor in and out. At the south end where it butts up against T�ssa- jara, apparently that's no problem since it will eventually be an extension of Crow Canyon Road and would not effect Blackhawk Road. As a result of that, we're in pretty good shape. Also, it doesn't effect anyone else; it's through land where there are no residences at this time. At the north end, which would be the southgate to Mt. Diablo, that's a kind of problem; but, we think that the Blackhawk Staff should be able to work that out so that the main road goes into the ranch on the Blackhawk property so that it doesn't -widen what is now the Blackhawk Road. Eventually, Sycamore Valley Road will probably come over the top of the hill and -drop dov+n into the center of Blackhawk Ranch and, again, anything we can do to expediate that route would be to everyone's advantage; it doesn't wipe out anybody's house and will eventually be developed so the sooner the better. Next , we would like to take care of Sycamore Creek in that it doesn't change. It runs right through a lot of our properties. If the watershed, if the water is accelerated into that creek or if there are any auxilliary drainage systems put Into the creek, .It would be easily disturbed .and the Olackhawk people assure us that they are going .to do everything they can • • to control the creek; ' to maintain It the way it is; there will be no creek , ... widening or creek improvements. We want to make sure that that goes in. A few of the houses are adjacent to the Blackhawk development where in the grading operation, you can't build a house or a road without doing some grading and in the grading operation it is possible to cause slides, up- heavels, settlements for those homes immediately adjacent to the property. • We would like the 8lackhawk development in some way---and they have agreed to discuss this with us and we don't know just how yet, but to put up some kind of bond that will protect those homeowners over a period of five (5) Years. There are developments in the immediate neighborhood that have completely wiped out houses adjacent to the development. We don' t want to have to go to court to force anybody to take care of it; we don' t want to have to prove that it wasn't an act of God; we just want it taken care of and we want our homes protected. The next item is our water table, which Is very delicate through that valley. My well is 120 feet deep and i don't •have all the water that I want. Sometimes during a dry year, I can pump it dry. We get by but just bearly. There are some homes in the area where their wells are only 35-ft. , deep and they never run out of water---they have lots of water; so, it's very spotty and very touchy. Because of that, we would like the 8lackhawk Development Co. , to supply us with some water. Any grading operation, any development operation is very likely to change the water level one way or the 'other and It's hard to tell which way it will go. if it raises it, then our septic tanks are wiped out or it will lower it and in that case, we have no water. No water and no septic tanks and we're forced out of business. The next one is directed to the County Tax Assessor and the State of Calif. , • and we will pursue this further with another body; but, roughly, because — a town is going in around us, our taxes are going to be high; we all have relatively large parcels of land and when you have a large parcel in down- town areas, you can easily get taxed right out of existence. We don' t want that to happen. We don' t want to move. We don' t runt our property values increased so we have to sell out. Wben we sell out, fine, %.e' ll pay our taxes or whatever; but, in the meantime, we don' t want to be forced out of our homes. We are--we have prepared this letter and have given a .opy of it to Mr. Dehaesus and it has the signatures of some of the homeowners since we haven't had time to get the rest of the homeowners in the area. (Letter Is on file with 1840-RZ) . Thank you, very much. CHAIRMAN JEHA; Is •there anyone else to speak in favor? (No one else appeared to speak in favor.) All right, this will close for this evening at least, the applicant's presentation. We will hear from the opponents; but, before we do, we' re going to take a 10 minute break. All right, we are now going to hear from those people who are in opposit- ion. 1 was talking with some of you out in the hall and I asked you then and I will ask you again that when you come up, to present your opposition, • please, if possible, try to stick to the specific issues of this development. Don't go wandering off into the whole theory of conservation; but, try to keep it specifically to this development. We would appreciate that. Is there anyone here who is going to, more or less, present an opening statement for the opposition? (No one came forth to represent opposition as a whole). In short, there's no one organized as to a presentation by the opposition? (A woman spoke from the audience on this point, none of which was audible to the transcriber) . , CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right, then if you would like to be the first speaker, you may do that. MR. WESTMAN: Mr. Chairman, you also might point,but---even though it was noticed---that now is the time for people to also comment on the Environ- mental Impact Reports and the Environmental Impact generally of the proposed development. CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right, did everyone hear that? Your comments should be on the environmental impact statements as well as on the proposal in regard to rezoning to Planned Unit as presented. All right, 1 will ask everyone to please fill out a green slip and to also state your name before you begin speaking---you will be on record. MS. BROOKE RAYMOND, 616 Tunbridge Road, Danville, Calif. I am a resident of Danville for the last 10 years. I would just like to make a general open statement here for the opposition pointing out some of the points that were brought up by the pro side of this little argument here. --• feel that the points that were brought up here tonight are very well put for the pro side---! have to admit it's one hell of a development but that doesn't make it good. do want to mention a point or two of my own. First, I believe a project of such size should not be left up to the 7 or S members of a supervisor board or recommendation board. I feel that it should be left up to the general electorate directly with the pros and cons of the project open for public consumption, not left up to hearings for people who can collect the gas money to come in and hash it out. say this because I don't feel that you seven men make a recommendation to a higher five who are' subject to the public vote, have the right to decide such a big part of the future of the San Ramon Valley area. I don't believe, guess I should restate that since I just found out that one of you has been on the board for the last 14 years which may make this statement rather Invalid; but, 1 don't believe that some of you will be on this board in the next 10 to 20 years and thus l don' t feel that your recommendation would be one of responsibility to posterity but one of trying to get it out of the way making it only a valid environmental statement. CHAIRtlAII JEHA: Let me say one thing. • You're five to say what you want and take no issue with that right. The only thing I would say is that you should give your opposition to the development. I can't change our form of government--• MS. AAYMONG: 1 know. 1 f -you will let me finish my statement, you will see that 1 do bring up points on the development. This is just an opening statement just as everyone else has had a chance .to do; so, if you don't s mind (applause from audience). 1 don't believe this should be left up to 7 or 5 men .because ibelieve the residents who will live in this area in the next 10 years should decide directly because they will be the ones who will have to contend with the • problems that this; development will present. Such a development doesn't have to be constructed so soon. Why can't a moritorium be placed on such a development in order to allow time for the area to contend with their present problems? 1 enjoy the idea of donated school space and 1 see there are two on this plan; but. since the San Ramon Valley School District has problems taking care of Its own by not passing tax bond issues, 1 -don't see how they can support two more schools in the area since they can't even keep up with the ones they have. All 1 ask is that extreme thought be taken for the minor points of this development, such as the shopping area, school developments and not only to the major points but to the small points, consideration should be duly given. Granted, it's a beautiful development and it has its merits; but, it's been slipped over so much that the minor problems such as the residents nearby commented on their water table level , have been kind of drawn out of the picture as such. would tike to see a moritorium for the next 10 years on all large-scale development ideas so that we can contend with our present problems ar.J make plans for any future problems that may come up. Thank you. BEVERLY J. MESSINEO, 9791 Broadmoor'Drive, San Ramon, Calif. I represent the San Ramon Homeowners Association. Our Bc•ard of Directors has voted unanimously to oppose the rezoning and development of the Blackhawk Ranch property on the basis of the informa- tion contained in the County Environmental Impact Report and the two accompanying reports, one by James A. Roberts, Inc. , and by Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. The scope of this project, the nature of the land in question an violation of the County General Plan all mitigate against the rezoning and development of this area. Realistically, this development would create a new torn of 15,000 or more people on the slopes of Mt. Diablo. Topographic maps show the area mainly in ,varying degrees of slope. The developers say their intention is to develop only areas of 25% or less slope; but, access to these few level areas could be gained only by massive grading of the sloped areas. The proximity of this land to Mt. Diablo State Park makes it totally unsuit- able for tract homes, apartments and commercial establishments as proposed. The only responsible use for this land is open space as declared by the 1973 County General Plan for the area. The developer's argument that this area was 'slated for developments since the 1950's does not take into consideration the needs and desires of the r ,.` present communities of' the San Ramon Valley. The argument that the Black- hawk rezoning is "in conformance" with the general plan because of a motion which gave the right to develop ail property which was bisected by the open space boundary line ignores the fact that In- this unusual case, we are deal- Ing with nearly 5,000 acres. Surely such a huge development cannot be judged by the same standards as a development of 100 to 200 acres. There is no logical pressure for developing this area. It would be an undesirable leap-frog development of an area better left in open space. The problems the San Ramon Valley is presently facing with schools, parks and air pollut- ion show that a new town is the last thing our valley needs. The San Ramon Homeowners Association feels it is representing the best in- terests of the community of San Ramon in opposing the rezoning and develop- meet of Blackhawk Ranch. Thank you. (Applause) . CHAIRMAN JEHA: Please, restrain your applause. MR. DARWIN R.DAT%NLER, P. 0. Box 604, Diablo, California. I 'm a director for the Diablo Property Owners Association, Tonight', I 'm speaking for this association which represents the 200 families who reside in Diablo. At our last monthly meeting, the officers and director; of the Diablo Property Owners Association voted unanimously to oppose any development of the Black- hawk Ranch property until such time as all off-site problems are solved to our satisfaction. •_ The. blackhawk Corporation has not offered acceptable solutions to the extremely ( severe traffic problems and watdrshed problems that this development would 4 create in our community. Thank you. MR. EGON A. PEDERSEN, 47 Bella Vista (P.O.Box 263) , Diablo, Calif. I 'm a resident of Diablo. 1 would like to add to what Mike Fischer said about the Save fit. Diablo Committee. ' We are a non-political group and, therefore, I cannot speak for the same Mt. Diable Group; but, I would like to state for the record that there has been no talk from the same tit. Diablo group in regard to this statement. It was implied that they have our endorsement. The Blackhawk Development has won approval of many people and it is an excellent development, no doubt about it. It's just in the wrong place. It' s too huge a development for this particular area and there are a lot of reasons for that. About 2/3 of this development is in the County's open space area and believe that the rules should be more than 50% in open space, it should be kept that way. The whole development is surrounded by scenic hills that all belong to the scenic road system of Contra Costa County. All these scenic roads should . not be four-lane highways. This would require some main channeling of the natural creeks and also elimination of a lot of centuries old oak trees. It will be a great expense to the taxpayers and a lot of damage to the natural environment. The State Park has property right next to this development and what will we be looking at from the State Park for the next 12 years? M'e're going to be looking at 5,000 acres of construction or rather destruction. A buffer sone Is required for wild life and park environment protection. This • Is the most beautiful countryside in Contra Costa Cou nty; perhaps eve n all of California. It has natural and uncluttered views of Mt. Diable. If not all of this area, at least the area between Blackhawk Road and Mt. Diablo Scenic should absolutely belong to the State Park and they also have high priority for that area. Some of this area could undoubtedly be acquired by the State Park System after the passage of the State Park Bond Election, Proposition ,fl , June 4, 1974. This bond issue is supported and endorsed by the Calif. State Park Commission on Jan. 11 , 1974. Furthermore, this very same recreation regulating body on May 11 , 1973, in Concord, Calif. , made another resolution and 1 quote: "The California State Park *and Recreation Commission endorses the concept of preserving as open space the foothills of Mt. Diablo to the degree necessary to preserve the visual and ecological integrity of Mt. Diablo State Park." Not even 1/3 of this historical land mark is State park. We need to enlarge our recreational areas close to metropolitan areas, with the energy crisis and the higher costs of gasoline, that is a necessity. Our natural resources are running low. The Clean Air Act was postponed again until 1978 and are will have smog problems here worse than L.A. , because of our very poor air circula- tion in this valley. In 197) there were 40 days where we exceeded the health and crop-damaging standards set by the State of California. Executive homes like these that are going into this development would have most of its population working in Oakland and San Francisco and they will all have high horsepower and mile trips going in making this pollution worse. They are absolutely not going to take your buses. ABA'G has also set growth policies in resolutions and I quote: "you should develop areas which have easy access to community facilities and services. You should encourage housing for people of low and moderate income and it should be close to public transportation." ABAG also puts most of Blackhawk in permanent open space and the rest of it not developable until 1990, that is in the E. I .R. , on Page ,', 14. Furthermore, this area has a lot of valuable valley oaks that are almost becoming extinct by these kinds of developments---it's stated on a governmental research done by Echoview because these trees do not have any room for reproduction. This , Is the same for wild life and plants. This area also contains some of the official State fossils, the sabre tooth tiger and a lot of other very important fossil sites. There's no funds for schools and roads and there will be added burdens on taxpayers by expanded fire district, police and public transportation. Taxes are going up faster than the population even though the developer assures you that they can support the services. This development will be a catalyst for more development and soon all over our open space will be gone and for what reason? i would like somebody to explain. If this development is approved, even though you consider all these vital points, I strongly support the 720-ft. , maximum building elevation. i also recommend that Diablo Road or Blackhawk Road be closed permanen.tly be- for the first entrance to the Blackhawk development is made. This should be done in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the approach to Mt. Diablo 28te Park. The builder should then support or provide a new four-lane road to Sycamore Valley Boulevard or better yet, Crow Canyon to take care of the enormous traffic created by the project. It would be a lot safer and a lot • less expensive than straightening and widening a narrow winding country road with natural creeks on one side and old oak trees on the other. Most people think that it's Blackhawk or some other kind of development. 1 believe it's Blackhawk or open space. I think the ir,.eortance of the environ- ment must surface over private jurisdiction. Our future generations depend upon your support today. Please give it to them. Thank you. HS. RADINE RANDLETT (No address given) . I 've been asked by the Sycamore Homeowners Association to be liason for them although they have not had an opportunity to vote on a final decision on this., We who live in the area and who perhaps would be most directly effected by the proposed Blackhawk Development oppose it because of the many detrimental effects it will have on our community. The magnitude and placement of the project will adversely effect our view shed, air, schools, traffic, safety, growth rate, ecological environment and all -community services. Simply, the quality of life in Danville will decline while a few profit from this pro- Ject. Suburban sprawl of the side of Mt. Diablo will have an unmeasurable but drastic effect on all county residents and every visitor to the State park. The ABAG and county plans recommend that the greatest portion of the Blackhawk Ranch remain in agricultural open spade. If the Tassajara Valley must inevitably yield to growth pressure, let it be the low valley lands that are developed; but, vie urge that the Blackhawk Ranch not develop aslong as it is possible to protect the integrity of the mountain. The quality of air, already a 'problem in the valley, will be substantially degraded by auto emissions. At a time when vie realize the difficulty awl Importance of public transportation, it is foolhardy to leap frog into- Tassajara Valley when existing growth corridors have not been fully dev. ':,ped. The matter of schools is one of utmost concern to parents. A School band Issue was recently defeated in spite of the serious -financial condition of the school district, the deteriorating condition of existing schools arid- current growth problems as yet unsolved. The San Ramon Valley School District will experience overcrowding and in- creased costs if Blackhavik is approved. Traffic generated by the project will have a' tremendous effect on those who live betvreen Sycamore Valley and Tassajara Roads. These roads are currently used by bicyclists, equest- rians, joggers and school children as well as local traffic. Besides being subjected to the noise of construction and dangers of heavy equipment travelling these roads, Sycamore residents and visitors from all over the County will lose this recreational resource. It will no longer be 'safe for our children to ride bicycles to John Baldwin and Vista Grande schools as they now do; bus service will have to be provided for more children. Economically, it's impossible to understand how .$9,000,000 needed for roads can be provided out of' a $1 ,000,000 county budget for. roads. It's entirely possible that the project could be built and the necessary roads could not r be built. The current asphault shortane is an example of the situation which might bring total congestion c(_ existing roads.. The projected growth rate for the valley is already of grave concern to those who wish to pro- vide community services to all who live there. The needs of people are not met simply by providing adequate sewage, water and roads. Danville is not prepared to handle the doubling of her population either from the standpoint of essential services which as schools or non-essential services such as parks, recreation and community services. We also fear that eilowing Blackhawk to develop any higher than 700-ft. , would set a dangerous precedent. We have already seen the destruction of one house In our area because Mr.Scott was allowed to build on a hillside. From the ecological view point, the project is detrimental. Nearly all of the wildlife on the 4,800 acres will perish or be forced onto the mountain. The rare Golden Eagle will not nest near people; . therefore, Blackhawk may cause the loss of the few eagles which still live on Ht. Diablo. Deer, already a problem on the mountain will die off or will be forced into the park where overpopulation will kill them. The few remaining mountain lions will not find a warm welcome among Blackhawk residents. Additional run-off will overload creekscausing flood control to be needed. This process wipes out the rich wild life habitat of the creeks and costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars., Ironically, even the black .Hawk*for which the ranch was named may vanish. It has been shown many times in California alone that the long-termed costs to taxpayers of developing agricultural land.exceeds the costs of purchasing the land and maintaining it in Its agricultural state. the are not deceived by Blackhawks claim that the development will produce greater revcnues than costs. It's clear that we who live in the valley will lose many benefits and pay many costs if Blackhawk is approved . It is our view shed which will be destroyed; it is our schools which will be degraded; it is we who will breath more toxic air; we will bear the burden of noise congestion and in- adequate community services. We urge our County government to implement its open space plan and reject the suburbanization of the County's only mountain. Thank you. NANCY HENDERSON, 6 Ona Court, San Ramon, Cdlifornia. I 'm here tonight because oppose any development of Mt. Diablo or its foothills and also several of my neighborhood friends who couldn't be here tonight asked r.e to reiterate their opposition to the Blackhawk Ranch. I 've read the Blackhawk E. I .R. and although it. is inadequate in several aspects---for example, some long-termed Impact studies have not been made, it does give some indication that there will be a loss of certain rare endangered or depleted species; there will be Increased air pollution and downstream flood potential , etc. It's quite clear that the quality of life in the San Ramon Valley will be greatly altered should the Blackhawk Ranch be developed. It is also clear that an effective buffer zone between human beings and nature is vitally Important to the survival of the biotic community that is Mt. Diablo. Since the roots of my heritage are here, I 'm a fifth generation Californian, who grew up in Walnut Creek when it was a small country town. 1 don't • relish the thought of a lifeless dry mountain Jutting up through the smog - = and surrounded by housing no matter how elite. As a child, I saw my favor- Ite land marks disappear under paving, golf courses and hones. Back then In the 140's and '50's everyone thought development was inevitable and a sign of prosperity. Very few people thought about careful planning and preservaion of unique areas. Today, we know that development of all areas Is not inevitable; that with careful plan6ing which allows development of appropriate areas, we can preserve the integrity of such unique assets of Mt. Diablo is to Contra Costa County. Still , some people continue to argue that if we do not approve $100,000 housing for the foot of Mt. Diablo, that the inevitability of development will bring low-quality, high-quantity housing instead. Gentlemen, this argument precludes careful planning. It assumes that our Planning Department, Commission and Board of Supervisors will approve almost anything which is presented to them. The General Plan for San Ramon Valley is in -the process of being revised and up-dated. I urge you at the'very least to- wait until this process has been completed before you come to a decision which will effect this valley for generations to come. ' Thank you. r MR. RALPH COZINE, 466 Constitution Drive, Danville, Calif. I represent the EI Cerro Homeowners Association. At El Cerro, we' re mostly interested in the traffic situation and I 'd like to call your attention to the situation as presented in the E. I .R. Recently, with Devil Mountain (1787-RZ) approval as well as other develop- ments along -the foothills of Mt. Diablo are greatly going to increase the traffic along EI Cerro Boulevard. Now, this Blackhawk Ranch will provide what we consider is an intolerable amount of additional traffic. Now, I passed you out a map of the El Cerro Boulevard and I would like to call your, attention that in the .8 mile from the freeway east to Diablo Road, the way that development has been approved In that area, there are 48 driveways and 8 street intersections. We feel that this street could never safely be the main thoroughfare for this additional Blackhawk traffic. • In the E. I .R. , In order to make it appear that this is on acceptable level of traffic, you' re already forcing the people in this area to have no park- Ing in essentially 6 lanes of traffic on that street. We recommend that any further consideration of the Blackhawk Ranch develop- ment be delayed until an adequate solution to this traffic problem is found. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MS. JANET B.• SWOPE, 2100 Mt. Diablo Scenic, Danville, Calif. I 'm speaking for the San Ramon Valley unit of the Diablo Valley League of Women Voters. At the last hearing, we were asked to confine our comments to the argument of whether or not this development would be in conformance with the general plan. Since that time, the local citizens committee to re-study the general plan for the Danville-Alamo Area has been appointed and again we urge the Commission to allow this committee to •complete its study before we rezoning 1 the Blackhawk property, The E.C.i:S. environmental impact statement says, • "excluding the recently approved open space plan,, the last general plan re-. r vision for the subject area occurred in 1967 and this revision did not include the entire Blackhawk site., The general plan may need revision to reflect current conditions relating to traffic, transportation, energy conservation and funct- conal relationships. This need for revision exists independent of the Black- hawk project. "The totalpDpulation estimate of the Blackhawk project. is 14,662. That figure rpresents 27% of the estimated 55,000population figure for the area in 1990. An additional 27%, between 1/4 and 1/3 of the presentpopulation figure is not nearly normal growth. It's location is even more significant. The area surrounding Blackhawk can be characterized as follows: '7Q the north, rugged hills terminating in Ht. Diablo and the State Park; to Lice east and south, rolling hills and farmlands., These areas are predomin- antly used for grazing. There is no significant' residential development at present in either direction. The major areas of development lie to the west along the 1-680 corridor extending eastward 'toward Blackhawk." There are three important points to be made here: First, the Blackhawk Ranch is almost entirely surrounded by agricultural zoning. Four agricultural preserves, A-4 Zoning committed under the Williamson Act border its perimiters. Second, originally in the 1963 General .Plan, only part of the ranch property was considered developable and then designated by AEAG in 1970 as "controlled development", i .e. , a holding catagory for if and when its use would be deemed necessary or desirable. 1 . Third, the ranch touches Camino Tassajara or Tassajara Road as it's referredt.<:,t to in two separate places, adjacent to land which is considered prime for development because of the topography but not yet being developed. The E. I .R. points out that Sycamore Valley would provide the most immediate are for growth with some 1 ,800 acres of developable land along the valley floor extending from the intersection of Sycamore Valley Road and Tassajara Road to Lawrence Road, which is now all agricultural . Pressure for growth through out the general area known as the Tassajara Valley would be generated by the project. The pressure to develop the valley area adjacent to Blackhawk once roads and utilities have been extend- ed Into the area means that we are not talking about just 4,800 acres as stunning as that figure may be; but, undoubtedly thousands of additional , acres as well . The Blackhawk Property is not presently accessible by any roadway capable of handling the automobile traffic of 14,000 residents. If new access roads are built, their direction will open up new avenues of areas to commer- cial and residential development which could contribute further to the strip zoning in shopping areas which already blights the valley from Alamo to San Ramon and creates serious circulation problems. Any growth plan must accommodate the residents' needs for goods and services. The General Plan for the Danville area presently states the total of 155 acres provided for commercial use. If the residents' of Blackhawk will use. these . facilities exclusively, adequate roads- must-be built and this raises probler..s of energy use and air quality as well as the cost of the roads. If commer- clot and professional services are to be ailowed .as part of the planned unit development, then we are in fact talking about a new town even though this Commission showed some contempt for that concept at the last hearing. The League supports centralization and higher density in areas already zoned residential for a more efficient use of utilities and services.-more visible open space, less reliance on the private automobile and sufficient patronage of public transportation made especially accute during- the present energy crisis. This development would add significantly to the commuter population, which dominates Danville. The League also supports in our housing policy a,heterogeneous community In the areas of housing and employment to encourage a balance in population of various ethnic and economic Backgrounds. According to the developer's plans submitted to the County, only 8.8% of •the housing provided in the eiaekhawk project would cost less than $45,000 per unit. This figure is based on current construction costs which I assume are right. It seems apparently that small developments are less able to provide a range of housing values in a large development like Blackhawk to whom we sight look for real opportunities in economic and social integration. Also, in light of the fact that our March 5th bond issue for school buildings failed, the Blackhawk project's increase in the district's bonding capacity ' Is hardly useful. The project is expected to increase theschools's bonding -. �- capacity by less than 7 million dollars and would require more than 11 million dollars in physical facilities. Our schools are presently over crowded and In financial distress. The Blackhawk Corporation has given a firm offer of only one school site and would generate a school population of 4,200 to 4,500. We recognize and appreciate that the Blackhawk developers have shown con- cern for open space, indigenous plant life, the scenic quality of the area, especially the creek beds and the wild life community they support. They have also exhibited innovative approaches to watershed problems, especially In paving only minimal amounts of soil and using gravel where feasible. All of the conceptions meet league recommendations if they were to be placed in areas already zoned residential or in an obvious or designated grovith area; but, for all its amenities, large or small , we feel the location and timing eonsitutes urban sprawl and will produce insurmountable pressure to develop thousands of adjacent acres. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JENA: Thank you. Next speaker, please. HR. THOMAS AREND, 5121 Rea Oak Drive, Concord, Calif. I 'm representing the Clayton Valley High School Ecology Club. We oppose the development of Blackhawk Ranch. Number 1 , by the time the development is completed, we will be a wage- earning and voting age. We do not want our taxes to go to support a new.community. This development would add an unnecessary number of people to an already overcrowded county. Number 2, we do not want to -pay county taxes to help support a financial elite who will be living in that area. It.would not be right for all of us paying to support a. select few. Number 3, the developer stated that in 1990, we would need considerable additional housing. The development would not -be providing houses for us and our children; it would be for financially elite people. To meet the needs of an average wage earner, in our county, whose children would also need additional housing, we need average cost housing. One does not build average cost housing on the slopes of a mountain. Number 4, therefore, the developer is not planning to provide average hous- ing for us; rather, he+s planning .a financially elite drawing card develop- ment. This would unnecessarily Increase the population of an over populated county and our taxes. Number 5, the developer and his consultants repeatedly stated that they would do everything possible to preserve the natural state of the mountain. If, you were really concerned about the mountain, he would not be proposing any development there. The development is not, to help the residents of the county but to make money for the developer and his firm. There is more aesthete value in the mountainas open space than as development. Number 6, from the top of Mount Diablo, there is a greater panoramic view than from any other mountain in all of America and Europe with the except- ion of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Please leave us something to see besides houses. Number 7, some communities have found that maintaining open space is cheaper' than providing the services of development. Number S, one development tends to open the door to more development so pretty soon the base of the mountain would be ringed with developments. Number 9, considering the pDpulation of the County's recreational needs and the recreation needs of neighboring counties, would it not be better to extend Mt*. Diablo State Park down the mountain into the foothills. At present, only 104 of the mountain is State Park or a total of approximately 7,765 acres. 1 urge you to vote against this development. Thank-you. . MR. HARK BARNS, 159 Kelobra Court, Walnut Creek, Calif. I 'm from the Ygnacio High School recyling center. Our Board of Directors got together and voted to oppose this development. Blackhawk Ranch area has continually been referred to as an unimproved area. would suggest that the only Improvement that be made to the area is to put It Into the State Park. Development could hardly be called an improvement of the land. The need to keep our open space has been cited again and again even by the Sierra Club. Putting houses around the State Park seems to be contrary to our wishes. The presentations by. the Blackhawk Corporation sounds great; but it still calls for bulldozers chasing the animals up into an overcrowded State Park. Last of all , I 'm really disappointed to see that the Sierra Club would prostitute themselves to any developers with .slick presentations. Thank you. (Applause • from audience). t CHAIRMAN JEHA: You know, if you continue with your applause, it just shows your immaturity. We've asked you please not to applaude. If you continue--- LADY FROM AUDIENCE: You're the one that is showing Immaturity. You're the one who is constantly interrupting our presentations. (Applause) . CHAIRMAN JEHA: Weil , you know, what we can do is just .recess the hearing if you want to continue on that basis. I asked you before and 1 ' ii ask you again, politely, please do not clap after the speakers. You're not impress- t Ing anybody. Go ahead, please. MRS. LiNDA MOODY, P. 0. Box 635,Diablo, California. A 'm speaking for Amigos de Diablo. 1 don't know if i speak for the entire opposition; but, i must admit that some of us were stunned when the Sierra Club took its position tonight and we feel we need a little time to revamp and reconsider our positions in light of the Sierra Club's position. Our group has not taken a formal stand, yet, on the merits of the Blackhawk Ranch. The only stand we've taken so far is to say that we believe the proposal is inconsistent with the general plan and i have submitted a memor- andum to you on the legal points and have identified myself with the excellent planning department presentation on that subject. As far as the merits of the proposal area concerned, we don' t have a position ' yet. We •don't feel that all the facts are available to us yet. We have not been able to get an official copy of the Open Space Element of the General Plan and most importantly, the economic addendum to the environmental impact report has not been completed yet. We don't know what the economic data are and we think these are very import- ant and vie shouldn't make a decision until we see what the financial impact of the development will be upon the valley and the County in general . • So, for these reasons, I 'd like to reiterate the request of Dr. Hirsch, re- questing a continuance on the hearing and particularly we request that comments on the E. I.R. continue to be allowed. I think there's some important facts here relating to the E.I.R. and whether the hearing should be closed on the E.I .R. have learned today that the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District has received a copy of the E. I .R. but they have not completed their comments and apparently they do intend to do so. would request the County to specifically request the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District to state whether it would. grant a permit to Blackhawk if the indirect source elements of the district's regulations were in effect and if Blackhawk were not exempted by the grandfather clause. Second, the Contra Costa County Soils Conservation District received a copy of the E. I.R. only on Harch 7th, and they are' in the process of preparing the;r comments on the E.I .R. , but these comments also have not been completed. We request continuance and we will have further comments for you at a later • date. Thank you. r CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank 'you, Mrs. Moody: Mr., Dehaesus, • l was going to ask you if Mrs. Moody's comments on the various governmental agencies who get copies, is there any information on them in the light of what we have just heard? MR. DEHAESUS: In what respect? CHAIRMAN JEHA: in other words, as -far as the staff's report when you mention all the different aspects, were some, of these agencies contacted by the staff? MR. DEHAESUS: Yes, and 1 understand that the Soil Conservation District does Intend to comment on the E. I .R. I also understand that the Air Pollution Control District does intend to comment, too. Of course, if you close the hearing on the E. I .R. , that would pretty much preclude consideration of their submittals. This is really up to you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Ail right. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MISS NANCY GORAMSON, 29 Viking Drive; Pleasant Hill , California. Okay, gentlemen, I 'm going to try to make this short and sweet, too. I 've lived in Pleasant Hill all my life. I 'm representing many of the students attending College Park High School in Pleasant .Hill. I'd like ' clarification of a point made earlier. No. 1 , you want to preserve Mt. Diablo but you' re willing to develop it also: No. 2, 1 believe this statement has already been up; .but, I 'd like to say it t again. ' Blackhawk is a good development; but, it is in open space area of the County's- General Plan. You seem to have a great plan, gentlemen, but I bel 'eve it is improper and In the wrong place. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? MRS. ELSA STUART, Box 293, Diablo, California. I 've lived in Diablo for 16 years and co-incidentally, the old house in which I live was at one time used as the commissary for the Blackhawk Ranch. I came at the last minute tonight feeling very sick at heart over hearing of the Devil Mountain decision and I walked in and 1 heard the Sierra Club sell out and now I 'm sick to my stomach---I just can' t believe it. After reading the environmental report, I find it very hard to believe that they would buy this lovely project but a lovely project put in the wrong place. We chose our home---and I speak only for myself---16 years ago because we liked the feeling of being close to the land; we liked the old house; we liked the trees, the birds and now I have a sense of being threatened. I feel that the earth is being threatened and that really upsets me. I think I really undersand the Indians now and what they were saying and 1 just want to read one brief Indian statement to you: "Our land is more valuable than your money. It, will last forever. It will not even parish by the flamesof fire, as long as the sun shines and the waters flow, this land will be here to give Life to man and animals. We cannot sell the lives of men and animals; therefore, we cannot sell, this land. It was put here for os by the Great Spirit and we cannot sell it because It does not belong to us. You can count your money and burn it within the nod of a buffalo's head; but, only the Great Spirit can count the grains of sand and the blades-of grass of these plains. As a present to you, we will give you anything we have that you can take with you; but , the land, never." Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA:• Thank you. Is there 'anyone else wishing to speak? MR. ROBERT BERATTA,' P. 0. Box 672, -Diablo, California.' As I have been look- ing at this plan---and I 've been before you some two years ago on the Dietz- Crane project---I always tell my kids in football , when in doubt, punt. I 've been looking for a weakness and i know that the proponents have made a good job, they've done their homework; but, I would like to recommend to this Commission to.defer this development or set a moritorium on development since it 'was recommended by Supervisor Linscheid, Iast month during the Devil Mountain hearing that because of the large'numbers opposing the develop- ment, he stated that he would like to see the Board of Supervisors set up an open space initiative on the November ballot. I think that is probably going to be the only fair way to do this unless the people of the San Ramon Valley are educated to development. We brought 3,000 signatures up here last time and we held the Supervisors for two long meetings and last night they finally made their decision. I hate to see this go through another set of .long sessions---it's going to , be difficult. 1 could bring 10,000 signatures here on this and I don't know if that would help or not. think you' re going to have to look at this realistically, either from the. legislators' point of view or from the peoples' point. Thank you. CHAIRMAII JEHA: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? MR. CHARLES A. FREEMAN, 1261 Craig Drive, Concord, Calif. I have to speak for myself and for those a►hom I have taken a consensus near my home. I 'm — - not much of a lawyer and I don't have all of the legal handles that a pro- fessional' lawyer has. However, at the last hearing, two weeks ago, when we discussed this, I noted the presentations made by the Planning Staff, and by the Blackhawk Corp. I noticed, too, that their two maps don't coincide very well. 1 don't see how their lawyer could make the statements that he did last time and I will make a few quotes: Ile said "that staff was saying that the homes up there would all be jammed together". he was trying to say that staff was talking against the Black- hawk Corp. , 3d hominem in saying that they would---that they were against the corporation themselves. make a quote here: He said "it doesn't do any good to save the side of a hill if no. one wants to use it." I wouldn't exactly call 5,000 acres the "side of a hill". Most of Mr. Van Voorhis' argument, the lawyer who presented Blackhawk's case last time, was finding bits of legal matter. I noted his charts and the Commission's charts were those of maps,. sewer systems, etc. Their charts were bits of legal matters blown up photos of legal things, the general plan, etc. He was finding bits of language to use to BlackhawkIs advantage which is sort of a chicken way out in my opinion. 1 beg you not to forget the staff's recommendation that this development Is inconsistent • with the general plan: I guess it's easy for you to forget that since it ' was two weeks ago and it's hard to forget. You must compare all the facts equally and not just the latest ones. 1 will try to give you my arguments which are abstract facts. 189ree with Mr. Dehaesus of the Planning Staff that this is against---inconsistent with the general plan. It is against the Open Space Act of 1963, which declared a meridian about equal with the Blackhawk Ranch sign, open space. it seems to me that pulling a loophole in that if you owned a parcel of land before this law went into effect that was partially within the open space area and partially without, you could develop the area within to the extent .of that without, which is an interesting loop hole because If someone owned a heck of a lot of open space and just a few acres without, you could develop the open space. 1 don't see the reason that this loo0hole was planned into the Open Space Act of 1973---1 wasn't there at those meetings; but, I still don't know why that loop hole was planned Into the act, If it was specifically for Slackhawk •Ranch or not. The 5,000 acres of the Blackhawk Ranch is open rolling hill land and the comment was made earlier by proponents of this proposal that Clackhawk Ranch was favorable because of the beauty of the development. I might point out that the beauty of the San Ramon Valley lies in the undeveloped regions and not In the beauty of the tract homes. It was also mentioned that this development was good because it would be developed all at one time with a good plan. i agree with this, it's a nice plan; but, 1 don't agree with their statements that if this development was not approved that the area would develop in little steps. There's no reason that - it should be developed at a I i . Okay. This area, as I recall from the last hearing, Is planned to be completed within 20 years and thepopulation was planned for about 14,700 people. It's a town in itself and I don't want to go into the definition of a towel as you did at the last hearing; but , 15,000 people in my mind is a town. It's much larger than most of the small towns in California. Build- Ing a whole new town in 20 years up in an open space area like this seems to me to be inconceivable. The impact that this would have on the County, both environmentally and the ecological impact as well as the population impact---traffic, sewage, etc. The additional population of the Ulack-hawk Ranch development would exceed the development of just that area since if It is developed, it's very likely that two additional areas would be de- veloped as stated earlier due to a snow-balling effect. With this added population of the Blackhawk Ranch and the two additional areas, the total population in the Alamo-Oanville planning district exceeds the limit of the 50,000 set by this Commission. On the traffic problem with this area, one of the proponents 'of the project stated that he didn't want it developed and I found that interesting that they would not want the roads of the area developed; but, an area developed for 15,000 people has a tremendous amount of traffic as can be seen by the City of Martinez---there are large highways leading in and out and with an area as large as this highways would be needed In and out. The suggestion presented earlier by the Sierra Club but made by Blackhawk, was that they would make public transportation of buses for a period of one year] believe, to try and tee if that would work; but, If in this period . or a period of 6 months it reached 40%, then it .would be dropped. Well , It's been proved before that public transportation in. suburban areas simply' ' does not work. The areas are too.spread out; the density is too low and you have to go so for to get to a shopping center---it's a long way from one corner of the development to a shopping center'or to Danville and if there Is public tranportation provided, only commuter hours, then that would not provide for this. There will be a lot of•transportation going on, a lot of air pollution, a lot of problems. There was another statement made to the effect that it would be okay for the Planning Commission to approve something like the Blackhawk development If the hills around the San Ramon Valley were not developed. This seems to be a rather biased view to say that you can develop Mt. Diablo but don' t develop the hills around my home! One of the main points for the Blackhawk developrrent was a statement that houses must be built for people to live in. If you do not build houses, people will not move into an area. That's pretty obvious. In this case, the chicken has to come before the egg. People 'will not come in and camp up on the hillsides in tents until they build houses for them! In conclusion, I would like to say that this mountain, this fit. Diablo, is land and 1 don' t believe that we have the power in this area to propose such a huge development and such a huge area of land, we have to look at this mountain every day; the people of my age are going to continue .to live in this county and during the twenty years of its development when we are grown adults, i don't want to look at a mountain that is built up ►•pith houses. I don't want to go up on the mountain and look down and Instead of seeing rolling foothills, I would see rolling houses! I don't believe that this County would or could live with 50,000 more people. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JENA: Thank you, Mr. Freeman. MOLLY REEVES, 126 Canon Drive, Orinda, California. Just to set the record straight and perhaps to bolster the spirit of some of my fellow Sierra Clubers, I wznt to make the record clear that there are those of us in the Sierra Club who do not concur with the report as read this evening. 1 , as an executive•member of this same body of which 611chael Fischer is the Chairman, I am fully aware that no polling was made•of the general membership. I feel this is a very vital element. Furthermore, I feel that we cannot disregard the general plan for the entire Contra Costa area and that this is, perhaps, in the least a very premature agreement that has apparently been reached between these bodies. 1 hope that it will be reviewed very thoroughly and possibly portions of it found invalid in that the Sierra Club is not in a position to reach these kinds of agreements; but, I do want people to be fully aware that this does not represent the totality of the Sierra Club membership in Contra Costa County. Thank you. . CHAIRMAN JENA: Thank you, Miss Reeves. is there anyone else to speak in oppositionl MR. JAY KUDOKAWA, 2620. Biscay Way, Walnut Creek, Calif. You've heard from the Blackhawk employees and the Blackhawk promoters and now you' re going to have to hear from me! The community around here cannot get enough together to afford the research of each development that fallsupon this community, nor can we hire fast talking individuals to pose each development that moves into this commun- Ity. Instead, the community must rely upon its concerned persons to appeal to the County Planning Commission. to spare it from over development. We know the effects of the development of the Blackhawk .Ranch on the environ- ment; but, what about the effects on the community? We are appealing to the County Planning Commission to stop the development of the Blackhawk Ranch. We are the community. We are the people and we will not give up without a fight. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. MANFRED LINDNER, 32 Corte Nogal ,Danville, California. I 'm the President of the Contra Costa Park Council , a conservation organization like the Sierra Club; but, we don't always necessarily agree-and, have the same point of view that the Sierra Club has---we have our own. At our last meeting, we discussed in as much detail as we could, as we felt competent to, the coming hearings on this development and while we did not vote to oppose the Dlackhawk development, neither did we vote to give it blanket approval. Instead, there were several items that bothered us about the development from the conservation point of view. No. 1 , you've heard several times tonight but I must go on record as speaking for the Park. Council , which is the impact that this---by the way, I ' ll digress just long enough to say that 1 , too, ---I thins; that conservationists have come of age even before the bombshell that ►•ras dropped tonight by my friend Mike Fischer of the Sierra Club---the f.,ct that the Blackha%-.k Ranch develop- meet came along and paid more than lip service to open space even in their preliminary plans is an indication to me that the worries of conservation- ists are well founded and the more thoughtful of the developments and developers are paying serious and close attention to this. But, one of the things that bothered the Park Council was the impact that ' this would have on the development of adjacent lands----all of which you have heard several times tonight. But, what it really means essentially Is that if this development does go in at the present tire, that all of the lands out to the old Tassajara school , out Highland Road, all the ►.:ay to Camp Parks, essentially will go too. That is the signal for development of all of the lands in the back country. There's really nothing that any one Including yourselves can do after that to stop it. If this is the time that you want that to happen, then you will probably vote to approve Blackhawk Ranch. If you feel as the Park Council does that this is not yet the time, that the time may come where development out towards Tassajara and towards Camp Parks is appropriate, then you would probably end up voting against this at the present time. So much for the developmental impact. The other is perhaps a little more arrogant point of view. I apologize a bit for going into this; but, it is the visual impact. As well planned as thi's is and as delighted as -i am to see that 2,500 acres are being devoted to permanent open space on Fit. Diablo, it's nevertheless true that the top of the mountain belongs not only to Contra Costa County but it belongs to the State of California and in some sense of the word, it ' •r also belongs to the people of the United States, many of them come to the top of Mt. Diablo because as the young man said earlier, one can see further _ from the top---34,000 sq. miles or some such very impressive figure---than from any other place in the world except Mt. Kilimanjaro and that's really true. It just happens to be so. What you gentlemen are going to have to decide is how close you want large- scale developments no' matter how good they are to come to the visual aspect of the. top of the mountain. It's clear to me that it's a little better to- night after hearing some of the earlier presentations, than it was when I came in. But, it's still perhaps several miles away from the view point on the top of the mountain; but, this is a decision- that you- have to make. We j are not saying what you should do; but, we say that you should be aware of what a large scale development down on Tassajara Road is certainly going to be very obvious from the top of the mountain. , I think these are the only points I would like to make and then to ask that you give these considerations in whatever decisions you make. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, Mr. Lindner. Any other speakers in opposition? MR. STEVEN SCARDACHI , 454 Blue Ridge Drive, Martinez, California. In my freshman year at school , I had to drive to San Francisco. You' re wondering now what this has to do with- this development. Well , 15,000 people, commuters, development, even with BARTD whenever they start to operate, all going into San Francisco, all cannot be accommodated. BARTD really can't accomodate the number of people we have in the County now. • I don't feel ' that 1 .ant to have to hassle with all these additional people. We moved into Contra Costa County to get away from people, for the views. I 1.. would just hate to see this mountain destroyed considering that it took nature millions of years to create it and now man wants to partially destroy it in just a few decades. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Tha•.ik you. 'Anyone else to speak? (No one else appeared to speak in opposition) . All right, if there is no further opposition, the applicant has time for rebuttal . COI-IM. HILDEBRAND: Mr. Chairman, before we go on, there have been a couple of reports this evening and there might be further testimony offered in opposition. I know the original discussion at the first hearings was that we planned to continue the hearing again until April 23'd. 1 just wonder If it would be more appropriate at this point to continue it to April 23 at this point which would allow further testimony from those in opposition speaking both to the E. I .R. and the projece' itself. COMM. C014PAGLIA: I think that we've digested about as much as I want to hear tonight. I would be in favor of having rebuttal at a later time. I would like to see this part of the hearing closed and to continue it until April 23'd where we can hear the rebuttal at that time. CHAIRMAN .JEHA: Let me point out one thing 'in relation to the E. I .R. As far as I 'm concerned, the amount of input in the E. I .R. has been quite. extensive. This probably is the thickest- E. I.R. , that we've ever had in the County and it probably covers more facets of the development than any that I 've seen in this County. Besides that, we have the applicant's two consultants who have presented their versions of the E. I .R. , which beomes Input and we've heard people give their comments which also becomes part of r , the record and part of the E.I.R. The problem that we have, which is not actually a problem, but we have to'have staff reponse to the E.I.R. In • talking with Mr. Dehaesus, the staff needs around. 30-days to respond to the- questions raised by the people in opposition---well , just respond to points brought out in these hearings. Now, I can't see any reason why we can't close the E.I.R. as of tonight, if ' we continue the E.I .R. , then we have to continue it another 30-days for re- sponse from the staff and this can go on,and on. So, 1 would like your comments on that---not on the hearings since they have• to be continued since we have more testimony to take. The question is does the E. I .R. cover the subject adequately. I 'm of the opinion that it does and I don't feel that there's going to be much more said about this that would materially aid the E. I .R. How do you gentlemen feel about it? COMM. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I 'd like to ask a question, really, in answer to your question. If those who have not commented onthe E. I .R. , make their comments in writing and submit them to the staff, would this then become a part of the official record and make it possible for the staff to make its answer within a reasonable time? in other Words, do they have to appear at a public hearing or can they write their questions or observations and have it part of the record? MR. DEHAESUS: We can only consider items submitted prior to your closing the hearing on the E. I .R. If you decide to close the hearing on the E. I .R. this evening, then we could only respond to' those items that have been sub- mitted up to that particular time and not since that time. COMM. YOUNG: Well , could we for example close the E. I .R. Question as of two weeks from tonight to give time for written comments to come in? MR. DEHAESUS*: I don't know how you'close the hearing---maybe Mr. Westman--- MR. WESTMAN: 1 don't think you're closing the hearing. The only thing you' re saying is to the extent its severable, you' re proposing to not receive any testimony---any further testimony on the draft E. I .R. CHAIRMAN JEIiA: but, we are as far as receiving written testimony. MR. WESTNAN: Yes, but you are going to continue the hearing on the whol-e matter until I assume April 23'd. If you want to indicate to the audience here tonight that for sone period---the next 10 days or two weeks---you will receive written comments from people on the E. I .R. , who wish to make them, I don't see any objection to that because you can receive those officially at your next meeting on the 23'd and you can receive the written comments which are to be submitted to staff in whatever time period you select, 10 days or two weeks. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Now, if someone would make a motion---- COMM. MILA110: I might point out that If anyone submitting written comments, please don't pull things from the E. I .R. that is already here and submit that In writing. At least three people got up here tonight and have taken things from the E. I.R. , and gave them as their comments. I 've set here reading this report and I 've heard some of the comment read verbatim. So, If anyone is going to give anything, please make it something not already contained in the report. MR. DEHAESUS: Mr. Chairman, then if I understand your intent of what might be happening here, you would close the hearing on the E.I.R. , two weeks hence, etc. Novi, In preparing our response, we would not have a response ready for at least 30-days beyond that period. That would take it past 4 the 231d of April. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well , then,•what we' ll do---and this is our schedule. We will close the. testimony on the E. I.R. or hold up any more testimony on it but we will accept written comments to the staff for the next two weeks. After that, the staff will start responding to the E. I .R. , based on the testimony given here as well as the written comments. We wi11 continue the public hearing on the subdivision or the PUD until the evening of the 23'd. ' At, that time, we can officially close the E. I.R. hearing and then in another two weeks from that, which would then make up the 30-days, which would be May 7th---we can take further action. MR. DEHAESUS: 1 think we ought to set the dates as clearly as possible. We had set tentatively the 23'd for further hearing and possibly close it at that time with a decision on May 28th with some discussion between there--- CHAIRHAN JEHA: Well , you and I discussed the schedule and what we' re doing Is extending the E. I.R. two more weeks and you will have to adjust everything accordingly. BETTY ROBERTS, 292 Smith Road, Danville, California. Mr. Chairman, I would like clarification ona point. I 'm from the Deferred Growth Committee. As 1 understand the guidelines of the E. I .R.., you' re allowed a 30-day minimum and 'a 90-day period has been suggested forlarge-scale developments. This certainly falls within the eatagory of a large-scale development and we do feel as though tide need more time and we've only had a minimum of 30-days. I 'd like for Mr. Dehaesus to clarify that. Is that correct? MR. DEHAESUS: The State Guidelines on E. I .R. preparation say that you must -have a minimum of 30-days for any project. It does suggest that for large projects and especially real large projects, you should have at least 90 days. However, 30-days Is the minimum. They strongly suggest more tine for larger projects. CHAIRMAN JEHA: When did the staff get their E. I .R. out to the public and the Commission. It was in February some time. I don' t have the exact date. I1R. DEHAESUS: The E. I .R. wassigned off on February 14th. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay, so if you go from February 14th to or into May, you're talking.about your 90-days. MR. DEIIAESUS: No. This is 90-days for in-put. MRS. ROBERTS: And, we really feel that we need that. This certainly is a large development and once it's built, it's going to be there and I certainly think the people could use the extra 90-days in terms that you're not going to be able to change the development latera CHAIRtIAll JENA: Thank you, Mrs. Roberts. Mr. Van Voorhis, did you want to comment? MR. DANIEL VAN VOORHIS: Yes, Mr. Jeha. The only point 1 have is on the version pertaining to the time limit for responding to the environmental - Impact report. As 1 read the State Guidelines. and I defer to Mr. West- man on the point that the State Guidelines are not laws but purely guide- ` • lines. Secondly, the guidelines as guidelines refer to 30-days and not more than 90-days and it's up to speculation on the case of larger projects---- CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes. I think the Commission knows their mind on that and we appreciate your bringing out that point. Gentlemen, we have discussed this and the way we discussed it was that we would take no more verbal testimony but take written testimony up until two weeks from tonight which will be what. Mr. Dehaesus? f MR. DEHAESUS: The 9th. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thirty days from that time will be the time that the staff will require to make their response and we will go from there. In the mean- time, the public hearings would be continued. Now, would someone care to make a motion to that effect. MR. DEHAESUS: I don't want to throw out any technicalities; but, this Is a technicality and It may have to be observed: Another consideration is that the State clearinghouse on environmental Impact reports generally requires 45-days from the time that they receive It. This may be a technicality, a small one. It may be more than that. -I just throw that out to you also. CHAIRMAN JEHA: That's something new to me. I don't know about that. MR. -DEHAESUS: That's why 1 said. it was a technicality and ordinarly, I wouldn't want to bring it up; but, the State clearing house on environmental impact reports requires 45-days. CHAIRMAN JEIIA: Well , we can try to adhere to that schedule. If we' re doing something %.e shouldn't be doing, you will have to advise us---Mr. 4lestman will have to advise us -- MR. DEHAESUS: I 'm advising you! CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well , if there is that problem, vie will count on being so advised. The question is: This has happened before and there never seems to be an end what people can say either for or against a project. Unfortunately, these things are never resolved to everyone's satisfaction and the E. I .R. is normally always negative because if you build one house or 5 houses, you' re going to get a negative impact; you' re going to have more people, more pollutants inthe air. more traffic, more children in the schools; so, it's just a question of degree. It makes it almost impossible for our staff to keep responding. Everytime a new point is brought out, they have to take another 30-days to respond and that is why we're trying to get this thing down into some sort of pre-set agenda form. firs. Moody, did you want to say something? MRS. LINDA FOODY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I,t could be just as definitely set with a 90-day period and I want to again state that if the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District is looking at this thing, vie don' t know how long they need on a project of this size. The public health and safety surely requires that we give ample opportunity for all the facts to be presented and if you close it off in two weeks, it can' t accomplish anything but deter- rents of the facts. We need the facts.. CNAIRIIAN JENA: Thank you. Well, gentlemen, we've discussed this and it is now up to the Commission to take some action with regard to that question. COMM. ANDERSON: If this State clearing house on E.I.R. determines that we" _ need some sort of further action, can't we open the E.I.R. portion and hear that? Couldn't we do that at one of the study session meetings? • CHAIRMAN JEHA:. Well , it would have been a study session date on the old schedule we had set up, it would have been April 30th; but, we are now going to extend everything by at least two weeks so we're probably talking about the middle to the end of May. COMM. HILDEBRAND: I was just going to ask about that schedule in that the problem seems to lie within that 30-day response time that the staff has and the tentative schedule we've been kicking around is a continued public hearing on April 231d; a study session some time 'in May and possibly a closed hearing in April with a decision to be rendered 'ifter the study session some time in May. My. question would be: Do we have 30-days from April 23 until we propose to make a decision? If we do, then it doesn't appear that there's any great, difficulty with staff scheduling because they could present their response to the E. I.R. , prior to our making our decision or the night we intend to make a decision. CHAIRMAN JEIIA: Yeah, but what we have to do Dick is close the E. I .R. hearing so the staff has time to start making their responses: COMM. HILDEBRAND: Well , that's what I 'm saying. Perhaps it would satisfy more people if we continued the E. I .R. hearing and scheduled it tentatively to be closed on April 231d which would allow a 30-day response period before vie anticipate giving a final decision even if we were to close both the hearing and the E. I .R. question on April 23'd. COMM. "OMPAGLIA: I would like to hear from Counsel on the 30-days, 45-days and 90-days. MR. WESTIWI: In what respect? i mean the State guidelines say 30-days is the minimum and you can go out to 90 whether or not a 30-days minimum is. appropriate to a development of this size is, I think, up to your judgement. If you' re going to require 30-days on the smallest development as a minimum and the County has adopted that as part of its guidelines, some period is probably more appropriate for a development of this size. You now have presently before you proposals of 45-days and approximately 60-days. I think that's going to be up to you to determine what is appropriate for a develop- ment of this size---to receive input. COMM. COMPAGLIA: Then 1 tend to go along with Dick's recommendation. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Dick, what's your recommendation specifically then. COMM. HILDEBRAND: Well , if It comes dov:n to this, then I ' ll get the thing off the ground and move that we continue both the E. I .R. and the public hearing on the Blackhawk rezoning ()840-RZ) , to April 23, 1974; that vie in- dicate that we anticipate closing the E. I.R. question on the 23'd of April. CIIAIRItAN JEHA: All right, so were talking -April 23'd to close the E. I.R. , and 30-days after that, which would be• the end of May, the staff will have all the responses. Thirty days gives you enough time since you indicated that it would; so, what we're doing is to extend the period of time for the input. Now, all of you here who want to add input to this, if the Commission goes along with Mr. Hildebrand's motion, you have until April 231d. Mrs. Roberts, . .- Linda Moody, ladies and gentlemen, that's your•cut-off date and we would ask- you to have all your input in by that time because the staff is going to then have to make comments in response to your• input. We will continue the public hearing to the 231d also and more testimony will be taken in regard to the rezoning---we' re not going to close that necessarily since there is no need for staff reponse on that end of it. Then, we will go to the next meeting on May 28th and at that time, we can certify the E. I .R. , as being adequate and we can also clear the rest of any other testimony, close the hearing. But, that's the way the schedule will go. f Now, someone should make a motion to that effect. COMM. ANDERSON: Mr. Hildebrand made it and 1 will second it. COMM. HILDECRAND: Mr. Chairman, I must clarify that if we have a mind to, we can close the hearing on the rezoning on April 23'd, also. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes, that's right. This again is to give you the ground rules. On the 231d, we will have the applicant's rebuttal to the opposition and testimony given tonight. COMM. HILDEBRAiID: One further clarification. The point we' re at now, there was one request at least from the audience, the San Ramon Valley Planning committee, they intend to have a meeting on this between now and the next hearing.. When we re open the hearing on April 231d, will it be rebuttal or still open to those in opposition? CHAIRMAN JEHA: The thing I think we should adhere to is---someone down the line is going to want to respond to what has been said by the opposition and unless we want to start with the applicant again and the opposition again; but, this. will go on and on and somewhere down the line, vie have to---vie can only take in so much and the rest is--- COMi1. YOUNG: 1•ir.Chairman, on that point, I do think that those organizations who have specifically asked for more time for their.comments should be allowed to comment before we hear the rebuttal . COMM. HILDEDRAN D: Yes, that was really my intent, too, Mr. Chairman, in my motion. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Do we have that on record---we know that the San Ramon Planning committee wants to make some comments on the plan; Linda Moody wants to make coniment on what? MRS. MOODY: Both. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Are you going to be prepared to make them on April 23'd? MRS. MOODY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay, what we will probably do is let them speak before the applicant gets into his rebuttal. so that we maintain that sequence of events. MR. CARRAU: Mr. Chairman, we would agree with that to have the opponents speak and we can hold off our rebuttal, until 'they get finished. I would like a point of clarification if 1 may. We've had some comments at some of the meetings we've had with staff; etc. , on some of the fangs that have to take place prior to the meeting on April 23'd. One would be the staff's pos- Ition on the project since they have not taken a position on the project as yet. The other would be the preparation of the condnitions of approval and . wonder if we could get some direction from, the Commission to the staff or " whatever so we know when that will happen? CHAIRMAN JEHA: I think that if the staff could maintain the schedule with regard to the conditions to please maintain it. MR. DEHAESUS: Yes, we intend to present our position to the Commission on April 23'd and we intend that the conditions will be available before the 23'd so that all parties concerned---- _ t MR. CARRAU: Yeah, so we can' work them out. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Please, then, for all concerned,including the Commission, would you have the conditions out to them well enough in advance for all parties to comment on these conditions. MR. NORSE: Mr. Chairman, the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee has asked us to appear before them I think on the 15th---the 31d and then the 15th--- and the purpose of the meeting on the 15th is basically to discuss conditions, hoping that we would have the staff's conditions by that 15th date. If we' re not going to, we would like to know that now so we can tell the Planning Committee--- : . MR.- DEHAESUS: The 15th yes, not the 3'u. MR. MORSE: Oh, no, I know that. CHAIRMAN JEHA: In other words, the staff w141 have the conditions for you well enough for the 15th so .you can use that as a basis for your meeting. . Mit. 14ORSE: Thank you. CHAIRt'A11 JEHA: All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Hildebrand, seconded by Commissioner Anderson---and I won' t repeat the motion since I feel it's on the record. If there is no objection from the rest of the Commission, let the record shots that the motion wascarried unanimously. Let me say one more thing so there is no confusion and hard feelings. Every- one involved now knows what we are doing and what our scheduling is. Is there any question about it? I would like to hear them now. (No questions were directed to the Conunission by the audience) . All right, that concludes the hearing on this matter. AYES: Commissioners - Hildebrand, Anderson, Young, Milano, Compaglia, Stoddard, Jeha. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Notion carried. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into this 26th day of March, 1974, by and between the Mt. Diablo Regional Group of the Siprra Club (hereinafter referred to as "SIERRA CLUB") and BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. (hereinafter referred to as "BLACKHAWK") as follows : WHEREAS, BLACKILAWK is seeking to rezone from A-2 and R-20 to P.U.D. approximately 4800 acres of unimproved land in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County near Danville under Contra Costa County RZ No. 1840; WHEREAS, the SIERRA CLUB, has for .over one and one-half years been following this project closely with reference to internal and external environmental considerations through in- dependent study and EIR analysis (JARA, ECIS and COUNTY) and through meetings and conversations with the developer, the advance planning section of the County Planning Department, San Ramon Valley civic and environmental leaders , other en- vironmental groups, and through intercourse with planning cons.ultants and county civic leaders; WHEREAS,` SIERRA CLUB recognizes that housing needs must be met only in conjunction with sound environmental objectives ; WHEREAS, SIERRA CLUB has never before supported any de- velopment project in Contra Costa County; WHEREAS, the SIERRA CLUB appreciates the unique level of cooperation, professionalism and environmental sensitivity demonstrated by BLACKHAWK, their consultants and their plan and recognizes the area wide significance of this project; WHEREAS, the SIERRA CLUB agrees to support the BLACK- HMIX project in consideration of BLACKHATIK's performance of ' the terms and conditions below set forth, it being understood that this agreement is a memorandum of amore formal or complete agreement to be finalized within the next thirty days. The parties mutually agree as follows: 1. 'SIERRA CLUB SUPPORT: • , That, in consideration for 'the agreements set forth herein, the SIERRA CLUB agrees. to endorse a and publicly support the BLACKHATIR project RZ 1840 (including current densities and such future . conditions as agreed to by BLACKHAWK that are not inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement) and to urge the positions set forth in Paragraph 9 , below. 2. OTHER APPROVALS: That this agreement, its various elements and the implementation thereof, shall in all cases be subject to the approval of. the governmental agency or district charged with jurisdiction over said element or item of implementation. 3. RELEASE CLAUSE: That BLACKHAWK at its option, shall be released from the terms of this agreement if they do not ' obtain zoning as presently requested by July 15, 1974 , or, if upon such rezoning, suit is brought by any person to challenge any aspect of such re- zoning procedure or upon breach of this. agreement by' the SIERRA CLUB. 4. DEDICATION OF LAND: That the SIERRA CLUB shares what it under- stands to be the interest of The Save Mt. Diablo Committee, Senator John Nejedly, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Contra Costa County Parks Council , Contra Costa County and all concerned citizens in completing the acq- uisition of all lands within the "ultimate boundaries of the I•it. Diablo State Park" (see Nov. 1973 State Park Ultimate Boundary Map) and BLACKHAWK agrees to materially help fulfill this objective by increasing the size of Mt. Diablo State Park by more than - 25% by deeding outright to the State of California all of its approximately 2500 acres within said zone of ultimate .interest of land as more • -3- i particularly described as the contiguous lands not being developed by BLACKHAWK as shown on the BLACKHAWK P.D. on file with Contra Costa County under RZ 1840, subject to the following terms and conditions : (a) That a buffer zone not to exceed 200 feet in width contiguous with the pri- vate development line be maintained by an assignable and divisible permanent exclusive easement back to BLACKHA11R. (b) That BLACKHAWK be given an assignable • and divisible 99 year lease on such re- maining lands at $1.00 per year to use said property for grazing purposes and recreational only excepting the lands totalling 1000 acres previously committed for dedication. (c) That the deed to the State -contain a re- striction that the lands so dedicated shall not be again let to any other persons, shall always be used for park purposes and shall not be used by motorized vehicles for non-farm uses or contain any major construction or picnic -4- areas (it being the intent of all parties that said lands shall be forever kept in their natural state) . (d) That the general public be given access only from the non-leased State park side of said parcel where such access would not adversely affect to a substantial degree the leasehold interest. (e) The deed to the State of the above property shall be executed within one year of zoning but shall be subject to existing • mortgages which shall be cleared by BLACK- HAWK as each contiguous unit devlopes or six years (whichever first occurs) , it being understood that BLACKHAWK shall make all principal and interest payments on all such mortgages. (f) The above donation of land -is conditioned upon BLACKHAWK not being required to pay Parkland Dedication fee as required by County Ordinance. BLACKHAWK agrees to in- volve SIERRA CLUB in the proceeding lead- ing to such waiver. 5. LOCAL TRANSIT: That the SIERRA CLUB is greatly concerned regarding ,r air -pollution created by the gasoline fueled in- ternal combustion engine and BLACKHAWK agrees that unless a local transit district containing BLACKHAWK (as now being suggested by L.M.T.A. )' is formed and furnishes feeder'bus service, within the district, not earlier than occupancy of 1000 units and not later than 1500 units , BLACKHAWK will provide to the residents of the BLACKHAWK project a local mass transit feeder system to BART (or the nearest BART feeder line) during 7:00 o'clock A. M. - 9:00 o'clock A. M. and -5 :00 . O'clock P. M. - 7:00 o'clock P. M. , Monday through Friday (commuter traffic time) so long as such system is "feasible" after one year of operation, 3 with the system being deemed not feasible if and when "Utilization by BLACKHAWK residents during the indicated hours of operation averages less than 40% of capacity during any continuous six month period of time. " Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent BLACKHAWK from establishing a system prior to the above times but such earlier start shall not be - • ''used in determining feasibility. It such system is not "feasible" then, prior to • discontinuation, such •system shall be modified by • r such reasonable methods, if any, so as to produce an average use above 40% of .capacity during the in- dicated hours within a reasonable time. That in addition to the local transit previously referred to and the system of trails and bike paths called for in the plan, BLACKHAWK continue its process of outstanding and creative planning by giving con- sideration to a local tram system and energy-saving. methods of construction and development. 6. SIZING OF SERVICES: The SIERRA CLUB shares what it understands to be the concern of Contra CostaCounty# the Valley Action • Forum and the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee and other persons concerned with continued pressures for development of the Tassajara Valley southeast of the 'southeasterly corner of the BLACKHAWK property and BLACKHAWK agrees to use its best efforts to help permanently relieve this pressure by filing all applications, resisting all conditions and using all other means to help insure that all services (includ- ing roads and utilities) ar`e sized and installed so. as to service no more than BLACKHAWK property andl the properties in the Sycamore Valley northwesterly of Blackhawk Road and its intersection with Tassajara Valley Road. It is understood that the final decision • . .of sizing, etc. rests with the numerous districts and agencies and that this clause is not -7- in any way intended to create or increase BLACK- HAWK's obligations to said agencies . BLACKHAWK agrees to work with and involve the SIERRA CLUB in the negotiations, meetings and hearings leading .. —.to .decisions of districts and agencies with respect to sewage, water and roads. 7. C014MERCIAL CENTERS- That ENTERS:That the SIERRA CLUB has reviewed the BLACKHAWK plan (including densities) and commends it to the public with the exception of the 7.5 'acre commercial center located at the far southeast tip of the . property, and the further exception that the other central commercial center be so restricted in size and type as to serve, by its nature, essentially only residents of the project. BLACKHAWK consents to conditions from the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors provided the Commission and Board so move: (1) Deleting said 7.5 acre southeastern commercial center and replacing it with residential de- velopment comparable to that shown for the area surrounding said area. (2) Restricting said central commercial center in size and type .of services so as to serve, by its nature, essentially only residents of the project. Notwithstanding the above, it is understood that the total acreage (square footage) so allocated for 'commercial may be used in one place or in several locations so long as said use is neighbor- hood and so long as no center is located in the southeasterly one-fourth of said project. 8. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: That the SIERRA CLUB is interested in a continuing relationship with the BLaCKHAWK project to insure :. maintenance of the planning and architectural quality of the development provided for in' the current plan and BLACKHAWK agrees to create and continue a local architectural review committee to r- insure such compliance and further agrees to appoint one member as selected by Executive Committee of the Mt. Diablo Regional Group of the SIERRA CLUB to sit permanently on such committee. 9. OTHER CONSIDERATION: That the above listing is the total listing of , major environmental requirements for approval which the SIERRA CLUB finds necessary after a full consideration of all environmental factors but indicates the following: -9- (a) SIERRA CLUB in reaching the positions herein stated has fully considered the. General Plan consistency arguments and the alternative of deferring BLACKHAWK pending a General Plan review and has rejected same. (15) That the SIERRA CLUB supports BLACKHAWK's concept of street construction, no curbs , gutters and sidewalks,• unique drainage system, hiking and riding trails and urges public works to give every possible consideration to these proposals; (c) Traffic projections and road requirements pre- viously publicized by Public Works should be adjusted to reflect lower densities for the area, long term maintenance of the open space line at the southern edge of the BLACKMAWK property, long term energy shortages and the effects of the local transit .system herein referred to. Subscribed and Sworn to .by and between the parties this 26th day of March, 1974. THE MT. DIABLO REGION L GROUP OF THE SXERRA4CLU By • HIRE F7SCIIER, C airmalt (939-3777/939-3738) BY MAY OA ,, L6dj,.lSlatiAVe Chairman (939-3788) BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By ILLIAM NORSE, Executive Vie- President (837-1571) • i.tness: . ctll CU-kr4:31,0% DANIEL VAN VOORHIS (932-1661) SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE . "84-66.020 Required findings. In approving and adopting the rezoning application with the preliminary development plan, and subsequently the final development plan, the planning commission and/or board of supervisors as the case may be, shall find the following: • M • (2) That the proposed planned unit development sub- stantially conforms to the county general plan. ." Source: Contra Costa County P-1 Planned Unit District Ordinance CONSISTENCY ". A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan if: (i) The city or county has officially adopted such a plan, and (ii) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan . . ." Emphasis Added • f. Source: Amendment -to Gov. Code 565860 added 1973 at request of League of California Cities 1973 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT "It is expressly understood that the lines defining open space are imprecise. Where a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open space, the entire parcel may be considered• tor development to the same ex- tent that it would have been had the land holding •lain • entirely outside the line defining open space. Source: P. 24, 1973 Open Space • Plan, as an amendment to composite plan . 1 1973 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT "There are areas within the Urban Growth Areas for which the conventional subdivision of land is inappropriate. These areas generally include ,significant woodlands, steep hillsides and hazardous geological. areas, all of which re- quire a special degree ot. sensitivity in site planning and development. The planned unit district approach should be encouraged for these areas." Source: 1973 Open Space Plan 1 • 8LACKHAWK COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANKED UNIT DISTRICTS IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS Project Gross Units DU DU* Plan General Plan Acres Gross . Net Area Change Acre Acre Orindawoods 187 345 1.8 2.3 Orinda No libros. Scott '104 193 1.8 ' 2.4 Alamo- Danville No Whitegate 152 192 1.4 1.6 Alamo- Danville No Devil Mountain 623 685 1.1 1.3 Alamo- Danville No Blackhawk 4850 4546 .95 1.17 Alamo- Danville & 1963 Plan • *DU net is based on formula of gross acreage less 201 for roads, etc. PROJECTS RECENTLY APPROVED ON LAM 25% SLOPE AND UNDER COMPARISON TO BLACKHATIX Project No. Gross No. Units Units Per Gross Acres Acre Bishop Ranch 1100 2500 2.50 Sycamore 245 ' 680 2.78 Kaufman & Broad 166 486 2.93 Gentry 30 119 3.97 Gentry 101 250 2.48 Gentry _33 112 3_.39 Totals 1675 4147 2.48 average Blackhawk 2099 4546 2.17 DEVIL MOUNTAIN "The project falls within an area designated low density residential on the General Plan for planning area 08. The maximum zoning permitted in this de- signation is (R-15) , which has a maximum density factor of 2.9 DU gross acre. The maximum number of units in R-15 zoning would be 1444 Consideration must be given to the fact that most of the site is not developable • due to steep slopes and instability. Therefore, a lower density than the average allowed for in the General Plan appears more appropriate." Source: Staff Analysis , P. 7-8 Addendum, Devil Mt. E.I.R. Sept. 1973 OBJECTIVES - GENERAL PLAN "The objectives of the plan:. • To encourage continued growth and development of the county according to plan." "The growth in Contra Costa County will be at sufficient rate and intensity to utilize the majority of readily developable lands in the central and western parts of the County during the planning period to 1985." "The central area population will increase more than 3 times its present size (by 1985) . " ! NOTE: The Central area includes Alamo, Danville and San Ramon. : ,► s . "Barring unforeseen disaster or major economic change, the area will continue to grow and expand economically and ' physically at a steady rate not dissimilar to 'its past growth." Source: Pages 6, 7 and 34, Land Use and Circulation Plan of Contra Costa County, California Page 4, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 INTENT OF PLA,21ED DISTRICT ORDINANCE "84-66.004 Intent and purpose. Itis recognized that a large-scale integrated development provides an opportunity for Cohesive design when flexible regulations are applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily for individual lot development, to a large-scale development may create a monotonous and stultified neighbor- ! t hood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, build- ings structures, lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the Intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of large-scale site planning. (Ord. 1743: prior code 58166(a) ) ." Source: Contra Costa County P-1 Planned Unit District Osdinacce ,r USES PERMITTED IN PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT 84-66.066 Uses Permitted. Any land uses may be permitted in the P-1 district provided such use or uses are in harmony with each other and serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit development while sub- stantially complying with the general plan. (Ord. 1743: prior code 59166 (j) ) . , Source: Contra Costa County 1 Planned Unit District -- Ordinance GENERAL PLAN DENSITY FORMULAS 1963 General Plan as amended by 1973 open space element 0-3 families per net acre. (2240 net acres in Blackhawk) Alamo-Danville General Plan (1967) Valley floors (under 20%) densities should range from 1 to 3 families per net acre and areas over 20% (where de- velopment is feasible) should range from 0 to .2 families per net acre. (597 net acres under 20% in Blackhawk and 1003 over 20% but developable) . San Ramon General Plan, 1971 Low .tensity single family areas encourage development at a density• of approximately two families per acre. GENERAL PLAN DENSITY COMPUTATIO.I RLACKHAWK RANCH Range Low'=High 597 net acres in planning area 8 under 201 slope X 1-3 units per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 1791 1003 net acres in area 8 over 201 slope where development is feasible X 0-2 0 2006 . I 2240 net-acres of land not included in area 8 under 163 plan X 0-3 0 6720 Total 597 10517 Not Acres = gross acres less 201 for roads, etc. ALTERNATIVE CALCULATIONS (For Example) #1. 2800 acres of land outside Area 8 with densities computed per area #8 method (674 net acres under 20% + 798 net acres over 20% , developable) - 674 to 3617 for total adjusted range of 1271 to 7414. .02. An alternative method of low density calculation is R-15 to yield 2.9 units per gross acre X 2099 acres under 250 1n slope - 6087 units maximum. 03. Recently approved projects in San Ramon Valley in Low Density Residential planned areas are at average of 2.48 units per gross acre. Allowing only the land on Blackhawk Ranch that is not more than 25• in grade (2099 acres) shows density allowable as follows : 2099 X 2.48 • 5197 units. : idP POPULATION - GENERAL. PLAN " by 1965, if prevent trends continue, we can expect approximately a million persons in the county." Source: Page 30, Land Use and Circulation Plan of Contra Costa County, California, 1963 One of the objectives of the plan iss "To provide adequate space for housing, private and public services business, educational facilities, and recreation for an expected population of 50,000 persons , who w*ll reside in the area .within the 20 to 25 year planning period." Source: Page 3, Alamo-Danville r General Plan, 1967 "Provide the people of the planning area with general • land use and circulation recommendations to guide physical development in an orderly manner toward a population of approximately 65,000 persons." Source: Page 3, San Ramon General Plan, 1971 POPULATION CHART SAN RAMON VALLEY BASED ON PLANNING STAFF NUMBERS Population Estimated Population Annual Growth Projected 1970 1974 In.People Population 1990 25927• 34450 2272.8 70,815 Add Blackhawk 14,662 • Total Population by 1990 85,477 Optimum Population per General Plan 115,249 People Short of Optimum in 1990 (29,772) References: Page 35 - Staff EIR on Blackhawk Ranch w 013. A road co011t'�krig Tessajara Valley to the San Ramon area through thO '*A%=burae Hills is proposed, as well as thi 'easterlYi4 cctioti.Of Crow Can on Road to Tassaiara Road." • 8*4phafi• supplied. Qkcurce= page 7, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 4 EXHIBIT M8 • BLACKHAWK FINAL E.I.R. 23 April' 1974 - Tuesday REZONING: OWINUED PUBLIC REARING: BLAOMVK ODRPORATION (Applicant $ Owner) - 1840-12 • Requests to rezone land from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (P-1). Subject• land is described as 4,7751 acres located approximately 5 hills cast of Danville and 4 miles south of Mt. Diablo; is - bordered on the north by Mt. Diablo State Park, on the southwest by Black- •hawk Road, on the south by Tassajara Road and is commonly referred to as the B3ackhawk Ranch: San Ramon Area. (2/26/74) 456 MR. W- WSW: This is a continued hearing on the Blackhawk Corp.. to con- sider their rezoning request from an A-2 District to a Planned Unit Develop- mant, some 4700 acres in the Diablo area along Olackhawk Road. I thought at the outset I should indicate the intended schedule on the Black- hawk hearings so that all might be familiar. . On this evening, it was thought that the hearing should focus itself primar- ily on the E.I.R. and presumably if sufficient input discussion has been had this evening that the Planning Commission would be in a position to close the hearing on the E.I.R. The responses would be prepared by staff, could only start after the hearing 'has been closed on the E.I.R. As long as the hearing is kept open on the E.I.R. , then staff could not proceed to respond to whatever comments, criti- cisms, so forth, -might have been made. So, this would be the intention this evening, the purpose of this hearing. However, the bearing on the application itself would be continued to May .14th. 4n May 14th, it's the intent that the hearing be closed on the appli- cation at that time and then there.wouldbe conditions before the Commission in the event the Commission wanted to consider those or the applicant or • anyone else might want to comment on them, and then the hearing, as I said, would be closed in all respects on May 14th and presumably this would put Vie Planning Commission in a position to make a decision on May 28th. This would anticipate that thestaff would have'prepared its response to the E.I.R. comments and if this would be in the.hands of the Commission; so, on that date, you would be in a position to make a decision on the general plan quest- ion which has been raised, the E.I.R. , and a decision on the application itself. We had'indicated to you that this evening present our position as to how it relates to the general plan and I would like to proceed with this. u" We have, if you can imagine, spent a little bit of time on this application and there's been considerable material produced by our office, by others, consultants, and so forth. And, out of all this it comes down to what we like to categorize as three areas of consideration. There might be four. The primary is the general plan question and what .the environmental impact reports have produced thus far and the facilities question or whether suff- icient facilities or inadequate facilities. I suppose the fourth one might be the site plan itself. But--- alAIRMAN JEMA: hbat's the first one? MR. DONE-SUS: It would be the general plan. 6 AIRMAN JEHA: And, the second one? MR. DOIAESUS: The environmental impact report and facilities necessary to service the project and the fourth would be Vie plan itself. but, previously, I think, as you know, we have been focusing a considerable portion of our attention on this project in- terms of its iripact on the area. This, we have given you in regard to the general plan, we spent considerable time before you indicating what the---how .this' relates to the general plan and we have indicated to you previously that it does not ccnform to the 457 general plan and we gave you some rather lengthy presentations on this and a lengthy meso on this subject. We are still of that opinion and will con- tinue to press it---that this project needs to be reviewed in terms of the t general plan or the general plan as a result needs to•be reviewed in terms" of the project. This is most important if we are to recognize 'the planning process for what- it is and we have been happy to see and have develop within the past few years with recognition. I think with this project, it should be recognized thusly. I don't really intend to elaborate too much on that question because I think we spent a whole lot of time on it and I think you understand our position pretty well. On the environmental impact report, I think with 'the report that the staff has prepared in all its facets and some of them have been very controversial of late date, I think some issues have been raised and some issues have been indicated that are not easily resolvable. And, with the reports prepared by consultants, I think there's been a considerable amount of evidence from %hich •you could establish some decision on this project. We find that because of these questions that have been raised by the environ- mental impact report and because it's pretty evident that this project would be growth inducing---and I want to say here that growth in and of itself is not bad; but, it's how that growth takes place that may be bad. And, the facilities and the plans and programs for the valley do not indicate at this' point---and the general plan does not anticipate this kind of develop- mcnt---so, therefore, getting back to the general plan question, these plans these programs have to be reviewed and have to be established and the project in context with that review. The environmental issues raised apply themselves considerably to the---not just to the Blackhawk area, which most of this discussion has taken place on--- but not enough discussion has really been placed upon what happens to that entire part of the San Ramon Valley,not just the Blackhawk area but the Tassa- j ara area and what this really means in that entire part of the valley. This is possibly even wre important than the Blackhawk Project itself. A good portion of that area has been dassified as Agricultural Preserve and the effect upon these classifications need to be reviewed which is pointed out in the environmental impact report. The environmental impact report points out the problems that have been---that have to be looked at in some ; detail regarding the access to the project and I think it's been pretty well established that unless adequate access is demonstrated---not in the final instance but in the first instance, or pretty well committed in the first instance----that the project should not be approved. One of the things that the environmental impact report brings out---keep in mind that I'm trying to be brief in this and I'm trying to generalize and establish a' certain point, 'cause we could speak on this for the entire evening and I think you blow I'm capable of doing that; but, I- understand that this is for the public's hearing this evening---but a number of question have come up quite evident regarding the plan itself. This is what I would. identify as the fourth item. As I said. earlier, most of our discussions on -review, most of the public's discussion has been involved with the impact on 458 the area. Ther''s becti quite a bit of---quite a ftv words said about "the plan is a good plan; bt:t,"---and sometimes I workkr just hat cloosely the pplan has been to)ked at. tbst of the plus that have been passed arount+ !tt r ` been small scale and' therefore, a little bit difficult to analyse. +` however, a number of tthtse qu•:stions regarding the plan itself could be resolved with sonic further discussion and some adjustritnt coit= siderable portior, of thy: development is on slopes approathinv . At ahtt ;itis makes it a little bit d.,fficult to establish sots d6elopr:ent. Mso* Vic—'l- some question as to the way the land uses have been allotatsc; ,*id rek,"t themselves. It's an issue 'the•: I think could possibly be resolved and is or Ar we haven't fol used too much on it because I think the ► i t-t t q4e has to be decided is the impact on the area and the abilit�; to hfivr ' service the project. llowitver, that's one subject that we :.,;lel tom ,, some future time snd not take up tho time of the this r that. I• said earlier tha: this has considerable growth inducing i, ,i Ott or. and at one time th,it this was not bad at all because wt v 4:• :;l 010 ! furthermore, land vas c icap, money was cheap, mey rias cr�P and ci public monies continued too ex pnrtd considerably, there was coning from wherever it caie from for roads, sower plus a.: )i4t`_ov* Federal treasury whore ale you had to do was ask for it an.. a got , State, all you had to do vas ask for it and you got it froir ;•,t ,40.1 not true any n*ro. The State no longer has any aeonto 1.N : yn t.r -4 Purposes, to speak �f. T)..,o Federal treasury is quickly evx}j ,. ,rt0g. f monies there. So, ,'he burden them becomes nlrr�ast anitiral �.tr jurisdiction's abil .ties to finance these facilities. ' So, thus becomes an important consideration nowadays arse the",,. : wiry ; ti heard us say over tic past number of yarns that we've got to �'rtinlihr'r major development ar d it follows that the smaller davolormc io ihr;uld siderid also. We've of to consider what arc the llvbllc fac�J s �lt� a and what are the pub if c services available in ordor 4a sat l� ° tlt� dc; projected developments. This becmaw most iMortant in tho .,c <ve- of � as we see it. s. Now, when we got int., this aspect of it, which is the third this evolves from t! a first two, we got ivito a nt"or, the 'ti,,;: itti � ; have to be consideree here and the primary ones are roads &W cc,,�rGi�, I Talk about schools first. 4e did look into this plicated s<<N;,,ct (wl bit, spent many hours on it, days and we have established thVDC ;:ctc444' then regarding schools. iiere'll need to be t tree Otmentary schools and one intermediate ;vtool f t this project in order to service it. And, part of a high scttoal ::ir�csugl we're not talking about a high school on this site; but, on this sl :r,', M the Blackhawk site, there will bo three schools needed and este interxuia.'c, At the very minium, thi: development could create $8,6 million &Bars s�; sciw-al n facilities demand with consdervative estimated 012 million based on the c;.11<114c demographics for this project and the valley. Now, I'm a little bit reluct4mt to mention nunbers this evening in view of 459 • i ,_ N . _J O. Q • � O m W H � � __ • Z � it V iJ � 1 • r EXHIBIT iib �. BLACKHAWK FINAL E.I.R. 23 April' 1974 - Tuesday REZONING: CONTINUED PUBLIC DARING; BL ACIMM CORPORATION (Applicant $ Owner) - 1840-RZ Requests to rezone land from General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned unit Development (P-1). Subject- land is described as 4,77S± acres located approximately S miles east of Danville and 4 miles south of Mt. Diablo; is bordered an the north by Mt. Diablo State Park, on the southwest by Black- *hawk Road, an the south by Tassajara Road and is ccawwnly referred to as the Blackhawk Ranch: San Ramon Area. (2/26/74) 456 1 > Mt til WOW This is a continued hearing on the Blackhawk Corp., to con- sider their rezoning request from an A-2 District to a Planned Wit Develop- smnts saps 4700 acres in the Diablo area along Alackhawk Road. . . I thought at the outset I should indicate the intended schedule on the Black- hawk hearings so that ali might be familiar. . On this evening, it was thought that the hearing should focus itself primar- ily on the E.I.R. and presumably if sufficient input discussion has been had this evening that the Planning Commission would be in a position to close the hearing on the L.I.R. The responses would be prepared by staff, could only•start after the hearing 'has been closed on the E.I.R. As long as the hearing is kept open on the E.I.R., then staff could not proceed to respond to whatever comments, criti- cisms, so forth,,*might have been made. So, this would be the intention this evening, the purpose of this hearing. However, the hearing on the application itself would be continued to May .14th. On May 14th, it's the intent that the hearing be closed on the appli- cation at that time and then there.wouldbe conditions before the Commission in the event the Commission wanted to consider those or the applicant or anyone else might want to comment on than, and then the hearing, as I said, Mould be closed in all respects on May 14th and presumably this would put the Planning Commission in a position to make a decision on May 28th. This would anticipate that thestaff would have'prepared its response to the E.I.R. comments and if this would be in the,hands of the Commission; so, on that date, you would be in a position to make a deckion on the general plan quest- ion which has been raised, the E.I.R. , and a decision on the application itself. We had'Wicated to you that this evening present our position as to how it relates to the general plan and I would like to proceed with this. We have, if you can imagine, spent a little •bit of time on this application and there's been considerable material produced by our office, by others, consultants, and so forth. And, out of all this it comes down to what we like to categorize as three areas of consideration. There might be four. The primary is the general plan question and what the environmental impact retorts have produced thus far and the facilities question or whether suff- icient facilities or inadequate facilities. I suppose the fourth one might be the site plan itself. But--- aIAIRMAN JEHA: What's the first one? MR. W KMS: It would be the general plan. 6 UI RMMM JEl{A: And, the second one? MR. D13MMS: The environmental impact report and facilities necessary to service the project and the fourth would be the plan itself. - But , as previously, I think p y you know, we have been focusing a considerable portion of our attention on this project in- terms of its Mact on the area. This, we have given you in regaid to the general plan, we spent considerable time before you indicating what the---how .this' relates to the general plan and we have indicated to you previously that it does not conform to the 457 general plan atKl we gave you sena rather lengthy presentations on this and a lengthy mann an this subject. We are still of that opinion and will con- tinua to press it---that this project needs to be reviewed in terms of the general plan or the general plan as a result needs to.be reviewed in terms' of the project. This is most important if we are to rocognize'the planning process for what• it is and we have been happy to see and have develop within the past few years with recognition. I think with this project, it should be recognized thusly. I don't really intend to elaborate too much on that question because I think we spent a whole lot of time on it and I think you understand our position pretty well. On the envirmwntal impact report, I think with 'the report that the staff has prepared in al lits facets and some of then have been very controversial of late data, I think some issues have been raised and some issues have been indicated that are not easily resolvable. And, with the reports prepared by consultants, I think there's been a considerable amount of evidence from which you could establish some decision on this project. Ile find that -because of these questions that have been raised by the environ- mental impact report and because it's pretty evident that this project would be growth inducing---and I want to say here that grarth in and of itself is not bad; but, it's how that growth takes place that may be bad. And, the facilities and the plans anuk•programs for the valley do not indicate at this' point---and the general plan docs not anticipate this kind of devclop- ment---so, therefore, .getting back to the general plan question, these plans these programs have to be reviewed and have to be established and the project in contract with that review. The environmental issues raised apply themselves considerably to the---not just to the Blackhawk area, which most of this discussion has taken place on--- t not enough discussion has really been placed upon what happens to that entire part of the San Ramon Valley,not just the Blackhawk area but the Tassa- jara area and what this really means in that entire part of the valley. This is possibly evermore important than the Blackhawk Project itself. A good portion of that area has been classified as Agricultural Preserve and the effect upon these classifications need to be reviewed which is pointed out in the environmental impact report. The environmental impact report points out the problems that have been---that have to be looked at in some detail regarding the access to the project and I think it's been pretty sell established that unless adequate access is demonstrated---not in the final instance but in the first instance, or pretty well cortmitted in the first instance....that the project should not be approved. One of the things that the environmental impact report brings out---keep in mind that I'm trying to be brief in this and I'm trying to generalize and establish a certain point, 'cause we could speak on this for the entire evening and I think you know I'm capable of doing that; but, I- understand that this is for the public's hearing this evening---but a number of question have cane up quite evident regarding the plan"itself. This is what I would. identify as the fourth item. As I said earlier, most of our discussions an review, mst of the public's discussion has been involved with the impact on 4Sa . �r{,,k`7°'€^"e4q�, �-+^�v t 3vn A etj' "eyy��`,��evaa:'rr k�r•,��'pK'rl ,,£° q2 .�..ai hF4 µ d i� .;L , •^r ,t�i ;F�"{,.+. � ' t ��ry +.t'''* _rls• 't t't'• 4t .. ( _ •j_ tls3 area. Zhero's boat quite a bit of---quito a few words said about "the plan Is a good plan; but,"---and sometimes I wonder just how closely the pplan has boon looked at. Wst of the plans that have been passed around have bean sash scale and, therefore, a little bit difficult to analyse. • �� However, a number of these questions regarding the plan itself probably could be resolved with some further discussion and some adjustment because a con- siderable portion of the development is on slopes approaching 20-251 and this makes it a little bit difficult to establish some development. Also, there's . some question as to the way the land uses have been allocated and relate to themselves. It's an issue 'that I think could possibly be resolved and this is one reason wiry we haven't focused too much on it because I -think the first question that has to be decided is the impact on the area and the ability to have facilities service the project. However, that's one subject that we would get into at some future time and not take up the time of the Commission this evening on that. I said earlier that this has considerable drovth inducing impact on the area and at one time that this was not bad at all because we needed the houses and furthermore, land was cheap, money was cheap, money was cheap and expending public monies continued to expand considerably, there was always more money condng frau wherever it came from for roads, sewer plants and whatever; the Federal treasury where all you had to do was ask for it and you got it; the t State, all you had to do was ask for it and you got it from the State. That's not true any more. The State no longer has any money to pass on for road purposes, to speak of. The Federal treasury is quickly evaporating, no more monies there. So, the burden then becomes almost enitirely placed u-�on local jurisdiction's abilities to finance these facilities. So, thiel becomes an important consideration nowadays and this is why you've heard us say over the past number of )ars that we've got to consider with any major development and it follows that the sm4ller developments should he con- siderad also. We've got to consider what are the public facilities available and what are the public services available in order to satisfy the demands of projected developments. This becomes most important in the scheme of things as we see it. Nov, when we get into this aspect of it, which is the third consideration and this evolves from the first two, we get into a nuriber,. the facilities that have to be considered here and the primary ones are roads and schools. Talk about schools first. We did look into this complicated subject quite a bit, spent many hours on it, days and we have established these conclusions then regarding schools. There'll need to be three elementary schools and one intermediate school for this project in order to service it. And, part of a high sdiool although we're not talking about a high school on this site; but, on this site, on the .--�, Blackhawk site, there will be three schools needed 'and one intermediate. At the very minimum, this, development could create $9.6 million dollars in school facilities demand with consdervative estimated 112 million based on the unique demographics for this project and the valley. . Now, I'm a little bit reluctant to mentionnumbers this evening in view of 459 what has been happening recently and---but, nevertheless,, these numbers are fairly real and what they mean is not so much that it's eight million or nine but haw all those numbers relate to themselves and thereby lies the problem. It indicates the problem .J SAV The San Ramon Valley Unified School District would not realize a tax base from this development sufficient to build these needed schools until after this project is nearly built out. I think that's a fairly contentious state- ment; but, we make it and I. think it has to be talked about. District priorities revolve around building schools for present residents and it's conceivable that this project could create severe busing and over- crowding situations at district schools. The severe school facilities problems cannot be helped by further residential construction of the type proposed. That's another contentious statement; but, we make it. S.B.090 eliminates the project from providing surplus operating revenues to the school district. Sore people are a little bit reluctant to try to understand what SH-90 says; well, we're not so reluctant and we will try to understand what it says until somebody says something else. State aid for new school construction is slated to run out late this year and are mostly committed at present and voters statewide are not expected to vote for continued subsidy of this type. The reason we say this is that there are a number of school districts, quite a number of school districts in the State • that no longer have school problems. they have vacant classrooms and even some are closing -down schools. So, with this happening, school problems throughout the state are not as critical as it once was and it's become more and more difficult as a result to pass statL. s&.,)ol bond issues let alone local school bond issues. The burden for new schools for a project such as Hlackhawk thus would fall more squarely on those residents presently residing in the San Raman Valley and un- less they vote bonds for this purpose, no taxpayer money would be available. There's a proposed bond,issue coming up late this year and that's going to 'be a key to the whole school situation in the valley. Also, I think it should be pointed out that it takes at least two years to got a school built and this leadtime becomes important. Now, having said. all of this, late yesterday afternoon at approximately five, or 4:31 P.M. , I received a letter frer,. Al Petersdorf, the School Superinten- dent of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and attached was a letter from the applicant, Blackhawk- Development Co. , addressed to the school board in which they---and I'd like to read it: "Please accept thi stetter as our agreement if our pending zoning application is approved in due course to comply with your current board of education polity on availability of schools, policy adopted January 21st, 1974. 1;e will abide by your policy wheter or not the Board of Supervisors adopts an ordinance en- forcing same. 'The commitment made herein is made subject to the Board of Trustees by April 23'd, subject to the Board of Trustees----by April 23'd 1974, notifying in .writing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and the Valley Planning Coaaiittee, that we have complied 450 with all the wishes of the Sen Ramon Valley Unified School District and that with respect to the issue of schools you have no objections to the approval of our project." opt The letter is signed by Alan Petersdorf, dated April 231d, same day---no, day after. Twenty-third is today, that's right. The Boatd of Education of the San Ramon Unified School District at its regular meeting of.April 221d received the attached letter from Air. Robert Carrau, Pres. of Blackhawk Development Co. The Board of Education accepted the pro- posal and stipulated that it meets the requirements of the Board of Education policy on the availability ofrschools adopted January 21st. The Board of Education, therefore, feels that Blackhawk Development Go. , has satisfied the school district's requirements in respect to the issue of schools. r Pow, then the next thing you have to do is read the policy on availability of schools and I just would say at this time that I certainly hope that khat has occurred here will satisfy and meet all the requirevents of supplying the necessary school facilities for the project if the project is approved. I still think that these questions have to be raised; I think it has to be pointed out what is necessary because other,Jise, after the project is approved, I can still, or possibly see portables being used to service the� 12 to 15,000 popula- tion. I certainly hope not. Now, these are some of the things we've been pointing out on the school situs- tion and last night, the school board took this,position having received the letter from' the developer on that subject; and, I. hope that would conclude that subject and I hope that some of the qualifications and the policy would ;! not be tpplied here but nevertheless, that's yet to be seen. On the road question, which ve `consider to be the most irportant and there are a number of things that can be resolved here or stated, in terns of how you improve the roads or how you build new roads or what new road`; need to be built to satisfy the requirements set out fdr this project. khat it all comes dom to is money and having said what I. said before about the availabil- ity of money or nonavailability of money, then it becores very important that • we pretty ruch have some kin& of indication at the outset how these roads are going to be built and how they're going to be irproved. We really don't have this at this point,. There are any numbers of suggestions as to how this may be cone; but, it's not---they aren't at thispoint feasible, semingly any- way. A couple of things here that I think should be pointed out that at pre- sent it is obvious that the road netaoft serving; the project site is solely adequate for continued rural use and not for the future development of over 15,000 person and over 7,000 vehicles. Funds are not presently available to construct these roads and these sources are continually shrinking. I think verve discussed this with you previously and we've indicated this to the. Board of Supervisors about this problem along with Public Yorks Dept. It's estimated that the total project-related cost, road costs in this are upwards of •$8 million dollars durinE project build out while accumulative State highway use of subventions of this 12-year period are less than $1 million at present per capita revenue rates. And, that projected, you might see a problem then. It could be argued that over a sufficiently long period of time the project will generate enough revenue to pay its way for-road ir;protements. This method of calculating project revenues doesn't put needed front money funds 461 into County road construction funds when they an needed. I might say in this regard that the builders are working on this very subject and they have set up a c mittee and as I understand, .they anticipate to put ' up some considerable sums of money to find ways and means to resolve the road question; however, this is in the future and it has not been done as yet. I. think this is commendable because they are beginning to recognize that unless they fiAd answers to these questions, the future. projects might not take place. Just as an example to give you an idea as to how State subventions night fit Into this, with the present deficiencies indicated, if we added up all the state's subventions, it would take approximately 50 years to raise the necessary funds---it shows you how short the fiords are from those sources. The new road alignments that would be necessary.to satisfy the needs for Black- hawk, would include building new roads like-Sycamore Valley extension, an ex- tcntion of Crow Canyon Road. Now, I •think this is pretty well understood and, of course, there might be some question as to whether Sycamore ought to be built because it crosses over some pretty difficult land and a ridge. However, if Blackhmik is to be served, these kinds of roads need to be built. Also, there's some real questions as to whether Diablo Road should be improved west of the site and I would share those reservations; so, this makes it all the more necessary that other roads be built. As I said, this might be agreed upon but there are no monies at this poini in- dicated for those roads now or in the near future and unless some conutrments • can be indicated, it becomes difficult to say that this project should go ahead. i I haven't and 1 don't intend to talk too much about the water situation or the sewer situation. It's been pointed out that itost of this project lies within the East Bay Amicipal Utilities Water District and I think it should be indi- cated that cost of it is in the water district not all of it and some key por- tions of this are not located in the water district ana, really, what that means is that this entire area needs to be looked at in terms of water service and when I say the entire area, not just Blackhawk but beyond Blackhmuk. Also, that applies to the sewer service situation. • As I indicated previously, I could spend this whole evening---I see I'm occupy- ing quite a bit of it already; but, I want to say one pore thing, Mr. Chaiman, regarding---a considerable amount of discussion has been taking place---it gets back to me that if we could negotiate conditions regarding this project---and you might say extract- from the developer this promise or that promise, then it's a good project. I think this is a little bit of a backward say of approaching the project. I think, first of all, we-have to decide whether the project is good, whether it mets local criteria, whether it meets general plan criteria, what the environmental impact report says about it and once you have • decided that it is a good project, if this be your decision, then it's time we determine what kind of conditions should be applied, what is needed from the project. Not to determine how many conditions we could get and then decide that it's a good project. I don't think this is the way you do things; we have never done things this wax in the past with other major projects and I s-, would say that it's wrong to continue or it's wrong for people to think of it this way. This is tiny it's a little bit surprising to me to read that r'! some people are saying this is a fine project because we're able to get this and that from a developer. I think the developer Imows what he needs to do in these projects and I think a developer.is generally is most willing to--- 'and I'll but that a little bit in quotes because sometimes they aren't---but, 462 I think deep dawn in their hearts, they Kant to contribute what they have to; what they find is necessary to contribute in order to make a project go and I think this certainly would have been the case here and I don't sec all of this arm twisting and•so forth in order to say that 111611, we'll support you now that you've given us this or that." I think that's the wrong approach. ;:... I've said this to a number of people in the past fat weeks and I've said this even to the developer and I think he knows over the past years how we deal with these things; so, I don't think you should be influenced too much as to what you can get out of the developer in terms of conditions. I think once you've decided it's a good project and rda a that decision, then you decide what needs to be done in terms of the conditions. I might say that we've started out now with some 66 conditions in our reviek, of this and I hope to whittle that down to around 40 so that it becomes more understandable and, believe me, there are going to be some conditions in there that I think if phis becomes the case, will make this project work. I. don't want to Ret into that subject this evening because I indicated prev- iously to the Commission that we would have this to you foD ming this evening and ready for your May 14th hearing. I think with this I'll---unless you have questions, stop. CNAIRMA►y JEHA: Thank you, Mr. Dehaesus. Any member of the Commission have any questions for Mr. Dehaesus? MI. ANDERSON: The only question I have,• Mr. Chairman, is if we can have • a copy of that letter from the school---I believe Mr. Jeha got a copy. I didn't find 'one in my----later on, during the week. CMAIRMAN JMA: All right, now we're going to'have discussions, hearings on W E.I.R. Now, on the E.I.R. ,- anyone can speak on the subject. It's not an adversary type of proceeding. So, anyone, this is a hearing---anyone who wants to speak either---well, I guess positively or negatively on the E.I.R. , can get up and speak. Now, we stopped the hearing last two or three weeks ago with some of the people who werein oppositing wanting to cormvnt on the E.1.R. I think Mrs. Doody was one of them and :.he was kind enounh to call. me and ask if she could sort of coordinate some of the speakers that she wanted to have with her regarding the E.I.R. , and I told her I thought it was all right. If the gentlemen of the Commission have no objections, we will proceed with that format. Is Ctrs.-Doody in the audience? Now, I think there was another lady from---well, there were some otherpeople. , . Now, a lot of points were brought up. iv*e had a lengthy hearing last tire and I'm going to ask anyone who's going to speak on this that they not bring. up • something that was brought up prior because it can get awful complicated if we keep hearing the same thing over and over again and I'm sure there are going to be a lot of people who are going to have some new things to say to- night and that's the kind of information we want. But, please, if somebody has said something you were going to say and if you feel that you want to r, come down, please feel free to come down and we'd appreciate it if you would :+ just give your name and say that what I had wanted to say has already been said; but, I want to go on' record agreeing •or disagreeing or khat have you. But, please don't subject us and all in the audience to repetition in your presentations. All right, Mrs. Dbody. W. LINDA MMI P.O. Box 63S, Diablo, Calif. 94528. ' Thank you, Mr. Jeha, 463 honorable manbers of the Commission and Planning Department. A number of us have loosely organized tonight in .an effort to make a presentation to you that cohesive and non-redundant. Because of the loose organization, I want to emphasize, though, that the different speakers do not speak for each other necessarily nor do they necessarily speak for groups that they're commonly identified with. They're, of course, free to identify with other's comments where they choose. Before we 'launch into our examination of the R.I.R. , I would like to cammend the staff for a fine job on the environmental impact report, especially given the time and information that they have available. We do think thought that there are substantial questions that remain open and My will raise those questions tonight and to give you something to think about while we proceed, we will be asking for a continuation of the hearing on the project until at least 30-days aftor the staff has prepared its written responses to the ques- tions. We think that many of these questions even standing alone would be sufficient reason for you to delay hearing on the project for that long and that when taken together, they compel this conclusion. With those clarifications and warnings, the first speaker that I'd like to introduce is Susan Watson. She's the secretary. for People for Open Space and she will talk about some threshold questions of regional scope. M. SUSAN 1VATSON, 36 Ardor Drive, Orinda, Calif. Ali, Mr. Jeha, gentlemen 9f the Planning Commission. hty name is Susan Watson. I'm secretary for People for Open Space, nine county regional volunary planning organization and I'm speaking tonight for that organization. If I may, for a minute, define People for Open Space and it's interests. In 1968, we received a grant from .the For Foundation and sponsored the first study of this type made in the United States to analyze the economic benefits and costs of regional open space. This study based upon the preliminary regional plan published in 1966 by the Association of Bay Area governments, led People for Open Space into the consideration of all the askpects of urban planning. We have been pleased to have our members working with the ongoing planning of AAAG and in the various regional agencies. People for Open Space has also worked over the last years with the Bay Area Council and that group is not n6ticeably opposed to development, as you know, and others to further the development of regional plans for industry, agricul- ture and urbanization. People for Open space in fact just worked so hard for proper urbanization that we should be called People for Proper Development. I note that the developers seem increasingly concerned over open space. Per- haps we should call them More People. for Open Spacer Referring to the Regional Plan, 1970-1990 states and I quote: "Regional Plaiviing is much more than a simple matter of allocating land for development. It must concern itself with all the whats, wheres, hows and whys of an infinitely complex problem; improving the quality of the living environment for a large and growing population," unquote. If the land is used wisely, the Bay Area will be able to retain the quality of its environment and its economic wealth without posting a "no vacancy" sign. It will also reduce the costs that. all of us must pay to provide water, , sewer, fire, police protection, schools, transportation and other urban services to supply the needs of that growing population. 464 People for Open Space estimated that in 1966 dollars---and don't we all Nish we all had those back---the savings accrued from the AM CITY CENTER concept as opposed to extension development for the 300 million from maicipal services and 83S million for gas, electric and telephone utilities over a 30-year per- iod, and of course this does not include the various requirements which have cane upon us Within the last years nor the increase in the interest rates which have come across us; so, it's not strictly an inflationary addition that we would add to these figures. Even though the California Department of Finance population estimate for in- migration and natural increase have been adjusted downward twice in the last years since 1970, 1971 and again in December 1973. The AI3AG City Centered concept is becoming increasingly important in this era of inflationary costs, both public and private, and the curtailment of energy both in resource availability and in costs factors. The city-centerregional stricture is a system of closely niter-related urban communities large enough to be able to specialize economically and be able to provide a fairly high level of region- al services and economic activity. Surrounding caimunities would be less dependent on the metropolitan center but wouldr in general, support them. Tonight's considerations are on the environmental impact report and its economic supplement on the a-plication of project No. 1840-RZ, the Black mik Ranch. The project is proposing to provide 4,546 chielling units housing some 15,000 persons over a 12-year period. The project site is located at its. closest point S miles east of Danville and occupies three major drainage basins, the last of which is within the Livermore Valley watershed. People for Open Space believes that the project 1840 has regional implications for the following reasons: (1) The project is located may from the main thrust of local development which in general follows the' San Ramon Valley and Inter-State Highway 680. Project 1540 is a substantial development which i touches present development only as the tip of an acute angle touches a long rectangular figure. This is growth appearing in a tangent to the main line ofgrowth. Two, the project requires major extensions of urban services to an area presently not served and thereby affects lands beta:een the project and the main line of development and substantial lands around the project itself. These lands include considerable areas oriented toward the Livermore Valley and thereby imply regional at least to County considerations. Three, according to the E.I.R. , and its supplement, the level of income necessary for residents in the project and the availability of jobs within the project, both in construction and in office and commercial work, mean that there will be an out-conmute for project residents and an in-commute for employment provided by the project. This movement in both directions for both purposes requires regional consideration for regional transportation corridor adequacy. Four, extension of development in this new arca and extension of commute both for employment and residents bring regional air quality policies into consid- 1-71 eration. Walnut Creek, the San Ramon Valley and the Liverrore Valley air basins are all involved. I should like to summarize briefly and oT necessity incompletely, regional policy guidelines for growth and developaent from the Regional Plan 1970-1990" 'community should evolve through the organizing, strengthening of existing 465 dovelopod parts of t' region and thr gh the addiian of planned.and now commities of at 1009000 persons," that is, entire new tains. "Living, working and shoppin;s within the same community should.be promoted by all levels of government and. by the private sector. Urban development should be organized to pro. to communities in.sufficient scale to attract and support a'wide range of convenient services and facilities. Policies for open space, water, sewage and transportation should be coordinated to guide the timing, location and grwoth and where necessary the limits of urban grorth. All compatible types of development of employment should be located within or adjacent to commun- ities. Maximum employment opportunities should be available to residents within their own communities. All governmental levels as well as the private sector should assist in providing in each community the maximum number of housing choices in terms of location, style, neighborhood and price, and so on. 1%y I bring out these points: (1) The elements of. the Contra Costa General Plan are in substantial agreement with the above. The land use and circula- tion element of 1963 encourages "medium high density multiple family develop- ment", to be near urban.centers and employment opportunities. (2) The Alamo-Danville General Plan.envisions-a population, of 50,000 persons as optimum for that area. 19ie sum total of the projects recently approved and proposed in the San Ramon Valley excluding project 1840-RZ would raise the opoulation to 60,000 by 1990. Including project 1840 would raise the. population to 75,000. (3) The ABAG Regional Plan envisions ,the area of project 1840 as "permanent" open space and areas nearby as "controlled development after 1990". Obviously project 1840 by itself does not conform to any of the above. If we consider the project as the fore-runner of a now to+m, a total community center, no planning provisions for employment, transportation and connunity and cultural serviceg had been made by Contra Costa County, Alameda County or by ABAG. Yet, these questions alone are not basis enough fora decision upon this major project. As the Economic Supplement states, "the large capital investrients presently required to actualize projects must be considered in the light of diminishing public economic resources mid the need for additional residential services. The phasing and loation of such growth is the key issue here." Let me address the question of need. For this unprecedented change in general plan as existing and the ABAG Plan and policies, we must consider housing and employment needs in the San Raman Valley. The economic supplement lists the average sales price of a dwelling in the project to be about $56,000 and re- quires an income of $25,000 for purchase. The 1970 census data shows the median family income in the valley to be $17,510; over $5,000 or 40-percent more than the cowity-wide median of $12,423. The ABAG Housing Report lists tho san Ramon Valley as in need of lou and moderate income housing. Although the 382 apartment units imply a base income of $11,250 in the project, the bulk of the development, that is, 2,155 single-family detached and 1,958 condominiums, presume a base income respectively of $31,500 and $20,250. 7 The employment base primarily retail trade and office work will not he sufficient to er.q)loy residents of the project. The location of a riajor .F employment facility in the project is not contemplated by the developer. Is there room in the San Ramon Valley itself for further developnent grant- ing that the general plan limit of 50,000 residents population is adjusted upward? Aside from the proposed projects and the recently approved-projects 466 within the valley itself, there exists large areas already marked in the rad plan for urban development. It is in these areas that substantial and on.ployment opportunities could he provided close to existing services in the future if such urbanization can be aecwwadated to the : facilities. I want to ask the question for the answer does not appear in the E.I.R. , how mucst land is marked in the general plan, in the urban development area Of the San Ramon Valley that is not now built nor approved nor currently Proposed for development? Other questions which no not appear in the B.I.R. , are: Mat are the hotu- ing needs of the people of Contra Costa County? Housing Element: 11hat income mixes and housing prices mixes are desirable i'or conpletely nav communities? Is there a-shortage of upper- income housing so that substantial public subsidy in services is necessary to achieve that housing? Now, may I address transportation? Equally for-this change of general and Regional Plans, we should consider the question of transportation. We have already acknowledged that there will be an out=commute for residents of the project and an in-commute for construction and employment. These conditions necessitate countywide and renionwide cornute. The economic supplement gives the approximate cost of Cotaity road construction improvement within the immediate area. The question is not dealt. with by the E.I.R. are: Lbat is the effect of the channeling of County Public forks funds to this area to facilitate this project on the express needs for improvement and construct- ion of roads in other areas of the county that are presently established? I'm thinking particularly of wAt-county and my o►-m area of Orinda and ;•braga. Interstate highway 680 is now being widened'in certain sections. 1',bat is the amount of extension of widening and ovesl)ass construction ir,.provement which will be necessary for project 1840 or subsequent projects in the area of 1840? Mat does the priority list which has been issued by the Calif. State High- way Cormission say in regard to future funding; of improvement of this road? What is the effect of channeling commute traffic onto an inter State route due to the funding possibilities and planning possibilities of Fcdcral Money and interest in this route? I remind you that the Federal funding is approx- imately 90-perccnt of the money used in inter-state roads. The project has indicated sone interest in bus transit to BARTD. hTiat is unkhoun in the E.I.R. , is the capacity of BARED on the Concord, MacArthur and ultimately---we'll all pray---San Francisco line? 19hat is the allotment for each station, if any? hbat is the effect on the transit possibilities and capacities of other areas? I wonder if I could take off my regional hat for a moment and put a citizen- of-Orinda hat with a transportation committee. We have our study now that when San Francisco opens, hopefully, at the. capacity DARTD is able to supply, we will have six people standing for each train in the Orinda area as is. Well, we're hardy folk and I think we can stand; but, we'd like to be able to get on the trains, too. BAM is not the total answer to coim ute. The economic supplement contemplates a publiccspital of $30 million, about 467 • %P .. 20 million dollars of which.would not be recovered by the development of project 1840. This investment of-public subsidy is not unusual to those who study urban development over the years. The cost of development is probably applicable in some sum to every large development. The question is not entirely one of the investment of public monies. The question is one of the wisdom of practicality of public investment. No businessman would invest in a business proposition that would not potentially yield some return. No public body should invest public monies without the potentiality of the most economic and social use of those public monies. To remain health, to remain ewalthy in our Bay Area, we must be wise. Ile not consider the social and economic results of our planning and invest wisely. S.B 90 ensures that we must read carefully the public will, as each tax increase• must go to the people. A wise government must also be a prudent one. Gentlemen, People for Open Space is proud of the many elected officials of Contra Costa County, men and women who have- Riven and are giving their time and talent to the regional agencies and to ABAG to develop regional planning g�uuidelines. Ile are proud of the fact that People for Open Space have stood before you only twice to oppose major planning project rezonings in all the history of land rezoning in this county. Tonight is the second time. Ile ask you in light of regional and local planning principles, which offer the continued health and welfare of all and in light of new economic and • new social mitigating aspects to deny project 1840 rezoning for urban de- velopment. Thank you. MWIRDIAN M- IA: Thank you, Mrs. Watson. M1. COBT'AGLIA: Mr. Chairman, before we have another reading, could we have a recess? a VJFs 4 Jf.•HA: All right. The Commission members need a recess. I don't want to have to go through this again like we did last time; but, I want to ask all of you ,please don't applaude. If you want to at the end, you can let go full blast; but, if we have to have accolades after every speaker, we'll be here all night. * FEAtAt.E VOICE FRO ) AUDIENCE: Mr. Jets►, would you please look around at the No Smoking signs---it bothers some of us to see you smoking up there. (Applause). (Recess was taken). MR. GRA L41 MIN, P. 0. Box 635, Diablo, California. I don't1now whether I'm in the middle, one side or the other, the dispute on ntriiers that Dir. Dehaesus referred to. a while ago; but, I don't know' from my own examination of the economic reports and the economic supplement prepared by the Planning Department that it mattes all that much. difference. There are a good many things we could look at in considering the fiscal impact of the proposed project. I took the trouble to- study with a little care the section in the appendix E of the E.I.R. which was prepared by the Gruen group and the section on schools in the department's economic supplement and it seems to me that they came down with the same kind of resultgive or take a million dollars or so. Iftat they're both telling us is that there's a substantial I amount of project tests in the schools area and in other areas that would have to be borne by other taxpayers because the project would not be self- supporting in thatregard. The Gruen report indicates a short fall on assessed valuation for school construction purposes of $4,625,000. The 466 J . 5. ,.is .. •.:. departr;.or►t's ecumdc svMlment, as I read it, indicated $3,397,000, assum- ing the bodroom tax which I think was not considered in the first h.I.R. Neer, the way letters drop in at the last minute, I don't know whether these _ numbers are still valid or Miether we may have other tables to consult the next time tots matter is considered. But, the main difference, as I see it . from corMaring the tables up 'till last night, I thought were the ones we ought to be looking at, is in an estimate of the number of students that will be generated by the condominium aspect of this project. But, as I say, give to take a million dollars, maybe it doesn't rake too Hoch difference. What I want to draw your attention to is what I considers to be, as a tax- payer, a very important question of public policy that you gentlemen must address yourselves -to in acting on this application. IVe've had development taking place in California and in particular in Contra Costa County sometimes gradual, perhaps in mall enough bites that we haven't been aware of the fact that many develormnts are not self-sustaining. The development of private land is being accomplished at the expense.in part of other taxpayers so that the developer u;ho confronts you with a proposal that cannot generate the tax revenues that are needed to construct necessary facilities and in some cases even to cover operating costs is asking eadi and every taxpayer within the districts that serve his project or in the county at large as to matters that are the subject' of the general Property to become a partner in .that development; but, he isn't asking us to step in and share in the profits of it. Now, I think this matter becomes one that we feel very acutely when we are ! presented with the proposal for what amotmts to a nh.r ton. You didn't notice it when somehody came in with a 25-uAt subdivision or a 40-unit subdivision. hben you're talking about 4,400 plus units, suddenly you be- come aware of the fact that this development is going to be at somebody ele's expense in part and I ast: you whether.as a natter of sound public policy that kind of proposal can be approved. Now, it is not just the school issue. We've got roads, we've got other kinds of facilities but I look at the school issue because that's the big ticket item here, the biggest one that we have. And, I sincerely hope that the Commissioners in considering this application will give close • attention to this matter which I think is for all taxpayers and for all governing agencies a most important one. Should private development be allo,,ed to proceed on.a basis that necessarily requires a contribution by other taxpayers in the district and in the County? That's the main point I wanted to make to you tonight, gentlemen. I'm going to sit dawn and before I do, I have leave fron riy lady to ask that all speak- ers who follow try very hard to he brief. The Cormission has other ratters to hear after the conclusion of this discussion on Blackhawk tonight. We all have other things to do and I think your points will be made much more effectivell if you do not make them at too great length. "- ( IRAN JI:1lA: Thank you, Mr. Moody. 0101. CMIPACLIA: I'll drink to that! 1►R MOODY: Dr. Darwin Datwyler has spent hours. studying roads, primarily .he's studied Diablo Road and I think he whows that the B.I.R. statistics and figures on roads are inaccurate and I'll call on him to speak to that point. 469 M. UMMIN DATk'YLER, P. 0. box 604, Diablo, California. .I would like to • briefly paraphrase a report that was prepared by the fliahlo Property Owners Association as it specifically pertains to Diablo Road, the length of Diablo Country Club. This would be beginning at Calle Arroyo to the entrance to Diablo State Park or Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard. In reviVwing these statistics in the different E.I.R.'s and the addendums, we used the referenced documents, specifically the highway Capacity Manual by the Highiay Research Board and the trips per day traffic in the July 1973 Eighth Progress Report on trip and generations. Pertaining to the 3ARRA Report, specifically two-lane roads as would apply to the Diablo Road in the area that I referenced, the specific factors used to determine the traffic load on that road are as follows: Sight distance fadtor: A distance of 1,500•feet over 40 to SO percent of the mad was used. This does not exist. Design speed Factor: A speed of 45 to SO miles perhour was-used. The posted speed limit on this section of road is 35 with one 2S-mile-an-hour curbe. The lateral clearance factor. A clearance of 6-ft., was used and there are 53 areas.were this does not exist due to mail boxes. trees and fences. In some areas, the clearance is little as 2-ft. • 'rho lane width factor: This was omitted or assumed to be 12-ft. , when in reality a '104-ft. , average lane-width exists on the road. This factor alone would reduce the traffic capacity from 12 to 18 percent, depending on hair you interpolate the charts in the referenced documents. Shoulder factor: This was omtted completely and assured to be 6-ft. , Iliere are no shoulders on either side of this road and there are only two short areas where a disabled vehicle could be pulled off and then only in dry weather. • Grade factor, again, was completely omitted and there's a 3 to 5 percent grade m this section of road. My question that I would like to address to the staff before the close of the E.I.R. is: If the traffic figures are this inconsistent on this section of road, I think it is time well spent to determine what the capabilities of our roads really are. As you follom Diablo Road dcn n father which has to be one of the main accesses for this development; we have our fire dept. , which already has a traffic problem in front of it, Green Valley School which is 'already a real bottle-neck at eight in the morning when we have our school buses and such. Gentlemen, we need mon research, we need more time to analyze our traffic problem. Thank you. PS. S&U-Y 131ING, P. 0. Box 257, Diablo California. I'm speaking for Amigos de Diablo. I'd like to speak to the issue'of the capacity of the State Park and also to the physical integrity of the Mountain. With the possible encroachment of 15,000 people. on the foothills and loser slopes of Mt. Diablo, it becomes imperative to raise certain questions about the izV=t this Mould have on the mountain as well as the facilities of the State Park. Nothing whatever is stated in tho E.I.R., about the capacity of 470 the park to accommodate more people. We think this is on- essential question. What is the average daily use of the Park? Now many cars can the park accomrodate at any given time? What is the number of overnight camping facilities? khat is the number of.picnic facilities? flow often are the facilities booked to capacity at this time? * flow would Blackh nvk population effect these figures? Ubat burden would the additional population add to the existing facilities? What problems does the park already experience from increased urbanization on the foot of the mountain and marauding dogs might be a possible example of that? Have there been any sutdies made for Mt. Diablo or any other large parks to determine whether there is a maximum number of people per acre of park land, the excess of which would be deemed to jeopardize the natural resources of the park? the question of the definition of which lands constitute the mountain is an important one. Some see the top third, which is now within State Park boundaries is the essential mountain. Others see the foothills and 'general lower slopes as an integral part of the scenic and ecological whole which comprise the mountain. Because any grading initiates an irreversible pro- cess away from the natural state of an area. Now is the time to raise the following questions concerning the physical integrity of the mountain. How would the loss of potential parkland curtail future desired expansion of the Park? 1Vhere should the boundaries be drawn which' would demark the mountain from surrounding countryside? Which land should be a part of the park and which i land privately awned and zoned for open space? Irmay be determined that the park should end at one radius distance from the summit but that a buffer zone of privately-awned agricultural land should surround the park, The E.I.R. , does not address these alternatives to private " ownership for development. It does include .the State park's most recent prior- ities map but since the map was published, we understand that the concept of "windows" to the park has been introduced by Mr. %tt. l;e belies:a that Mr.. Mott should be contacted regarding the "window" concept. If the State park holds any hope of obtaining this land, then careful consider- ation should be given to mitigation measures that gill reserve some time to acquire this land. Mitigation measures for example as requiring construction to begin at a point other than on the west. Such a decision might have other advantages such as delaying or obviating the necessity of the Sycamore Valley Road extension. Page l of the E.I.R. , states, Me project site is located four miles south of bit. Diablo." This statement is inaccurate. The northern boundaries of the project site, those bouidaries closest to the surnit of the mountain, are three miles south of the summit of the mountain. The mountain itself extends well into the project site. The erroneous information on Page 1 was taken verbatim from the James A. Roberts Report on Page S. It might be accurate to state that the average distance of all points in the project site is four miles from the summit. Contrast the language at Page 3 of the E.I.R. , apparently the County's own language, Me project up south ridge and onto the flanks of Mt. Diablo," -Since the language of the James A. Roberts Report placed the mountain a mile off center, it leads us to doubt the reliability of the report in other 471 respects. I'd like to introduce now Nancy and Grant Henderson who'will show you some slides they've taken both of aerial views and ground'views of this mountain, Pertaining to some of these questions we've raised. Thank you. (No quest- ions were directed to Ms. Ewing by the Con dssioners). MS. GRANT (NANCY) HENDERSON, 6 Ona Court, San Ramon, California. (Mr. Hend- erson operated the slide projector). This is an aerial view of the southern slopes of Mt. Diablo. This is South- ate Road here and, of course, the summit up here. This is part of the ]lack- awk Ranch in this area and over here, these are some of the buildings on the Blackhawk Ranch. This is Dlackhmik Road right along here. This shot shows that these hills do belong to the mountain. This is, again, the southeastern slopes of tIt. Diablo over here and its constituent foothills again. This is Southgate Road, 'Hackhawk Road runs along here; this is Tassajara Road here. Blackhm k area is in here. All these lands are currently in farming, are ranching operations and they will be directly affected by development of the.Blackhmvk area. The E.I.R. does not adequately consider the effects of increased air pollution on crops and livestock or the impact of greatly increased nurbers of human beings in direct proximity to these lands. It is knorn that production of sortie crops is diminished or extinguished with increased air pollution and it is thought that livestock can be similarly effected by the lead and other types of pollution -from automobile exhaust. It's also kmcAr from the experiences of California Central Valley farmers and ranchers that housing development is { incompatible with farming and ranching because people who move into these developments have little or no 4mawledge of farming and often knowingly or unknowingly sabotage or harm the water supplies, fences, crops, livestock, and so on. Fd like to know what other kinds of hidden Pressures there are on these { farmers and ranchers, how long will they stay or: at these operations if Blackhm4k is developed and where will our fruit and produce come from when all farm land has been paved with subdivisions? This is another shot of the effected farmlands. Tassajara Road, again, and the Blackhawk area, And, this is still farther east, showing more of the farmlands that will be effected. This is t-brgan Territory Road. Blackhm4k•is over here, the mountains over here, the Sierras are off this way. These are some of the ponds that are on the property which might be used as storm ponds, I'm not sure. This is the Peterson Ranch. Some of the Black-hawk buildings are drn m here, the ranch buildings, the ranch is here. It's surrounding it like this. Mt. Diablo is up there. Blackhawk Road would be down the bottom area here. What will happen to this ranch with development of Blackhawk so near? Will it eventually go to the park or will it be absorbed into development or development of land holdings? This is ane of the hills on the property and it shows you'll see Southgate 472 „ Road here and you can see these wrinkly little things here are what is called "slumping" and there are some actual slides also on the site dawn in here, throughout the area. Jerry Pressler and Don Noltgrieve of ECUMM, who will speak later might talk about these. These hills are still further toward the west and they constitute what Sally Ewing referred to as the scenic "windows" to the sumit. As you can see, here's Southgate Road and there's the summit of the mountain and these are the hills I'm talking about. This is a view from Blackhawk Road through one of the windows to the summit. This is another one also along Blackhwwk Road and this is Southgate Road, the summit. This is all Blackhawk land here. Again, the su-mit from the same vantage point. This, again, is one of the hills that's a "window" to the sumdt. This is Southgate Road and it demonstrates the oneness of these shills with the mountain. This is the community of Diablo. This is Diablo Road. Danville would be toward that direction and you'll note the rural character of the area. This, again, is Diablo and you can see that the community would be greatly changed should the Blackhawk Ranch be developed. Even if Diablo Road were only widened on this side, it would still directly affect the character of this area. This is Diablo, the community of Diablo, again. Keep an eye on this water tower. This will help you locate Diablo in future slides. Southgate Road again, the Blackhm%,k property, the surit. Diablo Road is along here. Black- hawk Road is along here. There's the water tower. Diablo A-ain, Southgate Road (Blackhawk representative in audience posed question, unintelligible on recording) . MRS. }IENDERSOV: Can you answer that? CIiAIR.NM JUTA: Let the person make the presentation. You don't have to answer that question if you don't want to. ATS. HENDERSON: All right. I'd like to know what's going to be developed! This is, again, the water tower I was talking about. This is Diablo. Diablo Road becomes black-hawk Road. This is all Black-hawk territory here. South- gate Road. Again, Diablo. We're looking toward Concord. Buchanan Airfield would be up in that direction and you can see the rural character of the area which would be directly affected increased traffic air pollution, water runoff, and etc. This is taken a little bit farther south and more towards the center of the valley, of San Ramon Valley. This is Interstate 680 here going toward Walnut Creek. Concord again. This is Sycamore Valley Road; this is the Sycamore still Development. And, you can see that there's quite a lot of undeveloped land along the major arteries and that, therefore, to extend development out 473 toward Blackhawk would crostitute urbmn sprawl and the E.I.R., does not ad- equately address this aspect of the development and I feel that it has to be studied in detail before, gDing ahead with the consideration of Blackhawl. The E.I.R. does notadequatelyaddress the impact of Blackhavk's bulldozer and grading areas. I uote fom one part of the E.I.R: "Even though the developer states his intention not to build on slopes over 25-percent and limit the grading, a large amount of earth will have to be moved. The amounts are not known since no grading plan has been submitted; but, the total quantities could be large and the result may appear like a conventional contouring operation." Ihere is no statement in the E.I.R. whether grading would occur at all, would occur all at once or in phases and that information should be provided in detail. The view from Southgate Road down onto Blackhawk or some artist's point on the mountain down onto BlackhEuk might be scarred with scenes like this one. Just imagine for a minute that we're driving up the side of this unique and world-famous mountain and as we wind our way up Southgate Road we first have to close the car windows against the construction dust. Then, as we drive out of each dust' cloud, if the dust on our windshields isn't too thick, we'll be able to look down onto the idyllic scene of grazing bulldozers below; (Applause) A specific grading plan should be required beofore consideration of the Black- hawk project if it is to be like a convbntional contouring operation, this should be known in advance because it would mar the mountains forever. In closing, •I would like to read a quote which sums up our feelings about this debate over the fate of Mt. Diablo. It was written by Pliny, a Roman scholar, in the first century A.D. 'The power and greatness of the works of nature lose of true comprehension in nearly every instance when the mind seizes on the particulars and does not embrace the whole," MRS. MOODY: Nancy and Grant, were indebted to you for those eloquent photo- graphs. We could stand up here and talk all nidit and never begin to say what you've said with those. Thank you. I think you can see from those photographs that despite what the developer has said, the Blackhawk Ranch is way out in the middle of the country. We hope it will stay that way. I'm proud to Dr. Mary Bowerman who will speak: on the biotic element of the E.I.R. DR. MARY BOWERMAN, 970 Second Street, Lafayette, Calif . My name is Mary Bowerman. I'm not taking a position on the proposed Blackhawk Development at this time, ---� However, as my name is mentioned in the County L•.I.R:, and in the reports of the consultant and as these documents are the subject of discussion tonight, I should like to comment partly in self defense. Although reference has been made to the book The Flowering Plate and terns of Mt. Diablo, of which I am the author, it appears not to have 5den consulted and is not listed in the bibliography. How can an E.I.R. be considered com- 474 plete without any reference to the definitive and ably study of the flora and ecology of the area concerned? I'm afraid I'm a little bit patting myself on the back there and I hope I may be excused for that. . ` On Pae 47 of the Roberts Report, it is stated that there are no rare plants on the Blackhawk Ranc]i. This untrue as a perusal of my book would ave shown. Can this deficiency be remedied and should the known rare plants be' determined and listed? I recall a telephone conversation which came at an inconvenient and inoppor- tune time; consequently, I contented myself with answering the specific gUestions asked. Presumbably I was not aware that I would be quoted in Print. Be tha as it may, the result is an incomplete assessment as is in- dicated by the above omissions. On page 20, the appendix C-1, E.C.I.S. , and on page 27 0£ the E.I.R. , I am quoted quite correctly and obviously as saying that the presence or absence of rare annual species could not be determined at the season when they are dormant. It is now spring. Has this survey and determination been made? I.f so, has the survey been made on foot, intensively and extensively? The route of the biotic survey shown on the map, labeled Figure C-1, on page 21, appendix C-1, E.C.I.S:, appears to follow in general and possibly entirely routes which can be traversed by automobile or vehicle with four- wheel drive. The eastern area appears not to have been. surveyed at all. Are the writers aware which areas of the ranch'tiwere not surveyed in my early work on the mountain and which, therefore, should receive special attention now? Has a detailed botanical survey, if any, been made by properly qualified botanists? Errors in the Roberts Report show clearly that the botanical section was not prepared by a trained taxonomist. If such a survey has not yet been made, will a more detailed ecological and floristic study be required for evaluation of each area, as suggested on P;•ge 48 of tike E.C.I.S. Report? And, if so, will it be made throughout the year in order not to miss any plants? E.C.I.S. , suggests, on Page 20 of appentli> G-1 that: "If the overall development plan is approved, the developer ,ey each specific area for reare or endangered species as part of the des. package documentation effort required for applicant submittals for butdin; ::rmits.." Would this not be too late in the planning process to "save" any rare plants which might then be discovered? Should the rare plants be annuals, this would be difficult, indeed. Should not such a survey be completed now prior to possible approval? I would like to touch briefly on a matter upon which I can claim no expertise. I 'cannot resist inquiring how much success the writers of the report had in other areas in persuading homeowners to keep their cats on a leash when off the owner's premises. On Page 86 of the Roberts Report and on Page 84 of the E.C.I.S., report, this is suggested as . a way to mitigate the effects of development on the wildlife resources! One last item: The Roberts Report on Page 6S, states, Nt. Diablo is only visible from portions of the northeast side of the ranch." This statement is not correct and the photographs and slides which the previous speaker 47S has just shown indicate that very clearly. This statement is not correct and perhaps in itself indicates a lack of familiarity with the area. In the first place, the Blackhawk Ranch is a part of Mt. Diablo. Secondly, the summit of Mt. Diablo to which they were evidently referring is visible from the walnut orchards hfiich is slated for houses by the ranch headquarters. The walnut orchard was shown in one of the previous slides but the speaker did not call your attention to the fact that houses were planned for that area. It was a walnut orchard that was on the same slide as the Peterson Ranch headquarters. The summit is visible from the ranch headquarters from Blackhawk Road and probably elsewhere. Because the summit and intervening areas are visible + from Blackhawk Road, I believe the area between Blackhawk Road and southgate Road on the slopes- of the mountain should be preserved as Open Space .for it is the only place on the south side of Mt. Diablo where a natural and unob- structed view from the valley may still be preserved. I would be very much in favor of the buffer zone which was mentioned by the previous speaker in that respect. And, also, I would like to endorse every- thing that wassaid by Mrs. Salley Euing. To quote again from the Roberts Report, 'The variety of vegetation, topography and land use provides the local landscape with a unique and highly diverse visual and aesthetic quality." May it be preserved. 'Thank you. (No questions were directed to Mts. Bowerman by the Commissioners). MRS. M)ODY: Bobbie Ayer, who is on the staff of the Alexander Lindsey Youth Museum has worked personally to care for and protect our animal friends. She's going to speak on the wildlife elements. ,.._ - MS. BOBBIE WER (No address given. No green slip submitted for files). I'm a resident on Blackhm..k Road, on the staff of the Alexander Lindsey Jr. Museum and take part in their wildlife and rehabilitation program. The E.I.R. is inadequate as far as recognizing the very large and varied number of wildlife residening' on the Blackhmrk property. This area supports a tremendous amount of wildlife because of the variety of habitats and the continuous source of water from the ponds. This area is on the Pacific fly- way and the ponds provide a winter%!sting area forwater fowl. One of the Audubon members counted over 40 species of water fowl at these ponds, includ- ing at one time 200 Canadian geese. One count by an audubon member lists over 112 species of birds sighted in the last two years on the ranch Property. Last year, there were nests of both Golden Eagle and Prarie Falcon. These ponds also provide one of the few water sources during the dry summer months for all the animals in the whole adjoining area. This is one of the few breeding places of the endangered Tiger Salamander. Many mammals are found in this area including mountain lion, coyote, fox, badger, bobcats, ring-tailed cats, deer and numerous small animals. To fully evaluate the nVact this development will have on the existing wild-life, I would like to ask the following questions about the report: Were sightings and counts actually made? 'flow much time was spent in the field? Did these studies reflect the seasonal changes in wildlife residents? Most important of all, I would like to }maw what steps will be taken to pro- tect the wild life? Vilmt will be done, if anything; to protect the ponds from pollution and to preserve them so that they can be used by wildlife? 476 What will be done to protect the endangered Tiger Salamander and the Alameda Striped Racer and other reptiles and amphibians in to7 of preserving their habitat and protecting them from collecting by people? What will be done to protect the deer? ' Problems will arise when introducedlants replace the natural vegetation and when roads cut through their established routes o£ navel? Mat will be done to protect the wild life from domestic pets, especially dogs and to a certain extent, cats. Dogs are the main predator in this county and they're already a dog problem in this area. Wildlife on the ranch property, on Fit. Diablo Park, which is a game refuge and the livestock on adjoining ranches will be seriously threatened unless steps are taken. At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Bruce Elliott from the State Department of Fish G Game. 'Thank you. (No questions were directed to Ms. Myer by the Commissioners). M. BRUCE ELLIOTT, Department of Fish $Game, Region 3, Yountville, California. I'm from the Wildlife Management Brwich, Region 3, Department of Fish f, Came, and what I'm really here to do is reiterate the general theme that some of the earlier speakers have made. The E.I.R. , in our opinion, in the sections involving wildlife and the envir- onment are seriously inadequate. In fact, they arc so inadequate that the Department has taken the rather unusual step of requesting a project sponsor meeting and also a meeting with the planning people in order to discuss wha t we consider to be many deficiencies in the U.I.R. We sent that request to the project sponsors three weeks ago. Ile have yet to receive a reply from I them. Until we can conduct that meeting and consider many, many serious I deficits in what has been proposed in terms of mitigation, some of their ' suggestions as to the effects of the development, the Department would take a rather serious---would express serious concern on any zoning to put this _m project in the area where it's intended to go. 'thank you. (No questions were directed to Mr. Elliott by the Commissioners) . t,06. WODY: I think it's unprecedented to have so many pcdblic officials speaking out against a project. Ile have another public official here to- night, Mr. Thomas 11olmes, he's Resource Coordinator for the Contra Costa County Resource Conservation District. He's speaking, of course, on behalf of the district. Mr. Holmes. M2. '171K)M1S IiOLT`M* Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the Contra Costa County Resources Conservation District is quite concerned about this ranch. In their comments to the Staff, the prime concern is the removal of the ranch should the project be approved as a source of food. We've heard about wild life and this sort of thing and it was, I think, in passing, mentioned food for the human race. Now, the Blackhawk Ranch in itself would not feed everybody in Contra Costa County. Ile know this. But, today, as we all know, food is the item that the United States has that nobody else in the world has. Ifyou don't believe that, checkwith the Russiar4 the Arabs, with anybody else. r Now, this ranch has, according to the E.I.R. , available approximately 400 head of beef on the ranch at the time the report was made. Running this through some of the teduiical people with whom I work, this would produce at market, 280,000 pounds of beef. And, at the going rate of beef today 477 at• 40-costs a pound on the hoof, this would generate about $112,000. Md, in the butcher shop at abort 60-percent dressout, this would come to about 168,000 lbs., of dressed beef and every housewife here knows they can buy } that for about 90-cents a lb., today at any market, Which would be $19,000: lie also were also quite concerned about the flood hazard. Now, comment was made in the report that Sycamore Creek had been worked over by the Soil Con- servation Service so that it would carry a SO year storm or 2-percent storm. This was not a true statement. The Soil 'Conservation Service did work over approximately 100-feet of the outlet of the creek at San Ramon Creek. One or two developers, I believe, have worked on the creek iri other sections. But, the work done on the creek in the past, oh, roughly, 40 years has been clone by the private land owners and Sycamore Creek is not adequate to carry the ' run-off from the Blackhawk Ranch as it now stands because I've seen Blackhawk Ranch Road under water a number of times and these would be on storms that would occur possibly in a ten-year storm. Now, in 1958 and 1962, we had storms that ranged tip to a range of about 25 or 30-year storm and in work done jointly by the Resource Conservation Dist- rict and the Soil Conservation Service and -the County Flood Control District based on a projection of population and estimated run-off from the water shed, certain works of improvement were built in San Ramon and Las Trarp as • Creeks in what was then called the Walnut Creek Water Shed. In 1955 and again in 1962, these hudge drop structures, which were put in specifically, to stop erosion and collect sediment were almost overtopped completely by water being within just a few inches of going over the 'top of the entire structure, not through the notch that was designed for it. 1 This brings up another point. There was no mentionin the report of any type of controls being, shall we say, enforced on any land that might be .aying bear or any grading done during the winter: The County today is faced with some sizable bills as far as removing sedi- ment from Walnut Creek. Now, Walnut Creek the sum may not sound too signifi- cant, but sediment from any Blackhawk development or any other development in San Ramon Valley winds up in Walnut Creek. Thislast year, the County just completed a $795,000 contract to remove sediment from the lower end of 1•0alnut Creek so that expected flood water from next year could get through. They are now budgeting $200,000 a year for this and this comes out to about $1.00 per man, woman and child in the Walnut Creek Water Shed, of id ich the Mac}:- hawk Randa, approximately 2/3 of it drains into Walnut Creek eventually. These are some of the items that the District was quite concerned about and they would like to sec---in fact, they impressed me with the urgency on this--- their last Board meeting to appear here and in summary, they say that they believe that this report is inadequate and they would like to see a more com- prehensive report prepared particularly as it relates to specific soils, giading patterns, road locations and more specific locations to the ponds in connection with the golf courses that these might be flood control struct- ures; from the graphics in the report, it was impossible to tell vdiere these might be located. These are some of the items---another item that they would like to point out is that the Corps of Engineers in their release on the Walnut Creek project, a public hearing held just about two weeks ago,. where they state that the Walnut Creek, San Ramon Creek and its tributaries are inadequate to carry -any stony run-off, period, in its present state. So, this would refute, I 478 think, some of the statements made in the E.I.R., that channels are adequate. We don't believe that they would be. Thank you very much. (No questions were directed to Mr. Holmes by the Commissioners). MRS. FOODY: Amigos de Diablo has been fortunate to obtain the services of ti ? Ecumene Associates, a consulting firm on environmental resources from Hayward and I'd.like to introduce Don Holtgrieve, a partner in that firm. Don holds a PhD in environmental sciences from Oregon State---or University of Oregon and is an instructor at Cal State, Hayward on environmental sciences. DR. MNALD HOLTGRIM., 41S6 Krolop Road, Castro Valley, California. Thank you, Members of the Commission, as was mentioned, at the request of Amigos de Diablo, we were asked to review the various documents associated with the impact report as well as the impact report itself and for your convenience, we have submitted in addition to this oral report a written statement and I'm glad we did because many of the things that we had intended to say have already been said very well; so, I will try to concern my comments withonly those areas where we can supplement or add tomething new. basically, we are interested in three areas. The first is in dealing with the---and reminding everyone that in dealing with this one project, the documents often lack the comprehensiveness necessary to predicting and plann- ing the future of the entire region. r . Secondly, the County General Plan concerns itself with the San Ramon Valley as a whole and a portion of our statement is concerned with the Blackhawk's ` compatibility with the General Plan. But, as I mentioned, these iters have already been discussed to some extent.. Finally; though, we would like to make some specific comments regarding the geology of the climate and:the soils of the area of the proposed project. Before I mention the specifics regarding climate, soils and air quality and geology, I would like to have heard some comment, at least in the E.I.R. , some comment about priorities in open space. This is to say that oftentimes when people have referred to open space, they may be referring to wildlife areas or they may be referring to golf courses or there may be other kinds of land use that are under the broad classification of open space. We would like to liar if the County has a priority list or. some sort of rank order of land uses under the category of open space. Specifically, due to the topographic uniqueness of the Tassajara and adjutant vallies, the County should consider monitoring air quality conditions on .a larger scale. That is, on a smaller area over a year's time. Interpolation of, reasurcments taken at other stations, Walnut Creek and Livermore, do not really reflect the microclimatic conditions of the areas in between. An alternative to detailed investigation of air quality conditions might be to limit the development of the area until the bay Area Pollution Control Dis- trict makes .available their computer system, a computer model for anticipat- ing air qualities. It was suggested on page 57 of the E.I.R., that further study and prediction of hydrologic impacts would be necessary when the State---when the site drain- age Plan is available and we will make some- suggestions on that. 479 The geotecimical report, the attachment referred to in the L.I.R., details an extensive list of recommendations, additional, investigations for addit- ional investigations, including large-scale geologic mapping, deep borings, test pits and laboratory analysis; so, for your' convenience, we've extracted some comments out of that report that calls for further research in geology. There was also mentioned in the impact report a need for location for---a location study for fire stations and there is also a mention of the fact that few of the archeological surveys have been done in the area. And, finally, all of the proposed projects in the region should be considered in terms of total impact, discussion of potential problems on a project only basis such as the impact reporter's presentation of biotic, hydrologic, air quality, traffic, employment, waste water and agricultural conditions does not seem in keeping with the welfare of the county as a whole. Will not all of these inrpacts have effects outside of the boundaries of the project? Resources available to the valley do not increase or decrease proportionally to the growth rate. Some remain static and others are accelerated. Examples of accelerated deterioration may be found in wildlife habitat, archelologic sites, iable agriculture and recreational open space. • Examples of static or continuous relationships with growth as population, that is to say as population gratis so does the impact at the same ratio on things like tax base, services, schools, traffic, sewage, solid waste and water supply. Note that the population growth rate, the grmith graph an Page 42 of the impact report is based on a logarithmic scale. Are all of the projects of possible impacts applicable to this kind of scale? In other words, we dont want to assume that an impact will grow at the same rate that the population will grow. Some times they grow less; sometimes they grow more. With regard to some technical findings of the E.I. .., the following items -- are respectfully brought to your attention: Several named faults surround the project site. These faults are not men- tiondd in the text of the report although they are shan%m on the map on Page 14. Mention is made of the Hayward, the Calaveras , the San Andreas and the Pleasanton faults only. The others that surrotmd and possibly cut through the project site are the Mt. Diablo Fault on the north, the Slier- borne Hills fault 'on the sout1west and the Morgan -Territory and Riggs Canyon Faults on the northeast and there is a strong possibility that the Tassajara Fault cuts through the center of the project site and for your convenience we've listed some references. I won't read them here. It is noted on the map of Page 49 of the im pact report, it shows that only three areas of the project are to be built on major landslide deposits; however, it may be readily seen from a United States Geological Survey Flap that almost all of the slopes within the project site have mapped landslides, land slimps or earthflows of sizable magnitude and some of these were visible on the slides that were presented and again, for your convenience, we've -,, cited some'sources. The E.I.R. , and its predecessors do not present adequate soil stability information. Such information.such include the size distribution and the scatter compression and Atterberg limit tests. The preliminary impact reports, the JARA and the E.C.I.S. , and the County's 480 otficial impact report mention climatic changes due to urbanization; but, none of these reports attempt to'-estimate climatic changes in any system- ' atic way. Recent advances in simulation climatology.by Outcalt at the c university of Michigan and NVrupt and Goddard at the-University of California, Davis, really do make this possible and we again have cited some references. With regard to hydrology, the impact report does not mention such imporant considerations as the areas of the drainage basins, the infiltration and capacity estimates and local climatic data, the flood magnitude frequency relations. How can a flood hazard impact be preducted without this kind of information? In addition, it appears that both the JARA and the Kirker- Chapman & Associates suppliement to the E.C.I.S. , report have erred in not attempting to estaimate the concentration times after urbanization. This is the concentration time of rainfall. The decrease in the concentration time is one of the major impacts according to the recognized expert in the field, LydonLeopold. Because higher storm intensities may occur for shorter time periods over a less of an area that would be able to absorb--- that is a non-permeable area. Less increase in the magnitude of a given frequency in the storm event. The actual calculations of the Kirker-©rap- man $ Associates were not included in the • E.I.R. , so that the reader can- not evaluate. JARA calculated expected increases only for the largest water sheds, "because they produce larger floods." These seem to have a small • percent of the expected urbanization. For example, 1210 for Sycamore, vs. , 251 for the entire parcel. It thus seem likely that some of the smaller. water shed mig1rt produce considerably increased flows after urbanization. Again, we say reference includes a much larger flow .increases with the ur- banization than does JARA. This is Simply saying he believes that there will be more of an impact upon urbanization than is stated by the JARA report. There* is no attempt in the impact report to delimit on naps the areas of flooding for various flood frequencies. This was mentioned by the previous speaker. It was mentioned that the developer plans not to build in the 100 year flood zone; but, the actual zone is not mapped nor is the area estimated. In view of the fact that the valley bottoms are considered more developable for seismic reasons thant the hillsides, this point needs clarification; so, we're asking: Do you go for earthquakes on the hill slopes or do you take your chances on floods on the valley bottoms? Doth the County and the JARA Report indicate that •increased sedimentation might be a potential adverse impact; but, neither attempts to estimate the quantity of dediment that might be expected. Both reports are vague about mitigation measures mentioning check: loons, etc. You sari one of the ponds that may or may not be used as a flood control measure. I hope you noticed that the pond was full after this winter's rain. But, there is no mention about how large these check dams or flood control ponds need to be. The JARA (report) cites the Colma Water Shed finding that during the construction phase, sedimentation can be as high as 85 times the normal rate; but, it seems convinced without any evidence that the mitigation measures are ad- equate. It might be mentioned that in small water sheds where heavy rains fall during the construction phase, sedimentation can be as high as 20,000 times the normal rate. With regard to noise, there is an assessment in the section called Environ- mental Setting about noise and it mentions that the ambient noise level is Piirly low;harever, there is no mention of noise in the impact section of 481 the report. It's very easy to at least compare the expected traffic with ratios, that is guidelines, put out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and they can delimit very easily areas of acceptable or unaccept- able noise levels With regard to ground water, it is mentioned in the report on Page 21 that not a great deal is known about the quality and the quantity of the ground water on the Blackhmik property. A further argument for regional study that would be an impact report for the entire area; would be as was already mentioned, we are dealing with three different water sheds and we are dealing with the ground water supplies and the municipal water supplies of neighboring commun- ities. -Well, there are other things that have been covered or will be covered so I will stop here. I appreciate your consideration of the matters included in this report. (No questions were directed to Mr. tloltgrieve by the Commissioners). Mt. DEHMUS: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask at this time, I hope that these people have written reports or prepared statement that they could leave a copy with us so that this would save some transcription time. GIAIMIkN JFJ1A: Did you all hear Mr. Dehaesus' request? Any of you who have spoke who have your comments written, if you would be kind enough to deposit them with the staff---either in the box or to "the staff---it makes it much simpler for our staff to include these in our report so they won't haveto transcribe everything from our recorder. RUDOLPH ULRIal (No address given; no green slip submitted for files) . I'm a consulting soils scientist. tty background is 30 years in the federal service. My last job was in charge of the interpretive sections of the Soil Survey, Soils Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Western Region, covering 13 states. I've prepared a written statement. It's already been submitted to a number .of agencies including the planning staff, you gentlemen and the Board of Supervisors. I'll submit a copy again as I understand I will have to pre- sent it. (Copy is on file with 1840-RZ). I'm speaking on the soils aspect of. Blackhawk. None of the E.I.R. Is go into the soils in any kind -of detail, particularly as to how they will behave and I have attempted to do this. There recently has been completed a de- tailed soil survey of the entire County of which Blackhmgk appears on the Diablo Quadrangle. This survey was made by the U.S. Dept. , of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of California. It's part of a routine survey covering the entire United States and it gives us a picture of the soil pattern wherever we may be. The Blackhawk is dominated by three soils and one land type, In approximate order of their acreage and importance, they are Diablo Clay, 30 to 50% slopes, Las Osis clay loan, 30 to SO% slopes, Lodo clay loam, 30 to 50: slopes and rock outcrop. Rock outcrope is not given a slope; but, it's that precipit- ous almost vertical material yousaw that had that general dark aspect in the . background. There's lengthy descriptions on each of the soils arising by arising; they cover almost pages in length. I will give you a very brief synopsis only 482 of them. The Diablo.soil -can bebriefly described this say. It's basically a clay from the surface to about ' . 40-inches to SS-inches. The Las Osis soil is about ten inches of clay loam overlaying a clay to about 30 some inches and generally it overlies rock between 24 and 40 inches. The Lodo clay loam is a clay loam to about 10 or 20 inches at which point it overlies bedrock. Sandstone and shales in each case. And, of course, finally, the rock outcrop is massive being between 50 and 751 rock at the surface with some intervening areas that may have soil as deep as 10 inches; but, gen- erally between less than four and 10 inches. Now, approximately 901 of this ranch is materials of this kind. There are some other soils, briefly, in the drainage ways of Alamo Creek to the east, Sycamore Creek coming down through the middle and some of the branches going off to Green Valley on the west and they have a couple of other soils in a minor way. Again, they are clays for the most part, Croply clay and Clear Lake clay and there is a little bit of a soil known as Kanale. Together, these only come to a very small amount of the area. Now, all these soils have been or can be rated by a system that has been *devised by the Dept.of Agriculture published in a document called a Guide Interpreting the Agricultural Uses-of Soil and it makes it possible to review some 30 or 40 different uses that can be made of the soil for different purposes. It does it in two ways: One, it states the degree of limitatin or Hazard that the soil may have for a given purpose or conversely the degree of suitability. According to this document., each of the soils on this property would be rated as severeiy limited.or alternatively poorly suited to the kinds of uses that area required to established a planned community as this would be---things related to septic tank suitability, land fill, shallow excavation, basements, houses with or without basements, and so forth; some eight or 10 uses. The reasons for this, of course, are the fact that these are dominantly steep soils between 30 and 501 slopes; they are clay in texture; they are slowly permeable; they have high shrink-swell potentials and high corrosive potelitials and they also for the most part have limited water storage capa- city. , Now, for these reasons, no matter what you do in the way of planning or con- struction on them, these limitations will persist. You can move them around a bit; but, for the most part they persist and they dominate so you basically have a poorly suited site for situation of a planned community type develop- ment such as this. Now, in view of these limitations, for the most part, this area would be best retained in some sort of open space uses which are best described as livestock grazing, water supply, recreation, wildlife, and also one use coming into possibility, namely the generation of electricity on these upland sites that have a fairly good wind velocity. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JF11A: Thank you. (No questions were directed to Mr. Ulrich by the ,ter, Commissioners). Mrs. Moody, how are you coming along on your--- MPS. MODY: I was just going to tell you that we have two more and I'm ask- ing them to be brief. I do want to call your attention before we get too far mvay from the subject 483 the subject of air pollution, call your attention to an April 17th letter to the staff from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. I"m not going to read it to you but the gist of it is they say: "in our opinion, revisions to the entire air quality impact analysis are necessary in order ! to determine the anticipate location and duration of'the projected pollutant concentrations and their-relationships to air quality standards." GIAIRNIIW JE11A: You can submit that and drop it in the box, if you want. It becomes part of the record. MRS. TMDY: Sure. 11.1hile I'm thinking of it, I'll also submit three (3) sets of our letter and ECUMENE'S Report. (Copies of same are on file with the application). The last two people I want to call on are hblly Reeves and Don Hoffman and I'll introduce them both at once. Molly is speaking on her own behalf. Stie's going to talk about utilities and local parks. Don iloffman is a Civil Engineer %oho lives in Diablo and lie's going to address a number of---I'm not exactly sure what, but they're related to civil engineer- ing and they both promise to be brief. M. MLLY REEVES, 126 Canon Drive, Orinda, Calif. The following remarks represent my otm study on the -E.I.R. , from the County. These questions per- tain to three main sections: (1) General planning conformance, Utilities, and one is the Park Dedication Ordinance. That's the recreational that Linda just referred to. Wst of the statements---the term "statement" represent direct quotes from, the E.I.R. report. Statement: In reference to the land use element, Page 10, "(ane action was to state that parcels that straddle the Oren Space line on the plan would be allowed to apply for development before 1980. The 'final decision' or definition, excuse me, would be made at the time of t;e application consider- atic:i." This is the time to rephrase the question particularly in view of the differing interpretations that exist between the staff and the developer. Question: What is the final definition? Statement: Page 63, Items G and K, in reference to the hardships to aricult- ural otmers in tl:e vicinity. A request is hereby made for specific land value figures to substantiate the statement, the speaker submits informal findings of 15 acres currently for sale on the Tassajara Road on flat land suitable for building have a per-acre price tag of 9,000. This figure is substantially higher than the figures quoting the land assessments for Blackhawk property. Question: Define. 11hat are the effects and consequences to the neighboring agricultural preserves from a Blackhmik development? Reference to other studies and areas so affected in the State or nation would provide useful guidelines -� Now, to utilities, Last Bay MID or water. Statement. Pages 43 to 46. Staff indicates that although East Bay WD has the capacity to serve the Blaclhawk area, reservoir capacity is limited. Questions: If as stated, three reservoirs with a total capacity of eleven million gallons will be required on the project site. Uhat design has been considered for these structures? bliere are' they to be located? What, in 484 Y yys p •f X41.*hii1 '1f rf" f}K}... .. .... short would be tine envizaima impact of these structures were they go be built? Mat is their individual size of reference to this large volume of water they would accommodate? Statement: Now, referring to P.G. 4 E. , Page 43. 'Total power service demands that Blackhmvk represents 2S1 of the total potential engergy demand • for the area. 11iis will generate a short-term adverse intact." Questions: How short is a "short-term adverse impact"? Particularly in numbers of years, what does this statement imply? P,'hich power services are affected by this factor? Hoiir do these shortages relate to the total energy picture as it is emerging today? Will black-outs be common at Blac)dimgk or in the San Ramon Valley as limited supplies are regulated? In addition, where are the existing connections for electrical and gas -supplies? Will power towers march 15 miles from Livermore interrupting farming fields, straddling freeway and local roads such as Diablo and Camino Tassajara or Danville, a shorter distance I realize? Even worse, will these facilities need to be located on top of the hills. Finally, what design considerations- or restraints exists for such units to supply essentially an entire new co„ ity of approximately 15,000 people? Statement: Page 46 of the L.I.R. . Local solid waste disposal services will use the sane land fill in Martinez as-would pres mably still be considered at the time of the Blackhmgk completion. "The proposed develop- ment will generate approximately 30 million pounds of solid waste per year." Although .the E.I.R, , states the life of the Martinez site is good until year 2020, no figures are given to substantiate the statement. Questions: What other gm- ing, commmities are also using the site? Clow does their continued use effect the estimate of the year 2020? hone of these figures are given in the report. Martinez is a land-fill project. What alternative means of garbage treat- ment have if ever been considered? Substantial daily truck tra"fic would be generated in the area of the Blackhawk. khat are the safety precautions for pedestrians, especially school children? The distance is an inordin- ately long cormute. Can such a system be justified in an age of chlindling natural rescurcescspecially fossil fuels? Greater air pollution, noise and nuisance factors would be related to the circulation of garbane trucks. Miat are the environmental losses of the above? They have not been developed in the report. Statement regarding waste waters: There are four drainage basins involved in the Blackhawk development area. All four were considered in Central Contra Costa Coultty Sanitary District's master plan. Questions: if not, particularly the Sycamore and Tassajara Valleys, what is the implication of their omission? The question reflects )ai(xiledge of the federal monies involved in the Central San plant capacity increases and new site constructions. What federal or state regulations bind the district in future expansions? In addition, the E.I.R., fails to address the possible applications of capacity limitations imposed by the California Clean Water r'! Grant Regulations Down as L-Zero or D-150. The population forcase for the State of California, which of course apply to this area. What is the sigiifi- cance of these sections for the 11lackhawk and the entire San Ramon Valley? laliat will capacity be reached? lobat regulations determine capacity? These 48S are but a few of the serious questions that require the Commission's consid-, eration. Statement: Due to the chapparel---this is regarding fire service---due to the chapparel characteristics of M. Diablo foothills, ehre exists a high . fire potential at least 6 months out of the year. Pages 61/66 mention fire • protection but do not address the following: Questions: clow would these slopes be protected particuarly in the private preserve properties? The most effective fire fighting method todate on the • mountain has been Borate Bombing. that are the effects of these cliemicals on skin or lungs or other adverse factors to human beings^1 Would the location Of -Blackhmik cause the elimination of this technique for fire prevention? -Third area, the Park Dedication Ordinance. . Statement: The status of the developer's offer for a thousand acres plus or minus to the state park and the County Park Dedication Ordinance has not yet been made clear. Under current definitions, State park lands caruiot be given in lieu of the County requirement. Questions: If this is true, what provisions have been made for recreational facilities within the Blackhm4k excluding golf courses? Will such recreation- al facilities be available to the public and provide for all ages and inter- ests? Gentlemen of the Commission, I hope you recognize the significant and excellent testimony. which.has been brought before you this evening. It represents many, hours of dedicated work. Many citizens of this county hold vital concern for the quality and planning of their home and community environment which is only appropriate in light of our presence of the chosen home of one of the { world's greatest naturalists and environmental advocates, Jolm Muir. Thank you. (No questions were directed to Mrs. Reeves by the Cormdssioners). M. DONALD HOFIAN, P. 0. box 317, Diablo, California. I'm a civil engineer, • and I live in Diablo. I have been before your body many times--- MAIIu N JEHM Mr. Hoffman, can I ask you a question? About your letter, you don't plan to read it all? M. 110FRM: No, sir. I have submitted a report which is in far greater detail than the summary I wish to give right now. I reviewed the environemtal impact study and the developer's plan primarily in regard to engineering matters and the results of my findings are shown in the report I have just given to you. There are a few major items in ' Particular which I would like to discuss. The matter of drainage seems to be a very crucial one. Sycamore Creek and Green Valley- Creek, both are subject to flooding. In this sham not only in the environmental impact report but also the Corps of Engineers Flood prone area plan which they published in 1972. Particularly, I reivewed the conditions for Green =" Valley Creek. Approximately 1,240 acres of the Blackhawk Ranch that flow into this little creek. The house that I now own had six inches of water on the floor of it 15 years ago; so, I an vitally concerned with how we are going to eliminate any increase in flow from the Blackhawk property. If you read the mitigating measures proposed on the 'envirmmental report, 486 there are only two. One of them is that drainage within the tract will remain in open ditches alongside the open non-curbed streets (if the County approves). In several tracts that I have proposed, I have tried to put in t substandard streets without curbs and gutters. I find that the Public Works artnmt has a policyagainst this since the maintenance costs are too high, streetsweeps will ma ll not operate and a few other things. Even if this procedure was allowed, once the adobe soils of the Diablo area are saturated, the reduction in rainfall through permeation is practically nil. There was one other mitigation measure stated in the environmental report. That was the use of check dams and holding ponds and flood retention basins. 'If you will look at the master plan submitted by the developer on the three small water courses that go into Diablo Creek, you will find none of these whatsoever. In the areas at the location of these three creeks where they would go across Blackhawk Road, you find nothing but houses plotted. There's even no open space. }low can the plan be completely different than the report? Mien we come to grading, there's no grading plan shmm. I do find over 2,000 homes on mostly 10 to 20% slopes---I'd say zero to 20% slopes, approx- imately 1/2 acre homes. I went back to various projects that I've worked on in the past 12 years and I find out that in conditions such as this and slopes such as this, the average lot generates 3 to 5,000 cubic yards of earth per lot. If you exrapolate those figures and add something for golf courses and multiples, we find we're *talking grading quantities between 5 and 10 .million yards. I think that deserves some kind of comment in an environmental impact report as far as mitigating circumstances. Pei.1aps Die grading plan the developer envisions answers these questions; but, I don't kno►v.how this kind of report can be approved until we see such a grading plan. Five to 10 million yards of. dirt have to go somewhere. It goes in the valleys. If it goes in the valleys, then a lot of other things robably disappear; mainly the vegetation and the natural conditions of hese creeks. But, I think it absolutely imperative, therefore, that the grading plan be presented and sham that it is in conformance with the report. Traffic has been reviewed in detail and I agree with Darwin Dauryler's• report which I believe you also have. I think there's. me other thing that should be said. Presently at the intersection of Diablo Road and Green Valley Road, there's a school crossing there. Every morning the cars always stack up on Diablo Road up to maybe ten cars waiting to get through. This report indicates a tenfold increase in traffic on Diablo Road. I would say that is a very unacceptable environmental impact. The project has been discussed to be developed in increments. I7hese incre- ments start from the west; therefore, they start adjacent to Diablo. Sewer and water can be extended in that direction. If you look at the incremental d:velopment up to the geographical drainage basin divide which is just north of the present Blackhawk Ranch entrance, you find that there will be approx- umtely 500 single family units and approximately S00 condominiuhrs or apart- ments for a total of approximately 1,000 units. Each of these 1,000 units are going to generate three, four trips per day in traffic resulting in traffic counts in the neig1iborhood of four to 5,000 cars all using Diablo Road. Diablo Road presently has 1,000 cars: Again, we're talking about 487 about a four-fold increase with perhaps no improvements whatsoever; there- fore, I think it is---I also have heard discussions- that' there is---that requirements for off-site roads such as Sycamore extension might not be required until a third or fourth unit. I think the county has a very great precedent for demanding access roads r' from developers. It Mas a requirement of the Bishop Ranch, the Western Electric project, that the roads be in before the area could be developed. 1 can think of another one I was personally involvedin. Orinda Dmms Unit 11, twice that project has come up before your Board where we were only talking about 70 additional -units and it was decided that before any more units could be developed, the traffic on Lombardy Lane and Minor Road were already over loaded and a road to Gear Creek would be required. That pro-ject never went through because of that reason. There are precedents and .I think it is time that they be attached to this project. My last comrent is in regard to the indicated density of this project. It would appear that the developer, ir. reading a legal opinion that their legal authority had written, that they, had taken the 4,800 acres and were deter- minded that it was all in one way or the other indicated as low density. They have assigned the maximum allowable figure of three units per acre and come up with such a large figure that they've indicated that they are • developing only half of that. I've made a slope analysis of the property and find out that there's approx- 'imately S00 acres of less than S grade. - There's another 450 acres betueen five and ten percent grade. There is another 450 acres up to 20% grade. Md, I doubt very much that any density accountable---of any consideration beyond 20% grades are possible. If this development were to be---proceed under conventional zoning proced- ures whidi has been discussed---and, frankly, I think it's a good idea--- we would find---and the zoning was corpatible with the adjacent Diablo conanunity, we would find that something in the range of 500 acres at t%.ro lots per acre, 450 more acres at one lot Per acre. On the abovs- ten percent slopes, may be R-65 would be suitable and that would result in another three--- ' 450 acres of that or 300 units mid maybe 1,000 other additional acres of over 20% property could be developed at S-acre ranchos. The total of all that density adds up to 2,000 units. Two-thousand units sounds a lot better than 4,500 units to me. I think that that is the real su=,ation of my reports and I think that ue should have answers to these questions before we proceed any farther. Thank you. (No questions were directed to Air. Hoffman by the Cormdssioners) . GWIL WN AM: Thank you. Do you have some winding up comients? MRS. MJODY: Yes, I'd like to call on Air. Moody to give our closing state- ment for the people who have spoken. There are other people in the audience, I understand, who want to speak; but, they're not part of our organized effort. I'll call on Fpr. Abody and then we're through. Thank you very much for your kind attention. MR. ?.MDY: I feel like I've been asked to deliver the benediction. As I • understand what we've been talking about from the department is a draft E.I.R. report and the processing procedures which I've been looking at tell us that the final E.I.R., is supposed to contain all of the elements required 488 ,. •r of the draft E.I.R., plus the comments received through the consultation pro- cess and the response- of the responsible agency to the significant. environ- mental points raised in the review and consultation process. After you elim- inate a certain amount of duplication, I think a lot of significant questions have been raised and the procedures, if I read this correctly, say that that sthe final E.I.R. , will be consideredby the Planning Commission at a public hearing-and you can't have a final E.I.R., I think, until you've got the comments on the questions that have been raised; so, what I'm now suggesting to you is that I think-the project shouldn't be considered until at least30 days after you have the final E.I.R. , with the comments on the questions that have been raised so that the whole matter can be considered in an orderly and intelligent way. Thank you. (No questions were directed to Mr. Moody by the Commissioners) . CHAIRMAN JLHA: Thank you, Mr. Moody. We will take a five-minute break. (Re- cess was then taken). MR. BERNM ODRDON, 40 Bower Place, Danville, Calif. I'm representing the San Ramon ValleyPlanning Committee. I would like to say on behalf of Mr. Dehaesus that there are some good things • in this environmental impact report. I think they raised a lot of very sig- nificant questions and I think the problem is that they raised a lot of doubts in the rinds of the people in the valley. Now, our committee has discussed at some length this E.I.R. , and we would like to respectfully submit that some points have not been adequately covered. I will not repeat those which the other people have spoken to; but, we have a list of tLn (10) which I have given to the staff. We think, for instance, that the on the local services that will affect all these people on library services have been completely overlooked. We've dis- cussed this with the developer and he indicates that probably something could be done with this in a service area within his district---within his develop- meet. We feel that there was no comment at all relative to the provision of hospital and health-care services. If you will recall, health care is a primary problem • in the valley. The nearest hospital is John Muir that's available to the public. There are no real considerations given to public municipal parks. There's a lot of talk about State parks, there's a golf course, but the kind of park that people use for free in an area are not addressed in the E.I.R. We feel that the Diablo Road, Dougherty Road and Sycamore extensions should be considered in connection with the scenic minor thoroughfare considerations which you are going through at the moment. Everybody has addressed the cost and maintenance of roads; but, we think there should be some delineation of responsibility. •1%ho's going to pay for r-- the roads? I know the numbers are in doubt or in question; but, the question of who does it is still pretty much up in the air. I won't speak to schools. We are concerned about utilities; but, we are con- cerned about off-site utilities. It's the usual practice for developers to pay for what comes up in his own area. But, such things as the downstream flood control which has been mentioned tonight, we believe is a significant 489 factor. Ile keep hearing from people about the problems of San Ramon Creek already and we don't have any more development upstream, just that which is in the Danville area. We feel, in closing, that there was no statement as to the benefit of provid- ing housing for the number of people which is proposed. If you're going to talk about the bad things, I suppose we ought to include the good things and maybe that's something that should be included in the E.I.R. Now, in closing, we the committee are very concerned about the hearings that are proposed and we endorse miss Moody's comments about holding the meeting open and we have passed the following resolution: 'Ile, the San Ramon Valley Community Planning Committee urge the Commission to maintain the Blackhawk project in open hearing to give the people in the „ valley an opportunity to study the staff conditions in the sane manner the Commission will have. Ile will then return and present• recommndat ions to the County from the people in our valley concerning this project; but, we do re- iterate that we do not want the matter closed as yet." This resolution was passed unanimously with all members voting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JE A., Thank you. (No questions were. directed to 'Mr. Gordon by the Commissioners) . WIRS. DIANE IMWER, 5608 College Avenue, Oakland, California. I'm Chairman of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club and presenting a stats- ment for the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. On March 26th Michael Fischer, Chairman of the M. Diablo Regional Group expressed support for the proposed 4,500 uiit.Blackhawk Ranch development in.the foothills south of Mt. Diablo. Je also announced signing of a memo- randum of agreement between two group executive committee merbers and the developer in which support was pledged for an exchange. in concessions from the developer. Because of substantial disagreement resulting from this act- ion and because this position had not been previously authorized by the Chapter, the matter was appealed to the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. During the Past month, the Chapter has reviewed the issue and finds that the project does not conform to the Sierra Club philosophy in land use policies. The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra club there- fore opposes this project. Because of its tremendous size, the largest development yet proposed for contra Costa County and its location in the relatively undeveloped Tassajara Valley, the Chapter while commending the efforts of the developers to work closely and openly with the community, feels that the proposed Blackhawk Ranch project although attempting an environmentally sensitive design is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The project is contrary to Sierra Club philosophy in general and land use policies in particular as follows: First, the Sierra Club views land as a finite resource upon which man's survival in terms of shelter, food and fiber depends. In deternuning the allocation of lands among competing uses, primary consideration must be given to long-range stewardship of the land; not short-range return. The Sierra Club has been a traditional and ardent advocate of preservation as a valid use of land. Second, the Sierra Club supports the use of a systematic and comprehensive approach to land use planning as the most rational and equitable means of 490 dealing with increased demands on-finite land resources. This approach be- comes particularly critical in a place like the Bay Area where the increas- ing pressures of urbanization are constantly nibbling away at the remaining supply of open space. o"t In the past, the Club has supported in general the concept of County General Plans and their periodic up-dates as the best approach for achieving -land use planning at the County level. The Contra Costa County Planning Dept., has looked at the project in terms of conformance with the County General Plan and has made the folbwing finding in the environmental impact report: "Based on an analysis of the above factors, it is clear that the proposed project as submitted has conflicting land uses with the adopted plan; con- ' tains densities that exceed those anticipated by the plan and would require facilities that currently aren't covered in the general plan. Basically, what is proposed is a whole new community east of the existing development. This was not anticipated by the existing general plan. It is clear that the project as submitted is not consistent with the existing Contra Costa County General Plan. In addition, the proposal does not reflect the timing of the development as projected by the general plan." Third, as a result of viewing the planning process as an orderly, rational procedure, the San Francisco Bay Chapter feels that determination should be made by other effected a&encies such as LAF00 and AAAG as to the desirability of the project before planning---before the Planning Commission acts. LAFCO must determine if the line for urban services should be extended to include the entire Blackhawk site. In making these determinations, the Club favors viewing an individual project in a regional context. This approach is especially necessary.here in view of the size and regional impact of the project. Fourth, the Sierra Club has long been opposed to continuing the present pattern of urban sprawl. We feel that this development is an example of leap-frog developm-nt which if permitted to go ahead would create substant- ial pressure to develop surrounding properties due to increased tax rates and would lead ultimately to the development of the entire Tassajara Valley. Fifth, the Bay Chapter is on record as supporting the ABAG's regional plan, 1970-1990. This development does not appear to conform to that plan. Much ' of the blackhawk Ranch site is indicated as permanent open* space while a small portion of the site is indicated as controlled development areas, which the plan defines as areas that should remain open for as long as possible, if not permanently, and which would be considered for urbanization after 1990. %. Sixth, the Club has supported the principle that full accounting of benefits and costs of providing services should be made during the planning process and that full costs of land use decisions should be assumed by the developer to the greatest extent possibb. In the case of Blackhawk Ranch because of its relatively isolated location and large size, the'cost of providing services would be high. In fact, the County Planning Department recently released a report in.which they state that it would be cheaper for the County to acquire the site at $4.8 million and lose an anjOal $150,000 in property tax revenue than to pay $30 million in capital requirements -needed to extend urban services to the project. It is imperative that the Planning Commission carefully con- sider the implications of placing such a financial burden on all County tax- 491 payers Am only one small segment would benefit. (Cheers and applause from audience as a result of a streaker:) For several years the. Mt. Diablo Regional Group and the San Francisco Day . , Chapter of the Sierxa Club have had as a major goal the preservation of Mt. .� Diablo and the surrounding foothills as open space. The group and theChapter have worked diligently to expand the boundaries.of hit. Diablo State Park, The San Francisco Day Chapter opposes the proposed Blackhm k Ranch project and feels that retention of these lands in open space would be in the best long- range interests of the people of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. Further, we would urge the Planning Commission to deny this application for a zoning change. Thank you. (No questions were directed to Mrs. Hunter by the Commissioners). MR. CLAUDE GMEN, Principal Economist with Gruen,.Gruen 4 Associates, Ferry Building, San Francisco, California 94111. I first want to thank the Chairman for asking me to move up before the last speaker! (referring to his being able to view streaker from front seat). Anticlimatic as this may be, our firm did the economic analysis for LCIS, we did this last year and that analysis was then forwarded as a part of the E.C.I.S. , study to the County. I'd like to first clarify both what we did and what %v did not do because -I think the analysis that you've received can be best framed if you understand what questions were asked as you look at the answers. %hat we did do was look at the local fiscal impact of this specific -project. rFJ=z hhat we did not do is look at the kind of regional question that has been discussed here tonight by some of the speakers, what an economist might call opportunity costs and benefits. That is, such questions as: Mould it be cheaper -if this project were located elsewhere in the region? 11ould it be more socially desirable if some other alternative development pattern were taken? Now, the answer to that kind of question is not at all obvious. Ile can talk about sprawl; the studies on that have come up fiscally, I'm speaking, not ecologically in a way that suggests it's not too easy to make generalizations. It would have been a massive effort. As it was, we had three (3) weeks,to do a fiscal analysis so there could be no discussion of attempting this kind of regional question. khat we did look at was the local fiscal issue and it's in this area that we see some differences in the numbers that are in the County supplement and also some numbers that we have seen since last year when we did the study. Noy, we find ourselves in the middle. Ile have objections to our numbers on both sides. On the school question of demography, the County has numbers that are slightly higher than those we use. Since we did..our study, the school board has come up with an analysis which suggests that our numbers of school children were too high and the developer has objected on that ground. There are also some major methodological differences between the analysis we did and the analysis that was used by the County. I'm not sure, quite frankly, I understand all of those; but, some of them do relate to thC kind of things that were discussed here tonight, such as the question of the school difference. Now, we assumed again partly because we were looking at this specific project, if you will, we were asking the question 492 RAW will Contra Costa County's taxpayers, which I am one, find their taxes in- creasing not---as a result of this project---not the'question of would we find our taxes even better off if we went somewhere else. So, we assume that the State program of loans which apply to districts who are up to about an 80-cent bonding capacity would continue as it has in the past. Now, to ,',•.. assume otherwise, that is, to assume we're not going to got the kind of State • loan money that we've had in the past, would save the State money if you assume, again, that these children would go to some other district that already has excess school capacity. We didn't try to make that assumption. We simply assumed the type of financing that has historically been used and which we have typically used in Contra Costa County; but, again, there are these methodological questions. We only received the County's report last week so there really hasn't been time to look at it carefully or for that matter to look at some of the other data such as the school report that has comein since. The developer has asked us to do that and we will attempt to do that; to go back, look at the data that has come in since then; look at the county supplement to see whether in fact this new information would change our conclusions. But, from what had to be a very brief reading of the County's report, we feel that when viewed from this kind of narrow fiscal base, we still must stick to our original conclusions that with terms of local fiscal we find the not unusual conclusion and there have been some suggestions that it was unusual, we find the not unusual, conclusion that a development whose average housing values will•be in excess of $50,000 can pay its oum share of the local ser- vices that' it will utilize. Thank you. (No questions were directed to Mr. Gruen by'-the Commissioners). M. PHILLIP MINEART, 1040 Ark-ell Road, Walnut Creek, Calif. All I was going to say has already been said; but, there are a few things I feel that they lift out and one was talk about opening up the Tassajara Valley to development. i What they left out, 1 think, is the implications of this and wha. the future--- � what this will bring in the future. It just said that it would open it up to j growth but it didn't say as to h(xv much growth, how long this growth would -M= last because this is a finite valley and there's only so much growth that it can absorb. It didn't go into when you would reach this limit; how much ahead of what the original plan was for the growth of this valley; how much ahead of that plan it would put you. It also didn't go into the social value of the land. They talked about how much the land was worth in dollars, $4.8 million but it failed to go into how much the land is worth as it is now. Looking at the slides which were shown earlier and sort of picturingon those slides houses, condominiums, apartments; in many ways, the land will lose value and they failed to go into this at all. They talked about how the developer will give a thousand acres to, the park- land in its consideration; but, do you let a factory pollute air because it cleans up a river? I don't think so. So, I think that since I don't think any report every really considers this too deeply, and it is very important. I feel, so when the Commission does make its decision, it should consider what the loss of this land is going to 493 ' r mean to the County because when they build houses; it's going to be a loss to the County as far as the people of the County who won'.t be living on this land but will be helping to pay for it and won't be able to reap the benefits of it, such as open space, parkland, you know, just surrounding the open space. They should also think what the County residents would prefer. Would they prefer help paying for a subdivision that they can't afford to live in or do they-prefer to help pay for land that would benefit them all? I really think that's the most important issue that the Commission could con- sider and the report deals with it not at all and none of the questions that that have been brought up have dealt with it at all. I think the Commission should be topmost in their minds what's for the future of the County is it best to leave the land for all people or to leave the land for a few select that have a lot of money. .Thank you. (No questions were directed to Mr. Mineart by the Commissioners). MR. RICHARD BESERRA, 11 Maywood Drive, walnut Creek, Calif. I come to you tonight at a citizen and also a candidate for United States Congress. I an considerinp all the various reports, reading the reports and hearing the testimony this evening on which 1 found it was very well done by Mrs. Moody and the group that she represented. Upon looking at those reports, I could come to no other conclusion that the Blackhawk development woald•be, I believe, detrimental to the total inter- ests of the residents of Contra Costa County. For a number of reasons, do I reach that conclusion. The first, let me point out that I agree with the staff's suggestion that when there is a general plan or some general plan made of the County, then the Commission -t ought to go about making its decisions based on that overall plan. There is such a general plan and I think the Cor.nission ought to follow that plan and on the question of density of the Blackhawk development does not meet that requirement; but, I think the more important question is thetse of $30 million which I believe could be more adequately used elsewhere. A couple of weeks ago, 1 walked the entire length of the County from the east- ern border to the western border and I believe there are a number of areas in this County which have a more necessary need than we do have for a Blackhawk development. I sive you an example: There's a farm labor camp out near Brentwood that las a tremendous need for sewage facilities near it. If you look at the vest Pittsburg area, there are roads that need to be de- veloped; need to be fixed; there are sewage problems in the Iest Pittsburg area. If you go over to North Richmond, there are additional areas there with the problems, roads, sewage problems; so, the $30 million that would be used to assist the development of the Black-hawk ccumunity, which is to assist the development of a higher economic community could be better utilized in some of our lower economic areas of this County. One of the main disagreements that I have with the Blackhawk development is that what we are continuing to assist is the separation both of those individ- uals who are economically different as well as reacially and ethnically diff- erent. To allow for a Blackhawk development such as in the Alamo area, would be to continue the separation from the north and the south of those people who come from a racial and ethnic minority always being pushed up towards the 494 tam of Pittsburg, Ridmmd and San Pablo. I think it's encunbent upon the Commission to begin developing a plan which will ensure that integration is brought about in this County, integration in terms of housing, employment as well as in education. And, one further point: I've heard mention of individuals who have been con- ` cerned with this blacJdwwk development of the possibility and the possibility in looking at the filing of a lawsuit. Recently, I filed a lawsuit against BARTD because I felt there was a wasting of taxpayers money. I think there are issues here involved in which a similar kind of lawsuit could be filed and I suggest that members of this Commission look very, very carefully at their actions, that they consider their actions very carefully or also I think they may find themselves tied up in Court for a long period of time. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight and I hope that you will take these suggestions in the manner in which I give them and that is as suggestions and recommendations. Thank you very much. (No ques- tions were directed to Mr. }tessera by the Commissioners). • MICHELLE (MIDI) HILLS, 413 Pazzi Road, Walnut Creek, California. I'm sort of like an average citizen and I think it's important that the Coim7ission recognize that I have a different interpretation than like the more expert point of view; but, I thoroughly read the environmental impact report and. I have some things that sort of bother me. Well, like the propitious offer of open space. We can't be aver-iTressed when it seems like they're doing this only because it's, not profitable to develop it there. They mentioned the soil characteristics, slope areas, landslides and rock and water problems. Maybe this open space shouldn't be included in the gross total area when they start to determing density be- cause it's like like when you want to develop a project and you have an � .. adjacent piece of land you say okay, this is our open space and you lower the density automatically. It would be excellent if Mt. Diablo could secure the land they gave •lik;3 the people have said that it would be better if the whole thing could be left as open space. We should also keep in mind that the development---well, it talks about growth inducing aspects and social aspects; but, we should keep in mind that the developnient will probably attract more upper-middle and tpper class citizens that haven't cared about what their home has done to the environ- ment around them. So, you knov, it's just more people who are about the money and the environment and, you know, it's runing the county for the average citizen, I think. The beneficial impacts included the improvement of public roads, excess revenues, economic stimulation; but, these things wouldn't be needed if the development wasn't there anyway and they certainly don't outweigh the adverse irpacts already listed. Since the word "excess" is used, is it really needed? I just want this kind of view to be taken into consideration and I support everything that's already been said in opposition to the project. Thank you. (No questions directed to Mrs. Ifills by the Commissioners). A!RS. CAROL SODWERS, 28 Campo Relata (Dox 543),• lliablo, California. I'm President of the Diablo Property Ohners Association. We have mailed to 49S each of you a letter containing our concerns with the development of the Blackhawk Rmich. They are listed ,as: (1) We do not believe the Blackhawk Manch development is consistent with the present County General Plan. (2) We believe that traffic on Diablo Road will be in excess of capacity and as a result, unsafe. Ile as individual taxpayers do not feel we should absorb the cost of the off- site improvements this development would impose. Dr. Datwyler has already quoted to you from the page of that letter containing our research into the traffic figures as published by Blackhawk Rands and why we feel they are un- realistic. Ile agree with previous speakers that the project would have tremendous impact on us all and we support their plea for more answers to the questions posed. Thank you. (I10 questions directed to Mrs. Sconyers by the Commissioners). MRS. RN4DI DALTON, 2196 Miranda Avenue, Alamo, Calif. Maybe I'll be last; but I hope not least; I'm a resident of Alamo and the San Ramon Valley off an on for about the last 15 years. I'm a mother of two children and we hope to make Contra Costa our home for the future. I'd like to quote from the objectives of the 1967 Alamo-Danville General Plan, which one of the objectives was to provide a long-range general development guide jor the Alamo-Danville area consistent with the desires of the residents acid the inherent nature of this northern portion of the San Ramon Valley with- in the framework of the Contra Costa County General Plan and the California State Planning Law. I think we've had quite a show tonight as the residents of the valley in' terms of what their desires are. I'd like to point out that---to the economist that was here that some of the economic iml)acts which I believe should be included within the environ- umntal impact report that weren't covered were the things of jobs, taxes, business, sales, minority groups. The consequences of non-adoption should this project not go through---%Ghat would occur then economically? If there are any adverse economic effects, the purchasing power added as a result of this development pur capital income, what kind of economic input, you ►Mow, wouldhappen as a result of this development to the economy of the surrounding area? The short-term as well as the long-range cost of government serivices includ- ing the schools, services, roads, police and all the rest of the things that' have been mentioned tonight. I'd like to bring out one area that I feel has been sort of touclhedtpon but in my mind is very critical as to why I'm, you know, questioning the desir- ability of this project, and that is there;•s no effective coordination be- tween the natural soil integrity, the actual land make-up, the natural soil aspects of the land, the soil, the vegetation, the climate, the topography, and man's attempts to build for his purposes. A fellow here tonght mentioned about the dangers of sedimentation- and the soil accmulation, the slides, the, You know, the dangers of the earthquake failts and, I man, these things have ,.� definitely got to be considered. I know this land, for instance, is being used for agricultural purposes now. It's very suited for grazing and for agricultural lands. My husband worked as a park fireman for the Forest Dept. , a couple of sumers ago up in Northern Calif., the ranchers are burning timber land in. order to make grazing pasture for their animals. Now, here in the Mt. Diablo area, we have a natural, you 496 Mow, natural lay of the land which is wry suited for grazing, you know, wildlife capacity. I think that if we can begin in our land use planning to take the actual makeup of the land whether it's suited for agricultural purposes or whether suited for engineering or for building, I think this is a very critical necessity at this time. One other aspect which hasn't been covered which I think is essentially the . ' development whether consciously or unconsciously it serves to keep white sub- urbia economically segregated. We'd like to live in the valley but the econ- omist mentioned that it would probably be only through $50,000 and up homes that this development could be economically viable. This serves to keep the managersand many of the dacision makes many of whom are college educated of our technocracy isolated and insulated from the lives .of those they are directing and who are enabling the higher standard of living to begin with. employees, thehgarbageUn;hh�l teleph neepeople,yPmGn & E.woworkers, t,rvice school personnel, etc. , many of whom are black, brown, white working class people who live presently in Riclunond, Walnut Creek, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant 11ill, Oakland, San Francisco---I've also lived in the city and I realize that we have a very urgent need for` very decent housing at low and middle incomes. And, that's not to -say that it shouldn't be quality hous- ing because these people have just as much right. Myself, we couldn't afford, you know, for a $50,000 home because it all comes down to how much money can a worker make, you know, to the mortgage company, to the bank every month and this is the reality of the •economics of. the economy that we're living in right now. Worker's wages are not going up to compensate and to make possible these kinds of payments to mortgage companies or to developers. I feel•that people are economically excluded from the rural, clean, spacious environs of.Alamo and Danville, the areas that they service. This serves to perpetuate racisim in ourselves and our children. If people of cultural and ethnic backgrounds are seen only in work capacities as maids as in Alamo and Danville and much of this area now---you very seldom see any black or Mown faces except as migrant workers or as maids or as garbagemen or as, you know, P.G.$ E. service employees; but, then these, you know, minorities go home to their communities. We don't get to see these people as mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers: teachers, lawyers as many of these people are, too. I think that it's not only their loss but it's my loss as a resident of the valley for myself and my gilden. I believe we really do have to begin to look at thesocial aspects the sociological needs of the people. 1%ho determines what the goals and priorities and the direction of growth and whose interests? These homes and apartments I believe are being built for profit; they are fang built for speculation not because of a pressing need of' tile people for living quarters at these prices. Many hones already exist in the San Raman Valley and are being built through- out the County and many of these are not presently being occupied. I think .-� that we have a carrying capacity of the land in a book called "Space For Sur- vival", which is a Sierra Club handbook talking about blocking the bulldozer in urban America. It says that 75% of the people in America presently live ` on 2% of the land. This is not, -in my mind, balanced, you know, balanced growth or balance between man and nature. I think that the problems of water, sewage, you know---where are all the sewage wastes, not only the solid 497 wastes but the sewage. Mhere are these things going to be treated? Where is this going to go? } The problem of the self-sufficiency of the 'land in terms of people and jobs within their community, food, farms, is not being adequately dealt with, I don't believe. And, in general, I think a decent, fresh-air open space environ should be avilable equally to all our citizens and think this development as it is now is primarily directed totirard perpetuating an economic segregation and perpetuating some unnecessary development. CIIAIRAIAN JEIIA: Thank you. NIS. DALTON: Thank you. CIll1IRAM MA: All right. Is there anyone else wishing to speak. How many other speakers? I think that the County typing pool is going to be busy for the next two weeks typing all this stuff up. So, we have one more speaker. MR. Q WUS A. FREEMAN, 1261 Craig Drive, Concord, California. I won't speak as much as I did last time I came before the Board. CHAIMAN JEJIA: You spoke well last time, so--- MR. FREMN: Most of what I could say you have heard either by me or by the others. I find it very relieving to know that the Sierra Club is indeed against Black- haw, That is a relief. I rode my bicycle to the top of the mountain last Saturday. Needless to say it was a long haul but it was well worth it. I started in the middle of Concord where I live. I rode up the long hill of Treat Lane hacking and coughing all the way from the auto exhausts. I might point out that Treat Lane is very similar to what the access roads to Blackhawk would be; it's two to four lanes; it's out in the middle of thehills; it's not really in the rzsidential area; it's somewhat near housing but mostly out in horse a 4 country to put it that way. Continuing on my route, I road along Oak Grove Road, Northgate Road and pro- ceeded up the mountain. The houses fadedm ay pursued by the green hill,. I say green, in general, because wild flowers including the Calif. Poppy lent oranges and blues to everything also. After several miles, the road Rot steep but it was not a burden to push my bike up as it was up Treat because it's much easier to endure the perfume of flowers and grasses and such than parfum de petrol: You lightly consider pollution in this tract. I hasn't been talked about much; so, it's lightly considered as a problem because mainly it's fairly open space and it would blow away.' But, Treat Lane is also in this area. It's out in the middle of nowhere, put it that way; but, it is a somewhat major thoroughfare. It's not like a major highway or anything; but, it's .--, very hard to ride along or walk.along because of the exhaust and many of the roads in this area are. • F The facts prove---I read this very interestingly during a report on a air pollution---that a pregnant cow eating of the lead contanunated grass near a thoroughfare the size of Ygnacio Valley Road---not a major highway but a 498 1 secondary road---Would have a miscarriage! I passed many other hikers and bike riders on the May to the top.. You can be assured that they Mould not hike Treat Lane or Ygnacio Valley Road. . It is nature which attracts them. The beauty of the area and the gravity of the situation that is threatened moved me almost to tears. Man has no right to change such a divine miracle. • I would.like to remind you that the major issue here is not sewers or golf courses but do we want more housing? Do we want more cities? Or, do we want to save the irreplaceable unique wonder that W.Diablo is? It surely makes this County what it is. If you approve Blackhawk and I doubt this is a possibility because all the excellent testimony presented by Mrs. Moody and all the other people tonight; but, if it is approved, I hope you remember to paint houses on your Coulty Seal. The mountain has a voice has a voice; listen to it. What do you hear? I submit that it says "help me." (Applause from audience). (11AIRKM JEFIA:• Well, I think we've heard enough testimony tonight. Gentle- men, the question of the E.I.R. is before you. We're not talking about the rezoning but as far as the Chair is concerned,- there's enough testimony taken on the E.I.R. , so that we can at least close it tonight and have the staff prepare their responses. Now, so there's no misunderstanding, the actual rezoning process will be continued. Does anyone care to move to that effect? Are there any comments from the re*t of the Commissioners? COM. MIUM: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the hearing on the E.I.R. this evening and give the staff the opportunity to prepare their re- marks that they want to have entered into as well as to take from what has been said Here tonight and the transcript, those points brought up by the various people that have been spoken to get tho.�e entered in that: are pert- inent to the report. COM. ANDERSON: I second that motion. C11AID WN M- W All right, thank you, Mr. Milano. Motion made by Commission- er Milano, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that we close the E.I.R. COM. HILDEBRAND: Mr. Chairman, on the question: I have one question rel- ative to the action the staff may take between now and when they submit the responses to us, I prestane in writing or whatever. I think it was brought up once before that some interim period, they may want to accept written testimony. On some of the questions brought up, perhaps, they may be unsiicited written testimony; so, I wonder if closing the E.I.R. 'hearing, you would preclude staff from accepting any further P-71 information by elaborating on some of the questions raised? WAIRMAN MIA: Mr. Dehaesus, do you care to comment on Mr. Hildebrand's r point? . M. DE31AEBUS: Well, if you close the hearing tonight and if you wish to allow another week for some submittal of material, I•suppose that's all 499 right with us. CNAIRMAN JQIA: I'm looking at the minutes of the last meeting. Ie went over this the last time. Apparently, Mr. --- I think it was fir. ikstman who commented that if we do that, we can't really close the hearing. 14t. IYCS17,104: Well, you won't completely close the hearing;. You can close it tonight, of course, for public testimony if that's what you want to do; but, you can leave the hearing; open a week for anyone to supplement the record with comments if they wish to in writing which would be submitted to the Planning Department and then sent to you; but, that's up to you. You can eeither com- pletely close the hearing as to receiving comments or you can leave it open to the extent of people filing written comments for some appropriate time period, whatever you desire. But, that's up to you, I think. CODbi. COMPAGLIA: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that Mr. Milano amend his motion to include or to change it to read that he meant that the hearing; be closed to testimony but will continue for one week for written statements to be sub- mitted. CONW. MILANO: I'll add that to my motion. L=1. ANDERSON: I'll go along with that amendment. g1AIRMAN JEIIA: Question: Ubat's that do to our schedule? MR. DllIAESUS: Pardon me? CHAIR-M JWA: What does that do to the adding another week to a--- M1M. MILANO: Is that going to give you the time? Mt. DikiALSUS: I think I would like to talk to the Commission about this next Tuesday at the study session. There's been a lot submitted here this evening and I'd like to go over this whole thing. C041. MIL NO, As I remember, this is what we intended to do last time. We set up a period where we were going to receive written comments from anybody that wanted to submit them then we finally changed our minds and decided just to go ahead and continue the hearing on it, which we did tonight. Now, if we're going to set up a period now to take in written reports, that's what we were going to do last time and we changed our mind and just continued the hearing in order to have more testimony given or written reports or what- ever they wanted to hand in. So, actually, it's going to--- MR. DULAESUS: Well, it's not so much the extra week -for written material; it's "fiat has been presented here this evening which is of some concern to me as to whether we could respond in the time that we've talked about and I'd like to think about this a little bit more and sort of go over what has been discussed and submitted this evening and be in a position to discuss it with the Commission next week. There's been an awful lot brought to the Commission's attention this evening. CM1. COIMPAGLIA: Mr. Chairman, in light of what's been submitted here to- night, I think we just necessarily are going to have to change our priorities so the week for submitting written statements isn't going to effect it at all, I don't think. GIAIRMAN JEW All right. So, the motion is by Milano that we close the E.I.R. Soo to public testimony but allow one-week for written submittals. Is that correct? ' ODhM. AtILANO: That's right. '.; AIRMAN J111A: Mr. Compaglia, is that your second? CH 00int. COmPAGLIA: No. C(AW. MILANO: It's Mr. Anderson's. CHAIMIAN J171A: Oh, Air. Anderson's. All right, call the roll, please. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Anderson, Hildebrand, Young, Compaglia, Stoddard, Jeha. NMS: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.. 0141 SAN M. IA: Now, I think it's in order to have another motion continuing the hearing on the rezoning to May 14, 1974. COW. ODK'AGLIA: I so move, Air. Chairman. ODHM* MILANO: Second the motion. CHAIRNIAN JEHA: Abtion made by t1ilano, seconded by Compagalia, to continue the rezoning to May 14th. Please call the roll., A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: K AYES: Commissioners - Compagl?a, Milano, Stoddard, Young, Anderson, Hildebrand, Jeha. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. CHAIRNUW JULA: All right, let's go on to item number--- MR. hESDWN: Wait. Before we go on, someone said something* about discussing this matter next week. Does that mean it's going to be discussed at a study session, Tony? Aft. DL'IiAE.SUS: No. Discuss whether or not we're goinev g ---the schedule ought to be altered in view of the testimony that's been submitted. MR. I WDLAN: lle're not going to discuss the substance of this schedule? ' Aft. D>:1iA M- US: No. . C%I. COMPAGLIA: We'11 still have have a hearing on the 14th. There was no further post-motion discussion. Sol The slides referred to in the Henderson letter of April 23, 1974 and shown at the public hearing of April 23, 1974 are available at the Contra Costa ! County Planning Department. ° i to public testimony but allow one week for written suhmitttls. Is that correct? # ,t =H. MILANO: 'That's right. ` C!}AIRNL% JIIIA: Air. Compp lia, is that your second? rA COAri. 'WAGLIA: No. OPP CQIfM- A1I1ANO: It's W. Anderson's. Q1AIRW*4 JUTA: Oh, Air. Anderson's. All right, call the !all, please. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Cotimission' accorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Milano, Andersen, Ilildebrand, Young, r. t Compaglia, 5todc ard, Jeha. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSI,�ti': Commissioners - Mone. .l AI157AIN: Commissioners - None. C}WRU N JU1A: Now, I think it's in order to have anot,ier motion continuing the hearing on the rezoning to May 14, 1974. Wit-1. MWAGLIA: I so move, Air, giairmrari. 1 CX} ft WLA O: Second the notion. r QUI1tA\N JUTA: bbtion grade by t1ilano, seconded by Ccor tagalia, to continue the rezoning to Aiay 14th. Please call the roll. ' » A moll-call vote was taken; following is the. Connnissic,r's recorded vote: A1'1:5: Commissioners - CompaP,11a, A!i',rmo, Stoddard, Young, Anderson, 11ill-,brand, Jeha. } . k NOES: Commissioners - bone. ABSEIT: Commissioners - bone. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. CNljIItAWN JUTA: All right, let's go on to item numbe- . tlR. h'ESTAW4: l,ait. Before we go on, someone said something about discussing Cyt + this matter next week. Does that wean it's going to be discussed at a study session, Tony? V,i :t MR. DEHAESUS: No. Discuss whether or not we're go:r,g ---the schedule ought to be altered in view of the testimony that's been Abmitted. • ` MR. hL-'T' W4*. Ile're not going to discuss the substance of this schedule? r MR. DEI ULLSUS: No» -Q y COM. CX)A�AGLIA: v'e'11 still have have a hearing oz: the 14th. 'there was no further post-motion discussion. { 501 The slides referred to in the Henderson letter of April 23, 1974 and shown at the public hearing of April 23, 1974 are available at the Contra Costa ! County Planning Department. RECEIVED ' } • 4 31 APR f) 0 1976 0 N W H J, K. U' Z CLERK C 8 5 AI 0A OF SUPERVISORS � 8 Doputy _x ti W a • lowrci ° ►uoj►lmed with � 1 EnISIT #9 . 9tACKHAWK FINIAL E.I.R. COPY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ' 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3 4 TUESDAY, -May 14, 1974 s 6 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Planning Commission is back in session. Anyone in the back, if they close that door as they leave, we 7 would appreciate it, the back door, please. 8 All right . We're now to Item No. 9, the Blackhawk 9 hearing and this is a continued public hearing now. 10 Last time we heard this the people in opposition were 11 finished up -- their opposition and we continued it. We closed 12 the E.I .R. hearing. We continued the hearing on the rezoning. 13 We asked the staff to prepare conditions and to disperse them; 14 among all the people interested. - The Commissioners probably 15 got their -- the last few days have got their conditions and 16 had a chance to go over them. 17 So, I think tonight what we 're going to do is we' ll ask 18 our staff to make their presentations on the project and the 19 conditions. -Then, I notice some people. in opposition who want 20 to comment on the conditions . And we went through lengthy 21 hearings on the project as a whole and I would appreciate any- 22 body who wants to -- who's going to speak in opposition -- this 23 is sort of the tail end of the opposition really -- to not bring 24 up anything that was brought out before. I don't think there ' s 25 a member on this commission who wants to hear the same thing 26 repeated. If you got something new on opposition, by all 27 means say it. If not, then confine your -- we'd appreciate it 28 ZANOONCLLI►MCFORTINO 69XVIC6 6441 KD'"641raro 49066Tt116 8814 WAST STRaCT �, CONCORD r&l l•l1M..l• P414.n a • 1 you'd confine your comments to the conditions. After the 2 opposition is through, we will have the applicant make his 3 rebuttal and also his comments on the conditions. Hopefully 4 we can close the hearing tonight . 5 Now, that's the scenario and hopefully we can adhere 6 to it. So, we'll ask our staff now to start their presenta- 7 tion. 8 MR. HALVERSON: Mr. Chairman and Planning 9 Commission members , you all have copies of the conditions in • 10 front of you -- 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes. 12 MR. HALVERSON: -- that were sent out to you. 13 All right . Then I 'll go through a brief description 14 of thL project . You're familiar with the large map that is 15 on the wall in back of you and then I 'll -- which has been 16 'presented by. the applicant and his architect. So I 'll go 17 through this . 18 It shows the phasing program which has been proposed • 19 by the developer and this is the map that we refer to as being 20 received on the 20th of December. 21 The phase number one of .the project is 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Norm, would you please speak into the 23 microphone . No one wants to miss a word you say, so this way • 24 we' ll all be able to hear. 23 MR. HALVERSON : All right. Phase number one of the 26 project, Mr. Chairman, is the phase which is closest to the 27 Diablo Country Club area and to Northgate Road. It's the 28 westerly end of the project and it is outlined in the .faint ' red ZANOON[LLA MCOORTINO 0911VOCC tgaronte*"8QTx&11O•epeava As 8274 9A{T ST0919T e OMenan rA1 /Inaw1• 604.n J 1 line here. I'll Just run the pointer over it so you can see 1 2 it. And it consists of single-family residential development 3 in this area, minimum lot size 10,000, one ten-acre school 4 site, a multiple area which is multiple area A, and cluster 5 area B which is located here. This Is along Blackhawk 'Road. 6 Blackhawk Road comes out to Tassajara in this area here. 7The second phase of the project would be this area 8 here . And that would include single-family residential 9 development with one cluster area located here and then, of 10 course, the rolf course you'll see was included in phase number 11 one in accordance with our conditions . 12Phase number three would -be this area which includes 13 the commercial area which is the only area which is south of 14 ,Bancroft -- I mean Blackhawk Read '-- and goes all the way down 15 to Tassajara Road and it's outlined by this red area in here . 16 Again, that consists of the commercial and some offices . The 17 cluster areas -- two cluster areas here, some single-family - is residential -- I'll identify the cluster, areas . This is 19 cluster area CO, cluster area D, so that you can relate to those 20 from the conditions that we have prepared. Cluster area F is 21 included in that. That crosses the fairway and includes all 22 'of this land in here . And cluster area G, I and then the. �3 fourth phase of the project which would be in about the middle 24 of the -project -- you know where the P. G. & E towerline comes 25 through the area. That includes the fourth area and that 's 26 about where the watershed changes. You have drainage coming 27 to the west here and to the east. in this location in here . 28 Most of that area is developed as single-family with the ZANOON[LLA X9190 ITINO 99XVIC9 sirtlVlts•tr0rfr�r0 rs�Orisrt 221•[&ST ff119LT CONCOAO. C'tLIVORN1& 04/20 — q i1 exception of one cluster whish is' eluster area number M, the 2 letter M. Then phase five which includes the second elementary 4 or the third elementary school, the second one was down here 5 off of Camino Tassajara. The third elementary school is in 6 area number five with cluster L in this location, mostly 7 single-family residential. g Then phase six which Included a multiple area and a 9 commercial area. Seven and a half acre commercial area down 10 here and a multiple family, single family -- or rental area 11 down here. Most of the golf courses of the second golf course. s 12 included in phase number five and six. 13 So, that gives you a rundown again of the project and 14 I' ll go- through the conditions so that -- and if there's 15 questions, then I 'll get back up to the map to relate to the 16 -conditions and the map with you. 17 MR. This dark brown area- then are L. 18 N, E, F, G, H, I,and K. isn't that right? 19 MR. HALVERSON : Right. J , K, I . Yes, those are 20 all the brown areas inhere marked the cluster areas which are 21 in the condition of approval there which is condition number 22 eight for the record. �3 (Someone in background asks question - unintelligible. ) 24 MR. HALVERSON : Yes, all right. That's the 25 staff's conditions for approval. It also indicates that that 26 would be a multiple area, a rental area. 27 I 'll go through that with yot!' :vhen I get to the -- 26 (Someone in background asks question -'-unintelligible.) ZANOONELLA RLPORTINO 890VIC6 �/��1/I[�•M�AfM�MO• �O�T(�� 1»A tAST ST"191t 5 • 1 MR. HALVERSON: This is B area•, C. and D and they're Ir ' 2 brown. All the clusters are brown. 3 (Someone in background speaking - unintelligible.) 4 tiR. HALVERSON : All right. When I get to that, 3 I'll pet back up. to the map and go through that with you again. 6 All right. Going down through the conditions for 7approval, item number one indicates that the approval is based a on exhibits received by the Planning Department and listed as 9 follows and we indicate the Blackhawk• preliminary development 10 plan, 1,000 scale, received on December the 20th, 1973 and 11 that's the plan which is before you on the board here . 