Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 11121996 - D1 (5)
j Lq I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY co DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT General Plan Amendment GPA #96-0001 Specific Plan Amendment SP #96-0001 Windemere - Phase I Gale Ranch - Phase II Rezoning with Preliminary Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 953032 Development Plan 953033 Vesting Subdivision #7976 Vesting Subdivision #7984 Final Development Plan 953064 Final Development Plan 953086 SCH# 96013003 %i ;� �, �� �/ �. ,;��4 �,,, 6 �`� � _ �� �, r _� ................ ........ ...... TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0 SUMMARY 2-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY 4.1-1 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES 4.2-1 4.3 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.3-1 4.4 FLOODS/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATERUALITY 4.4- Q 1 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING 4.5-1 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.7-1 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY 4.8-1 4.9 NOISE 4.9-1 4.10 AIR QUALITY 4.10-1 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION 4.11-1 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT 4.12-1 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.13-1 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW/ALTERNATIVES 5-1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR C. Typical Sections for Roads D. Traffic/Circulation E. Noise F. Housing G. Archaeology/Cultural Resources 5 M ll -� TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-2 3-1 Land Use Summary, Gale Ranch II Project 3-16 3-2 Land Use Summary, Windemere I Project 3-23 4.1-1 Adopted Dougherty Valley Land Use Program 4.1-10 4.1-2 Proposed Dougherty Valley Land Use Program 4.1-11 4.1-3 Adopted Dougherty Valley Open Space/Parks & Recreation 4.1-14 4.1-4 Proposed Dougherty Valley Open Space/Parks & Recreation 4.1-15 4.1-5 Adopted Dougherty Valley Community Facilities 4.1-18 4.1-6 Proposed Dougherty Valley Community Facilities 4.1-19 4.1-7 Summary of Land Use Impacts and Mitigation Measures from Certified 1992 EIR 4.1-22 4.2-1 Tasks Completed Related to Provision of Water Service to Dougherty Valley 4.2-6 4.2-2 Summary of DSRSD Pressure Zone Elevations 4.2-8 4.2-3 Estimated Demand for Recycled Water on Windemere Property 4.2-21 4.2-4 Summary,of Public Service Impacts and Mitigation Measures from Certified 1992 EIR 4.2-37 4.3-1 Student Generation Factors of San Ramon Valley Unified School District 4.3-5 4.3-2 Estimated Student Population Yielded by Buildout of the Dougherty Valley and West Branch Planning Areas 4.3-5 4.3-3 Estimated Student Population at Buildout of the West Branch, Country Club at Gale Ranch, Gale Ranch II and Windemere Projects 4.3-7 4.3-4 Family Daycare Homes and Childcare Centers in the San Ramon Valley 4.3-8 4.3-5 Summary of 1990 Census Data on Children Per Household in the San Ramon Valley 4.3-9 4.3-6 Child Generation Factors for the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II Projects 4.3-10 4.3-7 Estimated Number of Children Needing Childcare, Windemere I and Gale Ranch II Projects 4.3-11 4.3-8 Summary of Public Service Impacts and Mitigation Measures from Certified 1992 EIR 4.3-24 lll TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.4-1 Comparison of 100-Year Flow Rates (cfs) for Nine Model Runs 4.4-9 4.4-2 Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life 4.4-24 4.4-3 Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters for Protection of Human Health 4.4-25 4.4-4 Summary of 1993 Storm Runoff Sampling and Comparison with Water Quality Objectives and Standards 4.4-27 4.4-5 Summary of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR 4.4-30 4.5-1 Maximum Parameters for Active Faults Effecting Dougherty Valley 4.5-9 4.5-2 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 4.5-12 4.5-3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from Soils and Geology Chapter of 1992 EIR 4.5-38 4.5-4 Slope Gradients Recommended by Engeo 4.5-42 4.6-1 Existing Level of Service 4.6-8 4.6-2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria 4.6-12 4.6-3 Summary of Traffic/Circulation Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR 4.6-15 4.6-4 2010 Project Trip Generation-PDP Conditions 4.6-18 4.6-5 PDP 2010 Level of Service 4.6-21 4.6-6 PDP Peak Hour 2010 Level of Service on Freeways 4.6-24 4.6-7 Pedestrian Access Locations to the Bus Stops 4.6-46 4.6-8 2010 Project Trip Generation--General Plan Amendment 4.6-50 4.6-9 General Plan Amendment 2010 Level-of Service 4.6-55 4.6-10 GPA Peak Hour 2010 Level of Service on Freeways 4.6-57 4.7-1 Special-Status Animal Species Potential Occurrence in Planning Area 4.7-11 4.7-2 Summary of Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Certified 1992 EIR 4.7-22 4.8-1 Lot Summary, Gale Ranch 1I 4.8-6 4.8-2 Summary of Visual Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR 4.8-27 4.9-1 Description of Noise Monitoring Stations 4.9-6 4.9-2 Ambient Noise - Dougherty Valley Project Area (dBA) 4.9-7 4.9-2 Contra Costa County Noise Planning Criteria 4.9-8 4.9-3 Summary of Noise Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR 4.9-11 4.10-1 Air Pollution Data Summary, Livermore Station, 1993-1995 4.10-2 4.10-2 Summary of Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR 4.10-4 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.11-1 Summary of Energy Conservation and Electromagnetic Field Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR 4.11-8 4.12-1 Tri-Valley Region Population, Housing and Employment Data 4.12-3 4.12-2 Tri-Valley Region Population, Household and Jobs in 1995 and Percent Increase, 1990-1995 4.12-4 4.12-3 Housing Affordability Ranges 4.12-5 4.12-4 Ratio of Jobs to Employed Residents 4.12-10 4.12-5 Projected Increase in Jobs and Housing 4.12-10 4.12-6 Projected Employment Growth 4.12-14 4.13-1 Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures from 1992 EIR 4.13-8 5-1 Summary of Key Findings from 1992 EIR 5-2 i` TABLE OF CONTENTS L ! List of Figures 3-1 Regional Setting 3-2 3-2 Project Site Location 3-3 3-3 USGS Topographic Map 3-4 3-4 Proposed Projects on USGS Topo. Base 3-5 3-5 Adopted General Plan 3-6 3-6 Proposed General Plan 3-7 - 3-7 Illustrative Site Plan, Gale Ranch II 3-13 3-8 Illustrative Site Plan, Windemere I 3-19 3-9 Master Plan for Village Center and Community Park 3-25 4.1-1 Pending Project 4.1-4 4.1-2 Land Use Map Adopted General Plan 4.1-6 4.1-3 Zoning Map 4.1-8 4.1-4 Superposition of Revised Land Use 4.1-17 4.2-1 Water District Boundaries 4.2-5 4.2-4 San Ramon Pressure Zone 4.2-16 �. 4.2-3 Windemere Portable & Recycled Water Demands 4.2-21 4.2-4 Sanitary District 4.2-23 4.2-4 CCCSD Planned Improvements 4.2-25 4.2-6 Pumping Station Alternative 4.2-27 4.2-7 Tunnel Alternative 4.2-29 4.2-8 Use of PG&E Easement, Gale Ranch II 4.2-32 4.3-1 West Branch Location Map 4.3-3 4.3-2 Gale Ranch II Neighborhood Parks: Monarch Road, Honeycastle Drive 4.3-14 4.3-3 Gale Ranch II Neighborhood Parks: White Wing Drive Pocket Park, Tamerisk Drive 4.3-15 4.3-4 Windemere Neighborhood Parks A & B 4.3-18 4.3-5 Windemere Neighborhood Park C & Creek Corridor Park 4.3-19 4.3-6 Fire Station Map 4.3-21 4.4-1 Alamo Creek Watershed Map 4.4-2 4.4-2 Control Points and Potential Detention Basin Sites 4.4-8 4.4-3 Windemere Detention Basin A 4.4-12 4.4-4 Section through Potential Basin Site A 4.4-13 4.4-5 Windemere Detention Basins B and C 4.4-15 4.4-6 Gale Ranch Detention Basin D 4.4-17 4.4-7 Gale Ranch Detention Basin Section D-D 4.4-18 4.4-8 Conspan Bridge System and Schematic 4.4-19 Vi i TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.5-1 Regional Geologic Map 4.5-2 4.5-2 USGS Geologic Map 4.5-5 4.5-3 Crane Geologic Map 4.5-6 4.5-4 Geologic Cross-Section AA 4.5-7 4.5-5 Ground Shaking Intensity 4.5-I1 4.5-6 Liquefaction Potential Map 4.5-15 4.5-7 Gale Ranch II Geologic Map 4.5-19 4.5-8 Geologic Map of Windemere I 4.5-23 4.5-9 Gale Ranch II Preliminary Grading Plan 4.5-27 4.5-10 Gale Ranch II Grading Section A & B 4.5-29 4.5-11 Gale Ranch II Grading Section C 4.5-30 4.5-12 Windemere I Preliminary Grading Plan 4.5-31 4.5-13 Windemere I Grading Section A & B 4.5-33 4.5-14 Windemere I Grading Sections C & D 4.5-34 4.5-15 Schematic of Debris Bench 4.5-45 4.5-16 Debris Flow Susceptibility Map 4.5-47 4.5-17 Trail Segments Vulnerable to Debris Flows 4.5-59 4.6-1 Project Site 4.6-2 4.6-2 Existing Traffic Volumes (ADTs) 4.6-4 4.6-3 Study Intersections 4.6-10 4.6-4 Existing Transit Service 4.6-11 4.6-5 AM Peak Hour Volumes (Gale Ranch II & Windemere I) 4.6-29 4.6-6 PM Peak Hour Volumes (Gale Ranch II & Windemere I) 4.6-31 4.6-7 PDP Traffic Volumes at Village Center 4.6-41 4.6-8 Dougherty Valley Bus Routes at Proposed in 1994 EIR 4.6-44 4.7-1 Important Vegetation 4.7-3 4.7-2 Wetlands Map 4.7-7 4.7-3 Special Status Wildlife 4.7-10 4.7-4 Special-Status Wildlife Species Locations and Habitats 4.7-13 4.8-1 Viewpoints Gale Ranch II 4.8-3 4.8-2 View A - Existing View 4.8-4 4.8-3 View A - Computer Simulation 4.8-5 4.8-4 Gale Ranch II Commercial Area 4.8-7 4.8-5 View B - Existing View 4.8-8 4.8-6 View B - Computer Simulation 4.8-9 4.8-7 Viewpoints - Windemere I 4.8-13 4.8-8 View C - Existing View 4.8-14 4.8-9 View C - Computer Simulation 4.8-15 4.8-10 Windemere Village Center & South County Community College Campus 4.8-16 4.8-11 View D - Existing View 4.8-18 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.8-12 View D - Computer Simulation 4.8-19 4.8-13 Buildings Used in Computer Simulation D 4.8-21 4.8-14 Village Center Plans Comparison 4.8-23 4.8-15 Village Center and Community Park Schematic 4.8-24 4.9-1 Noise Monitoring Stations 4.9-5 4.13-1 Aerial Photograph of Banke Ranch Complex 4.13-4 5-1 Windemere Ranch Wildlife Habitat Alternative 5-9 , 5-2 Japonica Way Alternative 5-11 5-3 Lawrence Road Alternative 5-13 5-4 Urban Limit Line Alternative 5-15 5-5 Gale Ranch II Alternative 5-17 5-6 Windemere I Alternative 5-19 5-7 Light Rail Transit Alternatives 5-23 '' viii ,� TABLE OF CONTENTS �1 ACRONYMS 1992 EIR 1992 Draft Environmental Impact Report (June) ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ac-ft acre-feet B&C Brown & Caldwell potable, waste, and recycled water study, May 1992 BFI Browning Ferris Industries BUT Best Management Practices BMWD Berrenda Mesa Water District CBG Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CCCM Contra Costa County Model (Hydrology) CCCSD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Report CDMG California Department of Mines and Geology CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act cfs cubic feet per second CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DERWA Dublin-San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utilities District Recycled Water Authority DFG (California) Department of Fish and Game DOHS Department of Health Services DSRSD Dublin-San Ramon Services District du/ac Dwelling units per acre DVSP Dougherty Valley Specific Plan DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utilities District EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District EDAW 1993 Final EIR for WSMP, September 1993 EIR Environmental Impact Report (usually referring to Draft) EMF Electromagnetic Field EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEIR .Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act g Acceleration of gravity GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GPA General Plan Amendment HEC-1 Hydrology model used by Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control and ! FEMA ix TABLE OF CONTENTS hp horse power H:V ratio of horizontal to vertical JCE John Carollo Engineers KCWA Kern County Water Authority kV Kilovolt LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LMRMP Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan LOS Level of Service (traffic) LSA biological consultants M-29 County Service Area established for Dougherty Valley MG million gallons mG milligauss (magnetic field strength) mgd million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System PBR PBR Consultants to Contra Costa County for Specific Plan PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Co. psi pounds per square inch (static water pressure) PUC Public Utilities Commission PZ Pressure Zone RJA Ruggeri-Jensen & Associates RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region sq.ft. Square feet SOI Sphere of Influence SP Dougherty Valley Specific Plan SPCP Contra Costa Cities County District Stormwater Pollution Control Program SRPZ San Ramon Pressure Zone SRVFPD San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District SRVUSD San Ramon Valley Unified School District SWP State Water Project TAF Thousand Acre Feet UBC Uniform Building Code ULL Urban'Limit Line USB Ultimate Service Boundary USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WCC Woodward-Clyde Consultants, a geotechnical firm WSMP EBMUD's 1993 Updated Water Supply Management Program LAND USE DESIGNATIONS C Commercial MH Multi-family high density x TABLE OF CONTENTS ' ML Multi-family low density OS Open Space P-1 Planned Unit Development PR Parks & Recreation P/SP Public/Semi-Public SM Single-family medium density SH Single-family high density 1� xi TABLE OF CONTENTS r, R Xll ......... . 