12Item number two, the filing of the first final develop- 1 t3 ment with the filing of the first final development plan, the 14 .developtr shall submit a detailed 'phasing schedule which deals r 15 with the phasing for utilities, schools, roads, drainage, 16 commercial area, and all residential units and projections as 17 to how many units will be developed on a phasing bavis, on a IS phase basis. 19 Number three, an amended preliminary development plan 20 at the same scale or larger scale shall be submitted between the 21 ' time of the time of approval of preliminary development plan 22 'and submittal of the first phase of the final development plan �3 which reflects the changes required by these conditions . 24 Four, all yard and height measurements as it pertains to 25 the detailed single-family residential lots shall be subject 26 to review and approval by the Director of Planning. The guide 27 used to establish these dimensional requirements shall be the 2S R-10 District of the Zoning Code except that lots shall be tANOON[LLA R[POATINO •tAVIC[ ' iL�f111[�EMIR T.I�.t�AL I��t �• • ' tt1•t�Lf �Tlltt• ♦M.♦/.fin •.. .mow.....• �...• . v 1 a 100 foot average width. 2 Number five, the design of• all units in the cluster 3 areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Director 4 of Planning as to the layout, design, building plans, eleva- s tions, building materials, colors -- color and other pertinent 6 features. 7 Six, 'the final development plan for each phase •shall 8 indicate the street alignments, lot design, and open space 9 with the design being contingent on including the impact area 10 of the phase. The emphasis shall be • on sculptured or contour 11 grading. 12 The maximum number of units shall be 4200. It may be 13 that this number will be reduced subject to -final development 14 -plan reviews. E • 15 All right. Then, I'11 go up to the board again and 16 go through what this says in item number eight here. 17 (Speaker moves away from microphone - unintelligible .) 18 All right . It says here the cluster areas identified 19 as B, C, and D -- this would be B, C, and D -- shall be per- 20 mitted a density of approximately six units per acre . On 21 reviewing these particular sites and you 'll see this on your .22 field trip -- a field trip is scheduled for this Friday, but �3 I believe it 's going to be changed to a week later, but we can 24 look at these sites in the field and the acreage is indicated 23 on that little chart that I have just passed out, but these 26 are quite severe in their terrain and so the staff itself 27 opposed,it should be reduced to six units per acre. 28 Then clusters identified as L. M, E, F, G. H, .I and K. • ZANOONCLLA QC1011TIN0 89MVICC • 694TI/140 OM04MA100$90041900 •JIf1 t��T{IllttT ' 1 I that is all of the rest of the cluster areas here. You ge• f 2 out here and. you have L and M and then E, F, G, H. and I are 3 located and K are located in this area. So the rest of the 4 cluster areas shall be permitted a density of ten units per S acre. 6 Cluster J shall be permitted a density of approximately 7 20 units per. acre . 6 Multiple area A -- that 's this one multiple which is 9 located here along Blackhawk Road . and we can identify that for 10 you quite easily out in the- field on the original plan that 11 came in, cluster area A that had 199 -- no, no, that had 162 12 units proposed for multiple in that area. 13 And then area N which is over an a westerly area of 14 the plan is this piece of land down in here. That hc•.d a 15 220 ,units proposed on the original plan it came in. So in 16 this particular recommendation we say the multiple area N 17 shall be developed as single-family lots . The final determi- 18 nation as to the cluster density shall be up to the -- shall 19 be subject to approval of the Director of Planning. It -may 20 be that these densities may be increased or. decreased dependent 21 on the cluster design submitted and the application to the 22 respective site . An important consideration is the establish- 23 ment of open spaces between the clusters and the terrain upon 24 which the clusters are situated. 25 So, is that clear then to the commission members? 26 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Any questions of Mr. Halverson? 27 All right . Now, go onto the, next one. We're at 28 nine, I guess. ZANOONCLLA RCPORTINO SCOVIC9 9661Wigs.4110•IM•Me 440001[x1 WdCAST •TRUCT eewCONO r6, ,r.+o.,i. •.•.q 8 I MR. HALVERSON: Then item number nine indicates 2 supplemental E.I.R. 's shall be written on each phase of the 3 project. 4 Ten, detailed soils and geologic studies shall be S performed for each phase. 6 Eleven, the seven and a half acre commercial area -- 7 eliminate the seven and a half acre commercial area and substi- 8 tute residential lots for the easterly portion of the property. 9 I'd like to point that out again. 10 (Moves from microphone to map - unintelligible. ) 11 The revised preliminary development plan shall avoid 12 the numerous conflicts of the golf course traffic and vehicular 13 traffic especially at major intersections and at entrance to the 14 -development. I think this takes a closer examination of the 13 plan and we can point this out to .you further, if you wish, on 16 the field but there are areas within the plan where we feel 17 there are too many golf course crossings of the major roads 18 and especially at the major intersection or- entrance to the 19 project that should be avoided with the design of the project . .20 Number 13, Sycamore Valley Road from Camino TassaJara 21 • Road to Blackhawk Road shall be -- 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Sorry to 'interrupt you, but could 23 you please point the roads on the map with the microphone . 24 MR. HALVERSON : Let me go over to this map that we 25 have on the wall here. This is Camino Tassajara and then 26 Blackhawk Road in this location here. And what this condition 27 says is that Sycamore Valley Road from Camino Tassajara Road 28 to Blackhawk Road shall be built or committed before phase one ZANOON[LI.A REPORTING SERVICE 69811/14.10041114410 09064/906 2294 1t AST ST"69T 9 1 commences or an alternate road access solution suitable to the 2 Directors of Planning and Public Works has been approved. That 3 means that in this location here there shall be built the 4 extension of Sycamore Valley Road. That would come into the 5 project area in about this location here. There has been a 6 study of the location of that road. It is suitable, it has 7 some steep grades in it , it has some big cuts in it; and that' s . 8 why it's indicated in the conditions of approval or an alternate 9 road access solution suitable to the Directors of Planning 10 and Public Works has been approved. 11 Number fourteen, with the construction of phase three 12 the construction of two additional lanes of traffic along 13 Camino Tassajara shall be accomplished. That means from 14 *the site over to the improvement here that we have on Sycamore 15 Valley Road. As you recall, Sycamore Valley Road has recently 16 been improved so this would have Co take place with the 17 construction of the third phase. - 18 Prior to the construction of phase -five the improvement 19 of Crow Canyon Road extention to the site shall be accomplished. .20 Now that is. this road in this location here, Highway 680, we 21 have Crow Canyon Road going across the railroad at this location •22 here. It is built across the railroad but. there are develop- 23 merits. which are coming in on either side of the extension of 24 Crow Canyon Road. So, what it says is that this extension 25 from the place that it's improved. here west to this -- west of 26 Blackhawk, Blackhawk's outlined in orange. That road will have 27 to be built prior to construction of 'phase' five. 28 Number six -- number sixteen is detailed traffic analyst XANOONCLLA R9PORTINO 691MCC • 66411116.9MGOVNAMD 8[0881[ne said WAST 97"997 • iV 1 and study which •indicates both the Blackhawk traffic and total 2 traffic on each of the off-site roads to Blackhawk project 3 shall be submitted with each phase of the project. 4 Number seventeen, the internal road system shall be 3 designed to conform to the principal access routes, namely, 6 Sycamore Valley Road extension and Crow Canyon Road extension. 7 ' The westerly•access from Camino Tassajara shown aligns •with S the proposed Crow Canyon Road extension. On site this road 9 shall be a continuation of Blackhawk Road. Sycamore Valley 10 Road extension will meet Blackhawk Road in the vicinity of 11 multiple A. This extension shall provide the continuity for 12 • the northbound Sycamore Valley to eastbound Blackhawk Road, 13 de-emphasize Blackhawk Road to the west. In other words , we're • 14 talking about Sycamore Valley Road coming in at this location 13 here with possible realignment of Blackhawk Road in this area 16 so we emphasize the flow of traffic over to Sycamore Valley 17 Road. Also, within the project -- end you' ll see this in .the 18 field, you probably recall it from your previous field trip -- 19 Blackhawk Road comes down in this location here, intersects 20 with Camino Tassajara. Residents of this particular area 21 . came in and talked about the drainage, the road problems, 22 •sewer and water. What we're saying is that the realignment �3 of ,Blackhawk Road shall come through the Blackhawk project 24 and this shall be a minor road then with consideration to the 23 project and it shall intersect opposite the continuation of 26 Crow Canyon Road to the project. 27 Number eighteen, the developer shall submit details -- 29 details on hydrology and hydraulics to the Flood Control Dis- ZANOONCLLA MCPCMTINO OCOMCC • 668T11196 81144THAYD•[10ATL11A , l2TA aAST ST*99? CONCOIIO. CALIFORNIA 04/20 - 11 M1 trict for each of the phases of development. The design of 2 drainage facilities shall emphasize the preservation of the 3 streambeds in a natural state. The use of concrete rip-rap 4 and removal of trees shall be discouraged. It may be that S impounding basins or reservoirs shall be utilizied to control 6 run-off. 7 Number nineteen, the approval is subject to review of s the General Plan for the San Ramon Valley as it pertains to 9 this project . 10 Number twenty, all utilities shall be placed under- 11 ground. The project shall be serviced by cable television 12 underground system. No T.V. antennas shall be permitted. 13 Twenty-one, the community -- a community center shall • 14 •be provided for the pro4ect which shall include a library 15 facility, if it is ascertained by .the County Librarian that 16 a facility is necessary . 17 Twenty-two, the project site shall be annexed to P-2 is police district. 19 Twenty-three, local parks shall be dedicated and a 20 service area formed for the development and maintenance of said 21parks . The location and type of facilities planned for each •22 park shall be shown on the revised preliminary development plan. 23 Twenty-four, the trails shown on the Trails Plan adds- 24 tion to the General Plan Recreation Element shall be improved 25 and dedicated to appropriate public agencies . 26 Twenty-five, the development of the westernmost golf 27 course and appurtenant facilities shall be developed simulta- 29 neously with the first phase of development. On the plan again sANOONCLLA MCPCMTINO 89MVIC9 �t01111t0 O00411MAMO A&POOV946 str�s•sr sr�asr • 12 • i that means that there is two golf courses; . one here and one 2 over here. And the clubhouse for the first phase is in this 3 location here. We're saying with that that that shall be 4 developed simultaneously when this first phase of development 3 takes place. 6 Detailed plans and reports on the golf course administra . 7 tion and management shall be submitted with the final develop- 8 ment plan. . 9 Twenty-seven, the private golf facilities shall be used 10 primarily by members and guests. No major tournaments nor 11 conventions shall be permitted on these golf courses . 12 Twenty-eight, dedicate to State Department of Parks and 13 Recreation the area generally located between Mt . Diablo State 14 Park and elevation 1,000. The Blackhawk Quarry shall be 15 included in this dedication. The final determination of the 16 size and shape of this area of dedication shall be determined 17 by the Director of Planning in conjunction with. the State 18 Director of Parks. This dedication shall be made prior to the 19 first phase of development. 20 I'm sorry that the 1,000-foot contour doesn't show on 21 this . We had another map which shows it but it ' s -- it 22 doesn' t include all of this open %space but it comes down �3 generally in this location here. The area that we referred �i 24 to as the Quarry was the study area here 23 that would be offered for dedication to the state division of 26 Parks and Recreation and for use by the University of California 27 for their students . 28 Twenty-nine, the development rights to all the open ZANOONCLLA MCPONTINO 6914vICt [[�tlllLO•M0�►M�M•�[�O�fLA[ 8814 CAST 0TMCCT CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94580 13 1 space not dedicated to the State Division -or Parks and 2 Recreation shall be dedicated to the county. This shall be 3 done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map on each phase 4 of the development . 5 Thirty, prior to construction of a phase of develop- 6 ment where a school site is indicated, the school shall be 7dedicated to' the school district and a starter school shall be 8 provided until a permanent school building can be provided . 9 The availability of school housing shall be a consideration 10 in determining whether subsequent phases of the project shall 11 be approved as each phase is reviewed for approval . 12Thirty-one, the general area surrounding the shopping 13 center including shopping center shall specifically be reviewed 1 14 as the land use relationship prior to approval of the first phas 15 of development. That 's in this area here .. And the reason 16 for this is that we 've talked to t-he developer about the 17 possibility of a community center in this location in here and 18 also about the steepness of some of the terrain that surrounds 19 the commercial area. It is 22 acres . About five acres is 20 located in some fairly steep terrain. The same thing is true 21 - in this locale in here so we'd like to study that and make 22 'sure that the traffic pattern -- this is going to be a .busy �3 corner -- that the traffic pattern works well with the land use 24 in that particular locale. 25 Number thirty, approval of this proposal is based on the 26 revised plan submitted December 20th, 1973 . However, each 27 phase -- however, each segment of this proposed development 26 shall be subject to further review when the final development ZANOONELLA 09PO 1TIN0 8ERVIC9 • tNII/I[s Grp1NAND 090061186 SST•LAST STRIMT CONCORD.CA61/ORNI4 WIn • 19 • I plan is submitted. It may be that additional requirements, Ar 2 conditions, and/or modifications may be specified following 3 a review of the final development plan. The conditions in 4 this approval serve to give direction to the applicant in 5 preparation of the final development plan. 6 • CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right. Thank you, Norm. Do 7 you have anymore comments to make? 8 MR. HALVERSON: No. I passed out the summary of 9 what the number of units would be in each phase of the project . • 10 That's compared with what the applicant has shown and we come 11 out with a little over 4,000 units utilizing the density that 12 was included in condition number eight of the conditions of 13 approval. • 14 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Compagila. 15 MR. COMPAGLIA: I may have missed it but in talking 16 about each phase, what 's the timing of each phase? Do you 17 have that?' 18 MR. HALVERSON : No . The developer is talking about 19 a project that would go on for 12 or ly years, so a lot depends 20 upon his program. 21 MR. COMPAGLIA: There 's no specific timing? 22 SMR. HALVERSON: No. . It' would be very difficult .to �3 put a time schedule on the phasing of the project . 24 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right . Any other questions? 25 Now, we'll here from the opposition hopefully on the 26 conditions, if they have anything else to offer that has not 27 been offered at the prior hearings, we'd be more than pleased 28 to hear it . So, we'll ask for opposition and comments from XANOONCLLA REOCRTIN13 89XVICC 69111►1se suefty"no 4900416498894 CAGT aTwssr • I the opponents regarding the conditions. 2 DR. J. L. HIRSCH: (300 Diablo Road, Danville, Califor- 3 nia) Mr. Jeha and fellow planning commissioners , I am Dr. 4 Hirsch representing the San Ramon valley Planning Committee . g Our committee has been reviewing the Blackhawk property 6 for two years, approximately . Probably the longest of any 7 group in the valley and probably in the county . From the 8 start the developers were more than happy to meet not only with 9 our group but many other groups in the valley . They brought 10 forth planning methods that were not presented to the valley 11 before. The planning process that they initiated was excellent 12 and las.t year the committee approved the concept of a planned 13 unit development and still feel that this property if ever 14 -developed should be donq so in this form. We as a committee 15 have held more than 15 public meetings associated with this 16 project and as the primary body for reviewing development plans k7 in the San Ramon area feel that our lengthy and thorough 18 evaluation of this project should be . evaluated in the same 19 manner by the Planning Commission with the same thorough .20 consideration. 21 At this time I'd like to have another member of the .22 committee come forward and make our formal presentation. �3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, Doctor. 24 DR. HIRSCH: Mr. Bloss, please. 25 MR. R. S. BLOSS: (1490 I.aurenita Way, Alamo, Califor- 26 nia. ) Dr. Hirsch has asked me -- my name is Roy Bloss and I'm 27 with the planning committee -- has asked me to speak to the 28 decision of the committee to oppose this application on the • ZANOONCLLA A[IPORTINO •LAVOCC t�Nn �/400/0406 090081989 f11�RA{T over/T 16 1 basis of its violation of the General Plan. 2 It has been argued that the circulation element of the 3 county General . Plan provides for 64 and 80-foot wide pavements 4 and 80 and 100-foot wide right-of-ways in the Blackhawk Ranch S area and that, therefore, the General Plan envisions the kind 6 of development Blackhawk is proposing. The major road plans 7 of the circulation element was adopted three years ago in 1971, 8 while Blackhawk was still a serene agricultural enterprise . 9 In fact, these roads evolved from farm roads -- beg your pardon 10 -- the paved roads have been in that area for decades before 11 that. In fact, these roads evolved from farm roads and were 12 adopted as county thoroughfares about the time when the Mpdel-T 13 Ford was the working man' s luxury and 40 miles per hour was a 14 hair-raising, break-neck speed, quite beyond the safe travel 15 capabilities of such narrow two-lane roads as Tassajara and 16 ' Blackhawk . More appropriately then, the 1971 vision of our 17 county planners was directed to the modern, super-powered � 18 of Detroit and their demand for wider, safer R. � 19 roads as much as to some estimate of the 20 population in these parts at some poorly defined future date . 21 I 'm speaking of the year 1971 . . 22 The ecological impact studies report, page 39, a �3 report funded by the Blackhawk organization, we have been told, 24 flatly states : The proposed project is not in compliance with 25 the existing approved county General Plan. Compliance prob- 26 lems relate to inclusion of commercial facilities,multi-unit 27 -- multi-family unit density and overall density definitions . 28 It goea• on to say that the General Plan in the area needs x^mvcmicLLA neponTINa senvlce 6641II199 trNtr�r{�tNttut »11[�{T {Tilt[♦ 1 revision and that the Blackhawk project adds quote "pressure!' to 2 for an accelerated update of the General Plan. With that 3 we hardly agree . In fact, that point will be addressed in 4 a later presentation by Dr. Hirsch on conditions. S The Environmental Impact Report states that Blackhawk 6 has quote "conflicting land uses with the adopted plan, con- 7 tains densities that exceed those anticipated by the plan, and 8 would require facilities that currently aren't covered by the 9 plan ." It goes on to say that the proposal adds up to what 10 is called quote "a new community ," not contemplated by the 11 General Plan . We think that is a fair resume of the 12 situation. 13 One point in illustration may be worth touching upon. 14 The application proposes 14 .5 acres for office space use which ..,_- 15 will total 290,000 square feet of ' floor space . This element 16 of the development would occur midway toward the build-out and 17 would iDerease the total office spade available in the General 18 Plan 'area by one-third or more . One must presume from the 19 detail planning that has gone into the Blackhawk application 20 that the developers see a market for this much new office 21 space several miles away from the present economic center of 22 the General Plan area. The inclusion of such office space, �3 therefore, suggests that despite the applicant's protestations 24 to the contrary the Blackhawk project indeed is a new community 25 unto itself and if that is the view, of course, it is not 26 compatible with the General Plan. 27 A major element of the Blackhawk project in conflict 28. with the General Plan concerns the .open space element of that XANOONCLLA ACPOINTINO 89AVOCC CINTIr190 8w841rAws sspesvass 8891 aAST •vitae T CONCOND, CALWORMIA 91080 I plan. Much depends upon your interpretation of the permissive 2 condition under which you a=re hearing the Blackhawk proposal., 3 The Board of Supervisors inserted the provision that any appli- 4 cation for development of any parcel bisected by the open space 5 boundary may be considered as though the whole of the property 6 were outside the adopted open space area. It does not say 7that the property shall be construed as being outside the 8 boundary line which is finding -- is a finding that would 9 follow an affirmative decision of the •whoie application . 10 Please note that the choice of considering the applica- 11 tion -in this light lies not with the applicant but with your 12 ' commission. The applicant can only hope that you will so 13 consider it. We think that there are good reasons not to. 14 One, the open space element of the General Plan is 15 mandated by state law. Exhaustive hearings were held before 16 the county ordinance was adopted. Blackhawk was represented 17 at those hearings . 18 Two, one of the reasons for much of. the Tassa,jara 19 Valley being included in open space relates to the large 20 agricultural preserve parcels in the vicinity. The continued 21 - identity of these parcels is not compatible with urban develop- 22 ment as you well know. It is the county policy to protect �3 agricultural preserves . Therefore, to surrender open space 24 to urban development in the vicinity of agricultural preserves 25 is to contravene the county's policy in our view. 26 Three, it has been argued that the open space boundary 27 line in question here tonight is imprecise. That it has been 28 drawn with a broad brush. But that in no way should imply that ZANOONCLLA 49PORTINO 89"Wag 69010rote 91494r■4119 490041646 said CAST ST"69T .t. • Ce"rhaft pal 1//e"14 646911 ' •r I the line is invalid. Surely you, and the Boaird of Supervisors 2 who drew that line considered it to be reasonably approximate . 3 Surely you would have delineated it all the way to the west 4 to Mt. Diablo Scenic Road if you had considered that wise or g surely you would have backed it up all the way east of Finley 6 Road if you believed that to be the practical border. The 7 thousands of people in this county who support the concept 8 of open spaces don't want to make .a football out of the open 9 space element of the General Plan, especially when the ink is 10 hardly dry on your approval of it . You might argue about how 11 other questions on the General Plan apply to Blackhawk. There 12 is no argument about your power to refuse to consider the 13 Blackhawk proposal as being in' violation of the General Plan. 14 The open space element says you may consider this application. 1 15 Therefore, you may choose not to consider it . We ask that y 16 you choose not . 17 Thank you. lg DR. HIRSCH: In the event that the project -is approved 19 by this commission, we would like to place the following 20 conditions on the project that would be -- have to be accom- 21 ' plished before it would be accepted by the county . I have 22 given seven copies to Andy and hgpefully you have copies or �3 I' ll leave another copy in the box. 24 One, that the maximum number of dwelling units be 25 4,000. The units eliminated to meet thin requirement shall 26 be removed from other than single-family detached dwellings . 27 Two, the Planning Staff condition four should be amended 28 to read that the guide to establish dimensional requirements ZANOCNCLLA NCPCNTINO 6COVICC tt•tl/It0 OMMM�NO A[100 �00 • >fl1•t�OT OTIIttT ' COMCOND c•LIFORNI• 04640 t • 1 shall be the R-15 District as opposed -to the R-10 District .- - all, istrict .• -all 2 Three, eliminate from the plan cluster J. 20 rental 3 units per acre and substitute sale dwellings, condominiums, 4 of not more than 10 units per acre in its stead. 5 Four, as suggested by Livingston and Blaney, no 6 building should be or shall be accomplished on slopes greater 7 than 20 percent grade. g Five, an assessment district should be formed to pro- 9 vide funding for all off-site utilities and roads, the improve- 10 ment and extension of which- are made necessary, by Blackhawk. 11 Six, the alternate routing of Sycamore Road extension 12 as proposed and envisioned in the. Planning Staff's condition 13 number 13 be deleted due to Its adverse environmental impact on 14 Short Ridge and the surrounding open space . In lieu cf that 15 Camino .Tassajara should be widened to the four lanes projected ,-gra 16 and the planned Crow Canyon Road extension be moved ahead to 17 coincide with the end of phase one of the development. lg Seven, the project development should be phased so 19 that construction of roads, schools, utilities , floor control 20 facilities, and recreation facilities are commensurate with the 21 needs of the community as a whole. 22 Eight, Blackhawk Development Corporation shall obtain 23 insurance or post a bond for the purposes of covering any 24 damages sustained by individuals on or off the property due 25 to earth subsidence or slides or increased water run-off due 26 to the Blackhawk development. 27 Nine, the Planning Commission should endorse the 28agreement which was reached between the developer and the San ZANDONCLLA R[PONTINO 894VICt coal Mce.@NOR 1"AMp mcpsevame ' said CAST •T0196T L • IA4IA�I. •. �nn..r. •u•� 21 ' 1 Ramon Valley School District and make compliance with it 2 mandatory with approval of each phase of development. 3 Ten, amend the Planning Staff's condition number 11 to 4 read: Eliminate the 7 .5 acre commercial area from the easterly S portion of the property and substitute single-family detached i 6 dwellings in its place. I 7 Eleven, add the following -to the Planning Staff' s I 8 condition number 23: that lands dedicated for local parks in y 9 the development shall be deducted at their full market value ' 10 from the park dedication fees normally chargeable to the 11 development. 12 • Number twelve, substitute the following condition for 13 the Pl'an' ning Staff' s condition number 21: sufficient land 14 .for a library facility as agre^d upon with the County -Librarian 1 15 shall be dedicated for library purposes to the county. i 16 The San Ramon Valley Planning Committee approves of 17 and supports the remaining Planning Staff's conditic,ns in 18 general and insofar as they do not conflict. with the foregoing. 19 Thank you, gentlemen. 20 CHAIW4AN JEKA: Thank you, Doctor. 21 - Mr. Hildebrand has a question -- "I mean Mr. Compaglia 22 with a mustache . 23 MR. COMPAGLIA: In your computation of the 4 ,000 , is 24 the eliminations of -- in item three substituting the condo- 25 miniums and over here eliminating the commercial but adding 26 the single-family dwellings, did that figure come out to -- 27 DR. HIRSCH: That is all part of it, right. Yeah, 28 4,000 overall. ZANOONCLLA 49PORTING SCHVICt • %INT11,199'M941MA11D 019PORT6011 2814 CAST ST1191tT CONCORD.CALIFORNIA 914080 I MR. COMPACLIA: Right. Thank you. 2 DR. HIRSCH: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I know there 's another lady who wants 4 to speak. She got up and didn't get a chance, so -- 5 MRS. MIMI WARD: (3555 Blackhawk Road, Danville, 6 California. ) My name is Mimi Ward and I live at 3555 Blackhawk 7 ' Road. 8 The last time the person who was representing our 9 homeowner's group spoke we spoke in favor of Blackhawk develop- 10 ment proposition. Tonight I feel that I must speak against 11 it for the following reasons : I represent about 26 families 12 . who live very close to or adjacent to the Blackhawk Ranch. 13 We have been quite concerned about problems which relate to 14 water and/or wells -- we 're all on wells and septic tanks and 15 drainage and I think that you have received a letter from us 16 to that effect and you are aware of our problems . 17 We waited until tonight to make anymore statements here 18 because we have been in the process of negotiation with the 19 Blackhawk Development Corporation . They have said that they 20 would do certain things and we said no, that 's not what we want; 21 , we want this and we've been nogotiating back and forth. But 22 -in general , we have lost some confidence in the Blackhawk 23 Development Corporation and we feel that we must ask the county 24 Planning Commission to help us protect our homes. 25 We're not only facing the specific problems that relate 26 to the geology of the area but we- also are faced with being 27 right smack in the middle of a city which is just coming down 28 around us. Many of us own small farms three to six or eight ZANOON[LLA Q[POATINO S[AVIC[ 694T61plae 8"041114166•coesrces 4214 CAST •TRCCT CONCORD. CAL.I/OMNIA 94080 r „r I acres each and we're looking forward to paying higher taxes 2 and having all kinds of problems that we don't know how to 3 deal with. 4 We would like to ask the county Planning Commission to S defer your decision on the zoning requirements until we could 6 get together and finish negotiating. I just got a note from 7 + Mr. Van Voorhis outlining what he 'told our attorney today and 8 he says we are still willing to negotiate on the above and we 9 recognize that the above does not solve your problem of drainage 10 to existing service prior to contiguous development and what 11 we were saying to them was -- we were trying to get them to 12 ' hook us, up to the sewer and water without our having to plunk 13 out this money because this would be a hardship on many of us 14 -who have three acres of frontage property . And that still 15 doesn't solve the problem of air and space -too and our water 16 table drops because of that being upstream from us . So we 17 have a lot of things to work out and we would like you to defer 18 your decision however long it takes us to reach an agreement 19 with them and if we can agree, then somebody's going to have 20 to step in and do something else . But right now we're still 21 negotiating. .22 MR. RALPH COZINE: (466 Constitution Drive, Danville, 23 California . ) My name is Ralph Cozine, E1 Cerro Homeowner' s 24 Association. As I testified in one of the earlier -- 25 CHAIRMAN JEHA: We didn't get your name . 26 MR. COZINE: Ralph Cozine. 27 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Cozine? 28 MR. COZINE: Cozine, C-o-z-i-n-e. XANOON«LA R9PORTINO •COVIC9 664T11140 MNTM/RO NLPOAT{O• 821.4 CAST ST$IatT • rewr nen I'�1 /�n�wl• *.•+w t 1 CHAIRMAN JEHA: And what homeowner's? r. 2 MR. COZINE:. E1 Cerro homeowners. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: E1 Cerro. 4 MR. COZINE: As I testified in one of the earlier 5 Blackhawk hearings, the E1 Cerro homeowners are deeply concerned 6 over the traffic on E1 Cerro Boulevard which would be caused 7 by Blackhawk. Therefore, we support the county Planning 8 Staff's recommendation to extend Sycamore Valley Road to 9 Blackhawk at the start of the project . 10 On this issue we do. not agree with the San Ramon Valley 11 Planning Committee. The Sycamore Valley extension is a 12 positive step which should reduce the impact of traffic on 13 Diablo Road and El Cerro Boulevard although it certainly will 14 not eliminate that impact . 15 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. Is there anyone else? 16 DR. .WILLIAM H. LANDIS: Well, I'm Dr. William H. 17 La:idis . I would like to get back 'to a very general approach 1S to this problem. 19 I have here a letter from Glenn Seaborg addressed to 20 the Commission for Citizens for Urban Wilderness Areas . 21 Primarily this group is interested in open space, in park 22 situations, and specifically it 's a coalition of over 35 �3 conservation, educational, and community interest groups of 24 Contra Costa and Alameda Counties . Our objective is to 25 foster . the preservation of wilderness areas close to urban 26 centers. We endorse a major objective of the Contra Costa 27 County General Plan to preserve liberal amounts of open space 28• including parks, woodlands, range land and agricultural land. ZANOON[LLA R9PORTINO Y[QVICR C9OfI1160 501e0IMA0e•CPOOTIO• 8814i&eT STREET CONCORD. CALIIORNI• e�ue eti I We should like to see the whole of Mt . Diablo become apart 2 of Mt . Diablo State Park or preserved as open space. We, 3 therefore, support the Contra Costa County Planning Director 4 and staff in recommending denial of the applicant's request 5 for rezoning for the following reasons : 6 One, this proposal for intensive and extensive develop- 7ment is not consistent with the existing General Plan, page 8 ten of the County's Environmental Impact Report . In addition, 9 the proposal does not reflect the timing of development as 10 projected by the General Plan. The existing General Plan did 11 not anticipate what is essentially a new community east of 12existing development at this time, if ever. 13 Two, the proposal is in conflict with the Regional I 14 ,Plan 1970-1990 adopted by the .Association of Bay Area Govern- 15 ments . The ABAG plan shows much of the Blackhawk Ranch as 16 permanent open space . A small portion of the site is con- 17 tained in a subcategory of open space, the controllLd develop- I8 ment areas which should not be considered for urbanization until 19 after 1990 . 20 We hope - that you are in agreement with this position. 21 Sincerely yours, signed Glenn T. Seaborg: 22 I simply like to add to this- that the experience state- 23 wide has been that the only type of land use which is truly 24 self-supporting is agricultural . 23 Thank you, gentlemen. 26 MRS. MARY L. BOWER14AN: (970 Second Street, Lafayette, 27 California. ) Mr. Jeha and members of the Commission, tonight 28 I am speaking -- tonight I am speaking both for myself and ZANOON[LLA 1UPORTINO 8911VICt • 99411/198 94041104AM9 09P-A1949 •STA CAST STIICCT CONCORD• CAWFOXHIA 04080 •r I behalf of the Save Mt. Diablo Group of which I am a Vice- 1 2 President. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Give your name, ma'am. 4 MRS. BOWERMAN : I'm Mary Bowerman. 5 Our statement is concerned with the relationship of 6 the Blackhawk Ranch to Mt . Diablo State Park. As you are 7 aware, most of' the northern boundary of the Blackhawk Ranch 8 adjoins the southern boundary of Mt . Diablo State Park. This 9 presentation will inform or remind you of proposals regarding 10 expansion of the state park to the south . 11 The Save Mt . Diablo Group has endorsed the addition to 12 the state park of the area within the quotes "zone of state 13 park interest" close quote, figure 4 , page 11 of the County 14 E.I .R. In addition, the group believes the state park 15 should extend from Southgate Road down to Blackhawk Road and 16 easterly as far as the ridge to the west of the ranch head- 17 quarters . Our position 13 recorded on page 13 of the County 18 Environmental Impact Report , E .I .R. A more detailed report 19 indicating the interest and response to this proposal follows ; 20 On May the 11th, 1973 the California State Park and 21 Recreation Commission held one of its regular meetings in 22 Concord. A representative of SEFve Mt. Diablo asked the 23 Commission to endorse the acquisition of lands in the foothills 24 of Mt. Diablo as a high priority item. The State Park and 25 Recreation Commission, whose duty it is tb make state park 26 policy, responded by passing the following resolution, quotes : 27 "Whereas the preservation of Mt . Diablo and its 28 foothills is of vital importance to the citizens of ZANOONCLLA RePORTINO •[IMC[ 968T1/199 a"641NAII0 69000T609 2214 CAST ST-496T CONCOIIO. CALI/OMNIA Mao • 1 California; and whereas, the foothills -of Mt. Diablo r 2 are an essential element of the visual integrity. 3 of Mt. Diablo. 4 "Now, therefore, be it ' resolved that the State g Park and Recreation Commission endorses the concept 6 of preserving open space the foothills of Mt . Diablo 7 to the degree necessary to preserve - the visual and 8 ecological integrity of Mt. Diablo State Park. " 9 That the end of that . 10 On November the 9th., 1973 Save Mt . Diablo made a more 11 specific request to •whe State Park and Recreation Commission t 12 at their regular meeting in San Francisco . . I would like , with 13 your permission, to quote pertinent parts of that presentation. 14 The Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army , recent- 15 ly contracted with Ecoview, Environmental Consultants, to 16 prepare an environmental inventory of the Walnut Creek drainage . 17 T:.is contract resulted in a two-volume work of 442 pages . I IS would like to quote a paragraph on page 113: 19 Quote, "The valley oak woodland, whose entire 20 distribution lies in central and northern California, 21 is almost extinct . Many thousands of acres of these 22 trees have been systematically removed for agricultu- �3 ral and suburban development throughout its entire 24 range, for reasons similar to those that apply to the 25 Walnut Creek Drainage Basin. ECOVIEW considers these 26 relic stands endangered. Steps should be taken to 27 preserve selected remaining stands and to give them . 28' sufficient buffer zones so that. seedlings can re-esta- ZANOONCLLA RCP0I1TINO 89MVIC19 I441I.1[e 9NIIfN&q8 Asp/o/1&& fiTltA{T {TR[[T • CONCORD. CALI►ORNIA *IND t I "blish themselves and resurrect this, plant community," 2 end of the quotation. 3 The opportunity to preserve dust such an area exists 4 at the base of Mt . Diablo, between Southgate Road and Black- 5 hawk Road. The most recent plan of the Department of Parks 6 and Recreation for land acquisition for Mt . Diablo State Park 7 includes much of the foothills but does not include the valley 8 floor adjacent to Blackhawk Road. In addition to the scienti- 9 fic and ecologic values already mentioned, this acquisition 10 would preserve for the residents of- the San Ramon Valley and 11 indeed for all our citizens the .superb scenic view of Mt . 12 Diablo from Blackhawk Road, the only place on the south side 13 of the mountain where such a view can be preserved free of the 14 dwelling units and other appurtenances of the urban scene . 15 The environmental review quoted above gives additional 16 reasons for preservation of the foothills, page 118: 17 Quote, "The foothill zone remains largely in the 18 phstoral phase of land use . Nevertheless, these 19 areas are next in line for development using techniques 20 that are detrimental to both water quality and run-off 21 capacity. They may very well threaten the capacity 22 of the floodplain control installations . The water- �3 shed management of these foothill lands should be a 24 prime consideration as floodplain build-out is com- 25 pleted. The loss of foothill communities to develop- 26 ment interests could jeopardize these land uses. This 27 zone, especially the -lower level, .is very important as 28* a buffer and support area to maintain the natural biotic ZANOONCLLA RLPORTINO YCRVICC 96611/ICO 611641M.MO OtpeavCAC OOIA.CAIT OTRCCT COMCO11O.CALIIOCINIA WIG 1 "elements of the higher levels as well as that of its 2 own. Further encroachment should not be permitted." 3 That's the end of the quotation from ECOVIEW. 4 On February the 4th, 1974 -- that also is the end of S that presentation of the State Park Commission of the San 6 Francisco meeting -- on February the 4th, 1974 Save tilt . Diablo 7 passed the following resolution unanimously thereby confirming 8 and strengthening our previous position: 9 quotes, "It is resolved that the scenic area or 10 viewpoint between Blackhawk Road and Southgate Road 11 be acquired and added to I4t . Diablo State Park for the 12 following reasons: 13 110ne, to preserve the fine specimens of• valley 14 oal... 15 "Two, to provide a window or corridor to view 16 Mt. Diablo . This is the only area on the south side 17 of the mountain that affords an unobstructed view . 18 "Three, to preserve the geological formation which 19 includes the famous fossil site from which the Universi- 20 ty of California has removed bones of prehistoric 21 animals . 22 "Four, • to maintain the creek and its drainage �3 area in its natural state . 24 "Five, to preserve the natural scenic beauty of 25 Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard and Diablo Road. A large 26 development adjacent to Blackhawk Road would undoubted- 27 ly require the widening or the access road and would 28 destroy the present scenic approach to Mt. Diablo State ZANDCNCLLA R9PONTINO 69MVIC9 • 444TIII90 0/I901/14110 OtPOAT6O• . 8814 t•{T 0f099T tewe"No P61 Irn"OVI. •.•.O 30 1 "Park as well as the scenic drive along Blackhawk 2 Road." 3 End of quotation. End of the resolution. 4 A copy of this resolution was sent to Mr. William 5 Penn Mott, Jr. , director of the State Department of Parks and 6 Recreation and to the county planning department. On March 7 ' the 6th Robeft Meyer, chief deputy director, replied on behalf 8 of Mr. Mott, quotes, "We have noted your reasons for including 9 the window on Mt . Diablo concept from. Blackhawk Road in our 10 acquisition program. There is value - in this concept and we 11 have included provision for this among the projects which are 12 • being evaluated for inclusion in •the 1974 Bond Act Program," 13 close quotes. It is my understanding that such an acquisition. 14 is still under consideration and has not been abandoned. Staff 15 members have come from Sacramento specifically to study this 16 proposal. • 17 The cash value, according to the County Assessor, of. 18 the acreage between Southgate Road and Blackhawk Road estimated 19 by us to be 814 acres or thereabouts is $603,534 ,• an average 20 of $741 per acre . We had to prorate one or two of the parcels 21 because the line didn't go -- coincide exactly with the parcels 22 but that's fairly close. The actual value per acre there is �3 according to the County Assessor from $207 to $1136 per acre. 24 The Save Mt . Diablo Group are private citizens many 25 of whom report to other organizations. All are dedicated 26 to preserving Mt. Diablo in its -entirety as open space prefer- 27 ably within Mt . Diablo State Park. 28 We hope that this review may be of interest and value ZANDONCLLA 09 POINTING •[RVICC • i�faf 111 •�M��fM�M•A{I��fiA• 8894 CAST •TRC« CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 01680 31 r 1 to you and thank you for your attention. w 2 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you 3 MRS. LINDA BEST: (146 Via Copla, Alamo, California. ) 4 My name is Linda Best and I 'm representing the Valley Action 5 Forum this evening. Some of the material which we're 6 presenting is repetitious, however, prior to your last hearing 7 the Forum had not been able to arrive at a position and since 8 it does represent 26 valley organizations we feel that their 9 recommendations are worthy of your consideration. 10 This is the motion passed at our regular meeting of 11 April 24th. The Valley Action Forum opposes the rezoning 12 application of the Blackhawk Ranch due to the following 13 concerns: 14 • 1Jumber one, the Valley Action Forum is concerned that 15 the economic data available to the Valley Action Forum has not 16 demonstrated that the Blackhawk Development would not have a 17 substantial adverse impact on the San Ramon Valley Unified 1g School District even if Blackhawk meets the requirements of the 19 policy on availability of schools. 20 Number two, the Valley Action Forum is concerned about 21 the ability of the county to financially support new road 22 developments and road improvement' which would be required by �3 the Blackhawk development. 24 The Valley -- number three, the Valley Action Forum is 23 also concerned that non-Blackhawk private' land might be taken 26 to widen existing roads for the purpose of providing access • to 27 the development. 28 Number four, the Valley Action Forum is concerned that tie ZANOONCLLA RCPORTINO sCNVICC • [[011/I[0 ANOAtNANO A[wO�tLA[ ��11[A�♦•fllt[f CONCORD.CALI/OMNIA 0.4020 I rezoning of the• Blackhawk Ranch and the extension of roads and 1 2 utilities would create intense pressure to develop thousands 3 of acres adjacent to the development which are presently in 4 primarily agricultural zoning at a time when the General Plan 5 for this area is about to be reviewed. 6 Number five, the Valley Action Forum is concerned that 7 in the event .Blackhawk is approved subsequent changes might be 8 made in the P .U.D. without reconsideration of the entire P .U.D. 9 And number six, the Valley Action Forum is concerned 10 about the potentially adverse impact of extensive grading on the 11. foothills f Mt. Diablo. 12 Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. All right . Do we have 14 anyone else wishing to speak? 15 Mr. -- how many more speakers in opposition? All right 16 Now, are you going to -- anybody have anything new to add? � 17 MR. DON HOFFMAN: I hope so. 18 CHAIRMAN JEH A: Good, because really it gets pretty 19 repetitious hearing the same thing over and over again . 20 MR. HOFFMAN : I have one statement to make in regard 21 to the General Plan and density which I do not believe has been 22 brought out at all; that is , that if your Board sees fit to 23 make the finding that this development is in conformance with 24 the General Plan you are going to open Pandora's box for the 25 inclusion of all steep, low-priced hillside land whatever it 26 may look like and however undevelopable it may be so long as it 27 happens to be speckled for low-density residential development. 28 Simply by having that land included in the boundaries of a ZANDONCLLA MCPCMTIN13 4CNVICC COATI/196*II0416dAYo 09IORT984 - 2814(<'soT $T11[CT — CONCOOn C&I vna"16 04-110n, . t� 1 planned unit development it would allow the entire valley to. 2 greatly increase its possible ability to be developed at higher 3 densities. I think that this is something that is extremely 4 important and will affect the entire valley and perhaps the 3 entire county. 6 In regard to the conditions proposed, I want to suggest 7 that as a resident of Diablo that the elimination of the county 8 staff's condition 13 for the development of Sycamore Valley 9 extension would be a disaster as far as traffic on Diablo Road 10 and El Cerro is concerned. , I would hope that when your group 11 makes your field trip that you make that field trip at 8: 15 in 12 the morning or .3: 30 in the afternoon when the children from 13 Green Valley School are either going to or from school . When 14 you make that trip I would like you to visualize a tenfold 15 increase in traffic on Diablo Road from less than a thousand 16 or approximately a thousand to 110000 people. I want you to 17 vi::ualize that when you make that trip. I would also advise 18 you to drive through the Diablo area . I think that you will 19 find that our homes are R-20, R-40, and many, many of them 20 are on lots far larger than that. If you include the area of 21 the golf course, you will find that that area is developed at 22 approximately two acres per lot. I want you to compare that 23 with the R-10's suggested in the conditions and I think that 24 other than the Sycamore Valley extension I would certainly 25 agree with the conditions recommended by the Valley Planning Y6 Group. 27 Thank you. 26 , CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you., ZANOONZLIA RCPOI TING 89MVIC9 994T111196 6II91ttMAUIo ACPOAtt A6 8814;AOT •TOttT CONCOAO.CALIFORNIA 04030 1 MR. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we got 2 the gentleman's name. 3 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, my name is Don Hoffman, civil 4 engineer, I live in Diablo. 5 MR. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, 6 I'd like it to be known that I think all commissioners have 7 been through Diablo many times. 8 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right.. There were two other 9 people I think that wanted to speak, s.o would you come on down. 10 MR. LESLIE G . MacGOWAN: (745 Market Street, San 11 Francisco., California. ) I'm Leslie G . 'MacGowan, an attorney 12 appearing for the Sari Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the Sierra 13 Club. I have just one thing I think I can add and I Just 14 returned from a ten-day trip through the Pacific' Northwest 15 where I am visualizing tonight the apple orchards on the slopes 16 of Mt. Hood right outside Portland within, say, 35 minutes of m. 17 downtown up there and I 'm thinking of what is to be done to the 19 open space in Contra Costa County contrary to what appears to 19 be the Contra Costa County General Plan and the Association - 20 of Bay Area Governments Regional Plan. 21 What I would like to add since everything seems to have 22 been well covered, I'd like to re�Cer to the statements of 23 April 23 of the San Francisco Bay Chapter Sierra Club to the 24 April 23 statements of Linda A. Moody and Sally Ewing for 25 Amigos De Diablo and their experts Don Hoitgrieve, April 26 Johnston, Jerome Pressler. The April 1 letter of Mr. Melvin 27 Beaudet of the Planning -- to the Planning Department from the 28 Contra Costa Resource Conservation District and the April 11., SANOONCLLA RCPORTINO •CXvICC CC011/19/8 N00TMAN0 44POA/60/ 8814a"T 7/4a"T S"CeT CONCOMP. CALIIOIINIA 00920 _ ..... ... .... r , . 1 1974 economic supplement prepared -by your Director of Planning 2 and all the arguments contained therein which are contrary to 3 this development and, second, those contrary arguments by the 4 Sierra Club. S The item I would like to add is the -- to pose the 6 question as to whether in a period of fuel shortages so far as 7 hydrocarbon fuels are concerned whether we can afford and our 8 grandchildren can afford the creation of a new community beyond 9 the short commute where this whole community will depend upon • 10 Jobs a long; commute away and where every service has to commute 11 into this community ,that is, the major services will be by 12 commute to the community and where all of the goods, foods ; 13 drugs , et cetera brought to the community are brought by i14 basically diesel or gasoline-engine vehicles to that community 15 and to pose the next question as to what happens if those are 16 -cut off to a perhaps incomplete community in Eastern Contra 17 Costa County . And then to pose the final question as to the -- 18 if this were to happen, what would this have upon the economics 19 of this county and wherein you have already or would by virtue 20 of approving such a project commit the county to huge capital 21 outlays which are basically a subsidy to a private developer 22 over a long period of time and shbuld the build-out not be �3 completed because of changes in commute habits,et cetera, he 24 would then have both a tax liability , a service liability , and 25 a community which just could not be used because of the diffi- 26 culty of people getting to and from or you would be facing then 27 an alternative for this county of providing mass transportation 28 to such a community. ZANOONCLLA NCPONT1#40 •CNVICC 998TI►K1 6404IM&NO 41P04111465 said taN fTQ[LT I For all 'of these reasons the Sierra Club had asked me 2 to appear this evening and state -- the Bay Area Chapter, the 3 San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club's opposition to q the -- the whole plan in general, the thought being that you 3 should not let Blackhawk become an albatross for Contra Costa 6 County . 7 Thanll you. 8 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. 9 MR. 14ARK BARNES: (159 Kelobra Court, Walnut Creek, to California. ) I 'm Mark Barnes from the Ygnacio Valley 11 Recycling Center. 12 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mark,. you're going to have to state 13 your name again and speak up, because we couldn't hear you 14 very well . 15 FIR. BARNES: Mark Barnes from the Ygnacio Valley 16 Recycling Center and we 're opposed- to your development for 17 a whole bunch of reasons. I 18 First I 'd like to say that most of the workers at 19 our recycling center -- 20 CHAIR1.IAN JEHA: Let me make it clear that it 's not 21 our development, Mark. 22 MR. BARNES: Well, 'anyway., most of the workers at our 23 recycling center have worked long and hard hours for the 24 opposition -- or the support to save Mt . Diablo as some of the 25 groups have already talked and tell you about, but the reasons 26 we're opposed to this development 'is it obviously doesn't fit 27 into the General Plan and the project .would be a huge scar on 28 the site of Mt. Diablo along with several other scars that you ZANOONELLA RErORTIma scavicE • 990/1/190 SNORT"AMO 09POOT940 »T9 gAOT OTRRCT CONCORD. CAIIFORN1O 09970 • Jt ,r 1 recently approved. 2 Since the employment of the project residents is 3 based solely on commuting, the air- quality of this county 4 would suffer. This county already has a present air pollution S problem and you can deny it but it's there and you can't 6 handle what you have now and 15,000 people sure aren't going 7 to help it. I feel that the Blackhawk Ranch area at its e present form is improved as far as- it can be. Anything else 9 that is done to it would not be an improvement; it would be 10 harmful. And I feel that the needs of this county would best 11 be served if the area would be put into the state park system 12 or at the very least under the protection of the Williamson 13 Agricultural Act. 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN JL'HA: Thank you, Mark . All right . I 16 .guess we have one more speaker. 17 MRS. LINDA MOODY: ,'P. 0. Box 635, Diablo, California. ) 18 Mr. Jeha, I 'd like to speak only to the issue of the appro- 19 priateness of closing the hearing at this point and I'd just 20 as soon make my statement when you're considering that matter 21 rather than now, if that's all right with you. 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes. Wliat we're discussing now is �3 conditions. Any other additional comments on the project . 24 If we decide to close the hearing and we 're having discussions, 25 I think that -- ' 26 MRS. MOODY: I wish to speak only on that point, if 27 you' ll give me -- . 28 CHAIRMA11 JEHA: All right . Gentlemen, do you object ZANOONZLLA XZIPQOTINO 89IIVIC9 9941180`1911 ameavuawo a{ooA1lA• 2814 Ca1T OT.QILT CONCOIIo. call/0podia 94510 'c. 38 r • 1 to that procedure or do you want to -- 2 MR. ANDERSON: You have nothing to say about the -- 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes, Mr. Anderson. 4 MR. ANDERSON: You have nothing to say about the S conditions? Have you received a copy of the conditions, Mrs. 6 Moody? 7 MRS. MOODY: No. As far as the conditions are 8 concerned, we would ask for an extension of time to comment 9 on- those conditions since we have not received them but I 'll 10 be arguing or requesting you to give an extension on the whole 11 project for reasons that I -- 12 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, you best do it now, Mrs . Moody, 13 because we're going to -- we might get in the middle of it and - 14 so best - to make your comments now. Yeah, I think that would 13 be better. 16 MRS - . MOODY : My name is Linda Moody . I speak for 17 Amigos De Diaolo. 18 We wish to urge you to leave the hearing open on the 19 merits of the project until at least 30 days after the staff 20 has submitted its written responses to the questions raised on 21 the E.I.R. We think this is critical both in light of the ' 22 policy Sequa that environmental impact reports are supposed to 23 be used as informational documents in the hearing process on 24 a proposal and perhaps more importantly under the county 's 25 own guidelines. 26 On E.I.R. consideration on page 24 it says the final 27 E.I .R.. will be considered by the Planning Commission at public 28 hearing, I think indeed it's a legal question whether you SANDONCI.I.A REPORTING •CRVICC 46611/196 OMOOTMAUO 49POOT9811 aau c&ar aiwcar CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04030 '. 39 • i even have the authority to close the hearing at this point f ' • 2 and rather than go into some of the arguments about that, I 3 prefer to refer to the county counsel. I have looked up some 4 cases on the definition of public hearing but I don't think S I'll bore you with that at this point. Ir 1 could gust say 6 that public hearing does require input from the public and 7 can't be a closed session open to the public. 8 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you. All right . Now, this 9 will cdnclude the opposition's presentation. • 10 At this time the applicant has an opportunity to make 11 a rebuttal and I will remind them to confine the rebuttal to 12 the points brought out by the opposition. That's not confining 13 them too much because there was a bunch of points brought out, v., 14 but we would not ask the applicant to introduce any new evidence 15 but to comment and I'm sure give his opinions as to what the 16 people in opposition have brought out . So, with that, we'll 17 start with the rebuttal. 18 MR. ROBERT W. CARRALL: (Box 807, Danville, California. ) 19 Mr. Jeha, Members of the Commission, my name is Bob Carrall 20 with the Blackhawk Development. 21 I'd like to ask a question. Though this is time for" 22 rebuttal and so forth, is there any time for any opponents 23 I believe we do have some here this evening if not -- 24 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I'm sorry. I didn' t hear you. 25 MR. CARRALL: Is there any time for any opponents.: . 26 I believe we do have some here tonight; if not, I'll dust go on. 27 CHAIRMAN JEHA: . No, they can' talk if they want to 28 talk in•rebuttal. The rebuttal does not have to be confined ZANOONtLLA R9POQTINO SCOVIC9 $16111196 611481MA110•1poo1.11• ASIA SIAAT$foggy cowro"a.CALII0111164 u.a w i 1 to just the applicant. 2 MR. CARRALI:: Okay. I wonder if -- 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: So if there's -- if there's someone 4 in the audience who wants to speak in rebuttal to something 5 said by the opponents, he can do that. 6 MR. CARRALL: Okay . I guess •not, Mr. Jeha. We' ll 7 continue, if .we may. 8 I want to make a few brief statements and then the 9 major portion of our rebuttal will be handled by my partner, 10 Bill Morse . 11 I'd like to emphasize to' the Commission that I think 12 a lot of hysteria has been stirred up by the size .of our 13 project . We've talked about- this before . It 's a very large 14 project and we understand it. By having. a large project you're 15 able. to. do a planning job that is impossible to do with smaller 16 pieces of property. But that doesn ' t mean it's going to 17 happen overnight . This is a 15-year project and probably 18 more . All of a sudden tomorrow morning there's not going to 19 be five hundred dollar -- five hundred dollar -- 500 bullUozers 20 out moving dirt on Mt. Diablo . Our first final development 21 plan of the first phase will probably be a subdivision of less 22 than 100 lots. And that construction on that probably won't 23 start until next spring because of the delays we have evidenced 24 through the planning process and weather coming up and so 25 forth. 26 But I want to emphasize that this is not an overnight 27 happening and it will take a long time to do. 28 I was very interested to have Dr. Landis read a letter ZANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE 968T1/199 emear"also •LIOA1(A• 121-0 EAST STREET — 'Q.Ir Ate.. �.. .�..n•... •1. ' 41 ! from Glenn Seaborg tonight. I happen to *have a copy of a 2 letter here that was addressed to Mr. Jeha, Chairman of the 3 Contra Costa Planning Commission, from the California Council : 4 for Environmental and Economic Balance . The Chairman of g that council is Edmund G. Brown, our former governor, on the 6 Board of Directors -- and a very prominent one -- is Glenn T. 7Seaborg. I''d like to read that letter. g "Dear Mr. Jeha: 9 "The California Council for Environmental and 10 Economic Balance is a statewide organization founded 11 last year to work for a balanced approach to important 12 environmental-economic issues in our state . The 13 Council 's Board of Directors is composed of leaders in 1 14 business, labor, and the ge.ieral public . 15 "No issue is of greater importance and more diffi- 16 cult to resolve in an equitable•manner than land use . 17 The purpose of this letter is to give you our views on - 18 the proposed Blackhawk Ranch Project , an . issue of consid- 19 erable public attention and interest in the Bay Area. 20 "To us, 'the Blackhawk Ranch Project represents 21 an accommodation between environmental, employment, and 22 housing needs. We feel that, working with the community, 23 the developer has produced an excellent plan. It is 24 environmentally sensitive, preserves considerable open 25 space .in perpetuity , and yet helps to meet two clear- 26 cut and continuing needs of- people; the provision of 27 adequate housing and employment opportunities in a to 28 region that continues to grow." iANOONCLL.A N[rONTINO •[IMC! • 41OW16e RNOS1NAN•08000+1Lw• 8814 SAST STOKILT CONCO110.CAS0FQ 1N1A 44PIS 42 l "In this regard I would like to make the following t I ' 2 comments on the -'Economic Supplement' prepared by the 3 Contra Costa County Planning Department, dated April 4 11 . This study underemphasizes the potential economic S impact of the proposed development while simultaneous- � 6 ly and erroneously claiming the proposal will require 7 a massive •public 'subsidy. "' 8 In the interest of time I will not go through the 9 points he makes on the economics. . I will leave this for 10 the record and I will just read his 'conclusion'. 11 "To summarize, the 'Economic Supplement' prepared 12 by the Planning Staff is not an objective, balanced 13 economic analysis, but rather is essentially a negative 14 examination;' it is a case against the proposal and P 15 clear bias against the proposed development repeatedly 16 comes through. 17 "Admittedly , it is difficult to strike a true 18 balance between competing views and value judgments. 19 Preservation of a quality environment is, obviously, • 20 a most desirable goal, as it maintaining .the economic 21 vitality of the region. 22 "In our view, the Blackhawk Ranch Project now before 23 the Planning Commission represents a fair balancing of 24 equities. We urge its approval ." 25 -Signed, "Sincerely, Michael R. Peevey, Executive 26 Director." 27 I'll leave this for the record. 28 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you.- Will the staff make ZANOONCLLA QCPOQTINO 89MVIC9 661IT1/1L•001041rNaN•0900011LOG said OAST •T"aaT CONCORD.CALIFORNIA 94980 43 • 1 copies of that letter- for the Commissioners. . Ar 2 MR. CARRALL: At this time I'd like to bring on Bill 3 Morse, my partner in the development. We will be discussing 4 the conditions after Bill gets through. S CHAIR14AN JEHA: Pardon me? 6 MR. CARRALL: We will be discussing the conditions 7 after Bill gets through. 8 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right'. . 9 MR. WILLIAM MORSE: (401 Minor Road, Orinda, California. 10 I feel a little lonely up here without Chuck. It seems we 11 have gone all over the county with the Chuck and Bill Show and 12 I'm glad to have him here, but not speaking. 13 I 'd first like to make a few general comments concerning 14 what s►e're going to present and what we're not going to present . 13 A great number of the items brought up by the opposition 16 'concerned itself with the subject of the E .I .R. The closing 17 on the E.I .R. is now concluded and the hearings are now closed 18 and we won' t comment except to say that the staff's response 19 to the matters brought up will cover those items . And we will 20 not be commenting on them. Most of them, as you know, dealt 21 with the specificity of the item, the in depth study of it. 22 In that regard; we would commentthat the -- this plan is not 23 the plan that says we can start building houses at Blackhawk.. 24 That plan comes later and at that time a more specific E.I.R. 25 will be tendered to you and to the staff and to the public for 26 their. comments with regard to soils, with regard to drainage, 27 with regard to grading, with regard to all of those factors. 28 And that is part of the conditions. One of the conditions is ZANOONZLLA 491000TINO 01914V109 • tt�tIR•�rHr�r�etgittet 1894 9A{f efsa r , eeweewo. eA� rowM.A ��rse ' as 1 � 1 calls for subsequent E.I.R. 's;with that we' agree. So most of 2 the comments made concerned those items and we won't take the 3 time to go into those. 4 The conditions cover other of those items and we will 5 be discussing the conditions later. As you know, you heard 6 Norm read the conditions and the conditions cover the problems 7 such as schools, parks, roads, et cetera. 8 I'd first like to comment on the statement made by 9 Bruce Elliott and when he got up -- he was from the Fish and 10 dame Commission; remember him? He •got up and he said he had 11 requested a meeting with us three weeks before he said it which 12 was a couple of weeks ago and we still haven't heard from 13 Bruce Elliott nor the Fish and Game Commission nor have we 14 heard from them before nor do we expect to hear from them on 15 a meeting. We don't know what they're talking about . It 16 was -- I don 't know who he talked to, but he didn't talk to us 17 and we 'd be glad to meet with him whenever he wants- to meet, o:t 18 whatever subject they want to discuss . When he stood up and 19 said that we -- he tried to meet with us three weeks before, 20 well, that simply wasn't true . 21 I feel that I must comment on the general plan matters . 22 They 've been brought up a number of times and the -- as you 23 know the valley planning committee's basic opposition was with 24 respect to the general plan. As a matter of fact, that was 25 their opposition. 1 26 So, I'm going to walk over .to the map here so we can 27 discuss this more clearly. 28 ' CHAIRMAN JEHA: You have to talk right into it, talk ZANOONCLLA RCrORTINO •CRVICC 96411/190 O1180140.MY■110m1gas 2214 BAST ST0499T CONCORD. CALIIORNIA 94080 45. 1 into it. No, it's not on. 2 (Voices in room - unintelligible.) 3 MR. MORSE: Okay. ' .Thanks, Chuck. 4 Seems like we're always talking about the general plan. 3 (Woman speaking in back of room - unintelligible . ) i 6 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, we can move it around a little 7 bit. Can you see it better now? s MR. MORSE: Can you see it better? 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA: If you can't see it, I would suggest 10 you move over to the other side. Anyone who 'wants to see the 11 map presentation and can't from where they're sitting, I'd ask 12 you to move to the other side of the room. • We can't do much 13 with the facilities in here. • Can everybody see it? Okay, 14 go ahead, Mr. Morse. 15 MR. MORSE: Gentlemen and audience, the property is 16 outlined in red; the roads Camino Tassaaara, Blackhakk Road 17 will identify the location of the ranch property. is The -- at the open space hearings over a year ago when 19 we found out that -- that Chuck and Jim Cutler were .tryinl; to 20 move the then open space line from here over to a line in here 21 which would prohibit our development, we came in here and 22 presented an application to move that line from where Chuck and 23 Jim thought it should be to where we thought it should be which 24 was this end of our property. After extensive hearings and 25 a lot of testimony and a lot of information and a lot of mis- 26 information, the conclusion was made that -- by you gentlemen -- 27 that the land ought to conform to the' old 63 line and where 28 that bisected the property and you were specifically thinking as ZANOONELL.A REPORTINO DCRVICC 496TIn90 8NONT..&O•06roNT949 2214[A!1 STW69V - Paur non r.. .rno...a ....w 46 1 you will recall about our property since it clearly was bisected 2 where the line --where the open space line bisected a property, 3 then the whole property could be considered for development. 4 It could be considered as urban growth area. 3 Now, I -- we're still on the same question. You 6 decided that and you sent it up to the Supervisors. They 7 specifically asked, "Does that allow Blackhawk to develop if 8 we adopt it that way?" And Mr. Dehaesus said to Mr. Boggess , 9 "Yes, it does," and it was then adopted. 10 So the question is what was your intent and what was 11 the intent of the Supervisors with respect to the land lying 12 east of. the old 1963 line . Chuck would have us believe that 13 you gust didn't adopt that thing, •but you know what you did. • 14 -You know, 1 don 't know what was in your mind either. ' I think 15 what was in your mind that you intended to have this colored 16 yellow and not green .and that the yellow would then be available 17 under the general plan for development as low-density resi.den- 18 tial. Maybe you didn' t; maybe you intended it to be colored 19 green. I don't recall it that way . You gentlemen will have 20 to decide that and that' s the basic question. 21 This part of the ranch lying west of that line there .22 isn't any discussion about that . That's planned; that's all -- 23 two=thirds of it is low-density residential. It 's all set 24 for it specifically. The densities that we proposed for 23 that section of the ranch conform. solely with the plan. There 26 isn't any question about it. It's up to you all to decide. 27• That's the basic issue. Did you want it .yellow? Did you 28 intend it to be Breen? I don't know. The words are there to ZANOONt66A REPORTING •[RVICR 99e1Ir190 e.0410A4e 069041949 !!T•[A!T'lT11[[T 47 . 1 support our position that it should be .yeliow. That's about APw 2 all I have to say about the open space. 3 No, that isn't all I have to say about the open space . 4 I have one other thing to say about the open space. And S that's our good friend Don Hoffman who comes up and gives us 6 his engineering expertise every night or every meeting and 7 last time on page 71 of the transcript he was kind enough to 8 tell us that he had made a slope analysis of the ranch and he 9 said that 500 acres was zero to five percent in grade. Four • 10 hundred and fifty acres was five to ten percent in grade and 11 another 450 acres was ten to 20 percent in grade, for a total 12 of 1400 acres; 120 percent under a grade . Well, it occurred 13 to me that I ought to take Don's numbers and apply •them to the • 14 generz.l• plan criteria for valley floors which is one to three 13 units to the acre. So I took three units to the acre and I 16 *multiplied it times Don' s 1400 acres and I came up with 17 4200 units which is the same number that Norm and the staff 18 has come up with. So I guess Don has given them the informa- 19 tion as to what ought to be there and that' s -- it doesn't 20 conform to our 2,000 acres that we had. Remember our slope 21 class and that that was run by a computer, 2,000 acres , looked, 22 you know, we'll settle on his numbers if he wants to. 23 Another interesting thing that Don brought out was that 24 by granting our application, you will be granting the building 23 on all the hills . He called it opening Pandora's box. And 26 then he referred to the community of Diablo where he lives. 27 Forgetting that Diablo is a mixture of housing like we 're 28 applying for; Diablo isn't all two-acre estates like he would ZANOON[LLA IMPORTING •[I1VIC[ 994110190 O11OATMNIY•LIOOTIU #894 CAST 8T11[LT roMlnan r.1 evews11. •..►n • •r I lead you to believe. Diablo has multi-family in it. It's 2 been there for a long time. It was there when Don moved in; 3 it will be there when Don moves out. That's the same kind of thing that we're talking about. It isn't non-conforming to 5 the area. It is not dissimilar to what is at Diablo and has 6 been Diablo since the 201s . 7 With respect to the Valley Action Forum, their 8 opposition, as you will recall, concerned itself with a list 9 of. concerns . They said that they were opposed to Blackhawk 10 because of the following concerns; then they itemized the 11 concerns. One was the school economics . We have a letter 12 from the school board, as you know, that says that they're 13 satisfied that we do not adversely impact them in any way and 14 that they 're happy with it. We think that school board knows ` 15 the school board business and that that should satisfy the 16 economics of the schools. - 17 Their second item was economics on roads . Later when 16 I discuss economics, I'll hopefully point out to you what the 19 economics on the roads situation really is. 20 They were concerned with the fact that some of the 21 roads might have to be widened. The only thing we can say is 22 that we see no -reason to widen anV roads other than what has 23 been contained in the general plan since its adoption and is 24 there now and so why should that be a problem. The general 25 plan anticipates the road widening. 26 They also were -concerned with the gross induce -- 27 growth inducement. Well, that's a hard thing to answer because 26 everything is growth inducing. I mean, anytime you build a ZANDQNCLLA RCPPRTINO •CIIVICC • ([01111[0[N OO IM[MO•[OOOt(O[ 8811 9AST 8T#[CT CONCORD.CAt1IORN14 14514 1 house, I assume that you are making available the growth in 2 that area. The more growth you have, the more you see to have, 3 whether it's growth inducement or not, whether growth induce- 4 meet is bad or not. S The general plan of the county you will read it it ;. 6 relates to growth. It says we're going to have growth. 7 It's good. 'We need growth and we- want growth. If that's 8 growth inducement, fine. It does conform to the general plan 9 and good growth -- remember what Eric •Hasseltine said -- well , 10 I'll remind you what Eric Hasseltine• said. 11 On page 8 of the transcript Eric Hasseltine said and 12 ' I 'm going to quote, "Growth is , has been, and all indications 13 are that it will continue to be a major' problem in the San 14 Ramon Valley . " If we want to exert some positive influence 15 on what otherwise is a tendency to be chaotic and disruptive 16 process, we need to specify where and how this growth should 17 occur. Where this growth will occur is not that cifficult. 18 to foresee. Some in filling and maybe a lot, but this cannot 19 accommodate all the expected growth. San Ramon Valley cannot 20 grow to the south, cannot grow to the north. It cannot grow 21 very much to the west and it shouldn't since that would be at 22 the expense of the Las Trampas Ridge and its slopes . Clearly 23 the- growth has to proceed to the east and the major route can 24 only be through the Sycamore Valley . It seems to me that both 23 the natural course of development and the existing general plan 26 recognize that the Sycamore Valley will develop. We agree 27 wholeheartedly with that . I think Eric likes to relate it 28 as a safety valve for the San Ramon Valley. Don't put all ZANOONCLLA MCPOnTINO 09nVIC9 • q•111180 O0O41"AND OC.ONTg00 /Z/0 CAST *Tatar COMCONO. CALIOOANIA 94920 50 1 the buildings on the hills along the freeway in San Ramon 2 Valley like it is occurring today; . let there be a safety valve 3 where development can go out .into the valleys that lead out 4 from the San Ramon Valley such as the Sycamore and Tassajara S Valleys . 6 One other objection of Valley Action Forum was as to 7 extensive grading. As I told you before, we're going to have 8 the grading plans later for your approval with the E.I.R. 's 9 accompanying them and that really isn't the decision that you' re 10 called upon to make at this time . 11 And the other -- the only other concern of the Valley 12 Action Forum was 'that the planned- unit development changes 13 could be made after the planned unit development was adopted . 14 dell, that 's true. Whoever makes a rule can change a rule . 15 Whoever adopts an ordinance can change an ordinance . And 16 that' s up to you all to from time to time make changes as seem _ . 17 fitting to the area. We don't propose any . We like it the 18 way it is and it will be up to you all to make the decision 19 and the Hoard of Supervisors to confirm your decision if any 20 changes are to be made. 21 Switching now to the San Ramon Valley Planning .22 Committee, as you know, they voted to oppose us on the grounds 23 that we didn' t conform to the general plan. I' ve discussed 24 the general plan and that decision is up to you- gentlemen. 25 If you agree with us and we do conform to the general plan, 26 then the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee would then ask 27, that you impose conditions. I listened to their conditions . 28 I did not hear conditions that were any different except for ZANOONCLLA REPORTING 89MVIC9 648Tll/98 6094T.4"D N1000TtN0 said CAST aTRCET - rAYPhAn ♦..urno.u• see%^ •r 1 200 units than those that the county has proposed and it would 2 seem that the county's conditions cover those concerns of the 3 San Ramon Valley Planning Committee. They were -- there was 4 another area that will decide the units ,• the 200 unit difference 5 and that was the office space area to be reviewed. They were 6 concerned about the office space area and one of the conditions 7 was that that area be reviewed when the county's conditions 8 were, but that office area would be reviewed and so that will 9 be covered also. - • 10 The -- Mr. Bloss mentioned that half of the ranch was 11 open space and the other half was not under the general plan. 12 Well, if you' ll look at our plan, 75 percent is open space 13 and 25 percent is not. So looks to me like rather than 14 violate- the intent of the general plan, we have upgraded the 15 intent of the general plan from 25 percent, the ultimate, to 16 '50 percent developable to 25 percent developable and the open 17 space from 50 percent to 75 percent. 18 They were also concerned -- one other item was the • 19 hundred foot -- they wanted 15,000 square foot lot guideline 20 and the 10,000 square foot lot guideline which the county has 21 proposed with a hundred foot frontage is -- satisfies the 22 frontage requirements since -- on' a 15,000 square foot lot. the 23 front requirement is 100 feet . So we feel that that is 24 satisfied in the county's condition. 25 The Valley Planning Committee -- as I told you, we 26 worked hard and long with them and we found them to be most 27 cooperative, most interested, and most capable of understanding 28 the situation. They did approve our project once as .to concept ZANDONrLLA REPORTING •[RV/Ct 68ST111199 8r MfnAIMO 4909AV900 . Says iaft •10th CONCORD. CAuVORNIA 94020 I and we like that and now they've apparently declined to do e 2 that again by a vote of four to three and have taken another 3 position which is the position they announced tonight . We 4 would like to submit that at the time that they decided four 5 to three not to support our project as they had in the past , 6 they did not have available to them the Gruen, Gruen and ' 7 Associates economic chart information that we 're presenting to 8 you this evening later which we feel would make a difference 9 in their decision. 10 I might mention that our concept hasn't changed any 11 and they liked it last year. 12 With respect to the air quality, the there were two 13 there was objection about our- air quality and information was 14 submitted, letters from the Bay Area Pollution Control '3oaid, 15 and from the state saying that there was insufficient informa- 16 tion concerning air quality . Well , of course, there was 17 insufficient information since they had been forwarded only the 18 county staff's E.I .R. rather than the Jarra and E.C.I.S. 19 reports as well. Those reports contained extensive information 20 concerning air quality, as you gentlemen know from having them 21 in your possession . And we 're right back to the point that 22 we said all along that those reports , the Jarra report and 23 .the E.C.I .S. report, must be included in the E .I .R. or else 24 you're not going to have a sufficient E.I .R. They must be 25 a part of it. We don't know what the position the Bay Area 26 Pollution Board would be or the other outfit, but they certainly 27 were right; there wasn't the information was not there but it 28 is in the other sections of the E.I•.R. that you have before you , ZANOONCLLA MCPDRTIN13 89RVIC9 CLATIrice AMOATI/AAO ALrOATLAc , 5214 CAST STRLCT CONCORD. CALVORNIA 04580 53 1 and which we assume you will make• a part of the E.I.R. 2 You know, to hear the opposition speak about air 3 quality, you would really think that all of them live right 4 next door to where they work and across the street within S walking distance is all the shopping that they need. Well, 6 that simply isn't the way of life in Contra Costa County. 7 This is not downtown San Francisco' or downtown Oakland. This 8 is a suburban area and sure you're going to have to use your 9 automobile to go to work, to go to the store, and to come back 10 from bo th of those, to take the children to wherever they 11 might go. But that is the way of life •out here. We think 12 that what we're planning to do is• a sensible, reasonable, and 13 very good extension of that way of life that now exists in the 14 -county. . 15 The lawyer from the Sierra Club didn't know it , I 16 guess, but he spoke this evening with his concerns about what 17 will happen when the gasoline runs out and the people who live 18 here won't be able to get to the stores and to the work and • 19 so forth. Now, I'm sure that Don Hoffman and Linda Moody and 20 Sally Ewing. were all listening because they all live right 21 there too next to us and they're going to have to store up on • .22 gasoline I guess because if it runs out they got the same 23 problem that people in the Blackhawk have . 24 Remember the slides that were presented, those beauti- 25 ful slides showing the mountain in the springtime and then 26 showing the development on the hills . We asked those be . 27. brought tonight because we thought they were really very 28 expressive of what we're planning not to do. • SANOON�LLA I�LPOQTINO •iIIVIOi " tt•TIIR�•wN/M�11••tlpTtq said[AIT$1469T I If you remember the grading, which. was the key point 2 of the slide, that the grading -would terrorize the hillside 3 which it looked pretty bad with the green grass and the brown 4 grading. Well, thatts exactly what we're not doing. We are S building in the valley not on the hills. And as a matter of 6 fact, back to the general plan issue, that's caused by infilling 7 ' the staff's argument of what they want to happen in the- San 8 Ramon Valley. That's infilling; building 'on the hills inside 9 of the valley proper, not on the floors, valley floors. We 10 say that's wrong, that that development shouldn't take place. 11 What should take place is the development that we have on the 12 valley floors as -they proceed out. I think those pictures 13 were good for us . 14 One item that has been discussed but not in an Y, any 15 real great depth as it pertains to our particular project we've 16 shown the need for housing in general and the E.I.R. 's have a 17 shown that also. The E.I .R. 's indicate that somewhere 18 between 14 ,000 and 22,000 living units will be needed in the 19 San Ramon Valley by 1990. The general plan for the San 20 Ramon Valley which consists of areas eight and nine of the •21 general plan considers that the optimum population and most ; 22 desirable population for the San Ramon Valley by the year 1990 23 is 110,000 people . County staff's E.I.R. says that there 24 existed in population in the San Ramon Valley as of January the 25 1st, 1974 34 .450 people in the San Ramon Valley. Subtracting 26 the one number from the other, we - find -- and then dividing 27 it by 3.78 people per house which is county staff's E.I.R. 's 28 figure as to how many people - live in a house in the San Ramon swNOONaLLA"tPONT146 seavice • 99*1#61496 444"Tu o a[m-04140* »14 aAST ST494T • CONtMp.C�L ��11N • �f��• 55 1 Valley, we come with a 19,987 more living units are needed 2 in the San Ramon Valley by the 'year 1990 in order to reach 3 this optimum that Chuck felt was right for the valley by 1990. 4 Well, the county E.I .R. says that there are 5,590 5 units zoned in the major development in Mae San. Ramon Valley 6 at this time. Well, that falls 14,397 units zoned short or 7 what the general plan says is optimum for the valley. Further, . 8 Systems Planning Corporation which was hired -- an outfit out 9 of Sacramento that was hired by the San Ramon Valley Unified 10 School District to do study on the district reported that in 11 listing every possible development that would take place in the 12 valley in the district's boundaries that 10,079 units -- well, * . 13 that leaves it 9,908 units short if everything that is antici- 14 paced is built. 15 So, insofar as a need for housing in San Ramon Valley - 16 is concerned, if we 're ever going to make Chuck's own projec- 17 tions of 110,000 people, then you gentlemen are going to have 1 18 to zone us and 14,000 more living units to satisfy that need. 1 19 The next thing I 'd like to talk about for a second is 20 the economics . •21 Wayne, can you -- I 22 I want to -- let me run quickly over how the economics 23 got. involved in the first place. You remember, we submitted 24 the Jarra report which had the economics in it. The county 25 staff didn't think it was complete enough. They wanted an 26 update and the economic report done. People were hired by 27 the county staff -- we put up the money, they hired them -- and 28 those people did the economies. Gruen, Gruen and Associates =ANOONCLLA R[PONTINO 890VICC 96818rige BMIQTM.ND 46IDfvens ' 2874[AST {TR[[T CONCORD. CaLI/ORNI• 94088 56 •r 1 of San Francisco did that work. ' Apparently, that didn't 2 satisfy the impulse that existed in the advanced planning 3 section of the .staff so they decided to write their own, which 4 they did, which you gentlemen had, and which were circularized 5 all over. And at a meeting of the San Ramon Valley Planning 6 Committee Mr. Mankin said that his report showed -- the staff' s 7 report -- showed that it took housing costing more than B $200,000 in order to not require taxpayer subsidy . You know, 9 we just didn't think that was, could, or would ever be true. 10 So, we called Mr. Gruen, who -- Dr. Gruen, who is the principal 11 in Gruen, Gruen and Associates who had done the county 's 12 economics, and we said is it so. And later on he said, no, 13 it can' t be . So, we said, well, would you do a complete 14 analy:.is of what county staff says and what you say because 15 we're confused, the public is confused, and everybody ' s going to 16 'be confused if you don't clear it up . He did that and on 17 Iday the 7th, 1974 he mailed it to Mr. Tony Dehaesus and sent 18 us a carbon copy . The -- we have -- you all have copies of 19 , that report and I 'm not going to run into the details of it, but 20 let me run down quickly of the bottom line on. each of them. 21 The -- it' s a comparison chart between the Gruen and 22 Gruen numbers, • their economic numbers, and Contra Costa 23 Planning Department's numbers with respect to our project . 24 It' s broken down into the districts involved or the subdivisions 25 of government involved or the services involved; schools, fire, 26 police, water, sewer, county, and total . Schools, Gruen and 27 Gruen .says, that the end of our project we will produce a 28 positive benefit of $404 ,000 a year to the school district. ZANOONELLA R9PONTINO 89QVIC9 C94t11196 O"ORT61606 OCOOOTCOO i 2714 tAGr O�11tt� CONC0110. CALIFORNIA Ok$ 57 1 Contra Costa Planning Department says we will produce a 2 negative $75,000 a year to the school district. 3 And with respect to the fire department, the Planning 4 Department didn' t do anything at all and Gruen and Gruen has 5 a positive $237,231 a year positive cash flow to the fire 6 district . 7 The police district would generate a positive -- there 8 isn' t any district -- what Gruen and Gruen did is they took 9 the similar expense per capita and applied it to Blackhawk and 10 charged it to the development and showed that it would produce 11 a positive cash flow of• $18,000 a year. The Planning Staff 12 didn' t do that. They didn't do anything with it . 13 On the water, Gruen and Gruen says that there will be 14 negative of $151,791 a year to the water district. The to 15 Planning Department 's about the same, 145, 322. 16 With respect to the sewer district, Gruen and Gruen H±:i 17 sald 106,639 positive; the Planning Department about the same, 18 116,831. 19 Now, with respect to the overall county income, the 20 rest of the tax dollar, ignored by the county , the Gruen and 21 Gruen said it shows an overflow or a positive of $585,638, or 22 a total taxpayer benefit every year of $1,181,915 as compared 23 , to the county's $104 ,000 negative. 24 The specifics broken down further with footnote explana- 25 tions and charts and everything else is contained in your -- the 26 report given to you but the substance of it is there. And, 27 incidentally, they mention in the report that if -- Gruen and 28 ' Gruen says that if the county had done fire and police -- excuse ZANOONELLA RCPORTINO •ERVICE O[O71/ILO ON0111MAMO 49POO1908 8874 CAST OTO69T CONCORD. CALIFORM16 04020 I me -- fire and county separately, that both of those even by 2 the county's numbers would have shown p6altive cash results 3 or benefits. 4 Do you have any questions about the economics -- you've ` 5 got it in the report . I don't want to belabor it because it 6 isn't -- it really isn't a planning question, but it was raised, 7 * we have to respond to it. 8 Now, remember, gentlemen, this is 611 in light of the 9 county' s staff's representations to you and us that -the 10 Blackhawk Ranch development would be. a $20 million taxpayer' s 11 subsidy. As you all recognize , nothing has been said here 12 about the wages that would be generated, the -- all the 13 collateral benefits that would be generated. Lot of that is 14 in the Gruen and Gruen report contained in the E.C.I.S . 15 Environmental Impact Report so I don't think I need to cover 16 that any further. 17 The -- Wayne, can I have that map with the two circles �... 1'8 on it? 19 I 'd like to make a statement concerning the delay 20 that has been requested by Linda Moody this evening and we • 21 point out to you that it seems to be what Mrs . Moody asks for 22 everytime is delay . And I- don't. blame her because if I was 23 sitting down there representing what interest that she represent , 24 I' d be asking for delays too, so -- but I think you gentlemen 2S recognize it for what it is and you'll address yourselves to 26 it accordingly . 27 I wish -- let me walk to this map . We've spent so 28 much time -- yeah, this is as the world turns -- we 've spent iANDONt{.L/► 11E'01�T1NQ •ERVICE (��t111{�iwOwNaMO•l�O�ttw ' gala[&{T sTO[LT CONCORD.CALIFOR4416 •l�f0 .r I so much time on, you know, building on the mountain, building 2 on the mountain, mowing down the foothills, and where does 3 the mountain go, and what is it, and everything else, we 4 decided to try to figure out where the mountain is. So, we 5 took a U. S. Geodetic map of the whole mountain area including 6 Walnut Creek, Clayton, San Ramon and we made 'the top of the 7 mountain the center of the map . We then drew two concentric 8 circles; one concentric circle 3.4. miles from the center of 9 Mt . Diablo from the peak, which coincided with the closest 10 point of our development. Not of our land, our land extends 11 up into 'the mountain -- within this concentric circle, but 12 that 's lands that we * do not -- those are lands we do not intend 13 to develop. So the closest point is 3 .4 miles from the 14 mountain top. The farther circle is 5 .9 miles from the - 15 mountain top and that happens to coincide with the furthermost 16 point of our development . And we were really interested to 17 see what lay within those concentric circles . Diablo Country 18 Club is here . This purple section is our developed area, as yo 19 can tell. by the map . It sort of ,jogs around. Diablo Country 20 Club is here and to and behold it stands closer to the mountain 21 top than our development. As a matter of fact, Linda bloody 22 lives right here and Don Hoffman lives right there . I 'rn not 23 sure where Sally Ewing lives but anyway they all live -- they 24 all live right here beside us and it 's -- as a matter of fact, 25 Linda lives, well, Linda lives closer than three-quarters of 26 what we plan to develop. The -- as you can see, our further- 27 most point comes in downtown San Ramon. 28 So, all of the area that we plan to develop lies within ZANOONELLA REPORTING •ERVICC C{AT1►1[o CMCIITN&MC 11LICATLA• 2274 CAST OT,RECT ' CONCORD.CALIFONII4A 94020 I the area between the close reach of the narrow Mt . Diablo --. 2 I mean the narrow Diablo Country Club area and downtown San 3 Ramon. 4 . So, we found out and we're now trying to show you that 5 we weren't building closer to the mountain. We were just 6 building on the south side of the mountain like everybody else 7 has already done on the west side of the mountain. 8 As a matter of *fact,, if they want to be concerned with 9 saving the mountain, ,they better get busy up here, right, 10 because Clayton -- this development has already gone closer and 11 this is coming in here and if they'll follow this and I think 12 that this map will be a help to the people .who are trying to 13 preserve the mountain. 14 Are there any questions about this you gentlemen that -- 15 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Do you gentlemen have any questions? 16 MR. What is that development that you 17 pointed out to the north edge? i 1s MR. MORSE: I don't know. Bob, do you know the name 19 of that? It 's -- 20 MR. CARRALL: That' s up along the eastern property -- 21 MR. MORSE: Dana Hills, I think, is what -- you know, 22 we're not criticizing that development. That may well be 23 great. I 'm sure it is but , you know, the point is we're not 14 on top of the mountain like everybody has you believe . 25 •I would like to quote a couple of other statements 26 in closing and those are from opponents of our project . 27 Mfrs. Brook Raymond said and !, quote, "Granted it's 28 ' a beautiful development and it has ,its merits," end quote. SANOON[LLA N9POATINO 694VIC9 C�R111[O IM/RTMAMO RL.QRT(R• �t71 tA�T �TRREt CONCORD. CALI/ORNIA Sint* 61 I Egan Peterson, Vice President of Save Mt. Diablo, said 2 and I quote, "The Blackhawk development had won approval of 3 many people and it is an excellent development, no doubt about 4 it," end of quote. 5 Miss Nancy Corrinson said -- it 's Gorarrson, excuse me -- 6 "Blackhawk Isa good development. You seem to have a great 7 ' plan, gentlemen, but I believe it is in the wrong place ." 8 That's all I have unless you gentlemen have any ques- 9 tions for me . 10 Did I miss anything, Bob? 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Are there any questions of Mr. Morse? 12 Doesn't. seem to be any. 13 Mr. Anderson suggested we take -- are you dealing with 14 •the conditions now? Dir,. Anderson suggested that we take a 15 break now. You gentlemen want to, break noir or do you want to 16 all right, we' ll take a short break. 17 (Short break taken. ) 18 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Everybody please take their seats . . 19 We 'd like to continue with the hearing. 20 MR. . CARRALL: Mr. Jeha, during the recess I passed out 21 to each one of the Commissioners a copy of the proposed changes 22 that we would make to the conditions -- 23 CHAIPHAN JEHA: Excuse me, Mr. Carrall. Could you 24 please close the door there so we can get on with the hearing? 25 Thank you. 26 MR. CARRALL: --the proposed changes to the conditions 27 that have been prepared by the Contra•.Costa County Planning 28 Department dated May 9th, 1974 . 1 don't want to go into a ZANOONCLLA REPORTING •ERVICC ccllnnc� ONGOIN.MO OcrONr926 22T�EA6T 6TRCET CONCORD. C6 LIFORNI♦ 94620 I lot of detail on this. I know it's getting late, but I think 2 there are some important areas to be covered. 3 The first thing -- I've also given Mr. Halverson one 4 of these and a lot of it is detail and I think that -- but I 5 have to go through it. Item number one , I 'd like a change . 6 The change in there would read the master plan, preliminary 7 development plan, scale one-inch to 500 . Norm, when you were 8 reading the conditions , you mentioned a scale of a thousand. 9 It' s a 500-scale map. And it should read received July 25th, 10 1973 and as amended December 20th, 1973 • We made our original 11 application on July of ' 73 and then it was amended subsequent. 12 I don't think any notes have to be taken unless you want it, 13 Norm, because -- Mr. Jeha -- ' 14 We would suggest an item B on there, all other exhibits 15 filed with the Contra Costa Planning Department . The reason 16 for that is because some of the exhibits are required by the 17 application for the P .D. such as the slope classification map, 18 et cetera. 19 Are there any questions on that one, Mr. Jeha? 20 CHAIRMAN Jg11A: Anyone on the staff have any comments 21 on that? 22 MR. Well, there were quite a few things 23 that were received but we don't want to include them in the 24 conditions of approval but they are require though by the 25 submittal of the P .U .D. So, yeah, they -submitted an awful lot 26 of things and legal description in July and November, some 27 revised plans and grading plans and then a slope density map -- 28 or slope classification map. ZANOONCLLA RCRORTINO •[RVIC[ ((til/It0(MO�TM�MD•(SCA 7(�• 8214 CAST •Tq«T CONCORD. CA0FORMA *also should, 1 I think a lot of these thin, . 2 not be really a part of the approval but items that � e use to 3 make a decision and prepare conditions for approval but we 4 can add some of the things to this. We -- we'll take a look. 3 MR. CARRALL: Okay. Fine. 6 Condition two is fine . I 'd like- to say something 7 about condition two, however, because it 's been some concern 8 of a number of people here and some of the Commissioners have 9 mentioned it and that the phasing of the project. 10 Mr. Compaglia mentipned timing and so forth. In many, 11 many staff conferences and working with the staff we have 12 worked out this phasing schedule and what it is is an event 13 phasing rather than a timing phasing. In other words, when 14 an event happens, another event happens regardless of the time. 15 I think it's very important. That will all be spelled out and 16 condition two is fine . — 17 Condition three reads that before the time of approval 18 of the preliminary development plan and the submittal of the 19 first phase of the final development plan. We believe that 20 should be -- should read the submittal or the first of the 21 final development plans because the whole phase will not be 22 submitted ,just a portion of it . You see that, Norm? 23 MR. HALVERSON: Yeah. 24 MR. CARRALL: Any problems with that, Mr. Jeha? 23 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I think we're dealing with semantics 26 now. 27 MR. CARRALL: Well, it's kind of important because 28, you won' t submit the first phase so,-- ZANOONCLLA RCPORT1140 BMW= C190TIP09D 9II001MA110 A9POAT9X• !!1/ [AOT OTR[<T CONCON6. CIS avonNIA 04610 • 't �•. J I MR. Yeah, that looks good. We can 2 study it. We'll get a copy of your -- 3 MR. CARRALL: Okay. Now, condition four is fine. 4 Bill touched on this just for a moment and he was talking 5 about frontage. I 'd like to correct him a little bit, it' s 6 average width. What the staff has done there to maintain the 7 character as much as possible of the area, they have required 8 in this condition for us to have an average of 100 foot width 9 on our lots even though they're in an *R-10 district, so to 10 speak. The R-10 district calls for an 85-Toot average width 11 on a lot and so they 're asking us to put in a hundred foot 12 average width which really conforms with the R-15 district. 13 We would agree to that . I won't spend anymore . time . I want 14 to explain why that did and that does satisfy some of the condi- 15 tions that the Valley Planning ConmUttee asked for. 16 Condition five is fine . 17 Coeidilion six seemed to be a little bit .ambiguous to 18 us the way it read and so forth. We redrafted it and I 'll 19 read it. Your condition, the one the staff prepared read the 20 final development plan. for each phase shall indicate the 21 street alignments , lot designs , and open space with the design 22 being contingent on including the`'impaet area of the phase . It 23 didn' t make a lot of sense and so the emphasis shall be on 24 sculptured or contour grading. We've rewritten that to say 25 what I believe we all meant which is: Each of the final 26 development plans shall indicate the street alignments, lot 27 design and open space with the design. being contingent on a 28 grading plan for the area impacted. The emphasis shall be on ZANOONELLA REPORTING 6ERVIC9 • - O91 011111r/11w.rD K►011t11 rata c•aT 1TRccT eoNeesto. cAt frowNu 94126 5 .,r 65 sculptured or contour grading. 2 The purpose of this condition to explain it to the 3 Commission is if we put a final development map on for 4 argument sake in phase two to do a hundred lots, well , we would S impact a much greater area than that because of the golf course 6 design and some floor control things, so we would be required 7 by this condition to do a grading plan 'probaDly coming, down 8 into area three so they could see the entire area that was 9 impacted. . 10 Is that okay with you, Norm? 11 MR. HALVERSON: Yeah, sounds okay. 12 MR. CARRALL: Any questions from the Commission? 13 Seven. I don't want, to say it 's fine but we spent 14 an awful lot of time with this so 15 (Voice in background - unintelligible. ) 16 MR. CARRALL: I got to check with my partner. Okay, 17 we ' ll go with 42 . 18 Condition eight which has to do with specific densities 19 is fine . There should be one change in that and it's again a - t 20 just a typo; it should be areas rather than area when you're 21 asking us to delete areas, multiple areas A and 14 , Norm. 22 I'd like to say another thing about the cluster densi- 23 ties. They ' re spelled out in here and in -- we ' ve had, oh, I 24 would say over half a dozen meetings with the Planning Staff, 25 with Mr,. Dehaesus attending most of them, and we all understand 26 you can't tell what density would be applied to a particular 27 piece of property until the land plan is submitted for that . 28 This is an intentionally flexible dnd leaves it up to . the ZANOONELLA REPORTINO SERVICE EEATI/IED 1"OATMAMD REPOATEAR 0314•EAOT 0T01EET • CONCORD. CA LI/OnmjA 04620 w I discretion of the Planning Director what specific density would 2 be applied to that particular area. We are amenable to this 3 because we feel our design when we come in will be right for 4 those areas . So we have agreed to the reductions in the S densities that the staff has asked for. 6 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Anderson , you have a question? 1 7 . MR. ANDERSON : Yes. On this number eight with 8 cluster J, how big an area is that• when you have 20 units 9 per acre? 10 MR. CARRALL: Norm, on the .legend, how many acres 11 do we show? 12 . It's 22 acres, Mr. Anderson, and our planners, Living- 13 ston and Blaney and Royce, Hannibal, Beck and Abbey all felt 14 there should be some multiple type or rental type housing in 15 a project this size. ' There was a discrepancy between 16 planning staff, Mr. Dehaesus, and our planners on actually 17 where that should be located and also what the density should 18 be . So, Mr. Dehaesus had assigned a density of 20 units 19 per acre . That doesn't mean that 's what will be built . Again, 20 that comes back to what will work on that particular site . 21 It will be 'subject to, of course, your review as we go forward 22 with the site plans and the final development plans . Okay . 23 Condition number nine reads supplement E.I .R. ' s shall 24 be written on each phase of the project . We feel that should 25 read supplement E.I .R. 's shall be written for each final 26 development plan of the project. It really makes it more 27 difficult on us because that will require many, many more 28 E.I .R. 's but we think it is important' because you will get into ZANDONCLLA RCPORTINO •CRVICC «4TI/1111M04V"A"9•000AT1A1 • SSTA CAST $TRCCT CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94120 ' •r I detailed geology grading and so forth as you do your final 2 development plans. Norm? Mr. Jeha? 3 MR. HALVERSON: Do you have any comments on that, 4 Mr. Jeha? 3 CHAIRMAN JE11A: Yes, go ahead if you have them. 6 MR. HALVERSON: Okay . Yes. A lot of this depends 7 upon how big those final development plans are too. We don 't 8 want to be doing an E.I .R. on a real tiny bit so that's some- 9 thing that we get into in the administration of the final 10 development plans . So, I think it 's a good point. We 11 probably don't want it on the entire phase and it 's going to be 12 a long time in coming but we could probably put phase and/or 13 final development plans. 14 MR. CARRALL: That would be satisfactory to us . Fine . 13 Item number ten, detailed soils and geologic studies 16 shall be performed for each phase. We feel that should read y 17 the same as the prior condition. Detailed soils and geological 18 studies shall be performed for each final development plan . 19 CHAIRMAN JEHA: And/or phase, I guess . 20 MR. CARRALL: That ' s fine with -us. I 21 CHAIRMAN JEH A: Subject to the same language then. 22 MR. CARRALL: Is that ally right with you, Norm? �3 MR. HALVERSON: Yeah. 24 MR. CARRALL: Eleven and 12 are fine. 25 Thirteen we feel should be developer is to be bound 26 by any future policy regarding off-site roads adopted by the 27 Board of Supervisors . What we're telling you here is that we 28 are not asking to be grandfathered in under any zoning that we ZANOON[LLA MCISOATINO SK"Vice • [[AiI/I[O•MOAtI/�/O•[.OIIT[ot 2274 CAST STREET CONCORD. C.0FORN1• Wao :r 68 1 would not be liable for any off-site road improvement that was, 2 necessary because if the Board adopts a policy which we feel 3 will be forthcoming we would agree by this condition to be 4 bound by it. 5 I'd like to give you a little history on that . I a 6 happen to be very active personally in our developer' s associa- 7 tion. We have gust authorized an expenditure of somewhere -- 8 we haven' t got the final figures in yet -- between 15 and 9 $30,000 to be spent for study for Contra Costa County roads and • 10 the funding of them. Now, this has nothing to do with the 11 developer; it 's being done by an independent consultant who 12 will be working with the county . We decided not to ask the 13 Board of Supervisors for this money because we do feel it is 14 an industry problem. So these are some of the things that are 15 happening and we feel a policy will be coming out on roads . 16 CRAIRMA14 JEHA: Let me ask Mr. Walford, would - 17 you comment to something like that; too broad or -- 4 I8 . MR. WALF'ORD: Yes, I believe so . I think that 19 the impact of this development is too large to trust the Board 20 of Supervisors to come up with some policy regarding it . 21 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Anderson. 22 MR. ANDERSON : When that Moraga Country Club was - 23 approved several years ago and another assessment district 24 was just approved a few weeks ago, was that after the first or 25 the second phase -- in other words, after the first and second 26 phase and before we started the third phase that particular t 27 improvement had to be on its way? 28 MR. WALFORD: It was a condition of the second phase, SANOONCLLA"tPONTIN0 •CRVICt 996VI/I18 4"GAINAND II1.00T1.• 027/aArr siwaaT CONCON0.CALIFORNIA 94930 't • I I believe, of that development that he initiate the assessment 2 district proceedings and then it was in the Board of Supervisors 3 hands to continue that proceeding .or terminate it as they saw 4 fit . His only obligation was to get it started and to vote s affirmatively for the assessment district . 6 CHAIRMAN JEHA: We have to -- we have different 7 comments from 'the vote. The E1 Cerro homeowners don't want 8 to see that road built . The Valley Planning -- the San Ramon 9 Valley Planning Committee -- let me see, I 'm getting them mixed 10 up - what are the homeowners groups did not want it? I guess 11 the E1 Cerro homeowners wanted it . That was the way it worked. 12 The -- it would seem to me that the Public Works Department 13 probably knows -- if I had to take a choice of .the' three, I 14 would pick the Public Works Department . The question is when 13 does that road get built regarding what phase it gets built on . 16 The staff is asking it be built on the first phase. The 17 question is :should it maybe• be built on a later, phase . 18 MR. CARRALL: Mr. Jeha,- we had meetings with Public 19 Works and so forth, and, as a matter of fact , planning staff 20 came out with different recommendations than I understand that 21 planning did. 22 Our first two phases comyrise, approximately 900 units . 23 I think we have it down about 927 units, whatever the number is . 24 It's very close to that . In conversations with Mr. Walford 23 that we had when Mr. Halverson was there and don't let me say 26 something that you didn't say, Mike, but you thought that the 27 capacity of that road would handle 900 units but at that time 28 you needed the road. If the condition read that Sycamore ZANDONCLLA R9PORTINO 864VIC9 99011/190 OMORVIIAMO IIII641949 BAS•CAST OTR[tT CONCORD. CA LI/ORNI• 94080 Ju 1 Valley Road, et -cetera, shall be built or. committed before 2 phase three commences, I believe we can live with it . If I . 3 could explain that to the Commission for a moment. 4 You build phase one and you build phase two. You S don't stop the project because you have to build a road. You 6 have to have a continuity in any development. So if you 7 • conditioned ens on building that road prior to phase three, it 8 would have to be built during phase two. This was part of our 9 discussions with f•1r. Walford when we had our meeting out there 10 and we would be amenable to that condition. 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right . Thank you. Any ques- 12 . tions from the Commissioners? Any questions or comments from 13 the staff? 14 MR. No, we've• discussed this at .quite t 15 some lenEth and I think take a good look at it when you're out - 16 there in the field, you know, look at what the road conditions 17 are and so forth and I think this would bear quite :ieavily on 18 what you might do with regard to that condition. 19 MR. Yeah, Mr. Jeha, I believe the last part 20 of that condition is the important part . It leaves the 21 . Director of Planning and the Public Works Director the option 22 of taking some alternate course of action if changes in our 23 way of living happen to occur. I think this is one reason why c 24 I concurred with B1r. that possibly waiting until a 25 second or third phase of development was a better way to go 26 because it' ll put us a little bit• further in time . Maybe 27 we'll begin to get some feeling to what's going to happen with 28 the gasoline situation and so forth. If everybody stops using ZANOONELLA REPORTINO SERVICE • {{Atl/I{�ArO�tr�r0 KIM t{�/ • 8814 CAST STR[CT CONCORD.CALIFORNIA TA?S , But we don't , 1 cars, we hardly need a road over that ridge. a 2 know right now what an alternative may be. Maybe we'll need 3' railroad tracks over the ridge. q CHAIR1-1AN JEHA: I have gone out and actually walked S that route from end to end and there are a couple of difficult 6 places to get the road through but all and' all I think the road 7 can be put through. It would be a twQ-lane road, be controlled g access, and I think it could be a very beautiful road if it was 9 treated and done correctly. But you can live with -- you think io that the phase three part has merit? 11 MR. I think .it does . 12 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Anderson? 13 MR. ANDERSON : Going back several months ago when we 14 had (unintelligible) but we're talking about this condition 13 in 'that agreement or statement by the local Sierra Club about 16 the buses and the transportation district and the commitment 17 t}-at was made then, cound -- I was wondering was any consider?- 18 tion given to that particular -- is there any thought regarding 19 bus transportation or anything like that which relates to this 20 particular project? 21 CHAIRMAN JEHA: As it would affect the roads and so 22 forth. t� 1 �3 MR. No, sir. We -- I mean, we did consider 24 it but we didn't consider it was going to be a viable thing, 25 something that we could afford. Possibly Blackhawk could 26 afford it but even then only on a short period of time . It 27 would be an economical thing for them to do and if they had to 28 do it, they probably would do it which is basically what the ZANOONCLLA REPORTING 9ERVIC9 C&OW190 6w0411MAMD■crcorces SSTO'CAST STRR[T CONCORD, CALIIOIINIA 94S80 ?2 1 Sierra Club said, force them to do it. t 2 MR. ANDERSON : Yeah, but it was the agreement that 3 they -- 1 forget what the exact terms were -- 4 MR. They said they would provide a bus 5 system for a certain period of time and continue to do so if 6 it would prove to be economically viable. 7MR. ANDERSON: During the busy hours, you know, as long 8 as such system is feasible after one year of operation -- 9 MR. CARRALL: Mr. Anderson, if I could interrupt for 10 a moment . As far as the bus is concerned, we have applied to 11 be included in the proposed transit district and LAFCO has 12 • accepted the boundaries for our ranch so if the transit district 13 is put in operation in the county , we will be in that transit r 14 district. 15 MR. ANDERSON : The AC Transit district? 16 MR. CARRALL: 140. This -is a -- 17 MR. A14DERSON: They' ve looked at the one t►iat they 're 18 trying to form? 19 14R. CARRALL: Yeah. In other words, we asked for 20 annexation to it so if it comes about , we will be . 21 . (Someone asks question. - unintelligible . ) 22 MR. CARRALL: Right , we've agreed to tax our property 23 for It. 24 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay . Any other comments from the 25 Commissioners? 26 MR. CARRALL: Okay . On item 14 and 15 we asked to 27 omit because of our prior one . After your discussion on 13, to 28 I would ask that 14 and 15 would remain the same with the same ZANOONELLA REPORTING •ERVIcE c2616nio sr011tr4NO ACro01sas 22f•/IA T 57"Celf CONCONO.CALJPORNIA 04920 73 1. sentence put on the end, you know, solution -- alternate 2 solutions suitable and so forth to leave some flexibility in 3 that in both 14 and 15 . That is not spelled out in my 4 conditions because I asked to omit them. 5 CHAIRMAN JEHA: In other words, gust you make it 6 clear now, you're saying that 14 and 15 you can live with. 7 You'd like the last part of the sentence on item 13 included? 8 MR. CARRALL: Right. Or an alternate solution -- 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA : Or an alternate road -- access 10 solution suitable to the Director of Planning or Public Works 11 has been approved? 12 MR. CARRALL: Right . 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA: And to both of those? . I' guess, Mr. 14 Walfo.,d, that represents no problem? 15 MR. WALFORD: That adds flexibility which is good. 16 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Let's go to the next one then. 17 MR. CARRALL: Okay. Sixteen is fine and, as a matter 18 , of fact, this has already been instituted in consultation with 19 Mr. Walford and the traffic engineer so that this is going 20 ahead right now. 21 Seventeen is fine . 22 Eighteen is fine. 23 Nineteen to us makes absolutely no sense. What that • 24 says to me -- and I may be wrong -- is that this approval 25 doesn't mean anything because you can go ahead and approve it 26 and then it has to be reviewed by the General Plan. 27 CHAIRMAN JEHA: No, I think -that the Planning Commissio 28 is going to have to make -- when we make a determination on your ZANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE 664T111C•9M641MANC 6{IONT[09 . 8214 aAST •TRECT CONCORD. CALIIOno/1A 1619 74 1 project, the qutstion of the general plan -is going to be the 2 first -- 3 MR. CARRALL: So that's out? 4 CHAIRMAN JEHA: -- business we take care of. So I 5 can't see -- personally I can't see any reason for 19 being in 6 there. I don't know how the rest of you gentlemen feel about 7* it at this point. Any comments from the rest of the 8 Commissioners? 9 MR. CARRALL: Twenty is fine.. 10 Twenty-one. In discussions with staff, we have 11 offered our present office site that I think most of the 12• Commissioners have seen. We are on approximately a six-acre 13 flat site, the creek running along one' edge of it plus the • 14 ability to expand the area cor^pletely up onto a hill and make 4 ` 15 a hillside park and so forth . We have some excellent buildings 16 there that could be utilized as a •community center and/or a 17 library. So we would suggest the following wording that you 18 have in front of you for condition 21 . 19 Prior to ' the completion of the project the developer's 20 present office site shall be dedicated as a community center 21 . with the existing building, parentheses buildings , to be used 22 'as a library facility, if it is ascertained by the county 23 librarian that a facility is necessary. 24 This far and above exceeds any of the requirements 25 that the Valley Planning Committee or anybody asked us for. 26 ' All we're asking is we will dedicate that land; we want to use 27 it as an office during development. 28 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Does the planning staff have any ZANOONCLL^REPORTING •COVICIL • 91011/196 80661awoo egpemv1aq. } uta[►/T /TR[CT CONCORD. CALIFOay1• 94q10 f 75 1 problem with that revision? ' t 2 MR, HALVERSON: Not too much except it pins it down 3 pretty tight. We'll probably be talking about this ten years 4 from now and so if we each -- S MR. CARRALL: If you don't want it, you can give it 6 back to us, Norm, 14110 HALVERSON : Pardon? 8 MR. CARRALL: If you don't want it, you can give it 9 back to us . 10 MR. HALVERSON : Right . No, I think 'it's a pretty 11 good oi'l'er but on the other hand we want to study that part . 12 CHAIRMAN JEHA : Next one, please. 13 MR. CARRALL: Okay . . Twenty-four or 22 is fine. 14 Twenty-three I said omit and see condition 29 . If you ..:,;. s 13 turn over to condition 29, I think these two conditions would 16 be combined. I' ll read your condition 23. Local parks 17 shall be dedicated and a service area formed for the development a 18 and maintenance of said parks . The location and types of 19 facilities planned for each park shall be shown on the revised 20 preliminary development plan. 21 Well, we' ve said in lieu of condition 23 and 29 -- I 22 better read 29 to you. Twenty-nine says the development 23 rights to all the open space not dedicated to the State 24 Division of Parks and Recreation shall be dedicated to the 25 county.. This shall be done with the filing of the final 26 subdivision map on each phase of the development. 27 Okay . In lieu of those two -conditions, we've written 28 this one. A service district shall be formed and all the sANOONCLLA RLPORTINO 994VIC9 CCA10I96 464011TMAM0 R00001FLO, 89744AIT STR49T CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04620 • ro I open space not dedicated to the State Division of Parks and 2 Recreation shall be dedicated to this district for development 3 and maintenance as local parks. This shall be done with the 4 filing of the final subdivision map on each phase of the 5 development. � L 6 MR. It's all right with me. I can't see 7 ' any difference in it . 8 CHAIRI.1AN JEHA: Any problem with the staff on that? 9 MR. HALVERS014: Yeah. Well, 23 what we're saying 10 is that there should be local parks developed for playground 11 purposes and there should be a park district set up to maintain 12 • those local parks probably adjacent to some school sites . 13 Twenty-gine what we're saying is that there is some -- there 's . ' 14 ,quite a bit of open space that is •g6ing to be just left 15 natural and that that should be part of a homeowners association 16 the development rights of which should be dedicated to the 17 county . Don't feel that a service district would function 18 too well in that situation . This is one thing, of course, 19 rre 'd have to review with our county administrators to see if 20 they would want -to have another special district out there 21 . just to maintain open space in this particular area. 22 MR. CARRALL: Well, this would be a recreation dis- 23 tract the way we envision it, Norm, but in our conversations 24 with you and with Tony we were talking; about the possibility 25 of this district having; other powers such as maintaining the 26 trails within the subdivision and' so forth as well as the open 27 space. 28 MR. ANDERSON : Well . apart from Mr. Halverson, .-I 'd i ZANOONCLLA RCPORTINO •CRVICC • CLST1I190/.O1TMA010 09posig As said CA•T 11499T CONCORD. CAWFONNIA •4/80 11 I comment on that, you know, at this point, just probably being e • 2 made aware of some .of these provisions, so I can understand you. 3 MR. HALVERSON : Well, things like the trails should 4 be taken over by a regional agency or maintained by somebody S of that nature not by a local entity because they connect to 6 other trails but I think we're still going• to insist that 23 7 and 29 be about the way they're written. We feel that there' s 8 a certain philosophy in the way these are written and should be 9 adhered to in the county and we' ve done this in Sycamore and 10 Greenbrook and this worked out great. 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: ' In other words , what you're saying in 12 23 is that you want the type, the location., .and what 's planned 13 for each park to come in at each particular phase, is that 14 correct? 15 MR. HALVERSON: Well, when they submit development 16 plans for the -- 17 CHAIRMAN JEHA: You want t;he parks pinned down? 18 MR. HALVERSON : Yes, that ' s right . 19 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I see. And in 29 it makes them 20 general. • 21 MR. HALVERSON: Twenty-nine, that relates to the open 22 space which is outside of the park and we want that to be -- 23 the development rights to be dedicated to the county, that' s 24 outside of the open space which was going to be dedicated to 25 the State Division of Parks and REcreation. 26 MR. CAHRALL: I didn' t really have a lot of problems 27 with that then. I just -- we were trying to make it easier, 28 really. ZANOONELLA REP64TINO6LIIVICE 490111FIC0 8640111Mao 49pea Te A• /11d CAST SYNCET CONC001O. CALIIOf1N1• 94910 76 • 1 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right. It 'seems to me that 2 You're both saying the same thing just a little different 3 way. I can't see that much difference. I read them -- I 4 read them pretty much the same except in that you're asking S for the local parks to be specified and what goes in them and 6 somebody is still going to have to form a district. 7MR. HALVERSON: Yeah, park district or service area 8 formed to maintain those. Parks really take a lot of mainte- 9 nance. 10 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, in their 29 they revised -- what 11 they - suggest, they say they would' do the same thing only what 12 they don't have is the specifics: 13 MR. HALVERS014: Yeah, all right. I think, Mr. Jeha, • 14 -what we ought to do is discuss this, because this involves a C 15 matter of county administration too and -- 16 CHAIR14AIJ JE11A: It 's all right . 17 MR. HALVERSON: (unintelligible) -- plannea units 18 we didn' t want to get into special service area and special 19 districts for the maintenance of open space to the benefit of •20 local -- 21 CHAIRMAN JEHA: You pretty much •want to stick with 23 . 22 as you've got it . �3 MR. HALVERS014 : Yes, right. 24 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right. 23 MR. CARRALL: Twenty-four, we would agree with every- 26 thing except we're not going to -- we don't want to develop 27 the trails. We would be more than glad and we've always said 28 this to all of the interested agencies that we will dedicate to SANOON[LLA REPONTINO 8E4VIC9 999T11110 S-06TWAND 8[0001[40 8214 CAST {TRIECT 79 • 1 the appropriate public agencies -- dedicate, not develop. 2 MR. COMPAGLIA: That's what it says. You want to 3 change the wording -- 4 MR. CARRALL: Ours says dedicate, Mr. Compaglia, but 5 theirs said develop and dedicate . 6 MR. COMPAGLIA: Well, Norm, didn't you say that the 7 public agency would have to take care of the improvements? s MR. IIALVERSO14: Yeah, improve -- improve -- I mean 9 maintain trails . What he ' s talking about is improving those 10 trails before they're turned over to a public agency and I 11 don't think there 's going to be that much improvement there . 12 MR. CARRALL: But it's certainly not specific and we 13 wouldn' t want to leave ourselves open for it . • 14 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Pardon me? 15 MR. CARRALL: It 's not that specific what the improve- 16 ments would be and we certainly wouldn' t want to leave ourselves 17 open .to it . We would agree to dedicate the land, however. is CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay. Let 's go to the next one. 19 MR. CARRALL: Twenty-five, 26, 27 are fine . 20 I 'd like to comment on 28 . We 'are. presently in 21 negotiations with the State Division of Parks and Recreation 22 for the dedication of approximately 25, 2700 acres. We 've �3 always talked beforehand about a thousand acres . Well, after 24 -much soul-searching and regardless of the effects of the agree- �5 ment that was worked out with the local chapter of the Sierra 26 Club, it did have an effect on us. . The people who worked on 27 that were extremely dedicated, did a •good fob, and regardless 28 of what the other groups of the Sierra Club did, we feel that we ZANDONELLA REPORTING •ERVICE 99Mr101190 9"ORT"A"D 490e4.ans ' a1�ts'c�sr stwcEr uu I do have an obligation to continue on with .what we said we'd 2 do as far as that dedication is concerned. 3 Our original offer to the county was to dedicate 4 approximately a thousand acres to Mt . Diablo State Park for S which we asked credit for our in-lieu park dedication -- excuse 6 me -- credit for our in-lieu park dedication fees . The 7 . Planning Director has told us this cannot be done because of 8 conflicts of ordinance . In other words, what they 're saying 9 is they want us to give away -- now the conditions read to give 10 all land away and receive absolutely_ no credit for it . That 's 11 financially impossible for anybody to give almost $3 million 12 . at cost worth of land away . 13 So, we are negotiating with the State of California r • 14 right now on the possibility of dedicating this land to the 15 State Park -- not only the thousand acres that we previously 16 offered, but the entire portion. . The boundary will be esta- 17 blished at some future date in conjunction with the Planning 18 Director and the Director of Parks and we want this subject to 19 a lease agreement. Our original marketing concept was that 20 this would be a private preserve for the benefit of the people 21 that live at Blackhawk; they can hike, and they can camp, and 22 they can do all these things out there. 23 Well, doesn' t look like we 're going to be able to do 24 that perpetuity. The land, primarily because of the work of 25 the local Sierra Club people have done, we feel should go to 26 the parks. 27 So, we're suggesting the following condition -in lieu 28 of 26 which the staff has . Developer shall dedicate to the ZANOONELLA MCPOATINO 81cmvIC[ • 4811TI►I90 9II04INAMO •[0041{as 2814 CAST •T111tCV CONCORD. CAl1IOQNIA 6120 I State Department of Parks and Recreation the area generally. - : 2 located between Mt. Diablo State Park and the boundary of the 3 area to be developed subject to the developer being able to 4 negotiate a lease from the State Department of Parks and S Recreation. If the developer is unable to consummate such 6 an agreement with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, 7 they will dedicate the development rights on this property to 8 Contra Costa County with the filing of the final development 9 plans on each area. 10 What we 're saying there, gentlemen, is, what we said 11 all along. We're never going to build on that land. We will 12 dedicate it to the park if we can have the. use of it for a 13 period of years. We are in •negotiations' now. However, if 14 we're unable to complete those negotiations with the state, 15 regardless of that, we will dedicate the development rights to 16 the county. I personally think that 's more than a fair 17 s'tuation. 18 MR. COMPAGLIA: Is there a maximum or a minimum you 19 were going to indicate here? 20 MR. CARRALL: Mr. Compaglia, the problem is on defining 21 and will have to be done on a metes and bounds boundary and 22 we don 't want to gust take it around the development area. �3 The state doesn' t want it ; they want some straight lines and 24 it's a matter of description primarily. 25 MR. COPIPAGLIA: But it will be in the area of what? 26 MR. CARRALL: About 2700 acres, 25 to 2700 acres . 27 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, it seems reasonable to me. 28 Any of you gentlemen have any commVnts? Mr. Hildebrand. RANOONELLA REPORTING 13COVICC C10111196 01460104"a 000C111C00 0171.a"T "ager• CONCONO. CALIFORNIA 04920 82 I MR. HILbEDRAND: I just had a question. In essence 2 what You're saying is that If you can't work out a lease with 3 the State Department of Parks, then you want to dedicate the 4 development rights to Contra Costa County? 5 MR. CARRALL: Right. 6 MR. HILDEBRAND: Which would mean that you would still 7 have the use' of it , 8 MR. CARRALL: Correct . 9 AIR. HILDEBRAND: As far as the residents, and I think 10 that would be the difference? 11 MR. CARRALL: Right . Yeah . We want the use of it 12 * for the residents for a period of years, Mr. Hildebrand. 13 However, we are willing to give it to the state for the parks 14 so they'll have it in perpetuity if* we can work out a lease 15 for that period of years and that 's part of the negotiations 16 we ' re going through right now . Regardless, there can be no 17 building up there . 18 CHAIRMA14 JEHA: Okay . So we 'll go onto the next one . 19 MR* Can I Just Interrupt? You know, 20 there's something that 's a little vague in here . We make 21 - mention of development rights but there 's no definition of what . 22 'we mean. Do we mean developmentrightsas we obtained in 23 Orinda Woods and Sycamore and Greenbrook or do we mean more or 24 less? . I don't know that, Norm, looking at this . What rights 25 does a landowner retain to use the property? Is that going *to 26 be spelled out in some later document or what? 27 MR. HALVERSON: Yeah, right .* It will be covered with 28 convenants and restrictions. We say development rights to all ZANDONCLLA MCP011TING 8901VIC9 Wt CAST $TX99T ce"CON0.C.Loromodia $date U3 1 the open space. ' l 2 MR. Yeah, but development rights can mean 3 a lot of things. Are we going to tie that down to the develop- 4 ment rights similar to Orinda Woods and Sycamore or Greenbrook S MR. HALVERSON: We'll come back to you when the final 6 subdivision map comes in and let you tie it down. 7MR. Well, we should tie it down at some 8 point. We may have confusion as to uses tolerated otherwise . 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah, it' s a• Eood point. 10 MR. CARHALL: Twenty-nine we've already discussed. 11 Thirty we feel very strongly about this . You have on 12 ' the record a letter from the school -- the School Department 13 of San Ramon Valley School District stating that we have met 1 14 the criteria they have asked for. ' We' ve agreed to all their 15 conditions . We believe that the county staff by putting a „n•x-, 16 condition on us on schools is usurping the school district' s 17 area of responsibility . We feel very strongly thai that 18 condition should be omitted. 19 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, I -- Mr. Anderson, go ahead. 20 MR. ANDERSON : No , go ahead . 21 - CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah, you' know on that school 22 'district policy has a lot of waivers in it and actually one of 23 the things that it does have as a policy is providing a site 24 for classrooms to accommodate the estimated enrollment from 25 the development. So, in leasing to the district at a cost 26 of $1 per year such facilities as' may be necessary to accommodate 27 the students from the development but then they also have 28 waivers from these requirements in their policy so, you know, ZANOON9LLA REPORTING SERVICE 9961Ir190 961941■AMO 09.04.989 SSTA LAST STRULT COMCOna. CALIFOA.IIA $#Sao 04 1 the Board does not adopt this policy, the Board of Supervisors . 2 If the district changes their policy, really we have nothing. 3 to go on with regard to providing schools in this area other 4 than that the school would purchase the sites themselves. s MR. CAHRALL: Mr. Jeha, we have agreed to abide by 6 that policy regardless of adoption of an ordinance by the 7' Board of Supervisors of the county . Mr. Halverson's comments 8 about that they call for, you know, a dollar a year, we have 9 to build a school, and all this type of thing, we know what's 10 in that policy or we wouldn't have agreed to it. However, 11 I think it's up to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District 12. to tell us what they want and when they want it and not up to 13 the county planning staff. And that was one of the things 1 ' 14 the Valley Planning Committee asked- for also. 15 MR. AN DERSON : Well, the economics or one of the reports 16 tor. Halverson made or the staff made suggested that the whole 17 project would be the two grammar sehonls and one ju-iior high. 18 What is your comment on that? 19 MR. CARRALL: In consultation with the school 20 district officials, they have determined that our project will 21 , generate students for three elementary schools, about two- 22 ' -thirds of a intermediate school, and I think 40 percent or 23 something of a high school. I don't have those exact numbers . 24 The three elementary schools they want located on the site . 25 However, in their master facilities plan they don't call for 26 high school or an intermediate school on site. They would 27 prefer to have it located off site because it could serve 26 other areas more advantageously down along Tassajara Valley or ZANOONCLLA RCPOIRTINO 891MCC • tgrinte•seerM�we•trcRrt�• said CAST OTRCCT CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 96080 05 •r 1 so forth. So they requested that we reserve three school 2 sites which we have done on our plan. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Any other Commissioners have any 4 comments on it? 5 MR. The -- I .have a comment on the 6 last sentence. I don't believe the last sentence should be 7 in there. Question of them providing school sites and 8 temporary starter schools doesn' t -bother me but I think the 9 last part should be deleted. - 10 CHAIRMAN JEHA: On the -- 11 MR. The last sentence, yeah. I don't 12 think -- I 'm using the staff report. 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA : On 30? 14 MR. On 30 . The availability of 15 school housing shall be a consideration in determining whether 16 subsequent phases of the project shall be approved if each 17 phase is reviewed for approval. We 're getting into phases 18 , of planning and situations where possibily no schools are ever 19 built. We're back to the same question that Bill brought 20 up last time on the Arliss -- last week on the Arliss applica- 21 tion in El Sobrante that most cases things aren 't built in 22 advance, they 're built as a result of, and I don't feel that 23 that sentence should be in there. Those are my comments . 24 MR. I think I feel the same way, 25 Mr. Jeha. I think this could probably be rewritten, Norm, 26 to accommodate your -- the thinking of the staff and yet leave 27 the decision up to the school as to whether they need that or 28 not. We're taking over the duties not merely of determining ZANDONCLLA RMPORTINO •CRVICC 49RI 90•«**Tw.wo s PcRTa.9 . said CAST 1T"9CT CONGOq A.C�L �p11NA •!1/0 86 1 whether there should be a school .building •there or not. I' 2 think that should be the responsibility of the schools to tell 3 us -- so I think the condition probably should be rewritten to q accommodate that line of thinking instead of -- 5 MR. HALVERSON : Well, of course, it's going to come 6 back to you on every E.I .R. that 's written on this subsequently , 7 anyway, so this will be something you' ll have to consider with g the review of each phase of the project . R' 9 MR. Why can't you just add in there to shall be a consideration or- the San' Ramon School Board in 11 determining whether subsequent phases of the project shall 12 be approved. 13 MR. Well, I would object to that 14 because I feel that the process is a -- the planning process 15 as a law now says that it goes with the Planning Commission 16 and to the Board of Supervisors . Now, you might get a 17 school district -- we have many school districts in this is county -- you might get a school to decide that they don't want 19 to build anymore schools and then there 's another aspect -of 20 this whole situation that we 're going through in this country 21 is, you know, they're worried about the lizards and the bees 22 and the birds, but no one seems to be caring about the people �3 and I feel that I've a strong feeling that homes have to be 24 built;somewhere down the line you're going to have to house 25 people.• So I think that until the laws are changed, the i 26 school boards are not the ones to make that determination. 27 It's the Planning Commission advising• the Hoard of Supervisors 2a and I feel it should stay that way•. Now, if they change ZANOONELLA RiP►ORTING •LRV1Ct • 98411/190 90*21 4100 44V041688 Said-g AS*STOCt♦ OOMeown P&11&ne6d/4 ��.e 87 i1 things, then we're going to have to change our ways but until 2 they do that I think that that sentence is -- I don't think it 3 should be in there. 4 MR. HALVERSON: We'll review it. We know how you 5 feel about it . �. 6 MR. CARRALL: May I make one comment, Mr. Jeha? In 7 � good faith wb entered into an agreement with the San Ramon 9 Valley Unified School District. So when you review that 9 condition, Mr. Halverson, I 'd appreciate it if you made it an 10 either-or situation meaning either we' do what ,you say or we 11 abide by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District policy 12 • because, as I say, we have entered in good faith with them 1 13 and I -don't want to get any problems there . • ! 14 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right .' Let 's go to the -next one. C 15 MR. CARRALL: The next one is very easy. You didn' t 16 need the first 31 because 32 says -it all . But we only had 17 two comments. You should pluralize :;hen the final development 18 plans are submitted and the last word should be pluralized. 19 CHAI R14AN JEIIA: Okay. 20 MR. CARRALL: Are there any other questions? 21 - CHAIRMAN JEHA: Any questions , gentlemen? 22 MR. COMPAGLIA: Well, there 's some --• 23 MR. ANDERSON : Excuse me . 24 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Anderson has a question. Mr. 25 Compaglia, you spoke up first. 26 MR. COMPAGLIA: Well, there were some recommendations 27 by the San Ramon Planning Committee. . 29 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Did you want to speak to those? ZANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE • scotnuo sMo�T.�ro•c�o�u�• sits[AST IlTR[[T - CONCORD. CAtArowN,• *'a+rn I MR. COMPAGLIA: Yes. I think it would be -- r 2 MR. CARRALL: I feel that item number one on their' 3 requested conditions is answered by •condition number eight which 4 gives the Planning Director the• flexibility through design S and so forth to bring the -units down -- you can bring them down 6 to 3,000 units . The actual count, if the count were taken 7 on the units by the densities proposed in condition number 8 eight, shows 4,070 -- what was it, 4 ,073, Norm? So, we're 9 right there with them. I believe number eight answers that . 10 Condition number two that they put in is answered by 11 number four and I think I explained that by the 100 foot 12 average lot width rather than the 85 foot lot width. 13 Their request to eliminate cluster J , they really didn' t 14 want cluster J eliminated; what they wanted is the density 15 reduced. Again, that's answered- by number eight because the 16 Planning Director has that flexibility . 17 No building shall be -- their condition number four, 18 no building shall be accomplished on slopes greater than 20 19 percent grade . We're not going to do that . Some of the lots 20 will be on grades better than 20 percent but there will be 21 no building. So -- and, as a matter of fact , it's really not 22 feasible to do it but we may run a lot on up into a hill to �3 give some space so that 's done . 24 An assessment district should be formed. I don't 25 believe that it would be the -- I don't want to speak for any 26 commission or board, but I don't think anybody is going to 27 tell anybody how to finance something. And what they're 28, doing is telling you how to finance something and I think if ZANOONCLLA RCPCRTIN0 BENVICC 99411110111)AMOAl11AM0 O&VORT(A, 1111 CAST OTRECT CONCOAO. CALIFORNIA 04920 LO:V 1 they would look -at conditions 13 and so forth as far as roads 2 are concerned, they will see that those roads have to be built 3 before we can proceed. So, obviously, it puts the onus- on 4 us to get those roads built but as far as telling anybody how 5 to finance anything, I don't think that 's -- excuse me . 6 MR. ANDERSON: You're thinking now that if an assess- 74 ment district is formed that somehow the area affected .might 8 be taxed but you were thinking maybe you would finance these 9 road improvements? 10 MR. CARRALL: Yeah. In other words, I don 't want to 11 have to be locked into any specific financing arrangement 12 • which I don' t think was their intent. They gust -- they want 13 the roads built -- 14 MR. ANDERSON : • They don 't want it included in the 15 assessment? 16 MR. CARRALL: Right. Sq that' s not -- we've - 17 discussed 13. I don't really know what to -- anymire to say 18 about that. That 's their condition number six. 19 Number seven. That' s answered by condition number 20 two of the staff; there will be definite phasing and it will • 21 . be provided with the revised preliminary development plan. 22 -That 's condition number two of the staff's . 23 You had some comments earlier on their condition eight 24 and it was made by Mrs . Ward regarding she felt we weren't 25 operating in good faith. Well, we've been operating in good 26 faith for the last three months and we 're in negotiations with 27 their attorneys right now. What this is speaking to is the 28 people along Blackhawk Road are concerned that the wells might ZANDONELLA REPORTING BERVICE C9111.110•wo41Twlfto 410CA11416 8274 EAST STMECT CONCOND. CALWONN16 94920 I run dry or their septic tanks, you know, might -- the leach r 2 fields might get flooded and they couldn't use them and so 3 forth. And we really appreciate their problem and we've been 4 working very, very hard and you' get into a complete morass of 5 legality and so forth trying to figure out where the burden of 6 proof comes and who's to be responsible . - We have told them 7 any damage we cause to them, we'll take care of and now we 're 8 trying to legalize it. Mr. Anderson's an attorney and could 9 probably just say for the few things I said. He knows that's 10 a difficult agreement to come to but we are working on it. it We have our counsel and their counsel in contact and so that 12 will be answered. 13 Number nine goes back to what I just said that I think 14 your condition number 30 should be omitted and we go along with 15 the San Ramon Valley School District . 16 Number ten I really don't understand because I think 17 that was stated in the conditions . - u 18 r�R• We won' t accept -- substitute A . 19 single family in that -- 20 MR. CARRALL: Oh, rather than residential lots? • 21 That's fine now if you want to change your condition to read 22 that way. �3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, I think it should be left up to 24 the Planning -- at the time we go through that, the specific 25 of that, the plan might lend itself to a different type of 26 residential development than single family. I think that 27 ought to be left up to the Planning -Director. 28 MR. Yeah, that certainly can read -- ;ANDONEL.LA REPORTING SERVICE C9411F/90 SHORTHAND AL.COT[A! 5214 CAST STIICCT CONCORD CA LI/OMNIA 11611)S 91 1 tf. CARRALL: Your ten or their ten? 2 MR. Their ten. 3 MR. CARRALL: Amend the planning staff's condition 4 number 11 to read eliminate the seven and a half acre commercial 5 area and substitute residential lots. And they say to 6 eliminate the seven and .a half acre commercial area from the 7 easterly portion of the property =- that's the substitution -- 8 and substitute residential lot . They want you to substitute 9 single-family detached dwellings. It 's semantics. That 10 means the same thing. Yeah, it' s no problem. 11 Okay . The other conditions they had, Mr. Compaglia, 12 were they wanted us to get credit at full market value for 13 dedication fees and we would agree with that . However, I 14 think we 've answered that primarily with our offer to the 15 State Park. It's more than what they 're asking for. 16 Their condition 12, substitute the following condition 17 for your 2'1 . That was sufficient land for library facilities . 18 They didn' t want that at the discretion of the librarian if 19 it was needed; they want it to be fixed . We have made that 20 offer to make a final dedication. 1 21 So, I think we have answered all of their conditions . 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Anddrson. 23 MR. ANDERSON : Going back to number eight , do you think 24 you are pretty close to agreement with those things? 23 MR. CARRALL: Oh, yeah, yeah, we•'re going to work it 26 out. '27 MR. ANDERSON: I'd like -to ask on regards to the 28 buffer zone. Will your project- and the land that 's dedicated, ZANDONCLLA REPORTING •COVICC C441101190•N041nAwo 290047949 8874 C&ST •1RCIT CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 946x0 92 1 should that -- .is this the proper time to ' spell out a distance 2 between the project or the project and land dedicated? 3 MR. CARRALL: Mr. Anderson, are you speaking about 4 the things that we've discussed previously about not allowing 5 any development to occur from our development into the State 6 Park? 7 We felt that would be covered in the condition we 8 wrote up as far as the lease . That would be part of the lease 9 and our deeding to the state . In other words, we would 10 restrict the deed from any development within 'a thousand feet. 11 Our idea from that is if you owned a lot on the perimeter of 12 our project, you don' t want the state to build a Rock City in 13 your backyard; you want some -space behind it . So, we would 14 restrict our deed to the state or when we had the development 15 rights .given up. 16 MR. ANDERSON: Could I ask another question? On the- 17 11, agreement with the Sierra Club you had a situation where yc:u 18 agreed -- and I don' t know whether this is the right time to 19 bring this up -- where they would serve on the architectural 20 review committee in this project. Now, whether that comes 21 on down the line or not I don't know, but they would have a -- 22 there would be a three-man committee I think and that Sierra �3 Club you gave them one seat or one vote -- 24 MR. CARRALL: Yeah, I don't -- if you',re asking if 25 I' d go -along with that. 26 MR. A14DERSON: Substituting that -- maybe it was the 27 San Ramon Valley Planning Committee in there, as was done in 28 the Orinda Woods situation. I think they had a seat actually ZANDONELLA REPORTING •ERVICE EE8t1VIE0 00404TM.MC•C1ONTEN• 312t4.EAST •TRECT CONCORD•01LIIORNIA 04*20 93 • 1 given to several people but they still agreed.or whatever it t � 2 is on that homeowners group that's given only one vote out 3 of the three on the architectural review committee. 4 MR. CARRALL: Well, we don' t know whether they have s a three or five-man committee. The statement made by one ' 6 of the representatives of the Sierra Club was they did not 7 want control of that committee; they ,lust wanted to be advisors 8 to it. 9 MR. ANDERSON : No, I understand that . But that 10 not -- that is true, they don't want to control it but -- 11 maybe from the San Ramon Valley Planning group they have only 12 one person sitting on that architectural review committee . 13 It might be appropriate -- • 14 MR. CARRALL: I think we 'll certainly take it into 15 consideration but I 'd like to discuss it with the chairman 16 and so forth before we said yes or no. I dust, you know -- 17 MR. ANDERSON : Well, I don't know. Is it necessary l8 to put that condition in on down the line here . In a few 19 weeks -- 20 CHAIR MAM JEHA: I don't think so. You know, the -- 21 I imagine they' re going to have -- in your development you' re 22 going to have an architectural review committee that' s made �3 of all homeowners and your own organization -- 24 MR. CARRALL: It would primarily be our organization 23 and the. reason for this what will make this development 26 successful from a marketing standpoint is if it's a good 27 looking development and we don't want any pink stucco palaces 28, and I hope we don't -- ZANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE ceall"[o 6MOo1M•+o•to�rc� 2114•EAST STOccT CONCO"O. CALIFORNIA • �,0 94 } i 1 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Are you going to have, Mr. Carrallf 2 some type of document that's going to go with all the deeds, 3 the lots, spelling this out? 4 MR. CARRALL: Yes, there will be -- 5 CHAIRMAN JE11A: Supplying a copy of that to the staff 6 and then they can -- 7 MR. CARRALL: That will be required with the final 8 development plans, all the documentation. 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, you don't have anything now? 10 MR. CARRALL: No. . 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Would you object to having someone 12 from the community act as advisory -- in an, advisory capacity 13 to you? 14 MR. CARRALL: No, I don't think so. I would -- no, 15 I really wouldn't object. I 'd rather get a local homeowner 16 after we get going. Six years from now, Mr. Jeha, maybe I 'd 17 rather have representation from the development rather than 18 outside. 19 CHAIRMAN JE11A: Well , maybe -- I don 't think at .this 20 point what you're considering at this point and we don't know 21 what's going to really happen finally so it' s noted and the 22 developer seems to have no objection to that and maybe some- �3 thing can be worked out. 24 All right . Any other Commissioners have any questions? 25 All right. This concludes your rebuttal and your 26 comments on the -- 27 MH. CARRALL: Yes . Thank you. 28' CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right, Now, we have a question SANOONCLLA RC�ORTINO •CAVIL[ [M11/1[•1MOAh14110 1[10A1[61 •tt11[A{T STRILCT CONCOAO. CALIFORNIA "Sao 95 ,• 1 before us now. We announced that we were going to hopefully 2 close the hearing tonight -- yeah, it's not quite tomorrow -- 3 and continue it -- I mean, close it and render a decision 4 after a field trip and a study session on the 28th of May . S Now, Mrs. Moody brought a point up about not closing the 6 meeting, the hearing, until the comments have been received 7* from the Planning Staff -- MR. On the Environmental Impact -- 9 CHAIRI•IA14 JEHA: -- on the Environmental Impact standing 10 Vic, do you have any comments on that? 11 MR. Well, I think it's always been as far 12• as my memory serves is correct . . I think it' s always been the 13 practice to leave the hearing open until you had received 14 comments from the staff on the E.I .R. hearing or pending 15 matters and I would recommend you do that here and leave the 16 hearing open principally to receive comments on. the E.I .R. 17 from the staff 'so that you have the wriole matter be�ore you at 18 the time you close the hearing. 19 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right . When are the field 20 trips scheduled? ' '21 . MR. You're going to have to change. 22 'There's going to be some problem with the field trip for it 23 was this Friday? 24 MR. Yeah. 25 MR. So, what about next -- the following 26 week? 27 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Which would -be the 24th? 28 MR. Yeah. 24th, all right. What about ZANOONCLLA RCPORTINO •Lgvice C9411n.O 0404i...O.9rORr4916 1171 CAST STA[tT CONCORD.CALIFORNIA 441116 I Thursday? Would you be agreeable to meeting on the 23rd and 2 going out -- r' 3 MR. Let's do it on a Friday. 4 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Anybody going away for the weekend? • S MR. Yes. 6 CHAIRMAN JEHA: You're leaving Friday, 76 MR. It's Memorial Day weekend. 8 MR. Well, I dust wanted to bring that up. ' 9 1 Just wanted to have it on a Friday. 10 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, they can' t have, everybody here 11 on a Friday. 12, (Voices in background - unintelligible.) 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I guess there!s a lot of people who 14 are 'going to celebrate Memorial Day. 13 MR. It doesn't make any difference to me. 16 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, then, we 'll make the field trip 17 on the 23rd. Well, if the commi•ssJoner can't made it, we 18 can make arrangements 'to have a special field trip, you know, 19 if you can't make it on that date . I'm sure, Just like 20 Mr. Halverson now and -- 21 MR. Mr. Chairman, is ,this in lieu of the 22 17th? 23 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes . This is in lieu of the 17th. 24 MR. Why is there a problem on the l7th? 25 MR. Well, I think some of the Commissioners 26 are going to be gone on the 17th, that's what I understood, and - 27 MR. Well, Let 's take a poll and see. 20 MR. Plus- that -- ZANDONCLLA R9P0aT1"Q •e*vICC t4�nruo a�a��w�ro�trallTt�� • 2214 CAST STNCCT CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 04020 97. I CHAIRMAN JEHA: Is anyone -- . 2 MR. CARRALL: Mr. Jeha, may I interrupt? That 3 request came from us, Mr. Halverson, to Mr. Dehaesus . The •4 reason being we prepared a topographical model that has all S the houses on it and so forth and it won't be ready until i 6 Tuesday of next week. That was the reason we requested to 7 have the field trip put off. 8 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah, I was aware of that . I thought 9 the rest of the Commissioners were the informed. The idea 10 was that the map -- the model will show a little more graphical) 11 how the houses will sit on it. 12 Mr. Hildebrand. 13 MR. HILDEBRAND: flow big is your topographical model? 14 MR. CARRALL: Eight feet by eight feet . 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: Is it something that you could "S .16 transport here? 17 MR. CARRALL: No . Oh, anything can be done, Dick. 18 Anything can be done, you know . • 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: I was going to suggest we can still. 20 have the field trip on this Friday and at the study session 21 we can have some models we can review and -- 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, does anyone really object to 23 the 23rd? 24 (Voices in background say "No.") 25 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Is it all right with you, Dick? 26 MR. HILDEBRAND: That'*3 all right. : 27 CHAIRMAN JEHAWell, it doesn't make any difference 28 if we do it on the 17th or the 23rd. That's a Thursday . ZANOONCLL+4 RMOORTINO SiCIMCC C661601io SMOATM,Mo OtPORTcts !i1•tA/T STRES1 V0 1 (Discussion in background - unintelligible.) 2 MR. Well, you're not going to be around? Will 3 you be back on the -- oh, that week you're going to be in 4 Washington. Okay, you can make a special trip. 5 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay. The 23rd will be the field f ' 6 trip. Study sessions on the 21st and -- 7 (Discussion in background unintelligible. ) 8 MR. I don't, know. The logical thing 9 to me would seem In order to get more -out of the study session 10 would be to go back and have a field trip prior to the dis- 11 cussion, the study session. That was one of the reasons we 12 wanted the field trig or we scheduled it at that time. 13 So, if -- (unintelligible) ' 14 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right. We've all been out there 15 once so I think that the -- as far as I 'm concerned, the model 16 will help me because it's a graphic visual representation of 17 what ' s going to go on there . They don't have the model before 18 that day and there 's no way we can look it . It seems to be 19 square and would be pretty hard to lug it in here . I think 20 that the bulk of our study session is going to be devoted to 21 the general plan question and the question of conditions so 22 that when we go out on the field trip we're dust going to get 23 another look at this thing and hopefully we'll have some idea 24 how these houses are going to sit on it. That's assuming 25 that the project as they can see of it, IT it goes through, Y6 will end up that way by the time the final development plans 27 are done on it. I imagine they will be quite similar. 28 All right. Now -- Mr. Young. ZANOONCLLA RCPCNTINO •CNVICC • �L At1I1(O ONOO\MONO 11[ 0•\LOO #Aid CAST {xR[CT CONCORD, CALIRORivA *dose 99 MR. YOUNG: Well, the procedure on the 28th then do r , 2 I understand the public will not have any opportunity to 3 comment on the staff's comments on the conditions? We will 4 merely receive those conditions, they will be presented publicly 5 We at that time will close the hearing without further public 6 comment. 7 CHAIRMAN JEHA: That's how I see it, Mr. Young. g MR. YOUNG: This is my understanding. I wanted to 9 make sure this was the right procedure . 10 MR. That's what you propose to do: 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes . 12 MR. You, of course, are free on the 28th 13 to do whatever you want to but you're announcing your intention i4 that that's what you believe you're going to. do on -- 15 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah. There's no question in my 16 mind that there's been enough testimony on this application 17 and we really don't require anymore . Now, our counsel advises 18 us that we shouldn't close the hearing until we get the 19 comments from our staff .on the E.I .R. and that 's what we ' ll 20 do . But we will not ,have any comments from the audience 21 either -- 22 (Woman- in back of room a6'ks question - unintelligible. ) 23 CIIAIRMAN JEHA: No. 24 (Woman asks further question -iunintelligible .) 25 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I'm sorry but that' s the way it'll be . 26 Now, . the -- it will be a continued public hearing. We will I 27 not take anymore comments from the audience. We'll take 28 comments only from our staff. We'll have that night.. If we ZANOONELLA REPORTING •ERVICC 6901F11190 NMYAIMAIIC•L'OO1LRO • 2271 CAST stQ[tT — CONCORD.CALIPO"041A •!Ilse 100 1 decide to make a decision that night, we'll have three things '1 2 before us, as I see it. Number one will be the question of 3 the general plan and this project's conformance with the 4 general plan. Number two is to the adequacy of the E .I .R. 5 And number three would be the project itself. Those are the 6 three courses of action that I envision we're going to have to 7 • take on this project. Hopefully,, we can take it on the 28th. 8 You gentlemen have any other comments or any of you 9 in disagreement with this procedure? 10 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I think we should 11 answer the young lady who objected from the floor and point out 12 . that after we hear the rebuttal from the applicant that we 13 do not ordinarily open up the hearing again because this would 14 be a matter then of opening and hearing new testimony , rebutting 15 then opening again. As a practical matter, you someplace 16 have to close the hearing. 17 MRS . Has the rebuttal ended? 18 CIIAIR14AN JEHA: There isn't any rebuttal -- 19 (Woman in background asks questions - unintelligible .) 20 CHAIRMAN JE11A: Nobody can talk. In other words, 21 in terms of proponents or opponents, the. hearing is closed. 22 .The only -- the hearing is not open to debate, but the only 23 thing that we're going to take and why we 're not closing it 24 is we're going to take comments from our staff regarding the 25 E.I .R. but traditionally our hearings stop when the opponents -- 26 when the applicant makes his rebuttal and Mr. Young explained 27 it that we don't close it and we let .one group talk, then we 28 have to have the other group make their rebuttal and this ZANOONCLLA RCPORTINO •CRVICC ��11 i��t �T11ttT CONCORD CALIF OMNI• �Ip• I thing becomes never-endin6. 2 MRS. MOODY: Mr. IJeha, I'd like tb point out. that that 3 is inconsistent with your own regulations. 4 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, Mr. -- Mr,s . Moody, we have a 3 very competent, in our opinion, legal counsel and his ,job is 6 to advise us and if you find that he's advised us incorrectly, 7 then I think you should take it up with him. 8 MRS.• MOODY: Can I get a clarification from him 9 whether his advice is consistent with your decision? 10MR. YOUNG: I believe my* advice is consistent with 11 the state guidelines on. the E.I.R. 's . 12 MRS. MOODY: Is it consistent with the decision that 13 has been made about closing the hearing before the public has 14 a chance to comment on the 28th? 15 MR. YOUNG : Well , comment on what? The public had 16 an opportunity to testify on the draft E.I .R. That hearing 17 was closed. The staff is simply preparing its reply to those 18 comments so that the Commission will have a complete final 19 E.I .R. before it when it deliberates on the 28th on the zoning 20 matter. 21 MRS . MOODY : I agree with you about that. The hearing 22 on the E.I .R. should be appropriately considered closed but 23 the hearing on the project it seems to me should remain open 24 because really. if you don'•t have the information that is coming 23 forth in the responses to those E.I.R. questions, then the 26 public hearing process is a sham. The regulations -- the 27 regulations provide the final E .I .R.. will be considered by the 28 Planning Commission at public hearing. Now, I don't know how IANOONCLLA REPORTING 8ERVICC CCSWICO shootK.1.0•CICI. 9411 :314 EAST 117099T CONCORD* CALIFORNIA 94520 Aug . r . 1 else you could interpret that. 2 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, Mrs. Moody, you know some of 3 these -- there's so much variance in how you interpret things. 4 We are fortunate to have a county counsel' s office provide us 5 that service and I don't think that we can sit here in an 6 open meeting and start discussing questions of law because 7 God knows the lawyers in Washington can't always come to, you 8 know, adequate conclusions. 9 MR. S �� ►J'. Let's not talk about the lawyers in 10 Washington today. 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah. So -- 12 MRS . MOODY : • Well, it's fine, Mr. Jeha, I 've made my -- 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Somehow it seems appropriate so the 14 thing is that this Commission is -- gets legal advice from a 15 man that 's delegated to give us that advice, Mr. .Westman, and 16 we are taking his advice. If he tells us that the actions 17 we're taking; is property, then I have to go on that . If you 18 feel that it 's improper, you know what recourses you have . 19 MRS. MOODY : Yes, I 've made my comment for the record . 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay . 22 MR. Just. to make it clear, Mr. Jeha, 23 I don't believe the Sequa or the California state guidelines 24 require that you hold the 'hearing on the staff's response . 25 The comments received at the public hearing and the E.I .R. -- 26 MR. Mr. Chairman, I have a comment 27 about one of the conditions -- 28 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, we're all through -- sir, we're ZANOONCLLA MCPORTIN43 •CRVICC 96411rICs 60464Tw6110 •tVaNTaas Bald CAST$TIICCT CONCORD.CALIFORN1A 96480 • 103 1 all through with the hearing and, I'm sorry we woh't take any. 2 more testimony. 3 (Voice in background - unintelligible. ) 4 CHAIRMAN JENA: Well, is there a motion to -- let's 3 see -- is there any other thing to come before the Commission? 6 (Discussion in background - unintelligible . ) 7 CHAIRMAN JENA: Well, I asked -- Mr. Carrall said he 8 had some people here who wanted to speak for. I said they 9 can speak only for the project in rebuttal but we didn't want 10 any new evidence brought up by the applicant because he already 11 had his• turn in presenting his project . We then -- he then 12 said that he would handle the rebuttal himself and didn't 13 call any other people. Now, 'just to have somebody come up 14 and extol the virtues of his project was done when the appli- 13 cants had the chance to present theirs. NOw, we let the 16 opposition finish their testimony -- 17 (Woman in back of room asks question - unintelligible . ) 18 CHAIRMAN JENA: Well, ma'am, we -- it was -- this has 19 all been announced and we ,just can't continue on a discussion 20 like this . Now, it is getting late. There are no adoptions, 21 no findings to adopt . Are there any staff reports? 22 (Voices in background - unintelligible. ) �3 CHAIR14AN JENA: Oh, excuse me . Somebody make the 24 motion please. 23 MR. L-k� Well, Mr. Jeh•a, I'd like to 26 suggest gust so that we don't hav a people saying that they 27 had no opportunity to present their feelings to you that 28 perhaps you may want to consider Mr. Anderson's suggestion that ZANOONCLLA XCIPORTINO •CAVICC • , 99011/I90 0MOO110&100 11CP00199l OO14 CAST OTREET ' CONCORD, CAL1rORN1A 94830 104 ,• . 1 you give them three or four days if they wish to submit them 2 in writing to be received by the Commission and considered. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Fine. If there's anybody here that 4 feels that they have something to say on any aspect of this S and want to submit their statement in writing, mail it to the 6 Commission. It will go on as part of the record and -- 7 MR. Well, I -think we should receive 8 copies of -- 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Copies of all -- well, we do anyway -- 10 MR.�� cL��' I suggest by- Friday at, five o'clock. 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yes . . Friday .at five o' clock would 12 • be the deadline for it. So, .if .any of you that didn't get 13 a chance to say something, please write it in and get it here � .� 14 before five o'clock on Friday which'would be May the 17th. n 15 MR. MILANO: Mr. Chairman, I move that we _ 16 continue the Blackhawk application- to May the 28th. 17 MR. ANDERSON : Second. 18 CHAIRt1AN JEHA: Motion made by Milano, seconded by 19 Anderson, that we continue the Blackhawk application to the 20 28th of May . 21 There 's no objection from the rest of the Commission, 22 'let the record show that it 'was unanimously continued. 23 All richt . Any staff reports? 24 MR. k`Cc%�G�;..k No, I have none. 25 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Any commissioner's reports? I got 26 one letter from the president of the Athenian School asking us 27 to support the Blackhawk project . 1- don't know -- did the 28 staff get a copy of the letter? ZANDONCLL^REPORTING •CRVICC • t9H1I It9 9w9AtwawO•t/QATtA/ • 981/[a9T 9TIt[[T . CONCORD.Ca LI/OAWIa 94986 tuy 1 MR. I haven't seen it yet, Mr. Jeha, 2 if it 's come in. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA : You haven't seen it? 4 MR. �`��-� "'� No, I haven't. S CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, I have it at home and I 'll 6 bring it so the Planning Director can -- as long as we 're -- 1 7 ' MR. I thought that the copies -- .carbon 8 copies went to the staff. 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, we'll look for it then. All 10 right . Nothing else to come before. the Commission, we're now 11 adjourned. 12 • ---000--- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SANOONELLA RCPORT1kO SCRVICC • titi VltO Ar M trAr0•l�OAf{ f SS14 CAST OT466T CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94580 Z � 3i. �++ „�.. �.. ... l�plsIT 810 .� •,. BLACKMNK P21" 21I.R. COPY 1 •TUE"llilYs MAY 281; 197.4 CONTRA COSTA PLANNING COMMISSION 3 BLACKHAWK —. 1840 R2 PROCEEDINGS ; s CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right . Now we come to Blackhawk, 6 Item No. 3. 7 . I think that we 're going to take this in stages . The 8 first item we'll deal with in this application is the staff 9 responses to E.I .R. And after we hedr our staff I think this 10 Commission should then make a determination as to how they view 11 the E.I .R. whether it' s adequate or inadequate . ' And the 12 next business report of the Commission would be on the General 13 Plan question and that will be our -- we have discussion among • 14 ours0.ves and then make that determination . And then the 13 third aspect of it is the rezoning and we 're dealing with the „ 16 .conditions and if the applicant wants to comment on the condi- 17 tions, we will let that aspac* t -- that would be. open for public -' 18 comment on the conditions, also. 19 Gentlemen, do you have any suggestions on that procedure? 20 MR. HILDEBRAND: I might offer, Mr. Chairman, is it 21 absolutely more appropriate to discuss the possible conditions 22 because (unintelligib]e) 23 CHAIRMAN JEHA : We plan to do that, but in its turn, 24 in its Place. First we're going with the E.I .R. , then we' re 25 going to be dealing with the General Plan, and then we' ll be 26 dealing with the rezoning. 27 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well,. that .was my point exactly . I 28 think we should discuss (unintelligible) i,ANOONCLLA IMPORTING 891MG9 seavorige SHOUVtl6160 460601r{fs said 6AN 6141016T 641"96016.1414.1reftlem "Us J.v .AV .u.. . . %�._ _.. I CHAIRMAN JE11A: Well , Lt's up to the rest of the -- ( 2 1.1R. HILDEBRAND: (unintelligible) 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right . The only problem is I don't 4 want to build this into a complete another hearing so that if 5 we get• involved in a lot of testimony, we're going to go through 6 this whole thing over again. MR. }1ILDEi RAND: (unintell'igible) 8 CHAIRMAN JE11A: Mr. Dehaesus, do you see any problem 9 with that course of action? 10 MR. DL1iA"r.SUS: I would prefer the order that you mentioned 11 originally but I see no particular objection to ' it . 12 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Hildebrand, if you don't mind, can 13 I poll the commission on it? t 14 All right . I 'd like to poll the commission as to how 15 they prefer to do it on the way I outlined it or Mr. Dehaesus 16 ,outlined it or the way Mr. Hildebrand . If you have no 17 feelings about it, indicate it . If you prefer, one or the 18 other, I think we should -- 19 1411. HILDEBRAND- (unintelligible) 20 CHAIRMAN JEHA: .Well, I outlined tiie point wherein we 21 discuss -- we hear the staff's E.I .R. comments on the 22 we then take action on the E.I .R" One way or the other. We 23 then make the determination of the General flan question and 24 then we then get into the actual rezoning and have comments, 25 if any are to be heard from the applicant', and then if we hear 26 from the applicant, then the public on the conditions. 27 Mr. Hildebrand, t think, would like to have the conditions 28 discussed with the General Plan question. � ZANOONCLLA 49POQTINO 8999VICC j CNIl�w��«L1I�AM1• t{��• . t 3 1 MR. HILDEBRAND: yer . ' 2 MR. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can sec the 3 conditions being discussed with the zoning question . As to 4 the General Plan question, I -- 3 CHAI101AN JEHA: Okay. Wel],, then -- j 6 14R. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know Dick' s 7 reasons. 8 MR. HILDEBRAND: Well, my -reason is that (unlnt•elligi- 9 blip . ) 10 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, Mr. Hildebrand would like it his 11 way . Mr. Anderson, how do you care to go? What procedure 12 would you like to follow? 13 MR. A1dDEHS014 : Well, I think the General Plan to not got 14 involved (unintelligible) 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right. Thank you. Mr. Young? 16 MR. YOUNG : I don't feel strongly either way . I think 17 there might be some advantage in trying; to deal. first with the 18 General Plan question and then going; into the -- (unintelligible 19 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Milano, you feel the same way? 20 Mr. Compag*lia, how do you feel? 21 MR. COMPAGLIA : No preference . 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. StoddarOd? Then, we' ll follow .the 23 plan as I outlined it . We' ll hear from the staff on the 24 E. I .K. responses . (� 23 MR. DEHAI:SUS: Since the hearing; of April 23rd, 26 that 's when the hearing; on the E.I .R. was closed and then •27 another, week was allowed for written material to be submitted. 28 The staff has prepared a response regarding; all the questions ZANCONELLA RLPORTINO •[RVICK ' cc�rlrco oweerMANe•c�e�rcee 8814[AOT OT11[[T CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04920 I that• were raised on the f:. t. ,fi. and -this was -- I'd mentioned 2 that the schedule date for a decision this evening be somewhat 3 dif'f'icult to meet in preparing that response but we did get ' 4 it finally completed last Friday and mailed out to the S Commission. 6 The response covers, we think covers all the material 7 that was brought up during the course of the discussion on the 8 E.I .R. and I would suggest that as part of your consideration 9 in establishing the final E.I .R. for this project that you do 10 take• into consideration the staff E :I .R. which was dated 11 February 6th and posted• on February 14 and the staff economic 12 E .I .R. supplement dated April 11th and the. staff economic 13 response dated February -- or, May 28th --• this was mailed to you 14 over the weekend -- and the staff E.I .R. response dated May 13 23rd which was mailed to you over the weekend. Also, that 16 you include minutes of the Planning Commission hearings on the 17 E.I .R. which were February 26th, '74, March 12, '74, March 26, 18 174, 'and April 23rd, '74 . And then the material that was -- 19 all the written material submitted of those hearings including , 20 the material received one week after Apr'il 23rd. Also, that 21 you include in your consideration in determining the final 22 E.I .R. the Jara report dated August 28th, 1973, the E.C.I.S. 23 report dated January 174, the Lowney/Kaldveer report dated 24 November 15, 1973, the slope classification map dated April 11th 25 1974 , the Kirker, Chapman Blackhawk Ranch hydrology report 26 dated November 173. • 27 That these items be- 'submitted for your consideration in • " 28 ' establishing the final E.T .R. for .this project . sANOONCLLA liCI'OINTINO •[RVIC9 ' L{OTI►It0 sweNVOIAMO AC►elines asu JtA1T ST"Eur CONCORD. CALVOwwIA Wt0 M 1 Also, over the weeke,iti you received a staff report, a 2 further staff report regarding the General Plan question which 3 we elaborated further on on the significance of that question 4 and with this, Mr. Chairman, I -- we have prepared a set of s conditions. These conditions prepared following your 6 instrucLions. . 7At the study session last week we indicated that we 'd be, 8 as I said, polishing up the language in some of these conditions . 9 We have not changed the meanings of these conditions at all, as 10 I remember, so they remain pretty much the same as you saw them 11 except some phrasing and word changes . . - We did add one condi- 12 ' tion that was requested by Mr. Anderson regarding a bus feeder, 13 system' for your consideration. We did add one condition 14 regarding the applicant that li:. be required to submit 'a document 15 indicating how the commoners will be maintained and so forth. 16 So, these are before you for your consideration this na, 17 evening and I -- 18 CHAIRMAN JEIIA: Excuse me, Mr. Dehaesus. Actually then 19 what you're saying is that we should include the conditions in 20 the E. I .R. , these staff -- 21 MR. DEIIAESUS: No, we -- 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: -- these staff conditions. 23 MR. DERAESUS : No, we haven't said that, Mr. Chairman. 24 CHAIliMAN JEIIA: I misunderstood you then. I 'm sorry. 25 MR. DEHAESUS: We ,just indicated what is happened since 26 the past week. 27 1 might say that this evening I =- I am not going to repeat 28 the staff position . I think you've heard us enough times on SANOONCLLA RtPORTINO ■[RVIC9 LL�1111L�•M��iMAM•AL/�IILII� 1 this and especially last tl.,ie at . the study session you heard 2 me rather -- lengthy statement ' on this subject. So, we will 3 stand with what we 've submitted to you as the planning Depart- : 4 ment' s position on this . We still maintain that position. 5 We haven't changed it at all in any way . We still think 6 this is a very serious application that brings up some rather 7serious issuds that must be resolved before you take any 8 action on the project itself. And that's the E.I .R. and the 9 General Plan question which we think is a rather setious 10 question for the valley. 11 So, with this , unless you have any .questions, we would 12 • submit the matter to you. 13 GHURNAN JEHA: All right . ' One question. Did you -- t 14 ,it 's hard to hear you on that ~►ike and I -- did you you know, 15 some of the various letters we got from people regarding the .. 16 application and they wanted it in the record. Do you include 17 those in the E.I .R.? 18 MR. DEHAESUS: We have -- we don' t have an itemized 19 listing of the --' all the written material submitted -- 20 CHAIRMAN JRHA : But that is included? 21 MR. DEHAESUS : But we intend that W11th the -- with this 22 description that all the written material submitted at .the 23 public hearings where the E.I .R. was considered and for one 24 week after the last hearInp; that that will be part of your 25 consideration in determining the final E.I .R. report. 26 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right I think that answered my 27 question. Any questions, gentlemen?• 28 All right, thank you. ZANDONLLLA NtPONTINO •[QVICZ C64171/190 6"681"'tMO A[p0s/(a• 221•aA67 STACET CONCORD. 1LLWOR041• of,%va ' •r 1 MR. DEHAESUS: I �usl want to make it- clear that this 2 doer not include all the letters that have been submitted in" 3 regard to the Blackhawk application. 4 CHAIRMAN JEHA: The -- what will you do; put those in -- 5 put those letters in you feel have material effect on the E. I.R. 6 or have something to contribute to the E.I .R:? 7 MR. DEHAESUS: Well, if they- were -- 8 CHAIRMAN JEHA: What do you use as a criteria for putting 9 some An and leaving some out? 10 MR. DEIIAXSI1:1): Well, we receive a lot of letters that 11 say we think Blackhawk ought to be denied and that kind of 12 thing so -- 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA: But all the letters in their ,substance • 14 14R. DEIIAEc;US : As they pertain to the E.I :R. questlon . 15 CHAIRMAN JEUA: Okay . All right . So now gentlemen, 16 we're at the point where we have to take action on the E .T .R . 17 MR. YOUNG : Mr. Chairman, we' ve certainly received 18 a record amount, of material on the E.nvi.ronmcntal Impact Report , 19 not only has it been written material, an awful lot of help, 20 froin the general public in the form of letters and from bid 21 material and also in written material, and I 'd like to stipulate 22 that even if the staff -- the reports written by the staff do �3 not include everything which was brought up by the general 24 public. that we have heard all the comments and have considered 25 them and I think that we should make them• a part of our 26 consideration of the E.I .R. 1 -- in making a motion for • •27 approval of the E .I .R. -- would like .to include all of the 28 items which were read by Mr. Dehaesus dust a few minutes ago and ZANDONCLLA RCPONTINO 89MVIC19 49alfr1OO ONOAT�IAIID 69OO41946 2214 gut OTN96T j CONCOIIO. CALIFORNIA 94920 , I In addition make this statement that all letters and 2 communications both oral and written which we have received 3 on the E.I .R. should be considered a part of the E.I .H. in 4 this care . I will make that as a inotion . S MR. COMPAULIA: I'll second 1.t . 6 C}IALIOIAN JUTA: Motlon made by Curnmissioner Young, 7 seconded by Commissioner Compaglia that we accept the E.I .R. 8 as being adequate and 1 won't repeat Mr. Young's comments but 9 I think ,you have it for the record, Leonard? 10 All right . 11 IY1}i. Call the roll . 12 MR. Mr. Young?. s 13 MR. YOUNG : Aye . . • 14 MR. Mr. Ml.lano? " 15 MR.. MILANO: Aye . 16 MR. Mr. Compaglia? 17 MR. COMPAGLIA: Aye . 18 MR. Mr . Stoddard? 19 PIR. STODDARD: A,ye . • f 20 11111. t-Ir . Andurson? 21 MR. ANDERSON : Aye . ' 22 1.111. Mr. Hildebrand? 23 1411. II1.1,DEBRAND: Aye. 24 MR. Chairman Jeha? 25 CIIAIR14Al4 JFAIA: Aye . 26 All right . Gentlemen -- 27 (4}3. In case you Mr. Chairman, in case 28 you don't know what that look: like, that's all this material ZANOONCLLA RCPORTINO SCRVICC GINVIF190 6MOATMANO 09PONT946 AST4CAST STR99T CONCORD. CALIFORNIA •also here. t 2 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yen . We have -- I have a duplicator . 3 at our desk3 here. 4 All right . Gentlemen, we are now dealing with the 5 General Plan question . The staff have any comments they 6 would want: to n;al:e before the Commission gets into that . 7 ' MR. DFAIAESUS: Sometime ago -we submitted to you a 8 memorandum concerning►, the General Plan question and since that 9 time we have submitted more material. over the weekend and 1 10 here ,you trot this further report concerning the General flan 11 question . And I think it pretty well. .covers the subject: so 12 . as far as we are -concerned this is not in conformance with the 13 General Plan and there are many, many reasons stated here as • 14 to why it does not conform and rather, than discuss this at 15 length, I would let the material stand for itself. 16 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, r4r. Dehaesus . 17 All right . Gentlemen , ' any commL.nts from any ::ommisslo.ners 18 MR. YOUNG : Mr. Chairman, I have some comments if I 19 may start ahead . l made some notes on what to say because 20 th.ls covers quite a few points . l • • 21 l• ' ll start off by saying that 11ve been on the Commission 22 now I'or seven and a half years and almost the very first 23 thing which came up when I first came on the Commission was 24 tale General. Plan for Area 8, that Is, Alamo and Danville. And 25 1 didn't participate in the studies leading to this plan but 26 did read the material and listened to the staff presentations 27 and voted for that plan. And I. must• say that I did not at 28 that time have any indication that there was any thought that sANOONCeL4k RePORTING sewvoce ttnute•«oer«A«o Auoertae SSft CAST 6TN&9T CONCOND. CALIFORNIA *4680 lU 1 there would be nny extens.lve development -in the eastern end 2 of that area, that Area 8 General Plan . 3 Now, 11'irst heard about the plan for Blackhawk , I was 4 a •11tt:le b1t surprised and I guess one reason was that like S other people I was thJnking of Blackhawk as being; a long, way i 6 out of town and perhaps; being a development which was•. leap- 7 froj,- inr,. liut after I thought about it for, a while, I 8 changed my mind and I began to think that after all we had 9 approved developments all the way from Interstate 680 to Diablo 10 Road, that: 131ackhawk was immediately adjacent to Diablo , it 11 already had water and sewage available to it and there wasn 't 12 any reason for not having some kind of development on Blagkhawk 13 which was comparable to the development whish we had already 14 alloa:ed' farther to the west . 15 The next things 1 had to consider was the desirability 16 of the applicant' s plan and then the effects on the balance of 17 the community and finally the conformance of the General Plan . 18 And since that ' s at the stage where we ' re now considering 19 this matter , why, I 'd like to go into that , for instance . 20 This relates primarily to the land use element of the 21 General. Plan and as everybody knows 4U percent- of Blackhawk 22 is in planninq •Area © and the remainder is covered by the 23 1963 plan. And in neither case -- and in my mind at least -- 24 is there any end of a project the size of .Blackhawk as proposed . 25 Now, with respect to the Blackhawk holdings which are in 26 the two different areas. In Area 8 there is some low density 27 resldent.i.al area indicated on the Area 8 General Plan but not 28 all of Blac:khawk's holdings are indicated for development in ZANDONELLA REPORTING SERVICE suTmse SHOOT«AMD Aat-DRT909 laid CAST 1TTIEET i 11 = I low density residential. `"{ 2 In the 1963 plan along it is indicated for urban expansion. 3 It is primarily indicated for agricultural use . 4 So, my first conclusion was that a development of the 5 size of Blac:khawl: wa., not in conformance with the General flan 6 since neither of the two plans which cover the area gives any 7 hint of it. And, although, both refer to low density residen- 8 tial development, there is no Indication that anything is 9 contemplated of the size of Hlackhawk.. 1p Now, the staff called this back to our attention pretty 11 early In the game and we considered It you recall and we 12 decided that we should go ahead on the application on the , 13 basis that even if the applicant 's proposal did- not meet the 14 Gene'ral• flan that it might be made to meet the General Plan. 15 In other words, it has all of the possibilities to application _ 16 -of conditions that something which initially goes beyond the " 17 plan will be able to meet the requirements of the plan. So, 18 we did continue . 19 Now, the applicant, of course , has said right along in 20 both written and oral arguments that the project does conform 21 to the General Plan. But, I think that the applicant goes 22 astray with respect to one interpretation and this has to do 23 with the open space ordinance and our so-called bisect rule 24 which says that if the open space line crosses a property, that 25 property still may be considered for development. So, inter- 26 pretting that, why, we dial accept an application . However, I 27 think that the applicant in this case' had read a little bit more 28 into this rule than we intended to be in the rule and 'it seems ZANDONCLL^RCPt3RT#NG WCRYfCC u!a[est sT+st[s •r I to me that in their arguments they are, saying that because we 2 are not capplyinr the open space element of the General flan 3 to this property it then becomes a property which in its 4 entirety may be developed.. . 5 Now, this is true only to a certain extent and to me it 's 6 true only to the extent allowed by the General Plan. So, again ' 7 you have t-o. go back to the two General Plan considerations . 8 First of all, the plan eight which says that a large part of 9 the Blackhawk property on the western line , western part of the 10 project can be considered for low-density single-family resi- 11 dential and you are also bound for the 1963 General Plan which 12 says that primarily this is an agricultural area, however, it 13 is an urban expansion area sometime in the future . However, 14 I thi►;k a critical point here is that the applicants are 15 considering that urban expansion could occur now and I think 16 - it an essential point to understand is that there is no change 17 in the General Plan until you have made a study and have held 18 hearings and my viewpoint is that in order actually to have 19 low-density residential, to have urban expansion on the east 20 side of the line for Plan Area 8 then it would be necessary to 21 revise the General Plan . 22 Now, the question as to action which would be necessary 23 to make Blackhawk conform to the General Plan. Well, one 24 thing you might do would be to redesign the project to restrict 25 the uses proposed in two sections of Blackhawk. 26 First of all, that area which on Flarl 8 is shown as single- 27 family expansion area would have to be taken out of the Black- 28 hawk proposal. And second, the acreage which is t�ast> to the ZANOONCLLA REPORTING BERVICC C901111C0 DN0111NAM0•CpOw1Cns • 111114 CA111 11409,[1 �f rnur% Pal Ipn Ou.• w•.•w 13 'r 1 i1 Flan 0 boundary and is indicated .as agricultural or urban 2 growth area would also have to be taken out of the application. 3 And obviously, this takes the very heart and soul out of the 4 Blackhawk application which depends on a certain number of 5 units in order to make possible certain amenities which are 6 the heart of the plan. 7 Now, I 'm not saying that we would have to take out the 8 proposal to build some clusters, to have some apartments in 9 this, add some commercial in the remaining portion of the 10 Blackhawk area. Because under the planned-unit concept these 11 are all considered to be proper ancillary uses . And I do feel 12 strongly that when we have a chance to plan a unit that we have 13 a chance then to cut down on traffic, to offer certain conve- • 14 niences. to the public, and I certainly agree ,that if' a planned 15 unit is approved for Blackhawk, it should have some of these 16 ,other uses which looking at the area planned in the purest 17 sense would not be allowabl 18 Well, 1 talked only about the land use element of the 19 General Plan but I do think that there are also arguments with 20 respect to the circulation element of the Gencral Plan. There 21 again, I do feel that when we adopted the circulation element, 22 we never considered a developmenta' the size of Blackhawk in the 23 area for whJch It has been applied. 24 Now, as to actions which we might take. First of all, we 25 must deny the application and say it is not in accordance with 26 the General Plan. The second action we might take would be '27 to continue the application until we -complete at least a portion 11 ' 28 of the San Ramon Valley General Plan review. In other words, ZANOONCL.L.^ MC00.0I1TINO •EAVICC C{A11/1/O OMOA►NANO AL/OATL1• 8114 CA6T /TMC[T CONCORD. CA61iOIVNI• "via i1 that. Immediate area which wjuld affect Blackhawk. 2 And finally , we rilpht approve the project with conditions 3. which would limit land uses to those which ace contemplated by 4 the (seneral flan. Aow, ,just what ac';ioti will be taken, why, S I guess we ' ll have to decide that a little later on tonight 6 but ,just to my mind it is only those three possibilities and 7 I'm leaving out as a possibility the approval of the application 8 with a finding that It is in substantial compliance with the 9 General Plan . 11ow, I say this because people today are very 10 much aware of the law and they are active in seeking out a 11 sound legal basis for every action on our part and the pant of 12 ' the 'Board of Supervisors and I think it would be very easy for 13 anyone- to upset our decision and that of the Board of Supervi- • 14 zor's ultimately if gyre should go ahead and decide that' the is 15 application as submitted in -••,{t � general compliance with the 16 General Plan -- in substantial compliance rather with the 17 General Plan . I do think it would be very easy to upset that 18 decision and I would not be a party to such. a decision on the 19 basis that this would he a waste of titne. t 20 So, Bantle Men, * this concludes rrj;; cor:m,ents and I think 21 that that shows where I stand. 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Thank you, Mr. Young. 23 Anyone else like to mike any com,::enLs? 24 MIS•, Not as far as the [7,eneral plan. 25 CHAI M-1AN JEHA: Pardon me? 26 MR. Not as far 'as the general plan . • 27 ClIATRt-lAN JENA: Wel]., 11d like to make some. 28 The question of Nlackhawk came up really right before we ZANOONELLA RE•OATINO SERVICE tl#t /ltb OMOO1M�rb•t�COtlOb !774 CAST ST"E[T 15 1 got into our open space henrings and at that time as far as' I 2 was concerned, as far as the Commission's action, we said that 3 the lilackhawk property should be excluded from the open space. 4 We were subsequently overturned by the Hoard of Supervisors 5 and said that the line should remain as it was shown and the 6 property could be considered for development; that any proper- 7 ties that lie where they are bisected by the open space line 8 could be considered for development . 9 I think the question of the 163 plan or 167 plan, I was 10 on the Commission both those two periods and as far as I 'm 11 concerne-d this application meets the criteria of the kind of 12 development that tie had anticipated. I Just don't think that 13 the Commission or the staff whatever envision they .plan of this • 14 size . . Hut whether you have 40000 houses in one P.U .D. or 15 whether you have 4 ,000 houses scattered in smaller developments 16 throughout that area, as far as I interpret the plan, the 17 General. Plan, the area could - take that kind of development . 18 Now, the question becomes in my mind, is the P.U.D. of 19 over 4 ,000 acres with a great portion of it open space with, 20 houses clustered and some houpes single family or some apart- 21 ments with all the controls that the P.U.D. affords the county, 22 is that better .than having 4 ,000ihouses or 4 ,000 dwellings �3 spread around. My feeling is it 15 better. My feeling is 24 that the General Plan does not preclude, does not exclude this 25 kind of development. The development in terms of the total 26 acreage it's involved in in the amount of homes comes under the 27 low density classification. Some of the pt,operties are steep 11 ' 28 and can't be developed in terms of what's developable today. ZANOONCLLA MCPORTIN0 •CRVICC CC-.111190 11M911TMANA 4900921986 »7i aAev avolear CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94680 16 • 1 Buts when you look at areas of Orinda •or the Moraga areas lit 2 the East flay hills; their steep land eventually becomes econo- 3 mically feasible to develop. I -- never in my mind was the 4 question of the General Plan intent such that it would not 5 allow this kind of development to go in. I think that condi- 6 tions have to be looked at closely in regards to the circula- 7 tion and I think that they have been. I think the fact that 8 this development is going to be phased over a 15-year period 9 lessens its impact and I would also say this, that I think that ' 10 a development like this if in comparing it to some of the 11 developments that have happened -in the county over the last t 12 20 years, if were -- have had this kind of an ordinance that 13 could impose these kinds of conditions whether they be archi- • 14 tectural, circulation, and what have you,, that the cou•ity would 13 be in much better shape. And the size just doesn't bother me . 16 As far as I 'm concerned, the size makes a development like 17 this economically able to put in some of the amenities that 18 are needed that a smaller development cannot do. 19 Those are my comments. 20 Well, gentlemen -- Mr. Hildebrand. 21 MR. HILDGDRAND: I 'm going to raise the issue again I 22 raised earlier' that I think it coincides with what Mr. Young �3 had to say and you touched on it again. There's arguments 24 obviously on both sides of the issue (unintelligible) -- but 25 what keeps coming; back to me at this point are we now const-26 Bering; 1840-HZ as submitted by the applicant or are we consi- • 27 dering 1840-RZ as submitted by the applicant (unintelligible) -- 28 or are we considering► something entirely different . As Mr. swNooNCLL^wcODowTINo sawvIaa 666111169 8009TMN1O 4{PON1[40 fern\n I.a Orne.... •.�.w 17 • -r :• 1 Young pointed out that may or may .not change his opinion as 2 to compliance with the General Plan and it certainly does mine 3 too. so if it's the former that we're considering right now, • 4 I would tend to agree with Mr. Young. (unintelligible) s CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, Dick it seems to me that at this 6 point the question of whether this is- in compliance with the 7 General Plan or it isn't i's like you said, I think it's going 9 to be a subjective thing because Andy, who I have a lot of 9 * respect for, sees it altogether different than I do, and I 10 think each of us has to make their own mind up on that . It 11 would appear to me that the question of the conditions should 12 be. discussed on the actual rezoning. I' ll still stick with 13 them. I just think it 's easibr to handle that way. I think ? • 14 that really what the Chair would like to have right now is a 15 motion on the General Plan, to take some action on it. 16 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I think we should dispose 17 of this point so why don't I •make a motion that 's the -- that lg further consideration of project 1840-RZ should now stop. It 19 does not conform to the General Plan. • 20 CHAIRMAN JEHA: There 's motion made by Commissioner Young. 21 Anyone care to second? 22 All right.. Motion dies fon- lack of a second. 23 Now, I think that the other -- I 'd like to hear a motion 24 then for approval if someone cares to make that kind of a motion 23 MR. I 'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman. 26 CHAIRMAN JEHA: That the motion is that this is in com- 27 pliance with the General Plan. 29 MR. It's in compliance with the General Plan ZANOONCLLA 49PORTINO /GRVIC9 666Tv499 6404TrA000 99►In1045 1894 it AST STO99T CONCORD, CALIFORKIA 04980 18 I CHAIRMAN JEHA: Does anyone care.' to second that motion. 2 All right . Any other questions? 3 MR. I'd like to that . I 4 was -- and 1 will vote in favor or this in which I was not S a part of the Commission when they heard the open space plan 6 for the county. However, after hearing the evidence, so to 7 speak, reading all the paperwork that came through here, it g seems to me that this property could be considered probably for 9 development and I am or the opinion that maybe if the San 10 Ramon Valley could have formed a -or the staff could have 11 started a general plan 'review at the sante time this application 12 came before the Commission last July, why ,. then we probably 13 maybe could have asked for a postponement ' until such hearings 14 were completed. However, at the present time the way things' 15 stand today the Commission before us, I think that the opportu- nity to put in a low density project where at the present time 17 with the open space between the San Ramon Valley and the 1g Blackhawk Valley that there is less pressure now for develop- 19 ment plus I think that the control features that are part of 20 the P.U .D. Ove us the control over this project for the pro- 21 Jected 10 to 15 years that this will go on and that we can be 22 flexible during that period of time to meet the needs and to 23 arrive (unintelligible) to make this a project that is suitable 24 and compatible with future development in the area. 25 MR. (unintelligible) I'd Just like to 26 explain my vote before we take it and the motion (unintelligi- 27 ble) establish what he was talking about in regards to 26 ' 1840-RZ and maybe that's ,just as wgll because in my mind it ZANOONCLLA X9POnTINO 89RVIC6 • [��TI/1[i[Ndf iNANO 11[/CAT[�[ said CAST STRCCT CONCORD, CAu►ORNId odoao 1.9 ' 1 . • could be (unintelligible) -- with 'the Ceneral Plan. This is 2 what I hoped we could do when we talked about oonditions (unin- 3 telligible) 4 CHAIRMAN JE11A: Thank you. All right . There 's been S a motion -- 6 MR. COMPAGLIA : : Mr. Chairman. 7 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Hildebrand. e MR. COMPAGLIA : No, Mr. Compaglia. 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I mean Mr. Comp,aglia. 10 MR. COMPAGLIA: I just want to make a brief remark 11 because I have a prepared remark that I 'd like to make later 12 on when we vote on the other subject . But I sat through .the 13 open space elements . I at least in my own mind and I thought -• 14 under:;tood the Intent of the action that we took to the extent 13 that this action we 're voting on in approving it is a correct 16 'one and this• was the intent that we voted on on the open space 17 element at the time . I remember the intent to' exclude, the 18 talking about where the open space line Coes and when it 19 bisects what we Intended to do. 20, Now, I don 't concur entirely with Andy but what he says 21 has merit . But , I still don't fee] that we're really that 22 much at odds with any -- with the General Plan. 23 CHAIRMAN JFJ11A: All right . There Is a motlon made 24 by Idilano that we find that this Blackhaw k project is in 25 compliance with the General Plan,, seconded by Stoddard . 26 Will you please call the roll? 27 MR. Mr. Milano? 26 MR.. MILANO: Aye . ZANOONCLLA ACPORTINO ■CIMCC «0110196/6884111aM•49PONT904 • asu[Aar aTwasT CONCORD. CALIFORP41• q:4080 1 MH. Mr. Stoddard? t .. 2 1 MR. STODDARD: Aye. 3 MR. Mr. Compaglia?• 4 MR. COMPACLIA: Aye. S MR. Mr. Young? 6 MR. YOUNG: No. 7 MR. Mr. Anderson? a MR. ANDERSON: Aye . 9 MR. Mr. Hildebrand? 10 MR. HILDEBRAND: Aye . 11 MR. Chairman Jeha? 12 CHAIR14AN JRHA: Aye . ' 13 All rif;ht . We're now on the project , the rezoning 14 application. We've heard many nights and many hours of 15 tes.timony . WeIredown to the conditions that the staff has 16 given you copies of the revised conditions and there' s a total 17 of 34 -- 33 conditions -- not' 33 and a suggested condition which 1a would be called 311 which deals with the feeder bus system. 19 The -- as I understand it, the conditions one through 12 are 20 agreeable to the applicant and we get to- 13, ti•:hich is Sycamore 21 Valley Road, Camino Tassajara to Blackhaw k Road extension, should 22 be committed before Phase 1. The applicant. asked to have that �3 rerid Fhase 3. We discussed this last meeting as I recall. 24 Public Work:: at that time indicated that Phase -- that if they 25 would work ii' it was continued to Phase 3. And they were to 26 the end of Phase 2 and the beginning, of Phase 3. 27 We go down to 14 . The staff wants J;& additional lanes 29 . of traffic. Well., they want Phase 3 subject to Phase 4 . ZANDONELLA REPORTING #ERVICE 9981onco 8ee47NAwo 890041tas »T•CAST ST11ttT CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94980 .+ 21 • •r I This is the applicant . ` 2 Condition 15, they want Phase 5 subject to it with Phase 6 . 3 They're in agreement with 17 and 18 . 4 They 're in disal*reement with .19 . 5 Twenty-one, they ask the word provided be deleted and set 6 aside be replaced instead . They want. the word facility crossed . 7 out and the word site replacing It*. 8 On condition 24 they would like the word improved deleted. 9 In agreement with 25, 26, 27 . 10 They're not in agreement with 28. 11 They agree with 29 . 12 They're not in agreement with 30 . 13 They' re in agreement with* all the rest . f 14 And I think that we discussed 19 . We discussed 28 and 15 we discussed 30. 16 Now, do you want to hear anymore comment from the 17 developers- or do you want to -discuss these among ourselves? 18 T think we should have -- or if the staff has any comments, we 19 would like to hear from staff. 20 MR. UEHAE.SUS : I would ,just say this that If you follow 21 the applicant's suggestions regarding modification of these 22 conditions what; you have done thea is to simply approve another �3 subdivision map without requiring, any public facilities that 24 would be generated -- the need generated for those facilities 25 by this development. 26 It seems to me that if we 're going to have a development 27 of this kind, this size and magnitude , that we've got to have 28 the developer be made responsible for the necessary school ZANDONCLLA MC'ORTINO •COVICC il�Tl►1[•�M�N TM�N�•t0�/ � .. •�T♦tA�T �i11ttT . CONCOIIO. CALIIOR141• 94680 • 22 1 facilities , necessary library facilities, and necessary loca-1 2 park facilities, and necessary road facilities, and so forth. 3 Now, if one is to come in, as you had put it , Mr. Jeha, 4 that the larger the development; the more ability the developer S has to provide amenities . And I would suggest these condi- 6 tions be required . I think it 's as simple as that that -- 7 otherwise, I think it ,lust another subdivision map that you're 8 considering and this to me is not in the least proper planning. 9 These are the only comments we have in regard to those 10 points. 11 CHAiRKA14 JEHA: I'm sorry ,. but I couldn't hear the last 12 sentence . i 13 MR. DEHAESUS: I said these are the only comments we . 14 have in regard to those points . We think they 're very 15 critical points in this entire review. 16 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Could you put that mike on a stand or 17 something? At least I 'm having trouble hearing. Can you 18 hear Mr. Dehaesus in the audience? 19 (Voice 1.n audience - unintelligible) 20 CHAIRWA1J JEHA: How about the other six Commissioners? 21 All right . But we understand staff's conditions on 22 these and I actually -- I think that the question of 13, 14 , 23 15, 19 , 28, 3U were discussed last -- last meeting. 24 MR. Yes, Mr. Jeha, I would like to comment 25 on -- at the last meeting,the study session meeting, 1indi- 26 cated that It was possible that Sycamore Valley Road' s extension 27 construction could wait as long as the third phase . I indi- t 28 ' cated that we were still study Ing that . 14e completed the LANOONELLA REPORTING •[RVIGE CCAIIFICO 6"041144110 49604144% 8814 CAST STp[tT CONC0190. CA1.IVOR641A $4980 23 1 study on that late last wevE:, Thursday to -be exact, and that ` 2 study did not show that that third phase,could wait till the . 3 third phase. 4 CHAIRMAN JENA: It can't wait? 5 MIR. Cannot wait . 6 CHAIRMAN JEHA: When do you suggest that it be built? 7 ' MR. The very latest it should be a part of 8 the first phase of construction and ready for -- be in place 9 prior to approval of the second phase .at the very latest . 10 CHAIRMAN JEHA: So it should be -before the second phase? 11 MR. Yes . At that rate, we feel that with ill 12 the first phase being approximately 500 units that we would be 13 running -Diablo Road right out of its capacity. 14 CIIAIPHAiJ JEHA: All right, . Now, they're asking. the 15 start -- 16 MR. Fourteen and 15 by the way we definitely v..,. 17 agree with the condition as written. 18 CHAIRMAN JEHA : Three -- you want it to remain three and 19 five? 20 MR. Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right. 22 MR. DEHAESUS: Mir. Chairman.. 23 CHAT HMAN Ji-,'IIA: Mr. Dehaesus. 24 MR,. DEIIAESUS: I might just want to comment on 13. The 25 reason It's written this way is because we think the -- it's 26 not good practice to defer the road situation. I think that 27 the road situation ought to be -- and. this is one of the major 28 issues as we have pointed out at prior hearings -- that the ZANDCNCLLA ACPCRT146 •CRVICC • 94At/1490 9*049"4M9 09094T986 0 214 tAST ST0469T COwCOAD. CALIFORNIA 041 • 2q • •r • 1 road situation should be met. directly and not simply deferred 2 to the second phase or the third phase. I think I mentioned 3 to you at the study session last week that, sure, one might 4 defer this question, allow some construction to take place S because Diablo Road does have capacity for, you might say, the 6 first unit . But that does not answer the question and at 7 this time we see no way that road 'money is going to become 8 available, we see no way that the assessment district as 9 suggested is going to be established. ' 10 In other words, there are no answers to solve the road 11 problems. I know the developer is working rather diligently 12 on this and the way we have placed this condition, we indicate 13 that that question ought to be further diligently pursued • 14 before the first unit is started. 15 We also have some serious reservations as to whether 16 Sycamore Valley Road might be feasibly constructed especially 17 as to environmental impact in a particular area. 18 So, all these questions we think ought to be further dis- 19 cussed, further reviewed, and this is why we vote the condition 20 the way we did. It's. not so much that things may not be done. 21 I think the answers ought to come before you commit this 22 size development to any construction. 23 CHAIHM AN JEHA: How many houses in phase 2 -- phase 1? 24 Tour hundred? 25 MR. DRiiA1: t 25 • 1 MR. Yeah, •617' is -- 2 MR. The second phase is 326. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: What's the first phase; 617? 4 MR. 61.7 and the second.phase is 326. S CHAIRMAN JEHA : All right . The amount of traffic 6 generated by 617 homes would that tax -in your -- I know Mr. 7 Walford seems the thinking; go to the second phase, the 8 beginning; or the second phase. In your opinion, is 617 homes 9 goln" to tax existing; roads? 10 MR. UEHAESUS: You missed my point, her. Jeha. We 11 and I thought I made this clear at the study session last week, 12 that the present road as far as capacity is concerned could 13 probably take this kind of traffic. Now, I 'm talking about 14 absolute capacity; I 'm not talking about the environmental 15 impart bf the traffic on the adjacent lands and so forth which, 16 as you know, there is quite a bit of difference between those v 17 two approaches . All I'm suggesting that because the road 18 question Is such a serious question in the valley in protecting 19 this part of the valley that that question should be further 20 pursued and see if some answers cannot he resolved before we i 21 even commit this development to any construction. This is the 22 point that we 're trying to make. 23 Now, if' you allow the first unit Lo proceed, I'm pretty 24 sure that by the time you fret to the second unit' the road 25 question is not going to be resolved. And if that beinC the 26 case, the development mipht •have td stop or else the developer 27 will be In here asking, to modify that condition so they could ' 28 proceed with the second unit . You' ve experienced these kinds ' ZANOONCLLA R«ORTINO 694VICC • tf•II/I��•�M�A/NANO N�IOA t�� ' tat•C&OT ST"CCT f eOMeOwn C.4 4rnw..16 •d4sw eb lot1 of reqursts before where you've allowed development to proceed 2 without having all. the questions resolved as much as possible. 3 Now, this is what, we are suggesting by this condition that there 4 may be some other solutions in Sycamore Valley Hoad, there may 5 be some other solutions than even improving Diablo Road . 6 And this means other forms of transportation, possibly. But, 7 we are not satisfied that any of these questions have been 8 resolved and therefore the condition written the way it is . 9 So, I think If you -- if I make my point clear on this, 10 at least I hope you understand It, that it' s not so much that 11 the first unit cannot be .accommodated by the existing road 12 situation but more to the question is whether there should be 13 development itself could proceed without resolving the road • 14 question for the entire development for these come to some 15 commitments for the future development of' roads . 16 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, actually what you're saying is 17 that if you had a modified commitment from the developers as 18 to the construction of that road, then whether it was built 19 during phase I or Phase 2 really -- 20 MR. DIs11AEOUS: Not gust from the developer. Any other 21 source . We Haven' t indicated where the commitment ought to 22 come from. 23 CHAIRMAN JK11A: Well , as I understand it, the -- if the 24 developer can' t get -- w1ll have to end up probably building 25 that road hi.mself. 26 MR. DEHACSUS: This ml.ght very well be the case . • 27 CHAIRMAN JE11A : Yeah, well , 1 mean, I had to feel that . e 28 • it would be pretty hard to ,get an '-assessment district . So I ZANOONCLLA MCPdOTINO 8COMCC 69411/1C0 OMOOTMAMO•epeargas 1216 9AOT OT"69T CONC0110•.CALIFORNIA 04980 . 71 • 1 mean it wound appear to mfg that whatever chase we're putting 2 this in, you really telling the developer that he's going to - 1 3 have to build that road if he waists to build any houses . If 4 you put it on Phase 2, then if he rete- through 617 homes, he's 5 just not going to have anymore land to develop unless he gets 6 the road through. So, he's going to have to commit his funds 7 to build that road . That 's how T understood the condition to 8 mean. 9 MR. DEHAESUS: Well, this may be a way. out , that road is 10 going to be rather costly, that if i't * is feasible In the first 11 place . I 'm talking about Sycamore Valley extension . 12When we get '-- you see, there isn't any detailed engineer- .� 13 ing on this . There's some general survey material, as Mr . • 14 Malford can point out to you, and there's some real. questions 15 as to whether this road may be -- may be built without some 16 tremendous grading and cutting of that hillside . The way it 17 CHAIRI-IA14 JEHA: Do you• have any questions, gentlemen? 18 All right . So far as condition 19 which I had thought 19 that was just unnecessary by the actions we just have taken, I 20 don't see any reason for that . 21 I11R. DEHAE:SUS: I would agree in view of the action you've •22 just taken that that 's -- 23 CHAIRMAN JEI{A: No longer certain yeah . 24 VIR. DEHAESUS: -- no longer applicable . 25 CHAIRMAN JEIIA: I guess that when the applicant asked to 26 set aside rather than provided, he' s eliminating the possibility 27. that he'd have to donate the land . •I think the staff -- does 28 the staff want the land provided with no fees, is that the ZANOONCLLA RCrOATINO 89MVICC it Ot1►100 6110A1UA110•{ICO►(O. Bald 9 A a T STR[ir CONCORD. C.LITORNI• �,.ve r 28 • 1 intent of the staff's condition? 2 MR. DEHAESUS: Which condition is this? 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Twenty-one . 4 MR. DEHAESUS: Community center site shall be provided S for the project which shall include a library facility . 6 MR. Do you mean that he should build a 7 library at developer's expense; is that the intent of this 21? 8 MR. DEHAESUS: Well, this may be the case . We're saying 9 that there is no community center site provided in the proposed 10 plan as submitted. We have discussed this with the applicant. 11 The applicant agrees that there ought to be a community center 12 site . Also, this would more or less tie in with -- let 's see, 13 condition 31. See, we are not completely satisfied -- as 14 a matter of fact, we're not satisfied with the land use arrange- 15 meats in the shopping center area of the development and rather. 16 -than to go into any detailed review of that at this time, we 17 are suggesting that this particular area of the development 18 have some considerable detailed review before the first final 19 development plan is submitted. And this would be in coniunctio 20 with the community center site, with the shopping center, and 21 all other related uses in that vicinity . These are one of 22 the real questions we have about the lay-out of the development. 23 There's some others, but -- and we discussed this with the 24 developer and I think he's in agreement with this point. 25 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Tony, the developer is asking for this -- • 26 he wants it to read this way . A community center site shall 27 be - set. aside for the project which shall include a library . 28 site if• it is ascertained by the county librarian that a fact- ZANOON[LLA REPORTING SERVICE • ((• 111(�(NO•IN�wO A(�OAt(00 ' 0294 CAST siOICaT CONC04b. CAL1►OwNI( 4&49w eq I . lity is necessary. NOW, do you take issue with that wording 2 rather than -- 3 MR. DEHAESUS: We would prefer to say provided. Again, 4 this gets to the point where if one is to come in with a 5 development of this magnitude, it seems to me some responsibilit 6 ought to be retained by the developer' to provide facilities for 7 the residents that will be living in that particular area to 8 again not to simply build houses, but to establish a livable 9 environment and facilities to go with -it . 10 CHAIRMAN MIA: Okay, you prefer your wording. 11 MR.* DEHAESUS: And we discussed this question regarding 12 the library with the county librarian and we 're not so sure 13 that the -- that maybe the library site ought to be in a • 14 community center site but it should be in that vicinity and 15 that should be -- should maintain a certain amount- of flexibility , 16 as to location. This would be determined when the final 17 development plans are submitted . • r 18 I 'd like to point out regarding these conditions . If you 19 keep in mind that these conditions are attached to preliminary 20 development plans and as the final development plans are sub- 21 mi.tted which are the detailed plans that would be submitted 22 following any approval of the preliminary development plan, 23 that those final development plans would also have a set of 24 conditions and further review and further conditions may be 25 attached in conjunction with those reviews-which may require 26 further facilities or less facilities or modify the densities �( •27 or so forth. 1n other words, there -- the densities proposed 28 here may be reduced considerably dependent upon the detailed SANCONZLLA REPORTING SCMVICE e{Al1►1{I•MO0/44110 nevesl{A1 2816 LAST ST499T - COMCOAO.CAb1/0AM1A odes* 30 1 plans submitted during; the course 'of the final development a:• 2 plan reviews. 3 MR. 11ILDEBRA11D: Mr. Chairman. 4 CHAIRMAN JCHA: lir. Hildebrand. 5 MR. HILDEBRAND: In regards to the condition number 2 , 6 the implication is that this phasing schedule would be sub- 7 mitted to the Commission for review and approval rather than 8 ,lust be submitted to the Planning 'Department, the Commission 9 then would have -- 10 11R. DEHAESUS: That 's what the -- between now or any 11 aPproval that takes place now and the submittal of the first 12 final development plan , because of the number of questions we 13 raised about the plan, the lay-out itself, that- thd developer 1 • 14 would be required to submit a revised plan to the Commission 15 for review in conjunction with the final development plan but 16 -we would want this before that is submitted so that we may 17 have proper review time and then that. would be submitted to the 18 Commission, a:, I said, in conjunction with the final develop- 19 ment plan --- the first final development plan. 20 MR. HILDI.EjRANll: end this would require public hearings? 21 1.1R. DEHAESUS: Oh, yes, yes . 22 CHAIRMAN JEH A: All right . V On 28 we discussed (unintelll �3 ble) -- stated that he wouldn't mind giving up the development 24 riChts to the county but doesn't want to dedicate to the state 25 that acreage unless he has a contract with them to use it for 26 50 years and I guess he grazes cattle or does something with it . • ' 27 It is not a question of development and he 's willing to develop 28 -- to dedicate the development rirhts tn the county . The ZANDONCLLA RCra"TINO SERVICC ttawice 111164IT"AND•troRr1.1111 sau tA/• sistza r �Owrnftn CAR.lrnnfsl• •4•+n �t 31 1 developer is not• getting any credit fcir his -- this was 2 brought up last study session -- for the land he's dedicating 3 for the park dedication on this . tie's paying the full fees 4 on that and I tend to agree with hin. I think that if he 5 can get the contract with the state, the main idea is to have 6 that land Ire an undeveloped state rand if the state can't see J . 7 their way clear to give him the use of- the land for a while, 8 I think the essential thing that ,.elre interested in is that 9 he -- that no development go on and I don't disagree with his 10 contention of not wanting; to agree �!Ith 28 as the staff has 11 written It . 12 I think we- discussed 30 in retards to the last sentence . 13 MR. 1'd like to hear Mr. Dehaesus ' comment • 14 on 28. . 15 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay, Mr. Dehaesus . 16 MR. DEHAESUS : On what was that? 17 CHAIHMAN JEMA: 28. 18 • MR. DEHACSUS: Oh . The reason for 28 and we know what 19 the developer -- . haw he 'd like to see it read . The way .the 1 20 developer proposes 1t , tie would pursue a lei.sing arrangement 21 with the State Division of Parks and dependent upon what 22 happens there then other things would happen. Well , we 'd 23 rather not see it this way . Ag;aln, reallzing that there are 24 certain re;:ponalbilit le:; on the developer because of the size; 25 of the development and so forth, as you printed out, Mr. 26 Chairman, we would -- arid this is why we write it this way that 27 it' s subject to review by our deparr.,rient and the state depart- 28 mcnt of parks, that: tie be required -16o dFdicage the land ZANOONCLLA REPORTING SZMVICC [[At II1[O•A0�1r..0•[10�t[�� t��•t��r ss�ttr CONCORD, CALIK041MI• 04680 I generally usliir. the thousand foot elevation contour as ,a guide- , 2 line. Wow, to follow that precisely would create a very 3 irregular and difficult line to describe. But, anyway, using 4 that as a guideline, this would be then reviewed. S We understand that the developer has some potential here 6 for revenue regarding grazing rights and so forth and we see 7 nothing wrong, with the developer retaining a leasing arrange- ment rrange- meat with the state on this and I'm not so •sure the state would 9 object to it . But, we 'd rather see this being worked out after 10 they Tuve dedicated this land to the. state and the state then 11 its turn lease this land back to a developer. Now, we think 12 that this is a rather critical iter. here . 13 As fat' as the getting credits. for open space, 'we have 1 14 ' • pointed out that. the park dedication ordinance does no.t provide 15 'for this kind of -- allow credits for this kind of open space 16 dedication. This is not a neighbprhood park nor a community 17 park . However, we have pointed out to the developer there 1B may be other reasons for granting credits to the developer 19 regarding park dedication requirements . And as it pertains 20 to other parts of the development other amenities and recrea- . 21 tional facilities that the developer mlEht provide . 22 So, that ' :; a separate question. I don't think it should 23 be connecter) with this particular requirement. We think it 's 24 again critical and I'm sure that we could work this out with 25 the State Division of Parks and the developer. And if some- 26 thing cannot be worked out to ones satisfaction, you always 27 have a possibility of reviewing this condition at some later 28 tune when the -- they say a revised development: plan or the firs ZANOONELLA gErORTINO SCMVICC CCAfl/I[O 00041"&MY 09/04119/6 • 8274[AST OTIILLT CONCORD. CALIFOR014 00070 141r,Oar-4V to 33 • •r •. 1 final. development plan comes up. . 2 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Milano had a comment on that. 3 MR. MILANO: Yes. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, 4 that we so word this number 28 so that if what the developer 5 hopes to viork out with the state don' t materialize, it would 6 come back before us for review. 7 CHADOIAN JEHA: In other words, have the condition remain 8 as it is with that added sentence: 9 MR. MILANO: . That added on. 10 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right . Now, we juin p to item 30. 11 MR. DEHAESUS: I might say in addition to 29, this -- the 12 development rights are the standard condition with all planned 13 unit developments -- requiring development rights .- 14 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah. There 's no question on that 15 point. .. 16 Now, the next one we get to is 30 . We discussed this in 17 the study session and I think In a prior meeting and I think 18 that I know that. I objected to the last sentence starting with 19 the availability of school housing. The first part of what 20 I can see no reason why the developer shouldn't conform to that . 21 But I object to the last sentence . I don't know how the rest 22 of you gentlemen feel about it. �3 14R. 61i0LLD I object to the last sentence of paragraph 24 30, condition 30. Prior to the construction of a phase of 25 development where school site is indicated that school site 26 shall be dedicated to the school district and a starter school 27 shall be provided until a permanent school building can be 28 provldcd . It goes on to say -- thls is the part I object to ZANDONELLA REPDRTINO StXvICC • s.Arnte o.o� r.re Acrc�raA• 8&7• AST STR997 COMCOQO. CALI/0411'1• 140&0 • 34 1 the availability of school housing shikll be -- shall be a 2 consideration in determining whether subsequent phases of the 3 project shall be approved as each phase is reviewed for apprd- 4 val. S I think that that is the job of this Commission and not 6 the ,job of the school board. And I think that in final 7 analysis it could end up being something that the school dis- 8 trict could decide. I think that they should provide the 9 schools and they should put the temporary school, the starter 10 schools in, period . That 's how I feel . 11 MR. What doe.s the Planning Commission feel? 12 MR. DEHALSUS: Well, this is -- what. we 're saying here s . 13 is that the availability of school housing shall be a considera- 14 tion, shall be one of ,your considerations in determining whether 15 subsequent phases of the project shall be approved as each 16 phase is reviewed for approval. So, the decision still re- 17 mains with you and doesn 't remain with anyone else . If you -- 18 if you get certain reports and you may not disagree with those 19 reports as to the availahility of school housing, you may. 20 still determine that the project proceeds . We think this is 21 a very critical consideration whether there's sufficient school 22 facilities to service the proposed development and this is all 23 that we 're saying. I think more and more the Commission ought 24 to be making these kinds of considerations in any determinations 25 on land projects that might come before you. 26 MR. ANDERSO,,H: Fir. Chairman. 27 CNAI RMAN Ji:H A: Mr.. Anderson. 28 • MR. ANDERSON : The words shz!J1 be considered, shall be z^moom[LLA mcpd yma senvice ccernlce eMoerMAwo•ceeercee ' 8814 CAST STRCCT CONCORD•. CALIFORNIA 04630 35 • l a consideration.' that -- 2 MR. It 's a qualifying; -- 3 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, in other words, It does (unintelli- 4 gible) -- as I said seriously qualify (unintelligible) 5 MR. DEHAESUS: Well, I don't want to assume that we had 6 that much ability going in. I mean every phase -- 7 MR. ANDf'RSO;J: Every community . 8 14H. DEHAESUS: Yeah, it -- the question becomes -- I 9 think it was raised at the last meeting and I think :I raised it, 10 was the question of, for Instance, if -an area decides that they 11 want no growth, all they have to do•is turn down bonding, turn 12 down schools. Now, the question, becomes -- I think it's going 13 to be faced by the state and by communities that probably the • 14 way we finance schools today w Ul not be the way we 're going 15 to be financing; schools •five years or three, years from now. 16 And school districts that have problems getting bond issues m, 17 through because the demographics of the population people --. 18 this proportion or amount of people that have no school-age 19 children living; in the community and as a result those people 20 don' t care if the schools are built or not and as a result ' 21 communities have trouble getting bond issues . I mean, you 22 live in a district that has problems getting; band issues 23 through for the school district, Mr. Anderson . 24 Pllt. ANl11:RSON : Yes (unintelligible) 23 MR. UEIIAESUS: So, I think that that 's a problem that's 26 going to have to be solved statewide, not with my comments. i( 27 I dust didn't feel that the school district in effect gets a 28 secondhand shot at these things . _ Now, I 'll just give you my ZANOONELLA QCPONTINI7 UCXVICC C64110191 8r0st"Ane•g IOaKAs said CAOT OTRCCT COMCOgO. CALOPOANIA 94980 36 1 opinions, gentlemen, you -�- I think that's• it Mr. Anderson -- w�1 • 2 144. Well, what the proposal that we would 3 delete that in its entirety or come up with some different 4 language . 5 AIR. UGIIAESUS: 110. 14y proposal is that we delete the 6 last sentence . Now, that -- I just threw that out for dis- 7 cussion. Whether you want to or not, gentlemen, it ' s up to 8 you. 9 CHAIRI•IA14 JEHA: And then the bus -- 10 MR. (unintelligible) 11 CHAIMIAN JEHA: -- was put in at the request of tor. 12 Anderson . I can see no objection to that . 13 MR. Well, the main thing is .how. this feeder 14 bus system (unintelligible) -- that the developer should pro- 15 vide a feeder bus system after a thousand units . This is an 16 Amportant statement that the Sierra Club (unintelligible) -- 17 but I think that is an impo,tiant element . And .also I wanted - I8 something; in here that I think it should he clear that so long 19 as such system is feasible after one year of operation, I 20 realize (unintelligible) -- the mass transit vote that ' s coming 21 up here in June , I don' t, as I understand it, I don' t think 22 it will pass . So I think we need the alternative in this 23 situation and 1 think -- one thing; J watt to emphasize here in 24 the last paragraph -- so long as such system is feasible after 25 one year of operation. And I think, you 'know, I think the 26 applicant should reel i'ree and that we should also be able to „tum this.• 27 look at s as it�' S.� � goes along to see whether or not it 26 should be a ^olid!t ion -- remain a _condi t•.Ion or, ,you know, be. ZANDONCLLA MCPORTING 694vlcC i[At1�1[O [w0[tr�w•w[�Cwt[A[ ' 2874 CAST STRt[T • CONCORD.CALIFORNIA 04230 , j 37 1 delated as a condition. 2 Then also, if you're: through with the conditions-, I'd 3 like to add another condition, number 35. Although we dis- ' 4 cussed it at the last study session, we threw It out for dis- • 5 eussion and the Sierra Club's agreement -- ' In the Sierra Club 6 agreement there was a suggestion or agreement by the Blackhawk 7 and the Sierra Club that the seat be given to the Sierra 8 Club on the architectural review committee. After thinking 9 about this and l*oi.ng through this, it seems to me that the 10 applicant create at a point an architectural, review committee 11 and of-the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee 12 to sit permanently on such committee or temporarily on such 13 committee until the first thousand units are occupied and then 14 after that t1mc the residents of the Blackhawk community be 15 appointed to the architectural revie•r•/ committee. 16 In other words, it' s a situation for I think the Blackhawk 17 community to get a little input from the outlying communities, 18 It' s -the first phase that 's important to the housing. All 19 the review subjects, the staff here before the Commission, and 20 the public hearings and I think if a person designated by, the 21 San Ramon Valley Planning groul, sit on that group for that 22 first thousand units I think that that would be an appropriate 23 condition to approve . So I think the worse thing would be, 24 Mr. Chairman -- 25 CHAIHMAN JEHA: Yes, I 'm listening;. 26 MR. I think the wording should be that the 27 applicant create a local ,drehitectural review committee at a 28 print one member of the San Hamon Valley Planning; group to sit ZANOONCLLA QEPOMTINO SERVICE Cteverig0 6"OAVM4YO 46ped"N• CONCOwo.taLOPOwNI• 04080 38 1 temporarily on such commit tee until the: first thousand units lot 2 are occupled and at that tinke substitute a resident of the 3 B1ackhawk community . 4 CHAIRMAN JE11A: All right . You want that be number 35? 5 R. Yes. 6 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All riEht . Are there any other 7 Commissioners. wishing to make any comments on the conditions? 8 (A number of people speaking at one time - unintelligible) 9 C11AIRIAAW J1'.iiA: That would be Item -- that would be 35 . 10 Thirty-four would he the feeder bus .condition and 35 would be 11 the architectural committee which consist of three people from 12 . the developer and. one Person from the -- 13 R.. Or whatever. - You know, might be ' 14 two from the developer and one from -the -- but just one from 15 the -- 16 CHAIRMAH JEHA: San Ramon Valley Committee . All right . 17 Now, let me go down the line . Mr. Hildebrand, do you 1'8 have some comments? 19 MR. 11ILDE*BHAhD: (unintelligible) I Suess one of the first 20 ones is on condition number 13 (unintellil;ible) -- at this • 21 point I tend to agree with what I consider to be a problem as 22 to this condition, that it should be (unintelligible) with • 23 phase 1 but that phase 2 could not be approved until the 24 :sycamore Valley extension is completed . A more suitable 25 alternate could be completed. However, I think that a suitable 26 alternate should be brought back to the Planning Conmission and 27 scrutinized through the public hearing process (unintelligible) 28 MR. Dick then you would say that it shall ZANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE tt�1 � N fwOwlw�w0 wt�C�t[q • 2414 CAST 2T11C1T COMC000. CALIFOR1444 f&Sao 39 1 be built concurrent with thu one instead of having more 2 committed bet'ore phase -- 3 MR. DEHAESUS : Well, it's the some thing. 4 MR. No, it isn't . 5 (Voices speaking - unintelligible) 6 MR. DEHAESUS: Yeah, be committed before Phase 2 . 7 (Voices 'speaking - unintelligible) 8 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Shall be built or committed before 9 phase -- you want phase -- well , you want the wording changed. 10 In other, words, you 3uGt don' t want it substituted as I 11 understand it . 12 . (Voices speaking - unintelligible) 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA : All right . Would you give me again • 14 your exact wording on your change; Dick? 15 MR. HILDEBRAND: Sycamore Valley Road from Camino 16 Tassajara Road to Blackhatrk Road shall be built concurrent 17 with Phase 1 and completed prior to Phase 2. 18 CHAIRMAN JEHA: (unintelligible) 19 MR. HILDEBRAND: Now, the second sentence on that a 20 suitable alternate solution -- now, let 's see -- • 21 14R. DEHAESUS : Well, I think all you have to do is 22 substitute -- leave the wording the way it is but add to the 23 Directors of Planning and Public Works and Planning Commission 24 has been approved. 25 CHAIRMAN JEHA: That' s our intent . In other words, 26 you want it to come before the Planning Commission . 27 tlfl. JULDEBRAND: Yeah, I would, certainly (unintelligible) 28 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah, you want it submitted to us . ZANOONEI.LA REPORTING SERVICE CENT OD 1M44/MAN0 IIC•ONIC11S »1d CAST *Toter CONC0110.CALIFORNIA *&{,O 40 1 MR. 1IILDEBRAUD: Yeah, I thi»1t that that's a decision 2 that should be reviewed publicly (unintelligible) 3 I agree with condition 19. It is inappropriate at this 4 time . 5 I think 28 should stay exactly as It is but (unintelligible 6 CHA1131IAII JEHA: Well , I think Mr. I.3ilano has a comment 7 ' on that . Do you agree with his wording? 8 MR. MILANO: That would be in the event that arrangements 9 cannot be worked out satisfactorily by the developer with the' 10 state ,you can bring it back before the Commissicn for review. 11 MR. HILDEBRAND: Okay . In other words, it 's not clo_ sed. 12 It would be Just .reconsidered . 13 MR; MILANO : That' s right . 14 SIR. HILDEBRAND: Plumber 30, .that last sentence (.unintelli- -� . 15 Bible) 16 CIIAIR14AN JEHA: What about the wording -- oh, go ahead. 17 There ' s one other one, 21 . There wa^ some comment by the 18 developer -- 19 14R. HILDEBRAND: Yeah, he wants a change provided to • 20 set aside (unintelligible) 21 MR. On 24 , Mr. Chairman. 22 MR. HILDEBRAND: (unintelligible) Twenty-four should be 23 left as Is . 24 CHAIRMAN JE11A: All riEht . Mr. Anderson -- oh, excuse 25 me . 26 MR. HILDEBRAND: (unintelligible) 27 CHAIRMAN JFJ1A: All right . Mr. Anderson, do you have 28 any other comments? ZANDONCLLA RCPORTINO •CRVICC � t[• UI[0 MO�M�rD A[�OIIKII• 2376I9A9T STR[[T CONCORD.CAI.IIOI[NIA 96SIO 41 :• 1 MR. ANDERSON: I just wanted to ask, we talked about in 2 last month's study session regarding the condition of the 3 (unintelligible) -- and the Cluster J where the 20 units per 4 acre (unintelligIble) Mr. Dehaesus, do you think it 's at all 5 appropriate to modify that in any way to go along with the 6 San Ramon 's group csonditi.ons? Their recommendations were that 7 the dwelling of not more than 10 units per acre be put in this 8 project . In other words, these other areas with ten units per 9 acre, I 'm wondering if you can add a domment on the necessity 10 of 20 units per acre? 11 14R. DEHAESUS: Well, the reason I didn't see any part.icula 12 objection to 20 units at this time is because all this will be 13 subject to detail review later on. Frankly , I don' t think 14 20 units Is going to work but I just as soon defer that until 15 -- as a matter of fact, I don't think that much of density 16 -proposed here is going, to work but that 's a question I think we 17 can resolve a;: some later time when 'we get the detailed 18 drawings submitted. 19 So, this is why I didn 't have any particular objection at 20 this time . We may have later on when we get the detailed 21 drawings . 22 MR. So then `if we approve condition number �3 8 then you feel that this is not a definite commitment on our 24 part to allow them 20 units per acre In section J? 25 MH. DERAESUS: Not at all . I -- you know, I don' t think 26 we have certain sentences in here just as ballast . You might • 27 meet later on on that condition. 8 . -It may be that the 28 densities will be increased, decreased, dependent on a cluster ZANOONCLLA REPORTING GERVICE EEIITIVIED 611OOTMAnD OEVOstEOE aat•CAST STRCCT CONCORD. CALIFORNIA D69a0 42 1 design nubmit:ted in their nliplication .to the respective sites. 2 Condition number 33. Approval of this proposal is based 3 upon the revised plan submitted December 20, '73. However, 4 each segment of this proposed development, shall be subject to 5 further review when the final development plan is submitted. 6 It may he that: additional requirements, conditions, and/ or 7 modifications may be specified following review of the final 8 development plan . The conditions in this approval serve to 9 give di.rcetlon to the applicant In his preparation of the 10 final development plan. So -- 11 (Voices - unintelligible) 12 MR. DEHACSUS : I think these are very .important items 13 and they should be reeognized, as such. 14 MR. Okay . Now, let me ask one other ques- = 15 tion about item number 11 : The elimination of the 7 .5 acres 16 commercial area and substitute residential lots i.n each of 17 th•: portions of the property : Now, there was the suggestion 18 by ttie San Harron group that you substitute single-family 19 attached dwellings. Now, could there he would that ainend- 20 ment be acceptable or out of line or -- 21 I.1R. DE11AESUS: Well, we thought residential was adequate 22 here . We see no objection because we think it' s going to. end 23 up single family residential anyway because of the nature of 24 that portion of the development . But i see no particular 25 objection, though leaving it residential allows more flexibility 26 and there may be some reason for maybe_ some attached units in 27 there viii ch we're not aware of at this hof nt . 28 ' MR. Well, I had one other question as to ;ANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE 81F1/1[O 8"041MAND•9PCQV9 AS 2914 F6AST STREET • CONCORD. CALIFORWIA #4620 43 1 the -- in the Suit Ramon Valley list of'' cotiditlons they have, . } 2 the -- they mention, -- well, they -- and we have discussed too 3 about the problem with the people down Lite Blackhawk Road and 4 the agreement made with the Blackhawk people and have You had 5 any Indication from Blackhawk people now close they are to 6 agreement with the people up and down the road? 7 MR. DE1IAISSUS: Well, many of tho_,e questions raised by 8 the people in that area we're fully aware of and we intend 9 that those will. be addressed correctly when those particular 10 areas are proposed for, you. know, the detailed plans are sub- 11 mitted. So as I say , tae 're fully aware of those questions . 12 Now, some of those questions they raised are generally 13 questions of liability between the two property owners and not 14 so Much planning questions . And I think there should be a -- 15 that: should be distinfui.shed but we have not made any Particular 16 reference to those questions in these conditions because we 17 diln' t think it was appropriate necessarily in the preliminary 18 approvals , Now, we have indicated to the developer that there 19 should be a realignment of the road in that area to somewhat 20 bypass Blackhawk . So, we think that. those questions will be 21 addressed later on but they will not be overlooked. 22 MR. Okay . So in other words , later on ?3 at some other stage -- 24 C:HADVIA14 JL11A: Things have broadened generally and then 25 the t'inite types come up. 26 gilt. I have no further questions. 27 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All. right . Andrew. ' 28, MR. I'm in general a f.recment with the ZANOCNELLA REPORTING SERVICE 9941111t0 0"01IT"400 0tpOUttes 1214 ItAOT 1T"CCT CONCORD. CALI/OMNIA 94190 • I conditions as they now have been written or rewritten. 2 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay. Hill. 3 MR. Yeah. The way we -- I'm in general - 4 areeme:nt also the way we ' ve been discussing it here, the 5 modli'leations that we made' in addition . 6 CllAIRi--IAN JEHA: Al, do you have any comments? 7 MR. No, I think -- 8 CHAIRMAN JEAIA: Jack? 9 MR. I'm in general agree-J ent. 10 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well , I agree .wl th everything except I'm 11 stl1.1 little hung up on- 13. I think that the way these 12 things worked on a practical basis , I think that the first 600 t 13 homes isn' t going to make that huge an lmnpact . I think that 14 the developer ought to have a chance to get started on phase *). 15 and get some homes underway before he 's faced with Phase 2 . 16 And if they -- you can't get the engineering or if it' s going 17 to be a long engineering project, I ,just wonder how long it 18 holds everything up . My own feeling on that should be Phase 2 19 substituted for Phase 1. In other words , you can build the 20 l'irst phase but you can' t start a second phase unless that road 21 is either in ' or a substitute is -- an alternate route is 22 agreed to. That 's the only -- where I disagree with you, Dick. 23 MR. Well, I would agree to that , 14r. Chairman, 24 and that's what I thought that our discussion would be . 25 MR. (unintelligible) In other words, you're 26 uayi.ng that ,You want the road built before phase 2 is approved • 27 and JIM -- 28. CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, what I'm saying Is that the -- tANOON[LL* R[POQTINO •[QVIG[ • ecnrico owo�*r�ro Ac reA.c�o Stf♦[AST STOCCT CONCORD. CALIFORNIA NN• i 45 • 1 (Several voices - unintelligible) + 2 MR. It shall be built before Phase 2 3 commences. 4 11R. Shall we leave out the word committed? 5 CHAIRt1AN JEHA: Yeah. 6 14R. Or- committed. 7 CHAIR14AN JEHA: What I'm trying to say -- what I was 8 trying to say is that what we really want is by the time Phase 2 9 comes along to be built, we want to know that a road will be 10 built . 11 MR. Well, we want to know that: it's -- 12 (Several volces - unintelligible) 13 CHAIRRAN JEHA: All right . . So• you want to leave the 14 sentence like it is; you want to delete the word commi.t•ted 15 and substitute Phase 1 for Phase 2. 16 (Several voices - unlntelligiple) 17 CHAIRMAN .JEHA: Or committed. And eliminate or committed I8 and substitute Phase 1' with PHase 2 . 19 MR. Substitute Phase 2 for Phase 1. 20 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right . 21 MR. And then add the Planning Commi,sion. 22 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Add the PlanninE Commission in addition. • 23 All right. Does someone care to make the motion on the 24 committee? 25 MR. DENAESUS : Mr. Chairman, before that happens, 26 - could I gust go over these so that we all understand each other 27 on it? 28 C1iAIRNAH JEHA: Al t . ZANOI ICPORTIP40 •CRVICC 149411r•ro 119PONT908 • AOT ST096T !CALIFORNIA 94920 116 . 1 (Voices - unintelligible) •' 2 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Pardon me? 3 14R. (unintelligible) 4 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, if we open it up to comments from S the audience, we are going to have to go through a pro and 6 con on these conditions. I would ask the indulgence of the 7 board, do you want to hear comments front the audience? 8 (Voices - unintelligible) 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA : Well, if you'd like to hear comments 10 from the -- and let the audience -- and let the people in the 11 audience on the conditions as -- after Tony enumerates -- 12 144 Why don't we go through Mr. Dehaesus' 13 comments first, then decide - 14 CHAIRT-IiAN JEHA: Then we can ask -= 15 (Voices - unintelligible) 16 CHAIRMAN JEIIA: I think what we can do is we can -- what 17 I'd like to do is have Mr. Dehaesus comment on -- we can take 18 a break and then we Want to have people come to make comments 19 on them, we can go ahead and do it . 20 MR. It's not that late, which is unusual. 21 MR. Had there been a distribution of the 22 conditions to the public? 23 CHAIRMAN JEHA: I have to assume there -- 24 MR. DEIIAESUS: All that I intended to do is just review 25 what the Commission I think is -- ' 26 CHAINMAH JEHA: Okay. Let me Po over with you real fast , .27 now. One through 6 is -- remains the same. ' 1;1R. D1:11AFSUS: No changes, right. 28 ZANDON[LLA REPORTING i[IMCC uerto ere« «�«o eceo�Tue air&CAST eTQt[T CONCORD. C&LIFORNI• NNO • I CHAIRMAN JENA: Severs through 12. -remains the same. 2 MR. DEHAESUS: Yeah. 3 CHAIRMAN JEH A: Thirteen, delete the word or committed -- 4 MR. DEHAESUS : Let me --could I read that so that I -- S as I think I want it-? 6 The Sycamore Valley Road from Camino Tassajara Road to 7 Blackhawk Road shall be built before Phase 2 commences or an 8 ' alternate road solution suitable to the Directors of Planning 9 and Public Works and the Planning Commission has been approved. 10 CHAIRMAN JENA: 'that' s right . . 11 There 's no change in 14 , 15., 16, 171 18. Nineteen is 12 deleted . Twenty-one reads : A community center site shall be 13 set aside for the project which shall include a library facility . • 14 Twenty-four stays as it is. Twenty-eight stays as it is with 15 an added sentence . Will 'you read the sentence? 16 MR. DE11AESUS: Yeah . That .-- 17 CHAIRMAN JENA: Do you 'have it , Tony? 18 •MR. DEHAESUS : Well, I think I have it. 19 CHAIRMAN JENA: All right . Let him read how he has it, 20 then you see if you think it agrees with•what you have . 21 MR. DE111AESUa: Dedicate to the State Department of Parks 22 and Recreation the area generally located between Mt. Diablo �3 State Park and the 1,000 foot elevation contour. The Blackhawk 24 Quarry shall be included in the dedication. Final determinatio 25 as to the size and shape and when this area shall be dedicated. 26 shall be determined by the Director (if Planning in conjunction 27 with the State Director of Parks. In the event that arrange- 28 . ments cannot be worked out satisfactorri.ly by the developer with ZANDON[LLA IICPORTINO 6CRVICC 994TInco ONGOT"4110 49FORT642 said CAST ST"99T • CONCONO; CILIFORN1• FAtia • . _ _ . , as • I the State, he can bring it back before; the Commission for , t 2 review. 3 t1R. Yeah, that's the way I have it. One 4 thing I think should be pointed out on that condition inciden- 5 tally is that the University of California thinks that it 6 might be more appropriate that the quarry site be dedicated 7 to them rather than through the State Park Department and we 8 see no particular objection to that . 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well, why don't you add a sentence on 10 that -- 11 MR. If you want to do that . 12 CHAIRMAN JEHA: That Blackhawk Quarry shall be dedicated 13 to the University of California. 14 MR. Okay . 15 CHAIRMAN JEHA: 'All .riEht . Condition 29 stays the same . 16 The last sentence of condition 30 is deleted . Thirty-one, 32 - 17 MR. Did we agree on deletion of number 30? 1B CHAIRMAN JEHA: Well , I thought we did but I don't know. 19 MR. I don' t know. I think it' s kind of -- 20 (Voices unintelligible) . 21 14R. Mr. Chairman, I 'm not sure that it 22 makes all that much difference -- 23 [SIR. Mr. Chairman, why don't you poll the -- 24 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All right. I'd like to poll the 25 Commission on the last sentence of 30, whether we delete it or 26 we don't. The last sentence of condition. 30. 27 Mr. Hildebrand'? 28 • MR. HILDEBRAND: I accept that we delete it . ZANOONCLLA IMPOATINO SCOVICC 99414roge 696641MA%0 06POAt9149 sam aAsr lrassr • CONCORM CALIFORNIA 044i0 h9 1 CHAIRMAN JEHA: All xIght . Mr.' Anderson? 2 . MR. ANDERSON: I accept it as written. 3 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Young.,? 4 MR. YOUNG: Leave it as written . 5 CHAIRMA14 JEHA : Mr. 'Milano? 6 MR. 1411,ANO: Leave it as written . 7 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Dir. Compaglia? 8 MR. CoMPAGLIA: Either way . 9 CHAIRMAN JEHA : All right . Mr. -- 10 All ri.g,,ht• . So It will. stay as written. 11 Thirty-four will be as written which is the bus . And 12 35 is condition. regarding; the addition of' a .member from the 13 valley community group to sit on architectural review board . 14 MR. Will the developer be required to set up 15 such a committee? 16 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Yeah. All richt . With that we'll 17 adjourn for, ten minutes and then vie' ll get back to comments . 18 • (Ten minute recess taken . ) 19 CHAIRWAN JEHA : We 're going to take comments from the 20 public . I 'm' going; to poll the Commission . Starting; with 21 Mr. Stoddard, do ,you wish to have public comment? Yes or no . 22 1112. STODDARD: I 've Cot enou( h input . 1 -- 23 CHAIRMAN J1,11A: A1.] right . Mx. CompaPli a 24 1.111. CONIIAGUJ A: No. 25 CIIA1144A�l JEHA: Mr. Milano? 26 MR. MILANO: No. . 27 CHAT RMAN JE-11A: Mr.. Young? 28• MR. YOUG : Mr. Chairmen, we' ve alraady considered the ZANOONELLA REPQRTINO i[RVICE «RTI/1[O 1"041"11110 490041949 887 [AST ST11[[T CONCOMW CALI/OMNIA 94120 • 50 1 desires of the public I think to a sufficient extent . 1 2 CHA1RHIA11 JEHA: All right . Mr. Anderson? 3 MH. AUDERS01•I: Yes, 1 think that after several months 4 of hearltir, I thank we' re ready to close . S CHAIRi•,A 1 JEI1A: All right . Mr. Hildebrand? 6 MR. 111LULBRNID: hell , to reiterate my position, I 'd 7 rather have a study session. I thought we should have. (unin- g telligible) -- however, already discussed it and pretty much q cone to con,.!usions, I don't see much use in -- 10 JC•.l1A : All right . SA, the -- and I agree that 11 we :should not , so that the Commission %•:ill discontinue their 12 • discussion on the conditions -- 13 PiJi. MILANO : 1, have one more addition T 'd like to make , ' 14 Mr. 'Chairman . 15 CHAIR14AFI JEHA: '14;. Milano. 16 MR. MiLANO: On item number 30 inasmuch as the developer 17 has an agreement with the school , add it onto this condition 18 number 31) tho wording the agreement the developer has with the 19 school district shall also be a part of this condition . 20 MR. Mr. Milano, along that line, I think •21 possibly what; we could do in this situai..Lon is you can -- an 22 alternative if there is one subject to the approval of the 23 Planning Director and the head -- what is it, the chairman of 24 the (uninte:ll.ig.1bie) of they .pan Ramon Valley School. District. 25 In other words, delegate those two head people to work out 26 an alternative -- superintendent, -excuse me . 27 MR. 143 LAAO: 1 think the Planning Commission not the 1 28 Planning Director. ZANOONELLA REPORTINO SERVICE csfTlrlco•1/0"I"AND sc.csrcus Blvd CAST sTRtcT CONCORD.CALWORNIA •Ilio r I MR. Meli , I -- wall', rather than have it , 2 come back, it can ultimately end up back in our laps, but at 3 the same time we could delegate this to the Director and the 4 superintendent of the San Ramon School to work out an alterna- 5 Live -- suitable alternative if it is necessary . 6 CHAIRMA'il) JEHA: Well , what I think -- 7 . MR. I•IIL41dO: We' re going to get number 30 completely 8 confused pretty quick. 9 MR. 111LDEBRAIID: Cdr. Chairman, I think we should Just 10 leave condition number 30 as it stands . 11 CIIAIR•1AN JE11A: Well, 14r. Milano would like -- you want 12 , on the end of it as an addition that the -- 13 M.R. MILANO: I say this from. the standpoint, 14r. Chairman, 14 that I do knew that the developer •,does have an agreement, he 15 'stated so, with the school district . And if he has an 16 agreement with the school district I see no harm in going 17 ahead and adding this last sentence onto the -- -- 18 MR. COMPAGLIA: Could I make a suggestion? 19 CHAIRMAN JLHA: All right, Mr. Compaglia. • 20 MR. COMPAGLIA: And I think that this would -- the 21 availability of school housing and the agreement with the 22 school -- San Ramon School District shall be a consideration �3 in determining whether subsequent phases of the project shall 24 be approved as each phase ic. reviewed for approval. It reads 25 smoother and I think includes everything that -- 26 CHAIRMAN JLHA: An agreement between the developer and 27 the school district. 28 MR. COMPAGLIA: The availability of school housing and the ZANOONELLA MCPORTINO ![ItVICE 96411ll190 0M00\M.110 /[1001[61 • amid CAST aTR[CT - • CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94920 r I agreement between the San -- 2 CIIAIR14AII JEHA: Between the developer? 1 3 MR. C014PAGLIA: -- between the developer and the San 4 Ramon Valley School District shall be a consideration in 5 determining whether subsequent phases of the project shall be 6 approved au each phase is reviewed for approval. Is that the I 7 ' way you want lit worded? 8 (Voices - unintelligible) 9 MR. D'r.HAESUS: That' s okay . I. don't see any •-- because 10 that just simply adds to khat consideration night include . 11 (Voices - unintelligible) 12 . CHAIRMAN JEHA: Okay . Gentlemen, I think the conditions 13 have been reviewed. They ' re now ready for action . Does �• 14 someone care to make a motion? This is a motion on the _..,.., 15 rezoning A-2 to F.U.D. and with staff conditions. 16 MR. Well, with the conditions (unintelligible) 17 CHAUVIA11 JEHA: Well , yeah. Staff conditions as 18 modified. 19 tiR. 14r. Chairman, will there be a chance 20 to comment on the -- 21 CHAIFU-NNd JEHA: Surely . Do you want to do it now or 22 do you want to do it on request? . Let' s do it on request , . if �3 someone makes a motion. 24 MR. I' ll move, Mr. Chairman, that we 25 approve the conditions as has been modified by the Commission. 26 CHAIRMAN JEHA: To approve the rezoning? P.U.U.? 27 MR. Yeah. 28 CIIAII;tI/111 JEHA: With the condition as modified. ZANPCNCLLA RCPORTINO aCRVICt 9941//190*"DOTHAN* A[0OAT[0• • said 6&IT *T*69T COMCe"O.CALIFORNIA *N70 'r 53 :• 1 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Is there a second? 2 MR. Mr. Chairman, Just for the record, 3 that, modification is the one we went through just prior to the 4 (unintelligible) 5 CHAIRMAN JE11A: With the exception of item 30 with 6 that change of sentence in item 30. 7 Motion made by Milano, seconded by Stoddard, that we 8 approve the Blackhawk application 1840-RZ from A-2 to P-1 with 9 modi!'ied staff conditions . 10 MR. YOUNG : Mr. Chairman, on the question -- 11 CHAIRMAN JEHA: Mr. Young. 12 MR. YOUNG : I 'm going to be voting against this motion 13 and I want to explain why . • 14 My. first reason is that it ' s contrary to the land use 15 element of the General Plan . . I ,lust don 't believe any 16 thought has ever been given to the addition of a community the . L 'w 17 size of Moraga, a community twice the size of today 's Alamo , 18 to this wren. Aside from the General Plan question, the 19 development itself is growth inducing and I'd like to point' 20 to all of these other nearby areas . 21 First of all , the land east of Diablo, south of Blackhawk 22 Road, that Js between Diablo and 'Blackhat•:k southwest boundary, 23 which I think would be opened up by this development . 24 Also, the land between Sycamore Road and Tassajara Road 25 intersection which is now agricultural , that is , the property 26 to be bisected by the Sycamore Valley Road extension, also, I 27 think would be opened up by this approval . 28 The land on the north side of Tassajara Road and between ZANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE ' LL�IIIILO LNO�►N�MO AL•O�tL�L said<10T OT.R[LT CONCORD. C hLIIORNiA 94920 • til ;• I the east and west lens of the Blackhawk proposal I think also 2 would become used to a heavier extent than under present plan- ' 3 ping. 4 The land on the southwest side of Tassa,jara opposite S Blackhawk and to be served by Crow Canyon Road extension, I 6 think would be opened up . 7 ' And finally, I think there would be no barrier to . 8 development of -- to the -- of TassaJara Valley east of Black- 9 bawl; once Blackhawk is approved. To me the potential for 10 tremendous additional expansion on top of expansion already 11 met in the San Ramon Valley of which most is to comae is a 12 . primary reason for turning down this application . I foresee 13 tremendous problems with roads and particularly with Interstate 1 '• 14 680 and Highway 24 because these roads have finite capacity 15 and they can be expanded only with difficulty . We have problem 16 in the school district even withoux Blackhawk and these are 17 almost- insurmountable problems . Alt!-ough some districts in. 18 the count;; have declining student bodies,in the San Ramon 19 Valley the school district has an impossible 20 task in keeping .up with those developments which already are 21 in the approval stage . 22 So, Blackhawk, as I see it, is a superb concept and I 23 agree with Mr. Jeha it is very exciting and is far superior 24 to the average development but I see it as something; which is 25 ,just too much for the community to accept on top of everything 26 else which already has been approved or is. pendi.ng. • 27 CHAIRMAN JEHA: . Thank you, tor. Young. Anyone else 28 wl shing to make a comment? Mr. Compaglia, you said you had ZANDONELLA REPORTINO 9ERVICE 960TIP190 5.001"&168 890011190/ 2714 CAST ST1�t[T CONCORD.C"LIFORNIA N1/• 55 1 come comments? � 2 MR. COMPAGLIA: Well, no, it's just that we' ve gone 3 over this project quite a few times on foot and we've read 4 reams and reams of material on it and I look at it in a little 5 different way . I see this as a long-range plan. I think 6 it's a good plan and that I think that the -- it will give the 1 7 . county the opportunity to control the growth that probably g you wouldn' t have under or harsh set-ups or a g myriad of planned -- minor subdivisions . And the . fact that 10 some 2,000 plus acres are going back• into some type of 11 recreational use would be for the •good of a lot of people which 12 probably wouldn't happen if it was allowed to develop in 13 rmallcr. parcels . And the fact that they ' re going to have 14 necessary 1'/aeillties out there , water and sewage. And I 15 •just, in my opinion, think that this is a good long-range 16 plan that will allow that area to S)evelop in a way that we 17 here on the Commission can control each phase . The phase jg control dove].opment. 19 I think thatthe fact that it will. be developed in one 20 way or another is inevitable . And that to think otherwise 21 7 Aust don' t see no growth in this area. . And I think the: fact 22 that ue would be able to control it in Fhases is a very impor- Z3 tan fact . Arid that's the reason I'm Eoing to vote yes . 24 CHAIRMAN JI-AIA: Hir•. Milano . 25 1.111 1.11LAIN U: I can agree with Mr. Compaglia and I think 26 Inasmuch as i made the woLlon I think I should make some 27 comments. 28 1 don' t quite agren with my colleague, Mr. Young, that if ZANDON[L,LA MCPCRTINO 9ENVIC[ • CLA11/ILO OMOAIM••ID 1[ICOt[O• • 8814 CAST STIIL[T CONC0110, CALI/OANI• 94680 56 :l 1 1 we approve El ackhawk It's ruing to open up all this other t 2 land. And for one thing, the demand has to be there for 3 the land. Of course, he 'did state that the Blackhawk going 4 in, why, it was going to induce growth. Well, I don' t think 5 it's going to induce growth to the point that people are going 6 to move into San Hamon Valley that df.,n l t :,ant to live there . 70 They 're not just going to -- not goinE to wcrk in San Francisco 8 I don' t bels eve and going to move 3.nte San 'Ramon Valley , unless 9 they ' ve already done that. 10 plow, w] th transportation being .whit— it is and everything;, 11 you knot; this -- we've heard an awful lot about the environment, 12 . we' ve had reattis and reams and reams of material that we went- 13 through. I didn.'t bring all that I have tonight but neve 14 is some that I ' ve been going through for the past, two or • 15 three months and it's been piles and piles and piles of it . 16 The environment' means somethijiE to some people, it means 17 something different to someone els e . To the bird ,atcher r8 he's thinking of the birds and he 's thinking of the trees 19 and could probably care less about the deer and something else . 20 And somebody else is thinking environment means something else 21 in their eves . Maybe some might have the total concept of 22 .environment, thinking of it as the outdoor space, the birds �3 and the bees and the deer and so forth . But. 1 think Just 24 an awful lot of people that l have talked to are interested 25 in an environment from some particular standpoint . 26 In my estimation the mayor subdivisions and minor sub- 27 divisions that are: put in throughout San Ramon Valley is doing 28 more to destroy the environment than a planned unit development ZANOONELLA REPORTING SERVICE c94nP190 6w001NANo•uonu• a2741 CAST ST1116911' • CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94920 I such as Blackhawk. Now, long time ago --. and this isn' t 2 somethinf, new forme to vote on -- I think I was one of the 3 ones -- first ones to speak out of all the Commissioners here 4 for planned unit development. Because when I came on the S CommInsion the big project -- I said this before and I 'm going 6 to repeal; it again -- in the south end of the county 7 project was . Now,, the only open 8 space there Is a golf course. And those people livinE away 9 from that golf course is living in a sea of houses and their 10 kids can't go out and play on that golf' course . In a planned 11 unit development such as this as land set aside for open space 12 that the people in that particular development can use, they 13 can use it for recreation, hike on it, wander around over its 14 picnic on it, and what have you. And it takes away that 15 look of a sea of houses and nothing but houses, houses, houses . 16 Now, we have people In the first planned unit development 17 were first. proposed down in the San Hamon Valley , we had 18 people very vehemently come up here before the Commission and 19 protest against some that this Commission okayed . And the 20 same they were environmentalists . Yet planned unit develop- 21 ment didn't mean the same to them as it meant to me as I was 22 thinking of planned unit developryent. And I was thinking of 23 it from the standpoint that ,you step away from one house and 24 maybe you ;could have a neighbor or so to walk across before 25 you would get to the next house and that acre could be used 26 by the people living In the particular project . I think that i .27 the way and I have been willing to see cluster developments, 28 to see houses pinned a little bit more close together and in ZANOONELLA REPORTINO SERVICE 694TI►IC0 {No/TM"O AlCI0II1644 2374 CAST $?DCCT CONCORD. CALI/ORM,IA 04980 I some inst•aiiees In order to be able to have some open land 2 for the people . 3 Now, it is said that there is a lot of this Blackhawk 4 land that is unbuildabl.e. I wdnt to tell you something, 5 I have roamed all over th.i's county in long" field trips and 6 I don't think that there' s any land in this county that is 7 unbuildable unless it ' s straight up and down and even some 8 of that we have seen houses built on. So I can think of 9 some of these peaks on Blackhati•k, some of these ridges that 10 would sell for an awful lot of money , somebody would buy it , 11 put a house up there where they could see all over God' s 12 country . But Blackhawk is not going to let those ridges be 13 built on. That 's part of what they 're going to be giving • 14 the people up there so that they won't be built on . They ' rd 15 going to give that as open space . ' And they 're not giving 16 this -- I don' t believe because it ' s undevelopable because I 17 c^n see plenty of places and I've been all over that ranch. 18 There 's plenty of places where you could put homes in the area 19 that• would be real valuable sites in the area that Blackhawk 20 has donated as' open space. . 21 So, I think and I continue to lean towards planted unit 22 developments because I see that from the -- from the sub- �3 dividing that I've seen, major and minor subdivisions, I can 24 sce that this i.s [►oinU to be the only solution to us getting 25 some realistic open space in this county is to go more and 26 more for planned unit development. 27 CHAIRMAN JE11A: Any other comments? ' 28. MR. Yes . I" have just one other comment ZANOONCLLA RCPO'RTINO SERVICC 96011FIC0 S"QQ1.