1 A INTRODUCTION PROJECT BACKGROUND In 1991, Contra Costa County completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan changed the Dougherty Valley area from"Agricultural Preserve" to "Agricultural Lands". The General Plan also placed most of the Dougherty Valley within the urban limit line (ULL). Within the ULL, requests can be made for amendments to the General Plan leading to urban development. Outside the ULL requests for urban land use designations will not be entertained over the horizon of the General Plan. The Camp Parks portion of the planning area was designated 'Public & Semi-Public" and was placed outside the ULL by the General Plan. Dougherty Valley Planning Area In December 1992, County of Contra Costa approved a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the Dougherty Valley area, to guide development of the nearly 6,000-acre planning area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan' provide for the construction of up to 11,000 homes, and supporting commercial, office, civic and open space land uses. A portion of Camp Parks was designated public/semi-public and intended to serve as the home of a community college campus. The remainder of Camp Parks was designated open space. ' Relationship to Previous Dougherty Valley Approvals Dougherty Valley EIR In 1992 the County certified as adequate the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Planning Approvals").' The 1 Specific Plans are intended to be a vehicle for implementation of General Plan goals and policies. A Specific Plan must be consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan. In the case of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan,the land use designations used are identical to General Plan land use designations. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to establish policies for land use,transportation and circulation, and public infrastructure;provide design guidelines; and outline a funding approach to implement each element. 2 Environmental Impact Report,Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Related Projects, County File#2-91-SR/SCH #91053014 (DEIR,June 1992/FEIR,November 1992). 5 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION adequacy of the EIR was challenged in two lawsuits b the Town of Danville and other cities and q Y g Y non-governmental agencies (the"Danville lawsuit") and by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) (the "EBMUD lawsuit"). In May 1994, after extensive discussions, the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, the County of Contra Costa and the two developers reached a settlement agreement of some length and detail providing for certain mutual contractual obligations on the part of the parties in connection with the development of the Dougherty Valley. In May 1994, the trial court ruled that the approvals should be set aside for failure to adequately address the issues of water supply and wastewater capacity for the Dougherty Valley project. The court also concluded that the General Plan Amendment rendered the County General Plan internally inconsistent. Finally, the court ruled that the impacts on approximately nine oak trees in the area were not sufficiently described in the EIR. In all other respects, the adoptions of the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and certification of the EIR, were determined to be legally adequate. The cities and non-governmental agencies remaining in the Danville lawsuit appealed this decision and the County and the developers cross-appealed. In the EBMUD lawsuit, the County and the developers appealed. All parties then engaged in extended discussions, resulting in five additional settlement agreements which addressed various issues of concern including those pertaining to water supply and wastewater capacity. After these settlements were executed, and upon the request of all parties to the lawsuits, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and vacated the trial court judgments. 'Pursuant to these settlement agreements all challenges to the 1992 Planning Approvals and EIR have been dismissed. Subsequent Approvals , In December 1994, Contra Costa County approved a General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Map for Country Club at Gale Ranch for which a separate EIR was prepared and certified.' This 618-acre area is located in the Dougherty Valley planning area, but the applications were processed as distinct and separate from the Dougherty Valley planning approvals. The approvals were consistent with, but in no way reliant upon, the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. Development is proceeding in that area, in accordance with those separate approvals. In December 1995, Contra Costa County approved rezonings and Preliminary Development ment Plans for the Dougherty Valley,and adopted Development Agreements with Windemere Ranch Partners and Shapell Industries (all excluding Country Club at Gale Ranch). These actions served to 'Environmental Impact Report,Country Club at Gale Ranch,General Plan Amendment,Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan (3010 RZ);Final Development Plan (3010-92); Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (Tract 7796). SCH #93081082 (DEIR,August 1994/FEIR, October 1994). i-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION implement the Dougherty Valley planning approvals. By way of Addendum to the Dougherty Valley EIR, the County determined that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required for those projects. Environmental Impact Report for the Dougherty Valley Phase II Project. As described in the Notice of Preparation (NOP),' this Subsequent EIR has been prepared to analyze: (1) any new environmental impacts resulting from the proposed amendments to the General Plan and the Specific Plan; (2) any new impacts associated with the revisions to the Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Maps for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects; and (3) any new or substantially more severe impacts, or new information of substantial importance pertaining to the Dougherty Valley GPA, Specific Plan, P-1 Zoning, and Vesting Tentative Maps, and related entitlements which have not already been studied in the 1992 EIR. The Subsequent EIR is expected to be used to support all subsequent implementation approvals for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects including, but not limited to: approval of final subdivision maps, site plans, building plans, and engineering plans and annexations; the issuance of grading permits, building permits, occupancy permits and other implementing permits from various agencies; and the collection of impact fees. The 1992 EIR for the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, including the Addendum thereto, relating to approval of the rezoning and development agreements, is available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor, N. Wing, Martinez, California. The 1994 EIR for the Country Club at Gale Ranch project, relating to the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, State Clearinghouse #93081082, is available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street,2nd Floor,N. Wing, Martinez, California. In 1995 Preliminary Developments for the Gale Ranch and Windemere Ranch were approved by the Board of Supervisors, rezoning the Dougherty Valley to Planned Unit Development (P-1). The project that is the subject of this Subsequent EIR includes proposed revisions to the Preliminary Development Plans. ° e NOP and Initial Stud are resented in Appendix A. � Y P PP 1-3 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Settlement agreements resulted in adjustments to land uses shown on the adopted General Plan land use map for Dougherty Valley, and other proposed refinements to the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and to Preliminary Development Plans resulted from detailed site studies performed by the applicants. Additionally, Revised Preliminary and Final Development Plans have been submitted for a portion of the Specific Plan area. Vesting tentative subdivision maps have also been submitted to implement the Specific Plan. Therefore, the task of the Subsequent EIR is to address the environmental effects of the pending refinements to the General Plan and Specific Plan, and to analyze any potential impacts of the land development projects which were not previously analyzed. The components of the project are described more fully in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. A Subsequent EIR is intended as an informational document, that in itself does not determine whether a project will be approved,but aids in the local planning and decision-making process by disclosing the potential for significant adverse impacts. CEQA Guidelines stipulate that an EIR is not meant to be a technical document. Rather, it is intended to serve as a public disclosure document that identifies significant impacts associated with the proposed action, recommends mitigation measures that can minimize or eliminate significant adverse impacts and evaluates alternatives to the proposed project. REQUIRED CONTENTS OF SUBSEQUENT EIR A Subsequent EIR is a mechanism for updating a previous EIR. Events which trigger preparation of a Subsequent EIR include the following: • Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the EIR. • Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR. New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available. Therefore,the function of the Subsequent EIR is to provide the environmental analyses that,when combined with the previous EIR, provides a complete assessment of environmental impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and project alternatives. Where the analysis presented in the 1992 EIR is adequate, further discussion in this document is not required. However, where the project results in new or different impacts or where there is new information relating to project impacts, further analysis is undertaken in this Subsequent EIR. 1-4 1.0 INTRODUCTION FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project (the"Project) is a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and approval of Revised Preliminary and Final Development Plans and vesting tentative subdivision maps for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Future phases of the Gale Ranch and Windemere projects will also be subject to environmental review. COUNTY FILE NUMBERS The County file number of the projects that are the subject of this Subsequent EIR include a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA # 96-0001); proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SP #96-0001); Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plans (RZ 953032 and RZ 953033); Vesting Subdivision (#7976 and 7984); and Final Development Plans (DP953064 and DP953086). INTENDED USES OF THE EIR In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, the County must consider the environmental implications of a project prior to determining whether to grant or deny the request to amend the County General Plan and Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and related entitlements. Other agencies that may use this EIR when considering approvals for the project are: Contra Costa County and Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) • Contra Costa County Flood Control and Conservation District • Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) • East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) • Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) • East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) • California Department of Health Services (DOHS) iU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) • Zone 7 1-5 1.0 INTRODUCTION • City of San Ramon • Department of Water Resources (DWR) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) EIR REVIEW PROCESS This Subsequent EIR builds upon the 1992 EIR previously prepared and certified for the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The 1992 EIR has already identified and analyzed most of the impacts of development in the Dougherty Valley. These impacts and their corresponding mitigation measures have been incorporated into this document (see Appendix B) and summarized by topic in each chapter. Each chapter also contains a . discussion and overview of the Dougherty Valley development as a whole including information already discussed in the 1992 EIR. ' This Subsequent EIR is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the report. A public hearing shall be held before the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator on the adequacy of the DEIR within the review period. Both written and oral comments may be made during the 45- day review period. At the close of the public review period, written responses will be prepared for all relevant oral and written comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR. The comments, and written responses,and the Draft Subsequent EIR will constitute the Final EIR for this project. The Final EIR will be reviewed and certified by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors prior to taking action on the project. Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will determine whether to approve, reject or modify the various components of the proposed project. Approval of the project, as proposed or modified, will be �. accompanied by written findings for each significant effect of the project. The findings must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding and will indicate that: (1) mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels have been adopted; (2)mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts to insignificant levels are within the jurisdiction of another public agency and either have been or should be adopted by that public agency; or (3) specific impacts are unavoidable or unmitigable, but are considered acceptable because overriding considerations indicate the benefit of the project outweigh the adverse effects. Additionally, the County must adopt a mitigation monitoring program for those mitigations incorporated into the approval project that would reduce or avoid significant impacts (Public �. 