&%D•CO011TCU 3874 CAST STMKCT CONC011D•. CALIFORNIA 94980 ' yy I to end it. This has been on the Commission now since 2 I'ebruavy and I'd like to comment on the input that we' ve had 3 from some of the various groups. There was the -- I thought 4 1 was particularly impressed with some of the comments from 5 the young people that came out here . In fact:, there was 6 one young man who came out here one night, he was about ,just s• . 7 ' taller than that podium there, and. lie talked extemperaneously 8 for about five minutes on just planning► and zoning matters . 9 I was really quite impressed with his. comments . Also, as 10 this project. goes on I would continue . to be, you know, watch 11 for the Input by the San Ramon Valley Planning Group, the 12 . other groups in the San Ramon area, plus the Sierra Club or 13 whatever the other. groups have some input, because I think • 14 this is all very worthwhile to get viewpoints other than the 15 staff and the applicant and pet the input from the community n_ 16 and other interested groups In a natter such as this . And 17 I think we 're going to be working on this matter for a long f8 time and I would say that so far the input from the other 19 people that appeared before here has been worthwhile and 20 really liven us . some points to consider. ` 21 CHAIRMAN JEAM: All right . Thank you . 22 Well , I 'm going to -- my thoughts are best summarized 23 by a quote out of the letter that 1 received from the 24 California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. 25 I'm going to (just quote this because 1 think that it gust 26 sums up my feelInes. 27 I substitute me for the word us in this letter, and I 28 for where they use the word we . ZANDONELLA REPORTING •ERVICE [[![111(0 ' 82V4 CAST STRCCT COMCORO. CALIFORNIA 04910 60 1 To me the lllackhawk Ranch project represents an accommo- 2 dation between environmental employment and housing needs . 3 1. feel that working with the community , the developer produced 4 a good plan. It, Is environmentally zenstive , preserves 5 considerable open space and perpetutity , and yet helps to meet two clear-cut and eontinuinr needs of the people; the provision 7 of adequate housing and employment opportunities in a region 8 that continues to grow. 9 So, with that, gentlemen, the motlon made by Milano, 10 seconded by Stoddard, we approve the re7.ot:ing of Ulackha;•tk 11 application number 4380 from -- no, the wrong one -- 12 MR. Use the right one . 1840. 13 CHAIRMAN JEHA: 18110-RZ from A-2 to P-1 with staff's f 14 conditions as modified by this Commission. Will. you please 15 call the roll? 16 MR. Mr. Milano? 17 MR. MILANO : Aye . 18 MR. Mr. Stoddard? 19 MR. STODDARD: Aye. 20 MR. Mr. Compaglia? 21 MR. C014PAUL1A: Aye . 22 1s1R. 14r. Young? � �3 MR. YOUNG: No . 24 MR• Mr. Anderson? 25 14R. ANDERSON Aye . . 26 1111. Mr. Hildebrand? .27 MR. 111LDEBRAND: Aye. + 28 MR. Chairman Jeha? ZANOQNELLA OMPGRTINO •ERVICE • jjRl12ljplMORlNA4D Aj♦O0T4Ri •i/4 EAST STREET . LONCCRp.CALIFORNIA 94020 . 61 7 1 CHAIRMAN JEIIA: Ayf' • 2 All right. We have one other action to take. ---oOo---- 3 a 6 � ` 7 8 10 ll 12 13 14 16 17 IS 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 26 27 . 28' ZANQQNCL.t.A RCNQRTtNO >1CRVtGC Csr+�r,to•Mo�er•ro rt.crYtrs :::s rtRs* •Y�t*tr . CO'C0/40. cA4�ioNN1A !•020 i N r rtt a Q O I C • i�d • � i BLACKHAWK 0 tfl 'C« RAIL_ EYXIBIT =11 -- • BLAMZi;�,K FIL E.I.R. ORAS J ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I IAMIS A ROBIRTS ASSOCIATIS. INC I BLACKHA%qK RANCH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 1973 JAMES A. ROBERTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 7128 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite A-1 Carmichael, California 95608 Telep4one -916-488-5020 Submitted to: Mr. Mel Bovier • Envircnnental Coordinator 'Contra Costa County Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, •California 94553 August 28, 1573 This report, JARA OBDC 301A approved in fora and content for submission James A. its Associa es, Inc. rnest L. Seeman Project Manager Aennetn M. Bees.;,er Technical Director i ii FOREWORD This Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared ,by James A. Roberts Associates, Inc. for the county of Contra Costa to assist the county in evaluating a proposal of the Blackhawk Development Company to develop, for residential �• use, a portion of the approximate 4: 700 acre Blackhawk Ranch near Danville, California. This report is organized to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as the act has been interpretedby the county of Contra Costa. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES vi �. INTRODUCTION 1 _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 • Location and Boundaries 5 Objectives 5 Design Concepts 7 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY 11 Regional Setting/Ecological Perspective • 12 Geomorphology 15 Geology. 16 Soils 20 Climate 27 Air .Quality 31 Hydrology 37 Water Quality 45 Vegetation 46 Wildlife "•' 51 Past Land Use 56 Present Land Use 57 Circulation Systems 58 Poise 60 Public Services and Utilities 62 Demogra)hic/Social Setting 63 Visual/Aesthetic Setting 65 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT *ASSESSMENT 67 Geomorphology 68 Geology/Soils 69 Climate 73. Air Quality 73 Hydrology 77 Water Quality 80 Vegetation 83 Wildlife 85 Past Land Use 86 Present Land Use 87 Circulation System 69 Noise 91 Public Services and 'Utilities 93 Demographic/Social Analysis 98 Visual/Aesthetic Resources 101 LV • TOPICAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 102 Are There Any Unavoidable Adverse Impacts? 103 , What is the Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-.;Term Productivity? 104 What are the Irreversible Environmental Changes That Will Occur if the Project is Implemented? 105 What are the Growth Inducing Impacts? 105 What are the Alternatives to the Proposed Project? 105 • BIBLIOGRAPHY 108 APPENDICES 114 Appendix A: The Paleontologic Resources of Blackhawk Ranch Appendix B: Blackhawk Ranch: Archaeology Letter Report Appendix C: Status Report on California's Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles Appendix D: Traffic Analysis: Blackhawk Ranch Appendix E: The Economic Impact of the Proposed Blackhawk Ranch Development on • Contra Costa County and the San Ramon Unified School District Appendix F: Description of Project Concept by Design Consultants V LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES- Fi._ au— .1: Regional Setting 6 2: Proposed Development Plan 6 3: Representative Circulation System Design Features 10 4: Prairie, Grassland, and Chaparral Communities and Their Interface on Blackhawk Ranch 13 . 5: Geologic Features 17 6: Fossils 19 7: Principle Paleontologic Resources 21 S: Idealized Landscape-Soil Association Diagram 22 . 9: Soil Classifications 23 10: ' Soils Photographs 25 11: Sun Exposure 32 12: •Geographic Distribution of Days Per Year With .10 ppm High Hour Oxidant 36 13: Watersheds 39 14: Illustrations of Soil Cracking 40 15: Illustrations of Stream B Showing Effects of Cattle 42 16: Monthly Runoff of San Ramon Creek at San Ramon, California as a Percentage of Mean Annual Runoff 43 17: Photographs of Various Vegetation Species 49 IS: Photographs of Wildlife or Wildlife Signs 54 19: Present Traffic Levels 59 20: San Ramon Valley. Census Tracts 64 vi _ �... r 21: Projected Traffic Volumes for Major Exterior Streets 90 22: Construction Equipment Noise Levels 92 23: Population Growth Relationship Blackhawk Ranch/San Ramon Valley 100 Tab es As Representative Climatic Data Stations 29 B: Percentage Frequency Distribution of Inversion Base Height at Oakland, California 34 Cs Sizes of Watersheds 39 Ds Rainfall Intensities and Peak Discharges • for Various Return Periods . 44 E: Plant Species of Blackhawk Ranch 48 • f': Wildlife Species Expected :o Occur in One or More of the Habitats Found on Blackhawk Ranch 54 G: Traffic Volumes in the Vicinity of Blackhawk Ranch 61 H: Average Motor Vehicle Emission Rates (tons/day) 76 I: Effect of Proposed Blackhawk Ranch Development on 100-year Peak Flow for Three Watersheds 79 J: Summary of Estimated Property Taxes ' Revenue Surplus 94 R: Population Growth Impact San Ramon Valley/Blackhawk Ranch 99 vii .r .. • .. .� ,, � ' . . . �� i � , .� :, INTRODUCTION • The Blackhawk Development Company, referred to here- after as "The Compalny" or "The Proponent," is presently en- gaged in a comprehensive development planning program for approximately 4 ,700 acres of land located on the Blackhawk Ranch east of Danville in Contra Costa County, California. Approximately 1,000 acres (21 percent) . adjoining Mt. Diablo State Park is contemplated to be deeded to the California State Park System. An additional 2,200 acres (47 percent) is to be left as permanent open space under the management of a community association or some other appropriate agency. The remaining area, approximately 11500 acres (32 percent) is proposed to be developed with single and multiple family residences and recreational facilities. The Company anticipates that proposed development of the 1,500 acres will occur over a twelve-year period. When development proceeds as proposed , • the community will have one of the lowest gross densities of residential community• projects in the county. The purpose of this report is to summarize the efforts of James A. Roberts Associates, Inc. in assembling data on the physical, biological, and cultural environments of the property and assessing the impact of the proposed development upon the environment. The plan which is being evaluated is a conceptual land use plan which, by the nature of such plans, is generalized to the extent that it is indicative of types of land use, gross acreage proposed for changed land use, and the general areas in which a particular use is contemplated. The content and form of the material assembled for this report has been organized to satisfy the environmental impact report requirement of Contra Costa County in its interpre- tation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. The environmental data included in this report have been gathered from published and unpublished sources and through • field observations conducted by our staff.. We wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of The Proponent; Royston, Hanamoto, Seek and Abey, project planners;. ' Von Hagge and Devlin, Inc. , golf course architects; Living- ston and Blayney, urban planners; John Forristal, traffic engineer; Elmer McNece, CPA; Tom Jackson, archaeologist; and Bruce Hanson, paleontologist. We also wish to thank , the staff of Contra Costa County and various other govern- ment,al agencies and individuals who provided valuable data ' and observations. . 3 ' , ,. �� _.....�, (��t.a�^(�a��no�a • 1Y+.�i=�.�J v • 1 2/T`rtt r4, t'4s a: t a PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of this chapter is to describe the proposed project, its principal characteristics, and its location in Contra Costa County. Location and Boundaries ' The Blackhawk Ranch is located near the center of , Contra Costa County, approximately 19 miles southeast of Martinez (the county seat) , five miles east of Danville, and four miles south of Mount Diablo (Fig. 1) . The property is bordered by Mount Diablo State Park on the north, Black- hawk Road on the southwest, Tassajara Road -along portions of the property on the south, and numerous- private land ownerships on the remaining sides. ObJectives The primary objective of the proposed development is to provide, over the next decade, s=ngle 'and multiple fanily residences in the Danville area in order to meet anticipated demand for residential units in the San Francisco Bay area. . of the approximately 4 ,700 acres which comprise the property, approximately 1,500 acres (32 percent) are planned for dovelop- ment including approximately 4,380 residential units which represents . P3 dwelling units per gross acre or 2.92 dwelling units per net acre. In addition to the residential units, shopping areas covering approximately 22.5 acres and an office/commercial center covering approximately 14.5 acres is to -be located southwest of Blackhawk Road. Among the recreational facilities to be constructed on the property are: 1) two 18 hole golf courses located around and within portions of the residential areas, 2) a golf, swim, and tennis center located approximately in the center of the development area,• 3) an equestrian center located in the upper northwest portion of the area proposed for residential development, and 4) equestrian, bike, and S �Ky tPsth CA, � i j r}� ! (y�,��1+tom. 4 •+'� } l �' • C- ".• O •'..-•r•• M1 �!/�Y"'t��n.,� nJ' /t.M1lip�•,�r•• '"., ` AZ RIM— + �j� vtlda7t„. ' 1lr,,l��✓�::'�1�'�"e'.41r� >s,{fi'!��;.�� t^��G�, �`vfsjtj, 1EiS `y �.' !1 �.~ ter �✓ Vic?•;� .1 t;`�f �\ t � \ .�,� ~'�i� 77T.��''� i-� ,�c�t�U��:;� 1'�."'1`�` •.�L''�"•-}t` �.�i l�*y!t •�. � .L�"r'c/%'�'� ti !+ W>tte Gatf: •• .::.��' �' i t;�. �'• ,,.��\�;" 1�'Cyti f ��_ - _ �. it y e d. . _ t ��.,_"^"��•��_" ��., 7. ~l ^( tY�31jp: o ti".r tea' !'.. �~ y0 L. 1:^• j• y' + rt.•�' :`�'� "Wit( � 1�O.rar ttf_+••l,.A4k,�.�,y �unactwb J4.,,,5_e+y, ,'•-ti��Cr�;�,'�C; �,,-x•.r.:. � `^ a i*�?'. `-- tHR• 5'�'._., �:�r- � Te tM r!+` jr t / J � iYfR,ftC)Rf 1„ptagre S.r ?✓?.i';.4 l^� rilT S SCALE IN M14E5 klrA, ? �'' ..•SC�'-..,"' "ait"!'i`� -►"`-�.'L. �,. REGIONAL SETTING BLACKHAWK RANCH FIG. 1 hiking trails (Fig. 2) . • The approximately 10500 acres proposed for development are divided into four general sections; 1) the northwest development area (Phase I) , 2) the north-central development area (Phase II) , 3) the central development area (Phase III) , and 4) the eastern development area (Phase IV) . The Company is contemplating simultaneous programs in the various development areas. These development areas are generally defined by natural ridgelines which also serve to visually isolate the areas from each other. Design Concepts The Blackhawk Ranch plan design is based on the inherent environmental., technical, and economic characteristics of the ranch and the surrounding area. Development is pro- posed to occur only on areas with slopes of less than 25 percent; hence, modification of the natural terrain will be minimized. Disturbance to natural creeks, drainage channels, and vegetation will likewise be minimized. Build- ings will not be constructed on exposed slopes, ridgetops, or knolls, and will be placed in such a way as to avoid the construction of a conventional graded house pad or a graded driveway with excessive slopes. Roadways will be located to preserve the natural terrain and visual character of the property. The proposed development's circulation systems will be constructed to maintain the existing rural character of the area. If approved by the County Road Department, all the roads on the property will be construgted without conventional curbs. Instead, a four foot gravel shoulder will be provided on all primary and secondary roads and an eight foot shoulder on all tertiary roads that serve individual housing units. This concept is designed to maintain the rural atmosphere as well as to avoid concentration of rainfall runoff water and to provide emergency or guest. parking. SiNGi E FAMILY • ..r SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER P `� ti� a 1'+ .0 • ' SCHOOLS pit COMMERCIAL !!�' — '* ..�.r ./' '� '•�" ^•-., .h r PROPOSED DI':VELOP 1117 :' PIZ,'.' 'r• �.G. • The primary and secondary roads will be constructed with a 24 foot road surface and the tertiary roads with a 22 foot surface to help preserve the rural atmosphere of the property. The tertiary road system has been designed to provide internal access to individual housing units; there is minimal lot access to either primary or secondary roads. In addition, all primary and secondary roads will be developed within a 100 foot green space and provided with an eight foot bicycle and pedestrian lane adjacent to the gravel road shoulder on one side. In some cases , this concept will result in an offset road alignment within the 100 foot right-of-way to accommodate the separate vehicular and ped- estrian/equestrian circulation elements. Some of these circu- lation system design features are illustrated in Fig. 3. Vegetation planted on the property in conjunction with 'green belts along the roadways or within residential areas will be planted in informal designs , rather than regular designs, utilizing native vegetation, where possible. Native speci-es will also be used extensively in association with the golf course to reduce the water supply requirements and to help pzovide a more natural "fit" of the golf course into the natural environmental setting. More complete descriptions of the proposed design concepts, as described by the project' s planning and design consultants, are included as Appendix F to this report. � r• � � ,(vim �• �.+�r �� • lam, ,�'; .•`�-�'� .—..� . .\ � � . �AU11 IY� �M M L ps� Awe <=..!.on fwery Ro/d. N . .�;t0*4 ...ww fin•• Source: Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, 1973. FIG. 3 REPRESENTATIVE CIRCULATION SYSTEM DESIGN FEATURES 10 • o '0Tw w ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY * The purpose of this chapter is to describe the present physical, biotic, and cultural setting of Blackhawk Ranch. Where possible, the environmental data are photographically illustrated or depicted on tables or graphs. Regional Setting/Ecological Perspective The Blackhawk Ranch is located in the Valleys south of Mt. Diablo. The ranch ranges in elevation from around 700 feet in the valleys to as much as 1800 feet along the common boundary with Mt. Diablo State park. The valleys in the western portion of the ranch. are extensions of Green Valley and Sycamore Valley which are themselves extensions of the larger San Ramon Valley to the west. The natural drainage from this valley system circles to the. northwest of Mt. Diablo and empties into Suisun Bay by way, of Pacheco Creek. The valleys on the eastern portion of the ranch are northern ex- tensions of Alamo Valley and are drained by Alamo Creek which passes to• the southwest and empties into San Francisco Bay. Due to this drainage pattern, the property is effectively divided into two ecosystems. However, the biotic communities are similar in both ecosystems. The basic biotic community of the region is the California prairie. Also present on the ranch, in the higher elevations, is a second biotic community, chaparral (Fig. 4) . In its pristine condition the California prairie extended from the valleys up into the hills and contained very few, if any, trees. In general, the trees were confined to the edges of watercourses inhere they formed riparian habitats (Cronise, 1968j . The long summer season without rainfall was the primary climatic condition which was responsible for maintaining the grassland vegetation. 12 t ' c'.�Fi""'r N4._ �"4?f..i;�:�. n.. •!f....�tTy1T,j'j' • .. � t,:• �°" :� �r v :r t. .\ `i -1L�r 7 YID► >i �� vrt. ' `�s '...: s s t x,' .� Z ./r•`rr�.�, M�''t:A .+✓'�b � � ► 'r • •. S� `' a7 r i e *.� _�/'r tiirit:a. x � + r�, i j J• •..7 • .♦ .H ..f`, � 'J4 ti �i. r+•.•M.a1 , .,� ! ..,t . ' ..'t,r�l+' Iii-+_ 1 S ! r .+ r 'r � r '..��•� d . j x d t + r I r• { 'K 1 j`yJi+*ti; ,i. � l ,'1 +'� � 'N f�. . rr+; 1 L .'�r e..j.tr.rr /r.:r'•�: ' i* s•..j..r f, lr A s�rr ► +• 1r ;'" x °' � ��r ,�!�ticiriii�: •iw.t1 ?::i/.::.i�r.'u.L'yif«C»yLl�J47'�fCr�I'S1rlJcri:r . .:li:r FIG. 4 + Photographs taken on 8lackhawk Ranch illustrating the California prairie community (top left) , the chaparral community (bottom left) , and the boundary between the communities (right) . • r 13 ' The prairie vegetation was dominated by perennial bunchgrasses--purple needlegrass (Stipa. ul�_ chra) and nodding needlegrass (S.cernua) ; other species included blue wild- rye (El^ laucus) , pine bluegrass (Poa scabrella) , deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens) , beardless wild-rye (E1�s triticoides) , and later, an introduced annual, wild oat (Avena fatua) . There were also a variety of non-grass annuals and perennials that flowered after the winter rains and dominated the landscape during those brief periods. Early land use prior to the 1850' s took advantage of the prairie vegetation by development of grazing land for cattle, which provided hides, tallow, and some beef. Later, sheep were raised for their wool . Gradually the better lands were taken over for the production of grain crops such as wheat, barley, and oats. This land usage resulted in a decrease and loss of some of the larger mammals from the '+ prairie. Also, as a result of heavy grazing and the success of introduced annual grass species, there has been a change from perennial bunchgrasses to annual grasses. The chaparral community of this region tends to be associated with a set of factors that include -'teepness of slopee, face of slope to solar exposure, condition of soil , and elevation. Because of these factors its distribution tends to be discontinuous and mixed with the grasslands at lower elevations and the woodlands of the higher elevations. On the Blackhawk Ranch, the chaparral occurs more commonly on the drier south facing slopes with steeper slopes and poorer soil development. In the less disturbed areas the vegetative structure of the chaparral community is still similar to its pristine condition. The characteristic shrubs to be expected in this region belong to three genera, chamise (Adenostoma sp.) , California lilacs (Ceanothus sp.) , and oaks (Quercus sp.) 14. r The common mammalian wildlife were pronghorn (Antilocaara americana) , mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) , California 'ground squirrel (Spermophilus bee_ chevi) , jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) , kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp. ) and the major predator, the coyote -(Canis latrans) [Burcham, 19571 . Historically, many of these animals of the prairie were also found associated with the chaparral. The dif- ference was more in terms of proportions of one type to another, their abundance, and the seasonal distribution of the animals. One animal associated with pristine chaparral of this region was the grizzly bear (Ursus •tularensis) . While chaparral served as its major habitat the grizzly bear also roamed onto the adjacent grasslands (Grinnell , 1937) . Wildfires have burned over the area at varying intervals for as long as fire history has been recorded. The long dry California summers, occasionally unfavorable wind conditions, : • and highly combustible fuel found in this region along with man' s activities, both overt and accidental , account for this history of fires. Geomorphology The .Blackhawk Ran=h is located in the low foothills and valleys below the higher elevation ridges south of Mount Diablo. . This area lies between the San Ramon Valley on the west and the San Joaquin Valley on the east. The ranch is drained by small spring-fed tributaries which, as previously indicated, generally flow in a southwest or southeast direction. The upper watersheds are characterized by steep, deeply incised V-shaped canyons, and tributaries in the lower portions run through gently sloping hills and alluvial valleys. Some portions of the major tributaries have begun cutting through earlier valley fill material. It is not known whether this cutting is a result of changes in land surfaces and vegetation cover as a result of past fires or grazing ac- tivitiea, ,or whether it is related to hydraulic changes induced 15 4 � by seismic activities. Geology A geologic reconnaissance investigation of the ranch was made by Lowney-Kaldveer and Associates of Palo Alto, California (1973) . This geologic reconnaissance was based on the geologic literature of the area and on field observations. The following paragraphs summarize the results of their investigations. Geologically, the site is underlain by a series of steeply dipping sedimentary rock units which form the northeast limb of a synclinal fold. The Diablo Range , which lies at the east edge of the Coast Range, consists of a number of such folds, and Mount Diablo is on the crest of an anticline at the north end of the Diablo Range (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1963) . The .oldest rocks are probably Jurassic in age with younger rock units of Cretaceous and Tertiary ages present. The oldest rocks on the ranch are exposed on t higher ele- vation ridges at the northern edge of the property; the rock waits decrease in age to the south. A geologic map of the Blackhawk Ranch property adapted from the Lowney- — Kaldveer report is presented in Fig. 5. The older rock units consist of sandstone conglomerate and shales of the Domengire formation, the Sobrante sandstone and shales, and the San Pablo Group of sandstone, shale, siltstone , tuff, and conglomerate. These rock units form the resistant ridges along the north boundary of the ranch; the Lowney- Kaldveer and Associates report describes these units as being more competent compared to the younger Orinda Formation which underlies the southern half of the ranch. Their report characterized the Orinda Formation as being weathered to a surface topography consisting of low rounded hills with slope failures ranging from numerous shallow slumps and earth- flows to several, deep-seated -failures. Problems relative to the expansive properties of the residual and alluvial soils 16 } ''�►`^ . i. '• I $'.,`.,y �7' chi ,r .. LIX � �1 L` a•••ar6 •aa.a aura 1- .{..: ',�— `..,..1.. --.+w.t� ',�-,I; .. �• �i ur fir..?` �. f'-� I_,^,yyM�i4?,♦ r� :t yf_ T "-'...;__�a at.r- _ �.` •}.. / `1\` , � {.t.��4 r`� _ �1>£t �t'1 �-� .�j�, \ \ C"'~ � 11l l.•h �•.�.`.�,,.M. .�" t•5-,: rte+. �1 i.K I' �• + ( j, - LIP J. "� C, �.Si ..,5 ``R ';�. :U...a R .1r-...1� �rr'!�•� t i j` s + tr � [�' `�� •�. .- �r � ", �+.r1 ' �^ .f ,l t � -•, �:. •u•.:t„ .` 1 TO ' `S � J' t� ' .Y,•••t K �=»4,77"�N: rr H a• fro � t.u. ,�"utY tfi "y.•N fh h t }+1 r •'cam + TIP,: tii..� ; i•�,� '_•may -:lJ��t)� l 44, ry '� \ `.I• t,`i.`L .i 1'�'�- , Af 10 6206 SCAUE INSEET+^ GEOLOGIC FEATURES Qal ALLUVIUM Qsw SLOPEWASH DEBRIS AND ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS r TO ORINDA FORMATION Tsp SAN PABLO GROUP Ts SOBRANTE SANDSTONE Td DOMENGINE SANDSTONE FAULT LINE SOURCE: LLS.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MT.DIABLO- SYRON, 1411 ffj FIG. 5 17 were also mentioned in the report. Seismicity. Blackhawk Ranch lies 32 miles from the active San Andreas fault, 13 miles from the Hayward fault, and the. Caleveras fault runs three miles to the southwest of the ranch. In addition, the ranch lies approximately five miles north of the north end of the suspected historically active Pleasanton Fault. The Lowney-Kaldveer Geotechnical report indicates that a fault exists along the extreme northwest corner of the property, running in an east-west trending direction, but is not thought to be historically active. However, the potential for fault-offset movement exists along this trace in response to movements along the Pleasanton or Caleveras faults. Paleontology (Hanson; 19731 . The Blackhawk Ranch is known for its abundance of fossil leaves, invertebrates, and mammal remains (Fig. 6) . The fossils of Blackhawk Manch • have been the subject of scientific investigations since late in the nineteenth century. Initial attention was directed toward fossil leaves and marine invertebrates, and paleontologic activity reached a peak in the late 1930' s following the discovery of the rich accumulation of fossil mammal rema-4ns, now called the Blackhawk Ranch Quarry. Research on material from this and other localities on the ranch has led to numerous scien- tific publications. The ranch continues to provide educational experience as well as scientific information as it has since the early 301s. The geologic record on the ranch spans nearly 50 million years. Two separate invasions of marine seaways and subse- quent freshwater lakes and streams left sediments which enclosed the remains of a great variety of plants and animals. These fossil remains, most of which are now. regarded to be of late Miocene age, are most abundantly distributed in a broad band extending the length of the ranch. Rich beds of . marine clams, "sand dollars," and snails occur 'in the northern, older part of this band. Fossil leaves of terrestrial plants � •yl � i.t.. Ate. •�.�'l!.. r. .i.. s �+� .ti•' it ///��1,� � ,� -1 . '•� .'i..�, �`�.-' . is .. -. •'•'•-- � ,•;.;moi-�•',t-• FIG. 6 Photographs illustrating Blackhawk Ranch fossils, including the Black- hawk Ranch quarry showing plaster cases in preparation for removal (top left) , fossil bone (top right) , imprint of fossil leaf (bottom left) , and fossil oyster (bottom right) . 19 • are less common, but 'tend to be concentrated in -layers at several levels near the center of the band. Vertebrate fossils are known from several localities on and near the ranch, but are known to be abundant only in a WNW-ESE trending zone about four feet thick just west .of the center of the ranch (Fig. 7) . The complete text of Hanson's [1973] report on the Paleontologic resources of Blackhawk Ranch, including a map showing reported occurrences of fossil material, is contained in the appendix to' this report. Soils . The soils of the Blackhawk Ranch have been delineated by the Soil Conservation Service .in their 1945 Land Capa- bility Survey of Contra Costa County [SCS , 19451 . The survey is currently being updated to meet Federal Coop- erative Soil Survey Standards . A generalized county soil survey report has also been published by the Soil Conservation Service • in cooperation with the Contra Costa County Resource Conser- vation %stricts [SCS, 1968) . These sources of information indicate that Blackhawk Ranch may be divided into five characteristic soil groupings on landscape-soil association patterns. These groups are shown on the idealized landscape-soil associations diagram, Fig. 8. These associations include the Clear Lake-Bottella group, the Altamont-Diablo group, Altamont-Diablo steep phase, the Los Osos group, and the Los Osos shallow variant with rock outcrops. These soil associations have similar properties relative to man' s use of land; thus, soils descriptions are presented by these groups. Some soils series other than those described may be included in these associations , but their occurrence is considered too small in extent for planning and management purposes. A generalized soil map, prepared from the Blackhawk Ranch Conservation Plan and the General Soil Survey is presented in Fig. 9. Photographs illustrating 20 mostly ..: •sass—• ( 1 s L,,k ,'i,' '. ;�%�';-."•') j y its 6 ��1-.,'e'` � t �` 1 _ ?..� •l.ir e.:.!\a.r 1 t'tea ._ ) . C.tf,. __..._.tarr.. •tip .-'•-�`�•.�.s� ♦ �� ♦ �w. iL _.._.` ..• -1rrR'^y .;`mss '."��1• ♦ _—..-♦.. Z._�.�.�....� is- •�'Z [[t.. •• �•� • !✓r t .r. 1 ti'•+�^,J af" ♦�„♦ _ vl lai ` l't.� j„_t,•.i,��.... .` y - /f. r+v^!`i r t y y r ♦ ..�^ 1Mls '�u.i .«t N�� Fi •;��1 l.`a� _ �,1 ii :�\.I ',f-✓r l/i. 'i. `� •a��f.�1.;......-...- _ I`y �'`a r. •a: i t, ..r t `- 'fin•.. •' f✓'�/. iy w s+ 1,"l:�♦_-,` °�fi Y l ti "�"sa r. \✓�t I i r. ' j ( - .♦ .� r r��F 1, �� '� 2' s�. '.'.`.•.,� � .. ' r - ,�, ��- ,i 41 ol 1 'Ell c C ♦ ' '' : 'ti i�•_.. �{ �'y/ t 1� t• r — • :!4r 14, ' . t 6200 4 �• T4 I..-.a S�.( :'. I.. r:, SCA4E INFEEI r ' i { j i i 1 PRINCIPLE PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES ` If BLACKHAWK RANCH "QUARRY” AREAS OF RANCH WITH HIGHEST PROBABILITY FOR VERTEBRATE FOSSILS SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM APPENDIX A. rIG. 7' 21 t, y i t r r.•7 i�.t r a.1zb;� c6 ��* "�t`-'Ws � �' l , Los o9oa-shallow variant with rock outcrops Chaparral We 4009 annual gra$"9 r Ait&mont-Diablo itoe phase , *•o•" annu iI grasses Altamont-Diablo r ��:�'�'.•,,, annual aceeks jr .;,;�;:.,; , scatter r«r• :' ,' ``., .,,� Clear Lak9 ��'+' '.»•'r Cultivated Sobrante sandstone San Pablo r�' 1 ,"^ `` -` " • Group orinda formation colluvium / Recent landslide---^- Alluvium IDPALIZED LAA`DSCAPE-SOIL-ASSOCIATION DIAGRAM PIG. • ' 22 S W ,..� '' 1'� %i �;.r.w1f �1"' "1,1•��M��Y� ��i��.;I � J�i t+t` f! Ski �'; ••� "'� V e 'ti 1-a -�� .«.'•�+s., j. . t•t .r.' _ '1 ��s•. \�iG.It��.Y1 i3 ♦ `�, ZE or M•'tr •M. �1,I. '7+.• �t•.��^`. `='`:,�^,�•. SLS,' �� IIt/, •I 1 .'.j it '"y� t. r x+• ..._'�~ .�•Ay�~+a •� 'J� � n"� ��c.�, :tile. }`� � 11� t,#!M�, F'••�. S_�r. ALf IN"i E( ' i '• )`y'��' jJ •# r- /T. \/ SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS Cm-Bk CLEARLAKE-BOTELLA �e Di-An•l DIABLO•ALTAMONT DI-An-2 DIABLO-ALTAMONT• STEEP PHASE Lf LOS OSOS I Lf-Cr LOOSM SOXS•SHALLOW PHASE-ROCK OUTCROP SOURCE GENERAL SOIL MAP-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CONURVATION PLAN. SLACKHAWK RANCH. w e FIG. 9 23 some .of the characteristic features of the' soil of Blaekhawk' Ranch are shown in Fig. - 10. Clear-Lake-Botella Association. The soils of this association occur on nearly level alluvial fans and basins, on gentle slopping terraces, ai►d in small, narrow valleys. These soils have developed from fine textured alluvium washed from sedimentary rock sources. They are deep, 'lack profile development, and are moderately well drained, although areas of poor drainage may occur. These soils have clay and clay loam textures throughout the profile, and are differ- entiated mainly by soil surface reaction; the Clear Lake clay is calcareous, and the Botella clay loam is slightly acid. Surfocial soil erosion and landsliding are considered ` to be only slight problems in these soils as the soils are cohesive and are found on gentle slopes. Nowever, it should be pointed out that sediments washed from these sources are likely to be fine particles and would probably. travel considerable distances before they settle out. Pint. par- ticles create more significant damage to aquatic life and aquatic habitat than do course textured particles. According to criteria established by the Soil Conservation Service, Boil shrink-swell potential is considered to be high in these series (SCS, 19711 , The Clear Lake and Botella series are agricultural land capa- bility class II, prime agricultural lands, and may be devoted to field crops and orchards. Altamont-Diablo Association (7-253 Slopes) , The soils of this association formed on gently slopping to rolling uplands of the lower elevation Diablo Range. These soils are residually derived from fine textured sandstone and shale. They are heavy textured throughout the soils profile, the surface being generally clayey and the subsoil a silty-clay. Native vegetation consists mainly of annual grasses and scattered oaks. Profile development has been retarded by the self-churning Z4 �.. f t.1 S� .r.•• . ,+, ter. �:,� ,�:ra;+ .' ` �.' ,.gip './ �1•'�,►a��.>;i.M�liilw`�:�' WM • i. :•''t y X1.,1 � .� � 1��ir�i.Z.�r `•i? �+i�i'�.�!11 .qh"f�1�7F�I j :�y A�N+Y „f •'1 � 1 :1:i'r:'.1�•�I.R�7ti•4. VV ij1,.�V .1�F•t'•` �.IMI .�'•=S.�rti•�!: • •.••i '•� `w•� a 7'�tr�.l •I•� ��'�'.t.f�'�.�./ , a I�J��a s. • ;n.. '' ,,1 kir :F,y ,� ' ./ '�`r t• f�. .:,�'�1,', / :. , f I_ '11 C/r'ati v� j fit._/Y c.� .+. •I. I •�•' , , f••1�A`c. ,�y Ilk�/ ''�•, 1.6'��%�,j,}`t .• �1.7 •� �� ty si"�S- t+�- ,i �1 J�,7�� «.::,�r- IO,•! •;ir '� 1 A”, t rr 1 ,.i/►�, 7; •' { ';,� 't t'.,r , 11t '{y r ��'j'/_,t'`)`J�� t, _ �,:. e �T•,J� n;*•� � ;Y' a '•��+ ••'�••!� ��'/ Iti 1 Mal t1 � � p ��j r. 1 .. � �:.If r.p:•w�i%i•� a •- 'JN;��^:• !;: • ��I it t.'1.` �:?.1 .. yt 7 r r:. .ti:��.l r��/�W"•• ��.t,.1,... .•��~••,+ /. ,� .'•f N '1 y . ?� l �i,r �, •ry, •' � `�j V� w, {� .�. �'�L;��.3'�`"K�',:'}`��: Z tc, •L� I' .r� .�.� /•'�s'f" -r� r st'.ii', i ��;i j � /� •..*:r; ,oil'• ` .. �'1 ,) .;� • 14'fi•. ?,,.►,;r, '•: �� ...�,` A •.•t7�i+� ''�.r'•r �.'�' Int � ,� �'•'��• i �.►�lL�� t;.•y i I ."" `N� •-I�; �<�•.� < �'L •,�: ✓t M e � r�r�+'t .•.. _..�•.�.j�d. •.rriN� V,.,7 PIG. 10 Photographs taken at Blackhawk Ranch illustrating soils characteristics including erosion patterns in upper drainages (top left) , slumping on steep hillside (top right) , surface cracking of soil (bottom left) , and roadcut exposing soil pkofile and Svertical section of cracking.- 25 - character of these highly expansive soils. ' Depth to weathered sandstone is about two feet in this series. Infiltration and runoff. from these soils is unique in 'that it depends largely on antecedent moisture content. These soils develop wide cracks to depths of about 18 inches when dry. Precipitation from the first rainfall largely disappears down these cracks and is absorbed by clay minerals, resulting in 'very little runoff. After a few inches of rain has fallen, the soil expands to a• tight, semi-permeable surface with a high runoff potential. Natural runoff, and thus soil erosion, may vary greatly over the year, being dependent upon the condition of the soil surface and vegetative cover. The soils of this association are in land capability class IV,* and may be farmed for non-irrigated grains or as rangeland. Construction activities which remove. protective vegetation and reduce soil cracking by watering or mechanical dispersion are likely to largely alter natural geologic rates of erosion, particularly when bare soils are exposed to high rainfall'. The Soil Conservation Service has described the soils of this association as moderately erodible under cultivation. Evidence of mass soil wasting are. evident on the landscape. Altamont-Diablo Association (25-50% Slopes) . The soils of this associ&vion are similar to those described under the Altamont- Diablo 7-25• phase, except that the steeper unit would be expected to be shallow, have more frequent rock outcrops,• and contain inclusions of the Los Osos series. These soils are found on the intermediate elevation hills of the Diablo Range. Problems of landsliding and soil erosion are more severe in :hese areas than on the gentler sloping phase of the association. The soils of this association are in agricultural land capa- bility class VI, and are commonly used for range. Los Osos Association. The Los Osos series consists of well drained to somewhat excessively drained, moderately 26 • deep silty clay loam and silt loam soils underlain by a clay subsoil. These soils are residually developed from fine grained • hard sandstones interbedded with shale 'and conglomerates. They are situated on strongly sloping to very steep uplands. Vegetation is mainly annual grasses and scattered oaks. Depth to bedrock ranges from 18 to 48 inches. Runoff and erosion hazard is largely a function of slope in these soils, with high runoff and severe erosion problems occurring on slopes greater than '. 30 percent. Soils of the Los Osos series are particularly susceptible to landslides; this has been cited as caused by the failure of the clayey subsoil of the series after becoming slippery at the bedrock interface when lubricated with water. The clayey subsoil also creates a moderate shrink-swell potential which may result in foundation damage if structures are not properly engineered. The Los Osos series are in agri- cultural land capability classes VI and VII, and have their best agricultural land use as rangeland. Los Osos Association-Shallow Variant (with rock outcrops) . • These soils are similar to the Los Osos association previously described, except that the latter are shallower and contain more frequent rock outcrops. These soils occur at higher elevations on steep slopes and. ridgetops. Vegetation consists mainly of coyote brush and chamise. Runoff is rapid and erosion hazard is severe in these soils. The soils in this associatiun are in agricultural land capability .class VIII, and have their best agricultural use as light rangeland. Climate . .Regional Setting. The climate in the Danville/Mt. Diablo region is controlled to a great extent by its inland location in relation to San Francisco Bay. The maritime influence of the bay is weakened by the broad band of high hills lying between the bay and Mt. Diablo. These hills affect the climate of the Danville arda by causing wider 27 • z x�xs tt � ,d%t�w,y,;t,ltx,�' s n � � temperature variations and channeling the vivid patterns of the region. During the summer, skies are usually clear, although at times low clouds may spill over the hills from the bay. Winds in the higher exposed ridges are generally westerly, while in the valleys flow is channeled by the terrain. At night, flows will be downslope, reversing as the uppers* Al Mays% slopes warmsduring- the day. Frontal storms may pass through the area every three or four days during the winter, bringing the main portion of the annual precipitation. Over 90 percent of the yeaily total rainfall falls between October and April. The hills to the west cast a rain shadow on the region. Snow very seldom falls, although during some years higher elevations may 'receive short-lived layers. Winds- accompanying the frontal storm systems commonly flow from the southeast and southwest swinging around to the northwest after ,the system passes ! through the area. • Blackhawk Ranch Climate. Blackhawk Ranch lies on the south slopes of Mt. Diablo in a series of small valleys and ridges. Since no climatological data are available for the ranch itself, temperature and precipitation values collected at nearby stations were used to infer patterns and general trends. The stations which were used included Alamo, Walnut Creek, Saint Mary' s College, Mt. Diablo Northgate, and Livermore (Table A) . These stations were selected because of their proximity to the ranch and because they are repre- sentative, to varying degrees, of the climatic regime in the area. Temperature. Summer temperatures at Blackhawk Ranch are usually warm during the day and somewhgt cool at night. Afternoon temperatures in the middle 80's^are common through July; August, and September, and minimas are usually in the 28 .sem:.. .�• . ,. TABLE A ' IMRESENTATIVS-CLIMATIC DATA STATIONS ` r ' Station _ Temperature Precipitation •Alamo x St. Nary!s College x x Walnut Creek x X . Mt. Diablo North Gate x x ; Livermore x x i 29 •r low SO s. Extremes of 100+ have been reached- in the vicinity of the ranch. Minimum readings average in' the upper 10's during the winter months with maxima during this period � . in the lower 5019. 'Subfreezing temperatures probably occur on" about one-third of the nights during December and January. Extreme low temperatures in the high teens have been recorded at stations nearby. The average date of the last•32•7 frost is about February 28, and the earliest frost in the fall occurs around November 30. Variations of terrain and exposure will tend to affect these values in specific locations. The warmest temperatures are typically associated �•.�•�-��"• with aubsidence condition in late summer, restricting air movement within valleys and permitting insolation to raise temperatures above normal values. The coldest weather is usually a result of southward sweeping cold air escaping from the Great Basin to the northeast. As this circulation • ' diminishes, radiation cooling further reduces nighttime temperatures: The coldest temperatures are to be- expected on the valley floors in the 'early morning hours when cool air drains off the slopes, collects in the lowest portions of the drainage basin, and is cooled further by radiational losses. Precipitation. Winter rains resulting from frontal storm activity are the source of most of the annual precipi- tation received at Blackhawk Ranch, with annual averages of about 18 to 20 inches common. This yearly total is highly variable and may range from one-half to twice the average amount. Over 90 percent of the yearly rainfall occurs between October and April, while almost no rain falls between June and August. Frequency, duration, and amount of rainfall may vary within the area as a result of differences in elevation and type of terrain. Winds. No data are available to define the character of winds in the vicinity of 'the ranch, and only 30 :X t' } a general discussion of wind patterns le .possible. The predominant flow across the ranch is from 'the southwest for much of the year. An upslope flow of heated air from lower areas is common in the afternoons, with velocities probably around ten mph. At night, the flow reverses and cooler air flows downslope at low speeds. This upslope/ downslope flow regime is probably strongest during summer afternoons and may be entirely absent at times during the winter. During winter frontal storms, high wind conditions will affect the ranch with flows from the southeast and southwest. Peak winds of 40 mph may be experienced, • especially on exposed. ridges. Extended periods of. calm, or very light winds, may occur in late summer or fall. When the subsidence inversion becomes strong enough to persist, high temperatures and low winds may persist for a week or more. • Relative Humidity, Clouds, and Sun Exposure. During most of the year, relative .humidity will probably average about 60 to 10 percent. -Higher values will occur in early mornings but will tend to decrease as temperatures rise. During calm wind periods after a winter frontal passage, temperatures may cool to near the dewpoint, resulting in the appearance of local ground fog in the floors of valleys. This fog usually burns off soon after the sun rises, although. it may persist for -several days. As a result of frequent frontal storms during the winter, total overcast skies may persist for weeks during intensive storm activity. Summer skies are usually cloudless except for those periods when stratus clouds overflow out of the bay irea. -Sun exposure data for the latitude of Blackhawk Ranch are presented in Fig. 11. Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Climatology. The concentration of air pollution present in a 'given area -is basically a 31 r , fUli IIt10MT to t# 4y ` SUN �Wd AR roll Arrmm"Tc , MID-MONTH CONDITION•. WED EXPOSUREon ArMN[NT SOL" Us. i_ BLACKHAWK 006"ch Y ARE FOR mon olnitcTwN� Asc sort urlloa- IMATc WD-MONTH CONdT10N! TrLLN�iIT RANCH onD DN ...AR[NT •OLAR 1\ n•ARCt 4 s JAN. �� • FEB. bii� 40' MAR. i low: 30• logs l 31 o`s! ,3 i. i •'i APR. 62• MAY i�IS 3 = 171• JUN. T�ir4'vk i` ! 173 t �---�� f�i b� ��'� i 1• ,�b�' ` T • to I n 10 9 JUL. iN�� ! 730 AUG. i�X10! 66' AEP. i*10; 33• i+ice`\\ 7•..S 4s ! I nto i // \ • 4 s! I 10 , . ->i OCT. • lo`I'=143• NOV. loll 33• DEC;loll 299 s •.•i 01•-4 lip! �hlili�l� �I fl .� 1 i 11.1 r,1••� �1iI�{{`l�lili �{X11 ! 1 10 II 1 • � FIG. 11 32 function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere and the volume of air which is available for dilution and dispersion. The amount of pollutants emitted in the nine county Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD) remains essentially the same through the year [BAAPCD, 1972] , but fluctuations occur in the daily concentrations of the various pollutants as a result of chadges in meteorological conditions, ipcluding inversion base heights.* The height of the inversion base limits the volume of air available for dilution and dispersal of pollutants and causes wind flow patterns to be channeled. irore than usual by terrain. The height of the inversion base varies diurnally as well as annually. Frequencies of inversion base heights are presented 'in Table 8 for Oakland, the nearest station which takes soundings. Inversions are usually highest on winter mornings and lowest during sur-mer afternoons; winter inversion layers are frequently weakened and broken ' •up by unstable conditions accompanying frontal passages. Blackhawk Ranch Air Qua` lity. It is not possible at this time to assess, with any confidence, the ambient air quality conditions at Blackhawk Ranch, as no monitoring data directly applicable to the ranch are available. However, the Blackhawk Ranch has no significant sources of pollutants. Some air quality data are available from Walnut Creek (oxidants) and Livermore (particulates, oxidants, carbon mon- oxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons) which are located some distance from the ranch, but in the same region. Only oxidant and particulate values from these stations can be used, to deduce possible air quality characteris- tics at '8lackhawk Ranch; the latter four elements are locally *An inversion base is the interface between a layer of air near the surface and a relatively warmer layer aloft. This reversal of the more usual situation clamps a lid on the low layer and inhibits interchange of air between the two layers. 33 TABLE H PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INVERSION BASE HEIGHT AT OAXLAND, CALIFOFXIA Height of Inversion Base_ (ft) at 0400 PST 1- 501- 1001- 2501- Month 0 500 1000 2500' 5000 > 5000 Jan. 75 1 1 3 2 17 Feb. 49 1 1 7 7 34 Mar. 45 5 0 11 10 28 Apr. 41 0 2 30 4 20 May 26 2 2 39 19 13 June 26 3 8 47 12 5 .July 18 3 10 63 4 1 Aug. 21 5 12 57 3 2 Sept. 35. 5 8 29 13 9 • Oct. 52 5 5 15 10 14 Nov. 63 3 3 9 7 14 Dec. 66 17 2 5 3 7 Height of inversion Base (ft) at 1600 PST 1- 501- 1001- 2501- Month 0 500 1000 2500 5000 > 5000 _ Jan. 7 6 5 21 18 43 Feb. 1 0 . 3 8 18 68 Mar. 0 3 4 8 20 65 Apr. 0 17 7 26 19. 38 May 0 10 10 32 19 29 June' • 0 29 19 34 9 9 July 3 36 25 30 3 4 Aug. 2 30 31 29 3 5 Sept. 2 27 17 21 9 24 Oct. 5 17 11 15 15 38 Nov. 5 5 10 9 24 41 Dec. 10 6 9 26 18 30 Source: Holzworth et al. , 1963. 34 generated elements for which no valid estimates can be made for areas removed from the monitoring site. Sheltered inland valleys, such as Livermore Valley to the south, have been characterized by BAAPCD as having the most severe oxidant (Ox) problem of the nine county district (Fig. 12) . Reasons for this situation include the large amount of urbanization which has developed, outpacing the more stringent control measures, and the upwind location of major East Bay metropolitan areas. At present, no data exist to determine the extent of the flow of pollutants from upwind sources in the Fast Bay metropolitan areas. Some indication of air quality conditions in the vicinity of the ranch 'can be inferred from studies of the entire district by BAAPCD. Part monitoring data from Walnut Creek (nine miles northwest on the northwest side of Mt. Diablo) and. Livermore (in a low valley 16 miles southeast) , the nearest • monitoring instrument sites, indicate that Ox levels may equal or exceed California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( .10 ppm-24 hour averaging time) during the worst conditions of strong inversions and calm winds [BAAPCD, 1972 and 1973a] . The Livermore and Walnut Creek monit-)ring stations along with stations in the southern portion of the East Bay metropolitan . area to San Jose consistently experience high values during n orst conditions. Even in the apparently improving air qualiLy " regime of the past seven years, the average high value con- centrations of oxidants for Livermore dropped below air quality `tandards only in 1972 [BAAPCD, 1973a] . Particulate levels (not measured at Walnut Creek) have been high at Livermore station, exceeding state standards 16.6 percent of the days of the year in 1972. During 1972, the frequency of days in which state standards for suspended particulates (100 pgm/m3-24 hour averaging time) were exceeded increased at Livermore and two other stations, while the remaining stations either remaiiied the same or decreased in value (BAAPCD, 1973b) . 35 ' t: I/�/err 1.11:'Yl1{.1 1�• 1 1\ Wel ..cwrro 1. BLACKHAWK RANCH •.il \ •la Y • \.M I.IKI\Cd \1 l� r • • w/0/110 •11.1 Ai[ lY\�l./1�1.11\lrl\.11«.f M\I/.r 111r.11. .11\1�tllM /..f 11lNM\ ICLLIIIrIl1\ Hr \IIMIra. (tIN.M a UIICO M1116.. MP ural nc..o•1D r • n1�`;• BLACKHAWK RANCH • 111 WI/u+caco I Om 140 1 /" •III MJNI ' • wa "la• • .III JOM • i. . r 1 M�nMa u/\Il.•\l«.l ww 1./t••r•lu a w.�N► Mn.rl...\ lbl,•w/lY\tIYYp Yud/q.IIWNI. memo Ml YY Y\Mllial.s a/s\wl sl.Y/.\. 1918. FIG. 12 36 Hydrology For the purpose of describing the surface hydrologic characteristics of Blackhawk Ranch, the ranch has been sub- divided into its component watersheds (Fig, 13) . Of• the approximately 4 ,700 acres comprising the .ranch, 3,732 acres (79 percent) of the total area are contained within these ' clearly definable watersheds. The remaining areas within Blackhawk Ranch are scattered along the south and west portion of the property and either lack clearly- defined -channels or are the extreme headwater portions of the watershed (e.g. , the extreme northwestern part of the ranch) . For clarity, the twelve unnamed watersheds have been assigned letter designations. Data concerning these water- sheds, both within and beyond the ranch boundary, are presented in Table C. Entire watershed areas were used rather than only those portions of the watersheds within the ranch proper because the watershed as a whole determines flow character- istics at the point of discharge. The Blackhawk Ranch has been extensively grazed by cattle since the 1890' s and there is a good possibility that grazing is indirectly responsible for the overall excellent condition of the watersheds. This long history of grazing has created innumerable small terraces contouring the slopes. These terraces intercept the surface flow and detain it, allowing it to infiltrate. This process has apparently effectively reduced flood peaks, as there is no evidence of high flows within the channels investigated, nor has the ranch foreman, Mr, Jack Spears (1973) , noted any flood problems during his 18 years in the area. The soils have a high clay content as exhibited by extensive soil cracking (Fig. 14) . At the start of a rain, infiltration capacities would be very high due to the cracks. Once -the soil is wetted, however , the cracks close and infiltration is reduced to a very low value, which would tend to produce . surface runoff. As previously noted, the watersheds are in generally . 37 .. • 1 f ),•.'} \ 17 � 1. .• ♦ :ice,,... � �;..` ' t •- ( ((((,, dG.':1 1:.''�V"''•"�-•• \lam i • ';= .... '�'' t .. � :y .;' 1 `t � ': iii . �'` •}.P, ^'mss• i t is �t.��.. � X�., Al .,,,.!•'"' =. --�''. :••.':. �''�,r .. Lite��;�, �''%'-� �`ti. � y ZOO � z, i ♦- 0 wa� wo .F pNC� GOOK ` pMO H g 13 __ FZG ,t TABLE C SIZES OF WATERSHEDS* (ACRES) Within Ranch Beyond Ranch Watershed Boundary Boundary, Total Dan Cook 98 263 361 A 128 50 178 B 188 62 250 C 210 43 250 D 78 7 85 ' • Sycamore 1283 1113 2396 A' E 31 31 F 167 = 167 West Branch 1003 283 1286 G 67 - 67 H 399 22 421 Alamo 80 433 513 TOTAL 3732 2276 6008 *Measurements taken from USGS 7.5' topographic maps. 39 � +� �t h+^i +�� ! t' }+M r„t�"•Tt�.irt`��a.t�"1; +.i 4 '{'• � �y t•t. } x i✓P'# 0116-k X%AM [ if'h•'.1v at t .{r. Ir r. . ;�` iy s �js'I [ t=:t\+*[t!�•',4 t`•.t ^'�I.t�;yj 'r�.1�+r"'+.•♦: ♦ t �'•'•, , :, •t 'tea � l.' �a �.!�'��~i.l� . it It ••,�a !�.•y\ t It t ! _• 4\1�`. t • 't a t )*�. ttt t` '+~ \ 1 • �_x 1.ti+ :•,`'+'1� ,',•••. �. .1., 4 •.:•,♦'�lt f'1 ♦';tla., .!' —, ! ..i. .�tY.,1�L��r �•[� `f' S i� is � � •a' '•• •\ +;+.�`• - ` �.S••.f'f.•k• ,[� `�. ++ rv.ti�,.*`'• ..iR.r,ti? +�i� •liK '! •ts`` •}• �.+' i� :a.,.� •t _•. r. . � a f 4�' it �aw��i�i� �jrr'r.. �+►. . • w r M 1�� 'a;:,;f^t j,�1.'a r��a�.� �~ f� .e� + `� ,� s. t. tr.�tR tilt t'�.YI',�S C''ii'1��i,�\�*'ij~� •?f;�'..�.♦i 1• ♦�•.`�'t`�1�' ,:' ♦ 'I��y„�+ '.+ it YR 71„ �+,tr,,. �� t t ++•�••I♦. � a••� Y� �.,,,.. ',jta+ij.;y'1-. �� ice•,• •.� •'i l: - a [.. �t ,_.�•<.r,z ice, .r' .♦r A ' , . y,t..r`:',. .♦. •..,;'+�fir. `i..r+l.`;r• ..=: ',•+r.�!r 4'1♦�^' .� '��' � 'M+.•.��M a '`+.. :b'" j'\ `{a, •.. t:,L* i+� x,1'w !ir 'Ir ��•a.�;','�la�� t FIG. 14 Photographs taken at Blackhawk Ranch illustrating soil .cracking in. high clay content soils. 40 • excellent condition. - The only areas bare of vegetation are roads and fire trails. Earth flows were noted throughout the area except within the brush fields at the higher elevations. Six stream channels were viewed either on-site or from a distance; these included B,C,D, Sycamore, West Branch, and H. , Except for B, all channels were well stabilized and shoo:od no signs of active erosion. Creek B was in poor condition due to cattle. At the time of field investigation (June 12 , 1973) strdam B was still- flowing and cattle were active in the area. Fig. 15 indicates the existing condition of the bed of stream B resulting from cattle use. All streams on the ranch are either intermittent (flowing continuously for a part of the year) , or ephemeral (flowing only during and immediately following rain storms) . Slightly more than 88 percent of the annual runoff can be expected from December through April (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971) . Monthly flow as a percentage of mean annual flow for San • Ramon Creek at San Ramon is shown in Fig. 16. The watersheds of the Blackhawk Ranch may be expected to approximate this same distribution. There will be no flow at- all during the summer months except in local .zed areas where springs provide a small base flow. Peak flows have been computed for Sycamore, Plest Branch, H, and Alamo Creeks, the four largest watersheds on the ranch, for storms of various return periods. Basic precipitation data were taken from Rantz (1971a] and adjusted to reflect times of con- centration for the individual watershed [Rantz, 1971b and Gray, 19701 : The so-called rational formula was then used to determine peak flows from these four watersheds. Table D shows rainfall intensities (inches/hour) and peak discharge (cubic feet/second) for return periods of 2, 5, 10, 50, and 100 years. Peak flows were determined for only the four largest watersheds because they will have the greatest flow. Additionally, preliminary plans indicate that it is in these -watersheds where development is proposed. 41 ' • . �.' Tri r �•^ :i \' 4f��. :� •sty\•.v•\:.'_•,:w�ti?:.. • -''" � .. _�":.::a . IT Vt.V. ' .�.�v•.lr. ,�r�r •�^wr. •..w--•�71�',••erw�.r�.� FIG. 15 Photographs taken at Blackhawk Ranch illustrating the effects of cattle on the bed of stream B. 42 r 25 + . . � ; ,. , . i.il ISI I t ! i : � • � � 20-- w 0 W 77. 10- 5-w 0 •:; tic I :.+., , JAN. FEB. MAR APR. MAY JUN. JUL AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. MONTH Source: Department of the Interior, 1971. MONTHLY RUNOFF OF SAN RAMON CREEK AT SAN RAMONp CALIFORNIA AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF FIG. 16 43 Nater Quality Most of the streams on the ranch can be expected to exhibit relatively good water quality characteristics. It should be noted, however, that this evaluation is based on preliminary observations of present stream conditions and existing land uses, and that analytical data to confirm the evaluation are not presently available. Quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus, organic matter, and bacteria of fecal origin are probably introduced into the streams as a result of cattle grazing operations; but in most cases these inputs should not exceed the assimilative capacities of the streams. _ The aforementioned generalization may not be applicable for stream B .(Fig. 15) and several other streams where excessive cattle usage has eliminated the natural vegetation along stream bed and cattle have severely trampled and disturbed the soils. These creeks will likely have periodic high turbidities and carry heavy sediment loads. Runoff from corrals and barns located adjacent to Sycamore Creek may contribute excessive quantities of nutrients, organic matter, and bacteria to that body of water. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has recently proposed certain water quality criteria and has also more specifically identified the beneficial uses of surface and tidal waters that should oe protected. Beneficial uses recognize both existing and potential uses. It should be noted that the beneficial use to be pro- tected may not actually occur on-site, but that on-site land use may affect the beneficial use at some point downstream. According to the proposed water quality criteria, the existing beneficial uses for Sycamore Creek and those watersheds west of Sycamore Creek are warm freshwater habitat, cold fresh- water habitat, and wildlife habitat. Potential uses are water contact recreation (swimming, water skiing, sport fishing, . etc. ) and non-contact water recreation .(picnicking, sunbathing, 45 • hunting, etc. ) . The tidal waters of Suisun Bay' are habitat for waterfowl, fish, . shrimp, crab, and shellfish. Suisun Bay is also a migration route for chinook salmon. Existing beneficial uses for the Alamo Creek drainage include non-contact water recreation, warm freshwater habitat, cold freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Potential uses are water contact recreation, fish migration, and fish spawning. Tidal water beneficial uses are fish, shrimp, crab, and shellfish habitat, and waterfowl habitat. Vegetation The Blackhawk Ranch property is lecated within the Californian biotic province [Munn and Keck, 1959) . The region characteristically has a mild climate, hot and dry summer, and certain typical plants that are discussed in the following paragraphs. Plant Associations. The vegetation of Blackhawk • Ranch can be subdivided into three basic plant associations: valley grassland, foothill woodland , and chaparral (Munz and Keck, 1959) . while each of these associations has its own basic flora, there is generally not a definite dividing line which distinguishes one from another. Some plant species are characteristically found in only one association, while others are common to all three. The valley grassland plant association is distinguished by open grass covered hills and valleys. The species found in this association are typically introduced annual grasses, although previously it was characterized by bunch grasses. The valley grassland is typical of the southern portion of the property in the larger valleys and along the low hills. At higher elevations on the ranch and at locations near seasonal sources of water, the valley grassland blends into the foothill 'woodland plant association. This association is characterized by a variety of hardwood trees, predominately • coast live oak (Quercus aarifolia frutescens) and California 46 buckeye (Aessculus californica) . The density of trees in the foothill woodland association becomes greater as the distance to seasonal or annual water sources decreases. The trees also become more munerous at higher elevations and on the northwest exposures. The chaparral association is found on the upper, steep slopes on the ranch. In these locations, it is generally . separated from open grassland by distinct lines. Many of the shrub species that predominate in the chaparral association are able to survive reoccurring fires by sprouting from fire blackened stumps. Some of these plants, especially the chamise (Adenostoma fasciulatum) • are quite abundant im- mediately following a fire, then become less common as they are crowded out by other species. Plant Species. A partial list of• the more common plant species which occur on Bla--khawk Ranch is presented • in Table E. Several plant species typical of the ranch are shown in• Fig. 17. These plants are subdivided into cate- gories of• grass and forbs, shrubs, and trees, and may be found in one or more of the plant associations on the property. There are no known rars or endemic plants on Blackhawk Ranch. Agricultural Crops. In addition to the natural vege- tation on the ranch, approximately 200 acres are used for hay production and approximately 100 acres •are planted with English walnuts on black walnut stock. The hay is harvested from nine fields, mostly on the southern half of the property, with a production of 10,500 bales in 1972. All of it is used to feed cattle and horses on the ranch during the winter. Walnuts are planted in two separate orchards, the largest located immediately east of the ranch buildings. These orchards were planted between 40 and 50 years ago and produced approximately 50 ton3 of English walnuts in 1972 (Spears, 1973). The orchards are in decline due to age, and production caii be expected to deteriorate. 47 TABLE E PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATION OF BLACKHAWK RANCH Grasses and Forbs Scientific Name Wild oats Avena fatua Brome grassr-omus spp. Rye grass EF ium spp. Star thistle entaurea solstitialis Milk thistlei um r a- anum Dock Rumex spp. Fiddleneck Amsinckia spp. Yarrowc i lea spp. Monkey flower Mimuluq aurantiacus Wild radish Ra anus spp. Mustard BrassIca spp. . • Cat tail �a spp. Shrubs ' Buck brush Ceanothus cuneatus Chamise enostioMa f'ic`ulatum Elderberry ' SamSucus spp. Black sage Salvia mellifera Poison oak Mus giversiloST Trees Coast live oak ouercus aarifolia f Uttescens Blue oak Ouercus douclasi.i Oregon oak Quercus aarrvana Toyon Het�eromele�s arbutifolia California laurel m e u aria ca ifornica Buckeye Aesculus caliiorr.ica Sycamore atanus racemosa Tamarisk Tamarix spp. 48 ,r . ice.+ti •�'�� •r•�••!�. � P. , 1 IST 1+ !� . 4 M'•4 '•�f 1 jti•. f `Fy �!lRix� d ti•ii ky► �,?'y';��,'!'� t. L. K• y. •-J.+ Y . All- �:lt- f��,�� i •,f •7 't t •I� 'Iii - ryrY'.. �';•�11�1 '!t'l!'y•rj• • .,� ''�hiliriii ;1�j. ..,-v .. i <s., '•,a+��llu+y FIG. 17 Photographs taken at Blackhawk Ranch illustrating selected vegetative cover including California laural (top left) , yarrow, (top center) , sycamore (top right) , monkeyflower (center right) , oak in the foothill woodland association (center left) , chamise and black sage of the chaparral association (bottom left) , and dense riparian vegetation of the streamside woodland (bottom right) . 49 s • Fire Hazard. There are three basic fuel types found on the Blackhawk Ranch: (1) � grass, (2) grass-oak or grass-wood- land, and (3) chaparral. In addition to these fuel types,, wind, slope, and fuel moisture content are major influences on fire hazard. The greatest hazards are associated with periodical high and very dry north winds. Suppression is relatively easy in types 1 and 2 when access is good; however, types 1 and 2 fuels are flash fuels and fire spread is rapid. On the steeper slopes spread is more rapid; in addition, motorized suppression vehicles are handicapped, increasing the odds of an escape into a major fire. In addition, on Blackhawk Ranch the type 3 fuel , the chaparral , occupies the higher elevations on steeper slopes. 'v Therefore, the chances of involving these heavier fuels increase greatly when fires have moved into the steeper areas. Fires in steep chaparral areas are usually very difficult to suppress because of access, rapid spread (spot fires several hundred yards in advance of -fire head) , and the great deal of heat that is involved. Under the worst condit•ions ,a "fire storm" will occur where the fire has created microclimatic conditions favorable for its own continuing spread (e.g. , strong convection currents, high temperature, etc. ) . Fires in fuel type 3 can often be easily suppressed when small by aerial retardant bombing. (veniAnother unique characteristic of the chaparral or ng. hamise in the Blackhawk Ranch area is its response to cool oist sea breezes. Raging fires may even go out by themselves hen favorable gentle moisture laden ocean breezes come in the In summary, the potential existing fire hazards at Blackhawk Ranch are highest on the steeper lands nearest Mt. Diablo State Park in type 3 forest areas where the fire potentials are realized by mixing man' s -activities with a • naturally fire prone environment. The potential existing 50 • hazards are lowest on the valley floor in .fuei types 1 and 2. Wildlife The wildlife found on Blackhawk Ranch is closely associated with the food, cover, and water that exists on the property. These three necessary elements can be grouped into the various wildlife habitats which rrore or less correlate with the plant communities discussed- in a previous section. The four principal natural habitat types on the property are grassland, savanna, streamside woodland, and chaparral. All of these habitats have greater value to wildlife in the late fall, winter, and spring because• of the availability of water than during the summer when water in the drainages and small ponds on the ranch is- scarce. Grassland Habitat. The grassland habitat is comprised mostly of annual plants that turn dry and brown in the • summer. Many grassland animals move to moister habitats or go into aestivation (a short period of summer hibernation) at this time. Small animals (primarily reptiles) , small birds, a'nd insects are the predominant wildlife species associated with this habitat. Rodents are less cotrnon because of the hard, dry, cracked soils while larger mammals and amphibians are less common because of a lack of water. Savanna Habitat. The savana habitat is found on the middle elevation slopes of the property and is a gradation of the valley grassland plant association with the foothill woodland association. The wildlife characteristics of this habitat are similar to those described for the grassland, but larger mammals, such as deer and coyote, rr.oderate sized song birds, and game birds occur more frequently in the savanna habitat. This habitat is especially favorable to the soaring hawks. Stream'side Noodland Habitat. The streamside woodland • habitat is found along the drainages and cattle watering - ponds on the ranch. It. is one of the richest habitats in terms of wildlife numbers and diversity and stays green and ' 51 i relatively cool throughout the year, in marked contrast with the surrounding grasslands. The extent of the streamside woodland is greatly restricted by the seasonal nature of water availability, for the drainaqes generally dry up during the summer. This habitat is valuable to wildlife throuchout the year by providing nesting sites, seasonal and daily migration routes, abundant cover, and a variety of food resources. The streamside woodland is particularly important during the hot dry summer when many animals move down into the woodland during the heat of the day. Amphibians, numerous birds, and mammals such as deer and raccoon utilize this habitat. Rodents are also more common because of the presence of softer alluvial soils. Chaparral Habitat. The chaparral habitat , found along the upper slopes of Blackhawk Ranch, is composed of numerous • brush species. This habitat is favorable to wildlife during the wet seasons of the year, providing ample food , especially browse for deer , and cover. ' Many of the wildlife species that utilize the chaparral during these months migrate to moister plant communities or regions during the summer. Birds , rodents , and various reptiles are the predominat: Wildlife species that occupy this habitat. Man-Made Habitats . In addition to the existing natural habitats on Blackhawk Ranch, numerous man-made wildlife habitats exist on the property. These include the four central . ponds , the walnut orchards, and the ranch buildings. The central ponds are bordered in part by cattails and marsh vegetation and serve as ideal habitat for aquatic associated birds such as the redwincfed blackbird, killdeer, and occasional shorebirds and amphibians. They also serve as a year-round water source for the wildlife on the property and a wintering site for ducks and geese. The walnut. groves provide nesting, roosting, and food resources for mourning dove, California quail, and deer. The ranch buildings likewise serve as nesting and roosting sites for swallows and various species of bats. 52 Wildlife Species. Table F is a list identifying some of the more common wildlife species that are expected to occur in one or more of the habitats on the ranch for at least part of the year. The numbers and density of these species varies seasonally. Photographs illustrating some of the wildlife or signs of wildlife observed on the field trip are shown in Fig. 18. . In terms of recreation, deer are the most important wildlife species. A large number of- the deer collected by hunters in Contra Costa County are taken in the vicinity of Blackhawk Ranch. A good sized deer herd exists on the ranch with most of the animals spending their entire lives within a mile of the place where they were born. On some parts of the ranch, deer may reach a density of 20 to 35 individuals per square mile. They feed primarily on grass in the winter and browse in the summer. Some minor movement of •deer from Mount Diablo does occur down drainage channels to the lower parts of the ranch during the winter, but generally there is very little movement of the deer in the area ,(Elliot, 1973) . Although not listad in Table F, mountain lions may occasionally be found on the upper portions of the property. These large cats, while not abundant, are not uncommon in the Mount Diablo area (Elliot, 1973] . • Rare or Endancered Species. According to the California Department of Fish and Game publication At the Crossroads, the only rare or endangered animal potentially existing on Blackhawk Ranch is the Alameda striped• racer (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) . This snake' s distribution is cited as occurring " . . .in the valleys, foothills, and low mountains east of San Francisco Bay. It is usually associated with chaparral, but may occur in grassland, open woods, and rocky slopes. This is considered one of the rarest snakes in the East Bay region. The habitat has. been greatly reduced in recent years by construction and development." (California Department of Fish and Game, 19721 . John Brode (1973] of the 53 • .r 1 r. • �• ••^ � `.1�.►l"�V ✓ ;� `�• .•Cys»M � �. •• Lie- • - �> ` r r '•.�.ti�•�.•.��f�i L�=tiri.�.�Y+r1w,1Q::R�• •.,•/ FIG. 18 Photographs taken at Blackhawk Rarich illustrating wildlife browse zone and tree canopy (top) , raccoon tracks near • pond (center) , and a western fance . lizard sunning on a warm rock. (bottom) . 54 TABLE F ' WILDLIFE SPECIES EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN ONE OR MORE OF THE HABITATS FOUND ON BLACKHAWK RANCH COMMON NAIME SCIENTIFIC NXME MAMMALS *Black-tailed deer Odocoileus' henionus Coyote Eanis latrans *Grey fox Vrocvon c;nereoar_centeus Striped skunk Rephitus r.eonit :s Long tailed weasel mustela frenata *Raccoon Procyon lotcr Opossumi6idelohis r..arsupi_a_lis_ Badgerarea taxus *Black-tailed jackrabbitep�us__ cavi o�n_cus *Pocket gopher Thomomvs tottae California ground squirrelermonhi17, :eeche•,i Western harvest mouseelt rcdontcr-s-ecalotis Deer mouse eromyscus r..ar.icuiat�us JIRDS *Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Sparrow hawk Falco snares ' .. Red-tailed hawk BUtea Jana=cenc;.s *Mourning dove Zenaidura r_�crc,_ra *Common crow Corvus racav_7F chos *Yellow-billed magpie ca nutta111 *Mockingbird imus polvalottos *Brewer blackbird mus cvr,r.ccethalus *Hoq'se finch Zu o(I-,c-us r.e::_oanus *Western Meadowlark turnella ;.ec�ac=s *California quail ortv;•; ca�Ll_f__-nicus *Redwing Blackbird elaius U;cenice4s *Scrub Jay Ubelocoria c:tr,__escens ' *Barn Swallow Hirundo rust=ca *Horned lark H.t-:stris • *Killdeer Capella calllraco Miscellaneous waterfowl ver ous species REPTILES *Western fence lizard Scelo onus occidentalis Coast horned lizard Phrynosorl.a ccrcnatun Western skink Eumecas skiltc^._ar,us Rubber boa Marina bottae Racer , o u er co;.s;.r_ztor Gopher snaketuuop is r e-lanoleucus AMPHIBIANS *Western toad Bufo boreas *Pacific tree frog .Ta re'gitla *Asterisk indicates those species actually observed' or for which signs were seen during field visits. 55 1 ! Department of Fish and Game stated that the Blackhawk Ranch is considered good habitat for the snake and, while it primarily stays in or near the chaparral, the Alameda striped racer does range over a wide area (see Appendix D) . Two sitings of the snake have been made on the east. ard west sides of Mount Diablo. The range of the Alameda striped racer is considered to have always been restricted. The California tiger salamander (Ambystor..a tic�rinu_m ealiforniense) may also be found on the ranch. This amphibian is typically found around temporary ponds in the grasslands of Contra Costa County. The adults breed in January and February and then go underground for the remainder of the year; the young likewise go underground following metamorphosis in May (see Appendix D) . This animal is being considered for the depleted species list of California since their past wide range is being reduced by present land use • changes. They are locally abundant in Contra Costa County and represent an important population in the east San Francisco Bay region. There is currently a limited bag limit on the California tiger salamander [Brode, 19731 . �,.. . . Past Land Use The area north of the San Ramon-Walnut Creek drainage system, which includes the Blackhawk Ranch, was occupied by the Saclan Indians, a dialect-group of Bay t:inwok speakers . who lived in the area prior to the arrival of. the Spanish in Contra Costa County. The first recorded mention of these people was from a member of the Fages expedition in 1792 [Jackson, undated] . Following this account there is little mention of the Indians or the Blackhawk Ranch area by the Spaniards. The Blackhawk Ranch was established in about 189.0 from a part of the Star Ranch which covered a large part of southern - Contra Costa County. According to Purcell (19401 in The iHistory of Contra ,Costa County., the area within- the present boundaries of Blackhawk Ranch was not a part of any of the 56 Spanish or Mexican land grant, and little is known of the use . - of the property during the American settlement. An archaeological reconnaissance of •the Blackhawk Ranch was made on June 13, 15, and 16, 1973 , under the direction of Tom Jackson of the Adan E. Treganza Anthropology Museum. The reconnaissance revealed no visible archaeological resources of any kind on the ranch. Mr. Jackson' s letter. report is included in its entirety as Appendix B. Present Land Use - Most of the 4,700 acres which comprise the Blackhawk Ranch are being utilized for cattle grazing. At present, there are approximately 400 cows and 400 calves on the property, or a little less than one head of cattle per five acres. Cattle are kept on the ranch throughout the year with grass forage supplemented with hay during the winter months. The hay is produced on approximately 200 acres of land on • the southern half of the property • (Spears , 1973) . In addition to hay, approximately 100 acres of the ranch is planted in English walnuts grafted onto black walnut stock. These trees are maintained and annually harvested. There are four large ponds located in the central part of the ranch and numerous small ponds scattered throughout the ranch. The large ponds were constructed approximately 45 years ago and are used primarily for irrigation. The smaller ponds are fed by springs or seasonal runoff and are located in a number of the small drainages that exist on the property. These smaller ponds are used primarily for stock watering. ' The few buildings located on the ranch include a small ranch house presently being used as The Company' s office, a large hay and horse barn, and several small sheds and storage buildings. These buildings are located in the • central portion of the ranch along Sycamore Creek. A small 57 • group of buildings including the ranch foreman's house is t located on the east side of the ranch along the west branch of Alamo Creek. Adjacent Land Use. The property is bounded on the west, south, and -east by about 19 small landholdings,. Adjoining land uses on the private holdings include farming, hay . production, cattle production, and non-designated open space or undeveloped use. Adjacent to the property on the northwest is a private school (Athenian School) and on the north is Mount Diablo State Park, an element of the California State Park System. According to the general plan adopted by Contra Costa County in 1963, the majority of Blackhawk Ranch presently planned for low density residential development was designated .as open space. The county general plan, however, is currently being revised and, as such, the present zoning is subject to .change. Effective June 29, 1973, by action of the iCounty Tsoard of Supervisors, a plan was adopted for the county which allows the entire ranch to be considered for urban development (Contra Costa Times, July 1, 1973 , quoting Anthony Dehaesus, County Planning Director) . Circulation Svstems Blackhawk Road, Tassajara Road, and South Gate Road are the only existing paved roads in the immediate vicinity of Blackhawk Ranch. Blackhawk Road and Tassajara Road connect the south and west sides of the property with the city of Danville and Interstate 680 by way of *Diablo Road. South- Gate Road crosses the property on the north, but provides no vehicular access to the property due to the steepness of the adjacent slopes. South Gate Road also serves as one of the two access roads to Mount Diablo State Park. Other surface streets in the vicinity are shown in rig. 19 and include El Cerro Boulevard, Sycamore Valley Road, and Dougherty Road. Traffic volumes on the roads in the vicinity of 58 ' 400 I'► . a Ado,. ENS IC, 4s�RaFF --' . • PRES G .10O iA6�E FSR NQS tEVEti5 ' M{,I►SUiiEMEN'� pp1NZ5 REFER 19 59 Blackhawk Ranch are very low, generally about 200 vehicles or less per day. Traffic counts have only been taken near Danville on Diablo Road, Tassajara Road, and Sycamore Valley Road. The data from these locations (see Fig. .19) are listed in Table G. Interstate 68-0 represents the major transportation route in southern Contra Costa County. The weekday traffic flow on Interstate 680 in the vicinity of Danville is predominately to the north in the morning and to the south in the afternoon. The average daily traffic is greater to the north of Danville than to the south, as shown in Table G, indicating that Danville is probably a major point of departure and return for commuter traffic. Numerous dirt roads are located on the Blackhawk Ranch property. These ::oads are used by ranch personnel and as fire roads. In their present condition, a few of these roads are passable only by vehicles with four wheel drive. With the exception of animal trails, no trails aie located on the property. Noise •T'he ambient noise levels experienced at Blackhawk _ Ranch are very low. The only or,-site sources are cattle and vehicles using the ranch roads. Some sound is audible from the Pacific Gas and Electris Company' s transmission lines which cross the eastern portion of the property; but this can be heard only if the observer is immediately adjacent to the transmission lines. Off-site noise sources are also minimal and consist primarily of vehicular traffic on Blackhawk Road, Tassajara Road, and South Gate Road. As previously noted, traffic levels on these roads are low, hence their present noise' production is low. Noise originating from residences and the Athenien School to the west of the property is audible at low levels on the western edge of the property. iThe closest airports to the property are Buchanan Field 60 TAILf 0 TRAPPIC VOLUMES IN THE VICINITY r OP eL1CRHAWK MNCH • Average Daily Peak Hour Peak Hour • Acme Intersection Tear, Traffie Time Volume 1 Diablo Road, fast of parts Iola •9293 4-5 pa 618 ! Tsssajara Roadl Bast of Diablo 1070 2066 5130-6030 pa 219 ! sycamore Valley Aced, Bast of Camino demon 1972 6663 4815-3113 pe 609 •I Interstate 6802 21 Cerro Road 1972 67,000 5,300 • 12- Interstate 6802 Diablo Road 1972 62,000 40600 all Interstate 6802 sycamore Valley Road 1972 610300 4,600 IV Interstate 6802 Crow Canyon Road 1972 35,000 40100 sources 3 G: Waddington, 1973 •� ! 0. Gallaher, 1973 • 61 • • • located approximately 14 miles northwest of the property in Concord and Livermore Municipal Airport located 11 miles southeast of the property in Livermore. The property is not located within the flight patterns of either of these facilities. Public Services and Utilities Water. The majority of the area proposed for development on Blackhawk Ranch is within the boundaries of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The Diablo Reservoir, which is situated approximately one-half mile west of the property at an elevation of 743 feet, is the source of the area' s water supply. It has a capacity of five million.gallons [Kirker, Chapman and Associates, 1972) . Sewer. Long range plans of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, which are in the design stage, have been made to annex Blackhawk Ranch and provide collection and treatment facilities to the area. At a meeting of the Sanitary District on August 16 , 1973 , annexation approval. was granted. The too nearest trunk sewer systems which would serve the property include a 12 inch trunk sewer which terminates at Diablo Road and Alameda 50 feet from the property and a 24 inch trunk system which terminates at Sycamore and Tassa- _..y. jara [Kirker, Chapman and Associates, 19721 . Discharge and water quality requirements for the Danville area are established and enforced by the San Francisco Regional . Water Quality Control Board. Gas and Electricity. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company provides both gas and electric service to the Blackhawk Ranch area. At the present time there is a.,four inch gas line, located in Blackhawk Road at the Mt. Diablo turnoff , which could be used to supply future development [Kirker, Chapman and Associates, 1972) . Police. The ranch is under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department. The present response 62 i time from. station to'.ranch is about 25 minutes.. The Calif- ornia Highway Patrol provides service on Route 680. Fire. The majority of Blackhawk Ranch is within the Danville Fire Protection District. Station number three on Diablo Road, near its intersection with Green Valley Road, is the closest station to the ranch. School . Blackhawk Ranch is within the San Ramon Unified School District which is responsible for both elementary and high schools. Solid Waste. The solid waste presently generated on Blackhawk Ranch is handled by the Valley Disposal Company of Walnut Creek. The waste is transported by the disposal company to the Contra Costa County Dump in Martinez (Andrews, 1973) . Demographic and Social Setting Th= .Blackhawk Ranch is located in the San' Ramon Valley approximately five miles east of Danville. Demographically, a major .portion of the ranch is within. census tract 3551 (Fig. 20).. However, the size of this tract coupled with the fact that the development of the ranch is closely related to the development of the San Ramon Valley, indicates that the population generated by the ranch should be viewed in conjunction with the population and the growth of the valley. Census counts for the valley, tracts 3440, 3451, 3452 , 3461, and 3462, note that the 1970 population was 26 ,822 persons. This rose to 33,390 persons as of April 1, 1973 (Evans, 19731 . At the present time, The Blackhawk Ranch contributes less than one percent to the population of the San Ramon Valley since there is only one family living on the ranch. The county has a population of 594,800 as of December 1, 1972 [Cutler, 1973] . The general project setting is rural in character with small farms and little residential development in adjoining parcels. However, trends exist which indicate that the area 63 • PLEASANT HILL; •: t xss__: • CLAYTON I 111� 3480 3400 MALN T CREEK �•' LAFAYETTE �I 34303383 3553 � �•' ML Dr�ilo =•'� 500 "13420,® fir• ,, i!� / 3551 3512 3511 3461 .� � �' 3440/ ,��• }a �/r:•; -..-�' . 22 More$* 3521 �� /1j 3462 / �\�•;;� �� Oonvm�j• � �j'- t CONTRA CDSTA C ALAMEDA Co. 3451 ! 3451 'ter `A CO. GO• SAN RAMON VALLEY CENSUS TRACTS 3462 TRACT NUMBER ® BLACKHAWK RANCH ® SAN RAMON VALLEY CENSUS TRACTS SOURCk: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1970. FIG. 20 • 64 is becoming more suburban in nature. From 1960 to 1970,, the population for census tracts 3440 through 3462 rose over 110 percent, from 12,702 to 26,822 persons, and from 1970 to April 1, 1973 about 24 percent from 26 ,822 to 33,390. In general, home buyers in the Danville area are primarily business executives and professional people with new home prices starting at about $45 ,000 without private community facilities [Blackhawk Ranch Development• Company, 19731 . According to the San Ramon General Plan [1971) , the most recent version of this plan available for review, the objec- tive of community development in the valley is to develop an urban infrastructure capable of supporting a population of approximately 65,000 persons in a primarily single family residential land use pattern. Visual/Aesthetic Resources The existing visual and aesthetic setting of the Black- hawk Ranch consists of three components : the distant, the intermediate, and the local landscape. The distant landscape includes the large-scale landforms such as surrounding mountains and hills. Distant views v...a are dependent on regional atmospheric conditions and are visible from the upper slopes of the property to the east, south, and west. The distant landscape is not visible from the lower slopes and valleys. The intermediate landscape is of major significance within the Blackhawk Ranch and is composed of the chaparral, grass, and tree covered hills and valleys located on and adjacent to the property. Intermediate views are the primary landscapes visible frcm the lower valleys and slopes on the ranch. Mt. Diablo is only visible from portions of the north- east side of the ranch. Close up views of the trees, ponds, hayfields, buildings, and rangeland form the local landscape on the ranch. The variety of vegetation, topography, and land use• provides the 65 3 local landscape with �a unique ique and highly diverse visual and aesthetic quality. Broad vistas of the entire ranch are attainable from the upper ridge tops on and adjacent to the property and from South Gate Road. Within the lower valleys, however, views are limited by intervening ridges, resulting in a visual separation of portions of the ranch. t 66 l uu OUT Lt 3 �mm� ENVIRONMNTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT . The purpose of this chapter is to describe the alterations to the existing environment that the proposed Blackhawk Ranch Development will cause and to describe measures that are to be provided to mitigate or lessen •the effects of adverse impacts judged to be significant in light of the scope of the proposed project. r Mitigation measures suggested_ by our staff to offset potentially adverse effects are presented in the future tense, as statements of what will be done to mitigate the given impact. For ease of reference, this discussion is organized in the same manner as the preceding chapter. Geomorphology Impact. Residential development will alter the existing terrain of the Blackhawk Ranch in the approximately 1 ,500 acres of valley floor proposed for development. Specifically, implementation of the proposed project will result in what are presently estimated by the project engineers to be minor terrain alterations in order to provide• for desires? soil 'compaction levels, building site drainage, circulation system elements, and for contouring of golf course fairways. .At present, detailed estimates of grading volumes are not available. Mitigation. The impact of terrain modification will be� minimized by implementation of the basic planning criteria '. which will prohibit development on ridgelines and slopes over •2.5 percent; this leaves about 68 percent of the ranch in undeveloped open space, concentrates development on the valley floors and gentle side slopes, and preserves the existing profiles of natural creeks and wooded drainageways. Grading plans to be prepared at the final development stage of the development planning process will specify details concerning 68 ' •r the volume of earth movement required in each development area and will be subject to review by the county department of public works prior to approval. Geology/Soils Impact. The proposed project will have little direct impact upon the geologic features of the area; however, geologic features do act as constraints to development. Since the extent of these constraints are dependent upon the nature and location of proposed developments, an evalua- tion of the constraints' effects can be achieved by comparing proposed development location with characteristics of soil and geologic mapping units. The geologic report prepared by Lowney-Kaldveer and Associates delineated areas of existing landslides, faults, and geologic mapping units. A generalized soil association map was constructed from the rontra•Costa County General • Soil Survey and the Soil Conservation Plan for Blackhawk Ranch. A comparison of these maps with the development plan indicates that most of the development will be concentrated on the gently sloping , scattered alluvial fans and valleys of the property., It i* the intent of The Proponent to prohibit development on slopes greater than 25 percent, and roads within the property will be designed to minimize grading and extensive cut and fill slopes. Some development has been proposed for the naturally unstable slopes of the Orinda formation and the expansive soils of the Altamont-Diablo association. Development in these areas will necessitate a more detaile&' investigation of soil foundation conditions in final development stages of the plan, with appropriate planning recommendations and design solutions. Large lot, low density, clustered housing, which is proposed for those areas tentatively considered developable, will minimize potential stability problems. Geologically sensitive • areas will be left in a native condition or developed as open space. 69 • r The, presence of wide cracking in the soils in-the vicinity • of the golf course may be detrimental to the operation of the golf courses, and will require maintenance of a high soil moisture content to keep the more heavily used portions of the course in a playable condition. The soils on the slopes of Blackhawk Ranch are prone to landsliding , particularly when loaded and saturated. Earthquake triggered • landslides and related phenomena could threaten downslope areas. The hazard is naturally high in winter months when rainfall maintains the soil in a near saturated condition; over irri- gation or moisture accumulation from inadequately controlled irrigation practices could extend the hazard into other months as well. • Some soil erosion and increased yields of sediments to Sycamore and West Branch Creeks will occur as a result of the development. Most soils present on the ranch are moder- ately erodible under cultivation, but may be more susceptible to erosion during construction activities which change the natural runoff characteristics of the landscape. Eroded particles are likely to be fine clays which have a greater potential for adverse environmental impacts downstream on beneficial uses of the watershed. Predictions of soil erosion and sediment yields are presently rough estimates, at best, of annual production. Relating sediment yields to specific storm or hydrologic events which have land management of environmental implications is not, as of yet, possible. Development of rough estimates requires detailed hydrologic data , a long period of record , the use of a computer, and in terms of,.the scope of this report, is not justified by the results that would be obtained. Monitoring of sediment yields in Coloma Creek, a somewhat similar watershed in San Mateo County, by the U.S. Geological Survey provides information for a roughly comparable area [Knott, 1973] . The U.S. Geological Survey study found that urbanized areas produce twice as much sediment as undeveloped 70 , t areas. Agricultural areas (presumably range) produce about 65 times as much sediment as undeveloped areas, and areas under construction (without erosion control practices) , 85 times as much sediment yield as undeveloped land. As develop- ment is proposed on only a small portion of the ranch, and erosion control methods are to be employed , it is our opinion that the developer can control siltation to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board' s standards. Since ranch usage will -ultimately be* decreased as a result of the development, and since a revegetation program is planned, the probability exists that an improvement in water quality from present conditions will occur after construction .in completed, provided that alternate uses .of the upper watershed areas (eg. increased recreational visitations, increased use of fire access roads by motorcycles or all terrain vehicles) are discouraged. • No development is proposed for areas of high scientific value in terms of paleontologic resources such- as Blackhawk Quarry. Mitigation. Preliminary selection of areas planned for development to this point have been closely coordinated with the recommendations of soils and geotechnical engineers, and the recommendations of James A. Roberts Associates , Inc. , during the Earlier stages of development of this report. Further investigation of soils and geotechnical questions raised will be undertaken related to detailed design; all specific proposals will be subject to subsequent review and approval of soils aspects by appropriate county departments prior to approval of detailed development plans. With respect to paleontologic resources of scientific value, preliminary negotiations have been initiated with the University of California to transfer ownership to the key locations of paleontologic materials to the university. • This transfer should ultimately be of benefit to the public and should lead to substantially eliminating the possibility 71 of adverse secondary impacts of development such as the _ E eventual proximity of a new residential community to a P Y Y scientific resource (eg. 'pilfering, destruction of in-situ fossils, etc. ) . With respect .to secondary effect's of the impact of the proposed development on soils (such as sedimentation) , m % a sediment/erosion control program will be instituted by the------------- v developer for developer-related improvements during and after the construction period. With respect to residential (human occupance) areas, the use of protective devices such as debris basins, debris flow diversions, and similar special design. considerations downslope from potential landslide areas will be used to M minimize landslide hazardsespecially in those areas that tr--ku• �� may be suceptible to regional scale seismic events. With respect to the golf course area, the selection of appropriate soil amendments to maintain soil structure , • controlled irrigation scheduling to maintain the lowest accept- able soil moisture levels , and retention of natural vegetationL�J , in more sensitive areas are measures that will be investigated as the golf course designs are refined. General erosion and sedimentation controls will be effected by use of the following procedures: 1) Time Limit. Grading , filling, and clearing of vegetation within the control of the developer will be restricted to the dry season of the year. 2) Development Restrictions. Slopes over 25percent will not be developed and development in the relatively steeper areas will be specifically designed taking special slope related problems of erosion control into account. 3) Drainage Plans. , Specific plans will be developed for the control and handling of runoff , including the use of sedimentation basins where necessary. Surface drainage will be conveyed by means of non-erosive structures to stable areas of Sycamore and West B Ranch Creeks . Energy dissipaters will be used where needed to prevent bank erosion. 72 • 4) Debris nasins-. Further investigation will be made relative to the need and placement of debris basins in to%.m-canyon drainage areas to insure protection against seismically generated mudflows. 5) Revegetation Plans. Adequate topsoil will be left or returned to construction sites and revegetation of exposed areas completed prior to each rainy season. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will be considered if revegetation is not satisfactorily completed by the rainy season. Motorcycle and off-road vehicle activity will be precluded in the upper watersheds outside of the develop- ment areas. Climate Impact. As is the case with all urban and suburban development, the proposed project will alter the reflectivity • and. radiant heat characteristics of areas modified by the project to a• small degree and will have some localized effects on 'winds and transpiration. By itself, the Blackhac•;k project will cause no more than a very small localized incremental change in the annual temperature regime of the development area. The small incremental changes from many such develop- _.. ments throughout the -can Ramon Valley might accumulate to a point where mea$urable effects might be noted. Studies of the effects of urbanization on temperature regimes by Geiger [1957) , indicate that a city of 500, 000 population (about 7.5 times the projected 65 , 000 population expected in the San Ramon Valley) may raise the average annual tempera- -ture by about 1. 1°C. It is problematical whether these changes will be adverse or beneficial. Mitigation. No mitigation measures are considered necessary. Aix Quality Im act. Because of the lack of air quality data for the vicinity of the Blackhawk Ranch area, a definitive evalua- tion of the impact on air quality is not possible. However, 73 intensifying the nature of land use in an area in which the prior use was primarily grazing necessarily results in a change in air quality conditions , at least locally. Since it is planned as a residential (with limited commercial) development, new sources of contaminants which result from the Blackahwk Ranch development, in all probability, will be limited to dust generated during construction, pollutants from heating/cooling devices in buildings, from fireplaces , and from additional vehicular traffic. Dust generated during construction .is a temporary pollutant source that can be controlled to a large extent by the common construction practices of stabilizing individual construction sites with water. Emissions .o£ the heating/cooling devices will be minimal (at least at the point of usage) since fuel sources will be limited to natural gas and elec- tric•ity. Sufficiently detailed information is not currently available concerning the number of fireplaces which will be constructed within the development; a probable estimation considering projected property valuations is one per unit. The primary degradation caused by the fireplaces will be from the particulate matter emitted from the chimneys as smoke. Even at a density of one per house , state agenCLes concerned with air quality do not feel that fireplaces generate sufficient pollutants to affect the regional air quality balance [Perry, 1973) . The most significant single source of contaminants generated directly by the development will be from vehicular traffic. The vehicular miles (VM) generated by the new residents at full development in their daily activities will average approximately 219,000 VM/day. This number is cal- culated based upon two basic assumptions: 1) each residential unit supports two vehicles, and 2) each vehicle consumes an average of two gallons of gasoline each day, averaging 12. 5 miles per- gallon [Environmental Protection Agency, 19721 . 74 M If the emission factors calculated by the Environmental Protection Agency are used, then the anticipated emission rates in tons per day are approximated in Table H. The total estimated emission rates for the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District are presented in this table for a comparison of relative impact. It is logical to assume that all new -residents of the development will either move into the air basin from outside areas, or if they have made an internal move within the basin, then at some time some other person will move into the basin to fill the vacancy that the new Blackhawk resident left. Therefore, the values in Table H can be considered to be additions to the present emissions inventory of both the Blackhawk Ranch and the nine county Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. The implications of the impact of the Blackhawk develop- . ment on air quality cannot be fully determined at this time. Most of the new residents will commute each day to areas away from Blackhawk Ranch (Forrestal , 1973) , but it is not known where the primary employment sources are located; _�... therdfore,lit is not possible to determine where additional pollutants will be emitted. Prc•bably a major portion will be produced either on or in the vicinity of the development. In addition to the emission sources previously discussed, • the air quality in the vicinity of Blackhawk Ranch is affected to some extent by pollutants transported from upwind regions. It is not known at this time how much the locally observed oxidant levels in Walnut Creek and Livermore are dependent on transported material and how much is locally generated. It is anticipated that the effects of present and projected air pollution control strategies will be sufficient to improve the air quality. The cumulative effect of the rela- tively insignificant emission sources. in localized areas such • as Livermore Valley may tend to override any anticipated 75 TABLE H AVERAGE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION RATES (tons/day) Generated San Francisco by Blackhawk Area Air Basin* (full development) (1970) Carbon Monoxide (CO) .79 5010 Hydrocarbons (HC) .12 ** Nitzogen Oxides (NOx) 1.19 532. Particulate Matter (PM) ..03 35.4 *Source: California Air Resources Board , 1972 **No value given as hydrocarbonsep r se. Emission factors used to calculate the emission rates of pollutants from traffic generated by the Blackhawk Ranch development are based on the expected improvements in emission rates by automobiles by 1985 . Since carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are influenced to a large extent by speed, it was assumed that 25 percent Sf the total daily vehicle miles (164 ,250 VM/day) will be at urban driving speeds and the remainder (54,750 VM/day) , will be at freeway speeds. 76 Improvements resulting from region-wide controls on emissions in those locations. Mitigation. The most significant source of pollutants, those generated by vehicular traffic from residents of the ranch, can probably never be completely eliminated, although regulatory actions may have their effect -of discouraging vehicular usage on a broad scale and reducing emissions from vehicles. Alterations in the life style of residents of the proposed development encouraged by development design features can accomplish some reduction that may reduce the incremental impact of this development to some degree. Possible and feasible mitigation measures within the control of the developer planned for the proposed development which will contribute to lessening of the problem include: 1) encouraging pedestrian and non-vehicular traffic on an internal basis by providing a complete and integrated circulation system so that local trips from residence to commercial services, etc. . are not necessarily vehicular trips, and 2) encouraging some form of public transportation between Walnut Creek and San Ramon. If public transportation is available , presumably a significant portion of the potential vehicle miles previously attributable to the development will be eliminated , or at least replaced, with a relatively non-polluting emission source. Hydrology Impact. Development will increase the total area of impermeable surfaces within each developed watershed, and thus the total volume of surface runoff generated by any given storm. As development is proposed for those areas nearest the stream courses, the,'timing of the peak flows will be altered. Streamflow will respond to precipitation events sooner because the overland route of runoff will be shorter and will not be as subject to the natural processes of infiltra- tion and detention storage. 77 The history of cattle grazing on the Blackhawk Ranch has produced a somewhat unusual situation. Because of the high clay content exhibited by the soils, rapid runoff would be expected during rainstorms, yet the stream channels do not exhibit evidence of high flows. It is believed that the terracing created by grazing cattle impedes the movement of overland flow and allows the runoff to infiltrate the soil.. If this is true, the natural expansion and contraction of the soil will eventually eliminate the terraces if grazing is eliminated, thus resulting in a situation that could lead to increased natural overland flows. Because of the small percentage of each watershed being developed , peak flows will be increased by a very small volume. Table I shows the effect of development on the 100-year -peak discharge for three watersheds, portions of which are proposed for development. • For any given runoff producing event, there may be two peak discharges, the first reflecti:ig runoff from the urbanized portion of the watershed near the mouth, and the second being that water from the furthermost reaches of the drainage 'basin. In any event, peak flows will not be increased and may actually be decreased if the length of the storm is less than the time of concentration for the basin. Mitigat.:on. Based on preliminary hydrologic considerations of the project engineers and as illustrated in Table I , the projected inc.cease in peak flows in the existing stream channels Will be minor. This, coupled with the developer ' s intent to preclude construction in the 100-year flood zone (except for crossing structures such as bridges and roads) , essentially precludes the necessity to alter the character of the natural stream channels, and hence minimizes the effects of the proposed project on the hydrologic characteristics of the watersheds of the ranch. . With respect to impermeable surfaces, the proposed 78 1 TABLE I EFFECT OF PROPOSED BLACKHAT•7K RANCH DEVELOPMENT ON 100-YEAR PEAK FLOW FOR THREE WATERSHEDS Percent Peak Discharge (cfs) Percent Watershed Developed atura • Developed Increase Sycamore 12 822 836 2 West Branch 6 459 •463 1 N 8 180 182 1 79 • .r concepts for road widths, road sections, and related non- vehicular circulation systems have been designed to keep paved surfaces to a minimum and to avoid concentration of runoff by providing for direct infiltration of runoff at the roadside. The storm drainage system, while not yet designed, will be designed to take maximum advantage of ponds on the proposed golf courses or in other drainages to allow them to act as small retention reservoirs in storing and releasing storm generated flows. The design of site owner related improvements will be -- p4.A,Y controlled by way of deed restrictions and landscape and architectural controls. These controls are yet to be developed and will probably be, at least in part, the responsibility of the homeowners association to administer and enforce. Consideration will be given to the possibility of allowing cattle grazing on those areas not proposed for develop- ment. Such grazing would need to be controlled and could possibly be integrated with youth group activities such as those sponsored by 4-H and Future Farmers of America or with the homeowners association management of the open space lands. Grazing uses are allowed within the scope of the Williamson Act, so such use would not preclude realization of the benefits of the act should the developer or homeowners seek to obtain those benefits. Water Quality IMRact. The project will result in increased soil erosion and sedimentation during construction periods. This erosion may in turn .cause a degradation in water quality both on-site and downstream from the ranch. Increased runoff from the property, while calculated to increase only slightly, could result in accelerated bank erosion in the various streams flowing through the property with a concomitant increase in sediment loads carried by the streams. Sediment inputs to these streams could degrade their- water quality by increasing 80 � turbidities, imparting a muddy color to them, and by releasing . growth stimulating algae. nutrients into the water. These parameters of turbidity, color, and biostimulatory compounds, as well as taste and odor are among those parameters for which water quality standards have been proposed by the regional Water Quality Control Board. Runoff from the proposed equestrian center. is also of concern because it will introduce BOD-generating organic material , algae nutrients, and bacteria into the water. These substances will adversely affect all the parameters mentioned above if allowed to enter the stream. Urban runoff, not presently generated on the ranch, is similar in all respects to raw sewage except for total coliform bacteria. Especially significant are the fine suspended sediments washed from paved surfaces because of the color and turbidity they impact to the water and the algae nutrients they carry. • Mitigation. To reduce erosion impacts , heavy construction equipment will _ ?e. totally excluded from operating in the stream courses. At those points where equipment must cross a stream, temporary drainage works such as culverts will be , P'b'T installed to protect the stream bed. When yconstruction is complete, • the temporary drainage works will�be reproved and the area reseeded to grasses typical of the area. Finally, attempts will._2e made to schedule actual construction activities to coincide with the dry months - April through October. Detailed site plans will be layed out in such a manner as to preclude subsequent building site owners from situations which would inherently result in a hazard to water quality • from, siltation. Care j l also be taken to insure that spoil material from grading operations does not infringe on the J flood plains of the streams. This will be done by careful selection of" house sites well away from stream courses and the stabilization of spoil material with grass. 61 The California State Water Resources Control Board on March 1, 1973, established minimum guidelines to protect California waters from animal wastes. The guidelines require that: 1) Livestock and poultry farmers control drainage from manure storage areas, plus the run-off from a "10-year , 24-hour storm. " This is de- fined as the largest rainfall probable during 24 hours in a ten-year period. 2) Existing animal confinement facilities be pro- tected from the highest stream flow likely -to occur in 20 years. 3) New facilities be protected from 100-year peak streamflows. 4) Percolation of water passed through manure into underlying soils be minimized. 5) Accumulations of surface waters in corrals and feadyards be prevented. ` The equestrian center facilities will be designed in such nyay. a manner as to satisfy these recently adopted state standards. In the event that the Regional Water Quality Control Board at some later. date adopts more stringent requirements prior to con- struction, those requirements will be designed for . It should be noted that the impacts associated with the equestrian center will probably be less than those associated with the cattle pens currently in use on Sycamore Creek. Considering the ranch as a whole, the net impact of livestock wastes will probably be less with development than without, particularly since the equestrian center facilities will be designed to satisfy Water Quality Control Board standards. The impact of urban runoff can, as previously mentioned, be partly avoided by design features of the circulation system which allow the direct infiltration of pollutant laden runoff rather than concentration and conveyance to streams via the usual curb and gutter •system. Beyond this, 82 �• little can be done short of routin •g the runoff through a 9 sewage treating plant. This, however, is not considered to be feasible due to -high costs associated with a facility large enough to accommodate normal sewage plus stormwater runoff without the danger of overloading the treatment plant. Vegetation Impact. Development of the Blackhawk Ranch will result in significant alteration of the vegetation found on the property in the approximately 1500 acres proposed for development. Development will only occur on the lower elevations of the ranch with slopes less than 25 percent. These areas are pre- dominantly covered with introduced annual grasses of the valley grassland plant association and are not representative of the original native vegetation of the area. Within the developed portion of the grassland, the existing vegetation will be replaced with residential , golf course, and greenway landscaping. Both the golf courses which are proposed meander in and around the development, and the greenways , which are proposed to border the major roadways, will be planted with native trees in irregular — groupings and with irregular growth habits so as to appear as a part of the natural landscape. Non-native vegetation will probably comprise the largest portion of the plants used in residential landscaping. The developer proposes to retain the natural creeks and wooded drainages within the developed areas (and in the balance of the property as well) as open space, and thus preserve a majority'of the indigenous trees and bushes. No development will occur in the chaparral plant association typical of the steep, higher elevation slopes. Some develop- ment will occur within the existing walnut orchards. In such cases, only those trees located on road or building sites or those that are dead or diseased will be removed. Watering of residential lawns in the old walnut groves may have 83 isecondary effects upon the remaining walnut trees by subjecting them to increased levels of water which may present adaptation problems for individual trees. Alteration of the composition and distribution of the vegetation will occur as a result of development and the cessation of cattle grazing. The changes resulting from the removal of cattle are expected to be minor and to .occur over a long period of time. Fire potential on Blackhawk Ranch will change as a result of the proposed development. However, it is difficult to determine whether the fire hazard will be increased or decreased. The number of fires started on the property will probably increase because of the increased population, but the probability of early detection and suppression will also increase because of the larger population, greater fire protection capacity, and proximity of fire protection equipment. similarly, the creation of .green belts and golf courses will reduce the total amount of highly flamable fuel in the development area. The cessation A_ of grazing will result in thicker, more fully developed grass and, consequently, fires which are slower burning but harder to suppress. Mitigation'. 74itigation meEsures proposed by the project' s planning and design consultants in developing their preliminary planning concepts and adopted by the developer include: 1) existing vegetation will be retained on the non- developed slopes (except in 'the golf course area which will be planted to blue grass and native shrubs and trees) ; 2) water courses will retain the' existing vegetation and development within these drainage areas will be 7,'I,., minimal , consisting of road crossings and recreational facilities; 3) native trees and shrubs will be included in land- scape plantings of the golf courses and greenways; 4) where possible, specimen trees, both native trees and established .orchard trees, -will be retained on the 64 • developed sites and care will be taken to protect these trees during construction; a'"an7d 5) design for fire protection will include facilities for protection and access to boiFthe developed sites and the natural vegetation of the open space element. Wildlifa Impact. Nearly all of the planned development of the Blackhawk Ranch will take place on the lower, open grassland portions of the property. This represents the lowest degree of impact to the wildlife resources of the property since it leaves the majority of the streamside woodland habitat and all of the chaparral and higher elevation grassland habitats intact. Only those wildlife species that occupy or use the areas of planned development or that are intolerant of human disturbance will be displaced. These animals will he displaced either to a less disturbed portion of the property or to adjacent parcels, or will experience a population reduction. • Development of the ranch may benefit some species by establishing new habitats and by increasing year-round wate-- availability. Establishment of the golf courses on the property will greatly benefit deer by providing green forage year-round. Songbirds will similarly benefit by the establ-sh ent of trees, shrubs, and lawns associated with residential develop- ments. Other wildlife will maintain or increase populations provided that their habitats are preserved or improved and that they are not harassed by people or domestic animals. Although no development is planned to occur on the chaparral covered portions of the property, the preferred habitat of the rare Alameda striped racer (Mas_tcophis lateralis eurvyanthus) , development of the lower portion of the ranch will reduce the amount of grassland habitat available to the snake. The California tiger salamander (Ambvstcma ticrinum californiense) will not be significantly affected by development of the ranch, . provided that the existing watering and irrigation ponds are retained and are provided with a non-developed periphery. 85 . t Development of the ranch does, however, represent a potential secondary impact to these and other wildlife species by increasing the recreation use of non-development portions of the property and by increasing the collection of •these animals by people. Mitioation. In order to minimize the impaet of the development on the wildlife resources of the Blackhawk Ranch, adequate undeveloped buffer zones of natural vegetation will ba-s retained between areas of development and valuable wildlife habitat such as the streamside woodland and the small ranch ponds. In addition, some marsh or cattail vegetation will be retained (or reestablished) around the major irrigation ponds for waterfowl. To the extent possible through deed restriction and by enforcement of existing ordinances, domes- tic animals, cats, and dogs will be kept on leashes whenever off the owner's property and especially when outside of the developed areas. In order to enhance the deer -habitat on the property and to reduce damage to the golf courses by deer, either th•a roughs or areas adjacent -to the roughs will be kept watered and allowed to develop to maturity. Bluegrass is proposed for this purpose because of its high nutritive value. If possible, considering soils or geologic constraints , ponds, in addition to those used for water hazards on the golf course, will be constructed around the perimeter of the golf courses to provide wildlife habitat and to reduce damage to the golf course by attracting deer to the periphery rather than to the center of the golf courses and greens. Past Land Use . Impact. While there were no visible archaeological resources discovered in the project area, it is possible that sites may be unearthed during construction activities. Mitigation. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during construction, a qualified archaeologist �till� be notified to determine -the disposition of the finds (Jackson, 1973) . 86 ' Present Land Use impact. The development will result in the loss of agricultural land uses that are managed for their production values in the +1,500 acres slated for development. Develop- ment of the ranch will result in the loss of about 20 acres of prime agricultural land, about 500 acres used for hay production, and approximately 1, 000 acres of rangeland. This loss represents a continuing trend in the decline of the impoYtance of rangeland to the county economy. Such land uses are no longer competitive with urban uses under present economic constraints in areas where housing demand exists. The complete removal of the Blackhawk Ranch as a range site will result in a loss to the county economy of the production of 400 head of cattle per year. * At an. average value of $178. 00 per head (1972 value) , the change in land use will result in an .annual loss of about $142•,380 [Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report, 19721 . It should be noted •` that the developer proposes to maintain*' a cattle operation on the ranch on an interim basis at a reduced level . This operation may eventually be maintained by an institution formed by the homeowners association as •a part of management of the rather extensive open space which is to ::emain. For the purpose of this analysis , the possibility that the objective of such an operation over the long term would be economic in nature is discounted. Agricultural uses act as an economic catalyst, requiring inputs from other industries and providing produce for processing industries. This economic process , which results in a cycling of money through the county economy until the final product is sold outside the local market, is termed the "multiplier effect. " The University of California Agricultural Extension Service [Hock and Trypmonopoulos, 19691 , has calcu- * In cow/calf operations, only about 50 percent of the animals are marketed in a given year. 87 t • lated a multiplier value of 2.01 for this type .of agriculture in Napa County. If this, value is applied to the gross income generated by the Blackhawk Ranch, a value of about $284 ,760 is obtained. This loss represents less than two percent of the county cattle production and contributes less than .01 percent to total Contra Costa County retail sales (Concord Chamber of Commerce, 19731 . The recreational developments proposed for the project create only minimal impacts on the present open space character of the property. Neither the golf course nor the equestrian center, as proposed, creates a significant change from the open space characteristics of the ranch. The swimming and tennis center may have more significant effects depending on their design. Mitigation. As evidenced by the proposed planning concept, care has been taken by The Company and their consultants to -minimize the effect of the proposed development on the Saesthetic characteristics inherent in the recent land use. Construction plans call for minimal impacts in the area of home, circulation system, recreational, and service facility construction. Of the approximately 4,700 acres contained in the ranch, approximately 1,500 acres (32 percent) is scheduled for development. This leaves approximately 3 ,200 acres (68 percent) of the land in unaltered open space. Modification of the terrain will be minimized, according to the plans, by placing all development on slopes of less than 25 percent. The circulation system, as proposed, is designed to preserve the rural character of the landscape and should assist in achieving that objective. Impacts on erosion will be decreased by replacing conventionally curbed roads with a curbless road network. Subject to approval by the county road department, all roads on the property will have gravel shoulders. rather than curbs, resulting in direct dissipation of runoff. • Service facility construction, such as the proposed shopping center, will create a change of land use in a relatively concentrated area. Architectural and landscape designs compatible with the natural character of the land will be utilized in later design stages to minimize impacts from such developments. In summary, planning practices currently undertaken by The Proponent exhibit a desire to create a carefully and adequately planned development which takes into account direct and indirect effects of changing land use. A con- tinuation of such practices is desirable from both a develop- ment and an environmental position; consequently, no further mitigation measures are deemed necessary. Circulation System Impact. The traffic analysis conducted for The Proponent by John J. Forristal is presented in its entirety in Appendix • D. From Forristal ' s analysis, it can be seen that critical traffic volumes are projected on Stone 'Valley Road and Sycamore Valley Road adjacent to Interstate 680, on Diablo Road easterly viMo of the. Danville area, and on Tassajara Road between Sycamore Valley Road and Lawrence Road [Forristal, 1973]•. Projected volumes, are especially high on Tassajara Road and Sycamore Valley Road because no construction was assumed by Forristal on these roads for his projection. If Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Roads were improved to this proposed ultimate section, the critical traffic volumes would be eliminated. Projected traffic loads illustrating the Blackhawk and "other" contribu- tions to major exterior streets are illustrated on Fig. 21. The Blackhawk Ranch development will have a minor impact on the average daily traffic levels of Interstate 680. Forristal projects an .increase of about 5.0 percent north of Stone Valley Road and about 4.2 percent south of Crow Canyon Road. Because of the circulation concept of limiting the tribu- tary area for most of the streets, projected traffic volumes are generally low and well within the capacities of two lane 99 e. 0 0 00 C' . � , � t„•.� ,-., ,PGS,` 00 . { O .a`,!� A Q• moi•\ ~�''+� VV J• .. F �� O�~° o`er• r •�” ora �; '�► ` , e.*p° • � a thl o 4 O opN . o {" 10t �VMES FF�� SRP► �pR 5� ' • • A�yK tR P'�ti 19 • B�aGKNikPFF�G t5� • O OTN� �P+FF�G .• . j01x\- 't JOHN ' �O,Ap`5•�A�. 90 sections, except for two locations where volume will require • short four lane sections. Interior traffic volumes and four lane sections are depicted in Appendix D. Mitigation. In terms of minimizing effects upon the major external circulation elements, no measures are judged necessary with respect to Interstate 680 as the traffic increase attributable to Blackhawk Ranch traffic is minor and well within .the design capacity of that highway. With respect to the critical volume locations noted by Forristal on Tassajara Road and Sycamore Valley Road, it is noted that Blackhawk Ranch is only a minor contribution to the problem. However, these roads are county master planned with sufficient capacity to handle the proposed traffic. With respect to streets internal to the ranch, no further mitigation measures are required beyond- implementation of the proposed system. Noise Impact. During the construction period, noise levels • on the property will increase. significantly over the present levels by the addition of noise from equipment commonly asso- ciated with construction activity. Fig.. 22 presents data concerning noise ranges for most types of equip,.ent normally associated with construction activity. Once the project is completed and occupied, noise levels should return to levels normally associated with residential areas. The placement of most residential development in low lying valleys will eliminate many potential sources of noise, due to noise suppression by surrounding hills.- Off-site noises. from traffic sources will increase due to the increased traffic load associated with the development, while noise originating from the recently established open space zone should remain at its present level. Noise originating from adjoining portions of Mount Diablo State Park should remain iinchanged. Noise emanating from adjoining ownerships wholly 91 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS 1401SE LLVLL (ilbAl AT 501 T co 70 I►0 90 100 1`0 COMPACTF(B l RM.I.lRS) H w FROM LOADERS u •ACKIIOCS r p = TRACTORS rd W SCRAPERS, 01"AULR9 1 u PAY CRS H TRUCKS J COIICP•ETV IAIXCItS • � f1 w t CONCRETk: PUMPS H . . w CRA14ES (MIOVAULE) 2 CRAKES IDEPRICK) H u� . I !► it PUMPS v = GENERATORS COMPRCSSOIIS = PNEUMATIC ►TRENCHES �--� as JACK IIAMMERS AND ROCK GRILLS W PILE ORIVERS IPEAKS) w VIBRATOR r SAWS source: Solt, Saranek, and Newman, 1971 FIG. 22 92 • or partially outside the newly established open space zone may, at some time in the future, become sources if more intensive uses are authorized. Mitigation. Attempts will _,made by The Proponent, through design, to minimize sources of noise developed on the Blackhawk Ranch. Proper placement of vegetation or other sound insulating material can successfully eliminate many such sources. Attempts will be made, through contractor restrictions on equipment size consistent with safe operation, to lower construction noise levels. Public Services and Utilities , Cost/Revenue Effects. Impact. The development promises substantial economic benefits in terms of funding both municipal services and education (McNece, 1973 , see Appendix E} . The project generates a projected cumulative surplus of $12 ,798 ,000 for municipal services and a projected cumulative surplus of $12 ,393,000 for the school district during the projected twelve year development period. The annual surplus after full development is $1,646 ,000 for municipal services and is $1, 640,000 for the school district per year thereafter . Table J illustrates the annual accrual of the projected surplus over the development period. Mitigation. The excess revenues provided by the project offer the potential for a material enhancement to the quality or quantity of municipal services and education opportunities in the area. Alternatively, the surplus could be used to reduce property tax rates . The county and school district should contemplate the impending availability of this surplus in light of anticipated improvement requirements . Gas and Electricity. Impact. Contacts by Kirker, Chapman •and Associates, consulting engineers for the Blackhawk. Ranch development, with Pacific Gas and Electric Company have indicated that 93 =NNW of tST2MATZD PROPERTY TUXES REVENUZ SURPLUSa (THOUSANDS OP DOLLARS) ' Completed Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year.4 Year S Year 6 Years 7.12 Annually General Municipal Annual 419 !11 616 110 056 1.067 1,249 1,646 • Property. Ta:ea emulative 4I9 10030 1,716 2,516 3,413 4,549 19,796 school ' • District Annual ' 600 936 641 767 112 1,021 1,111 1,610 Property Tax cumulative 100 934 1,575 2,342 3,254 4,282 12,391 Sources McNece, 1973. I r 94 PG&E's facilities are capable of handling the need for gas and electricity generated by the project. However,- cumulative impacts generated by this and other similar projects have an impact on the general availability of gas and electricity [Kirker, Chapman and Lssociates, 19721 . Mitigation. No mitigation measures are judged necessary beyond maintaining contact with PG&E during project buildout to ensure that no changes occur. Schools. Impact. Figures used by Elmer McNece indicate that an additional 3,436 students will be generated by the Blackhawk Ranch development. The kindergarten through sixth grade students are to be accommodated in the three K-6 schools proposed for on-site construction (Davis, 1973) . Existing facilities cannot presently accommodate the addi- tional loads of seventh grade through high school students but new facilities are in the proposal stage (Grossbach and Smith, 19731 . Mitigation. Potential impacts created by the proposed Blackhawk Ranch development on the public school system will be provided for if facilities currently proposed by the school district, are. completed. Water Supply. Impact. Assuming an ultimate population of 13,409 • and a mean consumption of 150 gallons per day per capita, the Blackhawk development will generate a demand for an additional 2 million gallons of water per day meeting drinking water standards. The Diablo Reservoir and its backup system has JIV k sufficient capacity to meet this demand (Kirker, Chapman and Associates, 1972) . '0_A � Mitigation. The Proponent is considering a waste- water reclamation scheme that envisions the use of partially treated wastewater for golf course irrigation and related purposes. Should this proposal be implemented, the total demand for freshwater will be reduced by that amount utilized 95 • [Kiirker, Chapman and Associates, 19721 Wastewater. Impact. The proposed Blackhawk Ranch development will contribute approximately 1.3 million gallons (13,409 people x 100 gallons per day per person) of. sewage per day to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District treatment plant on Suisun Day. The volume of sewage generated by the proposed develop- ment is within the existing available capacity of the treatment plant (Dalton, 1973) . Sewage discharge to Suisun Bay currently meets the requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Mater Quality Control Board (Kirker, Chapman and Associates, 1972) . Mitigation. The concept of reclaiming a portion of the raw sewage for irrigation of the golf courses and similar purposes has been discussed with and favorably received by the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District (Kirker, Chapman and Associates, 1972) . Reclamation would consist of partial. treatment and disinfection of - liquid wastes. Should this proposal be implemented, loading on the treatment facility would- be eased and there would be a reduction in demand for freshwater. Police. Impact. The additional 13. 409 people brought into the area by the Blackhawk Ranch development will place a demand for an increase in personnel of the County Sheriffs Department. Staff will be added in relation to the needs of the community; at the present time approximately 4 .2 men are necessary in order to have one man on patrol for a 24 hour period (Glenn, 19731 . Mitigation. No mitigation measures are anticipated beyond the personnel increase deemed necessary by the County Sheriffs Department. Fire. iImpact. The additional residents housed in the area 96 by the proposed development will result in a need for a higher level of fire protection service than is now required on the ranch. Chief Blodgett [1973) estimates that when the proposed development reaches a population of about 3,000, it will be necessary to locate and equip a new sub-station near or in the developed area. In the interim, . station number ? 3, which is located 2.6 miles from the ranch, will provide tt fire protection service. Mitigation. The Proponent has indicated that a fire substation site will be designated at a centrally ; located point in the proposed development to satisfy the additional requirements of the fire department to enable them to provide adequate service. Solid Waste. Imppact. Although the Valley Disposal Service presently collects solid waste generated by the Blackhawk • Ranch, after development the Diablo Disposal Service will provide this service (Miller, 1973) . The Diablo Disposal Service utilizes the same landfill in Martinez for ultimate " disposal of the waste material. The useful lifetime of the landfill is estimated to extend through the year 2020 [Olney, 19731 . Based on a generation rate of approximately 5.5 pounds of solid waste per person per day [Wagner, 19731 , the proposea development will generate approximately 26,900, 000 pounds of solid waste per year (5. 5 x 365 x 13,409 - 24 ,900, 000) at full development. It is not anticipated that this quantity of solid waste will' materially shorten the life of the landfill. Mitigation. No mitigation measures are judged necessary beyond continued communication between the Blackhawk Development Company, the Diablo Disposal Service, and the re- sponsible county department to ensure that adequate capacity is developed to service the development as it grows to completion. 97 Demographic and Social Analysis • Impact. Assuming a continuation of the-ptesent San .Ramon Valley eight percent growth rate, it is estimated that the 1974 population of the valley be 36,061 persons (Table K) . Hence in the first completed year of construction, the Black- hawk Ranch development would comprise about one percent of the total population of the valley. By 1985, the anticipated final year of construction, the development will reach its peak effect on the San Ramon Valley in terms of population as approximately 16 percent of the total valley population will reside within Blackhawk Ranch (Fig. 23) . After this year its effect on the total populatign of the San Ramon Valley will taper off. When the impact of the -Blackhawk Ranch development is examined in terms of the projected per year population increase, it can be seen that in 1975, approximately 41 percent .of the anticipated San Ramon Valley population growth will be accounted • for by Blackhawk Ranch (Fig. 23) . Thereafter, the percentage of the yearly population increase of the San Ramon Valley which the Blac%hawk Ranch development will account for will decrease each year to a low of 18 percent in 1985. After 1985 the development will not have an effect on the yearly population increase as a function of new homes being constructed. People moving in and out of the area will probably not cause a significant increase or decrease in the , population. Hence, birth and death rates will be the only factor affecting population as generated by the 'development at that time. Construction of the project should provide an increase in employment opportunities in the area over the projected twelve year absorption period. The number and duration of jobs will be dependent on the phasing of construction activities and the need for specific construction expertise (see Appendix E) . It can also be anticipated that the development will • generate the need for new commercial an*d. retail facilities 98 , • • TAOLL N POPULATION GWITH IMPACT SAN RAMON VALLEY/sLACKHAWK RANCH SAH WMON VALLEY OLACKHAWK RANCH DE:'T_LCPMENT 'Total tatimated3 Estimated Projectedl Number of Projected4 Number of Population Tota12 Dwelling Population Total Dwelling ' Increase .Population Units Increase Population Units 1960 - 12,702 4,324 - ' - 1970 - 26,622 8.941 - - - 1973 - 33,390 11,130 - - - 1976 2,671 36.061 12,020 551 Ssl 167 , $� 1175 2,885 .38.916 12,619 1,110 1.761 3!] n ��,� • 1976 3.116 43.062 14,021 1,206 20917 3!S 1977 3,365 45,427 15,142 1,206 41163 395 1978 3,634 49,061 16,353 10206 5,359 39S 1979 3,925 32,996 17,662 10150 60509 380 1980 4,239 57,225 19,075 1,150 7,659 380 1981 4;578 61,803 20,601 3.,150 8,80! 380 1982 4,944 66,747 22,219 10150 9,959 380 $ 1983 5,340 72.087 24,029 10150 11.109 380 • 1984 5,767 77,856 26,618 10150. 12,259 380 less 6,228 84,082 28,027 1,150 13,409 380 Motes$ 1. Projected population increases for San Ramon Valley census tracts 3440 through 3462 are based on growth , 1 rates indicated ty population increase fron 1960 to 1970 and iron 1970 to 1973. The 11 percent per year growth rate from 1960 to 1970 dipped to an 8 percent growth rate, from 1970 to 1973. This 8 percent rate was in turn continued }early through 1985 to arrive at the projected population increases for the area covered by the census tracts. 2. The 1960 and 1970 population figures are 1970 census data, as gathered and prepared i•y the U.S. Sureau of the Census and the Centra Costa County Planning Departr'.ent. The 1973 population figure is an estlnate for April 1, 1973 by Hs. Sally K. Evans, forrerly a somber of the Contra Costa County Planning Cepartrent. Population figures for years 1974 through 1995 are pro- jected through the use of an anticipated 8 percent growth rate. 3. The estimated number of dwelling units was derived by assuming a factor of 3.75 persons per single fanily detached and single fanily estate units and 2.375 for single family attached and apartment units. The San lawn General Plan preliminary draft (6-28-71) indicates an average of 3.3 Persons per unit in 1971. The anti- slpated average number of persons per unit frr the Slaekhawk Ranch development is approximately 3.13. 1. The projected population increase for the Slack- hawk Ranch development is based on a 12 year buildout ' Clod. This data is further illustrated is Tables C, and D of Appendix E. 99 Ratio of total population of Blackhawk Ranch to total population of- San Ramon valley. 4s Ratio of yearly population increase of Black- T;; -�•— hawk Ranch to yearly population increase of 40 San Ramon Valley. * End of 12 year building program. 315 _ a tit : tXt` •: i"t -:S tt. NO In :I 20 a '_' H. N. .�. - 230 Mi- Y 25 iilw ` ,XS A 1 n,dft 1074 10715 1974 1977 1478 1979 10lo i98i 1992 1903 i904 1005 H00 i007 N09 Y E A A POPULATION GROWTH RELATIONSHIP BLACKHAWK RANCH / SAN RAMON VALLEY 1974 - 1985 The following assumptions were made in producing the graph. 1. The projected population growth for the San Ramon Valley assumes an eight percent per year growth rate= the population growth for the Blackhawk Ranch is indicated in Table L. The graph illustrates the relationship between the total population of the Blackhawk development and San Ramon Valley. For example; in 1985 it is estimated that 13,409 persons will be living in the Blackhawk develop- ment. This represents approximately 16 percent of the total population of the San Ramon Valley in 1985, which is estimated to be 84,082 persons. 2. The relationship between the growth rate of San Ramon Valley (eight percent) and the population in- crease for the Blackhawk Ranch development can be illustrated as follows; the growth rate from 1984 to 1985 for the San Ramon Valley is anticipated to be 6,228 persons, 18 percent of this population increase is estimated to be new residents in the Blackhawk Ranch development. FIG. 23 100 t • in the area. Finally, the additional• population and new homes . - can be seen as an increase in the tax base as noted in Appendix E. Housing market reports for the Danville-Walnut Creek area indicate that the majority of homes in the area are sold to businessmen and professional people. Homes in the proposed Blackhawk Ranch development are planned to sell for an estimated average $70,000; this sale price will probably result in the continued attraction of business- men and professionals to the area. In terms of the type and overall density of the development proposed for Black- hawk Ranch, it appears that the proposed uses are in concert with and within the overall scope of the San Ramon General Plan 119711 which envisions 'a San Ramon Valley population of 65,000 and which identifies the character of development t as "one of predominately single family residential" patterns. Visual/Aesthetic Resources I' mmea_ct. Conversion of the land use on the valley flo3r from agriculture to suburban use will modify the visual and aesthetic resources of the ranch. Primary intermediate land- scape features, such as the hills and valleys of surrounding properties , will remain unchanged. The development area, situated 'as it is on the valley floors , will not be visible from the ma;or regional circulation elements , Interstate 660, Sycamore Road, or .the developed portion of Diablo Road. As viewed from the populated hillside areas to the west of Danville, the developed portion of the ranch will be obscured by the intervening ridges. Mitigation. The inclusion of large expanses of open space on the ranch and leaving the ridges and hilltops free of residential uses, as proposed, effectively mitigates undesirable visual effects that might otherwise occur. 101 _ (p t:�_� i f��f t . _ 1 � _ . � �. � • . , •. • .. • �0(}�'�fl0 CQ�O�3�UOo 0�� • TOPICAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ' The purpose of this chapter is to pose and briefly discuss several questions, the answers to which are required to be included in Environmental Impact Reports. Are There Any Unavoidable Adverse Impacts? This section summarizes those adverse impacts that will occur as a result of the project in spite of any mitigation measures, although' some are reduced in severity by the mitigation measures previously discussed. It is also noted that some impacts, because of their subjective nature, may not be considered "adverse" to everyone. They may, for example, be adverse to the natural environment but beneficial in terms of cultural or social values. The following paragraphs briefly describe these unavoidable adverse impacts. Commitment of Land and Resources. The proposed Blackhawk Ranch development will commit the property to surburban land use for an indefinite and essentially permanent period of t+.me. For all practical purposes, once the development is completed, no alternative land use is available for the property. Resources in the form .of men, material , capital, machinery, and energy will be committed during the design, construction, and maintenance stages of the project. once completed , resources such as community services and utilities will be committed during the occupancy of the site. Loss of Natural Environment. The development of Blackhawk Ranch will disturb the visual character of the natural environ- ment. Low density development in conjunction with mitigation measures previously discussed will partially reduce impacts potentially associated with the development. The inclusion of large areas of open space will result in the preservation of substantial wildlife populations that might be lost if more intense development were to occur. Increases in Air Pollution, Noise, .and Traffic. Increases 103 ' in air pollution, noise, and traffic accompany all developments and are not considered to be abnormaly high for the proposed project. However, these increases must be considered in light of the cumulative effects of this and other developments. The mitigation measures previously discussed can be effective in reducing the severity of these impacts. Visual Imoact. Visual and aesthetic experiences presently derived from the property are mostly subjective in nature. The development inevitably will result in some effect on the present setting on a localized basis within, the individual valleys, replacing agricultural open space on the valley floors with a residential and related use. Any qualitative judgement of the impact of these localized effects should rest with the viewer and must be made in the context of the proposed planning features of the project and specific designs yet .to be developed. In this. regard, it is our . opinion, based upon knowledge of similar planning concepts proposed' and implemented by the planning consultants, that the proposed residential development of Blackhawk Ranch, with it's inevitable visual impacts, is in the hands of experienced professional planners who Are sensitive to the problem. - -" What iss the Relationship Between Short-Tern Use and Lone-Term Productivity? The Blackhawk Ranch, in its present condition, is useful as a scenic , agricultural, and open space resource. . 'In addition, it' supports a varied plant and animal community. Development of the ranch will commit a portion of the land .to residential or recreational uses for an indefinite number of years. The remainder, if incorporated into open space lands or the state park system as proposed, will remain as open space indefinitely. These uses are in agreement with the present and projected uses of the. region. The development . will enhance the long-term productivity of the environment in terms of social and cultural benefits. It will, however, replace a more or less natural self 'perpetuating environment with low maintenance requirements in terms of energy and 104 r material, for a non-perpetuation environment with high main- : • tenance requirements. The net effect of the development will be to increase the cultural and social benefits to a sub- stantial number of permanent residents while reducing the total acreage of an essentially undeveloped environment. What Are the Irreversible Environmental Changes That Will Occur if the Project is Implemented? The proposed development of Blackhawk Ranch will commit this agricultural property to a specific use (low density, residential housing) for an indefinite, essentially permanent period of time. For all practical purposes, this will remove any alternative uses of the land for 30 to 40 years or the economic lifetime of the project. Manpower, materials, and energy will be committed during the design, construction, and maintenance stages of development. What Are the Growth Inducing Impacts? Development of the Blackhawk Ranch will have 1) direct growth inducing features in that it will increase the population of the Danville/San Ramon .Valley area and 2) indirect gro;vth inducing features in that it will increase the need for goods and services in the area. These include services directly related to the development population such as food, gasoline, etc. Development of the ranch may also incude development -of neighboring parcels to the extent that such development is allowed by the county general plan or building ordinances. What Are the Alternatives to the Proposed Project? As discussed previously, the primary objective of the Blackhawk Ranch development is to provide additional single and multiple family residences in the Walnut Creek-Danville area with accompanying community recreational/commercial facilities. The Proponent proposes to construct these sites and facilities in such a manner as to 1) avoid .the geologic, soil, and fire hazard areas, 2) minimize the vegetation, wildlife, hydrologic and other environmental impacts, 3) 105 1 ! preserve the visual and aesthetic characteristics of the -� ranch, and 4) realize a .reasonable economic return. Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in 'the following para- graphs. No Prof ect. In the forseeable future the Blackhawk Ranch could remain undeveloped, but ultimate development is assumed i as the ranch is in the path of growth as evidenced by the available utilities and by the county' s recent general plan amendments which define the Blackhawk Ranch' as in the growth area. The "No Project" alternative does not allow the present land owners a means of off-setting property taxes and mainten- ance costs or of realizing a reasonable economic benefit. As the soils of the ranch are not generally considered "prime" agricultural soils, it is not possible to achieve offsetting economic returns by intensifying crop production. _Public Ownership. Acquistion of 'the Blackhawk Ranch for general public ownership would increase the public use • and enjoyment of the ranch and, depending on the ultimate use, could retain or improve the property I s' present environmental resources'. This alternative would incur considerable public outlay and it is assumed .that funds are not avrilable to effect this alternative. Under this alternative the ranch could be incorporated into the existing Mount Diablo State Park or could be made into a separate county or regional park. As a result of the present design concept, a large portion of the Blackhawk Ranch will be offered to the State Parks system. Transferring the entire ranch to public ownership without reimbursement would not enable the owner to realize a reasonable economic return or to offset his costs. Change in Development Location. Development could conceivably be clustered throughout the entire property, half-way up the slopes, or along the ridge lines. These alternatives would result in building and road locations 106 on unstable slopes, erosive soils, and in more• prominent visual and aesthetic locations. Development costs would be higher, although in some cases economic return could be higher. Change In Land Use. Assuming zoning would allow, the Blackhawk Ranch might be developed for either industrial or commercial purposes. The property is located some distance from consumer and wholesale markets .and such uses would probably represent more significant local and regional impacts on circulation systems and other public facilities. The economic return from development to the county would probably be . increased. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the San Ramon Valley General Plan [1971] . Change in Density. The density of the proposed Black- hawk Ranch development could not be materially increased or decreased without changing the nature of development appreciably. An increase in density would represent a • corresponding increase in the local, and regional impacts. A material decrease in density, while reducing these impacts, could have an economic effect on the development, necessitate development over a larger area to ensure equal -economic returns, and would reduce the 66 percent open space now en- visioned by the plan. Change in the Development Desigi:. other alternatives exist to the proposed project in the form of variation of the design concepts and form. The number and ratio of condo- •minimum, single family residence, and apartments could be altered without alteration of the existing impacts to any great extent. Since the project is still in the conceptual stage, the Contra Costa County Planning Department, the public, and other interested agencies will have adequate opportunity to direct the developer in achieving a proper project design with respect to housing mix and recreational opportunities as a part of subsequent review procedures which are required at the time .of development and approval of detailed plans. 107 4p BIBLIOGRAPHY Published Sources Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1972a. Air Pollution and the San Francisco Bay, San .Francisco, California. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1972b.. Oxidant Experience and Distribution in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1962-1971 , San Francisco , California, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1973a. Information Bulletin, Januar 16 , 1973, "A Study of Oxidant Concentration Trends (1962-1971) , " San Francisco, California. Bay 'Area Air Pollution Control District, 1973b. Special Report, Technical Services Division, Comaarison of Air Quality Data 1969- __ 2, San Francisco, Ca itornia. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971. Noise from Construction 8guipment and Operations Building Eau_cmer.t and Hor..e Appliances, contract 68-04-004 01Envi.ronmenta Protection Agency, OZz . of Noise Abatement and Control , Washington, D.C. • Burcham, L.T. , 1957. California Range Land , An Historic- Ecological Study of the Ranqe Resources of California , State of Cali ornia , Department of NaturalResources, Division of Forestry, p. 261. California Department of Fish and Game, 1972. At the Crossroads: A Repott on California ' s Endangered and Pare Fish and tii.idiifa , . Sacramento, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1963. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Mount Diablo , Contra Costa County, California , San Francisco, California. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1971 . Water quality Control Plan (Interim) San Francisco Bay, Basin Sacramento, Ca�iforn ate_ Contra Costa County Agricultural Commission, 1972. Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report. Contra Costa Times, 1973. Issue dated July 11 1973, ,Martinez, California. Cronise, 1968. The Natural Wealth of California, Bancroft i Company, San Francisco, California, p. 696. 109 Elford, C.R. , 1970. Climatography of the United States, No. 60-4 , "Climate of California" U.S. Department of Co::imerce, nvironmental Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (revised) , U.S. Environrienta Protection Agency, office o Air Programs, Research Triangle . Park, North Carolina. Geiger, 1957•. The Climate near the Ground, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Revise Edition) . Grinnell, J. , 1933. Review of the Recent Mammal Fauna of California, University of California Publications in Zoology, a�71-34, Berkeley, California. Hoch, I. and N. Tryphonopoulos, 1969. A Study of the Economy. of Na2a County, California, Giannini ResearchReport No. 303, University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences , -Davis, California. Holzworth, G.C. , G.B. Bell , and G.A. DeMarrais, .1963. � .� Temperature Inversion Summaries of U.S. Weather Bureau Radiosonde Observations in Caliiornia , .U.S. Weather Bureau and state of California, Berkeley, California. Ingles , L.G. , 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States , Stanford Univeristy Press, Stanford, Ca ifornia.. Knott, J.Mr. , 1973. Effects of Urbanization on Sedimentation and Floud Flows in the Coloma Cree ; Basin , California , San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Munz, P.A. and D.D. Y.eck, 1959. A California Flora, University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Pampeyan, E.H. , 1963. Geology and Mineral De osits of Fount Diablo Contra Costa County, Call:orniL, California Division o !lines and Geology, Special Report TU, San Francisco, California. ' Purcell, M.F. , 1940. History of Contra Costa County, The Gillick Press, Berkeley, Ca i ornia. Rantz, S.E. , 1971a. Mean Annual Precipitation and Precipitation De th-Duration-Freauencv Data *for the .San Francisco Bay �eaion, • O.S. Geological Survey Open-Fie Report, San Francisco, Ca it- ornia. 110 .r Rantz, S.E. , 1971b. Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of Storm-Drainaoe Facilities in the San Francisco Bav Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, San Francisco, California. Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd, 1972. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-R2-72-061, Washington, D.C. , 236 pp. Soil Conservation Service, 1945. Land •Ca abilit and Conser- vation Farming, Contra Costa County Soil Conservation Di.stri.ct, Contra Costa, California. Soil Conservation Service, 1968 . Contra Costa County Soil Survey and General Report, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971 . California Streamf.low Characteristics , Volume I, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report, Menlo Park, California. U.S. Weather Bureau, 1964 . Climatdaraphy of the United States, No. 86-4 , "Decennial Census o I;nited States Climate: California," Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Unpublished Sources Andrews, M. , June 21, 1973. Valley Disposal Company, Walnut Creek, California, personal com..unication. Blackhawk Ranch Development Company, 1973. Market and Community Report, Danville, California. Blodgett, July 3, 1973. San Ramon Fire District, San Ramon, California, personal communication. Brode, J. , June 10, 1973. California Inland Fisheries Branch, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, personal communication. Concord Chamber of Commerce, 1973. Concord, California, personal communication. Contra Costa Planning Department, Preliminary San Ramon General Plan, 1971, Martinez, California. Cutler, J. , June 18 , 1973. Contra Costa County Advanced • Planning Department, Martinez, California, personal communication. . 111 • Daltan, W. , July 5, 1973. Contra Costa County' Sanitary District, personal communication. Davis, J. , July 3, 1973. Livingston and 'Blayney Associates, San Francisco, California, personal communication. Elliot, B. , June 21, 1973. California Department of Fish and Game, Felton, California, personal communication. Evans, S.K. , 1973. Contra Costa County Planning Department, Martinez, California, personal communication. Forristal , J.J. , 1973. Traffic Analysis - hlackrau k Ranch, Contra Costa County, Oakland, California. Gallaher, G. , June 15 , 1973. California Division of Highways, personal communication. Glenn, L. , Administrative Servicbs Officer, Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department, Contra Costa County, California, personal communication. Grossbach, W. and J. Smith, July 5, 1973. San Ramon Valley Unified School District, Contra Costa County, California, personal communication. Hanson, C.B. , June 25, 1973. The Paleontolocic Resources cf Blackhawk Ranch, University of California., Berkeley, Ca ifornia. Hobert,, July 3, 1973. Undersheriff, Contra Costa Sheriff' s DepartJient, Contra Costa County, California, personal communication. Jackson, T.L. , undated. Report of Findinas of Archaeological Reconnaissance and Historica Research for Contra Costa County Assessment District 1973-3 , San Ramon, Con-=a Costa County, California, Palo Alto, California. Jackson, T.L. , June 17 , 1973 . Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Blackhawk Ranch Area, San Francisco, California . J Kirker, Chapman and Associates , 1972. Preliminary Utilities 7C Investigation for Blackhawk Ranch, Contra Costa County, California, San Francisco, California. Lowney-Kaldveer and Associates, February, 1973. Preliminary Geotechnical Reconnaissance, 4 ,000 Acre Blackhawk Ranc , Contra Costa , California, Palo Alto, California. Miller, July 5, 1973. Diablo Valley Disposal, Walnut Creek California, personal communication. 112 Olney, July S. 1973. President, Achme Fill Company and Pleasant Hill Disposal Company, Pleasant Hill, California, personal communication. Perry, F. , 1973. Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, personal communication. Spears, J. , June 18 and 21, 1973. Foreman, Blackhawk Ra•rch, Danville, California, personal communication. Waddington, G. , June 18 , 1973. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, ;�:artinex, California, personal communication. Wagner, L. , July 6, 1973. Pleasant Hill Disposal Company, Pleasant Hill, California, personal communication. 113 r • ,,,. .� �,,�. ,;.4�.� o �� APPENDIX A THE PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES OF BLACKHAWK RANCH 1 � i THE PALEONTOLCGIC RESOURCES OF BLACK HAWX WICH Parts I and II C. Bruce Hanson Department of Paleontology University of Cali:ornia Berkeley, California 94720 June 25, 1973 • CONTENTS I. Black Hawk Ranch Fossils . . . . . . . 01 A. History Of Paleontologic Investigations. 1 B. Geologic And Biologic History, 2 C. Nature And Distribution Of Fossils . . . 4 1. Established Localities . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' a. General. 4 b. Vertebrate Localities. . . . . . . . . . 5 c. Plant Locali pies . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 6 d. Invertebrate Localities '6 2. Potential For New Localities . . . . . . . 8 . a. Distribution Of Potentially Productive Sediments8 Du b. Probability of Discoveries ring Construction . . , 9 ' . D. Scientific And Educational Value .10 E. Summary .13 F. Bibliography . . . .14 II. Preservation Of The Paleontologic Resources . . . .16 "A. Potential Hazards .16 B. Future Resource Use Possibilities . . . . . :4L6 1. Field Research . . . . . . , . , , , . .16 2. Education, . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .17 Co' . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 1. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . .18 2. Recomomendations For Black Hawk Ranch Quarry.18 3. Recommendations For Other Fossilif erous Localities 0 4 6 . . 0 •. 0 0 0 . 0 0 .19 • BLACK HAWK RANCH FOSSILS H story gf Paleontologic InM22tigatin 'The earliest recorded fossil collecting in the Black Hawk Ranch area apparently was done by Charles D. Voy of Oakland sometime in the 18701s. A suite of fossil leaves he found eventually reached the University of California and descriptions of some of them were published by Leo Lesquereaux 1883) . The locality data is vague, but they may have been collected from what is now Black Hawk Ranch property. Invertebrate fossils of this area had attracted attention at least by the turn of the century. In the course of his field research about this time, Charles E. Weaver • investigated the marine sediments and collected fossils on and near the -ranch. (See Weaver, 1909) . Dr. Bruce L. Clark began mapping the geology and collecting marine invertebrate fossils about 1910 on Black Hawk Ranch and around Mit. Diablo, heading to several impor- tant publications in 1915, 1935 and 1943. . In 1927 Clark discovered a number of fossil horse - ,t teeth exposed by weathering on the present Black Hawk Ranch. ..-.He.:•showed these to F. B. Loomis, a vertebrate paleontologist, •but no further investigation of the site was made until 1933. In that year, Clark showed the locality to Dr. R. A. Stirton and V. L. -Vanderhoof of the University of California. Subse- quent student field trips under their direction demonstrated the productiveness and importance of the bone accumulat'on. Extensive excavation began in the summer of 1937 under the direction of King A. Richey and continued when weather per- mitted until 1941. R. C. Force, the ranch oviner at that time furnished equipment and personnel to excavate a large trench adjacent to the locality. The Works Progress Administration provided manpower to assist Richey in the painstaking removal of the fossils from the exposed face. This four year effort . produced most of the specimens now comprising the Black Hawk Ranch Quarry collection at the Museud' of Paleontology of the University of California. Subsequent visits by paleontology classes and several weeks' worth by a Museum party in the 40' s further expanded the collection. Recent digging with detailed plotting has begun to show, for the first time, the arrangement and distribution of the specimens. During the course of Richey' s work ' in the quarry, he discovered several other vertebrate localities which were less productive in numbers of speciciens, but provided impor- tant information about the time represented by the terrestrial • sediments on the ranch. .- Even before the- end of the major field effort of *the late 301s, published descriptions of tile- fossils from the quarry began to appear. (See Richey, 1934 and 1948; Stirton, 1939 and 1951; Miller and Sibley, 1.942). . Fossil leaves from the - quarry locality-were described by C. Condit in 1938. Dr. D. I. Axelrod (1944a) later described • a second, older flora from localities north of- the quarry. Still another important stratigraphic-paleontologic study inNAuding materials from the ranch is Frank Kilmer' s C (1951) investigation of the "Diablo Formation" and its shallow marine fauna. Despite the rather extensive b.ody of knowledge already gained from the Black Hawk Ranch rocks and fossils, much remains to be done. More detailed and diverse information will be required as the state of -paleontologic research advances. With the continued cooperation of its owners, Black Hawk Ranch will hopefully continue to be a focal point of paleontologic research and education. • Geologic And Biolooic History The rocks and fossils of Black Hawk Ranch provide a 50 million year record of the local physical and biologic environment. Relatively recent events, associated with the uplift and erosion of il/It. Diablo have turned this rock record on edge and exposed its chronology in a straightfor%':ard north-to-south sequence. -The major events recorded here are the incursions, then retreats of two inland seas, separated in time by nearly 20 million years, then floodplain and lacustrine deposition until the major Mt. Diablo uplift about' 5 million years ago. AlthougP still older rocks are known in the vicinity, -the first even recorded by the sediments of Black Hawk Ranch "C was the westward transgression of a large inland sea in the Middle Eocene epoch, about 45 to 50 million years ago. Shallow marine, deltaic and back: swamp deposits make up the Domengine Formation, the oldest -on the ranch. As the sea deepened, the . finer-grained Nertonville and �.arkley Formations accumulated in this area. IJo fossils representing this interval have been recorded on Black Hawk Ranch, but contemporaneous coal deposits (carbonized plant fossils) and small shells have been found nearby. Further examination of the Eocene rocks on the ranch may reveal fossils of this age. k ' • ' 1 At the close* of the Eocene, nearly 40 .million years ago, the area was uplifted and tilted southward and the sea retreated. Subsequent erosion removed any sedimentary record, if it ever existed, of the next 20 million years. Return of a marine embayment, this time from the west, renewed deposition here at least by the beginning of the late Miocene, a bit less than 20 million years ago. The initial phases of this transgression arerepresented by the Briones Formation sandstones, and as the sea expanded and deepened, the Cierbo Formation was laid down. Marine invertebrate fossils of this age are abundant and well preserved on Black Hawk Ridge. ' A variety of clams, oysters, snails and sand dollars occucied this sea. Shallo�-eing- began before the end of the tAd ocene. The "Neroly Formation" includes occasional beds of terrestrial fossils in addition to marine invertebrates. As the sea,.-;ay continued in its general retreat, minor fluctu- ations resulted in the interbedding of shallow marine, deltaic and estuarine sediments of the "Diablo Fox�:ation" . These varied environments are reflected by the fossils of the "Diablo" as well as the sediments; marine vertebrates ( sharks, sea lions and sea cows) , marine and brackish water inverte- brates and terrestrial plants and mammals are all recorded in .this formation on or near Black Hawk Ranch (Kilmer, 1951 ) . The Miocene sea finally. retreated from the area about 12 million years ago, but deposition of sediments continued under flood-plain and lacustrine conditions. The Green Valley Formation provides an excellent fossil record of the local flora and fauna which occupied Black Ha,,-.,k Ranch at about that time. : Woodland-chapparal plants including mountain mahogany and live oak occupied the drier slopes. The floodplain and the stream borders supported willow, elm, sycamore and sumac _..... (Axelrod, 1944a ) . A diverse local fauna included lizards, birds, rabbits, rodents, various kinds of dogs, racoons several species of cats ( including s saber-toothed formj , four- tusked elephants, rhinoceroses, one- and three-toed horses, peccaries, llamas, a very large camel and a pronghorn antelope (Webb and ;Yoodburne, 1904 ) . ` Similar flood-plain deposition continued in the area, probably into the early Pleistocene, but much less is known of the plants and animals of this later period. Intermittent and slow upward movement of a large mass of basement rocks began north of Black Hawk Ranch long• before the events discussed here, but in relatively recent time, these rocks were rapidly thrust upward, shouldering aside and folding the accumulated sedimentary pile to form Mt. Diablo. Still later filling of some of the flanking valleys , may have preserved late Pleistocene and recent terrestrial ' fossils on Black Hawk Ranch. Excavations in two localities Just northwest of the ranch have exposed the remains of a true elephant, giant bison, and a now-extenct ground sloth. Nature And Distribution Of Fossils . Established Localities General The following information concerning fossil localities relates to the resource map included in this report. The base map is the photorevised 1968 edition of the Diablo, California 7 % minute quadrangle published by the U.S. Geolo- gical Survey. Although the Black Hawk Ranch propertyincludes land in both Range 1 East and Range 1 West of the 1::t• Diablo meri- dian, no section numbers are duplicated. For convenience, township and range designations will be omitted in the discussion of fossil localities on the ranch itself. All lo- calities listed are in Contra Costa County, California. • Valid differences of opinion exist among geologists regarding appropriate names and boundaries of rock units, and this is reflected in the various available geologic maps which include Black Hawk Ranch. The present discussion will be related to the formation names and contacts shown on the enclosed resource map. The geology no-th of the outcrop of the "Diablo For,ration" is taken from the r.;t. Piablo area geologic map included in the Guidebook to the '•'ount Diablo Field Trio, Geological Society of Sacramento, 1964 . The remainder of the map is after Kilmer (1951 ) and Webb. and -Woodburne (2964 ) . Locality numbers beginning with the letters V A, P, or PA designate localities recorded in the ,-!useum of Nleon- tology, University of California, Berkeley; the V prefix refers to vertebrate localities; A, invertebrate; F or PA, plants. A G. I.T. prefix designates California Institute of Technology localities. Numbers beginning with 3- are my field numbers; my notes %•:ill be placed on record with the Museum of Paleontology. Within each of the following locality groups, locali- ties are listed in approximate stratigraphic (chronologic) order, oldest first. Localities listed "Near Ranch" are stratigraphically equivalent to rocks on Black Hawk Ranch, and provide informa- tion about the probability of finding fossils on the Ranch. Vertebrate Localities Marine On ranch: A-8555; NE % Sec. 23; "Diablo Fm."; Shark tooth. Near ranch: V-6316; Nei! % Sec. 14, TIM, R111; Briones? Fm. ; Desmostvlus (extinct marine mammal ) . A-8571 ; 1�2 rni. NUJ of Black Hark Ranch; "Diablo Fm. " ; ' Pinn* d ( sea lion) . • A-8569; 1/ mi. NW of Black Hawk Ranch; "Diablo Fm. " ; Sirenian ( " sea cow" ) . Terrestrial On ranch: V-3921; NW % Sec. 24; "Diablo Fm. "; Horse. V-3920; SW !14 Sec. 19; "Diablo Fm. ", Horse. V-3925; SW l Sec. 24 ; Green Valley Fm. ; Nannippus, Hi arion, (horses) . V-3716; SE q Sec. 24 ; Green Valley Fm. ; Pliohippus (horse) . V-3310; SIN % Sec. 24 ; ' Green Valley Fm. ; Lacertil is • lizard) . Grus conferta ( crane) , Evoolaous rabbit) , Citellus ground squirrel ) , ?Peromyscus deer mouse) . Eucastor lecontei ( small beaver) , H str. icoos large beaver , Lec-,ocvon wafer fox , Aelurodon near taxoides (v:olf-sized dog) , i Osteoborus aohoi:,us ( large hyanoid do3) , Osteo- arus diabloensis ( small hyanoid dog , Sassari-sells Parvus ring-tailed raccoon) , Nimravides thinobates ( lar e primitive cat) , Pseudeelurus cf. intrepidus ?small. cat ) , Machairodontinae W(saber toothed cat) , Gomohotherium simosoni (mastodont) , Rhinocerotidae rzinoceros , Nanipnus forcei ( small three-toed horse , Hi arson sp• Clarge three-toed' horse ) , Pliohicous C leardi; (large one-toed horse) , Prosthennc•gs peccary , 11st.atochoerus cf. calx_ornicus oredont , Procamelus sp. camel ) , 'rliauchenia • small llama ;.:coaivlocus large llama ) , Canro- mer�.'sp. (prongi:orn antelope) . Faunal list from Wobb and tloodburne (10,64 ) . V-3724; S'.! :a Sec. 24; Green Valley Fm. ; Canid, . mastodont. Near Ranch: V-5509; SE % Sec. 15, T1S, ,R1W; Green Valle Fm. ; Camelid ( camel ) , Nanninnus, Hiooarion, horses) . V-5726; NE % Sec. 34 , TIS, Green Valley Fm. ; Camelid. 708; SW % Sec. 33, TIS R1E; ?Green Valley Fm. , Hipparion platvGtyle (horse) ; type locality. V-69389 V-6939, V-6940; Ta ssajara Road, east of Danville; "Tassajara Fm. " ; Fish, mollusks. V-3406; SN % Sec. 14, TIS, Rl*,'l; Pleistocene valley fill; Elenhas ( elephant) . V-3927; San hamon Cr. at confluence of Sycamore Cr. , SE of Danville; Pleistocene valley fill; Bison. V-5126; SE % Sec. 16, TIS, RlW- Pleistocene valley fill ; Bison latifrons (giant bison) ; Paramylodon (ground sloth) , Plant Localities "Neroly Fm. " and "Diablo Fm. " localities On ranch: PA300; NE % Sec. 24; "Neroly Fm. " 3-27; NE % Sec. 24 ; "Neroly Fm. " 3-21; SE % Sec. 19; "Neroly Fm. " 3-11; SE l Sec. 19; "Nerply Fm. " '3-10; SE % Sec. 19; "Diablo Fm. " ' Near ranch: • P-3415; SE % Sec. 27, 'T1S; RIE; "Neroly Fm. " Collective floral list; Smilax diforma ( greenbrier) • Betula vera (birch) ; e�rseeaa rseudo-carolinensis• Laurei ) ; U-nbellularia i salicifolia laurel ) ; Plat-.anus dissecta sycamore) ; Ulmuseln) . Floral list from Axeircd (1944a) . ..Green Valley Fm. localities On ranch: V-3310; SN % Sec. 24 ; Green Valley Fm. ; Pooulus washoensis (poplar) , Salix hesoe:is vei110W) ; 'Quercus ccn:,exa (live oak , C•jercus lak--villensis live oak ) , Ulmus californic ( elm) , Platanus dissecta ( syca;nore , Cercocar-, cu^eatus •mountain mahogany) , Rhus moroacensis (sumac) . -Axelrod. 1940. Invertebrate localities Domengine and MArkley Formations -- No localities in these units are known from Black Hawk Ranch. However, equivalent rocks near the ranch and north of fit. Diablo are known to contain invertebrate fossils and they probably exist on the ranch as well. Areas of exposure of these rocks were not examined in the course of preparing this report. San, Pablo Group .(except "Diablo rm. ") -- Ten California Institute of Technology localities in the "Neroly" and "Diablo" formations are plotted on- Plate 1 of Richey (1948) and on the resource map in this report. No faunal lists for these localities is available. See Clark (1915) for a general list of invertebrates of the San Pablo Group. t y field work revealed a number of additional Cierbo and "Neroly Fm. " locali- ties, listed below with initial identi:ications. On ranch: 3-12; NE % Sec. 19; Briones or Cierbo Fm. ; pelecypods (clams) . 3-8; SE % Sec. 13; Briones. or Cierbo Fra. ; pelecy- pods. 3-26; S%I % Sec. 13; Cierbo or "Neroly Fm. " ; pelecypods. 3-25; NE % Sec. 24; "Neroly Fm. " , pelecypods, echinoids ( sand dollars).. . 3-22; SE % Sec. 19; "Neroly Fm. 11 ; pelecypods, gastropods ( snails) , echinoids. "Diablo Formation" localities On -ranch: 3-9; N71 % Sec. 24; "Diablo Fm. " , pelecypods. • 3-20; SE % Sec. 19 ; "Diabl•o , Fm. ". • 3-23; S'.7 % Sec. •19 ; "Diablo Pm." . A-8554 ; N17 % Sec. 24 ; "Diablo Fm. " . A-8555; NE % Sec. 23; "Diablo Fm. " .' A-8558; N13 % Sec. 23; "Diablo Fm. " . A-8575; S'.7 % Sec. 19; "Diablo Fm. '' . Collective invertebrate founai. list (from Kilmer, 1951 ) ; Echinarachr.ius cab'vi ( sand collar) , Astro- dapsi s major sang 0011a=) , Glyc`.'" rj -_- sectent_ionalls, Aeaui Leo yen c1. rav,�ar�:'i, Aeouicec- c. . ::eave_i, Lucina? sp. , Pret ^4ca sta-minea, ccT.us nuttalli, Dosinia cf.. arnc i i , zccma cf . _.acc-,a seCta, rseudocard'_L:.:, Cc?nS31UiA, JC 'rUS nut- tallidichE?rsoni all clams) , i::^a`_svaiabicensis Green Valley and Tassajara Fm. localities -- Fossil freshwater' mollusks from these formations on and near the ranch are mentioned in the field notes of K. A. Richey and C. T. Williams, on file in the -Museum of Paleontology. Specific localities are not recorded within the Black Hawk Ranch property. Potential For New Localities 12i2tribution of Potentially Productive Sediments Most fossil concentrations have 'their greatest dimensions within a plane which was horizontal at the time of deposition. The original depth .of the deposit in relation to its horizontal lec:gth or width is usually less by several orders of magnitude. The layers of sedimentary rocks, and their included fossils, on most of Flack Hawk Ranch wereoriginally laid down in nearly horizontal beds, but the relatively recent (geologically speaking ) uplift of ":.t. Diablo has turned the beds approximately on edge. Thus, the greatest dimensions of the fossil concen•Cration not% tend to lie in nearly vertical, rather than horizontal planes. Subsequent erosion has exposed a cross section of the beds in most places, so the fossil concentrations appear as linear •bands with their greatest length along lines bearing approximately MO degrees - 80 degrees VJ. This can be seen on a small scale at any of the well-exposed fossiliferous localities on the ranch, although local deviations from the overall attitudes mentioned above are common. The same surface expression, on a larger scale, is shown on the map by the geographic distribution of known localities of different ;rinds of fossils. Many of the terres- trial vertebrate localities lie within a narrow band extend- ing IU7-ESE across the ranch. This band is parallel to, but not coincident with, the' contacts between rock formations also shown on -the map. Note, however, that this band does not include all of the known vertebrate localities in the area, even if the special case of the Pleistocene localities (discuLs'ed below) is excluded. The plant and invertebrate localities also tend to show their greatest concentrations along these 1.10-ESE bands, but occurrences elsewhere are known and more might be expected when the exposed rocks are examinod in more detail. The sediments which now partially fill the Sycamore Creek, West Branch, and Green Valleys, ;iere deposited much later than the formations discussed above. The valley fill sediments (designated Qal on the map) post-date most of the uplifting of ?.St, Diablo, hence their beds ( and fossil concen- trations, if any) are expected to still be nearly horizontal planes. The known occurrence of fossils in sediments of comparable age and depositional environment near Black Hawk Ranch suggests •that Pleistocene fo::sils exist on the. ranch as well, but they have not been discovered because of the relative scarcity of good exposures. It should be noted that vertebrate fossils do not always occur in concentrated beds or .layers. Isolated banes, Potential For New Localities Distribution of Potentially Productive Sediments Most fossil concentrations have their greatest dimensions within a plane which was horizontal at the time of deposition. The original depth of the deposit in relation to its horizontal lei:gth or width is usually less by several orders of magnitude. The layers of sedimentary rocks, and their included fossils, on most of Flack Hawk Ranch were originally laid down in nearly horizontal beds, but the relatively recent (geologically speaking) uplift of Diablo has turned the beds approximately on edge. Thus, the greatest dimensions of the fossil concentration now tend to lie in nearly vertical, rather than horizontal planes. Subsequent erosion has exposed a cross section of the beds in most places, so the fossil concentrations appear as linear .bands with their greatest length along lines bearing approximately N70 degrees - 80 degrees VJ. This can be seen on a small scale at any of the well-exposed fossiliferous localities on the ranch, although local deviations from the overall attitudes mentioned above are common. The same surface expression, on a larger scale, is shown on the map by the geographic distribution of known localities of different ;rinds of fossils. Many of the ter— res-trial vertebrate localities lie within a narrow band extend- ing WNVJ-ESE across the ranch. This band is parallel to, but not coincident with, the contacts between rock formations also shown on 'the map. Note, howevEr, that this band does not include all of the known vertebrate localities in the area, even if the special case of the Pleistocene localities (discu,-s'ed below) is excluded. The plant and invertebrate localities also tend to show their greatest concentrations along these V,NIN-ESE bands, but occurrences elsewhere are known and more might be expected when the exposed rocks are examinod in more detail. The sediments which now partially fill the Sycamore Creek, West Branch, and Green Valleys, were deposited much later than the formations discussed above. The valley fill sediments (designated Qal on the map) post-date most of the uplifting of 1.1t. Diablo, hence their beds ( and fossil concen- trations, if any) are expected to still be nearly horizontal planes. The known occurrence of fossils in sediments of comparable age and depositional environment near Black Hawk Ranch suggests that Pleistocene fo::sils exist on the ranch as well, but they have not been discovered because of the relative scarcity of good exposures. It should be noted that vertebrate fossils do not always occur in concentrated beds or .layers. Isolated bones, teeth, or skeletons of single individuals may appear some distance geographically or stratigraphically from •other specicions. Isolated finds of invertebrate or plant fossils, are somewhat less corrinon. For the reasons discussed in another section of this report (Scientific and Educational Value, p.lr)) , the vertebrate fossils represent the most significant part of the local paleontologic resource. Also, if the devele-ment of the property is carried out, as proposed, the areas or vertebrate- bearing rocks are the most likely to be affected by construc- tion. Therefore, , the accompanying resource man includes estimates of the relative probability bf finding vertebrate fossils in different areas of the ranch. These estimates assurne the opportunity to examine exposed rock sur=aces equally on all parts of the mapped area, and are not adjusted to take into account the probability of construction-related excavation* in different areas. The estimates a s shown are based upon the distribution of the known occurrences of vertebrate fossils and on the distribution of rocks deposited in favorable environ-ents as determined from published and unpublished geologic mapping and two days of personal field observation. frob.ihi.li•ty of Discoveries ilurina Construction Any kind of construction activity which results in the removal of vegetation cover and topsoi; greatly enhances the possibility of finding fossils. '.inen first exposed in this manner, however, vertebrate fossils are usually cbscurel by a• coating of dirt or low contrast with the matrix. A speciman ~exposed during any stage of excavation will be destroyed by . ,subsequent work if steps are not taken to find it and protect or carefully collect it. The vertebrate localities shown on the map were discovered by finding specimens on the surface in an area of ' very poor natural )r man-made exposures. The number of localities found despite these adverse conditions suggests that at least the zone of highest probability shown on the map is rather rich in fossils and that construction activities in this area will almost certainly expose fossils. The map does not indicate the relative significance of finds in different areas; those zones shown as lower probability are likely to produce fossils of greater relative significance as they are less likely to duplicate information already obtained from the known localities. Plant or invertebrate fossils discovered in areas where they are not already kno%,rn are also significant and should be brought to the attention of qualified personnel. (See Recommendations: Salvage Luring Construction, p. 2C . • 10 • Scientific And Educational Value Assessment of the significance of particular fossils, fossil localities or collections of localities is necessarily a subjective matter. A discussion of the Black Ha-..,.,I,. Ranch fossils in the light of several factors which I believe contri- bute to their overall value may' help to ' establish at least a feel for their relative importance. The scientific value of any body of realized or potential information increases in relation to the uniqueness, diversity, quantity, and accessibility of the information. The uniqueness is related to the probability or possibility of duplicating the information or conclusions else%%,here. Diversity, or the number of different kinds of information available from a given area, increases the value in a geometric, rather than simply additive manner; different kinds of infor- mation can be combined in many different ways to yield new conclusions. Two "stages" of accessibility should be consi- dered separately: 1) accessibility of the ratio data to the researcher ( How much time and effort must be expended? ) , and 2) accessibility of the researchers' data and conclusions to others who may be interested ( in part indicated by the. number of published technical papers) . ' Educational value is even more difficult to assess objectively. Certainly it overlaps with -scientific value and depends on the clear presentation of realized scientific information. Instructional value is reduced if extraneous factors obscure important observations or conclusions. Proxi- mity of the locat'.on :o educational institutions, time and physical effort required, and overall impact of observable features further affect the value. By these criteria, the most significant established fossil locality in the area is the well-known Black Hawk Ranch Quarry ( See section I.C.2b; V-3310) . This locality furnishes the largest and most diverse assemblage of land mammals in California, noxth of Rancho La Brea in Los Angeles, and also provides a record of the plants of the same time and area. The Museum of Paleontology at4the University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, has 942 cataloged vertebrate specimens and an additional 2000 specimens awaiting preparation. Numerous scientific and popular publications based on material from this locality have made the information vi-idely available for use in other contexts (See starred items in Bibliography) . ' The quarry offers an unusual diversity of realized and potential information. Investigations to date have established which animals and plants are represented ( several species are known nowhere else) and have -given us a general idea of the environment in which the organisms lived. Other • questions related to -the form function and affinities of individual organisms can probably be answered bjr careful study of the fossils already collected. Four researchers currently have specimens from the quarry on loan frbm the Museum of Paleon tology. C. Thomas Williams has recently made extensive use of this collection and the quarry itself in preparing his dissertation on the "Late Tertiary. ma:amalian faunas of the San Francisco Bay Region, " which is nearing completion. Still other important questions will be ans,verable only :hen we obtain more information from the quarry itself; . the most common question asked about the locality, "Hcw and why did these bones accumulate here?", still awaits a satisfactory answer. Other vertebrate remains from many isolated localities on and near the ranch have supplied information about the distribution in time and space of certain fossil species, some of which are not represented in the Black Hawk Ranch Quarry. Although these finds are not individually as "important" as the Quarry locality, they collectively provide valuable infor- mation about the time sequence of local events including the accumulation of the Quarry bone deposit. ' As a result of many factors working against their burial and preservation, identifiable vertebrate remains in general are rarer as fossils or mole unique than invertebrates, • and perhaps fossil plants. However, the joint occurrence of all of these kinds of fossils within a . geographically and ,temporally restricted body of rocks is very rare. A compar- able association for the time period represented by the Black Hawk 'section is not known elsewhere in North America. One kind of composite information obtainable only. 4.n such a diverse situation is illustrated by the use of the Bl auk Hawk Ranch area as a "tie-in" point between various relative geologic time scales. These scales have been established by different groups of re:,earchers each specializing on one kind of fossils. Savage ( 1955, p. 19 ) specified the part of the Black Hawk Ranch rock sequence which includes the fossil vertebrate r;uarry as the type section of his proposed Pr;ontediabli�n (ma malian) stage. He states "This type section for the stage is selected because of conformable relationships with the underlying fossiliferous non-marine and marine sediments and because of well-demonstrated superpositional control with regard to subjacent and superjacent stages. " Thus, the Blac:: Hawk Ranch rocks and fossils have been established as a standard for comparison of Nest Coast vertebrate localities. This is not to discount the uniqueness or scientific value of the - fossil plants and invertebrates of the ranch. Two publications describing the fossil plants (Condit, 1938 and Axelrod, 1944a) and several involving the invertebrates • (e.g. Clark, 1915 and Kilmer,. -1951) of Black Hawk Ranch depended at least in part on information that could not have . been obtained elsewhere. The educational value of the fossil occurrences at Black Hawk Ranch was realized early in the history of paleon- tologic investigations here. Paleontology classes from the University of California and other Bay Area institutions have been brought to the ranch since the mid 30' s. •Specimens and casts of specimens collected from the ranch are in use as educational aids in study collections for course work and research at the University of California, American t•:useum of Natural History (Nlew York) and else,Nhere, and as display specimens at the California Academy of Sciences and the Museum of Paleontology. Many of the subjects of completed and continuing research could be incorporated into a rluch broader educational experience at the ranch (See Resource Use Possibilities, p.16) . • Summar The fossils of Black Hawk Ranch gave been the subject of scientific investigations since late in the nineteenth century. Initial attention was directed to�rard fossil leaves and marine invertebrates, but paleontologic activity reached a peak in the late 1930' s following the, discovery of the rich accumulation of fossil mammal remains, now called the Black Hawk Ranch Quarry. Research on material from this and other localities on the ranch has led -to numterous scientific publi- cations. The ranch continues to provide educational experience• as well as scientific information as it has since the early 301s. The rock record on the ranch spans nearly 50 million years. Two separate invasions of marine seaways and subse- quent freshwater lakes and streams left sediments which enclosed the remains of a great.variety •of plants and animals. These fossil remains, most of which are now regarded as of Late Miocene age, are most abundantly distributed in a broad band extending the length of the ranch. Rich beds of marine clams, "sand dollars, " and snails occur in the northern, older part of this band. Fossil leaves of terrestrial plants • are less common, but tend to be concentrated in layers at several levels near the center of the band. Vertebrate fossils are known from several localities on and near the ranch, but are known to be abundant only in a VNVI-ESE trending zone about four feet thick just west of the center of the ranch property. Construction activities associated with the proposed development of the ranch will probably expose more fossils including vertebrates, some of which may be much younger than those previously known from the ranch. The uniqueness, diversity, quantity, and accessibility of information offered by the Black Hawk Ranch fossils and their geologic context contribute to their great scientific value. The remarkable vertebrate quarry is the. most signi- ficant single locality on the ranch, but much of its impor- tance to science is derived from its clear temporal and geo- yraphic relationships with nearby invertebrate and plant localities. Black Hawk: Ranch constitutes an excellent natural laboratory in which many concepts in historical geology can be ',Ind have been graphically illustrated to Bay Area students of natural history. 1 • Biblion anhy Axelrod, D. I. , 1944x; The Black Hawk Ranch flora, in Pliocene floras of California and Oregon, R. vi. Chaney, ed. ; Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. no. 553, P. ,91-101. 1944b; The Pliocene sequence in central California; Ibid. , p. 207-224. Chaney, R. W. , 1951; Prehistoric forests of the San Francisco Bay' area; - State of California,, Depart- ent Natural Resources, Div. Mines Bull. , no. 1:.4, p. 193-202. Clark, B. L. , 1915; Fauna at the San Pablo Group of middle California; University of California Publ. Geol. Sci. v. 8, p. 385-572. 1935; Tectonics of the Mt. Diablo and Coalinga areas, middle Coast Ranges of California, Geol, Soc. Amer. Bull. , v. 46, p. 1025-107.8. �. 1943; Notes on California Tertiary correlation, in Geologic formations and economic develop :ent of the oil and gas fields of California: State of California, Dept. Nat. Resources, Div. Mines Bull. , no, 118, p. 187-191. Condit, C. , 1938; The San Pablo Flora of west central Califor- nia; Carnegie Inst. Wash. , Publ, No. 476, p. 217-267. Kilmer, F. H. , 1951; Stratigraphy of the "Diablo Formation" ; • unpub. MA -;thesis, Dept. of Paleontology, Un: r • Riehey, , K. A. , 1938; Oeteoborus diahl.oensis, a new dog from the Black Hawk Ranch fauna t.ount Diablo California; Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. , v. 24, p � . 303 -308. . 1948; Lower Pliocene horses from Black Hawk Ranch, Mount Diablo, California; Univ, Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. , v. 28, p. 1-44. 'Savage, D. E. , 1955; Nonmarine log:er Pliocene sediments in California, a geochronolonic-I)iostratigrarnhic classification; Univ. Calif. Publ-. Geol. -Sci. v. 31, p. 1-26. . Stanley, J. T. , Jr. , 1967; Early Pleistocene species of the genus Nannippus of North Am erica ; unpub. MS thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Stirton, R. A. , 1939; Cenozoic mammal remains from the San Francisco Bay region; Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. , v. 24, P. 339-410. .' 1951 ; Prehistoric land mammals - of the San Francisco Bay counties; State of California, Dept. Nat. Resources, Div. Mines Bull. , no. 154, , p. 177-186. Weaver, C. E. , 1909; Stratigraphy and palaeontology of the San Pablo Formation in middle California; Univ. Calif. Pub!. Geol. Sci. , v. 5, no. 16, p. 243-269. Webb, S. D. , and Woodburne, M.O. , 1%4 ; The beginning cf continental deposition in the Mt. Diablo area; in Guidebook to the .4ount Diablo Field T Ap, Geol. Soc. of Sacram•:nto, 1964, p. 70-78. Williams, C. T. , ( in manuscript) ; Late Tertiary mammalian " faunas of the San Francisco Bay region; unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley. AD • PRESERVATION OF THE PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES Potentinl Hazards Any fossil which remains deeply buried in sedimentary rock is virtually safe from destruction. However, when natural processes of erosion or the activities of man remove the over- lying rock and bring the fossil near the surface, it begins to be subjected to a variety of new conditions, nearly all of which threaten its existence. The natural processes of physical and chemical weather- ing,• growth of plant roots, and soil creep may destroy fossils, even before they are exposed at the surface. If the slow process of erosion does expose a fossil, the same process will destroy it if allowed to continue. Trampling by livestock or other 'large animals will, of course, hasten the destruction. Within a populated area, the most serious threats to fossils at or near the surface are related to human activi- ties. Any type of excavation may destroy fossils even before their presence is realized. Exposure of fossils at the • sutface subjects them to destruction by man, either inadvertent (foot, automobile, or machine traffic) , intentional (vandalism is surprisingly common in museums) , or well-intentioned (by q unskilled amateur collectors) . Vertebrate fossils, especially, are extremely fragile and amateur collectors may damage or destroy specimens they attempt to collect, lacking adequate knowledge of techniques. Even if successfully collected by a private collector, significant specimens may never be brought to professional attention, or if they are, essential locality data may have been lost, and with it, the scientific value of the specimens. Future Resource Use Possibilities. Field Research Although a considerable body of knowledge has already been derived from the fossils of Flack Hawk Ranch, it should not be assumed that we now know "all there is to know" about the prehistory of the area. The research in progress mentioned in a previous section (Scientific and Educational Value) attests to the continuing research value of the paleontologic resource. Predicting the details of the. course of future research is impossible, but the history of science suggests that research. will continue as long as a particular resource is available. Frequent rechecking of established areas -of investigation becomes- necessary as, alternatives to published hypotheses evolve, or as more detailed raw data is needed to refine existent knowledge. ' One illustrative example is offered by the Black Hawk Ranch Quarry. The details of the relationships betoeen fossil bones and, their associated Sediments shows promise of improving our understanding of their mode of accumulation and burial an.:, by extrapolation, We can hopefully derive a better knowledge of the ecological relationships between the Organisms represented by the fossils. Excavation at the quarry within the past t,;:o years has, for the first time, begun to furnish the kind of detail necessary for this type of study, but much more information is* needed. Any new localities V.1hich may conte to light in the future, either through construction activities, or because of a greater population concentration, till undoubtedly yield data important to many of the kinds .of studies already undertaken on the ranch, Education. Inasmuch as education is based upon the demonstration -of existent kno.•.ledge, the educational. potential of the ranch ! is inseparable from the research conducted there . The ranch property comprises a natural laboratowy• and museum within easy reach of a large and gro.,.ing populace. An educational opportunity for students at. many levels exists, although only a relatively few advanced students have previously had access to it. Within the confines of a small portion of the ranch, it is possible to demonstrate a great range of concepts from the mode of occurrence of different, :ands of fossils in rocks to principles of paleoecology. Some of these ideas could be demonstrated as easily, and perhaps even more clearly in—areas ou -side the ranch, but the diversity of information as well as uniqueness of the Black Na.>>k Manch Quarry makes the ranch well-suited for a variety of integrated educational programs. The uegree of development of a broadened educational facility and the courMe this develop-ment takes depends on many' factors which cannot be fully evaluated at present. One r of •the first factors to be considered is the degree of coopera- tion of the o.•:ners of the property including and adjoining the most instructive areas, and conditions imposed on the use of the property. Funds will be required for the development and maintenance of particular points of interest and perhaps for salaries of personnel. Interest in such a facility by educa- tional institutions in the area has riot yet been sampled, but the past use of the area for education despite limited access to the property and to a variety of localities suggests a need exists. . Recommendations General Consideration This investigation has led to the conclusion that the Black Hawk Ranch fossils and their geologic setting constitute A unique, well-established and irreplaceable scientific and educational resource. Conservation of this resource is a minimal requirement. Development of all or any part of the resource as an educational -facility consistent with continuing research is very desirable. The continuum of developmental levels between the minimal and optimal may be divided into three arbitrary stages: 1. Preservation of known fossil local ties, protection against potential hazards, and conrinuation of present l� level of access, research, and education (minimal requirement) . 2. Extension of rosource access to .a broader range of supervised institutional groups ( in addition to 1) . 3. Establishment of displays open to public access (in addition to 1 and 2) . • Each locality on the ranch is subject to different levels of development, b-ut for the present discussion, the resources of the ranch can be divided into two parts: a: The Black Hawk Ranch Quarry and immiediate area, b. • All other fossiliferous localities on the ranch property. At the present time development of the resource to the level of stage 2 (above] appears to be feasible and desirable for the near future. The following recommendations are directed toward this goal. -Recommendations For Black Hawk Ranch Ouarry We recommend: 1. That the ownership of the quarry and surrounding property be transferred from the Blackha:vk Development Company to the Regents of the University of California with the condition that the property be used at the discretion of the University of California Mluseum of Paleontology for research and education programs on the property. The • amount and distribution of the property to be transferred should be jointly agreed upon by representatives of the Blackhawl: Development Company, the Museum of Paleontology, . . • and Ahc office of the Assistant Chancellor. -- Development of the University of California. 2. That the Blackhawk Development Company obtain engineering topographic maps at suitable scale of the quarry area to aid in planning further excavation, protective and inter- pretive structures, and accessory facilities at the site. 3. That funds and/or materials be solicitr:d from any potential sources by the office of the Assistant Chancellor-- Deve- lopment, University of California in cooperation with the Department and 14useum of Paleontology and by other interes- .ted parties for the purpose of planning, execut,_ng, and maintaining protective, interpretive, and accessory facilities at the quarry site. 4. 'That the structure( s) at the quarry site be designed -to provide at least the minimal requirements or protection of the fossils from natural and human damage, provide easy access by qualified personnel for research and education purposes, and be visually inoffensive at the ccmpleted stage. The structure should also. be designea to permit viewing of the working face of the quarry .by limited numbers of casual visitors in. the absence o- supervisory • personnel. 5. That the quarry facility be accessible for observation (but not collecting ) to individuals or supervised groups from any educational institution with written permission from specified members of the faculty or stat f' of the Department or Niusoum of Paleontology, and to 31lackha�•:k Ranch residents beginning at a time ;,hen suficiently secure structures for protection of the quarry are completed. 6. That the Chairman of the Department and Museum of Paleontology of the University of California immediately- appoint :;mediately-appoint a committee to develop short and. long-ter;: plans for development and use of any research and . e::ucational facilities connected with the Black Hawk Ranc: caleontologic resource and to coordinate fund-raising and planning efforts. Recommendations—For -Other Fossiliferous Localities We recommend: , 1. That the Blackhawk Development Company permit free access by qualified individuals or groups to any part of their property which remains as . open, undeveloped space. "Qualified individuals or groups" should include the S faculty, staff, and students of the Department and Vuseum , CV • of Paleontology and other institutional groups or individuals with recon:,.iendation expressed by them, in addition to other individuals who would normally be granted access to the Blac{: Hawk Ranch open space. 2. That minor improvements such as limited excavation, construction of explanatory label:: and protective structures or access trails, permitted at selected locations on the flack Hawk Ranch open space, for the purpose of increasing the educational value of the paleontologic resource, and that such improvements be financially and materially supported at least in part by the Blackhati,ik Development Company, 3. That no part of the paleontologic resource of Black Hawk Ranch b-� developed primarily or incidentally as a .commercial enterprise. 4. That collecting of any fossils on Black Hawk Ranch by persons other than representatives of established paleontologic research institutions be actively discouraged. t 5. That the Blackhawk Development Company be required to immediately report any indication of the presence of vertebrate fossils at any localities discovered during construction on the property to the Njuseum of Paleontology, University of California, and that further construct-ioa activities at the site be delayed 'until the significance of the fossils has been determined by a qualified au:.hority and adequate steps have been taken to salvage the fossils, or permanently protect them from damage. Trafisf er Of 0.!nershio Of Black Hawk Ranch Cuarry To The Univer.sity o, Califor»ia Most of the foregoing recommendations concerning the Black Hawk Ranch fossil quarry are contingent upon University ovinership of the quarry and immediate area. The prospect of this transfer has been discussed to a limited extent J;;i:.h the Blackha�rk Development Company, with the office of t^e Assistant Chancellor for Development at the University of California , and With the Chairman of the Department and Museum of Paleon- tology. Before the transfer can take place, the amount and distri- bution of the property must be determined jointly by represen- tatives of Blac}:ha:.-k Development Company and the Department and Museum of Paleontology. A communicaLtion describing the property, and setting forth terms and conditions of transfer and . subsequent use should then be sent to: Mr. Richard E. Erickson Assistant Chancellor--Development University o: California 318 Sproul Nall Berkeley, California 94720 (415) 642-7384 The Assistant Chancellor will then investigate the advi:;ability of the transfer in cooperation s•:ith the Department and :V,useum of Paleontology and other i n'teresj•ed University parties, clearing the vlay for the final transfer. The Assistant Chancellor' s off iqe may also be called upon to provide infor- mation and advice in planning details of the trans:er. .. t ttt s 1 71 It A� t Z�• �'�••+. i ♦ \' l f . ••i -•'i�'.....�tflwl`� t• -"`�a1 .•�/ 1 1 •�•� 00 10 . W a • i '� �•• } .a. ..�,• •s:••t"''•.� •, �•` �.. ,! •Z't 1 O v•° . Zj • i w a i 1. • :max /� .'•O ::°t^ ._ .� % / :.1 •�`� !7• '• • � tl •� �,y, W t! Ir.!'.�~»CY•^' ' fqr� '~`»•�;.�..i\•- !.'' ..^::...j � 'V'-"`:"V' ` /• t .. � ^ t ~ y LL � \3 t , _ ••�'.`C• w ►..,rf...yw •. •R r•s 1 ��'.`' \.'.t�•�:•` .:-".r.t-'fit .�". •' L�•L Z sM••e! 'f1 J _ *• t\,'. .i1• 1 N r �' r' •\ ♦ t ••• �~ _ ',, .b:,'t •• � w y, '',+\;•.fir'•: (� Nit I, �;,. ., r. •,,, .. at too .o+�• .r,,..•t-pit �t ? !-' }r''��'t�� ,t•C k� °.^ !(��o=jy �+� .�.F. : _ •. •, ;r�;:,�;�.' _.-•-'"�� t' ..., ` � 'j' \�_-.\„ti,• t� ��iiy „� ,.. �� '� .r�',_' .S,•;•._��. ",F 'M :. ti`'fit _ a =� . r:{ p t j ';;•` �.y� �' ,•ti ' 7 --I- 1��•,, 1t 1 ' Vis;a ,,--a I, 1 .. 10 � ^ � ��t'�1�j f.,,"�"`• ./': :^- •r i �..,-y•\ r. ,�' �'.r- r`: i r,'!” `• `, ...-''sir; S �. 1.V-r"(�."�";;.•.+a✓��/!� � S�; �.�`: J) j 't/r!��4y.� 'W ! •�i�\.`^•-�, ,5.,..f'.r. .,,r•1..i �/`�'r!. � 1 � j• L '� I w'� \�1 � tom• ,•'•. ••t [•' J � '��'�1 :.•!. },�'. , .-�, '.� tf •qty' r� � »..�•�'�"M i' J.si � ` \+ `�'• .',�' •''�' •�t 1''.�� r� \t•»Yy� �11�ry•..J•'•/t ;,.i•r•1 � I �w•1 ;'_r\�.�y Yom• � .r , > 3±�• r . n l;:'L!' K/ °(/// r '1•'- r. • A \ 1 v_ t kit .J. rq tl.•. r•✓Ji •`�f0 ` 'i' "/' _l fir.}-_,Jtl't1 :f M.1 'r-� ��`-'"t L.V"'. ✓+ �� //i1��/ 1 �` , .�• ap%.�d.�'r' 1' ♦,,',••ei r� '.�' �• '•r' 'A ,r v,• "f^ •�,.� r. 1 � ,.t,.li[•� �j �•��,,. ..-•^•. ;. •�\.��. � �,;( �' '~jam/�• jf. } �'• �• irk•;--'''�' ;rj��''• A� ~' 4. . fj j•t�' .j'/.• ;. '` :\ � •ter l t.1.-•�:T 1 N� t �l^ r/ 1:,' �• rl�'f ••`,�' r r. r •' � Y jam•' ..: s•' r o � i/�"� t �• 3 ,! i •�.� •1' as ••• '.�,�' r".•/".•�', i O • �'. her •t' �; ,� % • ''•\�• � . . •,. i i{ • • � � •.. ,dry � �/ � ':"�t .rt t t`!`• •'' ::'..,,,�'�Zr ! t � !I• ;•• •� � CJ'•• :S, t• pry,{ ' rr � /•,• •/ �� ` .�' /'� t •'.�� 1• \4.,�.:�.'S r ` �t � t• r l 'r~ .J •`• + t+' t`lt`� `•�.t �• :,`'.{ �,.,,;I''t'» i t / t 'rr� /• .• Y,•.�:.;meq 1 � :'� r. �. ! tt/ may' j ,~�;•TV •'.i.(,: .•.N,. f t ► `; a• t`� / `s• I. :. �.r+-•./ \4 t ,,..�4,,, O ':• ,} r!...•1 : . •�,.�•� 1, /` •,y •��` \�.;.: ��I '_,2t! 7 ��+"• r �.'•�t• t• �. ♦• 1. i Y ' � 7• `,i 1 '.\js:l.�' 1 .,•�• 1 /\r :�Ii ;;• � / ,�„�..J ��. +�. ' .• �'" •`•• , .:. , Vii;,,•: r •, ►t �_ SIV^ •� ~�/� , t�' ••�+ •• ''. /• ,.' •• •' •�tt ��.: :•�'! -oo 7 , r APPENDIX B BLACKHAWK RANCH ARCHAEOLOGY LETTER REPORT BLACKHAWK RANCH ARCHAEOLOGY LETTER REPORT Prepared for JAMES A. ROBERTS ASSOCIATES,' INC. 7128 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite A-1 Carmichael, California • 95608 By THOMAS L. JACKSON, ARCHAEOLOGIST San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, California 94132 June 17 , 1973 i Un a tRecpann anthaopotoc#y museum4600 HOLLOWAY AVENUE ' SAN FRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA To 94132 June 179 1973 iur. "urry Seeman Jaasoa Ao'rerts ..ssociLtes, Inc. 7120 P,-ir Jaks blvd. , Suite Aft-1 Car;ric:iael, C, y joL;o . near• Lorry, Ms per your authorization, an aro..aeolv3_ca1 recunnuissa::ee of the Blackt,a:;k Ranch aria wus oon u"ctei- under a4 -irwotit,n. iii se4roa in the area wus cznaucted on June !3,' 1 j ani 16, 1.173 by mL salt" anti other archaeologista a ssociatba with the Tra&anzbl .•.'.:t1L':JL. •Abrea:s irtvostisaited eonfor;:,ed to the overall bo.:da.rles of the ra:.cn. Tha aronaeologicul reoonnaisaance of the B4 sokbio k unch was conx-oted by a self and Ar. Ste_hen ✓i&tZ. in ad..i tion, :..r. i•:iiey liolzan and :•.r. Stanle,; Van )yka were called in to fa:cl.State our of_orts in the field and to shorten the amount o; time expanded in %he raeo:.ncissance. :..r. Holman is as::ista,it curator of tae ilrvganza ...uswum fru anziisted on June ij and 16.• "'r. Van jWke is a graduate of California State ilniversi;.y, San ira ncisco, ' and is rrasently in the Doctoral pro6,raxr., of 1.10 Lek;urtment of nrchaaolo y • of the unlversity of Calgary. Kr. Un JJke was ezpioy.:a for the da, of Juaie 1j. Field research was conducted entirel,; on foot. riehe entire areaa of plannei develoi;-ant was s;;stematiculiy una thorouanly ex.lored in an afi'ort to looate anj and all visible archusoiogical raw:ains on !he pr..pe,rty. „wing to the nuture of the the remziin.:csr of the pro_�r%y was less thorou�;hlj studied. i',.is arras is taican u: in very stepp viii sto_es, Tor the-most part, ana it is my exreri�noa that in such 4reaas the likelihood of, dii664arin„ a fr-.hajologica.l romiaans is vary slight. this area was ex rlorad as full,; as wars thought r"ziu;:l by m salf an,i it is my fooling that our tr eat.:..;nt of the araa .:as r.-re tr:Ln a:.a;equ_tie. No visible arc::auolcgic4l renasins weru ciscovard on the .3l&.a4..a.wk Ranch. Srecial at;.antior. ;has pa:ia to all "likely" areas, for exw-,ylo, areas along streams and ot:.er wa—var sources werd exa mindd v.ry ciosaly. Some aro a" of the JIa ck;.L wk :-"nor. w.-jro :lanta:: Iiji walnu; Qrovos- i:21S tyke of cult:vutton ri&,i obaac..ra or uven aGstro, evidunee of araz.adolo�ic4l re:JL111S. It i:a reco-zec.dau t..i:t at Lite :ia.:e of ccnstruc Lion in Lnese areas an arc:aaeoiogist ue rae:ti.ivn of an,, o;xL6vaition uotivit;.:;s w..ic.i may reveal oaried urc-adolo4icul raz4iiras so t:a:t lie May L'..iXv an ins action. RESEARCH INTERPRETATION EDUCATION i. r nolosaQ uita this letter pl"ne find a rai ort vhio:: outlines. tue etil:.orra,., j Of thu aroft Ln:. 't::d nature Of ;&at archaeclodical roucaroa in the Ab ulo Validy t:rea. rroilaGOIO icU rd�:o_rces in the i'oot,;ill r.. ,iol.s of the :,iLblo lallay are vary sant. is no arci,aeolo+;ic;.1 zu:;ou:cda viura ciscovsred in zhe coarse of t::o Fru.:auo1 ical r-conl ulm-naa o. the _l::c:u:� �i; :t;:nch, and 'iroviain;; ,':at I10 bur-au r%�I.'Jl:s are un_ounteracl i.+ -.ha Course of con:;trlk Acm pork, it $Lv::s that t::ezv will be no uiract i:.,.act u,.oi: suc.: romai,.s by the vroj::oL• It is uc.uzicn,.dj ;:owever, t..zit -.::wre z.c.,- be i1:+,.irxt i11�i1Qi,s urvn 4rc aeolo,oical r_;;ourcds in L.re,as asjaoziA t::e rhnul; ii :,uch ura fount: to Q%ist, it i:s su.;�asteu %.Lt at ao;:.a fuz.zra -rte, but ,)rior to the uuL•nisaiou oz' an anvirom;.ontal i..::Lct yt_ta0;nt, that an oiiur,, be mado to det:: t,:ii a w'..et.,er or not there aro suc:: roso"•c_s in the i,..lnediate area of the ;.:o_:vrt,� invo mid in this reeo:maisaLme. Sincerely, y/ I Tho:;-.as L. JtCrson • •• hrc.;aaolo��st • 1 APPENDIX C STATUS REPORT ON CALIFORNIA'S THREATENED AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Department of Fish and Came STATUS REPORT 04 CALIFORNIA'S THREATENED AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES'/ R. Bruce Bury-/ • Inland Fisheries Branch SUMMARY • The herpetofauna of California is rich in numbers and diversity, but many endemic reptiles and amphibians are declining in abundance due to collecting and habitat destruction. Recent legislation and Fish and Come Commission action protects threatened forms, including 7 species and subspecies of salncanders, 1 toad, 1 lizard, and 4 snakes. In addition, there are special regulations protecting the desert tortoise. These comprise 7% of the 194 different species and sub- apacies that live in California. This review incor- porates suggestions made by authorities on certain groups-, and proposes the addition of 1 salamander, 4 lizard and 2 snake species or subspecies to those ! receiving protection. Present information suggests that guidelines need to be developed •fot the protec- tion of nongame wildlife.- Immediate action is required for several species and subspecies that are in danger of extinction in the near future. Habitat alteration iajthe primary threat to most of these endangered animals. !/Submitted December. 1971. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report Poe 72-2. 'Now with Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, U nivers::y of C&Ijiornia. Berkeley. Alameda Striped Racer (Mssticophis late ralis euryxnthus) Description A slender, fast-moving snake that is 3 to 4 feet long. It is black or dark brown above with a distinct orange stripe down each side. The anterior parts of the venter are orange; posteriorly the color is cream. Ranae and Habitat Known only from Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Occurs in valleys, foot- '' hills, and low mountains, usually in areas of chaparral, brush, or open woods wherb there are rocky gullies, outcrops, and talus. emarks The snake is rare in the area east of San Francisco Bay as indicated by the very small number of specimens in collections. Habitat for the snake has been greatly reduced by construction of homes and toads. Maintenance of open space, such as the East Bay Municipal Utility District lands, are nec- essary in order to preserve habitat for this serpent. •References Riemer, W. J. ' '1954. A new subspecies of the snake Masticophis lateralis 9 from California. Copeia, 1954(1):45-48. , * i . : ' California Tiger Salamander (Ambys_tomi_ tiRTIn_u_m californiense) Description A large, robust salamander that reaches 8 inches in total length. Ground color is black. There are many large yellow or white spots on the dorsal surface of the body and limbs. The ventral surfaces are dusky yellow or cream. Range and Habitat Scattered populations live in the Central Valley, and adjacent foothills in the Sierra Nevada and central Coast Range of California from Sonoma and Sacramento counties southward. it also occurs in the San Francisco Bay area and Monterey County. The salamanders live in underground retreats, such as.ground squirrel burrows, during most of the year and avoid the dry summers. They emerge during heavy rains in late fall and early spring. Adults are nocturnal and are active on the surface for only a few weeks out of the year. A. t. californiense is known from oak woodland and grassland communities, and due to its seclusion during dry periods it also occurs in semiarid regions such as the San Joaquin Valley. May go unnoticed because of its brief exposure on the sur- face during breeding and adults move at nigtlt often during rain. Careful checking of suspected areas of occurrence, therefore, is necessary before . status of populations can be determined with any confidence. Remarks Listed as DEPLETED by IUCN. Adults breed and lay• egss in ponds or slow parts of creeks, and often these bodies of water are temporary. Egg deposition is in ;anuary or February. Embryonic development and growth of larvae are rapid. Metamorphosis takes ' place in mid-May or early June, when the young must escape drying pools and increasing warmer days. Agricultural developments have obliterated 'many breeding sites in lowland areas of the San Joaquin Valley and else- where, while urbanization and flood control projects have destroyed ponds In the San Francisco Bsy region. Survival of the salamander depends on protection of ephemeral pools formed by winter rains and natural areas in the lowland areas of Central California. Additional information is needed to determine the status of this animal. Beferences Stebbins, R. C. 1951. Amphibians of western North America. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 539 p. Storer, T. 1. 1925. A synopsis of the Amphibia of California. Univ. Calif. Pybl. Zool. , 27:1-342. APPENDIX D TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BLACKHAWK RANCH l Y • r TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BLACKHAWK RANCH • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JOHN J. FORR18TAL • CONat.L.Two TfWPc EWWOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BLACKHAWK RANCH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE • This report is an analysis of traffic generation characteristics of the proposed Biackhawk Ranch development and of their impact on the local and regional highway system. Specific items covered include: 1. Estimation of traffic generated and' attracted by the proposed residential and other land uses. 2. ' Short and long range projections of traffic on the • Interior street system and evaluation of adequacy of the planned sections of that system under the projected traffic. 3. Projections of traffic on the exterior major street system (Figure i), and on the regional freeway system (Figure 2), and evaluation of the impact of that traffic on the planned elements of those systems. JOHN J. FORRISTAL • CONUMT0 0 TRAFFIC ENWEER •r LMID USE AND TRIP GENERATION .. 8tackhawk Ranch is proposed as primarily a residential development, .with several commercial areas and an office center. The residential development will consist of single family' detached and cluster units and multi-family units. The breakdown* is as follows: Single Family - Detached 2,187 Single Family - Cluster 1,811 ' Multi-Family Units 382 Total Units 4,380 Trip generation rates for the various types of residential units were based on the Trip Generation Research Count report prepared by District 4 of the California State Division of Highways. This report utilizes density of de- velopment as the sole parameter for estimation of trip per residential unit'. The various densities planned for the Blackhawk development and the correspond- ing trip generation rates are listed below. Residential Unit Average Daily Traffic Generation Type Density Chart Value Use SFR 0.50 13.0 13.0 SFR 1.77 12.4 1 .5 SFR 2.07 12.0 12.0 SFR 2.13 11.9 12.0 SFR 2.25 11.7 12.0 Condominium 10.00 8.0 6.0 ApartMent20.00 6.3 6.5 The evening peak hour values were assumed at 10 percent for single family detached units and 12 percent for all others. The combined peak hour factor was 11 percent. Approximately 15 acres of the Blackhawk site are planned for commercial and office use. Trip attractions by these uses were estimated by assuming JOHN J. FORRISTAL • CONOA.TAO TFIAPP C M"ER • percentages,of the total acreage devoted to building construction and apply- Ing conventional attraction factors to the resultant building areas. The . factors used were 48 and 12 trips per 1,000 square feet of building area for commercial and office use respectively. , • JOHN J. FORRISTAL • CONMLTNWO TPWP C Chm"ANR r TRIP biSTRIBUTION Trip distribution patterns from the Blackhawk Ranch area were deter- mined by analysis of the patterns derived for the same area in the District 4 1990 traffic forecasts for Eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The trips generated by the Blackhawk development fell into three categories: 1. lnternal-internal trips, with one end in the Blackhawk area and one in the Eastern Alameda-Contra Costa study area. 2. Internal-external trips, with one and In the Blackhawk area and one outside the Eastern Alameda-Contra Costa study area (Oakland, San Francisco, etc. ). 3. Intrazonal trips, with both ends In the Blackhawk area. • The Bleckhawk area falls within sections of three traffic zones of the .State study, and the trip tables for these zones provided the trip destinations for Blackhawk generated traffic. The major distribution pat- terns are shown in'Table 1 . For purposes of lnternal-internal trip identi- 1cation, State traffic zones Immediately adjacent to the Blackhawk area are listed by zone numbers (See Figure 1) and others are grouped by geo- graphical place name. The internal-external trips are listed by cordon stations on the major freeways serving the Eastern Alameda-Contra Costa County study area. The State traffic study listed trips as average daily traffic volumes. In this analysis, trip generations were estimated for the evening peak hour, since this figure is more representative of design criteria. In the average. dally traffic assignments of the State stud, only 4.2 per cent of all trips were assigned to the cordon stations. The present. analysis assumed that "N J. FORRISTAL • CON MWLTIND TRAFFIC WOMEER { virtually all of these would be home-work trips, and•consequently would occur.. • during the morning and evening peak hour. Of the 4.2 per cent• of external t , trips, 4.0 per cent were considered home to work trips with 2.0 per cent occurring during the evening peak hour. Assuming that peak hour is 10 per cent of daily traffic, then the cordon stations assignment would be 20 per cent of all trips. This is the proportion assigned in Table 1 . The Blackhawk area itself was subdivided into 3•I traffic subzones for purposes of trip generation. intrazonal distribution and assignment to the street system. Traffic was assigned to the street system from each subzone in accordance with trip desires and with first best and alternate routes as - determined by driving time and, to some degree, by cumulative traffic volumes (capacity restraint) . The volumes thus derived were added •to the 1990 volumes of the State study to give the total projected volumes on the major street system. The State, Blackhawk and total average daily traffic volumes are shown In Figure• 3. JOHN J. FORRISTAL • coNs.LTm TRAFFIC ENGr4EEFI PROJECTED VOLUME/SERVICE VOLUME RATIOS - 1990 In Table 2, the projected traffic volumes of Figure 3 are converted to . directional hourly volumes for the evening peak dour and compare wlth •the Service Volumes at Level C for the future major street sections as proposed by ' the County. The theoretical Service Volumes at Level C were -calculated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Highway _Capacity Manual of the Highway Research Board. As defined in that Manual, the Service Level is a .theoretical traffic volume as determined by varying conditions of traffic flow - from free flow to extreme congestion - and by physical and operational characteristics of the street. Service Volume C is described as stable flow, with intermittent but unobjectionable delays during peak hours, and is used as the conventional criteria for urban design. Volumes are expressed as di- rectional peak hour volumes at intersection approaches, since these are the critical points. The C Level Service Level for the proposed standard sections were calculated as follows: Assumed factors: Metropolitan Area Factor - 1.25 1 Area-Peak Hour Factor - 0.90 Evening Peak Hour - 11% Green Time Factor - through traffic - Varies 40-60% Green Time Factor - Left turns - 25% Standard Number Street Section of Lanes Parking Directional Hourly Volumes 64 feet 4 P 730 - 10090 64 feet •4 + MTL,' NP 990 - 1,370 60 feet 4 + MTL P 930 - 1,280 80 feet 4 + MTL NP 1.180 - 1,686 (Directional Hourly Volume consists of Through Traffic and Left Turns) WL - Median Turn Lane P - Parking Allowed NP - No Parking JOHN J. FORAISTAL • CONO.iLT" TRAFM ENmivnap • In Table 2, a ratio of 1.00 or less indicates that•the projected peak , • hour traffic volumes are below. the Service Level C volumes, and that the pro- posed roadway sections will provide satisfactory service. Where projected volumes would exceed the Service Level C volumes on streets with parking, it has been assumed that the parking will ultimately be removed to increase the Service Level C volumes with a resultant decrease in the ratio between the two. From Table 2, it would appear that most elements of the major street system will be adequate under future traffic volumes. The most critical area on the system is on Crow Canyon Road east of IR 680. The large projected traffic volumes on that facility resuit •primarily•from the intense industrial usage proposed for State Zone 80910. Tassajara Road and Sycamore Valley Road I will be operating at or near the theoretical C Service Level during the evening peak hours, but the projections have assumed full development of the tributary area, and the volumes listed should remain fairly stable once they have been reached. JOHN J. FORRISTAL • 004K.L71hM TRAFFIC ENG*EE.R • SHORT RANGE PROJECTIONS - EXISTING ROAD SYSTEM Short range (1980) average daily traffic projections are shown in Table 3. These projections are based on extrapolations of existing traffic counts at 4 par cent per year and on the assumption that Blackhawk Ranch development will be 50 per cent completed over the assumed period. No changes have been made to the existing street system; consequently theore- tical Service Volumes are based on the narrowest section for any given portion of street. For two lane sections, computations were based on the procedures set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual Section on Two Lane Highways, with the following factors: Sight Distance - Varies 40 - 50 per cent Design Speed (ANS) - Varies 45 - 50 miles per hour Lateral Clearance - 6 feet • Percent Trucks - 3 percent It was assumed that all major intersections on these streets would be itproved to maintain the Level of Service as determined above. From Table 3, critical volumes are projected on Stone Valley Road . and .Sycamore Va LI ey. Road adjacent to I R 680; mon D 1 ab I o Road nester I•y of the Danville area; and on Tassajara Road between Sycamore Valley Road and Lawrence Road. Volumes are especially high on Tassajara Rced and Sycamore Valley Road because no construction of the Crow Canyon Road extension has been assumed for •this short range projection. JOHN J. FORRI8TAL TmAppc v4mrEER SHORT RANGE PROJECTION - TASSAJARA ROAD IMPROVED If Sycamore Valley Road and Tassa,jara Road west of Blackhawk Road were Improved to their proposed ultimate sections within the projec- tion period, the critical conditions listed for those roads in Table 3 would be eliminated. Also there would be a partial diversion of traffic from the unimproved Blackhawk Road to the new facility. The revised traffic projections under these conditions are shown in Table 4. JOHN J. FORRISTAL • ccNwAxwM D TRAFFIC ENGMER 10- IMPACT ON FREEWAYS Listed below is the long range proportionate impact of traffic generated by the Blackhawk Ranch on future freeway traffic at selected locations. All future freeway traffic volumes are from the State 1990 Study. Blackhawk volumes are shown as percentages of both peak hour and average daily traffic on IR 680 north and south of the study area. For SR 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel and IR 580 at the east cordon station, they are shown for peak hour only, since for average daily traffic they are less than 1/2 of I per cent. Blackhawk Total Freeway Traffic Traffic Blackhawk % • "— P ak Peak Peak ADT Hour ADT Hour ADT H_ IR- 680 North of Stone Valley Rd. 6,930 1, 130 138,900 13,010 5.0 8.7 IR 680 South of . Crow Canyon Rd: 5,690 10000 136,700 12,800' 4.2 7.8 SR' 24 at Caldecott Tunnel 340 18,500 1 .8 IR 580 West of IR 680 360 100500 3.4 .JOHN J. FORRISTAL • COJLT*HO TRAPP C 04GME14 • INTERIOR STREET SYSTEM The principal elements bf the interior street system and the projected traffic volumes thereon are shown In Figure 4. The volumes shown are those on the portion of the interior street adjacent to a major street, and there- fore represent the highest volumes that will occur on the former. Because of the concept of limiting the tributary area for most of the streets, 'volumes are generally low and well within the capacity of two lane sections. Four lane sections are indicated for those portions of streets where volumes are projected in the 7,000 —8,000 vehicles per day range. JOHN J. FORRISTAL C v as.T*N= TRAFFlC 6hG9*-&9R • TRIP DISTRIBUTION (P.M. Peak Hour) Trip Type To Zone or Cordon Station Percent Internal-Internal 808010 3.45 (Within Eastern Alameda 809280 1 .20 r and Contra Costa Counties) 809290 2.85 Alamo 2.96 Danville 9.60 Crow Canyon 12. 16 Dougherty Road, South 3.78 North on IR 680* to Concord, Walnut Creek, etc. 14.00 South on IR 680 .to Pleasanton, .� Livermore, etc. , 11.00 Internal-External SR 24 West 7.30 x (Outside Eastern Alameda SR 93 North (Prgposed) 1. 12 and Contra Costa County) SR 4 North 1.02 111 680 North 0.40 IR 680 West 1.30 SR 84 West 1. 10 IR 580 West 7.76 • Intrazonal To Commercial Zones 12:00 (Within Slackhawk Area) Other 7.00 TABLE 1 o 4 o► °iii f- m N v"a a' Ch a M n- n a 1� 0 C► 0 C; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -= �► 0 0 0 M I�` 1� lntl t3 S N Q Q O C�D O O N Q w d w w • w • • w w • w w • • • > > 0 *- 4t co In M th S S M in 1h OQ� S S Q M qT A N v- N N O of d' N CO 1'- CT N O Q q Ch Ln CO CD M Up L ~ G Q v Z Z Z d. a. O. a Il a. Ct. a Z s a a a a I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I ! I I I j f i i i i i i i i i i i ♦ i • i i • +t It Q O C1 a VI w w %o ,Q ur Mo c w �o ac Co Co o� w w W ao ao Nip v cc 31 a Ir g _ fh $ � v . cr _ co s_ I 4 N o< o O d 1 w car 1 G O IS a a: 10 !Q cc 1 p i i A tp O O V i 10 8O Rv > >► a in 1 u Is Cr. CII: to cc fir. ~ i A 1 1 L A v- t m > C - S } CID S A m C E O O V A C COQ 1i1 do Q N t3 C N _ _ IIC IY IA W 1.CD W D V>f co W W U � M•' Vdi cc a Q L 10 V 10 s' a e� e e A c c t 4D O O to N O N O W, } a . . . • V .. 10 10 Y1 M h 1'- r 11 A In Y1 Y1 W �O so — .. tl O O 9% Q M OMN� 1!� $ 1n 9% O in, 1!1 to u1 y vim- M w � IO m N 1D m b M w n M a w i L IR U O N O 111 p O w 111 O u1 L �L v- 1G 10 0 t0 10 v p at � tT O �D � In U ` M N 'C If1 If1 Y1 0% 10 M f� N 1� 1- v v w v coo %0 -- C C %0 M tV eV 1+1 NV V N} 1 1 1 f N N N 1 co t7O 1 N 1L1'i. X U O ~p •t r' ~pp •oo M W N N N • y > s o u i a v a > co v v v of v v a; a m at o C CC LW p O AL U J S L L U: �+O•• � A 1 � 10 � A ?. 1 4I m 0 O 0 a y v O cc O N 'f o v C 10 •� vi A ? A to ; 1. 0 VI It Q O H CC Q1 O A IA Z7 � a FA-• H C 1 A 1 f L O A G w tp = J 1 �- iA• > A L > v- O L A v- O N $ O O C O O C ou I IX A OR U L q } IAO U a till %D 4-�+ N L+ — F- W O W Q N CO W — N dE v v' a V V v A O li i O O $ � � � ti eY •tL .1� � � � i0 � . I > } G a: Y f. A A A A c m . o o O o 2 •� �p •AA-� q C A A N N N V 2 H W O O O O t0 m fA H f i� N O C9 } SroME Yq�tEN 4 r..■ L,,.-.. a, RtJ, f w� • .pd BLAGKNAWK MANVILLE d R A N C H •ote�o lo I. 009 410C100 eoW CAN soosoa �Q90 -c �f EXT£RIM MAJOR STREET SYSTEM .JOHN J. FORRISiTAL ER IBLACKHAWK RANCH AREA CON�N�lo. TRAFFIC ENO I CALIFORNIA IA OAK4AN0• CAIIfCiHN�A ' STdN y4tLEY 'Pp GEa¢d BtVA. ya pL.ACKHAW K QANViLLE toto�o MA NC H i SYCAMORE V • ' � a_J�� lot ID: 0000 CROW 040 s�st�o m . f 713 ; 1 FIG. t EXTERIOR. MAJOR STREET SYSTEM .�iC3!-!N J. FORRISTAL p //��+y/�yAA �/� ry,� A A GONGULTING TRAFFIC 914GINEER 'pLAVKT AWA RANCH AREA OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA FO AfAerl VI'Z 0 • YALLE.IID • •�► ro Ptrrsa&Ru CONCORD 4 , WALNUT'CREEK. za #Ali ALAMO al ACKHAWK ro 6A5r DAY y'" RANCH SAN i'l{'AAcaca t pANVi LLE ; 1 i7 • GASTRO To. P154skvrc.v VALLEY • 30 '� ro SAN ✓osE 7Q FR�.NaNr JOHN J. FORRISTAL FIG. 2 +REGIONAL. FitEEWAY SYSTEM CON•u'L,oNor11AFFIC ENGINEER OAK�ANO, CALIFORNIA f S4ACKHAWK. 1 � V RANCH e 570 ot p a n kf,4/ !'3TREL'rs -4"Alis ----- JN7ER/dR MAJQ! .STREET'S•2 LANES a iG,• 4 1 NT£RIOR MAJOR STREET SYSTEM JOHN J.. FORRISTAL GONw1/L1N0 TAAffrIC EtiOtNEEA jitACKHAWK RANCH AREA a•K�w TO • c�usa�+N,a r • SraN�vqd mo of , � . ate• �� ., �•. 4,240 8ti0 Ro• / 5' " �0 tall J . 71400 �p`�ti%0 O 0 R� 8 L A C K H A W K DANVILLE. � Qta d � �y�,� RA N C N tj0 i 250 0 • l_ 1 • � s•ssoc . �o i Qa tEZfO g9Q0 �•o� t _ --i- Ext• s 6/0 'CR1sw FAR) ' f 8.8.4/0 /2,620 `Aa,�pN Ro• ' • LEGEND :' 8-000 &4CKHAWK TRAFFIC 0.000 0TN£R 7R4fir/C amm/990). 000 TOTAL TkAFf/C FIG. 3 PIZOJECTEO TRAFFIC VOLUMCS JOHN J. FORRISTAL EXTERIOR MAJOR STREET SYSTEM CONSULTING Tw.ssic ENC31NECa BLACK-HAWK RANCH ARJEA OAK�.►NO. C�� sOpN4 APPENDIX E THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED BLACKHAWK RANCH 'DEVELOPM.ENT ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND THE SAN RAMON . UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT , r The economic impact of the proposed Blackhawk Ranch Development on Contra Costa County and the San Ramon • unified School District Submitted To 'Contra Costa County Planning Department P.O. Box 951 !Martinez, California -94553 - And JAMES A. ROBERTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 7128 Fair Oaks Blvd. , Suite A-1 Carmichael, California 95608 By Elmer R. MCNece • July 6, 1973 . INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the economic impact of the proposed Blackhawk Ranch development. Both municipal services and school district costs and revenues are considered. The proposed project promises beneficial cost/benefit ratios to the area in terms of municipal services and education. METHODOLOGY Several models have been developed to -provide an analytical approach to the consideration of costs and 'benefits of land development in terms of its impact on municipal agencies. The model used in this analysis (referred to here as Economic Cost/Benefit Comparison Analysis) was developed by ' Raheneamp, Sachs, Wells, and Associates, Land Planning Con- sultants of Philadelphia,' Pa. , and presented at the 1972 . House and Home Conference on Planned Unit Developments. This model focuses on the relationship between municipal revenue generated by property taxes with the project, and • municipal revenue generated from property taxes without the project.* Application of the model is limited in that it does not consider in detail the incremental costs of specific services roquired• as a result of the project. It is assumed that *Appendix A briefly describes the development of this approach to project evaluation and its relationship to other approaches . : municipal services provided because of the project are of the same quality, quantity and cost as the average for existing municipal improvements. Indirect revenue from sales taxes, gas taxes, and miscellaneous other taxes for the project are assumed to be equal to those within the County as a whole. Differences in such revenues would have no significant effect on %he conclusions presented herein. The analysis of property taxes, revenues and related costs is based on Contra Costa County and San Ramon School District data for 1971-72, the most current year for which complete and accurate records are available. Housing prices are presented for purposes of this analysis "as if" the project were completed at 1971-72 price levels. The use of constant 1971-72 tax rates and valuations is based on the assumption • that inflation or deflation and changes in tax rates for the project occur at the same time and rate as for Contra Costa County as a whole. Consideration of probable differences in these factors would tend- to reinforce the conclusions herein. Data on tax rates, assessed valuations, taxes collected, population and school children were obtained from Contra Costa. County and school district .publications, 'the State Board of Equalizition, .the State Department of Education, • and various government published statistics. Project data relating to projected absorption and price ranges were provided by Blackhawk Development Co. Population and school generation factors were provided by the planning firm of Livingston and Blayney. Sales prices, housing mix and quantity, and construction phasing are based on pre- liminary land plans, which are subject to revision. FINDINGS The project produces substantial excess property tax revenue (surplus) over the development period and on a continuing basis after completion. Supporting computations for these conclusions are presented in Table A. These data are summarized as follows: . Municipal School Services Services Cumulative surplus generated by project during twelve-year development period $12,798 ,000 $12 ,393 ,000 Annual surplus upon completion of project $ 1,646,000 $ 1 ,640,000 In each case the "surplus" is the projected excess of property tAxes revenue from the project over the level of funding for existing developments within the County and school district. . •� ••1 N •� � pf Mh •� N +gyp •i w w w • w r • w • • • N V4 h N ~ N tlft M o g QD Ir•f s e► �• O N.e M +Q P !D O�.e .• M .� v fl Y1 �O �0 •Sf•y N !� wt 0� a M a il ' � • w w w w • • w • « « a M "1 •O% !V N � Wp%,•fir V4 r+ •,. O r1 4* 11! �► b O a 4N+, 4D 91" QO N %D �v , ON O N H b n1 b N NN 46. "4 •' N� aH► y M M w oIn $► o a r. r. O �� eb N �o N� 914 M r NO ob, A y •+► ,$.ri g N °, o on W i c N r, � ac �. ' S •� r+i !V !► IMS h+ • ni N •.� H P► �1 M h► ilY N N ff M OV1' O hY ••1 • O M! h. rt �i! �G .+TfD r� 1P1 Ol+r1 O .•f� A� p M tt� Al w eC •. v,.+ �rr� P• 't � M •d +IV O� N V1 1.1 �!T N V1 �o n� .�If1 �C V1 . x� y A M Y+ 11 N O N M A M �4f O V,O+ !. rO •w O .G 7 M �� A +p1 d �M•, =I( O+ O N O O� M v, C aC e+til1 r. O� �+ M Y! r1 /� M M K• O N N1 O+ O+ Pa h tM s► r p III v>up v► C, s . • r M�'11 ii Y Il M 4i G +q+ rFi r Q G u ' d�eess sir {i � � O M,,c N O O a U Y 6.-% Y '+D 4 %x ao N u e N sees r✓ t .r ill N N q 7 e Y Y Y M O 11 s.t» pp++M vi N 7 wv u u N e A Y r.+i► Y e 04 Y 1+ O ry q •ai a • W K f wr. �t c c e N Y iL s,w.•I G o a, _ a r+ o4w u �Id Y Mp04 wu0w w weu a y. s•L.0J,N 4 4 .I ILA .r 4 w 9 7 16 IV N v1 7 .+.+ uN N e f G Oe w x4YC V) yce��, f �Y •d.aaKu Y G pfd a MM gQUGu u.ut-, 9u y 13 f3 6 uvK f ! «.•F O g K u 4 v u ovsi u us iy�O t e C V y N ar 'H'O M Y N ii! W W 4 eG V 'o it u 4 4« .+ 0,06 ••••»••• r a a"� ^..�p ri r F f w f+ q 47'17u.+ e Fu • •• O u0 uu O •• O uN fN4IU f w H r4if w 7 N elk q •. p ,,�aald Qir .4� a o sNo. a o. 0.. av4.e. N W"va O.- wue C : 91uc . + d� pyYfofp4w aXCCuNQaa a 44•.I M rC C W + VI uw g o0 OQ 4 O. C w v24 .+ . 8rnV � Y • w 0 ► �L Ic O • • • • r f • • • • t • • • • �, i.0 Y 4 Y Wig '• .N Ii •� tl1 .. The projected continuing annual revenue surplus • ($1,646,000 for municipal services plus $1,640,000 for the. school district) is computed "as if" the project were completed at 1971-72 price levels, tax rates, etc. Per capita property taxes for existing development are presented in Table B. Estimated property valuations, population and school children for the project are presented in Table C and Table D. Municipal income from property taxes in Contra Costa County was $187 per person for 1971-72 'as indicated in Table B. The project promises municipal income of $310 per capita. or about 66 percent more than the average amount from all property within the County. The average property taxes income per student from property within the district was $655 compared with $1,132 projected for- the project. . Project funding for the school district is at a level 73 percent above the current level of funding within the district. • BIACKHAW•RANCH _ 1 MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROPERTY TAX IMPACT (1971-72 Data) M U N I C I P A L —S -212 -1 —CES tRESENT MUNICIPAL INCOME FROM PROPERTY TAXES (Contra Costa County) 1. Property Taxes Levied $234,164,000* 2. Less: Taxes for School Purposes 126.581,000* 3. General and Special Municipal Property Taxes $107,583,000 . 4. Municipal Population 576,785 S. Property Taxes Collected Per Capita $187** COMPLETED PROJECT CONTRIBUTI04 TO MUNICIPAL TAXIS INCOME 1. Evaluation of Project for Property Taxes ;270.542,000 2. Assessed Valuation at 25% • $67,636.000 3. Municipal Taxes $4,152,850 - 4. Municipal Population Generated by Projict 13,409 S. Propi:ty Taxes Income Per Capita for the Projeet $310 •• SCHOOL. DSS ? 1t ,� CT . • MSENT •SCHOOL DISTRICT (San Ramon Unified) Assessed Valuation for Property Taxes $1219959,820*** . 2. District Tax Rate per $100 Assessed Valuation $5.753*** 3. Income from Property Taxes $7,016,347 • 4: Schools Population 10.709*** S. Property Taxes Income per Student $65S C", LETED PROJECT 1: Assessed Valuation $67,636,000 2. School Districts Income from Property Taxes $3,891,100 �. School Population Generated 3,436 . 4. Property Taxes Income per Student for the Project $1,132 "Average Tax Rate by County 1971-7211, California State Board of Equalization. • M Annual Reoort 1971-72, The California, Stats Board of Equalization, scrar.entot Calitornis, P. A-20. etii from The California State Board of Education. VA O O O O 0 0 0 y 410 O O O O O O O E 0 in 0 in P4 CC � O V1 O N ^ .N7 4 >n ao O r- O e) In W:;, rl N V • o c"4a o S o 0 d f- O M r1 rl . x • w i�G V V in i r � Y1 1r1 M N 0% N w w to v Obi N N • V i.l V r4- P-4 P4 }M� B S w a •+ C a q O r4 V4 V46 ro 10 w v H N vs fv, o a. i •OLi b w v^i a V r1 O � • IA N M V U' E-1 10( 1A CD 0% . V 0 M N N a 1d 0 {•1 � 111 M d -A 0 a r/ m Ln 1A P 10 H aw r r Mo d! O 41 M M N Pi v as . Q O NJ u w to VIA O .0 N %D wo D N N a v 4) u I w A0 •� .� p NJ °1 04 °+ � a c cc� N W N • OTHER CONSIDERATIONS • The project will provide continuing direct employment for approximately 1,100 persons within the office, shopping , and recreational complexes. Additional employment will be provided for utility services, maintenance, gardening , etc . , on a continuing basis. Estimated employment during the twelve-year construction period is computed as follows : Total project valuation $244 ,170 ,000 • Less: Estimated land valuation, materials, rentals, advertising, taxes, supplies, etc. and profit 142,839,000 Equals estimated salaries and wages paid during development $101,331 ,000 ' • Divided_by average annual construction wages* $12,845 Equals total man-years of employment 7 ,889 Divided by-development period 12 Years . : Equals average annual direct employment generated during development 657 Persons . * California Statistical Abstract, 1971 , P. 28 The price range of housing within the project 'is high . relative to the housing needs of workers -during construction and a substantial portion of the personnel who will find employment within the project on a continuing basis. This , poses no problem to the extent that work is provided for persons that presently live within commuting distance of the project. CONCLUSIONS The development promises substantial economic benefits in terms of funding both municipal services' and education. The project generates a projected cumulative surplus of $12,798,000 for municipal services and a projected cumulative surplus of $12,393,000 for the school district during the twelve-year development period. The continuing annual surplus ' • after full development is $1 ,646,000 for municipal services and is $1,640,000 for the school district. The excess revenues provided by the project offers the potential for a material enhancement to the quality or quantity of municipal services and edccation for -the area. ]alternatively, the surplus could be used to reduce property tax rates. r APPENDIX Approaches to Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Development . By Elmer McNece and Larry Seeman' Assessments of the environmental impact of proposed developments• frequgntly fail to consider economic factors in a' context which is meaningful to the -lay reader who is generally not trained in economic analysis methodology. This is attributable to the complexities of economic issues as well as to the language of economists which is frequently engulfed in balance sheets, absorption schedules, and similar numerical notational frameworks . . Therefore, the purposes of this discussion are: '(1) to •present a brief description of the principal approaches tQ economic impact analysis and (2) to provide some background as to the strengths ind shortcomings of these approaches so that the -� reader will be able to evaluate the conclusions drawn in the economic impact section of this rzport with a greater economic awareness. * Mr: .McNece is a Certified Public Accountant in California and Professor of Real Estate Economics at California State University at Sacramento. Mr. Seeman is associated with the firm of James A. Roberts Associates, Inc. , Consulting Environmental Scientists of Carmichael, California. Economic Impact Assessment of development in recent ' times has proceeded along two lines .of analysis. One ' approach, referred to here as Incremental Analysis, is based on a systematic cost accounting for each projected incremental element of public cost and public revenue associated with development. The other approach, referred to here as Cast/Benefit Comparision Analysis, is a more generalized approach in which projected' public costs and public benefits associated with proposed development are compared with similar public costs and public revenues for existing development within a given area. The area selected .is usually the jurisdictional limits of the governmental entity that. would provide most of the services to the ' proposed development. The latter is the.approach used i in the: economic section of this report. INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS The principal advantage of the Incremental Analysis approach is that it focuses' directly on the costs of specific services required by development. The principal limitations of this approach are the difficulties associated with obtaining accurate quantitative data and.the broad assumptions which must be made concerning unknown future economic, social, and political .trends within the limits of the governmental entity. Specifically, data aqui si.tion problems are accentuated. by governmental cost accounting systems which usually do not provide incremental cost data in a usable form, operating budgets which are usually limited to data for the next year, and capital expenditure plans which usually cover only a few years. A number of economic. impact studies demostrating the general usefulness of the incremental analysis approach have been undertaken. These include: (1) The California Better Housing Foundation, Inc. (Gruen, Gruen, and Associates, 1972) The Impacts of Growth; (2) City of Palo Alto (Livingston and Blayney, 1971) , Foothills Environmental Design Study; (3) Mace, R. and Wicker, W.. , 1968 , Urban Land Institute, Do Single Family Homes Pay Their-Way? , and • (4) SEED, Inc. (Ashley Economic Services, •Inc. , 1972) , Cost/Revenue Analysis of New Housing Development in the City i of San Diego. The value of the results produced by these studies, as with other incremental analysis studies, is limited by the quality of the input data and by the acceptability to the decision maker of the underlying assumptions regarding the future economic, political, and social situation in which the entity involved will operate. As a general rule, developers and governmental entities cannot justify the often substantial cost of this approach to analyze specific alternatives for development proposals. COST/DENEFIT COMPARISON ANALYSIS " The approach of comparing the public costs and benefits for proposed development with similar public costs and revenues for existing developments has the advantage of providing useful information to the decision`maker in , a more cost effective manner than the former approach. At the same time, it avoids the pitfalls of having to draw possibly inaccurate conclusions concerning the future situation of the entity and using those conclusions as assumptions upon which to base Cost/Benefit projections. The principal disadvantage of this approach is that it generalizes the nature of the services to be provided by the governemtnal entity and assumes that they will be equivalent in quantity and quality to those being provided to other existing developments. It is this approach which has been utilized in preparing the economic impact section of this report.. Examples of the Cost/Benefit Comparison Analysis approach of assessing the economic impact of proposed development include% (1) City of Alameda (Wainwright and Ramsey, Inc. 1472) , A study of the Anticipated Economic Impacts Upon the City of Alameda and the Alameda Unified School District Occasioned by the Proposed Harbor Bay Isle Development on Bay Farm Island; (2) House and Home Land Use Seminar-San Francisco (Rahencamp, Sachs, Wells and Associates, 1972) , What Does it Coat?-Investigation and Comparison; (3) Stewart, D. and Teska, R. (Urban Land Institute, 1971, Who Pays for What; A Cost Revenue Analysis of Suburban Land Use Alternatives, and (4) House and Home (August, 1972) , Impact Zoning. The Cost/Benefit Comparison Analysis approach utilized in this report is based on comparison of estimated project revenues to the county (including service agencies) and school districts with the estimated costs' to these entities of providing services to the project. The principal limitation of the Cost/Benefit. Comparison approach relates to the possibility that the decision-maker may not understand or, may not agree with the underlying assumptions. To partially allay this problem, further description of the Analytical method and the related as- sumption is presented here where it may assist the reader evaluating •the conclusion drawn in the economics section of this report. • Revenues from property taxes generally constitute the principal income or benefit from the project to the county and •school districts. Taxes other than property may be generally excluded from the analysis because the extent of their inclusions would not tend to significantly alter the conclusion. reached. Exclusion of these other taxes from the analysis is equivalent to assuming that the project will produce revenues therefrom at the same rate as to existing developments. The clearest case can be ` made for inclusion of the local portion of sales tax in the analysis of commercial developments; however, because of the relatively low level of commercial' development .associated with the proposed project, they have not been included in this assessment. Revenues and costs are computed "as if" the project were completed today and on a cumulative basis according . to the developer's planning schedule. Existing tax rates and price levels are used in both cases: This procedure avoids the complex and .hazardous task of making long-term projections of tax rates and price levels without substantial • damage to the validity of the conclusions•. Thus, the decision maker is better able to concentrate on principal issues rather .than speculative projections which may be somewhat irrelevant to reaching a decision concerning the economic impact of the project. The result of following this pro- cedure is equivalent to making the assumption that tax rates and price levels will be the same for the project as for all of the county and the school districts. The probable error' of this procedure is to understate revenues from the proposed development. The analysis presented in this report is based on the assumption that the cost and quality of municipal services tothe' proposed development will be the' same as for existing developments. This assumption may lead to substantial error in areas which have both decaying "old city" districts as well as new, modern developments. The costs charged to new developments in more modern areas may also be over- • stated. Numerous fixed costs do not increase proportiona;:ely with new development and economics of scale may lower the Variable unit costs of services. SUMMARY The amount of "benefit" or "cost" conputed for a proposed development should be considered by the reader along with other considerations. For example, the value of the results produced by the Cost/Benefit Analysis may be limited if -the cumulative effects and interrelationships of individual projects are not also recognized or if the decision maker does not agreewith 'the underlying limits- tion of the approach as previously described. In any event, the reader' s overall evaluation of the impact of the project o should be based on a combination of the environmental, social, and economic aspects of the proposed development. APPENDIX F DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CONCEPT BY DESIGN CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CONCEPT BY DESIGN CONSULTANT MISCELLANEOUS MEMORANDA FROM: Royston, Hanamoto, Beck, i Abby Livingston and Blayney Rirker, Chapman i Associates Von Hagge i Devlin • ':• � '. +."lull^111UL0 Abey BLAC.-UUWK RANC:I LANDSCAPE DEV LOPM '.NT ire investigation revealed a variety of topographic :orms; flat vIluvial valley floors, rolling grassland, rounded knolls, and parallel finger •_ , ' :•ia-es and narrow, steep-skied valleys.. _ W'hilc Vt. Diablo itself is not visible from all parts c Che site, t;s --=--South Entrance Road to the State Park gives panoramic views which encompass most of the property. ' The.steep lands near the State Park have a .cover o Ch.aparrali CI.e ripper ends of valleys contain considerable scrub, -.ad there are a ::umber of semi-isolated large trees in the grazed '_and. The walnut orchards on flat land are in varyinn degrees of hoa th and age. :t is ' in One watercourses that the.largest and most.siviiiicant.trees,are ' found, and they are a great visual amenity. ` The, preservation of these tress for'community use and enjoyment was • a pr;me determinant of the circulation system.' Diversion of drainage Vito new-channels or grading for cuh►erting. the watercourses would each destroy most-of these large trees. The watercourses should be left ••, • essentially as they are, with enough width to accommodate some future channel movement, and a meandering greenway of varying width. .• These greenways provide pleasant and safe routes up into the open space areas at the heads of the valleys, and to ;schools and recreation ' :acilities. the collector streets running up the ceate.s of the valleys and the limited width of Cite developable*.area of the valleys, suggest ' • a cul-de-sac arrangement of residential development. The slope of the land is another strong form'determL--iant. Slopes 'in • excess of about 25percent caused significantly higher development costs, and.more extensive grading. -. Ptisttipals: ' • • Assotiaus: ;• . .� t• ' WAJSC3PCACChiC4:CIj: Robert Rey tion ASLA Patricia Carlisle ASLA so Gtsen ttreet LanJ Plannins An Hananwto ASLA Louis G.Allcy.Architect 'Sin Francisco .. ~. UrbAn Dcsi,;n Eldon&A'ASLA Harold N.Kobayashi ASLA California 94 t 19 Pack Plannins Kam*Abet'AsLA loan Grlos Gldcron' :(413))97.0594 • 3!ackhav:k Ranch Landscape Development ?arc• 2 , . . C. . � Ja. rancral concern of the design is to :-educe ear:;:_:o_:c �:•he ever _ .. ssible, in.order to avoid uns:g it:y scars on theges and molls will forr:z the skyline a.*I;; are best left unenc lml—c=eG by built; I:Z s Where lots include t;:esc r idcgcs, arch tectmr al coI t'rols S: :I1?, roof color•and shppa shou.Ld be dave'_oped'to ensure tlat t."•e roc`s not protrude above the ridgalinas. , ee-planting along those str ects and greemvays =lit.:C:lt existing trees should be done in groupings, not in reg-.Aar sUaclnas, an should be seiccted from species which ach'eve some size and irregular growth • �'u:t. The character of the ccilec:or streets shoulc; eurvi;ns, al;t-nment, group:ngs of trees, w path, ge er a::y,on one side only, and no curbs or sidewalks typical.to subdivisions. 3ntries into the project are through open spaces, bo a_ed by golf course or other wiee public green space. These. ent-les, and the major streets having 'continuous-crreen edges and fet: or ro interruptions of driveways, establish much of the visual character of the project. ' e ridges and the greater part of the property will :.a left as open space, a visual and useful amenity for the project and adjacent community. .• .. pAl 21,, 1973 Y ;,l\ v J 1 U 1\ ix.IN 1J .0 LIN.X IN L" x �'!�; ';,i•� JO A.RLAYtiCY.A.1.I. ' CITY AND REGIONAL ?LANNEAS i Z ., • \h,rj;:�•�r,:: � JACK L DAVIS.A.I.?. �• , }�`ji;%'� JtOiiRT W.GLOVER.A.I.P. 40 GOLD Sl'RELT,SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94133•(413)936.4379' ROY}1.COFER.A.I.P. •• . ' March 20, 1973 ' TI:..ALCt F:r1WK :tA\CiI PRELIvii\::RY DEVEL0MME\'T ?:...it • BASIC ?I.AN;NL\G AND DESIGN GLF1DEL1ES 1. 4'rhe dcvclopnlent plan should be highly responsive to -*-.a natural tot ograpl- Fnd a:.vironmer.;al quality of the area. • A. Development should be conce.;rated mainly on the leve: valley ::oors and moderate side slopes. T'&-.e enclosure provided byr natural bowl for- Mations shoulc be used to advan;�.ge. . B. Roads and structures should not be located on stezp -:els:des (over 20 per cent), and in no case should they be located on a r,"-chne. C. . \natural Grec s and wooded drai.age«•ays sA.ould be pr escrved as gazt • , of the,open space systen. Wherever possible., these fcat;:res should be - • used for pedestrian and/or riding trails where they tail not cause re.:►oval of trees or destruction of biotic com-munities. ' De. The road system should be designed to minimize g:ac:irg and to avoid • extensive cut or fill slopes. Where graded slopes ca-. c: be avoided, they '• zhould be replanted, preferably with indigenous plant -:a;ezlals. E. The present character of the r.atura' landscape s ; . be retained as ' much as possible. Large native oars and other is�i��:.ohs t=ees s'.:ou d be preserved, and extensive urban landscaping should be avoided on visible •• ' hillsides. • '2.' The development'plan should respond to the.present rural character of the1. , ianville-Diablo aria. , A. The most exooscd developable portions of the p.c•;.e—,.y should he pre- ' dominantly si�glc family residential. Overall lot sizes s::ould averaze at least 15,000 square feet, and no lots should :,e smaile: ::aa 10,000 square - feet. Lot sizes should be adapted to topographic conszzraints, wit`; th -largest lots on the steepest slopcis. Each lot should :ave a building site not rcgniring a conventional ;:tided house pad, and c::cz:::::ng a graded driveway ascending a visible slope. NNIhere a sig:latch:: ;a::on o: a .' • contains slopes in excess of 15 par cent, parkirg sehw. d ce :coated at or • near the iron: property I'Ana, a access to the dvr.".1::., s:au'.1d be by stairs end/or hilavator. On these sates, dwellin;s should :,w c;•.:::,:.m designed, and there should be no pool whore s:;a grading wo:::d be nceassawi. . 'S. Areas designated for tov;n::ouse, cluster,• or a?a=::: deva".opr.nant --•-•_ • ' •, .should bear a plagned rely i.ors:.:p :o adjoining uses. .:.o::c c: these a::eas •' • • sbould include a mix of bot:: t- pas, and the size o: :::3 s=ss and the dabs::-1 • of dovelonment should be i; scare wit:• similar Cave'. ate: :s :n nearby 'co"mmunities. Access to to sse sacss1hould not be • •: .•f residential area. Wherever possible, the townhouse z apa:moot s:;es •' should ad join a sig:.1ficant natural. open space area or a ;;,rtlon of the Zollf coursh• ' C. With credal only for t:he gol: course and other a an space areas that • 'make a real contribution to ganoral neighborhood amenl:y by reason of ' • ' . Searle or,rccreation value, or p_oximity to d:velli gs, res:dcatial density ;• should -not exceed two units per gross acre.