1-6 1.0 INTRODUCTION Resources Code 21081.6). The monitoring program will be prepared upon certification of the subsequent EIR and will be on file with the Community Development Department. REPORT ORGANIZATION Following this introduction is Chapter 2 which provides a summary of the new impact and mitigation measures; Chapter 3 describes the project; Chapter 4 discusses the setting of the project and identifies significant impacts and potential mitigation measures. Because the setting and impacts analysis is provided for topical environmental issues in the 1992 EIR, the focus of this section shall be to provide a quick summary of the key data from the previous EIR, describe new information not considered in the 1992 EIR, and re-evaluate the existing impact analysis in the light of the new information. Chapter 5 provides an impact overview to the proposed project, including environmental effects that cannot be mitigated,significant environmental changes and beneficial effects, and cumulative and growth-inducing impacts. It also describes and evaluates alternatives to the proposed project and provides a list of preparers of the Subsequent EIR. 1-7 _ - - - _- k • • t t t • e r 1 1 1 1 1 r i e v e DO b (� C O � ,°� •� � � 'o � � � � � ami � ° a� ap c �`y 'ywU Q: a Gac to (/) •cc: O .0 cy G vOi O O R `" o—s o y Un-,.... .� U >_ .7 C riG U N U ^C " vUi [/� y C R'" U v8 .CEE O � a y t cv N O O p g a R h 70 m a O is O ° v o E �.r -0 r-o w .•� � ° s a owe~ c c.a� � C� �> aa � ro c°0 o o ~ : ~ N N M E- C/1 a ro U r. C C C U R UNfl' (/1 � cd ° cCd ° •p U yU, aC tz W !.. cm •C V) O 7 z off °? $ mow Z foo tn N Cq 0 Cl, cu -41 a 1:64 21.1 n U Se.°-. U .. c ° ro � o to �. 0 c °0 .-. fl 0 � co a� a� oc ❑ cv a ° R aoY mo ° Z o a C* C4� .. ° o .c co = y O v .O cC .fl L7 y•Up > .10 >, o = o � z 0 t D 3 h v a� a •io w a> °� ro T x ca N c v 3 � y >, 'a � >, c° � ti ee �a y o ° 3 .z 75 ° ocuy � t°�' � (U0 "A ~iC5 C5 M N IT Lv. C w Qo" e: ..1 iU. C .« w cdC a c •fl U > b K U `u QC y a D «+ C� F''.' CO r. o . ` cUicw `° 3 .^ II o � c �. a ° eve ° p ooco � a oa v a � ca 3 e0 3- r .. w �.� U � teaA-Z,- � m on C O Q U w G7� C h Q Cn w 44. ° U ani v v v Gam, v o � co vo � �- � ao . c s c s c C° 4: 4-0 � � O 4) $ C. «. p. cUa c o 3 >,Q > 3 [O y cd O o v y G y Y yam, ° VO o C G ..Q V O OD T 3 0 'G p :+ p y eGo pa.. eG0 'fl M Vtz O aA � p y c° ° 3 c > c ro N_ a 0 v "o o .� opG � J U.�• a �' Q a ,', � 'II p . Ca a� > > . at7 �w Evv y c.� h° 8 E � > e � U N N N N N ul U c U _ c fl c U end 'Ocz C y co > eo co c $'fl ^ig ' co , CIOdC w y G w w cGo 7 �' .� ,? U O 4 � r a: U 3 R RS U ou 3 c� co v 7 o h "o H yG ?? oG � .� � �a 'xC, c o C7 ou axi G U C x o c v r. ': �; v v .cop; '" p• J 00. a p � ° C N N N II O � o olio O cz U := ❑ O �3 � r o c•p � g � '° U ss :° a� ac ^ apc � � p U >"- CO@ ssc� arx� coc°, E c > a 0 0 0 2 c a y o w E co 0 a� a� Lit y ;; ^. . > a OQ 'O y O y 0 0 >, � t1L a� ^y eoa 3w Y N cts co ° r. 0 U y Q'+,, y Q a on �- C y .-, C y an 'b in ea � .. • o U ,❑ > oro E `n :o a 3 or- y y Q 0 3 U . G.7 .00 .. � 0 °- � �C� o � c Q L a ca wea U G. Q oOD U eta ? N N N N N h y N v C: i• ++ O is V1 V) 1. L On.U.. ^ cz �Q v O . ro v p v `? ca °�' II a O NCS G y cr v i G ea U co y eq y u •Z > 0 y 3@ o Vcz a a� a3i y ao m cu .r OD •^ .�. U y O Q cU 4) ai °� C7 ° c a3i .y a� y 0 Ll P G a ° v to o r W ;I II V st i o 1 rocl " `�o O. cO C •c .y cz c T v .0 U a � `� U `2Q o o � �T c «. c _ c O On•.~.. O v� CO y c0 V E -0 U 3 v •y �_ C r 7 C V1 O a) a) c > .T. a> ,M c . cco c Q w ¢ 'cc-o •�v E u v y oc ca y cl g, -C,op 0 y y = y O C'O � 10 eo cC O. O t�.. � � C G •fl w .� � � .c Fc c a• o a v cz 3e Ca v°� Gl m0 � � U cu 94) cu XXXXX �O j y N tr = w >OI fl a w 3 14 rA 04 IL v Q � o a c N a 0 7 3 cpv by v y p0 y E ❑ y O cv O C O O V Q ccU 7 v' aEi 3 aE45 i 0O �z � avi co co � 0 y �.y � .G �. � � •� O .L w � y p � -p O a� '� N 0. w Q •� cy in '�, �, c0 G 04 m DD 'L7 U U .9 co y e0 y �? L v y 'U .�,,, 0 E .C.+ .D y ^O y "a E C .. cs C O ' ago �v c° � a� o •° � >, � `° a� � > a n •" v poo � ••� � � � U � U a :4w _ ,o c � ova y � c � � � a �. •- - � ca@ > 'w+ d p v ti y x O w o N cJ `° y cya p 0 ycu E0 >,UOcl CA p O U y ('5 U U '% (L) 'L'i w a CO 'A a Q y C) p n - 3 3 cd o0 y a� a� a� 3 v v «. E , (L) y 0 0 m y U y v CX E E ca 0 .Cl . y coq ca b N ccl .0 U v rr .•r N C 153, 7 •_ Cc 4 ❑ y y C U V ca ca .. C •D U U co � y Qp U U U .0 V1 U y C U � v ^ V rr N � c3 •,. 00 y O O G O y O O Q C O y ro S.- aVr o.5 cd 0 U c O p4 O C Oto H G y a y fl > on O f+: "(J ��. y c6 •3 ..v'- �:+ b L' w. w '++ "' h y sem. ,��^ u V a c � .� co � •a v, H a 'D G^ O .,,, y vi a G '� w .a a ca O v 3 G O .°3 G �L +OO: chi O RC O cO c O G w tO 'er.+ ' fi r" cC ro G r OQ..0 p O G° a mar w 7 v 'y p •� ai 3 c~a yea cv � oto ° c� >, GE °. yaa•:3fl-.� � N O O 'O U V •a ox �' o G C � 3 � ons my � .5 ° ca a� �aCG� o c � o ° � o °C' w o w o `p Sao l- v O .. Q C 0 «. O 3 O. l O . fl as vcl .� .. et et W i crj N v 42, .. V] V) acc 3 . w C3 •3 � o w G .. w0 O ti N Q A . Gq 07 M p O tTdL4 4 8 cr c`3 D ca .a U a U C v v II r r a C C o O � czctj y� ycz 00 vo oca °D � ° 3 '00 <= QoaU 1:1- o o to 1:1- 0 jj- 3 oaow 4 00 ayi O O v p 0 O `+ co e 5 •� ^ api c va, SaoFAO caa co 3 ✓ Ow 3 O O >, v w Q O N _ y y V y'sy �.. 'p oo O. � a V �" OD .0 '❑ O O .ce 7 G, ,� co V A O p a C O .� c c✓v UO O ao y � �O p w Q-'> p v O 3 ca pq r. v, > aGi w 7 w w 'O CL ca :: :; D .G a� � $ .a is v LL•o -° a `° c° � O � � oo V .� � 3 3 .n � 3w•� p � � o E � y c � o •o � c -ox ••a v cl y ✓ y b0 V oA e;? G •� V c0 'D p y •fl a a G cd ✓ G ca w •p C > a C cv O O O p ✓ ^ .O .p y ,y .p o0 .sp q yam„ a V p� U V � � oD•D 'fl � �O cmyV„ V C.CL� y y ca ci O v ca O fl C•0 Qv G Ov h % ti .•••i -+ N N i xXxX O� 41 N y v U � � w � O ^ c� o a V V A iy, p c�a Y V N V V] V U. Q E O C Cn c o mea e� tom. cd o0 'U 10 � 0 N W %A r i 1 v « ao ooy Oa� o �-.C � a� o ° � " �so a,v ova� vv � N 27 C u ppa� p u u E _ 'm a� 0 ' o ti c� p C ed y e0 v 7 E •`- o " p o E b ` w " i, O, p O en �: a awi �, aGi c a� $= ro 'ti O .. � n. °o. � •� h � a � "•u '� °; '^ avi jo :�: 04 �' w in C p •p .a p 3 r-1 CO r r C C .�C >. a) •: C op.r j ... N V� C oC c� E 91, E to 0 7 r.•_ O C O w > cdA 'C U ey�a 8 ea v E v ^ wn O .�,� p C •� y p O O v •C OCD .>.. O O U u Owo vp 2 _., 9co ^2 7 ca L v �. M M M d .r cr..Gi C: N w o 'ro w o � C � y •� to .N N R C O Yx «+ >O O E 0, to a cu O cd a7 w � r v1 'i c7 p C r I a 0 Ar-11 7 ~ •ter" 'D TJ ° �"•^.0 !r � T 'G 'O U y w.^ O ccl U ' •E yN, U U N t,.•, ca � � U •p �,_a � v •Uo 'Q U h N Ur" N U N C.. L•y N U C cC ^^, N N .. O CC r-• ... 0 co MO EE a7 O 7 N C i� •N C •+ v N y '3 =_ C 'c C ° o ami `° Cis C ° o •X as " C @ w c000 � ,. � o oCoC •B `n yam. y �.. c0 C O � � "'• pQ e' �� N � ¢" � CD A' „N, o a E ar n co'a c y � w CID �D � � N • c y �a E o aC � wE .= 3 � °�' aoorao84OD C7 M M M M kn V1 V1 -- cc � _ N .. t � w c ao ., II u cc a eo u I VJ n' a ......._._.<.. a� II a d . r w o � o c o S o $ c `� o•� as c yA m -o .� y .� e o o .� .� 0 v 3 co V y v v U p y c c y y 'C it c cUy p O E aci .� ;° c.n.� +- 'n � c0 � c a�• � � L •3 'v' p O v ° v ° '= •': ami ') ca y U "J, o � U p .� L, .�•' y � O y h � � ^ CV C.. OL CC 'CO O1 ° �, ° moo cv°O `>,v ci~ °� cwaEo c ¢' ° cam Low ado � � 0. aomy° L Cd U y GJ , °D ,� 040y a S'• lo, 5 lQ 0 _• �, 3 c� •v � v L p � . vU a G ca O LL O O y O COO O O 7 O y U CC c0 a 'O U c0 .7 �.r 7 a y U •L7 > OD (� c0 -r d N v C: G cc _ Cv C.F. ....................... ....................... ....................... y ° cz ' v � U ct c0 � � ' II a y C U C I � O OU •O O�0 �i h y 'n p II c O � � Qa a d e=o .