• Over the entire grope:y, dhe • ' •• density should not exceed one u..it per gross,acre• ' • D. Within the limits irciposed by �ublic'safcty require::en'.s, traffic needs; ' . and required County standards, the road system sto;::d be designed to re- •• •,• rain the rural qualities character:s:ic of the present s.-ad system in the • general area. The number o: intersections with chc :c::�:e:al Col,nty . • ' roads should be kept to a minimurn, and lots should rat f'o nt on these roads.' Wherever possible, open space in the form of setbacks, natural creeks and • drainageways, trails, or ?ortions of the golf course shaulld adjoin the exist- ' • . Ing County roads; and where feasible , the same criteria sLou:d apply to the principal interior access roads. ' • , • • ' 'Throush preservation o: the natural landscape or pla t.ngs, principal • • entrances to development, ert.arces,to various sub-t:::s o: clusters,and . • focal points o: various kinds should be visuilly idea:Malo. Natural or land- '• jicaped corridors, with no fences, buildings, or other structures (other ' • than man-mode landscape features)within 100 feet on e:;Ler-side, should adjoin the-major entrance roads. ' • ,• •. S. Commercial and oeficc development ehould be .:... ted �o r.�i�,hbonc�oc. -onvenience shops and professio-a: offices adc�u::e :c :feet :he day-to-day seeds of residents oa Cho pro;crty and in the im�::ec:�:.:c ♦•ic=Wily• G::.icts that draw from a lamer service area, antra t)-?ical,y signi.icant amounts of tion-local traffic on t:.e County road sysz.emi ;,:.oiliCa not he , -3ermitted. ' J•I/IIRI6!1 AVIR1:1 • _ �� = t a::Ybci CITY, 1A11/LRKIA 1:"8I • 4.jczsulting Civil Engineers . Land Development Plan:iina , March 15 1973 BI11CKHAWK, RA\C'r: DEVELOP:ENk T • In the development of portions of the 31aC ..a:: Ranch, grading ' wil-I occur in several sectors namely in the ::oa,oway system, •in storm waver and water systems, and lot design. Developing a roadway network for the Blackha�.I* ;--ch'' • Davcio;ment will necessitate a concerted ef`o _n planning arLC engineering in order to superimpose a sv'sta;,i on the -andscape with minimal disruption. The ultimate system Will reflect roadwav desicn calling' •for mininal* cuts 'a:zd Afills. Vo achieve this, roadway speeds may give way tosteeper grades :' where grading does occur, provision* will be ma.:e N ` to *return these areas to thbeir original state. through • sensitive graying design and replanting. The dosign of lots based on 'this system will precipitate ; a variety of, entrance and building site conditions requiring :imagination by the builder. This approach avo4-ds ,Nass gracing resulting in more individualistic sitz and housing character- _stics . • -Actual design of a storm water syster, will be contingent on the final :faster Plan, but should attempt to utilize existing natural water courses -for conveyance. Problem areas may occur requiring modification of these water courses but effort will be made in design to maintain a natural setting.. ,+ze water system reservoirs, will require placz-a'nt on upper . elevations necessitating sensitive design in order that thev • blend with the landscape. This can be achieve" throuah • careful site location, screening through planting and good- grading design. ` . ..0 C! ' '.;iami Sar;nrs Villas :.GO Doer Run Mom, Springs. Florida 33160 Phone 305.871-5870 April 25, 1973 Mr. Whcrt Carrau t ; Dc • 31ac...�:�. : � vlog,.p;ma nt Co. P. 0. Sox 807 Danville, CA 94526 Dear Sob: • In response to your concern zbout p0S51'Ole environ^a:.t�.'_ prob- lens res::itir:g ^?'C::. t: G7e5-..n and colstruction ;),a.t_ces On the proncsed gali courses at the Black 'Hmec Ranc:n, 1 ani writing a brief description of our opinion o-a this matte•:. If you could review the plan with tie follmina poin. in ind, I 'ai sure you could '..etter understand our philoso.,zy. A) 1,1erever possible, we have designed the golf ccarse next to natural drama;. areas. We have fo'.,:*td that. this as a Gaal value. It preserves the natural drainage areas, which are most of;en . the -,,,Ore sensitive parts of our environ-ment, and the gol-f coarse acts as an absorpt mi field fcr stom water and u:,das.Lreable effluent of *.e subdivision surrounding it. fi) 41t:^ou 41 - -a plan does - t s::o;: it at this ti:�a, ti:e �:ill be • designing small ^ends aionl the golf course to act as s':AYJi ?Dater catc'-L,ent areas and. set:.le:�e.t nonan for%silt whic will be a � potential problem durini const—._-,:tion. Once the go'_: cc::rse is co;rpletel, these ponds will act as se:.tle.ent and bral-1,di m ponds for any fertilizers use-3 on the golf course. . Q Gradin; operations on the golf coarse will have the foll-mrirg character: ��e have designed. tie course in .suc.l a r�:mme that virtually no cutting operations are necessary. Less, greens and Nix. Wwrt Carrau Page 2 f1;)ri1 2S, 1973 •' ' Cartel Features on tha will ba almost C:::.._- -yiliac- ' operations. Fill will be ;: zed. _CT:1 several bein-w-d oas whicil ui:l be tiy A� ::::s�: l . ; ^ _oce- 4UMI Ciimi:atos many a:.-osiol —.-:34-ams or potantially -onstab=e 6t situations. Die to the SG iClr:l:.t l;:::-vi quality of several of Me golf CC:irsa area, sn extensive 1anisca?ing be initi--ted as soon. as uossi .:.a. SL:w, a n,OQr::_:: 5::;,L'... 0-:6ha- size in:.':gcnajs nlant :a�.3:ials 2f: -n cr+~c^.l �iaSi�:. Cv: ::1- tion. Lar,;c areas ar'�j acont :o the sol;: course planted :ti'ltil ;1'C;:.IC�. COVe:S iu-1�i Sh:'i:.�S t0 ;�_OjeCt tale 11i W N 06 W UA X iY . ECOLOGICAL IMPACT STLJOIES, INC. . r • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RFvAAT. ..- EXHIBIT 012 BLACKHAW-K FINAL E.I.R. BLACKNAWK RANCH Paepahed ion Conxna Coa.ta County, Catidohn.La Repok.t No . E-73317-1 2672 BAYSHORE FRONTAGE ROAD, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA.94040 (415) 967-5549 ECIS 2-73317-1 ' EMWOR This report has been prepared by Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. ' for and under the guidance` of Contra Costa County Planning Department. A portion of the technical studieg used in this report were generated for the applicant by James A. Roberts Associates, Inca (JARA) and submitted* in August 1973 to the Contra Costa County Planning Department for review and analysis. Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. (ECIS) was subsequently retained to augment the JARA report and prepare the "draft" EIR for the County. This report has been formatted for compliance with the standard Contra Costa County -EIR format and includes by reference the August 1973 JARA report, as well as supplemental data provided '• by James A. Roberts Associates in response to specific Contra Cotta County Planning* Depaxtment comments. Major additional technical studies generated by ECIS under the contractual effort relate to socio-economic analysis and.the off-site impacts of the project. The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to define, organize, and present the multitude of effects which are gene- rated by human activity and development associated with proposed actions or projects. The analysis has to consider the local and regional effects of the project. The analysis also has to con- sider future potential impacts on the project and its residents. ECIS has deliberately avoided the use of weighting systems to establish the "value" of a project. The ECIS approach has been to define 'specific evaluation criteria based on expert profes- sional experience and to present both the criteria and the analy- sis of the project in the E.I.R. As•part of this analysis, ECIS E-73317-1 potential problem areas are flagged to call attention to these. areas. • A variety of existing reports and data sources were used to develop these reports. Where better, more accurate, or more complete data exists, ' the reader is encouraged to communicate that data to ECIS. ' l ECIS has used its best efforts to prepare a complete and com- petent report, but ECIS shall not be liable for costs or damages to any client or third parties caused by delay or termination of any project due to judicial or administrative action, whether or not such action is based on the form or content of this report,, or any portion thereof, prepared by ECIS. • Submitted by: j George J. Coe, President , Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. . January 1974 1 l ECIS 2-73317-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION 1. Project Description 2. Environmental Inventory of Region B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Environmental Impact of Proposed Action 2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3. Mitigation Measures 4. Alternatives 5. Relationship to Productivity 6. Irreversible Changes 7. Growth Inducement t 6. Personnel and References 9. Qualifications C. CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS FI • ECIS E-73317-1 PART A • INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION Topographical Map ID-1 Regional Map ID-2 Zoning Map ID-3 • Parcel Map ID-4 Section 1.0 - Project Description Section 2.0 - Environmental Inventory of Region ECIS ,', •� :: .^i y . ;. �.-;� Vim.. , �� 1, -_ f •• ~'.7 / f: 01 y-�+r.-;-• � i i1'td :.Y_:�_•r.._:};';__...,r_.:a:- _ _` LT�a`.:�.--�-,_�__,a'_..._„�-__ .., ;�,y\..:i: '- - � -- or- C. Ix < 3 2 Y '} .,�, .. - L ' � ( 1'• ,•�••`. 1,.'x•,3'�.•'".�y1,r�J�i..:.� •• J+�J/ 111• Nt �• -+, _. 111 ff1; �-' t- J• ..•. '• C�, �.. w ;,r• ;• .i•; 'J/'. -'r .•�� . '•y� - yam" , •:\taaD _.map .�` ...�"� ••' ' '�»:• - ” O� Blackhawk t• Ranch i� ��riLr►-:r,�`; t. , ) �' L �� ,��' {- .� _.+_ r �' Figure ID-1 jj ECIS E-73317-1 Figure ID-2 PROJECT LOCATION lot i + tC�..• vy wANAUQ t, tt f y i /►��i ' ~ '.SUM •» [• Vr,,.. ... '.... .... .............. sow el YN'`� .�..Lu,•.iii,_-,'�, �_�,�,�_ �\yam... , �� .,� ,... _ - w .r. t +• Dedicated Open Space Dedicated Open Space s� f i ECIS 2-73317-1 . Figure ID-3 ti; N mAmm �i�i��ii�i� f�t'1� '• +� s1' is i t° Ii N • �. i*owes*il11 ii iw ii i war I r•.�.ww�w •'� � 3 a • tr i ' s Z r � •r. r e ` FivAt ID-4A it P*food s �' • p/ Y 1 a It \t•t i Y r -9 too mar .r. ' ►:Y � !• � � � w1. __..,�.:� s� Y* � �:.. .. ..•�"�_...... _.._`". � Vit , IT � � � � -1 I •r r, r ,^�! �! ,t• � � �; :t fi = `• ar•t DO Ot t ••• `. -a tF, tlN J�•� ..J t^ t-I ,.' jti ,�' `tom M•" r . :•; _.�� Z t 1 so Of off NO, ' t. t•j ...... � Y ----.,�.� .i� , }.a,,,�,... 1 t� Y 4+ •�} q�' �.� '7�r tm is.�+ �. ��: i 4� ��>t t.�• t 1•, ! �% t ��t; Ji ip y•• uN Ole f" "+,!sem, ' ► / �.' + r�! ��M!{t{ititl 4Yi • ; ! ¢ _�.1. ; i ECiIs L-73317-1 FIGURE ID-4B tM man Atn11n's "Me fAAttfl no mo m 46nna•s RITq 61Ma - rAAn`INA a go AOQsl in Too w MU Napo .no HPJ-S M sol•010•al Otiva.Nary t• N 3sS.IWGN NmNm.'OMIG C. 4 tits"R. 111 kat Clef W6 1475 Aleakberk 4644 stette Vallejo C/1&Mnts 95446 Mwllle,Cellfelsts 44516 i 10 101.016.11* NMR•.vallate A.4 414 V. tNXICAN.Albert 0.,Trrttes (1/1 Mosses) . P.0. sa 566 MM, JesgA a.4 Jroo C. (1/1 tstereet) Iejl$.C411ren1% e4109 155 Rose Road bevollU.Gltl•nl• 44514 K 10}016-011 SAM,Willies J. 6 Gall 2. 114&states 91116 N 1GWWOOl tMLLtN.Casts%t. A try N. eoofi11a.Cellfern&s east& III 111NMart good berfi11e,California MIS ' N M-140-061w aT1RNta*9fJl1eL 16}lS6-nl titer Seats N 263-196-146► tfTSNSON.C.a. a betety 1. *sill$,Callflnla 0451 f.0. sm fel • &Mille,Caltlante 14114 N 113-g6.M1 tgOR. Jose 0.a 1&abrtes J. HOO Makes&bW Ito 363-16*•6q term.Noern a beaesry, Mrttle.Calllente 94116 5141 Vast fusses Ottre M 3!3-616-001 Levis. Jos 9.4 6atlsts L. Iowa,411/•neo 41101 Me 6114kmM Road Ill 103-!16.161 66641.Rltbetd t. 4 1. Joy" *Wallis,Caltlenle 14119 1111 264841616 Rood M 111.010.001 ad sumo 19V2t1 o CMAIR eos►IIU,GllNnt• tofu 111.016-0" a/•21tea4ete L.Coast 112 103-616-011, IILAM PANR LAND CO. 116 Tklttf•/•ewd arG&se , I63-N6-e1f W 6 1406 Ales Areaa Gee frets/o".Cellfents 94111 291.676-119 Volvo&Creek. Caltlevala *1% \ M 111.619.001M M.asslaid Sells •a Babes C. 615 16yN0•Ml Ila tCONIM. Nnsunt "WO vessel Cr%el,Califon&% 94144 Mlnt Rede.Nla600tt 61101 !13.016-441 1Altm. attests 1.4 91•tel 114 101-05*6-64A ALUM.Clot L. 4 Nerae!.t C. 4%lekwta*fire 0 Cleft Areata &"Vale,Callfewls Vat"%Cw•k.419fania 94119 N I16-O46-ee1 nm,Y.C.it slates t. 115 „}0a6-0M Mrd blTICICOM, Jury 4 Rass 111 1*&"Costs „}466-109 5441 Castes?bassists &sees.Calll/n/a *161 *owlll6, 4111erate 94114 K 101-010.011. NMI. N/try N. (1/1 &stereeth 116 165.910-901, 119O101M. Vtrla C. 115-060.001. PAA, J4rees (1/7 interest). IO}016-006 W 111 Tbitgr•lerrtk Asea" 111.010.001 w 4147 Iladiwet A•seee 193-170-001 Im Itew/ace,41116tfu 94111 113-01e•oos Oellad, CoMet&s 94611 M K I►1-060-001 W 1O*111fex,rouese o. a twlle 111 „ri00i W ew� 6/0Jo"ILL�Jit •1• IIS•4641-001 /oo94 visa•ovolersod book of Cewrte ArtldLy 1•&Lewro. CNUenle *511 ytW, Catll•nle fNi! M 153.646046 "sm. stento a W 116 1}3.196-901 CNMI.Ny S. 1160 6lesYMmb MN tells tyta Odra • oerrllte. Califon&• 91116 W Aysles. GltfeteIS 90014 A It}046.005 no JORANS".sell 6•lel& .119 303-/06-606 W ►ACM, lite L. • 113.050.0111 1110 Sale" 203-106-461 116 alreretoo Otl". Apertssat 4•A sm Pra&s&/a,Callfento *lit sm Volk city. Now leek 10011 N 31}056.Ool W n0Y2. N&e I. It0 le3-1141-fit, JOt1§Mtbpmm CO. 11"Was 1610 sleckbnil teed 203-110`001 W Pollak 4 Cad6r $ties%@ blwtll/.C/l/lent/ 44116 8113-116-004 - M@Mlej, 4111.relA 94110 N 5/3-656-44/ Inf1T. Malay a 1114t1e �• ISM oletNna Asad ht 446-096-001. 4:15 Le Cloa t. s., at al Merille,4ltlewl• 203.196-001 w 1s10 u Cana• for 1 t0y1f16-e0s 4 Coesla, California/a 91011 11 103-160.601 GAIVINo NAt)ery L. M oltttae Mobte WAYS 0f CALINSPIA Mt blockheads Mae N&a tell t eorikle.Callfen/e *216 • IIs N 293-166-1q rtr*,Joie*. 1!3 soo4s6-Got, a etit AN11 SM vt"bbd 1&ae twoj&6 1. s/e 6&s►le lswel mewl/td, Callfee&e 14516 /04.416-491•&1 oil Neal Gena Sews 06.46•I0 1NIest Crook. gitbnte *196 N 162.160-06 MTSIL,most 1.4 2/Nes 4. I!1 IOMptb891 Mrd POPNOU VIIL1 tODANP sit boom"War tN•4l0•Iq P.0. Not 11411 Mer&lle.Caitfenl& *fa0 Colloid.Calll6nle ' 3*3-Ut•0q SAN*.fredattels 9.4 6a/tlej L. Hf 3N•416-M1 bt0m. Jeb It.. At al *61*lookers Reae Mo Use IalUly bow/lle. W/Lente %us W Prw6I•ae. Celtterel6 94104 N 443-146.441 •61111012.N/1a&r 4.4 WG 16 136 116.OWSSI. 0110,M►•rt 6. (1/3 interest) $144 slookAW►esed 196-M-M, 6/e Nary 0.1144bet 1aHlle.Califon&& 96126 196-N6-ets, P.0. Me 166 196.N6-M4, HAI%.Caltlmis 94116 • 19a•6G6-Mf w a t06.4N•0N L.C.0. 11MSff011.LTO. (1/1 l&t4t6e1) P.0. ben Mae wrest Cres►,Csltlesls 94»1 E_13317-1 s - t pART.A Section 1.0 . • R� 3ECT ovsclapTIQN p •i t-13317-1 LEGEND ' �. ESTATES �•4::;;vi�I.t=s= ,." `;}• `tom •. SINGLE �. `r''-r;JO rAMILY y SINGLE FAMILY v � „{.4`'�`.�`�'<;.s' «i�,`„�� C �.:..i'.•''.•'` CLUSTER ��„ '.i,� r�< MAY i-r ,,•� ti /![��l� hlutTt COMMERCIAL ISNOPPINGI }}`'' �• r' r ' .<: .., COMMERCIAL' �h•• 1.:.� (OFFICES) •� .1 t �•. PUBLIC FACILITY SCHOOLS GOLF COURSE OPEN :' v (_J SPACE , ►<- rl fe I {1'x,1' ,.1;. '�,• • . z ,X< ...... q figura 1A-1 ” SCNEMAIIC PUN&AREA Q r SCALE O 1,008 2,0W3.00*3 0 PROJECT DEVELOPMEtil AE.EAS • ECIS E-73317-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANT: Blackhawk Development Company PROJECT NAME: Blackhawk Ranch ' PROJECT TYPE: Planned Unit District (R1) PURPOSE OF PROJECT The purpose of the project i• to provide approximately 4,500 dwelling units in a planned unit development which is oriented to golf and equestrian country 'club facilities. An inter-mix of single family detached, •single family cluster and multi- family units is proposed. Some commercial facilities, elemen- tary schools, and two golf courses ais to be included- in the project. Functional areas of the project are identified in Figure 1A-1. PROJECT' LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES (Figure 1A-1) The Blackhawk Ranch is located at 121055' west longitude and 37049' north latitude near the center of Contra Costa County, approximately 19 miles soiitheast of Martinez (the County seat) , five miles east of Danville, and four miles south of Mount Diablo. The property is bordered by Mount Diablo State Park' on the north, Blackhawk Road on the southwest, Tassajara Road along portions of the property on the south, and numerous private land ownerships on the remaining sides. The project is in the area commonly known as the Tassajara Valley. r 1 ECIS .� E-73317-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project comprises 4,800 acres and will include the following: Units/ Residential I Units Acre Estates 170 3.5 51 0.3 Single Family Detached 857 17.9 2,155 2.5 Single Family Cluster 179 3.7 1,958 11.0 Multi-Family 19 0.4 382 20.0 Subtotal 1,225 25.5 .4,546 3.7 Commercial Retail 23 0.5 Office 14 0.3 , Subtotal 37 00' 8 Pu_ • Public Facility 3 0.1 ' Schools 31 0.6 • Subtotal 34 0.7 J, Golf Courses, Two 375 7.8 Community Open Space 2,129 44.3 1 Final Project Total 3,800 79.1 4,546. 1.19 .1 Dedicated Open Space 11000 20.9 Total Site 4,800 100.0 4,546 0.95 No specific design is available for the commercial facilities. For analysis purposes, the following areas have been assumed: retail, 225,000 sq. ft. ; offices, 290,000 sq. ft. ' •r SCIS - 3-73317-1 Recreational facilities to be developed include the following: 1. . A private country club located in the center of the project with an 18-hole golf course and a swim and tennis center. 2. A second 1B.-hole- golf course located at the east end of the project. 3. An equestrian center located in the upper northwest por- tion of the developed area. ' 4. Equestrian, bike and hiking trails. DEVELOPMENT PHASING The applicant anticipates build-out over the next 15 years. A specific phasing plan has not been defined be of a need to adapt 'o changing market demand, transportation facilities, and economic conditions. The applicant has indicated that the project will start at the west and of the site where utility - services exist and proceed to the southwest. Possible sequenc- ing by area as defined by the i4pplicant is shown in Figure 1A-2. This tentative sequential phasing has been used for purposes of analysis throughout this EIR. There is a possibility that given the proper market conditions, the developer will proceed on several of these areas- at the same time, rather than sequentially. PROJECT DESIGN CONSTRAINTS Development will be restricted to areas with slopes of less than 25 per cent. In addition, buildings are not to be constructed on exposed slopes, ridgetops, or knolls, and will be sited to avoid extensive grading. Roadways. are to be aligned so as to respect site features and visual amenities, ECIS E-73317-1 FIGURE la-Z PROJECT PHASING ASSUMPTION QUl 4i i J ! J � * �� J J R _= ,�• san ° � ra. it < d Q W _ Wyo� Ic a 'J LL J N J r. W _ . o . 1143:Wd 3A ainwno ECIS • a-73317-1 Roads on the property are to be different from County standards. Construction without conventional curbs is proposed. A four foot gravel shoulder is proposed on all primary and secondary roads and an eight foot shoulder on all tertiary roads that serve individual housing units. Primary and secondary roads ate proposed with a 24-foot road surface and the tertiary roads with a 22-foot surface. All primary and secondary roads are proposed to be developed within a 100-foot green space and in- clude an eight foot bicycle and pedestrian land adjacent to the gravel road shoulder on one side. in some cases, this concept will result in an offset road alignment within the 100-foot right-of-way to accommodate the separate vehic-ilar and pedestrian/equestrian circulation elements. Vegetation planted on the property in conjunction with green belts along the roadways or withir residential areas will be planted in informal rather than regular designs, utilizing native vegetation where possible. Native species will also be used extensively in association with the golf course to reduce the water supply requirements and :o help provid•_� a 'more natural "fit" of the- golf course into the natural envir- onmental setting. The tertiary road system has been designed to provide internal access to individual housing units. There is minimal lot access to either primary or secondary roads.• A representative design study of a portion of Area #3 is pre-. sented in Figure 1A-3. 5 *SIM SCUD .wKst,tt►t A�3 lk Wi -•-:.,fit...,,,,. ' � ��c b '��.- J `: t ' Jam,. •art- •� • ti. ,{�►',,, ,� •`s•"�.•. •... ..010 ..-..,,• • •.;, ECis R-73317-1 PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY Terrain features have defined the structure as a series of residential areas which will be somewhat isolated from each other and have their own distinctive character and identity. The centrally located country club and major commercial areas will provide the- main community focus. ECIS E-73317-1 PART A ' &eotion 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY 'OF REGION Its 01 ECIS 40 ' S77%�1 t.{ .. :. _ •[,:), • � .I,�.\•, c•.,y,...:�i'/� ~� ,... ..._,,....4 1,• �� LCL•� mg, •,� l_``'. ,��` -, rJ" ��i :r�• ��' (t .�•1 � •�''ti '��- tom': ' � °; .� , LIN IL '� r- moi'}. �, , , jl:•\� f� C. ..' s•��(_� �' .; g, �;.^K/•sem=,� +y :;'�`�: 1f �:;�:, ,� �._.�'.Mi.� _ � .. .� �•/ � `� �i�•f�r N4 ••,ter ��`�,,•`/ Irf',r...., w� �. •h:��;�,� V '•�'•; 't'�� 1r',.11. Gi f � 'i �i'/'.sti? �' J., 11�.� '1�' j--- t �, _ 11� .✓.'7.=- J.... r �,..'�-?'.•-j-•)-{ '�, . t! +`: i 1 t - c; �l:'� ! .l� �ywj-!i;•.- -=' �... . it � ' �• �� e 1._:,- � ••\J � . :�'t�•-.-� .�% +wry•� � '� ' } `�'•�•`"�_• _ •, SIM"'j"'�',�r � — .r�.-'+' •�~,� � ,` ' �1M._ DI s .� w ` Srf� ,�� ;.tet' � °�'\,•,' �. � �r�l�`�. � ^._•�.` �,. _ ':-..�� -:�. t V.i� a .� ,••' ;- rr� � .j. - f \l.{� y ti �� ti..w:� : a �,T j ��`�`•` •tea .�, �1 �. ,'.�••:, r-' ' =��y �::.��' •'s -� }•, �� -..': �M, =�� ;'' �� '� ,,. ., �' tel.'_ `�.S W 1 • ,`�.,� •-. .. �..�, _ �' .� '''- , 1, t ;�!•.._ } , y Y ,j.�� f,.' rl �.r• It. t, . Woo— ,�. a' ,;', . _,; ';`•._'•,j...�` '• f• •,. e'� .•f V/��/// _ �• Blackhawk .f __ ..r �:' ! {� ,•. �. "r; ; t: Ranch � '' •• `moi ir� •° �' Fri Vii. _ . ''' ;± " Figure 2A-1 TOPOGRAPHY ol 1;. %:.tCt' � `� l�O `' I} ! E ° •�j 7� 1 1,� i� ' r ( .3�•/� 'Elevations --10001 '� o ,; _ �2 ._.t'.^.,� .` • //`` n _ ..__._ 800, • w r ECIS . E-73317-1 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY OF REGION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (Appendix B) The Blackhawk site is characterized by considerable variations in topography as shown in Figure 2A-1., Ground surface eleva- tions generally vary from a low of approximately 620 feet (Mean Sea Level Datum) on the south edge of the parcel near Blackhawk Road, to a maximum of 1,965 feet at a peak in the northeast corner of the property. PRESENT LAND USE Most of the'4,800 acres which comprise the Blackhawk Ranch are being utilized for cattle grazing. At present, there are approximately 400 cows and 400 calves on the property, or a little less than one head of cattle per five acres. Cattle are kept on the ranch throughout the year with grass forage . supplemented with hay during the winter months. The hay is produced on approximately 200 acres of land on the southern half of the property. In addition to hay, approximately 100 acres of the ranch is planted in English walnuts grafted onto black walnut stock. These trees are maintained and annually harvested. There are four large ponds located in the central part of the ranch and numerous small ponds scattered throughout the ranch. The large ponds were constructed approximately 45 years ago and are used primarily for irrigation. The smaller ponds are fed by springs or seasonal runoff and are located in a number of the small drainages that exist on the property. These smaller ponds are used primarily for stock watering. • ECIS $-73317-1 The few buildings located on the ranch include a small ranch house presently being used as an office by Blackhawk Develop- ment Company, a large hay and horse barn, and several small sheds and storage buildings. These buildings are -located in the central portion of the ranch along Sycamore Creek. A small group of buildings including the ranch foreman's house is located on the east side of the ranch along the west branch of Alamo Creek. SURROUNDING AREA The area surrounding Blackhawk can be characterized as follows: to the north - rugged hills terminating in Mount Diablo and the State Park along the northern property line; to the east and south - rolling hills and farm lands. These areas are predomi- nately used for grazing.. There is no significant residential development at• present in either direction. The major areas of development lie to the west along the I-680 corridor extending eastward toward Blackhawk. The nearby attractive communities of Danville, Alamo, and Diablo are currently experiencing heavy residential growth, most of which is low density, high cost, single-family and estate development. The pattern of development in the Diablo exclusive community around the country club has been essentially determined. Its eastern edge will be the South Gate Road to Mount Diablo and The Athenian School which lies between the Diablo community and Blackhawk Ranch. Because of the rugged terrain, little . if any development is expected to take place along the southern side of Diablo Road as it extends toward Blackhawk Extensive residential development has begun and is expected , to continue down the Sycamore Valley along Tassajara Road. 10 EC18 E-73317-1 This growth area already has extended from the 1-680 freeway at San Ramon to the intersection of Sycamore Valley Road and Tassajara Road some 1-1/2 miles to the east. This valley ex- tends eastward to Blackhawk Road and the south side of the t project area. Currently, there are a few scattered houses and farms along its length. The current development in the Sycamore Valley lies approximately 3 miles to the.west of the south central corner of the Blackhawk property.. This development is predominately low density conventional single=family housing with little distinguishing characteristics. in the immediate vicinity- of Blackhawk Ranch there are a number of small pri- vately developed estates and ranches. There are a group of 11 homes located to the east of Blackhawk Road just north of its intersection with Tassajara Road abutting the Blackhawk property line. These homes are rural in character and informally devel- oped. There are homes located at the southeast end of the pro- ject area along and north of Tassajara Road just east of the intersection with Lawrence Road. These houses are also rural in character and have little to distinguish them. Undeveloped parcels exist in the immediate vicinity of Blackhawk Road. UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES The utilities currently on-site are typical of the rural services the area adjacent to Mount Diablo. There are no community facilities on site. CIRCULATION The regional traffic facility is presented in Figure 2A-2. The facility in the vicinity of the proposed project is presented in Figure 2A-3. • 1 1 EC1S 2-7717-1 s f{f if • •'i it �4` ', � �j'A ��♦ / •�. 1 1 w}••_/ �y t�} I � 1 10it At I L. '��--- f k� � ''!•- ij � %.,:fit ,';`�� _`,� j''•. } •,I� ' }'S i� ~ ' //� 1 it j 3 �� FIGURE 2A-2 REGIONAL NETWORK ECIS E-73317-1 Figure 2A-3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 2 Lan* �► 33 NO 11 730 •'' ® ' 2 Lane ` 3S wo 2 Lan* One 2S mph curve 7S,wph 140 9 50 r Ak - One 20 mph curve 35 0 °�+ 1 090 awvr�u. 0 :1 • BtA�EKHAVNk"y.._' 7 200 �•��'. i 4 Lan* 4S mph d 2 Lane 2 g GS mph 41 500 One 35 mph curve +y4 1 640 2 Lane iS wph Estimated Current Traffic Volume Vehicles Per Day (J.J.Forristal) ECIS 8-73317-1 APPLICABLE PLANS AND CONSTRAINTS This topic is covered in detail in Section 1.0 Part B. The area of the proposed project is covered by a number of plans and services including: a. The 1962 Contra Costa County General Plan b. The 1967 Alamo-Danville General Plan c. The 1973 Contra Costa County open-Space Conservation Plan d. The San Ramon Unified School District e. The Danville Fire Protection District f. The East Bay Municipal Utility District q. The Mount Diablo Plan of the State Department of Parks and Recreation h. The Central Sanitary Service District i. The Local Mass Transit District J. The 1966 ABAG Regional Plan, and h. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission Geology (Appendix 3-1) �' �, ` `'`��j•' The underlying rock formations result in a vertically-oriented structure of relatively sharply defined layers as shown in , Figure 2A-4. r�Sa;;..v,. L•a.� �';.�.Qo�L.c,•� i�}':^^�. V� 4yU' Ci W-k4. Vn G�h.��c�4 :,rt r„� ;,1 �a � �... �'•.A•,.�: 1� A thin to moderately thick soil cover overlies bedrock on the slopes, which tends to be unstable under certain conditions and shows evidence of. landsliding. Mosb' of the surface soils in the alluvial-filled valleys appear to have a low-to-moderate potential for expansion and some of these soils may have a high expansion potential. The soil characteristics of the site are summarized in Figure 2A-5. (-ThAA vo w•-'� {h�'1` r••..•; ,,- N. Ka o+� mac.�►-•�.�. e.�.•.uu�A^ , 14 { -�ou,�don a,�c� ��coS� - ��s .L�, �Itw•�.�Sr cl�a�. • Zn�et�nLciv..� Mi�bk �no� o��V•e,.�. Mme.. L:r•..1��:+.->n ECIS E-73317-1 1 • Ck. all t•M +--y� n.na tlrw Ism t i IOM ON � Ok ;1•P.,_: '�f,� r '1• .1' 1. . • .. �• :I:f; is+)•l.'.t;�:f'F:1,•!'::+;L:f;'.`t:f f:•h.I�yl• 1 loco 1 1 r: 'f':f••: t fit 0 :.'i:••.'!, .'!L•Nilr•p•.f. .f•1;ri'1.l. ' 1 71: 1: :1:14�y.1.I��1..�.AI•f:jf71'f.{:1'•r:j.y'�l'•1' n 1.060 •1M0 •IA1D NtI*N AW WUP p • 110l►1 pA14.1.. p I"PIw a.q AW i.11w040w% El 04 twM+r © Figure 2A-4 i.Y.11#...t 1.•I.w.l..#0 wow M.6""d I.O.•1. • Iwo.1.hap-117Y.wu.1 w V8.11+41 •.1w.►+Mu...r:../.r.fw MM,.•...uN1 w:.Ir i1l.wwlw P+M.W It 3+ wV..7"•.60.,.1W:M61rN.,.rrM•►MI..W.r+wwb.d.Iw.I,r.�wwL.M u+tAAu:aclaoacc+nl•slclwrl ►��IIt7 A 7.117111 .t-X�IAI I:ACa M...K ..•.Cw ' A.r�www.w wr. C...•7 C...C..•..,C4-'••-- The only known fault within the property limits is an un- named east-west trending fault at the extreme northwest cor- new of the site. The distance to known active faults from the site are: The Calaveras Fault,; 3�s� 'iev�Ls� The Pleasanton Fault;-5 miles The Hayward Fault, 13 miles The San Andreas Fault, 32 miles Hydrology (Appendix B-2, B-3) Due to the semivertical rock structure shown in Figure 2A-4 no significant groundwater resources underlie the site. The watersheds for the area are presented in Figure 2A-6. "!� '/!cti.��',,•� y n,t4 a�E 14n,�,,tiv3 �-ar.c.�1��5 v�,tt�\ d.'.i$.n..-.•�,�, . �,U �� b f c+�+. .,r•,t�. Gt�rt�►�J►Q'� ��:c�„.ia� �+. �U\�lu ri �,`• „`; + �a•�-r�,.�L' � �..:4.vu.t,�. .'..,c,1..� ( t �ejr �V� 1 Jr w Ecis F�gare 2h-S SUWARY OF SOIL CHRUC gI TICfi '� r•� f Q Q Z•� y cr :� r ,•. .!�'fir 1 •s: '•.`• {.`�.�:� � ' �t,� ., ',1;�' c • _ : ,�� Vit' ` �� . ,,J ti }• '+�..�� .1"„ t � /, , l �,�•..�� `,,•fir/ '•r� � ',',►'. !*,� 1.`�' •� ,',' `�/"�;/,' til r = :)vf' 'Vit' �� ': "�, s1 • \••�, AI ell 0 ,0 .. �. ' .00 �••�� per. ' .1 Z*.6 T�►ew=ED *,SAS •..:. l•�,,�;;,—^: �,,''" .. .. OS ` t f r e! O i �'ver t �' \ t •• It + S• , K <`e,• ,y:•'�. C.t •�. ,;. � 2. �+•�.� .. ,x. �, / , ^ 1, ,'i�'j�,:� ,•• J�t i 'S'+'�t 'T, ':;' tA~'�hr'''� `�.c• tl� �Y'`t:� ` � IN f yS• fir:�• �. !, � ,.. J'•,.�4'•• v ��?' f�tt ` ♦♦' `•i lit .1141 It of .?ltd. •• .,. .,� •� ;. =:+•`r ' :• ;�: '�.!f�1,� �' •. ,� '�'� •,> V ':w,1• is '.�.. Y' � / • { `r:�; '�. .+ ' y.{�• \. r �' 1 t IN fir, .tib el '�, ".tr rT:h•" .! ' .. tie ' t won ECUS E-73317-1 Tributaries of two drainage systems within the parcel, the Walnut Creek System on the west and the Alameda Creek System on the east, generally drain in a south, southwest, or south- east direction. The Walnut Creek System has had a history of flood control problems. Drainage areas for the property are presented in Figure 2A-6. The valleys in the western portion of the ranch are extensions of Green Valley and Sycamore Valley which are themselves ex- tensions of the larger San Ramon Valley to the west. The natural drainage from this system, the Walnut Creek System, circles to the northwest of Mount Diablo and empties into Suisun Bay by way of Pacheco Creek. Green Valley which is part of the Walnut Creek System, has had a history of flood- ing problems. The valleys on the eastern portion of the ranch are northern extensions of Alamo Valley and are drained by Alamo Creek which passes to the southwest and empties into iSan Francisco Bay. ECOLOGY (Appendix C) The results of biotic surveys by the JARA team are presented in Figure 2A-7. Rare, Endangered, or Depleted Species Two species were identified: . a very rare snake, the Alameda striped racer; and a salamander being depleted by landscape changes, the California tiger salamander. Wildlife Species .A considerable variety of species exists on site. The numbers and density of these species varies seasonally. In terms of recreation, deer are the most important, wildlife species. A 1JARA Report, Page 55, Table F 18 ECUS ' ' E-73317-1 large number of the deer collected by hunters in Contra Costa County are taken in the vicinity of Blackhawk Ranch. A good sized deer herd exists on the ranch with most of the animals spending their entire lives within a mile of the place where they were born. On some parts of the ranch, deer may reach a density of 20 to 35 individuals per square mile. They feed primarily on grass in the winter and browse in the summer. Some minor movement of deer from Mount Diablo does occur down water courses to the lower parts of the ranch during the winter, but generally there is very little movement of the deer in the area. Mountain lions may occasionally be found on the upper portions of the property. These large cats, while not abundant, are not uncommon in the Mount Diablo area. Golden Eagle Golden Eagles are known to frequent the Mount Diablo area. These birds nest at the higher elevations and forage at all elevations. The grazing lands of Blackhawk are believed to be one Source of food supply for the Golden Eagle. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES NEAR BLACKHAWK SITE The boundaries of the Blackhawk site are contiguous with several agricultural preserve areas as shown in Figure 2A-8. r . 19 A FIGURE 2A-7 t. Grassland Savanna chaparral t ® Streanside Woodland t • El Foothill Woodland o Walnut Orchards ki 9�pCKN4 w • k'Rpgd A EPS Ftrsum 2A-7 BIOTIC CMNITIES (BASED ON JARA SURVEY) Ow •r ter••�►��'. .. ��. `.. �;• ti ,•�:1ti'� � ':. "sic; t I�. II i f ' t • TASSAJARA ROAD ECIS E-73317-1 1 � C;3 Figure 2A-8 .�wuN►t email . . AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES OIM ` El BLACKHAWK LEGEND •�\ © MAJOR MAKS ® WATERSNEO LANDS MILITARY LANDS un ••• 0-81.u16 $I on cow"C"A d"Ww w..u.91048twom © AORICULTURAL PRESERVES ��: :�;:":� ��;:�;�.:•• • • RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE The relationship of the project to the approved open space plan is shown in Figure 2A-9. Mount Diablo State Park lies along the northern boundary of the site. Socio-economic Conditions The socio-economic characteristics of the area are discussed in detail in Appendix E and in Section 1.0, Part B. 22 ECIS E-73317-1 . Figure 2A-9 RELATIONSHIP OF BLACKHAWK TO 1973 GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE WAL NARC E K :.•.•.•:.•.•:::,.;.;.;.,.;.;.;.;•,.,.,. . .,.•.,.•. , ' •. . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .�• , . . . . . . . . .,• . . • . . . •'• . . . . . . . . . . . ••• . . . . . . • . .'.'. . • . ..ti.�, . .M... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •,•••,. .,.,•,. •.,.,•,.,. . ,.,.,• . . • . •,., '. ,.,. .,••. • .' .'.'.'.•.'.'.•.'.'. •.•.', . . •. .•.'. ►� : : ,, . . . . . . :� • . . . . . •.• ex. • . . Alamo •:•. : .•.• . . . ;,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ; . . . . . ' . . . . . �'.'.•.•.•.•:•.':•:'.•:''.•. •.•.'.•.'.•.' .•.•. . . . . . . • • Ob • • ::::::.:.: . . . 00090,000,06464 0 0 0... o : . . o00 0 ':'.•: ,.'►W.'.ti . .•'•• .'.•.• � . . Ramon •.•::. . . . . . :.•:.•.�.�. :�.•.• ':•.•: . . 00. . . : . . o Open Space • ;�• Areas Slated for Dedication . ECIS E-73317-1 Figure 2A-10 �..� �. . .._ .... t._ _ . .. .� i i• ,~ t ♦ Hyl t � z• ��; *4ii iv v ........ ...• .. 1 ♦ tt.•t . • `. +, ,7r- �'•t t. JiJ't . —wl r —•1• { .� 1 ,Z_ jai► l `} 7, t _`T— '7 � �t� ...Ja!"w��iyTs' ..l�`•.��i i,(�'' 4(.\,'•i{ S• IL yti\rte •�. .+�:. 'u.`'j � ,``_'.iii \ .S}•t77 n1 �j•�d V R.r+•....It • . oz rl :.� ! It + `} • '"� � • `�� 'r~'� 1»��ti1�+.�5� R�+� y . j ••�•�•�it `;1•,•�.J"''1� �� tf� � yl��t} t, �r��L:,. /'f;,l�`i. -� ; 7 tt Q. �SCAtA iN}EEt y �} PRINCIPLE PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES 0 BLACKHAWK RANCH "QUARRY" ® AREAS OF RANCH WITH HIGHEST PROBABILITY FOR VERTEBRATE FOSSILS SOURCE: JARA REPORT. APPENDIX A ECIS E-73317-1 HISTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY History The area north of the San Ramon-Walnut Creek drainage system, which includes the Blackhawk Ranch, was occupied by the Saclan Indians, a dialect group of Bay Miwok speakers who lived in the area prior to the arrival of the Spanish in Contra Costa County. The Blackhawk Ranch was established in about 1890 from a part of the Star Ranch which covered a large part of southern Contra Costa County. The area within the present boundaries of Black- hawk Ranch was nota part of any of the Spanish or Mexican land grant, and little is known of the use of the property during the American settlement. Archeology Detailed archeological examinations were conducted along the water courses and the entire area proposed for development was surveyed on foot. Archeological reconnaissance (JARA Report - Appendix B) revealed no visible archeological resources on the ranch. Palenotology (Figure 2A-10) The Blackhawk Ranch is known for its abundance of fossil leaves, invertebrates, and mammal remains. The fossils of Blackhawk Ranch have been the subject of scientific investigations since late in the nineteenth century. Initial attention was directed toward fossil leaves and marine invertebrates, and paleonto- logic activity reached a peak in the late 1930's following the discovery of the rich accumulation of fossil mammal remains, now called the Blackhawk Ranch Quarry. Research on material 25 SCIS 'E-73317-1 from this and other localities on the ranch has led to num- erous scientific publications. The ranch continues to provide educational experience as well as scientific information as it has since the early 3019. The geologic record on the ranch spans nearly 50 million years. Two Aeparate invasions of marine seaways. and subsequent fresh- water lakes and streams left sediments which enclosed the re- mains of a great variety of plants and animals. These fossil remains, most of which are now regarded to be of late Miocene Age, are most abundantly distributed in a broad band extending the length of the ranch. Rich beds of marine clams, "sand dollars," .and snails occur in the northern, older part of this band. Any fossil which remains deeply buried in •sedimentary rock is • virtually safe from destruction. However, when natural pro- cesses of erosion or the activities of man remove the overlying .rock and bring the fossil near the surface, it begins to be subjected to a variety of new conditions, nearly all of which threaten its existence. The natural processes of physical and chemical weathering, growth of plant roots, and soil creep may destroy fossils, even before they are exposed at the surface. If the slow process of erosion does expose a fossil, the same process 'will destroy it if allowed to continue. Trampling by livestock or other large animals will hasten the destruction. 26 ECUS E-73317-1 PART B Section 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION SCIS E-73317-1 w Figure 1B-1 CONTRA 'COSTA COUNTY AREA ra� , t a� * r Base Map by Contra Costa County Planning Dept., 9%73 SCIS E-73317-1 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Growth Rates and Housing Demands The scale of the proposed development is large (Table 1B-1) and project-generated effects will be 'apparent over a wide spread area (Figure 1B-1) . Market and economic considerations will tend to limit ownership of Blackhawk Ranch dwelling units to the more affluent segment of the population as shown in Table 1B-2. The rate of Bay Area population growth predicted in the 1960' s no longer applies due to a number of factors including reduction of the birth rate, energy shortages, and changing community attitudes. Various County population estimates are presented in Figure 1B-2. It appears that the recent dramatic reductions in birth rates will not forestall pressure for construction of new units. Adjusted values of ABAG housing need estimates still suggest that a large number of new dwelling units will be re- quired in the next 15 years to support new households formed by existing children of Bay Area families. 1 The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the San Ramon Unified School District. The district boundaries •define a practical study area for regional impact assessment analysis. Population projections for this impact study area are •presented in Figure 1B-3. 1Regional Housing Study - ABAG - October 1969 Values adjusted to reflect current population projections. 29 ECIS E-73317-1 Table 1B-1 ' SCALE OF PROPOSED PROJECT •1 of PlanningPlanning Area Project Area !8, Adjustd( 2) !8. Adjusted(2) Total Population 14,662 27 55,000 (1990) School Population: K-5 1,800 36 4,988(1) 6-8 1,031 35 2,958(1) 9-12 7,341 37 3,637(1) Persons/Dwelling Unit 3.23 92 3.52 ' Persons/Gross Acre •3.05 168 1.90 Gross Acres 4,800 17 28,400 . Residential Acres 1,225 7 18,950 Commercial Acres 37 24 155 (1) San Ramon Unified School District current enrollment. (2) Adjusted to include Blackhawk Ranch for purposes of analysis and comparison. • Table 1B-2* INCOME AND HOUSING VALUES Unit income Housing Type Units % Cost Required Single Family Estates 51 1.0 $100,000 $45,000 Single Family Detached 2,155 46.8 70,000 31,500 Single Family Cluster 1,958 43.4 45,000 20,500 • Multi-Family . 382 B.S . 25,000 11,250 4,546 100.01 Appendix E. ECIS Fig. 18-2 CONTRA COSTA -COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTION 1300 �pO� �y`♦�� , ��`�5 1 ' ABAG HIGH v �P POINTS 1400 r0r pOw (OCT 731��PP Q 1100 J�i� �,��1 USED FOR tS Gp GpJ IMPACT ANALYSIS • X , 1000 2 MIDPOINT ABAG HIGH/LOW ESTIMATE 900 ABAG LOW POINT > � IOCT 1973) B00 2 O 700 t Goo 500 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR Fig. 18-3 IMPACT STUDY AREA POPULATION PROJECTION (SUM OF PLANNING AREA N4 8 AND N2 9 QQ PLUS OTHER AREA AT 5.0% 8 8 9 is 140 Q 120 y�� ADJUSTED VALUE PROJECTION p� USED FOR STUDY 0 100 4' 101430 O �O Z 80 O 80 40 20 1 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 YEAR ' ecis E-73317-1 Figure 1B-4 PROPOSED/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SAN RAMON VALLEY--STUDY AREA d� F s + San Ramon Unified "` 4 800 Acres School District 4,546 Units (1.06 DU Acre) F 499 Acres r 1/ 0529 U, /f j. i QV DU/. fF " Acre) N &37 1178Q . Acres Acres 4,148 Units 1,'121 urate 2.33 DU/ Acres { 19DU ACV(,-) 2,678 ,;Units (I.49.;nu 193 Acres 34& Units 11.79Du/ Acre) Total Proposed/Planned* 9,230 Acres, 14,242 Units (1.54 DU/Acre) -- Total A22roved 31341 Acres, 70548 Units (2.26 DU/Acre) • rsm San 9mon Unified school District Study# systme rianninq Corporation. ECIS E-73317-1 The adjusted curve of Figure 1B-3 reflects a proportional change to match the differences in the total County model. Based on the adjusted value curve of Figure 1B-3, a study area population increase of 71,000 from 1970 to 1990 would be forecast. The change in County population for the same period is forecast as 285,000 persons. The study area represents about 14% of the area of the County. Using this value, the projected population for the study area would be 39,900 persons (56% of the study area value) . From 1960 to 1970, growth in the study area occurred at a much higher rate than that for the County as a whole. Consequently it would be reasonable to expect growth rates in the study area to be somewhat higher than for the County. Selection of a particular rate would be hard t6 defend. As an alternative, a value equal to the average of the two previous estimates was used. This value is a forecast increase of 55,400 persons in the study area from 1970 to 1990. This would result in a 1990 population of about 86,000 which is comparable to the estimates of the San Ramon Unified School District Study. The predicted population increase can be expressed in terms of dwelling units. The number of occupants per dwelling is a function of both the type and the market value of the dwelling unit. For purposes of analysis, the average value of 3.23 occupants per dwelling as derived in Appendix E was used. The population increase of 55, 400 represents a center value of about 17 , 200 dwelling units. Currently proposed and/or planned units in the study area are summarized in Figure 1B-4. Some 14,000 units are involved and about 1/2 of these represent approved programs. Approval of Blackhawk Ranch would raise the total of approved units to • 33 ECIS E-73317-1 } • about 12,100 units. This total would represent about 7096 of the forecast growth in the period 1970 to 1990, and Black- hawk Ranch represents about 1/4 of the predicted total study area growth. In large measure, the above factors will preclude some of the County's options, particularly a long-term no-growth option. Location and price range rather than growth/no-growth will probably be the central issue of the future. It is unlikely that Contra Costa County can avoid the inevitable social issue of the need to accommodate low and moderate cost housing in its growth areas, particularly if the County pursues its policies on industrial development in those growth areas. The ABAG 1969 Housing Element forecast a. need for 191,000 units in Contra Costa County in the period from 1970 to 1990. Adjust- ment of this data to more recent population estimates would reduce the forecast demand to 160,000 units. Scaling of the County value on the basis of land area (14°x) would yield a demand of 22,500 units for the study area, which suggests that the demand of 17, 000 new units used for the analysis is a con- servative value. The ABAG study suggested a need for a mix of 60% single family units and 40% multiple family units. Blackhawk Ranch will be • comprised of about 9iO/. single family units which reflects in the totals for the 14,000 units proposed and/or planned units. With Blackhawk as part of the 14,000 units, about 80% will be single family units. Without Blackhawk Ranch, the remaining 10,000 units would be comprised of nearly 70Yo single family units. If the adjusted ABAG demand projections are realistic, approval of the units proposed for the study area will only serve a portion of the forecast demand. The general plan for • the study area calls for low density development. Low density 34 S SCIS E-73317-1 in turn implies high cost, single-family, unit development due to economic and market considerations. General Plan Compliance ( A number of approved districts and plans, including the County Open-Space Plan, the Alamo/Danville Area Plan, the East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and the Mount Diablo State Re- . gional Park Plan cover all or part of the proposed project. The Contra Costa County Open-Space Conservation Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors in June 1973. During the June hear- ings, the Board of Supervisors was specifically advised that the open-space plan would permit consideration of Blackhawk Ranch for development because the property was divided by the open-space plan boundaries (Figure 1B-5) . iThe northern boundary of the Blackhawk property is contiguous to Mount Diablo State Park as shown in Figure 1B-5. The areas proposed for dedication are also shown in the figure. Recent interest in additions to Mount Diablo State Park 'are reflected An the boundaries as presented in Figure 1B-6. The boundary relating to the "appropriate acquisition" a:eas1 appears Lo correlate with the 1000 ft. -elevation contour, which, for the most part, is above the proposed development areas. It appears that Blackhawk is dedicating the areas of most interest to the State Department of Parks and Recreation) and plans to use the .lowest priority area (appropriate acquisition) as private community open-space. 1Conferences with State Department of Parks and Recreation Staff Members. . . 35 , r SCIS E-73317-1 Figure 18-5 OPEN SPACE & PARK BOUNDARIES WALN SEK . • .• •. • . . • • •♦ • a • t is ; • i :♦•. f # ♦♦ X .•• t s •its iia i a •t i + � •••t s••••♦:•ti•••t• `•♦ ••i i♦♦•t•1•i•!M••i•Y•t•Y•♦aY••a • • • • • r • :!•:• v 1 •^•� r t4.ia i i# • i• •t i•• ••#•�i • :• • t••♦iaiY;•;•; •i • • • • • • ! • • • • Y • • • Y • • • • t :Y•:• • • M • •i!ia•••: � ♦ ! i i• • • ;i#•� •• a Y•••a•• ` •::i•••i•i•t•:i`i•••a`{!i•:{•• ♦ :i•t`Y•• ♦ • • ta• •i i 1 i �wt •� t#• ♦i•#! •# t### aa•i• :+•:••f`::• \ ! • f • i • • • • t • Y • ♦ ! • ••••:••:••••::::♦•:f•:�:a"•'•M,)�li y�� ::�i:•!i•::�• • • •i •a•`Y • ••••••• ••Y••aY i • # ! • i • i • • • ♦ i • e • • i • • t ••• ••••j�4ih- • f�♦ � !f t• i 1 a • • a • • e ♦ R . \ • i • M • • . . ! • ♦ . R • •!•t Y • • • • Y • • • �. {•.�`i'w,� •„�. . •• •• i 1 1'# • • •aa • • , . Y'laa a ♦ ! s ! e • ## • i • • a. • • • • • a • • • • ,•j•�,. s R •!•• •••i•ia'.`•IE,' : •`•`t♦a:::a`i•t` • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • •i♦`aia !l/aFYY•• 3nv-�.� � '.•��'"^.�� i•#•L#••1 i t] f • i • • • • • • M t a • • • ••• ! • Y • • • • yaf } 1 •�q yl••J,`�s i.• ,•lii;i;i;;;;• • • • :aa• • • • • • • •i • 1;•i•:• •••• ti!•f • :'•"2♦ � ) 1• • i t ♦i i • :..f t • ia•;iai••,Y +a •••f•♦•••i•i•••a•• iii•♦1!`•Ra• 1 • ••• • :Y Y•�. 11jV�. 1• �..Q�•�••,ii.i•i • i • Y`• Y • i ••••`:a a • • • ! • • • • • i • f • a sr ♦ ti it e` "• t i a•a� _+•la i ! 1 4#•#•♦•• a" ia,•t• • M • • • i • • ♦ • i i 1 :• • • • • • • •� {�:' {• `i1••i i#• ## t i i • :i• i i i i a•a • ## • • #4 4 • • • # • ••! t t t,•' C,ji! y 1} 11:�:ti•! afiaf!• 4.•i••••t`ia at♦ •••i;♦;•;f;i;•;i;••+: •••;•+•;! f`:i aj{'1.�•�•\^. +`♦i, i1{Y• Y ••i i i•• •#i• •Y••• aa• Y • • • • • 1 ai• {�` t /w""7 i'l•ihC>L''-'la b• ',•/{}`}_SII • # •• • • • • 1 • • f • . . •••Y rdt�•��, :I j��,,a`s�� t��1.» • •i i • t • • li.•:••"•a• Y ••Y i••. • • ♦•i•w•t;•;•;•;Y;•"1•♦•Y••a Y•4 J• ` u•1• :# • # a•aa 1 • • • • • ••:••••• afi♦ #�� M • • • M • Y • i • � • • t • • •. :i•• • • !•. �It �•� i�'fI �'•iift�it•i: •aY:t!•a ••••• a a • t • • t i • f i a • t `••i• •••"♦"• iii i � • •� . i t M • • # • • a • • • • •••,♦• • •'V•`(«L M{�.��.a. �/ 4� �i;t•iii is•# i • i i •i•it••YY• R .•tt• • f ' •'.t"l..'pi+•'.' r�,w'r'�I+}1r. 1 � #f • # i: `:• • ••ia••i••,• ;;;;, ti•\1•• t.•�• •• #;. i t,�w"S�tM,'��1•"�-a,.�•,r..�j ��'••!•ii#ii•#ii# + i•••;••Y i•a• •;•;+•••♦ Alamo `•!•+`• �'1►` .:-�. ; ••• +•::• :•••` aa:•:•:•:•:•`• � 1,, t • a X.;.;•;•• \ ♦p TiL4�T •#•. +a .• .��. �?�i)r#�»` •ii::••: aaa••:a`••Yii•.•i':•`• a•;•;•a i•1af 5 • •t L � Yi•a•;t•fi•`• ! i i • •"••• ♦ • X. '•.,',+;•;ii♦;+a•a 1` i•f,••IIa ;• l ai t•ia a•, /f • i t"i•i`•t ! . • e a • • w �• fa• • t Y t Y ♦ cart." • ! • • •a::••• :•ata a`aa;•*•;Y••"•t•t.•1ta ,•i•,•,i •aY •ia",t • ,� , ,t, ' a "•aat••a•i a•• •ata t•ta"a '•,t,t,",t•a,• t,tata ,•••a• tae • ,t• • •tt• ••••R••f • �/ •; ••••• • • • • ;•••a•ta • • • • • • •afi• 1 • •a•a• •• ..... . . . . . . . . . (�•at+,•,•••Y.,a•+,•, a•a••! a :taaai`• +•ii• l,le `• •::•`::as ••4A 4xt*iM• .t••t•a•ii:aat • aa•a•, •f`f e f ,",t, • 1 • • • • • t • • • • • • a i•a• ,t,+,t•Ra•t•a` •f•• • • fiY• • • • • t1Ya•a alaYa .i,,,�•,•• , •i!•i•t is •i;a;a; ,•;Y`f 1 •aaa•• •'Yat i•i•• •i:Yi `•`ati+•Y`• • ,•a•,ttil;l •a• • •i•;••• ( •... • •Y ; •;ia• a + • • • t Y,,•.,a •Yi •••` t •a•;t; •;i.l; .R•• . •ilea ••♦ + • • •••••a •1i::•s•••t`a it a•aR•• • :••::• ••• ,",•, • :iia ::::i`it,f•• • • • •iia::t`a` •••ia `` :i••!••i•;••i aY! •• faf•+i•a t a•;a • :Y`• ••1•Y•••:••::•Y• a•♦•a,,a a•i•a•a:••••a•`•Y •••,• ,♦♦••1••!!Y•••i:a•``a t ••+•ia + . .. . . . ••♦a• Ste\ ! t t f i a • + ♦ i i i • : ` a •� ♦ • +•t • • t • • • , a • • •` ...... V:i♦1•••••:!"• t•:••:♦•••t••It•••:i• ♦li iii•••••••i1•!a`t••♦i• � �(T�,.�w. •t1a: • ••�i iiltl••a•it; ai t,•,•,•,••it1+• ; , i • • • •••;• ; • •a ,D • • • Y :a i ;a ••aY• ••i•i!••!t•;!i `• ••ti•;i;••••f`i•• `\ •`Ma 1•••`•`a`a•;:• X. :!•• ;•;•;::a••;y;• •• a;•if•,t•Yi•.•it •Ya!•i•:,••••• \ ;••Yaa;aa•;♦ a•i•••;, . a! : • i a ,• f • i+ fit•:••+•:Iai • aia t • •" • + �,M,i;•; ;:• • • ::::, � :!•Y•••Yia•aa • ••Y• a•Yi;f+i;taa; :• i # • t • i +•i • ,•iYa•••i•ttai; • •;• • ta• •; • i"Ra •1•a •aia . V.•�i••i•••i i #!i•i• i •• •i•i taYaa •aR•• • ii \iii Y •• � •i♦•;•• i;t.• i is la• t • `•!Ya ; •♦lYY; • •"i•t �5pRamon a . . . . • + .•.•: . . :•• : :•. . Y :; . : ; Open Space •' : ;•' Areas Slated for Dedication i • t'Mt. Diablo State Park " w,, ; State Game Refuge • ECIS E-73317-1 } FIGURE 1B-6 too t Iwo : IKER� E loe I+ • • �'. \, •�� . , tib /`�,/�'�4 } .. \� r� � '1/PD( 1•• `I'. •� , .. •,,• ` �� •_ f�� \\ .T.4r.� t 1``~:til\��\/19b .�,\.. • / ��i \� � `l ,of �� r • v�, A, as �� / �Y. �a/ }' .` •, �= fps 84 4 � Q•. Jo 4 ww LEGCN Lel{fIM{ {TAT( ►Illi {OUrOA{•.. .. '•r .• 1• ' , r (Orr[ OT {TAT[ •IAA •••••• NO{T Ir•OQgrT Atoulsnlor+•• O•• •i SIT. WAa60 fTAT[ MAK MT•'rte•+•o•'�`a w.ow ,•• ••• • D(•A{IMCO•A•KS AND AFC(CAMN II,•'�- ._: - ;dGOU/SI TION EXHIS!T/SI TION EXHIBIT" • {[{INA{l[ KQUISITIOr1, O i A••NM{IAT( ACQUISITION coe-ll/ - - i ECI..a�"'`i E-73317-1 Figure 1B-7 RELATIONSHIP OF BLACKHAWK TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING AREAS • • + • • • • s • , + • • s ................... •i••iiiifiiiiiii • • • + • • , • • • ! • ! • a s • • • •+: .;+;• :+'+ • +;+;+'+:•;+;+• ' ++••:a'• • AREA •.. +♦. . . . + .!.•:•'�.{.•• i•• . » ; . . \ taw,• ! a•,•�s'••+a' ••:::::••:+'+ ••::::+`:e'•+:::::::: + r + + A{oma •.•: +•. - • •• : +•.•::.•••.�: • . + , r . . . . . . . . . : . . _;• •+ •'a'a' •♦ • • • . •+:• • ,'• a++' '.••'• •'+•• 000 + i • • ' ••'•'''' •'•�t" �` +'•••' AREA #9 •+.•:••.'t} ••••• .l ! i,;;;;;;�:�:•:�: ' :';': ' :: :•:: s e , . • • • • • + s i • • + Ramon ° �'''•� • ::•:•::•:•:�: Open Space '+.• ;:� Areas Slated for Dedication ECUS E-73317-1 The proposed plan appears to be compatible with the 1973 Contra Costa County Open Space Plan and the State Department of Parks and Recreation current plans relating to Mount Diablo State Park. The proposed project is not in compliance with the existing approved County General Plan. Blackhawk Ranch is partially in the Alamo/Danville planning area (#8) and partially in an area still covered by the 1962 General Plan as shown in Figure 1B-7. Compliance problems relate to inclusion of commercial facilities, multi-family unit density, and overall density definitions. Even though Blackhawk Ranch is only partially in Planning Area #8, the development was tested for local compatibility as though it was completely in Planning Area #8 (see Appendix E) . The results of this study indicated that% ` • 1. Proposed population densities based on. gross acreage exceed planned densities by a factor of 3.05/1.9 = 1.61. 2. The percentage of open-space is higher for the proposed project than for the planning area by .a factor of ' 73/27 = 2.7. 3. Net residential unit densities appear to be somewhat higher than that forecast value for 1990 for Planning Area #8 which is 1 to 3 units per net acre. Blackhawk, Ranch unit densities as compared with recently ap- proved developments in the south county area are summarized in Table 1B-3. . Excluding the recently approved Open-Space Plan,. the last General Plan revision for the subject area occurred in 1967 and this revision did not include the entire Blackhawk site. The General Plan may need revision to reflect current conditions reldting to transportation, energy conservation, and functional relationships. This need for revision exists independent of the Blackhawk Ranch project. Blackhawk Ranch adds pressure for an 3' _9 r ECIS E=73317-1 •�1 1 w x w w w w w m w w m •� o . a H a+ O 14 N E1 a iQ', h O co M M %D w 1D h O► Ln Ln to N .•i h 01. . N O I' O. 0. .M O Q,. ' H 1 O N m N N N M N rl M M M O H M � O G 1 Iq r♦ C7 N O Ln O w w h O M O► N O %D O • i� O O w w O 0 0 m •-I r•1 0 d' Q) ai O rI lf1 w w v M N N r1 ri H 0 Ln Ck 1� O T D N LA d' IH . ai • Gl O N �' �D M O O O M M N O pW� O M rl %D N ri rl .-1 rl ri r- 00 �i z a' .••1 N �' a r u a o v o u 41 °q a N w ry O 4) r. b ul 3 14 a o b >, W >1 >4 .i°9 04 .0 , w 0 w 0 0 u ai >1 ro aoi aCr aoi � ov a �n o 0 H 0 0 as r • ECIS E-73317-1 accelerated update of the General Plan, as well as pressure for expansion of the Urban Service Areas. URBAN SERVICES Development of any appreciable scale requires adequate water and sanitary sewer services. These are the key urban services so that in effect, the bounds of the Urban' Service Area dictate where development can occur. This automatically means that given the boundary of an Urban Service Area, there will be pres- sure from areas just outside the boundary for "slight" extension of the service area. It has been our observation that people who want to live in a certain area will relocate in that area despite. known traffic, • school and public safety problems. Blackhawk Ranch will create growth pressure by extension of the Urban Service Area to the Tassajara Valley (Figure 1B-8) . Most of the area of the Blackhawk Ranch site proposed for residential development is in the EBMUD water service area. The Brard of Directors of the Central Sanitary District has recently approved annexation of Blackhawk Ranch. LAFCO must rule on annexation to the Sanitary District. Also, Black- hawk has been approved for inclusion in the local Mass Transit District. The developer has applied for adjustment of the project service area boundaries for water, sanitary sewers, and mass transit so that they are identical. LAFCO is promoting adjustment of the different district boundaries so that they are the same for each district and can be used to truly define an urban service area.1 1Based on interviews with LAFCO representative. • 41 ECIS -?331?-1 Figure 18-8 URBAN SERVICE AREAS t i ' ,,l�wwrwwr•, s. h.ftf 4 Proposed Area Boundary YM 22 ti :,•��4;y:c. ' .r,� •�}; err• 'ti. ,� •:}':��:: i•:�a 6 .s r: o, • .Y M as ')f •1 .h 1 1, 'tom r• t. `moi y•1':L. ,If,.. l w S ^4. ?^ Y v ILV' Y v S r• "". 9 ..r •.tip v+ :'•+,.; ."? p;':. ..�. :`,.1• :fir:' �., :.;�'' •.w::i • L ''�-'�• �+. ��:' '" \ •.ti.. tii.-+.,,/ ( is ` ,k ;:�• .•.� � �.+:.. �,yam,•.;:•v .. ': :' ,,!`:: �,.d•:r•. 26 :':fig�:•: �.9j,�� a iii •� :;��;:.•. Existing Area Boundary Note. Tile above areas are not to scale and.are schematic only. For exact boundaries, the reader is referred to the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) " • ECIS E-73317-1 A portion of the area to the south of the Blackhawk site is agricultural reserve land. Extension of the Urban Service Area to this boundary will tend to put pressure for development on these preserve areas. This also suggests that the community consensus on preservation of agricultural preserves can be tested on. a County-wide basis. The test will be whether or not the agriculture preserve sites are included or excluded from the Urban Service Area. ECONOMIC/FISCAL ASSESSMENT (Appendix' E) Fiscal Factors The fiscal impact of the project is presented in summary form in Table 1B-4. Impacts which relate to the revenues generated by the project and the costs associated with public goods and services de- manded by the project from local government units and special districts are summarized by service area below. Schools - The project would have a negative effect on capital costs and. a positive effect on operating costs of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District estimated. Over $11 mil- lion in physical facilities would be required for the 4 ,200 to 4,500 students of the project. The project's assessed valuation would increase the District's bonding capacity by less than $7 million. This may require renewal of the District participation in the State school construction loan programs. Estimated operating revenues generated by the project would cover operating costs and possibly produce an excess which theoretically could lower the tax rate. Acceleration of the "build-out" rate would aggravate the impact on the school district. 43 ECIS E-73317-1 Fire Protection - The land on which the proposed development would take place is served by the Danville Fire Protection District. It is estimated that the present tax rate for the District applied to the project produces a $156,000 deficiency relative to the costs of providing the project with fire cov- erage equal to the. level of coverage presently provided in the District. Police Protection - Police protection to the project area is provided by Contra Costa County. The cost .of providing police protection to the proposed development was estimated on the basis of the contract whereby the County now provides police service to the City of Lafayette; the estimated zost for com- parable service to the Blackhawk development is $212 ,000. It is estimated that revenues allocated to police protection would exceed costs by $89 ,000 annually. Sanitary Services - The project area lies within.the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District. .Annexation and fixture fees to the Sanitary District are sufficient to cover capital costs attributable to the project. In addition, capital funds generated by the property tax and earmarked for capital im- provements come to $136,000 per year. Operating costs are covered by user charges. Water - The bulk of the property proposed for development is served by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Over $4 million in capital costs not covered by annexation fees are estimated for the project. If revenues applicable to capital costs are allocated to bond retirement, $3 ,075,000 of the $4,035,000 cost could be bonded, leaving a net capital cost of $960,000. The developer will advance 60% of the capi- tal costs according to practice in the *district, thereby ameliorating the cash flow problem. A deficiency in capital revenues is forecast. Operating costs are covered by user charges. 44 ' •r ECIS E-73317-1 lIV.10 uteuu vi ' a+` kn in 44 A {! Nate►Vi+ N wl O 0mo4 yw R O a R N . . fl M uv fl i.1SiUNa N C O u+Oil'0 Y .Mq•�i VVQvjj_� +�t1 W a►ul V uH a�+ e'u0JN 0.4 fN u4s1 000yauuu � u wo qW14 0 vys• 1. �„ IH t: 331 4j .ui .0.01 a '014 Na OP4v u•. 1n v1 m 6 . 4 $4 v1 1n ias aO V $ auuau wqqOa1�• a aar4 4 1 'a �N . •}d flna�i•u C a :ova a V.#4 -,4 O YO %n 04 10 Ou 1�4 N1xW N 11 r+ a+ O M .i«44N4rttt. . uriQsTuv! C .i '04 08 V r. O on a•A 'C7 t1 14 V40 fo 4t v NQ--aup,u .4 41 a 4, Q w1 q IJ 110, V N a,,, a V 4 A 9 V A W :. a ufl w ' c ufl z a u ECIS E-73317-1 Roads - Major roads serving the area of the proposed project are the responsibility of Contra Costa. County and the costs of the road. improvements are estimated to be about $9 million. Since Contra Costa County's annual budget for road improvements is approximately $1 million, these improvements represent problems of finance and planning. Development of Blackhawk Ranch will increase the pressure for implementation of these . road improvements. Other Public Services - The analysis focused on estimates of the impact of the proposed development on -the six major public service entities in the area. Other such entities, such as the community college district, also would be im- pacted, but were not analyzed. Economic Factors ' Based on 'current projections of housing needs in Contra Costa County, it is likely that there is a market for the number of housing units proposed. Analysis also indicates that the market will be strong enough to support the retail acreage proposed. ' Any office development serving other than community needs • faces a locational disadvantage in comparison to other possible sites in suburban Contra Costa County which offer more ready access to major freeways and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. More economic analysis will be required to evaluate the eco- nomic' viability of the two golf courses since there will be at least five golf courses in the area. 46 ECiS E-73317-1 A total of approximately 2,0001 non-construction jobs re- presenting an aggregate annual income of over $14.0 million were identified as associated with the proposed project. In addition, approximately 700 construction jobs represent- ing an aggregate annual income of over $9.0 million will be generated by the project. Projected employment in the Alamo/Danville/San Ramon Valley area is in excess of 12,000 persons (11,000 in the assessment district which includes Bishop Ranch) .2 Blackhawk Ranch as well as other major projects in the area, such as Bishop Ranch, are generating employment opportunities and at the same time because of high housing prices, generally excluding employees from residency•within the projects. iThe combination of new low and moderate income jobs with no nearby housing resources for the employees will have the following adverse impacts on the County: • Increased traffic volumes, plus long trips for commuters, • Increased fuel energy consumption, and other traffic-related effects, • Pressures for expansion or development of addi- tional housing resources for low and moderate income households in other parts of the County, 1 Assuming full implementation of the proposed commercial facilities. 2 Gruen Gruen + Associates - Bishop Ranch EIR. 47 ECIS E-73317-1 0 Social and geographical segregation of the County population, and • Possible refusal of industry to locate in the area due to the lack of readily available labor. Full implementation of the development plan for Blackhawk Ranch could generate up to 2,000 additional non-construction jobs and directly conticibute to the forecast significant adverse impact of employment in the Alamo/Danville/San Ramon area. ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (Appendix C) Human activity will significantly increase on the Blackhawk Ranch property. This will inevitably lead to disturbance of existing habitats and wildlife. JARA 'reports .(Appendix C-3) the possible presence of two species which could be signifi- cantly impacted by the proposed development: a snake, the Alameda' striped racer; and a salamander, the California tiger salamander. Actual habitation by these species has not been verified at this time. The biotic community maps presented in Figure 2A-7 provide a generic definition of the location of habitats on the property. Further detailed ecological study and survey effort will be required for evaluation of each area of the project as part of the detail documentation. This re-' quirement is similar to the requirement for detailed soils and geo-technic data on each development area. 48 ECIS E-73317-1 ` RARE, ENDANGERED, OR DEPLETED SPECIES MRA) Alameda Striped Racer (Masticophis lateralis euyxanthus) This is listed as a rare species (California Department of Fish and Game, 1972) . The normal density of this population of ' snake is very low, even in areas in which it is known to occur. Therefore, actual• verification of the existence of this species on the property is very unlikely, even if it is present. The primary habitat for this snake is the chaparral habitat and adjacent grasslands. Thus, the development of the open grass- land areas on the property will have minor impact on the Ala- meda striped racer. California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma Tigrinum Californiense) This species is found in Contra Costa County and is being con- sidered for placement on the depleted species list since pre- sent lana use patterns are reducing its previous range. Suit- able habitats exist on the property for the species. Field studies on the extent of its distribution on the property could not be accomplished during the season that field observations were conducted for the report. Determination would have to be made during the months of January and February by checking the ponds and lakes for signs of larvae. Presuming the species is present, the project development could have a direct impact on the species. Specific impacts will depend on the detailed de- sign of proposed ponds and the retention of existing impoundments . for watering cattle and those along the creeks and other drain- ages. 49 ECIS E-73317-1 The other important factor will be water quality, particularly the effects of toxic substances and petroleum products in the runoff from the residential areas that could enter the ponds used for breeding sites by the salamander. In general, the impact could be positive or negative, depending on the detailed designs around the ponds. It will be positive if more ponds are created, the water quality. is not detrimental, and adequate terrestrial habitat exists around the margin of the ponds. The impact will be negative if existing ponds are filled or destroyed and water quality deteriorates. OTHER SPECIES (JARA) Mountain Lion * (Felis concolor) i Suitable habitat for the mountain lion oa the property is found in the chaparral and streamsidb woodland zones. Population is closely dependent on availability of their chief food, deer. A mountain lion normally eats a deer a week. They are far- ranging and hunt in a radius of 30 to 50 miles. No signifi- cant direct impact on the mountain lion is anticipated since the chaparral habitats are not to be developed and limited development is planned for the streamside woodland habitats. Coyote (Canis latrans) Although no direct signs of this species were observed during reconnaissance of the property, it has been reported to be on the property. Two factors seem to be quite important with respect to the existing coyote population in the area. The County has had a predator control program in operation until the Fall of 1970 that responded to requests, particularly during 50 `� ECIS E-73317-1 t .. the lambing season, and a rodent control program that is still being conducted. The predator control program has had a direct effect by reducing the coyote populations in areas where they have bothered livestock. Indirectly, the rodent control pro- gram has had an effect on coyote populations by reducing the abundance of their prey. The coyote is found in all of the habitat types found on the property. Development of the grass- land area will have in impact that will cause a reduction in suitable habitat. If, as a result of the development, the predator and rodent control programs -in the area are discon- tinued, there could be an increase in coyote population even though a substantial portion of suitable grassland habitat is developed. Golden Eagle • The Mount Diablo area is a home habitat of the Golden Eagla. The eagle is known to feed at an elevation where jack rabbits abound. * Development of the grassland areas will tend to eli- minate the carry capacity of the ranch and displace or reduce the size of the jack rabbit population on the ranch site. VEGETATION (JARA) Development of Hlackhawk Ranch will result in significant al- teration of the vegetation found on the property in the areas proposed for development. Development will occur on the lower elevations of the ranch on slopes of less than 25 pqr cent. These areas are predominantly covered with introduced . annual grasses of the valley grassland plant association and are not representative of the original native vegetation of -the area. ECIS a-73317-1 Within the developed 1,500-acre portion of the grassland, existing vegetation will be partially replaced with residen- tial, golf course, and greenway landscaping. Both proposed golf courses meander in and around the development. The greenways proposed to border the major roadways will be planted with native trees in. irregular groupings with irregular growth habits and will blend with the natural landscape. Non-native . vegetation will probably comprise the largest portion of the plants used in residential landscaping. The developer proposes to retain as open space the natural creeks and wooded drainages within the developed areas and in the balance .of the property, thus preserving a majority of the indigenous trees and bushes. No development will occur in the chaparral plant association typical of .the steep, higher elevation slopes. Some development will .occur within the existing walnut orchards. Trees located 'on road or building sites and those that are dead or diseased will be removed. Watering of residential lawns in the old 'walnut groves may have an adverse long-term impact on the remaining walnut trees by subjecting them to increased levels of water which may ;m- trocuce adaptation problems for individual trees. Development will alter the composition and distribution of the vegetation. Cessation of cattle grazing would generate long-term effects on the biotic community characteristics. Fire potential on Blackhawk Ranch will be affected by the proposed development. The number of fires started will prob- ably increase due to the increased population, and the proba- bility of early detection and suppression will also increase due to the larger population, greater fire protection capacity, and proximity of fire protection equipment. The creation of 52 SCIS E-73317-1 green belts and golf courses will partially reduce the total amount of highly flammable fuel in the development area. Gra- sing which is planned for the major portions of the undeveloped private open space will have little effect on*fire hazards (see Agricultural Considerations section) . WILDLIFE (JARA) Development of 8lackhawk Ranch is proposed for the lower, open grassland portions of the property. This represents the lowest degree of impact to the wildlife resources of the prop- erty since it leaves the majority of the streamside woodland habitat and all of the chaparral and higher elevation grassland habitats intact. Wildlife species that occupy .or use the areas of planned development or that are intolerant of human distur- bance, will be displaced or will experience a population re- duction. Development of the ranch may benefit some species by establish- ing new habitats and by increasing year-round water availability. Estatlishment of heavy vegetation on the outside perimeters of the golf courses may possibly benefit deer by providing green forage year-round. Songbirds may similarly benefit by the establishment of trees, shrubs, and lawns associated with rebi- dential developments. Other wildlife of the area will maintain or increase populations provided that their habitats are pre- served or improved and that they are not harrassed by people or domestic animals. Development of the ranch does represent a potential adverse impact to wildlife species by potentially increasing the recreational use of non-developed portions of the property. Continuation of grazing on the upper' elevations may inhibit casual intrusion in the undeveloped open spaces by residents of elackhawk Ranch. 53 ECIS E-73317-1 Agricultural Considerations Development of the ranch will result in the loss of about 20 acres of prime agricultural land, about 500 acres used for hay production, and approximately 1,000 acres of rangeland. This loss represents a continuing trend in the decline of the importance of rangeland to the County economy. The developer plans to deed the private space to a Blackahwk Road horse owner's association. The approximately 2,600 acres at or above elevation of 1,000 ft will be dedicated as per- manent open space. This land corresponds tb 'the area of Black- hawk designated as "appropriate acquisition" (lowest priority) by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. The developer. contends that placing the land under the William- son Act and leasing the area for cattle grazing will be eco- nomically viable for the home owner's association. The State has leased Curry Canyon to a private concern for &. number of years. The latest contract limits grazing to about one animal per 6.8 acres to prevent overgrazing and subsequent erosion problems. For Blackhawk, this would limit the herd size to about 382 animals or, for the usual four month season, to about 1,530 animal units. The State Department of Parks and Recreation does not consider grazing to be an effective fire prevention method. The basic reason. is that the animals feed selectively and leave large areas relatively untouched. Further analysis based on specific definition of the fee struc- ture which can be negotiated for long-term use by a concession- aire, the details of the fire prevention and other maintenance S4 . . EC18 2-73317-1. . 420 V -South Gate VA. 620 _24]0 620 ,• ��4900— 355® ilel,lo 3550 `% 7250 10010 ��. 1 � :1 C..11:ro 710. o . 7110 1 0 yc1, o DUCE AWK a � RhKCiI ]080 hark Danville 1971 10 Rd, / 0 � • 2 00 1a• '-- 2500 • ••� S 50 — -- SYcam�c. c°a,1 Fieum 18-9 9130 ° r 6550 4540 Tlss � 300 SHORT RANGE - 1979 1310 1 131 wd• Lxten�'n Cdw ent°o y BLACKHAMK TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 4a (EXCLUDES OTHER TRAFFIC) • t 104LO Ciao South Gate Rd. 1040 466Q 560 — �OiD� 6590• •` -1`'-- 6990 .11 al, . 1 �° ki1• 9160 ] 0 •1 cam I _ 900 c 9840 • U vd. ,/ 1140 i%u SLACKIIAHK �° ckha` RANCH Danville 510 FIiu�E 18-10 F 7100 w k ' LONG RANGE - 1990. ° ; 4750 -'- 4750 d •s940 • SYcanwr.: . � �- a 10230r- • 5 SO _7530 �ss� i 11000 Construction Traffic 9250 J'�a Q Routes' Appreciable OltLarencaa 5600 P 960D lth Sycagogo Valley bad Lxtenaion � �-2- Mithout Sycarre Valley, goad Sxtenalon Coll U11 pd• w �� Ltu� 6870 4610 9160 4610 . �`1�.1"�1�• 4350 _ ��4i n' VLI. r� 1 Y ECIS E-73317-1 activities required by the County, and the tax burden on the property is required to assess the degree of fiscal safety available to the home owners' association. The State of California Department of Parks and Recreation has indicated that if the property were deeded to the State, they would probably lease the land for grazing use. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (Appendices E, F) The base data used for traffic assessmenti. is conservative and appears to be overstated with regard to trip generation by a factor of 10-15%. The analysis is complicated by the uncertainly relating to implementation of a Sycamore Valley Road extension (Figure 18-10) . The data is presented in the form of schematic diagrams. A shaded block is used to iden- tify conditions without the Sycamore Valley Road extension in • Figures 18-9 through 1B-14. These figures also identify roads which are appreciably affected by the Sycamore Valley Road extension. Blackhawk Ranch traffic assignment and distributions for the period covered by the first three phases of the program (short term to 1979) and for the post-1990 conditions are presented in Figures 1B-9 and 1B-10. The short-term effects of the Sycamore Valley Road extension are a reduction of about 50% of the Blackhawk Ranch load on a number of the roads serving the project. The long-term effect of the Sycamore valley Road extension is to increase i Appendix D of the James A. Roberts Associates Report. 56 r ECIS -::3�,-1 121 i .4t'�'� 1• , ' ; South Gate Rd. 5970 _ 94805970 �� 3760 hia�,lu 4050 •� `�. Hrl, b 3iS" 10 780 Irl c.:rr° 7630 7 880 0 "d. RANC .� 8910 pear OLIIIiK MNCU 7600_ khawk hauv111.+ 6290 11.320, 13.326 aa, 62 Sycam"re t c„d 16,500r to T �- 2560,. Y3,750r-6-9-50-1 '�ssa�drd 2560 2950 FIGUnE 1B-11 exta n"1O'""' SNORT W - 1S7: .,a t siiy°dP'.►+ TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS UKLUDING BLACKNANK) It 920 South Gate Rd. {� FtOtIRE 18-12 21760 3,360 3i30ulahl° H 7640• ~•M ��` LONG RANGE - 1900 s 490 d. 2 16,280 1 Cerro 6300 0 6 vd. 7490 titin BGACKHAWK' IY ef' kha4k RANCH 21, 0 Danville 21'91 Rd.ti 120000 1 66 i 21..750 21,750 4�w J� 9190 Sycamore 4m 14,310 26,060 lq',, r 19.7 0 p.3 11.580 �saa i construction Traffic �4ba ” Routs• Appreciable Differences �' 8940 B9ao With sycamra Valley Road Lxtension tix�e^sjp�+ Without tycalwre Valley Road Mansion ti cs^y°^ VA�►4PO'M tiro 11,770 12,620 _ 4 S00 ! 12r • �• 41.bS0 {�� CAd"Gr4i.190 e w . t ECIS E-73317-1 volumes on the section of Blackhawk east 'of the Sycamore Valley Road intersection and the section of Camino Tassajara west of the Sycamore Valley Road intersection. The bulk of the remainder of the local roads, excluding Sycamore Valley Road, will have reduced traffic volumes when the Sycamore Valley Road extension is implemented. A similar presentation is used in Figures 1B-11 and 1B-12 to illustrate traffic volumes of Blackhawk traffic in .combin- ation with other forecast traffic for the short-term and long- term time periods. These figures also show .an appreciable improvement is gained by implementation of the Sycamore Valley Road extension. The preceding analysis deals with total daily Volumes. Peak hour capacity effect is one of the most critical parameters indicative of . the condition of a traffic facility. Short-term and long-term capacity ef-ect's 'are shown in Figures 1B-13 and 1B-14 in terms of the ratio of predicted peak hour traffic to a value equivalent to service level "C" on that -section of road. A value of 1.0 indicates no problem, while a value of 2.0 would indicate appreciable impact on the faci- lity. In this analysis, values between 1.0 and 1.2 are defined as adverse impact, while values above 1.2 to 1.23 are defined as significantly adverse impacts and indicated by ❑ on Figures 1B-13 and 1B-14. Prior to 1979, significant adverse impacts on a number of roads, as indicated in Figure 1B-13, are forecast. The analysis re sults (Figure 1B-14) suggest that the project will ultimately require expansion of the existing Sycamore Valley Road section and the proposed Crow Canyon Road extension. Current emphasis on alternatives to dependence on private automobiles may par- tially eliminate this problem: 58 EGI 19-73117-1 _. South Gatto Rd. .a lloy Rd ti ya �,• 0.63 12-0- Cerro ylvd• i.3.C o' MACKtiAt,'K,- ' s Danville --,_ � 0.76 1.960 3� 1.14 Syc&woro .360 , ? i FisuRE 18-13 0.5 SNORT RANGE - 1979 on M• �x Ced" 0o- dOp rgdO °r , CAPACITY EFFECTS RATIO OF PEAK HOUR PROJECTION TO ROAD CAPACITY 0.91 South Gate Rd. allay FIGURE 18-141 0.64 LONG RANGE - 1990 - 3 0.7 El Cerro 1• Ulvd. 0.73 c. Ota BLACK11AWK . �——1.12tty Jwk RANCH Danvillo ( 4.9 / 0.6 fL0.61 � i Rd ' ,•' Sycamore e, [� Significant Adverse t �� ;i J6_. Impact .ir�i�.I SsJ� � .0.35 QAppreciable Differences I Y 0.5@ With Sycamore Valley Road Mansion 7 _ 0.72 _ Without SyCenore Valley (toad Extension1 �xtRnsioss Cto"cr oP .... • ,.► 0.61 �,. 1.34 Q G*p'1 1.61 p G coo r EDS E=73317-1 CLIMATE (JARA) As is the case with all urban and suburban development, the proposed project will, to a small degree, alter the reflecti- vity and radiant heat characteristics of areas modified by the project, and will have some localized effects on winds and transpiration. . By .itself, the Blackhawk project will cause. no more than a very small localized incremental change in the annual temperature regime of the development area. The small incremental changes from many such. developments throughout the San Ramon Valley could accumulate to a point where measurable effects would be noted. Studies indicate that development in the San Ramon Valley may raise the aver- age annual temperature by about 0.3°F. More important is the larger increases which would occur during. the sunny smog periods. • AIR QUALITY (JARA) Intensifying the nature of land use in afl area in which the prior use was primarily grazing, necessarily results in a change in air quality conditions. New sources of contami- nants resulting from the project will be dust generated 'during construction, pollutants from heating/cooling devices in buildings and fireplaces, and chiefly from additional vehicular traffic. Dust generated during construction is a temporary pollutant source that can be controlled to a large extent by the common construction practices of stabilizing individual construction sites with water. Emissions of the heating/cooling devices will be minimal since fuel sources will be limited to natural gas and electricity. 60 ECUS E-73317-1 +d Figure 1B-15 REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CORRIDOR R:ox f ' •• A N j O A Ta- e: �OAKtA ' I, a►a�i� ._SAN FRANCISCO. Isoo-30 + •• A Ll A . rte,,, l. .. POW ~lob04 r i ., PIP= , �( V IT' a LAS `-�� •`�,-',�;'�� S�i Cruz,.tom, 1�.,. '' �(�` ��.:.3.�?'1 Numbers refer to the days per year with .10 ppm or higher oxidant, based on 1971 BAAPCD data. _ r EDS E-73317-1 ` Primary degradation caused by the fireplaces will be from the particulate matter emitted from the chimneys as smoke. Even at a density of one per house, State agencies concerned with air quality do not feel that fireplaces geneiate suffi- cient pollutants to affect the regional air quality balance (Perry, 1973) . The most significant single source of contaminants generated directly by the development will be from vehicular traffic averaging approximately 219 ,000 vehicle miles per day. The implications of the impact of 'the Blackhawk development on air quality cannot be fully determined at this time be- cause of the lack of air quality data for the vicinity of the ' Blackhawk Ranch area. Most of the new residents will commute each day to areas away from Blackhawk Ranch. A major. portion of emissions will be produced in the vicinity of the development or within the San Ramon Valley and Walnut Creek areas. The cumulative effect of total development within the San Ramon Valley will make it difficult to meet the 1977 Air Quality Standards even with proposed automotive controls. Blackhawk Ranch represents a large contribution to this growth and thus represents a po- tential significant *adverse impact. This impact can be miti- gated through programs aimed at reducing reliance on automo- biles. The regional air pollution problems are presented schematically in Figure 1B-15, which shows that the areas to the south of the project area are the areas most affected by activity in the central portion of Contra Costa County due to the topo- logic features on either side. of I-680. 62 ` r E-73317-•1 ECIS • 1►igure 1l1-16 LANDSLIDE AREAS t dO All S; pp .l r F• 1 , i i j�. AV IP •,. •\. It ` // .%.1:•._r'�' do ho r f ECIS E-73317 1 GEOLOGIC FACTORS (Lowney i Kaldveer - A�ppeBdix B ' Land Stability Based on preliminary._geo-technical reconnaissance, it appears that roughly:l44_to 1/3 of available acreage on the subject property ca ' be developed only by overcoming 'a greater than normal n of conventional soil and foundation problems. These are are generally confined to the valley bottoms, the gent sloping fan deposits, and possibly the gently sloping idges at higher elevations as depicted in Figure 18-16. The remainder of the area has major development proble s because of extensive landsliding (Figure 1B-16) or a teep topography as described for Area B. 5 ire A - Developable S ! v+ `-T a valley bottoms, gently sloping fan deposits,. and possibly c�,he gently sloping ridges at higher elevations, can generally e developed utilizing conventional site grading and a. founda- tion - tion desi n provisions. Problems associated with the deve - s opment of the lower elevation areas include: (1) the expan- ��ion potential of surface soils, (2) the proximity of slides Gk � d i above or below the developments, and (3) the control of surface S tb4nd subsurface drainage. The expansion potential of surface .: soils may require that foundations be extended somewhat deeper than normal and that slabs-on-grade be founded on a pad of select non-expansive material. The proximity of slides to `)development areas will require setbacksl to prevent such slides 1 This point will need to be checked for each specific detail design plan for areas submitted for County approval prior to construction. 64 IPP. A .w. EDS 2-73317-1 from encroaching on the developed property. To control sur- face and subsurface water, detailed drainage measures will likely have to be utilized. If relatively deep excavations are planned on the higher elevation ridgetops, some diffi- culty in excavation may possibly be encountered. All of the above items should be studied during subsequent investigations at the site. r Area B - Probably Undevelopable As indicated above, there are many areas within the property -that are underlain by or in proximity to landslides which are of such magnitude that development of these areas would involve a high degree of-risk without further investigation. These areas broadly outlined in Figure 1B-16 include the sloping terrain on which the landslides prevail, as well as the relatively steep terrain to the north. Experience in • landslide areas in the Orinda Formation and related forrra- tions indicates that long-term stability is difficult to .achieve even if extraordinary and expensive precautions are incorporated into site grading and drainage designs. Diffi- cult design and construction problems should also be antici- pated during the development of any areas in relatively steep • terrain. if and when development of the above areas is con- templated, extensive studies of each of the individual areas of potential development must be made. Seepage Extensive seepages were not observed during field reconnais- sance. Seepage areas probably do exist after heavy winter rains, particularly near landslide areas. Seepage and ground- water conditions should be thoroughly investigated during subsequent work at the site. r Q k,v,_o„e fur o /S viwtiu, . - SCIS E-73317-1 seismicity The site, along with most of the San Francisco Bay Area, is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Three major fault zones which pass through the Bay Area in a northwest direction have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause significant -damage. The faults causing such earthquakes 'are part of the San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth's crust that extends for at least 450 miles along the California coast, and includes the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults, located approximately 32 miles, 13 miles, and 3 miles southwest of the site, respectively. Measured accumulated strains in the earth's crust -along .these faults indicate the inevitability of future earthquakes. In addition, the site is approximately 5 miles north of the northern terminus of the Pleasanton Fault which has shown evidence of some seismic acitvity during historic times. The only known fault within the limits of tke property is an unnamed east-west trending fault at the extreme northwest corner of the site. There is no evidence to suggest recent movement along this fault. While the fault is considered to be inactive, it should be investigated in more detail during subsequent studies as development is proposed for each area. Potential earthquake hazards generally may be ,divided into two two categories: fault offset and;. shakingy\ It is possible •'.,� that the inactive fault at the northwest corner ;�, ��,•.s of the property could experience some minor sympathetic fault offset movement should a major earthquake occur along the 66 f EC16 houat 14-17 RACKNAMK RANCH AREAS - N07 SERVICED BY EBRUD . N Y m iD b ' • rCp � K O cr M < • N ti a r M N a 4 N rQ1 2 now M r-1 4 Y 3 u U r a w . i.,C .•/ L. rr i4p�.w C .Vs J • C c�4.!ao caciu°Qw N0N V,V,o H V, _ f• fNO.Nd.wM .1 N U p t � �.� NMrNkOhm O. ECISS E-73317-1 Calaveras or Pleasanton Faults. In portions of the site where faults are not known to exist, potential hazard due to direct fault offset is considered remote. It is reason- able to assume that the site will be subjected to at least one major earthquake causing severe ground shaking during the economic life of the project. The most detrimental effect from such shaking would be additional slumping or landsliding on the hill slopes and possible liquefaction in the valley areas should well-graded, loose, saturated sands underlie these areas. It is possible that large mag- nitude earthquakes could cause renewed movement of existing landslides and/or new landslides in the hills areas, parti- cularly if such earthquakes were to occur during the wet seasons of the year. r W ' AUA U'vu�nuaSl lUrs lc/� c. Hydrology Flooding problems exist and may be increased by development - _; on Alamo Creek and its west branch north. of I-580; on Alameda Creek between Sunol and Pleasanton, and on Tassajara Creek. Most of the reaches in Alameda Creek have an improved channel and levees with a sufficient -safety factor to have minimum possible flooding impacts due to increased flow. Some of the culverts, especially on unimproved sections of the creeks, may be affected, and it will be very costly to replace them. Increased flow peaks should be flood-routed to check the aug- mented stages in critical areas. In case of dangerous increases in flood stages after the de- velopment, no suitable reservoir site exists in Alameda County for flood control purposes except possibly on Tassajara Creek. Bypass channels will be costly and impractical, except possibly 68 ECIS E-73317-1 at the saddle point between the Alameda and Walnut Creek watersheds. Even is this bypass channel is possible, Walnut Creek may not be able to accept more flow, because it has flooding problems all along its length (e.g. , Green Valley areas) and probably has many limited capacity culverts. Such culverts are costly to replace. Runoff rates and vol- umes must be checked for downstream effects for each spe- cific design plan submitted for approval. Water Quality - Erosion and Sedimentation' There are many small check dams along Alameda Creek to divert water to recharge grounds, especially in the Niles area. Sediment loads in flowing water on recharge grounds must be low, or intolerable plugging of recharge grounds is possible. Sediment disposition in improved channels increases mainten- ance costa. Erosion is possible in unimproved reaches. Similar sedimentation and maintenance problems could exist . along Walnut Creek. Effective construction discipline and procedures (see Mitigation Meanures) are required to avert potential significant adverse impacts. Erosion of levee systems should be insignificant along Alameda • Creek because the inner face of the levees are rip-rapped. The indirect effect of sedimentation along rip-raps is to seal them and allow less seepage through levees. Groundwater Quality Groundwater in the development area is drinkable, but hard. The groundwater supply on the site will not support the pro- ject needs. 69 EDS E-73317-1 • In Alameda County, relatively close to the site, domestic supply wells exist in Dublin. Small irrigation wells are located north of I-580. The impact' of the Blackhawk Ranch development on this groundwater must be carefully assessed as part of the County's review of specific development plans _ for each area of the project. UTILITY SERVICES Most of the publicly controlled private services such as the power company (PG&E) and the telephone company, are required to provide service upon request. PG&E is subject to the same short-term fuel energy shortages faced by the rest of the nation. Blackhawk energy demands in the period from 1975 through 1980 will probably come from about 20000 dwelling units in the site areas N1, #2, and #4. Based on the propor- tion to population, total power service demands for Blackhawk • represents 27& of the total potential residential energy = demand for the Alamo-Danville planned area (N8) . This will generate a short-term adverse impact on both PG&E and current users. The significance of the impact will be a direct function of timing of chemical and fuel availability. The long-term effects will be a direct contribution to the cumu- lative effect of power demands. ,WATER SUPPLY East Bay Municipal Utilities District (hMUD) provides water service to the Blackhawk site. Portions of the site which will have to be annexed for water service (531 acres) are identified in Figure 18-17. The total Blackhawk Ranch pro- ject will require about 2.2 million gallons of standard drinking water per day, which� is within the capacity of the 70 ECI E-73317-1 Diablo Storage Reservoir and its backup system. EBMUD has indicated that the proposed Blackhawk Ranch Reservoir system As inadequate and that three reservoirs will be required instead of the two proposed. WASTEWATER The proposed Blackhawk Ranch development will contribute approximately 1.5 million gallons of sewage per day to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District treatment plant on Suisun Bay. The volume of sewage generated by the pro- posed development is within the existing available capacity of the treatment plant. Sewage discharge to Suisun Bay currently meets the requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. SOLID WXCTE The proposed development will generate approximately 30 million pounds of solid waste per year at full development. Currently, the galley Disposal Service collects solid waste generated by Blackhawk Ranch. After development, the Diablo Disposal Service will provide this collection service. Both • disposal services use the same landfill in Martinez for dis- posal of the waste material. The useful lifetime of the landfill is estimated to extend through the year 2020 and Blackhawk Ranch will not appreciably alter this projected time span. DESIGN ASSESSMENT The site plan quality and the sensitivity of' the design to the land determines much of -the social and esthetic impact 71 SCIS E-73317-1 • of thero osed ro project. Blackhawk Ranch will introduce u P P P j P to 4,545 dwelling units in a sparsely populated area, which means that the majority of people who will be affected social- ly will be those who live within the project boundaries. Visual effects will be experienced by project residents, visitors to the surrounding areas, and drivers of vehicles using the local roadways. The proposed project design appears to be of high quality and respects the natural features and topography of the site. . Development is concentrated on valley floors and moderate sloping hills. A portion of the development will be visible from Blackhawk and Tassajara Roads and from the entrance to Mount Diablo State Park. Road alignments and width have been selected to minimize grading requirements. Single family homes will be indivi- dually sited and will require minimal grading. Grading for multi-family units could be extensive depending on how well the siting of structures is handled. • Development will be concentrated in the lower 258 of the land area of the site and about 658 of the site will be undeveloped open-space with another 88 devoted to golf courses. A green- belt system is proposed for the roadway system. The net re- sylt will be considerable community open-space with continuity and linkage from the developed area to the higher elevation, northern portion of the site. The site plan, while of high quality, does not provide for development of a physically cohesive community. In part, this is a function of the topography of the site, which pre- cludes strong physical integration of the development. 72 EC;IS E-73317-1 The large-estate sites are well located and there is a fair inter-mix of single-family cluster and single-family de- tached housing. The proximity of higher density cluster and multi-family units relative to community and commercial faci- lities could be improved. Views from the site will be fairly well preserved. Views from Blackhawk Road, Tassajara Road, and South• Gate Road, will reflect the change from open-space to developed land. Three sites are proposed for elementary schools: Project amenities in the form of a country club with tennis facili- ties and golf course is proposed. A major equestrian center and a second golf course is also proposed. The current plan does not include neighborhood community recreation facilities. The developer anticipates that each • inclement of major residential development will include pri- vate community facilities. NOISE ASSESSMENT (Appendix H) The PG&E transmission lines which cross the southern portion of the project are audible if one is standing under them. These transmission lines will be near about 26 single-family homes. The measured minimum background noise levels under the transmission lines were: Octave Band Center Frequencies (Hz) dBa 31.5 63 125 250 500 lk 2k 4k 8k 30 51 48 43 35 24 15 11 12 14 7s - EEO E-73317-1 The transmission lines crossing the site transmit 200 kVA and transmission lines are not normally .a noise problem until they carry 300-500 kVA. No significant adverse noise impacts are forecast. The construction phases of the project will• generate an ad- verse noise impact along the supply route and on-site for the 15-year build-out period. V ECIS 9.73317-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BENEFICIAL IMPACTS 1. Dedication of Bleckhawk Quarry and open space area on north side of project. 2. Excess revenues to County and schools. 3. Stimulation of economy by generation of employment and disposable income. 4. • Improvement of public roads. ADVERSE IMPACTS 5. Construction vehicle traffic on the- site and from I-680 via Sycamore Valley Road to Camino Tassajara to Blackhawk Road (Figures 1B-11, 19-12) . 6. Noise - construction activity noise in the different devel- opment areas. 7. Energy consumption - contribytion to the demands for auto- motive fuel and heating fuel. 8. Urban services- extension of urban service area (wate:, transit, sanitary sewer services). 9. Public 'safety - excess fire protection costs. 10. Schools - requirement for new school facilities with associated financing difficulties. 11. Pressure for revision of the Contra Costa County General _,_..w... Plan'. 12. Loss of private open-space. 13. Reduction of agricultural resources (grazing and orchard ' lands) . 14. Loss of existing wildlife habitats. 15. Added traffic on I-680 and commuter terminus point traffic facilities. 16. Added employment-related commute traffic. 17. Consumption of non-renewable resources. 19. Added runoff. 19. Water pollution. 75 ` f ECIS E-73317-1 .20. Added load on sanitary sewer and waste collection systems. 21. Potential geologic problems on homesites in areas with soil problems. 22. Contributions to air pollution. 23. Contributions to growth pressures. 24. Added capital costs for the water district. 25. Added road improvement costs. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS 26. Short-term energy demands. 27. Peak hour traffic congestion on local roads prior to con- struction of Sycamore Valley Road. 28. Peak hour traffic congestion on Sycamore Valley Road and Crow Canyon Road extension. 29. Air pollution contributions. 30. Growth pressures for higher density development. 76 r EDS 2-73317-1 PART 8 Section 2.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ECIS E-73317-1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 1. Traffic Effects (Figure 1B-13) : a. Construction vehicle traffic on the site and from I-680 via Sycamore Valley Road to Camino Tassajara to Blackhawk Road (Figures 1B-11 and 1B-12) . b. Peak hour. traffic congestion on local roads prior , to construction of Sycamore Valley Road. 2. • Noise - Construction activity noise in the -different development areas. 3. Energy consumption - contribution to the demands for automotive fuel and heating fuel. 4. Urban services - extension of Urban Service Area (water, transit, sanitary sewer service) . 5.' Public safety - excess fire protection costs. 6. School's - requirement for new school facilities with associated financing difficulties: • 7. •Pressure for revision of the .Contra Costa County General Plan. S. Loss of private open-space. ' 9. Reduction of agricultural resources (grazing and orchard • lands) . , 10. Loss of existing wildlife habitats. 11. Added traffic on I-680 and commuter terminus point traffic facilities. 12. Added employment-related commute traffic: 13. Consumption of non-renewable resources. 14. Added runoff. 15. Water pollution. 16. Added load on sanitary sewer and waste collection systems. 79 f EDIS 2-73317-1 17. Potential geologic problems, on homesites in.areas with potential soil problems. 18. Contributions to air pollution. 19. Contributions to growth pressures. 20. Added capital coats for the Water district. 21. Added road improvement costs. 80 ECUS E-73317-1 PART B w Section 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES i E08 E-73317-1 MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION MEASURES PLANNED BY THE DEVELOPER 1. Grading Operations Effects. Implementation of a policy which will prohibit .development on ridgelines and slopes over 25 per cent. 2. Grading for Roads. Proposed uses 'of roads which are not as wide as the specified County standards for roads. Re- quires specific approval of County. (joint County/devel- oper action) 3. Potential Soils Problems. further investigation of soils and goo-technic problems as part of design package for each project area. Developer agrees that certain problem ' sites will be abandoned if data indicates that excessive • problems exist. 4. Los_ s of Paleontologic Resources. Transfer of ownership ' to public agency. Preliminary negotiations have been initiated with the Univers.'.ty of California to transfer ownership of the key locations of paleontologic materials to the University. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has indicated interest, as well. (joint County and developer action) S. Loss of Archaeological Sites. In the event that archaeo- logical remains are encountered during construction, a qualified archaeologist will be notified to determine the - disposition of the finds. 6. Loss of Wildlife. Undeveloped buffer zones of natural vegetation will be retained between areas, of development and valuable wildlife habitat, such as the streamside i EDS 6-73317-1 woodland and e small ranch some n th 1 nch ponds. in addition, e marsh or cattail vegetation will be retained for (or re-established) around the major irrigation ponds for waterfowl. To the extent possible through deed restric- tion and by enforcement of existing ordinances, domestic animals (cats and dogs) will be kept on leashes whenever off the owner's property and especially when outside of the developed areas. 7. Loss of Vegetation. a. Existing vegetation will be retained on the non- developed slopes (except in the golf course area which will be planted to blue grass and native shrubs and trees) . b. Water-courses will retain the existing vegetation and development within these drainage areas will be minimal, consisting of road crossings and re- creational facilities. c. Native trees and shrubs will be included in land- scape plantings of the golf courses aad greenways. d. Where possible, specimen trees, both native trees and established orchard trees, will be retained on the developed sites and care will be taken to pro- tect these trees during construction. e: Design for fire protection will include facilities . . for protection and access to both. the developed sites and the natural vegetation of the open space element. S. Construction Noise. The developer plans to restrict the size and use-schedule of contractor heavy equipment to minimize construction noise. 84 • EDS 3-73317-1 9. Fire Protection. A fire substation site will be re- served at a centrally located point in the proposed development. P 10. Erosion/Sedimentation. a. Heavy construction equipment will be totally excluded from operating in the stream courses. At points where equipment must cross a stream, temporary drain- age works such as culverts will ,be installed to protect the streambed. When construction is complete, the temporary drainage works will be removed and the area reseeded to grasses typical of the area. Attempts will be made to schedule actual construction activities to coincide with the dry months -- April through October. b. Grading, filling, and clearing of _vegetation, within the control of the developer, will be restricted to the dry season of the year. - 1• c. Slopes over 25 per cent will not L•e developed and development on slopes will incorporate specific design .features to control slope-related erosion. Ci d. Specific plans will be developed for the control and handling of runoff, including the use of sedimentation basins where necessary. Surface drainage will be con- veyed by means of non-erosive structures to stable areas of Sycamore and West Branch Creeks. Where needed, energy dissipators will be used to prevent bank erosion. e. As 'part of the detail design of each area, investiga- tions will be made relative to the need and placement of debris basins in down-canyon drainage areas to in- sure protection against seismically-generated mudflows. f ECIS -2-73317-1 f. Re-vegetation of exposed areas will -be completed prior to each rainy season. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will be implemented if re-vegetation is not satisfactorily completed by the rainy season. 11. Off-Site Runoff. Road widths, road sections, and related non-vehicular circulation systems have been designed to keep paved surfaces to a minimum and to avoid concentra- tions of runoff by providing for direct infiltration of runoff at the roadside through the use of gravel shoulders and green-belt areas (this will require County approval of "non-standard" project roads) . The storm drainage system will be designed to take advantage of ponds on the proposed golf courses- or in other drainages to 'control off-site storm-generated flow rates. 12. Open-Space. Approximately 1.000 acres of land which is currently included in the proposed Mount Diablo State Park plan will be dedicated to the State. Approximately 2 ,200 acres will be placed in permanent open-space (private) . 13. S2hool Facilities. Dedication of three elementary school sites. Reservation of two additional school sites. POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES 1. -School Facilities. Dedicate rather than reserve the addi- tional high school sites (developer action) . 2. Traffic. Build Sycamore Valley Road extension by the end of development phase #3 (joint County/developer action) . 3. Fire Protection. Negotiate with developer to offset in- cremental fire protection costs until development in surrounding area becomes sufficient to- support the incre- mental cost difference. 8G r ECIS E-73317-1 4. Use of Water and Wastewater Effluents. (The developer is still evaluating this measure. ) Implementation of a wastewater reclamation scheme that envisions the use of partially treated wastewater for golf course irrigation and related purposes (developer action) . 5. Air Pollution/Energy Consumption. Encouragement of pedes- trian and non-vehicular traffic on an internal basis by providing a complete and integrated circulation system so that local trips from residence's to commercial ser- vices, etc. , are not necessarily vehicular trips. En- couragement of some form of public transportation between Walnut Creek and San Ramon. Establishment of on-site recreational facilities (joint developer/County/local mass transit district action) . 87 E_73317-1 Fcls pA1tT 9 ! Section 4'0 JkLTEATVES 4 -' ECIS E-73317-1 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 1. Project Residential Density Variations. The site is large enough to accommodate a wide variety of combinations of project elements. Relative to the proposed project, the limits are set by extremely high residential density at • one extreme, .and by probably poor market viability at the other extreme. Current local land -use planning considera- tion would probably forestall approval of a project with higher density than that proposed. Price and market con- ditions could mitigate against the success of the project at relatively low densities. A set of development alter- natives have been selected to demonstrate the cost and revenue. trends associated with changes in residential density. The data presented is based on proportional scaling and/or qualitative descriptions of the cost and revenue trends. Two lower density (Items #1 and #2) and two higher density alternatives (Items #4 and #5) were selected and are presented in Table 0-1 where the pro- �- posed project is included as Item #3. One factor that determines market viability and availability for owner- ship participation is the cost of the dwelling unit. The presumed change of unit price is presented in Figure 4B-1, s . based on unit prices supplied by Blackhawk Development Company. The influence of project size on County revenue is reflected in Figure 4B-2, which shows the major direct and indirect revenue sources derived from the project. Based on a per capita allocation of annual County costs for operations of about $250 per person, the influence of project size on operating costs and revenue would tend to behave as shown ' •r SCIS 5-73317-1 in Figure 4B-31 where both curves are normailzed to the proposed project density. County operating cost and capital improvement trends are presented in Figure 4B-4. These -costs, like project cost, consist of a combination of fixed base costs, costs proportional to population, and incremental steps. The net relationships of total cost and total revenue is illustrated in Figure 0-5. This figure is intended to show that for every incremental cost step,. there is a fairly wide range of density values which can be accom- modated before the next increment is required. This sug- gests that from an economic/fiscal viewpoint, it would be more economical if development was allowed so as to take advantage of the surplus capacity associated with the capital cost. This assumes that the incremental cost was incurred to provide a given service level. The range of variation broad- ens if the service level is allowed to fall. This concept is apparent in the development of traffic facilities and the ` provision of fire protection facilities. 2. No Project. The land is currently used for grazing purposes and carried on the taz rolls at an assessed value of about $750,000.' In the extreme, the land could be put under the Williamson Act with the attendant loss of revenue to the County. The no project option would obviate part of, but not all of, the traffic and fire district improvements associated with the proposed project.%• 3. Public Ownership. Acquisition of Blackhawk Ranch for gene ral public ownership would increase the public use and enjoyment of the ranch and, depending on the ultimate use, could retain or improve the property's present environmental * Based on data supplied by the developer. 92 ECIS E-73317-1 resources. This alternative would incur considerable public outlay for initial acquisition of from a minimum of $3 million* to as high as the developer's estimates of $10 million. 4. Commercial/Industrial Development. The property is lo- ' Gated some distance from consumer and wholesale markets and such uses would probably represent more significant local and regional impacts on circulation systems and other public facilities. The economic return from devel- opment to the County would probably be increased. This alternative is not compatible with the existing general plan and not considered to be economically viable. * 1973 Assessed Value. 93 . •r EC{S E-73317-1 DESIGN TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 1. Structuring the community to meet the following principles: a. Create an active village center which would .be a focal point for the entire community. This center could be located in the heart of the community in an area of high amenity. A location adjacent to the lake and country club would be appropriate. The village center could contain a number of elements. These elements could be organized around a village square -or village green which could provide space for outdoor fairs, exhibits and displays, music, and public gatherings. b. Create relatively distinct residential neighborhoods, each with its own identity. The size of the neigh- borhood would depend on the anture of the terrain. Neighborhood population would vary depending on the F' • relative magnitude of single-family detached and cluster and multi-family h.:)using. As a policy, the neighborhood of higher densities would be located closer to the center of activities, the commercial/ office center, and the country club area. c. Develop community facilities within each neighborhood which would satisfy recreation and social needs of the residents. These common facilities could include both indoor and outdoor recreation areas. d. Develop higher density small unit size housing adjacent to the village center. These units would offer a choice to those residents desiring to live close to 94 • l SCIS . 2-73317-1 commercial and community activity. Young singles and couples, as .well as senior citizens, would be attracted to this kind of accommodation with "close in" conven- ience. e. Develop a small-scale grocery facility within or be- tween neighborhoods. This small (117-11" type) store could be operated by the major supermarket in the commercial center. Such a facility would provide much greater convenience for the residents and reduce auto trips to the main center. NOTE: With a more central major community commercial center and the development of small-scale neighborhood grocery stores, it would be appropriate to eliminate the commercial center at the east end of the project. ' • 2. Provide housing with a broader range of costs to accommo- date lower income families and individuals. This would offer those who work in the community the choice of resi- Ging where they work. This may take the cooperation and commitment 'of the County, such as incentives for the devel- oper by way of increased densities, and using such tools as building rental units in single-family houses, use of direct subsidies (either Federal, State, or County) or County assumption of certain on-site and off-site costs in order to reduce the effective development costs per unit. 3. Introduction of- an additional single-family detached con- dominium type housing which would be developed in clusters. The houses would share common open space and parking faci- lities. Densities would average 5-6 units per acre. Adoption of this alternative would permit better utiliza- tion of the land and minimize accommodation for the auto- mobile, as well as offer the -potential of shared common recreation and social facilities. 95 SCIS E-73317-1 _ 4. Locate elementary school sites more central to the areas r they serve. This can be done without compromising cur- rent siting qualities. S. Locate a junior and senior high school or combination of the two on the site. Demographic data indicates suf- ficient population to support such a facility. This would add to the identity of the development as a whole community and could provide convenient additional educa- tional and cultural accommodations for adult residents as well as for students. 96 SCIS E-•73317•-1 Fig. 48-1 UNIT COST TRENDS 100 . 100%SFD 80 8Q SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 148%) 70 PROJECT AVERAGE UNIT COST CURRENT AREA _ MARKET AVERAGE CLUSTER 143%1 t 40 3e am MUltl•FAMILY 20 10 - 0 1000 x000 3000 4000 5000 60W 7000 8000 NUMBER OF UNITS 4 ECIS E-73317-1 Fig.48-2 INFLUENCE OF SIZE ON COUNTY REVENUE \P�Gl�F • w v�A�`°NO U�`ONSUN°\ GoNlP�� • � . pEN°PNS S�P SA�ESl PN IDtAECTI PO UAT10 V ENUE F ROM ASSESSED V At' RE HOOK-UP CHARGES(DIRECT) INITIAL ASSESSMENTS(BASED ON SITE AREA) (DIRECT) LOW AS PROPOSED HIGH NUMBER OF UNITS _ r ECIC E-73317-1 i fie Flo.48-3 ANNUAL COST/REVENUE TRENDS 1.4 REVENUE 1.2 ' FROM ASSESSED VALUE 1 > 1.0 tu S .8 .6 ` A ' PER CAPITA SENSITIVE COSTS' .2 + 07000 1000 2000 3000 4040 6400 8000 NUM IER 4F UNITS ECIS 8-73317-1 - Fig. ae-a PUBLIC SERVICE COST TRENDS WITH SIZE ` (NOT TO SCALE) TOTAL O U 2 W w PUBLIC SAFETY pFACILITIES Q 2 J SCHOOL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS TO MATCH HIGHER DENSITY INCREMENT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS TO MATCH PROPOSED ACTION SHORT TERM TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS. LOW AS PROPOSED HIGH NUMBER OF UNITS (NOT TO SCALE), a TOTAL O U POPULATION DEPENDANT COSTS _ t7 Z a W VARIABLE GOVERNMENT COSTS O COST OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AREA DEPENDANT COSTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY LOW AS PROPOSED HIGH _ NUMBER OF UNITS EC1S E-73317-1 ` Fig 48- S CROSSOVER TRENDS WITH SIZE a . Z 41 COSTS Q d . REVENUES NOTE ILLUSTRATIVE PROPOSALS ONLY CURVES SHOW ARBITRARY CROSSOVER POINTS LOW AS PROPOSED HIGH NUMBER.OF UNITS ECUS E-73317-1 • PART 8 ' Section S.0 RELATIONSHIP TO PRODUCTIVITY ECIS • E-73317-1 • RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USE TO LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Pre-Empted Future Alternatives Commitment to Hlackhawk Ranch is commitment to a major community adjacent to Mount Diablo State Park and isolated from other areas by topography chaiacteristics. This would preclude use of the land for open space or intensive agricultural use. The Hlackhawk Ranch, in its present condition, is useful as a scenic, agricultural, and open space resource. In addition, it supports a varied plant and animal community. Development of the ranch .will commit "a portion of the .•land to residential or . recreational uses for an indefinite number of years. The scale of. the project and the characteristics of the terrain will be compatible with the local ecological system in a number • of ways, particularly with rgspect Lo available soil moisture and planting of additional native species. Delay of the project would relieve pressure on the south county area for improved traffic facilities and other services. De- lay of the project would give the County and other jurisdictions time to update their policies and land use plans in the light of current conditions. Delay of the project would tend to in- crease the unit costs due to inflation and the costs of delay. 99 ECIS E-73317-1 i PART 8 Section 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES ECIS • E-73317-1 IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES Population densities will increase which will tend to change the character and intensity of land use in the vicinity of Mount Diablo. Traffic volumes and energy demands will increase. Consumption of nonrenewable resources such as concrete, steel, copper and fossil fuels represent irreversible changes (losses) . Wildlife habitats and vegetation on and in• the vicinity of the developed areas will be changed or lost. In terms of practical economic and political realities, the use. of the land for public purposes will be lost for an ex- tended period of time. ECIS E-73317-1 PART H Section 7.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT w ECIS E-73317-1 G}tO M INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT This topic is discussed in detail in Part B, Section 1, under the heading - Regional Considerations, and the heading - Urban Services. Local demands for goods and services due to the Blackhawk Ranch project will be lower than usual (see Appendix E) . The pre- dicted. uconomic multiplier for Blackhawk Oill be about 1.1 versus the usual value of 2.5. Growth to the north is limited by Mount Diablo State Park. Im- provement of traffic facilities such as Crow Canyon Road ex- tension may encourage development of the many parcels in the valley areas. Sycamore Valley will provide the most immediate area for growth with some 1600 acres of developable land along the valley floor extending from the intersection of Sycamore Valley Road and Tassajara Road to Lawrence Road. Pressure for growth throughout the general area known as Tassajara Valley will be generated by the project. Growth in the area will be somewhat restricted by the topological and geologic conditions in• the valley area. 103 ECIS E-73317-1 PART B Section 8.0 PERSONNEL AND REFERENCES P- 1%Mt- r ECIS E-73317-1 The following persons were consulted during preparation of this report: Mel Bobier Contra Costa County Planning Department James Cutler Norman Halberson . . Harlin Menkin Darwin Myers Dr. Dale Sanders Charles A. Zahn Thomas Dudziak Contra Costa County Public Works Department Michael Walford Tom Burlingame Contra Costa County Flood Control and . Water District Ernie Murphy Alameda .County blood Control District Owen Eide Last Bay Municipal Utility District Barney Jacobick John McBride Richard Rego Gary Odafer Kirker Chapman and Associates Ernest L. Seamans James A. Roberts' & Associates Ron Bush PG&E. John Connery LAFCO , 105 EDS E-73317-1 Captain Blodgett Danville Fire Protection District Mr. Dalton Contra Costa County Central Sanitary District Mr. Glenn Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department Mr. Freitas San Ramon Valley Unified School District Mr. Brooks Contra Costa County Highway Department Mr. Svoboda Office of Local Assistance, California Departwant of Education Ken Mitchell California Department of Parks and Recreation v 206 ECIS E-73317-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY (ECIS) 1. Contra Costa County Open Space Conservation Plan (March 1973) . 2. Contra Costa County General Plan (March 1963) . ' 3.. Alamo-Danville General Plan, Contra Costa County (April 1967) . 4. San Ramon Unified School District Facilities Plan, System Planning Corps (November . S. Regional Housing Study, ABAG (October 1969) . 6. Preliminary Regional Plan, ABAG (November 1966) . 7. Formulation of Regional Growth Policy, ABAG (October 1973) . 9. California Statistical Abstract, State of California (1972) . 9. "1971 California County Fact Book;" County Supervisor' s . Association. . 10. "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1972) . �..:. . 11. "Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of Storm Drain- age Facilities in the San Francisco BLy Region, California, ". S.E. Rantz, U.S. Geological Survey (1971) . 12. "Mean Annual Precipitation and Precipitation Depth-Duration- Frequency Data for the San Francisco Bay Region, California, " S.E. Rantz, U.S. Geological Survey (1971) . •13. Kircher, David S. , and Armstrong, Donald P. , "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation," (Revised 1/12/73) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (October 1972) . 14. "A Study of Air Flow Patterns in the San Francisco Bay Area," BAAPCD (June 15, 1970) . 15. "Air Pollution and the San Francisco Bay Area," BAAPCD (September 1972) . 16. Landsberg, H.H. , Fischman, L.L. , and Fisher, J.L. , "Re- sources in America's Future," Johns Hopkins Press (1962) . 1107 SCIS E-73317-1 17. "The Potential for Energy Conservation," A Staff Study, Executive Office of the President, Office of Emergency Preparedness (October 1972) . 18. "San Francisco Hay Region Environment and Resources Plan- ning Study, " U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey; various reports on geology, earthquake faults, and groundwater. 19. San Ramon General Plan (February 1971) . 20. Draft EIR, Contra Costa County Assessment District, San Ramon, EcoScope (1973) . 10a • r ECUS E-73317-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY (JARA) Published Sources Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1972a. Air Pollution and the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco,• California. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1972b. Oxidant�Ex Experience and Distribution in the San Francisco Bay Area, MT- 71-, San Francisco , California. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1973a. Information Bulletin Januarg 16 1973, "A Study of Oxidant Concentration Trends (1962-1971) ," an Trancisco, California. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 1973b. Special Report, Technical Services Division Comparison of Air Quality_ Data I69- T�72, San rancisco, California. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971 . Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations Building Equipment an Home A liances, ' contract 68-04-0047 , Environmental rotection Agency, Ottice o • Noise Aba•!:ement and Control , Washington, D.C. Burcham, L.T. , 1957. California Range Land An Historic- Ecological Study of the Ran a Resources of California , state EL o California, Department of NaturalResources, Division of Forestry, p. 261. California Department of Fish and Game, 1972. At the Crossroads : A Report on California' s Endangered and Rare Fi-sE and Wi i e , Sacramento, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1963. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Mount Diablo Contra Costa Count Cali ornia , an Francisco, California. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1971 . Water guality Control Plan (Interim) San Francisco Bay, Basin acramento, California* Contra Costa County Agricultural Commission, 1972. Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report. Contra Costa Times, 1973. Issue dated July 1, 1973, Martinez, ealifornia. Cronise, 1968. The Natural Wealth of California, Bancroft i Company, San Francisco, a 1 orn a, p. '696. 109 t ECI E-73317-1 Elford, C.R. ,CR1970. Climato rah of the United States, No. 60-4 , "Climate of California," U.S. Department of mmerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. Com elation of. lair Pollutant Emission Factors revised) , U.S. Tr Protection Agency, office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Geiger, 1957. The Climate Near the Ground, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, assacusetts, (Revised Edition) . Grinnell , J. , 1933. Review of the Recent Mammal Fauna of California, University of California Publications in Zoo ogy, , Berkeley, California. Hoch, I. and N. Tryphonopoulos, 1969. A o Study f the Economy of Napa County, California, Giannini Researchi Report No. 303, University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Davis, California. tiolzworth, G.C. , G.B. Bell , and G.A. DeMarrais, 1963. Tem erature Inversion Summaries of U.S. Weather Bureau Radiosonde Observations in a i ornia, U.S. Weather Eureau and stateoCalifornia, Berkeley, California. Ingles, L.G. , 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford Univeri•sty Press, Stanford, California. Knott, J.M. , 1973: Effects of Urbr•nization on Sedimentation and Flood Flows in the Coloma Creek Basin California, San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Munz, F.A. and D.D. Keck, 1959. A California Flora, University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Pampeyan, F.N. , 1963. Geoloqy and Mineral Deposits of Mount Diablo Contra Costa CoUn-tz, California, iCalifornia Division of Mines and Geology, Sp cial Report , San Francisco, California. Purcell, M.F. , 1940. Histor of Contra Costa Count , The Gillick Press, Berkeley, Ca orn a. Rantz, S.E. , 1971a. Mean Annual Preci itation and Precipitation q- Depth-Duration-Frequency Data for the San Francisco Bay Region, U.S. Geological Survey open-File Report, San Francisco, Calif- ornia. a i - ornia. 110, SCIS E-73317-1 Rantz, S.F.. , 1971b. Susgested Criteria -for H drolo is nesi n of Storm-Drainage FacTlities in the San Francisco BaX Region, California, U.S. Geologicalsurvey Open-File Report, . an Francisco, California. Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd, 1972. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants, U.S. nv ronmenta Protection Agency, EPA-R2-72-0810 Washington, D.C. , 236 pp. Soil Conservation Service, 1945. Land CagabilitX and Conser- vation Farming, Contra Costa County of onservation District, Contra Costa, California. Soil Conservation Service, 1968. Contra Costa CountY Soil Survey and General Report, Soil Conservation service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971. California Streamflow Characteristics, Volume I, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report, Menlo Fark, California. U.S. Weather Bureau, 1964. Climato rah of the United States, No. "Decennial Census 3T unitedstates climate: Ca ornia, " • Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. axf'i Unpublished Sources Andrews, M. , June 21, 1973. Valley Disposal -Company, Walnut Creek, California, personal communication. Blackhawk Ranch Development Company, 1973. Market and Community Rep+, Danville, California. Blodgett, July 31 • 1973. San Ramon Fire District, San Ramon, California, personal communication. Brode, J. , June 10, 1973. California Inland Fisheries Branch, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, personal communication. ConFord Chamber of Commerce, 1973. Concord, California, personal communication. Contra Costa Planning Department, Preliminary San Ramon General Plan, 19710 .Martinez, California. Cutler, J. , June 18, 1973. Contra Costa County Advanced Planning Department, Martinez., California, personal communication. SCIS E-73317-1 Jul 5 1973. Contra Costa Count Sanitary District, • Daitan, w. , y . Y personal communication. Davis, J. , July 3, 1973. Livingston and Blayney Associates, San Francisco, California, personal communication. Elliot, B. , June 21, 1973. California Department of Fish and Game, Felton, California, personal communication. Evans, S.K. , 1973. Contra Costa County Planning Department, ' Martinez, California, personal communication. Forristal , J.J. , 1973. Traffic Anal sis - Blackhawk Ranch, Contra Costa County, Oak an , California. Gallaher, G. , June 15, 1973. California Division of Highways, personal communication. • Glenn, L. , Administrative Services Officer, Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department, Contra Costa County, California, personal communication. Grossbach, W. and J. Smith, July 5, 1973. San Ramon Valley Unified School District, Contra Costa County, California , personal communication. Hanson, C.B. , June 25, 1973. The Paleontologic Resources of Blackhawk Ranch, University of=a ifornial Berkeley, California. Hobert; July 3, 1973. Undersheriff , Contra Costa Sheriff's Department, Contra Crista County, California, personal communication. n....»p1�'. • -..-. Jackson, T.L. , undated. Report of Findings of Archaeological Reconnaissance and Historical Researc or Contra Costa Count Assessment District 1973w3, San Ramont antra Costa Count_y., • California, Palo Alto, California. Jackson, T.L. , June 17 , 1973. Archaeolo ical Reconnaissance of the Blackhawk Ranch Area, San Francisco, California. Kirker, Chapman and Associates, 1972, Preliminary Utilities investigation for Blackhawk Ranch Contra Costa county, California , San Francisco, Ca x orn a. Lowney-Kaldveer and Associates,. February, 1973. Preliminary ' Geotechnical Reconnaissance 4,000 Acre BlackhawktfancThp Contra Costa, California, Palo A to, a orn a, • Miller, July 5, 1973. Diablo Valley Disposal, Walnut Creek California, personal communication. . , ECUS $-73317-1 • Olney, July 5, 1973. President, AChme' Fill Company and Pleasant Hill Disposal Company, Pleasant Hill, California , personal communication. Perry, F. , 1973. Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, personal communication. Spears, J. , June 18 and 21, 1973. Foreman, Blackhawk Ranch, Danville, California, personal communication. Waddington, G. , June 18 , 1973. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California, personal communication. Wagner, L. , July 6, 1973. Pleasant Hill Disposal Company, Pleasant Hill, California, personal communication. ECIS E-73317-1 PART B Section 9.4 QUALIFICATIONS ECIS E-73317-1 QUALIFICATIONS Project Manager for the ECIS effort was Mr. George J. Coe, President ECIS who holds a Bachelor of Science- of Engineering ' from the University of Connecticut and has directed preparation of more than 40 EIR projects. Arthur G. Schwartz, PE, was technical director for the project. He has participated in more than 40 EIR projects and is a Vice President of ECIS. The Economic/Fiscal Analysis (Appendix E) was prepared by Gruen Gruen i Associates. The following ECIS personnel and associates participated in this program: • Michael Kaplan, Architect, AIP Community Planning Michael Stickney Systems Analysis Dr. Irwin Remson, Reg. Geologist Geology, Hydrology Dr. H. Thomas Harvey Ecology Russell Pearson Traffic/Transportation Sys. Charles Salter Acoustics Dr. Rameshwar Singh Drainage, Hydrology The qualifications of the James A. Roberts Associates staff are presented in their report of August 1973 prepared for the Blackhawk Development Company. ECIS E-73317-1 PART C CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS ECIS • E-73317-1 ECIS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Supplementary Data There are a number of areas which require additional detail data for final review and approval by the County. This EIR represents a master EIR for the entire project. It is recom- mended that the County require a supplemental EIR or addendum for each specific area to be developed which incorporate the geologic, hydrologic and ecologic data required for final approval of .each sub-area of the site. Z. General Plan The County should consider a general plan revision which treats the area covered by the San Ramon Unified School District as a planning area. 3. ,Agricultural Preserve The County should explore ways to preserve agricultural land by exclusion of these lands from the "Urban Service Area" . 4. Transit Services The County should encourage the developer to provide on-site transit services and the local Mass Transit District to provide a tie to public transportation facilities. a ' • . 11 7 SCIS E-73317-1 S. Mitigation Measures The County and the developer should explore the value and possibility of the various mitigation measures and treatment alternatives discussed in this EIR. EC13 Appendix A • COMMUNITY AND URBAN PLANNING '7 . ECIS 3-73317-1 Appendix A DESIGN ASSESSMENT by Michael Kaplan, AIP The design characteristics of the Blackhawk Ranch are an im- portant determinant of the quality of life within and adjacent to the project, and this project will involve nearly 15,000 future County residents. The attached design assessment is based on criteria which are generally accepted as being im- portant elements for physical planning. It is particularly important in a project of this magnitude where the specific designs and details are scheduled to be developed and sub- mitted for approval subsequent to evaluation of the project as a whole. In part, the attached analysis provides the criteria . which can be used as "yardsticks" for evaluation of subsequent supplementary addendums and EIRs for each of the project areas as they are submitted for approval. It should be noted that the guidelines for impact analysis imply a concern for the welfare of future County residents as well as the current population (e.g. , short-term vs long-term • effects) ., This section treats physical design assessment. Regional con- siderations, general plan compliance, and other land use assessments are covered in the text A the EIR. It should be noted that in the context of this design analysis, compatibi- lity relates to physical effects rather than compliance with plans, ordinances, or other jurisdictional requirements. A EC I S DESIGN PLAN A N A L Y S I S by Michael Kaplan, An :• 1-73917-1 } t BLACKHANK RANCH Compatibility GOC With FAIR rdevelopment eria for Evaluation Criteria POOR patibility of proposed use with surrounding areas. x velopment, although unique in its magnitude, is an extension of current residential. growth patterns in the Danville/San Ramon Valley and is compatible. Retail, , and recreational uses are proposed to provide basic community support facilities. sidential densities will generally be higher than that in the Danville/Alamo area. cation of the project well to the east of current development creates a community quite separate from existing development. Although some of the intervening land between the project and current inhabited areas will be developed, the nature of the land will, for the most part, preclude major residential 'development ties to adjacent areas and the Blackhawk community will remain distinct and rather exclusive. 2•. Blends with natuial features and topography as viewed from surrounding areas. I I Ix The project is physically well planned and responsive to the natural topography and genera' environmental quality of the area. Development is concentrated mainly on the valley floor and on lower and more moderate sloping hills. Development areas are appropriately grouped to fit the natural topography. Very little development currently exists in the adjacent aieas of the proposed community and visibility from these areas is not a factor. Future development is anticipated all through the Sycamore Valley, generally terminating at Black hawk Road. These areas will not be contiguous with the Blackhawk Ranch and there will be no visibility between them. Because of the magnitude of the development, many parts of the project will be readily visible from Blackhawk and Tassajara Road. Particularly, the proposed office/commercial area and uphill residential areas fronting on those major streets. 3. Minimize disturbance to natural appearance of the site for road grading. X v~i The road system is designed to minimize grading and to avoid extensive cut or fill slopes. a It wi.l be the policy of the development that where certain graded slopes cannot be avoided, they will be regarded to have a natural appearance and planted with indigenous plant materials. No roads are proposed on steep hillsides and none are proposed along any ridgelines. Paved road widths are proposed to be kept to minimal standards which will reduce grading. 0 A. Minimize disturbance to natural appearance of site for structural grading. E' The stated policy of the developer is that slopes in excess of 25% will not be developed; Z houses will be sited to utilize the existing topography; and grading pads for homes or groups of homes will be avoided. Critical areas occur in those sections designated for single family clusters where net densities range from 1-14 dwelling units per acre, de- pending on the terrain. In these areas, sensitive siting of roads and homes will be necessary in order to avoid extensive grading. S. Preservation,and enhancement of natural site features. I I IX The proposed.plan is very sensitive to the natural conditions and features of the site. Natural creeks and wooded drainageways are to be preserved as part of the open space sys- tem. The present character of the natural landscape will in large measure be retained. The large native Oaks and other indigenous trees and landscape elements are to be pre- served. The Walnut orchards on the.flatter portions of the site are in varying degrees of age and health and will, for the most part, be cleared for proposed housing and golf course development. SCIS DESIGN PLAN ANALYSIS E-73317-1 BUCKNAWK MNCN. ompat a tyGoOD With FAIR s ect Criteria for Evaluation Criteria Poox 6. Alleviation of undesirable site features. IXFF Large unsightly electric transmission lines traverse the central portion of the site from north to south. There are no plans by the developer or PG&E to relocate the lines. N 7. Provision for private residential open space.. Approximately 501 of the housing for the project will be single family detached or estate lots which will all have considerable private open space. No architectural plans for the proposed single family cluster or multi-family housing development have been prepared; therefore, no definitive judgment can be made at this time for these areas, relative to this criteria. It is anticipated that the single family cluster and multi-family housing will have adequate private open space in the form of-balconies or small patios. 6. Provision of community open space. X Over 65% of the area in the project will be undeveloped open space. Another 81 will be developed in golf courses. Large portions of the open space area is being considered for dedication to the Mt. Diablo State Park. Much of the open space occurs on the steep • slopes north of the developed areas and is contiguous to the State Park. Open space is also developed in the central areas of the project on steeper slopes and on the many knolls and ridges in the project area. Mar.p hiking and horse trails eminating from the N residential areas are proposed to 'traverse the hills. Additional community open space areas will be developed in conjunction with development of the single family cluster and multi-family areas. A good deal of the natural open space will be usable by the co:imun- a ityj however, most of the land is on steep grades and will be essentially visual open space. Much of the uphill areas along the north side of the project will be used for horse and cattle grazing. 9. Continuity of open space. I i IN Almost all the major areas of open space are contiguous and occur along the north hillside areas of the project. There is good continuity of the central open space areas with each other and with the major hillside areas to the north. The plan indicates many greenway connections linking the residential areas with the major open space areas. Much of the major and secondary street system, with large dedicated rights of ways, will be part of the open space system incorporating pedestrian and bike paths. 10. High quality of site plan. 10a. Strong community structure and focus. IX The project falls short (in both a physical and social sense) of being a cohesive commun- m ity. This is in part due to the nature of the land which makes it difficult to physically o integrate the area. The project is structured rather casually in a series of residential areas, generally isolated from one another. Though the commercial/office area and country club are central to the life• of the community, it is doubtful whether they will provide 44 a strong community focus without the introduction of. other community facilities. ECIS DESIGN PLAN ANALYSIS 2-73117-1 Z 1 BL�1ClCH71WlC � compatibility GOOD With IF91R ' s ect Criteria for Evaluation Criteria P00R 10b. Relationship of residences to each other, to natural open space, roads, and other site amenities. In general, the site planning for the project is excellent as regards the integration and relation of the residential areas to natural and developed open space. Each of the resi- dential areas will have its own character and identity, depending on its location and its proximity to such community elements as the golf course, the country club, the commercial center, the school, or to major open space. Single family cluster housing in appropriately interspersed with single family detached housing, particularly in the central golf course wrFea. Some locations for the cluster and the multi-family housing appear quite arbitrary relative to their proximity to central community facilities and schools. No higher den- sity housing is proposed to be located with convenient rroxi-I ty to the major conunercial office center. Large estate home sites are appropriately located throughout the project in remote areas and on generally more rugged terrain. Most cluster and multi-family devel- opment is desirably located with direct access from major or secondary roads. In a few places, it is necessary to enter these areas through- low density single family detached housing. Except for a few instances, single family detached hoasing appropriately fronts on minor streets. In most instances, single family housing appropriately Adjoins major open space areas. lOc. Relationship of cormaercial and retail facilities. I 1XI Two commercial sites are proposed. The major 24-acre cog=ercial/office site is centrally located but is somewhat peripheral to the community and is not currently proposed as a village center with community facilities in the traditional sense. This center is within a mile radius of a large portion of the comunities' population, 3 miles from the further- most eastern edge of the project, and 1-1/2 miles -from. the Meste^i corner. A second smwller commercial area located at the extreme southeast corner of the project will provid - convenient marketing service to those residents at that end of the project. N W a A 10d. Relationship to community facilities. I 1XI Ht The private country club, which represents a prime community focus, is well sited central to the community and in a beautiful watershed lake area. The developer anticipated that ` upwards of 30% of the community's, resident families will have me=: ership in the country club. Two golf courses are proposed. Each course is well sited relative to the terrain ``p which will help protect existing natural drainage courses in. the project. The golf courses are well designed to permit maximum exposure to adjacent residential development. Sites for 3 elementary schools have been proposed to serve the project. Unfortunately, they are not located central to the area they serve and will not be conveniently access- ible by foot or bike to all of the children in the service area. Other private community recreation facilities are proposed to be developed conveniently within the individual resi- dential development areas. A public service facility which =ay have a fire house and a post office is shown on Blackhawk Road opposite the major. co=ercial area. d 11. Blends with adjacent residential areas. Other than some few scattered homes along Blackhawk Road, there is very little residential development adjacent to the project area, and Satisfaction of this criteria is not rele- vant for Blackhawk Ranch. ECIS DESIGN PLAN ANALYSIS E-73317-1 BLRCKHAWK RANCH Compatibility GOOD With FAIR s ect Criteria for Evaluation Criteria pooR 11. Adequate transition and buffering from adjacent residential areas. There is very little adjacent residential development. There are about a dozen houses along Blackhawk Road just north of Tassajara Road. The proposed development in generally a located with adequate distance from them. The plan does indicate, however, that housing q is proposed to be developed up to the property lines in several locations along the southern part of the project. This may preclude adequate buffering or transition from these adjacent areas as future major development takes place on them. There does not N appear to be adequate setback and transition on Blackhawk Road at the west end of the project. 13. Architectural compatibility of buildings with site, relative to scale, texture color, and general appearance. The project is still in the conceptual design stage of development. There are no archi- tectural plans prepared for any of the development areas. No definitive evaluation can be made at this time relative to this'criteria.- It is the stated policy of the developer H that he will establish strict design controls on all homes. Based on the sensitive atten- a tion given the site planning, road design, and the projected cost and quality of the housing, it is anticipated that the architectural design wall be good and the appearance of the housing and other buildings will harmonize with the character of the land. 14. Variety of design of housing without compromise of harmony with site _feature,. No architectural plans have been prepared at this stage; therefore, no definitive evalua- tion can be made at this time relative to this criteria. There will be several housing types developed. The developer anticipates that much of the single family detached and all of the estate homes will be custom built, which will result in considerable variation . in design. The design of cluster single family and multi-f&nily housing will have to be evaluated in the future. 15. Preservation of desired public and private views from the site. I I IX NBlackhawk Road will run adjacent to and through portions of the development. Tassajara H Road runs adjacent to portions of the south side of the project. Certain views of t:;e hills from these public roads will unavoidably be partially interrupted by the proposed development. In several places, these county roads will be exposed to open space areas and existing views will be preserved. From within the site, the proposed development will for the most part take advantage of both intimate and broad views of the adjacent and surrounding landscape. The design has to be checked for compatibility with the 5 County scenic routes, plan. 16. Provision of public and private community facilities and services, recreation, X social, etc. Schools: The development plan indicates sites for 3 elementary schools (K-6) . No sites have been proposed for either junior or senior high schools, although they are required for Blackhawk Ranch. The developer has indicated his willingness to locate such facili- w ty ties if warranted. No provision for nursery school locations have yet been made. HRecreation: A private country club is proposed which will have an 18-hole golf course, a tennis and swimming facilities, along with a club house and its social activity areas. M A w second eighteen-hole golf course and club house is proposed at the eastern end of the project. A major equestrian center is proposed in the northwest part of the project. There will be numerous hiking and riding trails developed throughout the hills. At pre- sent, no definitive provisions have been included for general public recreation, such as tot lots, ballfields, tennis courts, or swimming pools, either in the several residential neighborhood areas or for the community as a whole. The current development policy pro- poses that these smaller neighborhood recreation and social facilities be incorporated t a into the individual housing development parcels is they are developed. These facilities would then be private and generally exclusive for each of the smaller residential areas they serve. There is no plan at this time to develop public recreation or social facili- ties under any future county parks and recreation service district. ECUS DESIGN PLAN ANALYSIS 2-79917-1 . DLACKHANK RANCH Compatibility G:OD With FAIR a ect Criteria for Evaluation Criteria 1P00R 16. (continued) Other Community Facilities and Services: No'provisions have been made for public co—,_Un-• ty services such as community meeting halls, child care centers, nursery schools, library theater, youth activities' centers, churches, or post office, all of which may be neces- sary to make a vital and viable community. M H a u w 17. Facilitates a strong sense of community and neighboring. ~ The private country club provides the major social focus for the community. For those who are members, there will undoubtedly be developed close social ties and relationships. p In the single family cluster and multi-family development areas, it in anticipated that u there will be some degree of neighboring due to the intensity of development and the sharing of common facilities and open- space. 2'he single family and estate areas without common facilities will generally foster exclusion and separateness from each other and from other areas of the community. There appears to be no current emphasis on provision of a community center with major public facilities and because of this, it is doubtful that there will be a strong sense of community. 18. Compatibility of housing types i sizes with needs of residents. The development will offer a range of housing types from single family detached on estate and conventional lots, cluster single family attached condominium ownership, and some multi-family garden apartments for rent or condominium ownership. The current procram is . t. predominantly home ownership for middle and upper income households. It is doubtful a whether housing currently proposed will accormodate households with moderate or low in- 0 comes (under $15,000 per year) . Anticipated housing costs range from $35,000 for single W family attached homes and multi-family apartments, to $70,000 for single family detached on conventional lots and $100,000 homes on estate lots. The economic analysis indicated that there will be upwards of 1,500 permanent jobs created in the community, exclusive of construction jobs. The majority of the incomes for these jobs will be below $15,000 M per year which will preclude these employees from living within the community. There r:) will lie a wide range of sizes of housing units within each type of housing. In general, :9 it can be expected that the larger units will be found in the single family detached, and smaller units in the single family cluster and garden apartments. Because of the cost structure of the housing, the age levels will tend to be high, and families smaller. Young families and young individuals will generally not be able to afford the housing. 19. Provision of new landscape elements which will enhance the development. Landscaping plans have not been developed at this time and no definitive judgment can be made at this time relative to this criteria. It is the stated policy of the developer to generate extensive landscape treatment along major and secondary roads within the project as well as in various community areas such as the commercial centers and the country club F4 areas. Individual development parcels will be required to also generate extensive land- scape treatment which will enhance the development. Judgment on the magnitude and quality H of proposed landscape treatment will have to await submission of future individual dove-. lopment plans. H 20. Provision of landscape screening for wind control and/or velocity reduction. w This criteria is not considered an important one for this project. Most homes and ocher N buildings are located in draws or on side hills, where any wind factor is considerably o reduced. .r ECIS DESIGN PLAN ANALYSIS a-73317-1 OLACKHANK RANCH Compatibility GOOD With FAIR a ect Criteria for Evaluation Criteria POOR 21. Provision of landscape screening to reduce noise. Landscaping plans have not been developed for the various stages of the development, therefore, no definitive judgment relative to this criteria can be made at this time. In general, noise will not be a major factor in the community. Very little development will t. occur adjacent to county or major roads within the community. The exception being along Hlackhawk Road at the extreme west end of the project where auto generated noise may be t+ a factor. p; 22. Provision for adequate landscape screening for community parking. N Since no plans have yet been developed for the initial phase of development, judgment 7 based on this criteria cannot be made at this time. . 23. High quality of lighting, signing, and street furniture. M Detailed plans for these aspects have not As yet been considered; therefore, no judgment can be made at this time. N ' . � H H 24: Adequate accessibility and vehicular circulation to surrounding community. IX (Refer to Traffic Analysis for detailed data.) Almost all traffic will be directed to the west and southwest. Two existing lural county roads (Hlackhawk Road and Tassajara Road) will directly serve the project. The project has several major entry points from existing roads, which will help distribute the traffic to internal destinations. The community is somewhat self-contained in that most trips to commercial and community recreation facilities will probably be within the community. There will probably be a high percentage of executive-type commute traffic to the major employment centers. 25. Provision of pedestrian links both within the community and to the outside. X The plan calls for an extensive amount of pedestrian paths which will link the various residential areas to each other and to community facilities, such as shopping, country Hclub, and schools. Numerous trails are also tf be provided linking the community to H natural open space areas and to Diablo State Park. Future plans which will be developed for each housing phase will further articulate the magnitude and quality of this system within each of the areas, and can be further judged at that time. The proposed site plan a will have to be checked against the County trails plan. U 26. Provision of bike paths, community transit, or other small scale secondary system, X The plan calls for an extensive network of bike paths along all proposed roads within the project. A study is currently underway to assess the feasibility of a community transit system which will provide service within the community and also link the community to the I-680 corridor to the west. ECIS DESIGN PLAN ANALYSIS 7»17-1 BI ACRNAWK RANCH Compat a ty GOOD With FAtR s ect Criteria for Evaluation Criteria Pooit 27. Minimizes doninance of site by automobile movement and acco,=odation. t The plan appropriately calls for minimum road widths for major, secondary, and minor roads These roads are also appropriately designed without curbs or gutters and will be developed informally, befitting a rural environment. Even though there is an extensive roadway system proposed, these 2 factors will considerably reduce the negative effect of the auto on the community. The convenience provided by an extensive bike and pedestrian path sys- tem will also reduce the dependence on the car for internal trios. Another important o factor which will advantageously affect diminishing auto use will be the attempt to dove- lop an inter-community transit system. This potential system is currently under study. 28. Provision for and quality of on-site circulation and parking acilities. X Although the on-site circulation system is quite extensive, the a.rcunt of roadways needed �► to serve the project is minimal, and generally well developed. A single major and second- ary road system which includes Blackhawk Road, traverses tre project and links the various areas of residential development together and to the cc=nunity focal areas of shopping and country club activities. Secondary and minor roads beco».e the prime routes to indivi- dual housing areas and are well aligned and sited. Precise plans have not yet been for- mulated for any housing development; therefore, judgment of adequacy and quality of park- ing. aceommodations cannot be made at this time. 29. Accessibility for police and fire vehicles, and control 3f hazards. The current plan proposes 'a single site adjacent to the co-:.ercial/office center for a fire station. This places the site approximately one mile from the west end of the pro- ject and about 3-1/2 miles from the eastern end. The developer has indicated that the r site can be shifted further east. If required, an additional fire station can be provided ' closer to the eastern end of the property. The 'dcveloper is cor.cidering a private secu- rity force to add to county services, to previda internal police protection for the com- munity. If this is not implemented, the project will depend upon county police services. The areas of development of the site are readily accessible from county and community roads and should afford adequate provisions for surveillance' and protection. The project u will not generate any hazards worthy of consideration. Fire protection of grassy hill- side areas will be provided by the proposed loca1 stations. a ECiS s Appendix H • GEO-PHYSICAL FACTORS ' r EC1S E-73317-1 t Appendix 9-1 GEO-TECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE FOR 41800 ACRE BLACKHAWK RANCH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA (Appendix B-1 is supplied as a separate report) ECIS E-73317-1 Appendix 8-2 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA1 HYDROLOGY 1 Prepared by JaAes A. Roberts and Associates I HYDROLOGY j Concern has been expressed about the peak discharges presented in the report. This topic is considered on -pages 37-44 and 77r80 of the draft EIR. The method used in determining peak discharges was the Rational Method, or Q = ciA • where, Q a peak flow in cubic feet per second Ws) , , i = rainfall intensity in inches per hour, A = Area in acres, and c = constant. This method was selected because of the lack of streamflow data on the property. Other methods involve statistical analysis of .,existing rainfall and streamflow records to develop regression equations to predict a peak flow for a specific return period. These data were not available to develop the equations. The 1 Prepared in response to County Staff comments. 2 Pages references are for EIR prepared by James A. Roberts and Associates (August 1973) . 10 SCIS E-73317-1 Rational Method is not a highly accurate engineering approach to the determination of peak flows, but the lack of data makes it the most feasible approach. Following are the steps taken in determining the peak flows for the Blackhawk Ranch. Watershed boundaries were delineated on 7.5 minute USGS topographic maps. A planimeter was then used to determine the acreage in each watershed. Channel lengths were measured with an .opsiometer. The channel was followed to its end and then in a direct line from the end of the stream to the farthest point of the drainage divide (Chow, 1964) . The upper and lower elevations were estimated from the map to arrive at a stream gradient. These values were used to arrive at a time of concentration for each basin according to the formula tc - 0.00013 L.77 [Chow, 1964) • S.385 where to a time of concentration in hours . L - length of the drainage basin in feet S - ratio of the fall of the drainage basin to L, dimensitnless. The time of concentration was then used to determine rainfall intensities for various return periods. This was done by interpolating within a precipitation intensity table [Rantz, 1971) for the various times of concentration and adjusting these values to reflect one-hour intensities. For example, to determine the two-year rainfall intensity for a watershed with a 26 minute time of concentration, the 26-minute intensity value was interpolated betwgen the .15 and 30-minute intensities for areas with an annual precipitation of 18 inches [Rantz, 19711 (Table 4, p. 22) . 15 minute intensity • 0.26 30 minute intensity = 0.36 The 26-minute intensity is 0.33 or , 0.26 + 0'1- � - 0.33 inches EClca'i 2-73317-1 This was then adjusted to reflect. a rainfall duration of 60-minutes. 0.33 = -x or 0.33 60 0.76 inches/hour Therefore, for a watershed with a 36-minute time of concen- tration, the two year one hour rainfall intensity is 0.76 inches. The weak link in the rational method is the determination of the constant "c". Selection of a "c" value is wholly • subjective as there is no quantitative method of determining its value. A value of 0.7 was selected .as it was felt that this value more nearly reflected the clay soils of the area than would a lower value. Gray 119701 gives a rough procedure for determining "c"; utilisation of Gray's procedure yields a value of 0.6. Following is a comparison of the selected value of "c" with "c" for the other land uses as presented in Linsley, Kohler, and Paulhus 11958) : ` ZXpe of Area Value of c Flat residential, 30 percent impervious r MNderately steep residential, 50 .' percent impervious 0.65 Built-up area, 70 percent impervious 0.80 Flat cultivated land,, open sandy soil 0.20 Rolling cultivated land, clay loam soil 0.50 . Hill lana, forested, clay loam soil 0.50 For the purpose of this report, the value of "c" selected ' for they developed areas was O.S. From the above table this. value represents a built-up. area with a 70 percent impervious area. All values determined are then substituted into the equation and a peak discharge is calculated. For example, • for watershed H. a 100-year return period, and existing conditions, ECIS 2-73317-1 where C 097 op 1 0.61 inches per hour, A 421 acres, then Q = . (0.7) (0.61) (421) . • 180 cubic feet per second. To determine a peak flow once the watershed has been developed, that portion developed has a "o" value of 0.8 and the' remain- der has a "c" value of 0.7. , Q cdiAd + ceiAe, where Cd - value of "c" for developed conditions, or 0:80, Aa - area developed in acres, , or 33 acres, . ce value of "c" for existing conditions, or 0.70, • As - area remaining undeveloped, or 388 acres, and f 0.61 inches per hour, then Q = (0.80) (0. 61) (33) + (0.70) (0.61) (388) 182 cubic feet per second. The Rational Method, while limited in its application, is a valid approach in determining peak discharges from small watersheds. Its attributes lie in its simplicity and in the limited data needed. When more data are available, another method may be used, but that was not the case in this instance. . 13 i ECIS s-4,331.7-1 Appendix B-3 BLACKHAWK RANCH WATERSHEDS by Kirker Chapman s Associates The purpose of this report is to supplement and expand upon information presented in the James A. Roberts &' Associates EIR. General: Blackhawk Ranch lies on the southwesterly slopes of the Black Hills and drains ultimately into three major creeks, viz : Green Valley Creek, Sycamore Creek end Alamo Creek. The most northwesterly portion of Blackhawk Ranch drains into Pine Canyon to the northeast, and Emmons Canyon to the ,west. This portion .of the Ranch will remain as undevelopedopen space; hence the hydro- . �•-,. ; . logic impact is zero. Similarly; the portion of the Ranch which • drains through, Dan Cook Canyon 'and Diablo to Green Valley Creek will"remain undeveloped, with 'no hydrologic impact, as will the portion north of Oyster Point & outside area K. The portions of Blackhawk Ranch which will have an impact, due to •development, have been divided into- 15 drainage areas (A through O) on the USGS "Diablo" Quadrangle. The ,location of these areas follows; keyed to the three major creeks: 1. East Branch, Green Valley Creek Area Comments_ A. 'Tributary to East -Branch of Green 'Valley Creek. • Out-of-Tract lands (Fossil Ridge) 60-701 slopes. B. Presumably the upper reach of East Branch; Green Valley Creek. C. Tributary to East Branch A ECIS 3-73317-1 2. Sycamore Creelc D. Tributary to Sycamore Creek. S. Sycamore Creek. Headwaters in Mt. Diablo State Park; re- maining out-of-tract lands (Knob Pt: , Devil's Slide, Black- hawk Ridge) predominantly 501 slopes i upwards. F. Tributary to Sycamore Creek. G. Tributary to Sycamore Creek. No distinct channelization; overland flow presumed. 3a. West Branch, Alamo Creek • H. Tributary to West* Branch of Alamo Creek. i -do- . J. -do- X. West Branch, Alamo Creek. Out-of-Tract lands (Oyster Pt. , r_. Cave Pt. ) 40-701 slopes. L. . Tributary- to West Branch. 3b. Alamo Creek X. Tributary to Alamo Creek N. -do- O. Alamo Creek. Out-of-Tract lands 30-601 Acreages of. the 15 drainage aread' were measured planimetrically for both Blackhawk Ranch (In-Tract) and upstream lands (Out-of-Tract) : SCIS E-73317-1 i• ' Table 1 Area In-Tract Out-of-Tract Total A 235 100 335 B 250 50 300 C 270 10 280 D 70 40 110 E . 1280 1100 2380 F 35 35 70 G 15 35 50 H 60 10 70 I 65 20 85 J 180 0 180 K 1060 330 1390 L 25 25 50 H 30 0 30 i N 410 20 430 0 . 300 325 625 Totals : 4.285 2100 6385 565 (Pine-Emmons-Dan Cook Canyon areas and Oyster Pt. ) `i 4860 (Blackhawk Ranch Total)• ' j Existingstorm runoff, prior to develo ment of Blackhawk Ranch, � P P has been computed using intensities and runoff coefficients pro- ' vided by Contra Costa County Flood Control and Plater District material , The storm runoff after ultimate development of Blackhawk Ranch has been computed using the same criteria sources . Several assump- tions and guidelines had to be adopted in order to properly assess the impact of Blackhawk Ranch: 1) Since drainage flow would follow natural channels most of the length (except where it crosses a roadway) time of concentration was assumed as the same before and after development. 16 ECIS E-73317-1 2) Upstream (out-of-tract) lands have been carried through the calculations • in their existing states; no allowance has been made for their development. At the improvement plan stage, Blackhawk Ranch hydraulics must allow for upstream development; however, the TyUrologic impact of the Ranch proper cannot be gauged unless the contribution from out-of-tract lands remains constant. These lands are generally too steep for development in almost all cases, and their owners will be obliged to supply hydro- logic impact studies if any change in use is proposed. 3) In order to simplify the calculations, rainfall intensities for a 50-year storm were used, regardless of drainage area size. The 2212 " isohyet for Contra Costa County was also used as a constant for Blackhawk Ranch, for the same reason. 4) All undeveloped, or open space, lands were treated as "Adobe Clay" , 208 ground slope; Runoff Coefficient 0.45. 5) "Adobe Clay" , 208 ground slope, was used for Runoff' Coefficients for developed lands as follows: • • Estates (red) : . 50 SFD (yellow) : .60 Schools , etc (orange) : .80 r.: Multi family (purple) : . 85 SF Cluster (blue) : .70 Commercial (green) : . 90 • • 6) Calculations were carried out to the nearest 5 Acres or 5 CFS, generally. Greater accuracy is not reasonable at- this point, especially with the rational storm drainage formula, and the time required would be unproductive. " w ECIS E-73317-1 Summary: Ultimate (developed) runoff and comparative runoffs are shown on attached computation sheets. Every effort has been made to use slightly conservative values; hence, the results may be expected to reflect liberal maximum impacts. Points of concen- tration of drainage flow, shown on the attached drainage map by heavy dots, are the locations where comparison is made between the quantity of flow prior to development and the flow after ultimate development. The highest rate of increase among the four major points of concentration occurs at Sycamore Creek with 6.2%. IN Is t;� .. ' ..;�,,� � .. ` fir,. 'a � �. � .�•` ,-„..•. ,,,1' '•` �1 ` r`': • +, L �•,3 1 �, . \. \ rte!. moo � (, � •�t tr < a: ,%'3= j•1•,' �` •ri"f�, `a ! ` .'i �i Lrt �� ,J �1 ;t•a»*.7�t,/��' � LL"' •j�.•.�r:.�,•�;i.�• "`— R`i�'�,. � �•4 •a ,f'. ._...,.......•- •� � !{','.�.%, ',,• ' \f �1 :>•t�•`::' t ,:f•�;,a'��1;;t;f*'=,• t ht•• •!�.`t' . ri • Is'•%� .} .• 'i, ' tri 1'�' ,i;r 'i�^ r^' t,•,�'•a. � � J \4 �' ' 'tr � ' ,,,.e'�' 111 � � .� . ./'. .:t •. .•_ .r a�• t. 14. is It jF .• '`,,, r, Zti� '' ,fie:. '” '�' :i. ._��,;, ♦.'•,� 'y'' ..1 ,�. . t h,e,. 'e` .1 '''w. ,-r♦� : .}•� ,' vas. / t wry �' j •�`t..j�; } i - .1(� , a•! .. ,/ '; tit•, `� ;�/�. .�': ' � •r.J' '.��.•r`"" ••✓•,rw ') f ! ! i' l r.'•Lr`..,J;%+',� • "� •� •, +�./ a, _/ . ,,i►" /. r• ..,"1� .ate. r� "� :,. �1r;.+ ,:w .r•'jfld� " .afiJr r w►.w .• �: :� t•�Y'�n•{( ti+.;•, , t�"� ^„/'`•.'ice• .vJ '..��. ��'' wA s t,'! •�� r��d'. •r'.- :��•ki I/ '•"► •i J t' • � r �•.1 Y• •. .'t�1...1� i t 1 ..'•' . .,:1. ' ' .�-+. ti, < �+! �w.� ' 'f` �i� !•j ♦ rte/' f`rcl• hit Lim $jt {d.�nM ic��SIL.w+o .., Q & A� ntr(tir+r(aPu ' ��.• it'�t �IA) !v► un.(. �1Wt`�' Ilt a sulvvy 1b Mwtwtr,.W • ; ;,iL.Mt.�n lackhawk R°nah AP £ •�t� IMA66 AROA � ORA r �' 1 ECIS Appendix C ; ECOLOGICAL FACTORS • ECIS E-73317-1 Appendix C-1 SUPPLEMENTARY ECOLOGICAL DATA by George J. Coe The biotic survey route of the JARA team is presented in Figure C--1. A biotic community map based on the JARA data was pre- pared and is included in the Summary Report as Figure 2A-7 . Dr. Mary Bowerman, author of "Flowering Plants of Mount Diablo," was contacted relative to the possibility of rare or endan— Y gored plants on the Blackhawk property.l Dr. - Bowerman indi- cated that the most probable plants of interest were dormant at the time and it would be spring -before they were readily . detectable. ECIS suggests that if the overall development plan is approved, the developer survey each specific area to be developed for rare or endangered species as part of the design package documentation effort required for applicant submittals for building permits. Based on currently available data and the biotic maps, it appears that the major areas of possible encroachment on high value biotic community areas appear to be the riparian com- munities along the water courses. The developer has recognized the sensitivity of these areas and indicated an intent to pre- serve these areas. The Golden Eagle is known to frequent the Mount Diablo area and hunt on the slopes and grasslands in the nearby areas. Blackhawk will reduce the hunting grounds by about 1,500 acres which is small compared to the total range. Private communication. 9A ECIS E-73317-1 Appendix C-2 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICANT DATA by James A. Roberts Associates, Inc. VEGETATION AND U41LDLIFE The Contra Costa County review of the Blackhawk property report, item 61 indicates they they desire a more detailed analysis and evaluation of the vegetation and wildlife because ' of the proximity of the property to Mt.• Diablo park and to protect any ecologically unique sites. More information on specified species was also requested. The topics of vegetation and wildlife are treated on pages 46-56, 83-86, and in Appendix C of• the report. . The method 'of evaluation used in the report was identifi- cation and analysis of plant associations and wildlife ihab�tats. These associations and habitats were characterized by indicating the dominant plants and animals of each. Further detail exists in the form of tables that list the plants and animals known to exist on the property and that are common to the area. Since the development pian indicated that none of chaparral and little of the streamside woodland area would be developed, the decision was rade that detailed analysis of •these areas was not necessary for this level of environmental impact report. Further,. the developer has offered most of these areas to the State Park system. Therefore, until specific boundaries have been defined, a more detailed evalua- tion did not seem warranted. The evaluation of habitats for this level of environmental impact report does not aleviate' the possible need for detailed 22 SCIS 8-73317-1 or specific evaluation of areas as actual plans for thu development of particular sites are made and submitted to the county by the developer. Presented below is a discussion of the specific animal species that the county inquired about. RARE, ENDANGERED, OR DEPLETED SPECIES Alameda striped racerDiasticop is lateralis euyxanthus) . This species is discussed on page 53 and in Appendix C of the report. This is listed as a rare species (California Department of Fish and Game, 1972) . The normal density of this population of snake is very low, even in areas in which it is known to occur. Therefore, .actual verification of' the existence -of this species on the, property is very unlikely, even if itis present:. The primary habitat for this snake is the chaparral- habitat and adjacent grasslands. Thus, the development of the open grassland areas on the property will have minor impact on the Alameda striped racer. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum . californiense) . This species is discussed on page 56 and i Appendix-Cof the report. This species is found in Contra i Costa County and is being considered for placement on the , depleted species list since present land use .patterns are reducing its previous range. Suitable habitats exist on the ' property for the species. Field studies on the extent of its distribution on the property could not be accomplished i during the season that field observations were conducted for the reDort. Determination would have to be made during the months of January and February. by checking the ponds and lakes for signs of larvae. Presuming the species is present, the project development could have a direct impact on the species. . Specific impacts will depend on the detailed design of pro- posed ponds and the retention of existing impoundments for watering cattle and those along the creeks and other drainages. The other important factor will be water quality, particularly the effects of toxic substances and petroleum products in ' the runoff from the residential areas that could enter the ponds used for breeding sites by the salamander. In general the impact could be positive or negative depending on the detailed development designs around the ponds. It will be positive if more ponds are created, the water quality is not detrimental, and adequate terrestrial habitat. exists around the margin of the ponds. The impact will be negative if existing ponds are filled or destroyed and water quality deteriorates. • ECIS 8-73317-1 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 1. leucocephalus) . The environmenta'1 impact report does not discuss this endangered species. Forty nesting sites are recorded in' California with 15 active during 1971 (California Department of Fish and Game, 1972) . No known nesting sites or resident birds are found in Contra Costa County [Brode, 1973; Mollet, 19731 . Habitat suitable for nesting or residence of this bird does not exist on the property. The lack of suitable habitat plus the absence of known records for the area by the Department of .Fish and Game' was the reason it was not included in the main report. Re-evaluation of the occurrence of this species, as a result of inquiry by Contra Costa County, was pursued. The near- est location of a known nesting site by the California Department of• Fish and Game is in Lake County (Mbllet, 1973) . A checklist of birds for Mt. Diablo has been compiled by Pugh (undated) . The bald eagle does not occur on the list. The list includes resident, migrant, and winter visitant birds of Mt. Diablo. Ben- ford (1973) , California Academy of Science,- is not aware of any nesting sites near the property. The bald eagle does not appear on the National Audubon Society' s Christmas Bird Count nor does the local Audubon chapter [Richmond, 19731 have records of these birds being sited in the county. Nesting and feeding areas • for this species do not occur on the property. Nesting ar.:l resident populations are normally found near lakes where they feed on dead fish that are washed ashore. The more northern populations of bald eagles do migrate during the winter and are known to be visitors to the larger lakes in California during this season. The development of the property will have no known impact on the bald eagle. OTHER SPECIES Mountain lion (Felis concolor) . A short discussion of this species is found on page 53 of the report. Suitable habitat for the mountain lion on the property is found in the chaparral and streamside woodland zones. Population size is closely dependent on their chief food, deer. A mountain lion normally eats a deer a week. They are far-ranging and hunt in a radius of thirty to fifty miles [Caras, 19671 . No significant direct impact on the mountain lion is anticipated since the chaparral habitats are not to be developed and limited development is planned for the streamside woodland habitats. Mitigation measures discussed on page 86 will aid in reducing secondary impacts caused by increased recreational use of the non-developed area and the roaming of dogs. Coyote (Canis latrans) . ' Although no direct signs of this species were observed during reconnaissance of the .. 24 ECIS E-73317-1 property, it has been reported to be on the property [Elliot, 1973] . Two factors seem to be quite important is respect to the existing coyote population in the area. . The county [Wallace, 19731 , has had a predator control program in operation until the fall of 1970 that responded to roqueeto, particu- larly during the lambing season, and a rodent control program that is still being conducted. The predator control pro- gram has had a direct effect by reducing the coyote popu- lations in areas where they have bothered livestock. Indirectly thb rodent control program has an effect on coyote populations by. reducing the abundance of their prey. The coyote is found in all of the habitat types found on the property. Development of the grasslanA area will have an impact that will cause a reduction in suitable habitat. If, as a result of the develop- ment, •the predator and rodent control programs in the area are discontinued, there could be an increase in coyote popu- lation even though a substantial portion of suitable grassland habitat is developed. 25 • r ECIS Appendix D AIR QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS SCIS E-73317-1 Appendix D AIR QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS by Arthur G. Schwartz PE B1Ackhawk Ranch Will contribute directly to air pollution in the area. There is a high probability' that the people most impacted will be residents of Livermore and Fremont due to the topography on either side of the San Ramon Valley. The reader is referred to the James A.• Roberts report for a discussion of meteorology and air quality relative to Blackhawk Ranch, The data needs to be scaled upward by the ratio of 41546/4#380 -= 1.04 to account for new project size estimates. 2A ECIS Appendix E SOCIAL FACTORS ECIS 8-73317-1 Appendix E-1 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE BLACKHAWK RANCH PROJECT IS ATTACHED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE PERMISSION OF GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES. January 22, 1974 Mr. George Coe Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. 2680 Bayshore Frontage Rd., Ste-700 Mountain View, Calif. 94040 Dear Mr. Coe: We are pleased to submit this report which is the product of our analysis of the economic impact of the proposed Blackhawk Ranch development. The report incorporates modifications resulting from its preliminary review by Contra Costa County officials and. by both E.C.I.S. and GG+A staffs, and, while there has been no fundamental change in the content or findings of -our study, the report is stronger as a result of the revisions which have been made. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that the context in which this environmental impact analysis has been prepared is one in which already established public entities are actively performing their service functions and in which expectation of their continuing performance . of those functions is a reasonable premise. Thus, for exam- ple, our assumption that the State school building aid fund will continue to make funds available to public school dis- tricts on the same basis as it has in the past seems to us acceptable. Similarly, we have assumed that local practices relating to financing of public services will continue into the future. 1 Gruen Gruen+Associates Ferry Building San Francisco, Calif.94111 (415) 433.7598 Mr. George Coe IV January 22,' 1974 page - 2 - A good example of such an assumption is provided in the case of water service: it is common practice for a subdivision developer to advance 60% of the cost of capital facilities to the water service agency prior to development, and to be reimbursed this advance as development proceeds. Our interest throughout has been to present as accurate an estimate of the impacts of the proposed project as possible. It is in the very nature of an •economic' impact analysis that impacts are expressed in numerical terms. Thus, you will find that dollars of income generated, dollars of sales and property tax revenue produced, and dollar costs and revenues to public service agencies form the vocabulary of the impact statements. We ask you to keep in mind, however, that the realiz4tion of these quantitative impacts depends on the continuing validity of the assumptions on which estimates of impact were based. For example, we have utilized current interest rates for long-term bonds which in fact vary over time. Changes such as fluctuations in bond rates will ob- viously have an effect on the outcomes specified in this re- port, but are not in themselves project Impacts and have • therefore not been our primary concern. Where bonding of capital facilities is required, we have assumed that bond issues will be acceptable to voters. We recognize that this assumption may be violated: the major beneficiary of bond issues to finance capital improvement requirements for new residences are the new .residents them- selves, the- majority of whom may not yet live in the area Mr. George Coe January 22, 1974 Page - 3 - at the time of a bond vote. Thus, we have assumed that bond issues will be approved, because to do otherwise would make an estimate of fiscal impact very difficult; if they are not; then clearly a strain on the existing capital facilities will be experienced. Finally, our responsibility has been to analyze the eco- nomic impact of the proposed Blackhawk' development includ- ing its fiscal impact on major public service agencies in the immediate region. We recognize that the project as proposed is not the only possible future for the Blackhawk property,' and that development alternatives in terms of ` scale, use package, physical layot!t and economic character- istics (among others) have been suggested by you and by the County. Some of these have been . discussed in other sections of the draft EIR. The methodology that has been employed in this section can be uti'Lized effectively •to analyze these and other alternatives to the project which may yet be proposed. In adjusting the calculations to re- flect an altered pattern of development, changes will be required in the project definition (Chapter I) and in the impact calculations dependent on project characteristics. Primary economic impact estimates appear in Chapter III, secondary economic in Chapter IV, and fiscal impact cal- culations in Chapters V (property and sales tax revenue generation) and VI (fiscal impacts on service-providing en- tities). Mr, George Coe '• January 229 1974 page - 4 An example of how a change in the characteristics of the project can be followed through to a change in fiscal im- pact is offered here with respect to schools. As our pre- sentation of the project specifications makes clear, we believe that a school age pupil per household ratio of .97 represents a fair estimate of what this particular project is likely to generate. County officials, however, aware that the current ratio in the Alamo-Danville area is 1.18 (as presented in Table 5), requested that we show how such a change in the anticipated population of the project would affect the fiscal. estimates. The basic change would be to raise the number of school age children to 5,364 from 4,400. Then we would change our tabulated capital cost figures as follows : Table 6 (last line) K-5 6-8 9-12 Total -, 2320 1323 1721 5364 _ Total Space A.D.A. Schools Acres Needs (sq.ft. ) Table 20 K-5 2204 3.39 34 1219220 6-8 1257 1.65 33 94.1275 9-12 1635 1.02 43 13%975 5o96 . 110 354,470 Table 21 354,47o sq. ft. Q $35. $12,4o6,450 110 acres Q $159000 ' 1,656,000 less 10 acres dedicated 150,000 13,906,450 The bonding capacity of the project (see page 62) would fall short of this cost by $7,1562450. Mr. George Coe .40 January 22,. 1974 Page 5 We would also recalculate the operating costs of the Dis- trict. If the number of pupils in average daily attendance (A.D.A. ) were to be 5096, today's tax rate applied to the assessed valuation of the project (see page 66) would raise $805 per A.D.A. as compared to current revenue per A.D.A. in. the District 'of $837. You will note that the increase of 22% in the number of school age children results in an equivalent increase in both capital and operating. costs. School and police ser- vice costs have both been calculated in this way, with each increment in the cost-generator resulting in a.comparable increase in costs. However, this would not be the case with the other public services we have analyzed. Costs and revenues associated with water supply, sewage collection and treatment, road construction, and fire protection will vary considerably with the type of development proposed. This variation will affect not only total costs and revenues, but unit costs and r revenues as well. An example might be provided in the case of sewage collection. The cost of sewage collection is a function of the amount and character of wastewater produced and the distribution of sewage generators. Housing units of different types and different densities vary in their sewage collection costs. The revenue schedule of the Cen- tral Contra Costa Sanitary District reflects these differ- ences to some extent. The fixture fees for drainage fix- tures of various types differ, and the schedule of fees �w. Mr. George Coe January 22, 1974 Page - 6 - also reflects varying densities of development. Thus the situation is one in which unit costs and unit revenues vary depending on the characteristics of a parti- cular developmelit. These differences can be so substantial that service district staff members often are. reluctant to provide rules of thumb for estimating unit costs and reve- nues. In this context, to compare the costs and revenues of various project alternatives requires. that the particu- lar characteristics of each project be reviewed by know- ledgeable persons in each of the public service areas (such as service district- staff members) for their assistance in preparing .separate estimates of the service-related costs and revenues of each project alternative. This approach requires a larger commitmept of resources than was available for the Blackhawk study. We have enjoyed working with you on this study for the County of Contra Costa, and trust that our portion of the study will • be of assistance to County officials charged with the respon- sibility of evaluating the environmental impact of the Black- hawk proposal. Very truly yours, Roberta Mundie Project Director THE ECOINOMIC IMPACT OF THE BLACKHAWK RANCH PROjECi' Prepared by: GR[tEN •GR!JrEi1 + ASSOIM ES Economic and Sociological Consultants December, 1973 Gruen Gruen•i-Associates Ferry Building �'. San Francisco, Calif.94111 ' ��! (415) 433-7598 S tJA ARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Blackhawk Ranch consists of 4,800 acres of land in southern Contra Costa County about five miles from the community of Danville. Development proposed by the Blaelchawk .Development Company includes 4,546 • housing units (2,206 single family, units, 1,958 clus- tered condominium units and 382 multi-family units), 37 acres of commercial development (22.5 acres for retail sales and 14.5 for offices) and recreational - facilities including two 18-hole golf. courses. Approximately 3,500 acres are proposed to remain in open space (400 utilized for active recreational use, 3,100 remaining essentially untouched) . Approxi- mately. 1,000 acres will be deeded as part of the adjacent Mount Diablo State Park. A population of 14,662 is projected for the. develop- ment. This is a ratio of 3.23 perpons per household. The selling price of the proposed units implies an average household income for the project of over $25,000 per year. Primary Economic Impact These impacts relate to the goods and services added to the market by the project. Based on population projections for Contra Costa County, estimates of housing needs, growth patterns, community plans for the project area and the nature of the pro- ,jcct Site, it is lively that ther•�- is a esrket for the number of housing units proposed at the project loca- tion. SIRVARY AUD .0013CLUSioris The Blackhawk• Ranch consists of approximately 4,800 acres of land in southern Contra Costa County about five miles from the conmunity of Danville, Davelopm3nt proposed by the Blackhawk Development Company includes 4,546 housing units (2,206 sirole-family units, 1,958 clustered ec.ndominium units and 382 multi-family units), 37 acres of commercial de- velopment (22.5 acres for retail sales and 14.5 'for offices ) Znd recreational facilities, including two 18-hole golf couraes. /Approximately 3,500 acres are proposed to remain in open space (400 utilized for active recreational use, .3,100 remaining essentially untouched ) . C%pproxitratel.v 1,000 acres ;►i11 be .deeded as part of the adjacent Hount Diablo State Park. A population of 14,662 is projected for the development. This is a ratio of 3.23 pzrsons per household.' The selling price of the proposed units imolias an average household incoma in the range of $20,000 to $25,000 per year. The Blackhawk pro- ject would be developed on lands which lie partly or wholly within an existing system of public service districts. The following section presents a brief review of the economic . and fiscal impacCs of Whe de�-eioper I :, proposal :.seders in- terested in the detailed analysis of impacts are advised to turn immediately to Chapter I. Primary Economic Impact These impacts relate to the goods and services added to the market by the project. D-ased on population projections for Co:tra ;csta County, estimates of housing, needs, growth patterns, community plans for the project ca.rea and the nature of the project site, it `. �• thcra markuat for L^3 n-_V. of hou:.in , i.� li�.�:7.;� than .. � is a t... ,. (. units proposed at th:s ?reject location. ThO •;),r0 •act poptiIi:t-i an, prJ jaded in t:ie is ^..ed iate vi.- cinity and other factors are sufyislent • to creat.e a market a. n S ,.rC,l,' u:1Cll�l1 t0 5;7�•:10rt th:' retail5^les 3^="'.�.:;G prc•ao�e�.,�1 �,.s a project component. '-his assessment is predicated on devel•- •o^,Hent appropriate to the m:rket ser,ed . .",C a.Creag:e l:ro"OC)S:•:� for off icee d'C. ,e 7`i�:'� aerthetic qualities but is some:-,-hat locationally. disadva?:caged in com- p::.rison -to other possible sites in suburban "Centra Costa County ` rihich offer more raaay access to ria";or '_,ree'„ays and the Say Aro-a Plapid Transit s;;step,. The golf courseo and associated recreati zmal facilities would Iv--ve to draw users from a broader a.raa tiian the immediate community to justify dievslop;ment. This is generally the case I:.i th Such facilities. Secondary Economic Imnact These are i►apacts associated with employment and income to the job holders. A total of approximately 2,700 jobs repre- senting an aggregate a:Lnu al income of over "24.7 million were identified as associated with the proposed project. „r 2 + Fiscal Impact r These are imposts relative to the revenues generated by the project and the costs associated with public goods .and ser- Vices demanded by the project from local governmental units and special districts. ' The fiscal impacts, of tha,project on • the area's m�ijo'r public service-providing entities are sum- marized by type of service below, and are presented in tabular form on page 89. Schools - Th3 proposed development lies within the San Ramon Unified School District. A detailed description of the pro- ject's imp4ct on the District begins on page 60. In summary, the proposed project would have a sonewhat negative effect on -the capital costs• of the San Ramon Valley_ Unified School ., .. . District and a positive effect on operating costs. .It is es- ti.:�vated that o-.;ar $11 million in physical faci?iti.es 'would be required for the 4,180 students the proj3ct is anticipated • to generate, but that the project' s assessed valuation would increase the District's bonding capacity by lesE than $7 million. The total capital facilities pac'-age would not be required at th -- outset, and investment could be spread over a period of years. Nev:rthaless, the cost is substantial, and a renewal of District pa2•tici:pati.on in the State school construction loan program may be the best expedient available to the Dis- trict to meet the capital costs generated by the project. It is estimated that operating revenues generated by the project would be more than enough to cover operating, costs for 4,180 students and, in fact, produce an excess which could lower the tax rate for operating costs by 5%, from $6.07 to $5.76,- (all other factors remaining unchanged). - 3 • Fire Protection - Laind on which the proposed development Would take place is served by the Danville Fire Protection District. A detailed description of the project's impact on the District begins on page 69. In -summary, it is estimated that the pro- sent tax rata for the Danville Fire Protection District applied to the project produces a $155,000 deficiency relative to the coats of provi.dinu; the pro,je t- :•rit`� fire coverage equal to the level of coverage presently provided in the District. Police Protection - Police protection to the project area is provided by Contra Costa County. A detailed estimate of the fiscal impact of' th.s project vis-a-vis this service begins on page 74. In sw=nary, the cost of providing police protection to the proposed develo-inent: was estimated on the basis of the contract vrhereby the County noer provides police service to the City of Lafayette; th=: estimated cost; for corip-arable service to the nlackhawk development is "3212,000. Since for the county as a vrholo, 14.2", of pro.erty and sales tax reventies are allo- cated to the Sheriff' s Department, a similar allocation of 'property 'and sales tax revenue for the proje^t .,ras assumes? , On this basis., revenues allocated to police protection vrould exceed costs by $89,0^0 annually. Sanitary Services The project area lies within. the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District. A detailed description of the project' s estimated fiscal impact on the District be.- gins on page 76. In summary, arine.cation and fixture fees to the Central Contra Costa Count;; Sanitary District are suffi- cient to cover capital costs attributable to the project. In addition, capital funds generated by the property tax and earmarked for capital improvements come to $130,000 per year. Operating costs are covered by user charges. Water - The bulk of tho property proposed for development is served by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. A de- tailed description of the project' s water=related costs and revenues begins on .page •79. In s"mary, over $4 million in capital costs not covered by a:znexztion fees are estimated for the project. If revenues applicable to capital costs are allocated to bond retirement, t3,075,000 of the $4,035,000 cost could be bonded, leaving a net, capital cost 3f $950,000. The developer will advance 60;:�')' of the capital costs according to practice in the district, thereby ameliorating, the cash flow problem, but there remains a deficiency in capital re- venueu. Operating costs are covered by user charges. Roads - Major roads -serving the area o," the proposed project are the responsibility of Contra. Costa Count,. A detailed presentation of the costs of the road improvcment, ";,ttri- butable" to the project - $9 million - begins on page 83. "Attributable" ' is in quotes becallSe alternatives to the pro- ,ject. nerving the Eame obijectiv33 also imply rca:l Improvemen'—s which could be as expensive or more so. JLLxtaposed against Contra Costa County' s annual budget for road improvements o: approximately $1 million, these improvements represent pro- blems of finance and planning. Other Public Services - This analysis includes estimates of impact of the proposed development on the six major public service entries in the area.. Other such entities, such as the community college district, also would be. impacted, but have not be--:i analyzed here. Interested parties can perform such analysis themselves by utiliz'nn the methodology em- , ":'� cloyed in Chapter VI of this report. CHAPTER. I PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Blackhawk Ranch comprises approximately 4,800 acres of land about five miles east of Danville in southern Contra Costa County. This property is owned by the BIaekhawk De- velopment- Company which proposes a project on the site which includes a low-density, recreation-oriented residential con- munity with accompanying retail commercial facilities and a, complex of office space. Table 1 reflects a quantification of the proposed development as enunciated by the developer. _✓. 5b Table 1 Anticipated Land Use Blackhawk Ranch Dwelling Recidcnti.b.l Uses Units Single Family Estates 51 170 . 3.5 Single Family 2,155 657 17.9 Cond c�;nini urns 1,953 178.5 3.7 Multi-�' TOTAL 1 ,82 � 25.5 Commerclal Retail Sales 22.5 .5 Offices 14.5 •3 Public Public Facilities 2.5 • School Sites 31 .6 Open S ace Golf -Courses 376 7.8 Open Space Retained in Private Ownership 2,129 44.4 Deeded* . 110,0.0�.� 20.3 TOTAL , *Approximately a five acre site, };noun as the Blackhawk Ranch Quarry, is of paleontologic significance and is being offered by the developers to the University of California. The re- maining acreage is proposed to be deeded to the Mou:it Diablo State Park contiguous to the Ranch. Source: Blackhawk Development Company IT 6 As specified in Table 1, there are four basically different types of housing units planned for the Blackhawk Ranch. The most ela- borate units, of which only 51 are contemplated, are large units (five bedrooms) on lots averaging 3.33 acres. These homes are expected to have an average selling price of $100,000. Another 2,155 units .will be detached single-family units averaging three bedrooms on lots averaging .4 acres. These units will range in price from $60,000 to $80,000, and averaging $70,000. Additionally, 1,958 condominium units are planned. These will be smaller than the traditional free standing suburban home averaging only 2.25 bedrooms per unit. These units will be clus- tered in groupings ranging from 7 to 14 'urits to. the acre, with an overall average density of 11 units per acre. Prices are expected to range from $35,000 to $55:000 with an average of $115.,000. Alco, 383 apartment units are planned for the Ranch. These will be studio, one and two-bedroom units renting for an average of $250/month. - For the purpose of assessing values for taxing pur- poses, these units have been assigned an average value of $25,000. Phasing of the project has important implications for certain public services. A project may in the long run generate suffi- cient revenue to fund necessary services, but during development certain capital investments and/or service levels might be called for before the project is far enough along to cover costs. Table 2 presents the envisioned phasing of the project. Ideally, these ' six phases would represent two-year periods, but the developer cautions that market and other constraints play a large part in these timing determinations. Table 2 Project Phasing Phase 1 2 3 4• 5 6 Residential Estates Units 17 17 17 Acres 56 56 56 Single Family Units 355 36o 36o 36o 36o 36o Acres 142 144 144 144 144 144 Condominiums Units 361 507 751 339 Acres 34 , 51 53 29 Multi-family Units 162 220 Acres 8 11 Total Units 372 738 884 11273 699 580 Acres 198 234 251 205 183 1511 Cwnulative Units 372 1,110 1,994 3,267 3,966 !?,5116 Acres 198 . 432 683 888 1,071 13225 Schools Acres 10 10 11 Commercial Retail Sales Acres 15 .7 Offices Acres 15 Cumulative Acres 108 4327?3 938 1,121 1,293 Open ,Space Remaining* Acres 3,602 3,368 3077 2,862 2,679 2,507 Golf Courses Holes 18 18 Clubhouse xx Source: Blackhawk Development Company *Bicludes 1000 acres to be deeded to public ownership .,�. 8 reSubse Subsequent chapters in this ort deal with the economic and q P P fiscal impact which the Rlackhawk Ranch project could be ex- pected to produce if developed as proposed. To project these impacts, certain characteristics of the physical community and .its ultimate residents are crucial to the analysis. For exam- ple, the capital cost of school facilities can be calculated based . on the square feet of space required, and the square foot- age -required per student is defined by State standards. How- ever, these parameters *gust be applied against an estimate of the number of students generated by the project. What follows in this chanter is a further definition of -the community 'based on the: data in Table 1. The number of unity is translated into population, the cost of the proposed housing into income, etc. The basically descriptive data generated in 'this chapter is utilized in the subsequent analysis to. quanti.,y the economic and fiscal imD act of the project. Table '3 identifies ttie' expected number of persons per hour e-i-iold, by age group, for each of the four types of unit.proposed. It is used to generate a population estiina4e for the Blackhawk Ranch. Age groupings relevant to the assessment of the project' s impact on the school system were chosen. These are GG+A esti- rates based on 19'70 ean!3,.cs data for nearby suburban com^InLriltles, a consultant report to the San Ramon Valley Unified School. District, the developer's description of the nature of the housing planned and past experience with similar matrices. C,� , Table 3 Persons Per Household, by Age Group, by Unit Type Unit Type Persons Per Household Pre-School K-5 6-8 9-1.2 Adults Total Single Family Estate .40 .85 .55 .80 2..0 4.60 Single Family Detached .45 :60 .30 .40 2.0 3.75 Condominituns .15 .25 .20 .25 2.0 2.85 Apartments .20 .20 .05 .05 1.5 2.00 Source : Gruen Gruen + Associates estimates Applying the above matrix to the appropriate number of units of. each type yields a population estimate for the development com- pleted as proposed. Table 4 shows this result. t S .yrs^• 10 • . • Table 4 Population Estimate, by Age Group School Aged Children 11pit T1roe Pre-School K-5 6-8 2=12 Total Adults Total Single Family 20 43 28 41 112 102 234 Estates Single Family 970 1,293 646 862 2,801 4,310 8081 Condominiums 294 490 392 1190 1x3'12 3,9i6 5,582 Multi-Family 77 77 19 19 '115 573 765 TOTAL 1,361 1,903 1,o85 1,412 '4,4co 8,9ol 14,662 Percent Distribution School Aged Children 43.2 24.7 32.1 100.0 Total Population 9.3 13.0 7.4 9.6 30.0 60.7 100.0 Average number of school age children per household. . .: .97 Average number of persons per household. , , , , , : , , , , , , , , , 3.23 • Source : Gruen Gruen + Associates estimates As a verification of reasonableness of the data in Table 4, compari-ons were made with 19?0 census data for Contra Costa County cor.+munities of a basically suburban nature. Table 5 summarizes these comparisons. ' •r Table 5 Comparison of Blackhawk Ranch and Five Contra Costa County Communities Black- Alamo hawk Dan- Lafaa- Walnut Ranch ville Concordey tte Morama Crack Persons per Household 3.23 3.52 3.44 3.12 3.66 2.81 School Children per Household .97 1.18 1.04 .1.00 1.28 .69 Percent Popula- tion School Aged K-8 20.4 22.2 21.9 18.1. 22.7 17.2 x--12 .6 10.3 .0 14.2 10.9 7.7 Tota 3o•d ', ;� �• TJ 76 'M9 Source : U.S. Census of Population, 1970, and Gruen Gruen + Associates (Table 4) With the exception of Walnut Creek, the household composition pro- jected for the project is similar to the Contra Costa County commun- ities in Table 5. Because the condominium units proposed are smaller and less family-oriented than the traditional free-standing; single- family house, the project generates a lesser number of persons - and school children - than these communities. Walnut Creek is an older and more mature suburban community than the others and also con- tains Rossmoor, a substantial "adult" community. This would at least partially e3:plaln the variation between Walnut Creek and the other communities in Table 5. WVM 12 to Because some public goods and services are directly related the numbers on persons expected to need thea, it is important to know not just how many persons the project can be expected to house, but also the timing of their arrival. Table 6 shores the growth :In population, by toga group, for each of the six phases of the project. Table 6 Population, by Age Group, by Phase School A,-,e-Children • Phase Pre-school K-5 6-89-12 Total Adults Total 1 num* 167 228 1.16 156 500 744 1,411 cum 167 228 116 156 500 744 11411 2 nttm 223 322 189 248 759 1.,470,- 2,1158 cum 390 550 305 4o4 1,259 2,220 3,869 3 num 245 352 219 2,S4 855 1,768 2,868 cum 635 902 524 688 2,114 3,988 6,737 4 num 307 438 266 340 1,044 2,4653,81'0 cum 942 1,34o ?90 1,028 1,158 6.453 10,583 5 num 213 302 175 229 7o6 12398 2,317 cum 1,155 1,642 965 1,257 3,864 7,851 12,870 6 ntua 206 261 120 155 530 19050 1,7?2 CUM, 1,361 1,903 1,085 11412 4,400 8,901 14,662 *num = number; cram = cumulative Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates estimates ,` 13 Important for the projection of sales tax revenues are the in- come levels of the future project residents. • It is estimated r that an income equal to 40% of the value of a house is necessary for a fa;nily .to afford that house. Because- 40,5'2 is she minimu=m required income, it is assumed that 451Y is a more likely average inecne* Applying this assumption to the housing units proposed at the va,lua levels specified by the developer yields the follo:,t- inc; table which estimates the aggregate a.Znual income of the community residents. Table 7 Aggregate Annual income of Residents Unit Type Number Value I..^.colied Intone Agsre.74, Single Family 51 Eztate $100,000 $45,000 $2.,2q".,000$2.,2q".,000 Single Fxnily 2,155 70,000 31,500 67,832,000 CondominiLuas 1,.958 45,000 . 203250 39.,650,0-00 Multi.-family _ 8.) 25,000 11,250 4 249 f)00 $1It.. 2j 000 A total aggregate income of $114,125,000 divided among 4,546 household units yield an average income of $25,100. Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates *This is consistent with 1970 census data ;;hich shows the follow— ing for the San Francisco-Oakland Standard l,atropolitan StaVls.- tical Area: Value of Owner-Occunied Units Median Income $25,000 - $34,999 $13,800 $35,000 - $49,999 $16,900 $50,000 or mare $23,800 '�.. : . 14 • r • Table 1 specifies the inclusion of 37 acres of commercially devel- oped land -- 22.5 acres for retail sales and '14.5 for office space. Table 8 below, presents standards for shopping centers which are useful in further defining the proposed shopping area. Table 8 Shopping Center Standards Type Neighborhood Community Regional Minimum Acreage 4 10 30 Floor Space ' (000's sq.ft. ) Range 30-100 100-300 300-1,000 Mean 55 155 64o Source: Community Builders Handbook, page 267 and The Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, pp, 22,, 66 "and l06 Table 8 allows for an estimate of the floor space the acreage planned can be expected to contain. There seems to be a ratio in 'rable 8 of 10,000 sq. ft. of floor space per acre. Applying this to the 22.5 acres slated for retail sales implies 225,000 sq. ft. This figure will be useful in determining the assessed value of the shopping area and the number of employees likely. Office space development can assume a variety of densities. The controlling factors are mainly the market for space, govern- mental controls and any self-imposed design or density standards applied by the developers. Assuming a low-rise development as envisioned by the developer, an average 25% ground cover with two-story buildings would imply 290,000 sq. ft. of office space. \ti 1 CHAPTER II METHC D0IM This report assesses the economic impacts of the Blackhawk development as described in Chapter I. These impacts may be conveniently categorized -as primary and secondary eecnonie impacts. Primary Economic Impacts The primary impact of the Blackhawk Ranch development will be the provision of the goods and services, such as housing, retail merchandise and personal and recre- ational services set forth in the previous chapLar. The beneficiaries of tha devalorment are all those who avail themselves of the goods and servtces to be • provided: those who elect to live in the housing, buy inerehandlse In `ha stores, use the personal nor- vices offered, or participate in the recreational activities. Whether consumers will choose to avail themselves of the products and services offered by the proposed • development is a question that has not been addressed by this study. Techniques of market analysis are capable, not only of providing a negative or affirma- tive answer to this question, but also of measuring the extent of satisfaction the project would provide. That satisfaction is what economists refer to as "consumer surplus", which may be defined quite simply as the total added satisfaction that accrues to all the people who obtain a good at e .price lower than what they would have been willing to have paid for ��"' 16 it. In the case at hand, we have not attempted to quantify the consumer surplus. Instetd, we accepted, based on our own best judgment concerning market con- ditions, the developer's assertion that the facilities to be provided will be marketable (which suggests that some consumer surplus will be realized) ; in the light of the attractiveness of the site and the char- acteristics of. development proposed, this seems to us to be n reasonable assumption. In addition to the goods and services provided by the project, there is a secohd type of primary eco- nomic Impact: the impact in terms of the quantity and price of other goods and services the production of which will be precluded due to the project proposed. • In other words, the resources that go into the provi- sion of the proposed project might otherwise have been- utilized for other purposes. The lost opportun- ity to utilize these resources in some other way is what, economists call the "opportunity cost" of the project. With respect to the investment involved in developing the Rlackhawk Ranch, the critical question is whether some alternative location for the develop- ment would have. provided a greater consumer surplus. With respect to the land resource itself,• the criti- cal question is whether some alternaoive use would have provided a greaten economic benefit. These questions cannot ba answered definitively without a full-scale cost-benefit analysis, a luxury rarely available to local governments faced with land use decisions at the scale we are discussing. We have therefore narrowed the question to a consideration 17 of the land resource. specifically, and have asked whether the use of the land in its current condition provides a benefit which is unique and non-transferable. That this may sometimes be the case is demonstrated by the situation in California's central coast, which Is uniquely appropriate for the production of arti- chokes. Where artichoke land is diverted into housing, the opportunity cost of such conversion 'is a quanti- fiable shrinkage in the supply of artichokes, and the added cost to the host of consumers who normally pur- chase ur-chase artichokes. Chapter III sets forth the primary economic impact of the Blaekhawk Ranch project, places the project in its planning context, and discusses thb opportunity costs associated with the development of the land. Secondary Economic Impacts The secondary impacts of the proposed development of the Blaukhawk Ranch will include the employment and income aeaociate-d with the provivion of the goods and services produced, any subsequent development which takes place as a consequence of the Blackhawk development and the jobs and income thereby created, and a_ny 'changes induced In the broad environmental context of the project. Examples of environmental impacts treated elsewhere in this EIR are traffic impacts, air quality impacts and Impacts on the biota of the site and the surrounding area. For convenience in this present report, fiscal impacts have been broken out from other secondary economic -impacts and are discussed separately. In. ti='s setting forth secondary economic impacts, then, we are LIUlooking exclusively at the employment and income pro- duced directly or indirectly by the proposed project. 18 Jobs associated with the project are estimated in Chapter IV. A variety of sources was employed to make these estimates. From available economic statistical studies, it is possible to devise such ratios as "sales volume per square foot", "employees per dollar of sales volume" and "income per sales employee". ,Applying these ratios to the proposed project results in an estimate of employment and income for retail sales space included in the project. Basically, the methodological approach is to apply the experience or eimilar facilities elsewhere to the proposed project defined as specifically as possible in terms or quantity and quality of facilities. This approach results in the estimates of direct job and income generation to be presented in Chapter IV. In addition to those jobs and i::comes directly attri- butable to the proposed project, some additional jobs and income will be generated indirectly. The genera- tion of jots and income indirectly attribatable to the direct production of a good or a service (such as the Blackhawk Ranch development) is what economists call the "multiplier" process. To look at this process on the national level, if the gross national product increases by $100,000, the disposable income of con- sumers will increase by about 2/3 of that- or $66,000. Out of this increased income, consumers will sp.-nd about 90%. An increase in production of $100,000 therefore leads to further purchases of $60,000. The $60,OOO .of increased purchases leads to further pro- duction/employment/income and again another increase in consumer purchases or 60% of $60,000 or $36,000. The next round of spending gives an increase in con- owner purchases of-60% of 6o% o: $60,000 or approxi- mately $22,000. By the time all of the rounds of spend- Ing have worked themselves out, an original increase in demand of $100,000 leads to an increase in production of 21 times that much, or $250,000. The crucial parameter in the multiplier process is the amount by which an increase in local production leads to an increase in demand for goods that .are produced locally. In a small economy in which most consumer spending goes for goods produced outside of the area, the multiplier effects are considerably reduced. For example, if $100,000 of increased production leads to an additional $60,000 of consumer spending, but only $30,000 of the $60,000 is spent for gcods and services produced In the area, then 'the original $100,000 of Increased demand and production leads to a total in- crease of only $142,000 rather than $25C,000. For a small town the only part of increased consumer spending that goes for locally produced goods and ser- vices is for the operating margin of small retailers such as the grocery stores acid service stat-ions . In this case, an additional $10 of local income will lead to $6 of increased consumer purchases, but only $3 of the $6 would be for goods that are retailed locally, and out of that $3 of local purchases only the portion that goes for the, profit and labor cost of the retail establishment would be for local services. If the mark-up on tha retail goods averages about 1/3, then tie have an increase in demand for lxsl services of $1 for every $10 increase in local production. The multiplier for this case would be 1.11. 1. .,J7�_ 20 In an area such su the Alamo-Danville area, the multi- plier effect would be minimal. Its magnitude depends not only upon the size of the economic: entity but also on its isolation from surrounding economies. If one is dealing with a small part of a metropolitan area, the local consumer demand may be lost from the area due to the dispersion of retail establishments, whereas ,an isolated small town with the same population would retain more of the local buying power. An estimate of the magnitude of the n;ultiplier effect of the Black- hawk development on the Alamo-Danville- area could be made based on a detailed analysis of the local economy. Such analyses have been conducted for many V.S. cities and multipliers between 1.3 and 2.3 have been calculs- ted. Our best judgment would estimate the Blackhawk area multiplier even lower than this range due to its small size, limited array of economic activities, and its Integration into a complex regional economy. We therefore have utilized a multiplier of 1.1. Fiscal Imnncts New development means an increased demand for public goods and services froin those governmental jurisdic- tions and special districts legally responsible for the provision of those goods and eervices to the property encompassing the development. Residential development increases the burden on school districts, utility districts and police and fire protection agencies. Non-residential development does not gen- erate school children, but does increase the demand for thesa other goods and services. Development, how- ever, also increases revenues as property is added to the tax rolls and new residents pay sales taxes. , 21 The critical question for fiscal analysis is: Are the marginal revenues generated by the project at the present tax rate sufficient to cover the marginal cost of the additional public goods and services which must be provided to the project? If marginal revenue ex- ceeds marginal cost, the project cover3 the expendi- tures required to service it and the potential excess -has the effect of lowering the overall tax rate. If, on the other hand, marginal revenues are less than marginal conte, the project is not covering its cost And the tax rate must be increased to serve the pro jest. (Alternatively, the quality level of the goads and services provided could be raised or lowered rather than modifying the tax rate to reflect the need fo. • less or more revenues. ) The use of the current tart rate may be open to ques- tion because obviously a .development such as the Black- , hawk Ranch w•!11 take a number of years to complete over• which time the tax rate is sure to change. How- ever, changes in the tax rate due to such causes as inflation, the increased cost of public goods and ser- vices, changes in taxing policy, 'etc. are changes due to causes having no relation to whether or how this particular piece of property is developed. They are also changes which are largely unpredictable and which, when they occur, will apply uniformly to the project area as well as to other property within the affected governmental unit or service district. The utilization of the present tax :ate allows for analysis which shows the effect of specifically the development of the Blackhawk Ranch. A projection of the tax rate modified by the revenues and costs attrlbutable tc� the project is not a projec- �''�•.:�. ?2 tion of what that tax rate is likely to be upon com- pletion of the project. It is merely an estimate of what the tax rate would be if all the other factors (inflation; non-tnflatlon induced cost increases, declining birth rates, etc, ) remained unchanged -- which they will not. The provision 'of goods and services by the public sector, like such activity in the private sector of the economny, requires both operating and capital costs. Capital costs are those incurred for the purchase of physical facilities -- land, building and larger pieces of equipment. They are incurred for a specific period of time and the magnitude of the costs are 1.nown from the outset. Operating costs are those incurred in the day-to-day administration or the servi^e producing unit ' and are variable from year to year. In assessing fiscal Impacts, it is ncecssary•to consider both types of costs. It is not uncommon that revenues generated are sufficient to cover operating costs in the long run, but the short ruin period over which capital expenditures are neccsaary • strains the revenue producing capacity. Also, in the case of school districts in California, capital costs are covered by a separate tax rate and State loan programs for school buildings modify the tax situation. Chapter V deals with the revenues generated by the projoct. ChEpter VI considers the costs associated with, the provision of public goods and services and compares coats and revenues. Areal Impact Considerations Economic impacts are not site-specific but relate to some logical geographic or geo-political economicunit. •..� 23 • When discuss Cts s nportant that the eco- nomic c - ' discussing inpa , it i i _ o noetic unit which .reaps the benefits or beara the bur- den of impacts is considered. The magnitude of the net impact -- p031tlVe or negative -- will vary greatly denand i ng on the relative .size and capacity of the im- pa.ted area. :;;jai: may ba a si..z;n.lficnnt impact on a small area may be easily absorbed by a larger area. Also, as the area impacted e.nlarsQs, it is Incre-ss- ingly the case that there is no lin-+act. PUt .another way, the impact is the varlation associated :ai.th ternative sites where, and ways in which, the pro- ject can be developed. This is 'Zhe case when ;.he primary impact (i.e. the goods and services provided by the project) ,rill ocetur if not parr- Itted . at the p.opo3ed project site. 1 that "clsawhere" is within the Same geographic or geo-political unit ' • .there is only 'the variabla irpict:• s'saoci.n:tad with the cruali!:n.t+v: difference betweenthe pro;'sct at th-a propo3ed site and at alternative sites. Consider the impact of a given protect on ;he national economy. Asstuning there is the demand for the Lousing units proposed, if they are not built on the proaosad site, they will be built elsa there, almo3t assuredly in the United S'caLes. ?;�erefore, tr,L pri;,:a:'�,y impact an the United States economy is the difference between the product proposed at one site and the product which could be produced elsewhere. There is, therefore, a qualitative impact, but no quantitative impact. The families which the proposed project would house will be housed somewhere. As the area of the economic unit decreases, the probability of a quantitative impact Increases. If, for example, housing is permitted in an area of a co.-rr:unity where it previously had not been parmittad (aasLbming no compensating land use •� regulation ch anew) a quantity of housing ,nay be ' 1 24 • developed In that cowunity which otherwise Mould have been developed in same other community. There is a ` possible quantitative impact in terms of the number of housing units in the community which changed its land use regulations. There is also a reductio: in the number of units in the second community if the dertiand in the area will not support an additional number of units equal to the number built on the land which was opened for residential development.. However, if the two communities are within the same geo-political unit, a county for example, there is no quantitative. effect on the county housing economy. There is simply a locational shift between two communities within the county. The same is true for secondary impacts. . If so many units of housing are demanded by the market, there are • joba in construction available 'or'as many construe- tion onstrue-tion workers as it takes to build that Arany units. Locational shifty may affect who gets those fobs but it will not affect the number of jobs. (Econom- le constraints and government regulation, however, Influence the type and size of housing and these factors do bear on jeb opportunities. ) Of course, these locational shifts are important to the smaller jurisdictions from which and to which these employment opportunities are shifting. In eonductinG the analysis reported herein, we have therefore considered the primary and secondary impaets .of the Blackhawk Ranch development within the Alamo-Danville area. Of course, the economic Impact of the housing units to be -provided and the jobs to be generated in the local area is significant only to the extent that this impact would not be pro- 5 • duced in the absence of this articular project. If P a comparable project would likely take its place elsewhere in the area, differences in impact between the two might well be minimal. In the case of fiscal impacts, the same logic applies. However, fiscal impacts often are borne by smaller 'governmental units or special districts where loca- tional shifts from within to without the jurisdic- tional boundaries are more likely than is the case with larger units such as regional economies. CHAPTER IIT • PRTN.,"RY FCO2iOZOIC Ii•!?ACT As defined in the preceding chau•ter, prima:•;; economic impact -rarer a io tha goods and services p.-oduc•ed or offered by the project. These impacts are represented by the enumeration of the project components in Table 1 and further described by the narrattva in Chapter 1. ' • This chapter considers th6 probability 'or those pro- . �. sect components finding a receptive narket. The . 3�,ac?chest: P.anch and th? a_ll PI3n* The general plan for the Alamo-ranville area which is designated as Planning Area 8, anticipates a 1990 population of approximately 50,000 in an area of some 26,000 acres. ' • Of the Blackhawk Ranch acreage, slightly less than half falls % ith3.n the boundar ias of Planning Area' $. •(The remainder. Is in an area of the County not designated as a planning area and for which the 1962 county general plan applies. ) However, because a substantial portion of the Ranch is within the Alamo-Danville Planning Area and due to the fact that conditions are comparable throughout the Ranch, we have treated the property as part of planning area 8 for the purpose of this analysis. Doing so permits a comparison of land use distribution by type For the *Alamo-Danville General Pian, Planning Depirtnent, --•� Contra Uosta County, 19o7 27a nlaokhawk development• with that of the planning area as a • whole. This comparison is :resented in Table q. Approximately two-thirds of the Blackha:vk area, or about 1600 acres, falls wit-thin the open apnce category. The remaining third, or about 800 Leres, is desirrated no urban. The bor- derinu land use classification cn the Alamo-Donville Planning Arca nap is lois,-density residential. Ir the Ru:nch IC to be conLidered Fs pert of the planning area. therefore, it would Zoom to increase thp. .tota1 area of ,the Planning Area by 21100 acres, 1600 of wl►ich ar-e: ade,,ed to the open space category and 800 of vhSch would be: added to the lov-density, si.ngla family revicicnUal eatc:t;ory. Also, Ucoau.-Ie the pro posed project irx ludes the deet oi- of npproximntel.y 1000 acres to th= t;ount Diablo State Par)-.,, 1000 acres was deducted fro:.; the 'topen -cpacc " category and adl(."A ud -to the "parks and recreation" caterory. pinally, Uccaczac ;;he low-density, , -,1a family category ory calls ! for a density of one to three f anvil ics per acre, 5000 • pertono have: baen added to the ;;opL0-vtton projection as the estimate for the BCO resiftntial acres. In- corpornti.ng thi)se modifications, Table 9 compares the propcsd project vith the Alamo-Danville Planning hrea. 4,_. 28 Table 9 The Blackhawk Ranch Project as Pert of the Alamo-Danville Planning Area Alonzo-Danville Land Use Blaekhawk Ranch Plackhawk as OnorPro.leat of NA nn:ing firer Acr.ea Acres +� Schoola and 33.5 Public Facilities Rer�ir�:rit3al 19,355 Single Family 1,205.5 6.2 Deng : TXQ 19,P05 Loll Entat:e 170 100 Mcd;e"11 Single Fri.mily 85 50 High Condotilnium 175. 5 95 Multiple Farilly 9 20.0 19,450 Total 1,258 6.5 . (:arn^tcrc1.n1 . 116 Hotn-11 Shopping 22.5 19.0 22 Limited 4fVlces 14.5 6 .2 •7 Commercial Services 0 0 10 Hit hiiay Service 0 0 155 Total. 37 23.9 300 Controlled Indus3try 0 0 300 Recreation (Golf Courses) 376 •125.3 - , Streets one: Railroads 420 Freeways 300 Arterials 160 Collectors 60 Railroads v 940 notal 0 0 3,700 Residential Expansion 20129 57.5 and Open Space 3,555 Parks and recreation 1,000 28.1 28,400 TOTAL 4,800 16.9 IT> 't 55000 Population 14,662 26.7 Included in residential nereage allotment ' w ....r 29 Residantial There are several note-worthy conclusions which can be drawn -from Table 9. Most significant is that even with an over-all d-:�nsity of less than one unit per acre (4,546 units proposed for the 4800 acre Ranch), the density of the Ranch would be higher than that of the community as a whole. A population of 55,000 on 28,400 acres (the Alamo-Danville Plan as modified) yields an over-all dansity of 1.9 pers6na per acre in 1990. A population of 14,662 on 4,800 acres yields a cor- parable figure of 3.1. While the proposed project leaves ?3% of the land in open apace (i.e. open apace, parks and golf coarses) compared to only 27% for the entire plarin:ng Area, the resin %_zi%0 ial densities of . those areas which are developed wl housing are suf- ficiently great to re3ult 1n the over-all higher den3lty. Aa the (able shows, he proposed Flan would house 26.71 of the population projected for the plan- ring area on 16.9;5 of thi: total land araa and G.5' on the residential land area. It is difficult to make hard judgments about markets without a detailed market analysis. In lieu of such an analysis, it is appropriate to discuss the reason- ableness of the population projection for the Alamo- Danville area and the prospect for- the Blackhawk project of attracting the share of the expected popu- lation growth it has set out to attract. The Alamo- Danville Planning Area (with th3 inclusion of the en- tire Blackhawk Ranch) represents 44 square• miles of the 735 in Contra Costa Co::.nty -- 6;So of the lard area. 30 Y,, t j4 `{ .{? ,•,rfA'ufh. 7 / w2'$ t"iz IWM' • t t ' A population level of 55,000 in 1990 would be an in- ereaae of 34,500 over 1970. The County had a popula- tion of 555,800 •in 1970. The California State Department of Finance projects a 1990 population of 851,0000 a gain of about 300,000 In 20 yea.-3. A gain of 34,500 people for the planning area would represent about 11.50 of the growth of the County over the 1970-1990 period. Given the physical attractiveness of the area, , present growth patterns, the fact that large 380tions 'of the County cannot absorb growth (fol• reasan3 of topography or existing development), good access to the remainder of the Bay Area W a Interstate-680 (a major link in the Bay Area freeway system) and its location within commuting dista:zaa to the mptropoll- tan area's central cities, it would seem likely that the planning area can achieve the growth projected for It. Yr• fact, it..-may be the east• `hat only c-overnmenta1 restraint and effective planning would k•3ep the area within its planned limits. For many of' the same reasons cited above, there is reason to believe ghat 4,500 units could be built and sold on the Blackhawk Ranch. Whether or not specifi- cally the type of unit proposed at the price levels envisioned would be absorbed at an acceptable rate is subject to a variety of factors, but obviously any developer modifies his product a3 Market conditions dictate. As a measure of the m2rketirg ta3k repre- sented by the Blackhawk project, the following is pre- sented. The Association of Bay Area Cova menta pro- jects a need for 119,234 additional single, family units for the County from 1970-1990, or an average of r• 31 59962 a year. (An average is usable in this case since the building period..for :3lackha:tk would be in the middle years of the period. ) Blackhawk Ranch would take 12 or so years to develop, with an average of 347 single fam- Ily units corstraccad each year. Therefore, Blackhawk .would have to capttVe 5.N% of the County single family market each year. The 332 multi-family units are scheduled for two phases of the development. During the four years in which these units are built, an average of c6 units per year w:oalcl go on the market. ABAG projects 87,235• new apartment units for the County over the .20-year period, or an average of 4,362 per year. BlackhawJ0 s ,multl le units would therefore represent about 24% of.the multi-£amuy amts in the years those units are developed. 'mental apartment units must repeatedly compete in the market as an economic vanture" virile single family unit3•, once sold, are no longer an In. vastme:nt•. for the devaloper. It sho:,ld also be noted that the Black-hawk Ranch project, with its recreational emphasis, is aiming at a specific sub -mar:cet, As such, it may bA� less d?- 'pendent on the general market `ior suburban housing and more dependetLt .9n the demand for its package nrf*er- ing of an active, outdoor life style in an attractive setting at a relatively high cost. In general, aiming at a strong sub-market is a wise development strategy. Commercial Table 9 also indicates that on the 16.9% of the plan- ning area which the Blackhwgk Ranch represents, the 32 developers are proposing 19.0% of the retail shopping area allotment and 68.2; of the office acreage, to- gether representing 23.9% of the total area allotted for cownercial use. Thus Blackhawk would account for more than its "share" of the area's commercial space. Retail Sales The retail sales .acreage is divided between two loca- tions -- 15 acres'-near the center of the project area and the rema-Irving 7.5 acnes at cha southeast corner of the property. ' From Table 8, it -can be seen the 15 acre site implieb"a community Shopping center; 7.5 acres, a neighborhood center'. Together, it was esti- mated in Chapter 2, thesb two centers would contain i approximately 225,000 square feet of floor space. .At $58 per square foot• in annual eales, .this a:pa could be expected to generate 43 million annuall7 in sales . volume. Divided by the- 4,,500 units proposed for Blaekhawk, this yields $2,900 per year or $56 per week for each unit. Given the averaaa income of $25,100 pro-'acted for the project households, $56 per week in sales .seems a reasonable expectation, especially con- sidering that food shopping is generally done close to home and $56 per geek for rood alone is not an unreas- onable n-eas-onable level of expenditure to be expected of house- holds in this income range. It would therefore, seem that the acreage allotted for retail sales is compat- ible with the residential development proposed. Reinforcing this assessment is the expectation of additional residential development in the immediate area of the proposed project and the fact that the retail sales areas designated in the Alamo-Danville 'The Dollars and Cents of Shouainx Centers, 1972, The ' V ana-n Tn3'zizuze, Na3hi g on, .;p. 66. Oeneral Plan are located at Interstate 680' at the In- tersections or Diablo Road and Stone Valley Road, both areas five or more miles from the project site. No retail sales areas are designated in the ;western ceetion or the Planning Area. If this development proceeds as proposed, it would create a base market 'for retail sales in this western section and the proposed location for these shopping facilities would add a third retail node to the two shown in the Plan. The three shopping areas appear well placed relative* to the site and population distribution or the Plan- ning Area. Further evidence of the viability -of this acreage appears -in Table 9. The proposal for the Bla�3kha,ik Ranch Mould provide hous'.ng for 27 of the projected . population of the Planning Area, yet the proposed retail acrev-Se in only 19% of the allotment .in the Plan. . Also, the acreage proposed for orrice space is lova- ted adjacent to the 15 acre retail sales parcel. This office area could be expected to provide working space for approximately 1,160 office worlcers (see Chapter IV) thereby providing a complementary demand for restaurant facilities and certain types of retail odtlets (office supplies, books and magazines, etc. ) Of course the ability of the surrounding residential community and the office area to support the proposed commercial acreage does not guarantee its success. The income level and nature of that community implies '!!'4 the nature of the consumer demand which mould be 34 generated. The commereial areas would have to most that speciRl demand to the satisfaction of those consumers to assure success. Viability is a function of the variety, quantity and quality of the goods and services available. Also Inportwit are an appropriate major ecinmercial attraction to anchor the center, the , physical attract;ivenoss of the project and the spatial and functional arrangement of the center. Certain tenants complement and reinfcree each other very well; others do so to a lesser degree or not .at all. Finally, there is P competitive advantage in being the first major shopping area to develop in this western section of th6 San Ran.on Valley. Govern-men•• tal regulation could further ensure this advent:egeous compot hive position if the bull: of the other eowyner- Bial no:,eage permitted in the Planning Area is con- centrated along lnterrtate 680 as shown to the plan. There is economic Justification for the proposed re- tail sales acreage, but not much justification for too much more ouch acreage ii, this viestern section of the Planning Area. Office Space Table 9 shows that the 14.5 acres proposed for offices - - represents 68.2% of the office acrea;e called for in the plan. Without a great deal more information as to the market for suburban office space, it is diffi- cult to make a strong judgment as to the probable success of this project component. Several observa- tions are in order however. To the degree that office At functions are located in suburban areas to escape the 35 problems associated with urban areas, this site offers a bucolic setting away from traffic, congestion, noise, etc. The site is also close to Interstate 680 which i3 a major link in the Bay Area freeway system. However, it is also five miles from that highway which may not be close enough given competition Brom alter- native offica development much closer to the freeway. (All of the office areas designated in the plan are alone the freeway. ) Also an important detracting tactor is the distance to the nearest- BART station. Many office type businesses are able to make the move to the suburbs only if they can maintain access to the inner-city where clients, collaborators, services and competition are located. Suburban 1ocat-i.on3. with BART ' access are being developed and will continue to develop as the system goes into full operat.ton and becomes nn . • integral part of t:hc Bay Area transportation pattern. Thir.' offlen space would have to compete in the sub- urban sub-intirket: for o:'fice space and, in that compe- tition, it would appear to be somewhat locationally disadvantaged. Recreational • The developer's plans for golf courses exceed by 25% the allotment for space for courses in the gen- eral plan. This is not to say that two 18-hole courses are not economically feasible. Country clubs do not draw their members or users only from the im- mediate area and an attractive facility competitive with similar facilities could draw from the entire suburban area of Contra Costa County, If not the entire Bay Area. 36 r �S Qpaortunity Co, ats Chapter I1 defined opportunity costs as those costs associated with opportunities lost because the devel- opment of the proposed protect on the proposed site precludes the utilization of the resources which go into tho project in other projects, such as for a similar pro- ject at a possibly superior cite or' a possibly super- far project on the proposed site. .The key questions with respect to opportunity co.2ta posed In the pre- coding chapter were: Are other sites able to support a higher quality development at the a&me cost or a comparable dev:iopment• at a lower coot? And, are there alternative uses of this land which are uniquely appropriate to it (i.e. which cannot locate elsewhere except under circumstances which are eco-•. nonieally, infeasible)? While possibly other sites might offer higher duality development at the same cost or comparable development at a lower cost, this is impr.ssible to say without surveying all possible alternative sites. What can be said, however, is that a general knowledge of the market for this type or development indicates that a site of this nature in comparable or superior to elmilar sites so developed and that possible alterna- tive altos could be e::pected to be no more than mar- ginally better. . In this sense, ttie site is appropriate for the proposed development, 37 The alternative uses of the land are in one sense in- finite. However, the alternative to 'be considered, once development as proposed is .deemed economically Appropriate, is to develop or not develop the site. The alternative not to develop implies the continua- tion of agricultural utilization of the land. The critical question with respect to agriculture is whether or not thin land is uniquely adaptable t.o crops which cannot be raised on other available land at eomnarahle or lower costs. The highest and best agricultural use of this land in walnuts, huy and cattle grazing. � All of these agricultural activities are possible at other locations at equally or more favorable economic and physical conditions. *14ore sprolfically, most of the Blackhawk Ranch in presently utilized for cattle grazing. There are about 400 cot•;s and an equal number of calves on the property. flay is produced on approximately 200 acres on tl:e southern half of the Ranch. Approximately another 100 acres is planted in English walnuts grafted onto black u*a1lnut ctock. The annual production repre- sented by thi,.- use of the land is approximately 1100 head of cattle (half the Stock), 300 .t-ons of hay (1.5 f '�:� tons/acre) and 100 tons of walnuts (one ton/acre) . CHAPTER IV •• SECOIMARY ECONOMIC IMPACT: L';PPLO=�P1T AM I.tC 0,'•M Secondary economic impacts, as has been d1scu3sed in Chapter II, relate to the employment and income gen- erated by the project. In this report, thesa i;,:--acts have been assessed .11th respect to the local econornT narrowly considered: jobs and incomes produced by 'and within the project and due to the multiplier .effect. Other sites in tha Alamo-Danville area and other sites elsewhere in Contra Costa C=nt;; might, if developed similarly, generate seconds:^y economic ihpact3 o:' comparable magnitude-o ; no attemp., !183 been made to compare the inpacts of such alternatives with tho3e 'of the project proposed. However., any real 'differen;es between the secondary -impact's o.: the proposed projoct and those 'o£ other poasibla pro- jects would stem from variances in 'the abil'ty o. • the two locations -to provide frit-3ry uerv:t c!.s. -The following presentation sets forth the smplcy- , „ ment and income impacts of the proposed project. Commercial Employment There are two typa3 of comner tial develop&ment proposed as part of the project. Each will be considered in turn. In Chapter I it was stated that the acre3ge alloted for retail sales would hold approximately 225, 000 square feet of floor space. The last column of Table 10 shc.-is sales per employee for typical types of retail outlets in Contra Costa County for 1970. In .1972, community shopping canters in t::a wes fern region of tha Unit=ud States generated $53.0' for each square foot of floor area.* �A *The Dollars ani Conts nim Shc.,pi-,F4 Cent,?rl, 1972, The �' �- Urban :land I:1.3ti•tuce, eia3hing-von, .(;., p. 06. v d to o 0 0 0 0 .O O O OO t_- t/�.-�. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wA %0 U1 N O m .-t r-t OCC N rl w w w w w w w w . w +�t M O N m N O t� O 1 02 Cd P M N M N M M N ? tr1 d d O - ..� 9z .fit O .-+ v4 0 N O N N 0 w N r-I O t`- N CI\ ON 41 CO N G O m R! c0 1J N Q %0 •f cn- O .a a s - w O N co N to tIl :i ,D tU w w w w • w w w w to-4 O N -i::r N CO \D N to kD CA O .n y to �N. M --t N CA. d! K r-01 N O Eri +to rn EH d N c0 M P4 M 0 tf1 '_o Col O C O d tT t71 N O mr1 00 --Z O p -4 N CQ ca .t lD M N -.-I cD u Pr U al) • r♦ co __41 ca 01 O * co %D O O co O r-1 CU C1 Q Co 10 t1 N N _I:r r-1 In tw r_4 r-•1 4 F•r M O u1 N _' r-1 Ln kD to to -H O t0 rte.• w w w w w w •. 6� co F: A' �, .s~ tcn o ni O \D co r_q m %D tl- ti co o to r0 \7 N C N l0 N t7 O N G, r-1 .-r ,- r-t r•-1 M r•4 O Y 1 r-1 r-1 M co V) W t� r . t•t U ' d 4 v Cd 431 � p r~ b d O co O N 0) O V) N 0 eO y 4-) O O r+ � rl O C d to M to d•> W f4 � to sem. r 4 •4 o wi 4.) `y cri eO tti d F+ :1 P ti A 0 ti � 0a, r4 . Qr 0 Using thi3 parameter and the information in 'Fable 10 P , it to nossible to estimate tha number of employees that can be expected for the retail shopping facilities proposed. Mie 225,000 s ivarre feet of s''locr area estimated for the project, at ;?53 per square foot, ;could generate some $13 million annually in sales. This sales volume divid::d by a ratio of one employee for each ,"37,000 in sales _ (based on Table 10) Implies app-roximately 350 sales . �csLs. Table 10 also shows incoma levels for employe-ea of various types or retail b zires3 in the Ca!:.nuty in 1.970. A 1970 «verabe of ;•,oulcd i:_ r5,600 in 1973 doll._„. '1'Pti3 1nca:nt 2v�ara:ie for 35” e:7!. -03 wa•r.tld r 030lb :1:1 an aggregate payroll of $1.96 million. The office tyas estimiate3 :in -,Ii4pter 1 to have 290,000 square feet of floor sbace. At one f.rl`•�!)1o, �:� fo7- �:tch 250 ��'�:ry,.. f .�L.t L St• (� '•1 Zt••�.�J ' J• • V :J..i. V 1 e s.U• , I V 1 r, l�.z1 V i��.l that this portion of the development would provide a=,Ak working space for *Office Parks, Plazas and Centers - A Study of Develooment_ Enact. rgTanc- Procedures, U.^ban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 65, page 42. anis reoort suggests an average of. 250 square feet, but states that ofi'ices heavy on clerical employees could have cne employee per l65 square feet while those heavy on executives could average 337 square feet per employee. This suggests that 290,000 square feet of office space could very from 860 to 1700 employees. 41 ,r Table 11 , below, shows income levels for various types of businesses and organizat-iona which connonly use office space . Thiu in data for Contra Costa County, 1970. Table 11 Employment and Pad►roll. for Varlous Off ce-ti"ne -.-Businesses Employment Pavro11. Average Finance, Insurance and Real Ectate 4,875 $31.,552 46,6,470 141scellaneous Business Services 20288 130648 5,965 Medical and Health Facilities-Offices 2,481 14,296 5,762 Legal Services 348 2,1118 6, 172 Non -profit rriimber- , ship organizations 1,640 7, 192 11,385 Engi,neering/Archi- • tectural Services 367 3, 164 8,261 Accounting, Auditing, Bookkeeping 322 634 5,223 Total * 12,3?1 $73o684 $5, 980 (avcrti ge) Source: County Business Patterns ' r , " ` 42 The above table does not include self-employed .I individuals and ther:fore, to the degree that these individuals would increase the average income, the estimated average is low. An average income of $5,980 in .1970 would be "5,940 in 1973 dollars. his average times 1,160 employze.•s would prpduce an annual aggregate income of $8.05 million. F..�ci�eatio��al En,T o.,,^�ent The development of two 18-hole golf. courses and the associated clubhouse and otre: ;recreational iacilitie3 will generate approximately 80 jobs, 25 directly connected to the golf courses, fiv_ to a p:o ;'cop and 50 in allied supportive activities .. This is a (IG+A. estimate based on a telephone auvey of several .similar facilities in the Flay Area. The payroll is estimated • at $520,000. Government Employment The demand for public service by the project residents would rea�alt in the following e:3' ates of government employment. Based on data frim the School District, a fairly accurate projection of school employment is possible. Assuming one employee for every 14 students, the projected enrollment of 4, 180 students would result in about 300 jobs (including administrative, instructional and x supportive personnel). At- $10,000 per. employee, their aggregate. income would be $3,000, 000. *Contra Cnst?i County P:,nartment of i-Aucation, 1971.-72 • ;:�� Financial 13eport. Total salaries paid were $6.643 mi ion; totar employees were 663.• The 40 firemen needed to provide fire protection at the level now provided by the Danville Fire Protection District would, at $15,000 per man, earn at total of ¢600,000. Prorating the force of 10 which provides the City of Lafayette frith police services would result in a force of six. At an average of X14,250 each, the police payroll would come to 4$5, 500. Construction Employment Construction employment and inco;re di:fers from the other sources discussed in this chapter in that it is employment of a temporary n"ature limited to the construction period of the project. However, a development of the magnitude of that 4ntieipated for the Maekhawk Ranch would 'produce a large amount of construction employment over a substantial number of years . • The following table estimates the value of all construction associated with the proposed project. Table 12 Estimated Value of Construction TColt/Si.FL•. Floor Area Cost Residential $20.87" 8,371,000" $174,700,000 Commercial 21.45 225,000 4,825,000 orflecs 20.65 290,000 • 6,000,000 Recreational 4,0o0,00o Schools 35-CO 2909750 10, 175,000 $199,700,000 *Costs per square root based on Dulidin,, Standards Nont-hly (see footnote, page 49 ), except—Tor seno6l5Tsee .page 62). "Total residential floor area was determined ^s follows : Number of Units Value Floor .Area Aggregate floor area 51 $100,C00 3,000 153,000 2, 155 70,000 20200 4,741.,Ooo 10958 115,000 1;Goo 3,133,000 382 25,000 goo 344,oao (Y Using the following ratios, construction emplo5rment for $200 million is estimate::. Table 13 Construction: E�nplojmm cnt and Income Total Value of Construction $200,0000000 Attributable to Labor (50 ) 100,000,000 Man-years (013,400/year+) 79460 Job/year (over 12 year const. 620 period) *California Statistical Abstract -- 1972 Table C-14, page 30. 4 ' 45 Construction employment is estimated at 7,460 man-years of work generating $100 million in income. Over a 12- year const-lructicn pa_iod, thla avernge3 out to 620 jobs with an aggregate annual payroll of $3.3 million. A"ricultural 3;.i lo;,: ent Lost; The potential agricultural employment lost bacause of 'development wduld be fewer than 10 -jobs. At $6,000 per job, the ?payroll lost is about $60,000. It 13 possible that a large portion of the remaining open space will stay in production and some or all of these jobs may not be lost. Multiplier Effect As described In Chapter II, the provision of goods and services at the Blackhawk site .creates ,jobs and . lhc:ome diractly azsociatcd with the proSact. These jobs and incomes in turn create a demand for additional goods and services in what economists call the "multi- plier" process. In a narrcw economic entity, such as the Blackhawk develop,mant and its immediate economic context, the multiplier is almost invariably quite low. An appropriate multiplier in the case at hand ,could be 1.13 meaning that for every 100 jobs and every $100 of income Venerated directly, an additional 10 jobs and $10 are g::neratad indirectly as the nu ti plier process works itself out. summary Table 14 summarizes the income and employment f�,•�: associated with the project, �� l 46 Table 14 SSu+nnary of Emplonnent and Income Impact woe 1-hunber of Job3 Income Commercial Retail Sales 350 $10980,C00 Office 1,160 S,Oan,000 Recreational 80 520,000 Government Schools 300 3,000,000 Fire 40 600,000 Police 6 8%000 Construction* 620 . 8,3on.g00 2,T7T2 , :►��,, j up Minus Agricultural Employment Lost 10 60,000 Sub total (1.1) 2— 2 , •y, Multiplier (1.1 ,) 247 ?,21L,000 Total 23713 24, "92,00U *For 12 year construction period only It should be noted that there i3 a dispar�.ty'in the • income levels of the jobs as3ociated with the Blackhawk project and the income levels required for purchase or rent of the housing units proposed for the property. In -.other words: it is very unlikely that any more than a handful of the employees associated with the project .would beable to afford to live in the o:oject housing. .. Professionals who :night establish offices or. the site would be a possible exception, but these too would probably be few in number. In this regard, then, the project reflects a common pattern of suburban job gen- eration in 'which the income to thole holding suburban jobs is not sufficiently high to allow suburban work- ers to live near their places of employment. .� J 47 CHAPTER V TAX REVENUE GER'ERATED BY TILE BIJACMAWK RANCH DEVELOPMENT Tablet in Chanter I identifies the anticipated land use for. the B?ackha.vik Ranch. This chapter forecasts the tax revenue Which could be expected from that development. It considers both property and sales taxes. Property Tures Property taxes are levied proportional to the value of the property subject to the tax., Therefore, the essen- tial first Etep in estimating the magnitude of property taxes v hich can be expected from this development Mould be to estimate the market value of the Blackhawk Ranch if developed as proposed. This is done separately by. land use type. A. ResidcnCitil DoyelepTent The Blackhawk Development Company has specified the num- ber of units, by type, proposed for the Blacl:hawk Ranch and estimated the likely average value of each type of unit. This allows for an estimate of the total market value of the residential development. This eatimate includes the value of the land. Table 15, then, presents thg estimated value of the proposed residential property for Blackhawk Ranch. 48 Table 15 Estimate of Market Value of Residential Property Unit Tempe Number, Averame Value Total. Value Single Family Estate Lots 51 $ 1CO3 000 5, 100,000 Sanglb Faintly Detached 20155 (0.'000 150,850,000 Condomin:,.uma 10958 45,000 83, 110,000 Apartment: Units 382 25,000 9, 550,000 Total 4,546 253,61o,000 B. Commercial D:-velo^ment Plans for the Blackhaark Ranch include the comnicreial development of 37 acres. Of this area, 22.5 acres are plated for retail sales facilitien and 14.5 acres for • an- office complex. 1S1+f 1h'rYW9a: Most of the acreage (15 acres) proposed for retail. sales is centrally located with recpset to the residential development of the property. A cr.aller plot (7. 5 acres ) is set aide for retail sales at the southeast corner of the Ranch. In Chap;:4r I, this acreage was ect;inated to contain 225,000 square aeet of floor space. At $21.45 per square fooL-aj for co.:r^�erciul construction, this implies a value for improve:-..ents to the land of - *All per square foot constructicn costs trere determined by multiplying national construction cost- for various types of buildinas by a Bay Area correction factor of I.W. The source of these ecsts was the International Conference of Building Officials ' Building Standards Monthly. y� 44 N 01 i $4,825,000. At an estimated land value of $65,000 per acre, the land is valued at $1,465,000. An office complex: of 14.5 acres is planned adjacent to the commiunity shopping center. Assuming an average of 20,000 square feet of office space per acre (approx- imately 250 ground cover, and an average building; 1lcight of two stories ), this acreage would have 290,000 building square feet. At 420.65 per square foot, this Implies a value of $6..000,000. At an estimated land value of Y45,000 per acre, the value would be .655,000. The total market value estimated for the commercial development proposed for the Blackhawk Ranch is $120 915,000. C. Open Space As' indicated in Table 1, ovsr 3500 acres of the Black- hawk Ranch is slated to remain in some form of open space. Plans for active recreationa-1 facilities include two 18-hole golf courses (376 acres ), a golf, &wIm and . tennis center, an equestrian center and trails for horse- back riding, bicycling and hiking. The developer estimates a $4 million expenditure for devclopment of recreational facilities. M 41' .. �' 50 Of the 3500 acres, approximately 400 will be improved for active recreational use. Of the remaining 3100 acres, approximately 1000 acres in to be deeded to public ownership. This includes a site or some five acres known as the Blacl•;havik Ranch Quarry. This site is deemed to be of significant paleontologic value and is being offered to the University of California for further exploration. The remaining acreage *to be deeded will become part of the Jbount Diablo State Park which abuts the Elackha,rk I;anch. These lands, after falling into public ownership, will of course cease to be subject to property taxes. The open space not deeded is expected to be owned and controlled by a co-mmunity association or other approp- riate a ge'ncy. The value of this land, based on the present tax assessment, is appro}•imately t>1.7 million. This acsum, es a value of >1,680 per acre for 2500 acres. It is possible that those lands developed for active recreational use would be subject to' a higher ausessment. }iowover.. the bull. or these lands comprisj the golf • courses. The developer estimates `.he cost of course construction at $35,000 fuer hole, or $1,26o,000. The acreage, at Y680/acre, would be valued at 256,000. The total of sl�1,516,000 13 consistent with information from the County Assessor's office which estimates the value or 18-hole courses at $700,000 to $800,000. These figures include a clubhouse, so the Blackhatrk estimate is compatible with or higher than the Assessor's office estimate, even with the land value based on present rates. 51 D. The Status Quo Alternative From the estimate of the taxes to be generated if the project- is developed as proposed, must be subtracted those taxes which Mould accrue if the project were not to be developed. This subtraction yields the tax gain, that which can be expected to accrue over and above that which would accrue in any case.' Approximately $100,000 in property taxes represents the potential contribution of the Blackhawk Ranch were it to remain as a basically agricultural unit*. E. Entin.me of Pr. ouerty Taxes Likely to be Generated by iii c;:�v i,►c'loin n�)? ei:L The following table swnmarizes the market value, by land u!?e type, as discussed above. The table. further shows thy. assessed value, which by law is set at 25% of warket value, and the property tax which would be generated by this property assuming the present tax rate of approximately $13.1 per $100 of assessed valuation *The taxes for 1973 - 1974 were appiloximately $97,000, 1 ••�:::y'' 52 Table 16 Estimate .or. Annual Property Tax Revenue, by Land Use up.m Completion _o.f Project Land Use . Markat Value Assessed Value . Tax Reyen;:e Residential ,P233,6co,000 � 63,0,20,0'00 Com merelal 13,800,000 3,W o,000 It 5--2.oC,0 Open Space' 5.700,000 _?.W5.000 IF,6,'Foo Total $273,100,000 $ 63,215,000 8,944, loo Minus Status Qua Altar- native 3, 100,0v0 5?7 ,UQU 100,ic;o ToTa;,,a1 Ta. C?i n ;?70,000,000 67,500,00f-) $ 3,04", �or *ti Land and liaoro vC'mants iF. Tax Revenue by Jurisdiction `fable 17 dlstribuL•.33 the props r;;y tsx e3timated as generated by the Blackhawk Ranch development- (in Table 16 ) ameng the variou3 jur:lsaic:tlons ;ah3cn. Share in tha;, tax. Table 17 Distribution or Annual Properi;y Tax Revenue ucr�n .^.rmoletion of c rr,Jeet Total Proaartv Tux 100.0 $8,844,000 Contra Costa County 21.7 11919,000 San Hamon Valley Unified School District Operating 46.5 ►t,i 13,300 Bond Retirement 6.9 61o,000 Danville Fire District 8.1 716,000 Bay Area Rapid Tran3lt Dist. 4.5 3930000 East Bay Regional Park Dist. 1.2 106,000 East Bay Municipal Utility 1.2 10600co Other 9.9 81170 COO • �� 53 Using the same values employed in the preceding determination of property tax revenue and the phasing schedule in Table 2, the following; table was constructed to show the cumulative property tax generated per year at the completion of each phase. 54 f ry7)`.1 a � FA Of a0 Crl M � r w 09 CC) ft ft tiD 'A N 43 A* CN �UNN1 til CU Gw CL+ � 0 til 4w tt1 L` co N w Y $4 N .� °° co o w CO 7 r4 E-4 o r4 M Lw r e� O r-4 M N� w O N cd rn * p cr1 VIA ±� t cn .-+ tt1 r4 CO C2 Q r 1 U o C7 U �+ co w ri U r �tyi in w w Cy �{ } 0 N N E1 0 a a �, G o .. U w 'Dv w w N C%l 04N a � N c� U"N w d 4 agf-4 t-4 o + tats rn M w ~` NW CNy 0 N in 14,0r-4 0 N D , 14 %0 ted r4 N trl 55 Sales Tax In addition to property taxes, the future residents of the Blackhawk Ranch can be expected to generate sales tax revenue as well. The magnitude or this revenue is estimated below. For the second quarter of 1973, taxable gales in Contra Costa County were over $349 million*. From this, it is estimated that the annual volume will be $1.4 billion. The State Department of Finance population estimate for July 1973 was 585, 100 for the County. . This is $2,393 per County resident. Applying this ratio, the taxable sales generated by the 14,662 persona estimated as the ultimate project population -would be approximately $35 million. • Hoiiever, the average income of the families in the pro- ject was calculated in Chapter I to .be $25, 100. For Contra Costa County in 1970, the census reports an average income of $12, 100. Correcting for infl4tionery trends, this would be comparable to a 1973 income of $14,100. The Federal tax tables for sales tar, deductions imply that a $25, 100 income means 1 .4 times the sales taxes of a $14, 100 income. Applying this ratio raises the $35 million estimate of table sales to $49 million. At' a 6.5% tax rate, the revenue produced on $49 million of taxable sales is $3.2 million. (The tax rate will rise to 6.5% in 1974). The 5.5% tax rate is divided among the State (4.75%), the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (.5%), and the county (.25%) and the city (1.0p) -� *Taxable Salcs in California (Second quarter, 1973), State Board of Equalization,. pags 7. 