�. �a ,�.v :o N `-' ,� ° � G v c � •o a N °� o w :�' eo 0 a :G •v 0 CO IZ +N+ co G .. o n G° o MO U o Q G c> > — o0 oD N a7 v G — •.+ .0 •p Y ... -- G - > > U �- .� -G w O C G w. co N w > _ —.0 0 N C Q'• �^.. R7 ro ..N., fUcc .. cz CIO a oairoc �: U �.� .'G+ .N. " N S ° N M Q� •N CO s. N N s.. aV C d oD " O .N+ y G G co 3 N w G ca U O•C cC y C pUp' y O to 0 G N h cO N cd C6 OJj CE G _ _ 'SP E ao s. N a� 0 .'a'o eu y > ° C y eo C > •p " p .� CL O '� ,^ � y ° y G C —y U 'D a. y .00;� +'• 00 N U '4 •p 7 U.� �.c E a 3 y N ce a� ca .c ca o � c, � :. oro � � •N U G 3 0 v o mh '��' V1 kA to V1 O U —Vi h 'riw E ca ° II U n• co _ w N O GO O U � � w O ro CC tj ►� a � N w G y OA � N � II � U r•� 'a CE O U ~ w O t O t %A 11 4 = <c e: `p 0IN o h c � � C° o p w •U V � � N = V �i •G •RS o � Uroygv y � c �_ a ao N ctl aw E o aai 3 o y � AM, E C y. �.. O .D c0.� co cs •p p p„ V V V �+ N c p t ° N p cC 04 .- �• cO cC N .L V (U v O v v ed .. ..— — a c� c — a c ro a� o E ^ _ " CE v v v A c .^ v a y N •^_ C-4 O 75 co Q' N U p U .f+ CC N •Q Uy, ae y y ,��r�� "' c� ❑ ' o ani `' vc O c V V « L 'C = v, a ¢ ova ca -0bco ¢ vaov h kr) V) h v O U N 4: OA > O :+ L' p �" U CO L p bA d p N a u 0 a a v •v ID U o � - m O _'.... ..,..Ij :. G w L7 c� ec G ° w G yaroi ; •D � � w a� •� ,� ° •v � � � .D • �, � � ._ y G i 3 v � a•7 � ^tea, h .G � ea U h •— G a) G G G h �, � U .��. p V Q '� ty w � i1.•0 ° ami n 0 ca y y cc? cGi •u G G G •p w -0ar"Gn w �, ti to U G OD @ •p «+ LL_ .y pOo � ,°�, ° oma o bo a. �'. •Up � � ,� 4; O ° q•U —' p �' o 'o, G ° v o ° G Y o N ° U ° ,? F E > O .y 4 'p G ro d Gcd 'h ' R y° y >+ s G ca .. Uw — ro U 4Ui aim vU 3yU •�y3 >U .NGU _yL1 yGc7 N c,Oa,�, GOs. > 7a� 'flO .�H 'jN OUG y ViO, xiUU LC Cr.N . yp HpL .�ro.yv..•�a� �. .ii_C w p w cC V) O lO ccz ° wy a cz >o Or. tiaywaw.O v, o 'a CID A tA %A cz N v C: a w en u u ' U L" Op y d cz y I O y > U d O 0 Cc cts C•O LEEon� � ta�°ia� o'«; ac ° oo � ca acs iu �P. vocu � � $ to C� -00 w O y ° O O 2 v p y •� v 'v ° `a �•' s•. C •C ° •^rlo - ao . oar ° cR 0to0a: t � � etla� o ' 00 0 o c ►, cl > o °' ° ° c- 0C] = a� :: y w � � v G o �'O X bp w 0.^+ 0 > 'O ... in .r^ ° S.' VI � L'� Vl •rte' VO1 N v It v o N Cc V1 3 p y C @ U H U w 4 p to r O 'w (n O O Y Go � 9:6 a 3 ° o a a 0 .0 ea rA o II �1 to F- E OIF a 1 1 0 ..c.............. ......... N OO'U 6) �, i.. d ...+ y y C V T 04 •fl N C.) s.. ss3c g ¢ c° •- do ro o � '� ro = c =_ o c O fl a'"i y cca B fl awi u C G O ' p ami cl w h T7 00 N •O 0 >+ u °� ° c a� U U h C r« a c o a ❑ ro c c o 0 i n� y� H Q ,r.. 7 _ •Q O 00 - t'z y y Fu ai .u0 v w y O a� Cy C C1. u 0 U t, y ca � v, O y u y •y^, •> Q cC O X cc Q CCC C1.•fl C y� L' S.' ._' /J�.�. 'O y h: v cd y coi :; C1 c fl i w O u .y O °° D a y O L v w° c�C C .4? I� .� G Q"��.., ��.• •Qp Z. cw '�con> a� o O — 7 .� c •p a `""' Q O y N • :- c O O 0. ccLi oc @ ^? ° c 'G c .0 c ro oa.o 0 a 8 Z R a, Q �a a� Q c c U o a1 c ° u o 3 o N a.S o ca .o cw a � .� � � �•o � U ....................... r U 4:r tj Q ........... Cn r F: 1 QO ..C......... ►`� 1 _ d V � r d C .G 4. O i� "Cl i.. •� G G ,O U O O •G 7 •C 4+ p ¢• 'U G �' O O �"•O O G G O G ed C y v, cGp U U y O . p v O .O y w G ,aG ';� i.. G ::" U ° ? � � 2oGq � o � o � Eoov � vim ° _ U yA. r.pp td G G -0 -6G •G 5 „U., •� .+ O D U v' C°i O iO w .O G.�,;� O m H v U OU 'fl 0 -0 W y _ :�. ,3 h � L". r ,fl p G•OU r.- p C'W > •I" �� � .G ° •� C G �Vi Q G O OA UO ca y� U O �L o O [ OU Co- _ �_ ami a i •'^c � " ° � c ° y � 'o 'D a o GO O C 7 O ° w �" 'D •� TJ ° .UG 4, .� H ~ G U •^� G G V 4 .« p cn ° p G U a� • C° • O • G U c Ll U y 0 y 3 «+ C6 • •O • • "• r rGi d.r.9 U W I✓, �.+ �i OA CO N O'.G Q,� .� cp Rf (.l, ° ° �. � ., � Uo v v v kA0 v � N m 3 ; e4 II w: ' U C Op v' RS ■. y IIl ' F.M a r •U U "? II o, 0 N h N .G 'O G oD � pq ~ ^y '"' �- G GD C � � G T•' 00 p w GD G Y G > co rJ G cD h �' co G co G G m �:� o•� 'v G 'y G = G 3 o i a"ir� i=� Ta � y '.� m .� oD •�, •o .G o � a� r- s oD *Q+ •� G ro co 'O^ y O y G 0>T O y U ^ .. O y > w 0D G � bU. � N �_ � H h � � U � .0 O •O•y - ' ►. G '� c0 G .� ,O � h �"' '� ca � � U cE �-• � p •OD,., c0 ° `�° •° > wa o y� .to CZ CO o. <O: •� ° .D N 2Omo w 114 y c~a G y 'U y G •� o � ami ami �° o v � ° o ff � 3 � � O w w lr:. y pp > G ^a •C w •C p0,� OUDU ca > O.D a>i p '� v � � y � `�~°•C p-3 v cmc •� � io y p,.� � � � � � .n o �•� .� � is.�w p aD� � a� � � ^ o`D�,> oD � O 0 oD CL y � V O cnp U w y.Q > U . ~O U UC" > G y cC 'bo OC G rJ a fl C1.. O L. d y sem. G ' l� v� b v� [^ L1.'O V .0 e: to � a..S w 80.2 0o 0 0.954 Q Gn c0 ° O4 �c0� 00 ::� V1 h 1/•) V1 C: N C u O aeo>s. OGD 3.G ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... MO CG C .� Q cz ro ..+ .Q 0 ct y � pGD C � •� � � h 'p C ° LL N � y .. .r cz co U C� H oUro .o.� 0 is vii w ¢o O y G •� @ o y C w G . aGe" a U sem..Ca c~O G (ID G V � ..: CO i......::.:..,.:i I� rQ 1n V1 t/7 fI ao � .a � .4 a'"i � O v �-•• " ° °' c � •^ ami .� ro- as h N Oa ti O^ O a «� -- U co -- as ° y y ami � cv " a> � oo '- GL � m ^ •c N O h sem, ?G v N w O w O = p 2 " ~ p G C� U ^ y _ y p p y 0 c U v w d 3 a� 3 N y o f x v y o N •v • L � • yL cxi a 9 M O p c�a p cOi > o° a 0, N v O C s C O 'o o ._ E N � 3 U h °U O N..N. ►�-i CO U iU.. CO m •a J C) C) e� N < d N i C t4 � XX �i U N Y CC N Li :'':.............:...: .� CtS U (n cC �� it 8 � O .Ui _ w > + Si O U C 0 r.a h ....... ..... .. - O » rA �;... 0 ' `V S Os0. o 0 i c c cv c � 3 r.- Q) Q) a cC J�:. •e�+ � .° •�O° °�v„' ^5> 'Daci Q U 0as0C C1 Ov �C O y ° U Q O. Oa ° HEcET ° ani oo a c° c ° c 8 ° o o a Llr. m co -00 '”' o c y �'� `0. h oo= , a x x =° a � asoo � � Y 'c r>-. a � ° �, a oO3 � Nsa�io o a c 3 C7y � t>, =0� ^ c2 o1,s- c o a c� a� � cossoa � ° s Uc �+ aaie>i � x 'cx � a@i .°cD o � c° � � � a oU ^s ~ y p T O i .� o 4 7 c °' a) o cGQ c v 3 m ° o -= ° r ami o .5 ° Q � m oIM° s C cva cCv m ° v y ° ac2cQCC ao N is_...........:!':..i' �p 16 N ell .� oco 3 :. vs......::_.: c 3 v _ w ° o a `° Q o y 12 y O .3 ec N y q C z •v � •d v� U cra 3 0 V) a GG .a II U o � U O U F Fa U D ai ;y 0 C O N Q� I < m ' ;el 00 3 • � 3 .a � �" O � ,� � K •� �'SOp '0 'O TJ LND a0 ON > y � cE O ate, ❑ � .SC .��^ �, a w _ a Y ° � �•° � aE E >>° � I~ a� ❑ ° oma nuc � a � o ° 6' ' w3 z cco � b O a� � � t� 3 is g a ma "m top) 0 CIO a ° E CA I M C 7 N 0 25 N � 3 c a ' eq «S o > s .o c o an a o eco y 0 k WJ >'o m a ., 10 E v� N � ao rn "� 0 a :: -• a � � 3 a � c � y a, � �v a w o cu 0. i. .� �U O O {r U op p. ~ 0:'3 a ami w c° Q0 bo O C r a� > co 0 -8 a,= E U w ° 0 3 a� ,� a aCtli o � ° 33yn � aai ° acv '? o 77,xm, sa: � o � n _ � a� ro .. v � .- EES 0. cu q y v O op C v 0 r. .,•' y °� C °� 'v 5 y w U c E h v •U OD O a) h '��, i. R: ti cd ' G �- O C .Nr N w y p w •v C A � y �+ ca O _ _ O c cd O n> O .� ., va d v > y0 M ' N ' >SIE U e�o3 Laos c � 2 0 w E � � g • � en � E0 o H �I Q H L G 0 cv C+ O O U CC sem.. y •� 0. y •,��,, c J 0 II ° ? J cl O r m .......... ......... .... ec ;:... a4 C .-i c4 w d N -1 5 , 11 c • O o ,� c • cc o Loc a� ami camo crnU ed C1 y ro o C r >, ani ts w+' ca a� �' `' ° � y Z cd � •y ,T, � w a� O h y y Q p4 � •O. �'-' y cc ° p � � aL c jj.: o w cd O �O > `'•" ppw O pp ,?