56 • In which the purchase was made. For purchases made in unincorporated areas, the county also receives the city share. In 1972, 84% of the taxable sales in Contra Costa County were made in incorporated areas, 16% in unincorporated c rE?3:t . Th!!reforo, th1 CozL'-ity share of sales faxes revenues ea*znnarked for the Counter and cities X129 33"Vf (20;� of 84;4 plus -100;4 of 16%). The distribution of the $3.2.million in sales tax revenues, then, i3 as follows: State of California 2,:34 million BART .25 Contra Co3ta County .20 County Cities .41 $ 3.20 It should be noted that even though the project- is located in the unincorporated ;area of the County, the sale•i t?:c revenues generated by the residents do not all go to --the County •bacausc assi&n ent -of these revenues is based . on the location of purchase and not the residence of the con3umer. As the above calculation indicates, the County re- a::i� ��3 t :��l.i' t e 3air.=:> -,a ;e _ �, _ �,, .. a- , cities. It should also be noted that per capita taxable sales in Contra Costa County are lower than those in the nine- county Bay Area ($2, 193 for the Bey Area compared to $1,680 for the county in 1970) . This is not due to income levels, which are in fact higher in Contra Costa County than in the Bay Area as a whole, but to "leakage" in spending patterns, i .e. ^pending opportunities in thp- more commerctaily developed. V=Z1 parts of the metropolitan area draw expenditures by Contra Costa County residents out of the Comity to a greater degree /f Z -than expenditure3 by non-residents are drawn to the County. �'. As the County 57 develops a broader and more diverse commercial sector, . , It can be expected that the per capita, expenditures within the County, and consequently per capita sales tax revenue, will rise. Furthermore, the sales tax revenues attributed to the project are based on consumer expenditures by the future residents and not those generated .by retail sales of the proposed commercial development. This assign- ment is based on the contention that retail sales are more directly attributable to the egnsumer than the merchant (even though the merchant is -the legal conduit for the collection of the. sales tax),. Although the locational choice of residence is somewhat influenced by proximate shopping facilities, the locational choices of retail trade outlets are of necessity tied to appropriate trade areas. It was therefore decided that it was more appropriate: to assign to the project those sales tar, revenues generated by the residents rather than those generated by retail sales outlets Included in the project. Summary In summation, the total fiscal contribution from • property and sales tax to local jurisdiction3' are shown In Table 19• Vft 58 aabld'19 AI'1T1111l Tax 1tt'Vf'Il!1:: r'it^.!1 Prt)pom-d Bl.ac'fhawk ranch 'Yro;ject to 11u1111.c• T:nutt;+t:::, �-)?)n CoirrAction of Project :Ltt tha•.i��ncia Ui' �.�allars) Property Sale3 Tax Tax Tota1 Contra Costa Count,, 11919 200 2, 119 S;:n Ramon Vn l l c!y 4 2' 4,723 Unified School Dist. '7 j • Danville Fire Protection - - Districf. 716 716 Pay Arca. Rapid Tran31t lllytz•Ct398 250 648 • East lay Regicnal - _. Parks 106 106 East Bay Municipal Utility District 106 . 106 County Cities - 410 410 State of California 2,340 2,340 Other 876 876 8,844 120200 12,o44 ')9 f� CHAPTER VI ; COSTS OF PLMLIC SERVICES ' This chapter estimates the costs for various public goods and services. Each governmental unit or special district is treated separately. A. , Schools The school eystem is the single most .expensive govern- ment service provided at the local level. The San Ramon Valley unified School District, the jurisdiction of which includes the Blackhawk Rsneh, accounts for more than half of the tax rate for property ti•:ithin the District. • Table 4 in Chapter I identified the nu:n*r)(;: of echool age children which the project is estin;^ted to genera`e. Of these children eligible for public education; however., some *percentage can be expected to attend private schools. This percentage was over ni -le for the f+lcmno-Danv'lle area according to the 1970 census. However, consultants to the School District expect this percentage to drop in the future as private facilities do not or -cannot keep pace with the increase in pt:,Dulation. For the purpo:3es of this report, and to be on the safe siCe, 95% o" school. age children will be assumed to attend the pabl::.(: -chool system. Taking 95% of the school age children from Table 11, the expec -ted enrollment from the rally developed project is 4, 180 -- 1,808 at levels h-5, 1,031 in grades 6-8 turd 1,341 at the high school level. To accommodate these students, the School District will have to build and adminis- ter new schools. These two kinds of costs will be considered �. � separately. 6o U t/3 Ma is 0 Pk r4 0 O In t!1 O 3 Cco a m CCA ti H 04 04 Ch (n 0 CIN V4 N 41 is • • p�N dKL' to S W A Lr) tt1 Ul 'CI 0 KC ttl r- W N � +> : �, tDa cn 4.21 U) rn ti, tai�4 • 4 d v U CUi V N N M , m 0c3ri H Q U O N r-0 0 a t3 6 w �. N 0 r1 iir c0 H ri 0 ., � -1 W O •� co O M � w co�=i� r-i ri H :t t: 0 H .cv Yti: 43 �+ 04 43 N tU r-I fr V, 0 O. 'C y 4 H CN .,-4 P4 9i; ao C4%d� Cd M 94U A t0 u1 to O W N % ri o a ri t9 r4 0 0 V) u1 co N i OltO EA ;; 61 .r The space needs estimate pre3ented in Table 20 can be trans- lated into an estimate of the cost of the physical plant re- quired to meet 'the needs of the projected enrollment. The Local Assistance Office of the State Bsnartment of Education suggests that a rate of $35 per suaT•e foot i:a sufficient to cover the cost of buildings. This fi;:ire includos the cost of site preparation, dn3ign, Ier-al. an,,! other fec z, coastruc-- tign and equipment,, i.e.. , all cos,,s e::clusive of land acqui- sition. Ia.nd acquisition costs are j;;cgLd to be approximate- 1v $15,000 per acre. rable 21 employs these cost fi rz rures to estimate the total coat of maeti.n the need .for physical school .facilities for the student!,; generated by-the project. The Blackliat•ik DEnralopnment CorrLlany ha3 iagreEu to dedicata one school site of ten atcres to the schoal district. This re- duction in cost is reflected in Ta:D, 1Q 21. Table 21 Cost of Ph, �oical Sch,.al_ rFa.ci li.ti.es3 .290,750 Sit. ft. ,t *35/square 90 acres ale $15,000 per acre. . . . . . . . . . . 1,350,000 -10 acres d ;ilcat4d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 150;000 Total., . . . . . . . . .$11,375,000 Capital improvements for schools a li generally .fin-3nced by bands, t;3e issue of --thich must be approved by the district voters. The bonding, capacity of a unified school district in California is set at 10;' of assessed valuation. This being the case, the Plackhawk Ranch project, estimated to have an assessed valuation of $67,500,000 upon completion, would increase ilia School District's bonding capacity by $6,750,000. This is $4,625,000 less than the capital needs identified in Table 21. In order to see the mag- nitude of the problem of providing school facilities, 7P �• � 62 it is useful to assume the project. area a separate en- tity and assume the over-night coxpietion of the project. If the project were to have its o::•n sc'nool system and borrow the needed capital by issuing 20-year bonds at 5;', given the capital need for .$11,375,000 and its assessed valuation of $67,500,000, a tax rate of $1.33 per $100 of assessed valuation would be requ rel to repay the bonds over the 20-year term. However, the State of Ca,.ifornia assists local school dis- tricts to meet th•eir capital nee6s :-;,e•re it can be dcmon- strated that the district is incapable of ineeting 'them on its own. The State assistanc�i, in effect, creates a situation where the *tax rate for retira^ent of school bonds issued by; partici ati.ng districts naed not exce d $.30. if a district is bonded to capacity (6c: inad as bc ;nd.3 outstand- ing equal to 05 of the district tis bonding c-.apacity ..ihi ch, as stated above, equals 100 of assessed valuation for a iunified district ) and can demonstrate the noed for addi- tional 'funds for school constructicn (i.e. , does not meet Sta.4:e school c,-.,eco stand::rds ), State .--onies care lr,?.ned to "{ the ::choo�. district. The district repays the State with any ftLnds that can be raise) 'ai th . '_X rate of 5.000 for bond retirement ti•;hieh are in addition to those funds necess- dry to repay the bonds outstandin--. For example, if a dis-• trict has bonds outstanding which require a tax rate of $.70 for annual repayment, a tax of $.80 is assessed and the funds raised by the differential $.10 are used to repay the State loans. If the' entire $.80 or more is necessary to repay the, bonds, the State is repaid nothing fcr that year. The prin- cipal of the .loan from the State is not reduced that year t � 1 63 and interest continues to acc=ulate. However., after 30 ,years, thst part of the monay o'red to the State which re- mairis unpaid is fo.rgIven -- it need never be repaid. t•t should be brotrrht out th%r, the a%railabl.11L", of State lo--ns for school r_on:c`.ruction does not diminish the over- all fiscal .i-mpacT., buL nerely transfer.-, the b!,rd?,n from th,z, local to levele it should also -,a ;;rc:;-ht out, however, that in all proba.bili.ty., the{ State .rould have to offer this assistance reCo.rdleGz of .,*here these stud n.. 1..�•.� ._:� an �ll„I . C2�. .ha L ;3i;:lJ . D bac the case nlc,.,a the- studecits co!Ild he locrxLed in a dis- trict with oxcess soaca or bonain- capacity, but -to the ext:Tit to w1:01-ch such d i:>:r.icts coin i oa foli.n3, tt:-,y ara not likely to provi.do a1,erna v 11oL;si.ng %c c o L:,o: tions to those LLnits propo<:ed for the S?ac'.;;^awk Ranch. it is therrefore unli%ely that the physlu:1 school facilities ruquLred for these -,1. 0 ant*, would not require rials" ta.nce. . .The proposed Blackha:•rk development, as we have. seer, does not generate en uggh b=l in- c apac l t � sutp_ -r� t`.� cion o.-:' the z,!hool _acll:ties :ehiolh ,could be req;:i.rsd. Thus, it represents a potential liability to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) in terms of its capital costs. As of November, 1973, the SR USD :•ras bonded virtually to capacity. The District .has not been a contin- uous pa.rticipa_nt in tha State school building, aid program, and during the period of non-participation incurred finan- cial obligations as a consequence of school ccnstruction which are not considered "eligible" debts from the State' s point of view. Should the District dacide to rejoin the �: .:. 64 wuwues F.L VISA wu, 40J1Ct CA VAV) 611CSC UeU L b .WUU.LU llutt ue; 40dKell In under the umbrella of the $.80, but would have to be repaid over and above eligible debts. The current bond tax rate in the District is $.906. Of this, part is for the retirement of eligible and part is for the retirement of ineligible debts. Assuming that participation in the State program is renewed, the bond rate impact of the Blackhawk project would be to add to the "eligible" debts up to the level represented by $.80 on the tax rate. Ineligible debts would continue to account for the remainder of the bond tax rate. Given the current breakdoon between eligible acid ineligible components of the rate, the funding of the $4,625,000 not supportable by assessed valuation within the Blackhawk development would be to raise the bond rate for eligible debts to $.80. The total bond rate would be $.80 plus whatever is needed to retire ineligible debts.* The difference between an $.80 bond rate and the rate re- quired to retire all eligible debts would be paid by the iState. This calculation represents the maximum fiscal im- pact of the Blackhawk on the SRVUSD. In fact, of course, - the project will be built in phases and not all of the capital costs will be required at the outset. The phasing of the project is presented in Table 22, in which potential 'school enrollment figures from Table 6 have been reduced 5% to estimate A.D.A. (pupils in. average daily attendance) . Table 22 School Phasing Phase K - 5 Schools 6 - 8 schools 9 - 12 Schools 1 217 110 148 2 523 290 384 3 • 857 1 498 654 4 1,273 750 977 5 1,560 2 917 1 1,194 6 1,808 3 1031 10411 *Discussions are currently under way between SRVUSD and the State Office of Local Assistance which t;iay result in a State interpretation of all outstanding debts as eligible. 65 RECEIVED APR ° 0 197G z J. GtERK BOA, O; SUPERVISORS w A 5P1A CO. 8 .......... ... out r Q M U Z (" V m W H Z O X W W 0 • Microfilmed with board order t . EXHIBIT "13 GEOTECHNICAL RECONN," at�c::::=:.r:: FI!:AL E:.I.tl.. FOR 4800 ACRE: BLACKHAWK RANCH • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA LOWNEY o KALDVEER ASSOCIATES Foundation / Soil / Geological Engineers • LowneVeNolduoor Nvoodutlf JOHN V.LOWNEY.C.E. PETER KALOVEER.C.E. Foundation/$oil/Geological Engineers ROBERT R.PRATER,C.E. DONALD N.NILLEBRANOT.C.E. 145 ADDISON AVENUE, PALO ALTO,CALIFORNIA 91301 115/326.6920 November 15, 1973 2911-211, PA 4353 Mr. Robert Carrou BlacKhawk Davelopment Corporation 3171 blackhawk Road Danville, California REt PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE 4800 ACRE BLACKHAWK RANCH CONTRA COST: COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Carrau: I In accordance with your request, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical reconnaissance for tl;a above project. The accompanying report preseots the results of our preliminary field and office studies. The geolcgic, seismicity and site conditions are discussed and generalized conclusions are presented. We refer you to the text of the report for a discussion of our findings. If you have ony questions concerning these findings, please call. Very truly yours, LOWNEY/KALDVEER ASSOCIATES Vj J lin V. Lowney JVL/MC:1c Copies: Addressee (18) Von Hagge & Devlin, Inc. (1) Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. (2) PALO ALTO/OAKLAND/MONTEREY/SAN DIEGO • PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE For 4800 ACRE BLACK HAWK RANCH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA To • Mr. Robert Carrou Blackhawk Development Corporation 3171 Blackhawk Road Danville, California November, 1973 A 0 II It To [ALDVII! ASSOCIAttt TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No, Letter of Transmittal TITLE PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I SCOPE I TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY 2 SEISMICITY 3 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS 4 Area A - Developable by Conventional Methods 4 Area B - Developable with Moderate to Extensive Development Problems 5 - Area C - Undevelopable 5 FURTHER STUDIES 5 Phase 1 - Geotechnical Investigation 6 Plisse 2 - Final Design Geotechnical Investigation 6 LIMITATIONS 6 FIGURE 1 - SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 - PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3 - GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION FIGURE 4 - GENERALIZED SITE CONDITIONS towNlr• ICAICVIII Associ•r[s f PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE FOR 4800 ACRE BLACKHAWK RANCH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. INTRODUCTION In this report, we present the results of our preliminary geotechnical reconnaissance for the proposed 4800-acre Blackhawk Ranch Development located about one mile cast of the town of Diablo in Contra Costo County, California, as shown on the attached Site Location Map, Figure i . This work v,-as primarily directed toward revealing the generalized geologic condi- tions and related aspects of soil and foundation engineering which would affect both land use planning and design of the proposed residential development. • We understand that the 4800-acre site tentatively will be developed into a residential community that may ultimately consits of residential units including school facilities, commercial buildings, golf courses, tennis clubs and riding trails. Approximately two- thirds of the total acreage will remain open space. SCOPE - The scope of work performed for the investigation included a preliminary site reconnaissances by our engineering geologists, David G. Heyes, on October 17, 1972 and J. Michael Cleary on November 9, 1973 as wel I as related geotechnical office studies. Our initial report for the 4000-acre Blackhawk Ranch proper was submitted in February, 1973; that report has been amended by this report to include additional ccreage located on the east and south portions of the development. The geotechnical studies included a detailed examination of overlapping vertical aerial photographs of the site (scale of 1 inch equals 625 feet), a review of available published and unpublished geologic literature pertaining to the area, and preparation of this report which summarizes our work and presents preliminary conclusions concerning the site development. The scope of our work was directed toward a preliminary geotechnical reconnaissance not intended to include any detailed field geologic mapping, field subsurface exploration work, laboratory testing, detailed analyses or design recommendations. LOWNIV- KAIOV[[R ASSOCIAT[S '291-2B,•-Page 2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY The irregular shaped, 4800-acre parcel is located in a region of low rugged foothills and valleys south of Mt. Diablo, between the San Ramon Valley on the west, and the San Joaquin Valley on the east. Tributaries of two drainage systems within the parcel, the Walnut Creek System on the west and the Alameda Creek System on the east, generally drain in a south, southwest and southeast direction. The upper portions of tributaries are sharply incised into steep-sided V-shaped canyons, while the lower.portions form broad, gently sloping, alluvial-filled valleys which in turn have been incised with shallow steep-sided gullies along active stream courses. -Ground surface elevations generally vary from a low of approximately Elev. 620 feet (Mean Sea Level Datum) on the south edge of the parcel near Blackhawk Road to a maximum of Elev. 1,965 feet at a peak in the northeast corner of the property. Natural vegetation over most of the site consists of grass and scattered trees although the uppermost areas have a light growth of scrub brush. Most of the upland area is utilized for grazing, while the lower broad valleys are generally used for orchards, farms and grazing. The attached Preliminary Geologic Map, Figure 2, shows the variable relief within the property. Erosion, landsliding and soil creep have occurred along the steep, narrow valley sides and along the active incised creed channels in the lower valleys. There is no apparent evidence of past flooding in the area; however, the hills in the area receive an average annual rainfall of abouf 18 to 20 inches and runoff in the creeks may • have caused some minor flooding of the lower areas, particularly during very wet winters. Several small earthfill dams, apparently used to provide a water reservoir for cattle, are located in some of the narrow canyons at the site. These canyons have undergone extensive londslidino, and at one location in the Alameda Creel, drainage system, a dam and reservoir appear to'be located on a landslide. Several ponds, fed by Sycamore Creek, are present in the bottom of .>ycamore Canyon, aoulhcast of existing ranch buildings. Geologically, the site is underlain by a series of steeply dipping sedimentary rock units which from the northeast limb of the Short Ridge Syncline as shown on the attached ` Generalized Geologic Cross-Section, Figure 3. In general, the oldest rocks at the site are exposed at the higher elevations at the north end of the property; the bedrock units become progressively younger toward the south. The three oldest rock units in order of decreasing age are the Domengine Sandstone consisting of sandstone with some siltstone, cfaystone, mudstone and conglomerate; Sobrante Sandstpne consisting primarily of sandstone; and the San Pablo Group consisting of sandstone with some shale, siltstone, tuff and conglomerate. These three formations form the resistant ridges to the north and are relatively competent compared to the younger Orinda Formation which underlies the southern half of the property (see Figures 2 and 3). AOWN[Y• KAIOVIII ASSOCIATES 291-211, Page 3 The Orinda Formation has been weathered to a surface topography consisting of low rounded hills with extensive slope failure ranging from numerous large shallow slumps and earthflows to several large apparently deep-seated failures. Some of these land- slides are over 1000 feet long and several hundreds of feet wide. The shallow slides and earthflows usually occur either at the base of the residual soils, or at the base of severely weathered Orindcr Formation materials. Several landslide masses also exist Within the older formations underlying the northern portions of the property. The approximately 60 major landslide areas, shown on Figure 2, include both recent and ancient landslides; some of the ancient landslides have probably not moved during historic time. Further detailed field work should be performed prior to actual developriment to define the nature and extent of these landslides as well as the numerous unmapped landslides to evaluate their relationship to the site development. The sedimentary rock formations within the valleys are overlain by recent alluvium generally consistin;7 of mixtures of unconsolidated silt, clay and sand with minor gravel. A thin to moderately thick soil cover overlies bedrock on the slopes, which tends to be unstable under certain conditions and shows evidence of landsliding. Most of the surface soils in the alluvial-filled valleys appear to have a low to moderate potential for expansion; some of these soils, however, may have a high expansion potential. It should be noted that the near-surface claystone and/or shale units of the geologic formations described above may also have a moderate to high expansion potential. • Extensive seepages were not observed during our field reconnaissance, but it is our opinion that seepage areas probably do exist after heavy winter rains, particularly near landslide areas, Seepage and groundwater conditions should be thoroughly investigated during t subsequent work at the site. { SEISMICITY As with most of the San Francisco Bay Area, the site is located within one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Three major fault zones pass through the Bay Area in a northwest direction and have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause significant damage. These major faults; which are part of the San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth's crust that extends for at least 450 miles along the California Coast, are the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras Faults located approximately 32 miles, 13 miles and 3 miles southwest of the site, respectively, Measured accumulated strains in the earth's crust along these faults indicate the inevitability of future earthquakes. In addition, the site is approximately 5 miles north of the northern terminus of the Pleasanton Fault which has shown some evidence of seismic activity during historic time. The only known fault within the limits of the property is an unnamed east-west trending fault at the extreme northwest corner of the site. Our current study did not find evidence to suggest geologically recent movement along this fault; however, no development is planned in this area. The Hayward, Calaveras and Pleasanton Faults are shown on Figure 1, and the unnamed inactive fault mentioned above is shown on Figure 2. EOWNEr• ICAIOVCf2 ASSOCIATES 291-26, Page 4 Potential earthquake hazards generally may be divided into two categories: fault offset and shaking. It is possible that the apparently inactive fault at the northwest corner of the property could experience some minor sympathetic fault offset movement should a major earthquake occur along the Calaveras or Pleasanton Faults. In other portions of the site, where faults are not known to exist, the potential hazard due to direct fault offset is considered remote. Because of the continual seismic activity in the San Francisco Bay Area, however, it is reasonable to assume that the site will be subjected to at least one major earthquake causing severe ground shaking during the 50 year period following development. The most detrimental effect from such shaking would be additional slumping or landsl iding on the hill slopes and possibly liquefaction in the valley areas should well graded, loose, saturated sands be present. 'We should emphasize that is is possible that large magnitude earthquakes could cause renewed movement of existing landslides and/or new landslides in the hill areas, particularly if such earthquakes were to occur during the wet season of the year. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS Based on our preliminary geotechnical reconnaissance, it appears the property can be divided into three bread classes based on degree of development difficulty from a soil and geological engineering standpoint. The areas presenting the least development problems are generally confined to the valley bottoms, the gently sloping fan deposits, and probably the gently sloping ridges at higher elevations as shown on the attached Generalized Site Conditions, Figure 4, and described in Area A, below. Areas presenting moderate to extensive development problems, but developable at increased cost, are the gently to moderately sloping terrain away from major landslides, primarily in the Orinda Formation; these areas are referred to as Area B and generally occupy the flatter hillsides in the Orinda Formation as shown on Figure 2, Preliminary Geologic Map. Areas which generally con not be developed include those containing landsliding or steep topography as described in Area C below. The landslides identified in this study are shown on Figure 2 and constitute only the major slides easily recognizable during a surface reconnaissance; numerous smaller slides not shown on Figure 2 are also present. In the following, we review some of the soil and geological engineering problems which. relate to the overall site development. Areas exhibiting the most favorable soil and geologic conditions and hence the lowest risk should generally be reserved for residential development, while areas having geologic hazards and/or geoteclinical problems should be primarily used for recreational purposes with as much of the land as possible left in its natural condition. Area A - Developable by Conventional Methods The valley bottoms, gently sloping fan deposits and probably the gently sloping ridges at higher elevations can generally be developed using conventional site ;r6ding and foundation design provisions. Problems associated with the development of the lower elevation areas include: (1) the expansion potential of surface soils, (2) the proximity of slides above or below the developments, and (3) the control of surface and subsurface drainage. 6OWN1Y• KAtOVEE! ASSOCIATES 191-15 r Pace S • The expansion potential of surface soils may require that foundations be extended some- what deeper than normal and the slabs-on-grade be founded on a pad of select non- expansive material. The proximity of slides to development areas will require setbacks to prevent such slides from encroaching on the developed property. To control surface and subsurface water, detailed drainage measures will likely hove to be incorporated. If deep excavations are planned on the higher ridge tops, some difficulty in excavation may be encountered. All of the above items should be studied during subsequent investigations at the site. Area © - Developable with Moderate to Extensive Development Problems The lower flatter slopes in the Orindo Formation can be developed providing they are not located on or adjacent to large landslides. These areas will have the some problems associated with Area A above but in addition will require the use of extensive grading, including regrading of shallow earth slumps and other potentially unstable conditions. The extent of site investigations required will be greater than for Area B, with particular attention directed toward long term slope stability and proper surface drainage. Area C•- Undevelopsble As indicated above, there are many local areas within the property that are underlain by or in proximity to landslides which are of such mognitude that development of these areas would involve a high degree of risk and be very costly. The landslide areas are generally shown on Figure 2; however additional landslides are likely.to be encountered in future detailed studies of specific areas. The relatively steep terrain along the deeply incised canyons in the Orinda Formation and the steep resistant slopes to the north are also probably undevelopable because of the inherent instability associated with g,'3ding in these steep areas. Our experience in landslide areas in the Orindo Formation and related formations indicates that long-term stcbility is difficult to achieve even if extra- ordinary and expensive precautions are incorporated into the site grading and drainage. Difficult design and construction problems should also be anticipated during the development of the above areas in relatively steep terrain. No development is proposed in these areas other than a golf course, however. FURTHER STUDIES Our preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions at the site has been very broad and necessarily limited. Subsequent studies prior to actual development should include detailed geologic mapping, geophysical surveys, subsurface exploration work and laboratory testing as well as appropriate engineering analyses and studies. We recommend that our additional investigations be particularly directed toward: (1) fairly detailed studies of the overall site conditions to define more accurately the exact developable areas of the property and (2) very detailed individual investigations for each of the developable portions of the property as development progresses. The scope of work we recommend would include, but • would not necessarily be limited to, the following two phases: towN�r•��evri� �►ssosutst . . 291-211, Page 6 Phase.l - Geotechnical Investigation Moderately detailed overall site studies to include geologic mapping of the property at a scale of 1 inch = 500 feet. The geologic map would show existing landslide masses and other adverse geologic features where detailed information is needed to establish the projected use of the property. Critical areas moy need mapping at a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet or larger to reveal potentially hazardous conditions. After the developable areas have been defined, it will be necessary to evaluate the effects of adjacent landslides and other geologic features on these areas. Selectively deep borings may be required to evaluate the depth of major landslides and to compare the subsurface materials encountered in apparently stable areas to those encountered within the slide masses themselves. The deep borings would be supplernc:nted with backhoe test pits to check minor slides and subsurface materials in place. Preliminary laboratory tests to be used in our engineering and geologic analyses would establish the engineering properties of the subsurface materials, particularly those encountered within the slide masses. Phase 2 - Final Design Geotechnical Investigation After the exact developable areas have been established, detailed individual investigations for each of these areas must be made. These investigations would include sufficient field exploration work, laboratory testing and engineering analyses to establish design construction criteria for site grading, building foundations, slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, surface and subsurface drainage systems and pavements. The comprehensive reports for each of these areas would include all of the geologic, soil and foundation information required by the public and private agencies overseeing and/or funding the development. LIMITATIONS Our services consist of professional opinions, preliminary evaluations and preliminary conclu- sions made in accordance with generally accepted soil, geologic and foundation engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all ether warranties either expressed or Implied. is • ^"-a.SW- ••#I^W 9ao .tt 1111 AIFS ', '' '-'}` •`O•�pra•r. �.. r.y i;..1 rnT Ct1^.LB.�.",'•/��t�7£ � ,l C " '1+�-. t{�.� .l' .�` ,.. .J' •.a _ •1 �. .(Tntt: PAa' �,,, ..44?, ,aa: � _, �;` - �`•_ "'y��. . \ ,. . ,�t •-Y ._ /_ j :�cnMriy Reif - ',- Pf vatley, `•"'" :+'',�'•• tit. ,.;,... y :1111• `l' .- ' . "" �`."'��•• � .• »�} :'.1�.} �t. •A� � .u;._7 �,y. r, _ ` Ammo,. -��'1._ �: t. `_�•: ,� `,l i. .r•'4 �. r t Oak-* • �'L.«� a ._'s f- -t'.{ate i :t `��, ;r STD•~: t 7� '1 -71 (\ff .\ '" ,"'3 •1/ 7 i T.��I>,it ril'i�lu •`\ � 49M♦7S _�•4.4'� � •�a S• til '"••� � `.�.� •r^:/�1 ` \yam .2��',r,£!1� r.t,_ .�i `\ x.'•.,.,_��_._ t>� Cn ,j`S \t 'n,vr'. \ �, t r'.i. •' r. �C r••u `�.�, ' ". xh.• .'a 7 '� ' r ,� ?`h• I -�7 �RC1" Lj R- A SITE .r � `t�~�,. . ." G..c :�._ ......,:}:._A.�,�� ✓ir"''�• � _..� -"» �-. _'�-- 1; • �+ - }✓int . • fiat,}:att,tlti r ♦ ...�I ,', ''r, i. :} ;J''• -•�4, _ `-v 6Y( r"~`'• r ttY(("titi`+'+ (,,. `•� `.. t\t I.- ,y\t 'Do r'•, 4'`{{•�„�1 ;' !!� �•'rs'`"'.Rp"" .}l .Zl j� • `,=�•'�', o, `i-. ., rt •i.1y_„}•..y/.•1,,�./ ',.r;.. G� ai C ,l,.L {,,•7 �" �,,. z- ��• C:•.>.S._ �• '••'a..� tuft .?S `_ Y�,edem n ^;, , �'. `t�-• .M'�� .f'.� { , r,;'`" �^'17✓7 1 0v-('trig. ' ' • �� "- `I � r Y.••,0��\ .-. .� w t ' \1 ..�t.a"J7 ' �•. rr$Gsr t�-'„? .. . ..t(A�-.•,.. ;•;:•1 yt-^Y •< �•`•`' �.. `Vi'''i P �,�-"'� PARKS{ •' i `t :- �; .,�•�~'� r\7' � V / ,•`_. , _ Z'_ ,ry4 •a �� ;. �v t! Jab CURPs ;TPA1NJNQ CENTER a. •`"�.t tt .\� tiritl I:utt1t11 , , -: _ 't �, `` •j a ? ,.if-•h1. J , 1011rC , ~ ^•', _ _ 437 r i ! ._ tiYron iu 1 1 tSM �n� p..4 Ci,-,I _-"• ,�:t. .� `�.,.. •, nip^`. AF, ` ` \•N r. y ,�` btUN�Cu,.t:.p", EA ' •. »�. ., ' 1n A -,d.0 Valley, t AIRPORT Via. , -` � - •�ll^�r�.�_ -'a' "rrr;".�Y` i ,•J*{' fip., � _.. p' Livermort.• �-7' ,t' 't.;' /rr.' . -.... :';•' ,ett•A. t - - ,.t1 .�`./("t, �• 't'�"'r•�a. i� .I~ - ',•.0 ," `. S:. ..' ,LYS.. 1 '' _ 1 JPS Tlcas�tnton Q�� 'tib :,tt.ao ` MO :ah, .,, .C(>"' 1••.•n h�/_'.."'1,�.;.^ .,:L. •-r �. - .r: 1 ..l '•.�.,.c...t .+/ /'�,:`.s.`1U�,rARK �T 1 Var ' ` ''1 . � .' ,;�• LEGEND :-,2 -�Active Fault Trace Q ~•~ Hca. . •.ca :'�("�-`.....':. ::., \ SCALE Base: U.S. Geological Survey • °'� ' �a$t 1 inch 2 miles HUD; San Francisco Bay Region, 19717 SITE LOCATION MAP LQ�:it�y`�:aiu�@LCR 9UCiQt@Ii 4800-ACRE BLACKHAWX RANCH Contra Costa County, Coliiornia Foundation J Soil J t3eotopicai tEnyinaari PROJECT NO. I DATE 291-28 November 1973 Figura 1 y w • i M u! f.L� ...'moi••`:': � • ,1 fi • '• • `6 O �•:t CSD a � o '77- •` J J Y c L V a E ILI vi cig C, INS CA JM r % � `, d U �� -_:..is \ , . ;:•.., ,t��:''� '%''` � 1 tea' �:, "a .\�.:• II '�- -,�,+L.'� iP,,,��,�':�.'•l�-• � 1.• � ' ��•'\ _ . �. W 11 tE CA G •\l• '\' Ct 3 O 00 CIAY Y r EO oc •C d a C ❑ LI �� W ter'.;, _ • f EXHIBIT #14 BLACKHAWK FINAL E.I.R. • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Planning Department DATE: February 6, 1974 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu.: SUBJECT: Blackhawk Ranch General Director of Planning, Plan Compliance GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUIRED After reviewing the adopted plans that comprise the County General Plan for this area, I find that the "Blackhawk Ranch" project, as it has been proposed to this Department, does not comply with the County General Plan in several significant and substantial respects. These differences are discussed in this memorandum. In view of the differences between the proposed "Blackhawk Ranch" project and the County General Plan, a review of the Plan before this project is considered at public hearing and, in view of the provisions of Section 65360 of the Government Code requiring zoning-subdivision compliance with general plans, seems to be in order. GENERAL PLA;4 CONFORN"NCE Generally, a project (or its zoning) can be said to be in conformance with a general plan if all of the following items are applicable: ° The lands of land uses are in agreement ° ',lie land use densities or intensities are in agreement The contemplated forms of development are in agreement ° The requisite iacillities and services are in agreement ° The requisite access and circulation facilities are in agreement The requisite environmental factors are in agreement EXISTING GENERAL PLAN COMPONENTS The Land Use Element of the County General Plan for this area is derived from the following adopted components which basically apply to different parts of the project site and its iuuaediate vicinity: AW10-DANVILLE AREA GENERAL PLAN This plan describes the type of residential development that is contemplated in the following manner: J ' • Planning Department -2- February 6, 1974 '$Residential . 1. Residential densities on the valley floors should range from 1 to 3 , families per net acre (maximum) , except for those areas in and imme- diately adjacent to the communities of Alamo and Danville where selec- tive multiple residential is indicated. 2. The steep hill areas (of over 20% slope), where development is feasible, should range in density from 0 to 2 families (maximum) per net. acre.* '3. All hillside development should be strictly controlled so as to pre- vent marring of the natural landscape by excessive cutting and fill- ing. 4. A population of 50,000 is considered optimum for this area. A higher density would, of necessity, alter the character of the area consider- ably and would dictate a change in the objectives of the plan." SAN RMION AREA GENERAL PLAN The San Ranson Area (Caiinunity) General Plan does not extend as far north as the Blackha%,k property boundary. It does, however, add detailed open space uses • that abut single family residential areas on the Alaiao-Danville General Plan. This creates a boundary problem which requires clarification before development . proceeds in this area. The plan also specifies that single family residential is appropriate in valley areas and that hillsides should remain open. 1963 LAND USE AND CIRCULATION PLAN This Plan has been superseded by the above-mentioned Area General flans west (including some of .the Ranch) and south of the project site , but it is the residual plan covering the eastern portion of the Ranch and much of the sur- rounding area. It is similar to the Alamo-Danville plan in that it shows some of this area as Low Density Residential (0 to 3 families per net acre) . It further states on p. 24 that "Other than these few exceptions, medium, high density and multiple family developments will be within or very near to urban centers and the industrial areas where employment will be found." *11iis is properly interpreted as meaning that there' are some areas (very level) where, say, one-half acre lots might be appropriate, and there are other areas where multi-acre lots would be appropriate. It does not necessarily mean that an average of one housing unit per acre would be permitted over entire areas sho%m for residential development. Planning Department -3- February 6, 1974 Over half the land in the Blackhawk Ranch area and most of the greater Tassajara Valley is shown as extensive agriculture. On page 25 the intent of the plan further states: "Open Space As urban development pushes into thb open countryside woodland and farming areas rapidly disappear. Urban expansion will continue, but covering the entire landscape with a sprawl of houses and other structures should be prevented. Some of our open spaces must be preserved, and it must be preserved at places where it will do the most good. Suburban expansion should follow a logical pattern. Urban scatteration and sprawl must be contained and discouraged. Preserving liberal amounts of open spaces at selected locations , including parks, golf courses, woodland, range land, and wherever possible the best agricultural land, is a major goal of this plan." OPEN SPACE-CONSERVATION PLAN This component of the County General Plan (which modifies the Land Ilse Element), although much debated,did little to change the general plan picture to this area as it was finally adopted. * One action was to state that parcels which straddled the open space line on the Plan would be allowed to apply for development before 1980. The final definition of what is to be open space and what could develop--according to the adopted �... land use elements of other plans--would be resolved at the time of application consideration. OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS Ther: are other adopted components of the County General Plan, including the Recreation Clement and its constituent local parks and trails plans, that have not been specifically dealt with here. *This change was minimal in this area since the previously mentioned plans are the open space plan with one exception. That exception is that all agricultural preserves were added as open space at the direc- tion of the Board of Supervisors and concurrence by the Commission. • Planning Department -4- February 6, 1974 AREA ZONING In addition to these general plan components the other major item to be dealt with is the existing zoning for the Tassajara Valley. Basically, it consists of A-2 and A-4 zoning. Blackhawk Ranch is zoned A-2 for all its 5,000 acres . If this were flat developable terrain, this might allow up to 1 ,000 housing units under existing zoning.* However, with the extremely rugged topography and isolated parcels, the permissible number of dwelling units might be less than half this number. ANALYSIS It should be clear from the above discussion alone that a general plan amendment is indeed required before this application can be considered. A more extensive listing is provided below: •O The differences with the existing general plan are just too great. The major difference consists of proposed population densities which clearly are higher . than the allowed 0 to 3 net housing units per acre on the level land. ° This development will have growth inducing effects in the Tassajara Valley. If development similar to Blackhawk were to be approved in this valley, its potential could extend upwards to 60,000 people. A change of this magnitude is substantial. . Shopping areas in the Blackhawk proposal, which are extensive, clearly are not shown on these general plans (15-20 acre commercial areas are substan- tial facilities) . An amendment would be required to accommodate. these uses. Additionally, they are located to serve the Blackhawk proposal. Study needs to be done to determine how well they are located to serve the entire Tassa- jara Valley future population. ° The areas to be developed extend a full 50o farther into open space areas than was shown on adopted,plans. This is not an adjustment contemplated by a plan, but a major change. • *,The, population proposed by the project in this area is much greater than was anticipated in the adopted general plan. It will add populations larger than three cities in this County (it could equal Pinola's present population-- a whole new community) . This, itself, is reason for a general plan review. *Residential lot requirements in the A-2 Zoning District were recently increased frgm one to five acres minimum; however, the old requirement contemplated "a lot here and a lot there"; one-acre subdivisions were supposed to be developed under R-40 zoning. Planning Department -S- February 6, 1974 The adopted general plan contemplates "some" single family land use for this area. Consequently, the community facilities and utilities recommendations , of the adopted plan are 'inadequately developed to accept this amount of develop- ment along with the adjacent development it would encourage (note that the adopted plan considered large lot developments, and for only part of this arec) . ,Considerable additional study needs to be given to schools, public protection facilities, recreational facilities, and similar uses. The effects on adjacent agricultural preserves would be significant since these areas are to be protected by the open space plans. General plan reviews will be needed to determine the effects of subustantial residential development on agricultural uses. The development of a portion of Blackhawk Ranch in the uses , densities , and development forms contemplated by the adopted County General Plan would not necessarily require a general plan review. Rather, the proposal as submitted, as well as information uncovered by the EIR studies, indicate that a review -is in order. The Board of Supervisors, in adopting the Open Space-Conservation Plan , spe- cifically resolved "that the Planning Commission is DIRECTED to review the San Ramon Valley area of the plan as to open space, especially within the developing areas" (Resolution 73/487) . ° The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, as well as the Air Pollution Control District controls, may have an effect in this air pollution problem area. Transit connections to this area may be required. These need to be . considered for the entire area. ° The Blackhawk Ranch proposal is not in accord with the ABAG Regional Plan. ° The effect on the Valley's loo annual growth has not been explored in light of SB-90. Thus, off-site costs to the developer cannot adequately be ascertained at this time. ° The Blackhawk Ranch proposal is tantamount to a new town which is not pro- vided for in the General Plan. ° The General Plan consists of several elements, among which is land use. In implementing the land use element, it is provided that the necessary support- ing facilities and services are sufficiently available. AAD/ral .�.z, . BLACKHAWK Development Company TO: William L. Milano FROM: BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT CO. The purpose of this memorandum is to answer the questions valsed by staff' s memorandum of February 6, 1974 in which it is asserted that the plan for the Blackhawk Ranch project does not conform to the adopted plans that comprise the County General Plan. The legal questions raised by staff' s memo have been answered in a J letter from our attorneys , Campbell, Van Voorhis & Bybee , dated February 26, 1974 , copies of which have been previously delivered to you. The staff memorandum rambles a bit so it is rather diffi- cult to respond point by point . We have , however, attempted to organize the staff' s position to basic questions which, we believe , cover all the points raised by staff in its memorandum. Before discussing the quest---^s involved, we believe that we should respond to the general statement contained on page 1 of the staff memorandum titled "General Plan i-Jonf'ormance . " We want to make clear the fact that the statements mace ►.y staff in that paragraph are not correct , the correct- statement being as follows: 3171 Blackhawk Road • Post Office Box 607 • Danville, California 94526 • (415) 837-1571 . Page 2 March 12, 1974 CONSISTENCY " . A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan if: (i) The city or county has officially adopted such a plan, and (ii ) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives , policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan. . " Emphasis Added Source: Amendment to Gov. Code 65860 added 1973 The statement by staff is one previously suggested by staff but not yet adopted by the county. P'or clarity purposes, however, we answer staff's points. The Blackhawk Ranch project is proposed for development under a P-1 Planned Unit District zoning. The General Plan recommends that P-1 zoning be used for lands like those of the Blackhawk Ranch. "There are areas within the Urban Growth Areas for which the conventional subdivision of land is inappro- priate. These areas generally include significant woodlands , steep hillsides and hazardous geological areas , all of which require a special degree of sensitivity in site planning and development . The planned unit district approach should be encouraged for these areas. " Source : Open Space Element to the General Plan, 1973 The intent and purpose of a P-1 Planned Unit District is as follows : Page 3 • March 12, 1974 INTENT OF PLANNED DISTRICT ORDINANCE 1184-66. 004 Intent and purpose. It is recognized that a large-scale integrated development provides an opportunity for cohesive design when flexible regu- lations are applied; whereas the application of con- ventional regulation, designed primarily for individual lot development , to a large-scale develop- ment may create a monotonous and stultified neighbor- hood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various 'uses , buildings structures , lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of large-scale site planning. (Ord . 1943: prior code 68166[a] ) . " Source: Contra Costa County P-1 Planned Unit District Ordinance { By definition, a P-1 zoning district provides for all land uses so long as there is substantial compliance with the General Plan. 1184-66. 006 Uses Permitted. Any land uses may be permitted in the P-1 district provided such uses or uses are in harmony with each other and serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit develop- ment while substantially complying with the General Plan. " Emphasis Added Source: P-1 Planned Unit District Ordinance The Blackhawk Ranch proposal has five basic types of uses proposed for it : Single family detached housing, cluster housing, multi- family housing, commercial and recreational. Page 4 . March 12, 1974 Insofar as the housing is concerned, density transfer must be permitted. By definition, and historically, a density transfer is allowed (and for that matter is promoted) with respect to a P-1 Planned Unit District . All of the P-1 Planned Unit Districts previously approved by the County have recognized density transfer. A recent P-1 Planned Unit District zoning (Orindawoods) with density transfer granted by the County was successfully defended In a court suit challenging it . The effect of the Orindawoods zoning was to transfer densities so that townhouse or cluster housing could be developed instead of the standard subdivision in an area designated on the General Plan as low density resi- dential housing. This is exactly what the Blackhawk Ranch proposal intends to do. We point out, therefore, that the kinds, densities and forms of development are not in violation of the provisions of the General Plan; indeed, the Blackhawk Ranch project attempts to carry out the intent of the General Plan that develop- ments on lands requiring a "special degree of sensitivity" should use the P-1 Planned Unit District as the zoning vehicle for development . The generally accepted definition of a Planned Unit District provides for sufficient industrial and commercial uses to satisfy the needs generated by the residential development . The Blackhawk plan attempts to do this. The recreational uses are designed to carry out the intent of the P-1 district that the whole district be designed to provide the housing with amenities on a planned basis. Page 5 • March 12 , 1974 The last three items raised by staff's general statement are facilities and services, access and circulation and environmental factors . With respect to facilities and services, it is assumed that the General Plan (without its saying so) requires an area planned for low-density housing to have available to it all utilities and services necessary for suburban living. Therefore, the yuesLion is whether or not such services are available to, and contemplated for, the Blackhawk Ranch project . The Blackhawk Ranch has been in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District- wince its inception and has been contributing financially to the District for all the years of its existence without imposing any school age children on the District . The District is obligated and will be able to provide the necessary schooling facilities . Electric power, gas, telephone and other municipal facilities are presently serving the Blackhawk Ranch and expansion of these facilities to accommodate the proposed development is readily available . All but approximately 500 acres of the project is in the East Bay Municipal Utilities District which has agreed to and can supply the necessary water. Annexation of the balance of the property has been requested. The Blackhawk Ranch has been in the EBMUD since the Ranch was first contemplated for development in 1964 . One hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) was paid to the EBMUD in 1964 in annexation fees . The Ranch has been annexed into the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District, subject to Page 6 March 12, 1974 approval by LAFCO. The District has the capacity for and the desire to service the Blackhawk Ranch project with sewer service. Apparently staff would have people believe that the Blackhawk Ranch lies in the outlying areas of the county, remote from any municipal services. This simply does not correspond to the facts . Insofar as the access and circulation facilities are concerned, the General Plan clearly anticipated the development of the Ranch by planning for a more than sufficient road system to service the Ranch and all nearby property. The attached map (Exhibit A) shows that the property is to be served by several major county roads which already exist and two more that are proposed . In implementing the General Plan, the county has planned for the four-laning of the roads in question and the construction of the proposed roads with the exception of the Stone Valley Road extension. Particular note should be taken that about the only property that would be serviced by Blackhawk Road is the Blackhawk Ranch property and the road is considered a major county road . Obviously, if the Blackhawk Ranch wasn't going to be developed, there would be no need for a major county road to service it . Also of interest is the proposed Crow Canyon Road extension which is proposed to serve the Blackhawk Ranch from the south. . If the General Plan had not contemplated and expected the develop- ment of Blackhawk Ranch and, for that matter, the whole Tassa,jara Page 7 March 12, 1974 Valley, there would have been no need to propose the Crow Canyon Road extension. This fact is well announced when we observe that the General Plan says: "A road connecting Tassa,jara Valley to the San Ramon area through the Sherburne Hills is proposed, as well as the easterly connection of Crow Canyon Road to Tassajara Road. " Source : Page 7, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 Those roads simply would not be needed unless Blackhawk Ranch and the surrounding property were developed. Incidentally , the Blackhawk Ranch project is being proposed at such low density • ( . 95 units per gross acre) that projected traffic flows to the ycrar 1990 clearly show that there will be no need for any traffic facilities other than those already contemplated by the General Plan. For that matter, unless substantial other develop- ment occurs in the area, there will be no need to build Stone Valley Road extension, four-land Diablo Road (except between E1 Cerro and Green Valley ) , Sycamore Road, Blackhawk Road, Green Valley Road or Dougherty Road (See Exhibit "A" attached) . The environmental factors contemplated by the General Plan with which staff says the Blackhawk Ranch proposal needs to be in agreement are summed up in the following quotation from the General Plan: Page 8 March 12, 1974 "Preserving liberal amounts of open spaces at selected locations, including parks, golf courses , woodland, range land and wherever possible the best agricultural land is a major , goal of this plan. " Source: Land Use & Circulation Plan, 1963, Page 25 "To encourage the preservation of the natural environmental beauty of the valley and its encompassing hills. " Source : Page 3, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 The employment of the P-1 Planned Unit District zoning, the commitment to contain the development within the valleys, the reservation of 73 per cent of the Ranch in permanent open space and the construction of golf courses makes the Blackhawk Ranch proposal directly responsive to, and in agreement with, the environmental qualities enunciated in the General Plan. If the Blackhawk Ranch proposal is approved, 1,000 acres will be added to the Mt . Diablo State Park, two 18-hole golf courses will be built and an additional 2 ,129 acres of woodland and range land will be preserved in its natural state forever. In addition, the beauty of the encompassing hills of the San Ramon Valley will be preserved forever. Now to discuss the major questions raised by the staff's memorandum. Page 9 March 12 , 1974 1) Density - Is the density proposed by Blackhawk in keeping with the density provisions of the General Plan? Docs the General Plan contemplate the number of units proposed? The Blackhawk Ranch is split by the eastern boundary of the Alamo-Danville General Plan. Approximately 2 ,000 acres of the Ranch lies within the Alamo-Danville planning area, and approximately 2 ,800 acres lies within the 1963 Land Use and Clr-culation Plan. The latest amendment- to the General Plan was the adoption of the Open Space element in August 1973, which • expanded the urban growth area to include all of the Blackhawk Ranch laud holding. The plan provided: :: ".Lt, 1:s expressl,y understood that the liner defining open space are imprecise . Where a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open space, the entire parcel may be considered for development to the same extent that it would have been had the land holding lain entirely outside the line defining open space . " Source : 1973 Open Space Plan Page 24 Therefore , the present status of the Blackhawk Ranch with respect to the land use element of the County General Plan is that approx- imately 2 ,000 acres of the land is governed by the Alamo-Danville General Plan, and the balance of approximately 2 ,800 acres is in lord density residential urban growth area of the 1963 Land Use is and Circulation Plan. In computing densities to determine if the density proposed by Blackhawk is in substantial agreement Page 10 March 12, 1974 with the General Plan, we treat each area of the Ranch separately. Alamo-Danville Area Exhibit "B" attached shows the land uses contemplated by the Alamo- Danville General Plan. We have superimposed the Blackhawk Ranch boundaries on Exhibit "B" for clarity. The plan shows two basic cateGories ; low density residential (and expansion thereof) and paras and recreational. The acreages of each are estimated to be 1 ,200 acres of low density residential and 800 acres of parks and recreation. The standards for determining densities in the Alamo- DZinville General Plan are as follows : 1 . Residential densities on the valley floows should range from 1 to 3 families per net acre (maximum) , except for those areas in and immediately adjacent to tic communities of Alamo and Danville where selective multiple residential is indicated. " "2 . The steep hill areas (of over 20% slope) where development- is feasible, should range in density from 0 to 2 families (maximum) , per net acre . " 597 net acres are of the valley floor category (less than 20 per cent slope ) and 1,003 net acres are over 20 per cent in slope where development is feasible . The Alamo-Danville General Plan would therefore allow for a maximum density for the portion of the Ranch covered by it of 3 ,797 units , arrived at as follows: Page 11 • March 12, 1974 Valley Floor (less than 20% slopes) — 597 net acres X 3 1,791 units Steep Hill areas )over 20% slope) 1,003 net acres where development is feasible X 2 2,006 units 3,797 units The total number of units planned by Blackhawk for the land lying within the Alamo-Danville General Plan areas is 2,256. It is easy to see that the number of units planned by Blackhawk falls well below that which would be allowable under the Alamo-Danville • General Plan. 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan The 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan provides for a density on land'.; LJO-oIgnated low density residential of 0 to 3 units per net- residential acres . The approximate 2,800 acres of the Ranch lying within this category, when reduced by 20 per cent for roads , side- walks , etc . to arrive at net acres (according to the county ' s custom and practice) , would allow the development of up to 6,720 units. in recapitulation: Alamo-Danville General Plan 3,797 units 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan 6,720 units Maximum units available for Blackhawk 10,517 units Ranch under General Plan Page 12 March 12, 1974 Both the 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan and the Alamo-Danville General Plan contemplate the actual development of the lands covered thereby to be done on the basis of a medium in the range of units allowed rather than at the maximum. With that in mind, the number of units contemplated by the General Plan for Blackhawk Ranch is in the area of one-half of 10,517 units or 5,258 units . The Blackhawk Ranch proposal provides for 4 ,546 units, well below the number of units contemplated . Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a chart that compares the Blackhawk Ranch project to other projects in the area recently approved. The density comparisons show that both on a gross acre basis and on a flat land comparison basis Blackhawk densities are well below the densities for other developments. 2 ) Population - Does the General Plan contemplate the development of Blackhawk Ranch for an expected population of approximately 14 ,662 people? We certainly have never before heard (nor has county) of a "Petaluma type" population restriction being applied in Contra Costa County but apparently staff wants to argue that so we will respond to that point . A .pimple argument would be to point out that the General Plan contemplates 3. 44 people per living unit (page 32, 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan) , and therefore contemplated 18,087 people by Lhe computation of: 5,258 units X 3. 44 persons per household 180087 people Page 13 • March 12, 1974 Although true, and sufficient to show compliance with the General Plan, we feel it incumbant upon us to show that the San Ramon Valley Plans themselves (dates 1967 and 1971) contemplated the growth which is going to take place and of which Blackhawk will be a part . The two specific general plans for the San Ramon Valley provide as follows: "To provide adequate space for housing, private and public services business , educational facilities, and recreation for an expected population of 50,000 persons , who will reside in the area within the 20 to 25 year planning period. " • Source: Page 3 , Alamo-Danville --^ General Plan, 1967 "Provide the people of the planning area with general land use and circulation recommendations to guide _ ., . physical development in an orderly manner toward a population of approximately 65 ,000 persons. " Source : Page 3, San Ramon General Plan, 1971 There are presently, according to the county staff, 311 ,450 people in the San Ramon Valley. The county staff projects a growth rate of 2,273 people per year . The General Plan contemplates the plan period as being up to 1990. Therefore, in the 16 years from now to 1990 the San Ramon Valley will grow an additional 36,368 people . When added to the present 34 ,450, we find a total of 70,818 people in the San Ramon Valley in the year 1990. If you assume that none of the 70,818 people will be living on the Blackhawk Ranch (an Page 14 • March 12, 1974 assumption with which we do not agree) then we would have to add to the 70,818 people the projected 14 ,662 people who will live on Blackhawk by 1990. We then have a total of 85,480 people living in the San Ramon Valley and Blackhawk by 1990• The General Plan expected there to be 115,249 people by 1990• The population as now projected would be 29,769 people short of what was projected in the General Plan. Obviously, the people proposed for Blackhawk have been contemplated by the General Plan. 3) Open Space Line - Does the Blackhawk Ranch project extend 50 per cent further into open space than adopted plans? Staff takes the position that it does. This is an attempt by . staff to ignore the fact that in 1973 the open space line was established at the outside edge of any land holding which was split by the open space line, and that "all of the entire parcel may be considered for development to the same extent that it would have been had the land holding lain entirely outside the line defining open space. " This quite simply means that all of the Blackhawk Ranch land holding lies within the urgan growth area and may be considered for development . The two sections of the General Plan applicable to the Blackhawk Ranch are discussed above under "Density. " 4 ) New Town - Is the Blackhawk Ranch project a "new town" and therefore not contemplated by the General Plan? Staff takes the position that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal is a "new town" application and a "new town" was not contemplated by ithe General Plan. Page 15 March 12, 1974 • The definition of a "new town" as used in planning parlance contemplates the development of a piece of property which supplies .all of its basic utilities, its own job base, industrial, commer- cial , complete range of housing, schooling, etc . It is patently clear that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal is not a new town but is merely an extension of low density housing already existing in the San Ramon Valley and contemplated for the area. There is, In addition, a small amount of commercial (37 acres out of 4 ,800) to provide convenience shopping for the residents who choose to live there. The P-1 Planned Unit District zoning ordinance con- templated this and even encourages it . What staff is really talking about is that they don't want to allow density transfer • which allows under a P-1 the construction of multiple housing and .a cluster housing instead of the customary single family detached housing row after row, street after street . Does the general plan really propose that the Blackhawk Ranch with its 2,099 acres of land of 25 per cent or less slope be developed only by dividing it into some 5 ,038 single family detached lots? We believe to the contrary since the 1973 open space amendment to the General Plan said : "There are areas within the Urban Growth Areas for which the conventional subdivision of land is inappropriate. . . the planned unit district approach should be encouraged for these areas . " that's exactly what we are trying to do with the Blackhawk Ranch proposal and at the same time dropping the overall density of units below that which is allowed and contemplated. Page 16 March 12, 1974 i A number of additional arguments are promulgated by staff in its memo which are more or less listed as: 1 ) Blackhawk proposal not 'in conformity with the ABAG Regional Plan. 2 ) The RPA guidelines, Air Pollution Control District controls and transit connections need to be considered for the entire area, '3) Blackhawk will have an adverse affect on adjacent agriculture. 4 ) San Ramon Valley' s growth not explored in light of SB-90. 5) There exists a conflict between the San Ramon General Plan and the Alamo-Danville General Plan on adjacent land uses. We have been unable to find any provision in the General Plan, as amended , that makes any reference to the need to satisfy all of the five points above in order for a project to conform to the General Plan. Until matters such as these become part of the General Plan, if ever they do, then they are not properly a matter - for consideration when the question of compliance or non-compliance with the General Plan is being contemplated. However, in keeping with our commitment to refute fully the staff contention that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal requires a general plan change , we have prepared and attached hereto an addendum which answers point by point the additional arguments promulgated by staff; for those who desire to read more on the subject . In closing, we would refer you to several statements in the General Plan which indicate the objectives of the Plan. Page 17 • March 12 , 1974 "The objectives of the plan: To encourage continued growth and development of the county according to plan." "The growth in Contra Costa County will be at sufficient rate and intensity to utilize the majority of readily developable lands in the central and western parts of the County during the planning period to 1985." "`Phe central area population will increase more than 3 times its present size (by 1985) • " NOTE: The Central area includes Alamo, Danville and San Ramon. "Earring unforeseen disaster or major economic change , the area will continue to grow and expand economically and physically at a steady rate not dissimilar to its past growth. " • Source : Pages, 6 , 7 and 34 , Land Use and Circulation Plan of Contra Costa County California, 1963 Page 4 , Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 q It should be readily apparent that the County General Plan encourages growth and anticipates that it will continue at a steady pace . It should also be apparent that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal conforms to the General Plan. 'vie recognize that the stated objectives of the General Plan as quoted above runs contra to the desires of a vocal minority in the county who feel that now that they are here no more people should come . The General Plan' for Contra Costa County is not in agreement with the desires of that minority . �flS4 x`01! V17$ pts a• � it ter. V tOkik .� C; NViLt_L 0 �Pp 8 �. AC K AW K e.•so RA CH i t �} '} L i Ott 143 ti CROW CANYON �GN►'aNl 0 I VON � CAN 0 (PP3 Pw�SF;Ivi' ,orb t�A�Ct i�/ -• *,��.(,�ra�t�Q �?acl�� T�o{�"�c} .1 �(�•S Ct�:r� j�o,� �►r�rG-� ;• I�G��¢�A'w� �"'u'►,��"tC. —J�'J • � � � ooaao �laa�ao� It � t �_. • �� . � • � • • • y • • it� • .�. V 1• ,� r r; _ 1 _ ' .1•I Ir ) I-•l •..: .....................•.... •,� / POO �Itq;i J ,•. i' .i c It t� e ` 5. n vl . Q u ' t (1. v r :i J- J a :1• ��yy w t ::�:::::::::::•• ! /r ,v J �.. �!t-• tf ••v �. \; :X .:V;: �.J r�'_C.r�.J �(./)•.vel,•�1•, \ ..... : .: •lJ\l~J.''•r. r.•J•"• 1 ter••'' '�••J�J•✓•/ i.• • BLACKHAWK COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANNED UNIT DISTRICTS IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS . Project Gross Units DU DU* Plan General Plan Acres Gross . Net Area Change Acre Acre Orindawoods 187 345 1. 8 2. 3 Orinda No Tibros. Scott 104 193 1.8 2.4 Alamo- Danville No Whitegate 152 192 1.4 1.6 Alamo- Danville No Devil Mountain 623 685 1.1 1. 3 Alamo- Danville NO Blackhawk 4850 4546 .95 1.17 Alamo- Danville & 1963 Plan "DU net is based on formula of gross acreage less 208 for • roads , etc. PROJECTS RECENTLY APPROVED ON LAND 25% SLOPE AND UNDER C014PARISON TO BLACKHAWK Project No. Gross No. Units Units Per Gross Acres Acre Bishop Ranch 1100 2500 2 .50 Sycamore 245 680 2 .78 Kaufman & Broad 166 486 2 . 93 Gentry 30 119 3.97 Gentry 101 250 2. 48 Gentry 33 112 3. 39 Totals 1675 4147 2.48 average Elackhawk 2099 4546 2.17 or%oxiA it • A D D E N D U M_ _March 12, 1974 A) STAFF POINT: "After reviewing the adopted plans that comprise the County General Plan for this area, I find that the 'Blackhawk Ranch' project , as it has been proposed to this Department, .does not comply with the County General Plan in several significant and substantial respects. These differences are discussed in this memorandum. " BLACKHAWK REPLY : In the foregoing memo we have discussed how Blackhawk is compatible to or in compliance with the County General Plan. Here we shall respond only to the precise points made by Staff in its memo dated February 6 , 1974. B) STAFF POINT: "In view of the differences between the proposed 'Blackhawk Ranch' project and the County General Plan, a review of they Plan before this project is considered at public hearing and, in view of the provisions of Section 65860 of the Government Code requiring zoning-subdivision compliance with general plans, seems to be in order. " BLACKHAWK REPLY : This matter was answered in the letter of February 26, 1974 from Daniel Van Voorhis to Blackhawk Development Co . , copy of which has been previously submitted. C) STAFF POINT: "Generally , a project (or its zoning) can be said to be in conformance with a general plan if all of the following items are applicable : . The kinds of land uses are in agreement . . The land use densities or intensities are in agreement . The contemplated forms of development are in agreement . The requisite facilities and services are in agreement . The requisite access and circulation facilities are in agreement . The requisite environmental factors are in agreement" BLACKHAWK REPLY: Not a true statement . The foregoing memorandum answers the Addendum • Page 2 . March 12, 1974 questions raised here. D) STAFF POINT: "Residential 1) Residential densities on the valley floors should range from 1 to 3 families per net acre (maximum) , except for those areas in and immediately adjacent to the communities of Alamo and Danville where selective multiple residential is indicated. 2 ) The steep hill areas (of over 20% slope) , where development is feasible, should range in density from 0 to 2 families (maximum) per net acre.* 3 ) All hillside development should be strictly controlled so as to prevent marring of the natural landscape by excessive cutting and filling. 11 ) A population of 50,000 is considered optimum for this area. A higher density would, of necessity, alter the character of the area considerably and would dictate a change in the objectives of the plan. *This is properly interpreted as meaning that there are some areas (very level) where , say , one-half acre lots might be appropriate, and there are other areas where multi-acre lots would be approp- riate. It does not necessarily mean that an average of one housing unit per acre would be permitted over entire areas shown for residential development . BLACKHAWK REPLY: Answered in foregoing memorandum. E) STAFF POINT: "The San Ramon Area (Community) General Plan does not extend as Car north as the Blackhawk property boundary. It does , however, add detailed open space uses that abut single family residential areas on the Alamo-Danville General Plan. This creates a boundary problem which requires clarification before development proceeds in this area. The plan also specifies that single family residential is appropriate in valley areas and that hillsides should remain open." i Addendum Page 3 March 12, 1974 BLACKHAWK REPLY: We really can't see what this has to do with us. Anyway , we might observe that we can't really imagine what uses would abut open space other than residential. Also, Blackhawk is building single family in the valleys and leaving the hillsides open. That is exactly what we propose; build in the valleys and leave the hillsides open. F) STAFF POINT: "This Plan has been superseded by the above-mentioned Area General Plans west (including some of the Ranch) and south of the project site, but it is the residual plan covering the eastern portion of the Ranch and much of the surrounding area. It is similar to the Alamo-Danville plan in that it shows somc of this area as Low Density Residential (0 to 3 families per net acre) . It further states on page 24 that "Other than these few exceptions, medium, high density and multiple family developments will be within or very near to urban centers and the industrial areas where employment will be found. " "Over half the land in the Blackhawk Ranch area and most of the greater Tassa,jara Valley is shown as extensive agriculture . On page 25 the intent of the plan further states : "Open Space As urban development pushes into the open countryside woodland and farming areas rapidly disappear. Urban expansion will con- tinue , but covering the entire landscape with a sprawl of houses and other structures should be prevented. Some of our open spaces must be preserved, and it must be preserved at places where it will do the most good. Suburban expansion should follow a logical pattern. Urban scatteration and sprawl must be contained and discouraged. Preserving liberal amounts of open spaces at selected locations , including parks, golf courses , woodland, range land, and wherever possible the best agricultural land, is a major goal of this plan. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: Answered in foregoing memorandum. Addendum Page 4 . March 12, 1974 G) STAFF POINT: "This component of the County General Plan (which modifies the Land Use Element ) , although much debated, did little to change the general plan picture to this area as it was finally adopted.* One action was to state that parcels which straddled the open space line on the Plan would be allowed to apply for development before 1980. The final definition of what is to be open space and what could develop--according to the adopted land use elements of other plans--would be resolved at the time of application consideration. *This change was minimal in this area since the previously mentioned plans are the open space plan with one exception. That exception is that all agricultural preserves were added as open space at the direction of the Board of Supervisors and concurrence by the Commission." BLACKHAWK REPLY: Misleading impression as to the effects of the open space plan. Forgets totally our application for inclusion into the urban area (we told everyone what we were doing) and the Board and Commission ' s decision to let us be included in the urban growth area by virtue of rule enunciated on page 24 of the Open Space Plan. We are well aware that staff was unhappy about the changes made in its original recommendation but does that mean they will ,just ignore the action? We are sure that the Commission will recall its deliberations and decision. We also are sure that the Board will recall that , upon specific inquiry , the director stated that the effect of language on page 24 would be to allow Blackhawk to develop. H) STAFF POINT: "There are other adopted components of the County General Plan, including the Recreation Element and its constituent local parks and trails plans, that have not been specifically dealt with here. BLACKHAWK REPLY: We comply 100 per cent with the elements mentioned. Addendum . Page 5 March 12, 1974 I) STAFF POINT: "In addition to these general plan components the other major items to be dealt with is the existing zoning for the Tassajara Valley . Basically, it consists of A-2 and A-4 zoning. Blackhawk Ranch is zoned A-2 for all its 5,000 acres. If this were flat developable terrain, this might allow up to 1,000 housing units under existing zoning.% However, with the extremely rugged topo- graphy and isolated parcels, the permissible number of dwelling units might be less than half this number. *Residential lot requirements in the A-2 Zoning District were recently increased from one to five acres minimum; however, the • old requirement contemplated "a lot here and a lot there" ; one- acre subdivisions were supposed to be developed under R-40 zoning. " BLACKHAWK REPLY : Although interesting, the current zoning has nothing to do with us as far as consistency with the general plan is concerned. As a matter of fact , A-2 zoning is inappropriate for the Ranch because the General Plan calls for low density residential and according to 365860, the zoning should conform to the General Plan. J ) STAFF POINT: "It should be clear from the above discussion alone that a general plan amendment is indeed required before this application can be a considered , " BLACKHAWK REPLY : Merely a statement of opinion by staff, unsupported by the facts . K) STAFF POINT: "The differences with the existing general plan are ,just too great . The major difference consists of proposed population densities which clearly are higher than the allowed 0 to 3 net housing units per acre on the level land . " BLACKHAWK REPLY : We have responded to the density matter in the foregoing memorandum. iNo where does the General Plan refer to the "level land. " Anyway, custom and practice in the county considers land less than 25 per cent slope to be "level land" and Blackhawk Ranch has 2,099 acres of "level land. " 2,09.9 X 3 = 6 ,297 units . We'll take it . Addendum Page 6 March 12, 1974 L) STAFF POINT: "This development will have growth inducing effects in the Tassajara Valley. If development similar to Blackhawk were to be approved in this valley, its potential could extend upwards to 60,000 people. A change of this magnitude is substantial. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: The Blackhawk Ranch Is not in the Tassajara Valley. Anyway, we really can't say what population would occur as that is up to the county because the open space line ends at our eastern property edge. If the Tassajara Valley develops its up to the county to allow it. Staff itself says that the whole San Ramon Valley population with Blackhawk will only total 100,000 by year 2000 while area 8 and 9 plans anticipated 115,000. We doubt if either of these pro- jections will be met but it does show that the General Plan contemplates the development of Blackhawk Ranch. M) STAFF POINT: "Shopping areas in the Blackhawk proposal, which are extensive, clearly are not shown on these general plans (15-20 acre commer- cial areas are substantial facilities) . An amendment would be required to accommodate these uses. Additionally, they are located to serve the Blackhawk proposal. Study needs to be done to determine how well they are located to serve the entire Tassajara Valley future population. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: What was intended by our plan was "true" neighborhood centers to serve our residents and lessen traffic on roads. If the plan includes acreage which cannot meet this standard we will gladly reduce the size of the commercial. "Neighborhood Commercial" is allowed under the county P-1 Ordinance. As stated in the foregoing memo, the P-1 Planned Unit District is recommended for areas of the county by the open space element to the General Plan, adopted in 1973. The commercial, therefore, is an authorized use. Addendum Page 7 • March 12, 1974 N) STAFF POINT: "The areas to be developed extend a full 50 per cent farther into open space areas than was shown on adopted plans. This is not an adjustment contemplated by the plan, but a major change. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: Not true. Open space plan moved open space line to eastern edge of Blackhawk Ranch land holding. 0) STAFF POINT: "The population proposed by the project in this area is much greater than was anticipated in the adopted general plan. It will add populations larger than three cities in this County (it could equal Pinole 's present population--a whole new community) . This, itself, is reason for a general plan review. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: • Answered in memorandum above. Also staff has known about us for nearly two years and at no time up to January , 1974 have they said we had any general plan problem or taken any steps to initiate a general plan review. P) STAFF POINT: "The adopted general plan contemplates "some" single family land use for this area. Consequently, the community facilities and utilities recommendations of the adopted plan are inadequately developed to accept this amount of development along with the adjacent development it would encourage (note that the adopted plan considered large lot developments , and for only part of this area) . Considerable additional study needs to be given to schools , public protection facilities , recreational facilities, and similar uses . 11 BLACKHAWK REPLY: These are a series of erroneous concepts not part of the General Plan. 1) Where does General Plan say "some" single family? 2) Didn' t open space plan change the urban growth area? 3) Since when has community facilities and utilities been recommendations of any plan? Addendum Page 8 March 12, 1974 4) Where does plan say "large lot" development only? 'S) We agree that study must be given to schools, police, recreation and similar uses. This is being done in connection with our rezon- ing application. Note: We are a tax bonus to the county, San Ramon Valley School District and the San Ramon Fire District . We are working with the school district (on schools) and the public works department (on roads) to work out fair solutions to capital investment problems that have nothing to do with us, that are currently under study by the board and which, to date, have never been sub,jects •dealt with In a general plan. The General Plan provides for three park-school sites on or adjacent to the portion of the Ranch lying in Alamo-Danville planning area. Q) STAFF POINT: "The effects on adjacent agricultural preserves would be significant since these areas are to be protected by the open space plans. General plan reviews will be needed to determine the effects of substantial residential development on agricultural uses . " BLACKHAWK REPLY : The county staff was directed by the Board of Supervisors to study the urban growth area in the San Ramon Valley with a view toward the establishment of open space areas within the urban growth area. We assume that they are following this directive . R) STAFF POINT: "The development of a portion of Blackhawk Ranch in the uses , densities , and development forms contemplated by the adopted County General Plan would not necessarily require a general plan review. Rather, the proposal as submitted, as well as information uncovered by the EIR studies , indicate that a review is in order. " BLACKHAWK REPLY : Okay, give us the units provided for by the Alamo-Danville General Plan and we' ll take our chances on getting the other units on the 2,800 acres remaining. Addendum Page 9 • March 12, 1974 S) STAFF POINT: "The Board of Supervisors, in adopting the Open Space Conservation Plan, specifically resolved 'that the Planning Commission is DIRECTED to review the San Ramon Valley area of the plan as to open space, especially within the developing areas. ' (Resolution 73/487 ) . " BLACKHAWK REPLY: Yes, and we are setting aside 73 per cent of our urban growth land for permanent open space. T) STAFF POINT: "The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines , as well as the Air Pollution Control District controls, may have an affect in this air pollution problem area. Transit connections to this area may be required. These need to be considered for the entire area. " BLACKHAWK REPLY : Tile EPA rules and BAAPCD rules are not part of the General Plan. Anyway , there are now no rules from EPA or BAAPCD which affect our project and , to the extent there are in the future , that ' s between us and those agencies . Regarding transit, Blackhawk is part of the proposed Central County Transit District. We understand that LMTA and MTC are studying levels of services to this and other areas. This too is very important but has nothing to do with the General Plan issue. U) STAFF POINT: "The Blackhawk Ranch proposal is not in accord with the ABAG Regional Plan. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: The ABAG plan is no more and no less a copying of the 163 plan without the '73 amendments. Addendum Page 10 March 121 1974 ...a.x. . . •. v'1 � .. , „may. �ir�.. When ABAG gets caught up *with current amendments all will be order. Anyway, since when did ABAG tell Contra Costa County what its General Plan is? V) STAFF POINT: "The effect on the Valley's 10 per cent annual growth has not been explored in light of SB-90. Thus, off-site costs to the developer cannot adequately be ascertained at this time. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: We presume that the San Ramon Valley School District is competent to evaluate the impacts of SS-90 (and the entire school problem) . We will advise the Board and Commission of our impacts when we have completed our negotiations with the School District . The School District has recently completed a comprehensive facilities plan for 1973-1983 and the impact of Blackhawk has been fully contemplated. The plan was done by Systems Planning Corporation. W) STAFF POINT: "The Blackhawk Ranch proposal is tantamount to a new town which Is not provided for in the General Plan. " BLACKHAWK REPLY: Answered in foregoing memorandum. Would staff be happier if Blackhawk was owned by 20 different developers , each of whom got zoning of 225 units each? X) STAFF POINT: "The General Plan consists of several elements, among which is land use. In implementing the land use element , it is provided that the necessary supporting facilities and services are sufficiently available. Addendum , Page 11 March 12, 1974 V 1{- BLACKHAWK REPLY: Staff cannot and hasn't pointed to any language in the General Plan which says this. This objective or policy is not a part of the General Plan and would require an amendment thereto to be effective. We have responded to this in the foregoing memorandum. i :,_ _ GBNTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNIM COS (Presented by Wm- Horse, aQQ above date for the files. )}, EVIDENCE AND JVIALYSIS REGARDING GENERAL wMr/rrrrr/rilrrr r.r ar/Irlrl PLAN COMPATIBILITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1640 AS (BLACKHAWK RANCH) MARC11, 1974 I BY: DANIEL VAN VOORHIS ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT I N D E X Page Introduction so , 1 Blackhawk Rezoning History 1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Legal Requirement - Compliance 4 Analysis of B lackhawk's Proposed Land Use With Reference to the General Plan 5 A. The Relevant Plans s000ssoo . os000ssese 6 1. Policies, Objectives and Principals of the Relevant Plans 6 2 . Relevant Programs of the Applicable Plans 8 B. The Blackhawk Plan 10 C. The Land Use Analysis 10 1. The Non-Residential Uses (Recreation- al and Neighborhood Commercial) are Allowed by the General Plan On Either of Two Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . l0 2. Staff's Third Major Error in Their Analysis is not Having Available To Them a Slope Study Showing Just How "Low Density" Blackhawk is. Our Study Shows The Following . . . . . . . . 10 3. Density Calculations 11 4 . Alternative Density Calculations • (For Illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 . Blackhawk's Comparisons With Other Projects . . . . . . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Was Blackhawk. Expected/Is It Fiscally Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A. Remoteness/Leapfrogging/Stimulation. . 14 B. Was Blackhawk Expected? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C. Blackhawk Is A "new town" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. What Is The Fiscal Impact of Black- hawk? . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 16 Conclusion • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . 17 , CAMPNsw VAN WORM= de 8s>sse ; ►: .� ,. ., ... :, 1. `••••:CGCG` 1 \r r :t. 1*1•LOCUST r"W" iDOM CAMPOSLL WA6N1fT CgttK•QALdrO1M11A�4��}M t 7t' ' ; �TiLtPMONt Gas+TNI+c. .'NOMAS VAN VOOAMIS Q AAEA COOK AIS ACK O. SVSS[ .� -t ,,,.• ). ,� �•I .I tYit�. �r ti/�ti •ir .Ti Y.t .I.•, • 1a: r (. w`r 5#• 'H r.i,,,l -yt'; OANIlL VAN VOOANIS - + '. i �`t`�•r+I KxWN[TM J. S1IANOM IIICMAAO MSLLAN INTRODUCTION Staff has generated a position (carried forward into the E. I.R. and the Rz hearings) which contends that Rz 1840 does not conform to the county General Plan. We learned of this position only in February and, per my memo presented February 26, 1974, we disagree with Staff's analysis. The purpose of this memo is to supplement and expand upon the earlier memo and our presentation of March 12 , 1974. In the process I have gone into each of Staff's points (whether or not it has merit or whether or not the point has any re- lationship to a General Plan analysis) . Part of the reason for this decision to gq into such de- tail is that Staff's "brief against the project" should not be • allowed to stand any longer without refutation in total. Prior to proceeding, some background is helpful if not mandatory. BLACKHAWK REZONING HISTORY Blackhawk purchased the 4000 acre Blackhawk Ranch in 1972. Initial consultations with planners showed that there were two principal problems with the planning of the project envisioned, namely , that there was no access to Tassajara Road and that there wasn't room for the two golf courses on the present , property . Accordingly, Blackhawk purchased the 800 acre McGill property per Court ordered Probate sale in April 23, 1973. Re- cordation and close of escrow was delayed until December 1973 per the Court Order but the Agreement of Sale, giving Blackhawk equitable title, was recorded in April 1973. From the beginning, Blackhawk recognized that the topo- graphy of the land, proximity to the Mountain, size of the par- cel and quality of the San Rpmon Valley required the best land planning and highest possible degree of community-developer communication. i • Page 2 Blackhawk acted out these views by hiring the best planners and soliciting all opinions prior to putting pen to paper. This process culminated in our plan filed July, 1973. Of course , refinements shall continue throughout these hearings and long into the future. An intervening event of great significance occurred in the Spring and Summer of 1973. State law mandated the preparation of an open space element to the county General Plan. This element was heard and processed as an amendment to the land use elements of the county General Plan. Our early ex- perience with advance planning staff on all of this was not good. Staff wanted to move and fix the open space line so as to show our entire property green through the year 1980 . We had to resist and a filed formal request that the entire parcel covered by the Blackhawk P.D. (4800 acres - by Exhibit) be in- cluded in the urban growth area. That is, we wanted the ' 63 plan to be amended to color us yellow (low density residential) and Staff wanted to amend the ' 63 plan and the Alamo/Danville • plan to color us green. Our position (supported by the Sierra Club and The Valley •:• Planning Commission) prevailed in June of 1973 when the Board and Commission unanimously granted our request by virtue of the amendment located at Page 24 of the open space plan pro- viding for inclusion of our entire property into the urban growth (yellow - low density) area by referring to the 1963 composite plan and saying "if a land holding is bisected the entire will be deemed developable" . Interestingly, that was the interpretation given that language by the Planning Director upon specific inquiry about Blackhawk by the Board immediately prior, to adoption of the plan. Again, we had appeared at all Board hearings and all Commission hearings recognizing the significance of the amendment requested. Advance planning was upset and they want to "relitigate" the open space decision. This has manifested itself as it re- lates to preparation of the E.I.R. and, we think, this General Plan debate. Interestingly, we heard nothing of Staff's position on the General Plan until February, 1974, a few days after Staff Page 3 . . had announced that they were going to do a study on the Area 8 and 9 area plans. We had filed our application in July (alleging compliance based on the action during the open space hearings) and heard nothing to the contrary for nearly seven months. We were most upset by Staff's position and tactics . We have decided to challenge it head on as proof of Staff's real position in connection with this matter. We think it best to have it all out now rather than to duck. SUMIARX We think we do comply with the General Plan and question if any evidence supports a contrary finding. The property is now covered by the designation "low density" residential and a P.D. of 1. 1 D/U net acre with 18 of the land for neighborhood commercial is clearly "consistent" if not affirm- atively in furtherance of the plan's objectives . Where, then, does Staff go wrong. In the process of making this analysis I have discovered several major errors made by Staff underlying their position. These are : • (1) Failure or refusal to recognize that the word "compliance" is defined by state law (Government Code 965860) and County Ordinance (Contra Costa County Ordinances Chapter 84-66 , P-1, Planned Unit District, 984-66.004 et seq. ) and not by Staff; (2) Failure or refusal to recognize the significance and meaning of the decisions and amendments made to the General Plan as a part of the adoption of the open space element of the county General Plan during 1973; (3) Failure or refusal to recognize the planned unit - concept, including transferred densities, and, in this pro- cess , failure or refusal to compute densities for Blackhawk as normally done; (4) Failure or -rbfusal to recognize that Contra Costa County is not a slow growth/no growth/phased growth or a de- ferred growth jurisdiction; (5) The attempt to read into the General Plan objectives, principals and programs which are simply not a part of the � •: it r . • j1SJ i(?�a �j j�r �.hil�.y F''� �� ett:j ii�.lt••"'! 1 5' '�'. 4 itti�t ltlY��\i/� .�,G ''y�� 4�C11+. :'��: i 7• r 3 '�fi •?e5! 1 r/�• i Y j 1 1��JL . 1 1r .1 Page 4 •: . •{ � ;tti ,,.,� a i r i.l� � .l, r ». 4.�� as :•�c�t�kr 11"' � �./� r. �. •. �dot} � � � 5. ' r t ..,i h� ,'t •'; t r. .�' 5; 1• a -r;� � .t s ti � t 1 �Y. .5ir �• General Plan or a General Plan compliance analysis; (6) Creation of a number of "straw men" designed to scare any sensitive person into the conviction that Blackhawk' comes as a great shock and will inflict a burden on the community from which no one- will ever recover; (7) Failure to give the plan a fair and unbiased review. Each and all of these erroneous and unfair assumptions by Staff will be dealt with in detail in this memo and as we go through the planning process. All we ask is tha=t minded people bear with us as we explain our way through this matter. I. THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT - COMPLIANCE. Staff's memo suggests that all kinds of factors have to be in "agreement" to meet 'the requirements of the Government Code and the Counties P.D. Ordinance on General Plan compliance . This , we think, is the first of several errors fatal to Staff's analysis. Let us explain: • For many years now applications filed for zoning under the _- P-1 Ordinance had to be found "substantially in compliance" with the General Plan: " 84-66 . 020 Required findings . In approving and adopting the rezoning application with the preliminary development plan, and subsequently the final develop- ment plan, the planning commission and/or board of supervisors as the case may be, shall find the follow- ing: (2) That the proposed planned unit development sub- stantially conforms to the county general plan. . . " Source: Contra Costa County P-i Planned Unit District Ordinance From and after January 1, 1974, California Government Code §65860 provided that zoning had to be consistent" with the Page 5 • General Plan but then goes on to state that: " . A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan if: (i) The city or county has officially adopted such a plan, and (ii) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives , policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan Emphasis added Source: Amendment to Government Code 565860 added 1973 at request of League of California Cities One can only speculate as to the real difference between "sub- stantial compliance" and "compatible . . . with general land uses" but these termsTthe law) sure don' t mean "agreement" which , mi plies a 1:1 ratio between the zoning and the General Plan. Itis thus our view that the Blackhawk P-D both "substantially complies" with the County General Plan and is "compatible with the objectives , policies , general land uses and programs specified in "the General Plan" . Indeed, it is our view that the Blackhawk plan with its low density, 73% open space, construction in the valleys , and:'large parcel planning is more in furtherance of the present signif- icant criteria erinunciated in the General Plan (especially the open space plan) than any project yet attempted in Contra Costa County. In any case, the determination of "substantial compliance" and/or "compatibility" is , in our view, an essentially factual determination to be made by comparing our plan with the General Plan. II. ANALYSIS OF BLACKHATIK'S PROPOSED LAND USE WITH REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN. Page 6 . . A. The Relevant Plans : Blackhawk is affected by the 1963 land use and circulation plan, the 1967 Alamo/Danville area plan, the 1970 recreation, trails and bikes element of the General Plan and the 1973 open space element to the County General Plan. With it' s trails system, large amount of open space , donation of over 1,000 acres to Mt. Diablo State Park and the use of a low density P.D. approach, the Blackhawk plan is not only in furtherance of but far ahead of the open space re- creational and trails elements. As far as "general land use" goes , 1,950 acres of the P.D. lies within planning area #8 and 2 ,800 acres is governed by the 1963 plan. Prior to 1973, some 2 ,400 acres +- was shown as low density residential and the balance was colored green. (Interestingly , our plan calls for about the same ratios of open to green) . The " low density" designation was extended over the entire parcel by the 1973 ammendment to the composite General Plan (the open space plan) providing: • ".It is expressly understood that the lines defining open space are imprecise. Where a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open space , the en- tire parcel may be considered for development to the same extent that it would have been had the land holding lain entirely outside the line defining open space. " Source: P . 24 , 1973 Open Space Plan , as an amendment to composite plan The blatant refusal of Staff to give recognition to this language and its intended effect seems, to us , to be the largest single defect in their analysis. Nearly eight months has passed since the open space plan was adopted and we have yet to see a map indicating the decision of this County ' s elected officials . 1. POLICIES, OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPALS OF THE RELEVANT PLANS INCLUDE: "The objectives of the plan: To encourage continued growth and development Page 7 . . of the county according• to plan." "The growth in Contra Costa County will be at sufficient rate and intensity to. utilize the• majority of readily developable lands in the central and western parts of the County during the planning period to 1985. " "The central area population will increase more than 3 times its present size (by 1985) ." "Barring unforeseen disaster or major economic change, the area will continue to grow and expand economically and physically at a steady rate not dissimilar to its past growth." Source: Pages 6 , 7 and 34, Land Use and Circulation Plan of Contra Costa County, California Page 4 , Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 " . by 1985, if present trends continue , we can expect approximately a million persons in the county . " Source: Page 30 , Land Use and Circulation Plan of Contra Costa County, California 1963 "To provide adequate space for housing, private and public services business, educational facilities , and recreation for an expected population of 50, 000 persons , who will reside in the area within the 20 to 25 year planning period." Source: Page 3, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 "Provide the people of the planning area with general Page. 8 . . land use and circulation recommendations to guide Phys- ical development in an orderly manner toward a population of approximately 65,000 persons." Source: Page 3, San Ramon General Plan, 1971 2. RELEVANT PROGRA14S OF THE APPLICABLE PLANS INCLUDE: "13. A road connecting Tassajara Valley to the San Ramon area through the Sherburne Hills is proposed, as well as the easterly connection of Crow Canyon Road to Tassajara Road. Emphasis supplied. Source: Page 7 , Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 1973 General Plan as amended by 1973 open space element. 0 - 3 families per net acre. (2240 net acres in Black- hawk) . Alamo-Danville General Plan (1967) Valley floors (under 20%) densities should range from 1 to 3 families per net acre and areas over 20% (where de- velopment is feasible should range from 0 to 2 families per net acre. (597 net acres under 20% in Blackhawk and 1003 over 20% but developable) . San Ramon General Plan, (1971) Low density single family areas encourage development at a density of approximately two families per acre. Open Space Plan (1973) "There are areas within the 'Urban Growth Areas for which the conventional subdivision of land is inapprop- riate. These areas generally include significant wood- lands, steep hillsides and hazardous geological areas , all of which require a special degree of sensitivity in site planning and development. The planned unit district Page 9 . . approach should be encouraged for these areas." Source: 1973 Open Space Plan It is urged that the above-reference to-the planned de- velopment concept in hill areas was intended to and and did re- sult in an amendment to the land use element or program of the General Plan (including the ' 63 plan and the Alamo/Danville plan) such that the policies , principals, programs and intent of the Contra Costa County P.D. Ordinance are , by reference, now an affirmative part of the county General Plan. The key provisions of that Ordinance are: ' "84-66.004 Intent and purpose. It is recognized that a large-scale integrated development provides an oppor- tunity for cohesive design when flexible regulations are applied; whereas the• application of conventional regulation, designed primarily for individual lot development , to a large-scale development may create a monotonous and stulti- fied neighborhood. The planned unit district is intended • to allow diversification in the relationship of ,various uses, buildings structures , lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of large-scale site planning. (Ord. 1743 : prior code 58166 (a) ) . " Source: Contra Costa County P-1 Planned Unit District Ordinance "84-66.066 Uses Permitted. Any land uses may be per- mitLed in the P-1 district provided such use or uses are in harmony with each other and serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit development while substantia- lly complying with the general plan. (Ord. 1743 : prior code 581660H ." Source: Contra Costa County P-1 Planned, Unit District Ordinance Page 10 , tl�i�# "84-66.026 Residential density. The general plan shall be used as the guide in establishing residential densities . In establishing residential densities using the general plan as a guide, those areas set aside for churches , schools , streets, commercial use or other non- residential use shall not be included in the net develop- ment area for purposes of computing residential densities. The areas set aside for common open space, outdoor re- creational use or parks shall be included in the net de- development area for purposes of computing residential densities . (Ord. 1743: prior code 58166 (k) ) . " Source: Contra Costa County P-1 Planned -Unit District Ordinance B. The Blackhawk Plan Blackhawk proposes' primary residential 4546 units (all but owner occupied) together with . 37 acres commercial , two 18 hole golf courses and various recreational uses on 4850 acres. - of which 73% will be held in permanent open space. C. The Land Use Analysis 1. THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES (RECREATIONAL AND NEIGHBOR- HOOD COTIMERCIAL) ARE ALLOWED BY THE GENERAL PLAN ON EITHER OF TWO GROUNDS: (a) Government Code 965680 says "general land uses" which , to us , means that the general plan may still speak in terms of primary use and other uses in harmony or com- patible with the primary use are allowed as well as ex- pected especially where , as here, the other uses total less 1% of the total acreage. (b) If the P. D. Ordinance is now (as we contend it is) part of the General Plan then the flexibility of uses allowed by that Ordinance would allow these uses ; 2. STAFF'S THIRD MAJOR ERROR IN THEIR ANALYSIS IS NOT HAVING AVAILABLE TO THEM A SLOPE STUDY SHOWING JUST , HOW "LOW DENSITY" BLACKHAWK IS. OUR STUDY SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: Acres (a) Area 8 (2000' +- ac.) 0 - 20% slope. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 746 i ' a9 (b) Balance (2800 ac. ;ti7.'T r b2. ��. ► �..'. •h.b V,.e "r'Y1to� ._ : Fve. 0 - 202 slope 878 Over 20% slope (developable) . . . . . . 1050 (c) Entire parcel (4800) 0 - 25% slope 2139 25% - Up 2660 Range Low - High 597 net acres in planning area 8 under 208 slope X 1 - 3 units per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 1791 1003 net acres in area 8 over 208 slope where development is feasible X 0 - 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2006 2240 net acres of land not included in area 8 under 163 plan X 0 - 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 6720 • Total 597 10517 Net Acres = gross acres less 208 for roads , etc. 4. ALTEPNATIVE DENSITY CALCULATIONS (FOR ILLUSTRATION) . #1 . 2800 acres of land outside Area 8 with densities computed per area #8 method (674 net acres under 2000- + 798 net acres over 208 , developable) = 674 to 3617 for total adjusted range of 1271 to 7414. 02. An alternative method of low density calculation + is R-15 to yield 2 .9 units per gross acre X. 2099 acres under 25% in slope = 6087 units maximum. #3. Recently approved projects in San Ramon Valley in Low Density Residential planned areas are at average of 2 . 48 units per gross acre. Allowing only the land on Blackhawk Ranch that is not more than 258 in grade (2099 acres) shows density allowable as follows: 2099 X 2 . 48 = 5197 units. • Page 12 . . S. BLACKHAWK'S .COMPARISONS WITH OTHER PROJECTS: One of the reasons for our great surprise regard- ing Staff's analysis is our knowledge of other projects and Staff's density computation methods used then and now. These other projects are most relevant for even though Government Code 565860 wasn't in effect prior to January 1, 1974 , the County's P.D. Ordinance has long required a finding of "sub- stantial compliance" with the General Plan. BLACKHAWK COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANNED UNIT DISTRICTS IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS Project Gross Units DU -DU* Plan General Plan Acres Gross Net Area Change Acre Acre Orindawoods 187 345 1. 8 2. 3 Orinda No Tibros. Scott 104 193 1. 8 2. 4 Alamo- Danville No i Whitegate 152 192 1. 4 1.6 Alamo- Danville No Devil Mountain 623 685 1. 1 1. 3 Alamo- Danville No Blackhawk 4850 4546 .95 1.17 Alamo- Danville & 1963 Plan No *DU net is based on formula of gross acreage less 20% for roads , etc. PROJECTS RECENTLY APPROVED ON LAND 25% SLOPE AND UNDER COMPARISON TO BLACKHAWK Project No. Gross No. Units Units Per Gross Acres Acre Bishop Ranch 1100 2500 2.50 Sycamore 245 680 2. 78 Kaufman & Broad 166 486 2. 93 t .. Vliet, i. �. a, • t Gentry :,7' ;j ,��t;: 30 119 T771.7, , ;•+ 3.97 Gentry r ,tt.;Lw.,101 'x`;.250 , 2.48 Y �41 1 Gentry �+ �.y33 ,.112 ' �`3 39 '* +��+{�� t �' r� � Totals :+4,s ;T�TS4T�'f`',�` ,1� gi'average �k a!' \. K�i? .f•t ' Sta. -,N`;i.�i„1.� z .i.. tnn ti' + t y'r, tr\�`14.. ♦ ....'.t. �Y . . , 2V Blackhawk 4546 •1? , ”`{ What seems to have happened is indeed true . Staff wishes to apply new or different rules to Blackhawk: The best illustration of this is Staff's position re density in Devil Mountain's EIR: "The project falls within an area designated low density residential on the General Plan for planning area *8. The maximum zoning permitted in this de- signation is (R-15) , which has a maximum density factor of 2 .9 DU gross acre. The maximum number of units in R-15 zoning would be 1444 . . . Consideration must be given to the fact that most of the site is not developable due to steep slopes and instability. There- fore, a lower density than the average allowed for in the General Plan appears more appropriate. " Source: Staff Analvsis , P. 7-8 m Addendum, Devil Mt. E.I.R. Sept. 1973 By that analysis , we (on high side) get 12,065 units which, quite obviously, shows us well within the General Plan. In fact, dream as we might, we can't come up with a density rule ever before used in this County that shows us at too high a density for the General Plan. We suspect that the reason for this is that we are well within the General Plan limit. III. WAS BLACKHAWK EXPECTED/IS IT FISCALLY SOUND? The various charges answered here arise from a mixture of catch phrases which, while interesting, are not part of the General Plan. They may be in the future but they are not now. These catch phrases include, "leapfrog zoning" , "growth T , • :rd, :..' f•Y�• ivy.ii J: • Page 14 . . stimulation" , "unexpected" , "fiscal burden" , "unavailability of services" , "NEW TOWN" , "phasing" and "timing for develop- ment" . They seem to be new concepts which demonstrate areas of Staff concern which are not now a part of -any General Plan or county policy. To overcome the fears of some, we shall here and through- out these hearings speak of these points . The fiscal- economic analysisL• is slated for detailed review at future hearings,. A. Remoteness/Leapfrogging/Stimulation: The northwest side of the Ranch (next to Diablo Country Club) is and has been for some years immediately contiguous. to existing development and services . The southeast end of the project is a bit remote but, remember, it' s all "Black- hawk" in between and no building will be done there until 1986 to 1990 . Interestingly, the size of the project probably requires that we recognize that the northwest is somewhat late to be • zoned and the southeast a bit early. It would seem that it would ever be thus in the case of the rezoning of any large parcel. Of course, good planning and financing considerations requires a plan on the whole rather than 10 to 15 smaller plans moving from west to east as would be the usual practice if the land were in smaller plots . The portion of the Tassajara Valley that runs up to our southeast boundary has been slated for development since 1963. Indeed, there is much activity there as development proceeds out the Sycamore and Tassajara Valleys . It really doesn't take much imagination to see that, with or without Blackhawk, Sycamore to Blackhawk Road will be developed in the next 5 - 10 years . By the time Blackhawk enters its last phases (along Tassajara Road) , development will be near or to the intersection of the Blackhawk/Tassajara. As far as our stimulation of the region, we suggest it is already stimulated and our land is in the path of growth. Whether the count (after 1980) wishes to try to stop it at our edge is up to the county. Anyway , they did take a first step in that direction by the decision as a part of the open space plan. . `� � hy.,(i tib• t .., rfj a r Y ` WWI P q� 15 In any case, •a 'lot of these remoteness questions are best answered by•'the 'questions .),Was development of the . Blackhawk•:land expec 'Z p �•. +r .}� a ,� it ti' r �>1 R r 1 w ti a}!� Y l ° S t p:1: • rltT1i�1. ,3.F' .i;�/teti Be Was Blackhawk expected? r ;,' It is our view that Blackhawk was fully expected and planned for both within and outside the General Plan. Each of the following points are relevant: (1) As early as 1963 Castle and Cook were far along with a planned project for the property but it fell through for financial reasons; (2) When the 1963 land use and circulation plan was done several major road improvements were planned for which make no sense were Blackhawk not to de- velop; (3) The vast majority of the developing area of the . Blackhawk property is in the water district and . has been since 1963; (4) The 1967 Alamo-Danville Plan spread low "density residential" over half the property (thus up- dating the ' 63 green line in the area) and the San - Ramon area plan has most of the surrounding area in "low density" ; (5) The 1973 amendment to the land use element finished a job started long ago by designating our entire property low density residential with full knowledge of what we were planning; (6) Without comment on any General, Plan compliance question, the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee approved our project in September, 1973; (7) The Blackhawk property is in the school district , fire district and proposed transit district - indeed, the 1970 recreation element shows 3 to 5 schools in our immediate vicinity; (8) Population projections for the Valley (areas 6 & 9 combined) show that the population growth was wholly expected. , ti � ,•.rtr�� r (7i }��ut .�,; r��`+3{.t`".J• '.H1, yy� '�•: � 'Js r1 ]`rJ rr �..4r#, t 'Ltyy' y� ar �, /• �• t�. , ��Z ^F.' t .�•1' I�y' � L,CfW • Pa 'y, ' S' ' " "'fir , r ., �. ( •� ` TT � 'S ,4/ 11 � ge 16 :r .,,ti 4�" r ,' n{i.�"1,�,• . SAN RAMON- VALLEY - BASED ON PLANNING STAFF NUMBERS Population Estimated Population Annual Growth . Projected 1970 1974 In People Population 1990 25927 34450 2272.8 70,815 Add Blackhawk 14 ,662 Total Population by 1990 85,662 Optimum Population per General Plan 115249 People Short of Optimum in 1990 (29 ,772) References: Page 35 - Staff EIR on Blackhawk Ranch It would thus appear evident that no one in the county was surprised by Blackhawk. iC. Blackhawk is a "new town" . This is another scary phrase designed to confuse rather than enlighten. Blackhawk is a residential rezoning of a large piece of land for low density use with a 12/20 year build-out. It does take a degree of sophistication to recognize that Blackhawk is no more nor less a "new town" than the cumulative effect of hundreds and hundreds of smaller projects approved yearly. Sure it's large but large is neither per se good or per se bad. Further, the word "new town" is classically intended to suggest an unexpected large, non-contiguous development of all urban uses without any existing service base upon which to draw. Blackhawk is none of these. Inherent in the use of this phrase is an attempt to , create the impression that, upon zoning, suddenly 14 ,000 people and 4500 units will appear. This, again, ignors the 12/20 year build-out projection. D. [ghat is the fiscal impact of Blackhawk? We are in the process of preparing a detailed economic summary showing that we are a huge fiscal bonus to every taxing • Page 17 . . entity with which we come in contact. This, of course, is not to mention the profound economic bonus we will confer in terms of jobs' and consumer demand. The only real problems are front ending capital expenses for roads and schools. We (as well as the county) are work- ing toward a solution to these problems. We are confident that they can be overcome either by other programs , use of operating revenue, developer participation or a combination thereof. Interestingly, continued delay only works against the extent of our ability to participate in the solution to these problems. CONCLUSION Staff' s memo and E.I.R. analysis raises a number of minor points sufficiently remote to the General Plan inquiry as to not, in our view, require detailed reply. • If 'the Commission wishes comment on these points (from A.B.A.G. to E .P.A. ) , we can and will reply in detail. Suffice it to say that it is our view that these points have little to do with a rezoning, much less a General Plan analysis . ELY,, Nothing herein contained is intended to create the im- pression that a determination of General Plan compliance means approval of our P .D. Rather, it is our hope by this memo to lay bare reality and, hopefully , get to the business of analyzing the plan and the EIR data to see if a plan acceptable to the Commission can be moved along to the Board. All in all, I shall again state that ample evidence exists to support a Commission recommendation and a Board finding that the Blackhawk Plan conforms to the General Plan. Per Govern- ment Code 565858 , we are of the view the final determination on this point should be deferred until the public hearings are closed. To those who seek a moritorium on our project pending a just announced review of the Area #8 and #9 plans , we would urge the following: 1 . These questions are best addressed to the Board of Supervisors which has the power to enact a moritorium and not be confused with our rezoning. ♦ ♦ ' • • 'tt f.: ...i �� '0�� t 'j' + i .. .F� , t •4.»,y�•4(�, ��Lr •� rt tt ��r' 1u •� 1r��:� •,i' r ac:•f y: J l. i�,;. .i � ,irr t t'A?Ttr• . •'� f � �' '' �Jl��ir • 1 .T i t'�7rt1 - � ! kr t 1.f'� ` a � Ij n Ju) )�4'. • FF .' ` • '1 y T t` . 18 '• i,,,,,� ,'�,e a. 7�l� r• F ,.� ; ,L��'a Page _< 2. The county is studying a "roads policy" (it's a countywide if not a nationwide problem) and that the school district has just passed a "school funding policy" which, apparently will "solve" their problems if enforced; 3. That even if the above don't pan out, Blackhawk's effect on roads and/or schools (or any other services) can be assessed in detail as we work through the process . 4 . Once we get beyond "services" all that is left to study as it pertains to Blackhawk is land use and open space and, in 1973, the county reviewed our open space and declared us low density. Nothing herein contained should be taken to mean we are against a valley plan review. Indeed, we think projects of Blabkhawk's quality, environmental sensitivity and low density should be encouraged rather than be optional. The Talley should also take a close look at a hillside ordinance and other means of permanently preserving open spare in the urban area. q wwma w*6►w I t} �►'1{(�'.! , t' � Iw1�� .� I! y'�: `I;1rY1iR I OI ION QAMPOItu6 iT i; a .{ •wAANYT MSN • 1 �,pWA M OlM1is�•�1 >i U fNCMA/VAN *jjjVOOR►M�; AMA OMi wH' 'JACK a evM .:Y..r. 'tt ti�OANIK VAN VOOIINIO ; NSNNKTH J.MANQN '. :+ T i'- a t, .• ?, n Q1QNAND NKLif1 r.•i^ ' ' February 26, 1974 TO: BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT CO. 3171 Blackhawk Road Danville, California 94526 FROM: DANIEL VAN VOORHIS RE: NEED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (1840RZ) INTRODUCTION You have asked me to comment on Staff's opinion (con- tained in various recent Staff generated documents) that we may require a General Plan Amendment on the Blackhawk • P.D. filed July 1973. CONCLUSION Regardless of Staff's opinion (the decision is not theirs) ample evidence exists to support a commission recommendation and a board finding that approval of your P.D. does not require a general plan change. Interest- ingly, I really can't find much evidence to support a contrary finding, but it is up to you to generate this evidence. Certainly the fact that you do comply with the general plan does not assure approval of your P.D. as is nor does it lessen the county's power to impose reasonable conditions. THE LAW Government Code 565860 provides: "Consistency of zoning ordinances with general plant actions to enforce compliances amendments. (a) County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the county or city by *** January 1 1974. A zoning ordinance shall be cons stent with a city or county general plan if: (i) The City or county has officially adopted such a plan, and (ii) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan. (b) In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a—ge-neral plan b reason of amen ment to such a 21an, or to an element of such a plan, such zon1n5 ordinance shall a amenged within a reasonable time so t at it is consistent wit7 the-general plan as- amended. samen e . w Government Code S65858 adds: "Recommendation to legislative body. After the hearing, the plonning commission shall • render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the legislative body. Such • recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation, the relationship of the proposed ordinance or amen Ment to a licable enera an specific plans , and shall e transmitted to the legislative body in such form and manner as may be specified by the legislative body." Contra Costa County Ordinances Chapter 84-66 P-1, Planned Unit District provides: 64-66.004 Intent and purpose* It is recognized that a large-scaleintegrated development pro- vides an opportunity for cohesive design when flexible regulations are applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily for individual lot development, to a large-scale development may create a monotonous and stultified neighborhood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, building structures, lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code requir- -T- ing adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of large-scale site planning. (Ord. 1743:prior code 58166 (a) ) . 84-66.006. Uses - Permitted. Any land uses may be permitte3 in the P-1 district provided such use or uses are in harmony with each other and serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit development while substantially complying with the general plan. (Ord. 1743: prior code S8166 (j) ) . 84-66.020. Required findings. In approving and adopting the rezoning application with the pre- liminary development plan, and subsequently the final development plan, the planning commission and/or board of supervisors as the case may be, shall find the following: (1) That the applicant intends to i start construction within two and one-half years from effective date of zoning change; (2) That the proposed planned unit development substantially conforms to the county general plan. I really can't speculate on the differences between "compatible with general land uses, etc." (as required by the Government Code) and "substantial compliance" (as required by the County's P.D. Ordinance) but I really don't see that much difference. It would seem that the question is essentially a factual issue involving a comparison of your proposal with all rele- vant provisions of the general plan. Unless the non-compliance is patently clear, I don't see how a final determination on the issue can be made until the conditions are in, the plan modifications are done and the ordinance is ready for enactment. Indeed, it would seem likely that minor defects could be cured by conditions as one goes through the process. -3- I don't know how one deals with the problem that various language in various element, are possibly at odds with each other. I suspect that the answer is that it is up to the legislature to resolve these questions and that there will be a strong presumption in support of tFe legis- lative action, pro or con. Your two biggest question marks are roads and school financing and there is nothing in the general plan respecting such items. They can and should be dealt with a preliminary or final map stage but not at this level. . THE RELEVANT PLANS It it probably wrong to take language or maps , etc. , out of context of the various general plan documents . Accordingly, a review of each element, each diagram, and the history of each general plan document was made. The relevant materials , consists of: • (1) The 1963 Land Use Plan; (2) The 1963 Circulation Plan; (3) The 1967 Alamo-Danville area Plan (an amendment to the 1963 plan in part) ; (4) The 1971 Housing Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan; (5) The 1973 Open Space and Conservation Plan (an amendment to the 1963 plan and the 1967 Alamo-Danville Plan, i.e. , Tie Composite Plan) ; (6) The Recreation, Trails and Bike Elements of the General Plan; (7) Files respecting above on file with Clerk of the Board; (8) All projects approved in Area #8 and Area #9 since 1965 which did not involve General Plan change. -4- � �`1� .�, j. 'ir. should be"noted that the scenic highway element (due September 19 74) ' has been ,continued for board,action until'+ April 16, 1974. At the first commission meeting, the commission should be asked if they have each of the relevant documents and, if not,, copies should be provided them at our expense. GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS In conjunction with you, your engineers, and planners I have reviewed not only the relevant plans but also the "evidence" previously referred to. Here then, is a brief analysis: (1) Blackhawk proposes 4546 residential units or 1.04 units to the net acre (see Exhibit "A" , Contra Costa County P.D. Ord. 584.66.026 for mode of computation) ; (2) ECIS (Staff Consultant's) Map (Exhibit "B") is essentially correct but totally ignores 1973 amendment to 1963 and Area #8 plans where, per your application, the commission and board extended the "low density residential" designation over our entire 4800 acres by virtue of the language inserted at p. 24 of said plan (see Exhibit "C") attached - also see attached (Exhibit "D" ) being the commis- sion's' deliberations and decision respecting said matter; (3) Although frequently used and previously upheld in the Orinda Woods case the true concept of transferred density was finally officially recognized as an amendment to the 1963 and Area #8 plans where, under the action program for accomplishing open space goals as follows: "1. Planned Unit Development (P-1.) There are areas within the Urban Growth Areas for which the conventional subdivision of land is inappropriate. These areas generally include significant woodlands, steep hillsides and hazardous geological areas, all of which require a special degree of sensitivity in site lannin and development. The planned unit district approach shoulU be encouraged for these areas." Note: It is my view that the intent of the p an was to actively encourage PUD's in hilly areas and that this change represented the memorializat on into the land use elements of all plans the following concepts : (1) Transferred densities (net) ; (2) Variety of uses so long as in harmony and so long as "sub- ,construction with general plan" . (4) That, per the 'P.D. concept, the commercial areas are o.k. provided they are essentially neighborhood in character are allowed by the above and are compatible in that they cut down on traffic, use of energy and inconvenience (it should be noted that nearest commercial is 5 miles away) ; (5) With reference to densities , you are entitled to up to 11,702* units on high side as follows: * Realize 11, 702 units on the land would not be good planning but is shown to illustrate you are indeed within general plan. (a) 3, 772 units on 1964 acres in Area #8 (1-3 0-20% slope; 0-2 above 20% feasible to de- velop;** ** This formula is a little arbitrary and contra • open space policy as no credit for permanent open space not now developed but which may be- come so later - I feel open space/PUD changes �.r. this - if you get no credit for steep land take it out and hold on to it until it is feasible to develop (S.F. Twin Peaks) . (b) 7,930 units on 2645 acres under 1963 plan (0-3) ; *** *** If we use Area ##8 measures of density over en- tire property you get maximum of 6, 414 on non- area ##8 land for overall total of 10 ,100 . (6) Staffs suggested population "standard" though in- teresting, is absurd: (a) If it applied it would mean Alamo-Danville area was developing at rate of two (2) persons per acre or .70 units per acre when in fact most of the valley is going 2.5 more units per acreage average without a general plan change - compare Whitegate and all other projects approved since 1969 without general plan change. (b) The 50,000 figure was no-more and no less than an 1990 estimate:population)(never a_'Petaluma type populatio limitation ord.) for,"4if'it'had,ever a ore beenapplied, ;,n no davelo meet a royal"in Area$;#8...would'have.'com lied (c) Assuming that 1990 holding capacity was 50,000, ' that it was ever used as &•true limit and that Area 08 extends over your entire property (none .of which is true) there is no showing that your approval would cause Area #8 to exceed said limit. (d) Fails to recognize that very, very large part of Area 08 is really undevelopable prior to 1990 and mis- leading to get at unit count by dividing total land 26,000 acres into 50,000 people. EVIDENCE. TO PRODUCE (1) A copy of this memo; (2) The relevant plans previously listed; (3) A certified slope study showing slopes from 0 to whatever degree of slope is "developable" and number of acres in each class. (4) Population study of Area #8 showing actual families per acre in developed portions. (5) Proof of dates acquired control/Equitable Title/ Legal Title to property holdings covered by P .D. (6) Computation of net densities (see P.D. Ord. ) . (7) Copies of County P.D. Ordinance (attached) . (8) A second memo detailing answer Staff' s various • opinions. STAFFS' ERRORS (1) No slope study available to them in computing densities; (2) Don't wish to recognize effect of open space plan amendment to general plan which was adopted last year by commission and Hoard of Supervisors. -7- t 1 •' ' 1" ;moi ' r ( r - �'' / 1�;• 1 . .. � ..« 9,; ;.i',i.l .Vi 3 Failur f! 1i ' ( ) �rt�o�.computa�dansitiast.,as' usuallyne; i '`'`' 't t!1l',{=�:k�Jp,d �" t^ ':�*'"a!• ' `?Y ,''`�"�ifitd' (? .. . . ri (4) '' Failure to recognize P.D.' concept=�' • (S) Reliance.'on lot of data irrelevant to a general plan analysis; (6) Confusion of zoning, subdivision and general plan arguments; (7) Failure to recognize power of conditions to cure problems. _ Very truly yours, DANIEL VAN VOORHIS ' DV:bh atcs - AAA 84-66-008 ZONIM Cwpkr 8464 nkhborhood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the V UNRESTRICTED DISTRICT relationship of various uses,buildings structures, loot sizes and open spaces while insuring ieations: substantial compliance with the general plan and 8464.002 General provisions. the intent of the county code in requiring ' adequate standards necessary to satisfy the 044.002 General provisions. All land requirements of the public health, safety and within a U unrestricted district may be used for general welfare. These standards shall be MY lawful use,but the board of supervisors may observed without unduly inhibiting the hereafter amend this division to place land now advantages of large-scale site planning. (Cid. placed in an unrestricted district into another 1743: prior code § 81 (a)). dlMet,or by proper amendment of this division So provide regulations for the use of land now 8466.006 Uses — Permitted. Any land uses IR any unrestricted district. (Prior code $ 8165: may be permitted in the P-1 district provided 0d.382). such use or uses ate in harmony with each other and terve to fulfill the function of the planned Witt development while substantially complying • 4anpter 5466 with the general plan. (Ord. 1743: prior code $ 81660)). P1 MANNED UNiT DISTRICT - 84-66.008 Application form. The Sections: application shall consist of Five copies of each of 8466.002 General provisions. the following: 6+166.004 Intent and purpose. • (1) A prel'im'inary development plan, drawn 1466.006 Uses—Permitted. 00 scale.which shall indicate: 8466.008 Application form. (A) no proposed use or uses of all lands 8466.010 Rezoning procedure, within the subject area, 8466.012 Final development plan— (6) Existing natural land features, and Requirements. topography of the subject area, W&014 Final development plan— (Q,A circulation plan for all vehicular and Procedure. pedestrian ways, 8466,016 Final development plan— (D) The metes and bounds of the boundaries Modifications. of the subject property, 84.66.018 Latitude of regulations. --(8) The location and dimensions of all 8466.020 Required findings. u1sting structures, 8466.022 Termination procedure. ,(F) Landscaping, parking areas, and typical 8466.024 Minimum site, pimposed structures, - 4466.026 Residential density. ';.(G) The anticipated grading for . the development; 6466.002 General provisions. All land (2) A written legal description of the subject within a P 1 planned unit district may be used area; for any of the following uses. under the (3) A preliminary report indicating provision following regulations set forth in this chapter. for storm drainage, sewage disposal and public -�-• (Ord. 1743: prior code $8166(part)). utilities; 71- —(4) An economic feasibility report and 6466.004 intent and purpose. it is analysis of all commercial and 'industrial uses, if t+tcognized that a largascale integrated any, proposed to be located within the development provides an opportunity for development; 0o ve design when flexible regulations are -' (5) A feasibility analysis of all public, Sp ..ed; whereas the application of conventional quasi-public, recreational and educational areas regulation, designed primarily for individual lot and facilities proposed to be located within the development. to a large-scale development may development. This analysis shall include a ,treats a monotonous and stultified statement of anticipated financing,development •-•.••nom..r.. .. ♦ .•.« w•�•,W....• .r�.«r SM�...�__ - - ��«. ..-.....�.....'M+� ! M MANNED UNIT DISTRICT 8466.010-84.66.016 �- and maintenance; (4) Indicate the location and design (6) A residential density analysis of the vehicle puking areas; ' • : subject area, and the estimated population (5) Indicate the location and design of resulting therefrom; proposed landscaping, except for posed single (7) A statement indicating how and why the family residential development; proposed development conforms to the general (6) Indicate the location and design of all plan-, storm drainage and sewage disposal facilities; (8) A statement requesting the zoning change (7) Provide an engineer's statement of the signed by the owner in fee of the subject land proposed grading; and the owner of any option to purchase the (8) Indicate the location and extent of all property or any portion thereof, if any; proposed land uses. —--:-.(9) Schematic drawings showing the (b) In addition, the final development plan architectural design of all apartment houses and shall be accompanied by: nonresidential buildings and structures proposed (1) Elevations of all buildings and structures in the deve;opment; other than single family residents; (10) Any additional information 'as may be (2) A statement indicating procedures and required by the planning commission or the programming for the development and board of supervisors at the time of any public maintenance of semipublic or public areas, hearing. (Ord. 1743: prior code § 8166(b)). buildings and structures; (3) A statement indicating the stages of 84-66.010 Rezoning procedure. An development proposed for the entire .application shall be processed as follows: development; :. (1) As required by Title 7 of the Government (4) Any additional drawings or information • Code of the state of California. as may be required by the planning commission (2) If the application is finally approved by at the time of any public hearing in the matter. • . the board of supervisors, the zoning map of the (Ord. 1743: prior code §'8166(d)). ars shall be changed by identifying the area -with the map symbol "P-1." 8466.014 Final development plan — (3) The preliminary development pian, as Procedure. The final development plan shall be approved, shall be filed with the planning submitted to the planning commission for department and shall, by reference, be approval using the same procedure required for a •incorporated into and thereby become apart of use permit application except the final this title. development plan shall be heard and reviewed (4) After the effective date of the ordinance by the planning commission. An appeal from the change to the P-I district, no grading or land planning commission decision m:ry be taken to clearing shall take place, nor shall any building the board of supervisors in accordance with or structure be erected, moved or altered on the Section 26-2.208. If no appeal is taken, the subject property except when in compliance decision of the planning commission becomes with the final development plan as approved by final. (Ord. 1743: prior code § 8166(e)). the planning commission. (Ord. 1743: prior code 18166(c)). 8466.016 Final development plan — Modifications. The final development plan may 8466.012 Final development plan — be modified_by submitting an application for Requirements. (a) The final development plan such modification according to the same drawn to scale,shall: procedure as is required in the initial review and %; (1) Indicate the metes and bounds of the approval of the final development plan. boundary of the subject property together with The flexibility of ordinance requirement, dimensions of lands to be divided; ordinarily required in other districts, permitted . (2) Indicate the location, grades, widths and in any initial approval of a P-1 district shall not • ( types of improvements proposed for all streets, be considered as precedent setting, or as a lone driveways, pedestrian ways and utilities; compelling reason for approving any (3) Indicate the location, height, number of modification. stories, use and number of dwelling units for Any application for a modification may be each proposed building or structure; approved only after it has been found that it sR� e,'iW01$--84 0022 ZOt i -E. 1 .... r.- '�`• .'w.''r 1 N 1}.:' ; . bob not deviate from the intent and purpose of stnretures, or land uua 'or: any stag of R1 district, and that provisions.of Sections velopment the f;' .8446.020 and 84.66.026 ha } (13 Rctluirin gg(, rformnnuc bonds. 1T43: priorcode j 81 I) iinsuradevclopmcnlT vcJOrd 43' ►ith+�, at prior code`1'816tq f)). "_".018 •latitude of regulations. The A planning commission may recommend and the 84.66.020 lRoned A fi din s. In approving board of supervisors may adopt as part of the and adopting a rezoning application with the proUninary development plan, and may require preliminary development plan,and subsequently In the final development plan, standards, the final development plan, the planning letulations, limitations and restrictions either commission and/or board of supervisors as the mote or less restrictive than those specified case may be,shall find the following: elsewhere in the county code and which are (1) That the applicant intends to start designed to protect and maintain property construction within two and one-half years from values and community amenities in the subject =developmenit e zo community, and which would foster and at the proposed planned unit Maintain the health, safety and general welfare substantially conforms to the Of the community, including and relating to butral plan, not limited to the following: in a case of resi entia (1) Height limitations on buildings and development, that such development will Structures; constitute a residential environment of sustained (2) Percent coverage of land by buildings - desirability and stability, and that it will be in and structures; harmony with the character of the surrounding • (3) Parking ratios and areas expressed in neighborhood and community; fetation to use of various portions of the (4) That in the case of the commercial Pr"perty and/or building floor area; development that such development is needed at (4) The location, width and improvement of the proposed location to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to various commercial facilities of the type proposed, that Portions of the property including portions traffic congestion will not likely be created by within abutting streets; the proposed center, or will be obviated by (S) Planting and maintenance of trees, presently projected improvements and by shrubs, plants and lawns in accordance with a demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper landscaping plan; entrances and exits, and by internal provisions (6) Construction of fences, walls and for traffic and parking that the development will Good-lighting of an approved design; be an attractive and efficient center which will (7) Limitations upon the size, design, fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse number, lighting and location of signs and effects upon the adjacent or surrounding advertising structures; development; (8) Arrangement and spacing of buildings (S) That in the case of proposed industrial and structures to provide appropriate open development, that such development is fully in spaces around same; conformity with the applicable performance (9) Location and size of off-street loading standards, and will constitute an efficient and arm and docks; well organized development, with adequate (10) Uses of buildings and structures by provisions for railroad and/or truck access general classification, and speck designation service and necessary storage, that such when there are unusual requirements for development will have no adverse effect upon Parking, or when use involves noise, dust, odor, adjacent or surrounding development; games, smoke, vibration, glare or radiation (6) That the development of a harmonious, incompatible with present or potential integrated plan justifies exceptions from the development of surrounding property; normal application of this code. (Ord. 1743: '11) Architectural design of buildings and prior code $ 8166(g)). S. .ctures; (12) Schedule of time for construction and 84-66.022 Termination procedure. If, ' establishment of the proposed buildings, within eighteen months of the effective date of 3" J T-1 MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT 84.66.024-8468.202 • the establishment of the P-11 district and the 8468.406 Lot. preliminary development• plan, a final 84.68.408 Mobile home. development plan is not submitted to the 84.68.410 Mobile home park. planning commission, the P-1 district shall 84.68.412 Travel trailer. become null and void and the land use district 84.68.414 Travel trailer park. Classification shall revert back to the designation Article 84-68.6 Uses in effect immediately before the P-I district. Sections: U.within twelve months after the approval by 84.68.602 Uses—Permitted. the planning commission of the final 8468.604 Uses—Requiring land use ' development plan, the construction specified in permit. the final development plan has not been Article 84-68.8 Restrictions commenced, then the P-i district shall become Sections: null and void and the land use classification shall 84.68.802 Rezoning to T-1 district. revert back to the designation having effect 8468.804 Construction, operation, immediately before the P-1 district. leasing,etc., of mobile home The board of supervisors may grant three or travel hailer park. extensions to commence construction for no 84.68.806 Use for human habitation. . more than one year each upon a showing of 8468.808 Storage of mobile homes, food cause. (Ord. 71-17 § 1, 1971: Ord. 1743: travel trailers and camp cars. prior code § 8166(h)). 8468.810 Lot occupied as living quarters. 84.66.024 Minimum site. The minimum Article 94-68.10 Application area for a P-1 district shall be fifteen acres for Sections: • residential uses, twenty-five acres for 84.68.1002 Land use permit application nonresidential uses, and fifty acres for mixed —Requirements. . residential and nonresidential uses. (Ord. 70-50 Article 84-68.12 Mobile Home and Travel 1, 1970: Ord. 1743: prior code § 81666)). Trailer Park Standards Sections: 84-66.026 Residential density. The general 84-68.1202 Park standards—Lot size. plan shall be used as the guide in establishing 84-68.1204 Park standards—Number of A"'= Itsidential densities. In establishing residential vehicles per acre. densities using the general plan as a guide, those 84-68.1206 Park standards—Minimum areas set aside for churches, schools, streets, park size. commercial use or other nonresidential use shall 84.68.1208 Park standards—Lot not be included in the net development area for dimensions. purposes of computing residential densities. The 84.68.1210 Park standards—Yard areas set aside for common open space, outdoor requirements. recreational use or parks shall be included in the 848.1212 Park standards—Driveways. net development area for purposes of computing 8468.1214 Park standards—Recreational residential densities. (Ord. 1743: prior code $ area. 8166(k)). 848.1216 Park standards—Fence. 9"S.1218 Park standards—Landscaping. Article 84-68.14 Land Use and Variance Permits Chapter 84.68 Sections: 8468.1402 Land use and variance T-1 MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT permit—Granting. Article 64-68.2 General Article 84.68.2 Sections: General 8468.202 General provisions. Article 84.68.4 Definitions 8468.202 General provision. All land Sections: within a T-I mobile home park district may be 8468.402 Generally. used as follows under the following regulations 5468.404 limp car. Mt forth in this chapter. (Ord. 68-30 § 2, 1968: 367 '• ECI yZ)MM IT'"B" ', •• + ! n•1�15 '� ��•�1 r it�'� 7 '� • 2it 73317 1 •i I, ,- • + • lit.. r{� ,. t,4'', I, UUU� ...PPP"`..,..."'••' �•,Y, L tY� •I � i�fY'7`a Nk3� .�+ { ' • I / . � )H s •• �+: x r �'t, ��„"��i'"",9��1 �i�r • ,�I J • F 4 ,i2,` •1Y i'1" J c l,�'/�V. Lr. ,•h. ),.v t jGy'j'' Yti i arigUIP `r O 3. f • (� M-Z •' Jl 'tif • ��,�i.' „, •1lEI/ATIONSHOF HLACIQ�IAWK TO � ,„CCMTPA► COSTA.'COUNTY PL• Na- •f �,,. y �1NNi R/Ee1S �. �.� ^�� ':�'r f�"1;5. ''rtrT }► .S �Y�h.k� \"rte'. A:..) .?�. ��y.;1. r '� ,'1;.r., r• WAIN RcEK •• • :: • • • . ••• • • • •'• • • • . • • • :• • • • • ••• • •'•'• •'• •': • • • • • • • • • • ••• • ' ' ,•,• •f• •.• • .•••• •••• •. AREA #8 ti? • •••• • .•1'.'.'.'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . .•. . . . . • • • • •' •••• A( I� •�:�d• • ' '�•'•' •''''''• ��•�••••• ^1Q 111 O •.�•�. •'•'•i�.• •'''.'•'•••''''•••••''''•''••''','•'''.•''. • . : • • • • e • • •�•• ' •••' . I �•�••••••••' • • '.' .•.'.'.•. .'.' . . . . . . . . � w • • • • .'. ♦ • •• • • • '.'. .'.'. • . . .�.•.•. life �•, ,•,• • • • • • '� • . . . . . . . . ..........'.'.•. . ti +Maw • . �.� .'.�.•. . .•t� Ramon : N•:••••• � •::•••':s' j••'.'f'.1. •:':•:•:•�.:�• •�• • 1e • • • • •� / we ...]Open Space • Areas Slated for Dedication EXHIBIT "C" +o OPEN SPACE-CONSERVATrM PLAN 5fte.:1u4aJior Ma or 0 en S ace Area •Open Space Area delineated on the map following p. Q� AM�• ttt' includes land which should be used for agriculture and residential t farming, State and Regional Parks, watershed lands, open water and tidelands for the preservation of fisheries and wildlife, } VAJor proposals of the Adopted Interim Trails Plan, areas which contain mineral ; deposits with potential commercial value, and scenic ridges which are highly ` visible from urbanized areas. The policies of the Findings and Policies section ' provide guidelines for supporting the utilizatian of natural resource areas to the fullest and for preserving their productivity for future use. Beneficial environmental effects of the plan which do not show on the map } but which are plan policies include: • preservation of agricultural distridts • options for future recovery of mineral resources protection for aquifer recharge areas • wildlife preservation as a secondary use ! • erosion control , • preservation of natural waterways • air quality considerations in agricultural areas • commercial and commercial recreation use of fish and waterfowl resources It is expressly understood that the lines definingo en space are imprecise. Where a given , � s isec�P line indicating open space. the • entire parcel may a consiuere f develo ment a same g-- w have been a the and holding lain entirely outside the line defining open space. The Urban Growth Area 1 .; The Urban Growth Area includes land for develnnm^nr in*n fill, +.•�1^ ++��, 1 anA nnen apace within th^ n.�_a•. r.r.,•__r_b__.�rna £nr nrnr^^t: F l fn and property from excessive ris}:s of slope failure and flooding. a"f servation of mayor rcges for villua qua i. ii affects of the plan policies which do not show on the map but which are i benefits of the plan policies include: i • reduced taxpayer costsfor extending utilities, roads, and other urban services to outlying areas • reduced dollar and environmental costs of engineered flood control works • seduced idle land within the urban complex , • retention of the County's natural scenic beauty • greenbelting of urban areas to give - physical form and a sense of community -Z4- �i.51i "Dor , S Juni 1973 -r Tuesday ., . ;'` -,' t, " . • , . ._ _ OPM SPACE MMERVATIG'Y PLM ".1tEARMa C xm. FOR tECISICN: TUS Is s review of the Open Space Conservation Plan as an an,endment to the County General Plan. nits intermediate-range plan is concerned with the desiEnstion of major open space areas for the C=ty. It inclu.les the findings and policies Ciat ray be used in reviewing, projects for conformity to the cemservation and open spate provisions of the general plan. T;ie plan also includes an action. ixVlemeion of this Plan. 0 A1tV_- V MILAN0: 'Phis item is on tonight's agenda for a decision. As you knew*we have a hat of trst = Y on this pre posa2. We have toMak e a dec3s- ian an this. It has beenmandated by the State Legislature, Wel-re ;;ot to Mike a decision Umight in order to get this into the hands of the idoard Of upetvisors so they eaa deliberate and arrive at a decision before June �� I understand that the Assembly of the State Legislature has before them now a bill to caontinus their own deadline date. The Senate vested to continue it 6 nwon►ths beyond the June 38th mate. I understand that the Assembly is can- sidering extending the deadline, too. If such would be the case, then we WvAd have more ti.-o to deliberate on this and, phahaps conte out wirh a better plan; but, they haven't taken any action as of this date so we ,:-a doing to have to take action this evening. 'Well, Commissioner Krueger has arrived and I guess I've delayed this long eawvgh so that he could be herr on th" deliberation. this matter is nor open for discussicno among the Cormissioners. CCP$I. COWAGLIA: Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to lead off.giving my opiniub enthis. After having listened to much testimony--4 hearings, two field trips and s field trip on cry own time and I have talkedwith many people on:this. . L%-on though ry statemennt may be somwhat short, I don't want to givo anyone. die itpressicn that I'm not vitally contented about this cutter, this Open Space Conservatian flownt. ?y thoughts are that we have had an open space plan since 1963, that appears to be acceptable to trust people. We c'.o find that Lie eastern part of the county las srre unusal prcnlz s and perhaps the best slution in consiiering that arca is the study area. In other cases where the 1963 open space plan line bisects a piece of pro- perty, that property should be considered an area that can be developed. With respect to those lands that have bees colored yellow, not in eastern Contra Costa Ccunty, iruiicating that they wish to be excluded frc.., this plan, it is my opinion that they should be placed in a study tone also. Meat's my opinion, l lr. awrt m. GMRMAN MILANO: Perhaps it might have been appropriate to have tho Staff give scry statements in lead-off. 'Mr. Dehaesus, slid you have wiything that you wanted to say? MR. M AFSUS: Well, Otte thing--- • QLAIMU14 Flllr'Q: Let's do this: Leta review in brief the staff's proposal as far as study area is concerned and as fur as borderline properties are concerned. .: C0144 COMPAGLIA: 14r. Chaiman, what will that do to our statements them? QiAMON A(I XiO: WcU, doe the Cotzmissiaaters want that? J M. SliU N: I don't. I don't feel that we need to hear further frm the staff on this. COW. JE A: No. I don't want to hear from the staff. I have rl statement to make and I then want to near from the rest of the Camission on this. CSM. MEMN: Gentleme i, I sugest that we just take it cn down the lin© fr = the left since we started there.," M.N. JULA: I agree with Mr. Ccr.paglia's stateaent. I feel that the 163 plan is the proper plan since it zeflects same general pian revisions that are as late as aie or tiro years ago; so, I agree. I think that any prcrerties that would be on the border limos that bisect the preparty, using the 'F3 plan as-the basis should be considered urban grerth areas. I have no fear that =Wthing is going to be violated because we've managed v-� to do a general plan about once a year for the various planning areas of the catty and, I think that as we do different area general pLais, we can deal with each area specifically. Ne don't have to deal with broad-lines. Wo won't have to deal with teneralities---We'll In= whether they have servers, • whether they lava water. One of the people who spoke On this matter last week mentioned the tbrgan Territory Road and that they haw a $750,000 water line botxi out t`-rere and } I wasn't aware of that. These are the things that I think will refine this plan over the years and I think that those people who asked to be excluded that are within tdhe lines on the 163 plan should be put in the study area and it could W that the study area would sustain the staff that they should stay in open space; but, at- least their properties will have the benefit o f "the•Staff.`and at`least l .:�•�+ , �, full deliberation of this Cca�aissian,•the'Board, . would h o would feel that they havo all'recourses . op ry open .to them and that' their land would be considered on that basis, Most of those lands, with the exception of a frow, are probably going to be excluded anyway because they fall within the catagories of the lines going through then or they are right next to the 163 general plan open space line and I think that essentially the plan will ecce out intact. But, they are entitled, I feel, to have their properties looked at a little further. That's all I have to say. WN. YOldti'G: Mr. Chair.-An, youm rationed the number of people who have been hese and have talked and in my % years on the Cc mission, I don't think that I've every linown any subject which generated as each interest or as r=y convents. I was surprised to find that a lot of people thought that this open space and conservation element was something new and revolution- M. Actually, of course, it wasn't. The plan as originally shown, showed a number of areas in open space; it sdiowed publicly meed land like Itt. Diablo State Pial: and other areas which could not be developed. It shared privately owned land which was not suitable for intensive use and you will recall that we were shown the contour pop of the county supericTosed over the open space elemnt and it showed that catch of the space shown as open was not developable because of the contours. Then, thirdly, we were shown an this original draft areas which have been in agriculture continuously and presumably would rca:win in agriculture; so, an top of that, we have the fact that the new element was almost identical to the Cotmty General Plan of 163; so, dmowing all of this, I would not have thought Viat so many people would think this was scmething brand new and different; but, they died and I thini the reason fnr it was that during, the last 10 years, since the County General Plan was passed, there have: been a lot o f changes. One thing that's happened is a lot of the land in the County which was easily developed, particularly in central county has been used up so naturally those who are .developers, who are interested in dividing and providing housing, for the market are concerned that they w•ould be unable to be provided with addit- ional blocks of easily developed land. On top of this, we had the growth of the ecology moverrent. V1'e've had a lot of anrareness all through the county and over the world actually in the probler s of crowding, traffic and :;-ids kind of thing; so, we had a lot of people who are interested just because of this general interest in ecology. Finally, in the last 10 years, we've had a change in the economic viability of the east county. hhere forcatly people in the east county thought they could rake a living out of agriculture and many of then as we have learned have found out that it just isn't possible and they ;lave begun to t`�:k- of dividing land, subdividing and developing land as the means of 'staying solvent. Mawr, we did change the draft as we went along and we new have a final draft that includes a naker of changes. A lot of the changes were the result oz coamats made by people in the audience and some twee by Ccamissioners. So, %fiat we have no is a cooproeise plan aid I'm pretty sure it wouldn't please • anybody because it's just the nature of the beast that you can't make evoty- o4 happy because there's $o many diverse interests in an element of this Now, one area that we have helped iemeeasurably is the east county area in pulling it out and calling it a "study arca". The fact that the peaplo in cast county are forming a condtteo that they are going to then reccnmxmd changes in the geneYal plan automatically lifts this out of the catagary of open space as far as I'm concerned. We. I think, have built in more flexibility into the' plan. :+here previously the plan indicated that it would govern regardless of incacr{eatibility between the open space elerlent and area general plans, nota I think it's clear that as arca a;eneral plans are cleangsd, they are the ones vhiich umuld call t-,o shots. In otiser words, there would be refinumt of the plan as we go along. I t wouldn't be ridgid. One of the problems, of course, in the unhappiness of the people who looked at the original plan, seer that 70: of the' County was earmarked as open space and developed very little if at all wul they are the ores I'm sure would be very uehappy with the fact that the plan, if it's finally approved, will be a plan Vrdch takes a somewhat different direction yid, cuts a great deal out of the plan as compared to time original plan. Now, I do have one area with which I'm not satisfied. The other Couiussion- ers have spoken about it and this is the area of the Coeaety which for.vrly were indicated as developable and where specific area plans have been ijulica- -� ted as being developable rather than as open space.. If the plan as drawn will rake it possible for the owners of such properties to hand us an application for consideration and we would not he prejudiced by the fact that they are on the line,. then I would be Milling to nave tlic plan read as it docs. If, on the other hand, there is any prejudicc, arty feeling that bec-au e a property is on tee line that it really should be open space, then I feel that this is something which we should strai IeZese out before we finally approve the plan. To bre, this is an area which has not ns yet been entirely satisfactorily resolved. Lastly, I would like to speak of the people w1io have askew for exclusion. We've had a nuinber of people with different properties in different Farts of the county. I don't see hcw you can pick and choose different parcels and exclude them from a plan. You have to have a broad-brush plan Munich treats similar properties similarly. So, 1 don't feel that we can just take isolated properties all over the eastern part of the county, which is where cost of these pro;erties asking for exclusion are located and take thin out. I think they will either have to be in the area -which nw would be in the yellow area---that is the lour density development area or they would have to be in the special study area in which case no exclusion would be required. W94. JM A: Mr. Chairman, let me qualify---maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't mean---I want the eastern county to be in the stusey area. The yellow I was talking about were those areas which would be more towards the central part of the county and that. are not in the eastern study area, possibly should be studied. 1 COI.M. MIAGLIA: That was my intent also. C 14. WELTON: I will atterrt to be quite brief in my cowwnts since I spoke at some length earlier addressing myself to this natter. Basically, because I think it's the only thing wo can do at this juncture not having had sufficient tit-.,e to in effect conduct a thorou.0i study of what should be opcui space under tie present definitions put clown by the Legislature that we have to work under, I think that thebest coi:procdse that we can make to satisfy the legislative emulate is that suggested by Mr. Cocpaglia and Mr. Jcha. I do want to a:phasize that when we designated open space on what is -en- orally been referred to her as our 1965 plain, and then when we updated it, we were working under a different definition of open space than the Lagis- lature now says we lust work under. For exarple, some of you in the audience will recall that not too long ago, we n6ulo a re-study of the area around Danville and we described certain open-space areas. At that tune, 'Mr. Jeha, and 1 made clear that we diel not intend by dasignating those areas to be open space---and this is clear an tho record---tlukt scieone :could not be able to come in with an application and have it studied by this Coccdssicn. Well, we're %iorking, under a different fonnet now. Under the State Legisla- tion as is indicated on Pa-e 871 of the latest draft, what we declared to be open space, I feel, is not going to be further subject to study by us during this period of titre that tine legislation dictates which I believe to be roughly 10 years. So, .if someone came in, we would be foreclosed . ,. , just as we are naw forelosed by the State Legislation front changing the zoning unless we dean;c: tiie Gciwral Plan---..e i,rould be Foreclosed, I t d—ak, from snaking that study. So, we're talking about scnething that is quite different and quite serious and for that reason, I personally feel that we s1hcul:11 be cxtr er sly restrictive in our definition of open space made Fursuint to this legislative wandate anti I for one-- wid I ,,r-L t t;us t ff ul d nct 1'e. acceptable to the other crxuiers of tha Camissiou---but, I for ooze vauld siriply include those areas that we now have devoted to re,gicnal park use; the Williamson Act or A-a lands and land which lie outside of the boundaries of the two water districts serving this county which are at such an elevation that they could not reascnably be included for service. That's the way I would have made the initial definition; but, the rest of Lie Camissicn I know has something else in cind and as I've indicated, I will go along with the idea expressed by Mr.Cor paglia and R r. Jaha. 1 would like to explain a little bit why I feel this way. I think that the State Legislature, when they enacted this, were not looking at Centra Costa County alone or at any particular area; but, they were looking at the State as a whole and in cry own personal view, I think the State Legislature uculd been sowewhat shocked had they learned that a County such as Contra Costs was even ccaterplatinb blanketing in as open space the very lame areas that were initially considered here. Now, I believe that for these reasons: The major urban areas of this State that can be defined easily by anyone are the San Francisco Say Area, tho general Sacramento area, and then spot-type system dam through trx Central Valley, the Fresno-Dakersfield areas, the Los Angeles arca and then the--- . and for that matter, all of the flat lands from Los Angeles south to the Mexican border. That's the kind of thing I believe the State Legislature was looking at. Now, when for exmMle they were considering the Impact of this legislation on the city and county of San Francisco, they certainly didn't ex>>ect cny- thing extraordinary to cane out of that. Mien they were thinking of the Bay Area in general, they must have realized that the 'enly lands available for urban expansion in the Bay Area within the reach of the transportation system that we're not developing are southern Alameda County and the central, =4 eastern part of Contra Costa County. Those aro the natural-Mvwth areas. I personally believe that the legislature would be shocked if we even contea- plated dra+ing lines around present urban growth areas and said that is that, particularly inview of the fact that the legislature itself voted to extend an extra h-cent sales tax into areas which would now be included as open space that would be otherwise developable in connection with MfM. DAM was designed to omen up these areas for urban develoy+rent not forclose them from it and people have jpaid and paid heavily for that and people have specu- lated on land for that purpose---speculation is not necessarily a bad word; but, that is the pr-bbler„ that exists in connection with our trying to preserve soave agricultural areas in the eastern end of the county. Well, enough of that. I have one question of the staff and that is: In the latest May 30th draft, is the open space provision in respect to the west end of the county---and I'm talking in particular of the area around North Richmad---any different than what we adopted wren we studied Lie ?forth Richmond Plan? Int. DDiAMUS: We have included those areas---in this we're including the major open spaces. ile're not including all the shall areas---- OO.M* SIMON: The reason I'm asking the question is that there are certain industrial areas in the gcneral North Richr4nd area tMt we studied and sore of those i.u-.c1s lie within the city Ii.-its of I'i_:end. • ::c had crtan- sive hearings on those and I want to know if this open space plan coincides with what we decided there? M DEHAMZ: Yes.- When the Ccar=lssion speaks of the 163 plan, I presume you're speaking of the 163 can site---the 163 up-dated plan. If that's the case, then youhiv including the North Richmand Plan recently appraved. COM. SHELM4: All right. ghat I'm asking is: Is the May 30th draft-of the open space conservatim plan as =ended--- 105L DgiAG' . The ansuer -to your question is yes. M.M. SHEMIN: Is that the same as was decided here at the time we did the North Rictm and area study? MR. MiAESUS: Yes, the North Richmand Plan is part of the County General Plan. That would be the 163 plan ccruWsite up-dated so that would be in- cluded in this plan. a)M. S-ELTON: And, there have bem no changes made in respect to the iyorth Richmond area beyond that which was decided here at the time we made the recommendations an worth Ridrvond? �. WOMB Pest th t.1! correct. •,} � .. :'% ,..� � •'C M". SiEUM: Thank you. Then, finally. I think that any motien hero should contain a recccuoubition to the Board of.Supervisors tt=t we unticl- pate that the Assembly and Senate in conference will'decided upon as cltensioA of the deadline for the achoption of this open space plan and recaomend to th.:t:,, Board that they return this to us for further study if such is the case. In respect to properties Mr. Young mentioned which are on the line, I think we need to Crake it clear that any given l:vul holdh4,,---and I think this las to be smelled out in the plan itself---that any given land holding that is in a siniJe taxable ---any assemblage of land of i4tich we've been acquainted that happens to be bisected by this open space line, that entire assemblage may be considered for develgz ent regardless of the fact that sccue parts of It may lie within the open space area. I think that has to be spelled out as a specific exception. M. DEV: ES S: qtr. Chairrian, if I :ray. I think you Tuve copies of a yellow sheet of raper we gave to each Commissioner. I wonder if that kind of language would be suitable? CO.M. JDA: No. I'm going to ;propose a modification of that. CO`•M. SIIiI.TON: I can't think that's quite strong enough. NM. MAESUS: Incicrentally, on this business of an application being sub- nittod, if this plan is adopted uid soaeone submits an zpplicatloil way oL't there in the rdddle of the green area, tie don't refuse the application. The application is accepted. In our report to Uie Cortvission at tre public hear- ing, it could be reported to you just What the situation is with that appli- c;don. It would be pointed out to you that in the open space arca it th.-re- fore has certain liT.itations and ,an E.I.S. mould be prepared accordin,-41y, etc. So, through the public hearing process, you woji� be reviewing this and caking tlwse determinations. f All we're saying is that the line is an imprecise line. It's a flexible line and all those properties along, the line, in order to determine the preciseness of that line, this is determined, amain, through the public hearing processes. CM-4. S1ELMN: I;ell, arirmev, in sur7nary, ry ccrments are that I kr:cw r,-,y proposal would not meet with approval of the majority and, accordingly, I would go along with &,a suggestions of Messrs. Companlia and Jeha with Clic that we specifically add language to the open spice conservation plan that covers buycnii ajiy of doubt ties question about lauds that are bisected by tine liuxs and I i-:taid to also includL as ',`r. 1-"-- a—l.ia suggested as exceptions the yellow areas (irx1icaLing theca on tine r::ap) %.here: people have appeared and testified to .indicating that at least in their minds they're developable aiul I see no reason to include tl.ac, under scur.e kind of legislative ccs-;ulsion. That concludes my raaar'.cs, Mr. Chairman. Cowl. iaLL£EMM: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with qtr. Shelton at least on the point of flexibiliv/ of the plan. I consider thus to be an ele ent of the general plan and as such like the general plan subject to review and ' study and change if warranted. For example, we're going to have a review in the eastern end of the County i wi Mh is probably going to substantially change Must we adopt this evening. ' To tea, that's going to be an maendment to the open space plan and the rest of the open space plan is also subject to th4,saore kind of review.i£aw,arrant a vi cell. : .1�?'• . •r ,:.tc .. Y.. .`:....�.fSJ. .:,.'.„J` . •;lig'-jr' �':�1.t,^' . '' , •. ! d I do ethink, however, that the time period of 98� i too! .►. s.r think that the open s*�ace plan needs to be reviewed mmoore� sca lona 2` P , F periodically such as all general plans such as this should be. I could be that there should be tiore open space or less open space; but, perhaps 7 years is too long a period to allow the plan to remain in force even though there aro going to be cluuhged through the locai-sres plans'. I also think that on the map, as Mr. Ycxmo brought out at one veetin;, that we should desi^nntc those zones that are ar;propriate for open space areas. SpecidlWly a!,,ricultural zones so that it is specific to those of you view- ing the text that the open space does not change the use of their land at all if Clay so open to have agricultural zoning. I also think that, perhaps, we should add additional classifications to be rwre explicit. qtr. Young pointed this'out before that those lands which are remanent public opett space be so designated. Perhaps sere of the other land should have scr-e other nomenclature such as Agricultrrra.I Open Space or whatever we choose to call it. I also agree that those properties that are in the proximity to the open space line designation should corn, into this CcnAssion if there is an appliczticm to---that is miuiasevi- -neither Prejudiced as urban=space<.or Oren space---that we ci change the 1 din,, on so that anyone may bring an applica- tion before us so I won't be prejudiced before we hear it. That's all I have to say. K WN. t:Iltl-MR: After S or 6 people have spoken, there's not much to say. I will recap a couple of things. - When this plan was first bro4�ht hefor» us, the staff had )wd a couple of t;•orths only to work on the plan. Everyone felt that not enough ti-A lmd beern allcwred to present a plan in depth and stcxly that we would li'e to have seen. This Unussiun his held core hearing on this plan theft ere orig- inally had talked about in order to give people a change to be heard. One of the difficaties that the Carmission faced is that t1he+ staff has indicated a sizeable m ouht of new open space, so designated an their orig- inal plan, A. icih we don't indicate that we agnea with, anis might seem to indicate that this Coamissicn is not in favor of supporting open sr:ace, • ecology or uhatsver you want to call it. But, as h. i been amply demonstrated at frreviouslFreetings, the legalities of the situation and thA tapir; of Lands *Athcut just cwq*nsation or without proper hearings to determine whether they should be taken in this manner or not. , essrs. Hildebrand and Shelton disagree on how many years it vvhight be iefore sate of these areas might be re-studied to take thou out of open space. I don't tIhink we really know what or where we stand on this. I'ir. Sheltan in- dicated that he felt that if it were Lnp to him, he would designate just public lands and other lands noon already in effect desisted as oxen space and forget the rest of it and that he fdt that most of the co"missioners disagree with him. I do disagree with him on that because I've done soca+ checking and I've been advised that this mould not ca:iply with the law. But, once anain, I don't think there's any room to arm there. I agree with what hkssrs. Cospaslin and Jeha originally stated about where t the line should rat.• Inthe absence of a better plan, m:nre knowledge, more tine or whatever, I cart't see anything better to do than to use the boundaries as up-dated since 1963 with the specific provisions to allow development with- � in those areas as indicated by the other Commissioners---in other words, if It's on or near the line, it should be developed. I %vuld want to see it made abundantly clear---I believe there was one par- cel of I=d in the Tassajnra area and one in the Mloraga-Rheem area which was zoned R-15, prior R-1S zoning. ' I would want to be sure that those parcels are excluded from the(pen space because it would be'patently unfair to leave them in. I don't thi;-L% I have anything further to add at this time. CiAI:IMIN4 Mi AZA: I agree with Messrs. Conpaglia and Jeha as vill. I don't believo that those• lards uhich are bisected by the line or narked in yellcd, I dnn't feel that we should rut those in any tyre of stcl!kj area since if and when these land owners core before us to do something with tl*ir property, they will have an extra cost to bear since a lot of people will visinterpret that it is open spAce and it is not supposed to be develop- edd::,rW they will have a harderraw to hoe, so to speak. I %veld be in favor of considering those lands, as Mr. Jeha put it, as urban growth areas and follcwing the staff's reccrtaerdation cn the Past end of pie county r.uttin^ that in the study area, those yellow designated piece of land inside the open space area, well irside the open space area, well inside the line, that those be considered as study areas. • I believe that is the most fait,, ) way that we can actually take action at .the present time. That's about all I have to say. If scsreane wants to put all this together as a motion, we can take it fron.there. CON?4. JDA: I think I've got all the notes dawn so I would like to make a motion. move that this Commission adopt the omen space conservation plan with these provisicrs: (1) irat we adopt tete text revisions presented to us by the staff and riembers of the Ca.anissian. I mould want to alter the one given us this evening so that it would read: "Mose applications for development proposals on parcels that want on or removed"---have it read 'hear the open space" becau a it will be in,conflict with what I'm going to propose further on. I also propose that those Parcels that are bisected by the 163 geneTal plan be put in the urban growth area and not be in a study area of any kind--- there slmuld be no question that they would be available for urban growth if they r„ect other qualifications. That east county can be put in study areas pending a general plan revision for east county. The other lands thit have asked for exclusion be nut in a special study area---those Properties shown as study area in the eastern ® part of the county as a boundary line, b© placed in a study.area as reccrr►- ended by the Staff and the final determination be after c.�.e general plan has been corpleted specifically for that area. • I don't know if W. Yotnp's- proposals on certain public lands, Williamson Act lands, should be delineated as open space land would be included in the text revisions. If they are, then I would figure that they are in already. If not, I would ask that that be part of int.or at least spell©d out. MH. YOUNG: I believe the text does cover that; but, baybe ?-fr. Deliaesus could aLswer that specifically. COATa. JUTA: Then, I would end up by saying that I'm sure there will be pore rcquircrents to this as we go along---all those lards that are not in the eastern study area and will not. be in the urban rroa-di area bec.tiuse they are bisected but are in yellow on this map or have been requested to be excluded from the open space plan, be put in a special study arra also anti they can be studied as we find the tine to do that to Make the final deter- mination as to their being in open space or growth area. I think that covers everytl:in, If I've left sanothing, out-0h, also, I would say that any lands should they fall in that 163 plan that are zoned " , , residelitial should also be excluded and I don't think they've been identified and there may not be anp; but, if there are Presently, then they • also will be excluded. M.H. SIIELMN: btr. Chaim, that's a Pretty long motion; but, I will second it asking, however, that the maker of the ration accept and add on nn expressed statement in the open space conservation plan to the effect as follcrds: "It is expressly understood thnt the lines defining open space are imprecise. there a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open space, the entire parcel may be considered For development to the same extent that it would have been Siad the land holding lain entirely outside the line defining open space." MH. JSiA: I thought I said that; but, I wmdd agree to put that is as Part of ny t-vtion. Are there further cmwoents from to Comissioners? Mhere were no further coFe-ents). Call the roll on the motion, please. WR. MMM. - I hope I undesstand the nonan: We'II tr�r to P havthis into the proper IsnguaRe; but, as I untie ted tke report th!the chmges adopted tho 1963 PIgA updated , the cas�osit , the sgw4fie indication that you've >eacie. That's the adoption that you propose. MM. JOA: Yes. . A roll Gell votO was taken;. IbIlerring is the C Sissiosls recorded vote: AYES: Qmmissioners - eha&er,Sheltm,cavaHildeb 1lto. e YMSP KnagNOES: Comissianers - Now. 118SCN1': Ccreaission+n3 ns. AWrAIN: Cowdssioners - have, motion carried. I Ctrl!ts that the for is a coMrjc� -806M-61! Suptrv} e of Contra Coat+, J County. C rni 'r� �_- 19 �", ... �f�� Au"ttd M..t' .:...��'.1........... 19 .7--r.�. J. R OLSSON. County Clerk . , 6 Ell•O!llclo Clerk of the !sora ..�aG Asa � !� Deputy ...,, May 24, 1974 • STAFF RESPONSE APPLICANT'S CRITIQUE OF STAFF GENERAL PLAN POSITION (Letter, Blackhawk Development Company to Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning, dated March 12, 1974) NOTE--IN THIS DOCUMENT: ° The APPLICANT'S CRITIQUE is presented in the STANDARD TYPE PACE. ° The PLANNING STAFF'S RESPONSE is presented in ITALICS. [BEGINNING OF APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM] The purpose of this memorandum is to answer the questions raised by staff's memorandum of February 6, 1974, in which it is asserted that the plan for the Black-hawk Ranch project does not conform to the adopted plans that comprise the County General Plan. The legal ques- tions raised by staff's memo have been answered in a letter from our attorneys, Campbell, Van Voorhis and Bybee, dated February 26, 1974, copies of which have been previously delivered to you. The staff memorandum rambles a bit so it is rather difficult to respond point by point. We have, however, attempted to organize the staff's posi- tion to basic questions which, we believe, cover all the points raised in its memorandum. • Before discussing the questions involved, we believe that we should respond to the general statement contained on page 1 of the staff memorandum titled "General Plan Conformance." We want to make clear the fact that the statements made by staff in that paragraph are not correct, the correct statement being as follows: 1 CONSISTENCY "...A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan if: (i) The city or county has officially adopted such a plan, and (ii) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are com- patible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan..." Emphasis Added Source: Amendment to Gov. Code 65860 added 1973 The statement by staff is one previously suggested by staff but not yet adopted by the county. Staff: In reply to "The statement by staff is one previously suggested by staff but not yet adopted by the County", it should be noted that adoption by the County of the particular standards listed in staff's memo of Febru- ary 6, 1974, in the second section is not necessary inasmuch as these standards constitute paraphrasing of state statute. When staff says that a project is in conformance with the general plan when: first, the i kinds of land use are in agreement; second, the land use densities or �r intensities are in agreement; and third, that the contemplated forms of - ' the development are in agreement, this is merely paraphrasing Section 65302 of the Government Code. Subsection a there pertains to a Land Use Element .and it addresses itself to the use of land, the proposed general distribution and general location of land uses, the densities or, as the statute says, "standards of population density and building intensity recommended by the various districts". These refer directly and indirectly to densities and forms of development mentioned in the staff memorandum. Where staff goes on to say that the requisite facilities and services are in agreement, staff is paraphrasing requirements found in the statutory requirements for the Land Use and Circulation elements which refer, respectively, to land for education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of land; further, that the Circulation Element refers to "other local public utilities and facilities all correlated with the land use element of the plan." When staff says that the requisite access and circulation facilities are in agreement, staff is referring to Subsection b of Section 65302 requiring a Circulation Element in the General Plan that consists of the,general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, cir- culation routes, terminals, etc. When staff says that the requisite environmental factors are in agreement, staff is referring to several paragraphs in Section 65302, including wording relating to the Land Use Element, wording relating to the Conservation Element, wording referring to open space requirements (both under the Land Use and Circulation Ele- ments) and environmental factors which are inherent in the requirements 2 for a Noise Element, for a Safety Element, and for a Seismic Safety Element. Staff here is hardly referring to something which has not been adopted by the County; rather, staff is referring to state statutes which most assuredly have been adopted by the Legislature of the State of California and which pertain to Contra Costa County. There is an implication in the developer's statement that consistency refers merely to a consistency between zoning districts and the land use districts of a General Plan. staff believes that consistency is a con- dition which exists between a project and the entire adopted general plan of a jurisdiction; not necessarily conformance in terms of every minute detail but conformance in terms of the policy questions, the broad land uses that are involved, the kinds of facilities and services that are prerequisite to development. It is further noted that the project at hand is a Planned Unit Develop- ment and, even though the instrument for approval of a Planned Unit Development is under the zoning ordinance, the Planned Unit Development is, in fact, a combination of zoning, subdivision, and other develop- ment ordinance considerations. It is not only zoning but subdivision land development considerations that must be consistent with the General Plan. • 3 • [PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT] For Clarity purposes, however, we answer staff's points. The Blackhawk Ranch project i3 proposed for development under a P-1 Planned Unit District zoning. The General Plan recommends that P-1 zoning be used for lands like those of the Blackhawk Ranch. "There are areas within the Urban Growth Areas for which the conventional subdivision of land is inappropriate. These areas generally include significant woodlands, steep hillsides and hazardous geological areas, all of which require a special degree of sensitivity in site planning and development. The planned unit district approach should be encouraged for these areas." Source: Open Space Element to the General Plan, 1973 Staff: This quotation is a policy of the Open Space-Conservation Plan, a part of the County General Plan, adopted in 1973. Its applicability to a development project proposal is dependent on the project being located within the Urban Growth Area of the Open Space-Conservation Plan, and additionally being located within an appropriate (almost always resi- dential) land use district of the Land Use Element. Most of the site of Project 1840-Rz does not lie within the Open Space- Conservation Plan's Urban Growth Area, where the quoted policy would be applicable, but instead extends eastward for over two miles into the plan's Open Space Area. About 60% of the project site lies in the Open Space Area. Only a portion of the 40% of the site of Project 1840-RZ that does lie within the Open Space-Conservation Plan's Urban Growth Area also has a residential classification in the County General Plan's Land Use Ele- ment. For practical purposes, the Land Use Element for this portion of the project site is the element that was adopted as part of the Alamo-Danville (Area) General Plan in 1967. This plan shows a combina- tion of open space (Parks and Recreation), Low Density Residential development, and a study area called Single Family, Low Density Expan- sion--which is intended for further study before determination is made-- as ade--as to whether all or parts of these areas should go into open space or into residential development. The quoted policy would pertain to the Single Family, Low Density Residential land use district as depicted on the project site by the Alamo-Danville (Area) General Plan. More is said about this subject later in this document. Not incidentally, the policy was included in the Open Space-Conservation Plan to facilitate the sound development of difficult sites and to pro- tect future owners against the risks posed by natural hazards, not to dilute the General Plan. 4 ' ♦":� � - .. ,. _ . �a : � '� `�? ., .� ;,T4�,i�ly 1W i., a a'..r� sfih�lt,;`N J{ � 4 1s Y intent and: - 1a kkatt nj aM INTENT Of PUWNED•DISTRI ORDINANCE e. ' Intent and Purpose. . It is recognized that'a .lar ge- -,!'scale, -:'scale,integrated development provides` an`opportunity- for co- hesive design when flexible regulations are applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily for individual lot development, to a large-scale development may create a monotonous and stultified neighborhood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, building structures, lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the require- ments of the public health, safety and general welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantages of large-scale site planning. (Ord. 1943: prior code 08166[a]). Source: Contra Costa County P-1 Planned Unit District Ordinance Staff: This means that the P-1 zoning district is intended to carry out the County General Plan (as all zoning is supposed to do, and now is required to do) but in a manner that allows some design fexibility. [LAND USE IN P-1 ZONING DISTRICTS] By definition, a P-1 zoning district provides for all land uses so long as there is substantial compliance with the General Plan. 1184-66.006 Uses Permitted. Any land uses may be permitted in the P-1 district provided such uses or uses are in har- mony with each other and serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit development while substantially complying with the General Plan." Emphasis Added Source: 11-1 Planned Unit District Ordinance The Blackhawk Ranch proposal has five basic types of uses proposed for it: Single family detached housing, cluster housing, multi-family housing, commercial and recreational. 5 . Staffs Of primary significance in Interpreting this quotation is the require- ment that a Planned Unit Development comply with the County General Plan. The General Plan specifies major land use by both type and intensity for any given location in the unincorporated area of the County. The Planned Unit Development zoning district is nothing more than an alternative to conventional zoning districts in imple- menting the County General Plan and allows some latitude for includ- ing some other kinds of supportive land uses that are appropriate to the development project. This provision does not allow the General Plan, especially its Land Use Element, to be disregarded. For Blackhawk Ranch and its vicinity, the adopted General Plan Land Use Element provides for four kinds of land use districts, which are indicated in terms of their location and extent on adopted plan maps. These categories are: Extensive Agriculture (an open space cate- gory); Parks and Recreation--referring to Mt. Diablo State Park's evirons (another open space category; Single Family, Low Density Expansion Area, a study area requiring additional study before a determination is to be made as to development or retention as open space; and finally, an area which is definitely in the minority with respect to area coverage called Single Family, Low Density Residential. One must conclude that a Planned Unit Development that substantially complies with the General Plan adopted for this site would include open space and low density residential uses, located in approximately the areas depicted on the adopted General Plan maps. There would be no objec- tion to a few ancillary areas of other kinds of land use being included; for example, a very small commercial development scaled entirely to fit the development and, not of itself, of a size to be dominant in any particular area (both of these qualifications are important) . On face value, the initial development application includes single family detached housing, which would be provided for in the adopted General Plan; cluster housing which may or may not, depending on density; multiple family housing, which probably would not be except in extremely small amounts; and commercial development which is too extensive in this case. 6 [DENSITY TRANSFER ZN PLANNED UNZT DEVELOPMENTS] Insofar as the housing is concerned, density transfer must be permitted. By definition, and historically, a density transfer is allowed (and for that matter is promoted) with respect to a P-1 Planned Unit District. All of the P-1 Planned Unit Districts previously approved by the County have recognized density transfer. A recent P-1 Planned Unit District zoning (Orindawoods) with density transfer grantee; by the County was successfully defended in a court suit challenging it. The effect of the Orindawoods zoning was to transfer densities so that townhouse or cluster housing could be developed instead of the standard subdivision in an area designated on the General Plan as low density residential housing. This is exactly what the Blackhawk Ranch proposal intends to do. We point out, therefore, that the kinds, densities and forms of development are not in violation of the provisions of the General Plan; indeed, the Blackhawk Manch project attempts to carry out the intent of the General Plan that developments on lands requiring a "special degree of sensitivity" should use the P-1 Planned Unit District as the zoning vehicle for development. The generally accepted definition of a Planned Unit District provides for sufficient industrial and com- mercial uses to satisfy the needs generated by the residential develop- ment. The Blackhawk plan attempts to do this. The recreational uses are designed to carry out the intent of the P-1 district that the whole district be designed to provide the housing with amenities on a planned basis. • Staff: The above deals with the concept of density transfer and then proceeds into the subject of the kinds of land uses that are contemplated under a Planned Unit District approach to development. Density transfer is associated with planned unit developments and is a frequently practiced, although it is not necessary to the PUD concept. As a matter of principle, the transfer must be reasonable; it is not intended to change the character of the use areas depicted on a General Plan and it is not intended to result in credit being given for marginal land or to result in project densities that would not be acceptable under conventional development procedures. In the example given, Orindwoods, a 190 acre parcel, was similar in topography to nearby developed lands,and the number of units ultimately permitted was approximately the number that would have been allowed under an acceptable conventional subdivision. Parenthetically, the Orindawoods parcel was one of the last remaining undeveloped areas near the heart of Orinda and adjoined a freeway; as such, it was under pressure for much more intense development. The statement that "The generally accepted definition of a Planned Unit District provides for sufficient industrial and commercial uses to satisfy the needs generated by the residential development. The Blackhawk Plan attempts to do this" is not a generally accepted defini- tion of a Planned Unit Development. The wording is more appropriate to the definition of a "new town" in the classic sense. 7 • [FACILITIES AND UTILITIES] The last three items raised by staff's general statement are facili- ties and services, access and circulation and environmental factors. With respect to facilities and services, it is assumed that the General Plan (without its saying so) requires an area planned for low- density housing to have available to it all utilities and services necessary for suburban living. Therefore, the question is whether or not such services are available to, and contemplated for, the Blackhawk Ranch project. The Blackhawk Ranch has been in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District since its inception and has been contributing financially to the District for all the years of its existence without imposing any school age children on the District. The District is obligated and will be able to provide the necessary schooling facilities. Electric power, gas, telephone and other muni- cipal facilities are presently serving the Blackhawk Ranch and expan- sion of these facilities to accommodate the proposed development is readily available. All but approximately 500 acres of the project is in the Bast Bay Municipal Utilities District which has agreed to and can supply the necessary water. Annexation of the balance of the pro- perty has been requested. The Blackhawk Manch has been in the EBNIUD since the Ranch wits first contemplated for development in 1964. One hundred forty thousand dollars ($140,000) was paid to the EBMUD in 1964 in annexation fees. The Ranch has been annexed into the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District, subject to approval by LAFCO. The • District has the capacity for and the desire to service the Blackhawk Ranch project with sewer service. Apparently staff would have people believe that the Blackhawk Ranch lies in the outlying areas of the county, remote from any municipal —" services. This simply does not correspond to the facts. Staff: The developer is due a certain amount of sympathy for not being able to find specific public facility and utility' project installation require- ments and prerequisites in some of the County General Plan documents for San Ramon valley. In the 1960's these tended to be implicit, rather than explicit, in General Plans of most jurisdictions. A cur- rently-prepared plan is likely to be another matter; it may well be founded on known facility capacities and funding programs. Just because detailed requirements are not spelled out in some parts of the County General Plan, however, does not mean that they are not integral to those plans. Language in Section 65302 of the Government Code well states the plan- ning principle that land use and facilities are parts of the develop- ment whole. In the Circulation Element description, for example, the statute calls for ". ..local public utilities and facilities all cor- related with the land use element of the plan." 8 Although it deals with circulation facilities, a June 15, 1973 opinionw,��`,;;,r of the State Attorney'General"applies the principle that land use isi;';, ^ "" ''�}' dependent on.Facility,capabillties'when'fit indicatesthat`planning�•.1' -O agencies'are not only allowed 'toy denyt projects having inadequate access but are obligated to disapprove them. The 1963 Land Else and Circulation Plan and the 1967 Alamo-Danville (Area) Plan, two components of the County General Plan that affect the site of Project 1840-RZ, both make reference to utilities and other services. On Page 17 of the Land Use and Circulation Plan of 1963, for example, it is indicated that sanitary sewerage service is the norm for resi- dential areas of what one would recognize as suburban densities. The location of a project site in a facility or utility district is not the equivalent of its being served. For example, the entire county is in a school district, but this does not mean that a particular district at a particular time has either the facilities or resources to serve additional development. Furthermore, the extension of services or the building of new facilities may result in the diminishment of service levels, high public debt, high tax or service rates, or high consumption of scarce natural resources where a service agency's financial or supply resources are limited (as by S.B. 90 restrictions) . It should be noted that many districts were voluntarily joined, and riot always to obtain services that were required at the time of the annexa- tion. Further, many agricultural areas are in water districts, but this • is not a "license" to develop. At present, the project site is in the local school district along with considerable agricultural, commercial, and industrial land that contri- butes tax support but few school-age children. Income from these sources is counted on in most districts. Conununities are seldom all residential. The local situation with respect to facilities and services is described in the Project 1840-RZ Environmental Impact Report and its Economic Supplement. The actual site now contains almost no facility or utility installations. Incidentally, the project site has not been annexed to the sanitary district. Annexation can occur only after Local Agency Formation Commission approval, and the action by the planning agency on the 1840-RZ application could have a bearing on that action. • 9 t , � -.1�{ {�.� }r?�, {'•-� Y ,(. ..t ., - It 1,.. + P.r..7 ,.,'.�j.Li iTl,•,y-x ., �t ,•i,, A j Insofar,as 'the access and. ciicculation facilities are concerned, the General Plan clearly ant icipat ed'the'development of the Ranch by""' .4 . f, ;r planning for a more than sufficient road system to service the Ranch 6` r�' ' and al l nearby property. The attached map (Exhibit A) shows that the property is to be served by several major county roads which already exist and two more that are proposed. In implementing the General Plan, the county has planned for the four-laning of the roads in question and the construction of proposed roads with the exception of the Stone Valley Road extension. Particular note should be taken that about the only property that would be serviced by Blackhawk Road is the Blackhawk Ranch property and the road is considered a major county road. Obviously, if the Blackhawk Ranch wasn't going to be developed, there would be no need for a major county road to service it. Also of interest is the proposed Crow Canyon Road extension which is proposed to serve the Blackhawk Ranch from the south. If the General Plan had not contemplated and expected the development of Blackhawk Ranch and, for that matter, the whole Tassajara Valley, there would have been no need to propose the Crow Canyon Road extension. This fact is well announced when we observe that the General Plan says: "A road connecting Tassajara Valley to the San Ramon area through the Sherburne bills is proposed, as well as the easterly • easterly connection of Crow Canyon Road to 'Tassajara Road." Source: Page 7, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 Those roads simply would not be needed unless Blackhawk Ranch and the surrounding property were developed. Incidentally, the Blackhawk Ranch project is being proposed at such low density (.95 units per gross acre) that projected traffic flows to the year 1990 clearly show that there will be no need for any traffic facilities other than those already contemplated by the General Plan. For that matter, unless s6bstantial other development occurs in the area, there will be no need to build Stone Valley Road extension, four-lane Diablo [toad (except between 111 Cerro and Green Valley) , Sycamore Road, Blackhawk Road, Green Valley Road or Dougherty Road (See Exhibit "A" attached) . Staff: Through a process of deduction the developer concludes that ". . .the General Plan clearly anticipated the development of the Ranch by planniny for a more than sufficient road system to service the Ranch and all nearby property." If the General Plan, in fact, anticipated the development of these areas there would be no need to employ deduc- tion--The Land Use Element of the County General Plan would unambigu- ously show these areas in residential, commercial, and similar kinds of land use districts for development instead of largely in open space . districts. The Planning Department is unaware of any amendments to the 10 f 71 County General';rPlan'aince 1967, or`.1963 (fo the. respective areas. of .• a^, ,•.-coverage) that changed these land use .districts or the land use pattern�,k,r on which the Circulation Element road network is based. A minor excep-;�j;: , tion is the open space-Conservation Plan'of 1973 which had the limitedr ^ , � effect on the site of substituting a topographically-based boundary for a planning area boundary between the open space use and the develop- ment use areas. The "circulation plan" for the area is the Circulation Element of tl►e General Plan which was adopted as part of the Alamo-Danville (Area) General Plan and is based on the traffic-generating characteristics of the land use distribution of the Land Use Element as well as con- siderations of traffic that is generated externally (primarily I-680's external traffic) . This basic Circulation Element network has been detailed and modified somewhat by the General Plan's Major Road Plan Administration Map adopted in 1971 (but not embodying new land use assumptions). If it can be shown that the improvement of a planning area's entire road network at maximum levels of improvement within the right-of-way could accommodate somewhat more traffic than would be generated locally, this does not lead to a conclusion that a particular project lying largely outside of the planning area was anticipated by the General Plan. well-planned road networks should have additional inherent capacities because rights-of-way needed for decades of use must be • obtained when land is converted from rural to suburban or urban development, but actual improvements are made slowly and all too frequently lag behind land development. At t1►e time a development project is being reviewed, the theoretical capacity of a road network under conditions of full improvement is an important consideration, but not nearly so important as the existing status of that network and the increment of traffic that the develop- ment project will generate. Traffic study data reflected in the Project 18.40-RZ Environmental Impact Reprt (and its Economic Supple- ment) indicates that the present road system is inadequate and that the proposed project will require substantial changes to it. Further, it shows that the financial means of obtaining these improvements is not in evidence. Federal highway subsidies are no longer as productive as in the past and gasoline tax returns are declining in effectiveness. • 11 , • [APPLICANT'S BXNBIT A] 5 11354 9848 9848 11354 8258 893J 222_0 5350 9670 4460 890 440 25?0 8144 12739 10549 4808 8178 8804 1©985 8258 '. Stone va RU 441 8340 �..o'7Z►t�,;,L�g•+. L10 ' El 675:) wt•. � l ';�f•/7 �1.''s's%i' __"TTY +�.�~�.')S !• Ii;� �'f _ =�. _ r�!'r.,t{ � � *u• a l::,c'T":•"T�•,r �•�;4•-.,•�r-A.v�ti,•=,,,,rye d. (r.,+Q �1 -3 tul ;341 . �� 7: 27 r. rr.:�F•rl.Z• -.aas.� r�7 +«� fi y;.-.,.r��n.•y. T.. ►-•s.�,.. 't nrr•'.ter.- nn.J-t►nJ�'7 ^ ,wp..�7 as 7/. tp-M.r s 1>.-�..�.q.'. ...l:�aUi3J.i.w..'....R..�.�N.�n+4��].�..NiuN'.1�*i•LAtrY4\l�►4't.� fv-n URIi.�,.�' �1�•�:.K.d'rir,J.�si..:Mr.I....r •.�3ur d/i��•..L..s�aL.i��w.� ,,��:��o•.�µ== �.��' �� Tis�d� ��'��,��,�� All Roads Shown PRESENT ROADCAPACI-P( Are Considered Major County Roads on the Genera! Plan PR EMT TRAFFC _ ''°A,^,SU,,IES CONSIs VCI ON OF If ROAD _ T ACCOWICG 10 PRESENTC,OUNTY 1�F* TRAFFIC PLUS GENERAL PLAN `BL.ACK',-tb4\jVK TRAFFIC 12 • [ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS] The environmental factors contemplated by the General Plan with which staff says the Blackhawk' Ranch proposal needs to be in agreement are summed up in the following quotation from the General Plan: "Preserving liberal amounts of open spaces at selected locations, including parks, golf courses, woodland, range land and wherever possible the best agricultural land is a major goal of this plan." Source: Land Use & Circulation Plan, 1963, Page 25 "To encourage the preservation of the natural environ- mental beauty of the valley and its encompassing hills." Source: Page 3, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 The employment of the P-1 Planned Unit District zoning, the commit- ment to contain the development within the valleys, the reservation of 73 per cent of the Ranch in permanent open space and the construc- tion of golf courses makes the Blackhawk Ranch proposal directly res- ponsive to, and in agreement with, the environmental qualities cnunci- ated in the General Plan. If the Blackhawk Ranch proposal is approved, 1,000 acres will be added to the Mt. Diablo State Park, two 18-hole golf courses will be built and an additional 2,129 acres of Woodland and range land will be preserved in its natural state forever. In addition, the beauty of the encompassing hills of the San Ramon Valley will be preserved forever. Staff: Environmental factors that are of concern to the County General Plan are limited to neither qualities of openness or aesthetics nor to the texts of the 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan and the 1967 Alamo- Danville (Area) General Plan. Rather, they extend to subjects of con- cern to both the natural world and human society, and embrace legis- lation, administrative "law", and plans other than those mentioned above. Social and economic impacts are just as much the proper realm of "the environment" as physical impacts. And, the California Environ- mental Quality Act and the County's Open Space-Conservation Plan are probably even more relevant to the determination of "conformance" than the two "pre-ecology" plan quotations cited above. This part of the staff response will not dwell on the environmental aspects of the project since these are handled in the Environmental Impact Report, and its supplements, for Project 1840-RZ. (Although, these do point to environmental problems and, more significantly, to unresolved environmental questions.) However, it is necessary to point • up an aspect of General Plan policy that has a bearing on compliance, which is the control of sprawl. 13 no , a aw23 dejrtlFor.perspoctiv4 9wo anent• tha�pr"iurely ubs tut ey�lo nt fo opwwpa vin ".gaps": .in,�develo t tha ,e,_ c aied�►iosw�ce: d icienciea or su2te in'�excessivewpublic expenditures in ridging"�the ieftove scant and* The'cconcept`of open space containing and molding"development°was''i viable... one even a decade ago. In this respect, the full open space commentary in the 1963 plan is: As urban development pushes into the open countryside woodland and farming areas rapidly disappear. Urban expansion will continue, but covering the entire landscape with sprawl of houses and other structures should be prevented. Some of our open spaces must be preserved at places where it will do the most good. Suburban expansion should follow a logical pat- tern. Urban scatteration and sprawl must be contained and discouraged. Preserving liberal amounts of open spaces at selected locations, including parks, golf courses, woodland, rangeland, and wherever possible the best agricultural land is a major goal of the plan. The developer's analysis addresses the part of this quotation that deals with the kinds of interior open space that are considered in the pro- ject's design, but it does not address the part of the quotation that deals with the limitation of sprawl. what the project proposes to do is to extend over two miles into planned open space without policy review of the County General Plan with respect to need or the ramifi- cations on facilities and services over the area it would expose to additional development. (In doing so, it would also overlook aspects of the General Plan Recreation Element that is an adopted plan for providing certain kinds of local open space.) � - In the early 1970's, the State Legislature mandated General Plan open Space Elements, and in doing so found: That discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open space land to urban uses is a matter of public interest and will be of interest to urban dwellers (includes suburban dwellers) because it will discourage non-contiguous develop- ment patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of com- munity services to community residents. 965566 Government Code Further: Any action by a county or city by which open space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or regulated, whether or not pursuant to this part, must be consistent with the local open space plan. 86556.6 Government Code 14 • Project 1840-RZ proposes to convert several square miles of open space (both vacant land and planned open space) to urban (suburban) use with- out proof of need, and without consistency with the Open Space Element of the County General Plan (other parts of this report discuss the plan map of the Open Space-Conservation Plan as it relates to this property and text policies that are applicable). • 15 (POPULATION DBNSITr) , , Now to discuss the-major questions raised' by`,the staff's memorandus... :j'.''''' 1) Density - Is the density proposed by Blackhawk in keeping with the density provisions of the General Plan? Does the General Plan contem- plate the number of units proposed? The Blackhawk Ranch is split by the eastern boundary of the Alamo-Danville General Plan. Approximately 2,000 acres of the Ranch lies within the Alamo- Danville planning area, and approximately 2,800 acres lies within the 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan. The latest amendment to the General Plan was the adoption of the Open Space element in August 1973, which expanded the urban growth area to include all of the Blackhawk Ranch land holding. The plan provided: "It is expressly understood that the lines defining open space are inprecise. Where a given land holding is bisected by the line in- dicating open space, the entire parcel may be considered for devel- opment to the same extent that it would have been had the land hold- ing lain entirely outside the line defining open space." Source: 1973 Open Space Plan Page 24 Staff: A chain of reasoning that is based on the proposition that the quoted pro- vision of the Open Space-Conservation Plan (ado ted 1973 as a joint element of the County General Plan) amended the General Plan Land Use Element to a residential land use district ignores the purpose of the Open Space-Conser- vation Plan, the purpose of the provision itself, the relationship between the Open Space-Conservation Plan and the Land Use Element, the history of the plan's adoption, and the process and prodecures by which a General Plan is amended. The quotation is what one would term a "carifying statement" or "interpretive rule" for adjusting boundary line situations, but in a manner keeping with the spirit of the Open Space-Conservation Plan and the overall General Plan, not to serve as means of circumventing the adopted plan. Of primary importance in determining compliance with the Open Space-Conser- vation Plan are the adopted Development Policies of that plan which are: 1. In order to reduce adverse impacts on agricultural and environmen- tal values, and to reduce urban costs to taxpayers scattered devel- opment in outlying areas should be minimized. 2. To the greatest feasible extent, urban development in the shorter- range future should take place within areas designated for urban growth. p. 36, Draft for Adoption Open Space-Conservation Plan 16 Project 1810-R2 proposes thousands'of housing units in a'miles-long"bulge"• , into areas designated on the adopted map of the Open Space-Conservation Plan r ,.., • as Open Space Area. The provision quoted by the developer was included in the Open space-Con- servation Plan text because the boundary shown on the plan map between the Urban Growth Area and the Open Space Area was imprecise in most cases--it was, for example, often based on the break between valley (or rolling foot- hill) topography and the higher slopes and elevations of ridges and mountain- side. With the addition of this interpretive rule to the plan text, it was clear that the imprecisely-drawn open space line would not prohibit the owner of a bisected property from including the "open space" portion in a ! development project application, but for the purpose of "precising" the line in the course of reviewing the project's application. * This understanding of what the "interpretive rule" was for and how it was to be used in prac- tive is reflected in this quotation from the Planning Department's memor- andum of June 29, 1973, to the Board of Supervisors concerning the adoption of the Open Space-Conservation Plan: In other words, the designation of open space on part of a property would not preclude the filing of an application of the entire proper- ty--but the project's topographic and other site-location characteris- tics would be part of the considerations in reviewing the application regardless of general plan designation. The emphasis is clearly on the aspect of being able to file an application for a property, something that has never been denied to Project 1840-RZ. • It should also be noted that the quotation does not abrogate the County General Plan but indicates that topographic and site-location characteris- tics (which include a range of natural conditions and a host of utility, ac- cess, and facility service relationships) are to be considered in the review of the project regardless of general plan designation. This is reasonable in view of State Planning Law and California Environmental Quality Act re- quirements. Applying this rule to a development project application for a typical prop- erty bisected by the open space line--a land holdings of up to a few hundred acres--appears to have posed no problems involving general plan issues. The problem in the case of Project 1840-RZ is largely one which results from the property's magnitude. It is almost 5,000 acres in size and sev- eral miles across. Shifting the open space line two miles eastward through an interpretive rule, as the applicant believes should be done, is analo- gous to the making of major development policy decisions through the use of a zoning variance. This isn't what the instrument (the interpretive policy in this case, the variance in the example) is intended to do, and it isn't how policy decisions are made through the County General Plan as a matter of standing practice (as will be brought out shortly) . In defining the relationship between the Open Space-Conservation Plan and the Land Use Element, it is first necessary to note that the areas included in the plan map of the former are deliberately based on previously adopted "open space" areas shown in the Land Use Element. In response to a Board of Supervisors' request for a recommendation on how to proceed with the 17 . f adoption of Open Space and Conservation elements required to be in the Coun- ty Geniral Plan, the Planning Department,included in its June 20, 1973 memor- andum: emor Recommendation 3, Adopt a Plan Nap That Essentially Reaffirms the Open Space Areas of the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. The acceptance of the memorandum was the basis for the plan map that was ultim- ately adopted in August, 1973. This is not to say that the adopted Open Space Plan map was identical with the adopted Land Use Element map with respect to open space, but that the earlier Land Use Element map was the basis for any departures. The departure on the line through the 1840-RZ property was mainly to show a topographically based line instead of a line that reflected an area plan boundary. A second facet of the relationship between the Open Space-Conservation Plan and the Land Use Element is that the former was designed as an intermediate- range plan while the latter was designed for a more conventional long-range time span. Without going into all of the ramifications of the difference, this does mean in practical terms that the adoption of the Open Space-Con- servation Plan (or interpretive rule contained within it) could not do away with, say, the designation of the eastermost 40% of the Project 1840- RZ site as Extensive Agriculture (open space) during the period of that project's announced build-out period. More to the point, the Open Space-Conservation Plan's "Urban Growth Area" isn't a land use category at all but a non-open space designation embracing a whole range of "development" and minor open space land uses found in the Land Use Element. The "Open Space Area" is a land use designation (even if it does rely to an extent on open space categories in the Land Use Element for elaboration) . In practical terms, placing property in the Urban Growth Area of the Open Space-Conservation Plan would not simultaneously provide a new use designation for that area. That would require additional amend- atory action. To elaborate on the latter point, as a matter of standing practice, the Land Use Element of the County General Plan is not amended casually. Even before but certainly after AB 1301 requiring development ordinances to comply with the general plan was tiassed in 1971, changes to the plan that involve policy considerations wereaccomplished through well-documented amendments processed in accordance with state statute. Making a major change in the development prospect of San Ramon Valley through the exercise of an inter- pretive rule would hardly be in keeping with the County's practices. The history of the adoption of the Open Space-Conservation Plan also has a substantial bearing on the General Plan status of project 1840-RZ. The quotation that the developer refers to (the "interpretive rule") was in- troduced at the June 5, 1973 meeting of the Planning Commission, was adopted by that body on June 5, 1973 and referred to the Board of Supervisors who adopted it as part of the plan on June 29, 1973. However, in adopting the plan map on June 5, 1973 the Planning Commission acted to completely elim- inate all protesting properties from the Major Open Space Area, including the site of project 1840-RZ (as it existed at the time) , and this was the i 28 ti F E i (M r• .i ' P's rte , . .i , �` •r,,Y. map that was adopted with recommendations by the Board on June 29th. Thus, ,- +.';.• • the initial adoption of the plan map explicitly left out the subject site. ' But, as part of its adoption, the Board recommended restoration of the elim- inated properties (including the site of project 1840-RZ) and referred these back to the Commission who concurred (July 24, 1973) and so advised the Board who adopted them as part of the plan (August 14, 1973) . From this history it may be concluded that if the Commission and Board had wanted the site of project 1840-RZ out of the Open Space Area of the 1973 plan, they could have left it out; instead both bodies finally acted to designate most of the. site in the open space category. In conclusion, the adoption of the Open Space-Conservation Plan placed most of the site of Project 1840-RZ in the Open Space Area designation. Therefore, the present status of the Blackhawk Ranch with respect to the land use element of the County General Plan is that approximately 2,000 acres of the land is governed by the Alamo-Danville General Plan, and the balance of approximately 2,800 acres is in low density residential urban growth area of the 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan. Staff: In terms of the Land Use Element, it would be correct to say that the eastern- most 2,800 acres of the project site is governed by the Land Use and Circu- lation Plan which shows Extensive Agriculture (an open space category) for that area. There is no record that the Land Use Element was amended sub- sequent to 1963 for this area. In terms of the Open Space-Conservation Cloment, it would be correct to say that virtually all of it is shown on the plan map as Open Space Area by virtue of the amendment adopted in August, - 1973 (a small portion of this area is shown as Urban Growth Area because its boundary follows topography rather than the 1967 area plan boundary) . . . .In computing densities to determine if the density proposed by Blackhawk is in substantial agreement with the General Plan, we treat each area of the Ranch separately. Alamo-Danville Area Exhibit "B" attached shows the land uses contemplated by the Alamo-Danville General Plan. We have superimposed the Blackhawk Ranch boundaries on Exhibit "B" for clarity. The plan shows two basic categories; low density residen- tial (and expansion thereof) and parks and recreational. The acreages of each arc estimated to be 1,200 acres of low density residential and 800 acres of parks and recreation. The standards for determining densities in the Alamo-Danville General Plan are as follows: "I. Residential densities on the valley floors should range from 1 to 3 families per net acre (maximum) , except for those areas in and immediately adjacent to the communities of Alamo and Danville where selective multiple residential is indicated." "2. The steep hill areas (of over 20% slope) where development is feasible, should range in density from 0 to 2 families (maximum) , per net acre." 19 • 597 net acres are of the valley floor category (less than 20 per cent slope) and 1,003 net acres are over 20 per cent in slope where development is feas- ible. Staff: The above analysis subjects the same 2,000 acres (roughly) of the Project 1840-RZ site to two dissimilar breakdowns: first, by Land Use Element dist- rict; and, second, by slope category. A flaw of the analysis is that only the portion is one of the land use districts identified in the first anal- ysis can be applied in the second in order to estimate raw density. In the first breakdown, the 2,000 acres is divided into 1,200 acres of Sin- gle-Family, Low Density Residential Land Use ("and expansion thereof") and 800 acres of Park and Recreation Land Use Districts. This breakdown, however, fails to account properly for a third land use district. Single-Family, Low Density, Residential, Expansion. Similar to the "Controlled Development" district shown for part of the same area on the ABAG Regional Plan, this "expansion" district in the Alamo-Danville Area General Plan is a "study area" that requires study and amendment before it is committed to either residential or open sapce usage (or divided between the two) . At this timo, it is not a residential district, and approximately 500 acres must be sub- tracted from the residential estimate. Thus, the Land Use Element of the Alamo-Danville Area Plan shows about 1,000 acres of residential use, about 500 acres of study area, and about 500 acres of parks and recreation open space (actually, closer to 400 since there are about 1,900 acres in this • plan area but 2,000 acres is close and a better "round" figure) . In making the second breakdown, the slope factors are only applicable to the 1,000 acres in the Single-Family, Low Density Residential District because open space and study areas are not allowed to be developed to any extent. „s Presumably, 500 acres or less would be "valley floor" and 500 acres or more would be found to be "steep hill lands" under these calculations. Before continuing, the developer's estimation method must be explained. In making his second breakdown, the developer reverts to the full 2,000 acres of site-area (regardless of land use designation) , divides the 2,000 acres into "valley floor" and "steep hill area" portions, and deducts 20% from each (for roads) to arrive at net acreage in both. According to those estimates: 11597 acres are of the valley floor category. . .and 1,003 acres are over in slope"; this plus 20% of gross acreage for roads (400 acres) equals total gross acreage. As stated above, staff estimates no more than roughly 500 acres of valley floor and roughly 500 acres or more of steep hill area land applicable to net acreage estimates on the basis of the developer's slope figures pro- vided above. At this point a complication must be introduced, which is that an area of almost two square miles is not going to be developed in "all residences and roads". other land uses (e.g. Public and Semi-Public for schools) and land faults will reduce the effective acreage from which net acreage is estimated. These subtractions cannot be estimated at this time, but they ought to be included for realistic net density measurements. Anyway, applying the 20% reduction for roads leaves something like 800 raw tnet acres for development divided between valley floor and steep hill area categories. 20 • The Alamo-Danville General Plan would therefore allow for a maximum density for the portion of the Ranch covered by it of 3,797 units, arrived at as follows: Valley Floor (less than 20% slopes) - 597 net acres X 3 1,791 units Steep Hill areas (over 20% slope) 1,003 net acres where development is feasible X 2 2,006 units 3,797 units The total number of units planned by Blackhawk for the land lying within the Alamo-Danville General Plan areas is 2,256. It is easy to see that the number of units planned by Blackhawk falls well below that which would be allowable under the Alamo-Danville General Plan. Staff: With respect to the housing unit yield calculated for the valley floor, even if this entire area fell within the Single-Family, Low Density land use dist- rict (and not the expansion area) and even if some of this Iand would not be required for non-residential purposes (a poor assumption for an area of almost a square mile in extent) , it cannot be assumed that acceptable con- ventional subdivisions could be designed for an area having such a great slope range and in a vicinity where the public has come to expect large lot development at the density indicated. Three lots per net acre would mean lot sizes smaller than one-half acre, and zoning of higher densities than R-15. At roughly 400 net acres developed in half-acre lots, the mathemati- cal yield would be 800 units. With respect to the housing unit yield calculated for the steep hill areas, it already has been pointed out that for less than the 1,003 acres can be used in the estimate (because much of the area is in Parks and Recreation and "expansion" study area instead of the Single-Family, Low Density, district); and it is further noted here that the density factor of two units per net acre applied to a large area having slopes of upward of 20% is unrealistic. This high slope area simply doesn't lend itself to blanket development in half acre lots. The density range for the General Plan land use district is 0-2 units per net acre, and the "0" might apply to parts of the area and the "2" to other parts. The number of housing units that would be allowable under the present Gen- eral Plan for this part of the project site is a figure that is dependent on detailed site analysis because of the topography; however, it would be considerably less than the 3,797 cited above. 21 .00 0 00 Comm as ,� •• ��i ••...••..•••.••..•. 'rrr•..••. rr . • . . ......•••u.r r•.....•• ,� • • '� �' • V ...........•........•...•..•r i 1 i . ; ••„ y�`+ !• y .. « fir;' •!^.31 ! •.t \ ii:Y• •:3 :�+tw.w�•.,.�:+%!•, 4i • : ..js Q u z T, \ i 'l:: .j: : . '77CLi .i :1 / 1' lit I r e } t. .lt; ��: •,.i4�.�� +'•.�,� `�5;, V�/' +�;.!":ii. ...•...... •13.� 4J •(,��j.� u<.tJO J4S� •r'.�;,��!+• (trrt t ,,.t. +`.�'�.K,�:.v'• •4`;J.t'?t JrKy..IJ,r(��, vUtj i... C:\' i�':� �t'>;►ta vowL'iwtRC��RCS �-�...�R'\�`ti�GC ".tC :C�.^.CTc [DEVELOPER'S EXHIBIT B] �•'�%i i!T t*r .i 3 • I 22 1963 Land Us*'and.Circulation�Pian e. 196 Laid Use and CirculaLi n Ian vide o sit �t►, e ignatedvw!�density�`rssiden�ialof0to nita per eft reiderttiacres � '.�. • ,,, Tha,approximate!2,800 acres cf•the Ranch yang within this .category,.when reduced by 20 per cent for roads, sidewalks, etc. to arrive at net acres' (according to the county's custom and practice) , would allow the develop- ment of up to 6,720 units. In recapitulation: } Alamo-Danville General Plan 3,797 units 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan 6,720 units Maximum units available for Blackhawk 10,517 units Ranch under General Plan Staff: it is implied here that the easternmost 2,800 acres of the project site is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (provided in this case by the Land Use and Circulation PIan of 1963) as Single-Family, Low Density Residential. in fact, the Land Use Element designates this portion of the site as Extensive Agriculture, an open space category. There is no record of the Land Use Element having been amended, pursuant to State Statute, by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors to substitute another land use district, with the limited exception of the provisions of the Open Space- Conservation Element (which reinforces the Land Use Element) . Special slope maps developed by the United States Geological Survey show a considerable portion of this site in slope categories that average from 30% to 70. and greater. The calculation that from the 2,800 acres may be subtracted only 20% for roads to arrive at a buildable area is not tenable �;.. in a location characterized by such high slopes as this. 9 Under the zoning provisions that were in effect for this area until Novem- ber, 1973, some very low density residential development with lot sizes as low as one acre could be entertained in this open space area. A devel- opment application (under A-2 or P-1 zoning) based on this concept could have been submitted, but wasn't. In November, 1973, the minimum lot size in the A-2 zoning district was changed to 5 acres. Blanketing the entire area with 5-acre lots would only yield 560 housing units, and even this amount would be unacceptable because of topography (to cite only one of several constraints) . Both the 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan and the Alamo-Danville General Plan contemplate the actual development of the lands covered thereby to be done on the basis of a medium in the range of units allowed rather than at the maximum, With that in mind, the number of units contemplated by the General Plan for Blackhawk Ranch is in the area of one-half of 10,517 units or 5,258 units. The Blackhawk Ranch proposal provides for 4,546 units, well below the number of units contemplated. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" 23 t. -rt .. t iyt., 4.^ \i' , SJ. '.:r ',�...M1. .r.9 b�:.F" 1' ,4• ,r; S d ►r ,.{' . WIN is a chart that compares the Blackhawk Ranch project to other projects' in'- `.-,' ' ,•. ;.-the area recently approved. The density couparisons..show that both on a ��t. .. . gross acre basis and on 'a flat land `comparison basis'BlackhaMk4dens as M are,well below`the densitf es fo othe Bevel nt Staff.-' `•' '.r" 4,t y 1 ' ♦ilk. -a 1:.•, ..r,, �y"',. qtr,, }' , The number of housing units "contemplated" by the adopted County General Plan for this site is substantially less than either the 5,258 or 4,546 units cited above, as shown by the preceeding staff comments. The General Plan can provide broad policy guidelines with respect to devel- opment densities, but approved project densities are the results of inter- actions between zoning, unique site conditions, services, and developer preferences. In short, it is difficult to accurately compare highly indiv- idualized projects. 24 [DavatoPaR'S BJHreiT C] ' BLACKHAWK COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLANNED x . RESIDENTIALUNITDISTRICTS:IN LOW.;DENSITY:. a. �. AREAS t : v w" Project • Gross " Units_ ?.~ DU DU" Plan General Plan.. Acres Gross : Net Area Change t Acre Acre drindawoods 187 345 1.8 2.3 Orinda Ho ? Tibros. Scott 104 193 1.8 2.4 Alamo- Danville No Whitegate 152 19.2 1.4 1,6 Alamo- Danville No Devil Mountain 623 685 1.1 1.3 Alamo- Danville No Blackhawk •-4.0.500 - 4546 .95 -- 1?"' Alamo- L. 1-)l0 _ �� Danville & 1963 Plan *DU net is based on formula of' gross acreage less 202 for roads , etc. PROJECTS RECENTLY APPROVED ON LAND 25% SLOPE AND UNDER COMPARISON TO BLACXHAWK Project No. Gross No. Units Units Per Gross Acres Acre Bishop Ranch 1100 2500 2 .50 Sycamore 245 680 2 . 78 :Kaufman 6 Broad 166 486 2 . 93 Gentry 30 119 3. 97 Gentr, 101 250 2 . 48 `-' Gentry 33 112 3. 39 Totals 1675 4147 2 . 48 average Blackhawk 2099 2 . 17 25• 7 [POPULATION] 2) Population - Does the General Plan contemplate the develop- ment ol 8lackhawk Ranch for an expected population of approxi- mately 14,662 people? We certainly have never before heard (nor has county) of a "Petaluma Type" population restriction being applied in Contra Costa County but apparently staff wants to argue that so we will respond to that point. Staff: General plans typically are scaled to serve "design" populations and time spans through "target years" or "planning periods". This is what the Alamo-Danville (Area) General Plan is referring to when it includes among its provisions "50,000 optimum population" and a "20-25 year planning period". However, if the design population is being committed substantially in advance of the target year, a review of the General Plan is in order. A simple argument would be to point out that the General Plan contem- plates 3.44 people per living unit (page 32, 1963 Land Use and Circu- lation Plan), and therefore contemplated 18,087 people by the computa- tion of: 5,258 units X 3.44 persons per household 18,087 people Staff: The Land Use and Circulation Plan doesn't contemplate (propose) that family size will be 3.44 persons, but notes that the then current family size was that size (1960 Census) and goes on to use it as a factor in making projections--which are not forecasts! Parenthetically, the comparable f.iyure from the 1970 Census is about 3.19. The figure of 5,258 housing units is the developer's own estimate, not a County General Plan figure. In short, the above "contemplated" population figure of 18,087 people results from the multiplication of an outdated population factor to an erroneous housing unit base. Although true, and sufficient to show compliance with the General Plan, we feel it incumbant upon us to show that the San Ramon Valley Plans themselves (dates 1967 and 1971) contemplated the growth which is going to take place and of which Blackhawk will be a part. The two specific general plans for the San Ramon Valley provide as follows: "To provide adequate space for housing, private and public services business, educational facilities, and recreation for an expected population of 50,000 persons, who will reside in the area within the 20 to 25 year planning period." Source: Page 3, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 26 • Staff: Only about 40% of the Project 1840-RZ site lies within the planning area of the Alamo-Danville (Area) General Plan; the remaining 60% lies eastward in the open space area of the Land Use and Circulation Plan of 1963 (both are parts of the County General Plan) . The 50,000 "design" population of Alamo-Danville was based only on lands within the boundaries of this Planning Area 8. Adding the full population of Project 1840-RZ to the existing population of Planning Area 8 and adding the potential populations of other existing and proposed popu- lations results in a population of about 50,000 already. "Provide the people of-the planning area with general land use and circulation recommendations to, guidelphysical develop- ment in an orderly manner toward a population of approximately 65,000 persons." Source: Page 3, San Ramon General-Plan., 1971 Staff: The entire subject area of this plan (technically, Planning Area 9) lies southward of the site of Project 1840-RZ. The 65,000 "design" population of lower San Ramon Valley was based only on development • contemplated within Planning Area 9. There are presently, according to the county staff, 34,450 people in the San Ramon Valey. . . . Staff: Yes, this is a 1973 figure developed by the Planning Department for the State's Certified Population Estimation Program on which headcount subventions are based. The figure is up from approximately 25,500 enumerated by the 1970 Census. . . .The county staff projects a growth rate of 2,273 people per year. . . . Staff: This is not a forecast but a simple mathematical extrapolation of the 1970-74 yearly growth increment. . .The General Plan contemplates the plan period as being up to 1990. Therefore, in the 16 years from now to 1990 the San Ramon Valley will grow an additional 36,368 people. When added to the present 34,450, we find a total of 70,818 people in the San Ramon Valley in the year 1990.... 27 staff: 1990 is a rough figure. The actual number.of people to be accommodated in San Ramon Valley by 1990 depends on the number of housing units to be added to the housing stock, and this is not determinable through a simple mathematical extension of past trends, especially not when much more concise building information is available. A thorough analysis of approved and pending (submitted) development projects is being made in connection with the new San Ramon General Plan updating program. It will sort out the many variables in estimating growth through the use of building and development information, such as the differences between the numbers of housing units requested in a development project, the number approved, and the number of units constructed. Until that analysis is ready, its raw data can be used to estimate the ramifications of recent development activity. According to this raw data, enough projects have been approved or submitted (including Pro- ject 1840-RZ) since 1970 to raise the population of San Ramon Valley to roughly 70,000. Some of these projects, of course, may not be "built- out" until the 19801s. However, there remain large areas of vacant land contemplated for residential development by the County General Plan, and it would be untenable to assume that virtually no proposals will be sub- mitted for these areas (or for areas that Project 1840-RZ might make more accessible) in the next 16 years. Throughout this memorandum staff has concluded that Project 1840-RZ will add population not contempated by the adopted General Plan and will advance the absorbtion of vacant land for development in San Ramon Valley. Its relationship to the whole Valley, however, isn't as germane :+ to the matter as is its effect on the Alamo-Danville area. . . .I.£ you assume that none of the 70,818 people will be living on the Blackhawk Ranch (an assumption with which we do not agree) then we would have to add to the 70,818 people the projected 14,662 people who live on Blackhawk by 1990. . . . Staff: The adopted General Plan does assume that some of the 50,000 "optimum" population contemplated by the Alamo-Danville (Area) General Plan will be residing on that portion of the Project 1840-RZ site clearly identi- fied as Single Family, Low Density Residential in Planning Area 8--or roughly 1000 acres. . . .We then have a total of 85,480 people living in the San Ramon Valley and Blackhawk by 1990. Staff: As already noted, the potential populations of approved and submitted development projects are already edging toward a figure of this mag- nitude. 28 '1 ddd Sli �l'1'f� 11. y\ .•i•,r 'r l'y�J• r ...The General Plan expected there to be•115,249 people by 1990.* The population as now projected would be 29,769 people short of what was projected in the General Plan. Obviously, the people proposed for:. ; ' Blackhawk have been contemplated.by the General Plan. ' Staffs This statement ignores the potential populations of the undeveloped areas planned for residential use on the adopted General Plan for which applications have not been received. It also erroneously Includes Planning Area 9 (lower San Ramon Valley) In its reasoning. 9 29 A. t• �•�,. i ��' } � j 11. t , art. �; t ��•t . ..,f { ! '•J .'.} ! ... '1'� /1 �1_\� .'S� ,fir:. ter' r. .t.i�r� .•i:, ; 1' +'�jlt� �+{�,�!Q� + � r��~, ilR{i lr t' 1. F TV.IMY. 't\ .1 [OPEN SPACE LINE 3) 0 en Space Line - Does the Blackhawk Ranch project extend 50 per cent further into open space than adopted plans? Staff takes the position that it does. This is an attempt by staff to ignore the fact that in 1973 the open space line was established at the outside edge of any land holding which was split by the open space line, and that "all of the entire parcel may be considered for development to ' the same extent that it would have been had the land holding lain en- tirely outside the line defining open space." This quite simply means that all of the Blackhawk Ranch land holding lies within the urban growth area and may be considered for development. The two sections of the General Plan applicable to the Blackhawk Ranch are discussed above under "Density." Staff: As noted previously, the plan map that is part of the Open Space-Conser- vation Plan left out of the Open Space Area designation the Project 1890-RZ property as that map was originally adopted by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in June, 1973. Subsequent actions by the Commission and Board in July and August, 1973, revised the plan map to take about 60% of the site out of the "Urban Growth Area" and into the "Open Space Area". The plan provision quoted above has to do with bringing in an entire property holding on a development applica- tion in order to "precise" the open space line. The degree of latitude under which a plan line can be shifted through a rule of interpretation Is subject to the rule of reason. In this case, shifting a line over two miles because of the sheer magnitude of the project site is not "Inter- pretation" but a major change. .0 30 .1Y h,. '•'✓ +I;C �I'.1 • "�S i :.Y,:Y i•j : : , '� +,"i :i'•.,• ••};•t -J,•' y l L IM 4) New Town - Is the Blackhawk Ranch project a "new town" and therefore-not contemplated by. the General Plan? Staff takes the position that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal is a "new town" application and a "new town" was not contemplated by the General Plan. The definition of a "new town" as used in planning parlance contemplates the development of a piece of property which supplies all of its basic utilities, its own job base, industrial, commercial, complete range of housing, schooling, etc. It is patently clear that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal is not a new town but is merely an extension of low density housing already existing in the San Ramon Valley and contemplated for the area.... Staff: The developer, the ABAG staff (letter of April 22, 1974) and the County Planning Department can agree that Project 1840-Rz is not a "new town" in the sense of a more or less self-sufficient city and as the term might be used in a "new towns policy" on a national or regional basis as an alternative to conventional suburban development. "New Town" in planning parlance is not limited to examples having classic characteristics, but the term need not be applied here if it does not add to the understanding of the impact of the project. The points that the term was intended to make were that the project was of a scale of popu- lation similar to the cities of Martinez and Pinole, and that it would extend a wedge of residential development, two miles or more into undeveloped open space. .. .There is, in addition, a small amount of commercial (37 acres out of 4,800) to provide convenience shopping for the residents who choose to live there. The P-1 Planned Unit District zoning ordinance contempated this and even encourages it. Staff: The entire Alamo-Danville (Area) General Plan called for only 155 acres of all kinds of commercial use at its adoption in 1967. These areas were meticulously plotted on the plan map. No commercial use is shown on the adopted General Plan in the areas where the project shows them. The project proposes about 15 acres of office development; the Alamo- Danville plan showed only 30 acres when it was adopted. . . .What staff is really talking about is that they don't want to allow density transfer which allows under a P-1 the construction of mutliple housing and cluster housing instead of the customary single family detached housing row after row, street after street. 31 ti iii 't.. 'i, 1, ' �• `rt. k)1,,,•:1� t.ij 't, 'F` ;t{'.r^ ,lit ,.�;. '... .,i .•, 'Stiff:,. , ti � ,.. Cluster, dew2opesenta it ub ect to' Charicteristi ., noto= > " nils i!ld:.C2iches• .''..Does�'the. general plan reall ;propos .that•theBlackhawk'Ranch with i 2099 acres of"land ofve e 1 dividing i n o.'so c t • - ta S } evea�thii'would sequi t unty G ri an � � itatnded. :1.. `.fit:4.• �1 • ". ' , . , '• ' `I.�` ;}'i`+^L �f`S„.`, i ...We believe to the contrary since the 1973 open space amendment to the General Plan said: "There are areas within the Urban Growth Areas for which the conventional subdivision of land is inappropriate. . .the planned unit district approach should be encouraged for these areas." staff: Only about 40% of the project site is in the Urban Growth Area. ...that's exactly what we are trying to do with the Rlackhawk Ranch pro- posal and at the same time dropping the overall density of units below that which is allowed and contemplated. „-_ :'..,.,. Staff: The proposed density of the project is neither allowed nor contemplated by the adopted County General Plan. 32 A number of additional arguments are promulgated,by staff in its memo which are more or less listed as: 1) Blackhawk proposal not in conformity with the ABAG Regional Plan. Staff: without going into the details of the functional relationships between the ABAG Regional Plan and the County General Plan, it is noted that i the ABAG Regional Plan is utilized by state-created programs such as the regional transportation plan of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (which affects transportation facilities and funds provided to the County), and is a basis on which application for most federally- funded projects are reviewed. In short, it does not matter whether or not the County General Plan mentions the ABAG Regional Plan; the sanctions are state and federal. 2) The EPA guidelines, Air Pollution Control District controls and transit connections need to be considered for the entire area. Staff: The impending District controls relate to the implementation of the air pollution objectives initially stated in the General Plan Conser- vation Element (see Pages 59-57, Draft for Adoption, 1973) . 3) Blackhawk will have an adverse affect on adjacent agriculture. Staff: The protection of agriculture has been an objective of the County General Plan for many years. 4) San Ramon Valley's growth not explored in light of SB-90. Staff: The relationship between facilities and land use has always been a primary concern of the County General Plan. S.B. 90 has a profound potential for limiting the funding of improvements in growing areas. It is one of several comparatively recent actions that have revised downward the prospects for funding public improvements compared with the situation that has prevailed over much of the last quarter century. 5) There exists a conflict between the San Ramon General Plan and the Alamo-Danville General Plan on adjacent land uses. 33 s • Staff: There is a boundary situation between the two adjoining area plans that results from the different ages of the two plans. This dif- ference merely adds to the reasons for reviewing the County General Plan as it affects San Ramon Valley. We have been unable to find any provision in the General Plan, as amended, that makes any reference to the need to satisfy all of the five points above in order for a project to conform to the General Plan. Until matters such as these become part of the General Flan, if every they do, then they are not properly a matter for considera- tion when the question of compliance or non-compliance with the General Plan is being contemplated. However, in keeping with our commitment to refute fully the staff contention that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal requires a general plan change, we have prepared and attached hereto an addendum which answers point by point the addi- tional arguments promulgated by staff; for those who desire to read more on the subject. 34 . [OBJECTIVES] In closing, we would refer you to several statements in the General Plan which indicate the objectives of the Plan. "The objectives of the plan: • To encourage continued growth and development of the county according to plan." Staff: Emphasis on "according to plan". The adopted General Plan has ample area for growth. "The growth in Contra Costa County will be at sufficient rate and in- tensity to utilize the majority of readily developable lands in the central and western parts of the County during the planning period to 1985." Staff: This is clearly labeled as an assumption not an objective. The rate of growth anticipated in the 1963 Land Use and Circulation Plan, not incident- ally, has not been achieved as birth rates and migration have declined. "The central area population will increase more than 3 times its present size (by 1985) ." NOTE: The Central area includes Alamo, Danville and San Ramon. Staff: °* This is not an objective but a comment on a projection tantamount to an assumption. Also, it is quite likely an assumption that has been repudi- ated by the demographic history of the last decade. "Barring unforeseen disaster or major economic change, the area will continue to grow and expand economically and physically at a steady rate not dissimilar to its past growth." Source: Pages 6, 7 and 34, Land Use and Circulation Plan of Contra Costa County, California, 1963 Page 4, Alamo-Danville General Plan, 1967 Staff: The quotation clearly identified as an assumption, applies to Planning Area 8 and was a basis for expecting 50,000 population in the planning area by, say, 1990. It should be readily apparent that the County General Plan encourages growth . and anticipates that it will continue at a steady pace. 35 Staff: Zt would be technically correct to say that County General Plan components typically have assumed the continuation of population growth rates charac- teristic of the post-1900 period. It should also be apparent that the Blackhawk Ranch proposal conforms to the General Plan. Staff: The linkage to the foregoing is not evident. We recognize that the stated objectives of the General Plan as quoted above runs contrary to the desires of a vocal' minority in the county who feel that now that they are here no more people should come. The General Plan for Contra Costa County is not in agreement with the desires of that minority. Staff: A general plan objective is technically an achievable and (preferably) a quantifiable extension of a goal, and results from a process in the course of which standards or criteria are applied to inventories in order to deter- mine gross or net needs. The issues of General Plan conformance raised by staff are hardly reflections of the desires of a vocal minority but basic issues that relate to the sub- stance of the General Plan and its administration pursuant to California Planning Law. �1 P, 36 ac, .s W O r N Q r Sol �W EXHIBIT #15 BLACKHAWK FINAL E.I.R. • Written Material Submitted on Hearings of February 26, 1974 - March 12, 1974 - March 26, 1974 - April 23, 1974, Concerning the Draft E.I.R. (Including Relevent Correspondence Received) DATE NAME OF WRITER 11/14/74 Seeman, Ernest L. (James A. Roberts Associates, Inc.) }Hydrology, Agri- cultural Economics, Vegetation and Wildlife 2/8/74 Suttle, Genevieve (Save Mt. Diablo) Save Mt. Diablo 2/14/74 Burlingame, T. I. (Flood Control) Hydrology 3/11/74 Buell, Kenneth (Health Department) Environmental Health 3/12/74 Moody, Linda (Amigos de Diablo) General Plan Compliance 3/18/74 Lockett, William C. (Calif. State Resources Agency) Air Pollution 3/21/74 Lammers, T. T. (DOT) Circulation 3/25/74 Ward, John and Mimi (Blackhawk Road Homeowners) Plan Conditions 3/26/74 Stephens, William S. (East Bay MUD) Water Quality 3/26/74 Areno, Tom (San Ramon Homeowners) Against Development 3/26/74 Messineo, Beverly J. Rezoning 3/26/74 Henderson, Nancy General Plan Compliance 3/26/74 Randlett, Ray Dean (Sycamore Homeowners) Developmental Effect 3/26/74 Blackhawk Development Company E.I.R. Comments 3/26/74 James A. Roberts (James A. Roberts Associates, Inc.) E.I.R.s 4/1/74 Holmes, Thomas W. (Contra Costa Resource Conservation Environmental District) Report 4/5/74 Briggs, Mark E. (Office of Planning and Research) Rezoning 4/8/74 Cozine, Ralph (E1 Cerro Homeowners) Circulation 4/9/74 Bertinuson, E. (P.G. & E.) Power Supply 4/11/74 Ulrich, Rudolph (Economic-Information) Soil Conservation 4/11/74 Walters, C. P. (County Library) Library 4/11/74 Blackhawk Development Company Responses 4/16/74 Sconyners, Carol (Diablo Homeowners) Development Effects 4/17/74 Earl, Edward A. (State Parke and Recreation) Mt. Diablo Manager E.I.R. 4/17/74 Feldstein, Milton (Day Area Air Pollution Control District) E.I.R. 4/19/74 Lockett, William C. (Air Resources Board) Rezoning 4/19/74 Sconyners, Carol (Diablo Property Owners) Circulation 4/19/74 Gruen, Claude (Gruen, Gruen and Associates) E.I.R. Economic Supplement 4/22/74 Platzek, Rudolph (ABAG) E.I.R. Comments 4/23/74 Reeves, Molly E.I.R. Questions 4/23/74 Watson, Susan (People for Open Space) Rezoning Deny 4/23/74 Henderson, Nancy and Grant E.I.R. Development Effects 4/23/74 Burke, Helen; Hunter, Diane (Sierra Club) Adverse Development Effects - Rezone Deny 4/23/74 Holtgrieve, Donald; Dressler, Jerome; Dozier, Jeffery E.I.R. Geology Soil (Ecumene Association) climate 4/23/74 Moody, Linda; Ewing, Sally (Amigos de Diablo) E.I.R. Public Review 4/23/74 - Hoffman, Donald E.I.R. Not Compre- hensive 4/23/74 Bowerman, Mary Comment on Flora 4/23/74 Burlingame, T.E. (Pubilc Works) E.I.R. Review 4/23/74 Meyer, Bobbie E.I.R. Inadequate 4/24/74 Valley Action Forum Rezoning opposes 4/25/74 Thall, Richard E.I.R. Flora, Fauna 4/26/74 Ulrich, Rudolph (Eco-Info) Soil, climate, Geology 4/28/74 Burke, Helen; Hunter, Diane (Sierra Club) E.I.R. Inadequacy, RZ 4/29/74 Jouris, Virginia; Ward, John R. (Blackhawk Road Blackhawk Agree- Homeowners) ments 4/30/74 Carrau, Robert W. (Blackhawk Development Company) E.I.R.s 5/3/74 Ulrich, Rudolph (Eco-Info) soils 5/6/74 Brown, Dyke (Athenian School) Open Space 5/7/74 Gruen, Claude (Gruen, Gruen and Associates) Fiscal Impact • 5/8/74 Nelson, William L. (Alamo Improvement Association) Traffic and Safety 5/13/74 Logan, Katherine E.I.R. RZ, OS, Air Quality, Noise 5/14/74 Seaborg, Glen (Citizens for Urban Wilderness Areas) RZ, Open Space 5/14/74 Peevey, Michael (California Council for Environmental E.I.R. , 'Support and Economic Balance) Economic Supplement 5/14/74 Hirsch, Joseph (San Ramon Valley Planning Committee) Conditions - Disapprove 5/14/74 Bowerman, Mary L. (Save Mt. Diablo) RZ, Park Acquisition 5/14/74 Bishop, Gayle For Development 5/15/74 Gregory, Joseph T. (University of California, Berkeley) Fossil Quarry 5/16/74 Erickson, Richard E. (University of California, Berkeley) Fossil Quarry 5/16/74 Sconyers, Carol (Diablo Property Owners Association) General Plan, Traffic, Taxes 5/24/74 Roberts, James A. (Associates Incorporated) E.I.R. 6/18/74 Loucks, Edward A. (State of California, Planning and Research) Economic Supplement i �y *de of uffornin GOVERNOR'S OFFICE . ORRICE OF PLANNING AND RKSKARCH �es 1400 TENTH STREET j O SACRAMENTO 06814 i. RONALD REAGAN June 18, 1974 Ont.. `•, n0 c Mr. Anthony A. Dehassus Contra Costa County j, •. P* Planning Department .`,� ' Post Office Box 951 Martins, California 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: SUBJECT: SCH 74042967 - Economic Supplement, Application 1840-RZ-EIR The above listed project was received in this office and disseminated to various State Departments for review. The attached comments were generated by the 1. Department of Food and Agriculture, and 2. Air Resources Board, and cleared through the Agency Secretaries. 1. Department of Food and Agriculture. For further information regarding this comment, please contact Mr. Harry J. Krade, 1220 "N" Street, Room 104, Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-0682. 2. Air Resources Board. For further information regard- ing this comment, please contact Mr. William C. Lockett, 1709 - 11th Street, Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 322-6072. R The comments are sent to the planning commission under the environmental review requirements of section 11550.1 of the Business and Professions Code. The comments are for the benefit of the commission in considering the approval of tentative subdivision maps. Informal coordination on the comments and recommendations are encouraged and the State Clearinghouse need only be provided with copies of any correspondence which might take place. Please use the State Clearinghouse number assigned to the project on any and all correspondence. Sincerely, ��J�Lu�r ar ks a Management Systems Specialist State Clearinghouse EAL:mjc •�� cc: Robert J. DeMonte, OPR Mary Schell, Library Harry J. Krade, Agriculture William C. Lockett, ARB Waide Egener, ABAG • r • , • • r 4h COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE re: SCH 74042967 - Economic Supplement, Application 1840 - R2 - EIR The Contra Costa Planning Department's analysis of the adverse impacts of this project in the County, both environmentally and economically, should be carefully considered. The premature development which requires subsidies of the magnitude here involved should not be permitted. This development would adversely affect farming and would severely or burden present taxpayers. Harry J. Krade Assistant Director Department of Food and Agriculture a 1220 N Street Room 104 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-0682 i • Momorandum h + Honorable John R. Teerink, Director OIM + May 14, 1974. Department of Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street iw+ Economic Supplement, Sacramento, CA 95814 Application 18 40- RZ-EIA Attention: Mr. Ken Fellows Five County SCH. No. 74042967 from Air Resewws iwrd The attachment furnished is not an environmental impact report, but is an economic supplement to an EIR which we never received. There is not suf- ficient data given to estimate the effect of the project on ambient air quality, but inasmuch as it is expected to add over 15 ,000 people to the popula- tion of the San Ramon Valley in the next 12 years, the effects could well be significant. We would like to review the total environmental report. William C. Lockett, Chief Evaluation and Planning C rmo of Piann'.".g & • Reworch • James A.Roberts Associates,Inc. Ecosystems Analysis Resource Inventory Environmental Management May 24, 1974 HDC-303A Robert W. Carrau Blackhawk Development Company P. O. Box 807 Danville, California 94526 Dear Mr. Carrau: Enclosed are comments to the questions and statements addressed in the environmental impact report and presented at the public hearing before the Contra Costa Planning Commission on April 23, 1974 with regards to the Blackhawk Ranch development. In responding to the public concerns, we have made an effort to identify in which report the concern was discussed, either the James A. Roberts Associates PARA) , Ecological Impact Studies, Inc. (SCIS) or the Contra Costa County Planning Department (county) report, or if it was not discussedd we have made recommendations or comments in order to make the final impact report adequate. We contend that the final impact report is not adequate unless all three reports, those prepared by JARA and SCIS as well as that prepared by the county, are included in the final report along with their appendices, the geotechnical reports for the property, and the economic studies. In addition, we feel that separate environmental evaluations be submitted to the county for each phase of development as final details are developed. Detailed items such as building siting, grading and rare or endangered plants or wildlife should be evaluated in full in these later reports as well as specific impacts that apply to each- particular phase. Details of this method, which is currently being used by Monterey County and the City of Irvine, can be supplied to the county upon request. In the paragraphs that follow, the public comments are addressed ' in the order in which they appeared in the minutes of the public hearing. The page number of the public hearing minutes and the topic of the comment is noted prior to the response. 