� U Cp L1.in � � c�7 v O a) 0 W. � .5 . -- a� '' � H c Oc y •� � .. Dc U o 3 ¢w N o y r �y ° ~ C 3. 0 v a' C _ .X c O ��— cr cv 0 O U o � vw 3 v c °•� ccnc ami U °C' ;:.0 D U o 8 c v 8 ., v U ?:: U '� o (r-) w y ci >01 ro acca p cco cca aOi O a� �. O eo � . ° W t o m m .0 > S �¢ ° U N a �. f�. vAi" O aa° ° .[ N 4 ,C e� � . . .� c c .c >~ � c � 4, , 73 0 3 0 w L T _ y ^ c C >i fU U h in;y "o) Q U CQ C. to CZ ++ Q 7 O 0 U N U U N �pD �Op ci w � � = O Q 1 w o � o _ op "O G U .b G G w cG9 ,Up O .0 xxxxx U 'O •II !n `� •p 'r U p O w b � cwo N � �°. 'II c c ni U c o ° c@ ti C4 c c o y@ @ U O •r G 7 v 3 U y@ o o as o ° N bA N mo 0 c� @o yo p,~on � � ago op»you o@o „ &' G o � � � a� � � �ao U IZ - • C Qr •U' G Qui @ O U 0 T � @ 'O 'O � @ 'D U GY. x O > a� G as 7 'L7 U w 00 y U @ @ o. cz a.a. @ •v o Q v o. 0 U o 16 v v v W N v O N Ecn C ce U m w G G c C w fl y U U oD i II C U @ G p as y O � Ow N w �O/ O O L— 0; R: -0 au o m w 00 C\ �A v c v W i c. C3 .v 0. :i. t/1 iG .y � y y y a ... p y 3 u a •� v a� a � 'p y ti .� .� a, a •� .a o � 3 C C •=;v E m ., p a x C to N .� ' GLi 'd8 'Z ° 1. C co G .0 O U v 2 o 3 °- c a " E ami C a °: U 'E � � OE �+ y 0 ca. cd y u V w: "O C y c7 a s u w •� Q .� O •� c� y � o o E o C :° a � � �'^ � � " Y � c :: E L S C° � •c .a a y p U oU G'•U cLC ° y A-,2 2 0 0 ❑.hoed ^o ^ ° � o � C UoyEr � � ELo _ y E ror w i, U o0 to tn. C T7 h .� O.L1. •n 'p a C C .id C C u O Q .n y cs a� o E v C °' a� i ncL � ° °� � E °�- t °'`'- ooty o .E .E E a. E Tl 3 n r Q,.0 a U C5 'h h a N io ��~ U as O cd cz O u � U <c � '° n. ❑ o ec L a a ? •v n. c,.N ro ... U «� L m '-- N ami i i 6 � C .......... O ' Own c=C ❑ y 0. C y O Y oD y.D 0.a> .... _...,,«•• O co3 -, 3 "0 a = � aa ai y y y c 3 o E3 c n c a y a E3 �jG'' a ° a -00 3 -20 := p 'O � -Bo a=i h o .� o c=a 3�p 3 0,� c ro= y ac°i arc � � � • = a� •> a� E �o �. U.n 'c •v = � 0 a Ura c : Ud4 b c7 ° �_ � ccG Lam. .3flD 'a^ qy° ...' v ° o=n 'yea U a UeO+ �q0 _ : aCo . o ° � " '° Ev3o3coo `° c � o = 'o � Cc: 2 .CS R„ O U.0 cC = TA � O .�-. � 0 C qU V oqv � T'^y a� c� o � � fl•o = ° � " ff aoN .c = t 60 0 y > > a� a°'iv a� . ° o � `" q o H a,� � q o Yr- c ro 3 ro 0 w ° a y a CO on 0. toono °_°' mqq " zonesoo0 'a h 2 .0 0 Z1. lC U q .� .•�-. •h h ti h U.0��... �q q .�'-•N U/ f-i is N N N .� . a U . .... C II G7 w is ....... .. Q RS U 00 G � w O II U 6� it .......... .... ....... .... v...................... .. c c Q ; ; mow O 2 .14 •� ° 30 . 4 §.2 .oma ° a Zr a� •oa� c� ° c@ax � " � a � � E cd cl, y a Ec * y am ° °� 3 3 o a °' w •� gr, w •� p � 3 y U h n'.r ham.. C �.. 00 ►. U m C c, O U C o`do U ai n U ea v a 3 a � y 0 r. 0 E, ❑ a ° o aoi o 86 ro U 'A 0 2 � q a ; a. a $ ooE .3 � ° � o .� Oc7aaaiR. � E oa c 3 ami ° cv ' '00 °� c civ co E .o, o m � ¢ o °'' Q U y h c0 clui Q o"00.= v U c o. mw i. UO CS) Q'UO o f SU N N W N d ` N w a ' cz U cz C Oq 'I r. C E: �L OD . .._..._.. .... ..:. v� h Q� a u a a O V N eV GG 0............ m '+ ........ 0 iO s. sV. T o' 2 v o y•w�"' p y ¢ y a EUw >, � >", Y E y y � Q c G � � � � w y c � Q o E oo o o as y .o 03 CW y; yo 'a, v � coE.lG Ca i� w.y G f1 U 2 ° h 3 aoi a� 2 PZ _ a� y h ._ o ._� � � c •v cyc ° E Uc o3 °' g r2 ' p .Lw.. • r U a�oi .�U o c 0 .. Q 3 a. E� � a cQC1 v � U oauci o Esc M Gi N m N lv. .cC �p�p' VJ Q U � w 3 ao y :: II c v � C cu ea U ;? > co..,: .+ y c3 0 o .S II U � a v � o fn LL •V i M � II ....., � .... ....... ............ Q o pU a Via? o $ �ti � Q aCi ixr OA vai G O. tC a`i •�'' O ca 00 10 CIO LL C p cu E O; x ° a o c yeAo G.b �,� .N W ;= aCi •v °' o H � R = O. `p � ``° u m •$ � ^ � 40 o a � acv � U � � � � i •�° �� •� y — x 3 o 'aco � _cua o 0 a) O .x oVw^ > cm ono ^ Qc. ca > roA. yw Uxvaa,° ro aacxi � ' c .. v v v c M u N cq zcc o , ' c CQ Ft m rA cc U f3 ' v U h h A � ❑ o o II ~ ° o O w O J . 1 d 0 U h YC U CL i xC X ? O r- E s •� o0 0 o y > .� v coop —.? 6 ca aj .0 O O N �c� o~ a"io�nEto � ° > '' .. a °p ono p •d c � � � ,. � a� � U � p ^00 chi U y cd on :? ❑ >, 02 .. ° 'ic � o t2 0 oCOo; CG -r. a a°n o c o _ a.� v cd i v o o �' o i O > � = ym � a U ,_ o •- oa, a� � c a� o � `$ � ox `° or. 0 EU a a o ° (1)41 U 'oa 'con� °o w = c � � _o o HooD'°oo ❑ > � � �c � U oaacdE O.� b ts� o oL b U U s $ 0 CA £ m?? m b ._= ca aXi cGa 3 G 3 c—c° v' U A '� ccc v er �f v M � N U >C: > r.. s >on «. c on II w c oA h y �1 1 II 1 U � o rr o: = 3 .. 00 c�a ca a0i•`�� w •� w E N O y cCa a 3 sem° a ' y w �20off " ?: x a $ o � CO w y Cu ° C E c vi C W •� Vii Oca05a� U gn O is " O N x t7 O O, a w � it � e+ ry ° Cd H � O h � •V ^� .� 'QV GT y �. p G = O O •y O C V ° r c � UE � Y � U � � � � •� °> ¢,dc�i 3F v >, ccE ° C cc Ecco _ 3 " " " � � r ^� ° 0 „moo " c � o - � " o > 00 CU 'o O r. ° o a � � '' o ;; 000 e ° _ ° ° •a 8 � ° U �° r „ O L O O O O O O cd ice. V O 1:4V «+ Q C4 i n n n is .--1 e-i .-1 .--1 �-•I v-1 .-•1 M _ N - U O , rA .. _ w II cn wr A: w ..... II 1 a � � r y v 16 N � a .............- ......... ............. m ,p o 74 = 3 .. rn 00 ._ m ' 0 LA '� 3 � roti •.^, o � o .� � 'n on .. � a_ C •� a GN U. o 9 rty C, a) yR yG O 00 N > - ti a O D ca a C O C v Q O =b U op — O ~ s- as 1p y � o 0 3 ,�' p•G � ani H a V ro � �a o � o U � � ami LE ? cc = as = a u'G .-.p Q Q o3 ' U y cOcm C O b y 0 y = O y p � G y •O. O m n 00 v a y � E r. mo U � U. 6� � Ea UEo � a o a. �n In in k v.)i v v in •n M M N Gr V = .� c eo �n 1 II U_ c. C Qp y Q� F. II1 1 w O p V � 1 .. v til; ..... ......... 00 �; o ° a � o ,> E 0 -2. O a c .O x .? a y > ea d cv w a� a> 3' .0 U +. y o 0 V r. 'i ° C ai y O `>° ea ca �v '� O 0 y x'G � � U C py w.. 5 p N 'fl p y ;. 0 � ami � > ° a xx � - m 1 o. o •0 o � 'w cU a Q m `� >,w0 3 0. ., O > > D 0ro- v h Q P. O y eo >~ O O O O Or- CGc � � ca � � a U 1 ca G c y v 3 U '� c ro a w a o°po cmc cO o ° 0 =0 100 v C U D 0 o °�' y •Ho > � � a. � opo = ancv o. c a� vv a��i c o. o cr 1 a. N O 00 3 n a U s. Gp w C U M ca w •� C cz U Cq ... D a, O cz cwG o U v0o II 1 O o cd w a .7 c o et v 1 N q 1 c 3 � ao 0 N .0 h C7n F U G .y G v .0 w G ° :, v c�O U y ca cc Ut: O R O G p y O cn 0 to .. oo n o U ° cl cuto I cl .. .. r. r, c v in M z w w w y � r U o II 0 r fi rA O cu COcz w ,. 21.1 y 5 ' .. U a; G pq•C.� � •ca bA y m oA oD N 'O 'G vi � yy '"' �'"' � ..... ..... ... ............. y 'O ti. E.. a eg "Oen y Ln ox �a C'm 3 o ca A cai ° o .'GyOU• y 2 ,5 >°p oo 'aaoG �p..;a =0 4oc -a' � Cc cz U O s. y y p, t b y 3 Boa y cGi oocc ^ o T'� o c°� o ' > M C4tv N N M M M � ~ CGV Y •�.y � cr to • O G i ' m o •aa C° eGa G � II 'n y QW) F. to o U N.n U OO CIO G U •� �; > C G O yU cv U CS cz i 1 t/1 Q0 ...... ..... 0 `o b Opp w � v ovo� ° •� 3 ° U� c ° U o R .. "o 3 y � ❑ y b y 'D U T w d s., 71 � U i. � Cd RS bA N �" Qr � � •� y p o y E 10 c � o Z12 o acv ril � ti.� •� •� •v GO =0 .L w o m� aEo .S ~ c o ac � Uo ° w° v ca y 0 y w p w Q al ca o, c E44 0 a Uma .0 1117i2 �°3aoU .� roo 3 �a3 v M M M M M y N o�0 3 ....: .� ea E nq II a e� y �1 II 0 c% v .mow .o U � M a o; "'� bA N .� .0•� .� U %b N C 'O �'U p •B sU.•O T O .D ❑ p ❑ sU „ CO ... .... N 00 ca G •D _ L1.>A4 � N O O � � y U U O .C O a. U h � yU., •� 3 � �^ to co CO 3. 0 a o `" m o b 8 cd U a. 3 .� wv y v a coa O CIO C O O OE O vD^ N �.ami C Ga) X fl. U wss.