7128 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Suite Ali Carmichael, California 95608 (916) 488-5020 Mr. Robert W. Carrau j^ Page Two • /1 May 24, 1974 1. Page 20 to 21 - Regional Implications. ` - The regional implications of the Blackhawk Ranch develop- ment are discussed in the JARA report under "Air Quality" (page 75) , "Circulation" (page 89) , "Demography and Social Analysis" (page 98) , and "Growth Inducing Impacts" (page 105) , and in the ECIS report under "Environmental Inventory of the Region" (pages 9 through 26) , "Regional Considerations" (pages 29 through 35) , and "Urban Services" (pages 41 through 43) . These discussions are in addition to that made in the county report under "Regional Considerations" on pages 34 through 42. 2. Page 23 - Development In The San Ramon Valley. The question of the desirability of further development in the San Ramon Valley can only be answered by the people and government of Contra Costa County and is not covered in the impact reports. The question of the development potential of the Blackhawk Ranch with respect to the County General Plan is discussed in the "Present Land Use" section (page 58) of the JARA report in the "General Plan Compliance" section •^ (pages 35 to 41) of the ECIS report, and on pages 7 to 12 of the county report. 3. Page 24 - Housing Need. Decisions regarding the housing needs of the county are the responsibility of the county and its residents. A discussion of the housing needs of the area as defined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is made in the ECIS report under "Growth Rates and Housing Demands" (pages 29 to 35) . Further comments on housing mixes are discussed on page 34 of the SCIS report. 4. Pages 24 to 25 - Transportation And Mass Transit. Considerations on the channeling of county road funds away from other areas of greater or expressed need to the------- Blackhawk he ___Blackhawk Ranch were briefly discussed in the SCIS report on page 46. The county does not presently have a road priority system according to Tom Dudzick of the Contra Costa Public Work Department. Timing and priority problems, however, should be considered in reports on each individual ' phase as details are developed. It should be noted that the County Road Department does not supply labor or money for interstate highways. i ,fin yJnk'�; Mr. Robert W. Carrara Page Three' May 24', 1974 Detailed considerations of mass transit were not made r in any of the reports primarily because of a lack of available information. A recent study of the mass transit has been made by the Municipal Transit Commission. An additional study has been made by John L. Crain Associates for the Blackhawk Development Company (see Attachment 1) . Both of these studies should be included as appendices to the final impact report. S. Page 29 - The Tax Payers' Burden Of Development. The question as to whether or not development should be allowed to proceed if it requires a contribution by the taxpayers is a question that must be evaluated by the county. 6. Page 31 - Traffic Assumptions. The discussion as to which assumptions are correct for calculation of the traffic capacity is a professional argument. 7. Pages 32 to 34 - Mt. Diablo State Park Capacity And Limits. Comments were not made in any of the environmental impact reports as to the capacity of the adjoining Mt. Diablo State Park. These items should be included in the final impact report. According to Mr. Brant of Mt. Diablo State Park, the park has a capacity of about 1,000 cars because of limitations in the number of parking spaces. When this number is reached, additional vehicles are allowed to enter the park only as other vehicles leave. This capacity is not reached very often at the present, primarily when snow is on the mountain or when other recreation facilities are closed. The camping and picniking facilities have not generally been filled to capacity during the summers in the past. The actual determination of the park carrying capacity is an exceedingly complex procedure and would require additional time and money. Such subjects as seasonal variation, desired purposes or goals, public opinions, environmental sensi- tivities must be considered. The question as to what lands constitute the mountain and are essential to the park is problematical. As defined by William Penn Mott, Jr. of the Department of Parks and Mr. Robert W. Carrau Page Four May 24, 197A- Recreation (Attachments 2 and 3) , those lands included within the Blackhawk Ranch above 1,000 feet are included on the priority list of the department. Those 900 acres of land contiguous with the park originally offered by the Blackhawk Development Company to the park are among the department's highest priority acquisitions. The boundaries desired by the Parks and Recreation Department are discussed on pages 10 to 12. 8. Page 34 - Distance To Mt. Diablo. The final impact report should be clarified to read that the distance from the center of the Blackhawk Ranch is four miles to the peak of. Mt. Diablo. 9. Page 36 - Air Pollution Impacts And Agricultural Crops And Livestock. The question of the air pollution impacts on crops and livestock is not evaluated in any of the impact reports. Questions of this nature are presently under investigation and specific answers are not known. Studies of this • /\ nature require extensive budgets of time and money and are not considered feasible for this report. 10. Page 36 - Pressures on Farms and Ranches. These considerations are discussed under Growth Inducing Impacts in the JARA report (page 105) , the ECIS report (page' 103) , and the county report (page 72) . Discussions are also included on pages 46 to 47 and 63 of the county report. 11. Page 39 - Grading. Grading required with the project is discussed in the "Geomorphology" and "Geology/Soils" sections of the JARA report (pages 68 to 73) . The details of grading are not discussed nor is a grading plan submitted because of the conceptual or general plan nature of the design. As stated in the JARA report (page 63) , plans prepared at the final development stage will specify grading details. It is recommended that this be done at each phase of development as it reaches the final design stage for approval by the county. Mr. Robert W. Carrau Page Five • May 24, 1974 12. Page 41 - Rare And Endangered Plants. Details concerning the rare or endangered plants that might be found on the property were not included in the three reports. Information regarding those plants possibly found on the property should be included as an appendix to the final impact report and it should be noted as a mitigation measure that prior to the development of each phase of the Blackhawk Ranch, a survey be made by qualified personnel, at an appropriate time, to verify the presence of any rare or endangered plants. 13. Page 43 - Visibility Of Mt. Diablo. The final impact report should include a correction stating that the peak of Mt. Diablo can be seen from some lower portions of the property, particularly along Blackhawk Road. 14. Page 44 - Wildlife. Wildlife is covered in each of the three reports, particu- larly in the JARA report on pages 51 to 57 and 85 to 86. • Mitigation measures for the protection of wildlife are in- cluded both in the JARA report on pages •86 and the ECIS report, pages 83 and 84 and appendix C. Mitigation measures suggested by the Department of Fish and Game should be in- corporated into the final impact report. 15. Page ¢3 - Food Source. A discussion of the food source value of the property is given in the JARA report and "Present Land Use" on pages • 87 to 88 . 16. Page 49 - Grading In Winter. Mitigation measures related to grading during the wet seasons of the year were made in the JARA report under "Geology/Soils" (page 72) and "Water Quality" (page 81) . In the ECIS report, this concern is addressed on page 85. 17. Page 52 - Priorities In Open Space. Priorities for open space are for determination by the county. Mr. Robert W. Carrau Page Six May 24, 197.4 18. page 53 - Regional Impacts. Regional impacts were discussed in conjunction with question number one. 19. Page 54 - Faults And Slides. Faults on the property or in the area are discussed in the JARA report in the "Geology" section (pages 16 to 18) and in the ECIS report in the "Geology" sections (pages 14 to 15, and 66 to 68) . Further discussions are included in the Lowney-Kaldveer Associates (1973) geotechnical reports which should be included as appendices to the final impact report. Slide areas and similar soils or geology problems are discussed on pages 20 to 27 and pages 69 to 73 of the JARA report, pages 64 to 65 of the ECIS report, and in the two geotechnical reports by Lowney-Kaldveer Associates. 20. Page 55 - Climatic Changes. • /� Climatic changes are referred to by all three reports although not in detail because of a lack of data. Studies to determine these changes require large budgets of time and money. Most present climatic change studies apply to large urban developments and concentrations. 21. Page 55 - Hydrology. Hydrologic data are included on pages 37 to 45 and 77 to 80 of the JARA report and pages 15 to 16 and appendices B-2 and B-3 of the ECIS report. Flow magnitude-frequency relations cannot be made on the property because of a lack of stream flow data on the property. Concentration time is mentioned in appendix B-3 of the ECIS while the expected resultant flows are discussed in appendix B-3 of the ECIS report and on page 78 of the JARA report. If deemed necessary, the Kirker Chapman and Associates hydrology report and its accompanying calculation sheets should be included as an appendix to the final impact report. 22. Page 56 - Flood Plain Map. Maps showing the 100 year flood plain should be included in any reports relating to final development plans for each Mr. Robert W. Carrau � Page Seven' May 24, 1974 individual phase. The known 100 year flood plains in the area o•f the ranch are shown in Attachment 4. 23. Page 56 - Sedimentation. Differential rates of sedimentation are discussed in the JARA report on pages 70 and 71. Sedimentation mitigation fi measures are discussed in the same report on pages 72 and 73. 24. Page 57 - Noise. Noise impacts are discussed on pages 91 to 93 of the JARA report. 25. Page 58 - Ground Water. An adequate ground water study would require considerable time and money. It is our belief that such a study is regional in scope and should be carried out by an appropriate governmental agency on a regional basis. 26. Pages 58 to 61 - Soils. • "1 A detailed soils discussion is found on pages 20 to 27 and 69 to 73 of the JARA report. The suitability of these soils and different areas of the ranch to development is discussed in the latter pages of the JARA report and in appendix B-1 of the ECIS report. 27. Page 61 - Air Pollution. Studies of the nature requested by Mr. Teerink of the Air Resources Board and Mr. Feldstein of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District would take an additional period of time to complete. It is suggested that these studies be incorporated into impact reports on each of the separate phases of development as final details are determined. 28. Page 63 - Agricultural Preserves. These are discussed in question 10. 29. Pages 63 to 65 - Utilities. Discussions on the public utilities are given on pages 62. to 63 and 93 to 97 of the JARA report, pages 41 to 46 Mr. Robert W. Carrau Page Eight' May 24, 1974 of the ECIS report and pages 43 to 46 of the county report. Further details should be addressed to each individual phase of development as the final design details are known. 30. Page 66 - Fire Protection. A description of the fire hazard on the undeveloped portions of the property is discussed on pages 50 to 51 of the JARA report. Impacts and mitigation measures are discussed on pages 84 and 85 of the same report. 31. Page 66 - Park Dedication. A discussion on the area of the park to be dedicated to Mt. Diablo State Park is given on pages 35 to 39 of the ECIS report and pages 8, 10 to 12 of the county report. Additional recreational facilities are described on pages 5 and 7 of the JARA report. 32. Page 67 - Drainage. Discussions of impacts and mitigation measures with regards • ^ to drainage and flooding are presented in the JARA report under "Hydrology" on pages 77 to 80, and in the ECIS report on pages 85 and 86. 33. Page 68 - Grading. Discussions of grading have been noted in question 11. 34 . Page 73 - Libraries. Discussion of the locations and availability of libraries was not discussed in any of the reports. If it is deemed necessary, these items should be included in the final impact report. 35. Page 73 - Health. Discussions on health care facilities related to the project were not discussed in any of the three reports. These should be included in the final EIR. The location of available public and private facilities should be noted and their , present use. 36. Page 74 - Parks. • �,,, Information concerning the location and use of public parks was not mentioned in any of the three reports and should be included in the final report. Mr. Robert W. Carrau • Page Nine May 24, 1974 37. ' Page 82 - Growth. ' } Questions concerning the amount, direction, and time period of additional growth are to be answered by the people and government of Contra Costa County. We wish to reiterate that the present plan is a conceptual general plan and that specific details with regards to grading, flood plains, utilities and so on be discussed in impact reports on each separate phase of development as details are known and prior to construction of that phase. We also feel that the final impact report is not complete, nor representative without in- clusion of the JARA, ECIS, and county reports, the public testimony, the transit, geotechnical and hydrology reports, and these comments. Sincerely yours, JAMES A. ROBERTS ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert L. Therkelsen Assistant Project Manager Ke net M. Heesmer Technical Director RLT:jlc Attachments • i�, Attachment .1 ; Se TRANSIT CONSIDERATIONS for the BLACKHAWK RANCH DEVELOPMENT • '1 Prepared for: BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Danville, California and John J. Forristal Consulting Engineer Prepared by: Charles D. Bigelow John L. Crain. Assoc. • PREFACE This report-has been prepared for the Blackhawk Development Company as a joint effort by.Mr. John J. Forristal, 'Consulting Traffic Engineer; John L. Crain Associates, Transit Consultants; and Livingston-Blayney, City and Regional Planners. The report represents the first two steps of. a five-step effort to iden- tify the transit considerations and opportunities for the . Blackhawk Ranch Development near Danville, California. The investigations in this •report specifically cover 1) the current status of local and regional transit analysis planning and development in the San Ramon Valley, and 2) the application of the available data to the design of a local transit develop- ment plan for the proposed Blackhawk Development. .'�,�, ' • a r � ' ' j j +':'.; � est , " +'�,' .I. INTRODUCTION _ ,. f 7. Major residential and commercial developments are increasingly being subjected to detailed evaluations of the planning for auto-transit-pedestrian elements within their overall plan. Local and county agencies are concerned about the extension of transit services into new developments. Regional agencies are concerned both with transit coordination and with air pollution. Both the state and federal agencies are reviewing projects from the standpoints of the environmental impact reports and the effects of major projects on regional air quality. Thus, as a development such as that proposed by the Blackhawk Development Company proceeds, it is appropri- ate to review transit alternatives from the same standpoint as that adopted by potential reviewing agencies from the local to federal levels. The object of this report is to prepare and present inform- ation on transit alternatives, if any, for the Blackhawk Ranch development. The general approach is to develop information in stages; first on the availability of transit data and information and its applicability to the Blackhawk Ranch development and second, if warrented, on the preliminary operations and finan- cing alternatives. The data are to be preliminary but suffi- cient for project design, for potential agency reviews and for the preparation of the environmental impact statement. The specific approach was to identify and contact all appropri- ate agencies and organizations for data or information per- taining to traffic and transportation. near Danville and in the San Ramon Valley. These included governmental and non- 1 governmental agencies from the local to federal levels. The • ..,.., second step was to evaluate that data in terms of its appli- cability *to transit planning for the proposed 8lackhawk dove- lopment. 2 II CURRENT TRANSIT STATUS AND DATA FOR TRANSIT PLANNING Since there are so many agencies and organizations involved with transit planning or operations which could affect plan- ning at Blackhawk that the following data sources and oper- ational will be discussed in assending order from the local to federal levels. Local Level Planning and operations Danville There is no local public service in Danville nor any near-term possibility that a locally sponsered service will be initiated. Neither is there any substantive plan- ning for the initiation of such service at the local level. Furthermore, given its unincorporated status and low density of development, it is probable that any transit planning • would be, performed at a higher governmental level. Regional Level Planning and operations San Ramon Valley Chamber of Commerce This organizations does not usually involve itself in transit planning activities . However, it has recently undertaken the special project of conducting a transit survey that covered the Alamo - Danville area. Of the 5000 survey forms that were distributed, about 650 were returned. Such a return provides a good base for a preliminary transit analysis. This survey of transit riders is probably the most important transit planning data that is relevant to the Blackhawk development. Unfortunately,- it has been completed so recently that it is not yet avail- able to the public, but its release is expected shortly. This survey, when added to the census data discussed below, will provide an excellent basis for preliminary transit 3 planning in, an area such as the San. Ramon Valley. Grevhound Bus The only current public service near -to the r Blackhawk Ranch is that provided by Greyhound from Danville to Walnut Creek. This regional, trunk-line service connects' a number of San Ramon Valley communities •with San Francisco, 'ai�c Oakland. The service is a limited stop. 5 minute head- way over a 30 minute peak hour operation, in the morning and evening. This service is expected to be replaced, pos- sibly during 1974 but, more likely in 1975. It is currently J i7 provided with 4V passenger coaches and is fully utilized by the commuting public over the short, peak hour periods. Alatreda - Contra Costa Transit District This regional agency currently has an application to the federal government for 32, 41-passenger buses that are intended to partially replace the current Greyhound service to Danville. The new oper- ation would not provide through service to San Francisco and Oakland, but would, instead, provide service throughout the Walnut Creek - Concord area to BART stations in the area. This service is expected to be introduced following the initiation of trans-bay (between Oakland and San Francisco) service -by BART. Local Mass Transportation Agency This agency is a counter- part to the Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District in that its objective is the provision of local transit service out- side the area of operations for the Transit District. The Agency currently has a consultant (A. M. Vorhees) who is reevaluating the 1971, Contra Costa County Transportation Needs Study. The Danville area is not a likely candidate for the fixed-route and Dial-a-Bus operations that are being planned for the general area. This Agency study does not 4 f,,' tr�.r t ' r r • . '.d 9 �• � e..'9l , f•i� 'R �.'Lit 4t +r .i.r. } �11.. 4.�••;d�J'�� •L. sequir, the consult n pro r Of datol nd as n.. ., . consequence. 3t may also.� taketi use "'XChawbirl 1 ComnNrce :,.ti survey pm ntioned;,above; as soon as' i is:available ;:k y' , , • : �` BART and MTC Both BART and The Metropolitan Transportation Commission are regional agencies that would have a strong interest in, and financing control over the provision of transit service to the Blackhawk. development. However, , neither are at this time actively involved in data collection or transit planning for. the area. Instead they are acting as . review and coordinating agencies for the work by the Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District, the Local Mass Transportation Agency, and to a limited extent, the Greyhound operations. Federal Level Data and Control Bureau o: the Census This is the second most important data base for preliminary transit planning in the Danville area. • This data includes information on home owners and renters, labor force, auto ownership and, importantly, commuters. For the census tract in which the Blackhawk development would take place, the following data is known (the numbers are rounded to two significant figures) . 1970 Residents ---------- 6,400 residents in 1800 year round units. Owned units ------------- 1,600 Rented units ------------ 220 Labor force ------------- 2, 500 Occupations with a commuting prosperity ---- 1, 300 5 Auto ownership ---------- '3,400 Two auto households 1,100 Commuters to S.F. or Oakland Counties ---------------- 1, 100 Commuters to Contra Costa County ------------ 1,100 Commuters to other Bay Area Counties ------- 80 These figures support the Gieyhound ridership data in indi- cating a strong need for commuter service. ' The Chamber of Commerce data may provide similar "demand" indications for local service. Environmental Protection Agencv This federal agency has a strong position in the review of environmental impact reports • .� to the -State, and if, federal money is in any way involved, in the environmental impact statement that must be prepared prior to the approval pproval of any Federal participation. It appears unlikely that the Blackhawk development can escape either' of these reviews. One of the most difficult reviews may be that for "indirect sources" of air pollution. This review applies to residen- tial developments and may, in the near future, be so rigid as to require a permit. The intent of the review as ex- pressed by the San Francisco EPA office is to minimize auto travel, .but it takes the form of a review of parking require- ments. (The EPA parking management program has been delayed until 1975 due to the alleged energy crisis.) From the State standpoint it is concievable that residential developments requiring as many as 250 parking spaces could be subjected •r ; , i y r'.ol y.., It w ,r wilPC .• ;•J ��r �, ��y11 '. �,� i zi. 1 + r.,t r irl' 1T �� t rl.l r •f. r t ��1,•i ]rt}� l �; to apeeial . review. It is .currently..unelear whether these would include off-street or on-street parking spaces or garages, .and it may be 6 weeks to three months before policy decisions are made in this regard. Furthermore, the possible reviews may include an evaluation of the development planning with regard to bicycle and pedestrian paths as well as with transit considerations. Obviously, the intent is to force developments to include a number of non-auto oriented alternatives. In suamary, while much of the state and federal policy is in a stage of finalization (the State pollution control plan is due within the next 3 to 6 months) it appears that they will constitute a planning burden to the Blackhawk Ranch development. r ' 7 • �� - `S t I. r r�'. J �.: y it r + , + •' •. 1 i'.I ' • r*1'I��at. , a: i£r z Av.', 1tif�f�M� 1 i Ik' ti ' 1 ( 3. w♦ ' r;t'F t' 17' 41,_ �4j/'�,'� ; ' •-,�,,t r � ` r .•` �{ 5,_ ,i.lrrt r. . . r. •� �{a•i}'�}4•'�TIY`�I • III SU MIRY STATUS. OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND DATA Operations The only public service to the vacinity of the Blackhawk Ranch is a peak hour, morning and evening service to Oakland and San Francisco by Greyhound. This service is likely to be replaced by 1975 with a service to the Walnut Creek BART station, a service which would be provided by the Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District. Operations currently being planned by the Local Mass Transportation Agency of Contra Costa County are not likely to be offered in the Danville area. Planning Data Planning data for preliminary transit planning is available and more is expected to be available in January. This data covers both commuter and local movements and is aimed at defining the "demands" for transit service specifically. Such data will be adequate for planning for or excluding the possibility of fixed-route, subscription, and demand actuated bus service. Thus, it is expected to include numbers of trips, time of trips, and type or purpose of trips. t Information on Pollution Control Reviews Current and contemplated environmental reviews are likely to force the planning for development of major residential areas • to include bicycle and pedestrian as well as transit movements, Those reviews may not be mandatory in terms of planning re- quirements, but they may have less of a delaying action on 8 • � .. {''i , {'!h •� a, :'. i'�lei; :�. final -approval of the package. Unfortunately, near-term policy,;,i '.�'; decisions of both the state and faderal'levela could make these reviews 'more difficult. Thee details' of. such 'determinations: ma ' also be available in early 1974. Y Transit Potentials for the Blackhawk Development In the traditional sense, neither the San Ramon Valley nor the Blackhawk Development lend themselves to the support of' other than special transit operations. However, recent events will have a significant impact on the viability of transit operations in the proposed development and throughout the valley. They are 1) air pollution controls, 2) an increasing transit orienta- tion, and 3) somewhat shorter term energy shortages. Regarding air pollution controls, " . . . the intent of the Clean Air Act is unmistakably to require significant changes in habits and travel .patterns as a means of achieving the (air pollution) standards"1. Auto traffic reductions exceeding 90% have been suggested for the three worst areas in California; the San Fran- cisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Traditionally, transit ridership rarely exceeds 5% in suburban areas even with good transit service. However, an increasing tran- sit orientation is proposed in the same California Plan - "reduct- ions (in auto traffic) will only be acceptable if mass transit is improved at the same time" . BART is already serving Walnut Creek; the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District will soon be providing a much improved service between Danville and Walnut Creek; and the Contra Costa County Local Mass Transit Agency will soon be providing local services in the near future. Thus, im- proved transit services will be becoming available to new develop- 1. "California Transportation Control Plan", Environmental Pro- tection Agency (40 CFR Part 52) , Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 237, Dec. 11, 1973 9 � .. } Y. • \ �`'.� r ��` �.T. il�•� _'r � wit w ♦•tf.� � '4i•rifJ y�,r. `\ ' 'r,•.M .. :R' '' 'r . v�+r � �;• f��..• y ; n\t ''�� I`r'. lifl i'� i,i! 1 ,f _.��}.j 1�".. �'• � .�y..(\, �.�1t fly •• •,i '!}I' � ?L'"1 At••i: , i• ,! \ �'1 1!~ l4 �,�� pit�� • Al Monts such as Blackhawk at the same time that clean air 'eontrols are being implemented. As a consequence, transit usage can be " expected to improve drastically, although not nearly as much as might be suggested by the 90% traffic reduction suggested earlier ` in 1973. Finally, the energy shortage, regardless of the possibility for a short duration, will have a heavy impact on transit usage. Controls such as the proposed 35 gallon-per-week limit and the proposed zero allotment to unemployed drivers under the age of 18 will have the effect of stimulating the transit orientation for residential developments such as that proposed for the Black- hawk Ranch. The implications are that between a 12 and 17 per- cent transit usage can be expected for the Blackhawk scheme, if • it is served by local transit and if the local transit service is well coordinated with the existing and near future regional services. In fact, given the strong and long term air quality standards, there may be no alternative to assuring a well inte- grated transit service in the overall development plan. r ' .10 �:. ..''. i:• Attachment 2 $7.It OI CAUIOINIA-11SO lRlti AUNO NNW „AOA11.OM,eMN • DEPARTMcwT OF PARKS AND RECREATION V.06 soft 23N ;\.• 1 it1'. ,:�,° yw,••1 • 4 F . r r,, 'e ,f "Nio,93611 ; ::;r Oeos•Lss 20t 1973' . Honorable Alfred M. Dias, Ghassan Board of supervisors Contra Costa County . .�- 600 Las Juntas ! Martinez, California 'Dear All ,. M , As you are probably aware, this Department is-attempting to acquire additional land for Mount Diablo State Park. Toward this effort, we have met with inter- ested groups and individuals in your county with a view to setting the desired boundaries for Mount Diablo State Park.—These meetings have resulted in our establishing the boundary for the state park, and we enclose a map showing these boundaries. As you can ease the lands to the south which we desire are lands belonging to the developer of Black Hawk Ranch. I understand that the Black Hawk Development of P1s,7k P".k rawa:•re hsvq, nfpavM tr► AoAIr-wt4? !onnrnrl— mately 900 acres of their lands which are contiguous to the state park and are among our highest priority acquisitions. The proposal of the developer is that this dedication be accepted in lieu of park dedication fees to the county. •We are most desirous of having these lands added to the state park and, if this arrangement is possible, it would further help to round out the acquisition Plan for Mount Diablo. As the map indicates, we are also desirous of obtaining for the state park the lands which lie between the present state park boundary and the area proposed for development by Black Hawk Development Company. However, we do not now have, nor can we foresee, having the funds necessary to acquire these lands. We have discussed with the developer the possibility of dedicating these additional lands. The developer has taken a firm position that 'thess lands must be retained by it to be used as a private reserve for eta ultimate home- owner in the Black Hawk Ranch Development. It has occurred to us that'perhaps' r' .our desires and the developer's'needs can both be satisfied if you could devise an arrangement that allows the developer to retain the use of the land for agriculture and recreational purposes for a period of years, commensurate ��'•: -% with their needs, and at the same title obtain title to the lands for tht " state park. In other words, we would hold fee title to the lands, subipet to their using the lands for agriculture, .ptiWily grazing, and recreation, primarily trails for riding and hiking. Z would assume that in any detailed ' -discussions some arrangemat would be made tot a wtual understanding of the 1 ..: RECEIVED DEC 2.7 'W3 Honorable Alfred H. Use Deced r 201 1072 development so that it would not in any way•change the natural character of these lands. The details of such an arrangement could be resolved at a latex' date if the general principles are agreed to now by all parties. X believe we have an opportunity• if we all work together• to obtain additional lands for Mount Diablo State Park which will, in the future, be of great value to the park and the peoplo using this park. There appears to be a cooperative attitude on the part of the developers, and i would hope that we can get together to discuss this subject and possibly arrive at a solution that would be mutually satisfactory* i stand ready to meet with you and the developer at any time convenient to you is order to baring about a successful conclusion to this opportunity. ' /Snae'sely, ' Millift AUM Mott, 'Jr. •0.4/240 . Enclosure 1r r • AttaDhwat 3 ST E Or CAU/OINIA-21SOYRC[! AO1NCr M A D MAOAN,G.*~'jw',: • DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 2390 :a: `AININTO Vs111 , RECEIVED APR 11974 March 22, 1974 Mr. Wayne Hawkins Blackhawk Development Ccq wny Post Office Box 807 Danville, California 94526 Dear Mr. Hawkinst I understand from our tor. Tryner that you require information regarding the lands to be included in our proposals for acquisition on Mount Diablo is • connection with the 1974 State Park and Recreation Bond Act. Speaking specifically to your question regarding the "windows on the mountain• �- ' concept, lands fronting on Blackhawk Road which lie below the 1,000-foot contour are not included in our current priority list. Sincerely, William Penn Mott Jr. Director Attachment. 4 i•+ 'I � r ! i+- ~� '1.r i �,�`sjJ ice. '1• J ii�.r' i.�ii.1• tr �� '��; .«....... Ar I or rpS L ��,V; ii' i •.:n•.r.�.i.�. \ _:.�+r +•,� t rr ';i�. r�•'4sl»S• �• i')� /"t... }J x'411 � �.�.iy��a+4� 'u�1..0"'.ZV'r.:.}� .�s..�..• y��; �• ,�� _ *I! •rim `+'s �� -C,'►��'�"� .!t. ��•' + •f•-•..i . ,:;:, •%'_"`:—.."11iCr, i�"M� 'OM1. ;:�l�''..,;-'...:;�; ..-...-..4;~« '•.. ?�f Y.°` -'1`: ; Vii r x1.. '� X►!+ �; 1• r t ?rod. 6200 SC ALA iNiEEi �t • WATERSHEDS I DAN COOK VII E ii A Vill f III B IX WEST BRANCH IV C X G V D XI H VI SYCAMORE XII ALAMO 4iy► loo Year Flood Plains "\ FIG. 13 Source; Limerinas, Lee, and Lugo, 1973. Flood Prone Areas in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. U.S. Geological survey. 1 - ' M ; WAN -Zta tor�nerj o �i.�aaiatson Propertyc () Diablo, , California rte. rV 0e �,ae J=Z& ak"& AP!� &,a,arscca�r..t. �C�c O- OdIA dto"4—XAL*v vooI6 o-9waAc e"a"-Xj ""'4 '000I, %O:m 40 �! A-Ift -,4 «.,fie IWAA i � Xtablo Property Owners olmociation Diablo, California /. lug ..�c,G�e�� .�•(a t- cf'D'^,�u'°.� �.�u. al.lc. �OAAR44d hA14L, "Cuvce& �tcau,l� �•wJ �jC�..,b�ct�' �c.-�- -� e�aeJ X,4 &�," 3• C�t cQ.iu,id-uaZ �i °r� -,Q.c,t l•,0�7�.+�int� -Qiui m•�, G sC[a.e.- iYn?.w� daooZ/I,t.F.C�- .�t.4G�,l� .Li.2.�-B./1�Y►�.G� , aALI'..�m JAWL., tX4, A d-O O�Q.Q.�. �LQCC��/t! �V �lJl'►(/IKY� <2Q�2G�Q.� . � � et aPvo a� awAdce44 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY W ttlltiLtY•DAVIS•IItVINt•LO!AN3iLt!•lIIVt1U1Dt• !AN DICCp•SAN i<IIANCIitO i ��A � � SANTA fA11tAM•SANTA COMM list Its* . IMM rM111MIMiM� r�. . OFF= n1r T=C8A11Ci 4011 t ' 12RUIST,CAUVO&MA 94720 . May 16, 1974 Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director Contra Costa Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: On behalf of the University of California, Berkeley, I wish to urge your support of rezoning action which will preserve the possibility of placing the Blackhawk Fossil Quarry within the ,jurisdiction of The Regents of the University of California. For over thirty years this site has provided a most effective teaching and research site for our Department of Paleontology. Other academic institutions within Contra Costa and Alameda Counties have also bene- fited from this most unique area and arrangement. Grateful thanks for your consideration of this request to preserve for future generations of students this valuable educational resource. Sincerely, QrA � Richard E. Erickson Assistant Chancellor for Development REE/pc cc: Chancellor Bowker '' •� ''� a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY j BERKELEY •DAVIS IRVINK•LOS ANCtL>rs•IIIVWIDi•SAN DISCO•SAN FRANCISCO SAMA RAMAM•SAMA CIIUZ DEPARTMENT OF PALEONTOLOGY BERKELEY,CALIFORNIA 94720 May 15, 1974 Re: 1840Z, Blackhawk Ranch Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director Contra Costa County Planning Department P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: In the List of Conditions for the Blackhawk development prepared by your department, item 28 provides that the Blackhawk Fossil Quarry shall be included in the area dedicated to the State Department of Parks. The educational value of this site could be better preserved and developed if it were under the control of the University of California, Berkeley, for the following reasons: 1) The University has conducted an educational program (as well as ^ scientific research) at this site for over 30 years. Its staff has the technical expertise to utilize the site effectively, whereas the State Park System has neither personnel qualified to take over this educational program nor to conduct research appropriate for the scientific utilization of the quarry. 2) The State Parks, for very good reasons, have strict regulations against the removal of natural objects including fossils, from Park lands. An important part of the instruction which the Uni- versity offers at the Blackhawk Fossil Quarry includes demonstra- tions of techniques for proper collection and preservation of fossil bones. A few specimens are normally removed every year in the course ?- of class instruction. Students also are provided an opportunity to excavate fossils under supervision at the site. These educational uses of this locality are incompatible with general policies of the r' State Park System. While it might be possible to obtain special wavers of park regulations for the purpose of continuing this pro- gram, it is by no means certain that such wavers would be granted or that the University and other colleges in the region could con- tinue to make use of the fossil site for instructional purposes if it were a part of Mt. Diablo State Park. 3) The fossil quarry is most readily approached from Blackhawk Road, not from South Gate Road. Its development as an educational feature of the State Park would require either a separate and isolated en- trance to the Park or else extensive construction of a new access road or trail from the present Park entrance. Either would be costly Mr. Dehaesus -2- May 15, 1974 to the State Park System. Without additional Ranger personnel, Mount Diablo State Park would not be able either to develop an educational • exhibit and program at the site, or provide any better security to the Quarry than the University is able to provide. 4) The University of California has plans for development of the fossil quarry as a public museum. At present neither the University nor the State Park System have funds for such a project. When funds become available, either through legislative appropriation or private donation, the University is ready to proceed with such development. The public interest would be better served if the Blackhawk developers were asked to donate this site directly to the University of California at Berkeley, rather than to include it in the tract which they may dedicate to the State Park System. Most sincerely, ,i Joseph T. Gregory Professor and Chairman JTG:bgb . 97 Madera Court San Ramon, California • F1 f�,�i' �:' f May 14, 1974 Planning Commission MAY 'r Contra Contra County C.0tj;4 14artinez, California :Nr Dear. Sirs. Before a decision has been reached on Blackhvv;k, I would like to present ra• point of view on the project. Although I am not -I spokes- man in this instance for any particular group, I do believe my position is representative of a majority of Valley residents. The opposition, as is usually the case, has been well orpaniaed under a few dedicated and influential individuals. These same people hpve exerted a monopolistic influence over bot', local. community r,roups and county hearings. As a six year resident of the Valley I would like to state that there is a "silent majority" who share my philosophy regarding Bla dthawk. In a recent new release Ar. Dehaesus urged Valley residents not to place themselves in a position of necetiatinr conditions if we in fact ,-fid not think Blackhawk had offered a good plan, but for us to evaluatie the merit of the overall clan itself. In doi.nr, so, I find the clan an excellent ones, one which incorporates a sensitivity to both tt►e natural environment and the community needs, especially . in the areas of eduration and recreation. I also realize, after reading ` the three often conflicting Envirorunentnl. -Impact Reports, there could be a possible :adverse impact on our Valley, but the responses of Blackhawk have indicated a willingness oti the part of the principals to mitigate on these conditions. I would urge the planning commission to p_rant approval of the overall project at such time that the Mated conditions are agreed upon. I certainly reject one member of staff's proposal that the county tt(► the entire parcel as the project would require of the taxpayers a subsidy in the ar ount of a20 million. Such a pur- chase would indeed be a losing proposition to the taxpayer. I find I personally must rely more upon the statistical data of Gruen and Gruen =r arriving; at t;ie conclusion that the prc•je •+ woald not be a -tax IJabili.t•y. also prefer to rely upon the fi^ures of the S.P..V.! S.D. in reference to the fact that the tRxr-s ren�.rated by Rlackhawk and the increased bonding capacity of the district world actually provide a surplus in school revenues. In conclusion, I hope the results of the whole question of P,lackhawk versus no growth will not be an unfortunate object lesson to future developers. }fere we have a developer with a rood plan who endeavors to work with the community to meet any and all concerns. I wonder if future developers will see any advantages in so working- with the com- munity. There is a real need in the Valley for planned development with a committment from the developers rather than piece-,Heal growth, 100 units here, 20 there, with no committment whatsoever. Thank you for your consideration, and I do hope my statement has not been redudant.(As certainly was the case with the opposition) Sincerely, �//�t�� / ;.,•r Mrs. Gayle Bishop 970 Second Street May 14, 1174 Lafayette, CA 94849 Mr. Richard J. Jeha Chairman :-.• l Planning Commission of Conr•ra Costa Count P. O. Box 951 Martinez, California Re: 1840 RZ: Black Hawk Ranch Mr. Jeha and Members of the Planning Commission: Tonight I am speaking both for n-i self and on behalf of the Save Mt. Diablo Group of whieli 1 itln [) Cur statement is coacc-1•ned Nvith the relationship of. the Black Hav:k Ranch to Niount Diablo Statc Park. As you are aware, most of the northern boundary of the Black !-gawk Ranch adjoins the southern boundary of \fount Diablo State hark. This presentation will inform, or remind you, of proposals regarding expansion of the state park to the south. The Save Mount Diablo group has endorsed the addition to the stats park of the area within the ',one of state park interest" (fig. 4, p. 11, Co. EIR). ^ In addition, the br up oelievus the Mate park Sli0111d extend front South Gate Road down to Black 1-lawlc }load (easterly as far as the ridge to the west of the rancli headquarters). Our pos:t'•in is recorded on page 13 of the county Environmental Impact Report (EIR), A more detailed report indicating the interest and response to this proposal follows. On May 11, 1973, the California State Park and Recreation Commission held one of its regular meetings in Concord. A representative of ;.ave Mount Diablo asked the Com),iission to endorse the acqui:.ition of :ands in the foot- hills of Pdount Diablo as a hili priority item. The State Park, and Recreation Commission, whose duty it is to make state park policy, responded by passing the following resolution: "Whereas the preservation of Mt. Diablo and its foothills is of vital importance to the citizens of California; and Whereas the foothills of NIt. Diablo are an essentia 1 clan-lent of the visual integrity of Mt. Diablo; Now, Uiur .tore, bu it resolved that the Static. Park and Recreation Commission ctndorscs the concept of preserving as open space the foothills of iv;t. Diablo to the den-ree necessar;: to preserve the visual and ecological integrity of Mt. Diablo State Park, " On November 9, 1073, Save Mount Diablo )Wade a more specific request to the State Park and Recreation Commission at their rchular meeting in San •. Francisco. I would like, with your permission, to quote pertinent parts of that presentation: TELEPHONE (416) GG5.9i316 u POST GFF..;E BOX 26, • CONCORU, CALIFORNIA 04522 The Corps of Enginee?•s, Department of the Army, recently contracted with Ecoview, Environmental Consultants, (Contract NDACW05-73-C-0047) to • prepare an environmental inventory of the Walnut Creek drainage. This contract resulted in a 2-volume work of 442 pages. I would like to quote a paragraph on. page 113: "The valley oak woodland, whose entire distribution lies in central and northern California, is almost extinct. Many thousands of acres of these trees have been systematically removed for agricultural and suburban • development throughout its entire range, for reasons similar to those that apply to the Walnut Creek Drainage Basin. ECONTIEW considers these relic stands endangered. Steps should be taken to preserve selected re- maining stands and to give them sufficient buffer zones so that seedlings can reestablish themselves and resurrect this plant community. ' (The italics are mine. ) The opportunity to preserve just such an a_-ea exists at the base of Mount Diablo, between South Gate Road and Black Hawk Road. The most recent plan of the Department of Parks and Recreation for land acquisition for Mount Diablo State Park includes much of the foothills but does not include the valley floor adjacent to Black Hawk Road. In a6dition to the scientific and ecologic values already mentioned, this acquisition would preserve for the residents of the San Ramon Valley and, indeed, for all our citizens the superb scenic view of Mount Diablo from BIncl, hawk Road -- the only place on the south side of the mountain where such a view can be pre served free of the dwelling units and other appurtenances • of the urban scene;. z The environmental review quoted above gives additional reasons for preservation of the foothills (p. 118): "the Foothill Zone remains largely in the pastoral phase of land use, . . Nevertheless, these areas are next in line for development; using techniques that are (U'rimngtai to both .tater quality and runoff capacity, thny may very well threaten the capacity of the floodplain control installations. The watershed management of these foothill lands should be a . Rime consideration as flood plain build out is completed, The loss of foothill communities to development interests could jeopardize these .land uses. This zone - especially the log:•er level is very important as a buffer and surport area to maintain the natural biotic elements of the higher elements as well as that of its own. Further encroachment should not be permitted. " (Underlining mine, ) On February 4, 1974, Save Mount Diablo passed the following resolution unanimously, thereby confirming and strengthening our previous position: "It is resolved that the scenic area or viewpoint between black Hawk lioad and South Cate Road be acquired and added to Mount Diablo State Park for the followhig reasons: - 3 -. 1. To preserve the fine specimens of valley oak. 2. To provide a window or corridor to view 1lount Diablo. (This • ^ is the only area on*the south side of the mountain that affords 1 an unobstructed view. ) . 3. To preserve the geological formation which includes the famous fossil'. site from which the University of California has removed bones of prehistoric animals. 4. To maintain the creek -md its drainage area in its natural state, 5. To preserve the natural scenic beauty of 'Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard and Diablo Road. A large development adjacent to Black Hawk Road would undoubtedly require the widening of the access road and would destroy the present scenic approach to Mount Diablo State Park as well as the scenic drive 'along Black Hawk Road. " A c .)py of this resolution was sent to Mr. William Penn Alott, Jr. , director of the State Department of Parks and Recreation and to the county planning department. On March 6th, RobertyMeyer, chief deputy director, replied on behalf of Mr, Mott: "We have noted your reasons for including the: 'window on Mt. Diablo' concept fro, -i Black Flawk Road in our ac'-uisition program. There is value in this c incept, and we have included provision for this among tri projects N,,hich are being evaluated for inclusion in the 1974 Bond Act program, " It is my un lerstanding that such an acquisition is still under consideration and has -.lot occil abandoned. Staff members have come from ^' Sacramento specifically to study this proposal, The cash value, according to the county assessor, of the acreage between South Gate Road and Bl,- ,k Iiawk Road estimated by us to be 814 acres is $603, 534, , an average of $741 per acre. The actual value per acre varies, according to the county assessor, from $207 to S1136 per arse, The Save Mount Diablo group aretr.atiio..4 private citizens, many of whom report to other organizations. All are dedicated to preserving Mt, Diablo in its entil•ety as open space, preferably within Mt. Diablo State Park. We hope that this review may be of interest and value to you, Thank you for your attention, Marv<l.._336werman Vice-President, Save Mount Diablo • r' r• G0;:'i RA CU:)"I*A COUNTY TO: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THE SAN RAI-ION VALLEY PLANNING CON2% ITTEE •POSITION ON "BLACKHAWK" I The Blackhawk Application for Rezoning is not consistent with the General Plan for the area . As a consequence, the Committee recommends disapproval of Che Application. However, it is requested that the Committee currently reviewing the General Plan give special attention to the Blactchawk planning area , aad in particular, make precise the 'open space boundary line which currently bisects • ^ the Blactchawk Ranch. II In the event that the Project is approved by the Planning Commission, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. The maximum number of dwelling units should be 4 ,000. The units eliminated to meet this requirement shall be removed from other than single family detached dwellings . 2. The Planning Staff's Condition X14 should be amended to read that, "the guide to establish dimensional requirements shall be the R-15 District," as opposed to the R-10 District. 3. Eliminate from the plan, Cluster J, 20 rental units per acre and substitute sale dwellings (condominiums) of not more than 10 units per acre in its stead. I 4. As suggested by Livingston & Blaney, no building shall be accomplished on slopes greater than 20% grade. S. An assessment district should be formed to provide funding for all off.si.te utilities and roads , the improvment and ex- Lension of which are made necessary by Blackhawk. 6. The alternate rouging of Sycamore Road extension as proposed and envisioned in the Planning Staff's Condition 113 be deleted due to its adverse environmental impact on Short Ridge and surrounding, open space. Camino 'rassaj.aral Should be widened to the four lanes projected and the: planned Crow Canyon extensiun be moved aalle.id Lo Coinei.de with Lhc crud of. Phil se T of the development: . 7 . The .pro;ject development should be phase(', so that construction of roads , schools , ticiliti.cs, flood control. facilities and •^ recreation facilities are comme-11SUratO % ith the needs of the "" community as a 8 . Bl.ackha wk Development Corporation shall obtain insurance or post a bond fog the pur. hoses of covering .any damages sustained by individuals an or off the property clue Lo earth subsidence or slides or increased water runoff clue Lo 1.11ackhawk development . 9. The ).Tanning Commission should endorse. the agreement which was reached between the developer and the San Ramon Valley , School District and make compliance with it mandatory for approval of each phase of development . , 10. Amend the Planning Staff's Condition 1#11 td read : " Eliminate the 7 .5 acre commercial .area from' the easterly portion of the •^ property ane: .rlbstiL•utr, single fi--rri 1 detached dwellings in its place.,, -2- 11. Add the following to the Planning Staff's Condition #23 : "That lands dedicated .for local parks in the development shall be deducted at their full market value from the park dedication fees normally chargeable to the development. " .12. Substitute the following condition for the Planning Staff's Condition #21 : 'Sufficient land for a library facility, a;, agreed upon with the County Librarian shall be dedicated for library purposes , to the County. " The San Ramon Valley Planning Committee approves of and supports the retraining Planning Staff's conditions in general and insofar as they & not conflict with the foregoing. SAN RAIMION VALLEY PLANNING COKKXWEE By: Dr . 3ossepTi 'xc , '. , lairinan • ti -3- CALIFORNIA COUNCIL for ENVIRONMENTAL & ECONOMIC BALANCE �.suNO Q. BROWN 715 Market Street,Suite 930 Chairman San Francisco, CA 94105 MICHAEL R. PEEVEY (415) 495-5666 Executivo Director board of Directors Sigmund Arywitx May 24, 2974 James B. Elope Thornton F. Bradshaw Edmund G. Brown M. B. Bryant !i } At Caples John A. Cinquemani Mr. Richard J. Jeha, Chairman John 17. Crowley Contra Costa Planning COntmission Emory C. Curtis Festival Cinema ;:C .. . f ,..-,•,,,r., t , �; Daniel Uel Carlo 1450 N. Ccs lifornia Blvd. J.Howard Edgerton � on William P. Eiscr Walnut Creek Ci. 94596 J.S. Fluor Apert w. Gatov Dear Mr. Jeha. Robert G^isick J. E.Goetz The California Council for Environmental and Economic Pa' � R. Haorlo Pa. 'Wern. li elleHirsch Balance is a statewide org.,nizatio:_ founcte:l last yc_aa: Harold f{. Hochmuth to work for a balanced approach to important cn:*iron- James D. Hodgson mental-econom'. c issues in- our state. The Council' s Jack K. Horton Board of Directors is composed of leadars in business , Piw4on B. Hoichkis labor, and the general public. /ftllgc no Jacobs .b-:,rt C. Kirkwood J.W. Komes No issue is of greater importance and more difficult: Pele Kurbaioll to resolve in an equitable manner than land u_<e. The ti. 1.l. lc,v+son purpose of this letter is to give you our views on t:i:e James S. lee proposed Blackhawk Ranch Project, an issue of consid Daniel M. Luevano erable public attention and interest in the Bay Area, John W. black Charter. T. Mai itt Lan Martin To us, the Black Ranch Project rc}i- esent.a an accom o Jack t'dward McKee dation between environmental, employment , and housing Robert r. Miller needs . We feel that, working with the co,,urrunity, the Paul A. Miller developer has produced a good plan. It is envirorimen- Leo Mitchell Einar O. Mohn tally sensitive, preserves considerable open s-)ac(,. in Robert V. Phillips perpetuity, and yet helps to meet two clear. -cut and O.It. Pintnrd continuing needs of people; the }provision of adequate Anthony L. Ramos housing and employment opportunities in a region tl�at R. R. Richardson Continues to grow. John C. Rodgers C.Arthur !blander Glenn T. Seaboto In this regard I would like to make the following com- Barry E. Schcerrnan menta on the "Economic 5upp..cu ent" prepared by the ShcrmerL. Sibley Contra Costa County Planning Department, elated April. 11. Rob{-rl simp:on This; ;:turfy iinderemphasi es tiae poLential econo^aic James J. 1A, Wine ny impact of the proposed development while simultan- Mason t�f. 1Varrcn Raymond L.Mason cously and erroneously claiming the proposal. will Jetty "hippie -AQs:il,rmd Wyman 'ter A.Zitlau ;ta. too t . Mr. Richard J. Jeha May 14, 1974 Page Two require a massive public "subsidy." This conclusion seems valid for at least the fol- lowing specific reasons : 1. The average family size projections , and hence school age children and school attendance pro- jections , seem unrealistically high for two reasons. First, the figures used are higher than existing family size figures in the San Ramon Valley and higher than those of families with incomes of ^25 , 000 or more. Secondly , the trend, nationwide, is to smaller family size, yet the data "freeze" family size and then project the inflated result into the future. The conseyue1ice is an over-estiiante of school capital costs and enrollments . 2. The analysis is most tentative and inoxact: in measuring the job creating i-.Tact of the proposal . For example, there is no projected employment from commercial c:evelopi�ant , office development- is projected most loosely at "860 • ^ to 1, 760" workers followed by non sequirz:r;: , in terms of economic benefits , as to where these workers would reside , and engages in :N pure conjecture ("doubtful . . .present con- structing methods will continue. . .r.uch. . .may well be constructed. . . in a factory type si.- tuation, " etc. ) when it atte-mot-s to examine constr-iction employment benefits . 3. The analysis ignores the fest_ ,:hat the pro- posal will create at least 2 , 000 permanent commercial, office , governr.:ent , maintenance and utility jobs which N•rill be a boon to the entire region regardless of the actual place of residence of these workers . For whether the bull: of them live in Flackha�•,k or else- where in the East Bay, they. will pay taxes (including property taxes to county yovern- ment) and buy goods and services both where they are employed and near their. residences . This boon to total economic activity means more retail and wholesale sales , etc . , more , tax revenues (both sales wild property taxes) and greater assessed valuation of property in Blackhawk and elsewhere. Similarly, the �., Mr. Richard J. Jeha May 14, 1974 Page Three analysis does not attempt to analyze, nor even mention, the many secondary benefits the development .will create: not only new retail, office and construction jobs, but also manu- facturing jobs will be created which means more payrolls , income and municipal revenues . Also, the analysis is silent on the consequences of non-approval , namely, possible declines in construction and related industries which would lead to reduced income and expenditures throughout a community economy. 4. The analysis attempts to attribute to the pro- posed develop-mant a "share" of total governmen- t-al costs that appea7..s too hi-h. For example , the analysis attributes certain Sanitary Dis- trict costs to the project, even though these costs would be incurred if the project were aborted. In addition, the entire area will benefit from permanent open space dedication , new recreational facilities , and better roads resulting from the development . Yet- such fa- cilities will serve mriny people outside the Blackhawlc Development and thus it seems unfair to place tt.a entire cost on the proposed devel- opmnnt- if a fair economic accounting is to be achieved. To summarize , the "Economic Supplement" prepared by the Planni.ng staff is not an objective, balanced eco- nomic analysis , but rather is essentially a negative examination; it is a case against the proposal and a clear bias against the proposed development repeatc;dly comes through. Admittedly, it is difficult- to strike a true balance between competing views and value judgments . Preser- vati.o» of a quality environmeu t is, obviously , a most de, irable goal, as is maintaining the economic vital- ity of the region. In our view, the Blackhawlc Ranch Project now before the Planning Comni.ssion represents a fair balancing of equities. We urge its approval. Sincerely, Michael R. Peevey Executive Director cc: Planning Commissioners • C CITIZENS FOR URBAN WILDERNESS AREAS ^ u 1052 MERCED, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94707 W May 14 , 1974 A Glenn T.Seaborp ,\Tei '-7 \�� r� Chairman Mr. Richard J. Jeha, Chairman �_;, l_?L IEV JFE Ihon,asBowman Planning Commission f�'f V.Chairman Geraldine Jackson Contra Costa County l fit• !. ' -- Treasurer P.O. nox 951 Roper Reeve tlartinez California (.U.1'i'I:f1 Ct%,XA COUTITIr C.Secretary , ..1.�,' ,,...+ Rr,....�+ ►.,•t rr� ► Karen Davis R.Secretary Dear Mr. Jeha and Members of the Commission: Re: 1850 RZ-Black Hawk Development Company Citizens for Urban Tlilclerness Areas (CUWA) is a coalition of over 35 conservation, educational , and co1lnunity interest groups of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Our objective is to foster the preservation of wilderness areas close to urban centers . We endorse a tajor objective of the Con'-ra Costa Counts General Plan to preserve liberal amounts .of open space, including parks, woodlands, range land and agrIcu.ltural land. We should like to see they whole of Mount Diablo beco-mc a part. of Mount Diablo State Park or preserved as open space . Ile therefore support the Contra Costa County Planning Director and staff in recommending denial of the applicantsrequest for rezoning, for the following reasons. 1. This proposal. for intensive and extensive development is not consistent with the existing General Plan (page 10 of the County ' s Environmental ]Impact Report) . In addition, the proposal. does not reflect the timing of development as projected by the General Plan. The existi.;g General Plan did not anticipate what is essentially a new community cast: of existing development at this time, if ever. 2. The proposal is in conflict with the "Regional Plan 1970-1990" adopted by the Association of Bay Area Govern- ments (ABAG) . The ABAG plan sho�,.s much of the Blacl: hawk Ranch as permanent. open space. A small portion of: the site is contained in a subcategory of open space--the Controlled DCvelopment areas--wl-ich should not be considered for urbanization until after 1990. We hope that you are in agreement with tYiis position. Sinccroly,';1011 111 Glenn T. Seaborg GTS/sms • May 139 1974 R E C F i w'E . Har I II sa All IN Planning Commission _ Contra Costa County CONMN, Cit.PLAfJhIt.G ;�•;:�,:h�M!_ry'� Martinez, California 94553 RC Environmental T.tnpact Report 1810-RZ Blackhawk Ranch Development Dear Commissioners : A revietti of the Environmental Impact Report 1840-1'%Z, Blackhawk Ranch Development, has raised some questions for me. I would like tr address myself principly to the issues of open space, air quality, recreation and noise Pollution. OPEN SPACE The most significant issue, as T sce it , is that the proposed Dlackhw:k Devclopmettt blatanti.y defies the Contra Costa County GencrAl Plan in regard to opon spetec. he r(2r.brt clearly nta•tes this. It dries not mr!rition, hoaoever , ttt� r;ossib_ long-lallcc- effects of c7evelopir:�tlt a;hich ui_.rerards the C ,ns_r�.l Plz%n. If there is little reg;-.rd for the region.-.-I lona-range planning near Nount Diablo, an environmentally unique area and n�tvral resource, • what kind o£ proced(ni t. does this set? V-1hat then, is the point n oL a General Ylan? With an elevation of 3 ,849 feet , I•lount Diablo is an c:..c aption�l rizi itain. It is I1ot part of a Iarge ranc-e of mottntbins. Rather it protrudes in the middle of a highly populated resi-dent-ial area . This mountain can be viea,ed daily from most of the county and miles beyot,d. Shouldn't the view of this mount.; n be unobstructed and .:epi i11 open space fux the many who vier; i1'? AIR QUALITY There are inany factors t•,hich might be conducive to air pollution and these inic;h'l' be i.nvcstigatcd. "Until precise r11Oasur.cr.)c11i's can be ntadni rill that can be _aid t^ith cor.tninty is that the introduction of vehicles leads to higher levels of vehicular emissions. 11 (Rcf . Pg. 55) Given the c>:istant: problems of air quality in the San Ramon Valley, doesn't the level of air pollution deserve in-depth study before the project is approved? As agricultural land three years r,ac , "the number of days when Oxidant levels exceeded the state standard of . 10 ppm in the vicinity of BInckhatvl: property v.,as forty days". (Rcif . pg. 30) Many of the residents of the. proposed 15,000 person development will need to commute to worlr, :taking a second car. ncce,nary. Families of a hi.ghc,i income level m,^;, :1so, be i:or.c lika].v to oten carr. requiring a hi.rllcr grade of gasoli nn making the lil;l;.hood • of incomplotcly combusted wi ste produc-ts greater*. Shou).cJnIt estiviitions i�c Wade as to the level of emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxid s, hydrocarbons: ;o;J 1cr.d bascd on tbi number: of average daily trips and average crli, ion levels? If the state standards were exceeded when the land was used for n agriculture, won't they most certainly be exceeded. with the introduction of 15,000 people? "Indirect changes caused primarily by the heat and pollutant raaferials emitted. . .may have a grea,,er impact off the property than on it. " (Ref, pg. 55) Shouldn't an effort be mace to estimate the impact of air pollution to the 4irea da:ain:^d by nl,arlo Creel; leading toward the already pb1l.ixti:on-plagues] Pleasanton and Livermore area? Shoulc'•n't projections be nadc as to the effect of vehicular emissions on the adjacent agricultural and state park areas? RECREATION Mount Diablo can offer many of the benefits of si.crra-type recreation (hiking, camping„ climbing, natur,4l fauna and flora , clean air , quiet surrounding- ) with much gre--ter ;.ccessibility tr.ir1 the. Sierra. Shouldn't lee mnintrin and e:•;)and ar r^ur'h as possible this ve-1111'.cble resource OX recreation that is l t; r.al).y Jji our ct!n back yard? The I;1.aC101t1tvk Project providon.; fcr tt^o col_` cotlrr.r:s. This would n"11:C t11G rainbeJ: :J�'L pro,puzed c,-olf co,.ii.sus in till:+ -.zea cliu.b to :live. 0:112. soul: eCO1:!w11 C; J CVCI and to a cld:g ee, a lilaited t:r,o group. L,c s-,,d l and tennis cantor would be p.:-.rt of a privately a:'rnrd cotin'L!;.' clUh .71:=n sr.:r.v:i.nn a limitc o rr0*1rn. f,re the: pr•i.cl r .'; r.: � ri sic: �:• �ecr :1:�.01� in the cC�1nt' for ^arc recreation for tfv1 high^1 Ci:'C'.^.n'••_CI 1n� n1.Ci or for ir.11 c1 cconomic levels? Shou.*W11111' IDOlii 1;::ovisiui1 bu mad c fnr peer.cat i.nn:l na �!:zs c:'hich c';aulu cast l.it: l.r to l^ails tr: .n and use? Provision could be wade for playing :Gelds cr opzen, grassy areas. Is the state pArk equipped to li<i Idle tho i.ncreasot' inane of the p.nrk rcwiltinri a neer community ca c.l.r re l.t i ;:? Should the drv;rl r)l)cx help to defray costs of increasing part; starf and facilities? NOISC POLIXTION The and Lisa schedule of ocavy aqw-'r.;ent du1.incl con:;turcV on has bran .li.r.lited or "restricted" by the dcvcics.::!r , To i:hat degree:? Should a method of monitoring soundl he oropx,c:cd "to l:cep noise levels bolo;:' 65 dB(.`1 ) 8 hours per P.-I hours? accnu:c cunr,1'ructioll is pllasod over an c�:tanded peririd O ti.iie , nU -se could present could present a problem to early residents. Thank you for your consideration of theso c,ue st iow;. I have grown tip in this county and spent wz,.nv hours c,r1 the of Mount Diablo. I am no." teaching j1.111iG"r. 11it';h ii)r Both ny studcnIcs and I are concrrncd th,:.t i:oune1;'ic.'t.)j G ren.11.11 as open frot.l cicvcloj:rlc;l"t. Most 5ipcerely and Respectfully, 1Calrlleri.n�� A. Logan c/ R E -i^ G- - L E.Q • FOR P. O. BOX 271 • ALAMO, CALIFORNIA MAY o {o ao All 1744{ CtJ11iR: " `1';N'F: Z'rOy. �TRY LIVING; PLANMN6 ;�E f,I:,10.1::N I May 8, 1974 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Martinez, California Subject: Traffic and safety problems on major Alamo roads. Gentlemen: We are addressing the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission of Contra Costa County to voice our grave concern -,pith relation to actions by the commission and the hoard. These actions will. result (if they have not already done so) in endangering the safety of Alamo citizens and their C'hildre'n in the areas of Stone Valley Road , M9iranida Avenue, Round Hill. Road, (northern end) Granite Drive, Las Quebradas Lane, and adjacent- neighborhoods. The facts concern the safety impair- • Aent, the poor traffic circulation pattern, and the congestion of the -ea . . . .all arising from the following actions . 1. Failure to make Round Hill Road into a continuous roadt:ay on a timely schedule. A petition signed by nearly three hundred residents of Alamo, living in the vicinity of Niranda Avenue, Granite Drive, Round hill Road, (northern) and Less Quebradas L-,rle, dated Oc�oher 19, 1973 and acc,_-,ptcd Icy the Board of Supervisors on their meeting of November 20, 1.973 when they appeared be,Eor:e the Board to 01MI hasize the points of the petition. This was then referred to the Public Yorks DepartmenL• for a recommondation. Public Works responded to the Supervisors in a speedy fashion and recommended an carly completion of the road in their letter of January 15, 197� . The petition, endorsed by the AIA addressed and documented the following points: (a) A county conducted traffic count on Miranda Road at the intersection with Stone Valley I:oad showed 3155 vehicles on March 27, 1973 . This figure is much larger now. (b) IIouding developments by Dame and Bolla bordering on 14ir.anda Road, and the proposod subdivisions by Ostrosky and and Blair--Shonyo- Kisser: om tje Round Hill Road (north) Las Quebradas, would result in increased traffic load. (c) Safety to children attending Stone Valley and Valley schools would be significantly jeopardized, since Granite Drive which intersects Miranda Avenue would be one of the main feeder routes into Miranda Avenue. 2. Approval of Devil Mountain subdivisions without first providing n0-^`Laate roadways, or plan^ to develop them to oandle tale traffic that "Jim. ori .ina to witUr, this p]:n_ect. The safety ;:ohic sur faces once more since all neavy equipment will :lave to use Stone Valley :'oad curing the construction stage. 3. Cancellation of Funds for Stone Valley Road improvement: Funds that, we::e ea,--marked for the safety improvement of Stone Valley Road ($500,000) have been dropped from the county budget 1)ecause of decreased revenues in gasoline takes. It appears that for the last ten Fears, \ways have been found to Bron this fundin-1 from the bud,et, or. to Allocate there to other nreas. . The Board of Sur,,,3rv.iso:rs s;lould :iCT1•biiFil�' h' ?CDII: :.:�!?� t}ii:i uC.�1oi• .iiiZCc= ��it? i)' ;i- 1...: ?r0 CJhil+_ OI1 ilnd Circulatiol'1 of the road, of concomi was <:'rcC: 'i:c'.: J)'✓ an)provec" zictioI:s of !:;it- 13L-,pard. The ATA if: all .record rc"_J•:1l;r:lll'•j the form of a lc)}:::C?: 1111--roducr r'. i:0 t!'.o Tr)ard of :itl')C't ✓.L:: )i:.. ;:Gct1117 of ?1',)r!.l .', ).t %� (]-tCi1 1rt) P► i'lc�:?Li11iJ O:. .`'iU1:L'i:Vl:,;):. T+:in`'C 1:1:. Igit'l AIA L'CIO.'_'CaCZIItCIt: "Cv, sc:iool offic:.alo C1'd othal: civi-t] r; Utl�)Ai, left no i'oubt it:: CU t}1Q F'C):i0'.]ii:C:i:; O� taiil 1liaiaGi:• 1!•. Approval of ritc fo'_' mI1)r11.vi•F;iorl e�) , PUL1I11hill Oal:!l, n-)?:t:l of- T:-ounC:!lill col coin;(' eillti� }.Zf�i {:}1:^.,:1'�r 01. i}i.rill0a ill }:ham Alarm ar1:a t. The dpi)::Avg d to !.1 -, N:io can tris C')S :. Co:171LOil Tho AIA thc. S*_)lh 1??)i}JI1 VAlloy 1*'!.'Irill ill'jG!)1'.itil'�:.i) .:)ll, anj Chc Vollc. Fiction T••'U1:1!11'1 .� )!no all I:C'Gc?11:tU;711]C L;i..-)-t U11.Li::J --mo, .i)nd two Jtl' i1 ,l,:: :�•J(•;t' i ::IL LOt Ll?'ii_t: tilreo, Lin Al it ';Ui ::?1,J.0 :iUll.t....,'ll %o t,;L] trnJ.4 L:. Lt: �vJ.}!✓''I c:/ ... :�i3•]� ;14] 1. 1'Cf'Q1:CiiC:: i,C)mid Hill .:',:,'1 co}111Cct4oll. 1111 tilC rl'.IO.L"C], tilt` dove oj' nr was only fo._'': th-.2 Q1 111'1itc ^11!) ;l:.:i t::�, :11.i:it:]'.]' °h i; , ..1 , ,' a 1. •,. � i r,':.r:?:. ,.�lr.�:, L•h%1 L• t.�;c �_\�� 'cr will L-) .7.'r7't'•?�.'J )n!'fj::C? ti}C, j'').c.itl..t.li•l C'G'11i12 :'.'"Jit. to C`et: it'!i''.:Cl'JQ1 Cl{ ulli : tial:icc' �' :• fool. tient: Lill} cr7't..a'l.- . J.',:Z ii}:] l;):•i,' :)1. '.:!:C :'lie."I:l ':UC:.^, C)i t!?C .^: 4i�'{: ?.11CI is l:e!1..].C: - :U:.'1^:i:'" t''�•1�; a]:e c-- cal- An --c J♦:An f?:)V'1:C)IN!.r.'llj:.1� 11'lj` 1'''' QF (!II:F:C::� fl t t11 .^ i1O'*: 3.:7 :• G'(.,.:r:. 1.1.}11')' `i:(, n':S:' _}Y�,. •-. �;.�.7.11!111: '� :. i i ,• :, i:.• r, thi:; tit-to, 1.t coul.(! aCJi.%:G:': j)?:C)1)i elc1. .:}Z (•I1V).Y.IZ°1GIC;1:'l'.�ll + i:: );a t:}:i :ail! ;:'1i:.�.!?'i (t:. !7 O.:clpr11:L' w1}c}, it t;'il:. ]:r_"7r:r to 111-20; JlIJ'.:( V41. , t1i:bFi �:�}7C•l:. t �(i;C)'"(.':: 't.:!;, 1�?;c'1 f!iC. problem 5. the :i111NUO.~iU_'l (r1IUn�P- J.ilai... al.on., L.-is Q?1G•Ui-arlas Lane 11a.,; },Cat Ln_ j i:7!7rJ]'C.t\to(J i?'• t:�:C 1'.L=tnri.n f • After approval of unit three of Roundhill Oaks by the. cow.:-Assion we see no obstacle in the way of approval for this subdivision. In •view O� !;'ie advar ce'i in this we ):ez-,�iest: 1 tiitildin::J a»d au;division �e:'ri .. moratorium for Devil 's Roane.hill Oa%c, anc.A any ot.'i eY -to va"Acular traffic on Stone Valley, ','A1 :atlua, Granite ani] Las Qae.)ra%las Lane until sash a tit-te as adequaL-e and SATE roads are provided for the area. �Ci.11i.tmt r. 1•�cl: ,fi F�Ti► Prosi.6ont �•:��1;do • 'N ^.t:: (:011t'�zn CL' :3t:i1 L:Uglti:,j Pl;mnir..7 Coln .-.L a.on ✓ Vis! ':'rt1 May 7, .1974 ��,.,,n� '.;:>'�� 1 �••y Mr. Anthony Dehaesus Contra Costal Country Planning Dept. Administration Building Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: At Lhe. I)lz.nning Co)mli.:-::ion hearing T :.en t'.k cd that, We ;rcr.e CJOi11CJ CO CIO A rcvic:: of 011.l' f i.:;::d1 111:•,'+."tCi: rns11lts 'I"d CO:!)I:jcll'O it to our reading of your report. As. ,.,::]It.iollc',i in c:}• 1r.Lt:.c:r, v;'c have a major d:isa<JrcclnLni; on the sul:+_juc t of lnc:ihoclo].cxJa'. In order to I)13J:C? t. m- 1111)llrsda Inectinq miosis fruit:fu.i , and ill the hope %-.?o can reach Jlavz: r, of Our ):G\►LC J. In CIC? :.11:+.1P,1 1:y iablo, our rin-,1j.1'1(,r; CC`:ipni-od • th those or.''1114 O,,c,`•2: ''L•'):C.'.."t:I!l!?11i: 1 :i 1'i C1O:1 C1:;-1.!• ssv'iul11� yo"',r numbers, .. 1 hv)c i:ii tl];u01i+(j j+. c- i:ll�l l ,.'^li ill f.i.116 thiS prosontation it imcful COilll.)•-11:iS011 Of the t:'� L"• :'::i.C?r, i'Ji!1 I look forl•;ard to exchanging vicars with you this Thursclay. In addition to the stimma):y Ub]e, t:hrr.c are cxt::�n�:�.•�e nole_s atte)ched descr.ibi.nq the sC)L:):cos of t:h f i.civ.ro:; di f forence:; .hetwooll your staff ' s and c.,;lL:i. In so: Cases, 011]:' roviC`10 of atir own 1�'orlk 11r1S :ii::1 jC!::l'e'd ill:;'.::'u of cor^ rection and improvC'111ent:J if are rC'visc andL1Jl(;�l is C?U1: .:OI:): compl.et:cl y, rind if we include phasing in our. sm.-J .LI s alhich kle L.'] ll forecast- will ))C: SiUh�it:clll::irll.l'l l.a]7(jo t11an that: shco.-ni on the ^L`IIl.nmry t: blo. Th- r1nf*ici.l: :. I'. C:1 )'OL.r study would produce using alit w.clho(:alocl,• ;. u1c; ou1d o 1)e a surplus if (1) the A.D.A. J;�cr. houscholcl had no:: 1. :::1 oval:-- esti-mated and (?.) the cost and revellu= la,e other three public agencies had been included. Sincercily, Claude (,vilon Principa). J cano:*A;L ...`1 cc: Bill Morse BlIc.. ! ' (:r11�,1 �1U(:it '.' /',SSptIC11nS On 1;L1i!C1111(I (In rro116 Co, C(IM.9';'111 THE "''CAL IMPACTS OF THE 13LACMAWK I""VELOI'I•IENT• ,. Gruen Gruen + Associates (GGfA) & Contra Costa County Planning Department (CCCPD) compared r, Revollues _ Annual Annual Annual Total Property 'faxes Tot;tl i;urplus (+; Operating Capital Annual General Annual or Source Costs Costs Conts Purpose Boll(] Peveitues pc�firit Tax hate Rate - V! GG hA :3,491'3,GGOa 805,942b 4,304,602 4,097,250 611'5 0c1 •1,7C1t3,800 + 404,198 (7: .r. v: CCCPD 3,922,182 E 805,942 1) 4,728,124 4,048,34Gc 604,15).(1 •1,G52,497 - 75,G27 e f Property, Taxes GG+A 448,960 25,259 474,2-19 711,4503 71.1,450 + 237,231 CCCPD no estimates ,,rov1dC(1 n„ca, GG I-A 212,000 230,120 (. 1% 120 no estitnaL.6s provided 11,i1, • Property A j 28,36.1' 1:35,000)• 106,G39 CU JID :) G9,8£321 ].f3G,7.1.31 j + 116,133.1 Propor.ty I'.atQv S ( s Ta , Pevcriur. C” A Y0,000 351,791 701,791. 103,9501, 440,0!;0 550,000 - 151,791. CCCPD 350,000 345,322 695,322. 200,000n 350,0000 5-50,[)00 - PIS, 327. GG+A 1,333,36211 1,0.19,0()01 + 5S5,6313 CCCPD no esLiinaLas provid.-!Cl n.a, j GG)IA I.l.,.l%31,915L I CCCPD aIn this column is shown the annual cost to the San Munon Valley Unified . School District of providing educational services to pup.iln from the Black- hawk development. Not all of the: operati►u3 cost of the SRVUS't is paid by local taxpayers; some is paid by the state. GG+A utilized a figure of $837 per pupil as the local. share of total operating casts. By "ou�il" is rr.'ant the number of persons in average daily attendance at the schools, or "A.D.A." as it is called. A.D.A. is the figure used by the state in computing a local district's eligibility for. :hate aid. GG+A estimated Blac hawk- gnncrated A.D.A. as 95;, bf the number of school. acic! children (4400) to be goneraLed by the Bl.ackhawk project. Hence, A.U.A. = (.9-5) (4400) = 41.80. The C:CCPD r,pproach %.:as: the sane, but is higher nu:uher of ::clsc;ol age children (4932) was forecast: by the county staff, so A.D.A. �- (.95) (4932) - 4686. Therefore, the CCCPD annual cost figure is (4686) (837) _ $3,922,182. There are several reasons to believe that both oporatincg cost estirraLos are considerably in excess of those the 5RVUSD will actually experience. First, both stuclies, attributed to f.he iilackhawk deve,op:vent a higher of school aae children than the project is likely to gennrate. Second, 953 is too high a coefficient to ww to translate scbool cic;p chi )c1l•en to 1•.17.1,. Third, locally--paid operr.atinq costv of the ';NV1)Sj> .:ere b•; aa,rc,x- iwatc:l.y M/1%.D.A. support for Lttesie view. in presant:ed in aLtached. 1]ln Lhis column i^ Lho':m Ow- annual cost of repaying i.}]c: l:on•1, :':aic`t t'hn S3;Vll�17 might: issue to finance the exponditul:e of $11,375,000. 1::] r;rticiaation irl t:}1C :,7 t:':tr` t: •}:':', illi 1 d, j 41 d l rtlfjr• 1 is i, almb•ll; it. .l is 'l:'" :f }1. Vi•Y. , t.}711 ~` U].-Ar.l.CL '\Ctbi. :lll tho n',-v :1rrir 7.5-year be ]c?s at a 5i.': interost rate. If the inl:er.n:iL rl,l '.. e:•!r:: G.5 ., the annual amortization ca::L would be $932,514 rerluc.ing t3] 1:... s?:o::n by 0:14.11 �3 to $277,606. If A.D.A. for.ecas- for tho pro;joc:t: i:: rc: i..•_' : c ,,::llrrr as sug- gosted in note a above, capital costs of the SINUSD %,i.11 al!;3 be reduc:!d. c ' In t}li.s column is shown :.ho increase in property taxo.ri to t3,C %-:h.ich the d�-vclopalerlt of Blac}:hawk would yroducc. In bath cas n:7, t3:_ f iclure gi van is romptited by multiplying the 1973-74 SRVUSD tjonera 1 31!11-,:ase t_x roLC ($7.071 po $1017 of asses-sed valuation) tiw?s the incruase 111 thoC!d valuaLloll l..IlCh liliili}',u'+:}: Will. proluce. GG+A and (:!•G)'17 the •tk'o studies co-mq:mtod assessed valuation differently. lfl?`1'_ clif ferences are compared in Table 4, attached. dThe 1973-74 :3RVtISD tax rate for bonds is $0.906 p;or $1.00 of assessed valuatic]n. 11Cvellovs bore computed by to}:illg this rate time." On net iJ]Grei:.'ie in Lhe di.strici 's�.as,ess :d valuation generated by the clove of t.h ! Hlitc}:hawk prop, :rty. Tlla figures differ because Lhc Lwo s:tucl.ir'�i ce:::pulcc3 a:::(f'SSed val- wition of: the project, differently; :ice Table 4 aLLach.'r.. �GG•►A assumes the Blackhawk property to be served by the Danville fire Dis- trict, whi-ch currently providc;s fire protection ser.v.ico to a -roptilation of 29,000 in the San ka:non Valley. The devQlopment of hlacl:ha::j; wnuld add 14,6b2 persons to the district popUlation, an increase of 50.56°:. If oper- ating coats of the district increase proportionally, I31acl:}la::::-1rc:c.initi wed operating cos'•s will bn (.5056) (;R°8,000) = $4413,9061 there SS.F8,000 is the current annual operating budget of the Danville Fire Protection District. fBoth filcilities and o<luipmcnt r.:!n'_rl,c`s O:oolo bo inctlr.red by 1-ho nint.rict in providiwj file prot.QCtion to thn Itlackhawtl. (1('vC.1C1j)::(C::It.. C.3i:. LhC.• cnsl: of the fire station at $57,500 ($50,000 for the ;:tr:u:t'ure and $'1,500 for the land) and t:hr• cos L• of oquiiarn•_nt at $70,000. The district i!: erl- po'eored to borr0... Surn: forsuch C'::j?L'I1SG !: t C):C<'Cd111�7 of .its annual budget. GG+h astir-:,d this proach t•:oU1d :i•'. Ute 1 L: )C: andr that: tho torah; of the loan for. facilit-ics ~:Quill he 3.0 yc!ars at 71 while the terms of the loan for equipm^liL lrtotild be 5 ycars at 7':. �t'1`h(! .1973-74 tnx rats: .in the Danville Fire ProLoction Di^t.l:icL $1 .0: 1)c e $1.00 Cir as- ::nsvd vaill'ttion. Tiv., lwt incl:C:,25e in flip tl'�t tlilt.ion tionc!rated by I11.1c,Aiawk CIL!V.2.1C)j:llCllt is ";67,500,000. 1-0 I1S?t i,J:!'reane in p!:op2rt:y f::>: revc.-win to tho district to be generated by th�! c:_!%,rAo_m nt: .i n thc:rcrore $7a 1,450. . h'I'il(± GGIA figure is ba::'C!tl on tht� cost: of pol.icu protect .(;:I by Lite COitra Costa ColinL•y Sheriff LQ the City of: 1.,I;n;'c!! Lc: f•:1 a c:,:ltract a ))ii:;is. Lara, ette's cont i!i $303,000 or a pproxf'.ilatcly ?1•;.4 3 _ _ C_? :on (1973 population Cif Larayette 4Ja!i ilpproxinaLc.l.y 21"000) Cir 14,6G2 x $14. 43 -. $21 .1.,000. The CCC11U Pconomic .:;u}''1.'].cl;::'nt dial I:}' e:.itilnate the cost of police servi.cas. 1The GGIA figure is based on the follo:oing calculations: cotint•y Sheriff'.^, hudclet•. $ 6,000,012 lU.1lG% county ..;ales & property to>: revenuo $55,332,3B9 {1l l acl:hn.r:;-etc tit?rated nr2t• i ncreiu;e in county pro- ; (10.t1G.•) { } $: 30,1.20 {por.ty and sales taxrevanu of' "1"2,119,000 } Tho sources for Uie figurur, tined are a!; follo-w;: (1) h^.Yl.ri':+ :)ua- tt is from to Lal police e>:handittwes, ConLra Costa County, 1972•-73, in of t-hat year, 1). 45; (2) county sales and pra;,ort'y L.(rx rc•,cnu' .i.s ..:a the SiIIBC! rC IN)l7t of thv 50110 fiscal year, 1). 40; (3) Iflit Ci:}i:l'.ti ' n!'t incroa!-C! to salol and 1)r perty til:•: revonu^!i to the county is fro.w Table .19, 1). 59 of t:hc! C;G+A 1 opoz t: Lo t:hl•? county. Thesc fi.cturos rci)res_•Ilt an updot.ing of GG•l,t'!; oarl.ic!l: fig::res, which kora basod an P:"t-Amates ri;1Qe prior to tLr publ.icnLi.on of. the .1972-73 Fi::,t:lcial jDoth GG4•A and CCCI'U asswaled the operating costs of the sewer system to be M offset by sc1-ror service charges. Therefore, op£ratinrj costs and rower ser- vice charge revenues were omi.tLed from the calclllat:ions. kTotal capital cost precipitated by Blackha*ok is est'imatcd at $1,700,OOC by computing first, the total present and anticipated investment in plant per gallon pc.'r clay of treatment capacity and second, anticipated fatal invest- ment- in plant per L)irson. This lier person average is then 1117'} t.ipl ied 1,7 the anticipated Blackha::'k population to result in the total ci:1)i1::)1 cost to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary UjcLrict: prcc:i.}?itaLed },, Lha devcl.•- opment of blackhawlc. From this, total, annexation and f.i:.ture fee.: are deducted; the remaining cost is amortized 20 years at 61a2. F:xpannion cost estimates supplied by the district should be reviewed carefully to exclude any quality improvement expenditu--es. The CCCt'p },conomic Supplc:cent reaches a hic,her annual cost Ciqu):. than the GG+A report due to tit.^. utili.;WU0Il of all ii,correct es .imaL'c of L})e treaLmont ca,rlcit-y in the cost calculation; GGIA and CC'CPU cor.L rijlc:ulziUon:: are co;upJred in 7'ab.l.e 5, attachod. 1 : Of t'hc,, tohil tax rate of G3.4(/$].O() levied )Jf the Gcntrill. co"I'Lr,l C;c,sta Crunt.y SallltJ9ry District, abz'ut 20C in wents. Thu GG+A approach wan to t a%u illi!; :'O( raLC t.imt!s til'! disLr.lct as s(!ssed valuation cjuneratc:d by )S.li•::}:}1711}(. Tho [.'S'(;-'r) :: ''1)"Gi7t:}? wits; _\ to utilize I rate of ?t,(: in the? same cal.clllativil. 1}lf` C11)')`t ::'' or (-it(! district is 6.444. CCCrD alro used a c?i t furc!nt H.(ju! .. for 1/11GI:( E4:e in C1.1:;t7:ic:t ilsn:!s';vd valuatix-), %-:hich a7: (li:.,:U'_ .,(!Cl i'..U'.. in nJLv U. `If 20i of the 63.4C CjQ:'::ti to capital. c:c)!;L,;, tIIC• i.es(. {:)!.1`:l: ;Y.! (l,:l'i -od to .a c11 vraLl nq Cor,Ls. '1'17is ri11:lC:i doubt an lo Ulu. prolyl.:: oxtil:v ;ScO -In uot-c 1, t.hilL olic!rating cost.,? and !;e-,,:or service ehrlr(j s are. ogtial. to Part Flay Municipal 1.11J ).ity District boundor.ies arc! iu:lsur.:end to br, r:•:trlu?ail to cnrotlpac;s the propos::gid d-jve.lopmolIL. GG•1,1 ast:i-maLlrcl Ctrl>itct cr,n !s ltr.vei;).iti:t:c:d by the d(•✓cl.opment of Blac'kh.-I;:3; to bo 114, 375,000. The <li !:tri.r_i: 1•:;.11 cu.)lecL i1nll 'xiltion f(!t-s frol'i the. prof 'et', and the rt-.mainillcl c:ili)i.tal (',a:.:L .i L: il' :;l)lll:7 Cl to 1;,, )ended at G. for 20 years. I4 Vlfilst flay 1-hiiiicil)4il Ut-i.l i ty Di.;Lrj.ct: lvvic!!s a tax of 15.40- in Cont.,:il County ill 1973-74. Taking this rage ti;;!:s GGtl)'!; r.nt.i:l:;:Lr of. $167,500,0uo a,; t'ho mere.-sc ill t:IIC a"-'(!ssk!d Valuation of the di.S.;irivt: CjUll'.'7'i11:(?d :)y ill.) tlovol-- op"11C.111: or, F3lackhal"i: it F11:o11Ct1'l:y taxi 1'C\'C'lll. of t ](13,5)>(!. 111:! fil'p 7b].0 'i source cif •Lhc! CCC1'U antis:?at:c j.s disc:u_:.cct in note. o, 1a i • i . AAs the CtG'f•A study reported, part of East nay MUD's revomie from water Sales is available to offset: capital costs. GG4A (estimated tilt total B1ac}:hat,;'!,, generat'rA revenue from both t,aL'cr :;odes a' d property taxes to bC $550,000 annually. Since property tax revenues are given as $103,950 the remainder-- $446,050--is water sales-. The GG-1A study report.c:d in addition that. 6pproxim.ately 36.5^. of Xaa,L Bay MUD'S combimed %•.later Sales and propc!rL}• tax rEVCIluC'.S WAs applicable to Capital co:;ts. The apparent source of CCCPD's property tax revenue esti.malLe of $200,000 is this: percentage (3G.5) of: total revenue; the remainin(1 revenue was then attributed to water sales. PThe level of potential county expenditures supportable from reventios raised by county p_C cr t ' . •n� r r,r• I l-• � • r � ) 1 P ) iula al.a � Li::._. i., rep_( ,(...,. .he u.aOu lt: ilr.tua.l..l} C01leCtOC] .L).'C):m t.l'IL'SC ,;ot: mF;, %•;llich was Jf, :, %til in f.i 5:aZl }•i'll; l'J72 '%3. "ineCth(? total C011i'Ity ]'IU1)lllatl4a i.11 that 1!:c=t1 \'c78r l:it appproxi.^. ,o.oil.y 501,700 thcr 1'li]i:11111ii1 ])('1 l il]>.1 tcZ cU::t. talc COUJI j Ci a ;"'j.':)?'t frn-1 or f.uuds in I'f the 1)(!r capita cc)::Ls: tr) tl:^ county for. L'hr: t-,I,per• of ::(:1:Vi.0 e:. .U,';7OrtCC1 C)l't OL pr01�:!rt! c:rl(1 !,cZlQ:; t2:. l or as for the comity lull:ulaUx.)n ii:; a W".01a, Lhn 131i,c}ala.:1:-].'roc:il,.i lat.c:(1 (:of-.t::; would be (14,662) ($90.94) •• $1,333,362 an:i:Ally. /^ It is linpo).-UmL to co.1�;i.dcr., )lo',:*ver. , that tl,c: ty?(!:= ofcounty co.,A!; l)y comit.,,, 1)l:op;;?rt}, ilnd sale, tax rovelllit aro noL cmit. LU t:'}1l.0;h 1S a0:llcl'. k r.osidcnLs ary likely to contribute sigi.lficit: tl'.'. Yl:l)li(' it!::i.LBl:iillCr! (lit.(lr(`:: lilad(e lip over 636 of the coutlty bllcl:,Qt. :111U'�?^%.i, illi(] thi.!; typo of ,c'rvicc! .i, not likely • o be heavily used by Of cour3(!, 1U:1d it'.i1?rovolnent'; which aro. p imiled for the :dill Rin-11011 VAloy will re(111irc• d:-bur's.c ent of flind!i cit' tll(? CQtlaly tliC! 'a:C1'i) 1;COIIC'^liC Supple:;.o.nt .i.ndicat•�!., "prescmt: couuLy policy lim t: Lhcc c:onsl.riicti.on of: road project funding to revrnu_• darivt_d from the 1!ic:c:::a;' t1::cr:1 T:1x rc: lomi ,,." T)le!:e fund:; aro tr.iul!:fc:rs from the !:` iilc to tl::1 cuialt:y, iulcl W.-C! nl.10Crtt:ed tv particultir road im.provei:16iit project!-.-as part o7 th_ comfit}' hl:'l't(?t.].il'•1 ] roc-c!5G. Although concern han, hovn e.xpro.!u:cd as to Ll,Q c:•:Lent t:o touch stilt(! J ulift fur count:} roit(1 con.hAM--Limn %':ill lie available in tis! future, tho ):aL(? of revenue from the %C per vial lon ::tate Liu: 0!1 in t.ho. curl:ullt Pi:ycal yell( is curront.1y running alluad of: the .,rpt :(>a!: yuar'. cal .lection!:, ::O a sicini.ficant. dc.creaso in thl, i:mmizit of cO::n Lt- expntidi tlll:c!; ill LhiG ituoil SC:eln , 'liJll]]a'!ly. Informal-Jon concerning sLclte gas ta.%: rov('`Iil1Cs is, presented in Tabl.c G, aLL .C:.ed. (I forecast the not. incrca::c: in county p),o ort:y ti:., reveimi? (jmW)'.lt.('.d by 1l1cIC]al%1'R1: Lo b^ $l ,"19,000. Thu." the po'. ta t: :?: C-1.1ectjoll frv:il lllac}:- r s C !; s i i1 • 1 , r� hat;}: ri:::i.dant. i y]a(1,t. t it co:, �:fir(:(1 to ;.10. .•i or o"li:r crnlnl./ r(•.•1.(lt:nt-,. r ' , h rThis figure represents the overall surplus to the service agencies listed which the Black-hawk development is anticipated to generate. In sur-ming the colilmn, Oic $.l.£t,.l.:fl surplus to be realized in po.li.cc protection scr.vices was not addod iii 1 ": au ;c! it %.Y.i.l.1 form part of the general surplus to HIC county government and is therefore already incl.udrd ill the $5u5,638 county surplus. sThe deficit shows. for the ,rCChD study reproner,ts only three survi.caz--schouls, sewer and water. The sewer and water figures of the C:C�;'D alnd GG+1 do riot greatly di.vcrge. The prmnary di.l:ferrnce in Lhe outcn:ae, based on just lhve-,L- three -;er.v.icov, is in the schools., 1•:here the ):c•y ill t•ho f.incal impact c:::timaL•e .li.c:s ill the differing force .,',..; of th.! 1:1:^i:1t.1r of ptipils ill alvorage daily aLtotic."ince. ThC CC:C:PD rorcca!a.. allld thcrefOro ailllili:l_ 11:) CC1Str., by a:; mu.-Al as C). :"011lt 1C; d l.•;C11;5;e'e) at 1C11C)tlh .in t ho tv% t a ccompanyi n7 1'ahl.c'; iind a atttlaichA. If t)le MUD .study h:ltl cc:Lil t_a the fi.;Cal irpict. of thy: on the Danville Fire Protection District and on the counLy , +ricral, Hulls# the: CC:C)'D study would allro h=1va rho;')n .7 positive. f5.1;cill i.lal -let fC;: TA13LG l • /"` pupil Per. 11011scAluld Mult:i.213.crs From Gruen Gruen + Associates (GG-1•A), Contra Costa Cc•unty Planning Department (CCCPD)anal Studies Published by the Urban Land Institute and the American Society of Planning OCficials ' SL•ud �.._....--_--�t•ruct•ur�...•T':ne __.�__._._._ Sinylc: Gurdon Family Ta;.tn- Apart•- Detached house nlents GG+A (111acl:hawk) 1.32 0.70 0. 30 CCCPD (Blackhawk) 1.33 0.95 0.3G Urban Land InsLitute� 0.90 0.x,1 C►.1G American SociuL,, of Planning Officials? Fairfax County, v.irr{i.ni.a3 1.013 O.G!S 0.7.3. MonLc�omc-ry CounLy, 1•:aryland" 1.30 1.00 0.67 • 1'.111x; C'hur.ril, Vir.cli.ltia!, 0.71 11.11. 0./'1 bloonifi cjoale, flew Jcrsuy� 11.11. n.a. 0.21 lla;sa1u CounLy, New Y or1:7 11.11. 11.i:. 0.26 Philacicl.11hi.al (suburban) , Penn-sylvania 0.50 n.i1. 0.22 Shol:.i.c, Illinois 1.10 n.a. 11.i1. 1Georc-le Sternlieb .and Robert W. Hur.chc11., "The 11mr.b :rn Ci::^a: House- hold S.i;:•:" in Urb%'n 1.-111Q, January, 1971. from 11nw Jc!rrey c?,:r;l pt-,bl isiu•cl in 1973 i.nllou::i.:xl 11 rc�l.c�:l,,►;L :1r,? Ifuni.r.i:�:11. COs:I::, Policy ftesvarc.hit:cler:; E111.varsity,. ^Data fc11.' -Jilgi.e �iq'17.Ly U':1 %ICi:'' ll:il.LS is ba.,,uCl on a :;, .111,].r. in 1Ahich villue her unit: <$30,000. �ASPO 1'lilnnincl Advisory Service Report l:o. 210, Sc:hv...l by llou.;t11<I t TAKE 1 (Cont'd.) The Fairfax County survey (1966) found no difference in students pc:r single fam.1.1y e.etacl—d dwelli.ncl unit for densities ra -Azjing from 3.5 doom to 0.45 units per acre. 411ne Montgomery County study (1965) found no diEfercnce in student'^ per single fillni.ly dwelling 1init fot densi.tics f.ro:n to 0.4 units per dere. Garden nparUnit`,It I1n.11Liplie•r is for 21. 3 h;,u:iintj uni.L. per ,ic1'(--; density of 14.2 u:lits por i1cre had Q.6") Fll li(1(:Clt:. p;:1: I::1)L. 'From i1 1962 study published by the falls Church Plann.i.n7 6From it 1.9G3 study conducted for the L'locimingdalc Planni 11(j 110 1::(l. 7From a 1963 5Lucly carlducL•ed by Che 11a:c,au Coup:•}• 1'lilniii iiq From an an art.i cle in the Oct'o1):-r 1961. i::sue cif il:}lith Tait)O. 91'rct:n it 1.960 ron- orL by lht! S a::ie Board of duc::tiea. 1'ic;nrr gi,'Cn f:�r sillttl,, J;imil}' dcllalt:l'IC:d is for 6.G6 11t1u:Ji)I(I 1111it's l:: ;' iiurc'. )li.clhf:), di-11:i.1•ty ::... •11, family (9.16 un.i';s/dere) 1 a1 O.GG sLu(l mts per• housinq Cn:Nti 111'1' A11-11mic!11 thy` diIL'i Lhc (.11-01::1 r,f t 1+: lit :. t.i.!%Lc(! .i►: ':i:'.:lc: ) :a1:; r A—\ F%::'I;, cl.lff'.!"•^::Cr•';, c��:,(,I• Cfi'tr• are i , .+• t. '1'1?„ (�I•l:l'il I,'!ll'i..l :�.).. :1 .lusi.on:; c. .r 1 s t )li 11111. t. 1s::1 t}14,C 11 (::l _ G.,.�,, iil!tl i,:,`� ,1 (>.. LI1•.:::'! it�:(� C; c1)*A.1.y 16(I1wrAllan t.110:'!! 1''il i.C}'I Othc:): F ta!�1::i i.` .,.:tr_Cl. 111,'! tt'•:,1 .; ! ` . ::i t:hnL unll.t:ipl.icr.: ut:ecl for .;,incc it clC!nl :)•OU:. csLiTtai.t! C):. Co1J::F, .i..; ad:'i::i::)IC:, t}►Q C1')'�,?' UC11.C'Cl'illiJ t:}I1L 1,Ir,lmr.!.r:r S.:U.71.(1 }, ! ].I1 OV;'I'QS: ...:It1.C)11. C1)twn G,:u-:!n •F I:.. o- ciilt(!:i therefore propor;cs ',:hc "ollowinq i:.Ul.tl;))•i�`:'s; single family uetachcd 1.15 tO:J1111011s a 0.70 garden apartrient, 0.25 This appro;tch a:uul.d )-oru1 t in 4004 school are chi ldrrn, or 0.:13 1),,-: }I<l :nS.ntl unit iI:% comp;lrod to 0.97 .in th:! GG+T1 r,l.0 an.1 .l.OU in l.hr: C:i:CPD :%l:utly, reductions of 9.31; and 1t3.5`> reapectivi:ly. , • ! 1 1 • TABLE 2 Total School Enrollment Compared to Public School Enrollment: Contra Costa County, San Francisco--Oakland S;•,SA and State of California Total School Public School. Elu-allment rnrol.11nent Per.c:cnt F:nrulled 12 }: — 12 in Schools Contra Costa County 1.55,381 145,014 93.3 SMSA 706,872 631,499 89.3 State 4,925,470 4,52G,521. 91.9 Source: U. S. Censu,, 1970. �iC111�rr11 Sov ia) ;-.n 1 }.cc:1mu c 1)a(: 0.1 of the school eine chil.dron who in t.hn prc);:c)rtc3 • cjpnIcnL ':ri.1l atten:l til.^ J^ub i.0 :;C11QC)]:; Ovzratcd by thc: ::;11^^:l School 1)1•JLl'i.ct ^JUST) . Somo of Oleo ch_ldl:un a;.i ].1 In, nr. ; lcu and other ),rivat:o schools. A rouclh (!stiln:ltc: c)f this) l:c: 93'., .dhL•ly 1cll:; than the 1970 Contra Costa County .level c,f. 3.3 ;. Iii thn discur::ion accompanying Tilbl.c! l., l:c:4 l:uJA1./huuSc!!:(,Ila rulti;llic_ ; 1:er.a )•c'con.1mended which, if appl.iecl to 1: 1C lililCl:},r a; c}C\''101)"1'_:'.!'' pr(,jri.:':, wzo.!1d rosll].t ill all C ::t 1.".1it tC Oi }1].i1Ci;halti};�E .`;C110U1 WIC! f 9.1 of Uiese enroll in Lhc r:c:laois of the S n ka;^on Vill.lc y U:!i.i i.c:i S,it;,ol Dis t:_-i c;L, )11ric};1,a1,•);—cjoi� aerated cn.,o.t].mc?nt in t}r! District will b•e .37.2•;, or 0.£}2 per housing unit. This compares to tho esl:imaL% ll:)_lc: h;/ th:: Of 0.11 public a:cllc)ol attendees per Blac%ha k housing Unit. TABLE 3 Per Pupil Operating Cost of Education Supported by San Ramon Valley Unified School District Property Proper.t Taxos Tonal County and Local Tnco:7t-, Total. A.D.A. Local Cost to SIZVU_'D 011 SkVUSD of A.U.A. 1971•-72 7,001,G4G 10,41:37. $G!% s 1972-73 £3,5G8,030 11,240 $762 Source: Contra Costa County nc?ortment• of }.cluc�:Cian, Fi.nnl:;:i al 71--72 and I`i r; ::lci.ill 7'l.-'i:., '1',:bli✓ i;)T T., Not all of til.^. costs 11 m-i-cd by Ow son Val).(2y Uni i.,A Sch,r)), wire f.iniulccd by Irical pro:.. 'ty til XC:9;. % In ill.!1 siclili.fi.cant source of ravonu:: to tha District: 31.01 in 3.971-72 an: l 19'17.- 73. 'I'al>1e 3 )�r.c ;estt.s; county sand lo;:cl.l i.r.ea :c in jx^r A.D.A. Tho rifle of inf) t:iou from Ji►n•s-�_'y l t•hrolr!i: 31, ).973, was 0. 2",.7 hcncu t.hu 1l!,12-7a .local votit S?,':. i1.D.1,, Cull ill 1.973"7•1 dollars. CJ:w-n C1 w.-n •1• Al;,;o,:iatas bmxd it!; eill:llc : H-iuroC , Qt-,37, on it 101 r..ztc of i.nflaticm in 1973, which eas incorrect., Uso of, tale u.1-2I1Clal: year inflation figurc 1:, ii:);):'C);Il')AI:C to this calcul;iLioli ilr/I�)'Gtii.lOiltC5 t11e J)C1rlOa bi't', :'n the I�Icl;1U3.11t; or. ti?o ' � i ` nt vi r1 t w b � .. • ul .. F O b V t2 U •.1 3 U CJ UI/ ri N •S: .UI r U to . r: to C) .,q O U im tft C) + C 1 U In 11 rl r-i (1 Cl C:1) U r t C3, :> N .`a b r s � 4J .O O $4 41 W.0 RI r � `^f U bt r3 d to ri-41 r•1�� U C. U � N U CS C3 a a a o r. 1 'j c :1 (� to a C) U C) t i :3 11 rJ 1J C) 0 N a L*i Oa in O } to • ► ► rt t7 to t,? t, CJ I� GI tOf ''1 U 44 ,5 0) •-t 01 t o a 1 U ► ► C) W c ri q f) (� �! N Cf U 'C3 -4 > U) U M U 's rs o 0 o a o in to to a in 0 V to �) !`• in N r1 t- t•1 % ► ► ► ► ri o rt •i M h C:• r-1 hN M �^ to N tri to C) to Irl �p M IdJ y to .4 in v c) 1� .C2 in .•4 to to to N rCy • til qs W f a a c) C) n C) a u cj a ct c: s. a p C) u o C) c> a a� � ci i,, in 0 0 to r r1 Iv t` to �• . ► CI M rt • ► trt rrl C,1 t•. N. t,t rJ c•f ,-i rl rt t rI F rf, ri �h [� :- U .i rty ei 000 aoo ao a0 a a C) in in a a C, r) 0 ry c) o c) to N 1 to to a w 0 I, a o e' u @J N L7 t!1 N U.' ri to C) 0) a t:) r,t rJ to N t0 In al V• to o 1-I t" N Q p; V' to N MCI CA to N t,f r tii Imo• rt V 0 to to _ ti U N rs to L, C) co to 0 to c C) l9 II ch tri i1 E! in CV ri 0 N rJ r: In k:, c) N c) u to Ci 0 Ci Nv It CrC) 3 O O ) n r 0 C-4C ►-1 - J C) 0) .��• C) > O ; a ih yr r m to C) U 1 S-i St to to cit I7 $1 t.7 rt N C?Cr 41 ItrJ C14 In c') [` ri )4 cai Cl a to t1 1 1. N } to �; a 'C1 0 (1 tQ @-1 .If i (4 W r r•) 11 NS r. n 0 CG t:1 1") Vr f Ci U CI r3 • U U s • tR Sr S, i r i rr r3 Sr to U Ui C: 0 ti' Iq U' 7 U O I 44 ti N ( U �i ri V W U M r1 to N ,t~ �� Q r3 41 (i .1 f $t Sr r3 •ri O 0 a t3 41 rt t: rJ 'U U n U a to 1 l) r t i) In �J :) t) r r3 U rt r3 C) C, 1) C, N C: C) r-t C, ri .4 1 U to ,•I r-I in ► r3 to ••,I r3 •,i tJ . ir. 41 . 0 LI L 'd I•, r t, t� • C`i C-4 (1 -, C:i 44 V C: U ('f r t C. v l 'CI r-t N N S t r t t`i O r-t r3 U i C: U :i 13 r3 C) rl t i r-t t•i SI rl , 1 i,I r• 6 C: j rI fr C) rs its Irf rrJ O :� l 11 (, .rj 111 t� ri c :i t1 1 n t),i� r3 t>r J.1 f a (i y1 t: E: J C ri C, C, ►t f' U rl Ei ct r+c) t:; c' % (: + O t. r, c: ► f: S• r ? 4 ! r t r) .1.1 rt,1J • C3 /1 C, i, .r U C. CI .. C, f1 t ( ♦1(x'1 w 1 E: t, h n ( v r' .. i� � , , 1 vl f7 t r' rl ) r:; (ti r ll SI f. ;t 1, t• • It ! • j� r) CS •r1 li t} :� rti • •t', t' ••1� U U Cf I4 ti t: t1 1 I •,• r: t: C t:, 4' fir, C' a' C, f•1 t t�, .c. Li ti t: Cornmen t In considering the fiscal. i.npact of a potential development_, one' of the key variables is the change it will bring about in the local tax base. Table 4 compares vG+P, and CCChD estimates of the net increase in - the local tzar, base to be brought about: by the development of Blackhi.wk. The two estimates, %%hi-ch do not greatly differ, are both low considering the changes in coristruct ion costs* and 1ntCrest: 1't'1t.Us Which have t:zll:en place since t:ho i%,zis illi.-- tially {.)roposed. 131.ac):l;a;:}: has recent.ly sent to the, Colint.y revised schedule of C.-vielling unit ..Ihich are preso-nt od below in compari,on to those on a•rhich the £igUl:cs it, `['able. 4 are ba scud. MCIvahin Total by Total 1)"1 SF estaLer, 51 100,000 5/1.0,)/C. 11.5f 000 sI�y I• . .;. V�1..7, J ^c'.rLac2ec? 2155 70,()00 150,1:50,O'. f?01000 1.72,,100,(�C)n * SF aLLac:1wc1 (condo) 1958 45,000 13,110,0:,0 51,00() 99,853,000 apartr):•;ltn 382 25,000 � O,�i)O,C_�'� 28,000 10,09"('),�', total 4546 253,G10,CJa .288,819,OC)O + avcwc.gc: value her unit, 55,788 63, 533 Undoubtedly, conlparabl.c changes %-.ould he recui.red in esi-ira.tLus of null-r.esi.dent•i.al %'a lues. ti 1410 rf .. SA to „� u ro�� f• • M J 0^ '1 i1 N U o d Q h# $4 d v O Q rs ro d a d o in O d ON tC.)) n CO) COJ coU U r3 O O Q C3 M in a in HLn . ► ► t) U O d 0 O • rt C4 ► C C d dC1) w in O O O r-# v). in C) m C) 1, %D (� in t` O d O N r-i r-i to to r• t l O O M "{ tt) u �4 is V U 0 tri v 4.1 •.i Cl r1 to Q U) U 4J r-1 O 0 O d C) •r{ r O O C3 rS (7 f1 d Q O C3 to 0 1- Q C;1 0 vt t) t•1 V (!� O in Q C? O 1� in r1 S"! ► •r{ O rl O tJ C3 • rt r 1 •• C) C7' N Cd to in r3 tJ n ta~ CS h O H in v in U f� M v Vr !• I0 C) ►t C! U 4J { t0 IU U3) rcj .. Q# r3 a tt i! .rIsi (1t 4-) . 1 #z r-jrl in V ' f v in r° Y,CI,' 'Lt L1 r-i r-t C) n •Cl C• JJ t? rd H t~ f'. to t) r-. Q U CJ G) U r p r. >, p c1 r-i o c) 4# t! i) p J1 r t Iu rJ 0 'C} It1 4! •rl i .-i f U) C1 V 11 n rf •r�i tti 3 U) p r t}t •! t! t3 Ci iUJ r ti, ri iJ -L-t $4 it rl H ! i1 C5 10 ui %% () 7, it c•7 t 0 [T r J1 C) J) 41 w tJ #9 41 r3 ri rS 'Ct /0 C• J) •rt it JJ J) to 1 Ai JJ ri C) (: 1 ri �i t4 tw i ri C} u r Cr1 U ri in W n/ (Ti rS it of f)I li 41 •ri N f., U ,r. r1 `' 41 U t) t4 4, dU ' J.) G 1J in r r Rt r r t) JJ C. N JJ 0 •.i 4.1 •04 r r l C) t} C• Cl p $1 r4 r r f: . C4J ( it r ) �) • t1 t} 1U Cii ri f' U C'. J1 C) N f' rS C r•) i r 41 C. CS U LS U 4.1 :A (; (3 U 41 43 C) C) 00 u U r3 U u 44 0 >1 41 p •ri ,+ r# tQ t4 it V. rJ f' ri #; rS u r l C1 it U C1 JJ J) 4J P. 41 .) J., J) U 0 • � {!,n Cl C) :` v U > to O #), v, t.t it r•i N f: C) C) t, i.` r} c• c) n u t) n C) t .1 U C) C1 .i t) C: vl J) 41 41 IJ t) rt T rS 10 C" + t1 ? J) J.1 n C) Cti }: r7 +.J r-) f •rl 'O Q1 -A •J) 1 C: i {), t7 rt t-t fJ If t ,t U CI c C) 0 h+ t: J) Jl r4 11 1 r i U . 1 U J) \ i r tR iJ ► r W • 3 r4 ri ci '3 tt •t) ,) fi! U)1111 it (n N tt) �0) fl, tT' JJ U J/ /'r U7� JJ C) it •3 in r-4 lJ X rS p C) C) , i Ct t' ii Cl U .1. 41 . ii V P. r Conunents: • The main difference in the findings derives from the fact that CCCPD incorrectly calculated the average cosi: by using an in- correct divisor. of 30 mgd, the planned addition to c!aRacity-, where the correct divisor was 60 mgd, the ant:ici.patrd total capacity of the plant. Estimates of revenue from annexation fees also differ. . GG+71 estimated 1300 "benefiting" acres whi.lr CCCPD' s estimate was 2071. The two int:crprotati.ons of the doveloper. ' s open space progratn arc presented for co.-,tpar:i.�.on. acrr.�,c1e opr^ns»aca ,e . GG_fI►r._._. .:C'C�'.. 9a1 r 37G 3'1G (p.0) ot:hur act:ive recrealJon 29 400 (p. 17) total Fictive racreation 405 776 ^ t•rc:adi:nti r,l comnac,rcial �• 1,205 129.; (p. G) • public faci.li.tic's J t:ol.-al benefi-ting acres 170U 2071 (t). 2 4) non-honefi tittg acreage: private open s}race 2300 1755 (t). l7) decdr,d 1000 955 (p. G) total <<crcacir. 48OU 4 7£11 ? 4776 (p. G) Note that the definition of rt "benefiting acne" should 10:; ciiackud • bot:)t t:'.i.t the Central. Contra Costa County 5t+niLar:y Di!Aricl* and with last Bay MUD. CCCVD utilized the figtire of 2071 l:,c;nc:;:,ii:.i.jig acres in loth water. tanr3 set-ier calculations. GG+A utilized a figilre of. 1.300 benefiting acres in the: case of sawer sorvice, in t:hc bc) icf tha L- the cjolf courses would not be settier�'.(1; a fi.e}ut-e of: 1700 tsar, tt:;cd in t•.he gator calculation in the, bolief: that the (jol f courscs tnighL• use F'zist Bay water for irrigation. ' - i • TABL!1 6 California Gas Tax Revenues Redistributed to Counties: Revenue Collection under Streets and Ifighl•rays Code Sections 2104 and 2106 for Fiscal Years 1970•-71. `J.'hrongh 3.973-74 Revenue Program Time Period 2104 2106 (1. 625 /c,(;l1.3.on) (1.. 0r(`/ga1.1.on) 142, 983, 232. 91, ;79 , 1�10 158, 009, 598 1011 '.26, 271. 1972--73 1.58,777 , 379 101 , 01-7, 5221 1973-74 161, 856, 649 (nst. ) 104 , 228, 2.54 . 29 .1.973 July 14 , 3361114 . 95 9, .195 . 3.13. 60 August 13, 864 , 723. 80 8 , 843, 423. 26 Soptcinbcr 12, 081 , 6461. 12 8, 214 , 253 . 55 October 15, 543, 802. 67 9 , 918, 63.3. 74 November 1313.23, 1.96. 38 8 , 368, 845 . 71. beccmber 1.4 , 060, 155. G8 8 , 968, 4'99 . GG 1974 Jamiary 11, 912, 741.. 2.G 7 , 594 , 150 . 43 February 13, 890, 2.1.2. . 44 8, 859, 735 . 99 March .11 , 77) , 900. 5(1 7 ,509, 1.:1(i . 35 April 13,448, 053 (gist. ) 8 , 602., (est. } Ma 13,448 , 053 (List. ) 8 , 602., 3';4 (csL. } June 131488, 05 (c.sL. ) 8 , 602, 35 (est. ) r coil lit:: '1'ilt)lC �i t;hC;'.::; tllrlt:, if a:i 1:111C•11 CJiLP3C)1111^ L:; ::OICI 111 C'Lll.i.'C)Ylli.i 1J1 hp::ll, :; Y il;l;) BILI: of HIC' Current: fiscal }'C•i11- il£; 1:t1 Si :;01(1 U.1 t)lt: ilveragC. 1.11 11111(' I:U1LI7 ;, XICIv(:Mi(IS Lo the sL.:Lr.. from Lie ctallcmaye L.ax will be hi(Jhc:r Li:::l for f.i.sc:ll yoor Since UIC.•s-0 fuller, are allocat-.od ilccording t.o Lhv C:U1:;ltV'i .`:ilill'C: of LoLal L:';;- Vohicic• YC(Ji.:;t l';ttiUI1P; i.Il the stat., no radj.cal chancjO ill CCi;1::L'd (C1:;t:cZ t:oanLy':; (;1 , 1'•: Ci ; Llli!:;(! TRVt:11U :S lv ant.icipaLvd. r ' THE ATHENIAN SCHOOL 1100 MT.MAKO SCENIC KVO. #IN' DANVILLE.CALIFORNIA 04526 ^ Tewplow 917437S ccs•+ 17� May 6, 1974 0510 = • L Mr. Richard Jeha Chairman, Contra Costa County Planning Commission 2700 May Road El Sobrante, Calif. 94803 Dear Mr. Jolla: L am wr:iLlllf,' to StIbnlit my comment on otic aspoet of Ow lt.lackliauk lievclop- rrcul. Uic AL1u•nlan School to 11jeate(1 Lill 1.20 acres ol: 1anJ ,bat forinerJ.; 1.1.1:, Lit-*! western part o1 111ackbawk, not.1 we have covin:(n-, l)ul!?ltPuJor 01) UHL 1!0"111, ca-,A antiJfoutb sides. lL is locatxd para in part bccamse of L!:'.' rural -401.Liog alul thr. JIb,tlnrr. at. !;lthurbi!n devul.upnl:.nt. a17011u(1 1.1-S. iil' et+cmetIL I!: to Idwit l utifivr::tatlti tt1 1••:! f! I1.1c11 !a+lc';; hl:ln:, (or Ole ilrl it:; s urI'*otint-I 1111'. til" ::cho-)1. G1111i)t.15. 11)' lll)l1Ci c;tail111111 i!. 1 !!:!� I'!l :i .` :.11•,•:1:: - - J.ti01it(Ic iIJA u'' i:s vl.:;ihl^ IL"Ir i :t1'pu';, t.1 tt•c L .-p-; of: • Lite. .:; rl1111'?Cliil�' rill)', ::i :11116 to t11e 11;.1!•1: 1.,.1111?llal';' �- .11 1.11 ! 1 ':':! 1/ I't:(11•.!1. r:all 1;t)a1ct. 1'o! In,; tb1:i 111; a !wi., y (li'usot:(:t 1. \!.?:; (11' roj-poll' t!.`J•' I•or I ':tLt Wj.,, thu botllltl:lrl-: of t.bw.. ,x1lool. Ci111ii,14'i. 1 I'l?',:'�t:l `.�i 1 jI_it 1.': 1:11111.,1 6)1.•1 'IffoI.-(I tt: ac(itlir: 1:l•1C1 to Lll;: Lop or tf' he rl.Uy:l; surr1 wiLllli:; :li : , i111t!, i:(1!)Il.lil'i 1!1;11 hlvel-.1ia k w)tticl J.tiu+:ic111)Jti I)(' deve.lopetl, t.!l:lt .1 :wb- dJ%-ldvr woultJ buJ.ltl b1:tu;'_s oil L11. r1dios 'In,l (lol•.Ll ch.ti .11L7i1t!!' I,l+ 1111!' 11c)1'l1 l'L.i. t�h:/iUllil.�', if tllf., l'!'1:.�'.Cf( a 1i1:`.Gl'll;ll�!L i11'nl lf)PI'I'l.l.:: t.b1 .:t' :1'i`'!:, tJ opl-1) .•I'J:1't Lit],.; wHA do .:OIi:Ct'i1ii11 tll S;L', :l1. 1111 Ch?;111.1)1' V; Jo: 11!1. l'oull:,:IIY. .eL1!cr. C{e':�l,t)p1,r P:i ;I+t 1101: tlll I. lU?L' il:l'•• 1 Ji('i't (1 V1 t� ulil:l' I,lalil:. I,ilarebyfh: Pack or iI plJblic ;l•..;(!nr_y 1:'oultl nrdulrr 1116.: I.'•n(1 an-1 .!: ,111) .. ,bat %11. renl;ltnt; in open spacc. T 1!•111;! tilC l'�! 11•:!; 1•121'11 :11 f'kf:l:ll,a' of VWW aI`C1t1 O'.b:!1: 1%1:11:6: 1N::'1; ilr,':C.'1(1l)ll!ta:l.:. til.^• ct):;L Uf I'7:U1:;, 1,16.12'11 11 wta111a 1'( tiUffL', Lt.:i 1t)�:,ILlul1, it:; CUsI- 11C111!i 1;+!:161;! ]I? , prui,.low.; of traffic, 1'111'.::..`: 1. 1'.`!.. .11 t:. 1 ;):•I 11(It WUU clloll,,II illfuri!u:1 oll (.!H!:6L' !1::1'11'1::1 Lr) bUilc U,al: Ow 1111ntilil11)(1 vou1.,J !::'1.1011:61.}' (-.(-,w d'.1I: "l:1i J.':11. 1:':CL:;Iil1.:LoI,.ily wLtll v.101. 1 (1v va,l.11`^ s-1'l'a11.y till' rl:?.;)). nat.11re of f)1l:' .:1!rrll!ll:1111?i;:+ :71,1) !121(Ibi lalle!1 1,r('Ct1r t ilvta L':! r, uul iu t.11.: Wily t.!tt.y nt for Ll!(! :,ci ool t•;i 1.1. i1a t't: E(.11: tuutl': (ll'_C:i IC',; tt) l:Un:C. '1'0 b(' r.!::a].L;t7.C', 11U1:'!.`.V1:1:, ( il:.;::1,lili(: L11'11. I0.4c''S:11:'(••1: Wit[ eviLably be dcvetuped -- if not rola, ill five, t'_n or L1,'unly year:, Lh;w. 1. THE ATHENIAN URIAN CENTER, 2220 Sacraments Street, Son Francisco,California 94116-- (415) 563-1565 Mr. Richard Jeha May 6, 1974 • Page 2 would feel much better if I knew that in one way or another the areas around the school would remain in open space for our present students and teachers, and for generations of students and teachers yet to come. To return to my main point: I hope you will approve lite hlackhawk develop- meet plan, because of its provisions for open space, particularly around the Athenian School. ; :rtt�l .'t2r'i ill t .'t:Lttr' �• tic. i'l;lnit!.t,'; !``i'nrt!r(•tt • • . t 1 REUNED �M� �CT,I�E ow 16 11 a 74 May 3, 1914 D • PLANNING ,- .,aV1'mEH1 CtEt+� R O:S: SIERRA CLUB: San Francisco Zia Chapter ,,�'�O' �V` "V�SORS Y P E /��o`Na'CoS?A ; MOUNT DIABLO REGIONAL GROUP (SIER1tA CLUB) Ut SAVE MOUNT DIABLO LEAGUE O1' WOHEN VOTCRS CONTRA COSTA RE'SOURCL CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA R1XREIATI0NAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES CM11SSION CONTRA COSTA PLANNING COMNISS_O.N COti'Cv.A COSTA PLANNING CO;iMISSIO'i STAFF COti,rRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPLRVISORS CONTRA COSTA DENSITY CONTROL FCO-INFO OF CMTRA COSTA LOCAL AGlNGY FORMATION l:MMISSION PARKS COMNCI1, VALLEY ACT i M.' FORUM ANWOS DE, W M31.0 FLOOD GtlNT1101, AND WATER C0:4SLI;V MON DISTRICT Black 11awk, D.-vil Mountain, and other p1,�nnad commull.ity sites 11avu • been proposed or approved for the flanks and ridges of mt. 1?iclblc The lolls on Pit. Diablo have severe li.nitntions (-lltcrrnatively pcuir • suitability) for p.lamted community development. fhi[ letter deals With the soils on the entire nOuntrlin, anti it calls attention to these totions. Black Ilawk, Devil Mountain , and other- projects ;Iry in Ow ill- limitations (or suitabilitie:) be1nl; cs- senCial.ly the Same in each case. Briefly described, :'!t. Diablo consists of strep.ly to very steeply sloping, clayey soils overlying swtds;tone and ch.:lc at shallow to .I:o& rate depth (JO to 40 inches) . A deCailed Soil :survey haS rcccsntly berm Completedl for CO3It1'a C:1Str County. The Sol.], Consc,rvotloll Scrvl.ce of the tl. S, DolvIl'tnle'rlt Of AI-Xi- culture made the Survey in coopernti.on with the University of California.. Rock: outcrop (a Land type) and 17 sail.. dominate Nt, Diablo ;Inti ita steeply sloping; fl;lnks ar1c1 ridgy;a s. lt1 appl'oxinlaty orcin of il11p0rtanCO3 descending elevation, and acr•ea1;e, these are: l.. Rock outcrop, XvI•01'01011t', atisoci;ltio; (;nap svrllol 1,0 . 2. Valloci.t o,,; .loam, 30 to S(; pvreent ::lulu•; (nlnp ..'Whol Vi-IF). .� 3. Gilroy clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slOPes (rucp `•� f � ,.r�� j�la '/t. i�e,.)� y _IA-, 4. Gilroy clay loam, 50 to 75 percent slopes (maA iymbol GcG) .; r;� S. Los Osos clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol L1iF) : 6. Dibble silty clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slop (+tap symboDo ) . ' • 7. l.odo clay loam, 30 to 50 peer ant slopes (map symbol.tcF) . 8. Mi.11shol.m loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol MeF) . 9. Millsholm loam, 50 to 75 percent slopes (map pymbol i-1eG) . 10. Altamont-Fontana complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol AcF) . 11. Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes (map symbol AbG) . 12. Los Gatos loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol. Lei-) . 13. Los Gatos loam, 50 to 75 percent slopes . (map symbol LeG) . 14. Gaviota sandy loam, 50 to 75 percent slopes (map symbol GbG) . 15. Gaviota sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol GbF) . 16. Alo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol Aal') . 17. Diablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol DdF') . 18. Briones loamy sand, 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol BdF) . Rock outcrop (Re) consists of 50 to 75 percent shale and sandstone rock outcrop. The remnin.ing area is Loamy soil maLerial lcFIs than 4 Lo 10 inches thiel: overlying srnndstonc and shale.. Natural drainage is cxccs- five, permeability is moderate, and shrink-sc;,el.l and corrosiun potentials are low. Water sLortige capacity is very to negligible. I'll(! 1'allc•citn, :coil (VaF) has a he.j,., loam and clay loam surface soil and a light cl;:v subso.i..l.. lintanorphosed sandsWiv and shale I>aclrocc arc at 20 to 36 inchos deptl►. 1'1►c soi.l is wc,11 dra.111cd, slov�ly permeable, and rhri.nl:-;ct:•cll and corrosion potentials are high. ldater ;Lornge capacity is lava to ncodel-ate. • The Gilroy soils (GcF and GcC) lhave. a lif;ht clay loam surface soil and a clay loam and very gravelly light clay subsoil The soils overlie basic igneous bedrock nt. 20 to 60 inches. The soils are well drained, purr^eabi.l.ity is moderately slow, and shrink-swell and corrosion potentials are moclorate. ldater storage capacity is low to moderate. The Los Osos soil (1.11F) has a clay loam surface soil ai�d a light clay subsoil. Sandstone and shale bedrock are at 24 to 40 inches depth. 'rhe soil is well drained, slowly permeable, and shrink-swell. and corrosion potentials are high. 1-hater storage capacity is low to moderate. The Dibble so]] (Dcl') has a silty clay loam surface sail and a silty clay subsoil over.lyink, shale and siltstone at 20 to 36 inches depth. 'rice soil is well drained, slow.]y permeable, and shrInk-sc.:el .l and corrosion po- tenLials aro hIgh. p'al'er sLorage capacity is low to moderate. The Ledo sail (I.cF) is a clay loam overlying sandstono and shale at 1.0 Lo 20 inc•'.ccs: depth. Tile soil is somewhat u;:cc'ssivaly drained, perr,ea- bA ty is; mojorat.ely slot;, and shrink-swell and corrosion poLenLials are moderate. WaLer storage capacity is low. Tile Mill.sholm ;coils (ilol and h1c:G) are loamy overlying smidstone and shale at 1.0 to 20 inches depth. The soils are somewhat excessively drained, • r - permeability is moderate, and shrink-swell and corrosion potentials are low. Water storage capacity is low. The Altamont soils (part of AcF and AbL) are clays overlying sand- stone and shale at 40 to 60 inches de,)th. The soils are well drainod, slowly permeable, and shrink-swell and corrosion potentials are high. ' Water storage capacities are moderate to high. The Fontana soil (part of AcF) is a silty clay loam overlying sand- stone and shale at 20 to 36 inches depth. The soil is well drained, per- meability is moderately slow, and shrink-shell and corrosion potentials are moderate. Water storage capacity is low to moderate. The Los Gatos soils (LeF and LeG) have a heavy loam surface soil. and a clay loam subsoil. Sandstone and shah bedrock are at 24 to 40 inches; depth. The soils are we.l.l drained, permeability is moderately slow, a+,d shrink-swell and corrosion potentials are moderate. Dater 5t•or, cill)cl- cities are low to moderate. The Gavioi.a soils ((:b(; and Cbl') are sand.. lorins overl"'iIli' sandstollc, at 30 to 20 inches depth. 'file soils are cto oxc+ sively drai'led, ovi- lc IbUity i:; moderately r%pit!, ncl ;11;11 corrosion poteuti:.ls are low. hater storage capacities are vcry low to low. The illo soil, (i 11') Is i clay overlyi tig s a :da tr::c and shale at 20 to 36 inches depth. The sail. is Dell. drained , F-l<+.:1y percneai,le, :Ind :;llriul:- :;well and corrosion potentials are high. l,'atCl' :;:orrli;c: capacity is lo'.r to moderi.ite. The Diablo sr :1 (1)(li••) is a clay overlyin-, sml•21•:tl)ne and shale at 40 to 55 inches depth. The sol1. is well drained, slc•.:lv perre,sble, and shrink-swell. and corrosion potentials are high. later stor,:,.,e capacity is moderate to high. The l;rionras soil (1►dl') i.; a 10,1111Y S31111 oven;in;, soil at 27 to 40 inches dopth. 'fila soil i.:; somewhat drained , Iyer- meabil.lty is: rapid, 'and shrink-swell and corrosion pvtcntials are low. Water storage capacity is lint. The hock outcrop land type (Ro) dominates tho tai(' theft• hefuJ;c1 and Mt. Ui,lhlo State park. Thi., rcmninini; 17 soils bordor the Pock outcrop land type (he) in a rouf;llly circular pattern ,:nd in doc:reasing al.ev,ltioil.. 111.1 17 soils ;Mons.; with Kock outcrop arcs rated !,everely liulitc•cl (,Iltl:r- nativcly Ix+a .ly sulte•d) for plonnod coo;rlunity uses of soils. I'hhse L es include on-site disposal of waste• by septic tarn'. nbF.orptioa fiu.1/;:; and sewage 1.1},00hs , "II'l11ow V..:vavatiolls, dwel.1i11F, sit.C.�; vit•II or 'n'I tlIout Ila!;e- ments , sanitnry landfall , colls,.trul:Llon of local road;.: iu!d sLI'Cct::, :Ind the suitability of the :;oils for rorv.1fill , sand or i,,ravol , and topsrlil . M.fill I ( hills anu do:;crlpt ion:; of each of tllc'se kwo ,, .:lont; :;ith criteria for ratini'• their limitaLlons and hazards, are lJ\'%en in ,I Ctlide for Inter- �retin); the Un1;inec�r.i.11a; l�:c:; of Soj-1u .s, U. S. DepartrC.Ill: of Agricultre, Soil. Conservation Service, issued Novei,lher 1971, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1). C. Price, $2.00. , • The dominant slopes of 30 to 75 i. .reent, slob to moderately slow per- me^bility, clayey texture, woderat- to high shrink-swell and cnrrosion potentials , and shalliro to moderate depth (10 to 140 inches) to bedrock are the principal reasons for the severe limitation ratings. Other serious problems with these soils are the following: (1) severe mudslide hazard:; that would be increased by construction, (2) severe soil. erosion hazards if the vegetation is removed, and (3) the loss of on-site water storage capacity, increased run-off, and increased downstream flood hazard. lit. Diablo has severe soil, slope, and drainage conditions for planned eouauunity dc.-jelopment. The basic soil characteristics of clayey te:,ture, sl o.... tO InodCl'atel:' slow pnlit.y, SCCcp to VCry !;[evp s.lnpt'!: , nodoratc to IIit;ll ,shrink-st;ol.1. and corrasion poLcnt.it:lq, and fll:!lln-.: to r10t!C•r;1tdI!I)Lh to bedrock wi11. 1cl::1iII irrespective of ,:Ltcnlpt.s Lr) tilt uif;� t.h:r1 I`}' hl.ill)II r, of Con!:truction. Const.rllction would nlso inrrea.'ie l'll(' itl!pC1"di011., 5'_!1'fal'(' dCCI'ease on-::l.tf watCr st0rai;e ca 11ilt:i.ty. i11CrvasC rllil-Ul f , 111Crc.itye the• 11111tls.l i�1e 11azo rd, i11croat,v t I I e dn::'nstrc.n:,1 fIclod 1•azard , ai! I Ln:rcc'!:t: Ll e cos Ct Ut flroll 11'Ul . The C(I1"p;. of lillt;111eC!1'!. {s IIU:.' titUdj'111C; ;11L07"I1pL1Ye flood control prohusals costing Millions. of Bonar!;. 111 V1CW of the sovere --.LLL, limiti.tions, the ptiblic would I-, hest ;:crvl' d by dove Io,a..t:!nt on more suitable areas. Theso ore av;l.ilc!l1lo for ll:;e in Vacant ;pace :]moll}; tllc! cottltt:unitics no:., de oloped 111 0!nVI-n.) Cont1•a Cof,Vn County. These arra; h:Jve the roads, ULilitiv�: , schools , and ::orrice facfli- ti.es , and they could ;:hsorh Lho increased populaLinn at far lt;!; Cn;;t. Lo the public. School yore? Iru`ntn are falling in many roi;,'au!11LIe!; , rind in places sChool.a al't! bei n:; conro.lidated or c'li1••linated (c.g. , Concord, l.afayotto, and t•1-intla) . The best, use of HL. Diablo is for recreation, wildlife, '. ivc!-tocl; grozint^, water supply, and tha possible gellr!rilt ion of clectri.ci ty lir ntm- pol.lut:lnt; rand po::ar. !.It. Diablo ;should be retainc:d ill open spaco uses , public or private. Rudolph Ulrich Consulting Soil Sciclitist Board of Directors, Eco-Info • i This written correspondence was received after the date established for re- ceipt of comments to the draft E.I.R. ji.e. , one week after the April 23 Planning Commission or April 30) but has been included in the final E.I.R. for the information of the Board of Supervisors and the public. • a • BLACKHAWK April 30, 1974 Development Company I,-1 � '1 Planning Commission ;1(�ti1�;' Contra Costa County Planning Department PX Administration Building '' ,...... . Martinez , California 94553 Re: 1840 Z Gentlemen: At the public hearing on April 23 , 1974 the Commission gave the public additional days to comment on the draft E. I .R. The purpose of this letter is to make three points. First , the great majority of the comments made by the public at the meeting on April 23rd concerning the E. I .R. • directed themselves to the sepcificity of the E. I .R, not the sufficiency thereof. The speakers obviously were unaware that there will be subsequent supplementary E. I .R. ' s as each final development plan is submitted for approval. Each of the supplementary E. I .R. ' s will be much more specific as related to soils, grading , flood control, sedimentation, etc. , the exact points raised by the speakers . In our view, the law only requires an E. I .R. to be as specific as is necessary to properly advise a decision-making body with respect to the action to be taken by it. The E. I .R. information presented to you to date is more than sufficient to justify a decision by your rezoning our property to P-1 . Your approval or dis- approval of the subsequent final development plans will be based on more specific E.•I .R. ' s submitted at that tim(--,. Second, we request that all material that has been pre- sented to you in the course of the hearings be included as addenda to the E. I .R. These include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) JARA Report 2) SCIS/Gruen, Grum & Associates Report 3) Lowney/Kaldveer Soils Report 4) Slope Class map and study by Kicker-Chapman & Associates • 5) Memoranda of Blackhawk Development relating to General Plan issue 6) Staff draft E.I.R. and Economic Study 3171 Blackhawk Road 0 Post Office [lox 807 9 1)anville, California 94526 (415) 837-1571 ., Planning Commission April 30, 1974 Page 2 Finally, our consultants will be working with the Staff to assist them in the preparation of Staff's response and the finalization of the E.I .R. A transcript of the last hearing has been prepared and submitted to the Staff. The Staff has been working on their response and we expect that all matters will be ready for..your decision on the E.I.R. and on our project at your May 28th meeting. Very truly yours,' Robert W. Carrau President RWC:km A+. • April 29. 1974 An 30 3 zt M '14 Contra Costa County Planning Commission cor,-r.:. : PLAWAG Martinez. California Re: Blackhawk. Development Environmental Impact Report Gentlemen: In March we wrote you a letter expressing our concern about the Blackhawk Development. We also expressed these in public hearing. While we spoke at the time that you were hearing those who were pro the development, we were not collectively either for or against it. We were simply worried over what appears to us to be the inevitable impact on our properties and our way of life. We have had many conversations with the Developers. They have promised us the following specific things: 1. They will ask that Blackhawk Road between the Galvin property and Tassajara not be realligned for access to their property. • 2. They will be responsible for, and pay damages in the event of, well, septic or drainage problems caused by their development. -., 3. They will pay for water and sewer connections for existing homes. 4. In case of suit for damages they will pay court costs. They agreed to ask the County Planning Commission that the above be made conditions of zoning, and to reiterate this in the form of a written agreement. After repeated delays today we received a first draft of this. Their stand on #1 (Roads) was agreed. However, the rest of their proposal was far from what they had promised in order to alleviate the possible difficulties. We submit therefor, that we do not currently believe that the Blackhawk Development is acting in good faith. Sincerely, Virgi a Jour##' (F r th Home( wners iving adjacent to Blackhawk Development) �ohn R. Ward AU RAI, l STtrR lZfk. CLUB y 5600 COLLEGE AVENUE / OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94618 / (415)658-7470 28' April 1974 Plaruting Commission Contra Cc sta County County Ad--diiistra•iion Building harti.nez, CA IT: Project tW-'3L Gentl:emens The S o P, i3,zy Chaptrr of the S Terra Club v1,hes to object to the l cr,,-t . r:.dequ2.c:y of the L•'n��immonto.l Impact Report (EIR) on p::ojcct'• ID"i,-167 Blsc,::�a�:;: fi,aicho Bccau:,c im have not. rai.se:t spc•ci.fi.c questi_oii;: or m•;uie ,pccifie co- ents on tho EUR, .,a v.1ch to identify ourselvest for the recc•rd, Stith a3.1 questions and. commcnts that hz;c becn :,uc::;ittod in a t1saely vclyc Sincerely yourst Helen ho Burkvp Conoervation Chairman S--.- Yo Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club Diane Hunter, Chwp4er Chairman S. r'. Day Cliap4ar of the Sierra Club ;' c =' r' t In 103s DIM b 0:i 'r; , • RCr F1 41"VE D APR 29 9 (is AHI 1,14 CON1•R:. PLANNING :?k1>r.htfA!:N1 835 Juanita Drive Walnut Creek, California April 26, 1974 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Administration Building Pine and Escobar Martinez, California Deer Sirs: Enclosed is a revised statement on the sol.l, slore, and drainage conditions on the B'lac'k Ila-.-.,k Ranch. Please: use this statement in place of Lhe • statement I subiAitted at the hearing on April 22nd, Fours truly, Rudolph Ulrich Consulting Soil Scientist RU/nb g Enclosure \ J FD Apri.1 'LG, 1974p Q. R Zg g Is CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING CO2NIISSION ~` '�"'�" ' `%•'•� 't,!',�, Black lial:At Ranch has: been proposed as .a planned corciuniLy site in San Ramon Valley. The ranch of approximately 5000 ec-res is on the southern flanks of Mt. Diablo State Park, cast of Danville. The soils on Lhe ranch have severe limiLarions (alternatively ' poor suitability) for a planned communisy '11hls letter calls attcnLion to those limitations, and it an alternative proposal. 111•iefly cioscrihed, the property consists of steeply sloping clayey soils overlyi►.,, sandstone and shale at moderato depth, fenLl;' sloping, uarrom, creek bottoms run north Lo south in the •,!cstern, central , and eastern portio r, of Hic! ranch. The creeks are East iirnnc0 Creen Valley, Sycamore, and ,.laino. A.lomo Creel: drnin5 into 11 amoda County. A doLailed loll. survey has recently boon completed for Contra Conte County. The. Soil C:onsr.rvation Service of tile. U.S. Uop:22"tr..nt cif Agri— culture made tl►e survey in cooperation with t:ho University: of California.. $ix major soils and one lnnu type, and throe minor soils dc:;.inate the property. In apprnxim.1te order of i.lnpol'Lanrc and rNcrca.,e, these are: 1. Diablo clay; 30 to 50 percent slopr.s, (map syr.bol Ddl') , 2. Diablo clay; 15 to 30 percent. slope.-, (map WE) , 3. Los Osos clnv loam; 30 to 50 percent slopes (►ls, h. Los Oxo s rlay lox.-.; 15 to 30 percent slopes (Wap LhT.) , 5. Lodo clay ].oar►; 30 to 50 percent r,Iopes l.cF) . Ors, 6. Rock outcrop, Xerorthents Association (map symbol Re) . 7. Alo clay; 30 to 50 percent slopes (map symbol AM-) . R. Cropley clay; 2 to 5 percent slope:; (map symbol Ckll) . 9. Conejo clay loam; 0 to 2 percent slopes (mrip symbol CeA) . 10. Clear Lake clay; 0 to 2 percent slopes (map symbol Cc) . The Diablo soils (DdF and DdE) are clays overlying sandstone and shale at 40 to 55 inches. The soils are well drained, slowly permeable, and shrink-s..cl.l ;uid corrosion potentials arc high. Miter storage capacity is moderate to high. The Los sins soils (l.hl and Lh") have clay loam surf. ice soil and n light clay subsoil. Saudr..lane and shale bedrock ,Are at 24 to 40 inches depth. The nails arc well drained, s;lo:oly peruivable, and shrink-s;:ell and corrosion notentials are high. Viter sturag;e capacity is lc.: to moderate. The Lodo soil. Ox F) is a clay loan; ovcrlyi.ng; sandstone anti shale at _ 1.0 to 20 Inches. The sail is somewhat excessively drained, permeahility is moderately sl o;:, and shrink-swell and corrosion potentials ara moderdtr.. Water storag;c capacity is, low. Rock outcrop (Re) cons;ists of 50 to 75 percrnt• sliale and sandstone rock outcrop. The remaining; area is loamy soil m:►tcrial le.,,,; Uian h to 10 inches, thick overlying; sandstone and shale. Natural drnin.zg;e is exces- sive, permeability is moderate, and shrink-swell .ru;d corrosion potentials are low. Water storage capacity is very low to negligible. The Alco soil (AnF) is; a clay overlying sands tone at: 20 to 36 inches. The soil. Is vel1 drained, slowly permeable, and s;hrirnk-swell and corrosion potentials are hig••h. Irl:;t.er storage capacity i., Iow to n;odornte. i • ^ Cropley (CkB) and Clear Lake (Cc) soils are clays mc :e than 60 inches thick. Cropley is well. drained, and Clear Lake is now moderately well drained. The soils arc! slowly permeable, and shrink-swell. and cor- rosion potentials are high. Water storage capacities ire high. The Conejo soil (CeA) is a clay loam overlying clay at about 40 inches. The soil is well to moderately well drained, permeability is moderately slow, and shrink-swe11 and eorrosion potentials are moderate. Water storage capacity is high. The six major soils (Ddr, DdF, Lhr, LhX, Lcr, and Aar) alonE with Rock outcrop (Re) comprise 90 percent (more: or less) of the ranch, and they are rated as severely limited (alternatively poorly euitud) for planned community uses of the soils. These us:s include un-silt dir,pocta at' waste by septic tank absorption fields or rowage lagoons , ex- • cavations, rhv:cl ling si te: with or without basrulcnt." , s-2111 tart' land f i l l , construction of local road, and street,, and the suitability of the soi.l;l for road fill, sand or gra-.-el, and topsoil. D-finitionS and descriptions of each of these uses, ilong with criteria for rating their limitations and hazards, are given in a Guide for lnterprrtii,i; the t:nrincc rinr; Uscs of Soils, U.S. Departme:nL of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Servlcc, issued November 1971, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C ; Price $2..00, stock t0107-0332. The dominant slopes of 30 to 50 pergent, s]a:: pert^eibllity, clayey texture, high ::prink-swell and corrosion potentials, and the restricted depth to hedrork are the reasons for the severe limitation ralints. Other serious problems with these soils are tile folloc:in,;: (1) scvcrc* mudslide hazard thaL crotild he incrcisod by conntruction, (2) L ' isevere soil erosion hazard, and (3) loss of on-site water storage capacity, increased run-off, and increased downstream flood hnzar.d. Except for an instance or two, the limitation and hazard ratings for the Cropley, Conejo, and Clcar lake soi.]s along; the cri.:nkr are also Severe. Clayey texture, slow permeability, and high l and corrosion po- tentials characterize these soils and control their behavior even though they are gently sloping. The Conejo and Clear Lake soils are probably al.- so within the .l in 1.00 year frequent} f.l.00ding zone according; to the Corps of Engince:s, and they probably have this additional. ha a-d. Black Hawk Mulch has severe soil, slope, and drainage conditions for use an a plannod communiCy site.. The basic charactorl .ti4s of clayoy Le%- Lure, .^,ler:: permeal)M.Ly, dominantly sleep 510pc:;, hiy;h shrink-s.:cll and corrosion potentials, and restricted depth to bedroch %.Mll remain irrespec- • , tivc of attempts to modify them by nl.anning or construction. Construction. t••aulcl also increase the impervious surface area, dec:rc•ase on-sit•- water storage capaci.t;t, increase run-off, increase the mudslide hazard, increase, the downstrenin flood hazard, and increase the co;,tn of flood control. In view of ,Le severe: sito limitations, the pul,li c would be bust served by developmcnt on more suitable area;. These areas are available fo,• use in vac::nt space among•, the co^_nuaitle5 naw developed in Central r Contra Costa County. These areas have the roads, ucililiccs, schools, and service faci.lItics, and they could absorb the 15,000 people at: far lc's cost: to the public. School enrollments are falling ill many communities (i.e. , Lafayetto, Concord, Orinda) , and in plaens :schools aro, being con- ,o].1dated or eliminated. 'rile best use of Blacl: 11,.:1: Manch is for recrea- tion, wildlife, livestock grazing;. Ater supply, and the possible genera-- tion of electricity by wind power. The public would be best served in these uses and at lower cost. The owners of )clack II.r-A Ranch should be granted reasonable compensation for their investment, and the site should be retained 3n open space uses, public' or private. Rudolph'Ulrich Consulting; Soil Scientist Board of Directors, Eco-Info RU/nbp, i FSEs . s oaf Richard Thal l t,cai r 1712 Lindenwood Dr. =r. 1•'.'�tt; ��; concord, CA 95421 April 25, 1974 r Mr. Anthony Dehaesus Contra Costa County Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94533 Dear Mr. Dehaesus. I have in my possesion .a copy of Environmental Impact Report , 1840-RZ, (Proposed Mackhawk Ranch Development) , which I have thorous;l►ly react and sL+.=died. 1 am quite disturbed about the information contained in that report. After +lotnr, re- search on Mt. Diablo for '1 years in partial fulfillment for try Naster of Arts Degree at San Francisco State University in Mology, 1 have aquired a spacial interest of this entire area. I am apalled by the superfical information that this particular impact report contains about the fauna and flora of the Black- hawk Dcvelopment. Some: of the questions 1 would ask, as a IsiologisL would he; Dint pressures will be placed upon the fauna and flora? 1lhat species will lie t+rrse;nred tia, must? llic impact report also lacked information about the population and density of various =` r, ors,ani:m:,. IL is most imperilive. that some population data of density studies should be provided on: 1) deer 2) mountain lion :i) red tail hawk 4) golden eagle 5) _ _ faLcon 6) various small bird specks I) cuyute 8) ground squirrel 9) quail 10) bobcat 11) racoon 12) skunk 13) various small field mice 14) reptiles & Alameda Striped lacer 15) amphibians I. California Tiger Salamander J6) various plant species The environmental impact report states that two endangered species , the Alameda striped racers .and the California Tiper Salamander probably exist on the property. An impact report should determine agiin the density, location, and what steps will he taken to procure the safety of these animals in Che future. If develop- ment does occur in the Rlackhawk region this: will redUee Lhe range of the racers , increase the density and consequently decrease the population. Vie California tiger salamanders habitat is usually a slow moving stream. Tile rupor.t indicates that there are some streams of this nature on the site which might f.luod locally Page 2 with continued precipitation. Man's habitation will ultimately increase the flow �^. of the streams which will eradicate the California tiger salamander along these streams. All of the above mentioned animal life so far have certain territories in which they live. Animals defend their territories either throughout the year of when competing for a mate each spring. Some animals compete for their territories with similar species wick would lead to a decrease of population. What will consequently happen to the animal populations around Mt. Diablo if ani- aals are removed from a 5000 acre segment? Many persons will not see the dia- sterious affects of mortality upon the animal life but the population will be drastically reduced. What percentage of the various organisms will mike the adjustment if Black- hawk is developed? What will he the mortality rate of the various organisms? 'tile impact report states that the chaparral , grassland, streamstdo and foothill woodland communities are found do the proposed site. Where LWO communities integrate ecologist tine theterm ecotone. Since Lhe ecotone is it combination of two vomm6nities Lhi. area will produce Lhe Ircalest numbers of fauna and flora. Since Lhe development will extend Lo some. areas in the chaparral regions above 700 feet and also into the stre;;mside and fooLllill woodlands, I should not have to elaberate on the deterious effects of tha fauna and flora of the area/ There was also a .Luciv done on the Valley 0.0:, Oucreus lobJ , t,•hir_h indicated Lhat the valley oaks were being eliminated in Ghe San Ramon Valley Region. Why does'nt Lhe impact report refer to this study ? WiLll a creak itnpacL repeat such au this it is no wonder Lhat the fauna and flora ;are rapidly disappearing frum this area. If continued I.Ir5,e scale developments are allowed to mature such as Blackhawl; it is only a maLler of a fee: years; until the majority of Lite local fauna and flora are eliminate(]. Sincerelv � '-& Richard ]hall •^ r Lj Vag B j• LNC tfmn rfalarusul_ POBOX993 QAHVILLE.CALIFOANIA 94520 Lv t•loti on passed at regular meeting of April 24, 1974: GON'TRA The Valley Action Forum opposes the rezoning application of the Blackhat•rk Ranch due to the following concerns : 1 . The Valley Action Forum is concerned th.lt the economic data available to the Valley Action Forum has not demionstrated that. the Blackhawl: Development WOUld not have a substantial adverse ir-pact on the San Pam,')II Valley Unifiod Schoch District, even if Clackhawk meets the rgUil'elUcnt; of the polic on availability of schools . 2. The Valley Action F-rum is concerned about the ability of the County to financially support new road develop:-ants and road improvement l.rhich would be required by the Glackhawk Development. 3. The Valley Action Forum is also C011Ce1'lled that non-Rlockhawk private .•. land might he taken to widen existing roads for the pu►'pr!se of providing access to elle Bevel of?ll,erlt. 4 . The Valley Action Forum is concerned that the rezoning of the D1ack.nz:v:,1; Ranch and the extension of roads and utilities would create intense prhssure to develop thousands of acres adjacent to the developwc:nt which are presently in primarily agricultural zoning, at a tirr2 when the Gencral Plan for this area is about to be reviewed. 5. The Valley Action Forum is concerned that in the evont Blarkho:;l: is approved subsequent changes might be rude in the PUD v.,ithout reconsideration of the entire PUD. 6. The Valley Action Forum is concerned about the potentially adverse impact of extensive grading on the foothills of Mount Diablo. ti�.lislu` '.,1.t JLsol1J ':leo cJ.�.:: �3l edv.;u is) •;i:, :•sii• aa:. voce—:I in.; t.!a' wvxv and V..=•1.►1 nut of a .1'_:'o va31'11"It; 4011 4,110 is?•!:c-A1u'.ri: ,gym :n'1. . _his ;1 a M")- Agrams z of .$21:11-'Vo b::cawo Of LIM at und'Lho CO•.V1S«ti:./••1./ no-al-00 02 Nn,.Q1+ r2'J1. `` o poembo • 1113 l• a 3.3 on -end S11 t J :1J 2+«'tlV :1(i tt i1S...Lt:1 _'t,ai•5.1.� 12_..91 2a1 .1. ►.(i: 0..._, +)vuv lurL,y U:`CCi'm V1• Ill�ii�s�'`i0-ii1l;:vo bu-m al,.;1t:al al. L1:0 ;, lmlap InclilA.- C:10 talt:!l_v1 c::,a lt:i:1 Ono L.i::U• C: c-a i luo i---ron nuw. ;.=.:oro : ;jro .►� qcloti i• :1:o :•rsa uiiiL•c CMZ Atua Uavo bu\•:1 ✓ 10 ttJ• �aQ '•'2i; L�.r nildo nvev Una 3n a:3 Vao 3.i:::u o:lo l:wl_l or bLr: !a a3;;hr..�ti u:: i.:::� _•.`;:cti �,±►�_.•c:ri.J. :�:�;: 'ye-Jr ix ;:1?�.1�::1 •L :3 .:�? ;>>' _•1.s ' ••.i 1a 1 n�; . ••:� ',�+r. :•7 UA 4AIX) rr:il .1•'.' I. o 1 •c 10 :. . ;.tin 1:u:l. n ou1::•c .,, ..,:._ ., • � n d: y a. •.•.! r:,x.,,..�. �t.a,, , rhe �) :� a:. ,. 1n :.c. •r i:.. : ....:: •!en0:1 w 1. ;G. .•.....1. l.�ll.. • :i d 1, :.1.J in nn .t ...�: �?:.•..�1;• ..�:..i2•:\.' ...2 .=.tl)i!? O'a-:C-),.C:0 10..) ?�\• •.V c'; V\.. Ic 4!'.n •,.{ .,7.•V u V:-e: .«.�111:.L•.I4 -r J . ♦1l. ♦J.•r.:t . .1•)�, •:�.� •...�.`.�L: X \1Ji�•} ,� _.:..•'i •.'..� �:...• 4.:i+ �()•'•.♦�.Jw_. • t•I..�I w)'. ��lij i:iJ�.i V f.l.`.� w 7�•y• �. :i�-1 �:::Ll1 L.w..J I:::u :•:,%,:.0 ?12 L::O i'i► 1\1'7 , :Jia /C..• t i .. .. , «1 . '../P .1'1..11 UL !:�.�. l •::?�\_,• .�. t:! SCS r._ :J'.J :/•. :t. :]. •:�I „- is J i.•. C:.'1 r. t7 t•!. .\: L .:1 1:C t2uC•.► •:+•T t •�� c vI 1, ,,il.lii'o rottianut�tl tihcn InLrcx:ucod ,lant•o ro.>I-co the nn tu:a1vc;;ot:;lt3.a2Y s:::1 .itlou t�0ac"la cut WIN (.11rca is ji Viola r�. k;li llshcl a�:c.Lus1 u, travol. G. ::hs1t 11'611 bo c1V110 to ?l%-O ,r nt lli.lc.11lfo from tho '.louocti0 J)OLU'p cu:ic Cla- .ly -as vrid to ra cc r1 .:ln oxtent cats? .br -s nro tho rv..ln .1r-ad-tor in Ul Is 00111 t.y tnll sn all-Oadj t~ dor; :-gills l i:a R,lila vv e .1ilZifu on IAV) 1"tilla:: t)�'Cfx1C:: on i.a• r?.' )blo lluri:* <dhic:1 .Ls, n 1 t0 1'cl'ui;U. r.ra 3.1 017 Lilo .23'�.Il'; 1"tmohoo ai.11 a .Oc,V!.,. laly vllr-i.::t-miod U.IUc.-is Otap a aro t:;2l:0n. .' 01.10 of tho ,•;:+aatost. tlusiat-a Cao tho wi1!1111*0 1:111 bo tC.0" 1'..T 1 {' Tp VICTOR W. SAUER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM[NT R. M. MYON 'USLIC WORKS DIRCCTOR DtPUTY.SUILDINGS AND GROUNDS VERNON L. CLINE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RDOM 1111. COURTNOUSt CHIC? OkrUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRtCTOR J. E. TAYLOR STN rLOOR. ADMINISTRATION BUILDINJ 0IPUTY•111.000 CONTROL 1 . bROATCH Itis GLACICII DRIVE."""..Ut.Nras AND srRVICes MARTINEZ, CALIrORNIA 94063 MARK L. KGRMIT TILtPNONt !!I•a000 OtPUTY.ROADG April 23, 1974 Contra Costa County Planning Department Director of Planning Attention: Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus 111e: Economic Supplement, Application 1340-RZ, rnvironmental Impact- Report Black Hawk Ranch. Our File: UPS 860 Gentlemen: The I,eclinical Staff ha.: revicwd the Uconol::ic Su.,rlr:;ncnt: dated April 1.1., 11174, written Tor the hurjw-,e of incretnsin�11, Lhe coVeroi,t: of ccol,uh-jes subjucL matter. The .staff has no additional c:oc.::.ents to add to the 11uport•. Very truly your,, Victor S;UIer Ex-Officio Chief I:nsineer. Assistant 1111blic 1•.1orlcs Director Flood Control Plannl.11g 1111:b;j r �• %.ii � I t April 2; , ].974 17. :, L i_: !� V:.. ,, l k . To the Honorable Members of the � �' ' ' ' " ` �� " ►'`,` Planning Commission of Contra Costa Co. : t;•..: My name to Mary Bowerman. I am z of taking a position or, the proposed Black Hawk Development at this time. 'However, as my. name Is mentioned in the county EIR and in the reports of the consultants ; and , as these docunente are the subject of discussion to-night , I should like to comment - partly in self defense . ` Although r eference has been made tothe book, "The fl o:' =_ ring planta and ferns of Vount Diablo , Callfornia ," of rIll:icr. I am the author• (p. 20, Appendix C-1 , SCIS; p. 27, ZIP.) , it apreare not to have been consulted and is not listed in the bibliography. How can an EIR be convidered complete without an% reference to the definitive and only study of the flora ,r.-: ecolo.y of the area concerned? -Un past 47 of the Rol-erts retort (Jf:Ui) , It is stated that there are no rare p1=tnt•s or. tri: Slack wnwk Ranch. This Is untrue as a uerusal of my boot shnwn. C?ii this d,ficienfcy be remedied? Should the l;nc:' n rare nlante bo deterrnir.^d anti 1' sted? I r ecall a telephone cal 1 whi ch came -at -.n inconvenient and inopportune time. Consequently , I contented :-vself ;-ith nnswering the sped ftc questions irked . Prceunnntl I r�as rot aware that I %-.ould be quoted in print . NF: that 1F. it r.-,y , the result i•d sn incomplete assesement , as is indicatei by the above omissions . On i)ace 21,annendix tind f -ion page 27 c" the EIR, I am quoted quite carrectl - , ar3 obviously , as sa,yin(;, that trio presence or .absence of rare annual species could not be determined at thes ea-con v;,-en they are dormant . It is now sprint,. Has this s lirvcy 1 dete:,:n n1t'_ .=n been made? If so , has the survey been made on for. ot , -tesively and extensively? The route: of the biotic survey Eh:),%-n cn t:-.e map labelled firure C-1 , on rage 21 , appendix. C-1 , ECIC , a.,r�,q. rs i to follow in genergi , and possibly entire]f , rout-s ;-hich can be traversed by automobile or vchicle with 4-;':heel �.r'_,re . Ihe eastern area arearE, not to have been surveved a t all . Are t:.e :'r raters ai,.are of vhich areas of the r:7.nch wcre not Purvey-d in nv early %':ork on the m.untain and whict, trr.rvfore , ehould receive cnecial attention now? Fqs a detailed 1,ota.nical survey , if any, been made by properly qualified botanists? Errors in the Ro�r-,rte report ehow clearly that the botanical section -- as rot prepared by a trained taxonomist . If pooh survey ha^ not vet Veen ns c?e , Frill :�r^ ctailed ecolorric,+l. nrd floristic study be required for of each !13r*r'1 , its .. a *h'�te� On D']f e � , unil.� re- ort r .;r. : Frill it b' ms.` e t1nrouahov+. tl:e yFa.r , W order not ;.o nny l�i :tf;r ^ YCIC eup;!ects on Lure 2C of Arpendix C-1 tF.,ct "i:" devalorn: nt plan is annroved , the develoner eurv•-v c,:c:: :rccific area for rare or erjdanr7ered orceil es as ?art of tine de'l-n :. ick % ...e • document-Yation effort requi. cd for appl.ixlnt ',",)r buil�'_nv pt:r;;Ito . .:o;l. . tl•=... !:_ „ bc: t..o inte in t.._ ..1. .._ . "s,.3vEll" any rare vl,tntu mirlit then be c91eeovcrekA? .:l :ld thi, rare ul•iz,us °-e .1111111:1:" , thi: :ould bo 1Ifficul. t hcu1a z'.ot ouch a Purvey tri cc ivIctec! r.o'x, nrlor to r.o.-sibl e a;:Prov:i? -e• April 23, 1971E I rroul0 tike to touch rriefly on a matter upon wb S ch I can claim no exnertise. , I can not resi.st in.:uirinF how much euccese '.re writcru of the report have had in other areas in pursuadinr. homy-: owners to keep t!:eir cats on a leash v!hen off the ownera ' premivos? On page 86 of the Roberts report and oto pave 84 of"the ECIS report , this is 'suxrcetea as a way to miticate the effects of develormcnt on t}:e wil- life reooureeo . One lnFt item. Tre Roberts resort ::, ease 65 dates : ":Fount Dl-ablo is only vied ble from r::rt_ cr. of tl.e northeaFt eicle of the ranch." This statement '• : r.vt correct ; and p erMps initself indicates a lac": of familiarity vi '-L•1. tho area. In t1:e fi.rstc 1,1ce , t1n•-, Black Ila.v:k R-ir.ch is a ra.rt of '.'.cant Diablo. secondly , the eunimit of :.:^unt Diablo , L^ ;;l-.:ch -they were c: videntiy ' vi_•:tble from the ;e^lnut crci:_*r' ( . t..ci: it : 1:,to for 1h-)or;-es ) by thc. ranch hea3c,uarter.. , ::o,l _311 nk R-,"ii , and 7;robgb].y elsr.-whero. i3ecaure the cur;.ait r.r,: i nt•crvening. are:le are; vIL. b 1 e fro: D1%:6: ri•i•„1: ? oad , I ':::1ie�o t':: .t }zc � rc:a bct+:ccn -31.ac'.c fl :k Ro:kd a.nci >outh W'te 'c:1:; ^n the :lc' tic of }ie m0'tnt.).111 , i('-ouid 1. r�.:'c:rVC1 .14 :'r:, ��ti fv'r it 1 .rtl:, only pl?.C% U1i tl1G r".'Ue a n:t•urai unu':;'u �UJt 1 an al ructcr vicw/ Li .:.y' ll L� :' �: . : . ..3 . lu fro:* the Roberts renort . tl'Thc• v_:ri ct .,:tatan, torur-raphy, and land :e ::rovi(lec. the local la i L:: 1.11-11'luc 1%nd l E ri].,y .:incl •e r,� -util anal ac Lhc.tic qua ai t . y precerve6 . '.'3 r.,,, L. Bo r...an (970 5ticor.:l Strect , Lafayette , CA, = ''}y) P• 1 \ w v\uu IV� VO\ April 23, 1974 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Administration Building Martinez, Cal i f-)rnia Re: Blackhawk Ranch Proposal Environmental Impact Report Review Gen t 1 omen Please consider this letter and report as my personal objection to your acceptance of the Environmental Impact Report as presently prepared and as a strong objection to the proposed rezoning of the Blackhawk Ranch c;.• a planned unit development as presently proposed. 1 also wish to be on record as objecting to any decision by the County Planning Commission to the effect that the requested Blackhavik rezoning is , in any a:ay in conformance with the present general plan. 11,ving worked with acrd for developers in this County as a Civil Engineer for the past twelves year's , I feel that there are many inconsistencies with the present proposal as Compared ':!i th prcviOUS policies of the County Staff and P I a n n i n 9 f,r;:rliss.ion , t,r,J :•Jird the Envir-on- nlcntal Report . Some of these differences may be a!;lr to be rc:solvad throu:,h C.c>n- (!i Lions to be imposed on the development , but these condi ticns shc'.0: My objections are based on the follu.sring specific items, which ore detailed more com- 1'e"IeLely in the attached report: fHI' PROJECT IS II; NON-CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN: 1 . Improper use of undevelopable land when determining density. 2. Improper use of maximum and average densities for steep hillsie ! lands. 3. Inclusion of future expansion a-eas and areas designated open-space in the project. 4. No indication whatsoever of a "neer town" on the general plan. THE E. I .R. DOES UOT ADEQUATELY DISCUSS IMPACTS OF THE FOLLO%IlllG ITEPts: 1 . Traffic on Diablo Road. 2. Increased drainage into Green Vallcy Creel:. 3. Effects of up to ten nillion cubic yards of grading. If. Su Bested offsite roods and road improvements. THE PROPOSED PROJECT AS SHO.-IN ON THE DFVELOPCIt'S MASTER PU01 DOES NOT UNIFORM TO '111E I R WRITTEN REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS: 1 . Some lots shorn on la-d With slopcs exceeding 25;. 2. flan shca•1s no provisior., for drainage retention ponds or silting basins. 3. Plein shos•rs streets in location of drainage streams and cree::s . !1. Plan sh(y.•rs street grad•.s not in conformance with County design criteria. IERE ARE 110 ASSURANCES OF PROJECT COMPLETION AFTER FIRST *WO CR T;REE 1 . 1 ,000 more units without any new roads will overload Diablo Read. 2. No golf course or other amenities with first units. With the many adverse impacts discussed in th,2 E. I .R. and the qu?scions raised herein, with few, if any , offsetting benefits, it could appear unconsciena5le for this 1)rojcct to be approved in its present form. Very/ ruly yours , ` C i ,Donald N. 'r'.of 11,131 Registered Ci:,il Engineer Encl . Report and Exhibits iroll*, INCREMENTAL STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT: The developer indicates that because of the proximity to utilities, it is his in- tention to start developing at tht- western end of Blackhawk Ranch and proceed in stages to the East. At recently held meetings on the subject by various County Staff, it was indicated that the County Staff's initial recon.-r;indations include a requirement for completion of the Sycamore Valley Road extension prior to per- mitting any development. There are no-ei indications, ho...-ever, that the developer is attempting to have this suggested condition changed to pernit the first two or three stages of his development before this road is constructed. A review of the project plan indicates that if the first stages of develop.--snt were permitted as far East as the drainage divide just westerly of the present ranch entrance, approximately 500 single family lots , 20 estate type lots , 361 cluster residences , and 162 multiple units might be constructed prior to any offsite street work. The approximately 1 ,000 units would more than quadruple the present traffic on Diablo Road, creating an intolerable situation. The developer might :ell be tempted to proceed with this first 1 ,000 unit stage, without providing golf courses , offsite roads , Sycamore Valley extension , or other promised amenities and then stop befurc incurring these large offsite costs. The reported land cost of 4. 8 million dollars, when divided by 1 ,000 units resull.s in a per resieence land cost of less than $5,000.00, a figure that might permit such an occurrence. To protect against such an event occurring, it: l•tould appear imp2rative th&L S,,car'-)re Vr;,11cy Rodd exLciision be completed prior to the issuance of -ny building per--its r:hatsoc�ver. The County has established such a nrecedence with the requircr.•_nts for the Bishop Ranch Western Electric Project , and it would appear to L•c< even core -ppropriatc, for this project. •oa-- GRADING_ Paste 66, Paragraph i-iii of the E. I . R. States that the developer indicates slcnes over 25% will not: be developed. Page 65 , Paragra;:h 3a. indicates the policy. A cursory review of the development plan submitted indicates sere of the single family lots are shown on slopes in excess of 25%;. So-e of the single family lots have an elevation difference within the lot of over 100' and rcny of them have ,i cross slopes of; 25' or more. The mitigation measure proposed F , the developer, therefore , docs not match the plan as proposed and r.ay weII result in a future re- que5t of the developer for increases in more to'einhouses and sr;,alI lot areas to con- pensate for his loss of lots when the inconsistencies of his plan are real izc:l, or else , the grading limitation wiII be ignored. A review of several residential de- velopments with comparable terrain indicates that aradina quFntities of bct%•:ecn 3,000 and 5,000 yards por residential lot are typical for such developm:2nts. It could be expected, therefore, that the total grading requirer-ent of this project may well approach 10 million y.,rds of earth. fare 4 , Paragraph V. of the environ- mental report hints at this fact , but this section should be greatly expanded to discuss such rrass grading. These large c_art'h quanti Lies would, in all probabi 1 i ty , be used to fill them valleys , destroying existing vcGetaticri and trees. OFFSITE ROADS: The project report discusses on page 63 and 64, paragraphs 2-d and e, the neces- sity of improving existing offsite roads and constructing new roads. It would appear that all new road construction will require an environmcn►tal review of its own and that these environmental reviews st-ould be included at the present time In order to clearly analyze the entire project. The improving or widening Diablo Road, among other suggestions, is of utmost concern to 'the residents of the Diablo arca, and these persons should have the opportunity to review an E. I .R. for such a proposal . TRAFFIC: The developer has supplied and the County has reviewed projected traffic volume on the roads that might serve the Blackhawk Ranch. The developer's consultant has also supplies: traffic .capacity data of the existing and proposed roads. These figures for example, indicate that Blackhawk Road adjacent to the West Gate Road can handle over 8,000 vehicles a day and that Diablo Road in the vicinity of Green Valley Road can handle over 11 ,000 vehicles a day. What these reports do not tell us is that the capacity tables utili .ed for thc,e roads mere high-,-,,ay design tables and were not •-educed fc - any of .he appropriate factors of Diablo Road. Thcsc design tables are not appropriate for a rural resi- dential road. Diablo Road has site distances as short as 200' , (the table utilizes a site distance of 1 ,500' ) . A speed factor- 45 to 50 miles per hour ►:as used, ( the road is posted for 35 miles per hour with one 25 n;iles e_r hour curve) . In many locations the lateral clearances arc as 1 i the as 2' , (no reductions wore used) . Lane factors were not reduced to take into account the fact tnaL the traf- fic lanes arc 10' to ) 1 ' wide. The fact that there are no shoulders on the rrsad was not introduced as a reduction factor at all , nor ras there any reduction given for the fact that the road has a 2 to 5% grade. Anycne familiar with traffic on the rozd does not need design charts to realize that the road cannot stand a sub- stan . ial increase in traffic. The Environmental lrpact Rcport makes no statement as to effect of a ton-fold traffic increase on Diablo Road at the school crossing intersection at Diablo Road and Green Valley Road nor is there a,►y discussion of the fact that this ten-fold increase in traffic is in front of two elementary schools and a nearby Junior High School . The Green galley-Diablo Road intersection and the nearby frontage of the Green Valley School is th^_ scene of continued acci - dents at the present traffic volume. A ten-fold increase in traffic would be in- conceivable and yet the Environmental Impact Report and Traffic Study indicrtcs that i t: ►•:ould occur, and makes no additional eomrwnts about tho problem. F.vcn a 20 increase in present traffic volumes would greatly aggr.rvate the already dan- dcrous situation along this stretch of road. A 400:; increase in these traffic volumes , which could be expected if the first t► 3 phases of the Blackl prcrosal vie re permiLted before Sycamore extension we re constructed, Would result in an in- tolerable traffic condition with extreme clanger- to school children and drivers a- like. GENERAL PLAN AND DENSITY: The developer, by utilizing the maximum densities possible in the general plan, has indicated that his development is well below the "allo:rable" figure . The several discussions and submittals by the developer, ho.Iever, fail to place any weight on the importance of slopes , adjacent property zoning, or other . actors that are all a part of determining allowable densities. If zoning consistent with the adjacent Diablo Community were applied to this project, it would appear that perhaps 400 acres on the (latest land could be zoned R-20, another 480 acres on lands with under 10 percent slope might be zoned R-40, and another 450 acres [night be zoned for R-65, and perhaps another 500 acres might be zoned for 5 acre minimum estate type lots, resulting in a total maximum density of approximat.ely 2,000 units. Utilization of a planned unit development should not be a guise for increasing density and any planned unit development approved for this par- ticular area should, therefore, have a total density not exceeding 2,000 units. The theory of being able to apply all property irregardless of topography at the maximum densities possible under flat land cordi tions and then transferring this density to relatively flat areas certainly was not the intcrt of the general plan or the zoning Ordinances. If the thccr,' used by the developers mere permitted, the precedence mighL well create a sudden de.^-nd for rr,uch of the property in the County presently eonsidcred undevc1c)' that it slight he in- c:luded for density transfer purposes to provide high d,_nsity plarned unit de- velopments not contemplated at all by the general plt:n. The fact that avuch of the present Blackhawk Rancn is sho:;n on the general plan as op-ri space and ex- pansion residential , is certainly further proof that a •.:hale ne•:. to•.:n „as not contemplated as part of the plan. Under Section 65850 of the Govurnr2nt Code, the general plan, therefore, must be reviewed and amended before a rezoning to the •^ proposed project could be accepted and reviewed by the County. Orf S I TE RU'!0rr: The a;at.e.rways do,•rnstream from the Blaekhawk project arc, presently subject to flooding, particularly along Green Valley Creck in the vicinity of Green Valley Crech and Diablo Road and along Sycamore Valley Crew'►:. This flood hazard is dis- cussed on page 20 of the E. I .R. and is shown on the Corps of Engineers' 1972. map- ping of flood prone areas . Approximately 1 ,2.40 acres (see exhibit) of the Black- hawk Ranch drain into Green Valley Creek and Blackhawk developrxent will , therefore , have a very significant effect on downstream flows. Page 6G, Pa. agraph "J" of the E. I . R. lists , as a mitigation measure , that the de- velopL,r will avoid concentrations of runoff by providing for direct infiltration of runoff at the roadside through the use of gravel shouldc rs and green-belt areas , (requiring County approval for non-standard roads) and that the developer will take a0vfmLage of ponds on the proposed course or in other drainages to control off-site storm generated flo:d rate!;. The County Public Works policy has for the pest several years been to not, permit any developn.ent having roads without curb and guLLer and piped drainage. Non- s Landard roads have been requested by many devc lope rs and these requests have a)- ways been turned do:rn on the basis of high maintenance costs by the County, lack of ability to operate s L I'cc t sl:'eepe rs , find other such reason i na. If the Count} is to remain consistent , it would appear this mitigating effort ,:nuld not be per- mined. Even if it was , the heavy adobe soi is of the val ley wi l l mol produce a substantial perculating affect to reduce storm runoff to any appreciable measure. A review of the proposed devclopment plan shows extensive dcvelopr�:'nt of single family lots. irr those. volleys co. trihur ing f lu-w to Grecn Val icy Creek with a roflu :;�. .. ...... ... v . .. �... ..� ..� � ... ......•�u.l v �...r I.nIJ� I..., .'I f7 w. ..u� 1111 ��.r•,.. of design must use drainage pipes for storm waters and makes no provisions what- soever for ponding basins. No- ponds, holding basins, debris or silting ponds or e"Nopen space for such items are shown :•t all on the development plan. Page 65, Paragraph "F" of the C. I .R. states that water courses w i I I retain the existing vegetation and the drainage in these areas will be minimal . The development plan shoals extensive single• family lots throughout the drainage basins, in particular, those of the first three phases of the project , with no chance for retaining existing vegetation along those creeks. It would appear that we are being promised means of eliminating increased runoff from the project that, in fact, the developer has no intention of acconinlishing and docs not even show on his own plan. This entire matter must be thoroughly reviewcd and the true environmental consequences determined before the E. f .R. review pro- cess can be considered complete. ' �-'�'t=•• ' :... '. rt i l� .' 'sad' � \„�_.• t •� _ "�• .J. .'_, ', •: 1 •, � 4 ;.;. �` \• [ .�i.%'a : afj'' .ac '��' ....�'' ,�• .,� `,t � �:.J J ✓..' ay6��'. kk It +e �; evils, Slide- !G t y _ �i�',J••al SS � � ••• � _ .+-r-:;��..•'xs rrr t`-ry�-s _ "�ar� �+', ., r �•.. E�.� i1��}, ,�.•moi' re ,�- • _l �_..- .'"....••--' Oy'-'•�E., .Pt. .. .,t+��`+` ({{ �� ; ` .arca t`s�ra.••saa.� . ~ .i•'r'�'-"'' -r 4�:-', 41�� ,il ' ;' `' ,J'tft. syrvr}nsx_.+� -. i... . ,� �',•r '� 'Jt - �11i lol. �E ,i fJ�''' .�'S. u• + r.. 'f it i � .•• ?• l a'h •t,.. ,I / _..• 'Fv '� ? .._=ter- � - �y "' •1. - `a: 1160 779 \\ � wry.✓•""'^.-•.•.....o,� '• .,. r. •I �\`.,.�.. „� SSD . . \ •r/,. 04 t /• � ,1?16 r '•i:07 � � I`�w Ile 33 SIS 70 jA' 4t• ✓nJAKA , A-u r 7:v ..•r•� ,�(;• a •' .,r„+•-i , •-.-rwaanwr.• O 4 O� �I .• �` , ` \�( •• f --� . �. .,'...�.;,.,'� off':�•' 4 - \ I ��o �'.: • ... ;j •I. ..;:f3'. `a.� .`�. 0� (. �y.J •�' - - :.wn9 �'.•c�.. �•;'1..�y '•15z� � -,/. •moi•� � ~'r••ti.�1--� •. I•t i �`�� .�\' \\=,1, t,�• ,_.•r •..lq . t\', ,•� • • .'- ��., _ �tl •_ •`moo ::� V _.� � •'�J;�Jr. y - �� _. s'rerI: 14 ,P.u::~ �• `?,' 13 �'� cam` r� •�� - � •`�'•.. �,y\ :�.. IN :='•rte— ;� J . .Z~ _ '� 1, lJnwi fl,�:.� •. ( '. _ .�., j _ �.;-.:. • '. • ?•C.• '.i. .,;--- .. . .. .( .. .'.'Ater fS .. I 2 � •�,1•—moi -'�/1 � / �/ � I ' •- r• I .. 1,rwi Or' 26 \gyp ►I•�� ." -. I, -�-�...�-r�....►..�...r 'r.1� Arra -r ° 5 I /l o° Spring3 35 1 ,j'•.�' G � i ,1 i . ;` c 1`•` I � I'�\'.aler Ten,- •,`\. rZ ' /• ,1 ."; .'�•-tet •r t' '. j •. I �.�. �` _' .1t1 \1-~ �~�•-..�,.•. •., '�` rh\'` i " .� •:•� ' a^J 01 "• ••s/..•�•r^ �`cam •,��`i� •`•' :-:.:. �.. .� "v t '�('�fes• ,•;�'�J��..' �`\\♦♦ i' `.I '? 7?..";-'S^"' .. Y n,i..�•.-�-••x-�•,•-;y"ACDG� ^�t Eiirtttoti.; �f, ' �' '`I'niid �♦ #YOA 0-11 1 y .' t :� _ ttL' " '��` ` '.�. :'.►y"��,�?:�,t: •- s'i �+ I •_.i ,. r__t; 12 •p Jt { may+ 'p.~•'- 't '':•^.-:^• • lr'•"�., �, � ` r � ••.� `y .�,,.yr.r.._:• 1' f'� ._••• '1a •ti"eo `': 7 i.:• -:"�-._.�.. -.♦ i , i ._ � ` , J � \ - .. -r. -_ �y r♦J_`r•� •S.f't\ r. ` ,i*,�\� ••��'�•-�,f.`�". t..` 1.,,, rr.�.)"��.5� i "i„y+ � .1 •'"} '• wJ r +� `�, r \ 'r(•"'•` ; j �Nait.`Ptl �''1�1i"'i�+. •-�' { ,..1 '.-JI 1 ti`. ti! 1 ...`�. T+i ,,. Y .\Iprittga •v.: .�•. ' '',•' `.� - ♦ �, i i $ha#tQ?�;ti' `�; .4:�� ICAMk:)L, RFrvo.E '» UDY 916, ,_..-_. •1..�.,.,%,✓..,_� w.«.r;:.,rrnw�+r+rw►""•,...-••.,,..•w•w••O'n�..i ,. �1�, •._- i), 1 •� �'ti.¢ tJ.•�i ,a e s+s a-:, �— . J'tr (( ':�. * t S' -•!• - , * l /^'ri^ Sj//' 1•u , ~r ,•��j Tees •. t,. �♦''�i^ -� ':.\�•.v� v •�'v.v , .t`, , ��•`•♦'� - L _ i�� i } esti• a� yj,. � •j' �� lOOT� � i�'� (• 'JGO5+.• '♦ ^•pyx;' ♦:t±4it�, o, j`_.. \\ .. - a.a_ � ' •:•' '' � rt t` � . . Off.`;f ••:`t� ,��' } ,• •. 1 13 7 15 1034 •• J.✓r'`. � f � ... �,: v '�"' t i��'+�r Eli, � t �J�Aa'''} '+� t'":^,'��.,it., .3 �, _ ._'—' '�tii.� t�, `. f r''r - � '/ ,- ,a:`r Tan. . `♦- .1 ' •• '� ,•: , , . 111 r x`� - r . • .' r✓r i 12,3 23 •n- •+- •`� �': .. ,^ ..� � .. H�. � v "''`�,' i �'+"tea Ia:u'i:ttlt�{` -- .i- _Ranch •.. I`~ 1 _ +a J�.2S V.Iranli �� -C•7:3 �' r r G ' S , 110J .-• 2 12110 ACRES h ' -,: iooz r 6` WITHIN B LAC KHAi')K # t CONTRIBUTORY TO t GREEN VALLEY CREEK THIMBLE FARM Posr OFFICE nox e3s DIAVLO. CALIFORNIA 04520 April 23, 1974 llonoraol.e Members Contra COSta County Planning Commission 'F`Fl 2 -3 19 7,1 County Administration Building (•ON'TRA• Pine and Escobar t +:� ,t•�,� a f•,: CO(A."'ry Martinez, California ••M (urn-'. Gentlemen: Vlo wis11 to conoc'nd the Planning UeparUaent for an nbjectivv and credible HIR draft (184n.Rz) , We are particularly impronsed with the quality of the discussion, given the information ,hot as: availabJa. The overall co.npr.tVncy of the Draft, including the Econnnic "t:pplennnt, :in remarha.ble, considering the size of the Project :in qu sLion and LK. -!mount ai Lime in Which Lhe Draft was pi•Jeuend. The gvustions I::' raise • LonighL nre addressed primarily to deficiCncks in information presenced to the Plnnning l3cpartment And in the scope of the :;i'+ ject: mul ur t'runrud. In cases where we question the accuracy of infoinnLien rvJicd on , in vir- tually every case this i of orlunt i on was supplied by ncc Davol.opor 's Con- '`- sultant. Until the questions raised tonight^-by both r+t•lays , our Con- sul.tants, Ecumene Associates, and oLhers--I:e"contend tili:t the ):fn d'•aft is legally inadequate. In view, moreover, of the su1:;Banti 1. quv Lons. that remain unanswered, we believe it incumbent upon the Commission to continue the hearing on Lha Project until Lhir.t:y (30) days after the Planning D pnrVwcnt has re;spond(nO in I•;riLi.ng to the gl:;suions that have been and I:ill, tonight he addressed to the: EIR draft. Our questions are arranged in alphnS tical order by subject area addressed. They are not comprehrnsi.ve, and for this roason, Ida associate ourselves with all timely question, addressed Lo Lhu EIR by others. AGRICULTURE We believe the EIR is inadequate in failing to address the potential productivity of, the islackhawk Ranch. We have infoymation cancerni.ng the Ranch's present productiveness, but the former forvmin of UP Blackhawk Ranch, Jack Spoars, ga+vu me his opinion that the Ranch could have been Earned with substantially greater yield. Wlhat is the ; atential. produc- � tivity of the Ranch, and its potential economic vi.abil.iLy as a Williamson Act Presvrve? Questions on MR, Amigns, de Diablo Page Two AIR POLLUTION See statement presented by Rcumene Associates on behalf of Amigos de Diablo. BIOTIC Are there any endangered speci.,�s on the site? A co;npreliensive field ;survey is heeded, now that it is Spring. (See L••IR 27.) flow %sill the developer maintain the grassy 'areas? Will grazing be compatible with urban life? CR]:1:iCS (Hydrology) See statement presented by I:cumene Associates on behalf of Amilvis de Pi.;lhl.o. Mint: are Lha pre.n.-Ai1 capaci t:ieS of Che Clccl-S t11;t 1:O1,11d ::c:rvc. the Macllla,ok? Vilat are the capacities at critical pOinl.. s of tale ValAotic, C1'C'e'i:fi that.. scrvc the' Rancll? What if, 01C pl•csc*.1L 1"1';: : : i in til 'F1: CYCei:ft? Aver;lt;c yearly :'un- n::f? 1972-73, and 1.973-71'; ? l;iL average pert: fl.ots, ycttlrl.y? And the velocities of tnc �.e llow much will. the run-off increase in the v;:r iow; creeks as ra 1-.e:i1.11t of l;lackhawk? Inc:rea c! should hu given in total vol111:1::, increased inten- sity or velocity, ilnd increased peal: flow;;. • Thc: Economic 1'.epc t fails to menti cell cr(! k , at. all • llo•,: r.auch inlprovc.- went will he squired? liu., much ls1.11 imprcivc sent ccst:? l•'ho will. pray for i U Tho Ecoiiomi.0 Contains a table (Table )2) I-IsLi.11, \'ari.Ullfi 1.70ildS , por.tiOns of those rcru}s , e::istin_ capacity, proj^ctec' tr1ff.i.c flow, and projects,' pc;i% hot+.r. traffic. Such a gable ,l1o,1l6 bc: for the crcc::r that serve the Ranch. EIR 56 slates that mitigllion measure:, "noted in Section 11. ,4- could he most: effective." Whare i, Section It. ,4? What are these measures? M11 57: "is usually not possible to detc�rminn precisely how much de.vc l•- opment-induced additional run-off can be. accepted by a specific creek before e11-incering works are. required." Although precise fi.;;ur.cs r.:ay hi: irl}�o sih1� to addlico, i1cC111•i1t:e•. eStilnilte•c are possible, accorCliw- to ill•• Thomas 11011.1e:,, Resource CoordiniltOl•, IICSOuree C011SCrviit.i011 District, I'M,'. 57: "It is not possible to calculate the port.-de velopm,nt run-off in the: absence of precise. drainage plans." If such calculation, are, ill- i . Questions on >EIR, Amigos de Diablo �• Page Three dead, not possible, then precise drain•:ge plans should he required before the project is considered for approval. )EIR 66: "Grading, filling, and clearing of vegctati.on within the control of the developer will be restricted to the dry season of the year." The teinns "within the control of the developer" should be. defined. Does !( vi on the same pare mean that the developer will. 1.a11clsc.ape areas graded? If not, what land of erosion and s:edimetlt:art .ion Control. I:1C:Fl:iltres m--i .13 bh used? The terms "if re-vegetation is not satir;factor.i.ly romplet::d" should be defined. As draf telt], this mitigation ^_.asure , Fit least as it refers to re-vegetation, could be rendered i oaninglc ss. DENSITY The l.lii contains no sl.ope, of the: 1>la6*.iii-..,=lc site. flw- store r-tp should di.ffe.rentiaLe beta:cen slopes o'f U to 20%, rad slope's of frmi 20% Lo 262 , rl:id slopes of. 26% and Fibovc.. These .ars. cri.t.ic.a1 for deten., lrtinu maximum den;.it'i.es Fi:.lo:,ed under. the Al. le Cr.nc:ral In addition to the rmp, information ,!Iould be included Lhc slim- her. of: r.cres on tli:: . t•n of 0 to .'.0%, of ?.0 Lo 7.G;` ::lop,:. The �` iiUlabG): Uf r,11Ch acros Co the West of t.ite l%1 '::I Space Line. , as "Ot fUt'iit 011 the Opcn Space Map of. June 26, 1973, shoe':: be dcs:if;tu:t.iul, ;incl si-J!,;rly tile. ilUtnbCr -of Such iict':'s T'ke.st of Lhe Open pace'. l.I.nc: .incl, .1,11 ,iC1C1:!L'1C, ,�' Ll1UtiC"' / acres- W—thin the: M'Cil dusignaLed rc;:llecti;t:ly Uy the 3907 General Plr:n Map as fo-,l clen;;ity .a1.1c1 lo•,o do^sity expall<:ion. The definition of "lo•.a density e;:pnnsion" should bo provided. Once these areas have been identified, • Cite "fc rlsihility," i:it;ti.n the ricanin,, of the Alamo-Danville G^neral. Plan," should be et;tim.aLed for slopes of over 201;. . This Information wil.1 twthe it: pc.;sibl.e to U11Culate the: total number of ,acres allowable; tinder the General Plan to be developed in the Lwo cate- gories it recogni.zes:" (1) "Va1.l.ey floors" and (2) "Steep hill areas (of over 20; slope) wher(, devol.opment is feasible." The resultillt; figure, how- ever, will. roprescnt only the; iiiax.1moin dens ity allowed. The dclt ir,a',1c: den- si.Lies would then be a planning dcc:ision to be arrived ,at: by st:arLilln, with the maxirltim and adJusting downward. (See i:emiiorandum to Plaltning 1) parLment, A. W:haesus, February 6, 197/i.) M The .above: analy:.i r. is critical to deterrli.ne taaximiim density allowed by tile, General. flan. The dcvelope.r pre.anLs d::ta and di.scussioll on this fttb- ,jrct at pni-,vs 10-12 of. iti. Barth 1.2 , 1974 , to Vx. These hakes, in my opinion, .are inlier.cntly inaccuratc .and iaisloading. '�c See following; page for relevant: Ceneral •Plan provini.ons. Questions on EIR, Amigos de Diablo Page Four ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT The marketing analysis should be included as part of the public re- cord. It should show from where they expect their buyers, holo will their buyers financially qualify? On the basis of past costs, Hley should be able to pr.ojecL future costs; on the basis of past sales, pra- ject future sales. Ari on-going cash budget, should be included. The construction industry is •:n trouble. In Santa Clara County housing starts are practically at zero. Where do Blackha:•lk's potential buyers live now? How will they be able to afford these hores? ('rills type of analysis, presumably, has already been done by the develop^.r.) The 1:11; should consider whit hap�er.s i.f tile. project is approved and the inar.ket changes drastically. Suppose they get P.hc::i r. rcionini;; they collie in and do extensive c;radirl,„ and the. marl-.0t: t:hnt: the only type of limit that: is economically icer:;ih.le is; mahile l:omcc? What: liappc'ns, in short, if l.nflat•ion or otl►er fr.cLors prvvclnL thew frOlil fin• is;hint; Lhe project as presently anticipated? Ill l.i.l;ht of the uncert:a'int:ics in the huilding :industry, it: is par- ticularly inpnrntive that the Ell. i!ddres i laei::)U:'L'a to C11'illre t"Int the : devel.UpmCilt will actually be "bu.i.l.t out's as projc!ctc!cl. The envil:on;--iant-al damage to the Mounta:i.11 occurs first. After Uic 1•lountain fa.115 before t•hc blade of the bulldozer, what assurance is there that the project trill be completed? _... 1:C0\0?ilC 1:E1'Olrr The report falls to mention inflation, l,het}ler it Mould have an effect on the conclusions, and, if so, what likely effect. Th: report fails to consider iir,provc!elent of crcuks; , tllich v'ould ull- doubtedl.y require iluljor expenditures by the COuuty Flood Control 1)ist'rict. (Sce hydrology statc!ment•, E'curlene Associates.) What ilr:proveincntsl uoulcl he rcqu:ired? At what: cost? h'llo l,ould ,,cal: the c-xperls-es? It seellis t.hnL expcnseA for puli.cin^ could he cat-hiiatcd by studying ..1 city Or Cities of size and fCi1tU1'CS COMpi:raile to 11.1-ackha wk. _ s 1. Retiiclailtial densit:i.es of the valley floors should rani;( froii► 1. to 3 families per net acre (a!al::ielua:) , except: for. chose RI' .a i ill and im-mr'.diately adjaaceilL to the c:Um, till it.i c-, Lif Alnino and Danville where ssclecti.ve r,ultiplc reSi dentirll i.s i.►ul:i.catcd. • 2. The, ssu—c:p hill. (of: over 20% slope) vl►e.ry clevelopment is fell ;.iblr., should r.:nge in ctc!ns;i ty from 0 to 2 falui.l.i.ea- (max:ilmr.) , per net acre:. ALAitiO-UAiIVT LE, CY.;;{;1"1i. PLAN, p. 5 (1.907) Questions on EIR, Amigos. de Diablo Page five • The report could and should be core specific in explanation of the costs attributable to the installation and operation of sanitary services. It is unclear what these costs (see Table 21) refer to. The fourth full paragraph on pale 22 is unclear. The report states in a number of places (e.g. , pp. 24) Oat the an- nexation fees paid by the developer to the EB:•lijb would he refunded. At what gime, or over vbat period, would such refund be made? GRADING Would all major grading be •'.one in the beginning or vi.11. it be phased? Pliasing plans should be specified in detail. GROUhI) ldA1'ER Sce statciinent presented by Ectimene AssociaLe.s on behalf of A;nil;a.; de Diablo. HIR 21: "Not a great deal is l:noxn abour the r,u?lit•y and c;uant:9..Ly cif ~ -round inter on the Illachlin.wlc propertj." Informn,Lion should ba incl.udcd. • LIGHTS Uliat kind of st:rect lightinh vi.11 the dev;l.opinunt liave' VIM the li.hhLs interfere. wi.t)i the enjovrwilL of. Mounit Diablo State Park? Will the stars be visible at: n_ght from Artist Point? I roue the Summit of the lloun- Lain? LOCAL PA•ucS How mould development comply with the Pail-, Dcclication Ordinance.? There is uo way, apparcnt:ly, that these fees can lie t:,aive.cl for dedication of SLaLe Park land t:it•houL a chane in the ordinance. tdliere vwlild local " parks be situated on the Project rite? NEEM There is no housing needs elcm. ,.nt. llouning need, of County res.idents should be identif.ic:cl. At ghat price level. do we stave Lho:ce rigsklonLs ,ror is lilackha k desi.l;ned for people in San ;•;4teo and San' Francisco who waist */`• to relocate? If there is a nerd for more housing, couldn' t Lhc ;c nr.t:cts hr. filled by hui.ldi.ng on land a:herc servi.cc•!: ara already available, and Lhus at Questions on Elft, Amigos de Diablo Pagc Six lesser cost to taxpayers? (In-filling) How many acres of land is avail- able for in-filling in the San Itamon Valley? In the County? If demographic rates are relevant, as argued by the attorneys for the Construction Industry Association in the Petpluc+a case, what are demo- graphic rates in the San Ramon Valley? What is the definition of "demo- graphic rate"? Or is the developer seeking to create a market , as the First Circuit Court of Appeals determined in the Steel Hill case? (469 F.2d 956, Nov. 1972). MOUNT DlhbLO 1. C_r,a�a.ci.t._; of_t_he State Park Nothing whntr,cr is stated in thn EIR about Lhc: c�lpacity of talc: >'arl: to ar.col:-'.udat:e lnorr. l�coplc', khat is the average daily use of the Park? How often in it overcrowded? HnY many czars can the hurl: accommodate at any given times? WhaL is the number of OvOr- n•ight camping fac'i.litien? What in the number of picnic facU l Lics? How often are these facilities booked to capacity? How would B.lachhowh arrest Lhcs o figures? b?hat probleTs docts the Park already empori.ence from jnurea ad urbani- zation at talc' FOOL of the 1•lvullt.ainl? (e.g,. , li r raldi ilii Elo,,'. !) 11.�ve thore, been vilj stndles. 1.^.ade for Mt. Diablo or other >rqy parks to &Le1:mine whaLhur there in it unxi.r.um nui.her of people por acre: Of park land, LK excess of which would be deemed to jeopardize the, Mural resources of the purl;? 2. I'hysiii cvl_Int^Zr.i ty_o!_th_e Mount�r i.n. We prc'.•abl; all would agree that Mount: Diablo should he saved Where we might differ would be upon aur definition of. the Mountain. We need to know Kare Lhe linos should be drawn to prosurve Lhe •phy,i.cal. integrity of: Lhe nounLain. Beyond that, which la nd n should he n part of the Part: and which l:nlds privately owned • but: zoned for open space? In other words, establ.inhmnnt of the ult.imnLe ,Qnrk boundary lines does not: dispose of Lhe question, 1t wny be dMermi.ned • that Lhe Park should Incl at one radius distance from An Suceai t: , but that a buffer zone of privately owned agricultural lands should surround the Park. The EIR should address Lhese questions. It doer include the State Park's most recent priorities map, but since that flap was: published, we understand that: the concept of: "windows" Lo the Park ha n been introduced by Mr. Xott. MAI iara Punn fht.t:, 1).i.recLor. , Cnl.ifornin P:partment of harks, and Recreation.) We believe that Mr. Hatt should be contacted regarding Lhe Window concept. According to Mary Itowerlr.vl, Lhe only unobrstru:wd public Firs.= nf Lhe Mountain from the South is the view from Plachhawk Road ncros.; the t'c•sterl.y portion of the: Black- hawk property toward the suatniL of tile Mountain. r*1 Questions on Elft, Amigos de Diablo Page Seven If the State Parlc holds any hope cf obtaininc, this land, then care- ful consideration should be given to wit:igation neasures that will re- serve some time to acquire this land. Mitigation measures, for example, as requiring construction to begin at: a point other than on the West. Such a decision might have other advantages, such as delaying or Obviat- ing the necessity of the Sycamore Palley Road extension. Page l of the LIR states that "The project site: is located . four miles south of ;fount Diablo." This statement is inaccurate. The Northern boundaries of the project site (those boundaries closest to the sun-mit of the Mountain) are three miles South of the Summit of the Mountain. The Mountain itself extends well into the project site. Tile erroneous inforinuLion on pa;e 1. uas taken verbatim from ti:e J.•lmcs A. Roberts Report at: pa&- S. 1'L• mighL be, accuratc: to stat.;; that Lite av::razge distance of all pcl:iias oil the protect sista in four rile, from the sur.::nit. Contrast the Jajj ;ua,,e it hago 3 Of the rIR,. apparcntl.y Lhe County':; Own langua,,,e: "T11c pro.iCCi' (C::tc:ndsl up ;Mort Rirls, C:11'� C171LU fllc il.::nl:! of Mount Diablo." Tha Juries A. Robert.,; sLateiaent is inaccurate ill a inatel:ial resp(-cL. 3. 1.11ld1 :if_c:. 1JR 52: suf;c;ca;t, that t:ig(,r ,ala:nancler might he. found on the. s:i t e., hti:c it doca ilot verify the sug, ostion. Are t•hcre t tf;ar ;zal.- . acaandc:rs ,on the site? 1:T1t 53: Inf:orMation on owgic!.s and Mountain lions should be. N,01SU ETR G5: "Dc:vcloix:r plans to restr.i.cl. Che si e tend uSe schedule of contractor heavy ecluilimc-,nt to. i.,.i.nirli.::c construction nolso." What. road, will the equ.ip:ac:nL use? At what hours? Are hour-resLrictions fc:asibl.e,'• given the intlepGlldo.nr contractor and Sub-•conLractor status of mont vehi- cle Operators. WhaL would be t:he effect of 11UD Guidelines on Noire? POLICE ETR G1.: "The cost: of providing police protection Lo Lite proposed develc�p::1::nL cannot. be estJ+sated 1t present. since it. is not ilo:: ponsible to dct:c:rl:line the Lyme, PmmounL• , and extent of pol.i.cc coverage nece:,:;nry to service the V icklix.:1: 31anch." �., Wily could a city comparable to Blacl:ha::•I, not be compared? Questions on EIR, Amigos de Diablo rN !'age Eight SCENIC ROUTES ELEMENT Was .not the Scenic: routes Element required by law to be adopted by the beginning of 1974? Since the Llement has not been adcpted, is it lawful to approve a major development without: first a:'.ciptins that Cle— ment? We would requ:-st an opinion from the County Co:msel on Olis question, unless it becomes mooted by action of the Board of Supervisors. SCHOOLS What is the effect: of S.R. 90 upon the l.ccnomic 1.nalysis of Black— hawk';; impacL on the San Ramot, Valley Unified School District? SIUSIMICITY SOILS See statement presented by Lcumene. Astiociates on behalf of Arlipns de Diablo. • SYCAi•;01:E VALLEY ROAD BIR 67: "Possi.blc: Mitigation :icasurns: Build Syc:l-oru Valley Road Extem:ion by the end of dcvcloln-AcnL phauc l.' 3." 1.:1:, aL L'cat: tinme, rrit.her than before or simultaneau,ly with phase (' 1? 1•'110 .:ou?.:l pay for the ];::tension? Idhat adverse environmental impacts vould the construction of this ]toad have? T1: NS1'OaTM.0;1 We have liad the opportunity -to revlow the ].ettnr subriitted by Ow Diablo Property O;:ncr. s Association, with it.s ..1ttached Co-.-.nnnts on Tr.ai— fi.c Prujc ct:iun^ for lilackha.:l: Ranch llnve].opmenL, prepared by Ur.. Darwi.n DaLc;yler. Alt.hou-.h we do not in any way speak for. that Associ tion , wc. wish to call atteT.t1c):1 to their research, to id..ltify wi.Lh their I'caKlria , and to gencrati•r.e. f reel what Dr. D,itcay.lcr has said. If his analysis i. correct, as I b-cli.ew... it to be, it throws Ope.i tto qui-fitions. 11110 r0l i,'l— bi.lity of all. the and conclu.:i.ons supplied by the .la-.c: A. report: and relied an by Lhe Planning DeparLmcnL, rei;a:din ; trz:f f is on all the roads effected by Blachhm-.k. An analysis such as Dr. Dalmyl cr:. shoul.d be r..nde for ,11 thcsa roads. Questions on BIR, Amigos de Diablo Page rine T Arguing that the County has planned to four-Lane the roads in ques- tion, thr developer has made a big point of showing that Bl<•Ickllalak wcs anticipated. (See his March 1.2th ?lelror.andunl, page. 6, vith figures at- tached in Exhibit A.) 1:7hat is his source for this information? It ap- pears to be erroneous and grossly nislendisig. ldherc are figures 16 to 20 referred to in the L:IR? (Referred to at pp. 59-60.) lfl'ILITIES Central Svnlilary_ D:i.strict. four drainage has-ins are included in the ltlackh,:lrk site. Are all four considered by the. Central. Sanitary District's 'faster Plan? If not, what implications dues their on'Assion have? In addition, Clic MR lws failed to address tho nossiiblO Of the Capacity 11il11tationa imposed by the C:aliforllia RaT;ul,;ltians, as h(:r Clle E-0 or 010. D-1.50 pol)ul;:; i an for(•_.:,r cu rvt:s. What is tl)C: si; llii ixznlce. of thCSe roj,,u1.;lt.1011:1 For t•l)e :i1.:Cs:Ili..,,, Project? Ior the entire San lnann V;ll.ley? !.ilcn 1:1.11 clpi,:i.t.y 1•;: readl:-d, tin(;ar. Lbe ret;ll1..?Lions? 1;i:('n Cal),lCity is rCaC'll(:d, %;list 1-,ill. bP. 01n SPCial ?ad econoinic i:aplical:ions for Clio Valley? For. the Count)'? CLOSING In cloFi.ni;, we reiterate oil,' request for of the hearing; Oil the proposal until. thirty (''0) clay: after. vile PJral,li.r.i; 1)�1)�rir: ^t h^s respulldccl in writing to the qu:.•stions that helve b0cll and will. t'onifl:t be adlresscd to the EUR Draft. We believe, illdoed , thnL such n centi.11uallce is required by the PROCl3SSING PROCEDURES FOR Till' I:;:�:lf : OF T'l;LIC i'1:O,T .C1'S ANO ENl'I1;0:�'•IMAL IMPACT R1:. TS, CONTRA COSTA CC)I;:;T'f. 11AGE' 26 (t•: -ch ?.3 , 1973) : The final EIR will. be considered by the I'lanninc. Commission at public hear:in,." With high regard, we are Very truly yours , I.itlda A. �)�-Ady Sally El, ve, �T for Amigos de Diablo LAM, Sl:/nbg ECUM ENE , HayPost Office Box 43U ward, California 94540 • n V i r • n m • n . t a I r • s • a r C h (415) 582.2100 D Z RIVIE Donald Holtgrieve April Johnston APR 2 319 74 ID. Jerome Pressler1 t,OtdTRA COSTA COUNTY PLAlsUING ColriwiSSInq FiqF.1pja April 23, 1974 Planning Commission ; Contra Costa County Martinez * California 94553 Dear Commissioners At the request of members of Amigos del Diablo , Ecumene Associates has reviewed t}:e Environmental Impact Report (1840-RZ) and other documents relating to the proposed Black'.awk Ranch dove lop-ment. 6lay vie bring to your attention some observations about these reports that we believe -ire pertinent to . our consideration of . the project? Our observations fall into three general areas. . First, the Environmental :-fact Report and a related documents present a complete analysis of the Blackhawk Ranch situation. however , in dealing with only one of several proposed develcp:;,ents in thr San Ramon Valley, these documents lac:: the comprehensiveness necessary to predicting and planrir._ the future of the . entire rcaion. Second, since the County general plan ' concerns itself with the San Ramon. 'ialley as a whole , a portion of our statement is con: erned with the ' Blackhawk project' s compatibility with the general plan. Finally, some specific comments regarding the geology, climate and soils of the area and the proposed project site are submitted. There are several comments in EIR 1840-RZ that state or suggest that the project as proposed does not adequately comply with the guidelines of the County i • �.� plan or the A BAG regional plan. The following examples are representative of such- stated or implied inconsistencies. 1. The County plan, according to page 7 of EIR 1840-R'L, recommends development on slopes less than twenty per cent. The proposed project plans development on slopes up to twenty-five per cent on known landslide areas (page 3) and on soils that have not been tested in detail for their j engineering characteristics (page 65) . similarly, as stated on.page 9 of the EIR, the County plan recommends no excess- ive cutting and filling, a provision that the developer agrees to comply with. The question remains, however, that without a complete soils study for the site plan, how can it be determined what is or is not "excessive" cutting and fillin;? 2. The /.AG regional plan for 19;0-19y8 shows part of the Blackhawk site as permanent open s:ace and Fart as controlled development area. Other A%AS documents su7R:est • �' that the that the housing needs of upper income Jfamll ies are not as critical as those of lower incore families (ABAG Regional Housing Study, October, 1969) . has a housing need study for various income grouts been under- taken for the County? Of f,reater immediate concern, however, is the Blackhawk Ranch project' s compatibility with the open space-conservation component of the County general plan. . In addition to the impact report' s suggesticn that the project is not consistent with the County Flan (page 10) , it must be remembered that there are several kinds of open space , some of which present conflicts in land uses. Wildlife of Y;i lderness open space is far, different than a golf course as open space . We suggest that the County consider in detail its definitions of open space and the various land uses included therein. Is there a rank order of preferred land uses within the broader category of open space? If it is agreed that the proposed project is indeed in conflict with long-range area land- use plans . yet the nrojeet is approved. will not a precedent be set that will. invalidate and defeat the purpose of the entire county planning process? The problem of permitting major variations to the general plan brings to attention, once againt that the Blackhawk project will have many impacts "that range out of the time and distance limitations of the. EIR prepared for it. The report itself recommends further research in ten areas such as soils, biotic factors and economic impacts. Such research, if done completely, vrould take at least a year of further study. Similarly, there are seven topics listed in the impact report that present significants impacts outside the boundaries of the project. Should not regio:.al impacts such as air quality and traffic be evaluated with respect to all the proposed projects in the arse. rather than on a. pr. o ject--to-project basis Listed below are examples of topics that require longer and broadrr study, topics that c^i ;ht well. be inclu- ded in a regional environmental impact statement concerning all the proposed developments and their impacts in the San Ramon Valley area. 0 1. Dr. Bowerman, the acknowledged authority on , vegetation in this area, suggests on page 27 of EIR 1840-R7 that rare plants may not be detected until spring. 'Ne surges't that a complete biotic survoy be undertaken for all. of those portions of the county under consideration for development. r 2. Due to the topographic uniqueness of the Tassajara and adjacent valleys, the County should consider monitorin? air quality conditions at a larger scale over a year' s time. Interpolation of measurements taken at 4 Walnut Creek and Livermore do not really reflect the micro- climatic conditions of areas in between. 3. An alternative to detailed investigation of air quality conditions might be to limit development of the area until data from the Bay Area Pollution Control District computer system becomes available. 4. As is suggested on page 57 of 7IR 1640-RZ, further study and prediction of hydrologic impacts will be necessary when the site .drainage plan Is available . 5• The geotechnical report referred to in EIR 1840-RZ details an extensive list of recommended additional inves- tigati.ons including large scale geologic mappin,- , deep borings, test pits, and laboratory anal,,rsis (see the attachment to this letter) . 6. The need for a location study for fire stations is mentioned in the impact report (page 61) as well as the fact that few archaeological surveys have been done • i"� in the area (pane 34) . Investigation of these two topics would provide an additional reason for longer and more detailed study of the proposed project. 7. Finally, a].1 proposed projects in the region should be considered in terms of total impact. Dis- cussion of potential proolems on a project only basis , such as the impact report' s presentation or biotic, hydrologic, air quality, traffic, employment, waste water, and agricultural conditions, does not seer in keeping with the welfare of the County as a whole . Will not all of these impact conditions have effects outside the boundary of the project? Resources available to the valley do not increase or decrease proportionally to the growth rate. r Some remain static and others are accelerated. -Ex ar;ples of accelerated deterioration may be found in wildlife habitat, archaeologic sites, viable agriculture , and �,, recreational open space. Examples of static or continuous •^ relationships with growth (as population grows. so does the impact at the same ratio) are tax basep services, schools$ traffic, sewage, solid waste and water supply. Note that the population growth graph on page 42 of the impact report , is based on a logarithmic- scale. Are all of the project's Possible impacts applicable to this kind of scale? Revised state guidelines for environmental ' impact reports (December 17. 1973) permit the submission of an impact report based on a local general plan whish may then be combined with the general plan document (Section 15147 of Title 14, division 6 of the California Administrative Code) . Such a comprehensive environmental Impact report might well address itself to items mentioned above that concern general impacts on the entire planning region. With regard to some o•f the technical findings of ET.R 1340-RZ , the folloN•ring iters are respectfully brought to your attention. l. ' Several named faults surro,.:nd the project site. These faulte. are not mentioned in the text of the report, although they are shown on the map on page 14 . 1�-ention is made of the Hayward, Calaveras, San Andreas and Pleasanto'n faults only. The others that surround and possibly cut through the site are Diablo Fault on the north, Sherborne Hills "ault, on the southwest, and the • Morgan Territory and Rig*,gs Canyon faults to the northeast. There is a strong possibility that the T-assajara Fault cuts throuEzh the center of the project site (E. E, Brabb,, et al.. , Freliminar,:L Geologic Minp ofthe f,!oont Diablo- Byron Area , _ontra Co ta , Al.nmeda , a Lan Joaquin Count;.es, California . U.S.G.S. 3asic Data Contribution No. 28) . 2. It is noted that the map on page 49 of the impact •^ report shows that only three areas of the project are to 6 be built on major landslide• deposits. Howeverp it may readily be seen from a U.S.G.S. map that almost all of the slopes within the project site have mapped land- slidess land slumps, or earthflows of sizable magnitude (Tor H. Nilsen, Preliminagy P o o Interpretation �AR o- ndslide and other Superficial De u its on t!re l.:ount DAWbalo &nms Contra coatani Alameda Counties, Calif- rn'a. U.S.G.S. Basic Data Contribution No. 31) . 3. EIR 1840-RZ and its predecessors do not present adequate soil stability information. Such information should include size distribution and scattered compression and Atterborg limit tests. 4. The preliminary impact reports (jARA and _ECIS) and the County' s official impact report (E7i? 1p1;0-RZ) mention climatic c:.anf;es due to urtanization, but none of these reports attempts to estimate climatic char, les in any system atic ti-,ay. Recent advances in sirr,ulation . ^ climatology by Outcalt at the University of ,:ichis;an and Myrup and Goddard at the University of California, avis really do make this possible ( see articles in the 1.972 Jourrml gJ A.Dp.19.ed i�,eteor•oloFv_) • 5. With re6ard to hydrology, the impact report does not mention such _mportaitt considerations as i areas of drainaae basins , infiltration capacity estimates, local climatic data, or flood magnitude-frequency relations . How can flood hazard impacts be predicted without this information? In addition, it appears that both the JARA and Kir Ker Chapiran & Associates supplement to the SCIS report have erred in not attempting; to estimate concen- tration times after urbanization. The decrease in concentration tune is one of the major impacts (see Leopold, 1969, U.S.G.S. Circular N'O. 554) because hir;her storm intensities may occur for shorter time periods, n thus increasing the magnitude of a given frequency storm event. The actual calculations of Kirker Chapman and As-ociates were not included in EIR 1840-RZ so that the reader cannot evaluate them. JARA calculated expected increases orily for the largest watersheds ("because they produce larger floods" ) . 'These seem to have a small per cent of expected urbanization (e.g. 12;� for Sycamore verses 250 of entire parcel, P. 78 of JARA report) . It thus seems likely that some of the smaller watersheds might produce considerably increased flows after, urban- ization. Leopold (1968) indicates much lar,;cr Flow increases with urbanization than does jAR1: . 6. There is no attempt in the impact report to delimit on maps the areas of flooding for various flood .frequencies. It is mentioned that the developer plan:,- not lan:;not to build" in the 1.00-year flood zone , but. .,ie actual r^. zone is not mapped nor is its area esti;.a..p 1. In view of the fact that valley bottom lands are considered more developable , for seismic reasons , than the hillsides , this point needs clarification. 7. Both the County and SARA reports indicate that ,increased sedimentation might be a potential adverse impact, but neither attempt to estimate the quantity of sediment . that might be expected. Both rep oras are vague • about mittigation measures , mentioning check dams , etc. , but with no information about how large these need to be . JARA cites the Coloma watershed findinn that Burin, the construction phase sedimentation can be as high as 85 times the normal rate, but seems convinced, without any eividence, that mitigation measures are adequate . It might be mentioned that ir small tiva tersheds where heavy rains fall during the construction phase , sedimentation can be as high we 20,000 times normal (Leopold, 1968) . .-• It is not fair to potential homeowners and present county residents that a detailed hydrological study be completed for a portion of the county this large? We appreciate your consideration of the matters included in this letter,. Sincerely. fo,....C�-.l• 2' Donald G, HoltErieve , Ph.D. Director and Staff :lannor i,) :rouse D. L cess ler, Director. and Staff Ceolo=,ist Jeffery C. Lozier, :h.D. Staff rydro?cIis t and Clima-tologis i. DG11sJDi1sJCDtsn Attachment Copies s• Arnigos del Di.alAo r I Attachment NEED FOR FURTHER GEOLOGIC RESEARCH The following excerpt is from Lowney-Kaldveer Associates, Geotechnical Reconrai0sance for 4800 Acre Hlackhawk Ranch, Contra C ,ta County, Cali ornia, November, 1973• Subsequent studies prior to actual development should include detailed geologic mapping, geophysical surveys , subsurface exploration work and- laboratory testing as well as appropriate engineering analyses and studies. Vie re- commend tr:at our aJdi.tional invest r-a tions be particularly directed towards (1) fairly detailed studies of the overall site condition:- to define more accurately -the exact devel- opable areas of the property and ( 2) very detailed individual investic,ations for each of the developable portions of the property as development progresses . The scope of work we recommend would include, but would not necessarily be limited top the following tvro phases t Pha o 1 - Geotechnical. inve,Ltir, .. ion Moderately detailed overall site studies to include geolori c mapping 'of the property at a scale of 1 inch = 500 feet. The geologic crap would show existing; landslide masses and other adverse geologic `.'eatures where detailed information is needed to establish the projected use of the property. Critical areas may need crapping at a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet or larger to reveal potentially hazardous conditions. After the developable areas have been defined, it will be necessary to evaluate the effects of adjacent landslides and other geologic features on these areas. Selectively deep borings may be required to evaluate the 2 •/"� depth of major landslides and to compare the subsurface materials encountered in apparently stable areas to those encountered within the slide masses themselves. The deep borings would be supplemented .with backhoe test pits to check minor slides and subsurface materials- in place . Preliminary laboratory tests to be used in our engineering and geologic analyses would establish the engineering properties of the subsurface materials, particularly those encountered within the slide masses. Phase 2 - Final 1 Design Geoteghni.cal Invcstii,ation After the exact developable areas have been estab- lished, detailed individual investigations for each of these areas must be made . These investigations would include suffici, rit field exploration work, la`--zra tory testin, and engineering; analyses to establish design �^ cons tr. uo.tion cr. i.t^ria for site grading, building found- ations + slabs-on-grade , retaining walls , surface and subsurface drainage systems and pavements . The co: pre- - pensive reports for each of these areas would include all of the geologic, soil, and foundation information required. by the public and private agencies overseeing and/or funding the development. r T / /�•I SIV SAN FRANCISCO April 23, 1974 St VZRA CLUB -- 5608 COLLEGE AVENUE / OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94618 / (415)658.7,'0 STATEMENT BY THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB ON THE PIRCPOSED BLACKHAWK RANCH PROJECT BEFORE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING CC1.11AISSIO:1T On Niarch 26th Michael Fischer, Chairman of the lit. Diablo Regional Group, expressed support for the proposes' 4,500-unit Blackharilc Ranch development in the foothills south of Mt. Diablo. He also announced signing of a 1rlemorandum of Agreement between two Group Executive Committee mr�:nbers and the developer in which support was pledgred in exchange for concessions from the developer. I3e- cause of substantial disagreement resulting frn►n this action and because this posi- tion had not been previously authorized by the Chapter, +he matter was appealed to the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club. During the past r►onth, the Chapter has reviewed the issue and finds that the project does not conform to Sicrr, Club philosophy and land use policies. The Bay Chapter therefore opposes this project. Because of its tremendous size -- the largest development yet proposed for Contra Costa County -- and its location in the relatively undeveloped Tassajara Valley, the Chapter, while commending efforts of the developer to work closely with the community, feels that the proposed Blackha.%-,1c Ranch project, although attempting an environmentally sensitive design, is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The project is contrary to Sierra Club philosopliy in general and land use policies in particular, as follows: First, the Sierra Club views land as a finite resource upon which man's sur- viv-.! in tcrins of s heltcr, food and fiber depends. In detcr.nining the allocation •- .......... �..' . _' $halt-Tic�: �' Imo`-' _ I ;'? �•: ,'�.•;'chRs.; .-.. ` ^\'• Htor3ce _ _l \Pon¢ � '. '` ,.1 �•�. Tcrnct t' F ':1 s � _ r . ,, ♦•; , ��, Jed J. - .>•�n 1 i♦.. is 12 ` �\�\'', ll/t�t:,\ a;al'1 ^+-1 . n=t��.'�.;~��.' •=�'L, r`.__ i -a't♦ - '1 Is 4kz%,- ♦ 1 7 ,+ �b?•`_"� SII• -�\1•`• i �/.�•\='.• - • �.\ _.._`••.. 1r', I�•._1 •- i t' 1.•' -�• .. :-� _ +` `" `I xkey Cahol It "Spring •u.__` ) ;',' �•�— ��v .'r�t^ .fit.. �,. �^ _ �: • 4"s*<< KrTuOt:o lI:IY 1 .1\i.' - ...�...rl+•-��^ �".�....:=:-rte:`` I sort•- .la�� , �" > +A, •, `/,,' � ''t. /oor� +j�� t': •)eg,�• `. _ �;c-♦ t' '>„1'�r� Hq ._ :.1 ^�' .. ..., �I _ '\1 '/OS•a i �, 1 ;�STATt;�•1�' t �'�A ;♦`,��'� •' � t\ ,_s _ ``♦ ' J I•C'}�•��. • \ 1....' •,1 I ;�Sa/Tan. 1 Cq 101 �r�:cti .. ,�•/ /•'w��• �/ �' i- �� -- ,� -� ,.r �' ` '.a.i`r Tan t11 '�.♦ .It • � . �•--'•=,' MI �1� ' '.'yl'-i�• � i � //,y �I j L ._J� 11.16/ _ 1 '> 23 ; Irancir tanch •t ,/� „� _ �„• "`:, 1 -'"man • . _,_` ''�_ — —— 26 •� a 12110 ACRES '-t, �'�I�a:- ooz /::Irk , _ S L 4lITIIIW QLACKIIA4IN, CONTRIBUTORY TO I •• ". • GREEN VALLEY CREEK C I ' of lands among competing uses, pri=mary consideration must be given to long- range stewardship of the land -- not short-range return. The Sierra Club has been a traditional and ardent advocate of preservation as a valid use of land. Second, the Sierra Club supports the use of a systematic and corni rehensive approach to. land use planning as the most rational and equitable means of dealing with the increasing demands made on finite land resources. This approach becom:r.• particularly critical in a place like the Bay Area .,here increasing pressures of urbanization are constantly nibbling away at the remaining supply of open space. In the past the Club has supported in general the concept of county general plans (and their periodic update) as the best approach for achieving land use planning at the county level. The Contra Costa Planning Department has looked :t the project in terms of conformance %%,ith the County General PI-ca and has made the fol.lo%ving finding in their Environmental Impact Report (L'IR): Based on an analysis of the above factors, it is clear that the proposed prnj(-ct as submitted has conflicting land uses %rtt)i 3 the adoptee) plan, contains densities that e>:ceed those anti- cipated by the plan, and would required facilities that currently aren't covered in the General Ilan. Basically what is proposed is a whole new community east of e�:isting dc%,olop:acnt. This was not anticipated by the existing General i'lan. It is clear that the project as submitted is riot consistent with tl:e existing Contra Costa Count%, General Plan. In addition, the proposal does not reflect the timing of development as projected by 'he General Plan. Third, as a result of viewing the planning process as an orderly, rational procedure, the Chapter feels that determinations Should be made by other af- fected agencies, such as Local Agency morulation Commission (LAFCO) and the A ssociation of hay Area Government:; (ADAG) as to tine desirability of the project • before the Planning Commission acts. (LAFCO must determine if the line for n urban services should be extended to include the entire Blackhawk site.) (2) In malting these determinations the Club favors viewing an individual project in a in regional context; this approach is especially necessary herein view of the size and regional impa,..t of the project. Fourth, the Sierra Club has long been opposed to continuing the present pat- tern of urban sprawl. We feel that this develop_zient is an example of "leapfrog" development which if permitted to go ahead would create substantial pressure to develop surrounding properties due to increased tax rates and would 1-cad ultimately to the development of the entire Tassaiara Valley. Fifth, the Bay Chapter is on record as supporting ABAG's Regional Plan: 1070-1990. This development does not appear to conform to that Plan. Much of the Plackhawk Raoch s;te is indicated as permanent open space while a small portion of the site is indicated as "controlled development" areas, which the Ilan defines as areas that should remain open for as long vs possible, if not permanent- ly, and which would he considered for urbanization after 1990. E:.A Sixth, the Club has supported the principle that full accounting of benefit; Km:ak and costs of providing services should be made during the planning process and that full costs of land use decisions should be assured by the developer to the great(-;st extent possible. 'In the case of B.'.ackha ,k Ranch, because of its relatively isol;^.ted location and large size, the cost of providing services would be high. In fact, the County Planning Department recently released a report in which they state that it would V e cheaper for the county to acquire the site at $4.8 million (and lose an annual $154,000 in property tax revenue) than to pay ..1,30 million in capital requirements needed -.o' extend urban services to the project. It is imperative that the Planning Co: lfnissinn, we feel, should carefully consider• the implications of t . t;r #.tf placing 'spth a financialburden on all county taxpa}_ers when only one segment would benefit. ,3) For semeral yearn the Mt. Diablo Regional Group and the San Francisco Bay C hap ter of the Sierra Club have hsid as a major goal the preservation of Mt. Diablo and its surrounding foothills as open space. The Group and Chapter have worked diligently to expand the boundaries of the flit. Diablo State Park. The San Francisco Bay Chapter opposes the proposed Blackhawk Ranch project and feels that retention of these lands in open space would be in the best, long-range interests of the people of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. We urge the Planning Commission to deny this application for a zoning change. by Helen Bu?:ke, 'Ccnuer,nticn Ch,I J.rrnnn Sail Francisco 13 ay Chapter, Sierra Club Diane Hunter, Chair,nan San Francisco Day Chapter, Sierra Club / \+ 1• V LLL 4 RECc- IV E'.D April 23, 11-974 9 3s AH M Honorable Members Contra Costa County Planning Commission C�au�� County Administration Building Pine and Escobar Martinez, California Gentlemen: This is a copy of our. statement concerning the 6lackhawk cIR (1840-RZ) which I r•-!ad as pie shored our slides of M.t. Diablo at th-2 public Hearing of April 23, 1974. T did not leave it with you at the tine o: the hearing because I did not have a copy at that time. 1. This i:: an aerial view of the southern slopes of Nt. Diablo. This view clearly shov;s; that these hills belong to 1•1. Diablo. 2. The southeastern slopes of Kt. Diablo and its constituent foothills. All these lands currently in farming or ranching operatienn will be directly affected by d�-velopmc•nt of the 21ackhal•rk 1~r.*3:.. The ZIp dvo,:; not auaquately consider the effect:: of increased air pollution c-i crops a.-.j live foci;, or the impact of aroatly increased nu;rber.: a:' human boir.7.s in direct pro:;imity to these farm lands. It is known that production of so:::•2 crops is di.nini3lic:i or extinguishcd with increased air pollution and it thought th-at livestoc% can he similarly affected by thc, lead and other types of rolluticn from automobile exhaust. It is also known, fro% the of Califo:•nia's Central Valley farmers and ranchers, that housing dzvclr,:::-.-at is inccmpstiblc t.-ith farming and ranching because people who rove into develop. cnt: have little or no knowlodge of farming and often kno•ri .gly or ur.:.no,.ingly ' sabotage and harm the %:,ater supplies, fences, crops, livestock, and so on. What other }ands of hidden pressures are there on th::s2 farmers and ranchers? 'low long v.-ill they stay on at their op^rations if is d-_vclored': Where will our fruit and produce come from when much of our farmland has been paved path subdivisions? 3. This is another shot of the affected farmlands--Tassajara Road. 4. This is still farther East, showing farmlands which v.-Ill be affected by development of Dlackhawk, in the Morgan Territory Road area. 5. These are some ponds existing on the property which may be used as storm ponds. 6. This is the Peterson Ranch. Mhat will happen to this ranch with development of Blackhawk so n::ar. Will it eventually go to the re:~;;, or %•rill it be absorbed in development or developi-nent-owned land holdings: 7. This is one of the: hills on the Blackhaik Ranch. The .:rirkles h^_re are called slumping and there are also some actual landslides in evidence. 10M` Jerry Pressler and Don Holtgrieve of Eeumene Associates will speak about these. C.C.County Planning Commission -2- 8., These hills are still further to the West and constitute the area which Sally Ewing referred to as scenic windows to the Summit of 1•It. Diablo. 9. This is : view of the Summit through the scenic window area from Blackhawk Road at the base of the hills we just saw. 10. Another view of the Summit through the scenic window. 11. The Summit from Blackhawk Road. 12. This slide particularly demonstrates the oneness of the Mountain with the foothills. 13. This is the community of Diablo. Note the rural character of the area. 14. The character of this com.7unity would be greatly charged !'Zould D1ar-kho-.-; Ranch be developed. Even if Diablo Road t-,-ere widencd only on t:he hilly side, increased traffic from Blackhawk and subsequent dcvelopme.nts would change the rural character of this community. 15. Tha community of Diabla again. keep tract: of this wager towor !n sub- sequent slides. 16. Diablo again. Note that the foothills are integral parts of tato Diablo. • /'� 17. Diablo again.. Diablo Road bccom2s Blhckhaw): Road. 18. This is the view over the community of Diablo toward Concord i:,hich giv,:c an even better idea of the rural character of sox.e of the area which would b directly affected by increased traffic, air pollution, water runoff, and so on. 19. This is the view acre -,s Syct,;nLze Valley Road, shve.ing Interstate 680 toward Walnut Creek and Concord. This view sho;:s that thcr: is quite clot of undeveloped land along the major arteries. Therefore, to extend development out to the Blackhawk area at this time i-:ould constitute urban sprawl in its most fligrant form. The EIR docs not ad- uately address the spra%-:1 aspect of extending development out to the Ilackhawk area at this tinwu. This aspect must be studied in detail before consideration of the B1ackhaul: project. 20. Thin UR does not adequately address the impact of Blackhawk's bulldozer and grader year::. I quote: Even though the developer states his intention not to build on slope: over 25% and limit the grading, a large amount of earth :-:ill have to be moved. The amounts arc not knot:'n since no gradircj plan has submitted, but the total auant.i.ties could be large and the result may appear like a conventional contouring op-eration. (p. 64, v, EIR-1840-R'L) There is no statement in the EIR whether grading would occur all at once, or in phases. That information should be provided in detail. The view fro►a Southgate Road or from... C.C.County Planning Commission -3- r 21. Artist Point looking down onto Hlackhawk might be scarred with scenes like... 22. This one. 23. Just imagine driving up the side of th:s unique and world famou& mountain. As we wend our way up Southgate Road, we'll firs have to close the car windows against the... 24. Construction dust. Then as we drive out of each dust cloud, if the dust on our windshields isn't too thiel:, we'll be able to look down onto the idyllic scene of... 25* grazing bulldozers below. 26. A npacific grading plan should be required before consideration of the Hlackhawk project. If it is to be like a conventional o::cration this should be. known in advance b-acau.se it would mar: the mcunt•ain :or_ver. 27. In closing I'd like to rf:ad a quote which sten, up our feelinc: abut this debate over the f ztc of Et. Diablo. It was written by Gain, : linins 5ccundus (Pliny), a 11%c,an schol�x, in the first cen,ury A.u. The power and greatness of the %-.orks of tlatt.tre lose of their true comprehctision in n-a ly every instance wlien the mind seizes on the pu:ti.colars at,cl docs --lot rnnbraac:e the wholu. We are having otu: ylides reproduced and .,ill fon•rard exact copies o: there, in the order of this lire sent:ntion as soon as possible . Very sincerely yours, f Els. Nancy Henderson 1r. Grant He do e ID)L ! _1 - ( OM712A C,;,`)'rA COU 1-1TY To the Contra Costa PlanningCormni3sion. '�:',;�;:`;'Lt � '.• •�rS;f='1 '.:►*1�.r,� Gentiemen: t !.Tv na-me in Susan Watson; I am secretaiy for People for Open Space 1 a 9 -county regional.9 vo-'ontary punning orgenization. I am speakii- tonight for that organization. If I may for a minute define People for Open Space and its in- terests - in i9�31 we received a grant from the Ford Founuation and sponsored the first study of its type made in the United States to ! analyze the economic benefits and casts of regions! open space. This stuuy,based upon to praLminary regional pian pub_ishe.; in i95o by the Association of• Bay Area Governments, .ie(t Peop.ie for Opcn Space into the consi,;eration of "il the aspects of urban pl.annin=. ?4e have t been nleased to have our :embers working with the ongoing p:i.anni.ng of IABI,G and in the various regional agencies. People for Open Space has also over the .last :i e:tr,t ith the Bay .rna Council (a groun not inotl_-ecibi'1 en.: others to further the uevi.copmcnt of re,;iona-L puns f:or 3_r.:tttst.ry, agriculture, and urbanization. Peop:•_e for Open Space, in fact, has %,;orkati so hard for proper. urbanization that 'rre shou,.0 be cam.-ccy "Peope for Proper Develop^lent". I note that uevei0pers seem i. crews-- in �y concerned ovor open space; puiliaps we shouted ca" them "More Peop.Le for Open Space" . The fon-lard to the Reglonal Paan 3_970-7990 states : "Regional. pianni:lg is much more than a simple matter of a!iocatingr .ianu for 60 v o^,-,t:'•nt. It imust c0nc?rn itoeif vittil ail that,3- vi115 an.,; ihys of an inf i nite.Ly ccmpiex problem, imn.-ovi~g the qua-Lit;; of the livins_ environ:;crit for a .i.arge ami f;rc:ring popul-atiotl-1' If t h a lanu is used Niselyj the Day Area ai_.L.L be ab.Le t0 ratain the qua..i.i"ty of its environment, and its econ0mic !'rea-.tll without posting a "no- vaca,lCyll sign. It :'i i 3_1 a...so reLluce the costs that a-LI Of us crust pay to provide water, sower, fire and pol e: protecticn, scho ).,.s., tram portation, ani other urb_.;: serviees to supply th,3 nae3s of that grosing ponu'lation. People for Open Space estimated that - tial L9_,33 I uo.!�..s the sa.vJ.nr�s accrue'1 fl'Om tY?P. ;wits CitJ Cl?iitered CO1-1cZU. C--13 oppOsc u to e:tellsi0:1 •u•3vejopi!-.':1� 'NOU:.0 by '>2W mi.L,.i on for munici•- pa3. services a,:d :aiilion for gas, electric, and telephone uti.L•- ities over a 30 year period. Even though the California iwpart cent of Finance popu'atior. es t- imates for i'.1-^31gr 4i on and i !!tura'l in6raa3e have ba r it aCjustCd cv.-In.- ;lard truce in -'ast yeara (since 1970) 7 the 1.13,%G City-Centereu corc:�r,i, has become in tYii_s era of i:lj.!a do :�xy ccst,5 q both public and private, anti the curt.aiiment of enargy, beth in re- source avaiiability and in cost factors. The City-Centered' rsgiona.L :;truc ture is a system of ci.osesy _nt.er-rciatcLi urb-2n. cc-,-jM:litJe3 .i:arge. e3_Oitt-,:t to be ab.Le to spaci a.Liz ; CC0`7Om1Ca�..1}' and' pr O1fi:la F3_ f^'irj.y high C JC1 of regionai economic activity. Surroun..in,; comr.-u.nitie viou_`W b.e ae 7.`'3_ ueplsi'.'3enk. epnter but viou.tu, in fen=rail :support them. r Toni h%._!s aonsiuerations. are ori the Environmenta.c Impact Report ans its economic supplement on the auplication of Project nuaber 1840 E6, the Hlackhawk Ranch. The project is proposing to proviu,e 41546 tkme.Uing units housiner some 151,000 persons over a i2 year Der- iod. The project site is located at its closest point 5 mi.Les east of. banvilke and occupies 3 major drainage basins, the last of which is within the Livermore valley utatershed, People for Open Space believes that Project L8-,O has regional implications for the fo:lv,ving reasons: 1) The project is located away from the ;rain thrust of local :aevelopment, which, in genera;.9 follows the San Ramon Valley amu Interstate Hig'.rvay �;s4. Project 1.8_v is a substantiai ucvaiop,IIt which touches present uevetopw-ent only as the tip of an acute' an gie touches along rectanguAar figure. This is growth occuring in a� tangent to the plain amine of grvath. 2) The project requires major ektensiors of •irban services to aII area presentiy not served a.ru th,?reby affects paras bets--ern t,h3 )1,o'- ject anus the "will •i-ine of uove,opment anu substantial .Lanuz arcu:'.:a the project itself. These Ia;lL-As inc-Luuc consiocrab,c areas towaru the Livermore va-L.:ey and thereby imp.i.y regional (a`, least 2 county) considerations. 3) Aecoruir,� to the ETR ani its Supp Le^en*, the yeve'*1 Of incc:me necessary ler in t,hc project a^,u the av i:ab_. i;.ity oz' j„ bs w-.t•hi ' hu. iir•O,j�?C'i, (LOi.11 in construction, aru in o r'_ce c.::i! t'rarl.) y iii c t7ill `J� an out-^,0;^_'.^,ute ror proj•'_ct ri:siuCnts c^.0 an in- commute for emplo'.,`innt provitieci by the project. V:iS -Ma- -2ment in botwli ulrectlon5 for both purposes rcquireS regional cons iuter atiol for � x cgional transportation corridor aa,,quacy. 4) Extension of ' eve'-op mint in this new area anu the extensio:i of• commute both for e:ap ,Lo-, o'�nt anu resic,sence bring raglc:l i air q1 a.i.-- ity po-icies into consideration. Wainut Creeks the San �_:=n `das._Ley ani. the Livermore ;raiiey air basins ai•e au1 invo.,v^.r1. I F}loula like to surnmariza br ief.:y - anu, of necessity) incom- • p�ete y - regionai pol.icy guiue..ines for gro'.7th anu GevetiopmenL from the Regional Plan 1970-10.0.0; Conmurlities shoula evo:.ve through the organizing aru streng';izcri- ing of existing uCv•slopC.-d parts of the region and through the ,;,:iition of p.�.anneu' ne;' cor.r., unities of at feast .TUU oo-' persons � j ) tha t is , £'i1i.7.1'o new towns. Living, working, an., shopping withlil the cc�:-unit,;yr should be promoted by a!! levels of government aru the private s:!c- tor. Urban u^v,....opmcriv shou'..0 be Or,-niz c�i to promote COT':]'.!niI., Cs Of Sufficient: sc .a.e to attract anu support a vang.2- of convti•:i- ient services anu fa ciiities,. Po.�i.cjesfor o7'=;l sU?CC , Y �•.tCr� a^.:Y�:`Z� anu 't+ranz-oortatio:i be coo vii rat-," LO Cfuiuc 111 a- ti:jr,;, :0,^3”' tion, gro',vt,h, ��n;: •;'bera necess ar ys the i..;it;� of L!-,"!;,:n ;a: A . corlpatib�e t, es of e:nu�o�•nAnt s`lou,;i; be xocatewithin or au a-- cent to cOrr.-;unitiea. ;.iaximum pmp1 oy:-iE nt oppo:tunities 0Z to resit-►ent5 within their 0:711 - vt} p i•,r c i*1 pr•ovi- uing in er:cb eo=%,nity the maximum ::umbar of housing ctloices in ter-- of .:ocation, style, nein nborhooul ani price. V 3 May I bring out these points: i) The elements of the Contra Costa Genera! Pian are in substan- tia�. ag:eement vJith the above. The fan::► Use an,. Circuiation e.Lement of 8963 encourages eI.me,Jiium, high- Density canu muitip.Le fc_nily aevei- opment" to be near urban centers arms a oploymeM opportunit;es. 2.) The Alamo-DanvAiie General Pian envisions. a population of SU,%jCC�as optimum for that area. The seal tota.L of the projectrece:ltly approved and propos.eu in the van Ramon Vai-ey exciuuir.g Project LBSD VIOU.LU raise the population to 60f000 by !900. Incivain; Project X840 . wou"u . raise the population to 75p000. 3) The "RAG Reg-j onai Pian envisions the area of project i.e-i0 as "permanent"' oDe?i space and Areas nFarb;y as "contro.L.Leu deve.Lopment" after .;.900. Obvices:�y� Pro•j1.6c't i840 b;; itse�'i dons not confor�l to . an'r of the above. If we consider tla project a.s the forer,t,nnar of a ne'rr to•,ra, a total community c--nter, no pianning provisicns for em- pioya;ent, transportation, a.r.,. co:=unit;; anu cuiturai services h ave bee n rlaua • by Contra Costa Cou;Ity Aia.;:e�,a Ccu;lt;r, or by /!}'s:,G. Yct, tln�.- Quest' ona 8.1.0:10 are not basis enouvll :for a U3c]si0n upon this I:aJor p,,.,cJ '.ct. As the eco:lcm'_C s!:pp1C%"i1L state'o 'Itna ?arCeca pital inve,taunts presenty r•ecuireu to acLu�_ize .,roj-:�cLs must ba con3iuere;: in, t}1? -ight, of di-ni::is;�ing pub.,.ic economic re- sources a u the nnecl for at:uitiorai scirrica.a. The 1:11'a- • sing an,.. vocation of such grzcuth is t}1:2t key issue here. . . " Need: _ For this unprecede I ed. change In General S"7f.Lans a3 existing ad the ABf.G pian an' p,:,.icies, 'r;e . list ccll�iuer housing; an,; ',13:1t nee,:,s in tll:' pan Rp-mon Va_L .ey. The economic suppicment :'Lirts the average sales price of a in t::3 project to bi a bCll`v 1.:.�,55,r,;rZ0 FiT1cJ ,I'G<�lill'^ 'u^'1<: .inCCf.:c'. Of `525;C!CU rCI' !'3:C:._'�, 1'h•. 937U Consilo C"1111 shows t~iL m��`ii Z1: income in t}le s'P11cy to be ,> 7 ;.biUy over or 4C>> more than the county':riue meuian of $.1204123. `i'hz �►5:.G EoUsin9 Report lists. til:: San PF.ion ai-."•y as in n,_,eu of Lo*a ant• m-:m-- erate incclm-i hou .in-,. Atli ough t': 322 ~art:a^?lt units i;i a baoa •: p-•Y il,come of $:Li,250g the bulk of the that isr 2y i55 si:l7: :i fami.; y 1_'Le't.ichad anu- _,958 conU'o lini=,!3 prusum•a a base incomiae ive.ly9 of $311 ,5U0 an;: $20,250. • The emplo;mint base (prim=arily re t?i'. tra 'e an offi co worker) , viii+ not be sufficient to employ residents of the project, anu file location of a major ct;ip-LoSmlent facility in the project is not con- temp_ate.i by the dtveioper3. Is there room in the San Ramon ValS.ey itse'f for further cp:nent, 8rr.mti.n^ th,: t the General. P'La 1 imit of t)u;000 roTu,:oticn is aujuStCO Un'anrd? t�Slvc'p .from t e D:OC?OScU p�C••JCC U ung t}1,3 "i?ct'.?:i,,.y �^ appr oven projects within t}le ley 1`„S?t f, t}?C'r3 c;:ist t qtr cp a..xeauy mal':;Cu in the GenCn- l P,an for url;a:l C ev' !iopzle nk. It i3 i.:l these F'.rCc.s, t}lit 5L`L':it,:;;uj.<1 houSinZ.; ? ,i rmpioj i nt opportunities could re T :'QvluOu c'Lo,;e :.o exi3•ti'.':-- ill .the fUtul'Ci 7 if SUC11 urbanization can be accemmouate to I want to cl,k the question) for the ansaarfdoes notappear La the EIR - }Iow r:rsc:i lana is marked in the General Pian in the urba-n deveiopment area of the San Ramon Valley that is not nori built, nor approved, no: currently proposed for develoMent? • Other questions which Go not appear in the ETR are: 117hat are the housin; needs of the people of Contra Costa County? (The housing enc-•:. ment) %;"hat income mixes and housing price mixes are dY:rsirab..e for Completely ne•x cor-munitia3? Is there a shortase of upper incoma housing, so that substantial public subsiuy in services is ceesaary to achieve that housing? Transpor tatiom ' Equally, for this change of Genera:• ant,: Regional P..ca is vie shou_%:s l consider the question of trans Orta tion, 14;+2 have %Tarte-_%'y acknv,-i.:e#J-gad that there wi'.L be out-com.nute for resi.uents of the project anu irI- c0?I mutc for co',structi.on ar, employment, TtlnsC cora iti0:13 I11cCss1^- t t,o countywide and reC.:J' 16c com.nuta-. 'i'he econonic s,tpp437icnt gives the approxin ote cost uf county roar; const:•acti.on anu ir:,rr.f�a_ lllent within the i meuiats area. The q�t2cStio;:i not C��c(1t ;pith Uy the EiR are: at 17 file eff',:ci, of' the ChannZ' L1.1?1 OIC Countyr"t'bA.i L -WOri:r. funu3 to this area to faci.iitate this nrojc:t cn t� ^,:�::;�r��,�s^l► neOds forimprovc;rent ar.;, COi1StI'ucticn of ror:u3 in ot;'1er art^:s o:L the coU-11- ty that, are p.resenICly estabi i 5:i` u? xnt,'wr.^- t tC 63- '.i is o*-%, beim; in cai`tLlin s;:ctions. Irli-li- i3 the :,noun-' Gi C'i:t'.^-:l,^.i0:1 •�^ of 1'iilusning a n; J ov:'.:^t az3 con:3t'_uctiOn or i m p r o-, e!1t neces3-ary for 1rojcct 19,iO or ssubsCCILIent projects in Vhe tt:'ca of What Goes the uriority ;.ist ;1,ich has beton ty t=1-- � ._ifoi•:,i _ utctL' H igli1Pla`J LU-.�::Il:>>i011 s?.y in I'C'g,-..1'u i,C fUu'.:S''' {i"t1 Oi.:::, Of i; 4 Ment of theis I'oad'r 71hat is the effect or' C"Sni:li:!_.'.1i C:7 .,;iste 'tra::f- fi.c onto an lnter.^avetc route jo to the furllnC possibil1t1E.',3 and p.ianning possibilities of. FeJara L money a.i%i ir.torest in tlij s route? (Feuarai funning is approximateiy 0% Of M011Cy 1.13-2d in int,:i sta toc routes. ) ' Tha project Lias ir1,iic1't,!J some intcrc3t in bus transit to D .RT, Wbat is unkno',in in the T:IR is the capacity of BA<<T on th2 Co:lcor.l, MacArthur, an,� Li-tirnatley, San 1 ranci3co .tine, lv;h t _s tit-, :t!1 otl- rT1ent i*or each stc"ttioil ( if any)? 1,+'hat i.S the efi cct c .l the. transit possibiLitic3 anu capacities of ot'ler areas? The economic supp.icment centemp.:ates a publ.:ic capita.I. invcs t- mcnt of 1;)30 .miiiion, about :r20 mii%ion of w'nic. .,cui6 not be recov- cre;3 by the 'Lpvc .op::tent of Project `840. This investry-nt Of subsi. y i:1 not u11u�u,ai to t31o:,o t'rho have stutii urban %;eva_cpl�:lt over the years. Cort or ..eve.iopmant is probab.�y, in sc io sui:I to every large u::v,�-.ipmen't. The qu23uio:1 is not tita investment of pub_ Lc Monies. The qal •3ti0n is 0:1-3 Of 't..:� ins j1I'al: tic:ll.ity of puti.)dc invt'st-1z1t. 1i0 in a busine;,s propasii;ion that wou-:U not yic.` " '-" --a turn. I'fO j�ilUliC Uou�' .`'il;Ou i i.1lvcrt T%:11), iC 71C';lie'3 lit:?011e U.la pv 'Ja 1,J.a11:1t;; of the! moat eco omic aM. SOCit.L Use 0- ti"!0..3c ruby :C ,.fin-:'3. To remain hea.,thy'y t,O 1'C':'132;1 in our :z::y iii' , m,_,st b3 wjs ,, ti! Intl. '„ cc;:: iucr social cco: cMi^ ` a 0 ' ;,; 11' n n Y viisa_. . 33 G the t . 1n� anu ].nJ , r ;% f:n.�illl ,. � i 'lin 1'lU�v r�:tt, l: P.?"C1U.ti.:y the p(,C�ic wil_j 1s each tax increase muss. Gent: em, en, -reop�.e ion Open Space 13 proul of the many e_ecte3 • e^nrilcia.s or Contra Costa Ccuntyt men a. women-, who have given ar-d are gig:ing of their time ar.-A ta,ents to the regicnaA. agencies and to . ABf:v to .develop regiopai pianning guideiines. . e are proud of the fact that Peop.Le for upon Space has stood before you on�y twice to oppose major pjznning project rczonir,L. in the history of Manu re- zoning in this county, Tonight is the second time. le asK yW - in light of regional ara .Locad- p;.anning a:iacip�e3 whicc are for the continued heath anu-i-mifare of all, ail- in Sight of no econo-aic nor social mitigating aspects - to deny Project 1800 rezoning i or urban oeve.i.opment. Susan Watr"3n, ( sir s. Robert S) Secretary, Peop:�e for' Open Space M RIM 1..+ V .�TIQ:.S it.:iti?.A?`,s: ::I7Ipc;::'-IT T r*-ACT P ':`?T l jf^-1%1 •r 1 TM ^ 0:;1:84 C`DSTA FI.X-10`3TA.F?• Y'Do l4l 19?4 CONTIM COSTA PLA+;.;M%'G C,II•Z•IISSIC.1 1JLiiTrtj•;:,, G'J.SF^:T}'LL � i:�C ILML 93, 3.974n ;c : ct AtR �. >J1.7 � re i•• t • n•1 1 n_• ?1 .I.1 •h •,_�\ 1 ^ ••1•'••1•� r•1 I.,... _�: ,.?:.II 11.1,...... t►:r v:..Ll a . I,w.a t'..:-•-�..r .... f-flr2C_'•W 6H 1 �, C :Ur�r i�S v ` r 1l. ♦t.l'.L i.:i :L\i/..1.i.�.�:�Y'a:�f s.iSL. ? .a .r..rrt:_: .): \...�• iiI'—SE t UrlJ_1 :ls1 COVLl T}M33 }'AM; S`JrJ:.CT ARFASt :TTT_•,S AND V&S Iss"M o,l n.:.�xcAxTN t!Rnr.•,,:•C:;. T:IMf 1G.+. .al 10MIM TIOIM �~ '•'♦ 1 T•i 1 h••' •,-♦t n IMI M, ,.,♦ r •� p / �•';,+••n•• 9 t)1.•,1aU't -\ipn �.�.,,, ,.• T::s I'I,.J1t1T►,c I�tt:t'r � I:.,I,r:.\ �1UC'T:i5 r^i D?•: Tt:3 I:,1.iZ. R3'�P.i. • •'\ P Y• f'•' •`;1.• ti�,••1 „•T . �TTr1.. n 'A". •,;I" 1•••)'.5,Ctl C T:?r•T 1„rf'T }•J_._I. GP♦TATI.� Ct.t.!z* IC.t►+..\ C: A.s4 1 L....a •T.r .tl nti�ll T• PAIR•7,•�r+•/v K ,�, P...nr', 7 n•TT��1 rift c,�l.l.11.! 10_60 �' • �,'.i..L i•I t.+J • I J.l►r1.t..lCUtJ. . /.'J 1. ( .i1�.,1 �.. I J AI!''T.iir G^V v ;7a*.T C77;: 1i;7 SZC' TY• (1114-66.004) 02 T:I:41, I`�, .\�`` �l,�• P':.11t;..m) ?r.;Ti' 'JiCa:TCI'. Stl•�1 i�.?:S�:.COY ,S "ti.LL(%'rr'D Dl*l=.;r 1 n',.,!"'1•• •r ' n ,rr�T,, �.•r.l� O Tr%rT'Dt rri ••Is.i•1.rJ►.•._:I .J1 tflu l{.1,.,N1.1..•,\,t, v' \. . .••(.S t1•J.,$, \•� �� )♦L1 .1V'1•,01 LOT 3T7 iS, rArl1J UIj ,' • ... L'.# 31, p V �`\� �• 1��• •t� i�• n f•, •r'r. It •�..•-vt n ;• r+h •p• •y��r.-• ;�., r. .�'rf•' .da 6 C0::PC\u•IT .., O.-' ITS ILS T TSS..D :i;3.'n G:...••'_t•�:2 .I.nA:"NAT C.1 AS API'Ll"M T•Dt 7312, G!.iUMij, ,11+nT1•�'tt r T , 7 •ft7 ••,. +1I;..,.- l �„ •�•� ter! n ?.•17('0! rq ..:T'..:'lL'• Ft'c:�a_/t ;r.lY A G..1.. .J,1• }:�5..,.. F;TTI_.1 ..a �`F 1 ,•,•lt, '^� ttr�• .1 ♦�M�1;+•,^t•n:� T'1 ••Y ♦i7� 1C:� p•1•"\ '7••^7 1^. I'1 11 ON •? '•, �• ,a,_;T•.. ._,,� . :C. }._/:•.:.til T:;:., U.1.1 L••.. ...,!.::...:: t1t,.•Z:,, C.IhCcl(`II • /• C'' T I♦; n-t' 0 •r•+•/ •x.11 1 , w �. 2♦ ;• WAS TO 511 THAT rA:.RV-...,S :_.ii S1 •,.D"Ma) THE O,P: : .iPAC.. Q. T ,,. .. ;, r, .. .,., hTi•.s (?., ia.�, Fl.,.,• •.�:fi.}) i3., hl.'.C.;._J .1 1�2�I':� � Z ):.s; :.0}'i•...ri D,11 �� n IIII R •� 11•-. . rn-r•':.11 r� r' L'T' •\ / 1 •1? ..:C.t_ ]9::�J.. ta.... 1x11.. }?::.' s.i.:�. s..-t•,.J ;.►U::. ..1 T.... Tb..S C^\ i,i 1ti:�t't•T^'L 1D.. rid-..:al.i�_.�iirT..l• i:1 1 J ' ii::" T n . ^►.•..i, .l 1�\♦,..••1r..:7 �r.;7 r,t•'�•' i•1• 1t•.•p'f{STT •~_[• 1�. �t.�j7 n� �• 1 ,r ,.,_7,.»N,• Nf. •� .•. r.T' •In 1.•;�•r.• ••.•�r'r r'+1 •y1 •r•.•.• f.,. rM • �►DD_ LEST`3 Rh GENERAL PL�A?l OC:iFOR;',;.t;CEt A':�J'.T 1. A1, RECOURSE IS PROVIDM) V THE LZOISLOAR NOW REQUIRING GME RAL PLAN ' OOKFORNhI�Cit . N PAG3 29 1844-10 APIM 23, 1974 THI. Dr MOPLIG l!1 -TION+ VAIAT 13 THZ "FM AL DEMIT PI? THIS S IMLD DB 14DE ( PMR TO TIM 001\2•ISM'S P21 AL D-3 ?SIMN. ST11TT.EM;Ts PAGE 63 Ti -3 G/I► Mi ItJ*rZMWIC3 TO TME "}IAt'tDMIPS + TO AGRZCULTt«W, MINE " TH US VICE;T:S"`, A ?.L IL's..;T IS HMM-Y LADST FOR b7PXIFIC ?X::D HALM^ F'i.:L?. S T.3 SUBSTA}+TIAN. THIS 3TATW'2I:T. THE SPF. :-a l SL3I.ITS MMOICAL FM'D=:G" MIXT 15 ACM MR SAY-2 ' ON TIM TASSAVA 1 ROAD, Ql C L,% i•n.'J • LV;►.L.b.V 11,10P3' M / w• .►ti."►u i jRJ.v.r t..J,0 0 lydv• L:.15 GLZ . .7S 1.17 F!.•v7 T. ,•FFIGURE'S Qt>uTED :QI 'LII% T111I,A A,.,.•..�.:.•�.aJ :C:. ..:.>,..._.,►:,:. ,moi ::•\'IY• ! :':�(� Tr\,, •r y.�.v♦r•,.�•rtt�rr !,t� V2 •• n•.w�•. :,. "....{.•�.1"•"CT�� T NUGi:_^,r"Rr;C t,r 'i.CL''.;L'U ".:, I':. .�: ',•�i ... .. i. E%;:C'.�- .. , },1.4F► DL1.•...r.,........� R.:::...:wlCt. TO .•t:._.. w_u..s..-0 ;,,\U AFcr.:.S S/ ICM.•viti+L „. ntrJJt:'.i. STA TL CR I•rf n.•*liu.: '4310U) VM Ii. c, GUTDZ- I:iL VI ' .w+w� •♦t n.T,r'i",r'1 � 1431,"' 1 / • , ^ .r F '�'��''!. 1 f^ 1'J1'�l t. ��'.�: ._r;1 r Z'1:GirS 131•,'� STN' A\DIC;TFS THAT ,•....I_. ...H' ..,:.,'i7 KAS .( . TILE W-ACltt TO SE.-R1 IC41 711.3 13?.►...».,....., .►:.�.1, i;.�,�.,v Otft C14PACIIIIY is I..,S.....,..�t Tip 1►5 SP:,t 7, T;,R:.:. ...r.."A+l JI,.S r\r.,_. a. ao.,L„ C•.•..:,LCi:'Y 0:• r D. I.21.LIa+ G,wI. .1S ;•ILi.L LN Ti..,,=,0 ", a:::. Fn..v...a .i:L.l. �a� ....•' •�•.�•. \•., ;•ti'l't •n•.•.— ..•♦•, / •'Jl.n Z•rHAT U:.•:Iv" ..h,� d C�.��s`1?i.:.::U .�., da1.1�.7�:>..J? TI r /1 „TILL I I'A'tr OF r1•..._.,, Ste, ,-,mss TRIZ . � +�IJi �►Y.L1Z�.'i\I.J..\ L. V .11•I),I ..�.:1.1...... I.w.�I J• TLI /M' J:...�1•....� �•:i.La �J aa1�r,J .�J\J1.L•..... .:1.r .... •.♦ ....Li{ ..:l.:V.\C.. ♦ ..� ••♦ w♦ •'11.111 • ; 1 .^.^J, .=D,1iJ[ TO Tiil. 1 "...i.:; Cc OF . ATM Tips L , , :�=•_.►•.�._..J r.• 'y�'lJ.u..• ...... :..••!,V b-Ji1•w ni.•J•'C..V{r, PA02 3 . 1 APRM 239 IM , �^ II ifl'nTTIISS:• CWT•D r �•T18 PAW 43 "TOTAL PC:ti 't S M- M VA-MIDS FOR MAMIAM R iT 27% OF TIM TOTAL POTENTIAL REM=TrAL XM GY DMWD FOR TRS AM THIS WILL GINEWS A MMIT-Tl�: ALIMM M M-PACM'd Oti5t WJ SHORT IS A " :CRT-Ts'� ; ADM33 IiTACr' PARTICU- LARLY IN I-MBER CP YF,"JtS? WHAT DOES TIIIS STI MIT M•PLY? t t WHICH UMS'.'m.'PE4 S ARE A.M.:2:- �"JD ::t WI3 FACI'(`iZ? HOW DO T1:�.�2d' rMR 411✓: RZIATE TO Titi; TXL,.L MUZOCY • PICPu11C AS I. IS 11=1113 TOWY? ;;'L.•L BUCeC-AUIS 111E OOl-21001 1,'i' E:•:.w=:','is CIC :G1 THE AM M;•J:1 V1a AS LTI:IT)M WjPF=3 IMM :,ATED? MI 11M IC':.t t•M...Z ARB T.IL I?:�Sf=:G C�.N-—1CP.::..:,'3 IF, • ,• TUCTRIC.IL n?ID C:.:: MT-11I.IH;? 1',.ir.:. FJIM -TO:;cF:v -.. • 1A11Ci1 15 :•:ILS; :'::::: I:��'i�i'i•")it , T.:T::eit:UTTA:G r:.;"•,i;rlG FIELD31 Sti4:1?Z�:G THE AND LOML :1:51,11`.3 SUC:I AS DIABLO OUND C.r.i:;a ASSAJAM? L-�, ;,x;15., ;.'ILL R THESE FAC711T ::LM TO L" LOC ULD A•-TCTTINS HMS? FILIALLY a VT-UT MMM CC':I SMSM&TICIN S (,',It WISP-1-MI T S EXIST FOR SUCH t::IaS TO SIMPLY Erx"o..i"1IAT-LY ti: YNTM 1111rd C? 151000 MPLI:? .. ST,AT)C:T•`•M P,".0133 1'' "LOC',:, .'.OLS u .mm, DZ."sI'C.^•..'•J., S:'CS!'ICra u U i ' "ME wU-1.3 I'J:t;?T:.:, Ml .`.S .:Il:,.n STILL B.3' AT VI:; TI1::. OF T114C t•%114G::'1.'.':1 V X 30 �J_.J.—�.. U3 0. "14....Liw"J 1...•Jl.. 1 .a. l...rily • T:: ? TR' -1A IF!lTit0t*: I. t. ST,: i ' � WCM-1M $:i .I3 GCOD UITn XL':I: 2nmo, rO F utr:tx'5 APM, 23t 1974 .LthrV��ilii C073t.�d . • n LTT1,TTI?!�: AM OrM, TO SU33TANTTAT? VIS STATTr29T. (solid wasto) �TYC'� MAT CUM Ght'l,i�`�.; CO:C•:tyIITI�.S ARE ALSO USING THIS 8T HT '110J DC i THMR CLYNT.,Mr-M ms AFF::GT Tim. ;T -mg, OF YEAR 20201 IfAP.T!NF� :t;; y LihU IL?. PROJECT- DRAT AL T&" - MUMS OF G;RBAGE TRZ%T,%.VIT IiA'P- IF -T-',VFR BLM'•I 0ONSIDMIEW SUBSTANITUL DAILY TRUCK TP,. MIC1,'OI1r�D BE G Ji�r21;TL'n I THZ A.vZj OF• T:i-y?, BLAC:DLt,.-*r;. .-IIAT 1'.R?s' THE i SAPH"lY FrtECALT!MiS MR PED~..,C<RUIS VECIA:LY SC;iC4L CIIII,DRia+? Till; I?IS7'J';�;C TS Gt� ,i:U;E. • CAN SUM A ', STJ113T^SIM MI N; !►G '/S Or ►';•T.'•.'D:,T,'G 1ILTMU1 Ri.:i^C^C J? L:P'":Cr LT.:.Y, 1" ;5 P'11;I.S? G ;'L''Lri AIR POLLUMC'.ti ��0?S:: ..: D I'M-,' i C FACI'0�S 1�,D,,r.�D D:: .�- •;, , T? nr r ,r•r1'n•1 •, R • ^•'JCTr.•r t• n I1►!'l.D TO l Cr;. �:. GnZr,�GI: �i., .::5• h.IJT A;Z.:. VIM it'V*,..,,,,;,,r,. TOcc'713 OF T:i% 1WGvr? THIZ ]LIVE NOT BENZ! D,W.,GP::J V VIE' �>1',1T.,r;r.•;wr..,F FOUR MijiI A-B BMrj.'S .LJ1,l7.J.lZD- Di TH t;L" iXr1. IT 1.10.10 ALL MTR i:'E;'w r.; C'i;TRAL t CO TITU COSTA Xt!;WS SANriAI"d J)MTrZrL'a F1 I. UF:'PTO:;`rs IIF NOT, rART.T.CM.?j"Tv VC cYC t.0RL"" AND TAStiAJOJ► Vf,121,I S, 1T.-1Jr.T I,� T:I:�,.1:Z...iC:►1=�., Or- t:I..Iit Oi.wr�Z „? T.... CC! )a%'0,r...r034 OF 7112 F.MaW Z r G.:,TPJ:L ►r3.�.I1�, Py!:,_ CAW..l L T►I(i'..:,.:. 1i "D .,:.,, .017:. cc.*Ns TP•UMON. 1•,2411 1 ....:_RA.. 0:3 .,21t... Bz:)) 7.2- DI T.R.1Cr rN M1211^. IN B.I..P.. Ff:]].Lll TO 1►A„^"�^ ,r..., rOf•� .:.E ta'':"IC.'.TI .:.S C:' C:tl i�' C. 1, .l '.l'�.. . ...� 1:1� .t: , . �.. ..� 1 , V. ►.Ii F:?a1R.1T?t�:1.Gt E- 7.w 0 0:• D-1'51 THE FOR '711 : ESTA :, C: CALiFv(�;I:,. ..Ur TO V,17, SL ►L'. c. , PAGE s 1040-RZ AM n 23. 1974 gcas� . Zt L?Z?ITL:,S s MW W.CTI07S FOR T113 I)Lk W.Z? AVD THB Ul TIRE CiIlTiZJ� SAi'1. co�t�d) SAN RUMN VAI=, 2 :•3131 ;;1Ml CAM= BE RFJ' HED ? 11:tAT 1ttL�.ATTOi�S.:DLTE''.:Z; C,�DA :i? .:il.'5u M17, BUT. A FL�J OF THE S3RTOC:i C'�:::;iT_J:i.S ; :T_�-t.S:�QLui3 T:?I: 041.12SSIt?2:�3; COiiSID' a►ilCi. _.. .: : :: ST1.T.:•r:Ts DUDS TO NE aIANAIt?.A:. .r.-:ASC --I:^,3 C: vis I:T. DIULO Ir00TUMLS, T1II.�f:.ut•�:•.�`1J A :?IG?i FZftE '!]In'IP.T AT Lr4ST 6 1:C:;T:1S 0'.r. cF Tw :': ►:?. PnGs3 61/66 ,, r • ,, r,•-•n•,•�^•r 2111 1•'11 :X. ZC ' 1:. +TICi1 1'IitL F'l X1,.,.1.:,,,• �L: D_ I.J.,....,S T:.?� IT;1 IA;,'^;G s • lr'sST.T. .:.1: }:C,:.r ?,,.LLD T:ILSr. Si.CF33 :::. 1':,�...V,..7, P.'.'t'.•�'C;1!_AF1Y 1.1ITHIti' INS PRIVATE PR:.S`_;'t:' P. -11-l"T. :S? ir:I I•.OST • �, ,, y, , •A . 1-2--.."D_ ••r• ��r � 3113 EF1�:.C1. :. FIi.�, IfTG:;,:C•G . ::�,.� ..)._., BOW3113 BOii3DiG. t;r•'.�'►i' ARI, 1.11E !�. :...:5 ,• Pns3,: C:Ir r .a U1 Q.ULOR LUIGS OR CT7 •.i: r CT IM'S. ?. l;rIULD Tula LOCATION OF T3.t.':C.;;:;1,;:: CAVS :R M.T'2134'AlrMll UP THIS T CHI US? • IIz rn2► D:.0r., ,TR,, o.s..zY•,J103: s,tir .. •Yls T i.,.STATUS 0: c'r, OR FOR 'i l 000 ACTES TO lHii ST/.Ti; P!,.•ti. 1111', C1JU"iTY PARI; MODICATION OMDJI A%NC :L'.sl:c,^ Y.,N BS'Eli t AMI, r LANDS C ININOT• DE MIN T_I I,:LL'U CF i!E ',M':TY R:;Ir r:; 1•^,T. (!MSTIO;;Ss V T3T3 IS VIII a ti•90 F'i''':TSIG::a !L.VE E;: J i:An:: FOR REMi-WrIONAL F".OILTT17, ;Ti':;1„ i::l: F'!,.4Ci�liA'.f E:CLUDIII-.G GOU C0711"SFS? ;rLL l,t....r1.:..5..:.IA ^ACIL?PIES BE 11YA l 710 Al'.D PRO.- VID3 FOR ALL AMES /2-'D P.:T >TS? f • ^ GFITJ,mFtR. OF TIiF C0I.7133=t I F.OPE.YOU RECOGN17.E THE SMNIFICANT AND EXCII.LENT TESIMONY MGiICH US BM BROUGHT BEFORE YOU THIS E ENIIIIG. IT RFPRESRITS FAY HOURS OF DEDICATED WORK. YAW CITIZENS OF TMS CCMTY ?OLD VITAL CONCM FOR THE QUALITY AND PLANNING OF THEM HOI•Z, AND ODI-IlliTPY RIVIROMMIT, 14!iI01 IS ONLY APPROPRIATE I11 LIGHT OF OUR PF.ES2iCH DI THE CH053I HOM OF O;NE OF THE WORLD03 GREATEST IIATL".IALISTS AND ENTROMMITAL AVlOC1i=S, JGHll MIR, Md LL Y 'R E L VP,S on on --) -Ei op I ND(l CAI t OWN t OAD � •,� REC F' !VF D Association of Bay Area GoveAlRer4to PES Hotel Claremont • Berkeley,California 94705 - (415)841 , rA 1 rOUNi t it-h,NG D EP.IFTMEN1 April 22, 1974 Mr. Anthony Dehaesus, Director County Planning Department County of Contra Costa County Administration building Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report (DEIR) for Blackhawk Ranch. The enclosed comment,, based on staff analysis, are directed toward the adequacy of the information provided with particular emphasis on regionally significant impacts. The out- come of this review, therefore, cannot be ccnstrued as an indication or the Association's support or non support of the projoct. Aside from eiiE�uring the accuracy of information in the DEIR, ;:e feel that it is also important to clarify the project's relationship to appropriate kBAG policies considering ^ ADAG's potential role in reviewing applications for rederal assistance for • proiccts ;:hick may be required to suy:, rt the Blackhawk deve-lopment. ---- Because the land use diagram accompanying the Regional Plan 1970:11'90 designates the Blackhawr. Ranch as controlled develo ment and permanent open :;Dace, t110 DEIR limits its discussion of applicable ABAG policies to those elemmnts ;:liic:'- relate to unurbanized areas. In fact, some of the project's most significant regional aspects have to do with the type and timing of the development itself, ' rather than the natural phys.Ical characteristics of the location in which it is proposed. ABAC.'s Open Space Element places a priority on lands which serve multiple funct°.ons. In this case, three are identified: 1. Managed Resource Production 2. Health, Welfare and Well-being 3. Shaping Urban Gro;.th The proximity of areas for controlled development indicates that in this instance the third function, aimed at preventing inefficient and preiaat;•Ye urbanization, may well be most important. The Regional Plan proposes that communities develop by organizing and strengthen- ing already developed areas of the region; or, by adding new cocununities or planned extensions of existing coni i nitit-�s. The Blackhay.k development is ,lot of sufficient size nor scope to be considered a "new community" and is not proposed for an already developed area. It :rust be evaluated, therefore, as a planned extension of an existing community. The Alamo-Danville T,rea, planned Representing City and County Governments in the San Francisco Bay Area PAL. MIJIWIy LM11841SUB Rpril 22, 1974 Page 2 .^ for an optimum population of 50,000, conforms in size to the Regional Plan's definition of a "community center." It is apparent, however, that neither this homogenous suburb nor the adjoining San Ramon Valley Area provide the range of services, housing opportunities or economic activities described in the Regional Plan as criteria for community centers. The Plan's policy guidelines for growth and development specify: -- That living, working and shopping within the same :onununity should be planned and promoted by all levels of government and the private sector; -- That maximum employment opportunities should be available to residents within their own communities consistent with the maintenance of a livable environment; --, That the provision of public facilities should be timed and located so as to discourage sprawl and scatteration; -- That each community should center around a ccr2 of intense activity where commercial, governmental, cultural, recreational, health and educational services are provided; -- That all governmental levels and the private sector should assist in providing in each community the maximus nu,-w3y of housing choices in terms of location, style, neighborhood and price.. At its semi-annual meeting last October, ABAG's General Asserwly adopted additional policies related to growth management as .;ell as a seri :s of criteria to be applied in the revieei of specific plans and ro jects. 'T;Oese cui.dolines, which are enclosed for your information, indicate that ,;yen revieh:ing plans .and projects NUAG will specifically seek: -- Special justification for proposals not related to committed growth patterns or existing service areas; -- Special justification for proposals indicating continued reliance on the automobile; -- Com.7itment to meeting housing needs with specific provisions for accom.^odating low and moderate income households. Reports prepared both by the County Planning Department and the developer's. consultants indicate that the project will require extension of services into a previously undeveloped area. The employment to be provided by tilackhawk during and after construction will, with very fest exceptions, rrovira insufficient income to enable residence in the Danville-Alamo area and, therefore, require automobile: commuting by both Blarkhawl; residents an em.loyees. frith resrect to the third factor listed above, housing studies'conducted :iy ;09AG indicate that the project will not help to meet identif-ed Acetas. ::oreover, the project's economic impact may well reduce the li:;c:lii:ood of ].o:; and moderate cost housing being built in the area by increasing the cost of land and public services. Mr. Anthony Dehaesus April 22, 1974 Page 3 AbAG's housing study, based on the 1970 Census, showed that 33,800 aaditional units were needed for Contra Costa County households that were overpaying, overcrowded or living in substandard accommodations.odations. of these units, however, almost 6,000 would have to sell for less than $35,000 and 11,600 be available for rent under $100 monthly. In the Alano-Danville area alone, 148 rental households and 104 families in owner-occupied units ,.ere found to be in need of rehousing. These figures do not indicate a demand for new construction, since some of this need can be met by upgrading existing structures, rent reduction and other means. Nevertheless, for a residential development of Hlackhawk's size it seems essential to consider the extent housing provided would help to fulfill needs which, by law, must be enunciated in the County's Housing L'lemant. T;ie State Resources Agency's Guidelines, in fact, require that an LIR include reasons why a proposed project is believed justified at this time so that the associated costs and benefits can b :neighed against its detrimental impacts. (Natural resources Code, section 15143) At sometime in the future those portions of t1he project site adjoining yet-to-be urbanized areas of the San I'.amon Valley might be considered suitable for development (assuming, of course, that the develo^r.ent itself is coeesistt:nt with regional •-,)olicies) . The Regional Plan indicate,,, ho•.:c• ..,r, that L;ie c:c cisi,» to use these "controlled development" areas should not be made until the need for additional lands for urban expansion is recocnizeci. "T:eis land should be left in open uses for as long as possible or be as _n:ir.t of the perr anent open •opacc systern, the an state:-.. },.. crv_..g c .. now for cc•, loc- ment voich would not actually occur until after 10?J is, therefore, not consistent with regional guidelines. We hope that these comnents will be of use in your review of the project. If further information is required, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Rudolph n. Platzek Director of Planning & Programing Enclosure ASSAMI11HON 01' RAY ARRk GOVEIMM1'NTS GINMAL ASS".111Ii.,Y i'.i"SOWTION NO. 3-73 POLICY S7i1'1'DIEN1': FORIBLA'I'ION OF 1.0\tG-fi1;:Gli Rl'GIONIAL GRCYN911 l'01.7CY-I1 3L• IT MIMLYED '11Wr '1111; GUN1i101, ASSiMBLY; Adopts the followhin pol icics related to manage; eat of: the ;;rov.-t.h or the San Frolid.sco Pay Rc';icm. Those hol•irics ;hall be rCviel':cd ,nmually 1'01* amendl ont and re-afC.irrcltion. The giddel.ines and criteria shall be. ut.-Ali zed by A1.111G in pi-cpm-at.io;1 aC AIM, study alai phnniw, prc,;la :lls, co:*.^rent Iry rc- x1je r on Ycdc+ral Grallt. undor A-95 and l:nvirorn:,:::1ta1 ImIxic•t Statrlcnts required Indra Ycocral \ITA Act of 1900, and rcviel%. of the plans of public aild private or111111izatiollS bcarInR upon the ni.nc country My Arca. R1:;.;OA , I . 1iCS;i0111-ride. Growth, Planning and R Fier: Guidol.incs A. Ycar 1.980 Regiona.1 Grom-11 Qr:ntiti.es 1. 5.5 ni.l.lion Ix"pulation (1r-ionwidr avor:l;e allrnlal rate inclt�,�lsc of. 1.7 >>crccnt. i;1nXL11ulll)'0 2. 2.3 million jobs necessary to support above pU;)ill:'.tion • AIN% 3. 783 square miles of Urbanized land necossary to accoreno- clate abovo population Src::Ip:; and CCOIIOIHiC actit•.ity 4. 59501. square rifles of roscri-cd opon space as shol,n in the Regi.ona l Plan. B. Year 2000 Rogion.al Growth Qunlitities Rmigo.: TO 1. l'opulati�n 6.0 M 7.5 M. 2. Job- 2.6 M 3.2 M 3. Flax iruml llrhnlli.zed i,an:l 320 Sd. ;I . 020 Sq, Mi. 4. Rusen-cd Opon Simco S'SM Sq. I'll. 5,.!ll sq. mi. S. 11,ogionwidc Averni,.v .S PCI-mit. 1 .0 T'c1'oc-nt Annu;ll Growth l: Ilccis:ions co,icernin;; 1)ort..ion-!; or re!',ional iwol':th in the' c„1:q)�>nrnt parts. of the liccy 11r a shall he deturidned ill a cryo;erat.i\•c errort With local. and rve-JC na! level govorlim'..Ilt a t agclx les. Y:ich coam mm i t.y will he encouraged and sll;yorted in its erforts to formn.11,to ;in explicit 2r;}wth pulic•,'. Ibeny Irml gree, h pal ic:ias ,. •�., -..,,. , tillould he developed by each conimuni ty in- concert with county and , related fU1: l1Le11. 1 i11S• it twill 7 '0vt acmarr sa py1t 1 .a technical assistance to countivs ailed c•o1il:miiies in Olpiol tllcm deterniino appropriate ropriate l:'ms or 101mint.ien, jobs, rel;Jtc. .. load tmn rrics or grnwth, and w;q ronrim !•'[nny or Angin, ' mi:th ..•1'.w '•j'> ,.• lY.r., •..,,,:�.q.... �:•Q]I��).l�t;L:1 it..�ti l.t�l•),.�%�.1.oJ•1�:�:bl�otti t.h:h�J.�.(1�:��1)eti.• . . .... . .. •.•.. � ...r:. . RF.SOIXII 111 . Ptans and liviect: R(•\'ie1; Criteria 'file follo ink c Atc•ri11 sh.11l he ;Ippl.iud -111 11:l,li t icn to regional plcros and pol icics prC\_iQusl': i:do1)�l';I, ir;cliia:i i:c�;ia1!:►1 1'l on 1970- 1990, Wgi un.11 Open Since Plan an - Nos: H , TyKnall Airport Systums Ilan, HvIlonal Enter, ;incl Sunerage and Mrain: 11,C Plan - Phase 11 and s11M take into nccoun'_ thy` full range ol. actions hcing taken by central cities to meat their particular prnblcros: A. Overa.l.l. Growth Pattern Review Criteria , In reviet:' or plan:; and projects ABAG will sp:ci.fically loot: for• ' proviicihs 1:•h:ich: • l.. shov., a com!:litr•:^nt to ill-fill of areas already ecn7itted to a development pattern rcrlecting ainilnil .lity o; co:omnit\- f•Icilitias r.nd services. Special justification ,s411 411 b,required for proposals which encourage scattered Kvelon:• :nt not related to cons i t ted growth 11;1 t erns or urbnn service areas and capability. 2. Provide alte:rntive means of travel , particularly public transit, in l icu of reliance vn the auto:':bile its the basic transportation mado for daily Jifv. SpecOl usti- ficat icm s:l1:l l l he 1•e p i reel for prol`_'s:ll s which in,'icat:c m c'untinnvd relit nwe on the nutoniobilc with att,::•i::nt ' highway, rue I , and air poll tit i m c^:•t s. 3. Sh.)i' all und, -standing or, iiia ca: bit:�Icnt to, fulfilling;• tllc . cm!.::unity or ar::1 1mv :iii WAS t'i: i:^::::, ON or th.. lay Alva w 1 t h spec i 1 is p rev 1 s 1 ons ror nc t?.m.i, • 1 I u'.t :'s:'..1 moderate ineme households. Special iu:r if ical l: n shall be room rt'd r0r 111'";`:1?:11; which i%o:)II,l l':•I':l't '111, At rici inn my wat A or 1:.:, •:11 .'s � 1 ,1:;111. � � li 1l l' •t•;. :11 .1 11od1 ,raly ii!,o.:'r: and ::liliori ty 1: mi I i. , to areas of mist in., concentration or these 11opu i a t lull pinups, ' ', l3.t .Sc�c i:,1/(;t:ollrlmic Cl•.i t�:r i a . �•�' • M rcco tn.itioli of: serious au(1 c:ol;ti.11uili ! r(.-;ionwide pruhlcll,s clmcerr.il)l; cn>:urin;, equity }a ::cc'css to io!�::, ,opsin -Incl .', public services for1 c F,,,.. }t'r: � anj I •t I lact� l ilii i 11C: 1;:•i` , l:,l l, t li, 1')s �. t r' tati11munit.it's, all mainr propt—,als will le ruviewcd to dutarmi.ne � '• ',i 'thi Ment to• which t:he'Stjoh Quid- 1; id-1. l:X');11tt1 job and income opportunities C.1F.siClJlt. Cc }rolls ► '�. 1:::(`�tl'lll hu.1silq; (-i:;n 'tun1 LiUS or 1:.. j1WCWV 1MS05010; . thu iange of porsuiml ,.,,i ility to low l.il::one, young, a,ul Wdurly population group:; 4', li p!ind cnvironw(.-Iltal equity in tcrr..s of accrssihility and ran u l, tkT: l t, 1'L ' i1oii i.ncumO, young, and clilcrly 70vini i'lYJups C. . Physical l lnvirollmmul Criteria .. In ::crier; of plans and proposals :'BAS will seek information bearing upon the following physical cavirc::: ental considerations: 1. Seismic sensitivity (susceptibility to liquefaction, OWN fracturing, 3antlsl.ides) 2. Air quality �t=, a. Stlsceptih:il ity to pol lt:r;:r.t cc;cent:rntion b. Tmpact on pollutant levels in other ,areas 3. Soil characteristics, i.c• , susc,ibilit'• to: a. Agricultl ral productivity 1 b. Slump c. Prosion • d. lands] ides i c. Pv 1•illt':l h 1 I ,t y Q Water rocharbo :1rens g. Sblitl tasty disposal • • .. A.. • 'l'crrai.n characteristics . a . KxCossi ve sl opp • b. lhtcl cin tr;a�; r:1(1h}• . .5. n oo.l 11:17:11-d i �' h. l;► INF1; 1,:11. r il::ptllntl': !tt site r 1. • 1 • 1. Water , h. 1101 lut ion c. Rru:ce 111-V1LVE 1V. Grow I'ol i�� l:'orlc i'!•ol+,r:un •a' ' .'•, : .: •T14-ABAG.-growth-pol icy program shall 'he a continuing effort: over . a lumlbN•r of years to mrlore f stability and c;rowtb, ano to ast(lbl i s'rh and update as;rrrslcnts a�!lnnr, 'govo.rnmcntll l units ill tho Play Arca to secure approl riote gro. th which is balanecd alld Cool'd l nn t ed. �r•�:�1•.w. .Mo •tS•ry:...f'•,••`1,�;,t.t•�1 P:•1i •, r.,.. ,•„•.... 1'•d• '• �t 1•.'t'. ��.r • .• .:•.., •; i•.. .�,r'.r;.... •� • , !, �.-•- 'I`hc rras;'r:un sh;i11 procccct in tlic folloli`i�l�; stilgcs�. A. l.ni.t ial Growth 'Policy 19SO total. regir-on-1 populaLion figure n dopted. Year 2000 ralr;c adc-ptcd (Oct. 1072 an.1 bels. 1973) 11. Refine RC!;i.Qllli de- Total 1'i'urc. hstill►l i.sh proCedur6s for local and rc"Jonal governmental 'reviv s ((let. '197:1) C. Rev iczl� and hrclilainnri• il;;rrc:xnt: of cc:nit�� and suhrc�;ion;rl 1950 and ?OUO estimates. ((l:plet.ion estinatecl by Oct, 19M) • n D. RAW county in d subrcgional. WRO an•! 2000 hrnjcUions. Support growth m;lnngel:'.m i;;i;)l('1 tinting inlicics anang cnPutiv., and cities, regional agencies. (Completion estimated by Oct.. 1975.) E. Review and upOnto Regional flan annually based upoli policy. it1,1'Ccrient:s. F. In order to carry out the Growth Pol .icies 'Pro ;ram outlinrd I Wave in a h0anc('.d and co2preMnsive m inner, t.hr : BAG Suv:m.!1'y Three Year Coal and Program Stateirent is hereby adopted. 11AFI ilill ,:.t it :\ilVI'I:II !,l' '1111: G'"';1.11,;\1, 011: Tiil: ASS!.` :1.1'1'10\ 01: 11.11' :1R1:r1 GOO DIN,!)-'.V1 S Ti I I S 1 1 I.1 1 (Ni Do: 1:11, 197.). . .i . ... • .. ... 1%�liald J� tii•1•l�n; 1'res itlt�llt of tli��• • Associat )tiil o Bay /�l't`a (ill\'l`1'IL'ilt`.Illti Most. . Ilt'\i.!) •i. 1�.. I�I'iliiit•i', •�:�1'l'::!I'i' '1'.:'t':l�llr't11' l`1 tis:` :1nyo, I;lt ion of P.!y Ark-:! tiovL-1•I1•. ;11 • /11i'i�: .'I:!1, :,1:� 'llt'I'i11:'�I: ';� � .',�t!`�1!' I!.r�.rri,'',• 1 :�' �a•'•� i��lll•:�1�� i;1. .t � .. � r: .�:r•. .•i•fi'!' "• .. „•! ♦••, •. ... . .. :1: ..U. .iil1.U11 l`: ,liily.�I�l'l�il t�ti�'V1.'Ia:i.;ilt:': . , / ly Aprsl 19, 1974 CC EITI -111V E-1_ Mr. Anthony Dehaesus P�, �f" APR 2 319,, Contra Costa County Planning Department , Administration Building CONTRA CGS i A COUP i"t'Y Martinez, California 94553 �L!+�; ;'.' C(�"''►� ^�� 'r�;c n Re: Economic Supplement; 1840-RZ (Blaekhawk Ranch) Dear Mr. Dehaesus: We were previously retained by your department through Pcological Impact Studies, Inc. to prepare the original economic impact study which we submitted some time: ago. We just received your staff's report which frequently ci.tea our study in part without presenting our conclusions. • ^de do not agree with the. methodology, demographics and conclusions contained in your report and hereby disassociate our firm from it. 1A In order to prevent any further confusion, we ash that a copy of this letter be attached to all copies of your report subsequently distributed and that a copy be sent to all those who have already received a copy of your report. In order to further clarify the situation, we intend to review our original report in view of current data and more carefully review and comment on your report. As you are aware, we only received the supplement a few days ago but, as indicated, our initial review leaves us totally unconvinced. The report' s most glaring errors and the major reason for its unique conclusion can be summarized as follows: 1. Much of your statistical data and averages differ from our and other estimatest 2. A fundamental requirement of a fiscal impact cost/ revenue study is to assign to the development only Gruen Gruen +Associates Ferry Building Son Francisco, Calif.94111 (415) 433.7598 I 1 AWN, page Z ' • Mr. Anthopy Dehaesue April 19, 1974 those public costs that will be precipitated bi..it. • If we read your report correctly, you have assigned costs to Blackhawk that would be incurred even if the project were not built. 3. A second fundamental requirement of a fiscal impact cost/revenue study is to consider all 'public revenues that the project would generate. You seem to ignore that major capital costs are normally paid off over a period of time from tax revenues, connection fees or service fees and that the Blackhawk taxpayers will be paying taxes long after the twelve year build- out period. For your report to suggest that the project and its residents won ' t pay their own way or that it would necessitate a "subsidy" is incorrect. ;his conclusion differs from our own. further, we know of no other study in the United States that has even suggested that homes with an average value in excess of $50, 000 cost the public treasury more than they put in the public till. Based on ou-•• study last fall, it in our opinion that the project will not require a local "uubsidy" And would more than pay ita own way. Very truly yours, Claude Gruen Principal Economiat CG.-km cc: Ecological Impact studies, Inc. Blackhawk Development Company 4/19/74 Mr. Dehaesus: We had previously sent you a rough draft of the enclosed information - this is the final letter after the Board ' meeting held on April 18. 40 r; oveablo Properig Ownem o4.3.3©cc*a,;Z AE C F lVE D Diablo, California Art 11 10 00 fill"rd April 19, 10,14 CONTrit, PLANh1Nv ,E�a�Tt?fEN1 . Members of the Planning Commission Contra Costa County P.O, box 951 Martinez, California 94553 , Gentlemen: The Board of Directors of the Diablo Property Owners Association would like to direct your attention to our concerns with the development of Blackhawk Ranch as it affects the Dia`-lo area. These concerns are as follows: L We do not believe the Blackhawk Ranch'Development is consistent with the present County General Plan. 2. ' iWe believe t:1at traffi: on Diablo Road will be in e::cess of capacity and as a result unsafe. 3. We as individual t•ixpayers do not feel we should adsorb the cost of the off-site improvements this development would impose. ' • �f these three, our most serious concern is with traffic. Ve believe: that projected traffic volumes usQd by the Blackhawk Ranch and in the EIR are grossly uneerestiniated. Attached to this letter you will find the results of our research into cne road con- ditions and traffic volume figures }used by Blackhawk Ranch and the reasons wlhy we feel. their data are unrealistic. In the event that the Blackhawk stanch project is found to c'1nform tf' the General Plan, the Diablo Property Owners Association believes thrit the primary condition for approval. of r.e oniiig uhust be a new access rouge �o the project. We favor t1ha extension of Sycamore Valley Road with its limited access design a, now incorporated in theexisting seetion. Because. of the Massive site preparation and construction traffic to be bc�1c�>atcd, cap: believe this extension should be built within the first year of protect activity. Further, this road should be financed by an Assessment District made up of t:,ose property oarlher.s benefiting from use of such a road, principally Blockhawk Ranch. ..e also su&--oe,t that this road -,Light be extended up Mt. Diablo to join with South Gate Road, thus eliminating Heavy Esc of Diablo Road and Nt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard as the public access to the State Park. , Diablo in a unique area with a history and rural setting unmatched in Contra Costa County. We are alto the closest. residential. area to elle Blac.khay.k Ranch. T!-,ere can o no doubt that the Dcvulopiaent as projected will. adversely affect the safety and tranSuill.ty of our area. The Diablo Pcoperty Owners Association strongly urge you to deny the Balcknawk Ranch application. S inc er e.ly e Carol Sconycrs (Mrs.i.Hai) President, hoard of Directors attaChUlent: Convaents on Traffic Projections for Blackhawk Ranch Development Comments on Traffic Protections for Blackhawk Ranch Development The traffic data thhat has been projected for the Blackhawk Ranch development is incorrect. was derived by using statistics inconsistent with road conditions and the traffic volumes aures are unrealistic for this type cf development. The reference document used in preparation of the EIRs, the highway capacity manual by the Highway Research Board, is very detailed in deti-rmining the proper factors to arrive at traffic volumes. The following inconsisentcies between that manual and the EIRs are apparent 1. 'J.A.R.A. Report Appendix D, Traffic Analysis page 8 and 'as amended in E.C.I.S.E.I.R. , Appendix F-1 heading - Two Lane Roads - as would apply to Diablo Road between Calle Arroyo and Mt. Diablo Scenic Blvd. a. Site Distance Factor - A distance of 1500 ft. over 40% to 50% of the road was used. This does not exist. b. Design Speed Factor - IA speed of 45 to 50 mph was used, the posted speed limit is 35 mph with one 25 mph curve. c. Lateral Clearance Factor - A clearance of 6 ft. was used and there are 53 areas where this does not exist due to mail boxes, trees, and fences. In some areas the clearance is as little as 2 ft. d. Lane Width Factor - This was also omitted or assumed to be 12 ft. when in fact it is 10-1/2 ft. or less in several areas. This factor al:.ne would reduce traffic capacity by 12`/, to 18%. •^ e. Shoulder Factors - This was also omitteu or assumed to be 6 ft. There are no shoulders on eithe-- side and only 2 short areas where disabled vehicles could be pulled off and then only in - dry weather. f. Grade Factor - This was omitted and much of this section or road has a 3% to 5% grade. If the proper factors are applied to determine traffic capacity on this section of Diablo Road (see Highway Capacity Manual p. 299-315) the service volume C of 750 stated in both E.I.R.s overestimates the true capacity of this road by a factor of two. It should also be pointed out that services volume should be quoted as a range, however the maximum figure of the range was used rather than an average of the range, which would further distort the volume capacities. 2. J.A.R.A. Report Appendix D and Blackhawk "Average Daily Traffic Volume" print- out The "present road capacity" figures on Diablo- Road are again in- consistent with existing road conditions. The capacity of Diablo Road between Green Valley and IZlackhawk is shown as 11,364 while Sycamore Valley Goad with a much greater capacity is shown as 9,677 trips per day. (Blackhawk printout) . The total "trips per day" generated by Blackhawk varies slightly in the EIRs and Blackhawk printout, but averages about 30,OGO trips per day. The reference document on,"trips per day" traff"ic is July 1973, St:l progross report on trips and oener. tion research Comments on Traffic Projections for Blackhawk Ranch Development Tile traffic data thhat has been projected for the Blackhawk Ranch development is incorrect. ^*Was derived by using statistics inconsistent with road conditions and the traffic volumes aures are unrealistic for this type c.f development. The reference document used in preparation of the EIRs, the highway capacity manual by the Highway Research Board, is very detailed in determining the proper factors to arrive at traffic volumes. The following inconsisentcies between that manual and the EIRs are apparent 1. 'J.A.R.A. Report Appendix D, Traffic Analysis page 8 and .as amended in E.C.I.S.E.I.R. , Appendix F-1 heading - Two Lane Roads - as would apply to Diablo Road between Calle Arroyo and Mt. Diablo Scenic Blvd. a. Site Distance Factor - A distance of 1500 ft. over 40% to 5O% of the road was used. This does not exist. b. Design Speed Factor - �A speed of 45 to 50 mph was used, the posted speed limit is 35 mph with one 25 mph curve. c. Lateral Clearance Factor - A clearance of 6 ft. was used and there are 53 areas where this does not exist due to mail boxes, trees, and fences. In some areas the clearance is as little as 2 ft. d. Lane Width Factor - This was also omitted or assumed to be 12 ft. when in fact it is 10-1/2 ft. or less in several areas. This factor al,.ne would reduce traffic capacity by 12% to 18%. • e. Shoulder Factors - This was also omitteu or assumed to be 6 ft. There are no shoulders on either side and only 2 short areas where disabled vehicles could be pulled off and then only in dry weather. f. Grade Factor - This was omitted and much of this section or road has a 3% to 5% grade. If the proper factors are applied to determine traffic capacity on this section of Diablo Road (see Highway Capacity Manual p. 299-315) the service volume C of 750 stated in both E.I.R.s overestimates the true capacity of this road by a factor of two. It should also be pointed out that services volume should be quoted as a range, however the maximum figure of the range was used rather than an average of the range, which would further distort the volume capacities. 2. J.A.R.A. Report Appendix D and Blackhawk "Average Daily Traffic Volume" print- out The "present road capacity" figures on Diablo- Road are again in- consistent with existinb road conditions. The capacity o1:- Diablo Road between Green Valley and Blackhawk is shown as 11,364 while Sycamore Valley Road with a much greater opacity is shocm as 9,677 trips per day. (Blackhawk printout) . The total "trips per day" generated by Blackhawk varies slightly in the EIRs and Blackhawk printout, but averages about 30,000 trips per day. The reference document on,"Crips per day" traf:ic is July 1973, Eth progress report on trips and generation research Comments on Traffic Projections for Blackhawk Ranch Development, cont. •/"� counts by the State of California, Dept. of Transportation, District 4. Using figures suitable for this type of development (p.21, table 1) and projecting on 4,500 units, this figure is in excess of 50, 00 trips per day. This document also points out a rapidly increasing rate of trips per dwelling per day over the last 5 years which was not taken into con- sideration. A similar increase in trip-in rate over the project life of Blackhawk would increase projected traffic by at least another 40% to 50%. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1023 F' (1 1023 P STREET r t: er"tNTO "014 APR it 10 qA All Ild April 19, 1974 CONTRA, ,. : .- PU NSIN 3 *,1E!1At.T►AEy1 • Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Contra Costa County County Administration Building • Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Mr. Harlan L. Menkin Dear Mr. Dehaesus: Subject: Blac':hawk Development Company? .R^zoning-Martinez Contra Costa County SCIS . No. 74022541 •� Please refer to my memorandum of tdarch 18, 1974 covering the above subject. The first sentence of the third paragraph should be corrected to rend, "Approximately 7 ,000 additional vehicles . . . . " Sincerely, William C. Lockett, 'Chief Evaluation and Planning cc: Mark Briggs, State Clearinghouse Ken Fellows, Dept. of Water Resources BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT April 17, 1974 r n 2W ALAMEDA COUNTYt Joseph F.cart Mr. Dale Sanders Reb•n 1,Plowrrght Contra Costa County Planning Department r, u, co rr, :-I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY County Administration Building R�M��W.K�nn� Pine and Escobar Streets 121 �,. MeMartinez, CA 94553 -' . 40� MAIIIN COUNTY It ri -+ (VietR Attl`°ni RE• Draft Number 1! 7 2/6/74 Environmental Impace •f t (Vice Gharmenl • S1ephen►te1et Report 1840-RZ (Blackhawk Ranch) NAPA COUNTY John T.Aquila Dear Mr. Sanders : John Tuteur SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY. loticOh L Aliolo We have reviewed the above-referenced EIR received (eler lament from the Contra Costa Count Planning Department on (S.:relery) Y g P February 1.5 1974. We have also reviewed the follow- SAN 1MTF.0 COUNTY "011111"011111 A.SI.Ctnr ing two EIR s prepared on -the Blackhawk Ranch project: Wenn Slen\emp SANTA CLAW, COUNTY 1. Blackhawk Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report , vlcl�rCAW August 1973, by James A. Roberts Associates , Inc . Wrli"m R. lel'."h (This report is cited on page 59 in Elft 1540-11Z.) ; SOLA140 COUNTY )IMRobelScot ead 2 . Environmental Impact Report , hlackhai;�l; P.anch, Report: Number E-73317-1, Jam.lary 1 74 , by Ecolo- �t,oa+r, cfw"TY , • /"rdl.� Yo:r.narirh gical Impact Studies , Inc . (The personnel ;.:ho 1C",sn' prepared this report are listed on page 74 in dobcrl 11•erler EIR 1840-I:Z . ) We hope yoti find the following observations useful in your evaluation of this project. First, tae concur with the comments expresse,' in EIR 1840-RZ re;aiding a) the pollution .petentiai. and the number of days that oxidant standards v.,ere exceeded in the project area (p, 30) , b) the i.ncreaseI6 pressure that vill occur as a result of this project for ad- ditional development- in the vic: pity of the project (p. 72) and c) the long automobile conmuce trips that will be made by project: residents to jobs located outside of the Country (p. 29) . Moreover, in a section headed "Mitigation" in the James A. Roberts Report, we note the absence of in- formation concerning the feasibility of establishing a public transportation system that xti;ould eliminate Ila significant portion of the potential vehicle miles.' traveled (p. 77) . With respect to this point, we question whether the density, layout: and location of the project are conducive to the establishrnent of effective ViIr reduction measures . 939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISI'O, CALIFORNIA 94109 • 14151 771.6000 "2- Second, we agree with the statement that "any proposal which would • ^ result in a greatly increased increment of vehicles should be care- fully considered from the point of view of vehicular impacts on air- quality'' (RIR-RZ, p. 55) . We also agree that "The most significant single source of contaminants VneraLed directly by the development will be from vehicular .traffic' (James A. Roberts Report, p. 74) . • In our opinion, revisions to the entire air quality impact analysis (including pages 73-77 in the James A. Roberts Report) are necessary in 'order to determine the anticipated location and duration of pro- jected pollutant concentrations and their relationship to air quality standards. To achieve a more meaningful air quality analysis, we suggest the following: a) that the projected emissions in Table 'H (James A. Roberts, p. 76) be compares to emissions for the County, or a smaller planning area, rather than to tot-al emissions generated within the entire "San Francisco Area Air Basin," b) that projected emissions be translated into pollutant concentra- tions , c) that air pollutant concentrations also bc• estimated adjacent: to roads that will be heavily traveled as a result of traffic gener- ated by the project and that information be set forth describing existing and future development that. mi,Thi: be impacted r.djacent . ^ to such roads . For example, air quality impact analysis (rased on a traffic analysis) should focus on the extended periods of peals-hour conj estion that will result along Cro;a Canyon i;oad and Sycamore Valley Road at their intersections with I-680 . In this regard the EIR does not indicate i) that 1995 Department of Transportation projections show that 1-680 will be operating at ten to eighteen percent above capacity at peak hours , ii) ,.hat- there is considerable uncertainty rcgarding the widening of Sycamore Valley Road, and iii) that many streets in the vici- nity of the project cannot handle projected volumes before and, in some cases , after 1979. Additionally, we request that the total number of trips generated by the project be indicated, as well as the trip length factor used to calculate total Vi.iT. We will be happy to answer any questions pertaining to this matter. Sincerely, tiA, Milton Feldstein Deputy Air Pollution Control • ^ Officer MF:ac • . � � , to L jl "�J'L (UA- A .Iffv- CY STATE Of CAU/ORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY MAW REAGAN,Gowfoor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ' OPERATIONS DMSION •; ,� Or#`%IT DIABLO AREA . Box 258 DUBLO, CALIFORNIA 94528 i Mr. Anthony Dehaesus Contra Costa Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinezq California 94553 Dear sir, It has come to our attention that there are several developments being contemplated either adjacent or very close to our Park bourdry. Included in there possible developments is Flack Hawk Ranch and Bryan Ranch. Since these developments could seriously damage the natural integrity of the Park we would appreciate any and all help from you.^ department in keepirg. abrest with the proposed construction plans. We would be particularly interested in seeing the cn:,ir on;.,ental i,—.pact . ^ statement's for the various proposals. Thank You for your cooperation. Sincerely Yours Edward A. Earl Mount Diablo Area Manager EE/ms �, ^ Eli NV Ls 9 1 i NjV • APR i!99 36 ", sJo3aaJ tp ;o pJt t)q 'Iu,n tsoJC pL4A�, ►;., `,�!�'i ; �7l it'll •sJl•l ) ..JaAuu:�s l:J', !•. r►.1::,y'1 . �/.tnJ3 •�Jnu^ •U0131)1rl.l%lGt Itlowu•;:1L •.,�I; ,t► aYl�•� oil) in, AI Itlnwem:` -no Jo A i6aIut � AJaA 0113 pUtt S>{oJ'JJ l!'Jnit•u inc :lps retu int) 'sputm J(1u o:)1j1.1:les o.) uodn POW3 ay P00tls 314 I!'y1 100, Lill U;) ..,o, *oJJII-vao.lov .(.1turoiluo.i At!-,!, ; put- 'Alneog pun4vu 'aJlll`JI, IUVIS (E'JI.ILI'il4 S} ? y11rn .(Ill,nwl•.:o3 .'•1!)111t:il :;',Call .1r.0 .,AJ7soJU Isntll i a►A Ie41 to).) ot114 OIcp!lL ,J E;i::•SIS-.I 0641 �!S 'SJUi:)JJl(; (1 p.11'C1d C Se ori ' ►all 1 ( 111 l OS 100.) IOU OO XjUkPj.131 SC am osnC3a(l oso vlt p1nom IUOWQOlaAap SI113 IU3w3AOJ0ljt D; 15 J a4) ,u 1,;OD stinpuawJ.13 :::j3 1i.IpSCIe UO7 Alunoo otil , l poutlaw op- s1 t ll)un ;,owiIIr ?(; Il .i11.Ct)JPA0Ii ''!ll 1Vill 'S •sasnfl 00tl.)S fi.•;.... l J 14 0A lli)LSU.,):IXL •p8 Aallell a,loweadt flue 1.l•uL ol�: :G ju uot.,�_•,Ja:;ut ititl.l le =1tjj"J'1 nJ1.j1 01 • pasul . Jy peu� l)Ig!'t0 J) %%./ IuaulLp!")V aasj •1:i;lolla'.4� sl fps'.-IL olivo ,�lnnl. .JI tll-noJtli uotsuolXD peod AoIIVA aJt);4�:;/,; 's,1Ior 1.a: -a,c. o4 POMC,II" Nj JUCA-11J.) OlI .101.1 •p1y;11C7:JJ st wolSAs I0JIU03 por,l., a41 JO AlatA.lJ l: lllun par;1)lle an jkrwunla^ap Otl lt'4l 'Z •SIS tXa 41 Si? UP10 1eJDUii9 Jtjl jO s? l,l`Wt S ISU0:•t!l t1t13 M.) tAD.) Col i,4:11 .1jer'bope pt?4 seri Alunl:3 otil ; !)un ;,I panlolle ac; lllil:lunl:.►AJa ru aetl.l ' I :f)Utrlulloj 0y1 1)tl�luulu�aJ a.lo�a.la43 aft • luauuc•l=^ap palu:v Ull Jat•::Jn, Jo i ic's a43 .lob ,sawuy pue uaJpl ttp Jno jo A4.)j!; 041 aol,• t 1-M-S of Gul l l t:l jou :)ie i(I tunuxli!l7 a se ant Ie4l algel)uelsJapun aq pinutls )j •sJno4 ;yrau GulJnp lL3lgoJ0 ll , l,'J1 It' t1 ►Ja a aAetl �(peaJ le 41 o3 Ixou luu4), Aa WA u �•):)J� puv p5-*iL .) j IvA uaaJg Ii' 11eo2f olgegj uo uotlt:ls JJIJ inc) •ul(jIr ,u S1t,.jplsaJ 041 01 .) 1gr,J3l0�ut pue Altaede3 30 ssa3xa ut a; Wm peon 0111et(; uo at„:J/ 041 uotsuil/r.0 prr,L Aall�'f., i)Jljulea,(s otil ;O u0tl0luW00 0y3 41Im U%►A0 lV4, y.iC']UC1C• OSIS? 11 • .)13'. IIC•o.lt'n oJe suotloo foj I Ile je43 SJeauue 3t e3cp aleelteAk 041 UO pase0 :at,JOJ , s1 uJaou03 IsJt! Jnp •eaJP alget(i 0y1 s;3ajja It se 43uell >114e4l3e10 JO WOWcolaAd? 041 43114 suiaouoa Jno o3 uotlua33e Jn0A 3aaJlp of a)Itl pinom uOpepussd sJouw.3 AlJaioid olqui(I atll 4o ,io333Jtr, 3o p0B 041 • :uatuallua!) • 3 hL61 191 llJw Traffic- (Attachment A) The traffic data that has been projected for the Blackhaw!c Ranch development is incorrect. It was derived- by using statistics inconsistent with road conditions and Irthe traffic volumes figures are unrealistic for this tyoe or development. The rofer-•• once document used in preparation of the EIRs, the highway cenacity manual by the highway Research Board, is very detailed in &,terming the proper factors to arrive at traffic volumes. The following inconsiscntcies appear obvious: 1 . J.A.R,A. Report Apperidix 1, Traffic Analysis oage 8 and as ammended in. E.C.I.S. E.I.R., Appendix F-1 heading - Tuo Lane Roads - as would apply to Diablo Road be*tween Calle arroyo and mt. N abl o Scenic Blvd. a. Site Distance Factor- A distance of 1500 ft. over I#U% to 50; of the ri),�d wL, used.This does not exist. . b. Tiesign Speed Factor - A sDced or 45 to 50 moh was used, the posted speed limit )—'s 3; moh with one 25 melt curve. c. Lateral Clearance Tactor - A clearance o` 5 ft. was used and there are53 areas ;Were t is o s not exist due to mail boxes, trees, and fences. ;n some areas the clearance is- as little as 2 ft. d. Lay.-: Widtt, Fpctor - This was also omitted or assumed to be 12 ft. when in fact tL�is TAY rt. or less in several areas. This factor alone would reeuce trarric capacity by 122, to 1u%. e. Shoulder tactors - This ws also omitted or assured to be 5 ft. There .ire nohoul_&�rs cn either side and only 2 short areas where disable% vehicles could be oulled or< znd then only in dry %icather. fFactor - This was cmittea ;end much or this section of road has a�3, to;,"grade. If the prover factors Are anolied to determine traffic capacity on this section of Diablo Road (see 4ic,hwiy Ccaacity Manual n.M-315) the service volume C of 750 stated in both e.I.R.s is 9.7/ to 1001, in excess of the :rue cunaciy of this road. It should also btu ,)ointr! out that services volu"ze should !,e ,uoted as a range, however the I' oxi,l)uIR "igur,: .)f tho r•.inq, wa:; USed ri•thcr than an -,vera(,,, •,f the ter. range, which would furthrr Oistort th,? volumn capociLies. 2. J.A.R.A. Retort :Apncridix U And i;ln,:t:h:t:,: ",;veray.? Daily Trorfic Volume" printout The , "present road capacity" 'inures on Oia!)lo Ionid are. again incnn- sistent with the reference duruments end obviously inconsistent with exl stiot,, road conditions. Th.:? canaci ty A Oi,iblo Road between Green Val le;i and Blackhawk is shotoi as 11 .304 while Sycamore Val lcy Road with ') much �,rcator caoaci t.y is -,'hown as '),')77 tris ner day. (Black-- ha%-,,k printout. ) The total "trip:. per ,gay" fiener:ited by Bi:,ckhaw!. varies sl i ghty in the EIR s andf Dlackhawk •)rintout , !)ut -,vrrages about 30,0•D0 trios ner day. The rerorerice docunien` on "tr)!)s ner eMy" tray'lc is duly 1973, 80 t)rogress rcp,"•rt en triJ!; ;)nd gcnerotion research counts by the State of Califart)ia, P.-pt. of Transnortation, 7i;trict 4. Usinq figures suitahla for this typF of development (o. '', tihle 1 ) and projecting on ^^^ tries per day. This (11-,:u•Ient .ilco ',_)ints out a r.. )t.'ly ircre•tsing r tv or trips per dwelling ner day over the list 5 years whizh was not taken into consi d.-r�ti on. Paragraph re Extension of Sycamore Valley Road: ( Attachment-8} The intolerable traffic burden to be imposed upon El Cerro, Diablo and South Gate roads by the Blackhawk development, and compounded by an in- crease in Diablo State Park visitors, demands that a new access route be provided. We believe it is essential that the existing Sycamore Valley Road be extended from its present terminus at Tassajara Road across Short Ridge to intersect with Blackhawk Road at the most westerly access into the proposed Blackhawk property, and continue northeast to join with South Gate Road. This route should continue the limited access design now incorporated in the existing section of Sycamore Valley Road. Arguments in favor: 1. Relieve intolerable traffic burden on El -Cerro, Diablo and lower South Gate Roads. 2. Provide for Maximum traveller safety by utilizing limited ' access roads for the entire route from 1680 to Blackhawk and to State Park 3. Provide better access to the park for people living to the south of Diablo, the fastest growing zone in the Flay Area. 4. Lower land costs that would be incurred if existing roads were to be substantiality widened. S. Shorter rot►tc to both► blacklawk and the Park, so road maintenance would be reduced. G. Distribute freeway enterance and exit traffic over more full interchanges. 1 . ., • i i , '•. ter.• r•• •••.... .+.i�, . M r �• � i _••___•_ ;t�_=. .Yw�w.rw•rs •,.. _....•..w.s:•. :L...w+•�w.'t.:::'.'...r..•....•.+..n...+,.l,�r.(t( _ rr ,! •`,.. ••'� .ter.. . u �, i ! ' • y�i ` ; • ;�•• .. .. ti .. + 'I��• : �1• • 1,.+.•....... .... i 't r r<+aa: -L. �.t• '• 'r;� :l • ! • ' • J• - � ' .1 +• I�:� ••� wry., O'� i,� r�.a.<far�rasrrr..� +`•'� r r J« �� '� t, '1 I , ' S • the � }.•..—..�� .,•�`�. '.� •.;Qb+ � r`i J .. `''•� + . . i � ' ski^` � �%•. ''1' r: v •., ��1., . . '+a - 1� .� ! 1 �' ....�__.:. � •'�7 •J - � . .... . y _ ` 1 y � v•t 1 ' e '`(, •.,. '; !'+• t �rlll j, it ' ,.' r+ R n ' , , r 'Yy• :,, P • Figure ID-2 ter--- ' OFFICE OF COUNTY LIBRARIAN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY r. . , , �_• 1750 Oak Park Boulevard, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 APR 12 3 !6 PH DATE: April 11 , 1974- = TO: A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning-. - FROM: lanning.FROM: C. R. Walters, County Librarian SUBJECT: Library Service in the San Ramon Valley Area Inasmuch as the matter of County Library service has been raised during recent discussions regarding the proposed Blackhawk Ranch development, I thought it appropriate for us to comment generally on our view of library service and facility needs in the San Ramon Valley area. Attached is a copy of a memorandum sent to the County Administrator November 27, 1973 re: library service in the San Ramon Valley Area. The impetus for this communication was a request from Mr. Loren Enoch, Alameda County Administrator for inter-count; planning discussions regarding a proprsed rew Alameda County Branch Library outlet in Dublin. As a result of discussions with the Alameda County Librarian and review of library service needs by members of our staff, we can make the follc;•rina general statements about library service and facility needs in the San Ram- on Vailey Area: 1 . There is a need for additional library space in the San Ramon Valley to serve both the current and projected population for that area. One measure of this seed is the rapidly increasing use of our existing branch outlet in Danville. From 1970/71 to 1972/13, circulation in this branch grew by 19Z. 2. Although construction of an enlarged Alameda County Library Branch outlet in the city of Dublin may ease somewhat the pressure in the extreme southern portion of San Ramon Valley, it would not adequately solve the library needs for a majority of the current or projected population in San Ramon Valley. 3. Review of both existing population concentrations and projected growth during the next ten to fifteen years points to a current need for an additional library outlet somewhere along the 680 Freeway corridor between Danville and San Ramon. 4. Although other library outlets may be needed during the next ten to fifteen years the uncertainty of development at this tiire makes it difficult to determine exact locations. If the Blackha,gk Ranch develop- ment is fully implemented as now planned, this could be one such location. As I mentioned during our recent telephone conversation, we would look forward to working closely with the Planning Department in our assessment of future library needs in the San Ramon Valley, as well as other areas of the County. In connection with this planning, we would look forward to discussions with those involved in the up-dating of the San Ramon General Plan. CRW:er cc: J. P. McBrien S. Gray BLACKHMAllk UEVELOPIVIENT •r I N D E X ub eet Page Number(s ) Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Schools (Economics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2a - 2b Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 6 Flood Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l SC-3.srni city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Water (L:conomics and Avai.lability ) . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 r` Low Income Hous-Ing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. - 1.3 Five D!, trice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 U."ival Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.!i Slope Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Community FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Donsity . . . . . 3.8 Libral-y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 • Gr•4c n Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Umbrella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. - 22 Economics . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 211 INTRODUCTION Contained herein are grief temninary vemarki, Intended to rcsl7ond • fymcrally to come of the questions that have been arti.culatcd with respect, to tho Blaclo)awk Ratich proj cct . Blackhawk Devel.opincnt, Company a SCHOOLS The economics connected with the *San 'Ramon Valley Unified School District are perhaps the most important consideration of the taxpayers of the Valley . The Blackhawk development will be a definite benefit to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District . Preliminary figures, worked out with the District, show that the project generates a surplus in operating revenues of $2 ,1111 ,000 per year, after completion, and a cumulative surplus of $11 ,951,000 during the period of development . The project will generate excess bonding capacity over what is required to house the students generated by the project . Blackhal."k }las agreed to donate the first school site at: such time as ncced(.cl , and in the interirl wJ 11 generate, enough fund n to 111,-,tall and furnish portablecs to tal(c, care of the students, prior to eon;.L)'ucL:ion of the school . No other school si.tes are donated, since there are more than sufficient funds, generated to handle the land acgui.1tion and construction . With the teachers ' demands for increased sal.ar-le:; c,1ic1 other costs , the meal. issue: boils dowrn to whether the' people In the Vall oy want: their school taxes to go up, or ;,het'her as an alternative to a tux increase they encourage sensible development such as Blackhawk. The SCIS L. I. R. (page 67 , Gruen , Gruen and As.,;ociates supplement A ) suggests that if 131ackhawk is allowed to develop , the school taxes �� in the District could be reduced as much as 5% per annum. rN I t`•J AT) O rl fi() t— M I Et—•:r rl U r•1 Vl r•I tV r1 r-1 N • c' a t— t— - M lv U 0n1 NI t-•t, :r r:r In U US I I fr1l r1 (\jlr. CI) ON, � r-1 ,•1 r-1 lV Q� N ' 1: lj UN 4> fr)CO ryl r-i r•1 f•, •r 0 til rl rl r-I iV U\ r•1{ J� r) , t-- U1 t, rl ( L( I:lI C) tom• ( t--I I(lI I r-1 I U - r• (•1 ltl O U fr1 Il\ tri \1) t) •s c' I =r C. tV rnI �I ON I NII r, .1 It; ri rna)% )I r �4 C:) H\tJ I I ) rl s' Ir, t.4 (VI i•1(V II\ tom• t-- C'I h4 \U r.11 C) lV I kO t JI r1I I cl t IN C7lN 1) nal . 4) r•1 t. 0) r1 frll••I lt\ U' "O4 {• ♦2J 11, rT hlf1 l4 lf\ r•1 U t rl r1I rl N (VI V)I I n • .t• . . '' .•7 U1 r C7 ttl til t't) t \O U J' U) 7) .f t,ll r1I NII ,- 1-1 r 1 rt r•1 r-1 rl •,1 •./ •.1 It\ ,') Q, n 1 ,', �, 1 ••1 l) Qt in_J N O. Lr" i (' r S: t' r 1 rl r( rl y U t14 U'7 ,.5 C) f 1 r• u) r) r) (n c. (: t.? r,) 8) in 4j u7I N t-I O\ to N I I mI I r, i l: ' .•) O {) r m� to Ir. 1-1 c) N N 0 t' v) fr. ,t, u (• �IN (7%c.) LA NI NI rU11II U) UNU • G�-ri r1 N t r U N :3 O U ^0 N C) (d � 00 I a% N N t— i .f: •nfrINI NI �II rl -HtoWtiN3D U Com' N N to r l3 � ? O Y tL to O U LL N N I N J.) f •i ,., 1n N P.. i' N r� Cj Q•N O (j t. ri (Ct)S. a f 4 t:o 0 (1�0 N tD .'] to rt 1)=T' O U O L ?► f) O C) N �U) 1- G O (Z, t, U U H. (1) r V,1it ol:ell 12, 3 r+ •� 10 .8 ci •v 4 %.: 41 rl � -13 chi u ' • rl • • � M (a CV lel +3 M t-t H to ct)-r N {3 I cJ\ P•(NJ C+ v7 -:r tO -r cr\tr'( a.) N O \D \ct Ha 1.0 N� Ikotc) c), C\ P- N c3 c it, r-1 > CT', ri t).:1' L(1 r•1 rt, +Il 'r -! U, ri` U UJ \Kb1 \oI f_l NII 1 r1 vt NO I n (a-r( -rI m r- nl I (`tI I I : rl( C'3 C.0 kn r \� m ca Ir t-t c:.)_�:• I(\ iU \O IC\ It\ Lt\r•I r1 tV •^ h• ltl 1i� til C3, :) f)No u.� lJ rJ c.,) 4lI r'-1 rl r-I Ci. r•t t•-•.'� il\ \+1 Itl tom- U'� t)` r')I I rl • r( t(l i•l t'., C 4 (� C) Imo• it) Its rel' f; Il1n)•1'I '!I r•1 itJ N i•.' C] r V'. r .I r�i� ,•i 1:\l\7 ft) rl lf\ 11\r-I tf) (n ., Cal i�)t l r•I \c) In to rr, Irl l,l. 1 t n) rtl t•1 ((7 • r•1..:'1 tit 'r O N 07 r-1 i+.) :� �;•I :••I •1:tt`• t..l t 'I rl rl NI (V r1 ( r1I r, •�( , t fJt Ifl:r h•, (ry t`-• k) C) \O fr• 1\', t 4 1,U, -nr tV CJ U+ C:\ tv 1 rl rl C. r-1 t : U• r-I� � rl` lVI frt lV I l,: rl •1 •; lt\ r-i r••i II rt r•I \O \o Cr.) 0 l W CU O1 Ulf l ` .+ L",I 1 u) r•1 l'.1� t\11 r I -r t•-• I t` 1 '-I 1 1 �� k. r•i rl C> (V r•I ri r1 (x, m (n al \n Cf)I zr` L\( t •-r) r1�i t`• (r) t1) OJ V t\, Iv {I 1�1 Irt \f) r•1 r-1 r)\ rl I11 (NJ C,1. \t) rl rl r-1 Oil :I rl ��.� C) (V) t`•I r1 H \n \D C\II Ct) U) NI C`)� \UI C)1 1•t r•1 -:( Hf-I VJI`` .) O Cts I+ c• N r 1 rl -1 c) lT N N c) M 11\fr� tr1 M 171 ;I t - N I t-\n :•- (� r-t r \r� N r i n t r', (T Q i tV =r I \p J. ll \I I \t7 a) t-•••ter [TII \O \O OI \p l(tm M M 1i �I ril ri tV MI al V4 N M rtl NI N� I {I 11111 -�i' N N 1 O (1� n 1 v ri f�11 N 0 .7 t✓ to U kj O 0 rn 'U U t( [� r-I tci >) �� \p 00 41 cv �) �D OD 0 v ��i `o w r 1 '� (I a as to • 'a 00, ;y t.. °' � CS: cu > �. j n rU � rpN( U O Tt 'OU p U .1 rt F' 4j f)� 4� c�•J r-4 TRAFFIC • The increase in traffic on the roads which serve the Blackhawk Ranch is -a matter of prime concern to the residents of the Valley. The attached map shows the road capacity* .and the present traffic plus the traffic that is expected to be generated by the Blackhawk Ranch project after it is completely built and occupied . The County has recommended that the traffic imposed upon the local traffic system by the Blackhawk development can be initi.gated by building Sycamore Valley Road extension by the end of development Phase 3 (Paragraph B, Page 67 , County Draft EIJI) . The Country also contemplates the improvement at Tassajara Road as development proceeds eastward. The attached traffic: map therefore includes in itU projected traffic the Sycamore Valley Road Blackhawk Dcveloprne>>t Company and the County are pre,;entl.y engaged in negotiations concerning the financing noccot.1-ary to construct the .Sycamove Valley road extent;ion. These ncgoti.at:i.ons probal:)l.y will be concluded prior to the final public hearing before the Planning CoUm1:i ss.ion. It would appear that the, County has zc roed in on the boSt solution to the increase i.n traffic flow anti c.lpatcd from the Blackhawk Ranch development . The numbers also contemplate the construction of Croi•r Canyon Road extension by the end of the project, according to the County plan . Per Service Volume C , which J.r,, def'.1ned as; all.ov,,inf; for a :;tabl.o flow of traffic t•ri.th intermittent but unobj c:ci:a oIlabl.e delay„ clur:i.ng peal: hour. s . It is used as a conventional criterion for urban design purpose:; . It is obvious from the attached map that the traffic flow will be well within the capacity of all of the roads in the Blackhawk Ranch area in their present condition with the exception of four sections of road: Stone Valley Road - The numbers, when Laken in light of the projects which have been approved for development in the area, indicate that the road capacity of Stone Valley Road will. be exceeded (if it isn't already ) whether Blackhawk develops or not . If Stone Valley Road is improved (which it will. have to be) to at least a better two lane road (with a capacity of' 11, 301 AUP) , then the Blackhawk traffic impact can be earO.1y accomodated. T I I Blackha%-.1; impact in any event i.s only seven per cont, of the volulno on Stone Valley and that is twelve to fifteen years ahcad. �^ Blackhaak }load - The section of Blackhawk }load bete-reen t•he present Blackhawk Rancid gates and the intersection with the propos ed Sycamore Valley Road Extension would need to be improved , either to a better two lane or, a four lane road. Under pre;,cnt County policy , the cost: of the improvement.: would be the re I:+ons:i.bil.ity of the developer, Blackhawk Ueve.lopmciit Company . Sycamore Valley Rodd - 'J'lii.s road is part:i..-0.1y four-lamed already . The balance of the road would need to be four-laved by the project end , in which event It %•.oul.d. have a capacity of 22 ,955 ADT and a volume of only 12 , 215 ADT. Diablo Road - 1R 680 to '. as;saJara - Th.1s very short section of road (about 350 ,yards) would need to be improved by the project �.•. end to handle the traffic generated. The traffic consu.'Ltant: for the ECTS E. I .R. projects an ADT of' 111 , 1125 by the year. 1550 i even without the I�lacichawlc Ranch, in whish event the needed road improvements would have to be done anyway because the road capacity in. its present condition is only 11,364 ADT. What- the attached map proves is that no roads presently existing in the Blackhawk Ranch area will have to be widened or otherwise expanded to take care of the Blackhawk generated traffic, other than as discussed above. The eventual construction of Sycamore Valley extension and Crow Canyon Road extension are anticipated by the numbers shown on the attached map . The numbers shown are the projected ADT' -3 Generated in the 1C1S reduced by 151: pis suggested in the Country Draft The existrcnr.e of a peak hour tranuit sy,Lein coniiecti.on to 11ARJ.' • could reduce these numbr.rs by an additional. 1'jI. The dcvelopcl.' has agreed with the local chapter of the Sierra Club to provide such a transit system; hot-.,ever, no reduction in the estimated AVP has been taken. In summary , Lhc prcaent road nyc tem, together with what the County Staff l,as; recommendcd be donr. , i-:111 ldequately UJI'.0 ctu'c of the . traffic G,cnorated by the 131ackilaWk. MR11011 project ►-nccn added to thc., existing traffic . t • 11364 F11364 9 848 98 8 111364 8258 89391 5581 864 14416 5247 56171 10086 7939 J. ' t �, 8758 11on ' 7 •'• Vtt cc 'Ell f El '` '." • '� �� ti's.`t •f i .'t,�:��, ;•i' 4'\r �--� t:•u ,,,.ate (� a ..,,, ,,,.�r .,,::• �"� .;.'.:�.-�.;-,r',1;�: ( �r '. �• /'' :,�'�` ';,��;;j!.r„ ;t%-•,,_ ,rt: .t '� 12 512 6 .. e ,...�rrr. ...,«,...••wa•,.as:.+..w-i'.�.•a+�,,..w..a,a.a....:...w...n..•.r.•.r....� ...e,... a,,.:,..,a•,...ti.•.....rw...r.'.'a...r.s...,.......... .....~•r.�L,.. ..1'.•,.. �.4 a•... ...a..i.'a..... �. .t-r.• �t..n .♦ t, F T i. t.. n;T r.tait.i..l /:.wR r.°t� fl i IY lt'�'r PRESENT I ROAD CAPACITY I Y 1)R,I-Si:t� 1 'Il\A (•1G llLuS /�! T t�: / '1114 '7y♦i�t� •i 'Al"FIC Z I Lt• r' ��>.'rlil'��i:at �• +.;tz`c I tKZUMES CU IZ,Y-'TKYY0!-1"f;O'A f::J:.CktUirrf.:tt'�f'ii?5�r+T{J�LI:�TY ( �' GUI-1114&!1AN The numbers shown. for t)Te 111.t::i11Tata tT'nff J.c volumes mu:;t be. :increnfcad by l'.;; to reflect the proper projection:; . FLOOD CONTROL The engineering estimates for- the project show that the development ' of the Blackhawk Ranch as anticipated would increase the quantity of flow after the completion of the development by a very small degree , with the maximum being 6 . 2% at the Sycamore Creek watershed. Blackhawk Development Company is agreeable to a condition of zoning being imposed by the Country that requires Blackhawk Dcvelopment Co. to retain upon its .lands sufficient waters so that the water runoff %%could not: incrcasc! during peal: hours . This con be accompl i;,hcd quite easily by retention ponds which would all.ov the runoff to be di.nehargcd at: non-peak thereby cl.imi.nat InG the requircmc:W1. •� for any dovni itrcam flood channol i.mprovcii�cnt:;_ as a rc ;;ult of th,-- Dlackhav k dceve.lopment . h SEISMICITY There is only one fault located on the property, and that is ' locaUed- kn, the Wall Point area which is approximately two miles from the nearest development area. This fault has not been active t in historic times . The development of the Blackhawk Ranch will have no adverse affect seismically upon any present residents of the Valley or their homes . In fact, the devc.lopment of the Blackhawk Ranch, rather than development in the Valley proper , would be far better bectIuse infilling forces development: closer to the Calaveras }Fault . The Dl,ac}c1l.1t•rlc llcinr.}-► project is approximately five miles from the Calavcra: Fault and would rceei ve less gj'ound •� movement in the event of a tremor than would be realizod cloucr to the fault . The development of' the Ranch would he conducted pttr;;uant to Cou►►ty development ordinance, t;i.th resY)cct to soil,,, , fout►dat.lons , etc . which will result in }coiner equal or, better, in regards to sci.c;mic safct'y , than those built clsct;}acre in the: Valley l WATER Economics ^ The ECIS E. I .R. estimates that the development will have an adverse economic impact of approximately $960,000 capital cost . The East Bay Municipal Utility District is of the opinion that the deficit is covered by the general operating funds of the District . No other information frorn the District has been made available to either the County Staff or to us . We do not agree that: there ;;ill be a deficit- . The capital costs estimated in the SCIS L. I . R. are inflated and the system oversized. In fact , if you consider the taxes paid to the District over the years , the pren.ent: clay value of the $1111, 000 paid to the Dist•riet for annexation tern years at;o, and the deflated value of the dollar �. today , you would find that the anticipated deficit has already been made up to the District . i Avai.Iabi.] i.ty_ Water service i;; available to the property throuf;h the San }Zamora Valley delivery system and sufficient capacity exists to serve the number of unit;,, planned. The majority of the project has been within the EBIiUD for ten years . The Ranch is presently served with a four-foot line. AIR QUAhITY 'Basically, air pollution that exists in the San Ramon Valley is caused by the gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine and comes to the Valley from outside. The air pollution created by the Valley itself is minimal . Therefore , correcting the air pollution situation by not• allowing more inot-or vehicles in the Valley ignores the fact that the air pollution comes through the Valley from elsewhere. In addition, the air pollution in the Valley should dramatically improve whoa the government finally requires the auto dealers to meet the 1976 ;.tandards of the Cle�in Air Act . The denial of development, on the D.lackh.awk Bauch will have little, •j^. if any , affect: on the air duality in the San Rainon Valley , and in fact be forcing the development elsewhere either in the Vallc.y under �z the infilling theory which forces premature urbani ,ation In the Valley corridor and creates the same air pollution anyv,-ay , or elsewhere in the Bay Area which adds to the major source of our air pollution. SEWER Sewer services and the economics thereof are covered in great detail ` in the ECIS E. I.R. The conclusions reached arc that there will be no adverse economic impact on' the Sewer District by reason of the development. LOW INCOME HOUtING : It makes no difference to the Blackhawk Ranch developer if the i� housing built on the Ranch is in the nature of 4' ,500 high-priced homes as opposed to a larger number of low-priced houses. The General Plan would have to be changed to provide for high density single-family detached housing; but , generally speaking, with approximately 1,500 acres of the 2,099 acres of less than 26 per 4 cent slope being readily accessible and using the County density at yields for 6, 000 square foot lots we could develop 8, 1115 logs .upon which to build low income housing. However, there arc it number of reasons why this type of housing iwight not be approp- riate for the San Ramon Valley at this time : 1) It would .run contra to the flavor of the Valley and to the type of house desired by the present Valley occupants . 2) There presently exists no market pro-,;,sure for low income housing in this area of the County . 3) The adverse economic :impact upon the School. District , Fire District and the County in general, would be substantial and require a commitment by the present- t•axpa.yers to pay hi.i;hcr school and other taxes to help educate the children generated from the low income housing. 4 ) It would be contrary to the General Plan. 5) It might be contrary to the ABAG Regional Plan. Certainly it would be a socially significant endeavor and if the Valley residents and the County Planning Staff want us to proceed with a low income housing development it would be possible, though at this late date very expensive for us . It is obvi.ou, from the statements made to us by members of the Planning Staff and frown Item ii , Page 70 of the County Draft EIH that the County Planning Staff would like us to convert our present plan into one providing for low income housing. The range of housing planned for Blackhawk is from the high $30000' s to over $100,000 with halt' of the units at $51 ,000 average. This would appear to be the market in this aztea of the County and the proper ratio of housing for the type of develop- ment contemplated on the Bla.ckhawk Ranch. 5� • � FIRE DISTRICT If the present level of service provided by the Fire District to the homes in the San Ramon Valley today is extended to the Hlackhawk Ranch project , all such services could be rendered and t•he District would realize an annual surplus in revenue of $106,000 per year after the project has been completed. During the development years, a total excess surplus of $1,030,000 will be accumulated. t iOWN . -lp. n VISUAL IMPACT , The visual integrity of the San Ramon Valley will not be disturbed by the Blackhawk development. No part of the develop- ment can be seen from anywhere in the San Ramon Valley floor-- nor for that matter from any of the higher development along the western edge of the Valley. No part of the development can be seen from 1-680. After the Bl.ackhairk development is finished , Mt . Diablo won' t look any different than it does now from anytchcre in the San Damon V�tlJ.cy proper. All dove l.opment• that takes place within the 311,000 square miles surroundi.nl; Mt . Diablo can be seen from the top of M. Diablo. No matter where devel.opmont taken ' place, it will be s cen from the mountaintop; ho;.—OvUr, l.a"Ce portiun.v of the areas of the Blacichat•lk Ranch to be developecT cannot be seen from the mountaintop becausc of.' the intervening Blackhawk Ridge . In essence, less development i-could be scull at Black.haa;k than at almost any other place in the a."Ca . • SLOPE CLASSIFICATION /'1 ' Of the 4,850 acres contained in the Blackhawk Ranch, 2,099 of those acres do not exceed 25 per cent in slope. Lands with a slope of 25 per cent or less are generally considered to be developable without extensive grading. This analysis was con- ducted as follows : 1. The property was aerial mapped by Towill, Inc. of San Francisco at a contour interval of 25 feet . P. The contour map (scale 1" =- 500' ) was analyvxd by a computer programmed to determine the .,lope class:i.-- fication; of land . This work was done by Comarc Design Systems, Environmental Data Proce^s:i.ng Consul- tants of San Pranci;co. 3. The acreage calculations ai-r1vc:c1 at by the com,►uter were confirmed by };:ir}:er, Chapman and Assoc:i.r�tc o1' San Franci:;co, Eingincers. COMMUNITY FOCUS, The land planning consultant team which created the plan consists of the following firms: Livingston and Blayney Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey Von Hagge and Devlin Kirker, Chapman and Associates The above firms are of the opinion that• they have created a plan With community focus . The topography of the land dictates against some of the project being a part• of the community focu . The Vic.-stern portion of the Ranch will focus its community life around equestrian activities, t•.hile the balance of the project will focuo on golf, tennis, handball., squash, fishinU, hiking, picnicking, �^ swimming, bicycling, paddle ball and other act:iviticS . • 17 1 ' /1 DENSITY The overall density of the project is .95 units per gross acre. Under the Planned Unit- District zoning applied for, the overall. density per net acre is 1. 011 units per net acre. The concepts of density transfer and clustering of housing are used in the plan for the project . Intensities of land usage range from . 1 unit- per net acre to 20 units per net acre . The cluster housing averages 10. 97 units per acre intensity; the single family detached averages 2. 97. units per acre intensity; and the overall average intensity for houaing is 3. 45 unit's per acre. LIBRARY The developer has agreed, subject to zoning, to donate a library building site to the County or Library District. GREEN BELT A study of the Blackhawk Hanch project and the surrounding area will point out to the careful observer the following: 1) With the transfer of 2,700 acres of the Blackhawk Ranch to the 14t. Diablo State Park, the total north end of the project will be in permanent State-owned open space. 2) The eastern edge of the project is the present County open space line--meaning that everything, to the cast i:: open space . 3) The western edge of the project is bordered by the Athenian School and the Diablo Country Club dc�,olopmant . Thcre will be retained a green belt of between 250 feet and .1,000 fact in depth along the entire western edge of the project . 11 ) The southern boundary of the project as, with only ,;mall exceptions, bordered by open space zoned land:, . Tho binds south of `1'assaj ara Road arc pri.mar:tl,y holdi nr,-zone propc:rty and could be developed . Within the project 100--foot grecrn belt setback;; cx:t„t along all , major roads and to a lesser extent on the m1nor. road.s . UMBRELLA - THE INFILLING QUESTION In the most simple of terms, there are two popular planning theories. These are: 1) Forced Infilling - This theory holds that an arbitrary- line should be drawn around all areas already developed, such that future grovith is forced to occur through infilling; (this theory is popular with A. B.A .G. and some members of County Stiff) ; 2) Net:, Towns - This theory (based on the Rockefeller study ) provides that pressure for high density use (urbanization) should be relieved by allowing; for "now towns" dccp into undeveloped torr. tories. • Generally spoaking, the above two theoric:ss are. 11i.dcal.W1, and the County and Valley General Plana arc bused upon a var:},at:ion of the ribove which provents leapfrog; developments whilc rejecting,, severe infilling; by allowing; fur tho development of undoVel.o;)cd land", conLig;uous to ex.is;ging; davel.opmenL . This i.s the Illacl:}gat:}: approach. In 1973. County Staff proposed an amondmcnt to the General Plan czallinC, for a rie;id infill:i.nt; theory cis part of the 3.973 013cll "pace )Oan . In the Valley a tight li-ne was to bo drawn around all existing development (}'ger the ABAG plan) , ;;uch that al]. growth trould be held into the developed areas . This Staff position was firmly and flatly rejected by the Valley , // the Planning Commission and the Board of 1;upervi.sor:; . As wo understand it , they Vallcy rejected the, idea for the foalotri n" rc.sons : -21- i1) Forcing anticipated growth into an artificially small ,rr area would force "premature urbanization" on the Valley (ie . , 1. intensification of land use, pressure for development of marginal land , creation of a false scarcity and increase in asser;;;ed valua- tions, etc) . 2) Would frustrate efforts to preserve open space in the Valley proper and would create pressure for development of local marginal lands (small lots , steep lots and odd lots) by removing readily developable contiguous; land from the market . 3) Represented a radical departure from the previously adopted General Plan in effect since 1963 . As indicated, this Staff theory was rejected. The Board said, "Let' s • go back t•o the 7.963 plan on thi:J' and (on Blackhawk' application) said Blackhawk could develop now rathor than waltinC. Staff' current contention that 131Lac lchawk doesn' t conf()r.m to the Ccncral Plan is Based on their deep devotion to their theory and a refusal to accept the Board' s decision, In summary then, most• seem to sec Blackhawk as a safety valve to help relieve growth pressure In the Valley prober. 131a.ckhawk is a compromise between the two thcoric.s , avo.J.dinG the wor:;t of each. ... ECONOMICS The economic impact of the Alackhawk Ranch development is probably the primary concern of citizens in t-he San Ramon Valley. After all, it must be recognized that the housing needs of Contra Costa County must be satisfied, and the desire is to satisfy that need with as little or no cost to the present taxpayers . The net economic results on each of the separate taxing bodies is discussed in the section of this report which addresses itself to the particular district. This is only a discussion of the economic impact on the County as it relates to municipal services . The following chart should be self-explanatory . ECONOMIC IMPACT PROJEC'TION'S MUNICIPAL (COMITY) S)"11WICES During Project Devel apment : County taxes collected during; developrlent froin rlackha►drl; $29, 1153, 000- 00 Cost of services rendered to Blackhawk 17, 113 -000, OU Surplus bcncfi.t to County taxpayers $3.2 ,020, 000 ;00 After Pro,iect Completed: County taxes collected each year from Blackhavk h ,552,000. 00 Cost of services rcnacred to 137 ackhawk 2,711?, f100. 00 County surplus income each year thereafter $_1�370 'jig U, 00 It should be noised that included in the cont of servicco, rendered to Blackha►•rk etre all municipal Services presently made available to I citizens :in the County. The $12, 020,000. 00 sur.p1u:, E;encrated dur tn�; the life of the project is available to be spent to t,►l:e c<<re of any detrimental economic impact the Blackhawk project might have on the County. The $12,020,000. 00 would build a lot of roads, libraries, etc . Since very little of this money, if any, would have to be spent for adverse Blackhawk impacts, the County would have two options available to it : 1) Reduce taxes; and 2) provide greater municipal services to the taxpayers at no extra ' cost to them. In addition to the $12,020,000. 00 excess during the construction of the project, there gill be a :.urplus of 11,810,000. 00 each year after the project has been completed. This inotley would also be available to either reduce taxes or provide greater benefits to the taxpayers . cori'*2y November 26, 1973 J. P. N:L'ri C-n, County Auil►i nis trato► C. R. Walters, County Librarian* ' LiLrary 5lace heeds in trio Son Ramoa Valley Area ' c � , �o . your Thi i, to bring yo a up to da�� on our actions r(_1 .ted to c�r with L. ::nvcall ,1ia:.�dc CUai:i.yr f'.dr:lillistrator. re�;ldrUlri�3 elle tlUt'SL1C►il 01' the financing of a nil: 1•ibrary facility in Dublin. D-ffor,: -1c:scriL.%u l Hasse ac-tiens, some gercral statements should be mmde about the library situation •ir, the San kzvmn galley rrea. 1. 111@ rocl call zc it grovlinq I:r,:ssuve on the existing located is DurrvIII, dill; klol.- Iliad -cc : cu-jY 0-o •i'uture of the JiY urs:;:. 111 "0;' 1101st chron ;;'Jars cir•calatica na; from U:� 13rt, V3 in 197ul11 tc in1:,;2101? or a l:" Inc—aa:uC:1:•i:1; alis sal^e period ,h4 iOolt. C0l `lUCL'11;ll C13 ill till' "ell Pucol: ill tf,U IISC of the SRV liorar•y ante a con,il,�nsural:e grolrinqj pressure un t:r,e L'Xiszinq facility • % i i u. 2. Disrcgilydillti any infQliiiation we nary G'athvr in revie in;: ':.f,:.' ruustion rai---d by L. I not^', i t •is su•�- �0 say :h: z lel.' C.U1is.r:;Lt ;n ('f a li "'I E' 1 11 r ,' t ]00.,•.01 0.: :,1..:001 ;.i i , ac�J:: .r iil.r::r;y �;.• c Ili:;..., �'r :rel;/ 3 .,:.lall portio,,, of ti1C Spin i(mun Valley argil. It is asser.i:11 t:: t wc look at the tcCpl of the 5::: ara Sao t„U-n ho'�d rrojz'.ct i,iigiit fit illt(i t.t(.ol: total nems. Rolativ, to th^s: quostionG I h&vE. ast,E.4' our lli:1 Librari--n for l,L 0011 I'. the San ki:mon 1-alley Gr,:;ici1 Librarir,l, Gl.0 bile 1.ead o.' ;:�t'::,�0u� ServiCls to begin to gather infomisation on t-ha follci;011g: 1. The present population total and population concentrations in SRV. 2. Population gn,mth projuctions for the area, including proposed new developments. ' 3. The distances ietiveen existing library facilities and heavy growth concentration. 4. The use of the Contra Costa County Branch Library in Dar,villo by Alalleda County residents. (As a ratter of interest v:P are also cathering infor- mation on talc: use of our E1 Cerrito and Kensington brancr,es by Alameda County residents). • 6. The Assessed Valuation for SRV. , On December 6 1 em meeting with the fila•:eda County Librarian at the Dublin Library to discuss generally tha use of that library by CCC resid.nts e-nd tar. [nochs suggestion. April 11 , 1974 • SURP'K PLUL.: S n F'r,r.cisr.'3 ,y C: >':i�','�r REC � 1'� D r l�JZ�ril r r Sr !c i J'?� T I"� U 34 M1% / Ara %Ci'riit"l CC-ST•t 110,; Di$TR,C: COti"t 01iTR. CoS-:; RECR!D`1 11 _U 'r.�. A-10 2'i!AT RESOURCES Cvi. '�•;:; •7t_�ta, �:,� L,: r,� ,'1.1a1 t ur'.TS;. _A :�i_►i t:i.'. a '! . Vii'.t.��i ,rr_ _ '�•J+i'i' ,c:. r-*---- ~'_l;tiii;ri '.'i:.�:r`'� "(ir! ST E 1 I iu1�T��J'. L1.•� .. ' i�:H�J } : T .:\ili 1 .�) .0„Tn%t COSTA PEd-37 i"1 '_'Ji i;� rt.cl;i:' :t)i'a':�Ti(�11. Ct:ii'�.•IISSII:di r , • , %'T VALLEY i r. U11 FO: i It; tt :,��.� .��•� cos:•. ::�.� BI ac; iI_.4%, :lil:; l 11dS U.:!M pm;pVti?fl C.S a p!annh!t . ...'i:: ' 1'i' ' S1 '1'? San R;m '.1 Valley. Ti', fi:cm ul' cr he :.^.il 'i:unks of i•i:. Diable $_.. ._ i'ta7'`.:, --ast. Of i:a: milk!. Yiie soils. c•n :iii rar:::+ i ilw;r 5-2-'-Bra (alr. ly :ill i?:1; i'1 .J r Or t': '%i'r.G :QEai,::;i1'I V`; i,3i�i C” $ T:• �i• (:u11: ::��:m ; to these `at i --^S = -°a2i'd'-:r.5 Fm al A (ie w i!,-.d :U i i sur' ,.Ey ii; Illy C'�1i rte.• )��_2 x,::1` '•1 \ .:>r } :�.• ) � ..a 1 :.is t:•r .•.., � i: }. r(1:�:;'•,' T:1:: Soi l •r^•(:.:jl�.•':•v.+:ic n .7.•.'• L ice V l.i�a !�.S. .r'.."1jJ�`•,`,..��.}. O1 i�•:il l(ul,''_'r .a. • 1.1al.! ttlia ."u'i"ve), li`. Xi '.:� . . i,id, .--I •a, . ••' , vial on tlr2 Diab.o ri o•r i. tai? Si:r>2y. a;.�;-,;:i;r :n c:�at• o.� -r 1. Diablo cl : ;:0 t'o 53 2. Lo S 's. s c ?: lrr :r; ;iC car��i:l s�cF_i ;::a;) -5�:!' �:) ?. ��{l� cl'y :C::;i: G LO 5G X31• �j..�•C.S "rte 4. Rock C%J:;.r :p, •lli� C1i::C`�0 :1i� (. 'i ! :ny :N '?:'i?il)' a5 .`JIi .'.':j. lht7 is 4 gr ty• r rl. '� .":cut :,� •'vich-n-s 1: LilcC. ;.. ie�r:a ..J J - '.v'f=t1!1S I :r2 :nd i:: ?s i'! /'\ ,t��/:7 i' ... fir??: i::C: ? 'i ji [l•: ati(. ::11� (`i'2;�i n�•::��:•:t ti,��lj ::lii�: ir:n� ai�::liV � J rei -rc'� :�i 7=t.; cI'-.�, 1!i: 5C': t �!!':i i:'_i :+'I. i•.'.' :i»i`'i i.riCi ii ?�.Ta?"':. Jt��ti ell CIA ,C //A 1, ' �.(ti..vtJ / � �G'•v �•i,�r-,,�.v L.iv�.:.t�L)tLLc.C7V .. �a.--- II,fYM �ikdU t; I51y tfy.! i � t y13 k- r/. 1 '•t�jl :s lia •!:. ' •i• =t'1 r j11 K SI 1 •�o :ml • �'' chs U�.r 2 i i .1 �.r4� ��' GI .♦ t1:i 3 .7 .'. 1 .• i tti: ..�t'1� r+. LI.1 ` !! 1•:'•S.v. J . 2.Y) " •I.f•ii'�S it d n via �.�we ..::.i .'111 •!.y .t••: 1. �1 J, Mel oighi i cC.r s i e to tn- ( h rt:Y: ,)irface leyar of Zma K .i.;a4 soil is a gray, slightly Otis :•dy 10M {l,.i•u 111 ;•1chns s.t1i1;';( hs SAW! hi i gray to gw yish iti Gf;!1, • Aigatly :::r.dWfalyAny wsniR 1.t i•hza thick. •1}4 . W! •:arlier,.• •t It:.• r , v`:•1 _:}'1"•dntia: •:iii: fr"''!.i'.n n;titent'al VAN Thi. 1I.v0 Cti'_ 10F) t•.Iti'.C.'":�i:� h i«• 2 ��.�K ♦ '1, (;�.i:•'�� .. .�':1•': S'.-y Wpm :i;,r !jt. ny il�Le. .� a:A aid trLA - \'C . 2C inches , . n:t } i:s.�•�s�s `•: . :�1 e ' is .% :; NO 1„"}{.1 ,. . ..1.',�1..• .....«. ve, .. : r2 •i1:�:al! S •t rod t:'':i my \ in a, 'n.~-,'1\ .Y.V .Z''•r•'iiN pc :r....t ti,l.i er. I:i..,q''%1. ... • 1;p7 �:+:: tl:i :.iii�l.'� ..'�'.": .L�.�...-:f •.'!� ir�i:.'t ...::: .. ra.�:'. i:.. t.l..! S&. :ri'.t:riai vat \t'iny r r.1 less ..1us 1 ';.J :1. :tt• hC.. '.a .4 .:'tom .T ii „ :.';4;: owl rd AM, Amm! •t:.'•1:iRls in m:.. ,, i•i 1 re• .9c.)1 iy is :.1•ii.'we tie iii:+ .:hriii,i• :w••:'•! eft:. =' r :1>•irn a J:.1'r:41 ..':r.'i m "mN .1i1• •. Si:'I�e Ji Contra :'.'iia. �':' my in a Art 1r11 .. .lath.":-'w da h. 'i% - ' S` 1'• ..moi .1�1' r 1 �...r -? •r. : ' ' ! ;.1.:,, !: .1 'r:.. . l::; ;�••;, 13. i .,:t �::I:: .3;;'�c• ;j _:/i :��:•S•. !.i��. �a �11t..1� 4+1oil bzhAcr 17 Q, ;::i:ii:tti Lil l pelt {'.y .:i'•! i o iw r • P 1}w.irias mt Ts•.s+ . v cars•.. ' ..1. ♦ 1 l.. •'1.i brood ci g:.ili:: ..< ..w is pt 's.ii1..•. 011114-, nul b o mi s spil': ! is ! = 01 Al i•i..'.t: Yom 1MUN,. w+mnto 13•".spani ' ' •'1• fill)\ .. by 1��1.'. ♦ .11•i:. I j r l • 7 1 2 w•. • J Sly- 21 '-COCA:,•:- / !r a; /v 1•`.��7 i . J•��Y J � .i:t�.F:• i'�t1.1 :i 1•�,t.?J ii.� iil :i�` S'i: ..S.to Sr ti. ..:'� �•1•`.i �):ni r..:r: ;1♦:.'moi i } ? rami:. VV !jl meds and r:';LI ii:::! is suit: 1 AQ 0! Ll;i! so! ? i•:r' read &I 1 , ..:rd f,'l' is d Op i. t. iii:,. if %.:::5:, 'arse• \`1• soil W hats OWN W:.•!'t-'i:eu th.:i:i ,,t•ri L.l i•. hole A= •! i rp.-:i for WN; 4. f1 . 1.,.ii +.-.i::7 w:,i:. .i.'.7►1..f t '�v 1 1�:"„ .i� ::{.J..r,•t l.' 11. �,}1 ,,: •.'. T.1�a . is�:7 7:l'l r'w ., I tJ '-.. rrl s .•+,r. .i• ♦ rt .1 .f} a/ }'! �. .+ :. ... i ...'��'�'•'�i•, ;l�•, :�. :1 VIM i r, -U . 1 't;' i . .1 W114%, Waf S U_: �. 1, s r r , U.S. G-wernimt Printi:;g Office, S'ashingtonAC.; Price $2.00, stock 1010-0332. The limitations and hazard-ratings for he four dC ninaafi soil condi tions War* .•,k Ua am'severe p �pv.n�a.t.,7�� q• �, ta.'a t a .. 8n $,c.,^•k Pa'.."k .�ilC� ui s.., i'•Q (_l .. ,..n+.. , :� � �r s.�i uub11.i tvf�.• `jfl r�O,Ti s:?1 r. slopes We U' r o 5i �erC?1 , viC4 clayey It°ti !"E, t ?5h SR i'i1.<- swall and Corioaian poten;ials, and .-ne "85t:^icted 2 u h to bed:ro''.i: are she reaSCP,S ror ':Iiia severe The fou. dominant sci is 50 par_eti� `3r less) of Glaci: i!•iwk Ran-.b. To the south, along Black Haim ;_-ad 1"S.Sajj�ar a iidads and Sy:t'•i,:ore a;1d Alam* Craeaks, six other soils dotmna-e tj a ba-lan.2 of tie ranch. Thal' soils in order o; importance and acin::ya aim: 1 D� t ' 13 to 3D s+. r•.�lc clay, 2. Alo clay; �� .V:1 50n S1C ?S �p $f;':ul i,c�}. 3. Los G.,cs clay loano 5;or+es ;^an s'-: a1 LhE). 4. C,r.i;-t1 y l;iii'J; 2 to J„ C.' j. J. C:.i'; • J clay lci;m; 0 to 211� !=res 1;'x+3 ;-Imbo1 DaA). 6. Clear La1::2 clay; 0 to ? 51•_ 35 (,:.ap 5�':.Ct)1 rC) . tlr.� ' the Alo soil is Dark gray (Aa'r) , s,i-:^t1y zcidh ;�•�Q;i;�'tng scrds•tcre at 20 to 35, irci:e:,, The soil is •tall craiyai, sl:,,•d1y pemaabla, -,,ad si;t ink•- s'Jiell and -corrosion no:n'tials am The Crapley soil M,20) ;s VaI,` ;rz} to c;.r;: grPy mam*:raI to ,tiildly alkaline cl:y to a dap th of bout ?5 iri r s. i;c;,► 35 �:o n3 im-11e5 , th so l $ ` C'fl ,"�'l,'ea `ely ':"1'li1a , s i,�"-lf _.31ca'rraotis Cl..?'J. The is (nark CJicyi b Ji , 'Q4 ar sail is -moderately ;call drain', sic-.ily ;ser:_�aa1e, aril shri;,'';-swell and Corrosion pots;vials are !li Vin. Tha Conejo soil (CeA) is vial~: g: wy, clay loa,ii 1-0 a dapth of about t 27 inchas. The !ander lying liver is Grayish hr v im, nauti al C11; lcam about 14 inc, S tll l ck. ,� stra " j h4 '' r Zi:e S•'bo�. wtiCn t0 c ?7:.1 L`. �•J inCneS I I':OZL1.'.ii r I'•"?Y i,ii? brc.m and brm'm, m2utral clay. The soil is S:?1l Il-0 t;ell drair,2d, . po"^`� a ti mm "atcy 53�;1t, ^ci :.ie S;ii"i:,t--S'.'i?11 and crrm'slon }:C�tantials _r..._ah,li ,� is t,.c�,.r are "oC �••� .� • ;h t Th.-i Lc..`3 (Cc) Sall l:i V`_':.J Cc.i n 0:'Lj�, S{1�,,;.1y .. +d to ,.,..C•s;a131y Iir cl:?y t`.0 C�3a�h i1f �i�J�J6 0 1;,C--- ha'.^.il {0 ,`0 EJ irs;i�_s, 'Ilia 501 f P r t- z a t t. -r'�' t'� C�"1tI�C:� br%-- � . � ,- . l sly .7 i 1 on.1 calci mous clay. The soil s %-s jor:-d Irr:C.?.' p zor erainayi? cc:!d;ticns, but is the ►'atnr ;-able is nw f::r�:'3 tih'ii y`'2t :'.el'c.4 Vnz ;urt_:.c and ��:i' scil 10 •, }} • ui3 .t14' Ty i l U: ZT. � 'i .y is slow, al, t t Jli lliF• i:3�i:i.r':�t ::�; eta:i :U:' Si i soils are s�.iare (.;0tarr, Av:: y exccpt ��,:' or .'10 � ,•.J ,., Naomi' ' 1,{ jJ..j .! {{,� •rC♦ rh•n h••�1,tv'� d .•n-rc5 h. �•t��..•11^• •'- r 1��q�:y,2 .f.t1.,�.2 tab 1 i.� , znd I:ly .: ::Y•\ 1 S:T{J �.• 11.:,,tiF r+U .IJ t.•• .. .11..l 1 LI,.... `}; i•, i ?.;1 ,T'• t:a :C,.yy��1v. i!:0 ::T:a :.w� �7.:or, i�if S i +r 0.. •11� /'l ;111\• ._)l j:�f•r u.'l i V C .. L'/f I1U • •�ti.1:"4t. j;f :iS ..♦:1?, 7h5 r0"• :JC .Io. { tllJ �•). et;^11v1t :::.54�'.'�C'as 1:'I�r ::i 1 � ;i 7 S C.t*i.er•q'is��J �?•la. yll, lini'�?��. ioci „crt^jo ;. su:s 31 -e • � _„yr id +;•,I a,,-e :!i'::?7i I. I i;{ ICO yaar im: t;-nC/ !'?: . ' ? ;:C.^,c? Z.:c-.r:Inn to Gil:. �G:r� 1,: '1;;��;�..:"i, -?3•'•1 't''a'•j f4]'.'$ %.i?i= G�Gi�atatai i:�::?�'C{. • B13ok H=...'A has soil , slope. �r`I :!:,;i a�,� '�c ui�iCns :, for t,iG as a p laminal mn-muni r : itei Tha ha:i ii: Chr; 't:i:s o f C `;_J t r-- a r:.2a h l i L„ti•�, e.::mi n.T!.-n t l} s,.•._? . �o{:, ..; c,�l(1 b2_, .♦ lli : t PL'1, i J..1. •t •. I)P u•`;.~OLS O I-I. ,)J f •:fro. h;� 7{ '1'i1j1 rCili:;llctI-a. Iii viev-11 o'1 c.= i iii" t t' ' 2 ^;� 'VSJ tt f• ? 5 ;�� :. '�^ Ii;.M:.;r,� a, '�',�? 1: b" ,� •.t1f: "t: :;t =.�; �:�' �''lfl ��;:{{:.:ti;t• :ii mo f* .;{.{) trap' areas. u-a � • V . �• r J r. t .t r•,,n A f ,l 'I Ir .'1 '�;} Ti♦� :1 .�♦a 1�• ' 7 !1 T�:�•�i.t� Space 1'{.♦.3i�� V11.. LI�!'..f..l:l 1.1 C {� •7i .:4' �t r�.. • ••. .J.. L.�I:..J 111.s� L:�:. • a '' r :: � :d se rvi O .7a.ci 1 ,1.1 n� San .•i::1� could, �•'CC.La� {I t.!'I .i J � r.il��t)IJ, 11 : 7 C• t1 jJtU• l' .•JI at 1• 1 ..J ✓)i J_ trh �.• y {`.• •�1:' 1.:...)l. use Of iJ,L:i� iJU''�!♦ �:$i:Cll is rc �`.t:i?a.t.l::^; 'ii? ��ii7 '; 1'{•:1$:Ci:� �j 1::;^�1 •:a`er Sa(?Ol, an'.! �vr•�1 t•••tn • 7^' •Y•• 11. � jtlV r 1 ' �� •'n 11.� {: S 9 r �}� -♦ . :, .u1'.�..;;.t, s7•: {. .•c�icy ..; .,, i4it�Ci a:;l,e{•. ,. ,):;:)i'1 .,.r...� ;: ,_. �� ;,�r V 'il. i.�'1.me and d:: Th-- ?;) ,':i_ :)i' I3I:w:', R„t:h Sr^.Jld 5' ;e1 iscn:blL ::d e:i0=iises, and” t,,e si-16::? sho}.'Id 11,a ret-afn2d in cuen space fuse's, pioblic jr pr i':att..;?. Coro:u1tlr.o �.ui1 S.i'-fiLl«4%; Doard of Cii m.zers,: 'Eco-?n r"o 14l/R;J PACIPIC CCAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY • ��% - - 1625 CLAY STREET • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • (415) 635.6500 W- V. SKINNER April 9, 1974 OIVI,1on M.M.S[e • GOT say DIVISION Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus Contra Costa County Planning Department County Administration Building P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear tir. Dehaesus: This letter will confirm recent discussions between Mr. J. W. Cutler of your department and Nr. E. Bertinuson, P G and E Company, concerning Planning Stu;ly of the Blackhaoik lurch develop- ment. P G and E is presently investignting alternate :jeans of supplying the electric energy requirements of the San Ramon Valley for the late 1970`s. One solution would be an additional 230,000 1"1 volt- (230 IN) tower line between the Fittsburi; Power Plant and the San Pamon Substation. A possible route for this additional transmission line is' parallel to and easterly of the two existing double circuit tower, lutes that cross the Dlackhawk P.anch. We will continue to keep you and your staff informed as our plans develop and are finalized for this project. Thank you for your interest and cooperation in this m<ztter. Sincerely, E. Bert nuon s' Division Land Supervisor EB:ab " E. a 466 Constitution Drive '•' ' Danville CA 94526 April 8, 1974 Anthony A. Dehaesus + Director of Planning Contra Costa County PO Box 951 Martinez CA 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: At the March 26, 1974, Planning Commission 'hearing on the Blackhawk Ranch Development, I spoke of the concern of the E1 Cerro Homeowners Association with the intblerable traffic finer.-ase on E1 Cerro ,.hlch the Blackhawk Ranch Development would Impose. The purpose of this letter is to specify detailed changes which we feel should be made to the, ECIS Environmental Im- pact Report in order to more accurately represent maximum . values for Service Volume C. - In order to present the most reasonable ratios for P.lackhawk, Service Volume C was shown as the maximum value of A wide. range of values. For example , values on a 64-foot road with parking range from 730 to 1090 ( page 6 appendix D JARA EIR) . Also where projected volumes would exceed values determined with parking, it was assumed that no parking would by allowed . All the Service Volume C values for E1 Cerro have been calcu- lated with no parking, an assumption the E1 Cerro Homeowners consider grossly unjust. Please make the following corrections in the ECIS EIR: Appendix F Ad.d. the following notes to Tables F-2, F-3, F-4 and F-5: Service Volume C covers a range of traffic volumes. The figures used. In the Tables are always the maxi- mum for that service level. The Highway Safety Manual requires an on-site deter- mination of the mid-block hazards. If this was done on E1 Cerro, the calculated service volume would be reduced . -2- Table F-2: El Cerro Blvd, Under Service Volume C change 1515 to 1090 and ratio from .63 to .88 Table F-3: El Cerro Blvd., Change Service Volume C from 1515 to 1090 and ratio to .57 a Table F-4: E1 Cerro Blvd, Change Service Volume C from 1370 to 1090 and. ratio to .97 Table F-5: E1 Cerro Blvd . Change Service Volume C from 1370 to 1090 and ratio to .77 . Apse nd i X E The above changes should also be made to Table 32, page 84, and Table 33. pare 85. Similar detailed arr.lyses :should be done on the rest of the • data presented , an I b-3110 e it I mplie, n r:ore favorable pic- ture than in r;nrrnnted . For Instance , Pyr. Fcrri!7tal assumed that two-lane roads hRd a design speed of 45-50 miles per hour. :f Diablo Road from Green Vn) ley "ond to P.7ne:•111a*-' Rczd is a 35-mile.^, per !:cur vrindirs7 rold with at least or.e 25-riles per hour curve. Thnrefo.re t believe the service volume values shown for 1?iablo Roto: are too hiF;h. In summary, I believe the impact on the roads in the Alamo- Danville aren in considernb?y more severe th3ln. is implied by the SCIS tEIR. The E1 Gnrro Ho-nco-ners ArsociQ.tion recommends that the Blackhai•.k Ranch Development be deferred until an adequate solution to the traffic problem is found . Sincerely, Ralph Cozine, Director El Cerro Homeowners Association cc: Dr. Joseph Hirsch San Ramon Valley Planning Committee cc: Mr. Michael Walford Contra Costa County Public Works 1 Of awiforlun .Y4 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE `ry`'�'�•� OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH �� .� �t�L,*D \,;• h 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 05014 NFft 9 10 17 N 174 RONALD REAGAN ``11 AOveltHa 1 April 5, 1974 . LCA Contra Costa County Planning Dept. P. O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sir: SUBJECT: SCH 74022541 - BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-REZONING The above listed project was received in this office and disseminated to various State Department for review. The Department of Fish and Game has requested a meeting with the applicant. Please contact Mr. Don Lollock, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 , (916) 445-5230. The attached comments were generated by 1) Department of Health, 2) Depart- ment of Food and Agriculture, and 3) Air Resources Board and cleared through the Agency Secretaries . 1) Department of health. For further information ^ regarding these comments, please contact sir. Kenneth Buell, 714 P Street, Sacramento, Cit 95814, (916) 445-3033. 2) Department of Food and Agriculture . For further information regarding these cc-,x ents , please �.1. contact Mr. Harry J. Krade, 1220 N Street, . Sacramento, CA 95814 , (916) 445-0682 . 3) Air Resources Board. For further information regarding these comments , please contact Mr. William Lockett, 1025 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 , (916) 445-0960 . The comments are sent to the planning commission under the environmental review requirements of section 11550 . 1 of the Business and Professions Code. The comments are for the benefit of the commission in considering the approval of tentative subdivision maps. Informal coordination on the comments and recommendation is encouraged and the State Clearinghouse need only be carboned T Contra Costa Co. Planning Dept. • April 5, 1974 Page Two in on any correspondence which might take place. Please use the State Clearinghouse number assigned to the project on any correspondence. Sincerely, Mark E. Briggs Management Systems Officer State Clearinghouse MEB:j lw cc: Mr. Robert J. De Monte, OPR Ms. Mary Schell, Library Mr. Kenneth Buell Mr. . liar:•: J. Krade Mr. William Lockett Mr. Waide Egener, ABAG i COMMENTS on 74022541 Department of Food and Agriculture "The EIR clearly reveals the many adverse effects this project will have upon the agricultural as well as urban environment. In addition to being seriously growth reducing in an already overcrowded area, it will force adjoining landowners away from agriculture and open space uses of their lands. The adverse impact on agriculture is both physical and economic. The physical disadvantages are brought: on by increased population and traffic and the inability to carry on many necessary cultural practices such as spraying and cultivating because of potential injury to people. The economic problems are brought on by increasing land values beyond agriculture' s ability to pay , increasing n the taxes to pay for services largely urneeded by farmers and placing pressures for schools , police and fire protection and similar services. An added burden is the increase ir, air and water pollution and build-up of traffic reducing farmi:,g efficiency . Prime land should be preserved for food production and as open space. XNI MOU V � :.•..r��.�w��w:+�r.�iii��.,yi rirr�n-�--�.. -A�" 5552 Clayton Road • Concord.California 94521 Telephono: (415)682.2266 Y ro' •:';' �' -1.� ;•. „ April 1, 1974 Mr. Melvin Bodier IN Planning Department Contra Costa County Administration Building Martinez, California 94553 RE: Draft 111, Environmental Impact Report 1840-RZ (2/6/74) L'LAQUTAI.rK RMC11 DEVELMENT Dear ;tr. Bodier: The Contra Costa Resource Conservation District has recently received a copy of the above Environr--intal Impact report from a proup of ci.ti:.'ens concerned about. the I13ackhm,.-k Ranch Develonment. T`le RU) feels it inpera- tive that they comment on this report and feel that :.ince this project has beccmo n matter of public ccrncern that co-ncerits :rill be su'a-.n.itted to bath the I'3anning D partmerlt and to the concerned citizen-i who secured the report for the district. • Background information concerning this ranch may be lrolpful sine the CCRCD has been assisting; in establishing; a conservation proZram on this particular ranch for well over. 20 years starting %rith the Force fanil;;, pro- cooding throug!,I1 the Castle-Cook Corporation, the I'etersons and including; the present o,,ner. A conservation plan was prepared for the hl.ackha.ak Ranh as a cooperator with the district in 1945 and that plan has beery revised and updated over the years. The district recognizes that the impact upon the environment caused by the development of the 4,800 acres would have a very significant effect. One of their first concv:rlls is that a productive ra;lch Drill. be lost fc :ever as far as food production is concerned, 11.e recognize the fact that food is the nuniber one asset this country nu,4 has. Taking figures from the report, the 400 calves mentioned, ,•lien raised to marketable size of 700 lbs, , ..,ould produce 280,000 lbs. of beef. Sold at the current market price of $.40 ,cr lb. , this would generate $3.1.2,000 of income . Fifty tons of walnuts produced at $. 30 a lb. , or $600 a ton would add another 530,000 and appro:•:imately 300 tons of hay grown on the 200 acres at $60 per ton would add ,mother $24,000 for a total of $166,000 of agricultural production. Using; thin figure and a rule of thumb to show the agri-business production of appro::inatcly 4.5 times the amount of the original. produce, this would generate a three-quarters of a million dollar 1,",H-CUlt.ural product which is si.g•�li.ficant in itself. The loss of this ranch would gripe this figure off Lire books. Mr. Melvin Eodier Page 2 • ^ April 1, 1974 Proceeding with the report itself, we feel the report is inadequate for the following reasons: There are at least two erroneous statements made, one on Page 3 concerning irrigation from the four large ponds. Over the years in working up the conser- vation plan, revising and amending it, there has never been in the knowledge of -the district's technical staff, any irrigation done from these ponds . 'They were built by Mr. Force solely and primarily for livestock water and wildlife enhancement. On Page 20 a statement is made "at the present time, portions of Sycamore Creek have been improved by the Soil Conserv:•tion Service to a capacity adequate to carry the runoff of a 50-year storm." This is not a true statement. The Soil Conservation Service, in 1963, did i:prove 100 feet of die outlet end of Sycamore Creek where it meets San Ramon Creek. Historically, Sycamore Creek has flooded during almost every heavy rain. There is no mention of specific soils as to their erodi.bility, shrink-swell characteristics, infiltration rate, etc. , however, soils vere centioned in a very general c:ay. Figures 3.5 through 20 are missing. These evidently :;loop the road extension:; planned, for Sycamore and Croa Canyon and would be nec;,ssary to fully evaluate t:,e report as far as the topography through which these roads would pass, the addi- tional paved surfaces involved and the possibility of accelerated erosion from road construction. 7tiere are no site grading plans included or design of roads within the pro-- ject. This information is necessary iii order to nvalunte the possibility of acee.lerated erosion, th- locatic i of erosion control structures to prevent se:li- mentation and to determine drainage oat'ter n. Vac report dogs not indicate ghat the existing erosion control drop structures in Sycaraore Creek, which had been constructed by the ranch o,•:ners, will be modified to accomodate the increased volume of r=off. Proceeding with the corsments on particular pages : Page 2 - Figures indicate there vill be approximately 400 acres of i>^per- vious surface in the development. This would be the roofs, patios and so forth of the dwelling units , but does not include road surfaces. In a study conducted by the district several years ago it indicated that for every 12 Lulus built , the roofs, patios, etc. , constituted one acre of paved :surface. Nothing is mentioned of the antecedent moisture conditions concerning the lawns or the golf courses or any of the recreation areas that may have irrigated lawn. This would be a factor in accelerated runoff. A well watered lr::n will not absorb the same amount of natural rainfall as a dry barley field at the be- ginning of the rainy season. Consequently, additional runoff can be expected early in the season. Mr. Melvin Bodier Page 3 April 1, 1974 Page 3 - Irrigation from the four ponds has been previously mentioned. On the same page, the term "exposed slopes" needs further definition. Itis our impression that any slope in the out of doors is exposed. If this means newly cut slopes, than it should be so- stated. Pages 10 and 12 - The statement is made that this project is not con- sistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan and is in conflict with the ABAG regional plan. If either of these rio plans are to be meaningful, then it is our feeling that any project approved in the county should b•s consistent with these plans, otherwise all .public funds used to prepare these plans will have been wasted. Page 13 - Indications are that the Orinda formation is pock-r-arked with landslide scars with 60 major slide areas having been mapped in that particular formation. Pate 17 - This page mentions expansive soils, erosion and/or sedi;'en ta- tion and flooding. It w;,uld appear that on these pag,:s soils sirculd have been mentioned specifical:;. Again, we r:ould recommend that staff ccasult :with our technical staff in the soils portion of theso reports. Pate 20 - The st itemznt concern�n; the improver.-_nt of Sycanare Crcek has been ncntioncd. It might be added that the majority of t! a •..ori: done in ! Sycamore Creel: was done by private larcc:;ners in cooperation with the RCD, particularly. for erosion control. There are numeraus eresicn control structures along this creel:, both on the Blackha-AK and downstream throuc'-. the old !•.00d pro- perty and on toward Danville. The stater ant is also made that San Ramon Creel, is nresenLly considered to have an adequate capacity to carry tl:e ru--Zoff from a•iLicipatca weT.:-d:!nsity de- velopment in Lire San i:arnon Valley area. In 1954 the Soil. CenServaticn Service, in cooperation ;with the RCD and the Contra Costa County Flood Control llstri ct, began wort: in the Walnut Creels '.'atershed. A number of large erosion control drop structures were built In San 11--mon Creek to prevent additional crosi.on sad flooding. In 1958 and again in 1962 during two ver; heavy stoms, there was enough floc: in San Rar:ion Creel. to tar. these structures to their limit. !dater was within inches of going over the top of the entire structures , rather than through the not:ch. Since 1.955 and 1962, thousands of additicnal hones have: been built in the upper part• of the 1 alnut Creek l•:atershed. It is var; doubt- ful, at this time, that should we have r-pother storm cor.-arable to Lhe :April 2 storm of 1958 or_ the Colurnbus Dav storm of 1962, that these structures would be adequate to, in fact, carry tine additional. flow from the hundreds of addi- tional paved acres. Page 40 - I.:. is significant to note that should Srn R. --non Crecl: be ade- quate to carry the runoff: from the Blackha•.al: Developa:ent, there are, either approved or proposed, projects which would more than double tine number of units proposed for the Llackira k. These talcen into consideration would, in addition • to the existing homes in tine area, almost certainly cause flocdingl alcng San Ramon Creek and its tributaries. Mr Bodier . Melvin . . Page 4 April 1, 1974 Page 65 - Item 3. Mitigation Measure^ Proposed by the Developer. Under f.ii. , it mentions water courses will retain existing vegetation etc. This would be almost imossible with the increased runoff that Sycamore Creek and its tributaries would have to carry. There would have to be work done in the creek in order to accomodate the additional flan, therefore the existing vegetation would have to be removed from the creek and reseeding or re-vegetation done in order to ru.niudze additional erosion. Item 3. , f.v. , Design for Fire Protection - Neither in this paragraph nor in previous ones concerning fire suppression, has anything been mentioned about the use of fire retardant plants. The district :could suggest that these be seriously considered and used in bot11 landscaping around buildings and as a peri- meter around the entire development, if it should be approved. Page 66 - Item is Erosion/Sedimentation - The items and sub-items con- tained under this section should, in the opinion of the district, be strictly en- forced and made Dart of any building permit that might be issued. In the district's experience, too r..any. hundreds of acres of land being developed has laid t�pen all winter and created tremendous sediment problems, which are costing the people in this county nil lions of dollars a year to d1_7pose of. Item i.-iv. - It iugilt be well to consider erc,i.on control drop structures rather than si.claly energy dissipators because Sycamore Creel: does carry a si.::e- able bedl.oad of silt. This was recognised back is the 30's consenuentl;; the con- struction of the drop structures from approximately 1939 up until about 1960. In suremary, the district would be interested in socinif a more compreliennive study made of this proposed project which would incluee core (!afiniLe �.-a - I cluding site plan waps) and information concerning road alaccnent, grading pat- terns, fire control., nether or not existing conser •atien structures :rill be iv,- proved and maintained and whether or not topsoil will be stock,fled to be reused. We are concerned about the loss of wildlife alc,tr ::ith the man-rude habitat that has proven so beneficial over the 7ears. Our doubts that the structures in San Ramon Creel: can carry any added flus are substantiated by a statement r.:ade by the Depart:_ent of the Ammy, Corps of Engineers. In their Informatio-r SLnnmal_ti , Walnut Crec:: Piect, dated ';arch 197 + the Corps states, "Critical flood and strear•.ivank erosion urobleu:, exist on :alnut Creek and its tributaries. Existing channels l,zcl: sufiicie:lt capacity to contain floodwaters from major storms, ind as a result floodf?.c-_;, cause streacrbcnk erosioa and damage to structures and utilities. Continued develop lent within tine flood plain results in increased runoff, adding to the flood and related problems," Finally, we repeat, we consider this report to be inadequate, one upon which a decision could not be based and would further emphasize the recor;x.^ndz,,Lion that our technical staff be contacted at any time in the preparation of these reports. Very truly yours, THOMAS 14. )tOL',:r,S , Resource Coordinator CONTRA COSTA i,%SORCE CONSERVATION D1STFIC T1111/m ' lJ� 1 •- 1 lames A.Roberts Associates,Inc. �.' '.I�tt�� n�•t•ryrn.r.� n••:7:!'i' Ecosystems Analysis Presented by Wm. Morse on r� Resnurce Inventory above date for the record.. Environmental ManagvIllent March 26, 1974 BDC 302B Contra Costa County Planning Commission P.O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Gentlemen: Subject: Proposed Blackhawk Ranch Development Project (1840-RZ) References: (1) Blackhawk Ranch: Draft Environmental Impact Report James A. Roberts Associates, Inc . (JARA) • August 28, 1973 (2) Blackhawk Ranch: Environmental Im act Report Ecological Impact Studies, Inc . ECIS January, 1974 (3) Blackhawk Ranch: Environmental Impact Report (1840-P.Z) : Contra Costa County (CCCPD) February 6, 1974 (Draft �1) (4) Blackhawk Ranch: Environmental Impact Report Addendum: Economic Report Contra Costa County (CCCPD) February 21, 1974 INTRODUCTIO14 A14D CONCLUSION On March 12th, JARA' s client, the Blackhawk Development Company, asked us to review the above referenced documents regarding their adequacy as an environmental impact report on the subject rezoning application now being considered by the county. The purpose of this letter is, therefore, to document our opinion on the adequacy of the environmental materials before you. • 7,128 ( 'Of. ()iks iiOtilev"Id, stlll(' A I �.cll'llll('�1J('�. l�ll(>I'I11J '1 i1rllii I�� l(il I,.{:.�11,!ll Contra Costa County Planning Commission Page 2 March 26, 1974 It is our opinion that the four reports, taken together, constitute an adequate environmental impact report as re- quired by the guidelines adopted by your county and as recommended by the State. Our reasons for this conclusion are outlined in the following paragraphs. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS By reference and direct quotation, the county' s report includes all of the reports cited above. It is our opinion that each of three reports is a complete environmental impact report in and of itself. However, they each have a number of significantly different characteristics which we recommend warrant their consideration as a combined EIR. Taken in the chronological order in which the reports were prepared, those characteristics are: REFERENCE 1 : The primary strengths of the JAR1 report are its coverage of the natural environmental aspects of the proposed project and its potential impacts thereon. The Project Description, which appears to be technically correct, deals heavily with goals of the concepts for the development. The Environmental Inventory section provides a basic natural inventory and deals most thoroughly with the potential impacts and mitigation measures of the natural environmental factors. The section on Topical Questions and T.nswe rs is a fair useage of the materials which were presented in the preceding sections. Conclusion : It is our opinion that the J11RA report provides an excellent analysis of the natural environ- ment, the constraints it poses for land use, and the impacts of the proposed project on the natural environ- ment. REFERENCE 2 : The primary strengths of the ECIS report are its socio-economic and design alternative consid- erations. I Contra Costa County • Planning Commission Page 3 March 26, 1974 The Project Description is systematic and appears to present a realistic numerical analysis of the proposed project including a basic estimate of the proposed phasing. The section entitled Environmental Inventory of the Region relys heavily on the facts presented in Reference 1 and introduces only a modest amount of new data which is primarily related to geology and hydrology and includes supplemental hydrologic data provided by JARA in response to county staff comments. The discussion, Environmental Impact of the Pro _osed Action, presents a signi i.cant amount of new data on socio- economic and infrastructural considerations and the potential impacts thereof. The economic data are pre- sented in an Appendix prepared by the consulting firm of Gruen-Gruen and Associates. Natural environmental assessments are largely as reported by JARIA. • The Topical Questions and Answers of Reference 1 are presented in sever—cif—separate sections in the SCIS report. The second report presents particularly strong discussion of design treatment alternatives and a single list of mitigation measures planned by the developer. Conclusion : It is our opinion that the SCIS report provides an excellent basic environmental analysis of t11e socio-economic environment and the related impacts of the proposed project thereon. REFERENCE 3 : The primary strengths of the CCCPD report are in the discussions it contains of existing plans and of the topical questions. The Project nescription section draws primarily directly from Reference 2. The section on Fnvironmental Inventory of Region draws on both of the previous reports. It also contains a detailed, new discussion of "Legal, Policy and Insti- tutional Constraints," including basic information on • Contra Costa County • Planning Commission Page 4 March 26, 1974 existing general (and other) plans for analysis of the conformance of the proposed plan thereto. The report draws heavily from the JARA report for discussion of the natural resources of the region but does add some new data, particularly on avifauna and flowering plants. The section draws heavily on the SCIS report for socio- economic information. The Environmental Impact Analysis appears to offer new, different analyses in those areas related to regional and socio-economic impacts. other impact analyses draw heavily on those in References 1 and 2 with some slight modification reflecting the new environmental data noted above. The discussion of Topical Questions is thorough and pre- sents a clear statement of the county staff ' s opinion related to growth inducement. It includes a development alternative to the project not included in the other reports . It draws heavily on reference 2 in relation • to "Design Treatment Alternatives. " The Addendum: Economic Report (Reference 4) either provides—additional data on the information presented in Reference 3 or served as the basis for preparation of that report. In either case, it appears to be a thorough treatment which both draws on the other refer- ences and introduces other county- and region-wide data . Conclusion : It is our opinion that the CCCPD report (includ!i g Reference 4) provides excellent information on the existing plans effecting or affected by the project, a report on the region 's and project 's economic desiderata , and a statement of staff ' s answers to the topical questions related to the proposed project. Contra Costa County Planning Commission Page 5 March 26, 1974 CONCLUSION As stated previously, it is our opinion that the four reports taken together constitute an adequate environ- mental impact report on the subject proposed project. Sincerely yours, JAMES A. ROBERTS ASSOCIATES , INC . ,Iames' A. Roberts, Ph.D. Senior Principal JAR:md • i • BIACKHAWK RANCH COMMENTS ON COUNTY STAFF'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT March 26, 1974 BLACKHAWK Development Company TO: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT CO. RE: COMMENTS ON COUNTY STAFF'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT For ease of reference, this memorandum has been put forth in the following format : first the page is referenced; then the paragraph; and then the corrections to be noted. Coven - Area map should be revised to show additional 50 acres that finite engineering discovered (all references in EIR should reflect change) . ExlsLing Zonint, Districts Map. - Map does not show portion of Ranch zoned R-20. Page 2 - Subtotal of units per acre shows 3,7 . Under definition by P-1 ordinance, this density is actually 1 .04 . Pala,, 3, Paragraph 2 - This is only a partial listing of developer stated design constraints . See JARA Draft EIR, Pages 7 and 9 and Appendix F. � •:_ .;:._ E'age 3, Paragra)h 3 EIR states " . . .and onto the flanks of I-It . Diablo . This is incorrect, as the project is separated from the Mountain by Blackhawk Ridge . EIR quotes predominant slope as ranging from 30 to 50 per cent . This is incorrect , as 70 per cent of the land is less than 30 per cent . Should add following slope categories determined by computer: Slope Acreage 0 - 5% 374 .5 5 - l0% 338.5 10 - 15% 381.7 15 - 20% 493.0 20 - 25% 511. 0 Total 2098.7 3171 13lackhawk Road 6 l ost Office Box 1{U7 • Danville, California 94-16 • (415) 1537-1571 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Page 2 . March 26, 1974 Page 3, Paragraph 4 - The last sentence should be amended as Mt . Diablo is not visible from the majority of Tassajara and Blackhawk Roads. Page 3, Paragraph 5 - 4,776 acres should be corrected to 4 ,850. Page 41 Paragraph 3 - The following should be added to this paragraph: Most of the Blackhawk property is in a valley, called Green Valley, between Diablo and Tassajara Roads. Development and utilities are to the property 's west edge and the area west to I-680 is essentially filled in or developed. Pace 4, Paragraph 4 - EIR states "This development is predom- Inately low density conventional single-family housing. " This Is not a true statement , as the major development in the area discussed is Sycamore, which is a P-D with a mixture of housing types includinC single-family detached, single-family attached, mull.lpl.e and commercial . Also, most of the housing built In Lhe Danville area in the past year has been townhouses . Paragra h 5 - Does not state which area is being dis- �iiu:.�:d . LIR states " . . this proposal would be the first 111;ljor project extendinf, the urbanized area Into the valley east of the San Ramon Valley proper." This is incorrect . With the north peak of Mt . Diablo as the reference point , the development or Blackhawk Ranch will take place between two arbitrary concen- Lrlc circles from the ref'erence point , the closest circle to the ref'erence point being the northern most development of Diablo Country Club , and the furthest concentric circle from the reference point being the intersection of Diablo Load and 1-680, showing obviously that other development has already occurred . Page 5, Paragraph 11, - This paragraph should be corrected to read : D.tablo, Dougherty and Finley Roads are also paved roads In the Immodiate vlclnity of Blackhawk. The roads leading to and from ackhawk Ranch provide four major accesses to 1-680: II Cerro , Diablo, Sycamore: and Stone Valley. An additional Interchange is . E i,upose d for Crow Cnriyon Road extension in the County General Plan. Traffic can also proceed to 1-580 by way of Dougherty and J T,.1 Jajara Roads . Pare 7 , Paragraph 1 - Should read 37 acres . Paj-,e ' , Pa t,aEva.jlh 2 through Page 12 - See Blackhawk Development Co, memo to Planning Commission of March 12, 1974 incorporated herein by reference. Contra Costa County Planning Commission Page 3 March 26, 1974 PaEe 9, Paragraph 4 - This reference should be clarified to show that the 50,000 population is considered optimum for the year 1990 and not optimum forever. Pagc 10, Paragraph 4 - Should be amended to show that State in 1973 announced its zone of interest" for the State Park and that no part of the project proposed for development lies within the "zone of interest . " Pages 13 through 19 - The applicant feels that the presentation of staff is very negatively slanted and that the entire geological report- should be incorporated in the Draft EIR. Pace 20, Paragraph 1 - Figure number is not shown and exhibit is not in LIR. P:rite 20, Pararrraph 4 - Neglects to state that funds are available 1'or this construction. 21., Para graph 3 throw h Page 27 Paragraph 5 - See JARA vop ovt , pages 116 through 56 and Appendix C ; also , SCIS report , Appendix C-2 , Pages 22 through 25. • Nii.e 29, Par,aLraph 1 - The Open Space Plan is misquoted as the piG ject was committed for development by being put in the urban growth area. Page 29, Paragraph 5 - See school economics (attached) . �- 1'noc 311 , Paragraph 5 through Page 42 - See Bl.ackhawk Development Co . memo to Planning Commission of March 12 , 1974 . LnCe 113 , Paragraph 1 - This is opinion of staff—notfact . Also Should be shown that due to open space element of General Plan, no development can occur to east of project . Paf*c 46 , Paragraph 2 - New figures are now available showing this not to be true . Per capita consumption rate of increase is decreasing. Also , this statement assumes that the people ;�rohosed for the project would not be water consumers elsewhere In Last Bay . Pal-c 116' item c . - Not a true statement . Diablo is already existing. Page 117 , Paragraph 2 - Should read "Blackhawk Ranch Homeowners Association. Contra Costa County Planning Commission Pare 4 March 26, 1974 Page 118, Paragraph 6 - The type of grading to be utilized will be removal and recompaction and will not alter natural slopes. ' Page 50, Paragraph 1 - It should be noted that the EIR states "approximately. " At the final development stage, more specific Information will be developed. Page 59, Paragraph 2 - See Blackhawk Development Co. memo to Planning Commission of March 12 , 1974 (Page 6 and Exhibit A) , also, no figures 15, 16 , 17 , 18, 19 and 20 are to be found in LIR . Ike 60, Paragraph 5 - See school economics (attached) . Parte 61, Paragraph 1 - Study has been completed and determination hri:; been made that only one site is necessary and it has been designaLed . i'.1 t,2 , P.3rarral,h ] - The costs stated are incorrect (see ]Qackku wk Development- Co. memo to Planning Commission of March 12, 19711 (Page 6 and Exhibit A) . i'ttI_i f;�, Pavar;raph 3 - See LCIS report (Economic Impact section , • PZliw 35, Paragraph 3) . Pare 622 Vara1*,rapth 11 - See SCIS report- (Economic: Impact section, Pzw e 33, Paragraph 2) . See school economics (attached) . Page 63, Paragraph 1 - a. Nut a true statement . Diablo is already existing. :) . Not; a true statement . The project will be economically beneficial to the public. C . ;dot a true statement . See school economics (attached) . d. Not a true statement as to costs or congestion (see Blackhawk memo to Planning Commission of March 12 , 19711 , Page 6 and Exhibit A ) . t'. Not a true statement . Availability of services would come from utility districts . ,;. Only two small areas show roads stubbing into A-11 . The developer would agree as a mitigation measure to cul-de-sac these roads until such time as development occurs . h. Not a true statement . Energy used would bth used at another site If not at Blackhawk. • Contra Costa County Planning Commission Page 5 • March 26, 1974 k. Not a true statement. Additional acreage between the State Park and development would be left as permanent open space . V. Not a true statement. Typical grading plans have been sub- mitted . Page 67 , Itcm 1. - Should read "Donation of one elementary site and reservation of two additional sites . " Page 67 , Paragraph 2 - a. See school economics (attached) . C . There will be no incremental costs . PaCe 68 - III . This would not be a "definite benefit" as there will be no adverse economical Impact . V. Not economically feasible . v.1 . Not economically feasible . Parr 70, Item v . - San Ramon Valley Unified School District does nnoL call for these sites on the project . Pane 71, Paragraph 1 - Should read " . .part of the land . . " PaP;e 71, Paragraph 3 - There will be no adverse economic impacts . Pane 72 , Paragraph 3 - Not a true statement . Should state 25 per, cent of the land only. Parte 72, Paragraph- 5 - Open Space and Conservation Plan designated the project as developable . Page 73, Paragraph 1 - Does not state that the JARA report and the SCIS report were utilized and they are not included in the Bibliography. The two reports should be made a part of the EIR and incorporated by reference . �I M rl M o C,41 (11 �N lf1 }, t� 1 C;1 tt1 UO NCNJ O VCS W r-1 a' I QUl � rNi{ O ltl rN-I ter) r-i -N M� (lp N 1 T I M_-r N I N m I U11l 01` r-i 47 in CO \D ttl U1 t!1 U1 co ti LrN O O tiD LD --ZrO� r-i r-i N in O �D 0 O kD r 1 r I H %D \D ko tf\ ri I r-4 N I r_i ko ON (7N co - I _-j tl- t H ON CTI �� U-\ Zr O O �1 �I �I SDI I C7i U1 M.7 ' r-i i CO N m O rn 4.1 r") H U1 N co r-C U1 U1 N tt- Cc7 O U CT) COI m N H %D in LC) CO tI1 tCl N om- KI CT _-.rm.7 r-i N O NO NO .7 r r-+ r I N m lt1 m m .7 00 Erl (1)m h I 4! O( H r-i- I coCYNo � O N CNj O'I mI I W ri Co ti l ON� O H H N N r1 r-i O CT r-t N m CSJ N O t?1 CT ri OI CS w co C1.I ` (CTl �I tNl! (11 N �� N H N O H H I W O\ i I I �` :r, rr. U O H N O m CT ON, VoN CO N11 I COI uNI O w ml H I H H VD kD co m w N I coI co w 1 D� CO r-I N N r� t- t- H I � r-I r-i �o N rI r-I r-i I ( CT U'i O N co co c0 %D Cn =s rl is ON � I �,� H ml �4 ti rQ m UN I i' Cn uJ ri ri rn � t!1 N m U u m N H t+ O t- N co O CO h- r I- MI � O N t-- H r-i Vp VD N co CON CS 1D �I mI H CH wl o s to i a\ N t- O+ i Cho a. N N O m U1Co M M to I O N) N tiQ c-I ,OI r-t N.0 w in ml in ON in I %0 co t: rn Vo �D O %D U*Nan M m ON Hl I N ml rail c N N HI N N�I to r1 OHO �- fn Q O N a o " do to � "' o O U) r i �- o y�i �D ao %0 co r-4do ao 1� c� 1 o tirn a c-rn d � > a to t`i c`� to •« ,t r 4 ,`ot H a r-+ r H� o �- N r-1� v o N �I ��1 { 1 ialI1 2 r- o, V) GO M�{ r-{ Hr-i M{ N { { C)co rn i In r rn s, U-\) in tn{ o r- a-N{ X11 -4 o ,moi O H r-I N N - U w � •r C t? CN co c�{ N N{ "{ I{1 -('� tU N )�1 •rai (^Y. •ri mco 1i1 11t i(1 1 111 m �t �t1 N N! N1 �1� N U U O L: C\ \N{ N N { N{ {I Ski Ov u H M N lf1 r-1 111 W �{ �) 1 Lrl � N M{ I H� i O � co US O N CO �_{{ �� M-{ t OD co N{ rail rMi rl � •1 U1 c`4 N 7 stl Cl N co M Cv Q1 U1 ko kD . rt U p WNJ Off{ a Nco n{ N{ O{I ttt Cb ri r1-1 int, ° v o (t) ^oy I01i{ Mme{ 1" 1 �{{ •u U) Cl) ) 1 11 I( L� Tl to ?�A'Q! l � Ha, a ) 4 -li UM) � �n. `;`�" � u��it'd 4.1 ++ 0 zn p Q O Q O + N I I0 C) 0, 0 24 HTr 4) co A U C1 Qi Gr Qtn H � A U V U TOS CONTRA COSTA aANNING C01414ISSION We. who live in the area to be most directly affected by the proposed Blackhawk development oppose it because of the many detrimental effects it will have on our community, Danville. The magnitude and placement of the project will adversely affect our viewshed, rir, schools, traffic, safety, growth rate, ecological environment and all community services. Simply, the quality of life in Danville will decline while a few men will profit from this project. Suburban sprawl up the side of Mount Diablo will have an' unmeasurable, but drastic impact on all county residents and each visitor to the State Park.. The ABAG and County plans recom- mend that the greatest portion of Blackhawk Ranch remain agri- cultural open space. If the Tassajara Valley must inevitably yield to growth pressure, let it be the low valley lands that are developed. But we urge that Blackhawk Ranch should not be developed so long as it is possible to protect the integrity of the mountain. The quality of air, already a problem in the Valley, will be substantially degraded by auto emissions. At a time when we realize the difficulty and importance of public trans;)ortation, it is foolhardy to leap-frog; into the Tas:ajara Valley when exist:.nl; t roi%:th corridors have not been .fully developed, The Matter of schools is one of utmost concern to parents. A school Bond issue was recently defeated in spite of the serious financial condition of the school district, deterioratin.; condi- tion of exiutin, schools, and current- Pro%%,th problems as ;;et un- solved. The San I;a:,ion Valley School District w311 experience over.crowdin- and increased costs if Black haik Development is ., ., approved. 'traffic generated by the project will have a tromendeus effect on those who Live between Sycanore Yal.ley and Tassajara Roads. These roads are currently used by bicyclists, eque:--* rians, joggers, and school children as well as local. traffic. Besides being subjected to the noise of construction and Oan'5,,vr of heavy equipment travelin; tnese roads, Sycamore residents and viwitors from all over the County will lose tris recreational resource. It will no longer be safe for our children to ride bicycles to John Baldwin and Vista Grande schools as they noir do. Bus service will have to be provided for more children. Economically, it is , impossible to understand how $9 million needed for roads can be provided out of a ;�1 million County budget for roads. It is en- tirely possible that the project could be built and the necessary roads could not be built. The current asphalt shortage is an example of a situation which might bring total congestion to pre sent roads. The ,nrcje.:ted growth rate for the Valley is already a grave concern to those who wish to provide com..:runity services to all who live here. The needs of people are not met simply by pro- vidina adequate sewa -e, water and roads. Danville is not prepared to handle the doubling of her population, either from the stand- point of essential services such as schools, or non-essential services such as park , recreation and community services. '4o also fear that allowing Blackhawk to develop any higher than 700 feet 0 • would set a dangerous precedent. We have already seen the de- struction of one house in our area because ;•.r. Scott was allowed to build on a hillside. From the ecological viewpoint, this project is wholly detri- mental. Nearly all of the wildlife on the 4,800 acres will perish or be forced higher onto the mountein. The rare golden eagle will not nest near people= therefore, Blackhawk may cause the loss of the few eagles which still live on 111ount Diablo. Deer, already a problem on the mountain will die off or be forced into the Park where overpopulation will kill thein. :he few remaining mountain lions will not find a warm welcome among Blackhavrk residents. Additional run-off will overload creeks causing flood control to be needed. This process wipes out the rich wildlife habitat of the creel's and costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ironically, even the black hawk , for whom the ranch was named, may vanish. It has been shown, many times in California alone that the lr.ng term costs to taxpayers of developing agricultural land exceed the cost of purchasinr=, the land ar.d maintaining; it in its agricultural state. We are not deceived by -lack.hawk's claim tha*'%*. the development will produce Ureater revenues than cost,. It is clear that we who live in -,.*re '.alley -a-ill lose many benefits and pay many Co.-ts i; Blackha•r;:: i s ap roved. It 'IS our vicwshed which ;rill be destroyed. It is our schools which ':rill be de,;radcd. It is we vrho brez-�':_ :yore i:0:;ic air. "Ie will bear the bard-n of noise, congest cn, ?r.d inadeouate commun- ity services. .'le stronUly urge our Cc:;n .,., =overnrent to imple- ment its open space plan and reject the s*_-urbaniza•t;ion of the courity's only mountain. Zaydean Randlett Representinz the Board of Directors Syca:..ore Homeowners Association • �1 Gentlemen: • n My name is Nancy Henderson and my home is located in Sa--i Ramon. I am here tonight because I oppose any development of tit. Diablo and its foothills. Also, several of my neighbors who could not be here tonight, asked me to' reiterate their opposition to the development of the Slackhawk Ranch. I have read the 8lackhawk EIR and although it is inadequate in several aspects (for example, some long-term impact studies have not been made), it does give some indic�•tion that there will be a loss of certain rare, endangered or depleted species, increased air pollution and downstream flood potential, etcetera. It is quite clear that the quality of life in the San Ramon Valley would be greatly altered should the 51 ackhawk Ranch be developed. It is also clear that an effects.ve b,.,ffer zone between human beings and nature is vitally- important to 'the survival of the biotic com- munity that is Ait. Diablo. Since the roots of m:, are here--I am a fifth-generation Californian who grow up in Walnut Crzck %•then it was a small country town, I do not relish the thoucht o: a lifelen s, dry mountain jutting tip through the smog, and surrounded by housing, no matter how elite. As a child, I saw my favorite landmarks disappe-r under paving, golf courses, and houses. Back then, in the 40's and 501s, everyone thought � t development was inevitable and a si gn of prosp^rity. Very f,aw peon-le thought about careful planning and preservation o: uni;ue areas. Today$ we know that development of all areas is not inevitable, that with careful �j Q r planning which allows development of appropriate areas, we can preserve cr the integrity of such unique assets as t-it. Diablo is to Contra Conta County. Still, some people continue to argue that if we do-not approve one hundred thouzand dollar housing for the foothills of 1•1t. Diablo that the incvitability of development will bring low-quality, high-quantity housing instead. Gentlemen, this inevitability argument precludes careful planning--it assumes -2- • ':hat our Planning Department and Board of Supervisors will approve almost anything which is presented to then. The General Plan for San Ramon Valley is in process of being revised and updated. I urge you at the y2rx least to wait until this process has been completed before you come to a decision which will affect this Valley for generations to come. Nancy Henderson 6 Ona Court San Ramon, Ca. 94533 828-4031 f �J The slides referred to in the Henderson letter of April 23, 1974 and shown at the public hearing of April 23, 1974 are available at the Contra Costa County Planning Department. Or,, SCAN R 11►tON TI0141M-01*;:23 a.SSO. I 1'!' ON TO= CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING CMAISSION IRS RLAI:KHAWK REZONING• — 1840—RZ I'■ Peverly Mensineo, representing the. San Romoa Homeowners Association. Our Board of Directors has voted unnnimously to oppose the rezoning and development of the Blackhawk Ranch property on the bnsis of the information contained in the County Environmental Impact Report, and the two a.ccomp;+nyinl± reports done by James A. Roberts Inc. and by Ecologicul Impact Studies Inc. The scope of this project, the anture of the land in question and violation of the County General Plan, all mitigate against the rezoning and development of this area. Realistiely, this development would create n "Flew Town" of 159000 or more people on the slopes of tit. Diablo. T•oponrnphie maps show the area mainly in varying degrees of slope. The developers soy their intention is to develop only area of 251, or less slope, but acess to these few level areas could be gained only by massive gradiul± o- the sloped nreas. The proximity of this Iand to Mt. Dinblo Strta Perk nr.kes it totally unsuitoble for trsct horses; rnr.rty eats rnd corincrci ^1 est^h— lisliments :s proposed. Th^ only resno:tsible use for this l c,nd is Open Space ns declrred by the 1973 County 'jeneral 1'lr•n for the are:•. The developer-, --!trj%!n.ent thrt this iron rrr_s sl Acd for develop-,wit since the 1050' s does itot tnkc into cons ir'cr+tion the needs r nd desires of the present co.:;rni:titirs of th^ Srn :i-non Vnll(•,y. The -rrurient that the rezoninry is in co::forr.- ice Frith the rlener-1 Pl:n bccr ,tve • /"� of a. motion which t►.-,ve the ri0it to (icvelon all i)runcrty s; ^s A biscted by the ('n^n ,- Stin.ce limui ry line, ir,.1ores the fact thnt, in this itnusu;• 1 ense re am den.linn r.i -th nc-?rly 5,000 r.cres. Surely such n. hul16 dcvelo•t!'lcttt emiriot he iudr'cd by the same stnnd••r(ls ns n develomneat of 100 or 200 n.cres. 'there is no lo.(-,icnl pressuro for ccveloninr,. this are- . It mould be -it undesirr.ble "leap—frog" uevr la• -eat of ^.n arra bettor left in Open Sp.cc.. The problems the 6= ..:r-on 'rrllcv is nr- sontlY i'^cinr. with schools, narks inn rir polltrtioa show that a ".Nor Torn" is the last thing our v-llcy needs. The S.--n 11P.rnon llnneowners Associ:. tion feels it is representing, the vest interest:; of Lh^ co:;: ntni of ...:t !!-:m.on in onrosi.n.r; the rczoninr and development of fllr.ckh:.rk Rrnch. Thrnk you. 3onrd of Directors; Srn R^cion Homeowners Assoei-tion Beverly J . Messineo . •t C )or. on; Zoning . L:,nd Utiliz:•tion Corriittee • [��iCL Hill LClNTRA Cu;';t"A CQUNTV V14S &4�va; ad-. c r/ •� - �� 14 wl � ka- J-a t�//�� '`L7ZZ r� i�l y!/S1�',�(L�%' �+L'fii��i,�fhi�'/Vv//j•� fci; ,�(Ay�G!�:�r. GC . ��u��(� CC.C�;�'l'Lt-t,L ��r�. �►'� ,�''CG-'t. �,..�;.�'� -�L Cc's a:_ !�' +Alt t>1.r1� 7C(D �� 1 �' /��'� .Q sv�, t./ �'�/ytl��l .dlht�•L'�.td�✓� .G1?,C/t•.CU�= �e�0 ., , .dam AIA 40 �' OW .�� j4,z Ire- Jul .. . 7 r 77\-04 At CAtoo,, EAST SAY/WATER EAST 6AY MUNICIPAL urIUTY'DISrRicr .71.80 AOfLINE SrPCV?. OAKLANO..CA 04823 • 1.131 SJS-3000 WM,J.STEPHCNS ...1.rA.r e.v...L ..Act* March 26, 1974 Mr. Melvin J. Bobier Contra Costa County Planning Department P. O. Box 951 ' Martinez CA 94553 Dear Mr. Bobier: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft Environmental Im•- pacL Report entitled, "1840-RZ Blackhawk Ranch". The District has the following specific comments: 1. On page 43 , under Service areas - A portion of the proposed development is ou+side EB`IUD boundaries , which requires annexa- tion as a precedent to obtaining water service. ille. area to be annexed in this case is also outside EB.MUD' s ultimate serv- ice area , which adds an additional factor that must be carefully reviewed in decermining whether or not this area could be annex?d. �^ 2. On pales 43 and 44 , under Water Supply - The average aIlllllal eater use for the proposed Blackha•,.k Ranch project is estimated to be 3.2 NIGD. The exact water use will depend on the final develop- ment plans as approved by the county. The District can provide water service tip to elevation 650 feet for a small portion of the project with existin.c, facilities within current EB.NIUD boundaries . Three new reservoirs with a combined capacity of 13 :.IG, and their pumping plants , would be required to provide water service to the remaining portion of the proposed Blackhawk Ranch project that lies within the Dis- trict 's ultimate service area . The entire last paragraph under Water Supply should be deleted since it has no bearing on this project. In addition, the state- ments and figures quoted are incorrect. The District currently is reviewing its population and water use projections. 3. On page 61, under Water - The entire paragraph should be rewritten as follows: "A portion of the proposed development is outside EMTUD boundaries , which requires annexation as a precedent to obtaining water serv- ice. The area to be annexed in this case is also outside EBMUD's �7 ROAND Or r.rn[.Ares rlwl/I 11 AMJC41R. Pot slot's.R0/1191 1 &ARAB.s,.r 0-0.4101•• A C CAAP.a G10N. G HON'AMO ROP/N[014. Cl/ARLES J WRIGHT i Mr. Melvin J. Hobier -Q- March 26, 1974 • ultimate service area, which adds an additional factor that must be carefully reviewed in determining whether or not this area could be annexed. " The developer's participation in the cost of constructincr the • water system facil-ities inside EBSiUD boundaries is covered by District Regulations ; if water service is extended into areas that must be annexed, such participation will be established by the Board of Directors at the time of annexation. 4. On pave 67, under d. Use. of Water and Wastewater Effluents The County may wish to recommend that any development make. use of water conservation measures, thus assuring that water con- servation is built into the project ; i.e. , water saving appli- ances, low water requirement landscaping , etc. EWIUD strongly recommends water conservation and would gladly work closely with any developer in this regard. Since Contra Costa County is the lead agency in this project, the en- vironinental effects -of the necessary new -,nater distribution facilities should be considered and be specifically described within the Final E1R for 1810-RZ Blackhawk Minch. Please contact the District about these facilities. Very truly yours , 4.cl in7ma ronm 11t, t nnittee c WJS: eh cc: r.V.Jacolick D.G.Larkin J.H.Plumb J .L.DlcBride �. Nd iii APR 3 �i P►1 '7� March 25, 1974 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Martinez, California Gentlemen: The people making this proposal are all home owners living in the neighborhood adjacent to the Black- hawk Ranch. We have our own wells for water, our own septic tanks, our ovm isolation and our rural way of life that we all cherish. As the plans for the new Blackhawk Ranch Development becc!-%e more advanced, it is becoming clear to us that the drastic changes in the area in which we live could meke it impossible for us to continue to live here. The property wo oan cannot be duplicated somewhere else. i;e do not want to move and we do not want to change our life style. Ile ask you to bear in ;wind that these proposals are not intended to place restrictions on anyone, but re.ther are intende6 to protect our hones and our way of life. ::e have: on several occasions, discuss the proposed Mac};ha:, : Ranch Development, both among ourselves en6 with members of the Bl.ackhaw'r, Develop-mont staff. Out of thcso discussions have ev,)lved the following proposals which we are suimittin7 for your rev.-Lew and consideration. PROFO LL T.S T� CON DITIO'N TO SECT'RING -:O:iIN" CFIP1GE, T.-i,_,- DEVLLOPI:'SNT CORPOiU.TION 1SOULD .7_G:2LE TO TK-F, rOLLOI.Ir:G: 1. Plan the road system, both internal roads and egress roa s, so that Blac%ha�-.,% road does not have to be widened, straightened or have substantially more traffic on it. :-ny of these would be uestructivc to our properties. A South entrance could be made entirely on 31achhawk Ranch property from Tassajara road. A Forth entrance could ire made by v the intersection of Diablo Road and int. Diablo Scenic 3lvd. and be kept almost entirely cn 3lackhawk stanch property. i� The main entrance and four lane road would be an extension of Sycamore Valley Road, up and over the hills to the center f of the Ranch. �J• We feel that the Blackhawk Development Corporation has available the professional expertise to plan around our homes and our two-.lane road. y �� iy Contra Costa Co Planning Commission n P 2 - 3/25/74 Blackhawk Ranch 2. Make no changes in Sycamore Creek. Control the flow of water off the watershed so it reduces peak flows and so the creek will not overflow, flood or erode away the banks. and adjacent land. Particular care must be exercised where new drainage patterns discharge into the creek that the creek or creek banks are not damaged or changed. 3. The Blackhawk Development Corporation would agree to be held financially liable for any damage to. our homes or property as a result of cutting, grading, filling, urainage or other changes in the existing terrain. The damage could be the result of a change in the water table or slid,is, heaving or subsidence of the earth. The financial liability would consist of repairing and damage and correcting the cause. Because this type of damage appears to be very difficult and costly to prove in court, we aze asking that the ':lackhaw% Development Corporation assunc this ligbility for any damaged rroperty without the property owner having to force the llr�velopinent Corporation to 6o so thro:.gh court action. ,,-e „ e re:ucsting thzt a spacial bona ae Posted by the Blackhaw;; ::vclopmcnt Cor::orution or ac dnd to an existing bona to cover this notcntial problem. :e are rectuesting t at. this bond run for a fivc year aerioC, sL•a�.:ting at the completion date 1•:hen that unit of development affecting the area is built out. 4. Tho mater table of our valley is very delicate anC, precarious. If the water table is too high our septic tanks and drain fields don't c:or::. If the : afar table is too lora, our wells run dry. The Dlackhaw% ranch is uphill and upstream from all of us and no matter what they do, the water table will change. Since we "-:no•.v that sooner or later we will be forced to hoof: up to the public sewer and aatcr system the . Blae;.ha,.-ik Development Corporation will grovic e sewer and water hook ups to en isting hor. os as the new sewer and water lines become a.vaila:Ac at no cost to the home o...ncrs. Sewer and grater plans will include these: hoo::ups when the plans are sent for approval by the appropriate agency. 5. Our fifth proposal is directed to the Contra Costa County Tax 1,ssesror and the State of California. ie are fearful of losing our homes because of increased taxes due to the develop-Rent of a city in c•nd a rounca the rural area in which we new live. •:e respectfully rec+uest that the tonin, of our property not be changed an%-A that it continue to be taxed as rural property regardless of the surrounding development until our property is sold. y Contra Costa Co. Planning Commission P 3 3/25/74 Blackhawk Ranch The residen s of the Blackhawk area are not attempting to keep oue all development, We request your consideration of the above proposals in order that we may create a means to protect our homes and our way of life. Many of us have lived here for more than twenty years. We don't want to move. We wish to be good neighbors; we also wish to hMe a good neighbor .in the Blackhawk Development Corporation. Sincerely yours,fj A ��,/1 BLACKV11•1h ROAD HOidE agNERS ASSOCIATION,., /'' !t ��•1 � LVclfilP.� ACL' �{`— " '..ddgas n r -7�� " ;'�''F' ��<• r7�/ /`- lit.- t /moo 22 D �f J,uCt ��Llc-Ucc {_• O�� / L'J LL iyt,,L C� fellit £-s��,�� !� ? r Contra Costa County Planning Commission rRe Blackhawk Ranch P 4 3/25/74 ;Name Address /ddadwd/,,4,/ f f ..• 6 ,15 VOW. �� '� / .c/ � ,� �� 5-75-- ��.�.n r. :��-�..1� ✓�`j� ?'� !�. ;.�.p..�� nV• / ��, _ ) � �. l �p �...1!•=!•C•.�� :° ,rte� �� . Contra Costs County flaming CeM1444140 Kastiaes, Calitosaia �� ;' ' . '' ;� • ;�., • Goat:lt:aan� Gc�1 f'i s:,'1 C:::;,i;; Gw;;; •rY The promo cwaklna Chia Proposal ore all dire wn ere living in the nalghborhood adjacent to the ulackhawK stench, tae have our cern wells for water* out own septic tank*, cur aim isolation and cur sural way of life that we all cherish, As the pions for the now alaekhawk Ranh Development bacane nor* advancia@ it: is b*ccminq clear to us that this drantia manges In trio arci in Which we live could rr.•-:►o it Lnpatsible for un to ct.lt:lnuo to 1:'lo boxes •14ho pro"rtyr we acid cca-woot be du"' .iected t•;o do not iJrnt to r~.*ve rad ko GO n0i "rut. to cliony0 OUT lite styloe We ach ycu to bear in r+1nd that those rToponaln are not r0'-cn4t%d to *lase re strictic-ns ea L:s: r.a the:, aro gn'6:tael- d to ;trot-:^t: our jir-n.4* end our mmy A-` lifoo 14e have# on C•G1'(`rai (:-Chill«Oe &-inclinved ttli r:L*cPr-a,, d :11.1C1:hilY;k I'n."tch both ct.,.—nq cousroly.-:s r-id �•;.i'3 -';z::rrrte �.. Gri i' t+Ci:.t.;:'::5: i.r:::-- 1: of ::f, •it' Cr: t.:."f.:[• c:�:-C.%Ir::it-jiff . •fir.-S •�. ��.• ..�:ii a� l.• Itt-w-a ravuiVe.'d tna tulle-eL:yr r:;tar'OLD 9--nich w".1 a:o ou=itctl.a9 Cor your ravlow en's coaclaceotiGne RO Mit XG A CoNDIT1011 TO F�:Ctj 140 n :o:31As CRANGUe 'fs!": ATACMA'.. DINLl vt7:LUT COI VOPIATIGN UQUO J+c IUA: :O Viii: P'GL:1C:N1tiG8 Is Plan the rord rsrhteme both internal rc.nda :nd evreso roadoe r© t hit erne not Aiwa t:ry bo wi6enode nt:satrhY�arj� or have ruuntr-nUall"t roro t rai..':.1.e ca it., :.-.IV of thn.so would be t'-astructci,va to out rrorecrtic-ne A IsoUtn ttat:rrnee could be na:se by tato Intereecelcn ai J-Ublo A d end Ate ::iezilo 6ccnic 41vel, and be kmnt riamns:t cntiraly on Aleckhawk V.-inch rrcrnsrt r. :hyo nal n ent earcu rn d four 1.oe road %bald be on, eu scasLor at &ycanore valley : Centra Costa CWm%V Hamming com"molen me$ olaakhawlt sea" r�lop aaat • /1 V 2 1/21/71 t. The tlackh"m Developwewt Corporation Mould agree to be Mid financially liable for any d:feage to air homes or property of a result of cutting, grading, filling* drainage or other changes to the cxistinq terrain* ead'he datizage CC.Aid be the resglt of a Gbange to the water table or slides@ lioavinq or subsidence of the e,afrth• Tho financial liability cverala consist of repairing and donage and correcting the carne• aecauee this typo og denrage arpoor• to Da very dilfie:ult and costly to prove in courte we are asring that ;,bee islackharvk aevelof*aant Corr.oration afne:tx�e this 11aULUZy tow any dcnaged p o►>exty Kat tout the prop-arty minec naving to :arca my .�oeolo•:•aanc Cor;:oratlon to do so t::rely h court catlea• we Pro ccmiv+lttinq that a ormesal be net ?Is rosma ny tete akeemawk L%volcimmmc►ut Corrorcaptcni cr ruldW V3 cra exictini Lc::,:lo to c:J. f: this rbt�ct:rl,:l r:>:•C%z LC:3• V-0 r.ra cc-•e,-:!ging t:::,L• th.1m Land r%,,n for is Elora (:.) r. :!rlodv dart::t:n nt the (Int ep ti11•:11 that r air of revoior.m:^nt otteeting tho Bron ill built out* 4. :;io c•it—r tatilo ofd rte: Walley to eery dol,cats and �:r.Gca�^l.eten. �• .' t.';o eor;rm t:r.:u1.v in Foo 1)dlr:ltr Gar r.,e,r.t.lo • �'` (:f1�1::0 f`::��1 t•T.':`:tif� iA4xc�: i:oalt ts'orke +S: l .'�� .l.' Cva.ka 10 n �,..t ��••� /...�+• w r`;j2•• :• /:r.ltch �-� �:^:1.111 and AXI Ot UTA I.ld nO t!1rV t►4# '013 f•4..t.... t:::JIe. 1,.•1•1 •:it.Crs t•O /:Ti:.. V. ,_t F' ._' C ova t:}tF.1 : :1 s.c..*r:(:•:J to us) to tho vzmrnr end f5c i t`I' l.',•`::S:C'^1I t;:: ! L'e'.,:::::::��i16 Vc.v llU',-30 t 4-;Q7r'7V(%tifJ:1 Will r,rovLd(.- L'.r:•'imr rm.1 vmti!r hunk. ems to cis Ula now (,'C:'.'*r T".j 1: 'i•r-L' �.i..a!;.� J:f cc:1.3 Imai1co470 tic f1'1 co-It to thn. �ac��:� c',:r±srrsa :.c c.r rnd wa or rictna will in.1uuo Occe h=-Ur.e'n Wi1Cn tb.o ideals ase sent Fos approval by t.10 appropriate agency* 5• 0ur l.l.ith prorzsel It dircotca to Ctie Coat:ra Comim County Tcx Aunc.neor rna the: 4tate of CeliVornia. Wts tro feel el of loring ovr hcmf-a b:'cau.na of inermaned tcuon Cue: to Via 4elmlor-mcnt of n city in rad arotind Vie rural vron 1n trhlcl we ncne lives a•n fir:ar-2ctLully re"'ur-at Chat the roving or' cos mo*�oSty not hti cha,:,;ad end ihoG it c:r•:Barco to Lae tm..md r_a rural pror.;me xc;rrdlces of tho e;:rro:nmAng devclopnont until cur po-orrrty to calci. Th% 1rrrldents of the alackhawk area are not attempting to peep out all devealormant• ^ ue raqueat your considerattm of tba above proposals Contra Costa County planning CoNioaiaft Ate alackhaw3e Raw* "Volopw►t �••3 �► 3/Z9j74 . In order that we may create a Mans to protect our homes Mi aur Nay of iifa. MAny of us have lived here for more than twenty years. We dont want to M4. We wish to be good neighbors, we alto with to 1Zr a good neighbor in the Ulackhawk towelop"At corporations 6iuc*r*ly your*, Joon, A is and li1fi�'t•a1'd JR19 UH John 14 t1inI Mord 3555 Dluchhwwk Ed. ^ panvillo, CA. 94526 $(AN OF CAIDORNIA— USINISS AND TRANSFORTATION AOtNCV RONALD REAOAN, Co"~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 04 r•1. Box 3366 Rincon Annex n Francisco, CA 94119 �iAA 2�J; �Q, 36r K'T(1: clot J March 21, 1974 PLANt:,'K' :?=;'t.:,TA-J 04-Ala,CC-680 20.0/21.9 0.0/25.0 From Rte 580 to the Benicia-Martinez Bridge 04205 - 392760 Mr. A. A. Dehaesus Planning Director County of Contra Costa Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Dehaesus: Thank you for the opportunity to review the environmental impact report for the Blank Hawk Ranch southeasterly of Danville and easterly of Freeway Rotate 680. Page 1 states that 4946 dwelling units are proposed in this • /^ development. The table on page 40 indicates some additional 11500 residential units have recently been approved or proposed in the San Ramon Valley. These 9000 un:.t•s will generate some 75, 000 vehicle travel trips per day. Ther may be even more trips if these developments create pressure on other adjoining areas to develop. Figure 2 on• page 6 indicates that connection to Stats Route 680 may be expected via Crow Canyon, SYcamcre Va11ey, Diablo and Stone Valley Roads and E1 Cerro Eculevard . These lccal streets and roads can be improved to handle the traffic demands ; congestion then can be expected on the freeway interchanges that serve the areas, and on the freew"y itself. This review also included the report dated August 1973 by James A. Roberts Associates, and the report dated January 1974 by Ecological Impact Studies, Inc . T�*:ese reports were received with copy of Black Hawk Development Ccmpany 's transmittal letter of February 26, 1974 to the County 's Planning Program. The County should bear in mind that the State Highway revenue is decreasing and that only projects %-,hich are prcgramnmed can be budgeted. This situation was explained at the meeting in Martinez on January 14, 1974. As the Program Guide does not T Mr. A. A. Dehaesus • Page 2 � March 21, 1974 include any improvements on Route 680 or the interchanges between Crow Canyon Road and Stone Valley Road, no State expenditures can be counted on in the foreseeable future unless approved projects are replaced. Very truly yours, T. R. LAW-IERS District Director W. RUSSELL Senior Engineer - Project Development cc: Mr. Victor Sauer Public Works Director Sfal�` 16ernle The Resewees Agency Memorandum Deft i March 18, 1974 Honorable John R. Teerink Director Department of Water Resources Subisd� Blackhawk Development 1416 Ninth Street Company - Rezoning - Martinez Sacramento, CA 95814 Contra Costa County SCH. No. 74022541 Attention: Mr. Ken Fellows From i Air Resources Board This project proposes rezoning to allow develcru:ent of over 4,500 dwelling units on a 4,800 acre site in Contra Costa County. r-nhe report also lists recentl; approved and proposed projects in the San Fanon galley which increase the total proiosed additional dwellings to over 9,000 units. As noted in the report, it is expected that the population in the valley .,ill increase from the 26,000 recorded for 1970 to as much as 100,000 in the year 2000. Full consideration must be given at this time to the effect the s•.:bject project will have on air quality. The proposed development is located in an area %,:ere air quality standards are exceeded many days throughout the year. The air c_ality section of the subject environmental impact relort recognizes that any :rotosal vhich results in a /► greatly increased incrumenc of vehicles sh-hind- t2 carefully considered from the point of view of vehicular impacts on air c-aalit::. _-- Approximately 1',000 additional vehicles cculd -e i^troduced into the San Ramon Valley as a result of this project. To ovalu,at_ the ::Tract of these vehicles on air quality it will be necessary for the re.c__ to include an estimate of the additional vehicle trips and miles tra•.ele= ;er day. The report should then develop an estimate of the additional emiss_cns generated end compare this with existing air quality. Computation of the estimated total emissions cenerated by this project and a discussion and comparison thereof with preset.t air quality in the project area will enable decision makers to arrive at i:i infc—=.ed conclusion as to whether this project in light of others is compatible !.th health levels of air quality for the citizenry. William C. Lockett, Chief Evaluation and Planning R E C r E' U a MAR 2 5 ib Ofi�c�. 04 Ficnnin� & • A.t�corch LINDA ALDEN MOODY ATTONNttl Ar LAw Po*T Orrice Boz 999 DIABLO,CALIFORNIA 94040 TKtrNONt f4191637-1133 March 12, 1974 Honorable Members Contra Costa County Planning Commission Martinez, California My principal message tonight is that a number of legal. questions should be resolved before you consider whether the Blackhawk proposal is in compliance with the General Plan. 1, CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSAL S11OULD AWAIT PASSAGE OF THE OPEN SPACE ZONING ORDINANCE Government Code § 65910 (Supp. 1974) provides: "Every city and county by December 31, 1973, shall prepare and adopt an open- space zoning ordinance consistent with the local open-space plan " Such ordinance has not yet been adopted by the Board of Supervisors, although it will be considered in April. r -The Open Sps•4e Element of the County General Plan provides: It is expressly understood that the lines defining open space are imprecise. Where a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open space, the entire parcel may be considered for development to the same extent that it would have been had the latid holding lain entirely outside the line defini:.g open space.l At the time it was adopted, this "imprecise line" policy was arguably in compliance with the law. Now, however, with the effect of § (5910, the c-en space lines must be dras„n with specificity in the form of an open space zoning ordinance. Until the Board takes the necessary action to implement and clarify the Open Space Plan by the adoption of the open space zoning ordinance, it will be impossible to consider whether the Blackhawk proposal is consistent with the General Plan's Open Space Element. You are all aware, of course, that the Open Space line does indeed cross the Blackhawk site. 1 OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN p. 24 (adopted, Board of Supervisors, �•. June 29, 1973; Planning Commission, June 5, 1973.) 2. IF THE PRESENT OPEN SPACE POLICY IS APPLIED, WHAT IS THE DEFINI- TION OF "PARCEL"? Still regarding the extent of open space appropriate for the Blackhawk site, if you should proceed to consider the "imprecise line" policy as the applicable language, it is nonetheless the case that the Blackhawk proposal is inconsistent even with that policy. The extent of the inconsistency depends upon the interpretation of the term "parcel" in the policy. If "parcel" refers to parcels as recorded by number in the County Assessor's Office and elsewhere for official records purposes, then the holdings of Blackhawk would have to be examined along with the Open Space Map to determine which of its 36 parcels the open space line crosse.. All parcels to the North and Fast of those parcels "bisected" would fall entirely within the open space area and thus would not be subject to development. If "parcel" refers to the entire contiguous holdings of a land- owner as of the date of the adoption of the Open Space Map (June 29, 1973) , then all the parcels of Blackhawk except two may De considered for development. The two that could not are numbered 203-120-001 and 203-130-01 and total 724 acres located at the Southeast corner of the Blackhawk site along Tasajera Rord. These parcels fall entirely within the open space area. They wire not purchased • until December 14, 1973, more than five months after the Map was adopted.2 The third possible interpretation of the term "parcel" is untenable, because it would render the Open Space Plan meai:ingless. Nonetheless, the only way that Blackhawk could argue for the development of the 724 acres on the Southeast would be to argue that "parcel" includes any additional parcels added to the original holdings at whatever time. Under this theory, a developer could continue to buy up all the open space in the plan, provided it were contiguous, presumably, to his original holdings. The Open Space Plan surely was never Intended to allow such self-defeating results. If it had, it would not have complied with Government Code § 65563 (Supp. 1974) , requiring cities and counties to adopt open space plans. 2 Source: Contra Costa County Assessor's Office, March 11, 1974. Rumor has it that Blackhawk agreed t buy these lands before adoption of the Open Space Map. No knowledge of such an agreement, however, was in the public domain, and thus, even if it can be docu- mented, it should not be considered relevant. -2- 3. WHAT FORMULA APPLIES FOR CALCULATING MAXIMUM NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES? After it is determined where the true open space line falls and Which "parcels" should be deemed developable within the meaning of the Open Space Plan, then the relevant planning maps for deter- mining maximum extent and density of ,development are: 1. The Alamo-Danville General Plan (hereafter 1967 PLAN) Map for those areas of Blackhawk that fall within Planning Area Number 8, and . 2. The Land Use and Circulation Plan Map (1963) , for the balance of the Ranch on the East.3 The extent of development in Planning Area # 8 woulL. be determined by an overlay of the Open Space Map with the 1967 PLXN Map. Once the developable areas are thus identified, maximum densities in these areas would be determined by reference to the principles of the 3967 PLAN (p. 5) : "1. Residential densities on the valley floors should range 'from 1 to 3 families per net acre (maximum) . . . . �..� 2. The steep hill areas (of over 20% slope) where development is feasible, should range in density from 0 to 2 families (maximum) , per net acre."4 It should be noted that these maximum densities cannot be computed without the certified slope study mentioned in ::r. Van Voorhis's memorandum of February 26, 1974 (p. 7) . Though I am advised it has been completed, this study has not, as of this writing, been made available to toe, County (nor, of course, to me) . It is further relevant that the 1967 PLAN's standards for computing residential densities per net acre are different from the standards applied under the PUD Ordinance, § 84-66.-26. The PLAN's allowable 3 Ilereia I discuss only Planning Area # 8, but the reasoning is applicable for the eastern portion of the Ranch. 4 "This is properly interpreted as meaning that there are some jareas (very level) where, say, one-half acre lots might be appro- priate, and there are other areas where multi-acre lots would be appropriate. It does not necessarily mean that an average of one housing unit per acre would be permitted over entire areas shown for residential development." A. Dehaesus, February 6, 1974, Memorandum to Planning Department. —3— • r' maxima refer only to the arras actually to be developed, whereas the PUT) Ordinance allows inclusion of common open space and other recrea- tional areas for purposes of the computation. The Plan, here, is controlling, since it was adopted suosequent to the PUD Ordinance and did not incorporate that Ordinance. - See Government Code § 65860, ' requiring zoning ordinances to be consistent with the General Plan.. (The Open Space Plan reference to planned unit development as a means of allowing for more open space certainly wo-ild not operate to increase the total number of units allowed on a given site; it would, however, allow the clustering of those units in designs that would better preserve the natural amenities of the site.5) Once the computations are made of the maximum allowable densities,6 then it becomes a planning ,judgment whether maximum densities or less should be allowed.7 4. DOES THE PUD ORDINANCE ALLOWING ALTERATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF VARIOUS USES, EFFECT Ali MENI ?IENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN? The developer argues that the PUD Ordinance, § 84-66.004, provides for altering the relationship o`. various uses, and that even though it requires "substantial co-pliance" with the General Plan, certain usLs proposed by the Black: auk--principally a 37 r acre commercial area and multi-family housing--substantially comply. A Olan to designate 37 acres for commercial uses8 is patently in conflict with the 1967 PLAN at p. 5: "I. A total of 155 acres is provided for cort"nercial uses; A ..:esa 117 acres in Danville and 38 acres to serve the Alamo area." That is all. 10 further acreage is allocated. 5 See DRAFT, OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION PLAN p. 78. 6 Mr. Van Voorhis's computatior.s (see his (Memorandum, p. 6) are unreliable for these reasons: (1) Failure to note whether all the acres within Area # 8 were included for purposes of the calculation, or only those acres on the "valley floors" and on "steep hills where feasible." Presumably, the entire acreage was included, albeit erroneously. (2) Failure to designate the multiples used In arriving at the conclusions. E.g. , 113" or "2"9 (3) Failure to include an ailocation of acres in the "valley floors" and "steep _ ... . . hill" categories. In short, the bases for his computations are notable for their absence. 7 See A. Duhaesus, note 4, supra. r'� 8 See EIR Draft # 1, 2-6-74, p. 2. Providing a 37-acre commercial development in an area where the plan calls for none is hardly "substantial compliance." Even if it were, however, "substantial compliance" is not enough, in light of Goverrment Code 4 65860, requiring consistency between zoning ordinances and the General Plan. Thus the PUD Ordinance passed prior to the adoption of the 1967 PLAN cannot possibly effect a change in the PLAN. Rather, it is the zoning ordinance that must be brought into harmony with the PLAN. Only if the PLAN incor-porated the PUD ordinance would such a result be arguable, and it does not. Because of the operation of 5 65860, in short, the PLAN is paramount; if inconsistencies occur between it and the PUD Ordinance, the PLAN prevails. The same analysis applies to Blackhawk's proposed inclusion of multi-family dwellings. The relevant language in the 1967 PLAN is found at p. 5; it allows for multiple residential only in those "areas in and immediately adjacent to the communities of Alamo and Danville where selective multiple residential is indicated." TWO ISSUES RAISED BY MR. VAN VOO WiIS In closing, I would like to comment on two points raised by Mr. Van Voorhis that I consider in error. First, he considers it relevant that other projects, such as =- Whitegate (his Memo, p. 6) were adopted without General Plan review. Without taking a position on whether those projects would have, under today's law, required General Plan review or amendment, suffice it to say that it was only by January 1, 1974, that counties and cities were required to bring their zoning ordinances into consistency with their General Plans. Before that time, General Plan had no legal imprimatur. Second, he considers, apparently, that all the inconsistencies between the Blackhawk proposal and the General Plan are "minor defects," (his memo, p. 3) which can be cured by conditions. It is obvious that the glaring inconsistencies between the proposal and the Plan are not minor, and that they have to be eliminated before the proposal should proceed along the way of the Planning Process. RECOMMENDATION In light of the significant legal questions raised, I should like to propose that this matter be reviewed by the County Counsel, and that when the legal questions have been resolved, it be resubmitted to the Staff for final recommendations. I would also like to associate myself with the comment of Mr. Dehaesus, and state the agreement of Ami os de Diablo with his basic position that the Blackhawk Proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan. -5- Thank you for your kind consideration. Witn high regard, I am Very, truly yours, Mrs. inda A. Moody for Amigos de Diablo l�pM7f Call/omla Dep 11 *01 of Rabb Nlem6randum T^ VArk E. •Briggs Oa• t Iftreh U, 1974 Director of Management Systema State Clearinghouse Subien: SCH 740225 .1 1400 10th street, Room 108 Blackhavrk Development Company - Rezoning . •a�MG�%fi�i From : Y nneth Buell, Program Manager vironmental Health Services Program As we revievied the draft of the Blackhark Ranch Environmental Impact Report, a number of questions came to our minds: 1. Hmv urgent is the need for this project? 2. Is the benefit to be derived from the project worth the cost to the public, both economically and enrironmentally? 3. One of the most obvious costs to the public is the loss of 2,000 acres of a scenic open_space resource. The Fnviro_-:�ental impact Report recognises this loss and su`gcsts that future resiccnts of Contra Costa County rroul.d benefit most by keepinc, r:uch of the '.'.ant Diablo slopes free of manmade developMents. Some open_lc.nd prc•:4_s9.uns are being made in this project. Is the amount of open-space land ai:.ple? Q. Is it desirable to create a brand neer corn.T.unity of 15,000 persons in ail area so remote from existing jobs, cultural activities, :zedical center;., etc.? 5.. Has sufficient thourht been given to the type of future local Government for the area? Will a city be formed; is prcvisicn being made for a civic center; or v.ill people in the area be satisfied �:ith caly those meager services provided by the County and various special-purpose districts? 6. What about residents Yho don't play golf? 7,ill there be provision for other adequate recreational, cultural, and social activities __ theaters, libraries, churches, playgrounds, etc.? 7. Will there be adequate numbers of hospitals, physicians, dentists, shopping and service centers, etc.? 8. Will so many long daily co=.rates to and from r•ork prove too costly based upon valuable man-years v;asted, gasoline used, traffic congestion, automobile. accidents, air pollution, and needless expenditure of nervous energy? 9. Has sufficient thought been given to planning for public transportation in and to and from the area? J Mark E. Briggs .. 2 .• March 11, 1974 10. What effects are bedroom suburban areas such as this proposed project having upon the mental, moral, and social health of persons residing in them? 11. Does Contra Costa County have a master plan for orderly land development whereby short-term profits are not allowed to overwhelm long-term beneficial considerations? If so, *does the project conform favorably to that master plan? If satisfactory answers are available to these and similar type questions, we see no major environmental-health reason to disapprove the project. If, however, more planning is found to be necessary and some of the queLticrs carmot be ansnered satisfactorily, .re feel the development should be deferred until such planning is completed and satisfactory solutions to the anticipated problems are found. Attachment DECEIVED MAK 13 A • office o4 Planning G • Resporch CONTRA COSTA COUNTY -FLOOD CONTROL AND MATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 25S GLACIER DRIVE,MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA INTER—OFFICE MEMO DAYR: February 14, 1974 Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning To, Attention: Kathy Robinson FROM, Victor W. Sauer, Public Works Director �� By T. E. Burlingame, Assistant Public No s Director, Flood Control Planning SURAICT: EIR for Blackhawk Ranch Received the revised Section G (Inventory) on February 11, 1974 and the following comments are made: I . The reach of Sycamore Creek channel that has been improved was constructed by the developer of the adjacent subdivision. 2. The capacity of this creek is in accord with thy; provisions of the Title 9 of the County Code. This code only requires improvement of major channels to Pass a Q50 runoff. 3. 1qe wish to point out that a Q50 runoff is not synonyn»us with a fifty year storm. RSC:dw ri) N =.�F : UnT DLABLO • 'February 8, 1974 Mr. James Cutler Contra Costa County Planning Department Administration Building Nartinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Cutler: At our February 5th meeting the Save Mount Diablo group unanimously passed the following resolution: It is resolved that the scenic area or view point between Blackharl: Road and South Gate Road be acquired and added to I•iount Diablo State- Parr for tite following reasons: I. To preser-v :? the fine specimens of valley oak. 2. To provide a window or corridor to vie;•r Eotl.nt Diablo. (Phis is the only area on the south side of the mountain that aff-)rds an unobstructed vie;.,-.) 3•. To preserve the geolo~ical formation ;•lhich includes the famous fossil site from 47riich the University of Calif- ornia has removed bones of prehistoric ani.ialo. 4. To maintain the creek and its draina.`e area in its natural state. 5. To preserve the natural scenic beauty of ;•,'cunt Diablo Scenic Boulevard and Diablo road. A lax•�e cie�,•clo::;wer:t a.:ija- cent to Blac}L►ia;:k Road wotlld undouu;;edly require tiie widening' of the access ro,:.a and r,ould dist-ley hl o present scenic approach to I•'ount Diablo State Park as well as the scenic drive along iii ackha k. Road. To reaffix-m our stand the Save i•;ount Diablo group requested a copy of this resolution to be sent to :•:r. ;�illiam Penn I•:ott, Jr. and I•:r. James Cutler, Contra Costa. County Plaluiing DF-partment. Very truly your s, �. ,. . l.L.�r,•t%(t�l-LAG /�•�s/t. �r •1� = . Acting,Secretary F'••."-1lrl�(111F IC1�1 l:n�.�o.r n.,..� n...... -.... ._ James A.Roberts Associates,Inc. ' Uosysle ms Analysis Resn►.rrre Inventory Environmental Minaj,emen► November 14, 1973 BDC 301A Robert W. Carrau, President Blackhawk Development Company 3171 Blackhawk Road Danville, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Carrau: At your request we have reviewed the carrespondance addressed to you by the Contra Costa County Planning Department, October 2, 1973, and our notes of the meeting of November 7, 1973. The following are our comments, clarification, and expansion on the points which we are able to respond to. • HYDROLOGY Concern has been expressed about the peak discharges presented in the report. This topic is considered on pages 37-44 and 77-80 of the Draft EIR. The method used in determining peak discharges was the Rational Plethod, or Q = ciA where, Q = peak flow in cu);ic .feet per second (cfs) , i = rainfall intensity in inches per hour, A = Area in acres, c = constant. This method was selected because of the lack of streamflow data on the property. Other methods involve statistical analysis of existing rainfall and streamflow records to develop regression equations to predict a peak flow for a specific return period. These data were not available to develop the equations. The Rational Method is not a highly accurate engineering approach to the determination of peak flows, but the lack of data makes it the most feasible approach. Following are the steps taken in determining the peak flows for the Blackhawk Ranch. 7128 Fair Oaks; 13oulOvard, Suite Al / Carmichael, California 95601; (1)16) 488-5020 Mr. Robert W. Carrau �-, Page 2 November 14, 1973 Watershed boundaries were delineated on 7.5 minute USGS topographic maps. A planimeter was then used to determine the acreage in each watershed. Channel lengths were measured with an opsiometer. The channel was followed to its end and then in a direct line from the end of the stream to the farthest point of the drainage divide (Chow, 1964) . The upper and lower elevations were estimated from the map to arrive at a stream gradient. These values were used to arrive at a time of concentration for each basin according to the formula tc = 0.00013 L.77 (Chow, 19641 where tc = time of concentration in hours L = length of the drainage basin in feet S = ratio of the fall of the drainage basin to L, dimensionless. The time of concentration was then used to determine rainfall intensities for various return periods. This was done by interpolating within a precipitation intensity table -- [Rantz, 1971) for the various times of concentration and adjusting these values to reflect one-hour intensities. For example, to determine the two-year rainfall intensity for a watershed with a 26 minute time of concentration, the 26-minute intensity value was interpolated between the 15 and 30-minute intensities for areas with an annual precipitation of 18 inches (Rantz, 19711 (Table 4 , p. 22) . 15 minute intensity = 0 . 26 30 minute intensity = 0 . 36 The 26-minute intensity is 0 . 33 or 0. 26 + 0.1511) = 0.33 inches This was then adjusted to reflect a rainfall duration of 60-minutes. 0. 33_ x 0. 33 (60) 26 60 or 26 = 0.76 inches/hour Therefore, for a watershed with a 26-minute time of concen- tration, the two year one hour rainfall intensity is 0.76 inches. Mr. Robert W. Carrau • ^ Page 3 November 14, 1973 The weak link in the rational method is the determination of the constant "c" . Selection of a "c" value is wholly subjective as there is no quantitative method of determining its value. A value of 0.7 was selected as it was felt that this value more nearly reflected the clay soils of the area than would a lower value. Gray [1970] gives a rough procedure for determining "c"; utilization of Gray's procedure yields a value of 0. 6. Following is a comparison of the selected value of "c" with "c" for the other land uses as presented in Linsley, Kohler, and Paulhus (1958] : Type of Area Value of c Flat residential, 30 percent impervious 0. 40 Moderately steep residential, 50 percent impervious 0. 65 Built-up area, 70 percent impervious 0. 80 Flat cultivated land, open sandy soil 0. 20 Rolling cultivated land, clay loam soil 0. 50 Hill land, forested, clay loam soil 0. 50 For the purpose of this report, the value of "c" selected for the developed areas was 0. 8 . From the above table this value represents a built-up area with a 70 percent impervious area. All values determined are then substituted into the equation and a peal: discharge is calculated. For example, for watershed II, a 100-year return period, and existing conditions, Q = ciA, where c = 0.7, i = 0. 61 inches per hour, A = 421 acres, then Q = (0.7) (0.61) (421) = 180 cubic feet per second. To determine a peak float once the watershed has been developed, that portion developed has a "c" value of 0.8 and the remain- der has a "c" value of 0. 7 . Mr. Robert W. Carrau . Page 4 November 14, 1973 Q = cdiAd + ceiAe, where cd = value of "c" for developed conditions, or 0.80, Ad = area developed in acres, or 33 acres, ce = value of "c" for existing conditions, or 0.70, Ae = area remaining undeveloped, or 388 acres, and 1 = 0.61 inches per hour, then Q = (0.80) (0 .61) (33) + (0.70) (0. 61) (388) = 182 cubic feet per second. The Rational Method, while limited in its application, is a valid approach in determining peak discharges from small watersheds. Its attributes lie in its simplicity and in the limited data needed. When more data are available, another method may be used, but that was not the case in this instance. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS A detailed study of the agricultural potential of the site including a cost-return study of agricultural uses, and an income vs. tax breakdown, assuming the property were placed in the Williamson Act, was requested. A market study for crops which could be raised on the site was also requested. Prime agricultural soils are discussed in the report on page 24 . Agricultural crops are discussed on pages 47 , 57 and 87 . Because of the distribution patterns of prime agricultural soils in narrow alluvial valleys on Blackhawk Ranch and the lack of an irrigation system on the property, the agricul- tural potential of the property is largely restricted to the present land use pattern of dry-land walnuts on the prime agricultural soils of the Clear Lake-Botella association, hay production on the gentler slopes of the Altamont-Diablo association, and livestock range on the steeper slopes of the Altamont, Diablo, and Los Osos soils. Dry-land walnuts are no longer considered an economically feasible crop for new plantings. According to a telephone conversation with Deputy County Agricultural Commissioner [Cruickshank, 19131 , markets exist for the commodities produced on the Blackhawk Ranch, although ,•� there is increasing competition from new orchard plantings Mr. Robert W. Carrau Page 5 November 14, 1973 on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. A change in land use of the Blackhawk Ranch itself will have little effect on production or prices of commodities sold in this marketing area. The conversion in land use of the Blackhawk Ranch does represent a cumulative loss of agricultural lands in Contra Costa County, the San Francisco Bay Area, and California. There is some question whether agricultural lands can compete with urban uses in areas of increasing population pressures, due to high property taxes, periodic conditions of surplus production, rising production costs, and the high land values speculators are willing to pay for potential non-agricultural land uses. Current high prices on rangeland with consequent high property taxes are the major problems facing cattlemen. Costs of feed and other production cost increases outweigh offsetting production efficiency increases. Most cost studies indicate that ranchers paying for range at current rental rates may break even on a cattle operation, but the rental rate leaves little return on the investment [Reed, 19711 . when a seven percent interest charge is included as a production cost on owner-operated enterprises, there is usually a large loss for the enterprise. Incorporation of the land into Agricultural Preserve Zoning does result in substantial tax savings, but does not offset the negative net income situation when interest on investment is included as a production cost. Agricultural Preserve Zoning also results in substantial revenue losses to taxing districts, particularily school districts, which receive a large proportion of their revenues from property tax levees. Table 1 is an analysis of the costs and returns from the Blackhawk Ranch under agricultural usage including an analysis of the effects of placing the lands in Agricultural Preserve Zoning. Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture data were used in the estimation of yields, prices, and net income [Contra Costa Department of Agriculture 1968-72) . Information was supplied by the Contra Costa County Farm Advisers ' office for the estimation of production costs, and average market values and taxes for land-use types were supplied by the Blackhawk Development Company. An estimation of Agricultural Preserve Assessments was made by capitalizing fair rental values for comparable agricultural land uses. Estimates of fair rental values, tax rates, and capitalization rates were supplied by Mr. Frank Ascatigno, Farm Appraiser with I Naw f) In h A O CI L I 4. 11 ri CI v1 U In tI t1 rl .V. 1.1•Q .,1 to 11 r: �:• .I.) .111 C} l' 1l rJ f+'1 C4 �[• It l7 M v) Il In h rl h IJ.•1 M In L:1 1 N t • .•1 I11 f.4 IV w c•.•, a+ :f In :1 IJ rV 1 .-1 r1-4 �J VI U. L1 l•I 4.1.1 ' 1.4 NA r].4 roA pA U 0 o u o on n U o vi u LD OI M Ln l7 .'1 M .i U h LIO h (� roti .Q. QI h • CI ro 1n • Q1 • Q,N O J1 {! tl 11 GI t'• Inrl •h n l4 U l+ O IV N 1 W M.i N n,41 1 1 1 1 u l 1 1: Vi N 1T l•l h N h Ii 13 A iJ.o 13 n �J n 0 0 o M U11fQ .i In w u In u n .v N-/ ED W I.1 1 t. N r1 O:1 M N Lll h •C. • CI M j 0 •h hC.b' Y. f1 U Y • .I I ••1 V'1 • f! •.1 41 l!)11 t•.1.1 II,11 41 v 1i Mai a i u • m o u o C1 U ry rn n Ci,1 Ii L� C) N I U N . .; �; n Vi C, rJ O r, t' 11 11 1'• N f1 I, fV ( U 0 I:1 1. N•1 . N �1 •�1 f_t t• .. ... I'• V+ "1U U. It'r .-/Lo m I; Lin LI:)• :n v1 Cf••1 .t..�.1 IA P . Er;�: fl U 1; l:•1 r: h A q A v, q y L'• 1 11 vl :7 '� Cl In O tD .(1 11 P M y 1, (1 u )y q,1,1tN NMo hLn c1 r. nIn t U G r1 U h O N r•/In r/ G ( II \ -/ H I {I 4 N ,♦ rJW fy n LD • I'1 (� f. U())•1 N P Vl r•1 1•C I:r ••-/ N u) • {{ Ul H {),IJ W MNfI M.1.� �I N U . N O lA t1 L r N l•1 1') 1- +1 E.11 U •i cp U roAU PiAU fj � UrJ v. �r LC N U O O b U C ri 41 U 11 f C: C: N C �A 7 U U O C / U W 0 O U tD N tl ,1 41 U huhu . :7 A.vl > a M .-1 T > ro Id In H h�.rLn > ro /0.n •-Irol: o 0 v N to u12 4 Q k0.rJ.0 u I ro rtr N b R C >IH U X 0 N W U $4 ri 0 4 1 >I•rJ f: O N U C C N IU M U O 4) C N O O U O '0 >L • 'O 7 UI J li LO 40 in M SO ().v N C 7 00ro0••4 w%oo u •C r. o 01 U IUI 41 M .In In .i Loa O N O rel N U . N 1Ila, roA U 1011 0 Cos -V >1W 401 41 N u L1 U N tT N 1 u :3 in zo wo . u : u m o c o Mr. Robert W. Carrau Page 6 November 14, 1973 the Contra Costa County Assessor's office [Ascatigno, 1973] . • Taxes on improvements were added to the present land tax and the estimated Williamson Act Assessment to obtain overall tax levees. The numbers presented here represent only estimates of the cost-return economics of ranching on the Blackhawk Ranch property, but it is felt they are supportive of the conclusions concerning economics of the cattle industry in this portion of Contra Costa County. Cost data were modified to reflect Blackhawk Ranch taxes and a seven percent return on investment of the market value of the property. The high cost of land (assuming a seven percent return on the market value of the property) proved to be the highest production cost in the ranching operation. High property taxes contributed further to the negative net income of the property. Incorporation of the land under Agricultural Preserve Zoning only partially offsets the negative return situation. VEGETATION AND t9ILDLIFE The Contra Costa County review of the Blackhawk property report, item 6, indicates they they desire a more detailed analysis and evaluation of the vegetation and wildlife because of the proximity of the property to Mt. Diablo park and to protect any ecologically unique sites. More information on specified species was also requested. The topics of vegetation and wildlife are treated on pages 46-56, 83-86, and in Appendix C of the report. The method of evaluation used in the report was identifi- cation and analysis of plant associations and wildlife habitats. These associations and habitats were characterized by indicating the dominant plants and animals of each. Further detail exists in the form of tables that list the plants and animals known to exist on the property and that are common to the area. Since the development plan indicated that none of chaparral and little of the streamside woodland area would be developed, the decision was made that detailed analysis of these areas was not necessary for this level of environmental impactvreport. Further, the developer has offered most of these areas to the State Park system. Therefore, until specific boundaries have been defined, a more detailed evalua- tion did not seem warranted. The evaluation of habitats for this level of environmental impact report does not aleviate the possible need for detailed Mr. Robert W. Carrau i ^ Page 7 November 14, 1973 or specific evaluation of areas as actual plans for the development of particular sites are made and submitted to the county by the developer. Presented below is a discussion of the specific animal species that the county inquired about. RARE, ENDANGERED, OR DEPLETED SPECIES Alameda striped racerMasticop is lateralis euyxanthus) . This species is discussed on page 53 and in Appendix C of the report. This is listed as a rare species [California Department of Fish and Game, 19721 . The normal density of this population of snake is very low, even in areas in which it is known to occur. Therefore, actual verification of the existence of this species on the property is very unlikely, even if it is present. The primary habitat for this snake is the chaparral habitat and adjacent grasslands. Thus , the development of the open grassland areas on the property will have minor impact on the Alameda striped racer. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum californiense) . This species 1s discussed on page 56 and • Appendix C of the report. This species is found in Contra Costa County and is being considered for placement on the depleted species list since present land use patterns are reducing its previous range. Suitable habitats exist on the property for the species. Field studies on the extent of its distribution on the property could not be accomplished during the season that field observations were conducted for the report. Determination would have to be made during the months of January and February by checking the ponds and lakes for signs of larvae. Presuming the species is present, the project development could have a direct impact on the species. Specific impacts will depend on the detailed design of pro- posed ponds and the retention of existing impoundments for watering cattle and those along the creeks and other drainages. The other important factor will be water quality, particularly the effects of toxic substances and petroleum products in the runoff from the residential areas that could enter the ponds used for breeding sites by the salamander. In general the impact could be positive or negative depending on the detailed development designs around the ponds. It will be positive if more ponds are created, the water quality is not detrimental, and adequate terrestrial habitat exists around the margin of the ponds. The impact will be negative if existing ponds are filled or destroyed and water quality deteriorates. Mr. Robert W. Carrau T Page 8 " November 14, 1973 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 1. leucocephalus) . The environmental impact report does not discuss this endangered species. Forty nesting sites are recorded in California with 15 active during 1971 [California Department of Fish and Game, 1972] . No known nesting sites or resident birds are found in Contra Costa County [Brode, 1973; Mollet, 19731 . Habitat suitable for nesting or residence of this bird does not exist on the property. The lack of suitable habitat plus the absence of known records for the area by the Department of Fish and Game was the reason it was not included in the main report. Re-evaluation of the occurrence of this species, as a result of inquiry by Contra Costa County, was pursued. The near- est location of a known nesting site by the California Department of Fish and Game is in Lake County [Mollet, 19731 . A checklist of birds for Mt. Diablo has been compiled by Pugh [undated] . The bald eagle does not occur on the list. The list includes resident, migrant, and winter visitant birds of bit. Diablo. Ben- ford [1973] , California Academy of Science, is not aware of any nesting sites near the property. The bald eagle does not appear on the National Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count nor sloes the local Audubon chapter [Richmond, 1973] have records of these birds being sited in the county. Nesting and feeding areas for this species do not occur on the property. Nesting and resident populations are normally found near lakes where they feed on dead fish that are washed ashore. The more northern populations of bald eagles do migrate during the winter and are known to be visitors to the larger lakes in California =- during this season. The development of the property will have no known impact on the bald eagle. OTHER SPECIES Mountain lion (Felis concolor) . A short discussion of this species is found on page 53 of the report. Suitable habitat for the mountain lion on the property is found in the chaparral and streamside woodland zones. Population size is closely dependent on their chief food, deer. A mountain lion normally eats a deer a week. They are far-ranging and hunt in a radius of thirty to fifty miles [Caras, 19671 . No significant direct impact on the mountain lion is anticipated since the chaparral habitats are not to be developed and limited development is planned for the streamside woodland habitats. Mitigation measures discussed on page 86 will aid in reducing secondary impacts caused by increased recreational use of the non-developed area and the roaming of dogs. Coyote (Canis latrans) . Although no direct signs of this species were observed during reconnaissance of the • Mr. Robert W. Carrau Page 9 November 14, 1973 property, it has been reported to be on the property [Elliot, 19731 . Two factors seem to be quite important is respect to the existing coyote population in the area. The county [Wallace, 1973] , has had a predator control program in operation until the fall of 1970 that responded to requests, particu- larly during the lambing season, and a rodent control program that is still being conducted. The predator control pro- gram has had a direct effect by reducing the coyote popu- lations in areas where they have bothered livestock. Indirectly the rodent control program has an effect on coyote populations by reducing the abundance of their prey. The coyote is found in all of the habitat types found on the property. Development of the grassland area will have an impact that will cause a reduction in suitable habitat. If, as a result of the develop- ment, the predator and rodent control programs in the area are discontinued, there could be an increase in coyote popu- lation even though a substantial portion of suitable grassland habitat is developed. If you have any questions concerning the material included in this letter, do not hesitate to contact us. • '"' Sincerely yours, JMIES A. ROBERTS ASSOCIATES, INC. Ernest L. Seeman Associate ELS:sas/mad r BIBLIOGRAPHY* Published Sources Brown, L.C. et al. , September, 1973. 1973, English Walnut Orchard Production Costs in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, . U.C. Extension Service, AXT0386. California Department of Fish and Game, 1972. At the Cross- roads: A Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. Caras, R.A. , 1967. North American Mammals, Meredith Press, New York, New York. Chow, V.T. , (ed. ) 1964 . Handbook of AppliedHydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York. Etchegaray, H.S . , et al . , April, 1969. 1969 Oat Hay Produc- tion Sample Production Cost in the San Joaquin Valley, U.C. Extension Service, AXT-35. Gray, D.M. (ed. ) , 1970. Handbook on the Principles of: Hydrologi, Canadian National Committee for the International Hydrologic Decade, Ottawa, Canada. Linsley, R.K. , M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus, 1958 . Hydrology for Engineers, 11cGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 340 pp. Rantz , S .L•'. , 1.971. Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of Storm-Drainage Facilities in the San Francisco Bay Region, California , U.S . Geological Survey Open File Report, San Francisco, California. Reed, A.D. , August, 1971. An Analysis of Beef Costs and Returns in California, U.C. Extension Service, AXT-258. Unpublished Sources Ascati.gno, F. , movember 111 , 1973 . Farm Appraiser, Contra Costa County Assessors Office, personal communication . Benford , L. , November 9 , 3.973. California Academy of Science, San Francisco, California, personal communication. *This Bibliography contains references for this letter-report and is additional. source material apart from that contained in the main report. Brode, J. , June 10, 1973. California Inland Fisheries Branch, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, personal communication. Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, 1968-1972. Agricultural Report, Contra Costa County. Cruickshank, G.R. , November 9, 1973. Deputy County Agricul- tural Commissioner, Contra Costa County, personal communication. Elliot, B. , June 21, 1973. California Department of Fish and Game, Felton, California, personal communication. Mollet, R. , November 9, 1973. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, personal communication. Pugh, E.A. , undated. "Checklist of Mount Diablo Birds, " Mount Diablo State Park, Contra Costa County, California. Richmond, G. , November 9, 1973. Secretary, Contra Costa County Audubon Society, Danville, California, personal communication. Wallace, W. , November 9 , 1973. Contra Costa County Agricul- tural Commissioner, Concord, California, personal communication. t S Yi .. Y i cr 0, LAA cc # o ~ 0 � o ac z o yc >,} u+ X, air ads om000000 • m mm�m mm��e or 11 Area mm Em m rl MR. mmm m m immmoommummm mmm MMM., MMMIMMIM-1 MEMOMMEM/ mmmmm mmmu mmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm immmm mm ii �m � mmmmmm mm"m mm IMAM mm"oom,,,,■Zi��M�e mmmmmm��s STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATION SHEET SHEET Z OF Z KIRKER* CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES IATES DESCRIPTION JOB NO. • Cnsuhinj Civil BalleNn•Land Do v elopiment and Planning B Y DATE 111 MW MONTOOMW VNET. MIN FUMMM. CAUMMIIA!4106 M-7W PIPE TYPE n = CHECK _ DATE+.,, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C.r .Struct. Trib. Run- Elevations Len- or Area A off t i Qd stream Downstrrn. gth SlopUe e I� Qf Qd Vf Yd t A&WmIs Vo. Flow. No. Acres C C•A C-A min. ins. cis t it. ft. it. cts Qf ips fps min. REMARKS 30 0,41- is 4 ss go Soso �o t 2 0 1 2 202,s � 1ST li0 1 91 2 31 10 0 2 5' o.Ar. Z,10 2�r 2.2 6/5 Do to 'Z 380 3 4 /h 780 .�-d 3.5 4 5 �j44 /8(0 84a 39 A7 /430 ziov ooay, .00 1f00 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 li ! 13 1x 1 1 ,• 4 1 15 1 � � 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 12.20 21 22 23 2 24 2 25 2 26 2 27 2 KIP;KER,�C & ASSOCIATES STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATION SHEET SHEET Z OF ¢_ DESCRIPTION JOB NO, Consulting Civil Engineers a Land Development and Planning B Y DATE 111 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA 94105 362.7244 PIPE I YPE ti = CHECK DATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C.r. .Struct. Tsib. Run- Elevations Len- or Area A off f t i Qd Upstream Dow��strm. �;tl� Slope Dia. Qf u No QYQf sOm o No. Acres C C•A C•A min. ins, cfs t ft. it. ft. In. cfs Vf Vd t fps fps min. REMARKS 1 F 30 o,5v /s 1 2 CL �7_v 0, 70 /S 2 3 A LJ 1i0 I ) f: Z g 3 4 °JrS /�5 .��5 0 4 5 S 27 0 8C) 2U 5 6 5 F 200 0•G0 6 7 GL 70 10,70 50 7 8 9 C' 30 0"90 2 5; 9 10 L1 /96010.a-� 880 10 12 SF Zy O. Go /S 1 13 14 F 37 /b 3,G Z G 1 15 5f Z oGO 5 1 16 C L 3 0,7 o 5 1 17 18 g' .9 319 00 19 1 20. p/ ¢DU 9•45 21 21 22 YCA 40/ZC 1435 75 /- Z /72 G- '„ 2 23 i 2 24 2 25 2 26 2 27 2 STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATION SHEET SHEET___,]i OF r KIRKER, CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES DESCRIPTION JOB NO. Consulting Civil Engineers a Land Development and Planning PIPE TYPE n _ BY DATE_ 111 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SAN FRANC1900, CALIFORNIA 94105 362.7241 CHECK DA'I E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C.r .Stri�ct. Trib. Rw�- Run- or Area A off t i Qd Elevations Len- o �hG/I'Alt/ ,"a No. Upstream Downstrm. gth Slope Dia. Qf Qd Vf Vd t !om o No. Acres C C•A C•A min. ins. cfs m Rim ft. ft./ ft. In. cfs /f fps fps min. REMARKS 1 ' 2 3[,� Odd /? 2 L.. -U 4 L / zi 360y 4 5 5 6 ��.F /0 0•Go S 6 7 U 75' f)-- 5 7 8 I 440 9 �;v i�� 8 9 E 0•JD 5 1/c ib/� 9 10 sF r7 o.6a 10 . 8 0 1 CL J o .70 30 1 14 1 15 E 21 1 16 5r //7 70 1 17 U /ZOU -Z 45 540 1 18 �oG•� 1 19 15-74, S o 1 20 sF 2 21 .5 U-70 j 21 2 23 S 0,g0 51- 24 24 ¢5 2 26 WE5 R/� 2(00 /OSI /,D ZG D 27 2 KIRKER, CI- N & ASSOCIATES STORM SEWER DESIGN COMPUTATION SHEET sHEET____¢, OF . Qom, DESCRIPTION JOB NO. Consulting Civil Engineers • Land Development and Planning By DATE 111 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94105 362.7244 PIPE TYPE n CHECK DATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24 C. r .Struct. Trib. Run- Elevations Len- /f or Area A off t i Qd Js /i�G/KgsG �►►+olz ��. Upstream- Dow„strm. �.;tf, Slope Dia. Qf Qd Vf Vd tom o No. Acres C C•A C•A min. ins. cfs m t m ft. ft./ft. In, eff /f fps fps REMARKS 1 � � 0• ,�'0 3 - 1 2 2 3 4 4- 5 /3 D..�ro 5- s 6 Z O•Go jU 6 7 7 y �, � 8 ��U �.�7 5"lJ 8 9 t Z/J2,UZr Z5 g, Z 9 10 c .y 0,90 10 ;2,QJ 13 14 X06) 7,2 '. 1 1 16 /V! L/ B6) 2,¢v5U 1 17 1 18 G/4 A, 19 1 20 2 21 21 22 2 23 2 24 2 25 2 26 7. 27 2 r,_• � , U M.m y =Fe : �a t! 1 � MA J `L I-� H r ; Bi ttJ uT!1 ( rl tLF r,tS F�,�r � ,r I l l X21_, lir+S i+ltl t tNt � L � t a �..l.yrJ{*..I`LL! ''�i1 1c ��11��1�`,1{] •1 1 ��ii a j_ 1 r ,k�l"' �`�L';� ! t f 'J aJ 1 t•�� ,9r c 1 jj «it f�a f r 1 RSI r -r�7 �a l� tr 7t(44� ra i tP 1[t, Ic t t r Irt L. t Cw+�a� ,1rt•` " �lL l `L L.4 11y� Lr } » i i a + a+ ( f �y--i. r, -4 sr2 :j'i•. f � L } r' �r1 r, (rj', 1.1,,.1 1 ' .`' L.t,,�e�2 it I r Lj_t•_ t4 _i _ �f ,r. I.i .{ •) 4�� I.I�r43 ��Itt L•'lli9,� I '{k j+ l I;r - 7�},}Ii1 1' �„�rl.•i, ' J rap ,t:i'i.r�1,] rtii- •� t_.. f;� 7{ L��I t l S+;-.i I }� it ,. 77 ri Fi t } a e 1 + p,•I £i i Z • ' z t J iit � �= t J }r • :�'�� -�'j-it 1. r+�• i�i r Lr ��I r-I 1 • . i l l•, , ,1 1 + I -•.Cr , t� r }. I �L 7�5, I i nab �(�,jIo}� C . 7rtla�( ti . j (r �11 LLt.:- ATL f 1L �Ij =a T 1 I .-r._ + + -. 1 } » •if irl�.� ,l.i. r �,i. ! '- i °t„r }• Ir 3-' - i � �- P �{I Fr I. �• �-'�:11f�'t'i i i ��a'n r- 4 aR f•�V�--{ t.1i, � ; �. { r , f ,t I r I� _ � , 1)t r e 7 i. �=t�ILt i 1` 1 1 r. -r (_�.. :T r •�^.,{ t.r •�I b'tf r,;}a 1 ,t tr, r 1.1 ' �•)-''"i -r{ ' I 1{ tT' " t. + it ++ r 1 , r•. .tl I:- , , 1 1 ai ( I r, j: °' - r :•�i ` 1 I 1 a7- t ��}, -, -a . I 1 �l ! .a ilVl I�.r•Itl u.J}'i",.., , 1-• ._t jl r I I� 1 ttti�`d, 1 4 i-N r•1 ) I r•Y�l j 11�' + ,{ t , ;, t l l�L a l j r r♦ �✓ + r 1t1,t ra;` P2. It' J l y +'( L1T Ort -i ,'. _ t , fii � � J lr, - t 1 , y •) a. I r i:i11 I 1 i els-: s t r,4� f + t� .. f �T �I � tI + ._le.•. 11, 1 r-cl q °- iI +f rf 1 l t �i; ; Y r it_ _to.- 4 2 , j 'i a_ t �-1`-f+ f L ,'• t 1._ t r 7 , 11 l l ff i Lr'` f� i�tf'1 r I( Y ••--��1 �.1; -� rIr}Prat t� !r 1 i t.� •�i Ji 1 } [j� , tr #lr? cl '24t#l.�ilI fir. . � (=� tt f:-j �•r'i. tJ t r�l�_i i tl I.tl{:, tCfa ._� ,�._�ft:� _ I t( h-tt� � t.r� .} ��,I ' } » r;ttr r_z+��i�-•a(:r. a :4'i ri r;,�t fit t Jr'�� a ��9YI.r F .-il2�jj ,r, t��`j� �t i Lr 1. 1 �; �(✓� ''' t`3 � l _ .t j iiJj t t'J d `1, F�',c7 �. ,�r,-f.-�.4- r+•-. .L 1'�'J�.0*111.� ��. .t!.:7 i _i' , X13 �' °• �. r`t•� I J �_ � ( rt ^""� - ,•, i_ 'r`�a ! j SLOPE CLASSIFICATION I fY[DI.OIAAIAM.Atf[KIAIY � ,,�~►tl" �'�•� -' :.• ', t'M� 'ter, .. •r � 1J� 'Fry,., .t• '.� .. .+ ,� - �. .�'�j�t•(� , ,yt ffy; .•ttir •. r '`` �s. ! •t`.♦ 1 WWI ;r *,v' �y,,, fit/ � , •„� ,� Fa. '1 .», ;• ,�'.r' r� is r 1�,.. Y.t.. �'aN w ...•r,~ r\ ' _, �"/ li .•ra� �:V 'ha �,'A' '!ld! :i ti .�#^ ,J,1E•r,+"�•• t.` ! •., -��.•'�t �}'�.., 1 C�' t » i `�1• t tty J t 1!J ► 't� ti r_ • ^'tQ4 ....+r�' , ', \ 4�'{J`,,./'• \.\ See f ''I•" ('J „`1 i, ',A' 'ti t rt' y ',r. ',{ ,, •f�``�/ •"�'�'+�� ),} \•w► '� . ''1.`� ' ,r�. ` K" ' �//�� :t`►. \ �.a't•^9\ r M /~ .. \ i r `rt .� ti l� .�'lt [,. / 1 � T�" *F.,.1 1r. rrr' 00, ' \ \: ,� '.!� t t `tet:1, �,` M� ; � ,r� f •�A -�..:'� . `t tl�,. ��l .�.••�,• ''8 � }1 't 'g{ arnr+'' \� .j`' - -•• .4; r'tbry �t lk �tS• ,4 •M ,.»• _an`�" . , !. *�: ;^ l !!Lu `� , \t .A' '�� .•rl, \ \i, .`� Zt�.! --1 '�•` 1't" �� r'� � V t hr; �ir/tl" �lrr4 %lick• t /'•G r,,. L~ ,'Cllvilf a • ' 1 ...- ir. ,\ '' . /tt •1' ` (x '• I'°•f• y°`t ��, ��"'�"�. �„tl 'FrvA "+ \ ,t -r 4 ,/ ,” ��' .,, \` ,• -t a �•;,..• u lw *ttQ ! f,r.. '�14CM h f"+•Rid 4000 ` '"„ ♦ .tats "• •� �•.r �. �► r r Vtr ` ��„ \ \\"��GQ++��'•... 11,1\' t »r J1 ttr•• i 1\ _ 1 �. '�' f t ~ •••r � ,•. t 1 � a., ^ � � O�. � 1 t if .,. ` "'"�. � � AAr' � , `,•. ,t ., ,,,,�1 p, In it Ei It lu CU ,,; •�'. , �{..•. 4' ' r �,. ..••'" ,� ,i.- "'t, `, eJ,f 1 t t 't �„rt•M' "vgoo t" 4 ,!1 �'.�'.• i•• ♦. r �� - �� 3 �, r; } .t•+1 tt itI , i� ii''�1 \1 r} tom„•� •'C .1 •F"'•r r 1 � '' ,' � .i'''� !�� 1 r�'t `. r!'t � t t \ , O � g \.••,i.' • .i•''"'�• �w�"+•.•- }, 1 �r t .,t• c0 �,..a,f. t- ,y,..... 4,0 b', •.•i — •a.. V A L LB _ UY■ ter, .� + t �` r ,. )t / 1 ,,•• tor•r fit to A4 �. � ,'7 _ .a '•, -,r: ` r"' ` q I' t �' \. ��. N �. .. tr, '• ., tj 1A% r�.�• - !' t j,.r `f �t 1 \ .•i �.."=. •t,'t' .r' �'• .'t U7 ' J, +°on.r\ „*, t. .+r l, i- �• ,r•.•t ��.�� l..w�''_% , .,,,, + i;r• t a O� > 0 11 c a f rttt ' 4 ,. r� ^t rltrr + t. �r •n Lir iYyyYtr } ♦•'�"--"•!a, 'Zia"a '; • N 1. N 1 t I'I t i, v.•. .�.'� .r ji� '11�1try►"'�'"'�.,"ti.,,,� � I► '`�` 1 SCai `�• " / t .� yo 1 C '•),�y,� f. 1• " 4 ,r• � a ,,f.;'/may P r '_ \- I• t=a.�,., �— e + f• �;. + t - oil F 1 r ��t�t-- '' tl• "'''' t Kt t _ r- r _ �i •1 '}',\ ` -�•• •'� -•.. �. ' f„.(1, a -- lrF3' -)'fR�:. /`S_ F!.a '"":3::aC""3'��'-'' r'1 r� ,•..', ,\ ,�T�/ 171 JOB NO low O Ol' I We fill •sem bm +it.rttr Ot � r' 1,�.• � L ,•l s .t ` y 7I.�.��^•." C'` � \` .- .� ' ( 11' t r � ,•l.{• t '� r` '`-• mar.-s:.c:,rc n:r_ ttiro.r J _ S N E ET -]flC�a_r.•,.Ff.�-a�..�-.Mr.3l;� 1,.jjl. 6. -y �•_ � t "it A i� , r •'4 'i^ COKTt71� rmy Awx 40 FEET . OF MU"L^U fttgt?AW tit rWf MkW)M! a 1 ' ail 1 � � � ��^�, � ' ((� r V CITMY is"an ussavil. tl �d wi y Y ass ' III 01w 0lI1"OWNT $MIT r - - - IAM /�AIK111�,d11/MNIA NIM (At!}7S-1i19 �i _ - >NI 1p11�bM AVIN41 m me 0 city. tA11IMM14 94%4 (412)7"$1 KIRKER, CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES Consulting Civil Engineers s Land Development Planning t March 12, 1974 884 t Mr. Robert Carrau , Blackhawk Development Co. t 3171 Blackhawk Road 1 P. 0. Box 807 i Danville, CA .94526 Dear Mr. Carrau: Re: Slope Analysis of Blackhawk Ranch t ` Per your request we have retained Camaro Design Systems of --. San Frandisco to study the ranch, utilizing the digital l computer analysis method of slope analysis. After reviewing Comarc's data and maps, our office prepared the attached information as a compendium of Comarc's data. (See Attachments 1 6 2) Very truly yours, KIRKER, CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES • Consulting Civil Engineers HaryOdffer r r ' - i RECEIVED APR 1 $ 1274 ATTACHMENT 1 SLOPE CLASSIFICATION (GROSS ACRES) A. Under 258 2,139.8 Ac. B. Over 25% 2,660.2 Ac. Total Site 4,800.0 Ac. Planning Area 8 A. Total 2,000 Ac.± B. Under 20% 746 Ac.± C. Over 20% 1,254 Ac.± (Where development is • feasible) Residual A. Total 2,800 Ac-t .r 1qOMARC DESIGN SYSTEM DATA • ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING AREA 8 Average $ Area Symbol Range (Percent) Within Acres $ of Site I A 0 •- 5 3.2 232.7 11.7 B 5 - 10 7.4 150.6 7.6 C 10 - 15 12.7 160.7 8.1 D 15 - 20 17.6 190.7 9.6 E 20 '- 25 22. 5 203.4 10.2 F 25 - 35 30.0 467.9 23.5 G 35 - 45 39.4 363.4 18.3 H 45 - 55 49.3 131.6 6.6 I 55 - 1000 63.6 86.9 4.4 1987.9 100.0 i Average 8 Slope for Entire Site 25.9 RESIDUAL Average 8 Area - Symbol Range (Percent) Within Range Acres 8 of Site A 0 - 5 3.0 150.1 5. 3 B 5 - 10 7.6 184.3 6. 6 C 10 - 15 12.8 226. 3 8.1 D 15 - 20 17. 6 317. 3 11.3 E 20 - 25 22. 5 323.,7 11. 5 F 25 - 35 29.9 729. 7 25.9 G 35 - 45 39.5 517.7 18.4 H 45 - 55 49.1 212. 8 7. 6 I 55 - 1000 63.9 150 .1 5. 3 2812.1 100.0 Average $ Slope for Entire Site 28.0 • h Q W ��W s ~�Z t �!4 ��.,,�, �...:r�,�. . .� IN TAR BOARD OF 31TPERVISOR3 OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATS OF CALIFORNL In the Matter of Recommendations ) of the Planning Commission with ) Respect to the Request of Blackhawk ) Corporation (Applicant/Owner) to ; July 10, 1974 Rezone Certain Land in the Diablo- T assajara Area (1840-RZ). ) The Board having on July 9, 1974 continued to this date hearing on the request of Blackhawk Corporation to rezone certain land in the Diablo-Tassajara area (1840-RZ); and The applicants having continued with their presentation of evidence in support of the proposed rezoning, including the filing of a report entitled "Fiscal Impact of the Blaokhawlc Ranch, Development - June 1974,' and Mr. Robert Carrau, President of Blackhawk Corporation, having requested that certain changes be made in the reeo - ended conditions; and Mr. William Morse, Executive Vice-President of said cor- poration, having requested that an air quality report on the Blackhawk ranch project be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report; and • Upon inquiry by the Board the County Counsel responded that in his opinion unless the EIR would be substantially changed the Board could add new evidence; and Chairman J. Be Moriarty having stated that if there is no objection by the other members of the Board, the air quality report submitted by Mr. Morse would be accepted as evidence at this time and decision as to whether it should be included as a supplement in the Final EIR deferred; and The Board members having discussed the request, and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having stated that in his opinion all questions pertaining to whether the requested rezoning conforms with the County General Plan, and whether additional evidence should be included in the EIR, should be referred to the County Counsel for evaluation; and Supervisor A. Me Dias having concurred with Supervisor Linscheid's opinion but felt that the referral should bt deferred until the conclusion of the hearing; and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having stated that it would be desirable :c --equest County Counsel to advise the Board as to what legal _alines they are to use in determining if the 'devel- opment is _ %-3istent with the General Plan; and 3oard having heard all .)ersons wishing to :.peal in favor. )f aforesaid rezoning request, Chairman Moriarty ca-led on t'r.ose persons wishing to speak in opposition; and At the conclusion of the presentations made by those individuals objecting to the project, Mr. Robert Carr4- spoke in reoutta-' , and I Supervisor Moriarty having noted that he had deferred discussion on whether questions related to the General Plan and/ or the EIR be referred to the County Counsel for review and having suggested that Mrs, Clausen be requested to prepare legal guidelines for consideration by the Board; and Supervisor Linscheid having suggested that staffs the proponents, and opponents be requested to submit written sum- maries of their positions (not to exceed 3 pages) and submit same to the Clark of the Board no later than Friday, July 19, 1974 at 5:00 p s,me; On motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Super- visor Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on 'the rezoning request of Blackhawk Corporation remain open to Friday, July 19, 1974 at 5:00 ps,ms, for the limited purpose of receiving written position summaries and additional written evidence at ' which time the hearing is closed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on July 23, 1974 the Board will arrange a time for Board members to mate an on-site inspec- tion of the project and fix a date and time for decision on the matter. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: A1ES: Supervisors Jo P. Kenny, Ao Ms, Dias, _ . W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. P. Moriarty. NOES: Nones, ABSENT: None. cc: Applicant ✓ Director of Planning CERTIFIED COPY C v unt Counsel I certify that this Is a full. true 4 cornet copy of the original document which Is on file In my offic., and that It was passed i& adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County. California. on the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OL,SSON. County Clerk it a:-officio Clerk of laid Baud of Supervuor4 by Deputy Clark, BOARD Or supsyne is Or COMIRA COAD aomrs CALZ MNU Request of B1aakhawk Corporation (1640-RZ) to Rezone Land in the RUOLOTIOM DUMM 7V7T8 Diablo-Tsssajera Area. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RX8000 TNATI Resolution Number 29-1974 adopted May 28, 1974 by the Plannin Commission was received by this Board on ma?? 29 1974• In Resolution Number 29-1974 the recommendations of the Planning Commission are not forth with respect to the request of the Blashhawk Corporation (1840-RZ) to rezone certain land in the Diablo-Tessej ra area frac General Agricultural District (A-2) to !Tanned tbit jistrict (P-1 ). An 2nvironmontal Tmpaot Report (SIR) prepared by the staff and expanded by the Commission to include public comments and other Information was certIfted by the Commission, made public, and presented to the Board by the Planning Commission prior to any public hearings by the Board on the Blaokhawk rezoning application. After notice thereof lawflu lj given, public hearings were held b1 the Board of Supervisors on Ady 9 and 10, 1974 on the rezoning application (1840-RZ) during which all interested persons were heard. Thereafter, the matter was continued for decision from July 239 1974 to August 10, 1974 at which time the Hoard indicated its inclination to approve the project with conditions reoosssended by the Commission and changes recommended by staff, continued the matter to August 26, 1974 at 8 p.m. for decision and ordered the preparation and review of all documents required for such approval. On August 26, 1974 this Board deferred to Setomber 3, 1974 at 2 p.me its decision on the rezoning request (1810-RZ). The Hoard has seen the subject site# has reviewed and considered the SIR, and has fully oonsidered and evaluated all testimony and evidenoe (including County General Plan Doeuments) and is prepared to make appropriate decisions. In reviewing the SIR the Board has dossed it necessary in com- pliance with the provisions of the California Dnvironwental Quality Act (020A) to proper* and adopt as parts of the final SIR the document entitled "Further Response to Cosments to Draft SIR (1840-RZ)", a copy of whioh is on file with the Clerk of this Board. The Board hereby makes the following Order, Certification and Pindingas A. SIR - Order. That the aforenoted dooumnts entitled "Purther Response to Comments to Draft SIR (1840-RZ)" be and the saw is hereby made a part of the final SDR and that County Rules adapted by Hoard resolution pertaining to the preparation of SIR 4 not in oonformanoe with the procedures followed in this matter are waived. B. SIR - Certification. The Board certifies that the final SIR (Sxhibits 1 - 17) as received from the Cos fission with the addition ordered above is the final SIR has been completed in a ompl aspliano• with CSQA and the statedelines Jany variations in local County rules domed waived) and fi rther certifies that the Board as lead agency and decision-making body (on a scatter by law requiring a public bear- ing) has :^eviewed, considered and evaluated the iatormation contained In the said final AIR. ASSOLUTION if WOU R 7!R/772 r ^- �' ;�� 0. BIR - Findings. This Hoard finds: (1 ) That the various land uses to be authorised by the • ordinance for 1840-RZ (with the conditions of approval to be imposed) are consistent with the County General Plan (meaning the composite General Plan and all of its adopted elements) in that the various land uses authorised by the ordinance are compatible with the objeotives, polioses, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. (2) That the proposed planned unit development (with conditions) substantially conforms to the County General Plan. (3) That the development (1840-RZ) will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. (4) That with reference to the neighborhood commercial center: (a) That such center is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the neighborhood type proposed. (b) That traffic congestion Will not likely be created by the proposed center, or will be obviated by presently projected improvements and by demon- strated provisions in the plan for proper control of traffic and parking. (c) That the development will be an attractive • and efficient center which will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse affect upon the adjacent or surrounding development. r.- (5) That' twhe development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exception from the normal application of the County Code. D. Orders - Approval, Ordinance and Determination Notice. This Hoard orderst (1 ) fiat the Blaokhawk Corporation's rezoning request (1840-RZ) is approved as set forth in subsection (2) of this Section D. (2) That the Director of Planning and the County Counsel shall prepare and present to this Board an ordinance to reflect the approval of 1840-RZ upon the conditions approved by the Planning Commission with the modifications suggested by staff dated August 80 1974, and to give effect to the said resoning. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 1974 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. N. Dias, 8. A. Linsoheid, J. g. Moriarty. NOES: None. CERTIFIED COPY ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess. 1 certify that this in it (till. true & correct copy of the original docurnenl which is nn rite In my rtfnre. and that it Mas 11-1-d !: ndoilPA by the hoard of cc: Applicant V-' Sltnervlaors of t'mura Crisin Cnunty, California. on Planning the date shown. ATTE.IzT: .l. n. t71,SSO.N. Connly Geek!esofficlo Clerk of said hoard or Supervisors, County Counsel by Deput Clerk. RESOLUTION NUMBW 74/772 ----- - �� _� _� e•� varm THE PLANNING COMMISSION or TH! COUNTY or CONTRA COSTA STATE or CALIFORNIA Conditions for Approval of Preliminary Development Plan for Blackhawk (1840-AZ) 1. This approval is based on Exhibit I which is the Blackhawk master Plan (Preliminary Development Plan) recnived December 20, 1973. 2. with the filing of the first Final Development Plan, the developer shall submit a detailed phasing schedule which deals with the phasing for utilities, schools, roads, drainage, commercial areas and all resi- dential units and projections as to how many units will be developed on a phase basis. 3. An amended Preliminary Development Plan at the same scale or at a larger scale shall be submitted between the time of approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and the submittal of the first phase of the Final Develop- ment Plan which reflects the changes required by these conditions. 4. All yard and height measurements as they pertain to the detailed single family residential lots shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. The guide used to establish these dimensional requirements shall be the R-10 District of the Zoning Code except that lots shall have 100' average wil ths. S. The design of all units in the cluster areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Director- of Planning as to the layout, design, building plans, elevations, building materials, color and other pertinent features. 6. Each of the Final Development Plans shall indicate the street alignments, lot design and open space with the design being contingent on a grading plan for the area impacted. The emphasis shall be on sculptured on contour grading. 7. The maximum number of dwelling units shall be 4,200. It may be that this number will be reduced subject to Final Development Plan reviews. Conditions for Approval of Preliminary Development plan 1840-M - llaekhank Development Paqe 2 t. The cluster areas identified as a, C and D, shall be permitted a den- • sity of approximately 6 units per acre. Clusters identified as L, M, E, F, G, H, I and K shall be permitted a density of approximately 10 units per acre. Cluster J may be aeveloped as multiple-fmily rental units with a density of approximately 20 units per acre. Multiple areas A and N shall be developed as single-family residential lots.. The final determination as to the cluster densities shall be subject to the Director of Planning. It may be that the densities will be increased or decreased dependent upon the cluster designs submitted and their application to the respective sites. An important considera- tion will be the establishment of meaningful open spaces between the clusters and the terrain upon which the clusters are situated. 9. Supplemental E•IRs shall be written for each Final Development Plan of the project. • i 10. Detailed soils and geologic studies shall be performed for each Final Development Plan. 11. Eliminate the 7.5 acre commercial area and substitute residential lots from the most easterly portion of the property. 12. Each o6 .the F&W Vevetopment P•tan6 6haU avoid .the numww eon6tic" o6 go•t6 t4a66ic and vehi.cu.ta& tna66ic, e6peeia,tty at majoh .inteuecti.on6 and en unee to .the devetopment. 13. A66uming a change .in .the cZtcatati.on etement o6 t to Genenat Ptan, a pn.opo6ed hoad 640m Camino Tai56aja4a .to Btaekhawk Road o4 an atteuate 60tUtion 6aitab.te to .the ViAecton o6 Ptanning, Pub•ti.c Wonk6 and .the Ptanning CommiSti.ion 6hatt be 6uitt concuAAenUy with Pha6e 11. • 14. Camino Ta66ajana 6hatt be cons thue.ted eoneaAAent with Phase III ati a Sour eane anteAiat 61com Cnow Canyon Road exten6.i.on to Syeamone Vattey Road o,% an atttennate, 60tution aeceptabte to the Di4eatoh. o6 Ptanning. Pubt i.e Wo4k6 and .the Ptanning Commiz4 i.on. Conditions for Approval of 1840-RZ Page 3 • 15. PUM to .the conattuction 06 Phase V, .the extension 06 CkM CanyoK Road to the e.i to shah be conatWattd oR an dUeAr to eotwtion acceptabte .to tk ftteofta o6 Planning, Public woRke and the Ptanning CommWion. 16. A detailed traffic analysis and study which indicates both the elackhawk traffic and total traffic on each of the off-site roads to the elackhAwk project shall be submitted with each phase of development. 17. The inteAmt road ayatem shalt be deai.gned to con6nm with .the p%incipat accede aowtea, namely Sycamote Valley Road extenaion and CRow Canyon Road extenai.on. 18. The developer shall submit details on hydrology and hydraulics to the Public Works Department for each of the phases of development. The design of drainage facilities shall emphasize the preservation of the streambeds Sin their natural state. The use of concrete rip-rap and removal of trees shall be discouraged. It may be that impounding basins or reservoirs shall be utilized to control run-off to avoid channel widenings. 19. All utilities shall be placed underground. The project shall be served by a cable television underground system. No television antennas shall be permitted. 20. A community center site shall be set aside for the project which shall include a library facility, if it is ascertained by the County Librarian that a facility is necessary. 21. The project site shall be annexed to the P-2 (police) district. • 22. The appticant ahatt initiate 6oAmation o6 a Patch and RecAeati.on DistAi.et oa. County SeAvi.ce Mea and Local pan" aha.tl be dedicated .to that diet4i.ct bon development and maintenance in aecoddanee with .the Panh Land Vedi.ea- ti.on Ohdi.nance. The location and .type og pahk aha.tt be shown on .the KeviAed PKeLia6my Vevelopment Plan. Conditions for Approval of 1040-Ili Page 4 23. The trails shown on the Trails Pian additions to the General Pian • FAcreation Element shall be improved and dedicated to appropriate public agencies. 24. The development of the westernmost golf course and appurtenant facil- ities shall be developed simultaneously with the first phase of development. 25. Detailed plans and reports on the golf course administration and manage- ment shall be submitted with the Final Development Plan. 26. The private golf facilities shall be used primarily by members and guests. No major tournaments nor conventions shall be permitted on these golf courses. 27. Dedicate,.to .the State UepaMnen.t o6 Parks and RecAea,ti.on the area • genenatty .located between At. D.iabto State Park and .the 1,000 600.t eteva- tion contour.. FLnat de.tenmina.ti.on as to ,Die size, shape, use and when .this area shaft be dedicated shaft be determined by .the Diuctor. o6 Ptanning .in conjunction uti.th .the devetoper.•and ,the State DiAectoh o6 Parke. In .the event that arrangements cannot be worked out 4atie6actonUy between .the above panties, tJUA condition can be b►tought back be6ore .the Ptanni.ng Comniseton. 28. The "development rights• to all the open space not dedicated to the State Division of Parks and Recreation shall be dedicated to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map on each phase of development. 29. Pni.o,% to .the con6tthuction o6 Phase I, .the sehoot site shown within . Phase I on .the Pheei,min"y Devetopmenct Ptan ahatt be dedicated .to .the achbot distoti.ct. The ava tabiti ty o6 achoot housing and Ae agneemen.t between .the San Ramon Uni6.ied Sehoot and .the devetopeh 6hxU be consider.- ati.ons .in deteAsi.ni.ng whether subsequent phases o6 .the pRo jest 6hatt be approved as each phabe ,is reviewed boa appnovat. Conditions for Approval of 1640-As Page S 3o. The ge vwl seta aumouadi.ng the ahopp&g centeh .inctudi.ng .the shopping centtn. ahaU be eapeei UV nevi wed da to iU Rand uae aetatio►uh,i.p4 pn.iol to dppnovat o6 .the li a,t pkat#_ o6 devetopment. The neighborhood chanaeteh o6 the ahopping center 4hatt be tmpha.ized. 31. Prior to Final Development Plan approval• the developer shall submit information indicating how the open space is to be established, owned, and maintained. 32, Approval of this proposal is based on the revised plan submitted December 20, 1973. However, each segment of this proposed development shall be subject to further review when the Final Development Plans are submitted. It may be that additional requirements, conditions, and/or modifications may be specified following review of the Final Development Plan. The con- ditions in this approval serve to give direction to the applicant in his • preparation of the Final Development Plan. 33. The developer shall provide a private feeder bus service after 1,000 units have been occupied and not later than 1,500 units. The feeder system shall furnish service to the nearest BART feeder line during 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, so long as such system is feasible after one-year of operation. 34. The developer shall create an Architectural Review Committee consisting of the Blaekhawk Development Co. and one member of the San Ramon Valley Plan- ning Committee to serve until 1,000 units are developed. After that, the developer may appoint a resident of the Blackhawk Development. 35. The 5-ache UwAhvA Quamy 4haU be dedicated .to .the Unlveuity o6 CaU6onnia. NLH:Iew S-i-74 I •NRTHER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TO DRAW EIR (1840-RZ) (A PART OB THE FINAL EIR) r Rys The Contra Costa County So&rd of Supervisors 0 Datods September 3, 1974 • CONTENTS Ptt e Introduction 1 General statement of factors warranting override of environmental suggestions or objections 2-5 Mt. Diablo State Park (1) Ultimate Dark Boundaries (expansion plans & history) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 (2) "Window" Suggestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (3) Impact on Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-A (4) 720 Elevation Suggestion . . . . . . . . . . . 8 • need for Added Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10 Regional Impact (Air Quality) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11 Physical Imnacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Vegetation & Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12 Growth Inducement/Meed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13 Financing of. Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 General Plan (1) Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-14 (2) ABAG Plan/Building in closer . . . . . . . 14 Valley Impact (Services) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a) Deferred Pending G.P. Study . . . . . . . . 14-15 (h) Availability of Services . . . . . . . . . . . 15-16 Conclusion CORM COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FURTHER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TO DRAFT EIR 1840-RZ (a part of the Final EIR) . August 26, 1974 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this statement is to provide further response to the "significant environmental points" raised during the review and consulta- tion process following release of the draft EIR as required by $15146 of the California Administrative Code. This statement is made by the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors as the lead agency with reference to 1840-RZ and it (together with attachments) is intended to be made a part of the final EIR as are Exhibits 05-017. Any project as large as Blackhawk (as opposed to a series of smaller projects collectively as large) inevitably raises a wide range of growth related concerns the answers to which are mainly subjective. Contra Costa County is in favor of economically sensible planned growth. Aside from the above issue, Blackhawk raises a set of other issues relating to the protection of Mt. Diablo due to the project's proximity to the mountain. As detailed later, this unique resource has been protected and Blackhawk helps to secure its future. Probably the most important suggestion to come out of the process was the requirement for supplemental EIR's and other studies for each final de- velopment plan as set forth in the proposed conditions 9, 10, 16, and 18 of approval for the project. These requirements, when combined with conditions 7, 8, and 32 (density controls and further conditions), insure that precise mitigation measures can be generated as each final development plan is processed. Thus, detailed study, updating and the input of the public will continue throughout the many years of the project. (See proposed conditions of approval attached.) I STATEMENT OF FACTORS NARPANTING THE OWERIDE Or SIGNIFICANT SUGGESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS • , Prior to a more detailed discussion of the significant environmental Issues raised and their disposition it helps to summarise why the Board is approving 1840-RZ. It is these primary factors which warrant the Boards approving this project overriding significant environmental recommendations and objections (including but not limited to denial, delay, significant reductions in density and retention as agricultural land) . Specifically, we are approving 1840-RZ with conditions attached for the following reasonnt 1. The Board is impressed with the Blackhawk Plan. The skill and sensitivity of the plan's preparation is evident through- out. The opportunity to precisely plan such a large parcel with so much attention to details and controls to be imposed is rare. 2. The Board of Supervisors appreciates the opportunity to expand Mount Diablo State Park by about one-third pursuant to the State's plans while preserving the people's view of the mountain at no public costs - (a) The park is now 7,500 acres and Condition No. 27 requires the dedication of approximately 2,700 acres of Blackhawk land to the State Park. (b) The land thus dedicated is all the Blackhawk land within the State Park's zone of ultimate interest and has a reputed value from 1.5 million to 2.5 million. (c) The development in the Blackhawk project (on 1,500 out of 5,000 acres) will be located in a valley such that it will have little or no visibility from the greater San Ramon Valley. 3. The Board is impressed with the economic benefits of the project as detailed in the Gruen, Fiscal Impact Study of May 7, 1974 con- tained in Exhibit #15 of the EIR and the letter from Michael Peevey, Director, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance of May 15, 1974 also contained in Exhibit #15 of the final EIR. 4. The Board is also impressed with the action of the County Planning Comission in approving the project. S. This board is not against growth so long as that growth is adequately planned. This Board is of the firm opinion that • 1640-RZ represents an illustration of excellent planned growth. G. This Board believes that 1840-RZ is not only consistent with our general plan but is in direct furtherance of the goals and object- ives of said plan especially as it relates to low density (.85 dwelling units per acre), 73% open space and strong reliance on the County's Planned Unit District Ordinance. 7. This Board will not ignore the reasonable requests of landowners to use their land in a totally expected and thoroughly reasonable manner - the Board thinks that Blackhawk's request is such an instance. Due to its being immediately contiguous to existing development and major services the property has been in a position for development for years. General plan documents have long shown road improvements, prospective school sites and residential develop- ment on a significant part of the property none of which would make sense if the property were not considered for development. The entire issue as to whether Blackhawk should be allowed to develop or be held in open space was reviewed during extensive hearings held in 1973 (see General Plan discussion below) . Population pro- jections set forth in the General Plan show that the growth that Blackhawk will be part of has long been anticipated and will not be upset by the advent of Blackhawk. Most of the Blackhawk property has been in the water and school districts for years. S. Valley residents concerns about Blackhawk, rapid growth and their impact on schools are answered by System's Planning Corporation analysis done for the School District on Blackhawk (a copy of which is incorporated herein and attached as Attachment B), the developers agreement with the schools district (also attached as Attachment C) and the County's proposed Condition No. 29. (See Attachment A.) 9. The Board of Supervisors recognizes the potential value of Blackhawk as able to absorb a great deal of growth with maximum controls thus allowing closer in areas of the valley to adjust to past growth and to formulate local open space action programs (which is why the Board ordered a general plan study of 'open space' within the urban areas during the 1973 open space hearings) . -3- • 10. With the concern over air quality the Board notes its imposition of condition Number 33 on the developer (a local commuter bus service), the large amount of on-site recreational amenities offered by Blackhawk and the creation of a neighborhood shopping center all of which will materially decrease reliance on the automobile (the major contribution to air pollution) . 11. The Board does not believe it is economic to keep these lands in agriculture or that public purchase is a possibility. The land will one day develop - we think now is preferable to later due to lessened ability of the applicant to adjust to the conditions after lengthy delay, i.e. delay may mean a far less desirable plan later or a series of smaller proposals. 12. The Board of Supervisors is also approving this application because of the developers agreements to donate, the fossil dig to the University of California. 13. The Board takes note of the projects strong support from organized labor reflecting their interest in employment and the desire of future Blackhawk residents to enjoy the benefits of this project. 14. The Board recognizes a need for the housing in the price ranges suggested by 1840-RZ noting that there has been and is now a demand for this type of housing. In deciding whether or how to approve Blackhawk, the Board is faced with " -• the task of balancing conflicting public objectives. This is not an easy task but it is our obligation. Even CEQA recognizes this balancing: ".....An EIR may not be used as an instrument to rationalize approval of a project, nor do indications of adverse impact, as enunciated in the EIR, require a project be disapproved. CEQA requires that major considerations be given to preventing environmental damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obligations to balance other objectives, including economic and social factors in determining whether and how a project should be approved." (California Administra- tive Code 815012) -4- As will be seen in the conditions and the below, the process has required • the consideration of difficult issues and produced a large number of sugges- tions which were incorporated into the conditions. The Hoard now addresses the other major environmental issues and/or points raised during the consultation process. MOUNT DIABLO Perhaps no issue of greater environmental significance has been raised than a set of questions concerning the impact of this project on Mount Diablo. This topic has been thoroughly covered previously and the function of this comment is to bring the data together so that some conclusions can be made. Mount Diablo State Park is 7,500 acres at present. Recently, Senator John A. Nejedly, Walnut Creek; Assemblyman Boatwright, Concords and, William Penn Mott, State Director of Parks and Recreation, have been trying to obtain funds to expand the Park. Prior to 1973, the State had prepared an ultimate boundary for the . Park which, among other things, showed some 1,000 acres belonging to Blackhawk Development Company as a desirable acquisition. The apparent rationale for that previous boundary was that it suggested buying to Blackhawk Ridge (a natural and visual barrier between the Blackhawk property and the State Park) . In 1973 the State Department and our local legislative delegation held hearings in Contra Costa County on redefining the Park's ultimate boundary. Representatives of Blackhawk were invited to appear and a copy of the Blackhawk plan (filed 30 days later) was presented. Representatives of appeared several local groups/including "Save Mount Diablo". That group recommended that the ultimate boundary of the Park should be expanded to Blackhawk Road, hence eliminating about 25% of the proposed project. Thereafter Blackhawk filed its plan (July 1973) which showed the original 1,000 acres being dedicated to the Mount Diablo State Park, with no development above the 1,000 foot mark, with no development visible from any major roads or existing development such that another 2,500 acres (a total of 3,500 acres of 5,000) was being kept open. In December 1973, William Penn Mott wrote to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors indicating: -5- (1) That the boundary of the Park had been re-established to show • all the land between Blackhawk land being developed and the • State Park boundary (hence showing about 2,700 acres of Blackhawk lands within the ultimate Park boundary) . (2) That the Blackhawk Company had been approached but wished to hold the other 1,700 acres as a private preserve rather than as part of the State Park. (3) That the Director wished the board's aid in the situation. NOTE: See Attachment'No. 2, J.A.R.A. Report, May 24, 1974, Exhibit 1115 for COPY of Mott's letter and p. 7 of County Response EIR Exhibit 1117 for the revised ultimate Boundary map. Subsequently, the Mount Diablo Regional Group of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club agreed to endorse the Blackhawk project in consideration for (among other things) the dedication to the State of the lands referred to in the Mott letter and the State Map. See statement of Michael Fischer, President of the Mount Diablo Division of San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, Pages 7 - 13 of County Planning Commission Minutes, Exhibit V. The local group's action and its endorsement was • reversed by the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club such that the - developer withdrew his agreement to the dedication. The County Planning Commission in approving the project required the dedication of the entire 2,700 acres. (See Condition No. 27) . The developers have argued that this step is beyond the Board's power but the Board of Supervisors finds such power within our general plan (especially the open space element) and out Planned Unit District Ordinance. Developers often ask for density transfer and the Board, in approving this application, could (within its powers) significantly lower applicant's proposed density and is not doing so, in part, because of this requirement. After recent local meetings with Senator Nejedly and William Penn Mott the Boardof Supervisors is aware that the State has four million dollars for Park expansion from Proposition 1. The four million dollars thus allocated is reported to be all the funds available in the foreseeable future and is • not sufficient to complete the expansions planned by the State per the new boundary map. -6- It has been suggested teat the Board of supervisors delay Blackhawk pending a suggestion that the State Park and Recreation Commission revise its current plan extending Mount Diablo State Park to Blackhawk Road. The Board of Supervisors thinks that the State's position on this suggestion is clear from the above and attachment Number 3 to the J.A.R.A. memo of May 24, 1974 (contained in Exhibit 15 of the EIR) wherein W. Penn Mott says on March 24, 1974: "Speaking specifically to your question regarding the 'windows on the mwntain' concept, lands fronting on Blackhawk Road which lie below the 1,000 foot contour are not included in our current priority list." The proponents of the "window theory" might suggest we delay this project pending the obtaining of private financing or the formation of a special Service District for purchase of these lands. This Board sees no evidence of any such plans or even interest in such an undertaking. The Board could possibly follow the "windows" suggestion by requiring Blackhawk to dedicate the "window" as well as the other lands. The Board believes this suggestion would impose an unfair economic burden on the • developer, diminish the probability of the project proceeding and therefor defeat the acquisition of the 2,700 acres by the State. The Board of Supervisors thinks that the interests of Mt. Diablo are best served by action now on an expansion of the'Park by over one-third without public cost while fulfilling the objective of protecting the mountain's visual integrity in furtherance of the State's ultimate boundary plan. While there would seem to be no question that the profound impact of the proposed project on the flora and fauna occurring on the ranch, the direct impact on the biotic community of the mountain itself is unknown. It is presumed that the State took these factors into consideration in proposing the ultimate Park boundary. It is thought that more precise study and the development of more exact mitigation measures can be best handled at each final development phase as the project progresses. In this regard the requirementof supplemental EIR's contained in Condition Number 9 is noted as are the proposed mitigation measures contained throughout the final EIR. See pages 39-44 of Staff Responses, Exhibit N4. Questions concerning the project's impact on park capacity are well covered at Page 5 of Staff's responses, Exhibit N4. While the development of Blackhawk will certainly generate added users it is unsure as to whether the denial of Blackhawk will certainly generate added users it is unsure as to whether the denial of the Blackhawk proposal would materially alter • the Park's potential capacity problems. Those problems seem more related to automobile traffic and the use of very limited picnic facilities than to the Park's actual carrying capacity for other uses. One related suggestion (stated without elaboration) was that development in the project should be limited to below the 720 foot elevation. This suggestion was a strong position by many groups during hearings on another valley project and the concept has little meaning in the case of Blackhawk due to its development occurring only in valleys, the fact that the valleys themselves are frequently above 700 feet and the minimal visual impact of Blackhawk. NEED FOR ADDED DATA A number of comments to the draft EIR suggested that the draft (Exhibit 1) didn't contain sufficient information on a number of vital matters. These comments are met in a number of ways. First, staff prepared its response and answered most questions. See . Exhibit M4. • ., Second, applicant generated (through its consultants) an index to where the answers to a number of the questions could be found. Letter of James Roberts, dated May 24, 1974. See Exhibit #15. Third, the Commission's order included the final EIR Exhibits 5 through 17. Fourth, this Board by this statement and attachments makes further response to these problem areas as is more fully set forth herein. Fifth, the Board has ordered a study (now underway) of the San Ramon Valley, its growth and the General Plan. This Board (in a step not required by CEQA) is requiring supplemental EIR's and other studies during final development plan consideration (See Conditions 9, 10, 16, and 18 of the County's Planned Unit District Ordinance regarding final development plans) and by Conditions 7, 8, and 32 (controls) has given the Planning Department and Commission more than adequate tools to further study problem areas and propose mitigation measures as each detailed element of the plan is reviewed. These powers are in addition to those set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. It is concluded that the data contained in the impact report is more than adequate forpurposes of the approval of a preliminary development plan with the controls here specified. CEQA provides: .....The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment." (§21061) California Administrative Code §15146 provides: ".....The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity described in the EIR. "... (b) An EIR on projects as the adoption or amendment of a com- prehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan shall focus on secondary effects that can be expected to follow from adoption, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." The Board can readily see the impact that the injection of 15,000 people over a 12-15 year period upon vacant land contiguous to existing development . but surrounded bf.Mount Diablo State Park and undeveloped land. The Board doesn't need mathematical precision in recognizing the numerous inevitable adverse impacts detailed here and elsewhere as a result of this project and the prospective growth elsewhere discussed. Also, Blackhawk will induce public expense, lessening of air quality, climatic changes, development of contiguous property, new roads, construction noise, demand for services, sewer extension water extension, water tanks, additional traffic and flood control problems (including flooding itself, erosion, sedimentation and potential damage to natural water courses) . The environmental impact and growth inducing impacts of this activity is well understood. So too, as detailed herein, is the other side of these factors. As stated in the introduction, the Board finds good and compelling reasons to override these impacts in the process of balancing competing interests. Further, the Board finds that the level of specificity desired by some is unnecessary at this stage. We doubt that more data would add to this dis- cussion unless one were interested in getting into a scientific debate or into the final consideration of a myriad of possible mitigation measures too detailed for this le#el of approval. Also, detailed studies of the sort suggested by some would be obsolete by the time the project started, would take years to do and are economically beyond the capacity of this or any other jurisdiction. Supplemental EIR's on each of the final plans of this under- taking will be prepared. It is at that time that detailr-d mitigation measures (including a reduction of Blackhawk density or other controls) may be considered. Some of these major impacts mentioned above are considered below. REGIONAL IMPACT (AIR QUALITY) : At the hearings a great deal was said about the lack of data on the regional implications of the project. Any defects in this regard is supplied by the expanded data found in the final EIR. Regionally, the most significant issues are air quality, traffic, public transportation and population growth and distribution. Inasmuch as the General Plan has forecasted the valley's 1990 population at 115,000 since the 1960's, an added 15,000 persons should not and does not come as a surprise. ABAG's differences with our General Plan are discussed in that section. It is thought that Blackhawk's contribution to population growth was expected and should not produce any real difficulties regionally. A major issue here (discussed under growth inducement) is the question related to the location of this projected population. One issue of importance is the negative impact of Blackhawk on air quality which is a by-product of the automobiles to be driven by Blackhawk a residents. Reference is made to the discussions of air quality impacts con- tained in the County Staff Response, Exhibit 4, Pages 54-73. (Special note should be made of the contrast of requests for added study by the State and BAAPCD). While following the State's suggestion and in not following the sug- gestions of B.A.A.P.C.D. (expressing the view that it is the district which should be doing the preparation of these models) we think that the Staff comments combined with the Myronuk study (attached as Attachment RD) gives us a most adequate picture of the air quality problem. In addition to the other reasons for approval previously stated we are approving this application in view of this air quality data because: 1. The problem of air quality can be better controlled by control of automobiles design and use than attempting the more awkward device of land use regulation. 2. That air quality control is a problem best solved at the regional and national level. 3. Knowledge that the federal E.P.A. has in effect and that the BAAPCD is now studying rules regulating indirect sources. 4. A realization that Blackhawk will take 12-15 years to build and that hoped for technical advances and increased use of public transportation should alleviate the problem with actual air pollution levels in the Bay Area now on the decline despite growth. 5. A view that 15,000 people r.t Blackhawk with bike trails, local recreation, local shopping and private commuter transit is preferable to the same 15,000 people located elsewhere without the amenities described. 6. The Board also notes that B.A.R.T. is to provide a feeder bus line into San Ramon Valley. PHYSICAL IMPACTS: ' Offered as grounds for denial, delay or a reduction in density were comments about "massive grading", "soils instability" and "geological question marks". A great deal of supplemental data on this subject is presented in the EIR, sufficient to approve the project with the conditions imposed. The developer is planning to build only in the valleys (under 20% in slope) on some 1500 of 5000 acres. The conditions require more detailed studies via supplemental EIR's for each individual final development plan. (See Staff Responses Exhibit #4) . If the problems predicted by some materialize, the density set forth in conditions 7 and 8 (a maximum and not a minimum) can be reduced. Flood control impacts, studies and constraints are covered in condition #18. The Board of Supervisors is approving the application, recognizing that any significant reduction in density would be detrimental to the plan, raise the per unit cost, lessen the developer's ability to perform the con- ditions imposed and increase the possibility of the project not proceeding. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: The Board is well aware of the adverse impacts that this development will have on the plant and animal population now on the ranch. One cannot take 1500 acres of land and develop it without changing the ecology of the area affected. ' Additional inventories and reasonable mitigation measures will be in- -11- • stituted throughout the development via supplemental EIR's and the .conditions can be used to protect the on-site ponds and streambeds upon more detailed review. Balanced against these factors is the 73% of open space, the provision of a pleasing environment for people and the other reasons advanced in the introduction. GROWTH INDUCEMENT/NEED/WISDOM: Frequently cited as a reason for denial of this project are the "growth inducing" impacts it will have. There is little question but that this development via the availability of services (sewer, water and roads) will put pressure on adjoining property for development just as growth in the valley put pressure on Blackhawk to develop. It is the responsibility of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, EBMUD, and LAFCO, in addition to the County to agree on an ultimate growth • line beyond Blackhawk by determining the limits of utilities and services. The growth of the region was long ago induced. The Caldecott Tunnel, BART, Interstate 680 and the economic vitality of the San Francisco Bay Region have all played a role. Communities such as Orinda, Lafayette, and Walnut Creek have during the 50's and 60's gradually received their share of growth. These communities are nearing their carrying capacities as developers turn to the Valley to fill a constant demand for housing. Some may wish to stop or slow this growth trend of which they are part by controlling the some 40,000 Valley acres which are undeveloped in San Ramon Valley. This Board sees the need for the type of housing represented by Blackhawk (reflected by constant demand) end plans to accommodate the need with- in the limits of good planning. The topic of need brings up a potentially more troublesome question con- cerning the lack of low to moderate income housing in the plan. The developer has tried to provide a fairly large range of housing but has by no means met the needs of the moderate income family. The best answer to all of this is that the solution requires national -12- (not just local) attention. Building costs, consumer preference, land prices, lending practices, wage disparity and environmental requirements all take their toll in putting housing out of the market for many. Blackhawk is doing as much as it can by providing a range of housing prices and types. A corollary to this is that any major increase in density could (while lessening prices) also increase environmental damage while lessening tax benefits of the proposal. Conversely, any material decrease in density could raise prices, improve the environmental and fiscal impacts unless the reduction is so great as to cause reduction or elimination of amenities. The Board sees a need for the range of housing here offered and believes that Blackhawk represents a reasonable reconciliation of all interests involved. FINANCING OF GROWTH An issue has been raised regarding the properiety of using public funds to finance growth. (See County Economic Supplement Exhibit #2 and #3) . In the private sector, banks, and in the public sector, governments • (usually special districts) regularly finance improvements. In Blackhawk's case, the project and its residents will more than pay their own way in the long range. (See Gruen Fiscal Impact Report, May 7, 1974 at Exhibit 15, Final EIR) . Blackhawk is in one sense an investment which will ultimately produce dividends that can be used either for tax reduction, increase services, or in making up the tax difference in less expensive projects. From an economic standpoint the Gruen analysis indicates that in the case of Blackhawk it is better for the County to allow the develop- went than to have the County purchase the property. Also, from an economic position, to invest public funds, or to have the land remain in unprofitable agriculture, to prevent the realization of a potential long range benefit to the County would be unwarranted. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Board has read and considered the arguments regarding general plan compliance fully set forth in Exhibit #14. Based upon the foregoing and the County's composite General Plan, the Board has concluded that 1840-RZ (with conditions proposed) is consistent with the General Plan in that the various -13- land uses to be authorized are compatible with the objectives, , policies, general land uses and programs specified in the plan. In reaching this conclusion, the Board of Supervisors was persuaded by the applicant's analysis. • Prior to 1973, 40% of the Blackhawk property was shown for low density development with 60% agriculture. In 1973 Staff approached us with amendments to our General Plan (required by State law) designating land as either "Urban- growth" or "open-space". The Board of Supervisors considered the Blackhawk lands during the course of its hearings on the Open Space Element of the General Plan. At that time the Board of Supervisors allowed consideration for dovolop- ment of Blackhawk by specifically including the following language in adopting the Open Space Element. This language is as follows: "It is expressly understood that the lines defining open space are imprecise. Where a given land holding is bisected by the line indicating open space, the entire -parcel may be con- sidered for development to the same extent that it would have been had the land holding lain entirely outside the line defining open space." The ABAG plan which could be identified as in in-filling to land develop- ment sought to draw a line which would have limited all development except within the urban growth area. • IMPACT OH THE VALLEY (GROWTH) : Throughout the hearings the discussion focused upon growth in the Valley of which Blackhawk is a part, Blackhawk is expected to contribute 15,000 people by 1990. Some have alleged that Blackhawk will stimulate growth of the Sycamre Valley for an added 28,000 persons by 1990. Presently there are approved de- velopments in the Valley which total approximately 8,000 dwelling units which could generate an additional 26,000 people. Thus, assuming all of the approved units including Blackhawk are built prior to 1990, there would be approximately 100,000 people in the Valley. The current General Plan for the Valley (area #8 and #9 combined) project the 1990 population as 115,000 people. The County is aware of this potential growth and is addressing itself to it by the General Plan Study currently under way in San Ramon Valley. This Board of Supervisors sees no need to delay Blackhawk pending this study. Our reasons are as follow: 1. While the population projections are of concern, they have yet to materialize. There is no reason-to assume that Blackhawk will be too far -14- r along when this study is completed and, to precude this Board from revising • Blackhawk as a result. 2. This Board completed (1968-1971) reviews of the General Plan for San Ramon Valley and in 1973 the Open Space Plan. 3. Assuming the adequate controls this Board has on Blackhawk, it is unreasonable and unnecessary to stop Blackhawk alone for two or three years. With regard to Blackhawk and the provision for services the Board would like to emphasize the following: 1. The Gruen Fiscal Impact Analysis, supra. 2. The San Ramon Valley School Study (attached) . 3. The San Ramon Valley Schools Agreement with Blackhawk (attahced). 4. Numbers 2, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16,' 20, 22, 29 and 33 of the attached Blackhawk conditions. The availability of sewer service and water is apparently not a problem given the economic reports and the controls imposed by the County Ordinance • Codes. The schools and roads issues, once very much debated are resolved by conditions 13, 14, 15 and 29. See also Gruen analysis and Schools Study. ____ Th© project will be stopped or modified if any of these vital services become unavilable. Subsequent EIR's and close liaison with other jurisdictions r,> over the years to come will, in this Board's view, provide an excellent opportunity for the accommodation of orderly growth. The Board considers the suggestion that the capacity of roads, schools, etc., to service projects should be available prior to their beginning is economically unsound. To provide capacity prior to need ties up public capital and represents an unacceptable speculation as to the vicissitudes of growth rates and patterns. This Board ofSupervisors rejects the suggestion that this project be denied and these people be housed in closer proximity to urban centers, for the reasons stated in the introduction. What would be the effects of such a decision? We see it only as a delaying decision that could possibly induce factors which could make it more difficult to develop the property with the benefits indicated in this plan. j -15- t,tJNc:LtlSlua • The major mitigation suggestions which still allow the plan to proceed have been incorporated into the plan via conditions or will be appropriately • reviewed with the final development plans. The other suggestions of delay, denial, or significant alteration'of the plan has been rejected for the reasons previously stated. �n. The within statement is not intended as an exhaustive tretis on the subject and the reader is encouraged to review the entire EIR for more detailed data. As this development progresses, the Board of Supervisors continues to invite the comments of the public on this project. This proposal has been subjected to one of the most thorough reviews this Board of supervisors tins experienced. • • -16- t SM r `fir AMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ASIAN J.PesEnsaoaF.6vPWAV*nMnt 3300 East Crow Canyon Road,San Ramon,California 44588 April Z3, 1974 San Ramon Valley Planning Committee 300 Diablo Road Danville, California 94526 Attention: Dr. Joseph Hirsch, Chairman Gentlemen: The Board of Education of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, at its Regular Meeting of April 22, 1974, received the attached letter from Mr. Robert Carrau, President of Blackhawk Development Company, The Board of Education accepted the proposal and stipulated that it meets the requirements of the Board of Education Policy on the Availability of Schools adopted January Z1, 1974. ! The Board of Education therefore feels that Blackhawk Development Company has satisfied the school district's requirements in respect to the issue of schools. Very truly yours, $ Allan J. P/etersdorf Secretary to the Board of Education AJPI jv i attachment 415 one Telep h 837— 1511 { j f • BLACKHAWK April 220 1974 Development Company SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT \ 3300 East Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, California 94583 Attention: Mr. Robert Arrigoni, Chairman Board of Trustees ho i l (. Gentlemen: Please accept this letter as our agreement, if our pending r' �..� ....... :. zoning application is approved in due course, to comply with your current Board of Education Policy on Availability of Schools (adopted January 21, 1974 , a copy of which is attached hereto) . We will abide by your policy whether or not the Board of Supervisors adopts an ordinancb enforcing same. The commitment made herein is made subject to the Board of Trustees, by April 23, 1974 , notifying, in writing, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Planning Commission and the Valley Planning Committee that we have com- plied with all the wishes of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and that with respect to the issue of schools, you have no objection to the approval of our project. Very truly yours,,-� BLACKHAWK DEVELOP,': ,NT CO., i Robert W. Carrau, President RWC/js Encl. i 3171 Blackhawk Road Post Office Box 807 • Danville, California 94526 (415) 837-1571 Z O N Q 1� O ac O H Vol r Z 00 a �yQ ?A % AvAoto Z Q .4 .4 too A �+ H W • u eo •.+ 'a fQ 'C C'S • Q! ,O L L L 0 1 O 4) ai C O •v 1-4 w a •v 0 o w a .-4 u w •v 0V4w010c! to � 4) Ai 1 0) 14cd0) W � uto0)). 0V4u �" 6 4) oot � 44 u O 'O U A w 4 u L .� M •,q .G W rd •r4 M u M b 4) L -4 00-A lE •f4 C w Cd M r4 0 > C 0 w u cud > O ' 0 i - u 4)aO .-4 O M00 w x •y 4► m RI 4) rd x u w 0. C o M '3 M to .-+ M C a+ u M 0 O O L }, O r-1 4) r-1 d O M w w Mp,r•4 C .0 O b E ri 14 •r1 O > w w O 'l 6 0 U O O C Rf Aj > aJ t0 M .a od u w d! " a M eU � W 144 � ca 0 O Ai 0 > O L 1J Jd P O c L U �J O L a ed 0 w ed C p,rl to r-4 M C O w 41 ,C LJ .0 GJ = 4 O m >, M 0 r 4 •rl 0 M CA cd r4 O 4 M O 6J a Q) •0 W Q) -4 O O 4 0 w w � Ai O O 4J w w O bO u w .0 0 w tO a C 4) r, U M U r-4 u •,A .0 Q) -4 c� 7 4 U > 0 1Q0 .G c0 c0 R .0 4) 'O U 4) u O c0 M 4) r-1 •r4 4,Jw 4 J U ) 00-A C �.' C 8 M X r4 M -4 w •'-� M 1 C M w LJ w 0 00m 4) M -4 C 4) aJ 43 4) p4 �7 W •r4 r 4 1 •rl M 4) 4) u 0 aJ 0 > C •r4 O w r 4 i 1 L O :1 b U >T w M C L O •A 4) .0 4) w d u t0 CL 41 C b Q) QE) •r4 O Li M 3 6 'o x w 0p), as .0 m � � � M V C 0 m 0 w 0 � C u as 4) L JJ 14 CO M O u M u b •d AJ O 4) U w Fa Q) •,4 L 0) >> O • p.W A A G M C w M M 'O' C w8 O 44 'rl wQ. 0 � _� 'ri fA ti 4) •� w C •. 4) L 00 r-1 M L 00 0 r- C 4) w N L1 v �0 .0 M 0) Cl 4) w C 41 t0 C 'U L1 C •,4 w 44 w o w u C u u b v r-1 ,4 aJ 4) 41 Q 4) 0 C 0. 4) M O M O C +J - (1) C 4.1 " M w L r+ 4) u -1 w -A 3 0 (1) 0 M 0 4) .0 O u 11 O U u O r-1 LJ ,C o U M aJ •r1 00 0 O M C 0 0 0 u aJ 41 u u M 41 C CL 0 •r1 C -AC •.1 (A w L u a C M •a .0 .0 O M >,aJ cd aJ 4) O U C Cl >>'C .0 -A4) w •.1 U 1J -+ 41 •r) M•.1 0 Q• 01 C O M u aJ .4 ^ w .0 b O 41 w ti 0 w a'C JJ C) u 0 CJ M 0 41 :3 w L 4J •H AJ r-1 4J Cd u C M 0 pa w JJ P4 M L M C O w 4) M 4) O C (1) M 4) M M •.1 4) JJ O 0) M LL r1 w 07 g- 0 O 1d •r4 Q C •w 00 0.10 O •r1 M U 'A . 4) v . w ,C G. 4) 4 w C M 4) O '0 4) 4) a CO 4) 4) 14 O C ed .O •r) b .O C v Lq r-1w -4 > r1 .0 0 r••1 ed JJ 10 LJ •rl U •rl •rl R1 w M 01 rl C bJ M M O Cl •r4 0 r1 > > U.4) iJ JJ 0 •r4 0 W .0 a M w o 4) w M b M {r M u U 4) 4) cd r4 C •r•1 w C .0 4) •ra •rl O 4) 4) O O cn 'p ,'Sr U dr 4 w P. 0 ♦J M w M U@ w M LJ i . _.. .-.-��.�-3/•—..•�-+mow+--�.-�-.�_r w--+ �•..s. -w- .� ....-.- w CQ CQ .3 go PIRO O O o � o q O .o �. . 412 ^" + w PO O w V 1q t0 1 L 41 M •r1 6 a) u .94 L W ty O 0 O .a •C t (A 9244 1 ao) wtoD gu mci ° t�°aa0 >% 0) 44 'v A •r� BIC ^ 1060 4) CU 44V-164L 600 41 -Aae yy,e� w �1 oLa41 ar M oMara w 'oa) 0 O L {1 L tom 00 W •r1 O u M �0 •rl r1 al •rl .-1 M -A C4 b ii 'O C M O 44 g .0 O u .-� al O r4 t0 X M M 8 0) u t0 a� •A .0 O w 14 r•' '� u co °n.r-1 (d u o Aj M -%to O 0) 101 O 4 0) 9L.0 y 4) r4 O a) � W -A - r-1 0 co to U w C 0 �o .n .0 ,C CL M u 44 U L M 0 0. w O. w u '0 O L '0 0 .0 bL U M Lal O U O u L r 1 u 0 C 0 0 0 o M 4) 4 4) C m L C to M rl M JC •rl w N M x to 4) '0 4) -N L E •r4 �'•r1 w A 4) •P4 .0 •F4 w •r4 L L a! >, 0. C 0 H .o o r.4 - 044 > O C w 0 L w 0 0 A L 0! •F4 a) w 14 p, C w -n E � 4) N CL M M •r1 •r•1 $4 �O 0) L 0) .o L •r1 4) .0 ^ .0 0. O t0 j 4j •,4 CL M L 60 CL a w ^ 0) .0 4) N •ra u .0 L M M to 8 0 93 o 41 • w L .0 w .. m L a) w >,L 0 a 4) >,a "0 4i 1 $4 •rd 0) M L u a) 0) L •^ L �? CL ,, M M '0 O w ri > 0 w w O to >.,L 41 '0 •r1 0) b C • > 00 L M co b n M w C4) w .L' L0 N c3. 4) 66 w •,,4 0 4) 0 •rt 4) C C C •r1 U C 0 >,L M 'U L u M CL (d >J O E 4) M E M 0l M •A O Q1 b C to 'C u M > 0 3 o L co >, C L O 00 N M a a) A w u O O M rc O a) .O .0 w C 0 u L m 0 .1-4 C N HM -q M E td '0 0) O M C 4 '0 M w •11 .0 O O w w 0) u O x L .14 '0 v •r1 .0 o 6o U C 0) M 00 •r1 L O O N L L 0) -4 E O w 0) -4 L to 10 O •^ W .0 .0 r1 C 41 .0 •,4 1 .0 4) M w •r4 to E w •n 0) 0 a .0 N (V O L 0 w w 0 b •r1 L .G M O 41 >, a) r•4 E C M O 0) L 0 O > '0 .--1 O L 0 w •r1 .0 0) r-t C 't 41 1" 41 4) 4l C b u 0 O > w td M a) C Rt rn 4) -A M a C C L M cd w ON u E O co M 0. C M M M M R.'0 m > E C o •r1 3 ¢ N 0 W ra -0 Cl E E 4) N 0 w •r1 4) 4) -% 0 M •A N 41 C 'v O 0) 0) a� w td O m V > -4 .c w e 'o to OD E 0 w o C a1 E O C li co '0 L L w C 0 .O U O w 0 C r-4 0) 0) to •r+ •r 4 O r 4 N co M N 41 L .0 (D 4) M N O .0 td f"i w w N •^•11 C A CL M .4 b L L CL.n C -4 '0 44 $4 >,.0 N C -o M •,4 rl A '0 N C 0 0 0 0 Cs. 0) u a. O W CL 4) '0 W O L 4) L co •r1 .0 41 O w AC '0 .-•1 4) O C A -4L M L cd O 00.-1 .,4 0 w 0 O CL N .0 .0 a) •rl L cd O •ri N •4 CO L w C M L 0 C O.41 C 4) L N L 4) L 'L7 .0 L N M • > .)L •r1 .0 N L C U M 4) •rt 4) .0 E •rt ,C . U 4) N >, N N w C 4) U N •rl o '0 L •.! w u A U •d 0 > E .S N L •rl a) 'o al 0) •r♦ co rr� N L •r1 w •r1 CL C U w co a) 0 W w CL ^ w •H E G 'O L M L :a N 0) L ^ I t ,C co c CLC 4) •r1 0 .0 0.-1 4) w L 4) 0 w 4) r 4 •rc CO C M ra .,.1 -4 U L O 0) 3 E O 0) a1 w •n a O .0 L C N M . r-c Q) E N M 0 +•1 L cd w _4 r-1 ^ . .0 'o to •r1 CL.a M O •r1 > L f{� U 4) O L M0 C 4) 33 4) CL w 0 U N ^� c 0) C L w CL u (L) C (n U iJ •r1 r4 N E to E .0 C .,4 O C O > O u 0 M M a) L Y td U L O M E 'rl w 4) O C 0.L r•i •r) .-1 •4 U i% O L U H •4 4) r-1 •r1 a) u •r1 w 0 C CO cd cd •r4 W 00•rl r-1 r-t •rl O b E M •r1 A 0) GA L M M u u 4 10 4) 4J ;1 0) W O O O u w W •r1 u O 0) CL M cd L •rr C 0 > 3 0 00 O > M .n E -rl O w M •H C P. L (V M w 41 4) 4) U r♦ w C •4.1 Q.' 4) •rt N 0) 4) L L W 0) R. E L u .w L •rt � -0 0) cd M U 4J QJ L r4 CL O M 0 4J •N L L •rE1 'L) 44)) 9 _4 o O0 u w O to r0m 41 oC � C C •r1 M L L 0 > -4 L r• b M W CL • 0 M o M C 44 �% w U eo O C G CL 0 L w r•1 0) co 0 C a. C W cd •rt w O U w 9 u 3 0 o rl m bo M u w u L L o a M N cd w > •n r1 R1 •rl cd V . ^ L 0 cn 3 (U .0 W M w rl u 41 4) 00 a) w w 4) L NM L u w C) M 60 C >, M rl C L w cd � E 1 C w O. 4J td w L -H -,1 O r-1 0) 0 cd rd 4) .O1 aJ C .-_i a) C .°O o 1 r r-1 C3. M ar % 4) r 4 .Md w 4O1 L U) 4w.1 E cid (d tt■y..:, 0 w .0 d r1 • ca r-1 td m r-1 0) •r1 .0 L 0 L Ora 4 M O co cab 0 w W >> d) cd P. W w g r-c M E L M r•-1 b o W w N L . 0) w C M O N 00 U W '0 -H r-4 4) > aL •r1 L C O L 'U w O C u N a) w 0) O 0 00 r-1 • C •ri v r4 00 >, O U 4) U C W L w N 0 > 0 L w r-1 O 0 C L CL C M '-1 e-s•rl 44 8 L U C '0 td cd O O •r1 u C L 4 -A •n O 0 - O - M •r1 4) cd CL N 44 C C N •ri .4 .--t L 0. r-1 'L) C C O o L A N ra bl° 0) •r4 00 w .'> 0 0 3 d) 0 •r1 Cn w PQ a \ 0 4) N to 1•1 0 L a) 1J 10 P, 0 w 44 to ^ N u O 0) 0) 0 w O }� O .0 w •r1 C cd M M w E N w C M 4) L C O C y cud 4,J C.1 a) /�W cd 4) L N H tai) L >, O � q EC0 Q) CL En y L w u %0 F O O 4) 0.-,4 4) O ,C • '0 4) •r1 L W •rt CO td u u r4 4) M w 41 >, td M n t0 •r1 O w N C > L L N 4) 7.L 0 C .0 .0 .'3 cd w m w 0 M 0) 0) W N 1` 94 L N O 0 co M L L r1 O •r1 L C 4-1 4) 0o 0 w 4) E w w u cd N Cd L C .0 O M •r1 U N r-•1 .O w 0) (V .0 C C C W .Z w u u C 0) w C U N 0) W U 0 C w .� •A 0 0 L N .0 M E L •r1 C U C U 4) N C C •r1 >�r 4 ccdd o CL C N N C •n u -0 '.7' w 3S r1 fj M cd •r+ 44 L •rl -A M C W N r•1 4) -4 O -rt L C •,1 O 0) co w O C N C 0 N w C W N O 0 4) O b •rt N •r4 w w 0 w .0 W O C .0 C r1 .0 cn (u 3 .,4 0 41 u 0) 00 0 cd w C aJ O M L (4-4 0 W rc O 4) >, 0) 0 43 o U M M M C M .0 C rc L O 0 C N 0) •r1 0 O • •r1 .0 M .O LE b E U a L L •r1 U 0) .0 O 4) w 01 L L O 'v N L L N M 0 0 C >, C 0 L ld cd '0 M 3 C w M0 C.) w al N C' U w w CL 4) w C L 0 cd .0 O M •rl 4) 4) r-4 •ri •1-1 C O •r1 L to O M Rf > 0 .0 L •11 E C C •n •r1 L >,r•1 44 M •r� r-t u 'IN a) b O O $4 '0 L Cb 0 •r1 .:1 b vb N L M L ^ O C C .0 r•1 .4 M co In ^ .0 41 C' M "a U L 0) cd 0 N co u cd w to a) C u O 4b� @ b O O L O r 4 4) $4 L w 0 L >, 0 u N 1-1 C 4J L M 4J 4) w N w •rl 0 0 0 0 0 O U U -A W •r1 N L O •rd 0) •r4 O C 0 L N N N 00 3 () 0) > 0 W •rl w M w L 3 3 $4 >, >, a tD C r a w 0 'O cd C C > w 0) r-1 •r1 L L C 4) L 44 C C u o w L o 000 41 M C .a H t ° M 0.r4 u .0 ° u a Z u o (tl ro w u 0 °° w Co >, u Lr4 C -4 M •rc u .0 O r-1 ^ 00 r'> 4 .--1 U L O D U Q) a) L 0"O 0 N O L >, 4) N 3 C .0 ..� co L cd N �7 C-. L 3 td N U to •rl •rc $4 .� R) 41 •n w U U M N cd Ci p4 O ^ w r-1 L > •d •rl C C •r1 CO rte• > r-1 4) 4) .0 aL a. 0 E cd > O lu •r4 L '0 -4 '0 0 O .0 .0 (A O 4) A... L N CL 1 0) CL E .0 >, L • M a w r-c w a) u 4) w' I.d A u w O '0 y! .O w H 4J 8 U C to E 7 w E •r4 C -4 N E .n a) O L N w ^ L y 3 •r1 CL 00 E a. 0 v c9 CL C 4) •r1 1� CL•rr L •r1 C N a) JJ o (A 4) u N 4) u �/� .00 1J 4w1 4 a) 0 b M • •0 r+ oG r4 a 'rrq tea) r-1 rte+ -4 C w M ° CO CLC 401 0 -A r. u O •4 •A r. O � 'O V U .N•1 > 0 to CC 4JJ a) O O 43) to > .'.L w a co L0) u C t�V CO > X. cCd rr-/ w >, CC2 L M U u >, u O w O td W A 4) .O 00 U > •r+ CL C cn 0) 3 $4 .-4 M •r1 ^ O H U O 00 w O C ^ 4J CO co CO L Q. pq r-1 00 •r4 0) w L N O 4) .0 >, W '0 •r1 w 4) 10 -A M w r-c O CL w a� .Y.. O >,r4 'O •14 L «1 111 '0 O .L•' .0 aL a7 I a) CO 00 O ^ 00 N C w 0.4 N w 4) .G L O rl r-1 b N L 6 0) N L u U r-t U L b r-1 C 0) = • C a) 4) W E L L 4) L 0 �+ r4 O ••1 0 C C@ M - C to rr C a r•4 cd J L y cd u L 44 td 3 0 M .0 L C O u 0 3 0 L O 4) to O C co rr 0 w 0) M O .0 cd 4) • .0 0) W •r1 �'. 4) a) O L 4) Co M fn w L4 N u L U .n r4 •r1 pd PQ '•> •r1 M 0 M u w E rt U C O 'o w 0 0 u 0 a U a •::':•: :;:�•:;:ti;:• •r q •VS•. y. :fit:=::'�*?_>:•:''•!: O W x'1•:4'"�:;:•i:•:. Vii, �• •.% :L •. ` i O •r�• r. 'Y •:t �( .V' •�r l �}f ••V r •4 S ri • l .l I • j .}irt:'•'.. F.»,;.. .•t { I'• .tr , a 'dr`�t�'• "�ft:tv7v. 1�; .;..•:iaj't*q::{cif• n ;; .. .. ...... •'•'l•,�t J.. :t.'.:.':• `•:•::•:!i':•i.'i i •:t�:! r'• S 1 _ - .. •• sit. ,t'•e+?`'r..•.f ............. go r o o .io .•1 r•1 aC: CO Q .7 t+1 In �O Cr1 dam° .Oo w d^D C rn ro C 0 IMO n1 U CO N N 41 f\ N $� O O to a h •rt C 'O O U to O O W q 41 a+ w O O U tA aA 0 c A' ,4 U .,4 w Ai 0 -�4 C LL ►d+ -4IA41 to rA 0 co a -HE CL 7 U L a O 'V O O tLU 6 G to OG C ci O ~ O a o ,C u C •rI A a •14 +•) 0 0 to r-, L L 4) W mto O to '� w U r 4 •r1 r-t o row •,+ 00 0 > • z aro a w 00 a O V. co to L C (: to d C3. M 'S `D � w a G O >1 p u ,CO m 0 y Q. h M h M b-: to h 0o a •rI L .14 U L t7 O v }a, N .-� O C u a r-1 •o C C: C: u L •o u O i., G U N o U �-•+ M M N-O r-i R! G .-r C]. O O 4 to •ra a c0 G m O m •rc W �7 N M L •r♦ to •r1 to a to W 44 •ri M CL m 1+ a mai u o a 0. a.•a G ¢ C4 � u ° y C .0 y .0 CO E a -4 O + h C to h Nm M 0° •r, t11 M y C O )r a •.� L M O O 4J �j �, . 00 3t a to ,C (n a '4 U CL .+ L c U .-4 U m C y . O O >, to a 0 a r t a U 1�� .t+ H .G a .a u L O N E O •rCi -4 M " y .0 L C Cs c7 1-4 ,;, L H r- v ai G o U a = a o G u G >,s N v E 00 G m w N •rc L a m L a U a •rl •rt .a h {'„ L C Q) r•I G U C U _C C tO W i = L am+ a M a L N W 00 LG+ O to "a -4 � � � t� N M fit: •.� U i W U ,4G L a N •-I 0 3 a C v o 43 cl n .[ou 'G ccoo Cl i LO a a r-I a.n 'o r-I ,..I a a w O C C w a u x G •a 4 rl co a. 0 G to tl a s to it ., +t 3 O G 10 .4 M to co to r-c r-I M to W G .-•c ., 0 0 e c 0 Q) a) >' O r4 .0 0 a a h0 a•rI O a -� u o •r, 0O L N 1-4 u u a V) (n -4L L L L H •gam 'r. x co co 0 •ra a 'D >. > E a G G u L t) 11 CS.N r-1 U C3.,p G O O a •.i H O a a C W to G to G f� .0 1 •r, .ro G M E -C L L a -w E E ).t a 1 O a a N 41 a 1 boa% 3a 04CO a N N >,r4 E to r-4 W W -0 .-1 .G L m LM co > L tr .rt G r., 00 N > c as a o v Ga a C]. O m o 0. G , U U O M a. a ., G co .,4 4 ad 'D 0, G as C G t4 C .O >, C >, a s -H O a W r+ a >♦ U H r-, to L C co U Cl L l) -0 til A L cn A ty u 1 L '0 1 V) •^ \ C • 4 (U tea) $4 a �h o t , rr w a 1 00 rn .+ r t . .0 o 0 4 o O & •rl a u w � O vi o L —4� o. -t ra n e a. O G •^+ a CL.-, >,= L to 0 h tq L 0 . �, N a • 0 0 0 0a% to 7 G E H a L C.0 r-, L e w d to 1.4 G N ') O -+ h o.. U O > r-1 -r CL O 0 W •rl th 8 O L In u a O G y L a)) U .-1 G L a u y C .a JME::3y` .-t C a•rd .-, w -A .,, a w In .0 N o •14 a H N O •11 O X O > a L u O a O r-+ O $4 to C a co L N W 0. [ L L O L .O a 0 -4 L C4 L O a r-I a [-I C].at • .c L ^ 0 cn .o C]. •r, •r, ^ L O W N k a C:.•rl 0o r4 ^ r•I a a u n L to O L 0 N cn L L C L O "a C: L L m 00 m N w 00•4 0O Cn G G a co G G v P: — L G G ,C G to a 3 w _C �t7 vLi Cao -Oi •rui - W a mE O O O •ri o° to L td •rI O r-1 C L O G G lr a O O y V •rt •rt G 1`� N t7 t0 t' L o 3.1 L GLLL oa, b� u 0 •. 8 ' L •� CL ttnn •° .a o 0a in a .rI O W U u rI r-I r-t r-+ a 'U 0 C V) V) W C 0 a .r ^ U (:L.,4 MM 0o 0 OG a G a L r-4 N cn a to C O to -4a o c1 W +J Cl G Q p p L y 0 C O a u O m •rl W a L •rI u •rI < ...t •rI „C •a M O to r-I G r-I C O .L' y L o ,.1 ,.z L LL.-4 •^t CL N G r-, to M•rc L V) H o O L E H a w rt 0o a •,1 r4 L O L O O •trl a m G L O G Cs.h CL C: a co •rI a r-, -+ N H U •rt 0 0 0 0 ^ w •� u a •rI to •r, O co 0 0 .0 m E +-t .0 G (V r•+ a to •rI S r-+ }, L J'- 14 V) 'O 0 r•I H U L ON CL•rl L --1 0 W L CL 00.-4 U L rI u 0 0o u h fA M v to 0 o a G .-+ 4-1 s~ v o o m •r+ ro 0 G L a w N 1 ro CL 1+ o 0. o v a -4 to to •••W r` ^ a W 3 W 0 ra t--� CO •rI o a o M to t:O.0 o W .c E G o .q L s' W m >, a .0 00 C a v 'v t. a •r, CL 0.L CL•A O O u N 0O•r+ .-4 a O > >, a too N w O R a a rn w O .0 N W 0. O .0 0. a G In r-, h M a .Z on •rI a ).+ oo 114 r-I to V) H O O L O L r-, a U O •,9 M •r1 h G r-d a, r-I L a O o0 oO 00 O W R) O t0 G a L to a. O N L 00 -A h O r-t r-I r-t .0 L L G a L •r1 ww •,4 to a O > c0 ►.I m m r-t 7 t0 m G •ra •rt 0 C G C 00 L . s.) a . z a -0 to .-, m .-t -4 to --I C > •r, C N -Z to .-4 0 a :3m oa G a to �a. 0 L 00 v a (v in o CU 44C m o a o 00 - O 0 o u 1 a E > >1 0 O C L L (A h CL C: 3 0 O L •ra a b .0 • 0. 0 0 •r1 )a >,r-, r� E •r I L r4 a o C 0 co 0 G a% to •rl E o LC a L ^N 0 C .0 )•1 a s h o0 14 L w G $4 U •rI L L to —I k L Cy to L a L L h M L, U C Q. ,-, C N O •rl .G C: u V) G L C: •rI O w G Cl r-, 00 b H V) > O .0 O O L E L 0 v a s x 0 >., a C $4 14 O, E a a s r. H L E O w 04 r-I V C U •• W •r4 C 'O G .0 a •,a L •rI r1 0 to CL a a C > a\ C: G •r+ CO -A >, a to C3. a L a L to ro L X U) a 3 0 k w v o 3 0 `) v w cv x m V) L to C G v�-I a to u `J G �` r, ,i W ,C O r-I L W "a O G •11 L H C o C G r-, to O > (n b L to U C O L L ` C to a O G G E a a O G O 0 E •^+ O p O a •,1 cn U 4 r7 ',j 1n CL w •ri S'. c0 a a w G 00 44 L .rl L .0 CU •rl /WM1 O •14 L fr 0) O Co a 'O o`er W W • O a L \ .0 l+ a a O C± O U .0 w CLQ C L 0 .0 W 0 O U L W U a 0) h O r t a. 3 -6-e co L L r-1 •r, CO cid L G O U cC .a t+•I a to -4 .0 a N O N G N •r1 L .0 a tH -A a >> G •14 n CA > •r1 G V) L r-4 G E.I to 0 .C. ,-d ,-, . H N )•1 G cc 4 cO U V) „'{ k ,--1 ro L •r4 w Vj U U CA V N Co L 0 r-I M a O 3 U r 4 O "a a 13 Cn G k G I.I a s C. co v a O O o 4 N .0 •r4 O a to r-I r.I •,a •0 L 0 rn L 14 a CL a 4 to $4 >, rn C 1/1 to to L 0 a 0.v1 u a r, CL a •r+ to rl •d 0 0 f+ E .0 u to O O a% U O to •14 to co 00 0 .0 a •14 C to .G }, •rC L •a w W L •rI L cn 3t CIO 4-4 r4 V) ..T L CL P A :ti u O 44 }1 10 0 O 1 � r••1 v J] 1'0.1 O t0 v (d H ,-4 110 •r/ •d N u •r•I O td U d O . . M Mv N LG vw � ai oirou CL>% yV to 4) 41 (4 4) oto u � w t0 •d v .o .�d G v L RI Hr CL Q C = -4 ,fit L u O N • L rl C L L aL •r1 .>� 10 co eeU00 0 -4Nt 8 � to U v CO O to O U O td > r1 vb >, N rC u w .,I t0 00 a 0 D O 0 4) v v O O C-1 o o O 4) 1 v 0 L v to 'o to = W v G W m v b u 0 'o O rG1 •rd v N U 00 v a) 'o C: 'b v OD H W .G W G O O N = I v 4 ,-1 L G . y >, $4 •N cd F� .0 C. C 10 r--1 M C o W •ra L v •,4 6 v m L O I u to W v L r1 w L v M to to o •�+ o 'o •r1 cd m L a N o U) •.+ o v u G E v 0 En ,-t 00 •o .-1 • G -+ N Cr+. 4) H O U •r1 >, = N v O •,A W N n v .d � 0 v M En •ri •,E1 > qp u cd .0 -0 •rl u 00 L L v 0 � .0 = w 4j 4j N.L � 1.1 W > H 4) m E cd —4i cd r 4 O aNl u E y H -r+ v E a'-4 w L•) 3 +•1 +) r1 O CA w L N u N >> 0 W to o. L CL cd D, L CL u 0 H 0 b cd b G G >, cd O N 1d L •r1 O M.0 N u 0 N N O N tU C .0 • G W v 0 v •-I v cd v W v r1 G 00 L v N v b •r1 o v CL v W O C L L u N •r1 O C .L' > L N '/E L u •,1 C .0 •r1 N ra U -0 r-1 —) CL .0 v N •r1 O C v 41 (n N 0 00'a v G g 0 v L v v 0 •r1 v 0 0 G a u N v .0 v v v M to >, 0 o v v cl b o 0 .0 3 o L G u N v v v U) .-t v o '� >, U to rA 0 L v to G v G N 'o >, O 3 G •r1 `4 CL v .0 L O C C L G 0 CL o ca > 0o v G cd v C: C o •r1 i< O E L N N W S N G ^ N v 0 ,C v G > w •r1 O w ,C O •r1 to u L Rf L .0 W 0 to •r1 U o u E N v v O v N m u 0 E •,1 0N) au) 1NJ L v v G W to L to rn o to H •r♦ •,1 E \ L 0 -A L CLW .0 t•J L > to >> +•) 0 N W n •,I 000 C .G 0 •,1 to a. ru 0 v to L •r1 to u L v Q Eb N O G v •r1 u v b v v w>, v r-4 u L •G Q.•11 'L7 0 L N .0 L W •r1 td N G v C 0 U t0 00 •L' L N u to N CL v N V.td •�EE .G fO E v ,-1 L 0 • to Q) 0L w •r1 .0 G 0 w G N L td L L p L v 0 .0 •d >, N N >, v m E O E t0 C cd cd 11 G td •r1 v 0 O E 0 0 0 L 0 b .0 N N S is o o t\ L N 'v to m •,1 L .n .n w v b ,- C >,v � G •r1 m u r4 a >, o a E v 0 rn oO [ u uL 0O 1 � Iow 0O +m Uv o Cl) G L w 0 •11 • t C —4 . u (ntn o vrE u N -1 'o N 1 v M Cl o W b > U to E O >, u r1 y a.,1 W a) ,1 \ W 0 � cd O L 'o b 0 a) \ 0 N L 0 00 A 0 0 -0 CL v •r1 m 9 ,Z 3 0 M v N to rJ v M O b G U -4 (j) > o N > -0 0 H I v to v 'o = to C L Cl .0 U r-1 a v L Io L y W ,..4 •r1 In a) L 0 u U •rt 33 .G 'o .0 O m 0 O C O •+i to •a O 03 L L 'o N 14 td O v O m to u v m In o b L G OO N '0 0u ^ r! u L o a w G rt G G O •r1 00 .0 r t >, u >, a. G eE L 1 l o v N C r H .0 O O O U O In v -A x L to G >, C cd .L•1 v � v U E v L > - N •r1 N •r1 N U N O v .0 3 v C y r1 v u C In u O > C v 3 U 0. 04 o v) v v v 3 O a C v -1 u —4 C C •H+ •r1 v 0 C G v E • N t0 O t/] E N .0 N N IU L CL v N b O L •r1 N .0 r-1 Q •rl N ra >,r o L ^ 0 > C .G O L L cd O 6 OCJ N O L > to '0 >%u O r t v O to v t\ O u v L G r-1 L td 0 ra cd G G r•4 •o ,4 O r-1 O L G N N U v G U U L.1 •r1 v u v CL•r1 v v v L v 0 v 9 v •r1 N r--1 ,C1 •r1 O v c0 O.0 O 0 O .0 o v to W Q.4Q.4.0 N .0 = 0 N C N N to .G G o u C7 E w O O L L C4 -0 w PCI CLL L .A t0 o L 6 U L 00 L L Cq L 0 rJ W 0 U v ;? N 0 N r-4 N 1 41^ N >, W H 00 00 W H G U ^ W Q) (uv t O ^ to 0 ,4 o U 44 C C v +•) v O to to w •r1 O to L N v L w U C 0.•HI r1 0 -r1 L •ri U G v r4 p N 0 0 .4 v ,O v v DC •11 O N G to Wto cd 00 0 v N cd >, r1 H "c >, . L U u1 b ).1 cd O v •r1 >, al 0 X 0 'o N O U r4 L 1 L v 'o U W -4 H v •,1 ,G In to v E to • A, U CO N 0 L N 0 v 0 G u pG >,•,1 L v •r1 0 > O v to a r-I G L •rq u ,G >, v 3 0 .L' v N W v r-1 o L •,I v G O C N N N a) 0 r4 •r1 •r1 L •rt 1d N v G L C3. L N > CL W ,C 1n b v r-1 0 N -A L v CJ ^ v 00 b 0 3 cd L O M.= 0 In v 0 W o v -A L '0 O o v .0 r4 E to u to N $ ro , L to 41 r-1 to L w o w G 'o v a) E N L M 'o N •,1 •r1 L L N '0 En CO •r1 E v C). O co b cd v r4 u 0. , r-1 v 0 W —4 r1 N GwuN v v 'o G U o •r •r1 v uv L W td C E 0) o o rt 0 $4 d o to va N 0 .G CL•,1 CO � •,1 t0 .0 N to v •r1 v v 0 N 0 0 u E u L cd L W T v N 0 U L >,r-4 CO N fn L r-4 L o 0 ..0 >, >.•o r' v •r1 N (n tO \ N a) N >,•r4 td 44 U L td •r1 W L (U O W N L O L v C >, G Q) a) rA •r4 N to to b L > td 00 > 0 4 0 o N v G r 1 to L v r•1 •r1 C1.L v L C N u N 0 •11 v C G v v v to o v to C) G G •r1 0 >, 0 C7 -,1 E a1 G In td O •r1 0 L —1 N L •,1 •rl G >, N LJ v C C 0 N u •r1 v CL 3 .O L E b (� N N 0 L L L to •r1 0 cd L 0 r-a N •r1 L -Y. 0 to v a) 0 ato W 0 'o 04 to O In O ^ 1n U u w N G u •d N 0 0 = 00 0 L ri to 0 CL w G O W G U >, .G to •r1 Id U t0 cd •r1 C N N U C✓. v .3 L u CO L L a) v v 1 0 U u v >, u N w •r1 C:♦ to o a O 0 v N Id 0 0 N •r1 N N S .0 L v u U G .0 v >,•r1 v ,G v r-1 >, v to = G O b 'o w v G >,r-1 0 cd L G Cd L .A L L L 'o CL W L v —4 N 'o t4 L 0 • v G b 0 v 1 o LJ v to In Irl Cl. L r-1 G to u r-1 cd O c0 •r4 .4 CL v v O T to v r-1 •o v > x E G v IGC U -AN � 0 N N .,4 tVv1 OND 04 N o N ,>4 v m 1 H W 0 3 U (L) r•-4 0 Id a3 a) 14 N 0 0 u O u a) td >, O 'o cd 0 o N G U r-1 44 v 0 •11 O •r1 to O > w v 0 d 0 to W G L C E N -4 0 w W G cd .0 N 1.4 >, t- E ^ L N C. N } a) o v u U U v v v v 'o L •rl O (1) N O tT td 00 Cl) 0 v v 0 C7 to 9 m E > N p•1 o L r1 u to to o G N o >, 00 ,-1 W G r` b w u a w C7 G v v td •r1 N OD to I CL >, 0 •,1 N td G v ra v • G 1 •r1 rn G G •r1 —4 L C4 W cd G 0 to '0 0 L p, v0 o •r1 v to G r-1 ' v N O 00 r-1 cd N L v OD 0. ti) .0 •r1 v N S. r-1 O L L t0 v >, > � M 0 A v L L' ,-1 0 G -0 •r1 N u w 0 N 0 .v= u to � •rut U 0. 04 q 0 '° co L w O 'o ,--4 •,N1 30r L G c u u ai >G1 —4 0 cU 0 >,cn L u o E v o 0 44L N ra •,1 to v 0 •r1 N G 0 9 0 w >> W u •.1 .0 v CL 0 N v •r1 L to W 0 Cl v G L N cd O v 0 44 w qq E y. CO oo'o 4) v G Cl C 'v 0 > v z E .0 SI- r1 •r1 o cd b cd G O 'o >, oo L G r-•I G N 0 = o u ,C v 00 00 N G L L r•1 N N >, G CL•,1 N G G N w G to •rt v L •, •ro o G O H G N L r1 0 U) q� U co u u >, uaL W m v G N v • to ca U v 8 4J b. OO 0 In o v u 1 0 r-I r-4 N 0 .G 00 O W L > 0 0 u N O L N N v U U G Q) > •A o •rl U 0 CO v G t0 0 CO v u L v o v 0 U cd • N N W rn G 0 O G b >C v cd L •r1 L In ' > W W •r+ r4 G 0 N 'o v to N Q.,-4 L U N r-1 a) O r-1 CO w H v v u w u 0 v v A G O G •ra •r1 4 10 8 .O 0 6 L w v L > r-1 0 T-,4 O H .0 N G •11 •r1 E v L O N .4 O w -0 L G N r-1 W til 1n •r1 CL .0 L 0 0 L 0 IA u CO •r1 L v r4 0 •r1 0) td •r4 r-1 • NN • � 0 I� 0 r4 -4 r1 r-1 L r. t0 v Q a L o •r1 v v U 'O L v —4 v vr-1 N o v v i0LYud OOgNU � A > Q > o M1n O mo Acd In >, on ) V 1 Cd otri as 004-0 1 u 10 o a •0 C. I a faao 1+ a a 'z i 'aaanl d ud �w C y, u ".4 �j , to o a o 0 uCtoVuOCtr h41Ow 11 > O O Pi ++ v 0 A • C " a >. Y a 0 u to '+ uu r4 a V4 V4 .O to 00 tal N a) a tO W m.J a1 �••1 -F4 Go w V4 'C 'U O r. a M 4a1 "4 '-1 Uf U.' N 0) Ai � � a m •0 W ^ H 44 a 1. a G m ,� to C m 0.w as -H ..4 1 u H pp.. C. m 0 1 It m H a a am >1 O - .O u O .sr 0 a a s 0 1+ O o a u n a u m .-1 3t H � a 0.0 u A r-1 u 4w 44 u r 4 a W a H H u m CO •d 00 U a m a 0 .-+ m 00 w O H w •r1 >, 60 >r. 3 0. >1 m to .04 41cups w M R m C - O u w H t0 DO U u W H ca 0 41 0 0 .-1 m 10 O C o w H +� FI m ao a .a N .a -A 1-4 a s A.,o m to O >, 1 0.•r1 x •rt a r4 a O C a 0 0 gg ,t u W H u m W >,,v .-1 w ro 3 a O r+ = a 7, cd a•ri O m a ni a r-1 u C: 0) u a 1C m 0 .� m 00 m H Q r.4 W 0 q rd b H n u ro u R! B •� a • 0. H 0) IRd1 .'a, r. ° r. 10 iJ >1 0 •'l 1 (1. •„1 m a r•i a . a r-1 .G W ed E ro •I C a .4 '0 O •rt u •'4 T -A r-+ w a u a 0 .G b > a 00 W u a -1 •r1 O ed 3r 00 D u u a C m to a •rg1 u N H H H IJ yy,�� O Lal H >,r-1 --. a 10 0 s r-1 a.a+ m -,4 a� m >, u O 10 O t a M 4 1 p. t0 0 u CL m a r-a H 0. u m -A .Z] •rt H .7 Zr >,44 •.a 0 a m >, 0 a m a u •r+ 00 0 to a W u m •r•1 C u W 0.to Q r4 1 CL a ,4 a Ai N >1 a -A ro >, 0 u .a Oro D a 0 to a td m •r1 O •rl •rt O 00� u ,,.t a •r1 ^ C» H •,4 .0 il • 3 H •r+ a tv m u N? O u 0. w O N -+O ya Cm O •r •rO1 rr - -4 -4 E-4 W m H u 1.4 •rl - ro a "O td a 4•1 ^ m W N 10 a co y, H a r.1 0 --,4 r {r a •ra >, a r•1 E O •x a 1 -4 H m Id a ,a 0 a P1 m u a O -k a 41 C: .0 u u 1•1 -4 a 1 m 3 W oaD w >, C L •r1 O Q.u u m H u u H *661 m r+ u •0 .0 -t '4 to to O tn a m o0 a u u m H O � 44 y W 0 C. O N u y u v ? u u CO OD 'p, ^ t� r•i •i7 u a G u td W u cb r4 O b •r1 .0 r+ aro u 0 .G D E O •rt ro •rt 0 •C N O O r-1 C G H •d H 1 •r1 rd •,a W R 3 ro a U U H G m a u a 0. W OD m G .-t O TO a 0. S 1 A u a O .CL to 4 u 04 : O H a O Ca. G N n a -A -,4 ru w u tD a .0 .r 00 0. a a m a to to •a u a cr u a .-4 a..,' i` a as 3 0 o H W a H 0 to C O 0.a1 m u ra u H >, 0 D a m a s 0 v1 ^ CL"o O t l 0 ++ a 0 .a ro m b -40 -A 0. u -H >, a s .+ td a a m a u > T ur O u 6 0 0 a 11 Q. t H u N 6 a C: 14 G .0 •11 m 00.0 0. u a >,•-+ +•1m H •ri .!L r f 'A H m m a .r •V4 D O r-1 a a u 'pa s a fl -4 -4 C •rt N C O .0 aj b a H a •r1 Y. a a 00 1 u ro -H 0. 00 a m to H H a o u 0 r4 w a -r•t 0 U r•i a a = u u a •-, td DL m E a. a t+•+ •A .0 a .. H ro > w •ra a IV r1 ro 3 M. u W t: •0 a H 0 a (nO •r•1 1 W u u O a •rl 3 Q) o m w o u H a 44 .0 r-+ ¢ +� tti 1-4 u o•.+ A. a u •r1 m o cj m u C) E u u 14 H O O •rl 44 C: O .0 rq m E • G O t0 .0 ^ D u a O o 0 6 o O r 4 > -A •O u 00 m u •r•1 .0 a. u u u •14 u �Q! C C ,�-4 00 a C ^ ^u H r-•1 u 0 u � to� p R CI � r4 y W -A 10H a C 00) G .t] u > C O a a H u m W a m 0. td O ro a s 04 m u O a .r~ ro CL u •14 E E c0 w -0 UCU >, b .^ to ,,•t W U ^ O m O G a a H C ri O a >, H td m •r♦ ,C m a H •�4 1m 0) •t 10 M m u G 0. a •d -1 d G O •t Ai H : T kyu0 0 OD .0 H a 4) u •A 0. >1 0 O u ro C >1 = O > CO " -4 . a w010•r 9: -r4 0. r-/ M W ON -A a to uy' CL a s H a tr~ oo co 00 u m •rt r+• u 0 00 0 o y1a�p a u H -4 � a u 1a+ m cHV U O.i .x 0 a W ai y ^N 0 •.Gi b u c0 00g) 0H1 C+ Coo 00 co y tea rd coo 'Coo CO >,.aG a .w O G t30 O ° N -14 0. to bO to 0 -4 LVI a H tin O u t4 -4 o0 a 0a) > g P 0 0 a u r-t u H •r1 A a a O a r. a.-ri •r1 > O 3 ro m G H b r-4 ?1 H to P. ^ H -A 0 E 'IE O W '0 .0 4 u u 0 r-t u ,C m N H E •••t N H U G O m a O '1^t H �d a .0 a H u -A H O a td O •14 u H O O c0 a a td 0 W u td H u r•c CLW m a. a •-a ,C a N 0 ro W r1 a 0 0 a 1 m m H a. 3u u .0 1 •rl a -A m .0 V) w m a a o0 CAA a s m u m u 3 a •r) u a M O a 3 a `0 0. m r-1 +, m E t0 0 .-a •r1 u •r1 00 a H W a 0p r-t a H a r-t W td a ••. COei u a .0 O °tai v W to G u � G A >1'0 w c9 cd rd CL-r1 a CL C: gg O a r-t a r 4 W a G a H a 0 t9 .G CL H m w a. O C C W O >1•-+ u id a 0.0 'ra = r'4 00-,4 O >, a m > a m r-1 m u .t m ro a a u u •rl R 0) .-+ u H a 3 G 0 0 to ro ,C .0 G O u .0 u ° m ..rd M >% cd O 0m) to 3 •r+ 9 0 H r+ w a .c a O 3 0 u " a H a u a a H U a G W U °C a 4 0 m W 0 t0 a > au .0 "1 r-t >, H W ro G •rl m a 1 N CL a m p u a -r1 .0 W -A ,G a 0. H O -r1 >,W m a a 0 m H G u O A ++ a H O CL O .0 u H a l G u .0 r` a a G '0 H o0 O 4 G to 0 .(1) a0 .0 a i o. O u r•t a .-4 -A O u 0 u 01 tH X E 7 0a3 a 3 -,1 td m 0 ^ H a 0 .-1 a � u > 00'0 w 0 � � ? C CO ,-+ >,N amu 3 m .-t N G w U mA U a C .-1 u > u b > a a ra iC `� E ra u ,0 ►� O w t0 .-t U W O CO a m > u •r1 aG O •r1 m r"1 '0 ''4 O a . a s •ri b u a .0 O a 0 a 0 a >, n a a co O C $4 aC'' 'r'1 0 H0. 0 H CO r1 r+ .-r E •,G o\ 0. L r-1 0 a u H W PCl u 3 a a u 10 O u •ra t0 D E 00 H u H O W O r1 a 00 a CL u r1 a ri a G a a O G -4ttt-1 x m Q u 041 S°+ u .0 0 >1 cd w 0 >1 0 H •^ G td .a -A '0 • .a '0 -A > fl m w CO O m u o .V u H •r+ r-1 a •rt a m a. a s a m � C cn H to •r4 r 4 m o m 0 00 tN - a $4 > O C. JC G a 4d to u •r1 a r♦ m 0 a >1 O o a a a td u O 0 CL m a -14 $4 • C-0 u m a 0. a m u u r•1 b t0 {� �3 H td m a s .a CO L 0 0 0 4 y c0 m � 0 .G H 0 •r I O r-t u C G1 00 07 a �1 a H a O a. L7 Now" ¢ °vii u y`0, o C: u N ,4 o 0 O O a u a 01 C a+ O C t0 r•1 w m ,G .0 H a .0 G r-i t0 R. 0. > a O m a u u Cl. u •r1 a •r1 U 0 a 00 a '0 Z7 U C a 0010 •r4 ro co .G C cd C > $4 O. H a. :j C H to a u •r1 u u cd a u 0 a cd H ^ - u u Cq u •d a a C H i-. w W H 0 u m •r1 1 3 a u a) E' u r0-14 u G 0. m a 'aa = to r•4 +•1 .a •d b • r1 •r1 r•,t 00 a •r1 O W u .•-1 H H 0a a ++ 0C: uto o ,cto wca4) ' �v .. z .7 ►°. i° rno � ow c>iw n M ul 41 4)4) Haa .0 u u o 0oeX u ►, 0r•1 uN 0. 0r44-1 0 y, Q) ¢ E r4 IM OD e e e e � in tn rel Q1 � 10cow .I Qui N �� G r1 00 O� N O 4n %a O'+ r) ^ r••i w rl M 00 In h to N %D bti a ° -. " 0 ol " a a a rt rpt .� N M O M 'D COSc r-1 w !1 w wi Sr1 r-i to CO N "a co to a " %0 tC1 00 Nco 00 NO a a r-1 a .j N Cm O N Ln CO ID " h ri r-i V1 CCS t0 .-i n8-: n: nom° �O N O 00 tn CIN �D h .-/ �p n N -4O M M I*- ri w �' N M t O r-1inh til •-+ ••-I M r! N tJa CC) In to a N h \ \ \ \ O h N a O N h N U W AC H a N N 1 LIt n kp C*) '�-t O C'1 -4W co W N e-'1 I w \7 N t+t O OCi +�j u1 co z r4 1-4 N W `^ co Ln o �o ate+ ,o rn°i Cxl w N M M til til Ln I co r•1 ON col � tiTco 111 O N Na% coGO %V wl 4 N M Ln cn �tn O ' t� Aa( til -1 .y 1e s n N ' h 11! � u�'1 m N O ' a M -J Rr A a h cn '-a N M 0 tit cli Pi� CT W -4 h '-4 tn U 4 044 on 1 Ln Ln O 1 o 0 tN `��r^}} s. ate: Ln AM c N LM co f CV I r•{ Qrw I h Vl 1 i N S: �: e° r\ O GQ r-4 M ! 1 M N tM')1 O CO ON �� O t00 r1 1 1 N f %:rM d r t'1 a a *-4 1 til N fh O hi 1-4 'C CU Q} .0 13 u r= 0 Co :1 W A •rt Ut to is u >1 >N C C: ••i •,4 G rq r-1 b O 1-4 V s-4 f2 u u � W9 u uwW Ww w -. e � a a cn 0 s wH r4Wa4 u u H •rl 14 14 tj ri rt $4 r� W CD W VS aJ r) 11 N r-/ r. C Z$ r-4 A N Ln as f-4 •a Ln CQ rN-t ¢.' W V ` W A A4 %0 ¢r+ A+ 54 111 a • 1-1 I tNNo o I ao a a r- 00 'M O Qt N0% 0 .-1 00 Q% N N N lb 00 0 1 r- I M rd N to as -C rm H M It O N MI O � a%aD 1 I -4 O O O r•d I b� M a0 to In n H a0 N O O O N M O M ,-+ N I co c co u'1 toON Ln H M N rd I O ,mac N M I o0 0% n H N I N M O r-1 In r` M M ,-1 O o O H b� b� o\ N In In N cn ap In to u9 Nr` n N -4 O ON %D to .-4 In m N I n N M HH H N r1 N 00 e CO N f O o aI to Ir NI '+ N M I 00 00 d In I � tt1 fy. O O%� cn M n N J � P•1 N rl r-1 w x+ N 1 1 Q r-I r•1 O O O rd 0 PI � CO at)I t` a co I to to M N kn �D M H I O I \ N Cq m O �7 N M O 1` cn %I Ln Ux ra • 0 H N . 1 M M O w ap .7 In I� M N O 111 at) cm M N A 0 I a% N M( O to N M I N H U W '� .-•1 a o o0 0% ra p4 a I 6 M n M I O �t N M I O CN O to I N M Q+ U a M In .7 N H N to Ln I N .t M M O m O CT CT 6 a I In 1-1 I t\ S N cn I O M N N I co W U H 1-I O � cn 0 cn M M r-1 N I I I M N I O r 1 ^I b� H o .7 to n I to I 1 ,-1 N M O n 111 � O� H r♦ � 41 a .n u u •r• N 41 C. W A •F4 � to L Q IV U ra c0 :3 r410 1 n1 O O 0 C 0 Iv Q rad H U •.4 H v •r1 r-4r 4 u -M •,a W G �4 C14 ,4 y to ao ,N4 tr'1 at] ,r4 ,..1 •ra 1 1 1 I 1 1 x to to U w A p+ 10 J% a a 0 0 0 o a .a *+ 0 0 0 0 0 .-r � w cs..•t ++ td •�+ a a a o 0 o O •a ..7 a o r•1 •� 8 1 0 r1 t)O ti4 W t•1 .7 U 'O td n n n rr M O It Os h o OD N in w to ON N N a) w w O h h .-•/ h C CI 'O O H to ur w u to a) N N N w N .-+ a) C M. <* yr yr to t C u w > A i .4 o a a a 14D 4j w a y Q o 0 0 0 d d w cy d O d O a0 to r O W to u O o O O >. n n n 0 It y •,4 O O O O O O d a) O to d •-4 00 .4 h a) ro a) C ft ro to -A w c-r t>d to N �D (I Q, 0 a) to O m O o ON to > r 4 .-1 w N .•i cn O It O 7 +C td G v C "a G > 0ro � 4 00 O% h .� OD ,0 tD O . a) •,1 34 00 tf1 t7p N to h .t N to d N L N a) aJ C: co .-i O O h N C .0 -A It N M M lv 0 a! U) (Un u F' to ro tri- v} U). yr s>♦n ro p. wa -4 to -It o O tcd A to C > .4 C to •.t �0 `.t O O a) o N 7 4 N w H 0 •-4 ro -+ a > >os -4 u a .0 a 0uG std ami u ro y u to m0 N aw rd •-> � � of N ,C ro a) pG N 'O w .-+ ro cs O C O L Q) u u a) x r.+ a•,4 L •,4 cl u a. W 0 C J(Ij td u H a cz tea nr ►Ua to v u tun UA 4 -j x +� to 0u cp a tm U n) a>) : 'n G C 0 a ni -Y o •ri 0 —4 w O ro � •tn N L ro •^f u) N G W W .-i 0 0 to C O ai 0. O C ro y m ,C 11 to to U e. H oq •14 0 > t>~ V O H o d d w w Q) .0 a to w r to M 0 •�4 >a 7 a) u >, > C -'G $4 C w 4J a) 0 in w C w C ro 0 C u m •ter to > 1441 u a w . o d d O 0 cl '1+ a, $4 M 4 00 w as 0 0 •� ,C o d d o 0 0 tL' N CL to 4 '-r ••i C H W C w .-i o d O O O >a ro o 0. C as o w v 0 w w 0 0 G ty x m v a 10o ro o k > co C .0 ro tri o as .c O� 3 n w O u w P •.4 0 w C O C ko d to 0% .-4 td C w >, O to O w 00 U o O G .-a on tb tO 00 «C O a) CL ra to h O U M G .0 •ft N O n ^ ^ ^ n .� C to a) h G r w > •a u bo w w n w to N rn 0 00 U 0 a) > ( 0 .t ty E $4 cn E G u 4 ro 0 t. 0\ .-t co to v ra .0 •a -A h ro u a) •.-+ 0 0 v (U o) E-t 1-4 N .-{ .0 W w w h u ON .0 to $4 (A W •-( C V) W tn• u? Pi w C ON )a •-t a) w C .0 0) 0 O C C u .-q O to O C to R. cd 0 a) G o C A. w a) d v a) N 004 .0 a 0. a) .n u w 0. 0 0 w •.r -4 O w M M .0 > W X ro u O •.•i tti w E (V •rt w Q ro ro 0 O O o O M W w ro a a) -4 N tO to w to to .4 '-, .-aO d 0 d M O w u (V C ro w C C o •r+ > 0 a) "0 0 0 0 m O 0 0 o to C G tow cy G O •A w m x ro C 4 0 0 ' n n n n n to u 0 E a u W a) .0 of 3 3 cn o •-t ca M N 'V w .0 ro ro td 0--e N tv 41 41 ,-i of) to N tO !� C C to C a) ,4 C O.to Oy E ro •�+ G >, .-a .••a 0 G to 0 w to •.+ a) .-t a) u to a) C a0 w C r u> r, ty 0. 0 C m a H p to w .0 w G ca • + o �.s > a) u O 0 to C C).ro U 0 N U a) w 'a •rt J to 0 a) G u a) C 0 f•+ f.t C •o w w .,i G u -A C to •rt >,•.r H a) u v •� asarouCO .CwHcd C �+ acaro Q) w a) a w w >4 C •r+ O a) to cn to 0 00••-, u r+ $4 o -A C 'o C d) a W w a C o w u w a u w n) O 0 0 E G •a .-+ to co N w Y M+�f (1) 41 •,1 W `T Co o E g C a u u E u r-4 td •H G cn cn cn OD U) u E a to • ) 0 b •rt u 0 0 m to to 0 .a mM to rou •� p0Qj > 0^ o tvu .-c tdw ^ n ^ . .t w a) .7 ra O a) u saw A 00 a) O N t-t 'o o is a r+ 0 .0 $4 to C 0 a) X .0 o C $4 'o ca w 0 0 a) to C •H C w C w z © cd a C 0 > 0,-0 3 - 0 cd 0 H a co C: :3 (1) .0uuu0 wC w w O +.s m w N fn H m W O u N C a) ••i G w a = •+1 a) d a) to • .G d a a) G w d) •rt w 0) to w >, a) a) .0 $4 E .4 U E C 3a C N .+ G w w .-t ra w U j 0. 't0 to 0 0, M cd E M to -A to o to CO to G co ty w .y ,e, o > to 0 w ;Z. ad E > h 0 a) u 0 •H 0 0 ray rt .-t O o O r Cl. 0* $4 E a) N 4 r.r .-t �i u w to a) O -4 at to w .7 a) w to a) 0 0 W A to w N s.V > •� •ri > N .-t 3t •rt h w ,. a) w to N •rr G .4 41 0) G -C v ^ 0 cc N G as 0 > t" cd to 0 C W 44 •-t 0 ro 0 w M ro .0 •a 0 .-t s .-+ 0 0 E cd 44 m crs U t. E t ii 00 0 o -4 a r-4 i t � %O 1 N 00 1-4 •-` a o n N M cn t8 I p t t O V1 M O O Ot O m N co 1 4 t 1 N ON 0 I\ 0d 00 O Ln CT OO %0 '* N rl r-t r-1 tO r-1 CO 00 N N N O cTQ< as O 0 O% 00 O 00 N V1I ( 0 .-I 1 .-1 to 14 O U1 N 0 N 00 00 1 'T %0 i O CO V1 O t- r-i OO M LM CIN 'T co r-t e4 N In r-1 N N N 0 r-1 tiS d d O O d O M M d M ra 1 0 h» 1 r• t r-I 0 1-1 %O 0 %D .7 co I 'T %0 I O 0o to 0 00 r-1 OO M O H e1-1 r�-1 °o OM r1-1 14s %0 -a t O �D t0 N O O d O O O O O OJ M i 0 r• M 1-1 r• r-1 O 0O �cJ d �D ON 00 1 7 r-1 v1 14 f� V1 .7 O to W r .0i to IT -4 rr- M0 14 N -{ N .* v1 W t/] U 0 tri tn co O 0 %D `7 0 -,I OZ aJ Nt t O N 1C14 to .-4 0 .7 r-1 O r-1 .- r. +� 001 1 ,3 1 1 V1 I'D Ln �' ON to 00 r• .-1 W .a iS It .7 cm M ON 1-1 N ra to w.7 O to O r4 M co 00 v7 W Z In O r` N M O 0 Qt N O N In 6 �-i M O O 1 4 M r-1 0 -1 `00 0 10 r-r O W H 00 011 -4 i Ln r-1 v1 -cr o o OO N WC: t/a mr-1 'T c•"1 OO I'D 1-4N N N :rt� vD A d 11 r1 r-1 N rMi r-4 Ln r-t .�-� M H V1 0 0 0 O r•1 0 O N M O M CO 1� O N d tI 1 r• O` rd O ON CT O m ON t0 t 0 r• 1 O Ln Ln IT O V1 00 r. %D +j CV 00 r. 14 N N M .7 00 CT tb r-1 N O r-1 N r-1 N1.4 b I N t11 d r-1 �O r-1 O r-•I N O N 00 OJ L) W t� M 0 M i %D N t 0 OS r-1 0 ri N .0 OTQy4 H O� O '7 N I tO v1 1 .y .-1 �4 00 M 00 H rA nl n hI N co r+ 1-4 %0 00 O O O O V1 O O % tti 0 V 1 ,D u 0 O0 1 O V1 t 0 Or .'t O 7 CO V) H D\ O� •,7 .-1 I trl 00 1 -.1N to CO r• D O ^ ,-I -T M IT 4 N N O+ -1 -z M C1 r-1 N Ln V1 V) r-1 a) W r. Ct1 O V) Ln 0 O to O 1 Vi r M 0 I i M V1 1 O r. N O`` N V1 r-OO CU Q• O d 1 1 O MI ,7 M rd coI Cr1 V1 -Li +4 e-! %.D t� O N N to :ttff 0 t- Cd M r-1 r-t M M .14 O tD 00 O O O O O O M N r N O 1 1 N C'I I 1 U9 h 0 t- +7 In r-4i Q` N I i M SM7 1 i N t1 co'T O N ` e--1 ri -4 ri r`) + y O d r-1 Ol R1 CJ C� O Ctl r-1 r7 r♦ :) s,� C". .0 •> c� M ,-1 "0 u 'j > a a • � � E � *'+ � � C} a1 ra � H u t0 rOa r. ra � a� ` >y > ro 0 q w -4-1 u L v N JJ 1J N v / H t0 u 41 0 O O h. N 41 O O to AJ lJ •r4 r-1 i-1 0) H •• ra y O ,ri W A Cn AJ M co rn Qv CnUJ r-1 4 0 .1 1J 41 to JJ 1n N id r4 44 CH k0U H C4 CV1-4 0 • ^ 1 O O� 1 O\ M O O h O h h O 00 N M N N N r•l .-1 S %0 r4 N N 00 N h O O p M O �0 too 1 O W M O O a\ O O% r, Off 1 01-4 1 .-� O O1 O h %0 CO 00 It r-1 N � 14 .t r-t CO �t Ir- � O to O O O 10 0 cli N N N M to O O O` S O .7 �O V11 �0 N 0 .-1 p 0 N O N Ln co 1 1 O r•1 .-1 cn O� in O t- N co I7 co rm1 -t -4 M . M •�-1 Ln N N O O O O N O .-1 ro O O O tr1 O O M 00O co p > �t 1 0 ,0 1 'D M r1 O .-10 O trl O+ 00 1 O 1-1 1 1-1 tD try O 00 O1 00 'A N 1+ r-1 1-0N O r'1 N N to •rl N N Nl •-t H ro O oO 0, O O O to O 0 'D w M 1 0 %0 1 W h r-1 O 00 �D O %0 -D 00 1 O -4 1 rt •.t tri .7 00 N co It 00 IT 1-4 V] •jjtt 00 N co -4f V .-1 O I7 Ln w 1-4 --I Wv V1 •O O to O p %0 .4 O -i M O N 1 008 1 'D .-t .-1 O � t- O h .t /.f �• 00 1 O -4 i .-1 M 0 It Ot 1-1 00 M 00 0 A paQ .ak-t ko1 O N � .-t N 1.4 t0 '7 W G7 r-1 r .- i i b � ro w top o o to to o o a\ O r 1 �D 0 %0 %0 00 0 1-1 O 1-1 O 00 N O H 00 N O •-1 r-1 V1 r-1 Ln IT O O 00 N 00 C2 Ln O O OO O O O N N o N M h O Ln O �D 1 .-1 h .-i O O` h o h •.t ro 1 00 e-1 O 1-4 1 M M Ln �t O tr1 00 h O\ L N p r N N O .-1 N b -4 0f t V1 1a% O O a O p O .'t .-1 O .-1 M 41 V O h to O %0 1 r-1 tD 1 O m u1 O 0 \0 .0 O\ r-i O —4 1 M N 1 .t r-t 00 00 O h H 6 1-1 r-/ W co 0 M N N M �t a\ 0 0.' 1-1 N h 00 r" .i 0 00 000 O O O O O O O O +� O h 0 O 0 1 O 0 1 O a% .t O IT %.O fa N m r-i 0 %0 1 I 00 Ch 1 .t N �D O 00 .t O w e-4 .-1 %D h M N N 00 •t M M m (� .-1 N tr1 to Ln r-i Ol sat H Ki h•) 00 I O O O O O O I O p to h tr1 0 1 1 to 0 1 O h N O N 00 4) ON r-i O 1 1 r-1 .-1 1 ItM ON 00 r-t N 17 r-1 1-4 %0 h O\ N N M 't a% h ro r-1 r-1 N Mo0 cn N •u O h 1 0 1 1 O O 1 1 in OM O Ln 1-1 y I N 1 1 N N i 1 n1 I It co ND -It "t ON N ri r•d r) r-1 } N d 9c 7 is .-01 y ►O+ vroi rOI � ro u ai of > u p 0 1.► y > G• 01 H C .-•� �. 1J � iJ O O Of O ••1 cd Q r-1 ♦J Cf td r-d N A d Of. U .-t C Of 4) 3 L+ (d r1 0) u u O u -1 v u v w r-1 ,f -0 ,1 � ro 41a cd Cd w rL 10 0 v " u of !1 0 to O y d v V to u •r/ .-1 .-1 OJ H •• .-1 to � � •rl W to u ro cdf•1 M 1 to ro a to r-1 1-1 N cd .- to r-t 1J iJ U to 1 'ti � L ma�yy• c � R F.4 v) W as N 000 }a�.�i C1 O U '^ H ro w rn O U n .7 W G ro 000 a QJ r-1 W •r1 4.1 14 W it OD M to •-i .T -4 cs OD a a O r4 r-i a O ~ H ^ to W in ON .7 00 a u ca N It 00 to "au a r-i u)•.0 '3 O " U G -W N S ra 00 G O �1 �) M O u T1 +) a >> N u • G a •ri toN M M r•i H `� H r-i U) a G A y tan aa)) iJ fat .-�! m O y U to L O d t!r l!) . H a 0 O c^ 0 > G a oo u u aD 4 � d O a a a roa1 m �a n u •,� a w G O to G a 0 N U) aOHw -A u .'r A utq U G H a w a +r+ 'a H ro W a ,) co -4 00 n M ro Uu v r-i h w "O H G a O . tT W M a Vs r-i co (IN� � ctr ri •.� 'a a >>In >,u4 to U O a u M a N -4r. � H to t0 00 a O • 'v H ro _ x u to u1 u t° O r-i ri 3t 'u a u c0 A to aro O a to .-i w m S 0 ^ Z 0 .0 to m to to ro to a s O ur u y u .ri O H G a •a aro tti u A U H to u u .a to `Goo Q) •ri H H a n a to G o r.1 •ri G roN 0. Q) •ri u .. av41 G wC a u r.i u N O fT r-+ U � G O 41 H N u a •11 a• G u u N • 0 to M N to r-1 - }i a '+j X G to H H U 0 .,a O ^ro O r-1 tT tiO n 0 u u G u 0 0 c0 a c0 ro 0 ro H u as d r- m u ^ ^ ^ u u G G u .r.t u u t0 w G t0 M rn ON M u u N rn M to G O O •ri cn u n G a y c0 -- vs G U) .-t CYN %0 M a% a u u UU •uu Cl y u aH G G a H to N M u u •ri tiuw a +J y cd to a H G > to En 0 V-rIt 4-1 G a U 4 •r y co u 0 a 0 U a G O H 1 r-+ cn u a c0 to to r-i a s H to Cr L a U to O Vr ur 1` O 'Ca u r1 G0O N a u O Xs ri W IJ a 041 -t O y co r1 to�o a 0 W 41 V) tt a) > to p a > O H u a W a u . 00 V) N n ^ ^ to co u a G ro a > •r+ a m a. to 0 o M M n O G ) 3 u .O con a, cn Oro to G O u r•i ro ,-i t� a O a O Fi `^. • • . O .f {n M 00 d N u) u O A a u u ,-t H u m r-t -f a n to %D rn ,-a w O a a0 a Mao U) ,7 to to G ON ^ .0 O tT0 rj aOJ 4 0 w O M JJ .G a H -4 u u a U ro o u u U) 1 •° u J u a o to y a to O G H V) 'c G ro w trs 1J L+ a -G u H m O G O a y to -A 0 O O t0u0 u > E-4 pqO ,.t U) U H F� O G u -i O O G a 0 U A H a u a a a u uo to oo � sn a to oa -4 •u o0 a > ,G •a H 4 a .G = .G O t0 H i 1 1 O H 1 t 1 O > J: a u O H O u A yJ L 3J iJ a t0 �L t0 O, u U x t0 a% E4 <C u 'a to Z u a a u w Kn u 1 roa H to G G 0 w H :3 N u rn 4) 4J :., :... v .x aim ° -4 V 0 a a w ro H to ro •,� o r+ a w a u o a s 0 0 H E a u u '1 o � °' a to to a 0 H .G G a G u w u M a c3 ri J: 0 v) a �+ w o w ro a a 0 w >, a r-+ G .-i 0 u v en tHa 3 tri -4 `J ai u 0 •r1 0 u .-+ Jw H •ri H to M a O R1 ur •ri �4 .G +•) H a •.a of u 0."0 0 H It G •a a V) w ur a a u u c0 w N H w H u0 V)- u G ro c0 0 •fn G C4 ro rt U y U a N u *AG H O a a w 4) (n to HC 'U H a ,1 w M N .-+ •.a G 3 a CO H 0. 3t O G 0 •,a O a -A u 0 a G O Et u) .rt 1 .0 to rz a a. >, a 3 Jr w E H o w 0 v rt 0 a u °` J: at uuN H m u •,1 u u a u a a U H a H 0 a to G `) -0 " aro a aui ro c. W to tua uw o •4 0 U 0 a o •,4 .� to � a 3 G ro u es a 0 a o o • A to t0 a nt u o >, a a •ri u V) tO s� •'4 a s O to 6 w a t0 ro G u Co a to > to r•i •,4 ,G A u 00 u U 41 0 u) .-1 .G A i~ ri O H rt H H a) V) a o0 a tq 00 f o u u u) w H G a .o a t0 a, 0 H t0 • u u G 10 tun 'a o.r: d tr. o .° a a 1 o c0 r-+ o w a H m 10 'a o v u Aj '0 -H a u a •a a y S - 1 G 0 > tti u •ri G G G a V) x H a G 4) 4LJt0 .0 u G N 0 a 0 u o u) td ^ V) •ri a H H G O t0 a , , `� a' a ^ co tn to H = 0 a a H V >, G u . A u •A r4 (i a r-i rd M H u t - +rt a s en G G O u u >% G ttS 0 H o U) u-1 t0 u H G O i a Q Cl x to U H H t0 1 o w -H w • to u •ri a t0 u . .-t o a 0' O m > ^ G G u a td to G aL u 0 to •ri w a .-i a H 6g ^ to o a a .c a a 0 a rn H w 0. r' '"t a 3 ro J~ a A v 8 >, a a w H u 4 H ro ar •ri tSO a G to cn N H W of > c0 u a M U ro a 0 H -4 O U H to u 0 0 H U G E c0 �+ c0 to ro a O G a a a1 w .ri 41 4J a' aH o 1-4 44 a -. 4) :j 4 � > � aHoaH HGGo a s u u •0 0 a 0 r-+ v a. 00-14 a s to G V) a d •ri tO H M 0 0 0 mHuauw •w0 0cna >, OGu +-1HH HOGtn � cnunc0 wa+,aav w u H y •.4 y a a O u 0 u u u aur N v'.-+ u uuG +J a3 w wNN � n W pa ro u) a 0 0 C-4 u C a. O ri a G 0 H u -0 a .G H u O H G tri -4 0aro aN .14V) G u 0 h t0 a u) tUq oA•rU O G G H X u u G- C a) cs a +) U H o = E a u rd to o a +j O a G H 301 G aa44uuHA Ca u) rocaata� Go > 00Aj atnu a a vHG 04 0 •14400rg0 ^ taua > 0G • u0 •raauflQ � u 41 U a a M 0 a V) a" to to >, +s 0 0 a vs 00 u td r+ y u w to u a a N 0 1-1 O ,�„ L) t0 .0 c0 L a1 •ri td a O � u G u3 U w 'i u 'v u O >, ^� N O OD 14 1 O A H 00•r•i a r•i u .a u .G w u 0 u �. 7 •ri to .a t0 0 3 v, va w H 0 u Gm d a c0 u o m a 0o G a u aro a ro •A a 4.1 u1 O H H •ri d 0 •ri ro t0 to uJ ,-i to u to u •ri S .-•t u ,= to •ri > G > G toG u u G t0 w a u a U U) ^ a u E t0 a w *,4r,. t 0 �.i a .-t a co •ri O a u a oro u a 0 to U U N 0 " H w O OC1 H .a a u u . ' u w a >. a c0 • 0 d a CO 0 0 0 ur a a ri w m H u G G a to U .-+ a N H > to E+ a 0 •ri • a A.J: n au1 v a a H r-1 H -A00 N O W N a 'a .-i •r♦ 7 Ej u) u) u m a 0 a 4 .0 U G a a u ++ ++ 4&.) 0 •^i •G a ''a to u a 0 > u •rt a to s u u )J u ca U 'o +J a 13 MG U H r•i a N 0 a O H G v) 1► 1 Q4tr; ai za u H°u -4 AuAir.00" � raEnscurA utot'�-+ aHoa -,4 4J V w p4 Ln H E •.•w A N • u -4 •rl O U O O O O O O O O O O O O toO O O O O O O O O O O .0 06O O O O O O O O O O O VI U O 00 O 00 In s O a O m p n 00 h OD W ON to r4 N M N O r4 th n of (r1 N n m rn d)• yr tn r-4 r-( L O O O O O O O a O O O 0 .11 O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O U C O n O a% O f\ Cn O N O cls V) to Ln r 4 N M M-1 1 %0 co U r4 00N . �O O <r� tr> tIf W Vs �W i-i V1 r. tT W .-+ 14 L O O O O O O O a O O O oi� O •rl O O O O O O O O O O O air .°c u a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O • U U a O O O 0oO N In C� 00 Q• V) c0 r-4 O N N N n Q\ t:Q n z V r-4 H ur vG �y yr yr a A W U 0 a a O w iri va x H 00 N N N N .n tyv O •14 O 5C k OCs i-. k( u v h oo u a 44 44 m H i 0 IHC m (moi m In U G O m Q 4s C C Irl O O ,4 Os ,a r1 •ra 1 Iv 1 0 0 z. (n O H 4.1 u v •rj C ai " � 14 H 1 . ( 41 ,-I C Os •^ 1 In �o 10 O I •rI •rr S In C (n M In r-( O u •^ u (y CL 10 O .-I C IC G •^vs 'A C y 5 H % O r-I •,4 O •.1 41 rn U S- le V u r-I 41 ♦J 00 4 H E 4s + i.l 4s v1 u 1 N 1J 41 H M H O 3 00 M 1u N C (v (v y v • -^I •,'1 M d in w Ih W O O N G y y •d w H v w G w .^ •r4 4s H -+ H r♦ O a V 0 v N H o . u •ra 1 u Iv U A tv 14 •C 3 7 U H w 44 d C u n m u O C7 4s 41 Vs 41 CL O G 41 7 In O 41 H H N 00 N (n O •ri 4) w W 1 O E-1 •r•1 N 41 d (0 00 •.1 ao O M U C rJ al �' V] to •rd G H H C 'C N u1 r-I w 0) •� I 1 1 4s W •r1 Q) 41 •rd r-r en • C 1! C u N W u ( 00 Ai C ? U •,4 Vs• en V (v In G H aJ r-1 W u q C b 4s A V O 1'1 M -I G O C •.I 1 o ro o 0) 3 o a as oa k ur�r w r-1 c) w cn am Q ai ci a w w c� x ri ao as � ,i •r'i u r�i w a d � � m � M m q u/ 6 � q •rt ,� u a/ tts � N a �* N r-t q Ot "CI r•. •d •4 b u 4a .0 tq Iff a Sp c0 t}�� 00% N C "G y 41 1� +� ro .Ni a o O a+ .••t 'O 0.•.� +� N O .o .� a oO r-i •q q woG � U N u Cu tou34IW 0uo L4a0 �aai ua "v"� + 1 o •, a .0 1 41 0 $ C: C:r. v L td r4 u ttt a H a w •ri tit O a r•i L O > MtM aol .A a C ntuw ° 0 u L to [°la >, too 0) _4 u a o f aC �' Ut4 a O 04 N a 1\ b N .0 u O O C u to (0 10 r4 N u � 44 :3 rC r• 41U � C us a, d C u -A a C (a P-4 .0 a Ha ti >, - i m +j t r•4 -0 d 0 pi L LA o Rr' 0aLO m > ra O r- -4 M a -4do o `° � toM1-4Mu W yw `" � u •ri a L o 'V .G u a > .moi � to N •-i O W A t0 -A a 6 •-i L,` 60 C. U L f-1 a at a 13 "I •.a H 41 L •ri ,0 .-i .0 N H M Q3 .a >, o G C O '4 d to 0 a > .0 >, to a a � t3 u a to -r4 r to to .-i L a .-i ro .0 .0 +P4 ++ H .O m O L o u .O o ."C Lu G ar ° u > ay4 & nU C aO o >O to •ri "a -0 r/ •1ti Do > u ttt '0 a n �u y > U ,r- H 41 a G 0 G a a 0 0 oL G a •,+ L ro a 'O M 41 0 m � L 10 yr a r4 O M N L M o H .0 M •ri .0 M •riu a L to ro 0 a O 41 -4 M5 aM m >,•ra •r .0 41 G 0 = ro E x w a "' � u a 41 >, o •rt ar M >,'A Q. H r-i ro U W H a yd M a 0 .- 41 ro = L •rt W ti M - tC G 41 41 •ri t0A C L O H .0 aro a a O 4H.I to ts ial L W N ro N G .0 W a a w '0 O M � .G to C >, L cl G a > C •n O M a •ri UH O u ro 14 ti L x r4 u .0 ro O G S � ro c0 Wt't •ri 164 = I -i � 'b .0 o 0 u 0 m .0 0 a u G a u 0 a •.+ s a c M ro � •ri Hist .0 to a .4 .-i L r4 a H m 0 L 0 H > U ra M a u w A o 41 M 9 u to w L y4 a G G *-4 ro a ro .0 �4 14 ,-i o u M + G ro a ts u 0 G o M O H a U " a •ri > -A ro w 41 pq H p G •a 41 ro c o L C Oj E N G.A Gro O � aO NuW H C s u G a H O C r 4 U M 0 O Q 0 � Gl. Fc a to a 41 M Q..0 ro .a C O 11 C .0 H x C 41 •ri .0•� U -, M H •-+ ro a a to Tt 41 M a Q.L G o M w >~ a 3 o M H L H o ro ai .[ G �+ a o a ro •ri tv •,4 >, r4 .-i M u a u ro u G L •0 a M Co a •ri O w L H • > U .0 G W W .4 L a 00 ro •rt C H .-i .G •rt -,4 -4 0'��, ,y Q. H U M a ai G 41 •ri M G o w 0 .0 H G G a ca •ri ro x a 0 O a C to >,++ 0 H L L >,•rt M E -I a M 0 •ri H '0 0; L u 41 00 w O L O ro .a ro •ri M .0 O •ri a C .0 to a M G .0 0.r i ri o a G ro 0 ro •4 3 G ° > G L G a Z L w a •ri .G ro M 41 O r-i 41 .0 x H ro r•i E a a a •ri o>,, "DU g i.- G U C a H a ri• ,-i 3 a L m •ri 3 a U 8 a0'U G W a ro a C + W. � Lo d bD L a Q• G a EL -+ O i x M > H .0 0 > a M u 10 to o G M rO H 0 L '0 is. 0 > G H a ro .G w x to G a H Cl.C• W 0) Ln uro •/ N a L (1 cd 'A .4 u u 10 M u a •,4 a, tnQr 8i 00 C u •.-t .-t Q. � to G 04 C a s ro G •ri C 41 L > +J M u to O , 0 a •ri M Q. O •+ •C •d a O 10 ,C r•i a G r i ro ro G }� W a a to a o a •d .0 CO r-i u ro 3 M ro x 41 u W pC E3 J 94 L al ;Q H tra H .-i ro L a O 0 H ro O 0 to t •w 1 � '0 a A C Q G a r4 rA L L a s G O ro H W o v a 10 r•i O I to C ro ro i t� i ro t,c 14 C a ou a H a .+ a G ro O a a G to a 41 0 '0 O a ro ,C o a s W G 0 1 Q. .0 .0 a s •ri '0 L o G to a a -4 O 10 L W '0O '0 -4 G a u x u G vi CdG Q.A •ri G .rt O> •ri >, O .G G M M C C u G a "q o to 3 0o to C r-1 a 4r U .-i to ts 00 to 41 aro G ro a ro u 0s a r+ a 0 '0 r-i aro a 0 ti = W a C a C G 41 H .-t •ri a A H C H �.' H •ri a •ri •0 .0 H O y L �0 0 a a to >, 00 o va L Q• 4) •r4 O •G+ C4 a W ti) O c >d U O .0 C W a H H .-4 H 'rt UEi a 0 a r-i H Q..0 41 -0 M tv Co -+ G c u 0• o x o ,G ,-t 00 Cl .Gro . L a a r4.-1 ro G 0o a G G x ro r+ s+ a to to L 4j -,4ri 41 •ri I to r i aro 0 w G O -4 •A G ro C o 3t a M 3 .o to 3 w ro a •ri G 0 3 '0 ri " o .0 ro H L u 0 .G •ri H to G a s 'M H ro a a .0 G a a M 41 .G a -A C C Ai 00 " w u ,-4V u 0 0 > 0 w u .0Ue4cdr-4 •a .riu aa0 roao a to Q. u oG G o G a .G O to o '0 ^+ A .G u •r+ .G W u � > >,•ri C w a o 0 G ro 41 H a u r-t o a ro to 0 G H a 41 0 u m 41 O .0 x O a s 4 Q..G 'A •A .-i a rG > .-i G O .0 41 O .G 10 • .4 U vt M L I.t u w ri L U •A •A •ri .G a L •.1 ra G -r4 -Nd 41 to •U to to • L -A .x M .-i M t 41 > M o H W 3 0 to L ro to U � ,,4 tn L i0y pq ,i 3 N3 � C � aI H to ro H a o1.� SG G .0 as 41 a s ro ri ro > C to W t� t°i Q>i � to 3 w C u a ro " G C t>.i W Ai -4-4 y `000 q ro .0 3 w a as o u y v U a. u L Q. r-i a a 0 .G C 'aro O a OF! .rI a a u C r 4 •ri .-i G 0 a ro G a G W M 41 a M .rt 41 u a s •ri to >,'0 O H C L •-t G M 41 41 w ro a •-4 H a H 0 0 ro u G ro '0 M 41 4-10 G G O o > 0 A G M a to G r: •r4 0 a a a co ro u es 3t 0 U „ �l a a o (d a w o .0 0 G •ri Q) 0 M O •rt 0 41 S y a H u a a 0 > M G U O •ri •ri L 10 00 L U ro H to a a -r-4u to u H >i .G x 0 0 41 ro ri G t U W L H G a G C G Q. a H 41 11 to 'a a a a a iJ G .-i H 41 'o ;., Oa to o .-i ;., ro 41 a to •rt a Q- M O L ro u a a u •r, 41 M a a a a 0 H a ro to Ga L C G E to 'O H rd .0 to ro a Ei G +•i •r.i a G W 00 x L 41 .0 41 ro .G a •ra a C 0 •ri r4 0 Q. a G •r+ a L a E �G •rc H H ro > H 'ri O .-i A C rd L 41 'b u to .-i o u ro U o 0 ro L -G O O 41 •ri L 41 a 'ri H Q. L to a ri O u M p G ro C .0 •ri to u M to G u a a .G .0 >, 41 0 '0 a ro '0 0 0 L VI a. � a Q) tMv LM u O L S m . a 0 0 v0a to a G t0 1 .-i to r4 a s � C 41 a ro V .G > 41 ton " G G 0 a a .-+ .o a s 0 a oa •" o a) 4) M a ri co 0 L L U to H G .-i ro 0 G a C -i a, 00r4 oato 'd +1 u L ro G •i M o •,4 Q 0 M .0 4) co GW ri i L co o o a 0 go U G O a ro O 9 41 L H M G A a -0 r-4 � •C G U CO•ri to U) G w 0 a.- G .0 41 U 41 •ri .G x •-i p. U C -4 Q• tri to r-i .0 to a G U a Gro to 10 L 0 ,-i O ro •ri M .-t ro b 41 41 a M a o 0 a o 0orr M 41 to Q. a r4 C to G G at 0 L H •i 0 G o a ra H r •r,.o 0 U 0 -A I .c 8 • G � u a 0 >,o: o .G 3 M L U t0 to (n .,4 >, G b 0 o d .0 r-i •r) U .0 a 41 .-i M L r. .0 � .0 .0 O i.I G G C 0 G C H .0 u O M 0 0 G .0 Q r4 O ro a 0 0a .0 a H 00 a 41 0 .0 Q u C: � = Q. to 0 0 a a, t0 a, .G 0 0 G a L OD >, t.t 0 0 o u ,G to .= to 41 M r•i a C r♦ . t L L H H . . . . ki mat w • aLaua r1 to G to ro G r+ t0 O " r4 •r. a .0 o 41a •to W H •r4 a. 0o H x 41 0 a u M ar+ LU o ro ,-ia " >,u ra rl u '> 8ru � GA C 41 -0 G C G A a 0 ri ri 0 b; -i 0 -i -i G H • u u CL C N •ri C a u a N rn a .0 Q. H N Q.O 41ro •4 .G COro to 0 -A.0 0 to M - to a L •r+ 0o co 0 0 > to .0 W .-i G ro O L P. O r-i to u ',3 41 > > E 'a m 4d - Orad C 4) " „m P4o > ''atH-4 � N00 " m a+ vm ,- C¢ p r4 udor► c► i+ N 4 -A C to "4 tar+ O w Aj ,44)) at 0y 7 A t0 V-4 .O JJ •m 0-4 m O •A > Q,• O ' O -.0 � f, m to m O N 41 .0 41 to vo a N 4) .t 44 , ^ 0. 0 W •r4 C'. r-a G •,4 u4) u > A m 4u 14 CO m p. iJ N r-1 rr N V O O O G .0 m V O 4) r-a m W I >Oi •ra Q oo G O u U u m a u ra r1 4) u .0 O 4) m SZ.' N u O H {.� ^ O r-4 4) H v m 4) •ra •P4 U 0 u N 4) J J O A J,J O M N ty m ' U ^•rt to -A H ra w = G i� G 44 q .0 95 21 CL. m � as ro .r~ t7 U w O C G m n w .-4 A u Dt ctl 4f O U >, v m m to v m g w •rr O r q 0 O PG u 4) w m V .G v m u 4) v to •r4 -.t ro w 41 w 4) 0 44 >% U 0 H O U rC r-t ra u G v m 4) L n G H u M U N •!d+ 0 m 0 S.O 1.r G w O U d (U ra AJ O �,t t0 ro CT cE 47 O N p,.y r 4) m m O .0 G v A m O t0 N G r4 -C a C C 4) •-+ m • AL N qd G ,G 41 u u c0 -4 It u O w w O .0 Q) • •rd u ,-a l.t O bJ m m m C: O w U m v 0 c0 .1L O N r-4 W aJ .0 u m A O O O. N G u Q) •ra •r4 44 C O w u dJ ,G u G 41 G r4 Gu r� 41 tri " G m 0 0 ,•4 G •r+ G w ss t4 -P-4G O ra v u t . mW -% a U 'w w m •ra v ro m r-4 w aJ m m a a A 0 m w w o .-� A •r4 E Q ra v v ro G C a L� y 0) ai 4i Q o uarmo o O wCaiu ua•r4 u quo -H OCN Q) r t a) U O W 4) W 4J +3 Cd •ra x w (n ,G O O w U v " •rr C O G 4) u Oro A a.r t0 ra v u a 4) a rC a MQ^ m w (1) w w ro pO O q C 41)'ra O G C al U � U G u u 0 x (V 1 � u W � H Ct H � 41 � u 4 tn U C -4 rt 41 'o w F4 M A .-� tv 'U 4r N -4 G En a w u 41 m p4 u w t0 L T! M N 4r aJ 3 u co -n o Q = 0 .•4 m o o ro v C E u 9 to G • 4 ra C o a " a E-a ri.A m to m x .sr o Ai ato 0 w) cum .rt pv ^ a a) -A r-t u aJ `/ U w .0 m td O W r- -Au U •rt }y.�� N bo rr ro .0 O 1-4 u m tQ O U U 41r-4 ^ O ^ mW .0 G t4 u O r-4 a v m " A •Lf U ,-� ri.yr w U y, N to w u O1u tn a m w •rr -4 O rr v • PJ . { u O w U v? v C a) C a v m A> -A a r-t 1 W as 'N m m v >, nr G a m t0 u14 a) c w w to q G a ura ar a ro v O w O w A w w u O u ar v bo.� > .-r 1 ra .0 m m o m •r4 c a E w A w to ad m W .0 v G u 41 m w Q) w u m -A .0 O u E3 r4 4) u a 9 a a) JJ •r4 a 'd ) A uro g C 1-4 A. w a O G u % muAW oCv vvMa omo oQ. 0 O -,4 � to r+ rt o to m C m v w tau w E w m •rr u a G w •o O > -,4 :3 O .a9c •P4 uro .o�tr, a � .a+ b a+ c0 brvi M g G u � a •4w •mr 4.J rd v us~ �' aA CHr4 O84) owog � abs" Oa0 • wm A m v o v P-4 wai c W •14 q E t m y to q w ra w u H ro •rr CU ri.•r+ o r.a 4� ,p m a ^ t0 .5E m u w 0 ro U ai a u •ri r-i •ra v U •rl > to ro Q) w C cJ 41 C m rC w 7 ra rJ ,-4 a 7 m C v r-4 w > rs t0 m • 3 m •r4 ).r 4r u U 0 r-a 0-0 ri. m E E - E p. o w 1 a u u u u a 0) .n p.J0) v n 3 N cp w � v � u v ro i ^ m CNS m N H m O tb G a) C G G00 C G C O r-t u . v r-4 •,4 Q) u O G O C13 to -.1 > w Q) ry m U •,•t a) •rr r, .-a u QS O O ra G a) a a ?r u a/r• v O 7 A O H 4) ro q •ra u ,-4 u 00 Py t b0 O a U 6 .0 .-a O w •rt " AyOO xu O g towu � m H m -C utar, .0 wa 41 cn uMr•aa m u urau m u U ro u •a .J o >, o v m o u a •rtnr w u m rA + m m O C C CO m >, a A G A C 41 -A 41 41 C14 y uI ra U ut r ri. G O VIP a wmAaO ra r4 O rtd A U v m v O v A O v C .Z W w rd w •ra w •ro O -t G 3t .• u w to 4 w Owt ' y 41 t0X ro q C ra .Om v A u •rLJ w C O w rt OU O rt U O C c O CaJr -,1 :3 •wqr+ •u •r4 w w O O u -0 u 3 0 u v O 4 u o w .0 O rt " "4 rt O w •U r •v -0 rG rJ 0Am tm wu -4i ' aQ c " O tu , 44 0Q) > ucar0 t r+ 0W -r-4 ou r Q G v +r r4 a W a •r4 -4 to + m t~ O U o v Q) u a t Aim JL u > u rteao4 ,G P-4 u a am a o x ro4 w m vr `� C: rCa Q C H Dt ttl JJ O 4.1 Gro G u ,C 0 r-4 u a) U tL' O m Q) m E Q) a m td ra O U U O •,� v u C w O v w r-t O w •rt O v p; O •rt Go m G u u C x q O m •ra CSS r t a }r t •rt t. 44 a ►+ u co u o o a .-1 G to•rr •r4 U g o ^ t,64 .rt a,, r-t to ro m m w r-1 •ra w G v G .a SQA N t4 4) Qr r 4 O td ..ri G +� w GtQ o G 4 to 00 o C � � -u $$4 Ca r AJ -A oo v :3 ri z > C - vr0 � c'-oa u G Q) r ,D 41 - Aqv � G q a) -A o F-4a Cdk' Orl G ++ ucr, r- •,a 4 u u • O N r! 41 0. � Ow u Vcxi' ' �d G u 2 ri.� Cd P+ Cd000 n Lw 'tU4 4 C V)). O ro ro O A m O U C) t0 ra > W ttr ON •,a u ^ O u r4 .r C C C w U r C G G m U 4) ,G w u U to r-t ws to � m O o d A v O l a v e: O 44) u C) ?.cc O Cd 8 O ,-1 r4 r4 r4 •rt 4) 00 > A A m b0.0 dD u vu O O 0 LJ al ;j ri m C u m •ra .-I u 0 -4 .-t ,-r C �r G aJ O •yp C v m u v •r4 C G 4) w ,C0 •rax U o0 C A (7NH -4 .-t4) a •- ro >, O Hra 0 0 •,4 O Q) m o u N a.+ t0 U 3 cd G U A r-i •ra •rr •rt w to aJ ro G c+ u ra C ,C a ,� u a rn u to to •r+ m u E Ei +� C m a a v G u ro J,) u m � �°4 �) ' +n rr o..z ra � m t< m y ^ m .G a m v v ro y a 44 in a tax co a a•, •rr to rn r-t Oa 4r w G u m 41 .o q � u � ar � °� W � ) � .0 U u u m w 4) . m r4 ua N G uaE .� "a .j 0 c o i m o � u ;r a m O •rr •r•t ^r-1 O 4) v t0 M m • 4 O •..••••✓ O .0 • O u u is r-t a1 00 m G '.4 a • I w 0) u � 8 .� Q) ar ro � o �+ td G O 4) o G 3t .M ri. a w w G -n m Q) ri q ++ w •ra 4 t0 m O trr A 4! cO CO E > r4+ E m rn co 00 rGt a 0 0 •ra •,a 4 •rt •ra U G pa u r-1 u w 5,•r1 00 t0 i+ r4 w ca -4 U ,4 U c0 O a ° a O v a) ar >,r t .� ra a•r4 cJ rC iJ A G ra m U G U U r 4 Q) a.r Ora m ++ a 3 d r-t G v q •rt ro •rr w ,-a O ,-t N U ,-4 •r4 C w w G O C C two G C C twU r-i •ra q X w w ro 4) O o r-t o m t0 w w CO u w a O x O •rt w •ra •ra •� m G>. Q)- Ei u 41 ri6 ri. 0 m > 4J -0 3 44 0 0 D 00 f-- en Go a% 4 r4 m 00 04 04 0 e4 1-41 r-4 -I C41 Ze tnj Q1 0 -4 en 00 r- P-4 r, 0 0 . . r-4 CO " " f- " m r4 1-4 ol t�4 ml %0 Q1 0 t- -1 0%1 co %D a% rl� r� (n o 0 . . . a% cn 1-4 —4 r� 00 0 0 1-4 Do ,t J —4 co a co %D ko r., Ch u1i 0 a ON M 14 -4 tn C* " -4 1-. 'A -4 ON Ln m I Lm %01 %01 cn 01 0 cl r-� co in 't co %D Q 0 m M Q m co Ln 1-4 %o -4 CO tn —41 f-, 01 0 UM M Ch co S? Q P% 0 C) 0 ON cn r4 'A C,4 co %0 z —4 r-4 r� M H 0 M 0 -4 co CO —4 �D 0 0 rl� r-� M M 00 cn 0 H z 01 0 ol &�e 00 01 o c) Lr) 00 m Co �4 0% 0 0 N 'A 0 �t 0 m tA C14 "4 04 11 H -4 as Q '01 't C,1 0 I N in co -.0 a% 0 C4 4 1 Q a% '? En 1-4 f-4 M -4 0 E-4 9z t-4 10 1 0% a%j 00 0 1 0 P-4 �41 r- -4 " 0 0 . . cis as a% cq 1-4 1-41 cq P-4 Ln co —I a% CIO 00 ,001 Ch r, 0 0 a% C14 a% It 00 .-1 -4 %D m Ln I 0 0 a% os a% co �4 cd ,4 :1 :J U C: 0 u 0 0 0 :3 u .1:6 .14 .,4 >� v 1-4 Ai 0 41 r-1 to (1 41 -A -A v r. 0 U V 00 ,4 40 (d IV (1) r. to > > 06 W W 44 a > 41 V4 w4 I > -H -A 12 ,�d (n 41 41 4j 4j 4j (J 4j A-J CZ ,a �r rf co tio 4) >, 0 :3 4) w 0 to 09 1-4 f-4 94 r4 pq $4 4 4 Uq 0 �4 to cd w A 0 w (n 4 �4 ro u to V 41 10 rV a Cd �4 U) Cd 41 k V4 u C: 0 a�e C: r. 41 0 th 1-4 0 4) x u a 0 0 0 0 0 0 M E-4 N gal 4 -C Z ;a 44 -4 U CQ I r-4 Pq P:k E-4 1 • r- 00 1` 0% N N 10o 1- N to M N to N OD M 00 O N • . • • . . • 01 tm M N M I 00 Oi CI 1` M to( �+ to 11, M %D %D • • • a% ,r1..1 %0OD co � CIN 0 � O v n n O I 000 000 0 � S N N I OO rt N I M SDI O • • • • • • • • v mN U"%1 00 %D ON 00 co 1-1 rl rl N v %D N O co M N M I CO M N . r-4tm 1- N O •I a] n v 00 v n n M I O n N I a% u1 N u1 I N t11 N I M• n �D N I to O0 N 1- 1- tD • • • . • . • v N raAt ti n �D v H O U N M tD -4 O11 •� /r1 N i s ^ n I f` • . . • a OMO �t Ln 0000 rl �D • t0 V1 ••� .7 � 07 O n r. Lm tT N O M E-t O as It Ch • • •) Z m I O�D M 1TI � to ( to �7 • 8 g O) a, cor" co N %*) O M NI rl n OI x ^ 0% to N M N Pi �T �7 M M U tT In rt t U N tT O 4 00 I N N cn I C M N( P-1 NN Q to I n 6 m 4 N � M M N v r-d t�4 14 V�71 001g1 0% S N I O M N I O� �? N I N V1 n t/1 I O CJ %T cn N rl N %D N N "4 %-, .1 tYi n t+1 I OM R1 N M I 00 t11 N I M O0 t/1 01 C0 tT 00 0� M O • • • • 1"'1 ►"4 1'4 -T •tet rl W nl Mal tT NNMI n. r. •N) 0 M N OI t"1 a% ^ -4 tt1 r. . • • • rt N v y CS 0 44 do C1 0) N .9 CO Aiy u N 14 C! E ttoQ L t0 O C O m • N AJ 4c C s'i O V y tJ v 1-4 v U y D to O rlrt rt rl rl •d 41 r-i .•d N !0 M N cd to N to b t0 t3. .1 to 00 r+ 41 Ln 00 rl 41 L to 41 G' {� Ci k �S a6 a+ E-4 ' V ai 1O tT H H A H oao to U to A r- n1 00 N q0N �1r .1 �r♦ 6T ! r•1ON h N tT �11r-i Od e 00 V-4 N r-t O 00 GO -4 .-d O� �7�r-+ r-i 00 N�N %D N( 00 ri r-1 r4 u1( r1O1� (3,1,000 tom! �7hIC 00 i8 0'% �D h fnO 0 « ON Mr-1 r-1 h t70 0 W r-t c0 t-4r1 0 O, M -4-4 "4 tm 00eqto• r-1 .D r-1 r-d 0% tf5 y� d co � �4� 0`00 aRD r►u -411 U �1 N cn -.T 19 r a h. 0 0 M N t- O A 41 �7 oo thr♦ ��h co tD v1 ON �--yt r-1 h "10 00(gyp 0 d h N v1 L7 C!1 �) M r-4 01•-1 0001x00 M • `) tOtl H O r-i r-+ N ca a O to 0 N a, 010 0 100 OaH h 00 N0p d OCT+ 00 QtiNr-i r-1tM N N •rat Ln O. O Cn 00 .D O iiO 00 0 O m N N� 0�ON �7I� N •� N H a U o0cry M0 CT aD 0 d r1 0 O to N ON N�� c�N .7 0100 N n , h hN (n tt1O� 0d hOdl h U ON N O ON �t 10O0 • ` Q' r-i r•i CQ N tn 0-2 N�r I00 Co)�0 tq�00 N r-i ?t r-t JJ r M •r1 to ,� y+ u d to 41 tai ri r1 aC e+a1 H Ci QY Cii G3 t2 eVd to w w > w > O $4 w •14 0 ,"'i,• t! d -A r1 r4 •r1 •ri 0j ,> •r1 •ri •0 r1 .SL to b4 tJ 41 41 IJ 11 U r tl LJ a V 3t •r1 CC 00 d >, tv ;ON to O d a tv o to w A41 4 ,.1 a r-40 r-/ . b w C: r4to a x W so ri 0 is to cc to 'w •ra a th to r4 tv U c0 u 10m t1� t+ wO b O u •u w 1 G 0 au a ° va 4 aCC aqdLQ va Hd M E- ad x oa ) AQ ;APQucA ra-t k r\ 00 r4 00 M rl 01 .4• • N• %1 �t 1� n u1 0'10 r•l 00 0% 0p% • • • • • • •+ rtm el %C �) n cr1 I v C; v � I N Vt OD( M NMI O N NI C O� rpt tI1I � %D Op N O O 00 v O v r 4 00 n( OD0 n t en -I r-4LnM M� r-t �T NI N O N t0i � 0% M u1 (7% a% 00 r 4 a% r-/ cq v v rtT1 N M M O0( 00 O 1* N I1 O M N I •-1 00 c�1 N I �i Q• 4 V1 t` M r-t 00 00 %D r-I to r-I r-I r-1 N v v MI N u1 u1I N 1 r-1 �! tT M N I tT N N I M 00 0% ,D to r a • • O� Ch I1 tD r4 n t` tl1 r-I qp N N r-1 N u v O U 1 00 � NI MN �7) Or NI N O y nl M a0 c N to • • • . D, 00 � Ln 00 �O • t0 u1 a r•l Itr1 N tT I �D U1 M 4 I N tr1 N I M N r-1 P I u, d 00 N %O 00 r` • • • • • • v HC7% n M �* to r-t u1 u) -.7 v ppy� U Uto 1 O �7 M M O �7 N O M N r-1 N O� O N u1 Ncr% • • • . • • • M I eq r-d � I M M I 1 a I CO ON -4 -4 r1 r 4 —41 M M N I r-t .-I C u1 I lD H n N -4 O u1 . . . t?� 4N M M M N rl v. O w coI M u1 'll N N 1 0o M t+'1 u1 I N L7 C� cn N N00 r-1 cn N r l rl r-1 rQl � CQ t`( -r'_ r-1 r-1 '(O M NMI 00 M Nq r-1 Y-4 -4 M r4 1-I � I r-d O I In N r-1 141 u 1 t!1 N I M N rel 01 N p� ^ u1 %0 v N C a o r-+ v, u to u cc to .moi �: d u N 114 to C O C O N b C 0 D D C y .0 OIc u u U u o to L) 4 y v r4 �:+ .ai A V y C y 0 U csIOSQ 7 H C lu N lU N C co y lb y LL r-I a u, 00 r4 Id to 00 41 u W Aj w C w a 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 4) o 0 0 0 a x 0+ H ac o+ H H o-7 H v 00 C4 en M cn 01 1 a 1 CIO 00 "D 0 1-4 00 fA r4 CT% N cn N 01 * 01 CID %0 0 co 1-4 0 m %o co CIN cq f� co 1-4 'T 00 0 01 00 co 0 --1 7% co rq ell -4 N cq 01 Co enj N 00100 %0coto co .-I r-4 r-4 00 C4 m co N 0-4 0% 00 I'D -4 0 0 -41 10 00 1 00 01 0 UM 00 r- co P-4 as tn %D 1-4 It, to00 00 0 c r-4 r-1 C4 ILn co 0 cn '-f co -r1t, 1 ,44 1 N I r-4 0 ON N 1-1 O cn 14 1-4 aN -4 1-4 �4 ra 1-4 ol cn mi C9 01 tn r tn -4 In en 0 cl 1-4 'T E-4 a% ID cn r4 ,;,, '01 4 04 M 001 o 01 o In 001 C-4 co eq c)I (n 0 N r- 04 7-4 '01 (10 00 014 M CO FO pq a, ch cN %o 00 01 N In If- al "4 In c- a% M 1,4 e4 cy.. 00 NJ C%4 %01 In in I' 00 0,11 C14 D 4`0 04 04 N 04 r� ON 1`4 r-4 (.1h 4 r-1 >) >1 -r4 u U) u '0 AJ r-4 aj 06 V 41 -4 Aj cd .0 to L7 to w 0 .0 U) :% V AJ cl 4) 0 Q u N Q ofz 41) "a u 4) co 0 1 r. �4 31 t 4 - • t: .0 r-4 41 0 .0 q "41 0 4) 0 tn 04 M 0 P-4 4) m 0 cn P-4 0 0 to 4j a0 0 co 'a 41 0 0 C 0 'i It, XO w .9 0 0 Aj :3 14 4 $4 = C) 0 0 4) 41 0 c; 0 0 Q 01 4.1 0v c� c; "0 U 0 0 E-41 r14 W CW W1 Z Z A4 to <& H w (A 04 to Z Z 04 to V)- V} •.+ a a o rp+ p N ' IMI 41 4! 00 d •f� r/ S N M ' 44 lw • 'C O uN u b ep Q V O 41 a r-4 •.4 4�4� 00d Q - NI A a q N q e0 • e0 •C 1 y O g O a+ at t 0 A d u Qa C u •r4 .a u w u LL Gln r4 N co U b M 4) t0 CV 41 N N N •r4 4) CO 0) 00 1-4 O 4) to u to 1+ 0) O 4d •r4 -4 41 to b O 0 r4 u N ,C b 4r u •4 N O 1 r ".4to 4l O r 1 4J N >-.M ts 4.4 a a A +1 d u 1 f A G q •r4 N w P-0 O u g N 'v u .LM 4 b O N .0 14 O 4) 4J :IN 0) w 0 uC � � O 40.1 a vUf •r4 .•4 N L7 > •v y of u w w r•1 a7 u � 4� w u .r j •r4 •� O M W r4 41 ,- '� L 0rqQJ 41 4) u N v)4 w u O + (isN 4) u ,4 41 al .0 Cu to -0 01N 41 N U r•4 71 IAO O U 00 4X.1 " t0 •> b 'o O O Gl .G N A O y o0 u O aal u to 4) 0) 4) r-1 C Y4 .0 4J N44 41 Ci •r4 w �{ N H N 0. y� .0 ,4 H O O 4) •d 4J Gl C •rl k . d N 0 07 'OG gNg 0� r4 10 4} w +i Id 1`� 1�J 'e•1 G/ N TJ -HU G) •ryl {+ O 41 X td .,4 cd 'fl -,4 ,�4 C u R C 'v a A 4) G 'O 41 w U 4.1 ass 0 >, R! t-4 r-4 0 C O 0) O •14 W 41 N N L s, w u l•4 r-1 11 " C. 0 E i r4 •►4 w .•4 •r4 0 4d � .G N v 4 C d O •4 O 0 � 0) r4 A u y r, O .0 B CL O u 0 •r4 to w •r4 co .0 td u O w o �+ •r4 M R a 41 4 O a>i ro tr u u •b O u 00 0 A •r4 r-4 0 4! r 4 ..0 O 0) y 4) sr 1-4 'v C. 0) (i u ,y (n u '3 0. N ?r. ►4 c l u Cu 0) CLU td r♦ •,I %a •C 0 X •r4 •r4 R1 " „ti 43 N •ri N 0 4J O F4 U •r1 0) W M O N eb 41 w H 'v QJ 41y .0 d C N •r4 E L 0o a7 .L' td a L m N y0 W p o td 0. 0 0 44 0 0 u r4 .0 C 0) •r4 C1. N G L 0 E 4j t0 O C. 1.4 4b4 C [4 O .O tea N 4) .0 >1 O o u 4) u 0. cu u (13 u r-4 4) .n u ° 0 0rdH C W ,C 10 e-Na4i ^M uO y H v ub 0) MaA. 0CNt00 OH 404>))a v0 O>N NNU b 4d 0 CO Co -1 N r-1 O vw N fO C •0r)dl O '0 CHC 0 O C { u U O yo 4 °) 0sr s+ C as ro u a d •� ro o. > .0 [a 0. aui 'v •r4 .0 p.t > u r4 � a, N .4 4) � .•4 > .a >. o N ro 4, a � '� 0 0.4y1 o bin a) '� •o u a c° W '`I 0.u � �N fy0 y 3 cn H A. + 4°-1 C O. k � � .c W tCd •r i O. O t0 t0n w .°0 r4 cc ,4 >1 41 C1 d 41) A1 a �,-,4 04 u p ro u u 0 �3. C -r4 C: N o ►+ �, :_; ,:; L w u ri L u r-4 O ,-4 •d rr Cl) 0 u H w L o w W u -u N w Ct) 't7 C1. N C. 'v 'v O {.1 4) u •ri w r/ 7 u -H u 'C O G) -Af3. 0 td cc •r4 o r-4 N ty u t0 00 $4 W v1 M w O N v 0 u ° 0 Gl u 'a u b .0 u .n •r4 •r4 •r4 u a) q 41 O 'v > C. r-4 O 0 M U > .0 U4 C oo a 0) r-4 r4 0O 0 O 4J L 0 .0 >>•ri C •r4 A w '0 0 •r4 O •r4 t0 N 41 7 u w O M Q N H 4d 4) r-1 •.•1 U ;Q u 0 r•4 b 8 4) td N O u w 0 N >, �O a!{ao�4� .O 0.0 � N O m v H .� O tuo -44 -r4 > A 4: 0 u u 0) 4) O N •,44 7. c0 s: 00 M ai rai 41 .0 0 .G N u 0 (A •r4 0 0 41 a) N N 0 •c) $4 u 4r N .-4 O C 0N 41 . 4J 41 Q) N0 4) Ca b A z 7 X 'v O 'O p O O O u N %0 •r4 W w 0p 41 0 C .0 14 C". 0.u .4 1- 3 W o 0 r-4 u •n t~ 41 b . gp q M C. 4) 4) .0 r4 N u N H O C'. O G N 0 C C (V a) b O r-4 N 4) C N 6 tJ C7 00 0) 4) H u •r43 N cd 4! 0 u .4 0 3 td X r4 U sr 0 t d @ O AJ N 4) •r4 M sr 44 •r4 C. O a) q ,C U G) 4J A 0 u 0 -4 u 4) N Ql N - A cd r 0 0 •v u N C O u C. a > N N N c0 0 y .0 r-4 a 4) - u 4) v' 7,•r4 0 H td 0 M r•4 0 N O N •r1 v G: b 0 W , U 41. N u � 'v C: N 41 L lJ o $4 41 U o 41•r-4 0 00 0 00 Z .0 O .r4 00 's (n a to 0. u a) r4 w ,~i 00) U ru4 1] °L1 G 41 O 4 cyd v) a g A° N 40 > r0�1 Q f�q L r3 v L7 w 4110 .u0 a. 4y > >i44) AiNrdw a 4wx 80 an .n a) 0td4) yyuNaO •r4 .0 0) cd 8 O td u x 0 O u 4) a r4 0 C a I Ln a U 6 cV 4) .0 41 S� U U ,-4 -0 u u fa � 41 44 L If) 0 v t0 t0 0 t0 r4 4v r-4 4) N C 4) A GI ,C SC 'CJ iJ N O cd N A r-1 0. N to N > r♦ fn r-4 N 1 4) •rt Cl > 4J 4l U td •r4 a to Cs. td00 41 CO) w N 0) 0) >, O ,-4 N r-1 A C. w O •r, N N u N $4 td .0 41 0 C L u u m u 'v •r4 - N C •14 t� u N '0 4) u 0) O r4 N '.t 00 0 4» •r4 0 � U 00 N '.3 •r4 0) •14 C b 0 11 Q 0 0.•r4 ac N -4 n cV w 0. m 04 a) 0 41 1-4 •r4 0 b •n N N 0 A a! u •>, N 0. e. •,q Ln 14 n C3..•. t u u ., q C 00 rC Is. C O N 4.1 a) C 0 N q 't7 4d ra 0 0 r-4 q rn O O Cl al a) N N •r+ o C O N Q) N 4) > •r4 W t0 0 C+" w OO u 4.1 o r o 4j r•4 N N 4j to 0 rl G r4 A m 41 •r4 4J G) to A t0 H 0 G N y O A cd ry to •rc > 4) 'C 'v •ri $4 O A t0 4.1 4) N O •r4 u 4J 41 R N 4) N " rl ,C 4) 4) ,C 0 0 C 0) w u > u u .0 .0 w 0 "a to .0 u > .a O to u w u U r-4 u N '1 u Co 0 Q O. 0 td W W 0 0 u •,4 u G) . r-4 •r4 •,q •r4 .0 (v u to N N O L .a 0 O u .0 cq C O 4J 'O •,4 N 4J '0 u •,4 -r4 N o 0 .tr G t: x O 'A 4.) 4>) 4) u u U 4) 0 O " O O C 0 4J A r-4 U ,t'',. N H 0) m CS. u 4) u w r-4 yC 00 00 A .0 .0 •r4 8 lA m H td 00 N 11:4 OJ U 11 a1 I :,3 � 3 N •ri ° •ri 8 u u 441 O � • qq Q) C 6 M t0 N r-1 'v a) '� � � u •r1 > o N N .p id' p 4) � N N • N �y cd r-1 0 MA W u N '� O o O q 0. N 0 N r4 N -4 o o z u O N U A •r4 a 0 °� coo 'o 'v > -. 411 � ,-44 ° a. co a 0 N ,-4 .0 ,v O A w 00 -4 °r o O u •r4 0 4: 0 •r4 4) u [3 C. v •d W N N •r4 4) W O >>H U b A C) 3 .or > r 4 w -Hr4 N • 0 4) •,4 •r4 > to O 0 u O N N G) •r4 N 4J N 4) 0) >.1-4 H .a Aw •r4 O N u U O ,-4 •d .SZ al !� G u 'L7 r-4 41 41 'a .0 td •r4 r4 0) N > 4J 4) .0 aJ O M N N u a) N N 4) rl A 4) 4) 41 L4 4) 4J N r4 O --I O C Ci. A td to W O A to .,n N a. al 'v -W � v � co 40i c,Od u 4°.I O v• C+ 8 r°7 S .c °u '+4) a ai t� v 41 •° � ,u., a � � 4J � •rCi 'ai cq w •Q • FI 41 r-4 d •4 441 •V 1 �r1 41 is 0 441 L •r1 O c A.W 4f 0 1. L q 0 •04 10 U0 O .4 O ^ 43 0 m u ^ C L1 y to ?A9) as >, .,4 m •r4 u •m xW a1 m 'o u (A a u L a ro • 'V O L •C 4) M R01 a01 ,�.1 41 Ln .1 .-1 •� (V u ••4 u� O ate+ .Oi CC 0 a •1Ui 41 w r4 •r/ 43 1J a •A 41 y1 n 10 0) • a.) u •r1 rr a 6 L► U N t0 H tota aL toa41 > LOIaV ,a U10 � 741 •r tjtda x46JC u 'U W H 41 .0 a U H O o' in .t •r+ C U .0r•1 to H s3 O tw to 31 r-c m U a a 0 a > u H O a •r+ a O H L S L I W L u L 0 t9 •rl a m ,4 •rl O. a b U L ..+ ^ L a m .7 0 .0 .0 A O > m m a w '0 0 $4 >,w a u 0 u O r4 m ^ a uH O � 7 +j a o .!C L a 43 r4 0 td O )1 0 .0 •rt O +n• •r1 to O N a M m a L o u a '0 'v O a u a 00 W CL rl W .0 A h a L r•1 a •r1 03 r-4 to J~ a C U) a u C: C 0 v n3 a H a u cn1 r+ C > u a "aH (n• + u v s m a td cs. m r1 C to 0 4,.bC V) to a �t a E O 44 a a H a u > a m a u p cd a C •r4 a s `3 ,C h U •r1 -A O H CL td m X H w ttl C ID H •r1 a O .0 41 •r1 L O O ro L (7% a r-/ LM -A t� a a O CL cd d H u ro .-1 •rl L to u u a • •-t ro to . L m tv +� a C E 04 a ^ 0 a m 41 aL • 0 Cs oaaQ � $4ri14 � " c m • a r-c O 0 r-1 •r+ ^ u V 4) H b a H w •rr H H O r-1 H H 0 a > a r+ Ca a C td L A w C a L 0 w o0 3 u C a E ro a o m H r+ >, C . a C+r a > r4 a .n o ro m m O O • •r1 u a E a L ed O Q u O > Q O m > a O m .0 m r-1 •r1 •r1 L 4) L H M •,4 CL C L a b m L a O a to L .0 3 yG L L w CO L m m X T f.• cd .-. H aro a C H L O </)- u U -A .0 cd w O m 4) m .0 o m a v ro ^ m y ►4 a k cd 00 a s u L a o a .0 CL L U CL L .-+ a C L %D m m L E r-1 m a L a C L r-1 ro •r1 -k L ro .0 L C 0 r4 a C 0% •r1 a ed m L td C c•J a rd CA r.. E O •O O L a a m td •-1 A L 41 4) •.0 m E m W •r1 r 4 •r1 L W rd •rl > O -C m .G E --1 > - L E O E-1 m •rl m 7 a O m ro a a L ,•-r •ri L n L L 0.44 b ro E to - .7 0 L a •,'1.0 E U a a N a T H a 0 C O H a G •4 r+ yr N u 0 a a 0 tj rr 4) L cd 00 X L a E tT a W r4 H a O 14 T O a s o t0 C4 Ir r-t rJ L a L10 a Lai w> C° ° a a o to 0 d) C .a Q u to a ° H v O to .,4 atows ?• ,O O L .0 CQ O 00 a s •r1 •ra 4) OG 7 tt1 a • h w a C r-1 h L L a h m R1 n a C L .r-+ C '0 L m m X C b ro A w 1 CS L td T 1 m a C 1 a •rr 00 td m O (n a •ri a C to C a a 41 • O .7tH ^�7 U ►+ L .1 o C •r1 w > y .0 14 O L L m > a .0 m �. h to Q a N h L h L •rl 00 ty L O 14 a L U U u N a o0 L 0 L a% to L h m to m C tT '0 L o a u 1.r td a H C -4 cO N r-r •,a C O .-+ r-1 •0 wQ) av tomt.ov3ra a w $4as o u o ov m01- H H a ° r-+ m C E L n u 3 C .1 a o u a.•o v rn to rn rn a u E L L O L a C E W a 7 7 0 a m 0 L h > C C C O 1-•1 v} C C a C C 3 a p,L •rl O )4 E m r-1 L •rc ►r 1 d -4 to a F ^ ro F O C: b a a r4 O m T a u m w m a m m ro H rn 00 to CL, r-+ qq w o 0 E m a a Q) aro a 4) u m u .0 O h (7% a a tn-N rd O r♦ O Q. a L E aro 0 C A 0 m a O O r 4 to CL. aT .O O 'o m tO L F-1 O H rJ b Lr1 O H C a .0 r4 -4 O C ,••1 a L vt C m Ln .-•1 -4 O 1-4 a N U E .Z E H a mm m o o L o r1 0 -H a ^ ai M a m 0 a L a > 0 >, H a •r1 .0 H a 0 0 r-t ^ L ? m '0 L > •r+ r•1 > a X m o N uCuuzemNuwBuuv L L 34 .n 3 0 M M 0 3 0••r (n• q > C+ n 1 ^ m O a a ,C a m C y m H C H m a 0 0 m a L L L 00 a Ei V H H X a v T a m y.� ,C r-•1 a a L 0 a X a r-1 .0 L cd 1 n rtt w 0 .n ,C a 43 u m td L H E m a H a .0 co P. •a m a m a v L •r1 E m 0 41 a U m • ,IHm0 a •r +Hv) aLa ar1HC± aaT L a O 0 � L O •r4 U O ,-A4) 0 00 b 0 a ro •rl C H O C u m L •a .0 O a a g a 3 •H •4 .0 u •r1 44 o m L td L r-1 r1 a s m a m H L .0 C a L 3C L C H o a co •-4 a .. L 3+ $ 00 W N a L cd O L V O m O O a H 0 .0 r+ rJ m . m a m L O ro h O m .a a s a •r1 w 0 a L 1a a !•1 0 ••a Q L 00 ro y H 0 -0o' a C H .0 O L L0 r-1 rC a ro > a m a > L m a s C: u •r4 W .o g ,-t .0 • a a u L L td m W a L = a r 4 O .a a .0 O C A 00 O a f ro td L ro > X C •r1 O O > L O •r1 E y F1 W a Lro .O L a a t o C: a a Co L W ^ u u r-1 W -0c ° C a m a 6 0 C r-i L C a •r1 >, 00 w L •r1 '0 td U rJ •ro O C u m C: a a m .0 .o a s O a • + L r4 C o u 0 a 0 > u a O 0 H > - 0 a L 3,4 ,C L a o L 0 o C a 00 a L a .0 T r1 U m 0 o r-+ v a mW L L M = .0 C rd L al O c C m M L W ro •r1 m O •r1 O a $4 H H di tn a u w H L U a H vJ U •r1 0 C m a a a H a •r1 • L O X a s m a a •4 •^ L a O E C '0 m L m L ,1 cd .0 m •rl 00 L L L L 14 o Y o m a ^ r-t m to rd r1 H O a m m m u g ti u a W C 0 0 m •r1 L rt3 L R3 Ort •r1 a s H ro L O L E m a •rf to oa m r-1 m w •11 > > ^ a E m u u 1� a •rm1 a u A G a. ?a4 ro w = O M 0a 3t o 60 > 3 r 4i a 0 a C rn C .-moi 'o :3 v co L rC o a a m O •r1 r0 m L 1.1 1.1 CO 1•1 a H O a ad k 3.1 .0 o a O .0 a to L [1 r i L > a tH ro a W O m L H 10 w H O a L a > a r-1 Ea u T $4 a cd a o r-1 u H m a 0 0 a a o w a o P a o o cd v .:r w C: H a v M C td a u a E .0 In •r1 m ro m o w H C 0 ^ v CL u o a a u H H •o C: o v u L a to a a o 10 (n a .0 v a C O L (n W > O 00 C co C H m U a > a u L 1••1 a w > u x a 0 u q C: O a r-1 r. 1. ] L a u r1 .0 $40 0 a a 0 r-1 00 w C a m L O O C O W H •rt a m > X C 3+ L a m ro O H C a C O •r1 u :3 'A O a T C L C a w L m m O C: O > rd L u $4 a w O U L U a O r-r O • O H L.) m H a 34 d) i4 •r1 O .0 a rJ O u $4 '0 U U CO a 34 .0 a% CL•r4 r4 0 U u •rl a w 0 CL > tt�o L H U to w L •11 C to tH a u (d C 00 0 L •ra L CO a w . (d '0 L 0.•r1 a L •r4 0. td a C H r♦ •r1 H m •ra cd O • L 43 C •rt 0 O C a W u H 10 a s m a a a V) L r+ b .0 (n m w P4 1-1 O 0 > a o f r-1 (d r4 a m 'o b 0 A m 0 "aa rd L^ O C C w O . r+ -A a a L •,i .5 O cd to .rC 00 a to r! ] T L .0 W�^,l w co O 0 a to � 0 L r-+ •rq r. L ° H td 4JO •r1 >> ° a Cp u .O . M 3P, .14•^ y O a .0 a .0 u v w td tv H CO O 7 C: id H a H O u -1 4H) G cd to a •o •d W (d a m H a H a r- O O > 1 r-4 U •r4 H a a a a -1 a cd •A � u O •r4 � a • a w •114 CO 4)) t0 r.4 u y uai O OHO d 14 ° rd 0a0 E rLt C: 4T) 4H) W 4 w 0a 10 f9 m .o l0 !n H m o a'C a u •,A C: L LdL HL h U d 4) d r0 H a o b m 0 a ^ b rO a a L C ) •,4 H a -+ a r•1 a ra >, a O G L r+ 0,. a aero L a u •11 r. b C L O L a O C -H m O C O L m 0 0 4 T L u a m m V u uaua3rdup "aduiu .� auj. v 41 0 tn m .1-4 COw o .v 44 N iN M .T a •0 Li i p Ai u to H a to •.'i u .-t � •rl V1 .0 a •rt ., u two M .0 G u u 000 >• � 1 u cl W O : •r4 4Ci .a " .n •,t u w .-,r4 w u U •,4 a is b r+ 1 O 't a w G w w " > L 0 a0 0 a m w O N a •rt O 41 n b r-t H 0.L C a •a w w 3.3 44 aN m C 41 •ty a L u to w a ,a u � tT ro a cw m cd w —4 G a a a ` ... O b O •ri > m a 0 •rt a •rt rr O .0 w 0 C u C w G w a -t CO w X a 0 0 O m 00 0 ro E ?C 0 O u In -4 C •rt co C u •rt m u .0 C = V) u •C O as m m u 7 C O O O H ro u es •v •rr O m O Cl W •r+ ro m rt a s w • .-t a trs O Ca. E a a o w G ro ra 41 u w w u 0 w 1+ ro r+ m G u u row m 3 a a a o u •rr m a �+ c G tv •rt uo 0 a X N m 0 7 ro a a ro a. M >, 0 a 44 w 0. a w o 0.w 0 w 1•1 r, G C a 3 a •C a 0 m m w m ro .G a.+ •rt as 0 a u GL a N r. O0 •rt u C w m C P-t u L C •rt -4 u m u w G w N O Ln th1 o a m a a a m m a u u M C O -0 -1 i t •rt 0 C M aNaT to . �` C •rtw a M C •C ro Z > a ,4 0 ro L -0 r4 u 0 .a U .r4 3 ...r-t r-! a 3 aro o m tad .. u � a ra .0 m •a co to •rf ^t7 r1 C N }Q •-t a wr: a •rt 0 m .n 4,J •rt C .0 ,-t C b ,s .-t 0 w C m •.i as N O m U. a = 4+ O sc u m t0 u a u 0 •rt G m ro C 41 u m O0 w .o• .0 u i.t u w 3 • U a w 31 .-, C u G 0 0 w u 41 m %0 •rt 00 O0 m aJ a N u C a .0 ro 4J a 4 O w a ro m G w a ur a •rt I C r- •rt 00 a .Ma w +4 u ,C m w C w 0 •U w r4 a u O ^ G •rt E A v1 0 r-1 m ..�,C u m E 0 a .aL O w O 0. a C w w E m C a w •rt a.t G C •rt 0. C u u m {3 u u a 0 G 7 a o m w ate? O N d0 t0 0 O C a 0 to Q) 4-4 O my u •rt m rd 41 .14 r-t a ubN m • 00 C U .0 wra O m •rtr-4 a &j 44 mo -0 a m ro uW rl ,C Q A 0C) 0 ro r t a •rt 0 u M = 0 •rt •0 a m m a row w ro 0 ro u a ^ -A u > u a u u G 0 a w C o r. .0 o 0 w •rt 0 m A d m a r+ m aro w C >,.a m 0 •rt m a r-1 m a a 41 0 rt .-t a v w u w m w 0 r•+ ro a m a m 0 •rt C.• C to -0 > 0.10 d d 00 .0 - o m a c u u0 �� 00 J"- •0 •r+ w 0 L O u > o o w 'a o a r ro a w u .c a-A m C G u w a sj •r+ a a w > A N aL d ++ ra m •rt u O C a a m •rt w m ro 3 m a -Hu m •o u a ^o ,a a. a •r t to C C C 0@ w C u o 'o 0. a > ro co as a .c o v wd t aAW roaaroaouaroo roa. GmH �+ m ,-+ coww G t) two M C. a 0 a G a .G w m u d ++ ro o ++ u ra G m u u a a muro t a aaoac room u •r481ttnom ate ;° : ° V) cmn � to to x .a ••N C � cv 9t a i+ O w m a w 3 >, u m ,-t •rt L k to u •rt = w a ,4 u a C .0 a 9 o as a m L m G r4 a a•+ t ca .7 0 u to •r1 a ur a ra •rt u m u o C a G G o a ,C 10 •r+ ON H .aL C •rt mrt .0 y 3 - C v -k - a O m > u C G 4 U O -4 a >, a ca u w 0 w u a u G a ,G •rt •rt •rt ro a w a 4J tf •d a m ro m 0 w 0 C .c m r- G to m y i+ 41 $4 Aj to -O w ca •rt r-4 41 u t0 O. co a w r+a w ro u w a0 • to 03100 :sG .0 a .0 O a a u Orn � m 00 L o u a, -%0 0. .0 iJ t0 u w 41 m 0 m a +s .-4 C a u G C .-t G ,4 N ro a }. u a •rl G to u 41 0 C C u 0 41 m m a o ro t Ci C 00G w W •r•t .0 C w O a w O -A to 0 •r+ ca0 C w .0 > u u 0 CYN •; tv R1 pt N u u H w O.�► •rt O 0 ra 0 u Ei w L L@ u u ro ro u Ln a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r+ o v+ a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e� o ao �o o a o yi u Vi n ..e to Cp a% a% Ln O �•-� d .-� r. fn V1 w w w w w o u O aA o n en cn ap a% (b O ww w N N14 4 en 04 N N L .,4 3 • u C: V1 "4 O O O O O O O O P•"e O r e e0 V1 cn O O O O O O O O en O �O a en en L,;to O O r. e•1 O+ O CO N a L a\ V1 N CO e•1 OO N M OD .4 � O M -7 V1 3 •re O -4 M V1 a1 OO O �? ed (,•' w w W .0 O .-•e t` e'1 O eT O O N C cn Ln IT a+ O � Oo M eLn a% a% pl .fie It (14 cli L 3 H W en Or� U v�1 ►a R • • • O O O O O n1 O V1 O O n L C4 a7 N r-e rd en N r-1 rl a% O a% cn V) I H 7 %D CA .t O w• h z .00 r e N V1 ap 11 N C e+1 O n a% a L ed a% .10 LM co e- N O V1 r-4 E-1 •,� ,� V) �O M N c•1 a% M V1 O O 3 O z au r4 r-4 Lri ... H V p�q v} c/)• tn• v} v} tn• t/r tn• t�I?• vii• tn• d e as x r4 U A G •,4 n cl q r4 U n CG d + W b '4 d x � Hw � o+ 1 oua ai 0 W Q v a 0 CL —4 $4 N w .-e O L A L G! u a $4 u W a -A Qi r4CCl t: ra 4 v N d w ,� •o ,a > O w O w v w w v O y G► •re O O4 w G► O 7 Q 41 Leq GI qVr Cd yam,, w •rt 41AiL u GJ > u > ++ e j a 8 7 a W +� K r4 d N G! y � d •r� U y C. Cl e0 •e oG w a ? � t( A a 0 w ° z O V1 V1 V) C ^•t L GJ 0 N V1 N V) V1 O .•4 N G O u r-4 i G7to n > u V ) > w u rte. .tet a% .4 O N d ai O a% O o+ a% m . . . . . . . . . . . r 4 N cn It in W e` w eT O .•d N eel r4 "4 r♦ ra N Y 1 1 p r1 • �p1 y rl N t IZ • 01 tti L w •V1 t m Y a a r•1 O O r♦ M .N1 w L X01 01 •�i 14 •_ aN+ wv ', a �, °' "•_+' w '"� Ma' -248a0, oa . O 8 a+ w aaa0 � 2 wd a, a a+ ML a >, g �q4 p O s ..O A 44 a1 00v v C) u e fi O' m a+ �0 0! a 01 a, ..1 d u 0) to '� M rr D .1 U 14 W m t0 CL H 44 (1 W U OJ O H 0) a+ u t0 to ,4 '� du u PC U4a 11 .4 � & � ajrantou >. roua. Ot a u W . .1c op ac 0) u 01 0e1 aJ L N o0 to >,n u c a u to •.ai vui t�q to u 4i u t0 O 0) r-1 •A 1-4 'fl rr 14 ' a• to -A a U •a 14 M a .-t H •n a 0) 14 m a 0l A rr y r•1 u C > 3 +�+ .0 w 0 0 0 rr t0 L CL O L .a Q to L X 01 4J •F4 a a L m H O .0 Oi u8 � Cd •� W -P4a '� u 14 O •' 9 y w a u u O vvbd w 41 o wu''u °C �(v -A.Li 0y •14Nrou W r-1 u M L 60 0) .0 a a •rl t0 u O 8 x •F4 •rl 0) v L H a 1-1 •rl a W N L a -A O L Z a a) .D CL L a C C a) c0 >1 0 C1..-4 M O C -A O a •.d td O CO r-1 t0 •C O a! C.. V. L N l] L W L CC L H tO a u a) L U r•� O a .O aJ •rl •rl 0) U m V) 0) O to L t0 R! 4J > t0 N ,a td rd L 00 W ' u U L M C .0 D N L O GL .9•W r4 L b t0 tt1 .O L' H a) 00 C O t0 1+ L of ° a) � •rl a) W b to N td > a ' M O '-1 L M C Cl >, a c0 4) > 0) > L •a V) .0 O O C: O'•rt u M •r4 U •ri a .0 u a) L � U V) a r o 04 a) 'r 'O W O 'O M C b a 'O •.+ W U td . a) to H to H a 00 •rt C '-1 .0 d -A CQ 4) H V1 CQ L L � .D •d4) W b .9 L N C r-1 .-1 C C r-1 u >> to v N L (n r-4 V) U O .0 > a) a) 3 >,•rl C .A r4 r-t •� •rl •,1 O H >> N to Cl GCI •rt -A 0 to L E-+ a) W 'a �l1 m C '3 'A O L 31 •a r•1 0 to L a) •rl W H L y CL N m A W aJ 41 00 O r1 .0to 0) a) to O ��CC 0) to ,Jr C .O u O C Q ay) d H 0) .CC O rl A H A L O O 00 r♦ •rl td u N N to ••1 .-. O 41 .-. L0 .-. L j+, t0 u -4 >I C PQ r4 L u ° l0 cn L a 1? r-1 V1 -A r-1 [1 04 •rt u 'O a •r+ R1 N t0 L L 1.4 L rl 0) <n- rA O H U •rl H 'O H L .-Gi1,.0 11 'CL .!L N H a a01 C i 'LL g d °u .-4 ,a w u .0 ttl u O. to W .0 A to d CO > to y y w U • W [ O Og b i0 u rn y M 1` %C tD co t0 p N q u a N N 0 .OO� • • • • • • • • N •rl ...1 N O b O f` • 1 O; O C� 'O to aJ .04) C N N v `� H u Irl L U U w -H O tho 41 V U y r1 L p•� al u C Q� n f` N m N fl, M r-I ° p. G41� O N . . • • . . . • N two •-� O O O O 'O rP-1 r-I H x U u r f N N N to v tI) q} v W 44 > a) L al 00 u N to w w,C 0 >+ v a.o (n O 0 r -•1 Ai L t0 ✓� al N a to L fi '@ O O Iu1 L d c�d�+ H ` O L 00 t0 O C to aJ u td W 8 0 8 •rl ° •� C M'O -A L /0 >> N iJ •rl >>41 0) E 0) C 7 tb L rl 'O r4 u t0 H X O 0) u H W •rt 4to u -4r-4 to CL a) t0 W •1 r 4 O cc •r 01 1+ b c0 u O t0 u L 01 4 -A � E-4 41 u44 W � : ° P4 41 mu a oo aJ u r vv rr .= y ,O ar r-1 •-4 co A u 00 4 V1 .G 4) F�� y y FI H •'4 >,'O u (a t0 .o L a n! o ++ p4 W O H w U r♦ rn u co ° •• r•1 r4 L � N •,4 'O O r•i r-1 r4 0) 44 L L m 10 't7 •r4 CL H a) L �! r♦ r•1 ,a (A LL 64 .G to 41 0. H a) 41 u a) >, a 14 m 44) G •rk4 .n a d u 4) o0 rn .to > N m u! b .� aJ U1 >, r4 r--4 4a.) -H >> to ca u O C; a ?. d a N r, to > 1-4 O ro U) 0 4 u a m 3 ru0o U y aaA w0 N >, to 0 > w 0 p. 8 o _Y O ro O 4.) R •-, n u O m � t1«G7 r4 0 to 41 a O 4 O t) k O > 44 ro G ro a C ,G H � M -+ A U N .. U) a r-0 U a U N > 4) u v! VI CL u rd � a CL o > to U to O •r4 a aro N G N ri r4 00 a 00 ro 4J U r4 ro a CL 3 > v O CL O a 0 u u 0Cn b •r4 N CO «C r•4 C u W Cq r0 O 41 „L' r- 1 to r-4 L 41 CL a Cd N •r4 � ri W O N ,4 a) U to •r4 G C 00 •r4 a C a U) caa ro a rotnatn '10 o NaS� N •r4 > .,arotno O n cL a " •14 en > " O 4J a H O U G 4) W (1 00 N H 04 w CL to N 00 u ro u r- a u ,-4 C u a W w h u c a cs 4) N O O U) .G q ;T 'o a ro a3 •r4 u •r4 u R •r4 W ro to r4 •r4 u a ,-4 CL > "0 a > 0 .-i >,u ro a �D u u a •r4 a C: to "O U) O O $4 H ro a to r-) > 00 r-4 N y C3 cz L r-♦ >, >, C+ O U) .,I a b u a U r-4 O a - O O (U R ro u cl O CL U) G N a to u sn a 4 u to F 3 U) W u ,x O a ri G •r+ r-4 a 4) V) ro y W N r4 .)L ,o a ro u •A N .7 u Ac N -C w W X r-4 u O C O .0 0 V} N H ro u 00 W to Q) N 0 u u a 0 u a a u a . r4 c7 N Q 93 ro R cd A U ,� •� to N b ,G a �.a a 44 .c carG u U A N a U " L U I.c > 4a y C N N C t�j U .� ~ may' u C: m cOd � CUJ d aro 00 U) N N a N "a 4) N a N 4) ro r• •r4 M r CL N N .0 C: >, O ro W a a > a 'o u a u a . rn �11 a •r4 O W 0 JJ a •r4 to CL a •,4 to "a -4 r-4 G W u >a ;n r•- = N --,r-4 u 'a to .0 V + a s a 1 O •,a a r.a to U) ae 4 U a C: a 44 N a 0 .-t r4 N a a •r4 'o C: to N N a 0 0 +.4 0 4) U O O N V O U 0O r4 0 A a aro ;n N u td U u O 0 a N >, ro O N a". .-1 t Cot to a N ra a W •r4 N u N • O ,C td a CL u a CL 4j ,-4 - CL,l •rt 00 ro 'a to 10 a a ro a O D U 4j a r4 r.4 •r4 u ro •,4 1J u N N a >> to •ri V u ro <rr u r-t a s a N CL . CO N m •r4 o u ro a o .c r4 d a u cd a cV W > > 14 a u E a M U W ? 4) w � L td "L7 41 h ;d n r4 O u +k Vd 1-4 r 4 44 CL td •r4 > k. r*, to Q, N N 41 1.1 •r4 u a U cd O > >, u •r4 >, ;n CL a 'G r-4 R td O •,4 V 14 N N 00 0 u •d r4 N CO CL 4J •C 44 ,C a .r a a W m r4 u 4) Ai a O to m ro a CL a td 0 0 ed 4n r•4 u •,4 G u r-4 M U) U .i r4 a :3 -W W 40 >' R r4 >,r-4 W o M •r4 >, k ar y rn r4 ;d ro r4 a N a N CL ro o A r-4 •r4 v) a •14 u U u 1-4 a N u o - a U .I - 4) W r-4 to C .-4 3 ,C (A to V) •14 •r4 r-4 4J V) 'C to L MM ro ro a O O a -4 • 0 to ro 0 0 Q B v O r-i U > •r4 00-4 U u wH :1r-4 C: ,c rc a •ar.444 $4 4.4 � uC14 a V u4 a � u >, ro u u > a, a u , 41 u a u 4 4 r. u �, yr N ;n u C3 V N •d m •r4 6004 04 •ra U 0 W OG++ 3 H a v VS Fi cd .a U ;d rn y to ro u �i w N 4 1-4 CA 44 w m u •C 0 C7 N m m N 4i + W E{ �^ CD u ° w L m + UJ M t0 u �' m H R1 OGlj C7 C4 it" 44 $4 d O iii u a 0 u a rn W G N C7 .�G •'r d .moi .-i m U Ch u c0 c0 N w u O ° H W •.4 G 40 W WA 03 Gu VN 41 a % w w G U H WU u r4 u L w° W w 0 u w rn W ca ca 000 u u 0 ao 0 0 i o 0 Qik m a N W 0 -A .G •u W a • W c0 N 7.. U U W � `� `° Aj ° y ' W co 0 rA ate. N A -4 w o00 M •.i Q O � w u + U G v Wy0. w 0 � I U 0 $ b W G > On+ W Aj CL � Coa0 Uu N O > u u0 G °CL vW4 0WU �u ro W �) p3 aG m � u u M U H -A 1 u 0 a u 31 00 u G Q) a a c 0 " u A M r4 O m G CG! .-r crI U H G U a � H a C4 ti u .y5 O -4 r-4 to A u ^' W N r4 O .G .-+ F4 0 .4 i.+ (n O u m is "A aJ > `n W G W -A v a O a o W d H a W • W u u N d E U :j% c0 •*+ Ui C] U ~ 44 ° A d bc C � Vw a -A O • O 0 G U i'- roq G z > u •.4 aw M a G m0 G � =) r- w IT u „ u O • M rn G ON u � 8 oo .-4 u L3 w r~ G W 0 .-+ .G c, to r. W 0 W a u 00 r.t •rr H 4 .-/ 0% .4 'f4 P4 u L e0 u W r0 >, 6-4 06 w •-r CO u W H CO u W 9 0 rgp4 °G ... r: vs �° o Lm •A . ami C P4 o U GG I1 G u C U ?, u r-4u W H w U i u u r. g0 0 y r0 sn •mgr M to m y sn G u H aUA 'n w aV arm � cn wO O •rl cua G W tv W c to y W °� 00 u�9 H P4 H W I rA W H i to July 5, 1974 Blackhaark Development Company 3171 B I ackhrawk Road Danvlllo, California 94506 GentIemon: Tho UlackhOwN �,_,al lty Rel-..- -- was prepared b, Jon My.-onuk, based upon trip uparod by ane. Enc losod i s a copy of t4u-. Myronuk's resurno. I undor:;iana Gon's report was written af•ror discussion wit„ ;.Sr. Dale Saunders o� Tho County Plbnning DeparYinant. It is In response to lottors from the Hay Area Pollution Control District dated April 17, 1974 and Ma;r 15, 197►, bu•t• foi low the approach suggested by the Cal I fornix Stage Air Resources Board, as set forth In their letters of March 18, 1974 and April 19, 1974. If you have any questions on this report, pleaso contact Mr. Myronuk or mo. Very truly yours, John J. Forristal JJF:F Enc. .,` SEP 2 5 QWCKHA� AIR QUALITY REPORT BLACKHAWK RANCH PROJECT Existing Air Quality and Climate ' No air quality data exists for the immediate area of the Blackhawk Ranch. Some Inferences may be made on local air quality by using data collected by the BAAPCO stations in Walnut Creek (nine miles to the northwest) and Livermore (sixteen miles to the southeast). , Some oxidant level data for 1972 and 1973 are presented in the following table. See Appendix for 1973 data and applicable State and Fedoras standards. TABLE Walnut Creek Livermore Max. * Max. 1972 Oxidant 17 pphm 30 22 27 • Suspended Particulate -- 16.8% -- 1973 Oxidant 21 22 28 22 63 73 Suspended Particulate -- 16. 1% * = number of days when air quality standards (Calif) of 10 pphm (parts per hundred million) for I hour, were exceeded. ** number of days when Federal Standard, 8 pph for I hour were exceeded. Suspended particulate figures are percentages of observed days when the standarc, 100 mg/m3 for 24 hours, was exceeded. Table I shows the aroa in general has a sovere oxidant problem. This problem is the result of urbanization and indust; .al developments and the associated vehicular and stationary emissions of regions upwind of the two stations. A sheltered inland valley like the Livermore Valley is a natural barrier or trap for photochemical reactants as well as the resulting oxidant, hence the "excesses" measured in 1973. These excesses will continue to be a major problem in the area. Air Quality Report - Blackhawk Ranch Project - 2 .in the summer months, May through October, reactive hydrocarbons, NC's (approximately 50% of emitted HC's are -reactive) and nitrogen oxides released by vehicles and stationary sources upwind, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. , are irradiated by the intense sunlight. Drifting with the provaIIIng winds, lithe reactants aro converted to photochemical oxidant well downwind of the original area of release. The oxidant maxima occur at noon or early in the afternoon. Oxidant levels are then a function of sources upwind from the site and are not produced on site from reactants released on site. , The atmospheric circulation and local wind patterns play a key. role In air pollution levels since they. determine both the rate of area-wide generation as well as dispersion of man made pollutants. October to March are high pollution months for primary species, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. . The concentration of these species is maximum when the dispersive power of the . atmosphere Is minimum. This occurs when the mean wind speed is low, and vertical mixing is hampered by the occurrence of temperature linvorsions near the surface of the earth. With a low inversion base altitude, emissions released on the ground are "trapped" there, leading to carbon monoxide maxima early in the morning or late in the evening. These times also correspond to traffic flow peaks, hence local traffic patterns can lead to local carbon monoxide excesses. No CO violations are noted at the Walnut Creek or Livermore Stations. The maritime Influence of the Pacific Ocean is diminished by the band of hills lying to the west of the site. In general , the Smalley Wind Charts (Ref. 1 ); show westerly winds flowing over the band of hills and being channeled by local site geographical featares (vai .ays and hills). At other times, especially during the winter, storms moving through the area result in southeasterly winds es the storm approaches, and north- westerly winds following the passing of the storm. During the summer, the site located on the Mt. Diablo foothills experiences Air Quality Report - Blackhawk Ranch Project 3 an upslopo flow of heated air during the day and a downslope flow of cooler air at night. These flows are infrequent during the winter months. Summer temperatures range from low 50's to middle 80's with some extremes of 100+ *F. Winter temperatures range from the 30's to the 50's. Frosts occur In certain areas. The temperature maxima of the summer months are associated with the subsidence of atmospheric layers, and; with a relatively stable "capping layer", the region below is restricted In movement. This restricted al'r parcel when irradiated, leads to' the oxidant maxima recorded In the Livermore Valley. Impact Resulting From Project The following emissions are estimated for the residences; (heating, fire- places, cleaning fluids, solvents) . The emissions are based on existing residences In the Bay Area 1972. Assuming 4,300 dwelling units with 15,000 persons: TABLE 2 Emission lb/day Carbon Monoxide 30 Nitrogen Oxides 150 Organics 108 Particulate 42 The emissions are small when compared to the vehicu.1ar emissions. The next table Is generated on the basis of a trip estimate by the Traffic Engineer. The estimates include trip-miles in the San Ramon Valley ( 154,680 m6; : -.z aT an average speed of 25 miles per hour; 114,520 miles at 50 mph). The generated by a vehicular mix of 1980 to 1968 and earlier cars, including 71.� ---.suits of Table 2, are given In Table 3. The effect of a delay in imptementa- tion of Nitrogen Oxide standards .in vehicles from 1975 to 1977 is included. Refs. 3, 4, 5. Average speed on local streets Is 25 mph; on*freaways 50 mph. Air Quality Report. - Blackhawk Ranch Project - 4 i For comparison, the Contra Costa County emission burden in 1972 is shown in the same table. (Ref. 5) Trips made outside the valley ( 15,957 miles at 25 mph and 120,879 miles at 50 mph) are used to generate emissions shown In Table 4 and the combinod totals of Tables 3 and 4 are compared to the burden of three counties, Contra costa, Alameda and San Francisco. TABLE 3 - IN VALLEY TRIPS Due to In Valley Vehicular Trips Contra Costa County Emission Ib/day Veh. and Res. 1972 Carbon ~Monoxide 10,451 10,481 480,000 Nitrogen Oxides 1 ,749 1,899 400,000 Hydrocarbons 1, 177 1,285 1 ,260,000 Particulates 178 220 70,000 . Sulfur Oxides 106 106 320,000 Ethylene 20 20 21 ,400 TABLE 4 - IN AND OUT OF VALLEY TRIPS ( 1972, Ib/day Out of Valley Trips Total 3 countios - Emission {b/day Veh. and Res. S.F. , Ala. , C.C.) Carbon Monoxido 5, 168 15,650 4,060,000 Nitrogon Oxides 890 2,789 850,000 Hydrocarbons 479 1,764 1,320,000 Particulates 90 . 310 152,000 Sulfur Oxides 54 160 352,000 Ethylene 8 28 22,400 7.-,e emissions listed In Table 3 are low and by themselves on the 5,000 acra a;-a will probably not result in any violations of Air Quality Standards. However, such emissions are not negligible and in concert with many other projects Air Quality Report - Blackhawk Ranch Project - 5 in the Bay area, have resulted in the enormous emissions burden of Contra Costa County. The emission of photochemical reactants ( 1899 Ib. of nitrogen oxides and about 650 lb. of reactive hydrocarbons of Table 3) by traffic attributable to the • Blackhawk Ranch will contribute to slightly increasing the oxidant levels down- wind of the site. Oxidant levels on site will be essentially 'unchangod by local emissions. , On-site oxidant levels can be determined only by extensive monitoring of the pollutant levels and meteorological factors between Livermore and the upwind Cast Bay Metropolitan/Industrial regions. Such data is non-existent at this time. Extensive modelling of the results would In turn yield some crude approxi- mations of local•:oxidant formation and concentrations as well as the effect of • additional input of photochemical reactants from planned developments similar to• Blackhawk Ranch. Such models are very expensive and require extensive data accumulated over several years. A task of this extent is well beyond the capa- bility of an individual developer and is best undertaken by the local Pollution Control District. The production of 20 pounds of ethylene will have some slight damaging effect on local plants and trees. (Ref. 6) The State standard of 0. 1 ppm for 8 hours will probably not be violated. The additional 220 pounds of particulate coupled with the photochemical products will contribute to an increased co- efficient of haze and a higher frequency of reduced visibility episodes in the San RarN; Valley. The emission of sulfur oxides, although now well below allowable stanca.-ds, will be of increasing significance as higher sulfur content fue.s and lubric:.-:;;g oils are consumed. These oxides are damaging to plants and vegetables, • and can affect the health of humans and animals. During the construction phase, Air Quality Report - 8lackhawk Ranch Project - 6 there will be a few occasions of excess particulate from excavation, road and iand filling operations. Diesel smoke and odor from earth moving and construction equipment will be short term nuisances. There will also be some odor nuisanco from paint solvents, paving materials and other asphaltic components. There will be somewhat of a localized heating of the site atmosphere due to Increased trapping and absorption of sunlight by the built-up areas; as well there is a decreased natural transpiration-cooling by grasses and plants displaced by pavement. Combined with enhanced landscaping ( i.e. adequate water for irriga- tion) the net thermal island effect will not be noticeable. The proposed development does lead to increased local and near-by traffic and the' resultant emissions of Table 4, are another small but important source In the Contra Costa County inventory. Combined with other sites and traffic flows, they are integrally involved in future oxidant and particulate excesses. . As a portion of the cumulative growth in the, San Ramon VaIIoy, the projoct in concert with the general commercialization of the East Bay. Area, could have a significant impact on the air quality. Mitigation tf.easures Ir, general , as older vehicles are replaced by newer emission-controilod cars, there will be a marked decrease In vehicular emissions. If such controls are successful , a vehicle ml*x of 1990 to 1978 varieties has 1/3 the emissions of the 1980 to 1968 group. In the meantime use of bicycles and public transportation should be emphasized by providing efficient lanes, pathways and suburban bus routes. Public parA.nc., spaces should be held to the absolute minimum for peak requirements con- sistenT with increased availability of Public Transit whether or not in agreement with CounTy Parking Ordinances. Numerous shade trees lining bike lanes and bus stations will naturally coot the areas and enhance their usage. Air Quality Report - Blackhawk Ranch Project - 7 Reforences I. BAAPCD Information Bulletin 7/15/70. A Study of Air Flow Patterns In the S. F. Bay Area. C. L. Smalley 2. BAAPCD Summaries of Air Pollution in the Bey Area, 1972, 1973 3. 1972 National Transportation Study, U. S. Dept. of Transport Oct. 1972 4. Source Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions in the S. F. Bay Area, 1972 5. Air Pollution and the S. F. Bay Area, 8th Ed. , 1973 6. Ethylene, an .Urban Air Pollutant, APCAJ, 1973 SA V f uCu•,� � v:••+ td Ci U �D CO•t'►l'1� r V.CO..;r` 1/1 rl 41 N U G► $4 >+ V)-;t- r"1 P7�Py N; '! Imo:W r-. .� co C4 r-i r-� • t,.r•�•1 U A•Q.• .ii + i . :C C0 U > 41 [ �, C C! co t: W )+ U 0,4 r=1 to •.t is.iJ r..u M: i 'i i .a r• 1 1 .7 t 'i i i i OG x':7'[7 += 's: � •. rJ ci.•. O S+ -I ''J V) C • ' S • t 1 U C:7 Cl W•rt I • rJ • ' ' "`S •C1 'u :-� tvNc .f. �00 1; I• I dO'O 1 1 00 1 00.1 G 'U CI3 :�1r-t U Cl tJ O Q; i ' Sr s i U i $4 ';5 V wJ •. �� U +J U 10 x C3 U (,) r, $4 �C -A >.' d%.0 CO N• u1 UN,-o N d r-O'% w to 15 0 t: a Li :n Q r r`, •--) N t I`'1 1 O,O;CO i I C) N i OO i U co Li 0 Cl L1 .�, U � r7 •U Cl U p • • • • •: • • • • • C} .0 cJ U 13 LJ� d 1r r r-t ri S.+ +� •C► U C)r-4 G ,t NC?OO� it0 I I�O.O i i 0 i i GQ I v ,� O O > CJ U U :i to V v Q C, 1 •0 r-. O t0,M -�• co N C .(9 Co N •rt r4+ S..t: U �, Q M r••• r-1 C>, 11 N I I r-1r N I I r-4 i I dt-4 1 0 }4 ,... •y s • • • • • • . v • Li I.1 41 O •: 10•�T a i V) G r.W J F to c C14 U Q 0uU .r1 a V) V! CJ iC r-4 O C C> 10 /'0�Q'r4 I 1 00 1 Q th I •r•{ 't�-.•C'_ 00 P-4 C4 co 00 ' C) O n t4 r, O Y: 0 .0 O rt t? r Q ET•C) U 5 ►-� •ri >+ J+ .0 I S+ C 1'�h%r-1 r-r N ul t/1.00 N C7\ v`"'r4 .0 .0 ri M U �4 r r r-t •.Or u'1 f`• �r�� M O1 V%N I .r4 ,� 0 ri t ,� - +n.d. vl►�•r-.c�to o r• C)tr> �ui'rn •a C'�✓= v ;C O t!1•r•.cv•M)r-1 r-t% N r-d r-4 r-4 r-1 00 0 N r-i-.7 .1] w u , Li O ..,.; to N •rt .,4 C} U C r•-: C•u +n' N cn r-4 G•ri Y. >%.O .A v •�•r: _ p x cor%N(.7+.r•- Nr•.tC•)Qr-+ Cl%cry•w hco%oM C9 o O . C, C r-i r•+r+iiri r--i C'">4V'•N N r-c C114 r-4 t r-i N r-i *O CO r•+ •r.' � • • • • • • • • •� • • . • • • • • • 4.1 W 4 44 0 0 C � O 47 p ci Q a) Y. s, ;, :; . O V) U F,4 Oi N � Q rJ G1 V) Vv )4 .r4 •r4 r-•1 U � >•rr Q O U C} au •. u u u W. ►0 u 0 > U E .o ' caw C t: +1 r-t o C : C3 4 O rJ u t;,U4 C "O Q W 0 V, •r4 v ? C 4 CI •ri p.:+,k. rs CAI L ry C,-r- .41 C CU C, r., C; O t: . •r7•«i v;t '#" tT ci 0r4••� •� t;, 3. C3 O C C' C +'.! rJ C.i C3 it ' !7 �� •r-t U J 00 o%-.1 r)c0 r•t (31 0%%0 ♦.• /, M;C •oci, 4j•' • • • • 1 t 1 1 1 • • • 1' 1 1 • • f • • • • w r 1"t 1"/ •J ty••r'� �,' '�) UI � � t' Ill 14 Cl Cyt �; •~�� la � Ub C�4-'l o:1 0%\D U-1 v1 0% 1 1 1 1 1 tr1 tr1 r-( 1 1 1 OJ CO) I D 1.7 O I cT•,, .•� ,'� a /-!� �.•�.�.�•:.` � ; to%o.4 0 ••to cn �,. ci 000N00 1 1 1 1 00,0 f O 1 00 1 000 1 C• U •� %0 Vr N :t N �C�, • 01% N t:7 � C\t' U �. ku'r-; N:: C'1 r-( V)t•7 O 1) 11 1 O 0 O 1 to 1 O r-41 C)F--: -;r :� r7 :j c! � � nil OOOOO i oo'o o Q0 u00 �: _ :t• O V O O O I O 1 1 t OHO 1 .-t 1 O 1 1 0 0 0 t )`� • ' rn r •�,.'; •v �. •1 l•t it is ' •` C7 r- 'O :t•U N?/,; '1 ON0-4Com'h N ^..M \'� V� \7 CN M O c] N r-1 N/-'t rt t i N 1 1 I /-•t�(\ 1 N t r-1 1 1 v-4 r-4 r-4 1 ! ;� y ;! •� ci :J H �� • • • • • • • • • • + • • "' fib' �1 t!� t1• 0 `C O t:) •;C NON 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0�("1 1 %: ,I N O 1 t*1 0 ON 1 v% i .G 1 G c" Q CN SJ G Y' CT\t7 t„>..,"`to Q� O�.•`i • Q\ O V' �7 to C\' ^i N O C • • • • • t • 1 I • •:CY? t • 1 • • 1 .C. • ( '_t r •r . . -.l •r: r i !� V �:�1 CT t��(\1'� CA tom'•!`r1 Q\ r••(CYC t1 v'1 'i :.rq !'� r' C\ N\Dr-100coco NOtr1r--Cnv1 O'�h\7M0 0G1OO v - ' • ' = N r-4 M M t`�vl M r-t e4r-4 r4 r-t N N M (I- M) ;n) V to •'. •�. r-' ( • r Q Oil ';•i \� U2 >; V-4 i v-i t'r10% CO)v l N 00 Vr u1 M M N Q�M r+r(CN (-.\O t!1% ;-• 4 ! :( M N N N tD r-t r-t r?Cl :• '� IN �J ll • 'v !� ry ..J e 1 •r! CS •J r: X C,•t NNr-�-`Mr-•( NC^ v1G\c�,.^• OCIA OOO MNMCYJC\ (: " t7 '-I r--t r-4 r-t r•t N C\' C\ N r-•t r-•(N N' N r-i (n N N r.-;r-+r-:r-t r-4 U 0 Ij u G tri G V F / ..» -4 '• c) i- O ( •,( O !i .'..'r tp l'-1 .0 v C; 'C J 0 !') J r•r:'J C7 O 'Ci + i♦ ti/ i(4 i �� Cj 0-0 ' J �' Ci -t .,.�O CS ? (J O ~. 'r1•r'• •r ri. •r:;, 4� 44 O s (.. ►; t; O i 'tri C� �+!� O•,1 ►- '% C;l� � •-' ;? ' U 1J C r: G : :J 7�'C t/ r. _;.r,� •.i :J . �.r.•. . ,_: .. rte. _ t • •::r U O t•,; (v *r4• 4 0 N N `. 1•m 11, O O �� '5 1" t%1`G>'. `�':' - �' `•' •i., W <n N.04 A4 G.i ;� G to r•+►-.1.1: 1.; N),�.. Ga ? t• ` e � • N w ev vM o uJ N y N E ..E C �^ •o. c M n` w n w Z' n a � N O 1 O N O .•• MY r ' N O. H v N N a. f 0 0 to i.�• Ny O m • es ry b,. b �C! O w r_ u • N u y W i l C6 1L < s es u -- 0- -o c E E E a a ri a a c cs u u c , E to 1 0► %n sr, 1 M a7 ( of ( 1 Q 1 p u M O Q d O O O O O h• N Q {y p � i u ' 7 • � � p �" Js.'3 u t4 t -• a O n w•� r C R CD C3 Ln LU C3 E rt 0 CL QJ a. y n b c Fn a o a o o6 a a o a n C N r+ N OO 12 .y O .� M O `�- .Y :, •n C • C G +''i N y•" r a a a � c p C, u • t I y 4. �, TS v r y M v y It J N CA y c 72 u ' 7 J r a G a IC Y x A G o -a Q. u sa u M o d oo o c ? o ,� 1 a• i n p r a � u ti �n .Yi s s� > �i g ;G � Z rct. 1, RECEIV MEMORANDUM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION `PR �, �19 MARCH 29, 1976 J. R. Ot'.oN CLERK BOA':D r SUHFRVISORS C IRA CO CO. a ut The staff has reviewed the responses to comments prepared by 'momas iwi.d and Associates for the draft EIR for 1995-RZ (Blackhawk DCVelopmullt: Corporal:ion) . Thcre appear to be no serious errors in the docUI1Wiit. However, there are several errors and additions of which the Couuoi.ssion should be made aware. Some clarification is in order regarding the spoken testimony of* Nancy Henderson at the public hearing before you on March 9, 1976. All of the items spoken to were covered in the response. However, it should be recognized that Ms. Henderson was reading from two letters of the same date from Ms. Moody and not one letter from Ms. Moody and one from Mr. Grote. (See page 17 of the responses.) 'rhesc letters are includ�.,J in this report. The responses refer to a "Sycamore Avenue" extension. This should read Sycamore Valley Road. In addition, the comment that this road extension is not presently being considered is not wholly correct. (See page 19 of the responses) . This proposal was developed during the processing of 18,10-1Z7 and appears in the conditions of approval (13, 14, and 17) for that project (sec below) which were adopted by resolution by the Commission • and the Board of Supervisors on September 3, 1975. 13. Assuming a change in the circulation element of the General Plan, a proposed road from (:amino Tassajara to Blackhawk Road or an alter- nate solution suitable to the Director of Planning, Public Works and the Planning Commission shall be built concurrently with Phase II. 19. ' Camino 11assajara shall be constructed concurrent with Phase III as a four-lane arterial frau Crow Canyon Road extension to Sycamore Valley Road or an alternate solutJon acceptable to the Director of Planning, Public Works and the Planning Commission. 17. The internal road system shall be designed to conform with the principal access routes, namely Sycamore Valley Road extension and Crow Canyon Road extension. The County I'ublic Works Department offered the Following comments. Page 32 - "Condition 33," First Sentence: insert the words "access to" between the words "for" and "BART" to clarify the sentence. 7 Nucrofiimed with Board order The sentence will now read: "a private feeder bus service be provided for access to BART. Is the intent to provide access to BART .rail in Walnut Creek or to the BART express bus line in Danville? The condition as approved in the board of Supervisors resotuti.on of September 3, 1975 states that the private bus line will go to the nearest BART feeder bus (i.e. , in Danville) . Page 52 - Circulation - "Existing Conditions," Second Paragraph: change "points west" to "points east" at the end of the second to the last sentence. This correction is noted. Page 53 - Second Paragraph, Last Sentence: What is so critical about the 3/4 of Level C threshold? Level C is free flowing traffic. What is 3/4 C? Perhaps it should read 75 percent of service level C capacity (which may be equivalent to service level A) . Page 37 - Table 7, Item 10: flow does percent of Service Levet C drop with the project? A colun-Li for Service Volume'at L/SC should be added. The analysis should be identified to existing roads in existing conditions. Future traffic should be expanded at 3 and"Blackhawk traffic shown as additive. The legend on this table should read "Existing and Projected 'Traffic Volumes and Service Volumes." The service volume for each of the roads is found in the Forristal Traffic Report for 1995-RZ in the Appendix to the final EIR on page 11 in Table 2. Tile additive or cumulative traffic attributable to the project is Lound i.n this same table in columns 1 and 3. Page 111 - "Population Impacts," Fourth Line: A trip cannot end on an arterial, but only at an origin or destination. On an arterial, the proper terminology is "trip". 3 This correction is noted. Staff recommends that this memorandum be adopted with the responses .:.to commor.-ts as part of the final EIR for 1•995-RZ. DS:lh 3/19/76 ,t r 1'_ r ' r LINDA A. OI-N MOODY talALll.o,r-At.'+.v,•'r1,A '+.rt,.'t+ . WLCOHONE t.t 151 r13):'%•'?: ,larch 1) 1976 llonor ).le 1•lember:: A - 171min: ilg Comm iss i on ConLri Costa Colon t_y Mart-It otz, CaliEoraia My de. 1' Comniiss i.oners rl.l;istered voter;, 1' + 1• r l� r' � ;t re Cucndum p42L I t il,n i n ephos; The la ,:,.1.i L or that re forundun oot. I's , it '..'Outtl :.went c,n tl.ruly by lila kt1aW:: for the adillLtLOA expedi i-nu,7}• WWI Clle1 1: devolol,,:,, ,4': pl ) 1 Silcoild, i t 'o✓oli l;l ;3+:'C'ii1 L-i ;1 ,1 pro,cs' Lo vo!i:.l('t'r i It CRt i l'(! 1'L`_%bil ix „ and p ru l, k1i"l-Iry dovo Loot,,';;/. 1,.1, . and Coll I.I t loll: , .Iod I;1 t I1 l .lT,✓ (.ti :i "C + . and Car 't? r,tlt C'(It:l1 ;1`i Lt. as l.hey ';Lato, ` (1 ";ivt7l(1 011C' nC�ciil }' ,8 or not 11(+ CllrV0nL dc7V+.iJ_(,p;1tvilt co , It tifa f from til nrif:lsut dvvolopn;c:nL i), t.:,rw, 1@R to 1 No. 74" [)ttt .L(!t t:il,:il+ 5:('t:k 1'() ilinC!1.•.r u cleve:l.upI L'11t 1)1a11t ra1.hc:!• 11)all sCt=O `or Illi: p;'rLicul:ii• IIIt'01)L'rLllf. �::::' lam' t, Colitltti:C11 .1C'.l dtlC11 i 1�'t,+I-t I ori i ii l acconi!no( :at, t:lit; !1,_'!!1 l(sl (:r and 111:. :llUlllc. elle' 1tCi•:i, lIt iilr1)Ll( .11 `i:l)111.d 11. 1.111 , r t., lt_1;.1,. ('i 1 L:L'l. i117(iil l:il 'L ",;11 it Ai.) parL iv,,. eii s;lii i)erlc l 11. *'),i-I.1 .t i' In ammo Lo Giat. c11;( ::L hill. tlli ::Ui1Si' A:lC;; M' THE 111;01'C' t'. hi 4i► i 1 i i � ' itl ae.1111;sw 11w; Fee') do i JI}'; i0lo111. iu()ti Lho 1)1;111 i:. a ri;,le til .,,ppoiitL"idt_'111, . t:II lig'.✓t. :: 1n1',r'., L)f l,i u,ti;li1i. L.it C,(' 'lll Lc+ li ii 11i�i < +•itt_, � s s J' r 1 , s, tiona.l It !_Ii exLL!nd otlL 1 •afopes of. __:t, r-: X v Were to 1 i,c4al.n .1.11 Liiu r,Iil,dlVisioll, iJ )'"1! ,i'. •c, y' t �� ie.1t11,re l l CUnStr(Ii:Lioi1 Lc) Lake pl.a-v 1! L11, 0f ICPiS i .mn 20i: 4 be doilu '1 .1 11.ILural o;irLil t:onu,,;. t'1 41t3 r( i�-tlili:'Y+1 I..1 r<':a Li.t'. tl(.`:(: U' •1 ' ,! (IescripLl ,11 of Lite project l - a 21�'i i3 q Y 77 RECEIVE MhbIORANDUM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION APR 2 0 1976 MARCH 29, 1976 J. R. ofoy CURK BOA,-,D r SUPEWISORS C TRA :O Co. tS ..` ut The staff has reviewed the responses to comments prepared by 'Phomas Reid and A$$oci.ilLe$ for the draft L=IR for 1995-(ZZ (131ackhaltik Developnlcnt Corporation) . There appear to be no serious errors .in the docunlclit. However, there are several errors and additions of: which the Commission should be made aware. Some clarificaLion is in order regarding the spoken Lcstimolly of ,Nancy Henderson at the public hearing before you on March 9, 1976. All of the items spoken to were covered in the response. However, it should be recognized that bis. llenderson was reading; from two letters o(' the same date from Nis. Moody and not one letter from Ms. Moody and one from Mr. Grote. (See page 17 of the responses.) 'IIesc letters are included in this report. The responses refer to a "Sycamore Avenue" extension. This should read Sycamore Valley Road. In addition, the comment that this road extension is not presently being considered is not %drolly correct. (tick page 19 of the responses) . This proposal was developed during the processing of 1840-RZ and appears in the conditions of approval (13, 14, and 17) for that project (see below) which were adopted by resolution by the C01i1111i.s5iOn and the Board of Supervisors on September .i, 1975. 13. Assuming a change in the circulation aloment of the Generol Plan, a proposed road from Camino Tassajara to bl,ickhawk Road or an alter- nate solution suitable to the Director o ' Planning, Public tlorks and the Planning Commission shall be bu :.i;.- concurrently with Phase 14. Camino Tassajara shall be constructer) concurrent with Phase I_T.r as a four-lane arterial from Crow Canyon Road extension to Sil ainore Valley Road or an alternate solution acceptable to the Director of Planning, Public Works and the Planniny Commission. 17. The internal road system shall be desi.yned to conform with tilt: principal access routes, namely Sycamore Valley Road extension and Crow Canyon Road extension. The County Public )Yorks Department offered the Collolving; comments. Page 32 - "Contrition 33," First Sentence: insert the words "accts to" between the words "tor" and "BART"' to clarify the sentence. Mcrofifined with board order . The sentence will now read: "a private feeder bus service be provided for access to BART. Is the intent to provide access to BART rail in walnut Creek or to the BART express bus line in Danville? The concl:iti.on as approved in the Board of Supervisors resolution of September 3, ].975 states that the private bus Ihic will go to the nearest BART feeder bus (i..c. , :in Danville) . Page 52 - Circulation - "Existing Conditions," Second Paragraph: change "points west" to "points east" at the end of the second to the last sentence. This correction is noted. Page 53 - Second Paragraph, Last Sentence: What is so critical about Clio 3/4 of Level C threshold? Level C is free flowing traffic. hllrat is 3/4 C? Perhaps .it shoulcl read 75 percent of service level C capacity (which may be equivalent to service level A) . Page 87 - Table 7, Item 10: How does percent of Service i.--vel C drop with the project? • A column for Service Volume at L/SC should be added. The analysis should be identified to existing roads in existing conditions. Future traffic should be expanded at: 3% and E3lackhawk traffic shown as additive. The legenel on this table should read "Existing and Projected 'Traffic Volumes and Service Volumes." The service volume for each of the roads is found .in the Forristal Traffic Report for 1995-It47 in the Appendix to the final LIR on page 11 in 'Table 2. The additive or cumulatiVC traffic attributable to the project is found in this same table in columns 1 anci 3. Page 111 - "Population Impacts," Fourth Line: A trip cannot cnd on an arterial, but only at an oriyin or destination. On an arterial, the proper terminology is "trip'. This correction is noted. Staff reconunencls that this memorandum he adopted with the responses to comments as part of the final LIR for 1995-11Z. DS:lh 3/19/76 LINDA ALAA.-J11 MOODY ' i'CJS'T UI I-1,.T PDX G?Ci C�I1L1l.U.(:�\LII-i,,lttdin !M`_;:.'U ' 'C f't.(i l''hICJNL lei l!il tiJ J•:!.1+;,: March 9 , 1976 lionorabl.e Members ` Planning CotiimIsSiOn Contra Costa County Martinez, California My dear Commissioners: 26,000 registered voters oi: Contra Costa County have sinnud a referendum petition in opposi=tion to the S4la(:l:haAJlt Jtc-c�rf;,intr;itiun. The legality of that vercrendum has not: yr.t been resolved. Unt:i I it in , it wouLd seem entirely premature to authorize a ro:'onint; in,Vmwl. by Blackhaw k for the admitted reason that they wish sh ro "proceed expeditiously with thc.i r development proponal," (EIR p. l.) Second, .it would seam to he a d[Stortion of t.i:e whole I>la,"ntir, process to consider rho entire iilackh;r. k proposal ,, approvu slit, ,rii,inal rerottl.nl', cillil preliminary (kweloi>nie!nt hi.;ili, With its oiioh sprier! ,iiut'nittisw and conditions, and Lhcn all-ow tart! levo Lopor to c_omo 1'acl..., ploce tai al , and carve onL each pinna as it willies to prnceed. i.f' Itluckli;.wl' wi:divs, as Choy !,Cults, to avoid the need ((!r ;1 1e1;al ueCc'i'uiin;it.icin of Kiln. l(!r or not the current devalopment concept duviatt ; in too I'rnaf. a dogree Cram the original duvolopiricnt plan approved undtsr CWJHLv Ordin;"ic(s No. 74-55,'( .Let: Chvw seek to amend die original, ordinance and c!;'c'ral..l development plan, rather than seek "a colipLetel_y nod rc:zcining (armaiinatlon for this parCicuiar properly." (EIR p. 1) The County should not countenance s"ch a d i n Lu rt i on in the planning process :!vrely Cu accoGmiodate the cls ve l upe r and h L s legal problems. ShouLd die pry sc"t ail>pl.icati.on he approved, i,ulrt_ioiev, Ont. would he the Jugal c ffuc'L upon the remaining ltlachhawk it:inch PUN? (1840 RZ) ALI parCivw might benefit from an opinion by County Gouns(>l in answer to that quuYLLon. TIfi•: Stii;ti'I'(1lt:l; OI' 'MIL i'ItOPOSr1L. After all 1ha L.ilicin tli t lit ackh;mk has h( v" ,fo i Ml ;(hou1. modifying 1'&NO I , L& (mv!'1 t.i nf', of Clic plan Is a rude di:iappoint.meit. Itisavad of r(!inivim; all luts fr, :n the I.i}:,wr slop(' of Litv tkriSli ain, a Cutal of 25 lots rpoa:n oo tsi,tilm of 20 to 50 rivicanf.. (Sea Dr, Ulrich's analysis, aLt;iAWdJ 43 ;"l(li._. tiona.l .Lot: extend onto sl_opus of. 20 to 50 percent. Lf these IuLs were to remain in the subdivision, Bond i t ions should be imposed tl,:iL requLre all construction to Cake place on Lho portion-, "f these lots of lens than 20X slope; any fencing oit the: steeper porLLans should be done in nacural earth tones. We were Munn& to road the developer's own evnsn_ltanL4 desscriptf.on of the grading t!that would be required: According to the project engineer, grading will requi.ie movement of au estimated 400,000 • cubic: yards, Cut tnater.ial will be used as fill, and no not import or exhort of maLer:i zd, in anticipated. Tentative calculations of Lhe area to he f,radad indicate that 48 acres yr 33Z of the developed pot'Cion of the site i0lJ be cut, 56 ncc ; or 388 of the si.ty i1.1, l,e E.f.11ed, and the remra:i. Lng 29i wil.l. be IAL at iLs origl-naL cunLcutr," (E-IR P. 67.) I'hc : c conclusions Lncli.caLL! that: either the density in still toe? t;reclt for the project site, cm- at Least. Lhe'ext:unt cel' davel.np wu is Lon great. The proposm" accordingly, ;should A modified. We would urge , particularly, Lhat conditions h (rclufn,(, to grading plans) and U (pt^osex-vation of sLreambeds in their naLnraL state) not be excus;ud . The HIR (p. ?S) not-as that Culver.tLng rind conduits are necessary "due to the lar' ,,e al1U!Utlt Of grading nCtessa.hry in some of the ra:•irwes in order. to reducc2 .land slope: for development." Lt it; ;in lrc,ry that one environmenta-1 cKgradation is profferud Lu jus Li Ey anoLher. Annlher oJa,. fug feature of the proposal :is .its anticipated dcstrucLi.o11 of the ivamorous venerable Oaks that line the Middle Subbranch Of the IVS L fort: or G ruun Val.laV Creel-- S c:c 1.-,JR p, 84. The plan should be modLficd to mit.i;OiLc (alleviaLn) LhIs a:;pecL. '1 ll1' I':l l.. 'Cho X R conLa ill:.; one In f L i t:U ar ly obvious om l-swinn. 1.1: conlplat:lls( n '�,lcct:: to consi.dr.r Lhe o4vc.Ls of the Lo';:-L"requuncy Stot'm:; upon Lhc naLur:cl creek channel:; that drain the project situ. IL .it; the law-frvcluc•uc.: GAP! or L1•:o-vetch) •norm that determine:: 1-he CIUM1101. hive. Lf tiw two-year storm's; runoff doubJus, then cha;anel dire it Lhc sewer nuLfal.l will lyneral.ly increase about. 75%. The result In Lhe .lo:;:; ccf :;t.ro. am—side VogntltLi.ons, erosion, and enormous scdi.111 1ILfation in Lhm• orecks. We ask ovain wllat. wu have asked before: : WILL Our rlaLura} c:rcck;; require channrl .izaLiun Lo acc;lrv.ncodaQ the runo(l? t40, 1Xl.ic-o LL to be quLLe leaniAile LU prevent any ir'lCreage. Ln rmu f , not ju:;L f rout Lhr 50-;;ecu' 6Lurut car the .10-year scone, but fro"ll Lhe on(' and t4.i(^y -.lr swarms. We =2 not: Lo.ld .in the ELR whuLher the d['.LClnt:ioll I'c:1S '1t1:. , pLanned for Lhe 11 ghur iWnLrvam slt,cs , i•J,LLI accomlil..Lsn that unci. UC ol,Jeri;t L., the charac.L'eri alien Lhroclf',h(�ut: Lbc Flit cl.s, n the project s1Le" (C:.,;, , Preface) and "a alts acre parcel ," when Ln fart Lhe 943 acrr:s consiSts of. 3 non-c:nut.i;,1110Ul parcUIS , the actual. development site being n parcel, of 374 acres. We objvCL to numerous self-arvi.nl, ;Lftl('mvnLs describl.n;', Lhc lor:0 ion of Cltrt pro.j(:c t- ;.il-o ,c:; "I)eiol -. Lht., ,;.li(iir:; of ;It. iii:cblcc" (p. 1) and lit "a llarrear, :secluded vni-ley." (p. .13. Sc.c also 1 1 , p. IT) The SLaLen:csnL on p. 63 chat recre atinnal. use of Lhc: ML. Diablo State Park is primarily Limited to par;cive rac.sLhct e enjoyment, and u that access to Lhese Lrai.ls [ Ln the park] has Leen Limited in the Past because of scitLercd parcels of private land" is :,imply unfounded. Very�ru_y you _J , vlooe (for .,wlkco!: :111(1 fl,''. :; irrra 0.1111(•) ' r A1170101-Y AI LAW POST 01-1-1k.1 MIX 6:!:i UTAI71-0.CCA If Of -41A ' March 9, 1�7G( '1ELUPIAONI`i 1.1I A 037-:4017 Honorable Members, Planning Commission Contra Costal County Martinez, California My Clear Cplllmissi.oners: This second letter will serve as an addendum to I,ly original letter of the same elate. 1. apologize for their delivery in two parts, an inconvenience Chat results from a last-minute (but not late) consultant's report. Jeffrey Gro Le, of Planning Collaborative, Saul Francisco, hai reviewed Che materials on ,file in the Planning Department relating to Rcr,:oui.nv Ap,i.ica- Lion 1995 (Blackhawk's Hidden Oaks) , and has given me the foll.oc•ri-nl: continents. The ENGLO Report on soils and geology has performed adequ:lte. Lest ' of existing landslides. 'ilia: report- shows one vers, very .large slide (1711-3) toward the end of the: middle cul-de-sac. Their reccmmiendat:.ion is to zotoi.d the areal. The problem--;enc( .it is a glaring one--is that one of the retention ponds is located at' laic bottom of this slide. from the plans, it ippenrs that the retention pond would require removal. of the have of Lhe slide, s"c h Chat, at the very l0-:ast, Lhe continued erneping and mov!'leriL Q that slide would fill in thnL retention pond. AL worst, colder sLvere storm condi- Lions, at slide coNd be YLLlated that could slump into Lhe roWntion mond, u1slodLi.ng the :Nater and subjecting the housing below the pond Co inundation pr damage from 2 acre-feet: of water. Second, the EAGJD Report, as limited apparently by t,ho sco:".. of its assignment, uca1L only with existing slide, (those Chat have occurrud uaCurahlly) . It does trot consider die potential, for net; sli-dus in c-lopus On L' alre over 20% in the Drin•a. formation. To what e%Lent: vIi.l.l ne:; ;;raldi.ng disturb those slopes and subject them to slide ar.L:i.v i vy? And lastly, to what extent could landsl.i.d.i.ng occur ace al secondary effect u; seismic activity, and would Lhat likely affect any oC Lhe housing sites? This is slide counLr-;. Consider an incident: in the Tam Valley of Mario County, where a( slide off (above) the develupmunt site cwia down and completely destroyed a house. The rolling hills running along L'lackhawk Road are Spin ; Lo he eliminated by grading, and their soil used to rill. in Lilo ia:;L of Lhe valley. 'I•hey are filling the ravines to rahise. the ;;rade and ;;. L Chu road:,, and pal(-; in. They will. advance :into sweper terrain by Cil LLng and resduci.ng Lh- stecllUr natL'ural ;;rarlc. Thur aro pridd- ng as Choy go til: wi.tic i i U. The of i c(`- : tai. 1.1. be ursc"WI Ly LbaL ISI' a LI.•rravud rice paddy. IL in uu l c;rLu Me that Lhcy are imposing al Lrat(:L concupL on Lhe landscaping. Wha1L wu have hcru is ah flatland approach to hillside development. It would he better to cluster v and work with the natural hills so that the design is more compaLible widi the land. This c onld be clone without any lovas of density. Plea se instruct your staff to work with Lhe developer to achieve this concept. Thant; you. Very L•r.uly; yr)urS, r' Linda A. Moo' y (I"or Ami.i;os and the I Sierra Club) • PREFACE The original Blackhawk Master Plan 1840 RZ was 'approved in September of 1974. The current action, 1995 RZ, pertains to a request by the developer to amend 1840 RZ to remove 943 acres therefor^, to seek approval of a new preliminary Development Plan and to amend certain conditions of approval affecting 1840 RZ as amended. The Final EIR submitted herein for 1995 RZ is prepared for the Contra Costa County Planning Commission for certification and for its action on 1995 RZ and for action by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors with reference to the same matter. The "new" material for this Final EIR is contained in Volume I (pertaining to 1995 RZ exclusively) . Volume II - IV are the Final EIR for 1840 RZ (the Blackhawk Master Plan) and have been included herein as appendices to this EIR. (See Table of Contents to Final EIR next page.) This report is a Final Environmental Impact Report as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. It is intended that this report would be used not only for 1995 RZ but also for other approvals leading to actual construction and habitation of the 206 proposed lots and residences. Since the Draft EIR was prepared the developer and County staff agreed to allow modification of the Preliminary Development Plan • to remove the previously proposed swim complex. In place of the swim complex the developer proposes two added lots to bring the lot total to 206. This change and other changes or details requested by staff were integrated into a Preliminary Development Plan submitted in early March Es of 1976. This modified Preliminary Development Plan was available for public inspection, was shown to the Commission and public on March 9, 1976, prior to the close of public comment on the EIR. It is felt that this change was not of sufficient significance as to require a supplemental Draft EIR. "4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I A. Draft EIR 1995 RZ (February 6, 1976) B. Appendices to Draft EIR 1. Hydrology Report December 1975 2. Soils Report November 1975 3. Traffic Report November 1975 C. Comments D. Responses to Comments • E. Conditions/Resolution Volume II Volume 1 - 1840 RZ EIR Volume III Volume 2 - 1840 RZ EIR l� Volume IV Volume 3 - 1840 RZ EIR M a r DRAFT ENVI R .ONMENTAL IMPACT t� R E P O R T r R.EZON 1 NG 1995 , k ��'•j) LACKHAWK CO =RPORAT I ON t It��p Ala, ! � Ac'tvILLE . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . CALI FORt1I A { February 6, 1976 .; CONTRA COSTA COUNT' pLAI�TNING DEPARTMENT . GOUNS! ADMINISTRATION DU ►tORTN WING AM s� r.. P.O. DOX 033 ✓r� i�l �1 MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94583 f r r xr 4a5-372-zUZa r; gintolm Bog - PREFACE RZ 1995 relates to the 4800 acre property three miles east of Danville commonly called the Blackhawk Ranch Development. The concept for the master plan was approved for development by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on September 10, 1974. Under the existing zoning, the developer had earlier proposed 430 units as Subdivision 4738 on the portion of the project referred to as Phase 1. That proposal has been abandoned. The current proposal, RZ 1995, is for 204 units. The application for RZ 1995 is included in the EIR as Appendix A. The project requests the follow- ing actions: 1) Amendment to the original rezoning ordinance (74-55) to delete application of that ordinance as it relates to a 943 acre parcel considered here as "The Project Site". 2) Rezoning of the 943 acres deleted from the previous P-1 to a separate P-1 (Planned unit) and approval of a preliminary development plan providing for 204 lots on that site. 3) Further amendment to Ordinance 74-55 to modify ten original conditions of approval as they relate to the whole project less the 943 acre parcel described here as "The Project Site". This report is a draft Environmental Impact Report as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. It is intended thatthis report would be used not only for R7 1995 but also for other approvals leading to actual construction and habitation of the 204 proposed lots and residences. These include but are not limited to: a. A final developm,:nt plan. b. A tentative map c. A final map d. Utility improvements e. Building permits and other permits Y� TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Project Description 1 2 Environmental Inventory - Existing Conditions 18 1 Physical Description 18 2 Existing Use and Surrounding Area 21 3 Plans, Ordinances and Policies 24 4 Soils and Geology - Existing Conditions 34 5 Hydrology and {Vater Quality 44 6 Vegetation and Wildlife - Existing Conditions 47 7 Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Aspects 51 8 Vicinity Circulation 52 9 Air Quality and Noise 56 10 Energy 57 11 Utilities and Community Facilities 59 12 Schools -- San Ramon Valley Unified School District . 62 13 Recreation and Open Space 63 3 The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 64 1 Soils and Geology - Impact 64 2 Hydrology and Water Quality - Impact 69 3 Vegetation and Wildlife 82 4 Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Aspects 85 • 5 Vicinity Circulation - Impact 86 6 Air Quality and Noise 91 7 Impact on Energy Use 96 8 Utilities and Community Facilities - Impact 98 9 Impact of the Project on the School System 105 10 Recreation and Open Space 110 4 Environmental Issues 111 1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 111 2 Mitigation Measures 112 3 Alternatives to Proposed Action 119 4 Irreversible Environmental Changes Due to Implementation 121 of the Proposed Project 5 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 123 Produc.ivity of the Environment 6 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action Including 127 Discussion on the Patterns and Allocation of Growth 7 Organizations and Persons Consulted 129 . 8 Qualifications of EIR Preparator 133 Appendices 1. Included Herein: A. 1995-RZ Application, List of Submittals B. 1840-RZ Conditions C. Air Quality Analysis; Blackhawk Ranch - First Phase, D. J. bfyronuk, March, 1975 D. Archaeological Reconnaissance for 1995-RZ 2. Incorporated Herein by Reference: E. Supporting Documents for Application F. Traffic Analysis, John J. Forristal, November 14, 1975 G. Final Soil and Geologic .Investigation, ENGEO Inc. , November 28, 1975 H. Estimate of Increased Storm Water Runoff, Blackhawk Ranch Rezoning el995-RZ 1. EIR for Blackhawk Ranch (Rezoning 1840) , Contra Costa County, 1974. LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Project Location 2 2 Schematic Representation of Developed Area 4 3 Tentative Map 5 4 Preliminary Development Plan 6 5 Entrance and Swim Center 7 6 Facilities g ' 7 Blackhawk Road Landscaping 9 8 Blackhawk Road Landscaping 10 9 Non-vehicular Rest Area 11 10 Location of Parcels to be Dedicated to State Park 12 11 Parcels to be Dedicated to State Park l; 12 Vicinity Topography 19 13 Site Slope 20 14 Regional Urbanization 22 15 San Ramon Valley 1972 Regional Land Use 23 16 Alamo-Danville General Plan 25 17 Site Geology 36 18 Fault Map 37 19 Soil Classification 38 20 Landslide Areas and Locations of Soil Test Boreholes 41 21 Vicinity Drainage 46 22 Aerial Photograph/Topography 49 23 Regional Vegetation SO 24 Vicinity Circulation 55 25 Community Facilities 61 26 Slide Repair - Typical Section 65 27 Typical Buttress Fill Details 66 28 Grading Plan 68 29 Project Drainage 70, 30 Detention Ponds 79 31 Temporary Measures to Minimize Erosion and Siltation 80 During Project Construction _.. 32 Tree Removal and Damage 84 33 Vicinity Circulation gg 34 Blackhawk Road and Onsite Street Cross Sections 90 35 Detail : Water Tank Locations 101 36 Water Tank Cross Section 102 37 Historical Relationship Between Land Values and 124 Urban Sprawl TABLES Page 1 Existing Roadway Sections and Traffic Volumes 54 2 Estimated Runoff Values for Study Area 72 3 Summary Breakdown of the Area to be Covered 74 4 Composite Coefficient Runoff 10 Yr. Frequency 75 5 Estimated Volumes of Runoff (Method 2) 76 G Estimated Increase in Runoff (Method 2) 77 ' 7 Projected Traffic Volumes and Service Volumes 87 8 Air Quality 93 9 Summary of School District Financial Analysis 106 i • I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1995-RZ, "Hidden Oaks" The RZ 1995 project site comprises 943 acres of sparsely wooded grazing lands along Blackhawk Road, below the slopes of Pit. Diablo. This parcel is a portion of the Blackhawk Ranch, located three miles east by road from the town of Danville, in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. (See Figure 1 , Project Location, and figure 10, page 12.) The project proposes rezoning 943 acres of land already zoned planned unit. The 4800 acre Blackhawk Ranch, of which the project site is a part, was the subject of a master plan and rezoning application for a planned unit devel- opment which was approved under Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 74-55 dated September 10, 1974. The present rezoning proposal (RZ 1995) requests that the project site be deleted from the master plan and the applicable P1 zoning, and be subject to a new rezoning ordinance. The new rezoning.would also be P1 , but based on a different preliminary development plan. Separation of the site from the master plan, according to R'_ 1995, will create two new areas, the project site and the residual. The former will be discussed throughout the text, and referred to as the site, and the latter will be discussed primarily in Section 2.3. A second action concomitant • with the separation is modification of ten of the original 35 conditions for approval of the 1840RZ. The implications of the changes are discussed in Section.2.3. The effects on mitigatory aspects of the conditions are reviewed in Section 4.3. The purpose of this separation is'that the developer, the Blackhawk Corporation, wishes to proceed with a unit of development which is legally separate from the original master plan rezoning. The reasons for this are two-fold. One, the process of design and public review that has proceeded since the original formulation of the master plan has resulted in a development concept for the project site which is substantially different in housing density and layout than that proposed as part of Phase 1 of the original master plan. In order to avoid the need for a legal determination of whether or not the current development concept deviates in too great a degree from the original development plan approved under County Ordinance No. 74-5S, the applicant is seeking a completely new rezoning determination for this particular property under the current preliminary development plan (See Figure 4 ) . The second reason for the independent rezoning application pertains to the legal encumbrance of the original rezoning. The Blackhawk master plan has in the past been the subject* of a lawsuit relating to issues of general plan conformance, EIR adequacy and other issues. In order that the Blackhawk Corporation can proceed expeditiously with their development proposal, they believe it advantageous to have their approval for the site presently under consideration to be legally separate from approval of the master develop- ment plan for the entire 4800 acre ranch. . Q�ECT `pppTxON t' �f 44 1995 MONO Irp PII 11vv c �. • The plan calls for construction of 204 single'family dwelling units on 128 acres of land. In addition, there would be a swimming pool and club- house, an area of common open space and a small non-vehicular public rest area adjoining Blackhawk Ranch. The allocation of the acreage in the .parcel is detailed in the Table below. In addition to the area under immediate considera- tion, two parcels adjacent to the bit. Diablo State Park will be dedicated to the Park upon issuance of the first building permits for the proposed development.. ALLQCATIQN_OF PROJECT ACREAGE Proposed Use Area (Acres) Single family lots 128 Swim Club 1.5 Streets 15 Common Open Space 220 Blackhawk Road dedication 5.5 Public Open Space 4 Subtotal Immediate project area 374 Land to State Park ("A parcels") 569 •Total lands RZ 1995 943 The lot sizes resulting from subdivision will average 0.63 acre, or 17,400 square feet, with a minimum of 20,000 square feet. Lot frontages vary from 70 to 190 feet, with shorter frontages surrounding cul-de-sacs or accessible by private driveways. Although the approval sought does not specifically ' include home construction, the grading required to create the access streets and. to control land forms will result in a near-finished pad grading for all but five of the proposed lots. Home construction itself will probably be of the semi-custom variety. That is, homes will be selected by individual lot buyers from a large variety of plans with the emphasis on classic styles. According to the developer, lot prices will range from $25,000 to $40,000, and home prices from $89,000 to $140,000. The average price of a house . with the lot is expected to be $105,000 in 1976 dollars. The 1.5 acre swim club will include the pool itself, deck areas, changing rooms and bleachers. Sixty percent of the area will be landscaped, and 20 off-street parking spaces will be provided. The 220 acres of common open space within the boundaries of RZ 1995 will be left primarily as natural vegetation. A trail system for hiking and horseback riding will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association, which will retain owniership of the open space areas. (See Plans, Ordinances and Policies) No landscaping will be done except along the public trail which will adjoin Blackhawk Road. 3 Figure 2 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF DEVELOPED AREA ` i Y do1 74 b s tt � + v Yo a t t O 44 0 Ll M QI � � t r4 401 s. w ' N Y1 ►�- c1 �1 L . •��N�P�I�� MRP 4 ' pig t ;fit t �.• i � t 1:,. �� :,' ✓`.�^�,,,.-t"�``.,.."'•..t • ��. !fit ,, �.��.M'�' �: t.X •' •r. .•t';::'•• .., •,�. .� �' _ � }i 1 t�t •f �i � /.�?r -tit � .'�Z(j i �}• ;i R 9 i QRE`1M1NARy D row �l{".i'��rw..,.:�.._.nr..•-• , »<. `�•� ,�_�..-•^''" `` ``d � s .J•;!';,i.. '�. :: •.�' ;-1••�"�:tits'=":i� i�;�i'`, �'is ,�. •s ti r101, ', .. •. ... r`�'V�,1:-`,►�'"':.,',fit';�(.�;�:'`� 1 ."} \".,�.�� L, t�.r= .�•t r`�i:�`,j `r �:y�_•;'"�.-e� � t �+yt...'.;r+'i � r.:�� i 7 1'�`��'; P- • �%r `>tr� +ter• •� �T'G:�-��t ,. `} . . �,'+, •,� *r � y Y�J t? � r^ t i i. � •, ,�;� y 4 "tom ,�; •••.�� [".-�f,.y�\''`t\`:.-r�,s`;..,.....�r� r-..•,•�_. n ��' 1 C�` ' ^\ \• �� /��'�� t�:„�.j./i.'",:S �..3 "' %,�•''/,�``..yi c'::r'�-^�\bj Sr 1 VAI � a 't• r. 't 'i''t'•. '` .4 •" .':. 1`.Z^;`.'Ste•y j S V 4 IV •�• �• '.. %'""+•.�a.� '�:?-.�••;,;."}••r�t� •. _"%._i }'l'�5 ^i' 'i t t i 1 :3 i r ' s r rt,r�� Ft} • � y°i \ S •� � + { /t `' •i+ � �r fJ r'��,.,-��-•��•= t \ :..�f'i ii�• .�•:�•t•'�}'� ' t 1: r Figure S ENTRANCE AND SWIM CENTER LLJ Ile uj it 1p cc h 7 h � . Pigure 6 FACILITIES i • w Ln • 1a a 1• 4 ' • V ROAD `ANpS�ApING 81.A��ANK I } Q ,R 0�' 9 Figure 8 BLACKHAWK ROAD LANDSCAPING t �cl ti E-IM c � �C`�� n �z J • LL- 7s 7s 4I 10 10 SPR RASA + . : ty t ; v 1 � t t i, i Jti J t val •� �� 1 tx ` • l Nk BLACKHAWK RANCH SHOWING AREA OF REZONING 1840-RZ AND 1995-RZ _ Figure 10. , ••� fr..� lam•� • � :•:•;�•;::•;�'�":;;..,> L. .-- rJ Oto o �Y � roL bQ) o (0 +a s rl . OHO O CL a ca L vOa � W C) CL bW N O ID[x C 4- 4`4 Q O4- OI r O 4J O q •*- Na 1 r`�'- v in in q G O tA 1 a/ 4J Ql �J r'+ 1 •r to C L1? W q w a•v ten. a Q a'-+ a. 4 2 12 . PARCELS TO BE DEDICATED TO STATE PARK Figure: 11 , lit N l -� �---� `•!'1 �.�i''" , \`��```U��.,'�+/�jl J�j�A/�{� (f�,� �r•'i �'�.,,•:" rss.«.. 'r..ra�iu in �,., ,, ..,,•ire,=- 'r- le ID U'n I 9-Irl, ct- � + � \'`;`;titer.-.....�i\��`l.';�::v�,ti�� 1��1,41 1��`/ ,✓^-"'�' -^.. �� .tib\ tv;�' `�•://'•/%��/-..._.-.� t `•'c"'+�' �.: . .�,*<'1 �r1;1� «/�i � ( / fit) ��,, �(��`��.,�,� ,,�: ��_ =--%t., •• 13 Since the Blackhawk Ranch lies adjacent to the Mt. Diablo State Park, one of the conditions of the existing 1840 RZ was dedication of some 2000 acres of Blackhawk land to the State for park purposes in fulfillment of the plans .of the California State Park System for the "ultimate expansion" of the southern boundary of the Diablo State Park. These priority lands were divided into six parcels with the dedication of each parcel to accompany each of the six areas originally designated on the Blackhawk Ranch master plan. This factor was taken into consideration when the site of the pre- sent project was deleted from the Blackhawk master plan and submitted for, as an independent rezoning action. Accordingly, two parcels totalling 569 acres will be deeded to the State Park upon issuance of the first building permits for RZ 1995. The total land area involved, including the 374 acre project site, is thus 943 acres. The following description of the non-residential portion of the project is reproduced from Exhibit #9 "Feasibility Analysis" of the Applicants Preliminary Development Plan (Contra Costa County Ordinance for P-1 Zoning, 84-66.008#5) . 14 Public Areas There is contemplated to be one public area within the development and- that is to be a 3.7 acre rest stop park .located at the Nest end of the subject property. This land is to be given free to R-7 Park District for development and maintenance. The concept of this public park is that it is to be the crossroads of a bike, hiking and equestrian trail from Danville up Diablo Road to the intersection of Blackhawk Road and Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard. The park is to be minimally developed with only the bike and hiking trail 6 feet wide and paved, the horse trail , one picnic bench and table and a hitching rail. The estimated cost of these improvements is $6000 and ,the estimated maintenance is $1500 per year. If R-7 Park District does not accept the area for development and maintenance, the developer will develop the subject land as .a private park as above and dedicate the same to the adjacent homeowners' association for maintenance, however, the park will be on private property and may be restricted to access in the future at the discre- tion of the homeowners' association. The Blackhawk Ranch currently pays approximately $6000 per year to R-7 in taxes and the first year taxes could pay for development and the subsequent years taxes could pay for maintenance .and as further development of parks on Blackhawk which will be offered for dedication to R-7 in the future. Quasi-Public - Recreational Open Space and Maintenance There will be several quasi-public recreational and open space and maintenance areas within the development area as follows, which will be the responsibility of the homeowners' association or a county service area, as. appropriate. 1) Swim Club - The swim club is to be a commercial pool 25 meters by 2S yards "L" shaped, striped for swim lanes and a diving board, for use by the homeowners and their guests only. Area swim meets may be held here if swim teams are formed by the homeowners. There will be two small buildings for the following uses: A. Mens and h'omens Restrooms B. Pool equipment room C. Small meeting room with office for staff if desired. There will be approximately 20 parking spaces which will serve 10a of the residents at any one time• It is expected that if higher utilization than 100 does occur at any one time that because of the central location additional users can either walk, ride bikes to the area or park along the curb next to the area. The area of the swim club was chosen for its central location and to minimize the effects of traffic, noise and night lighting. The complex is to be paid for by the developer and managed and maintained by the homeowners' association established for the area included in 1995-117. Development of of future units of the Blackhawk project will include establishment of additional homeowners associations for such areas. 1.5 2) Maintenance of private streets - the Streets in the area are to by built to county standards but remain private and therefore maintained by the homeowners' association or a county service area to be formed. There will be about 12,500 linear feet of streets. 3) Open Space - There will be approximately 220 acres of open space deeded to the homeowners' association for fire protection and maintenance. The land will be left in its natural state and maintenance should be minimal except for fire protection and clean-up. Access will be to homeowners only. 4) Trails - There will be trails for hi:.ing or riding by the home- owners but the maintenance will be minimal and the trails kept open by use rather than by cutting or plowing. These trails will be within the open space of 113 above and have restricted access to homeowners and 'guests only. 5) Landscape and ground maintenance and irrigation - The area along Blackhawk Road between the road and the fence to the developed area will vary from 20 feet to 60 feet in width. It has been planned to be developed with a six foot wide concrete bike path and equestrian trail and plantings of some trees, bushes and ground cover in spots along this strip. The area around the entrance and the swim club will be landscaped and irrigated. The developer will pay for the planting and building of trails, sidewalks and entry. ;This area of trails and the bike path running along Blackhawk Road will be available for use by the public. The maintenance of the grounds in these areas will be by the homeowners' association. Landscaping within the lots will be paid for and maintained by each homeowner separately. 6) There will be a security guard at the entrance on a 24 hour basis each day. The guard house and gates will be paid for by the developer and the salaries and maintenance will be by the homeowners' association. 7) There will be three water detention ponds in the common area for drainage protection downstream which will be paid for by the developer. These three areas will be owned by the homeowners' association• but have an easement dedicated to the county for maintenance. These areas will then be maintained by the county or by a county service area. The estimated budget for maintenance by the homeowners' association of these items is to be as follows: 1) Swim Club - Contract for pool maintenance including supplies - no onsite personnel - per year $ 3,600.00 - 2) Private streets - reserve for maintenance - per year 8,000.00 3) Open Space - per year $2000.00 2,000.00 4) Trails in open space - per year $1000.00 1,000.00 5) Landscape and ground maintenance for A. Area along .Blackhawk Road $6000.00 B. Guard Nouse area $1500.00 C. Swim Club area $3000.00 D. Park at {Vest end of property $1500.00 Total "A, B, C, $ D. 12,000.00 6) Guard house salaries and materials, primarily retired men to supplement social security $46,720.00 7) Detention pond maintenance - cleaning of debris and silt 1,000.00 Total $74,320.00 Total - 204 Homeowners = $364.00 per year per homeowner. If guard house were abandoned and streets dedicated to the county for mainten- ance, the expense would drop to $19,600.00 and divided by 204 homeou-ners would be $96.00 per year per family. 8) The parcel labeled "A" on Figure 10 consisting of the 260 acre Wall Point Area- and the 309 acre Oyster Point Area will be dedicated to the Mt. Diablo State Park and maintained by them. 1 .. ., ! ?1 • 2.1 'PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The development area for 1995-RZ is 374 acres of pasture land in the lower foothills of Mt. Diablo. The project surroundings are higher foothills and the steep slopes of Mt. Diablo to the north, and low ridges to the south. The immediate basin of Green Valley, where the site lies, is bounded by Fossil Ridge on the north and by Short Ridge on the south. Green Valley Creek finds its headwaters near the site, and the valley in this location is only 1000 or 2000 feet wide. The parcel itself comprises three small valleys which run south from the ridge into Green Valley Creek; most of the exposure of the property is south facing. The lower portions of the property where the ravines widen out and join the valley have fairly lot, slope -- about 90 acres have less than loo slope. The hillsides which rise above the valley into the northern portion of the property become quite steep with slopes of 300 to 60o pre- dominating. Table below shows a slope analysis of the site, derived from a larger survey of the Elackhawk property. It can be seen that of the 2410 acre area intended for subdivision approximately half of the land has a slope -of 10% or less and one tenth has a slope greater than 20%. In the open space lands outside the subdivided portion of the site only 1/6 has a slope of 2.0% or less. (See Figure 13, Slope) • The head of Green Valley Creek lies at an elevation of 620 feet. Portions of the site rise 500 feet above this to some hilltops at over 1100 foot elevation. Fossil Ridge at 1600 feet forms the immediate backdrop for the site. On the other side, Short Ridge attains an elevation of only 800 to 1000 feet. The result is a narrow, secluded valley. 1'isually the proper- ty is well screened by these land forms, and the small ridge along the western bouhdary of this site effectively blocks the property from the view of the Diablo residential district. Tile site has a climate typical of the San Ramon Valley -- perhaps a bit more sheltered by the ridges that lie close on either side. The water courses of the ravines on site are only intermittent, but are dotted with trees and in presettlement times, undoubtedly supported a healthy and diverse valley woodland vegetation community. Rainfall in this area averages 22-1/2 inches per year, all occurring during the winter rainy season as would be expected for this California Coastal Range location. 1� Fisure 12 VICINITY TOPOGRAPHY \ 1 _ i�'1 ;-,l(•�.A.�' t �\ a` � \`( ��,�1{ 11 ,�.��.: ,'-�• ''�.i ��..^ uckeYa�emD � 1•SprinDa°�_. ,;'l 9l6 _ '� `� ( .t'I� `. CA\:E -J.... •kEFUCE �_.. 10 Lire Oak1 - -o v'•e••!�.. ,-1 .0 /007`) Eu. \•� /6051 ` ,. �Rock� \:•e1 rk liq_ :;J •,)\•�,��. �a�.• City I/�' `-• (�` \. � (' , r i\ll; q•I ;�a• .v��. .�.SS/%��.Artiit�f �^ �� ,.r' '` ��i0\P�\� Point 13 1Q ^ �--�, L9TATE %PARK 0/1 15 IU 000 • j', 1 t` \� Water Tans ��'� • .. r4 i r I �� Wale Tan. e •.`,.�,� coo e 1 •; .r/�• , - / � •/�/. `'.,i6il';\ ! .1 /• aN J 22 • ,. _ 23 24 ?; A9ranch` � ++ Windmill i C � a.` •�, '�!' ' _, �'` 1103 • •` �- 1 -. � ear •' ' I '+ ' - � - ,-�► ` 'OM 425 0 •; � 'i � a�1, l 27 2G _ 25 VABM 1062 J 1 = (USCS Topographic Map, Diablo quadrangle) SITE AREA 19 20001 SITE SLOPE 01, M. �r/r`/.'ir/r�.'f,• IJ .,,.,rJ,•r .J./'�f!/fr�ylj� J .j�j�/f f/ �,;••�•amu_/ ♦/l,I� •••r /� •.iI'/`l .rr'�-r'f �utC �� r'f f�r✓ rlyr �a .' .., fi � f�ff:•,:rr, t fil/// t/J�tff/-/l'• ./ 'ire;;• r L. •yJ/!iJ f: 1l :•,,lr�%%I.rf rf1' r'1�''r�%+r�'/•rJ'7�tr` !.� �/,S ..:.: {/ f rr/�I//:'f Ir�j��• / ;r'Ir'f f f'fi,`d'w..� :. // J f r/f f,':/r rf,.�/'rri off//�. +I j':•:J:. rf • �� I/j `rr��;i}rrr,,y.'�r.fl:;: L/�;�,i/%jJr.. \ /.r• .'r .. 'tri`/ Y Od r�1f/rffi J :�i .rte S^�� .�i/ /i/i !(! '�• f /`f�/ o No !f i ii r rr.,%f/ J�%Fr/ f i•`^' /i/fr/ 1 /f/Il �!` '� jfr� :! ,�l r/r/ ,!:��/,//•r�''/'f`./ll `i' ,/� r��,t %/�1 .�>✓,.�f``it/` f�� l f` ff,l�/�f'! �r / ;, �• // n. � j// rj////��f_f/ !'':�'r�j/,f'J�/f fir//i/f '//�/'/j// ♦ . �'J r••�If / ,•' /r// /f1 '/:�jr'rlrf rr• :: /irl.%r///r/ fr''lf " r , r J/ / f rr rlr• `/,f'::.i.lr/fr / w o�� / f r.j/�/% //r%%�%/�f�f/!/J/� ///if i%%'J��rf/f/r•J i i, �1!/jf�rf// // el o ��/r '';'f,•/ /�/„/ire�! •',/f`'f%/f��/%// rjjf//>✓•/`'fir' K P. ' /��%it r,%r!r/f/ffff/i�rf/�rl/ ' ;;i•�� j�l`r/��~`'fir' j f' 'r�• `'/!%f �/''', r.�i f /f f f��f; r f r �:'•. o w Q ;•. / w � `� w �• •%f i 20 2.2 EXISTING USE AND SURROUNDING AREA The project site is the western part of the 4800 acre Blackhawk Ranch. Although presently used primarily for grazing, the Blackhawk lands have been rezoned for planned unit development. At present, the area immediately to the west of this site has been subdivided and developed over a period of fifty years. This is the Diablo Country Club district, and contains a wide variety of expensive homes. Development of the Blackhawk Ranch would represent the eastern mut. extension of a corridor of intense suburbanization extending up the San Ramon Valley to the East Bay. (See Figure 14 - Urbanization) Except immediately to the west, all the lands surrounding the site are subject to agricultural or open space use. (See Figure 15 - Land Use) Nearly all of this land is grassland or pasture, and the remainder is primarily orchard land. There are 100 acres of walnut orchard immediately to the south- of the site which is under current production. 21 I Fi�uro 14 REGIONAL URBANIZATION SOLANO CO. Sacrampttto R. CONTRA COSTA C0: M'a S.F. BAY ALAMEDA CO. URBANIZATION (1970) ?�. Project Site Figure 15 t SAN RADION VALLEY 1972 REGIONAL LAND USE. r� to, e r r u• ~ v W W 04 '� V 'w W 14 �C7 Co. oe r to • ; ��'1 ` , to, tY 4 • t4 M { IN_' 4 LC u. ev. ` us W U;i L j�.�a�S 4. v •W ,•1 / eu. /yam) 'Ts 1 Y lc .t. 1. w . pu �I '/• i4 W w. too !i 7 VI L-4 .�• 1V cv. LAS 5{ 14 , "�' ON0". ,r Site Location 1995-RZ L l., j l Os '"�.•'. t r (J �• W. •h • •.r Vr 011. 1W •t �..�f ' W too LAO a 1 SJ1/�eu� J�jj V I 1 4 LAO r nit e • ri 4 �\ /� v Gam_ _ OUr U. "1 .�J ' I LII I its LAI cu. t, 3 l,. u w 1 J 1 v 1 " .. t4 W c OV. i W c4 \4 V V u,a.. w LAI to, �ti p .4 ,.. I" LAS IU 111 V W N VV 11 t la1 w. u, + 1 ::b OU, W " y , Or 1 •�j� 1. LAI 1 <1 11UO.J. l / '".� r� ��t'w. t4 0 4�r v� }` ,}•, r/(/�II•I�\ •',�\SSyc� 14,��('''GJp�j\�] w I !:.�� .i t4 t iW .�I '��•t�7 1��.!•r v_ s �/ 'w'^�._ _.._ _l..AS•V_ �.��1 ��1 X41 .Y.• __ t�"'r^ � Thousands of feet 15 Primarily industry............................. Is tc Improved open space(park,cemetery.etc ...... Is a la ts•t ., UnimMuredopensPace ......................0 Edrachve indust ry............................ C•.1.�1. t Transportation............................... F--- ' t I 1s„ Unimproved open space,wetland.............. w a.. c•v C _ > Commercial;public and private servKes......... lith u ^.2:- Agriculture with residence,held crop........... Jt W Agriculture with residence,vmelard/orchard.... »W Strip and cluster development.................. .+ L Agriculture with residence,grassland/pasture.... 71w R'Sinle-lm AtullamtlyfefrdenCe........................ ' Water....................................... soA11yrestdence.............:.......... _ 23 • 2.3 PLANS, ORDINANCES AND POLICIES Land development is subject to a wide range of public policy. Sonic of these policies, such as regional plans, are only advisory, others, such as general plans and zoning, are binding. When the zoning involves a planned unit district (PUD or P-1) , the restrictions include a series of development plans and a list of conditions which specifically regu.]ate development and take the place of the catalogue of permitted uses which accowpanies a more traditional zoning ordinance. At the regional level, the Association of Bay Area Governments put forth a regional plan for the year 1990 which covers the nine Bay Area Counties including Contra Costa. The project site is identified on the ABAG plan as "controlled•development" and "permanent open space". Controlled development as a category indicating those lands which are suited for development and which may become an important. extension of urban areas. These areas are to be held in reserve, however, until the later years of the planning period, allowing infilling of existing urban areas by development of lands identified as "urban". The permanent open space designation pertains to the steep wooded hillsides above the subdivided portion of the site, particularly the 569 acres on noncontiguous project • lands which will be dedicated to the State Park. A second major policy document is the State Park and Recreation Commission master plan adopted in 1974 which depicts the current boundaries of bit. Diablo State Park and the ultimate boundaries desired for the Park. This plan was available during the 1971 rezoning of this parcel, and the original conditions required the dedication of several parcels of Blackhawk property to the State. An agreement for the phasing of this dedication was reached with 569 acres to he dedicated with the Phase 1 of 1840-RZ. The 569 acres which the developer proposes to dedicate with this application is the same acreage as previously selected by the State as its "top priority" to be dedicated with the first phase of 1940-RZ The current General Plan in force for the project site is the Contra Costa General Plan which includes, for this area, the County Open Space Plan and the 1967 Alamo-Danville Plan. The Open Space Plan shows the area being developed as within the area available for "urban development". As it relates to specific land use, the portion of the project site being built on lies in an area designated as "low-density residential" and "low-density expansion" under the 1967 Alamo-Danville Plan. The application of the General Plan to a specific parcel depends upon the areal extent of each land use designation and upon the slope or terrain of the property. A general plan land use analysis was prepared by the developer as part of his application for rezoning. That analysis is included in this 24 Fisure 16 ALAMO-DANVILLE GENERAL PLAN Still �• Y �+ t t, ! o' �F 4• (i 4, t♦, -5: a z� tL ,y r' 4' O f. r'• \- a s. .t , 1 ✓•r H t• [" \: O tejl.• .a. t3 .0 orr�, v� :y!P�{.;.v.v.•:.•.•,•.•,:•.•:;.•.•. W .�• .e L. a_ 2 , r ttl U V, •j' j•a� �V, 1 •S• `` a+,a'rt5 o Fr! r.'ii } •r\. ✓yy�C;•:•.'•'ti:ti;:::{; ;:;:;a;a;:;:};:;: :;:; _e �J u r{j• +.i)+a E :t £i Vii`` '`'r.•Ji r k�v'`- ''i';::':`.':':'J:•:'::{:.�,,..•.•.,'.•:.::.:.:::: :. � a,31.+.#r,;4,. `Y,ti �,..•.•:.•.•:.•.•::�.vr::; •.. •:'r:;.•..:.•.u,t.. .6 ',y W H �.�.�f1' :f..t.;.;:::.;:.`.'::.:;.`.•: ::'::':�;:;:V:::•:::: +� t•v ,F. wS,� is Z ', .ti. r ) WI11 rl• t - y t. }' '� u h k 1' r t' ca lx 'U 1• y +. U c` •:(i X n •�1r ) r 0 \• f r 'T• :X 3 .i• 1� t r.r �' ■ :1 ! a- �C• l •r; t• "1"Y 'J Y 't ,t ry 1 rt• nw J" , •i 'C Y i •r' t•,. r \ i Y o• t f 3. K� ac 4r -t t. [' t h v 1 ( nr U ti t 't. t' rt (r X rt.L ,t 3' r,r a "ti. •�e 'f• r 1: t• i U � u C' may, x Nil otg*u,"S w• .' .a r' k } 'V K \+ 3 u • x. 'J t r :! 1 •� 1 ry•� l' •4 .,X t \ } . .• rtY r a+•• K t All •ti,t 7 y •b 'r;' •:i y U } c>: •a v , ti 4'• Y. "Ned' ' 1 � 1 l 'tf". .r 7• rY,• ':Q h kyr: t�. e+:'nVY?°t,jPC ° tw1vi i•jr.'i,>r'iti'>1'nC. 'r,'' , .•} ;l Y :L=� '•a '>. +!• 't'' l;' Y'rKe}'Y<.yi��`?r'• :d. rn ..�; O[• , Y C; titer •� t tl' t• . .14 t ` , ...5 t ��t'�Itt•nrtpzj�7�„1.tt��1+;�r^y ',?tt;'` `:•� :w ,,r,•�t`�9 [• r;,.t,,tl,+ ..it, .1'rt;. ~"� �' w' a < (. rr �� 1 r t� c+ Y •C], r ,) 7 i X' •rr n +'t �. n ARMS. i'at :U x tt`1 K 4 t .f 3 '3 Y• : .1 •V � nti ,3 V 1 •V n �• yam, r• t. t •t1. •.sht. •J'• a V r' rwi• U fC.4 t•l' , r a• h u , ,u. ) (, .i• t •D: '4 .Y t r: +iMir i14: V. :J „ ; 3' .'f.• f ;LlJ .J: C3: :' :•: + ti` `�a 'a :'4 t (4. •f•• �4• .•i r.' 3' i •t• •4�' Y :`y 4• ' J iitt ti'+ Y�r Y" f, t' rl. C. M` ,• 'fir 4: t E' v` ). t:+ 't •'11::•:x`•••••••�•.:•::':•.•:•:::".•.�'.�.:;�•:•:•:;��"::.;:'::':•.:;:;:� ;�::•:':•:':•:':�:':'::':�•:: C'• '1• 7: ,�f• ., 'j. .f ti :t •t:• f 'c i •�a 4 } }. :o c �3 t ) .c " '� 'i";” [ ar, ,i ;•,r S t •al •t J ,• 'L t' •a: •a� 1 •S+ , t �•i t• "t '..,. 'a v 3" rs rt O' i ti! t• !t, t :v :a• 1 O i:s :.-t•. U } ^ '. f• U .a 25 , report as Attachment 3 of Appendix A (Page 9 ) . The reader is referred to this analysis with the substitution of Figures 13 (Slope Map) and 16 (General Plan Map) of this •report as redraftings of the oversized drawings which accompanied the rezoning application. The salient point of the analysis is that the project uses roughly 130 acres of land designated "low-density" and 13 acres designated "low-density expansion" for a total land coverage of less than half of that authorized by the general plan designations. In terms of dwelling unit density, the large lot size results in a net density of-J .43 dwelling units per acre which is well within the range suggested by the general plan of 1-3 DU/AC for flat land and 0-2 DU/AC for land over 20% slope. The rezoning application suggests compliance with the general plan at its strictest interpretation - requiring no credit for density transfer from the open space which will be provided within the completed project. The reader is reminded that the preceeding is from.an analysis by the developer. Zoning is the application of a county ordinance to a specific parcel of land whereby the permitted uses of that land are explicitly defined. Under traditional zoning, categories of permitted uses are, identified by the zoning ordinance itself and deviation from these uses may occur only by application for variance. The Rlanned Unit District (P-1) is a zoning category intended for more flexible and comprehensive land planning where a heterogeneous land use pattern may be developed within a single large property. In the case of • P-1 zoning, the permitted uses are first delineated by the approval of a Pre- liminary Development Plan and of the conditions imposed upon that plan. There- after, Final Development Plans are developed which refine the preliminary plan. AP-1 zoning, therefore, is a specific development proposal. It is not a general category, such as R-10, whereby ratio land could be designated for residen- E L tial use without a specific proposal . The site is currently zoned P-1 being a part of the larger 1840 RZ approved under Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 74-55 (the Blackhawk Ranch Preliminary Development Plan) . That plan and its environmental impact are described in the final EIR for 1840-RZ included in this report by reference. That rezoning allowed construction of up to 4200 dwelling units on 4800 acres of the Black- hawk Ranch in six phases of development: The project site for RZ 1995 is the majority of that area originally designated as Phase 1 . The current zoning for the site now in force would allow up to 467 single family detached dwellings in the pattern of a conventional subdivision. (1/3 acre lots) . The current proposal requests 204 dwellings for the same area, also in the form of a con- ventional subdivision (1/2 acre lots) . Since the reduction in density and concomitant realignment of roadways and areas developed, plus the deletion of the school site does constitute a deviation from the specific Preliminary Development Plan approved for the area, the Blackhawk Corporation (by this application) is seeking withdrawl of 943. acres from the original Planned Unit District and approval of a new Planned Unit District for the project site only. 26 the extent of proposed development according to the judgement of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. We will review the 35 original conditions for the effect of suspending their application to the new project under con- sideration and for the effect of modifying these conditions as they will pertain to the balance of the development. To assist this review, the reader Is directed to Appendicies A and B attached. Appendix B is a list of the original 35 conditions for RZ 1840. Appendix A is the developer's RZ 1995 application including a list of modifications to 10 of these conditions. For convenience, the conditions will be reviewed in serial order according to the original numbering for each of these effects. Condition 1 notes that the Blackhawk Preliminary Development Plan is to be the basis for the zoning approval of RZ 1840 in 1974. RZ 1995 will be exempt from this since that application is based on a new and different preliminary plan. The balance of the Blackhawk property will still be subject to this condition. Condition 2 pertains to the submission of a phasing schedule for development. It is requested by the applicant that Condition 2 be modified so that a phasing schedule need be submitted for each final Development Plan rather than the entire Blackhawk Development as now required. This condition does not materially effect the RZ 1995 since this project • is a traditional subdivision with only minor non-residential uses onsite. All of the details of this project proposed development have been included in the package for this application. The modification of this condition does represent a fundamental change with regards to the remainder of the Blackhawk 'prooperty. The rationale for this change as given by the developer is that long-range planning requires flexibility with regards to phasing which the current statement of Condition 2 may deny. Although no changes in the master plan for the remainder of the property have been proposed by the developer, if such changes as have been observed for the present project site (such as density reduction by one-half) were desired in other por- tions of the Blackhawk Ranch, the changes in total number of dwellings, residents and development economic;: would materially alter the proper nature of road ori- entation, size and character of commercial facilities, number of schools required and capacity of recreational resources. This flexibility could be lost if the developer is forced to provide final detail on a plan that may not be built. If no advantage to the County is seen from the flexibility requested, then the condition should not be modified. Condition 3 pertains to procedure and is not affected by this action. Condition 4 pertains to the nature of single family residential lots making them roughly equivalent to R-10 zoning. RZ 1995 has a lot layout roughly equivalent to R-20 zoning with lot charac- teristics in excess of those required by Condition 4. This condition will still apply to the balance of the master plan with the same effect as originally intended. 27 The proposed P-1 rezoning would be based upon the Preliminary Development Plan reporduced in this report as Figure 4 and schematized by Figure 2. Included as part of the Preliminary Development Planare several additional proposals, such as details of the homeowners' association, maintenance of private streets, dedication of a small public park, etc. If approved, the Preliminary Development Plan will have added to it, in the form of conditions, such other proposals as are evolved through the approval process. According to the proposal as submitted, the maximum number of units would be 204 under the proposed zoning. If the rezoning application is approved, it will be encumbant on the applicant to file a series of documents preceeding actual construction of dwellings on his property. These documents include, in chronological order, a Final Development Plan, a tentative subdivision map, a final map and application for specific building permits. These submittals are intended to follow quickly upon approval of RZ 1995. The developer plana no substantive change from the rezoning application; a proposed tentative map has already been prepared and is included in this report as Figure 3 for reference. This environmental impact report is intended to document the effects , of development as proposed for consideration by the Board of Supervisors of both the preliminary development plan and all subsequent submittals leading to the . issuance of building permits. • The applicant wishes that a 9.33 acre parcel comprising the site of the project under consideration in this EIR be deleted from the coverage of 1940-RZ. Further, the applicant requests that the conditions imposed on 1940-RZ as a part of the rezoning ordinance be modified. The reader —` is referred to Appendix A, . page 2 , for the specific wording of the application. The purpose of this action is to create two independent parcels titiithseparate zoning on each of them. The zoning on the project site, the 9.13 acre parcel , would come from approval of RZ 1995: The zoning on the remainder of the Blac}-hai.k Ranch, roughly 3900 acres, would derive from the original rezoning RZ 1840 retained in force and in specific reference through the modifications of the original rezoning ordinance that are requested by the applicant as part of RZ 1995. From the point of view of planning and adininistra- tion of public policy, the application under consideration here has two major implications. One is the character and effect of development as proposed for the 943 acre project site as set forth in the proposed Preliminary Development Plan for RZ 1995. The other implication is the effect of separation of the 943 acre project site on the balance of the Blackhawk master plan; particularly as this deletion effects the conditions for rezoning originally imposed by the Board of Supervisors under County Ordinance 74-55. The purpose of the 35 conditions of the 1974 approval for the original 4800 acre rezoning was to formally commit the developer to certain requirements to mitigate the environmental impact of his proposed development and to constrain • The proposed P-1 rezoning would be based upon the preliminary Development Plan reporduced in this report as Figure 4 and schematized by Figure 2. Included as part of the Preliminary Development Plan are several additional proposals, such as details of the homeowners' association, maintenance of private streets, dedication of a small public park, etc. If approved, the Preliminary Development Plan will have added to it, in the form of conditions, such other proposals as are evolved through the approval process. According to the proposal as submitted, the maximum number of units would be 204 under the proposed zoning. If the rezoning application is approved, it will be encumbant on the applicant to file a series of documents preceeding actual construction of dwellings on his property. These documents include, .in chronological order, a Final Development Plan, a tentative subdivision map, a final map and application for specific building permits. These submittals are intended to follow quickly upon approval of RZ 1995. The developer plans no substantive change from the rezoning application; a proposed tentative 111,111 has already been prepared and is included in this report as Figure 3 for reference. This environmental impact report is intended to document the effects of development as proposed for consideration by the Board of Supervisors of both the preliminary development plan and all subsequent submittals leading to the . issuance of building permits. . The applicant wishes that a 943 acre parcel comprising the site of the project under consideration in this EIR be deleted from the coverage of 1940-RZ. Further, the applicant requests that the conditions imposed on 1940-RZ as a part of the rezoning ordinance be modified. The reader =.<<s is referred to Appendix A, . page 2 , for the specific wording of the application. The purpose of this action is to create two independent parcels with separate ' zoning on each of them. The zoning on the project site, the 9.13 acre parcel , would come from approval of RZ 1995: The zoning on the remainder of 'the Blackhawk Ranch, roughly 3900 acres, would derive from the original rezoning RZ 1840 retained in force and in specific reference through the modifications of the original rezoning ordinance that are requested by the applicant as part of RZ 1995. From the point of view of planning and administra- tion of public policy, the application under consideration here has two major implications. One is the character and effect of development as proposed for the 943 acre project site as set forth in the proposed Preliminary Development Plan for RZ 1995. The other implication is the effect of separation of the 943 acre project site on the balance of the Blackhawk master plan; particularly as this deletion effects the conditions for rezoning originally imposed by the Board of Supervisors under County Ordinance 74-55. The purpose of the 35 conditions of the 1974 approval for the original 4800 acre rezoning was to formally commit the developer to certain requirements to mitigate the environmental impact of his proposed development and to constrain the extent of proposed development according to the judgement of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. We will review the 35 original conditions for the effect of suspending their application to the new project under con- sideration and for the effect of modifying these conditions as they will pertain to the balance of the development. To assist this review, the reader is directed to Appendicies A and B attached. Appendix B is a list of the original 35 conditions for RZ 1840. Appendix A is the developer's RZ 1995 application including a list of modifications to 10 of these conditions. For convenience, the conditions will be reviewed in serial order according to the original numbering for each of these effects. Condition 1 notes that the Blackhawk Preliminary Development Plan is to be the basis for the zoning approval of RZ 1S40 in 1974. RZ 1995 will be exempt from this since that application is based on a new and different preliminary plan. The balance of the Blackhawk property will Mill be subject to this condition. Condition 2 pertains to the submission of a phasing schedule for development. It is requested by the applicant that .Conditioh 2 be modified so that a phasing schedule need be submitted for each Final Development Plan rather than the entire Blackhawk Development as now required. This condition does not materially effect the RZ 1995 since this project is a traditional subdivision with only minor non-residential uses onsite. All of the details of this project proposed development have been included in the , package for this application. MM The modification of this condition does represent a fundamental change with regards to the remainder of the Blackhawk property. The rationale for this change as given by the developer is that long-range planning requires flexibility with regards to phasing which the current statement of Condition 2 may deny. Although no changes in the master plan for the remainder of the property have been proposed by the developer, if such changes as have been observed for the present project site (such as density reduction by one-half) were desired in other por- tions of the Blackhawk Ranch, the changes in total number of dt.,ellings, residents and development economics would materially alter the proper nature of road ori- entation, size and character of commercial facilities, number of schools required and capacity of recreational resources. This flexibility could be lost if the developer is forced to provide final detail on a plan that may not be built. If no advantage to the County is seen from the flexibility requested, then the condition should not be modified. Condition 3 pertains to procedure and is not affected by this action. Condition 4 pertains to the nature of single family residential lots making them roughly equivalent to R-10 zoning. RZ 1995 has a lot layout roughly equivalent to R-20 zoning with lot charac- teristics in excess of those required by Condition 4. This condition will still apply to the balance of the master plan with the r same effect as originally intended. 27 L , Condition 5 pertains to design review of cluster planning areas by the Director of Planning. This condition does not apply to the proposed project since it comprises single family detached residences only. This condition will continue to apply to the remainder of the master plan. Condition 6 specifies that the Final Development Plans be contingent on a grading plan. The effect of this condition is met by the application materials for RZ 1995. The condition that "the emphasis shall be on sculptered [or] contour grading" cannot be subject to quantitive appraisal . Although the proposed pro- ject contains terraced areas for split-level homes and several plane banks of cut and fill, the density reduction from the original development concept has allowed larger lot and far greater open land for transition between slopes and grades within the developed area. This condition will remain in force for the balance of the master plan. Condition 7 stipulates that there be no more than 4200 dwelling units. RZ 1995 proposes a change in this number for the remainder of the master plan from 4200 to 3733 - the difference of 467 being that number of units which had originally been approved in concept for the project site. This condition does not effect 1995-RZ. • As for the balance of the master plan, by subtracting the originally approved. 467 units from RZ 1840, the modification proposed will prevent any effort to claim a density transfer for the units not included in 1995-RZ. The amount of this reduction, 263 units, thus can not be included elsewhere on the master plan in any other phase. The suggested modification appears to preserve the intent of the original condition in imposing an upper limit on density. Condition 8 pertains to cluster area densities. This condition does not apply to the proposed project. This condition will remain in force for the remainder of the master plan. Condition 9 stipulates that supplemental EIR's be written for each Final Development Plan. Since 1995-RZ is a new and completely separate rezoning action, it requires an EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act and its inter- pretation. The intent of this condition is thus fulfilled for this project site by this EIR. This condition will remain in effect for the balance of the master plan. Condition 10 specifies. soils and geologic studies be performed for each phase. Such studies have been performed for this site• in support of RZ 1995. This condition will remain in effect for the balance of the master plan. Condition 11 pertains to planning on the most easterly portion of the property. This condition does not pertain to the project site (western portion) . This condition will remain in effect for the balance of the master plan. Condition 12 pertains to golf traffic. This condition does not apply to the project site or to any use proposed as a part of RZ 1993. This condition will remain in effect for the balance of the master plan. Conditions 13, 14 and 15 pertain to improvement or expansion of the circulation in the area concurrent with the development of Phases 2, 3 and 5. Since the proposed project represents only a portion of the original Phase 1 (not Phase 2 or any other Phase) the timing of this possible improvement would not concern the proposed project. These conditions will remain in effect for the balance of the ma!;ter plan. Condition '16 stipulates that a traffic analysis be• done for each phase of development. Such an analysis has been done for RZ 1995. This condition will remain in effect for the remainder of the master plan. Condition 17 stipulates that the internal road system be designed to conform with proposed circulation improvements. OL This conformance is not an explicit design objective for the proposed project, however, the probable point for the intersection of a Sycamore Valley Road exten- sion and Blackhawk Road lies within a few hundred feet of the sole entrance to the proposed project. Should this road be built it would be possible to achieve any specific interface desired by adjustments in design of the new road. The remainder of this condition, pertaining to Crow Canyon Road extension, still applies to the balance of the master plan only. Condition 18 specifies hydrologic studies for each phase of develop- ment and the emphasis for the preservation of the streambeds in their natural state. A hydrology study has been conducted for RZ 1995. Roughly half (3,500 feet) of the stream beds in the developed area will be retained in their natural state according to the proposed project. 1'he re- mainder (37001) ►gill be culverted and conducted beneath project streets. In addition, there are 3500' of streambeds on the undeveloped portion of the 364 acre site that will remain. That measure is due to the large amount of grading necessary in some of the ravines in order to reduce land slope for development. This condition will remain in effect for the balance of the master plan. ?g Condition 19 specifies that all utilities shall be placed underground. ` The proposed project, RZ 1995, will have underground utilities onsite with cable television service; no television antennas will be permitted. Provision of utilities to this site by utility companies will most likely be underground since that is part of their current program for a new construction, but this will occur entirely at the discretion of the utility companies. This condition will remain in effect for the remainder of the Blackhawk master plan. Condition 20 specifies that there be a community center site. This condition does not pertain to the project site although the residents of RZ 1995 would logically be part of the service community for such a center and may be assessed to support it. This condition will remain in effect for the balance of the master plan. Condition 21 specifies that the project be annexed to the P-2 Police District. The applicant requests that this be modified to add the words, "if possible", to the condition - referring to legal action challenging annexation of the Blackhawk properties to• several service districts. The project site is currently annexed to P-2. The remainder of the Blackhawk Ranch is currently annexed to P-2 but this action may be set aside. • Condition 22 pertains to the formation of a park and recreation district for administration of public parks to be identified within the project. The applicant requests modification of this condition such .that intent may be satisfied by annexation to service district R-7 if possible or by the dedication of park sites to a non-profit homeowners' association. This request is made in the interest of flexibility. Since the proposed RZ 1995 contains a four acre public park at its western- most end, significant private open space, landscaped areas, swim club and other quasi-public areas, the developer proposes that the park go to R-7 but that the balance of these common areas be administered by a homeowners' association. The •remainder of the master plan area would be subject to the modified condition. The delineation of administration for parks would presumably not change the character, number or extent of the parks themselves. Condition 23 specifies that trails shown on the General Plan Recrea- tional Clementwill be improved and dedicated, to public agencies. The trail along Blackhawk Road has been incorporated in the plan for RZ 1995 as an equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian way with full public access along the Blackhawk Road frontage of the proposed project. The trails element of the General Plan does not otherwise apply here. This condition will continue to apply to the remainder of the master plan. ti 29 i Condition 24 specifies that the westernmost golf course be developed simultaneously with the first phase of development. The applicant suggests that the condition be modified such that the construction of the golf course and facilities would be delayed until construction of Phases 2 and 3 of the master `. plan which are physically contiguous to the golf course. = ; The project site does n9t contain any of the area intended for golf course and facilities. The projec, plan is not physically effected by the exemption from this condition but residents will not have the use of the golf course- should the balance of the project not be completed. The development of the remainder of the master plan will presumably follow. #kw the original order of Phases 1 through G in serial order. Those areas intended for development which are contiguous with the planned golf course and facilities can be planned in concert with the development of Phase 2 and 3. The suggested modification will result in little change with regards to the balance of the master plan. Condition 25 specifies that detailed plans for the golf course be submitted with the Final Development Plan. The applicant requests that this be deferred until the plan is filed for Phase 2 for the same reasons as given for Condition 24. r, Neither this condition nor its modification would effect the development of the proposed RZ 1995. The modification of this condition is consonant with the original intent for the development of Phase 2 and succeeding phases. ` Condition 26 specifies that the golf facilities be used primarily by local residents. Residents of the proposed project will be allowed membership in future golf courses. 'rhe administration of the golf course is subject to a future phase of fix' $�< + • ' review. The exemption of this project from this condition does not have any effect. This condition will remain in effect for the administration of the golf facilities to be constructed in the master plan. Condition 27 specifies that certain areas be dedicated to the State Department of Parks and Recreation. ' The 569 acre parcels originally intended for dedication as agreed upon between the Director of Planning, the project applicant and the State Director of Parks j arc included in the project site for RZ 199S. This amounts to exactly the same dedication as originally tied to Phase 1 of the master plan. 'rhe exemption of the project from this condition will result in no change to the overall dedication program. Jw 'file dedication of the remainder of the State Park parcels tied to the balance of the master plan will occur as originally intended. ` M 30 Condition 28 specifies that the development rights to all private open space be dedicated to the County. This will be done separately for the 220 acres of private open space within the project site for RZ 1995 and should be made a condition of approval for that rezoning. This condition remains in effect for the remainder of the master plan. Condition 29 stipulates that a school site within Phase 1 be made availableto the school district. The applicant requests this to be modified reflecting the removal of the identified site as part of RZ 1995. The proposed project does not provide for the dedication of a school site. Although one had originally been requested by the school district, the current arrangement between the district and the developer relies on a "per unit"' monetary assessment rather than on the provision of land. Since the school site in question is not a part of the balance of t:ie master plan, the modification will have no effect on the balance of the master plan. Condition 30 stipulates That the shopping center proposed for the central portion of the Black-hawk master plan be reviewed prior to approval of the first phase of development. The applicant requests that the timing of this request be modified to be specific and proposes that the review' should be done t before that unit of development which contains the 600th housing unit (including . the 204 within the proposed RZ 1995.) Since the commercial center was not to have been constructed until a later phase of the master plan development, the deferral of planning will not affect r, the proposed project. The principal purpose for specifying the character of the shopping center is to ensure that its character match the community that it will serve. Since the first few units contained within the proposed project do not adenuatel% define a commercial service base, the deferral of shopping center planning until �a a later development' application is necessary. Deferral of specification until F. the 600th unit will probably achieve the intent of the original condition. ' } Condition 31 pertains to indication of ownership and maintenance of open space. This condition relates to similar items as considered in Conditions 22 and 28. The private open space within the proposed RZ 1995 will be maintained by 1 a homeowners' association. The further application of this condition to the balance of the master plan is not affected. Condition 32 states that each segment of the overall development will n * be subject to further review and possible modification. 31 The proposed project presented to the Board of Supervisors as an independent rezoning is subject to full review and makes available to the supervisors all powers pursuant to the issuance of the original rezoning ordinance. The application of this condition to the balance of the master plan devel- opment is unchanged. Condition 33 stipulates that a private feeder bus service be provided for BART. The applicant requests this condition be changed such that the service need be initiated after 1,295 dwellings have been occupied instead of 1500 dwellings. The reason for this change is to take into account the 204 dwellings of the proposed RZ 1995. Since the apparent initiation of BART feeder service will not be affected by this modification, the ultimate service to the residents of the proposed project will not be changed. It is not certain in the proposed modification that the developer must serve the 204 units of RZ 1995 upon initiation of the feeder service. A specification to this extent should be made a condition of approval for RZ 1995. 'file phasing of feeder service in relation to the occupancy of units within the master plan will not be changed by this modification since the 204 units separated from the master plan have been numerically deleted from the minimum number required for *initiation of the service. If it is made clear that the residents of R7 199S are to be considered within the service community for the feeder service, then the overall feasibility of the service and hence the • original intent of the condition will be retained. Condition 34 specifies the creation of an architectural review committee. The applicant requests that this condition be modified such that the San Ramon Valley Planning Committee member will serve until 796 units are developed instead of the original 1,000 units. This change is an arithmetic accounting of the effect of removing the 204 units proposed for 1996-RZ. Condition 35 pertains to dedication of the quarry paleontological site. The paleontological site is not included within the 943 acre parcel identi- fied for RZ 1995. Therefore, this condition does not apply to the area under consideration. Since the paleontological site lies in the remainder of the Blackhawk property, its dedication will be the subject of a future development proposal and the condition intent is retained. 32 In summary, the exception of the project site from control of the original conditions and the modifications proposed as a part of this application has significant effect only in two areas: deferred planning for the golf course and commercial center and deletion of the school site from the area of Phase I at the request of the school district under an alternative meathod of performance. The effect of deletion of the 943 -acres from the original plan on development of the rest of that plan is also an issue of planning concern. Generally, the project proposed by RZ 1995 is similar to the master plan unit for this portion of the property. The density has been reduced by half, but the type of development, single family detached housing, the layout and road connection to Blackhawk Road are close to the original master plan. Tile stated purpose for rezoning is that the present project, although close to the master plan, may not be sufficiently close for purposes of implementation under the existing P-1 zoning. However, in terms of the relationship of R7 1995 to the rest of the development as a land use element, the residential character should fulfill the same functions as were originally intended. Implementation of RZ 1995 will reduce the maximum overall density of the entire Blackhawk Ranch by 263 units or 50. In itself, this. reduction should not materially effect the economics of comrercial or recreational services that • were intended for the Ranch. RZ 1995 does significantly alter the distribution of housing units with respect to the access road network for the Ranch. By reducing density in the west, the ultimate center of gravity for the entire development is shifted eastward such that the traffic impacts on Blackhawk Road South to Tassajara remain while the traffic impacts on Blackhawk Road Kest to Diablo are reduced disproportionately. . Overall , this may have a beneficial ` effect on the project's circulation impact and lessen the requirement for new access routes. Legal separation of the project site from the whole Ranch leaves open ► the issue of whether the residents of RZ 1995 will be considered residents of 'x the Blackhawk development for the purposes of homeowners' associations, community centers, recreational memberships, feeder bus service, architectural review or any special assessment or service districts that may need to be created. This can be covered by conditions, but is of small impact by comparison to the large number of units remaining to be built in the master plan. Only in the early phases of subsequent Blackhawk development could there be an important effect were the residents of RZ 1995 considered to be separate from the Blackhawk' community. 33 2.4 SOILS AND GEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS Several soils and geologic investigations have been done for this site. The lastest is by ENGEO, Inc. The following section is taken primar- ily from their report entitled Final Soil and Geologic Investigation, November 28, 1975. The general soils classifications are based on the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Contra Costa County California, September 1971 and on information supplied by Rudolph Ulrich, Consulting Soils Scientist. Geologic Background and Setting Regional Geology Active tectonism in the San Francisco Bay Region has produced folding, uplift and faulting during much of the Late Tertiary time. The sediments and extensive extrusive igneous rocks, which (luring this period were deposited horizontally, have been subsequently deformed into a series of complex folds with faulting producing detachment and displacement accompanied by seismic activity. Basement.rocks, that is, metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan formation, have been pushed up through weak zones in the deformed strata in many areas. The sedimentary rocks are basically of two types, ie. , marine or • non-marine in origin. Interfingering of the two types does occur. The marine sedimentary rocks are generally confined to the Late Miocene and older units. The non-marine rocks are younger. Sedimentary rocks to the southwest of Mount Diablo are part of a broad fold, the northwest trending Short Ridge Syncline. Major fault zones in the region generally trend northwest-southwest and are of the right-lateral strike-dip variety. �a Site Geology ,r Underlying the RZ 1995 site are rocks assigned to the Orinda (Clark, B.L. , 1933) and Neroly (Kilmer, F.H. , 1953) formations. The Orinda formation is the younger of the two and is continental in origin, probably flood plain deposited. Several land vertebrate fossil localities are present near the site. 'Phe underlying Neroly formation is marine in origin and is replete with a mega invertebrate fauna. (See Figure 17) . The Orinda formation within the site consists of lenticular beds of clayey sandstone and siltstone which are often up to 20 feet thiel:. Their strike is roughly perpendicular to the ridges, and the beds dip into the ridges. The more competent beds, such as the harder sandstone, form more resistant in-line knolls and hilltops along these ridges. The beds are locally IS overturned. 34 Residual soils are generally dark adobe-like with monmorillonite clay making up the greater portion. Where soils are derived from sandstone, the clay is sandier and lighter in color. Some pebbles of Franciscan origin are present in many of the sandstones. The variations in residual soil types and colorations account for the prominent bedding lineations observable both at the site and in aerial photographs. Jointing is a readily noticeable feature where beds have been exposed; it is generally closely to widely spaced and subnormal to the strike "3 of the beds. The fact that the major drainage is also perpendicular to the strike of the beds suggests low resistance to erosion along these jointing interfaces. Seismicity The site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Region. The nearest significant active earthquake fault which has shown historic ground displacement is the Calaveras Fault which has been mapped .in the Dublin area, G miles south of the site. An active section of the Pleasan- ton Fault is about 6.2 miles south of the site and east of the Calaveras Fault. The Hayward Fault is 12 miles to the south%-.est. The San Andreas Fault is 30 miles to the southwest. The Mount Diablo Fault, 2 miles north of the site, is considered to be potentially active by some geologists. Since 1934, over 200 earthquakes have occurred in Central Contra Costa County. Ten of these have had magnitudes of 4.0 - 5.4 on the Richter Scale. Most of the epicenters can be related to the Concord and Pleasanton Faults. The Concord earthquake of 1955 had a magnitude of 5.4. In addit' �•n, i a swarm of low magnitude earthquakes, the Danville Swarm, occurred in 1970 y R near Danville, one and one-half miles south of the R2 1995 site having magni- tudes of less than 4.0. (See Figu^e 18) . �1x Earthquake induced landsliding is a distinct possibility at the site. Precautions have been taken to minimize the adverse effects of these 4 pit phenomena by stabilizing existing slides or avoiding them by adequate setback of improvements. Existing and potential• landslide areas are described in detail in the section on landslides. Soils: General Aspects The USDA Soil Conservation Service Classification of soils on the :i site are shown in Figure 19, and described below. These are general classifi- cations based on physical characteristics, and give. do indication of the potential uses for which the soil is best adapted. aS 35 a r 4 q I • • 1�E G�O`oGv S y .a� 'ir+r dw,a,, d.ti�ti.: i J �•-•f y, a. I .............. ' •Jit ?+-"r.�>•J'+i� w..s„�' ��r rs.s �; ~ ..w Z .� .y i r , F 1 � f w ' w�'i: ?a• v a 1 +i` •'wit�C t y, _. 4 A gh .i �, , w t,�:)yi J��w., ..r�1'Y •. _W"N!J•i'•�„J� t 1"1 f�� ,+ �t,w.` J'` \ ` � : 44 ,,,,id M` 1 tf 1i1••.� :, �:j`'� ^�ti i'.'•+'�r � J,A„ys t''.�,,�+.t `4 5'� •t,{}'��+C. �r��i4 tr. � 1 •��3;�t};`i�'i'.,Y��.4'�"�'r��L.l•4r•;!,.T;�.`s;:tiCr ?; f� -)..e��!; Yx ```` � •�.�.t r•vl.T:Jir "�..� �ti 15i:Yti,� +J �... a '�''u�TR��"�?; `��, .fin• ��y� r,�3 M'' f �h Figure 18 FAULT MAP srNsu,Y DAYNb ' �j j+ ..:\ ♦ 1 re(, l w;••i• ,•✓� •1�✓i; '• PITTS3UR3 l CCHCORD `7 i , ,�5,✓' •CAY TOY ��. \ ` ��✓ • % jj j � � l�—�0 raw 1' ✓'f ......., � \ ! q �• \ '�� \ ,�,, v � � } 1 ...... ••. Jia tv 'ja!(�fit TrvJ �X 7� /\ \„�., �.� \ �� Ua`o ♦\ 'pr Da n IRV v' N p f t 3 % k. ®y , Ai Lei- Map pi-ep.fred by Concr.a Co:.ta County 1'lrinni.n1' UeT)arement , AuBuSt 1975 based on Fault information comidic-d' front U . S. Geological Survey 37 z s a •Figure 19 SOIL CLASSIFICATION -- m EN � U" i w o v A W LL rM ' F q t r r \ c �n C a 1 rl'Fry Cyt Al" � rYs+z52„A is . ` 1 38 1 Los Osos Series LhE, LhF Los Osos soils are moist throughout the solum from December to April and'dry from June to December in most years.' Depth to sandstone or shale is 24 to 40 inches. The A, or surface, horizon is 3 to 12 inches thick and is medium acid to neutral. Its color ranges from gray to dark brown. The tex- ture is typically clay loam, but may be loam. Structure is weal: or moderate, granular or subangular blocky. Los Osos clay loam (LhE) is an upland soil on 15 to 30% slopes. Runoff intensity is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate when the soil is exposed. Major use potential is for range, and, in a few areas, for homes. The LhF soils are found on 30 to 50o slopes. Runoff is medium to rapid and erosion potential on bare slopes is high. This soil is used for range, wild- life, watershed and some homes. Cropley Series CKB Most of- the lc:a.rr, flatter part of the site consists of cropley clay on 2 to Sa slopes (CKB) . This gently sloping soil is characteristic of small upland valleys in Contra Costa Count•. Erosion hazard on this soil is slight when the soil is tilled or exposed. This croplcy is used for dr}•land grain, as range, and for homes. Diablo Series DdD The Diablo series consists of well drained soils underlain by ' calcareous, soft, fine-grained sandstone and shale. These soils are also formed in upland areas, and slopes range from 9 to 500. This soil is usually moist in the upper 30 inches from November to May in most years. Permeability is slow; available water holding capacity is 6.0 to 9.0 inches. Diablo soils are used for range, dryland small grains, volunteer hay and some homes. Diablo clay on 9 to 150 slopes (DdD) is representative of the series. Runoff is slow to medium, and erosion hazard slight to moderate on exposed slopes. Lodo Series LcF The Lodo series consists of somewhat excessively drained soils underlain by soft sandstone and shale. Permeability is moderately slow, and available water holding capacity is only 2 to 4 inches. Lodo soils are used for range, wildlife and watershed. Typical vegetation is annual grasses, forbs and oak. Lodo clay loam, 30 to 50% slopes (LcF) is a steep upland soil with medium to rapid runoff, and moderate to high erosion hazard on exposed 1 soil. Best soil use is for range, wildlife or watershed. .A 39 • Soils: Engineering Aspects The ENGEO field investigation consisted of the drilling of 32 auger holes to a maximum depth of 30 feet. The locations of the bore holes are shown in Figure 20. The following section is their summary of the results of the bore logs, which are included as appendices in their report. Subsurface Soil Conditions Upper soils throughout the area of RZ 1995 are generally a stiff dark gray or gray-brown plastic silty clay. These soils, commonly called "adobe" soils, are marked by the presence of deep shrinkage cracks in the dry period. Beneath a •1 to G inch organically contaminated topsoil layer, the silty clay is commonly 3 to 5 feet plus in thickness. Plasticity Indices range from 12 to 51 indicating that this material is moderately to highl%' ex- pansive. The Reference 2 Cooper-Clark report' considers the adobe layer to be expansive soil. Their )expansion-Constraction Test Data substantiates this opinion. On steeper slopes, these soils can exhibit downhill "creep". This .is a sloe downhill movement under gravitational forces as a result of seasonal wetting and drying. This movement can be on the order of 1/2 inch per year. Several areas of more obvious creep are identified on Figure 20 • In the flatter areas of the valley floor, closer to Blackhawk Road, the Reference 2 report (on lower slopes near Blackhawk Road) shows what are described as "Colluvium Deposits". This suggests non-residual more recent transported soils. These are most likely Quaternary alluvial deposits con- sisting of brown sandy clays beneath the surface silty clay adobe layer. These soils are in excess of 15 feet in depth. Traces of gravel are present as 'well as increases in sand and silt in various levels. Based on the borings, the roundwater level would appear in the valley floor to be in excess of 15 feet below the surface. These sandy clay soils are described as "moderately expansive and slightly compressible". With proposed fills expected to be less than 20 feet in thickness, the compressibility of these stiff clays is ex- pected to be minimal. In excavated areas, these lighter brown sandy clays could be expected to be moderately expansive, but less so than the darker surface adobe or the gray to brown claystone. Outside identified landslides, and beneath the adobe layer, the hillslopes contain a tan or gray silty to sandy clay which is very stiff and is usually 4 feet or more in thickness. This soil is developed from the weathering of the underlying claystone. In the landslide areas, disturbed soils are generally stiff and consist of silty clay soils. 40 PREPS paNO LpC �- `PApS�10E o • 0 /r � 00 h • • 0 � tl x s �� • O O K • t � a . f ,on k • u p O ' " O 4A UPI s i 0 a . r l .. �J,tom/[I�t �• O 1 The groundwater level was encountered in two borings drilled into two distinct landslides. Free water was encountered at 23 1/2 feet in boring 2C and at 24 feet in boring 13C. The absence of free water in the remaining borings is deceptive. The low permeability of the silty clay soils And the claystone bedrock can account for the spotty appearance of free .groundwater. Increases in natural moisture at depth can be noted frequently near the soil bedrock interface. This suggests that intermittent seepage occurs seasonally at this level. The bedrock is a very stiff to hard claystone which is gray or brown in color. This material can be relatively easily excavated with conven- tional earthmoving equipment. When compacted as fill, this material will resemble a silty clay soil and whenever exposed to waterlin either the natural state or as fill, it. will exhibit a moderate to high expansion potential . Our investigation revealed Plasticity Indices on the order of 1S to 25 for the weathered claystone. All soils present appear usable as fill with the exception of the organically contaminated topsoil and possibly the saturated muck at the bottom of a stock pond north of the orchard on the east side of the R:' 1995 area. Liquefaction Potential Reference 1 (F.NGEO)indicates a possibility exists for liquefaction of the soils in the valley floor areas under earthquake loadings. This .could depend on, according to that reference, if well graded loose sands are present. None of the borings for Ois investigation or those given in Referenze 2 indicate the presence of soils of this type to the depth explored. No ground- water was encountered in the flat valley areas in the upper 15 feet. In addition, the soils encountered in the borings are predominantly clave' and stiff. For this set of conditions, we consider the potential for liquefaction to be remote. Fi Landslide Areas The greater part of the site is underlain by the Orinda formation which is characterized by unstable areas subject to landslides. Relevant earth movements were mapped in detail, and are shown in Figure 20 . The des- cription of the slides is contained in the ENGEO Report (Technical Appendix B) . General comments on the landslide areas made in the Cooper-Clark Report (Report on Soil and Geologic Investigation Phase 1 , Blackhattil. Ranch Development, January 1975) were substantiated by the L•NGEO analysis, and are cited below. 42 1. Slippage seems more probable along joint surfaces than along ' bedding planes, perhaps because joints are open cracks along which water can migrate, whereas bedding contacts generally are not open. 2. Movement on bedding planes apparently is not a major factor in sliding on natural slopes in the Orinda Formation. 3. Slopes with a general northerly exposure do not dry out as rapidly as those with a southerly exposure. Therefore, rocks and soils on the northerly facing slopes quickly become sat- urated during the rainy season, commonly with resultant landslides. 4. Older landslides in this formation may appear stabilized, but are actually in a delicate state of equilibrium and sub- ject to further movement if this equilibrium is materially disrupted. S. Slides occur on slopes as flat as 20 degrees. 6. The direction of sliding is parallel or nearly parallel to the strike of the beds. 7. In the alternating layers of conglomerate, sandstone, clay- E stone and shale, the claystone and shale are more prone to slide, leaving the harder conglomerate and sandstone to stand out as resistant 'ribs' adjacent to slides. In short, there are a number of unstable areas oil the site, and construction would necessarily be contingent on grading specifications to stabilize, these areas. The grading plan is discussed in the Impacts section. 43 2,5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site lies entirely within the drainage basin of Green Valley Creek. Green Valley Creek is a tributary to San Ramon Creek and Walnut Creek, ultimately flowing to the Sacramento River at Suisun Bay. The water courses at the head of this drainage basin, including the proiect vicinity, are typical of the California coastal range: characterized by seasonal flows, high erosion and frequent minor flooding. Storm runoff from foothill areas such as this is usually quite high. This is due to a combination of steep slopes, relatively impermeable soils and the concentration of heavy rainfalls during the short wet season. (The runoff coefficient ( C ) is the proportion of runoff. A value of 1 .0 means that all incident rainfall runs off and none is absorbed) The "C" value for a soils such as these is usually conservatively assumed to be 0.45. This takes into account the dense clay soils characteristic of this region. On this site, there has been extensive cultivation of the top soil for planting barley. This results in a broken or open surface layer which does not consolidate over the course of one rainy season. The openness of the surface laver tends to reduce overland flog and sheet runoff and encourage infiltration through the dense clay top soil into the more permeable substrata and parent rock below. Thus, the parcel probably has a significantly smaller quantity of rapid storm + runoff than would be expected were the cultivation not practiced. There is an erosion and a potential flooding problem along San Ramon Creek, and portions have been channelized around Walnut Creek and to the north. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering further work on San Ramon Creek, but the community is presently opposed to the environmental effects that the channel improvement would entail. The Green Valley Creek system to the west has marginal capacity a for flood flows in the flatter portion of central San Ramon Palley. Flooding has occurred in the vicinity of Stone Valley Road and along Diablo Road down- stream of the project site. Some improvements for Green Vallee Creek are contemplated at present, but the natural. condition of the channel with its aesthetic value, and the low density character of the subdivision along its banks, preclude major structural changes without negative aesthetic impacts. Surface water quality in the site vicinity is poor and variable in both quality and quantity. There are no year-round surface water resources although there are three or 'four areas of seepage which were noted in the geotechnical reconnaissance. During the winter, surface waters carry a high load of silt and are contaminated by organic materials and nutrients from _ne cattle. 44 Ground water in the Diablo foothills is also of poor and unpredict- able quantity and quality with high dissolved solids. The ground water re- source in the site vicinity would not be adequate for either extensive domcs- ti.c use or for irrigation, and has been primarily for watering livestock or for the very low density rural homes along Blackhawk Road. F, • VICINISY DRAINAGE ,Figure 21 'h: (' . " _ ` ,\springs va • •:s•,�...- AMC �: t 1 _�•-•Y -•��`, Mb 1774 •aye ''�� `•\ .r" •t' �; �' i Sntaks -..,,.`., �,-.�-^" �' �' / /� cre�ty ase+aa�•' Gj p y-o n" --- .;� ,� i��om ot6 ROC i �• � � k`.`��. cm -)' --�`' .• \\_�,{. .Yt ';u l..l• 1` t' ,, •+ .•~ as/ L`a`^��.�--'\V� ,1007 1'j 1` . 11 ' ',. .t lr '•�.-- Point � ..Al, .. asp [3tnck.Nitta ,� f �tsnt ;7--y &tet a^� �'+� •• '� ,1 ,• "�• � '�tt,:~ •:tt?tt?: � ---' _�� •Water S&�k 461 iey��-.-�c,�'_+�,��r-y��1�., Ii!. �rrT a .�• ':•j•,•.••�:�•�::;�•;;;,�,1•,.••.; n . �t ___.,� _tip.` + - •,• �• •'•.._,.,;•.•...,.•,. .•I. .. •ti.r.<..�„�a.�,+a...�, t,:,.. i� ''f..{;'•;::•.:':`•':'•'ti's',..,::, ' •r�'• t eat Rmli ch + _ v no G 96 ` 26 VABM 1062 2-7 t • N SITE AREA 2.6 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE EXISTING CONDITIONS The overall vegetational aspect ol, the site is typical of the foot- hill oak savannah with rolling grass-covered hills dotted by occasional oaks. The moister areas along seasonal watercourses support more oak trees and have an open woodland, or park land, appearance. It is probable that during the early settlement period there were many more oaks on the lower slopes of the site, but intensive land use has resulted in great reduction either by failure of reproduction, because of plowing or intensive grazing, or by direct removal of the trees. Oak species on the site include the coast live oak (Quercus agrifol•ia) , the valley oak (Q. lobata) , and the blue oak (Q. dougZasii) . The presence of all three oak species together indicates the site lies in a climatic transition zone between the moist, foggy coastal climate and the ,,TA drier inner valleys. Along the ravines, there are also buckeyes (. esnrugZus californica) and elderberry (Sambucus sp. ) . Non-native tree species on the , site include part of a walnut orchard on the southeast corner of the site and a grove of eucalyptus trees along Blackhawk Road. The latter were probably planted as a windbreak. . The herbaceous, or grassland, vegetation on the site strongly reflects the use history of the land. Over 3/4 of the area to be subdivided into lots has, in the past, been disced and sown into barley. On the occasion of the most recent site visit, the lower third of the site had recently been disced. This area comprises most of the land on which houses will be built. Weedy species present in the disced portion of the site include star thistle ' (Centaura meliz;ensis) , milk thistle (Silicu•^ n:arianum) , and black mustard (Brassica nigra) . These are all very common weeds in ploughed fields and along roadsides. Naturalized species in the unploughed areas north of the site include wild oats (Avera fatua) , Bromus spp. , wild barley (Horden^: leporinum and H. hystrix) , alfalfa (Medicago hispida) , annual ryegrass (LoZium multiflorum) and storkbill (Erodizen botrys) . This species composition, con- sisting entirely of Mediterranean annual species which invaded during the period of European settlement, is very typical of foothills grassland. There are also large numbers of milk thistle scattered throughout the grass, vege- tation. The presence of such thistle populations in grassland is evidence of previous heavy disturbance by overgrazing or plowing. Once present, thistle species are difficult to eradicate because the), are unpalatable to cattle, and their low vegetative growth habit is favored when grass is mowed. In the woodland areas along water courses, the same grassland species are also found, in addition to wild geranium (Geranium molle) and wild carrots (Daucus spp. ) . 47 The intrinsic wildlife value of this site is moderate -- the open grassland area with scattered trees provides food and shelter for a variety of vertebrates. The grassland area is suitable for burrowing rodents, which serve as food for raptorial birds -- the red-tailed hawk is a frequent visitor. In addition, deer graze the grassland areas during the winter and grass seeds and insects are available there for field birds such as meadow- larks and red-winged blackbirds from late spring through summer until the winter rains begin. Woodland areas along the stream courses provide nesting and bedding sites for a variety of song birds and for deer, raccoon, squirrels, rabbits and probably coyotes. A second, and probably more important, aspect of this site's wild- life significance is its role as a buffer zone between the urbanisation of the valley and the open space of the Mr. Diablo State Park. The site is prob- ably part of the range of a wide variety of animals Which would not be able to live within the site boundaries alone. Certainly, this includes the large deer herd of Blackhaw k Ranch and also includes coyotes and golden eagles Which are seen foraging in habitats similar to that of the. project' site. Rare and endangered species that may be present on the Blackhawk property as a whole are the Alameda Striped Racer and the California Tiger Salamander. The grassland and minor riparian habitat now present on the project site could be considered marginal habitat for these two species. There is sufficient accumulated surface water during the Winter for amphibians to breed. In addition, there are several animals considered depleted species '= in the Mt. Diablo region. These include the Grey Fox, the Mountain Lion, the Black-Chinned Sparrow and the Golden Eagle.' Again, the site can be considered to be marginal habitat for these animals. Because of the low slope and the lack of shrub, the project site m has little fire danger at present compared with;,yhp steeper and drier slopes of Mt. Diablo itself. 48 �p�O�RppHY + -- mpN j,*� Ion �oP', ,•�f•.4 ♦ `�� \i so a, JJJ lam_�"iF ?► f E. t�#�T t ;. fit;'—/t R�/y�" •✓/ r r �� .=a 1. +� \i N ,t 5�r ^r's�\> tit 1 [ �� .•-,1{*�_�.,�.-- _/�.-..- ="i-. "" :�` �`• >.� ` 0.. �� •? f a ! 1 ` i ''4. j 'fir tf•t♦l .. �+� '} a� Crit #'///� -../ / . ^ 'e_ •��/ l Wild. t, •N rj{•,r� to �` a ,t:a z Y t. r 4 , r v 40 �.\ 41 Ob ,\ti••�i.1....'�! ,.\_ � 1{._ '+t'/ -• .,d t+, �, .. '�s ems•!: �, �+ - • ' - _,✓•t.a .�� +►`, M J' �t A, + �".+1��'••.i r� �, t.r •� ,:{�t�" t�- •'., 1 ! 'moi! r Y •�. - y, � •a(l�y�r+J'f railTw \�::�' �/`, � .•\' �t� •i �` J { 1 •t '�' '' r .�fi�*•• y \ 4 1 / •• - tl1 .fit �� , �+. �� .��'w '""..-. �� _ � �: 1z�? �.�•`• • tj � 1A r ♦ a v r \ . L ,` '-..� `.•.\ � �,��` ' \'�`\'�` �+ ax .=�i�f ,�`=�• "l•,l lid ., •. a;�,.'. `(dry_+_______ >>.��,�J, � >� _ :. �.__ .. -,, �� •�, ��;�� :�/i�''`s_..:...:�. - '�--�',3• �� `tib.- •=!�\ • �• .. i-' Iry?tom•. , .Ii F.. b,£w,ts�_� /,w!'� �•i.-- � �y�,,�, t `� • 7T.ww't•:{i►� fit. - .�i-�-;. •�f � `� �t�,,, t��..-ir �:1 1l �'•!�;. .aW- �.� � � - �. %•``• ,��' �i1��-..��_ ...,•,\�• / , til r rl u PPI Ak �+„•it ��r :` 7 } . ' t• `� s :,-,:;�•�'�'•'•� ... ,' 'fir��;yyIlk % vo Ott • nn�. •�� i, < +; ii ie ^'%�- �\ '• tk 't r.r.�, -� .� �t��+`r- ',,:.:/ •ht�1rr��y '� .l _s�.'�� ~• ::� .1.!•ata M VAR it ,i, I, i� � •�' o a i . y� ;mss - f — . `� i', •�t' `'\' cfl Aj rt`! Figure 23 REGIONAL VEGETATION �� .�.•:�;t::�Wr.ait Pt 1 a1 � �41s `*ttta.t` t^' t:, ;a•� ai � "[Y"�.. •��f 'R . t.�•.`} �'' t\. •h."af • .'C"r •= '• nr'C•. - ��' t1,![n .t;y s\. {J •i.' a�t:"tn.}�4 � :: i'tf 4+ � 'te•+'?'�"'�•��,5 � ,^f„c.�irinffs;, .1 !n ,��, 3�',.t�' L:�`t':t:`iiiiii( GCryt4r`'��•C',�'�i� �•••a n• i+,�R",.�,�i• .{` �:+!'4rt .1� �..� •` •�, 4 i•' i,• .•t:fi.t a� v•,•`` ^�a`4 �,,� �r•A,t�k �•�•!T..,r �A �`(:`n',4.+t(n'.•., ` •4_1i rhi. � t`,i '*y.+. •.,a�!*j}-��t..:-'`�-- w �• l; ��!"`rk�rl•tfr': t,r� ' r �i, �C \ 1�';,' ./ 1,�. •iiSt. rte, � t�a1��',. `�-,y�.+,1'�i .�t'�'�`^• • ` ' +�w•:',La;�r+�wt t� a'` !.'..-. 1 t1, �!S a 4q.r"•��r,�'�' j�• .r ��'.• / 1•�(h�'�i't..�,,. 1' .-1 >> %fit? r� ., i•.w r!- : 1 ,'e�� .r�''r' k'c :%�{h' t, r-^!. . .h.++��•F+s�.,► 11ra��> ^rl i,'�,1±r'.K *1!?•�S t i w t•}.'"a i�(=+•,,y~Y.e•y,,�"_;;/�+.t~r�ij�t',',•�'r'. ._�'r-�•�.,,,�, .•�',4t�r r�r.. I i�,m!;i�'Ft. } � .�.•; �,+cr��+.1y•.[S t ",,t�S.:�i",:•i�4,•,('^,{"� r•l!'<4 r��,:+ 1( j + d •i ! ',1 7�"':l •y,,S t';}4_;• `S^'`'`*1'""�'�"t'ti' tJ,{,}: f,;. ar �Q ��y ,�;. < ,•/•' .1 •?� `}�h,�•M rat(` ;;�). +C��.�' ..�R.S i. i:;,•(its °!•.:•��r ;r"1 Y`•Z,t"•�+�'J •.,,i••1' ,�[�i�!fit i(r��rr�/aa.t � :1• :�r t`. �:.��yf� �ti� ri't�i�,Y•��•`1��. .+ice 5•�,•7•�J.'`� ' `��'�( � �"t,�^•+.r.�r�.1 :t*•�;` �r(y `t+` �•.�"�Rr�lfl��`,r+.x�"'�„C'_±1•f:.'Ya, r"[r'1�"`rZ..�.`}"�` � 1��[ti• :.hq"f� � •S ) yr``t ,•�,1 S��n r.>,.-!`•.0 r �,c �r�"�ti,, •'xw.; r�.� • (rf.•{a."j 'S'1 .�1 .t..ir: .�.. / �1`jsi «•,"�',•r{,;"t; �� r.irr,•t a ,� i •. .,• • ♦ `- r�;n: �t•••* „�..`rC.,..4; .a` 'r•j,Yt t,�,•f[ lA�y'�SN ,�' a•` :t ht + �t�it,-, s•., JOSa .�•ti';^ ,t •I �.\,.T-� �!i 1• /1`A1�a��` r'' f 4 'Z`Jt •Mn n. 1 { 1•�r^tt �-� J "-•:�• '-"`k •S .� ,) I »tj. 'a.:�i..t�t •lyi t•ti gmmac• S,U. � +'�' t` I+E�,�.a'�ttill.s ' •., i^i` �� t � ..cit >-' ,., _ . w.t"ri,. �'.{�:t•j�' "�.. ropk�.' r •:,•. liD1:.�" ^):) eS C+ ...\{ "Jr •1r„•J y}: r -�`t'}r k y,��:t�' ��'� t r �'%:r✓,',t~. "': ^r:Qt tt 1`S�r' p <_. �t• ',h rM v � !, j• •" _ � ,, !ti +"4 i+•"'"`,1 �� r+r 1, r, r �F�e it�1:'5 � t••�i�.,\ 'ti1['it r,.ew k "}"" t..•r t'/ x`1^1 (.��,�:•x r � ;:^�-••I�'�.� It .. + • w��r � �.. /t •� i�� 0 �i� � "'�^('S'1' J1•�• .'. ��•r J�•f•l'1. ��T� k'!"t}ti,i 'C#. t a\a `a�, 5a Yea \l+ n J'1 f, ;•"� a!• 7 a n '"'•C �3 �� rT?' ti•t!Ai Jtt�"4`" !� ",r�• i f^ "'s",�•t" n'1� •�}r►„;.}1.' +'i C`��• _ �•6 �.+1 d''li• • •` Yl. Nt j?. �"� a” Pi } s 4 •'f .7• j+f uu �`• ..��aY K +.i.,•� s '•s yy;�'C x�ky�; ��-• �,sj t'j�'� ,}�Y: rJt, -. 23 ,it•; `•ir �ti��Jn/.ii''"4`�y '��a �i''r\t y � �,.v;[Y ''.% `.ls,7l�`+•' , +AI TlA.. �ai.1�,`•,•l}�4 f""a� . . ,moi yYY'�4X ,,��'•Jr+ � f`�-�,. - Qtr � [[•t., r� t � t � IM i ch 1•✓ h' . r, iii::' J41• •"'V'�i\clrav "'� 1 L5 1••. rt' Vlindnu3l � ♦�,' 'F . _ •a .r r �'•ti t i k 125 -27 as, .a ��4+ .�f'i. •; J A + //OJ � ♦ rd . r, . i l25 "11 ., VA04 10$2 Mier J x' 1,10 WOODLAND URBAN I ZAT I ON ti CHAPARRAL GG4[.r.44t ORCHARDS 1, � °G4 GGUGI GRASSLAND 000` n �0 E",; I� LANDSLIDE 1REAS AND LOCATIONS OF SOIL TEST BOREHOLES Fi gu rc 20 _..._�............, _ 0 l 0 at '000e y �` o� i O ' ..I _ 00 O i tl O. O tl a ` 44 t .r v �......, i i ..+ * Q 1?O 1 O i per,. N � ta.Jli w j ` 41 1.� •molaq paip oar Pur `sTSATEue 030N3 oql Aq paluTiurlsgns oaaM (SL61 Aarnuur `luatu oja.\all goumd `jMrq-jDing `I asegd uoTirDtisa;tttj aTDoloo0 PUP jTog uo Zaoca�l} laoda�j Iari0-aadoo0 aqi uT apeui sroau apTIspurl agl uo sluatauioo Ie:aatia;} • (g xTpuaddt juoTugoaj) laodag 43013 agl uT pauTuluoo ST sapTjs 3111 Jo UOTidT•ta -sap aq.L • OZ aanST;I uT uMogs aau pur 'jtelap uT paddrui aaoM sluawanoai tliaua luu.tajajl •sapTjspuej of loaCgns suaau algr:isun Aq pozTaaloeaego ST tloTtlm uoTleu:aoj epuTa0 aql Aq uTelaapun ST alTs agl jo laud a[olroaD aql, sua.zd apTjspuU1 alowaa aq of uoTiou3anbTj aoj IeTlualod aql aapisuoo ant `suoTitpuoo to las STgI aos •33T1s Pur XaXtIp Xp uruTwopaad aae sBuTaoq agl uT paaalunoouo slTos aql 'uoTltppee uj •laaj Sl aaddn aql uT Suaau AallrA JUIJ aql uT paa.alunooua sunt aalt:M -puno.a oN •paaojdxo gidap aql of ad.(i sTgi 3o sjTos 30 ootiasaad atll aluoTpuT aouaaajoH uT uaATD asogl ao U014UDTisanuT STgI Jog SDUTaoq atli 3o aczoN •xuasaad aau spurs asool papeaD TTaav 3T `aouaaa,Taa lugs of DuTpa000u `uo puadap Plnom. sTgl •sDuipuoj aYunbglaua aapun sroau aoojj AaTjuA atli uT SIToS agl go UoTl3e3anbTj aoj sisTxa AITITgTssod e sale3TpuT (03JN3) t 0ou0103ali jrTlualod UoTlouan T't 2aar C- a o OPTS iSua a 1 u0 artoa4 alb O laou uod dols r o _b6t .�� til � P. q P t i 3 q p y 3 tsoazoq aql 18 jonw paivanius oqz AlgTssod pur ITosdoi paluuTuauluoo .(llroTuv2a0 aql go uoTadaoxa aql tllTM jjT3 su ojgrsn araddu luasaad SIToS TTV 'auals,(rjo paaagluaM agl aoj cZ of ST go aapao atll uo SaoTpuj AIToTisrld Paleanaa uoTleDTisonuT ano - iuTivaTod uoTsuudxa gDTg oz aleaapow e llgTgxa TjTM IT `TIT3 Sr ao aluls jeanzau aql aagiTa UijaaluM of pasodxa aaAauagM pre Tjos Arlo Aills u olgwasaa IIT`t jrTaalew ST44 ITT3 se palosduioo uaghj •luauidinba DuTAowglara IeuoTJ -ua.lUoo glTm paleAuoxa AjTsua ATaATlujoa aq uro juTaalew sTq! •aojoo uT uMoaq ao XVA ST goTgM auolSAUlo paeg of 33Tis AaaA e ST looapoq aqL •janal sTgl lu Allruosros san000 a13udaas luallTwaaluT lugl sisaSDns sTgl, •aoulaaluT looapaq ITos oqi auou .(Tivanbaa3 palou aq uuo gidap it a.znisTout Irsniru uT sastoaoul •aaleMpunoA aaaj go aoueauadde Allods aql ao3 lun000e uuo jooapaq auolsAup aql pus slTos Aelo AljTs aql 3o AITITgeawaad Mol aqy 'aATidaoap sT sDuTaoq 2tquTewaat aql uT aaleM aaaj jo aouasqu aql, •3£l DuTaoq uT loajpZ le pur 0Z suTaoq uT laa3 Z/T £Z le paaolunooua SUM aaleM aaad 'saPTISPuRT loutiSTp ani3 olul pallTap sDuTaoq oMl uT paaalunooua SUM ,anal aalrMPunoag agy 1. Slippage seems more probable along joint surfaces than along bedding planes, perhaps because joints are open cracks along which water can migrate, whereas bedding contacts generally are not open. 2. Movement on bedding planes apparently is not a major factor in sliding on natural slopes in the Orinda Formation. 3. Slopes with a general northerly exposure do not dry out as rapidly as those with a southerly exposure. Therefore, rocks and soils on the northerly facing slopes quickly become sat- urated during the rainy season, commonly with resultant landslides. 4. Older landslides in this formation may appear stabilized, but are actually in a delicate state of equilibrium and sub- ject to further movement if this equilibrium is materially disrupted. S. Slides occur on slopes as flat as 20 degrees. • 6. The direction of sliding is parallel or nearly parallel to the strike of the beds. 7. In the alternating layers of conglomerate, sandstone, clay- stone and shale, the claystone and shale are more prone to slide, leaving the harder conglomerate and sandstone to stand out as resistant 'ribs' adjacent to slides. In short, there are a number of unstable areas on the site, and construction would necessarily be contingent on grading specifications to stabilize. these areas. The grading plan is discussed in the Impacts section. 43 2.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site lies entirely within the drainage basin of Green Valley Creek. Green Valley Creek is a tributary to San Ramon Creek and Walnut Creek, ultimately flowing to the Sacramento River at Suisun Bay. The water courses at the head of this drainage basin, including the project vicinity, are typical of the California coastal range: characterized by seasonal flows, high erosion and frequent minor flooding. Storm runoff from foothill areas such as this is usually quite high. This is due to a combination of steep slopes, relatively impermeable soils and the concentration of heavy rainfalls during the short wet season. (The runoff coefficient ( C ) is the proportion of runoff. A value of 1 .0 means that all incident rainfall runs off and none is absorbed) The "C" value for soils such as these is usually conservatively assumed to be 0. 35. This takes into account the dense clay soils characteristic of this region. On this site, there has been extensive cultivation of the top soil for planting barley. This results in a broken or open surface layer which does not consolidate over the course of one rainy season. The openness of the surface laver tends to reduce overland flow and sheet runoff and encourage infiltration through the dense clay top soil into the more permeable substrata and parent rock below. • Thus, the parcel probably has a significantly smaller quantity of rapid storm runoff than would be expected were the cultivation not practiced. There is an erosion and a potential flooding problem along San Ramon Creek, and portions have been channelized around Walnut Creek and to the north. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering further work on San Ramon Creek, but the community is presently opposed to the environmental effects that the channel improvement would entail. The Green Valley Creek system to the west has marginal capacity for flood flows in the flatter portion of central San Ramon Valley. Flooding has occurred in the vicinity of Stone Valley Road and along Diablo Road down- stream of the project site. Some improvements for Green Valley Creek are contemplated at present, but the natural. condition of the channel with its aesthetic value, and the low density character of the subdivision along its banks, preclude major structural changes without negative aesthetic impacts. Surface water quality in the site vicinity is poor and variable in both quality and quantity. There are no year-round surface water resources although there are three or 'four areas of seepage which were noted in the geotechnical reconnaissance. During the winter, surface waters carry a high load of silt and are contaminated by organic materials and nutrients from cattle. 44 Ground water in the Diablo foothills is also of poor and unI)redict- able quantity and quality with high dissolved solids. The ground water re- source in the site vicinity would not be adequate for either extensive domes- _ tic use or for irrigation, and has been primarily for watering livestock or for the very low density rural homes along Blackhawk Road. 4 5 YICItNITY DRAINAGE figure 21 -:�';, '`' �'.. , t .ma >>srrin0 TyuUt AI GAME + , �" : yt. .J�''1• �. ♦ .r.... Q 77TH+ +wti } .L �• ,(• ' y. �' •,ti 2 S"ft�•:. _' ...---•.-'r"',f. , /.I�,.'�'t7",,..�r�..a.r�t. ryon to t; � _ '"" � �.,ti'' ,� tt -'" t`� 1 ' fes; � �� ,_ �' '•i•, rtil[ -:;�--• `�„ i,� 1,1 `�� ,1••.;�: .01 13 j �� ,�,:� 1,. ti. •• .`[' •f f•-' Point a.., '.. •Yi- C. • � ` � .s' �,...;-�-� /;;; }toy it ' 14 '.�aK , `'*•" k Hills _ •�'Q c V r r��iG'r f 1' � ��•� ', �, ,jjl � j• �• '�.'•,j � � ��i,' ..ttti'}?,• � .---"' ...�..,..-� ,Water Unk 't�.: .tom.. �ws+•ww:R�, d �'�•....-� •..+•'' t •I11 "'a.�i '' `lam �\•, ':Y,'"•'•�'�'''':'' :,y 1 Jloa26 tt i e � VABMr 062 126 BOUNDARY . WATERSHED N SITE AREA 2.6 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE EXISTING CONDITIONS The overall vegetational aspect of the site is typical of the foot- hill oak savannah with rolling grass-covered hills dotted by occasional oaks. The moister areas along seasonal watercourses support more oak trees and have an open woodland, or park land, appearance. It is probable that during the early settlement period there were many more oaks on the lower slopes of the site, but intensive land use has resulted in great reduction either by failure of reproduction, because of plowing or intensive grazing, or by direct removal of the trees. Oak species on the site include the coast live oak (Quercus agrifoZia) , the valley oak (Q. Zobata) , and the blue oak (Q. dougZasii.) . The presence of all three oak species together indicates the site lies in a climatic transition zone between the moist, foggy coastal climate and the drier inner valleys. Along the ravines, there are also buckeyes (rascr.uyZus eaZifornica) and elderberry (Sambucus sp. ) . \on-native tree species on the site include part of a walnut orchard oil the southeast corner of the site and a grove of eucalyptus trees along Blackhawk Road. The latter were probably planted as a windbreak. • The herbaceous, or grassland, vegetation on the site strongly reflects the use history of the land. Over 3/4 of the area to be subdivided into lots has, in the past, been disced and sown into barley. On the occasion of the most recent site visit, the lower third of the site had recently been disced. This area comprises most of the land on which houses will be built. Weedy species present in the disced portion of' the site include star thistle (Centaura melivensis) , milk thistle (SiZUG24'" marianum) , and black mustard (Brassica nigra) . These are all very common weeds in ploughed fields and along roadsides. Naturalized species in the unploughed areas north of the site include wild oats (Avena fatua) , Bromus spp. , wild barley ('Horde um Zeporinum and H. hystrix) , alfalfa (tledicago hispida) , annual ryegrass (Lolium muZtiflorum) and storkbill (Erodium botrys) . This species composition, con- sisting entirely of Mediterranean annual species which invaded during the period of European settlement, is very typical of foothills grassland. There are also large numbers of milk thistle scattered throughout the grassy vege- tation. The presence of such thistle populations in grassland is evidence of previous heavy disturbance by overgrazing or plowing. Once present, thistle species are difficult to eradicate because they are unpalatable to cattle, and their low vegetative growth habit is favored when grass is mowed. In the woodland areas along water courses, the same grassland species are also found, in addition to wild geranium (Geranium molle) and wild carrots (Daucus spp. ) . 47 The intrinsic wildlife value of this site is moderate -- the open grassland area with scattered trees provides food and shelter for a variety of vertebrates. The grassland area is suitable for burrowing rodents, which serve as food for raptorial birds -- the red-tailed hawk is a frequent visitor. In addition, deer graze the grassland areas during the winter and grass seeds and insects are available there for field birds such as meadow- larks and red-winged blackbirds from late spring through summer until the winter rains begin. Woodland areas along the stream courses provide nesting and bedding sites for a variety of song birds and for deer, raccoon, squirrels, rabbits and probably coyotes. A second, and probably more important, aspect of this site's wild- life significance is its role as a buffer zone between the urbanization of the valley and the open space of the Dir. Diablo State Park. The site is prob- ably part of the range of a wide variety of animals which would not be able to live within the site boundaries alone. Certainly, this includes the large deer herd of Blackhawk Ranch and also includes coyotes and golden eagles which are seen foraging in habitats similar to that of the project' site. Rare and endangered species that may be present on the Blackhawk property as a whole are the Alameda Striped Racer and the California 'Tiger Salamander. The grassland and minor riparian habitat now present on the • project site could be considered marginal habitat for these two species. There is sufficient accumulated surface water during the winter for amphibians to breed. In addition, there are several animals considered depleted species in the Nit. Diablo region. These include the Grey Fox, the Mountain Lion, the Black-Chinned Sparrow and the Golden Eagle.' Again, the site can be considered to be marginal habitat for these animals. Because of the low slope and the lack of shrub, the project site has little fire danger at present compared with�, )i�c steeper and drier slopes of hit. Diablo itself. • 461 1�°P°G�tPN�•.�J. %; • .�, `, ;,�`.J J; �•�: 'tom ,f 4 N-t 41 1 `� �'� , i.ii'►1 C tit s 2 ''�•,4 � ti: IL tv \• 'pt� ��x?~�_� �.. ~.+.� �..a .its-+:':S f) ��•' t ^� }r,• ,• .,� tib• , �h•�.,.;.,• .�,� .; �,,,1�., %'� ._.-� �r •� ,rt ri-r r�+'t•`:� .t ,+• ' ,~v'��►-'tWWW'i rY, .�4�2�••- t.,�\.a �'..� +1�: ��,• fit+ • • f:: � i:•�!•` �, �� '' `�,. `�.%. } � \ `: .,,acv �'�` / �� y'�`.'�..w4+��+KJ_�� \ jr, r' + +., •- ,�:\ 1�\�'a•�� 1 1 fwd 44 _ ;,+�� •�`� ' '7 � l�i ,.� � �.-"1 lir ;•\-..,� '�' ,` � / f �. '"`M )"I 4 •'!'t* r/!•l t�`c :••�t 1\ 'l �' i i t 'y ,:`• _..� i w\♦ 1� • Y - -.F .b•t7 �_,�w' V •• 000 ol irk, • �, VEGE�P�1pN REGI�P '•.• *. � •r�,�►' .,* L�•�_V; r •\v .. ``^ �.'�,`V y, •,,�••^ ` �` ,may a Q, �3 _- t,�•r � w« t•^��.��•��: .CJ♦.. `'..';`V a • *! \ n ; �.��••,rt `^ •;"} .. cam.. Fig tN. ♦T \: �i^�• tw +• � .�-•,\� �1 t• �7wFRrl t OYWOO xz �C: `,� "�►.•�- 1T;• �.,r �Ct" ��1��,c?�d �•.. SCItryw�.:: ,! YY "+r�`;C \'�: `j��Y 4 4: `�4r t'C�, Ca'ti,,1N• r:, ? sir. _ �:.i' � f'•► �i+j+�''��•• 1 •Ywl:� 4r}}:..,�� `�..5?�^•• .TY' � � �r\'"�;,r. �•t, •.'�.;d,4++ . t 1 "`i'•�'! •'`a c ^ �•�•'n�C>`��a�)• � •S.�'��`•:.��'��f"'e.0 r':"�,+�,� ll•.r4*Y;;t.�"4� �, ^ C 7.1 skis �en •r !'•'c� ;}ti t60S c?j•. �t+e{:�rn :�. ,...�• �,�.h"j.•.i.�, c.L�skis w �R�:}4r�1'Nt�� •A'',lti..y�s` �•*t3ti.. e,:,liggli '�'�•o�t '�'r^ f�g1�.;��'rr' r`.' ,r;�•�,�f;)�� -f two l��q •k1,V rY.� �'I C1, C?��~:� *� l,f �.�„'�'"•`� _\ ''a►•y��"1�'�.,t r.y~,�'•�•,.R,�'a�>.1 L�� •Si.'. �;:�;':y�,l��+`� ��*r��; It r /\'/qe�-�•.''"`.'it�t�;�r'I�S;;�r,•�� AIR 'LAR+ c� ; z :,:�•rL,A, ,•..%+ � �,Vic) :�.. r: •-f �••^. �r,�at -F�'••,�"��SI .,,r ,_'`'}`•`'Y�•`:,:. Q►'�'l\. s,V�s.',p"�-�'� 00�� \ firo5+ r ' y._ rpt s ;' r : T ..r,'', c�♦"rr -s • �,;,.i `.-� � -'�� ilr.ar,�,u�f:tir:�ci+�� ret��-;t` t �f:J�,t r`.�' Mee [,j i`� W.• h!'�t-1�,+"3'l.tr'3Y�1't —'�� y i�.t`' �".^fx 146 epn \ �♦+p `)�+"t�'ttuU t,_ — x�a-.�,,,��6�,p07 nU_�•'G'� •'y .S� 1 /.'• ,[\}}�/�y t.Y t t t.U�p�„c;oct G'.�}rr. —'-_•V"'.fRtwL^ _ .,.5'� �l•[�r�S2�I►• r� �., 1 ~`=%rk\\!•�i.ubu��1 Un,nolw'(`,�..L�.J.�G��.v+:b',l Y'oo0°pn?y 'r„�.r"'�' 1U 1tP`�.f•• G� •�\'o�ori�VVu**;ctt,+°nut'ot;.,�' .G400G`.,cG��'{+'Meo- t rh'°�� • ^•- �• jKfTlb9�C`1 .44c •;Mo,,4; c.� � ��,,-,. � ooc, i .,.I` ep ,� r.� ':` jci�' •�r,;;'�q°` i ✓ rVopotbtOU, t.u� .,�SY �• +� �• t�p poo°t.t/`�1 + t:t�4t 40 t`f� r•r.'r,.i: ...�i a'.+ .�+ \1t � � '1`.t`t1(`•.��4 oO M �.!� ,�! rf�`• �•o' _ \ }103 '�Gj C7, O Not.. ••t 1a r 1 R ' �~. 461 j � r� \ 'r �t� .. ,j N r•r 1 to G r�\ .r t t,:r ► _ ;f,t, J ti. ; _-'•- ��' - ° ' �p 062 R��12P�ION Rojo ; S U 2004+ .,,. WggOLPNO ,,,�.u�;� pRpNPRps �•1 °°c, °OpO° t+ u ,,•• w�. Ct�PP FR�� p G�SS�p,ZlO 2,7 PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS EXISTING CONDITIONS The paleontological record for this area has concentrated on the Miocene sedimentary deposits and several fossil rich localities. These are concentrated in a zone trending WNW-ESE which passes to the north of the proposed subdivision area. The well known paleontological site at the Blackhawk Quarry is 1000 feet to the northeast of RZ 1995. While it is not inconceivable that the Orinda sediments underlying the project site could contain fossils of scientific interest, no record has been made of: such in the course of the survey performed for the master plan EIR. The archaeology and post settlement history of this area are relatively little known. The Indians of this portion of Contra Costa County were of the Costanoan group, which foraged widely in the oak woodlands of the valley area. Although the Green Valley Creek basin, in which the site is located, was undoubtedly a portion of their range, it is relatively remote from the central portion of the San Ramon Valley, and no record of settlement or extensive use of this area has ever been noted. The project .site was surveyed for archaeoloeical resources as part of the application for its . present zoning (RZ 1840) . The specific 364 acre project site of RZ 1995 was surveyed again in 1976. No sites or significant artifacts were found. In post settlement times, the project site was at first excluded from the major ilexican land grants, but was• ultimately taken, along with a portion of the valley land comprising the Blackhawk Ranch, and used for grazing and growing walnuts. No structures or habitations are known fox• the site. 5, 1 i 2.8 CIRCULATION - EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is three miles east of the town of Danville, with sole access from Blackhawk Road (See Figure 24) . Blackhawk Road connects to the west to Diablo Road, which connects with Green Valley Road, El Cerro Blvd.) and leads ultimately into the town of Danville itself Oil Highway 680. In the opposite direction, Blackhawk Road heads east, swings south to connect to Tassajara Road, where the name changes to Dougherty Road, and leads into the Dublin Area in Alameda County to the south. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate Route 680. There are interchanges with local major streets at Sycamore Palley Road, Diablo Road, E1 Cerro Boulevard and Stone 1'allev Road. Interstate Route 630 extends northerly to major urban areas- of Contra Costa County - Walnut Creek, Concord, etc. - and via State Route 24 to the East and West Bay Areas. To the south, it extends to Pleasanton and the South Bay Area, and, via Inter- state Route 580, Livermore, Tracy and points tcest. Average voluMes on 1680 vary from 42,500 vehicles per day at the Sycamore Valley Road interchange to 48,000 vehicles per day at the El Cerro Boulevard interchange. , In order to evaluate the quality of traffic flow and relate it to the number of vehicles using the road, the concept of service level is used. As explained in the Forrestal Traffic Report, the level of service or a given facility is a theoretical traffic volume determined by the physical and opera- tional characteristics of the facility and by stipulated conditions of traffic flow. As defined in the Highway Capacity Manual of the Highway Research Board, service levels vary from free floss conditions at Service Level A to extreme congestion at Service Level F. Service volumes were calculated for Service Level C, which represents conventional desigr criteria for most facilities. For rural roads, the basic factors affecting level of service calculations are lane width, lateral clearance, passing sight distance, steepness of hills and amount of truck traffic. On rural roads, an operating speed of 40 miles per hour or higher is specified for Service Level C. On suburban arterials, level of service is affected by pavement width, intersections, mid-block friction, on-street park- ing, lateral clearance and pedestrian movements. A Level of Service C flow on urban streets requires an overall travel speed of 20 miles per hour. For transition sections between rural roads and suburban streets, level of. service calculations involve a combination of factors and some subjective judgement of their applicability to the situation under consideration. [A traffic analysis was done for RZ 1995 by John J. Forristal (Traffic Analysis; Blackhawk Ranch Phase I , Novem- ber, 1975), and reviewed by Contra Costa County Department of Public Works personnel. Portions of that report are ex- cerpted in this section and. in the subsequent section on Circulation Impacts. ] 52 The principal elements of the major street system, the roadway sections and traffic volumes are shown in Table 1 . The roadway sections in Table 1 are indicated by number in the Circulation Exhibit. In general, traffic flow conditions on the above streets are good. The low traffic volumes on most facilities are well within their capacities. There are peri- odic delays at some major intersections during peak hours, but these are typically short lived. The relatively highest congestion occurs during peak operations on Diablo Road between E1 Cerro Boulevard and Hartz Avenue, where current volumes are in the 10,000 vehicle per day range and roadway sections are restricted. If future growth exclusive of the Blackhawk Development is estimated at 3% per year, then none of the indicated roadways will exceed service volume capacity C within the next S years. However, Stone Valley Road, Diablo Road and Sycamore Valley Road will substantially exceed three quarters of their C level capacity during peak hour traffic. A number of roadway improvements in the vicinity have been planned or are being considered by County Public Works (Robert Jackson: Contra Costa County Traffic Planning Department) . Diablo Road from Hartz Avenue to 680 will be improved to four lanes in 1976. A connection between El Cerro and • Diablo.Road is in the budget for sometime within five years. An improved two-lane road with shoulders has been proposed for Stone Valley Road from - - Miranda to the freeway sometime in 1978. • S3 Table 1 EXISTING ROADWAY SECTIONS AND TRAFFIC VOLUTES Existing Average Peak M Route Section Roadway Daily Hour Service Section Traffic Traffic Volume C 1 Stone Vailey Road Danville Boulevard 21 - 60' 8,200 820 1,120 Green Valley Road 2 Green Valley Road Stone Valley Road 22' 5,600 550 1,080 Diablo Road 3 El Cerro Boulevard La Gonda Way 64' 5,400 530 1,400 Diablo Road 4 Diablo Road Hart: Avenue 24' - 64' 10,300 1,000 1,330 Camino Tassajara 5 Diablo Road Camino Tassajara 24' 9,000 900 1,250 E1 Cerro Boulevard 6 Diablo Road E1 Cerro Boulevard 24' - 44' 5,500 750 1,330 Green Valley Road • f,M 7 Diablo Road Green Valley Road 21' - 25' 4,200 350 7S0 Blackhawk Road 8 Blackhawk Road East of Diablo Road 19, 400 40 700 9 Blackhawk Road North of Camino Tassajara 19' S00 50 590 10 Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 24' - 56' 2,600 2S0 1,130 Sycamore Valley Road 11 Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley Road 20' 800 80 760 Blackhawk Road 12 Camino Tassajara East of Blackhat;k Road 20' 740 70 760 13 Sycamore Valle), Road San Ramon Boulevard 25' - 80' 10,900 1,080 1,400 Camino Tassajara " 14 Dougherty Road South of Camino Tassajara 20' 500 50 760 # indicates section reference on accompanying figures 54 VSCINISY CIRCULATION �igura� 24 . N 1 MILE .. �°'Ie r�a�leb Rd• c d. DiahZo Sceni 8lv Green 2 va Z ley 51� Rd. � o a d o Q7� Eti rro B d. 56� R 7 6 1995-8 Ce 3$% a v 6 8 BZaekh N 72% a 5 10 75% 22n C7 �O 1� 4b• ��ss4�a g a �ucaWO $l 77% 11 . ll% 12 9% ynterstats _ .- Route 680 0, s> ii C� 7% 14 ' z• Canton COO iGni nunber refers to table �.y1 text sect 13 Road traffic proportion C. % percents refer to of Service Volume r 5.� 2.9 _ AIR QUALITY AND NOISE The Sar. Ramon Valley is an interior valley, particularly subject to the • concentration of air pollutants. This problem is due to a tendency to form stable inversions and to a lack of ventilation by coastal winds. In addition to pollutants generated within the Valley, westerly winds tend to move air pollutants produced in other parts* of the Bay Region into the interior valleys where they are trapped, aggravating local con- ditions. The major air pollution problem in this valley, as in the entire Bay Area, is pollutants generated by vehicular activity. In particular, the ex- tensive use of the private automobile for commute; trips and for shopping trips that results from the geographically dispersed Bay Area population is a major source of pollutants. The principal concern for air quality in this region is oxidant, the phot )-chemical smog produced by the reaction of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that is noticeable as a brown haze during the summer and fall. The BAAPCD map of the geographic distribution of days per year above the State standard of 0. 10 ppm high hour oxident shows Danville at more than 30 days of oxceedance in 1972, compared with 50 days in 1971 . This pos- sible improvement in air quality over latter years is accompanied by a shift in the epicenter of oxidant from the Livermore area to the southeast Bay Area and is largely attributable to weather variations am d may not indicate a long term stabilization for improvement. This means that the San Ramon - Diablo Valley has some of the worst air quality in the Bay Area. The growth anticipated for this portion of Contra Costa County will result in a possible tripling of population, concomitant vehicular use and locally generated air ,pollution. Although some ameliora- tion may be expected from stricter emissions controls on motor vehicles, the degree of technological improvement is uncertain at present and any gains may be offset by the increased vehicular usage within the region. Reduced overall vehicle use due to Environmental Protection :agency programs, economics of fuel shortages or increased use of public transit are possible means of reducing the adverse air quality impact from growth that has already occurred. Noise Noise at the project site is very low at present. A rural area such a's this will be expected to have an ambient noise level of 30 to 40 dBa. The principal noise sources are traffic along Blackhawk Road and an occasional aircraft overflight. The noise level that these activities represent is extremely low and is noticeable only because of. the even lower background level in this undeveloped area. .t' . V lJ 2.10 ENERGY — EXISTING CONDITIONS The basic energy requirements of a residential community are for electricity and natural gas supplied by the public utility and for gasoline supplied by local retailers. As of January 1, 1474, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) was supplying gas and electricity to a San Ramon Valle)' population of about 34,450, housed in 6,953 dwelling units of which about 6,200 (893) were single family homes. Of the total San Ramon Valley population, 22,660 people lived in the Alamo-Danville planning area where the proposed project is located. The public utility generates .its power from a number of sources, Including fossil-fuel and nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal energy sources. PG&E allocates its energy supply according to a priority system for the entire region and could not specifically describe the sources of energy for the Alamo-Danville area. The utility keeps energy consumption figures for incorporated areas, such as Walnut Creek but not necessarily for unincorporated areas, such as Danville, a town whose consumption the project would most resemble. The following analysis is based on the San Ra-on Village figures since that area has a climate similar to the site and i§ less urbanized than Walnut Creek. In fact, the project site is more sheltered than the Valley and is probably not subjected to the same extremes. It must be borne in mind that the energy consumption figures for San Ramon Village are probable based an a housing mix that is 89% single family so that energy consumption in a project that is 100% single family will be proportionately higher. This is true because energy consumption in multiple. units (condominium/apart-encs) is Jess than in detached units since smaller spaces and fewer exposed walls exchange less energy with the atmosphere, thus requiring less heating and cooling. Domestic consumption for San Ramon Village amounts to 7,376 kilo- watt hours (kwh) of electricity and 158,100 cu ft/yr of natural gas per year per dwelling. To compare the use of electricity and natural gas with each other and to gasoline consumption, it is first necessary to convert the con- sumption figures to an energy equivalent -- most conveniently, kilowatt hour equivalents (kwh-eq) . Energy yield factors for gasoline and natural gas are simple products of their hydrocarbon content. 37.4 kwh-eq gal and 0.305 kwh-eq cu. ft., respectively. Electrical energy, although already expressed in kilowatt hour units, must be converted according to the equivalent energy required to produce each unit of electricity. According to PG&E figures, 665 kti-h of electrical energy are produced from one barrel (42 gal) of fuel oil, which itself has an energy equivalent of 1707 kwh-eq. Thus, the power generation station is only 39% efficient in converting the energy in oil to electrical 57 energy. Although ME has significant non-fossil fuel generating capacity, this capacity does not have short-term flexibility, and incremental demands for power, such as peak loads and demands over existing capacity, are met by burning fossil fuel, such as oil, coal or natural gas. Thus, it is appropriate to examine the incremental electricity energy demands of the new residential community in terms of oil generated power, 2.57 kwti'=eq kwh. The consumption of electricity and natural gas for the San Ramon Valley is shown below according to the population figures givctn above and- the above energy conversion method. YEARLY CONSUMPTION - SAN RAMON VALLEY Single Family Unit San Ramon Valley Conversion Units kwh Units kwh-eq Energy Source kwh eq/unit consumed equiv. (in millions) Electricity 2.57/kwh 7,376 18956 51.3 131.80 • Natural Gas 0.308/cu.ft 158100 48�,695 1099.3 358.58 Gasoline consumption is a function of the number of ADT's and the average trip length. The number of ADT's has in turn been found to vary with the density of housing units and the type of units, and hence may not be meaningful to discuss for the San Ramon Valley as a whole. If one assumes, however, that the trip generation of the Valley resembles that of the project then a gasoline consumption figure may be given. Such a figure would amount to 17 million gallons per year or 635 kwh-eq/yr. Suburban areas are characterized by higher levels of energy consump- tion per capita than more densely populated urban regions. This is because large single-family dwellings are the dominant housing mode, life-styles are oriented toward greater affluence, and people travel longer distances to employment, shopping, and cultural centers. In addition, suburban development in the Bay Area is taking place further and further from the relatively equable maritime climatic influence which characterizes the more densely populated areas. Consequently, energy costs for heating and cooling can be expected to rise. As energy supplies continue to become more limited, regions with the highest per capita consumption levels may be the first to suffer restrictions on use. •" ' 2.11 UTILITIES AND CONNUNITY FACILITIES - EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site at present is pasture land and has no direct ser- vice by utilities except for a 2" water line with a pump station and contains no structures or facilities other than water troughs for livestock. Within the immediate vicinity, to the south across Blackhawk Road, there are eight dwellings on large lots. These have electric and telephone service, but must use septic tanks for wastewater disposal and. fg7-the most part, wells for water supply. Propane gas is available by truck delivery. Utilities for water, sewer, gas and electricity terminate near the site. It is expected that these will be extended in order to serve the denser population proposed .b} the Blackhawk Ranch development. This parcel and, indeed, that portion of the overall Blackhawk master plan intended for development was included within the service areas of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CenSan) by means of a boundary reorgani:ation which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors. EB,NfJD presently serves all of the medium and high density reside n- . tial areas within Danville. The Diablo Country Club district is served by the Diablo Reservoir, which is located at an elevation of 743 feet, and is located on the slope of Short Ridge 3000 feet west of the project site. The capacity of this tank reservoir is 5 million gallons and serves homes below 640' elevation. (Vater consumption in the San Ramon Valley per dwelling unit is significantly higher than the Bay Area average. The reasons for this are the larger family size associated with the predominantly single family housing and the greater proportion of turf and landscape areas, which require irrigation during the summer months. At an approximate .consumption figure of 700 gallons per DU per day, the Diablo Reservoir has a one geek supply for approximately 1000 dwellings. The elevation of that tank is not sufficient to serve more than a few of the lots on the project site. It will be necessary to construct new storage facilities at higher elevations north of the site in order to serve the ultimate extent of the development as proposed by RZ 1995. Central Sanitary District approved annexation of the Blackhawk properties in August, 1973 for provision of sewer service. Tile nearest sewer trunk system is a 12" line presently terminating at Diablo Road and Alameda Diablo, approximately 5000 feet west of the project site. This trunk is at an elevation of 420 feet and will adequately serve the site. The wastewater treatment plant is located at Pacheco, at the intersection of Highways 680 and 4, and now gives primary treatment to 31 million gallons of wastewater 59 .per day (mgd). The plant is presently operating at 80% of design capacity and serves 350,000 people in Central Contra Costa County. In anticipation of further growth and in order to upgrade effluent to meet water quality standards, the existing plant is being expanded to 45 mgd primary treatment capacity and 30 mgd secondary treatment capacity. This conversion to advanced treatment is being largely funded by State and Federal Government Clean Nater Grant Programs. Solid waste disposal will be handled by the Diablo Disposal Service, which presently serves some 4000 residences in this area. The disposal site is Acme Fill, located in Martinez, which receives solid waste from all of Central Contra Costa County. Both the collection service and the disposal site have excess capacity at present. 'According to Mr. Boyd Olney, President of Acme Fill, the land fill company regularly separates waste components so that salvage can be made of a high proportion of the tin, aluminum, glass, newspaper and cardboard received. These materials are recycled by private industry. Police service for the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County is provided by the County Sheriff's Department. At present, the watch command of the Sheriff's Office considers manpower adequate to protect incre- • mental development in its areas of responsibility. Increased protection needs ,are served by a three month accounting of crime incidence, which determines the allocation of patrols within the Sheriff's District. — The site lies within the Danville Fire Protection District and will be served by Station No. 3 on Diablo Road at the intersection with Green Valley Road less than two miles from the project. The district presently has no problem with manning and serving areas of new residential development. Tile principal problem is the adequacy of water supply in remote areas. The site also lies within San Ramon Valley Unified School District. The current status of the District is presented in Section 2. 12, Schools. Commercial facilities for project inhabitants are primarily the downtown Danville shopping district. Danville offers fairly complete 'commun- ity shopping and the commercial area is undergoing rapid expansion. Regional facilities and services -- such As department stores and a major hospital are located eight miles to the north of Walnut Creek. 60 Figure 25 CONKINITY FACILITIES Hospital O Elementary IO Intermediate • HO High School PO post Office a• �3re O Fire Station YQZ2' F e✓ Rd. Green Ui ablo Scc�:;c O Valley �w. , Blvd. Rd. '✓ 'ro V7 0 E a'vZ E '.1. 1995-RZID ..•-: �•� ;�n 110 POO . O pZacr, ''mak lJ • Route 680 ODougherty Ranch ORd. F RTF gd• . OCroo COIJO"t O 1 MILE 61 2.12 SCHOOLS - EXISTING CONDITIONS The Blackhawk Ranch is part of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. At the present time, the district. is served by ten elementary schools, three intermediate schools, three high schools, and one continuation school. In the fall of 1975, the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) was 12,566 students. In addition to existing facilities, several expansion and new construction projects are underway. Greenbrook Elementary School, which will serve children from the Greenbrook-Danville South area, is now about 300 comi)lete. Scheduled for completion by September, 1977, are a homemaking and industrial arts facility at California High School and a new intermediate school at the southern end of the district, South Intermediate. The latter facility is designed to house 850 new students. If the proposed project were developed, it would be served in the near future by three existing schools, Green Palley Elementary, Los Cerros Intermediate, and Monte Vista High School. (See Figure 25 , Community Facilities) . Green Valley Elementary is located on a 10 acre site south of Diablo Road near the intersection of Diablo and Green Valley Roads, 4 miles from the site. Enrollments averaged 595 students between 1967 and 1973, • and totalled 595 students in the fall of 1975. The school is fully utilized, with 57 square feet of space per student, only slightly higher than the State standard of 55 square feet. according to facilities ratings administered by the Systems Planning Corporation for preparation of the 1973 Facilities Plan, the greatest space deficiency at Green Valley concerned the need for small . spaces for conferences, seminars, counseling and other individualised activities. In general, however, the school, being an older building, is in need of extensive and' continuous maintenance. Los Cerros Intermediate, located adjacent to Monte Vista liigh School, 5 miles from the site, is nine years old, though much of the construction is more recent. The enrollment has grown with the facilities, and now consists of 631 students. Los Cerros is also fully utili:ed, housing slightly more students (at 72 square feet/student) than the State recommended 75 square feet/ student density. The school has complete facilities necessary or a compre- hensive intermediate program, and the only inadequacies are related to design and landscaping. Monte Vista High School is situated on a 46 acre site on the south west corner of Stone Valley and Green Valle)- Roads, S miles from the site. Monte Vista was constructed in parallel with Los Cerros, and now houses 1643 students at a density of 81 square feet per student. This is also slightly in excess of the State standard of 85 square feet per student. The major facilities priority at Monte Vista is air conditioning. 62 2.13 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE - EXISTING CONDITIONS Open space is the dominant feature of the suburban lifestyle in the Danville-Diablo area. The ridgetops and slopes of Nit. Diablo provide a scenic vista which strongly enhances this atmosphere in the residential development on the valley floor. This open space is an important buffer zone between the populated areas and Nit. Diablo State Park. At present, recreational use of the area is primarily limited to passive aesthetic enjoyment. There is a developing system of trails for both hiking and horsebackriding which includes the network of trails within the Park boundaries. however, access to these trails.has been limited in the past because of scattered parcels of private land retained for agriculture or grazing which lie between the public park and the developed areas. In order to keep recreational use from becoming destruc- tive, it is important to provide adequate access to the designated use areas. Usability is also important to justify the expense of setting aside these areas. These issues will be addressed in relation to the proposed project plan in the 'Impacts' section. Part of the appeal of the suburban lifestyle which has been so popular in the Danville area is the ,implicit private recreational serenity • of low density living. For this reason, and because the low density develop- ment cannot financially support extensive highly managed recreational facilities, there are very few public parks in the vicinity of this project. There are a few large regional. parks, such as Los Trampas Ridge, in addition to the Nit. Diablo Park System, but these fulfill the recreational needs of people from much farther away than just the Danville area itself. Most of the parks that are available for community use are for children's recreation. These are on or near school sites and make use of playground facilities during; non-school hours. 3.1 SOILS AND GEOLOGY IMPACT As discussed in the initial section on soils and geology, the project site is entirely underlain by the weakly consolidated Orinda Formation and is consequently prone to landslides. The extensive area of existing landslides of various ages poses one principal constraint for site grading and project engineering. Discussions and recommendations from the ENGEO report arc excerpted below: Discussion We find that the RZ 1995 area is suitable for the development of single family lots as proposed. Our investigation is, however, concentrated on providing data for the grading of the lots and the proposed roadways. The development plan has -been carefully worked out so as to minimize or eliminate the need for excavating cut slopes into the marginally stable hillside slopes. Fill is generated by levelling minor knobs or ridges rather than excavating cut slopes into the hills. Fills are used to buttress the hillside slopes where possible or desirable. The lots are to be graded so as to form a building pad which, however,• will not cover the entire lot. Peripheral lot drainage is to be carefully established. Proper surface drainage is of utmost importance be- cause of the presence of expansive soils. Economics will determine in a few lots whether removal and replace- ment as engineered fill is possible in several slide areas, or whether avoid ance and green belting of the area is preferred. The Soil Engineer should review the final grading plan subsequent to these decisions. Conclusions and Recommendations Slope Gradients Cut slope heights should be restricted as much as possible. Cut slope gradients should not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The Engineering Geologist should review the final grading plan to determine if - flatter slopes than this are necessary. Fill slopes should not' be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. At this gradient no fill slope should be higher than 15 feet. If at all possible, flatter fill slope gradients should be used particularly for slopes higher than 8 feet. 64 Figura 26 SLIDE REPAIR - TYPICAL SECTION � 1 �.\ reconstructed slope 18" min ~ slide surface slide plane toe buttress: r \ \�� lI,u subdrai.n �r (tyP) l �.�o, collector / trench slope — key 6„ PIMP 10" min (typ) Notes : 1 . Subdrain material should be Chess 11 filter (see California I)i.vi.sion of Highways , Standard Specifications) 2 . The necessity for subdrai.ns at every bench should be determined during construction . 3 . The collector trench should be provided with no less than 4" 0 KIP. SLIDE REPAIR - TYPICAL .SECTION SOURCE: ENGEO 65 "TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAILS Figure 27 slide buttress fill slide Mane •�,Ji , f ' f I t i . J 'l . subdrain slide buttress fill. slide planer�� Ot' •�`� u'Y subdrain Notes : * 1. All subdrains to be at least 13 inches thick. Class II filter material should be required ( see California Division of }iighways ' - Standard Specifications ) 2. All subdrains to be provided with a 6" P11P. 3. The exact size and shape of buttress fill and subdrains will vary with size of slide and amount of: grading, in the slide areas. TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAILS SOURCE: ENGEO 66 The slopes should be graded such that no surface water should be permitted to flow over the graded slopes. All grading operations, including stripping, should .be done under the observation of the Soil Engineer. All fills placed on slopes steeper than 6: 1 (horizontal to vertical) should be adequately keyed into firm natural materials. Subdrains It will be necessary to install subdrains beneath fills in the major ravines in order to provide proper drainage to the area, and to insure the stability of the fills. Also, underdrains will be required in the slide re- placements and buttress fill installations. In the field, the Soil Engineer will direct where subdrains are required in dormant slides which are to be left in place and in the deep moist areas indicated on the geology map. Tentative subdrain locations and quantities can be given on receipt of the grading plan. According to the project engineer, grading will require movement .r_ of an estimated 400,000 cubic yards. Cut material will be used as fill, and no net import or export of material is anticipated. Tentative calculations of the area to be graded indicate that 48 acres or 330 of the developed por- tion of the site will be cut, 56 acres- or 38% of the site will be filled, and the remaining 29% will be left at its original contour. The Grading Plan shows pads for building sites on all but five of the designated lots. Lot number 68, on the ravine, has slopes greater than 200 on half of its area and also adjoins a landslide. Lots 81 and 82 have slopes greater than 20% on 3/4 of the lot area, and lots 9; and 98 are com- prised primarily of 10 to 20' slopes. Conventional pad or slab-on-grade foundations will not be feasible on these lots, but they are sufficiently large to provide sitings for alternate foundation types. Lots numbered 133 to 136 and 171 all have driveways with 10 to 15% slopes. These are feasible from an engineering point of view, but may entail some inconvenience to prospective owners. 6`7 Gt�pZNG p�RN • 1•' J . .ten •Q � n� �"`�.` '"%• r :/i,�i/�/ �t r✓}',� n • ,.•' �/�f, -, �v�/ �:• .,rig b r 6 � M A AN of a• o � � 0 1 t • 3.2 'HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT The extent to which the proposed project will aggravate existing flood control problems depends on the degree of storm runoff acceleration due to the creation of large amounts of impervious surface on previously open land. Impervious surfaces will result from the paved area of some 14 acres of roadway and from approximately 20 acres of roof surfaces and parking areas, which prevent the infiltration of storm rainfall. In addition, runoff from the site will be accelerated by drainage structures, such as concrete-lined ditches to intercept water movement along hillsides, and by culverts under- neath the roadways. One aspect of the project which tends to mitigate the acceleration of runoff is the reduction of the average slope of the site by the grading proposed. The flatter areas and areas of turf improvement, such as lawns and gardens, have a much higher infiltration rate than do the steep adobe-clay slopes of the unengineered site. The hydrology analysis (Estimate of Increased Storm Water Runoff, Blackhawk Ranch Rezoning #1995-RZ, December 1975) estimated the increase in the volume of runoff from that portion of the watershed of the east branch of Green Valley Creek, which is situated within the boundaries of the Black- hawk Ranch, clue to the proposed improvements for Rezoning RZ 1995. Construc- tion of these improvements will produce an additional volume of storm water runoff by covering the existing pasture land with impervious surfaces, i.e. , roofs, driveways, streets, etc. The increase in the amount of runoff was then • compared to the storage capacity of the planned detention basins which are to be part of the improvements for the project. The reader should be aware that there is an area •of approximately 45 acres which lie outside the east boundary of the rezoning. It is antici- pated that the area may be developed for single family cluster units.* This report will take into consideration the development of this outside area in determining the storage capacity of the detention basins. The values used in this report were based on the development plan for the Blackhawk Ranch Rezoning RZ 1995 which included 204 single family '. lots, the widening of Blackhawk Road, a Swim Club and the proposed cluster units (100 assumed) which are planned to be constructed in the future within the aforementioned 45 acres. Also used were the soils report for the devel- opment by ENGEO Inc. which classified the general soil type. (November 28, 1975) * Developer no longer plans to cluster units. Current proposals call for tennis and/or equestrian facilities. 69 RCZ DRAZNPGE QRO� ............ ttttt �•dura 29 ''�,....►••''� :•` ' tom...• • n, sttwt" � f 0000 dr Y .i• i At u u a 1 � b 0 • O o o •� t• w m r t V} i 1 O � The watershed areas used were those previously developed for a drainage study dated April 19, 1975, and which were also incorporated in the drainage study for proposed Subdivision 4738 dated November 11, 1975, revised. The tabulated hydrology data was recomputed based on Contra Costa County standards and recommendations. The hydrology data was computed on the basis of 10, 25 and 100 year recurrence frequencies for undeveloped and developed conditions. Runoff coefficients were determined for the various conditions of the watershed considering: slope, character of the ground surface, and soil type. Composite coefficients of runoff were determined for the area to be covered with improvements by estimating the percentage of different types of surfaces within the given areas. Hydrographs were plotted, based on 10, 25 and 100 year recurrence intervals, using factors recorl:�ended in Drawing No. A-85 (Contra Costa County Flood Control District Design Standards, 1975) and on the conditions of the watershed being undeveloped and developed. The amount of runoff for each condition was determined by measuring the area tinder the hydrograph curve. The area under the curve of the hydrograph rep- resents the total volume of runoff. Table 2 was made which lists the total volume of runoff for both conditions of the watershed for the various storm frequencies. A comparison of the totals of the volumes of runoff for the sub-watersheds for a given recurrence interval determined the estimated increase in the volume of runoff which can be expected due to the development of RZ 1995. The reader should understand .that the amount of runoff determined by this method (Rational (Method) is approximate. The Rational Method of determining runoff assumes that the storm has a duration greater than the time it takes the storm water to travel the longest reach of the watershed, It also assumes that infiltration is constant. However, in determining the estimated volume of runoff, values were chosen which would rake the runoff volumes on the conservative side. The increase in volume of runoff was also estimated by using the Precipitation Duration-Frequency-Depth Curves (Contra Costa County Flood Control District Design Standards, 1975) . The tabulated results may be found in Table 5 . In this method, only the area to be covered with improvements was considered. The reason for this is that a great portion of the watershed will be left natural or improved as lawn and landscape areas. The areas will not produce an increase in runoff volume, for a given recurrence interval, as the perviousness of the soil will most likely be increased by the development of lawns. '71 •Table 2 ESTIMATED RUNOFF VALUES FOR STUDY AREA RATIONAL METHOD Total Runoff Volume, Acre Feet Storm Frequency, 2.4hr. Duration Undeveloped Developed 10 year 36.4 38.5 25 year 47.3 .50.1 100 year 62..2 65.7 72 A summary of the breakdown of the area to be covered is listed in Table 3 . As before, a composite runoff coefficient was determined for the area to be covered with improvements by estimating the percentage of different types of surfaces within the area. The coefficient for the undevel- oped condition was determined by the report by ENGEO Inc. and, the Drawing No, A-85. Table 5 was prepared listing the estimated volume of runoff for the area covered, based on various recurrence intervals and several storm duration periods. The storm duration of 2.4 hours would approximate the average duration of the storms represented by the hydrographs in the .Rational Method analysis. It can be seen by comparison of the values in Tables 2 and 5 that the results are similar as would be expected. The amount of runoff was determined for various durations of storms for the three frequencies listed in Table 5 , These have not been included within this report because of the space required. The summary of the results from a storm having a 24 hour duration and a 100 year frequency has been included, as it is our opinion that this is the maximum storm condition that could be reasonably expected. . The reader should note that for the developed condition, and fre- quencies of 50 and 100 years, the modified coefficient of runoff is 1.0 (unity) .' That is to say, that all of the rainfall produced by a storm be- comes runoff. This is not necessarily valid. In fact, in the case of the study area, some infiltration would take place at the beginning of the storm until such time as the soil became saturated, and there would be some entrap- ment of the rainfall due to irregularity and depressions. Therefore, the estimated volume of runoff listed for these frequencies is higher than what would normally occur, or in other words, conservative. Table G summarizes the estimated total increase in volume of run- off. As long as the storage capacity of the detention basins is designed so that thei.r total storage capacity is greater than the results shown, there will be adequate storage capacity available to compensate for the increased volume of runoff created by the development of RZ 1995 and allow for the development of the 45+ acres which are situated within the watershed adjacent to the east boundary of the development. It should be noted, however, that the concept of placing retention ponds above the developed area is only valid if the quantity of water which must be retained is in fact available at that point. Examination of the figures for this watershed shows that. two to four times the volume of excess runoff is available for retention above the development even during the worst case storm. If this were not the case, i.e. , if the impervious areas extended higher up on the hill, then the retention ponds would have to be constructed within or below the development. 73 Table 3 SUMMARY BREAKOM OF THS AREA TO BE COVERED Deesirintion Units S.F./Unit S. F. Roofs - House 204 2500 510,000 Garage 204 600 122,400 Driveways 204 1250 255,000 Streets & Sidewalks 490,()()0 Bleckhewk hoed Widening incl . Sidewalk 130,000 Area Outside Phase I (Assumed) 1500 150,U00 , Unit/Garage 100 Streets i, Sidewalks 60,000 74 • Table 4 COMPOSITE COEFFICIENT RUNOFF 10-YR. FREQUENCY For Areas Covered: Area Area Descriotlon Sao Ft. Acres Coefficients A C AC Roofs (Total) 632,400 14.5 .85 1[.33 Driveways 2559000 5.9 .85 5.01 Streets & Sidewalks 490,600 11.3 .87 9.83 8lackhawk Rd. 130,000 3.0 .85 2.55 Area Outside Rezonina Roofs 150,000 3.4 .90 3.06 Streets & Sidewalks 60,000 1.4 .8.7 1.22 Total 39.5 34.0 Composite "C" • 34.0139.5 • .86 Use for developed condition 75 Table S ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF RUNOFF (METHOD 2) 2.4 hr. storm duration UNDEVELOPED Volume Area in Acres Frewncy Coefficient Duration Precipitation Runoff A Yrs C AC Hr. Inches Acre Ft. 39.5 10 .!7 1:3.6 • 2.4 hr. 1.3 1.6 of 25 .41 15.1 ' 2.4 hr. 1.6 2.2 " SO .44 16.t of 1. 75 7.5 100 .46 17.0 2.0 3.0 DEVELOPED Volume Area in Acres Frequency Coefficient Duration Precipitation Ruff A Yrs C AC Hr. Inches Acre Ft. 39.5 10' .86 31. 7 2.4 hr. 1.3 3. 7 W 25 .95 35.1 1.6 5.0 it 50 1:0 36.9 " 1.75 5.8 " 100 1.0 36.9 2.0 6.6 24 hr. storm duration UNDEVELOPED Volume Area, in Acres Frequency Coefficient Duration Precipitation Runoff " A Yrs C AC 11 r. Inches Acre Ft. 39.3 10 .37 13.6 . 24 hr. 3.8 4.6 of 25 .41 15.1 is 4.5 6.1 " 50 .44 16.2 Is 5.0 7.2 " 100 .46 17.0 to 5.5 8.3 DEVELOPED Volume Area in Acres Frequency_ Coefficient Duration Preci3O Cation Runoff A Yrs C AC Hr. lnches Acre Ft. 39.5 10 .86 31.7 24 hr. 3.8 10.8 of 25 .95 35.1 " 4.5 14.1 " SO 1.0 36.9 " 5.0 16.4 100 1.0 36.9 " 5.5 18.1 *76 Table 6 ESTIMATED INCREASE IN VOLUME OF RUNOFF (METHOD 2) Duration Frequency Total Volume Increased Runoff ()Ire) (Yr) (acre feet) . (Acre Feet) 2.4 hre. 10 38.5 2.1 2.4 hre. 25 50.1 2.8 2.4 hre. 50 3.3 2.4 hre. 100 65.7 3.6 24 hre. 10 6.2 • 24 hre. 25 8.0 24 tire. 50 9.2 _. 24 hre. 100 9.8 i It is recommended that the total storage capacity of the planned detention basins be a minimum of 10 acre feet. The 10 acre feet capacity would provide adequate capacity to detain a volume of runoff greater than the increase in runoff due to a storm having a 24 hour duration and a 1.00 year recurrence interval over the area of the Blackhawk Ranch Rezoning No. RZ 1995. On site drainage will be handled by culverts, incorporated into the roadway along the existing ravines, which will be filled during the course of project grading. Overland flows will be intercepted by side hill drainage ditches. Runoff, however, will join the natural channel of Green Valley Creek south of Blackhawk Road. Development of this site will reduce the siltation of surface waters during winter rains and naturally eliminate the organic contamination from cattle. The water quality downstream from the site will, however, be affected by compcients of urban runoff, notably oil , dirt, chemicals and heavy metals. The amount of these contaminants will be small and is typical of subdivision development in the San Ramon Valley. Development will tend to stabilize ground water levels throughout • the year, with a reduction in winter infiltration being balanced by the in- creased summer contribution from irrigation of lawn areas. Irrigation will " carry with it nutrients from fertilizer applications. All waste paper from project inhabitants will be handled by municipal sewerage, and there .ill be no septic tanks included within the proposed development. Short-term impacts will result from siltation during grading oper- ations. This can be reduced by grading only during the dry season, which is the usual preference by contractors. There is no convenient place on the subdivision plan where temporary ponds for silt settlement could be construct- ed since the drainage ways will be the site access points. However, other temporary structures, such as hay barriers, gravel lined diversion channels, or flcxi.ble slope drains, can be employed to dissipate the forces of erosion. Several of these measures are illustrated in Exhibit: Sedimentation Control Methods. Tile most significant mitigation measure against siltation will be the rapid revegetation of exposed surfaces. Considering the present cultivation of barley on the site, it should be relatively easy to revegetate the soils of this area, even on slopes of 300. Since the project plan specifies that no slopes in excess of 30' will be graded, it should be a fairly straightforward process to insure that an appropriate seed and mulch mixture is placed on exposed slopes well in advance of the rainy season. If the surface of exposed slopes is either lightly disced or broken in some manner, this will reduce the phenomenon of sheet runoff, which tends to wash. grass seeds away and prevent proper or uniform . coverage. 78 Zqg Qp�pS 0 So • �"`{Z u1 — gip, / - �, Cr�c� Ott•- � .F'c`r � � C-- _ ._ � , \\ ` i •, S� AI. \ .. •s3a.r\ ,\.fie •+ VIS � � r '•{ �r•irw f . ,r .-"'•ir '.r" rl�'�' j `��, fi=r' � � ` $ - � � OS *' ',?r to %LN . ,/ tom•-• . �1,' a _ _ _ . Figure 31 TEMPORARY MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND SILTATION DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY BARRIER , 1 Storm sewer structure .......................... i Open throat Straw bR1e5 Outter Anchor with two stakes driven into the ground •w �• �:�y�!r Water flo-w \• 64 FLEXIBLE SLOPE DRAIN DIVERSION CHANNEL � f ,V,11 ' r ;"�"� , ��`�.�.; -• tel.. ! •�;..� Flow CHECK DAM fl, flow J`�''+�ms's •./•T• Bales of straw s0 sand and gravel filter outlet Impact on Walnut Creek Watershed and Suisun Bay The project lies within the watershed of Walnut Creek, which drains into Suisun Bay. ' The watershed area of Walnut Creek is roughly 140 square miles. The project represents only a third of one percent of this area, and the incremental contribution of runoff from the project site to the watershed will be proportionately small. This watershed contains the urban areas of most of central Contra Costa Coupty and, in addition, the outlet of the watershed at Suisun Bay is the site of the Phillips oil refineries. The increase in water contaminants from the project's street litter, pesticides and fertilizer will also be small by comparison with pollutants from the urbanized portion of the watershed. Silt from storm water erosion can be deposited in low velocity channels, which thus require increased maintenance, and can have adverse water quality impacts due .to absorbed toxic substances, reduction in light penetra- tion and direct disturbance to.bottom dwelling aquatic organisms. Exposed slopes during construction can lead to heavy siltation over a short period, but the effects are 'small compared to the typical silt load of California • watercourses. Since RZ 1995 includes maintained landscaping and improved drainage systems, the erosion of the site will probably diminish after con- struction. Runoff from the project area will not significantly increase downstream scour of the unimproved portions of Walnut Creek or San Ramon Creek. Thus, the project .ill have an impact in that it will contribute to the water pollution region problem. Water pollution is a product of urbani- zation, which develops by incremental growth such as that proposed here. 81 3. 3 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACT The major impacts on vegetation induced by the development of RZ 1995 will be replacement of 150 acres of presently open grassland by houses and streets and loss of five to twenty mature oak trees. Wildlife populations on the site will suffer significant reduction in numbers both' by direct loss of habitat and the indirect effects of proximity to human disturbance. Ancillary to these immediate effects, though of greater long-term significance, is the encroachment of incipient urbanization into a presently unpopulated buffer zone around the Alt. Diablo State Park. Approximately 360 of the grassland on-site, including all the disced areas, will be destroyed. The pastureland vegetation removed by the construc- tion of the subdivision will be replaced by the landscaping that traditionally accompanies single family detached development. This will most likely comprise a wide variety of non-native horticultural species of diverse and unpredictable wildlife value. Many plants selected will offer both food and shelter for a few song birds as well as for rodents. Birds which will most likely become common include English sparrows, robins, blue jays, brown towhees, humningbires and house finches. Gophers and other rodents which may invade from undisturbed parts of the grassland could be a problem in horticultural plantings. The mature trees present on the property represent an aesthetic, and hence, an economic value as well as wildlife value, and an effort will be made to preserve as many of these as possible. Because of the large lot size, only a few of the mature native species present will be removed by grading. The estimate of trees removed includes both' those trees which are in areas of heavy grading, which will certainly 'be destroyed, and those trees which are in areas of light grading, where damage to root structures within the drip line area of the tree may cause injury and may shorten their lives. Direct removal will take five oaks of diameter 12" to 30" along with one Buckeye and a small Elderberry. It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of dripline damage from a tentative grading plan. The specifics of grading in any given location depend on a precise field survey undertaken at the time of grading and on recommendations by the soils engineer with regard to the extent of work necessary in order to stabilize land forms. Dripline damage may take 15 mature trees. 82 With the exception of those lots on the periphery of the development, there will be insufficient access for larger animals, such as deer and coyote, to the developed area for feeding. These animals, as well as those predi- tors such as hawks, owls and eagles, which tend to shun man's presence, will be driven further into the open lands of the 61t. Diablo area. . To the degree that the habitat in the Nit. Diablo area is already saturated with these predatory speciesland to the degree to which the project site presently represents an important food or shelter resource for wildlife in this region, the development of this site will result in an overall diminution of the wildlife carrying capacity for this region. The value of this parcel as a buffer between the urbanization of the valley and the hill slopes of Mt. Diablo will also be reduced. The approximately 250 acres of open space within the site includes most of the woodland and ravine portions. These areas will be subject to light recrea- tional use by future inhabitants of RZ 199 which :ill introduce a new element of disturbance and diminish the Value of this open space as a buffer for the open space beyond. The degree of this disturbance will be proportional to the population. The low density development proposed (204 single family dwellings) will yield a population of some 800 pef•sons. Project open space will partially fill the recreational needs of this popu- lation; in this regard, it is appropriate that all open space within RZ 1995 will. ultimately be dedicated to and managed by a homeowners' association. During the review of the previous zoning (184L)RZ), the value of Blackhawk Lands as a buffer for the State Pjark System was extensively dis- cussed. As a result of both community -and governmental concern, the dedica- tion of some 2,000 acres to the State Pa-,,k System was agreed upon. The 2,000 acres was intended primarily to serve as a buffer, in both a visual and an ecological sense, between that portion of the State Park most directly used by the public and that portion of the valley to be most intensively urbanized, according to general plans. The dedication of 569 acres to the State ("Parcels A-V shown on one of the Project Description Maps) is part of RZ 1995 as well as of the earlier plan. i 83 , FREE ttEMd a figure32 p :-CA i5 • Ut N O N n W p w f� d Oa .+ �•O O nO o 19 0 M , O a 1 O d W • 4 S� K4 PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECT'S IMPACT Although there are no sites of value presently noted on the property of •RZ 1995, artifacts or fossils may be uncovered during construction that would indicate the presence of a possibly valuable site. The difficulty with grading techniques used is that the signs of archaeological or -paleontological resources are almost always invisible to equipment operators. It is usually only in cases where large artifacts or human bones are found that construction personnel notice sites. If such objects were uncovered during the course of construction, it would be necessary to call in the attention of the appropriate expert. 85 3•S CIRCULATION IMPACT •Residential trip distributions, shown in the table beldw, were made in accordance with the general trip patterns of the California Division of Highways (CalTrans) model. These are subject to review pending availability of more recent data developed by the County;. however, the basic directional distributions should not vary significantly between the two. Impact of Traffic Traffic Generation Residential Type of units - Single Family Residence Number of Units 204 Vacancy Factor for Units 3% Daily Trip Generation/Unit 12 Total Daily Trips 2375 Peak Hour Trip Generation/Unit at 10 percent of Daily Traffic 1.2 • Total Peak Hour Trips 237 From the site, 80 percent of the residential traffic was estimated to travel west on Blackhawk Road and 20 percent to the east. The east bound trips are primarily destined south on 1680 via Sycamore Valley Road; the difference in travel time between this route and the utilisation of the E1 Cerro Boulevard or Diablo Road interchange for the same trip has been measured at only one to two minutes. Table 7 lists peak hour projections for total traffic on the local street system and the contribution due to Blackhawk Hidden Oaks. Comparisons with service volume level C are also included. The major impact on the street system due to Blackhawk occurs on Blackhawk and Diablo Roads going east to the freeway. This impact is partic- ularly critical on Diablo Road between Hartz Avenue and El Cerro, where the additional traffic will bring these road sections within a few percent of the limits of service volume C. None of the roadway sections will exceed service level C within 5 years as a result of construction of Blackhawk. However, in the case of the Camino Tassajara to E1 Cerro segment of Diablo Road just mentioned, traffic due exclusively to Blackhawk will use up 880 of the margin- al capacity of the road at service level C. 8Fi • Table 7 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLM ES AND SERVICE 'VOLUMES Future Peak Hour as of Service Level C *future Without With it Route Section Peak Hour Project Project 1 Stone Valley Road Danville Boulevard 950 85 86 Green Valley Road 2 Green Valley Road Stone Valley Road 640 59 61 Diablo Road 3 E1 Cerro Boulevard La Gonda Way 615 44 SO Diablo Road 4 Diablo Road Hartz Avenue 1,160 87 92 Camino Tassajara 5 Diablo Road Camino Tassajara 1,045 84 98 El Cerro Boulevard 6 Diablo Road El Cerro Boulevard 870 65 78 Green Valley Road • 7 Diablo Road Green Valley Road 400 S7 79 Blackhawk Road 8 Blackhawk Road East of Diablo Road 50 8 34 9 Blackhawk Road North of Camino Tassajara 60 5 18 10 Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 290 38 27 Sycamore Valley Road 11 Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley Road 95 12 17 Blackhawk Road 12 Camino Tassajara East of Blackhawk Road 80 6 11 13 Sycamore Valley Road San Ramon Boulevard 1,250 89 91 Camino Tassajara 14 Dougherty Road South of Camino Tassajara 60 8 9 M indicates section reference on accompanying figures *Existing traffic expanded at 3 percent per year over a five year period. 87 VICINISY GIRGutgloN Fisure 33 . N 1 MILE Rd. • $6 Aiabio Scenic BW Green 2 61% Valley Rd. 3 o q d 79% Et rp R d. 78 o R 7 ~� `` 1995-RZ Car 50� a 6 3496 k 9S°` 5 4 10 2°,6 27% 13 ��• ��ssaJat, 9 Suca: ai%et,! 91' 11 17% 12 1196 Interstat Route 6&0 io ,3 c i 9% 14 :u 01% Cr Gray nWber refers to table in text 23 Road seatzCn ortion . x percents refer to traffic grog of Service Volume C. gs On-Site Street System ' The local collector streets have a 32 foot curb to curb section within a 52 foot right of way. There is also a 4 foot sidewalk area within the right of way. Traffic volumes on the collector street ►.ill reach an estimated high of 1,900 vehicles per day on the section northerly of the entrance roadway and are well within acceptable service volume limits for the roadway section. Donor site streets have a 28 foot curb to curb section and no walk within a 52 foot right of. way. Traffic volumes on minor streets are low, and will not be a design factor. The main entrance road between Blackhawk Road and the collector streets' intersection will be a four lane divided roadway. Outbound traffic will have a right and left turn lane, thereby minimizing delay to the heavier component of right turning traffic. Inbound traffic will be controlled by a gatehouse, located approximately 150 feet northerly of Blackhawk Road. The two lane roadway will provide storage for approximately 15 vehicles, which is well above peak hour arrival rate requirements. An emergency access point will be installed from Blackha%-rk Road at the westerly end of the property. Blackhawk Road along the site frontage will be widened to a 36 foot pavement, with landscaped areas, a bicycle path and horse trail also provided within the 84 foot minimum right of way width. Cross sections of the improve- ment are shown in Figure 34 . At the site access road, a left turn lane for inbound traffic will be installed, along with deceleration and acceleration lanes for right turning traffic to and from the site. The overall improve- ment plus the probable installation of a speed zone will raise the service volume level for this portion of the road over any that can reasonably be expected to be developed for that downstream portion of Diablo Road east of Green Valley Road. 89 . Figure 34 BLACKNAWK ROAD AND ONSITE STREET CROSS SECTIONS t'/fKL Qeew I t/f/ct MCO PYA/%l Gt4S<_ 7v 6E \ 370 CQVlRA COJIA Cb CL1490 pi�ilER TYPICAL 57RS57 SX-071ON-52' /V/Tl128'PAV//Y0(E,cf,DT AS t/ P ii fYLc Qtuli / ..t aecvr , 4*1*,-W PCC /9A// e^4M iO.S.t \ fIEA.vyGE:'.YQ W');LLL Jit i3/7N �� 570 CLW.M14 CO5114 CO Ca70 f OlbltR 7YycAL STREF_T S,60T/ON-52' /V/T11.�2'�il V/N!3 NOt Y�a.t Gxcv N/,O•��N(,i4,t'/J.('/!�•.�GIL✓O.f'YO?TDA!AGY/��M�Y,C7 A/ODSY OAK -y1OJ.5,V44*,nC MAW Ct4,VL4,YE- PIN 04K/.ANE•NC:✓rC-44IPC TOL'AO WV �10201 LI,'!V ln• 4' I Ya�.tS 1 . AWAYIQ/.f:MAf LX4wigE�•IC� /IfAt.x.p•.j� 4.C.Yl t!f a'•' iwur�e' Marse li:t:: _/.;tr fe 1U.7_fo' 9b 3.6 AIR QUALITY IMPACT There are two major air quality impacts associated with development of RZ 1995 . The first is the impact associated with construction; the second is the impact associated with the population that will reside within the completed project. The first comprises primarily dust from grading operations and tar smoke from asphalt and heavy equipment emissions during construction. The magnitude of these impacts will be proportional to the size of the construc- tion project undertaken in this case, 204 dwellings (DU) . Most of the grading will be done within one season, and dust can be kept to a minimum by the addition of water to the fill, as required for proper compaction. Home construction will take one to three years, but air impacts during this period may be expected to be minor. Once the project is completed, the residents' vehicular travel will become the major air quality factor of this project. although it is possible .to, calculate the specific quantities of pollutants generated by project travel, the important comparison for purposes of impact assessment may be done in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VKl') alone. The simple cowarison of project VMT to some countywide or air basin statistic is not important. Two hundred and four dwellings and some 800 persons are a small proportion of any larger unit, such as the air basin. Specifically, the VMT anticipated from this project represents only .025% of the projected VMT for the San Francisco Air Basin for the year 1950. What is important, however, is the proportionality of the project's increase in regional population to its increase in regional 1'MT. Traditionally, the suburbanization of the Bay Area population has resulted in increasing ve- hicular activity and concomitant air quality degradation. Part of the reason for this is that the suburban population has retained older patterns of employment in the city core and has often had to travel for commercial and educational purposes as well. The other aspect is that the suburban popula- tion typically has an advanced income structure and a larger family size than many families in higher density portions of the Bay Area. These two factors -- geography and lifestyle -- tend to increase the vehicular activity of a suburban family far beyond that which would normally be expected for dwellings in other portions of the Bay Area. In this case, reasonable estimates of project VPTT yield, based on experience with similar suburban situations, amount to 100 VNIT/day. This figure derives from an assumption of slightly over eight miles of length for each of the 12 average daily trips expected according to California Division 91 I • of Highways data for subdivisions of this type� and is more than twice the air basin average Vbrl' generation figure. The location of residential units of this socio-economic level in the Danville area has an impact oil regional air quality far out of proportion to its incremental contribution to regional housing. This is not an attribute unique to the proposed project - it is equally true of the other residential developments in the San Ramon Valley. The project is located only three miles by road east of the center of Danville. , and this additional distance adds only a small increment to the vM'r generation expected from suburban residents more centrally located within the Danville area. Basically, the problem of disproportionate VA1T from a unit of housing in a suburban location is a problem of the remoteness of the suburban area from employment and major commercial facilities. It is not readily solved by considering growth allocation only within a single suburban community, but, rather, must be dealt with on a regional scale. At that level, this question becomes a matter of a trade-off between the overall environmental quality of the air basin and the opportunity for more prople to share the environmental amenities of life in the suburban areas. The actual quantities of air pollutants expected from residents' travel -may be calculated with assumptions of speed, distance and emission factors in effect for various years. Calculations for these quantities were made by Dr. D.J. Myronuk for the Unit 1 plan of the Blackhawk Development at a design level of 450 dwelling units, the density proposed for the previous plan. The current plan reduces the density, and the consequent effects on air quality, by half. The assumed travel characteristics were approximately 100 Nfl'/DU with 1/4 of that travel on local streets at an average speed of 20 miles per hour and the remainder oil freeways with an average speed of 45 miles per hour. Calculations for short period local emission concentrations used a local traffic peak hour speed of 10 miles per hour. Dr. Myronuk's report, dated March 10, 1975, is reproduced in its entirety in Appendix C. An amended version of his calculations, with the emissions reduced by one- half, is presented in Table 8, Air Quality. Tile interpretation cited below is excerpted verbatum from Dr. Myronuk's report, and again, the figures are based on twice the presently intended RZ 1995 density. However, the qualita- tive conclusions will not be significantly altered by the 50% reduction in density. The emission levels or concentrations attributable to Phase 1 of the development do not result in any violation of State of Federal Air Quality Standards. However, the emissions acting in concert with many other projects and industries and traffic in the Last Bay Area, have resulted in the great emission burden found in Contra Costa County. • 92 Table AIR QUALITY r- o ww' vim► � 4 r rf N' ur O1 W. z C7 � in r+ rr- r. `C O O a Q N• c► N m1-h m ii ro ,� wo ; a a y ' w 0ro N Q N fav 7 N M :c �+ t0 b LL cn a a o f`1 K � M rt 4 N `C N••K w N w N t-•• w v Crt CO f�•'d to < p # Coq p f O n rte► o M• a ro p �t O C: ro fu ,O N `Cf N• F "t � "'s � ••i � ••t ••t "'1 N � C 1[3� O m A h,• 4 r•f'd tn 6 n u. th p• ti, CND n C/I M 3 O fn 'tf �y CU N l9 n O .rN (=) r tO Ca t c:l O O n t C) C) C7 C.s f4 C.'', i r tD M n t I triLn � N* CYO �� () }•'y � ) I .,t l•) tat :� �} M. vNr n 1 K to w rn v cn tyl ro r] -, 00. } 0 C a t-n ' M rt rt rt r-r ro • I) N• N. y+y. V• ^.�^ �r j V l• r• rn tn fn fn to M PJ CL 11 II II II II !# R] t , t•+tA '+ _ `.Ji r`r l.� C'"5 r"t•r-') W n t`• _� O O i�j ' ••' f - i M r� •a �.t to rn cl t ar 7 } t ,t 1 Ca I , ' i 'C C ► t-, IN Ili !`� 93 i ; The release of about 374 pounds per day of hydrocarbons (about half of which are reactive) and 620 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, by traffic attributable to the Project, will contribute slightly to an increase in photo- chemical oxidant 'levels well downwind of the site. Local oxidant levels will not be increased by these emissions. The addition of 47 pounds per day of suspended particulate will contribute to an increased coefficient of haze and an increasing frequency of episodes of reduced visibility in' the San Ramon Valley. The emission of 1S pounds per day of sulfur oxides although yielding levels much less than air quality standards, will become increasingly significant as higher sulfur content fuels and lubricating oils are consumed. The production of additional sulfur oxides is an undesirable reaction associated with the use of oxidation catalysts in 1975 cars. The future use of such catalytic systems, although very effective in reducing hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions, is being reconsidered by the Environmental Protection Agency on the Federal level. The production of about 6 pounds per day of ethylene, (about 1 .7 of the hydrocarbon emissions) will have some slight damaging effects on local plants and trees; Reference 9. The State Standard of 0. 1 parts per million for 8 hours will not be violated. • i 94 Noise Impact The noise element of the Contra Costa County General Plan enumeratos a set of policy guidelines by which the general objective of mitigating com- munity noise impacts is to be attained. Numbers (6.) and (7.), cited below, tire relevant to the development of RZ 1995. (Prom Contra Costa County Noise Element, p. 14) 116, In newly developing residential areas, require that indoor noise levels not exceed 45 dBA (CNF.L) . 7. In newly, developing residential areas, attempt to achieve outdoor noise levels at the residences below 60 dBA (CNEL) ." These noise levels are based on 1990 contour maps included in the element. The CNEL designation refers to "Community Noise Equivalent Level", a measure of the total noise environment for an entire day with added weightings on sound occurring in the evening and night hours. The primary source of noise, both before and after development, is - traffic on Blackhawk and Diablo Roads. The 60 dBA line on the 1990 contour map falls along the edge of Blackhawk Road. As a consequence, those homes closest to Blackhawk Road may approach 55 dBA. However, fencing and land- —' scaping along the road will provide some protection from road noise, and it is not anticipated that any homes will experience undesirable noise levels. Most of the development lies within the 45 dBA contour. The impact of the development itself on noise levels is proportional to its impact on traffic. Along Blackhawk Road, RZ 1995 development will account for 80, of the total traffic load by 1980. Since existing traffic levels are so low, the development will have a proportionately large impact. �S • 3.7 "ENERGY INIpACT In forecasting the energy consumption of project residents, two possibilities exist. The first is that, cooking and space heating; will be done electrically; the other is that these facilities will use natural gas. In some cases, provision of gas lines for a remote community is prohibitive in cost., and thus all domestic energy has to be supplied by electricity. With respect to this project, PGF,E has already installed a 4" gas line on Blackhawk Road at the Mt. Diablo turnoff, which could be used to supply future develop- men't. This means that both energy alternatives are available for Blackhawk RZ 1995. Energy consumption under each of the two alternatives is summarized below: ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY PROJECT RESIDENTS ("All electric" homes) Units Consumed % of Project Total ' (per DU) kwh eq. Total (millions) kwh eq. Gasoline 2433 91,007 (x 37.4) 39 19 Electricity 56,166 144090 (x 2.57) 61 31 Total All Sources 50 For project dwelling unit 100 VMT/DU x 365 days/yr - 15 mi/gallon = 2433 gallons/DU/year ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY PROJECT RESIDENTS (Electricity F, Natural Gas) Units Consumed % of Project Total (per DU) kwh eq. Total (millions) kwh eq. Gasoline 2033 94007 (x 37.4) 57 19 Electricity 7,376 18,956 (x 2.57) 12 4' Natural Gas 158,100 48.695 (x .308) 31 10 Total All Sources 34 96 It can be seen that residential use of both electricity and natural . gas consumes only 2/3 of the total energy required if electricity alone is used. This is the preferred alternative from the point of view of energy conservation. If the project consumes energy at a rate equivalent to the Sari Ramon Valley as a whole, and in proportion to the new population it generates, then energy consumption by the project will amount to 3.1% of the total valley enexgy consumption (1974 population figures) . Since the character of the project housing is similar to that of the surrounding community, there is no reason to expect that energy consumption by the project residents will differ significantly from that of the existing community. Nevertheless, energy consumption by San Ramon Valley residents is already excessive in comparison with residents of the Bay plain because of the affluent lifestyle reflected in large single family detached homes,as well as the long commute distance to the urban centers of employment. The median number of rooms per DU in Sari Ramon Village, based on 19%0 census data, is 7,, compared to a median of 4.7 rooms per DU in the SMSA. The amount of energy used for heating, cooling and lighting is thus about 300 greater per • DU in the San Ramon Vallee. The increase is actually somewhat higher because many units in the SMSA are multiple dwelling units with fewer outside walls. It may be argued that the future project residents are transferring from somewhere else.,and that their energy use in the new location mould be offset by a decline in use in their old location. In actuality, the remote- ness and lifestyle of these new residents represents a net increase in energy consumption over the demand at their former location. In addition, the proposed project will be increasing the housing stock and, hence, the housing capacity of the region and, thus, will probably account for a net increase in the ,dumber of consumers of energy in the region as a whole as well as a definite increase in households. 9'7 3.8 UTILITIES AND CON14UNITY FACILITIES IMPACT Water for homes in the proposed project will be provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) . EBDIUD collects user charges based on the amount of water consumption, measured in cubic feet with charges declining with increased consumption. The San Ramon-Danville average consumption is 700 gallons per day per dwelling unit and may be fairly applied to the single family dwellings of the proposed project. At this rate, the project as a whole would consume 0. 15 million gallons per day. On a per dwelling basis, the single family homes here will be expected to consume some 2S00 cu ft/DU/mo, which at a rate of 24 cents/100ef is $6.75 per month, which, with the meter charge of $2.30, results. in an average bill of some $9.00/mo or $110/yr. Thus, the user fees from the project will amount to $23,320, and will cover both operating expenses and water delivery costs in addition to some surplus for capital improvements and investments. In addition, EBAIUD also levies a local property tax, which amounts to 5. 145/100 AV, that is used exclusively for fire protection facilities of the district's plants. The project will yield an annual revenue for this fund of $8,069 for a total project increment of $31,359/yr to the utilities district. Because of elevation, it will be necessary to construct an additional reservoir to serve Hidden Oaks. The site presently being considered by the district is shown in the northwest corner (labeled "Tank") on all maps of the �;,;.:....; . project in this report. Engineering specifications for the reservoir are not presently available. However, a high estimate of the revenue surplus generated by this project ($40/1)U/yr) represents a bonding capacity by annual amortization of debt of roughly $100,000. This is less than 10% of the anticipated cost of a reservoir of one million gallon capacity, and the balance of the costs would have to be derived from the N strict capital reserve fund, or by developer contribution as negotiated by the district. The principal source of information on tater supply are proposals from the developer, correspondence from HN1131) and prior impact documents including the draft EIR for subdivision 4135 (covering the former 430 unit plan) and the reply thereto of Mr. Stephens of the water district dated May 2, 1975. The proposed positioning of the reservoir is shown in detail in Figures 35 and 36 . Because it is located in the saddle between two rises, it will not be visible from Blackhawk Road. Adverse impacts due to the reservoir will result primarily from disturbance during construction, and will be of relatively short duration. However, as conceived, the reser- voir represents capacity in excess of 400 DU. This would constitute reserve capacity in anticipation of further development of the Blackhawk Ranch. 98 • The* area upon which actual construction within the preliminary plan for 1995 RZ has been in EBMUD since 1965. {Vater service is now provided to the property but is of insufficient quantities and the property is above elevations now served by the reservoir in the area (the Diablo Reservoir) . Accordingly it is necessary to provide a water storage tank and pump station (and related pipes) to serve this site and all areas above the 640 foot elevation. The exact type, size, location and financing of these improve- ments has not yet been finally determined. To serve the 204 unit project site of 1995 RZ a tank with capacity of 1 million to 1 .5 million gallons will be needed. Also needed is a pump station to pump the water from the 6-10 foot elevation to the tank to be constructed at a higher elevation. The developer and the water district site selection committee have tentatively agreed on a site for the tank and pump station. See Figure 2 and 35. The tank site selected is to tic, located* in a hidden draw such that the visual impact of the tank will be kept to a minimum. See Figure 36. • The final determination of these questions will be worked out between the developer and 1's11MUD prior to the final map stage. Presented here is an assessment based upon the features of the most ambitious proposal such that precise mitigation measure may be generated during this approval process. The developer proposed a steel type (above ground) tank. liarthwork for this type tank would involve 175,000 cubic yards of excavation which would be removed to fill other areas on the site if necessary. A below ground tank would have far less visual impact but would be significantly more expensive and WOW ld involve more excavation. This element is mitigated by the proposal to locate the tank in a draw, and to install landscaping and to use an earth-tone paint. • 99 The proposed pump plant site, located near Blackhawk Road, • will be located in the area shown on Figure 2 and would intitially contain pumps sufficient to handle this phase only. It would subsequently have pumps added to serve added phases of the overall project. For this reason, it is being proposed that the structure to house the pumps be initially built large enough to handle the ultimate capacity. The sizing of the proposed tank will be up to 5 million gallons. This extra capacity would allow for service to not only this phase (1-1.5 million gallons) but also a good portion of phases 2 and 3 of the master plan and surrounding property. This proposal will be growth inducing in that it commits the district to service said further phases. This commitment may have already been settled by annexation of these other areas in 1965, their inclusion in the water spheres of influence approved by tl►e Contra Costa County LAFCO in 1975 and the 197.1 zoning action on said properties. This tank (and the Blackhawk development itself) will further stimulate growth pressures on adjacent undeveloped land but these forces are under the zoning control of the County of Contra Costa under its general plan documents. The developer and the water district agree that development of a tank large enough to service only the first phase (this project) Would he uneconomic . It is also true that a series of smaller tanks throughout tl►e development would have far inure adverse environmental impacts than one larger tank located in the beginning. • The potential costs of these improvements would, according to district estimates approach 2. 5 million dollars, and under current district rules 600 of the costs would be advanced by the developer and 40% would be advanced by the district. As actual hook-ups then occurred the developer and district would be 'reimbursed. An alternative method of finance Would be 100' developer front-endin and developer construction under district standards with the site dedicated to the district. This step Would require approval of the district board and/or changes in current district regulations. Accordingly, approval for such a land use is shown on the preliminary plan and tentative map. See Figure 2 and 3. In order to proceed promptly with this phase it has been suggested that the district (or developer) may need to first construct a temporary nater facility on the site selection. Wastewater treatment will be provided by the Central Contra C6sta County Sanitary District. The District operating expenses are defrayed by a tax rate of $0.550/100 AV., which will yield $30,670/yr for this project. The costs of collector systems will be paid for by the developer in order to hook up to the existing trunk lines of the sanitary district. 400 DETAIL: WATER TANK LOCATION Figure 35 i ACK'14 40 . �,,,•... __..._. J yV• +,`"�•�fob `I , � ' '� �4• �i- ' �, f • ._.._._..__._-._._......._._fir:,:� -�. �,, � � ; . , � `.1`` \, .�a�'` '\• }~ ,ti 1 it F / ! �.t i .10io�, 101 WATER TANK CROSS-SECTION Figure 36 ,i'+t i'�. 1�;' {ij� t•, .iii'i 'ire �f;` i'.I, t;1. .;t l�z; il;. .. .+, ;:; ;,'1 �I. A.. �I�t .. Ii 1� !` !i7 rl!• ;itt !� ilii 7r lllr '{ ( t tt •` i ITI it tt low Icy ,..jy .t� :.i i' .: S•r. je. It ;. 7. _.. .. .. , . 'iii �!� . � � � � `_ �' �;�° ' � �� _ •�; . t .i. I . , l � . t („j� 1. j r , r f• ,:.i t�t•7 2r '1' .. /t . l .. ( ._I«.. �..... r i;I t.«. • ;. _ r _wt •'-•; a .. _- . f l 1• t r .! 1 r � 1 •i.i{ .+` a r t... -+-rt ♦ry.! � 7 .. *.t ._ .i. •tt ., I• 102