�a �c �v � .. a� NcoE r. It v 00 M v C N c9 7;; eo3 � � w C as w Cq U LL VJ CO 0 rA v .se e0 a a� •V .Y a, �+ 10 O o o � a zi' 0 •��^,, e .O 0 •� Op'C C >,«: •L1. O E t, 'bq a ctl w y c 7 3 ovOpo .te000 ' .D 7o, 'ro Ua o-C vto 24 0 ca : E. C O�p ~ gvO .4 0,0 m mo c C ca C cv co `cu a 3 4; " � -0 a ono Ev � x o U .�'.. U y•C cn_y •� .° .j •��^. � C c°i _ O.'O v onx i-.�+ a7 O C c) O :: CIO 00 o O ca O y .-. sr O S� O a� A C y a v O „� iy cae ami 'G on 0" 3 O c° ca N O 4 U a-' s, fc`a 0 U ° cai o .o c=, ca avi ; -- 9 o, c o. .. rACQ x Vl o i.r U W' LO CO i1 M M y N U bA ' II Q cz b(1 Q as �., II d V •O r� m fin....:::>:::.;:.:::: c c d o c c c o " r— o .� ca ea to a �y w C y ; O`- h :: .'0 it Op cC �+ ♦+ Cr - . a E U O O o a > o p D r. O w c h .� c •. � ° vx . C', _ b ;? N � y W 'o y 'O cd O" :OBD: C iz: Q. r: cd v, O u .9L `n O s., ca ❑ _ s., oD cOa aai � ❑ � on 3 0 Z Cj mw r, cc v 0 G 04 . in 1. 11 � w Q em y II a � U It V N .i is is . �f . ........ .. ........ ...... ...... . ......... 3&. PRO.................. ............ ..... ...... JECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION Dougherty Valley Planning Area Dougherty Valley is part of the subregional planning area known as the Tri-Valley, consisting of the San Ramon, Amador and Livermore Valleys, and encompassing major growth areas of south central Contra Costa and eastern Alameda counties. The Tri-Valley area includes the incorporated communities of Danville and San Ramon, the unincorporated communities of Alamo and Blackhawk in Contra Costa County, and the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin in Alameda County. The Tri-Valley also includes the Tassajara Valley planning area, located immediately east and northeast of Dougherty Valley. Figure 3-1 is a Regional Setting Map that shows the location of the Dougherty Valley relative to freeways and nearby cities. The site is about 20 miles south of Martinez. The Dougherty Valley planning area consists of 5,979 acres that are bounded on the west by lands within the City of San Ramon; on the south by the County line; on the east by the Tassajara Valley; and on the north by lands in the Town of Danville and by residential development in Shapell's West Branch project, which is in the City of San Ramon. �( Major highway access is provided by Interstates 680 and 580 via Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road (which provide access to I-680) and Dougherty Road (which provides access to I-580). Additionally, Windemere Parkway is to be extended to intersect Camino Tassajara just north of the Alameda-Contra Costa County line. Figure 3-2 is a map of the portion of the Tri-Valley subregion north of I-580. It identifies nearby cities and roads in relation to the Dougherty Valley planning area. It also shows the location of the East Dublin Specific Plan areas as well as the Tassajara project, which is a proposed development of 5,950 dwelling units on 4,491 acres. There are three property owners in the Dougherty Valley: Shapell Industries (Gale Ranch, 2,708 acres); Windemere Ranch Partners (Windemere, 2,320 acres); and the U.S. Government (Camp 3-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Parks, 950 acres). The location of these properties is shown on Figure 3-3, along with the location of the Country Club at Gale Ranch, Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Topography Topographically, the planning area consists of a complex series of major and minor ridges, rolling hills and relatively flat valley that drain to the south (see Figure 3-3). The Country Club at Gale Ranch is in the watershed of Coyote Creek. The remainder of the planning area is in the watershed of Alamo Creek,which consists of three branches in the planning area (west, main and east). Note the prominent hills on the perimeter of the Dougherty Valley. They are to be retained as permanent open space. Figure 3-4 is the USGS Topographic Map with additions. It shows the already approved Country Club at Gale Ranch, along with the two proposed land development projects that are evaluated in this Subsequent EIR. Modifications to General Plan The proposed General Plan Amendment being considered herein will not require a modification to the text of the Contra Costa County General Plan. The General Plan Amendment only involves modifications to the Land Use Map. Policies for the Dougherty Valley planning area are included in the Specific Plan. The Adopted General Plan/Specific Plan land use map is presented in Figure 3-5. The proposed General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Map is presented in Figure 3-6. The proposed plan does not increase lot yield, nor does the footprint of development substantially !' FAIRFIELD 101 99 4' NTi4 r"CONCORD '• RICHSTOCKTON 24 4PWALNUT CREEK 4 .r OAKLAND. �DANVILLE' * SAN RAMO D603HERTY 'VALLEY t DUBLIN. ' �e 58Q !,0.11 EIRIMORE 5 PLEASANTON 17 'r s8o i� Figure: 3-1 - Graphic 77 Regional Setting Scale: Subsequent EIR o�M�oMi 5 Rai a��ssf�say a�`. a S is dCA G LM o �I \ /J Qbpz/ C3 U] o aafr.�x ,rc�r. oil, Izanr �■� �• 4VO7S i X11!• � s er q Q' • a1 til W CA •'�^� aha-- T RV "A,� .✓. �Cl�` 0 C 95 e'k' � F,y's.N � U��S � { 2 , w t n.i f—I hs L jia O U c ./"`` , \♦ 3-3 �I i J , �' ,`�•`\ (���^ �L: '� � �:J \ ��� �� �%^ //1{,. \\\ T\\✓%% 5 \� �% :moi �'��\3/ �\ `• ' ^ / �/ b• %.40 , t / y •� ^�C� 7::I i�} n��`,'J��. �. � �.� ,alt✓ -. .�� �!'^}7� �O � �� e �•--,.__1� i.�. 1, ��i f,�,> .\ ' of ,,; ` (r.•, , "II,' I � �`rJ i �!% .e i ` •,l v ,a ,'` - \ '- SUCsh \•`. � � �' i I.y t �a L../ ! \:'1 ° �'r '\ j �l��..' r ! \ 81 or k. f � � .. �•\ � '•.i� t'1'.CSSAJA • k An' orN. �. ;V111age� � ,, � � ,•, � .�. r 777) �J Figure: 3-3 USGS TOpOg'aphy Graphic �/ ■■ ■■ Project Boundaries Scale: V ERRaw Subsequent EIR Contour Interval is 40' 0 800' 1600' 3200' 3-4 ''.j't 1 y71 ._,t'.�Cr�� r J /��'..,, r�� � �J\<, � /,.., a•� �'�.'X-�,"''-' ..,�'S,�♦-�\ �tea � _ � 1. � �„-•-,.�r,� /'---. ..''vet z''\ ti-.: ,��j♦ � t� } /^ .,"!r" ..,.,,-f / �-. 2._1\s ..�� � ,�� t� ' '� ��! t�"1 � tr� j•�tl 1� 8i�:i f1�^`•� + /7_ C'♦ '`�'✓ .!'r } j� ••n�. �V'P /� ���(���� �' ( '"'C;•.I,; i�a.,^ c,`': f t C r r r`� .-'`l i7 - :C��`;�- -' j'\ '' } t s ,�^'.-` '(;i 1 r ' ,.I.- l.' L' ,./ //' �C-`v. `\.`, ,..� 3 ji t r• .1- L./., r /..�i Yy "-,� "v,�`-.♦�,tf P(~t `\�v � �1..-'^-� :( e�- C \'r,'j ,lam �♦`�.'F.." ss`t\ �L r, t k�\. t ! 11S l•' i•---'� 1� \ , 1 1 C 1\1• � ` A \ q\ ?r ` ,\ a\'\3 } ♦ t n/ . y i';t t� t ii \v`'� :,(r {' Q/ 1� I i ✓ /.. ' .� t ' } �✓,. �� fl k �1 7 (`� (4"\�\.-�"1.i'7-;=-: /�♦/' .•-y�� �i ✓t^.-,-.t f P -'�.\ \�/!"' f> \t'~�} �.sy�r'✓....`'^'"• }Lzi`� � � � � `^v 'i..-•1 +_f-4� �r• �• �z)51., z� i� z/1 V4 ,�1�•-• 1 '< r ��,6 �\ "-s``• � \1"� f�tf l�` }� 1, a f,,�'`e'i`' 1 �`"`+ �I51 t� � �"` 1J I �� 1,...v }1,� }r /r + �•..,, } C ���`�, /- i% ;-J~ri / \t,C.0 vj-.� ,,��zlj �' t \s:\ y (y .n✓tVs`'"S"� `\ s4 'z}3) .. �1 � �-�./r!♦, £rr,� f�•�, )! � 4{\, }�� ' i vyJ�/�✓,SJ�- ���v�'`�`ti\''�i.;^! (r�'-\ . fV '�y,..� �l i ^`.--/�'n / `-=•,�..,• \C fr!(r-'"•�.�'f� �yV.,i > 1 t r�( t<r +.t> � '`'' +3r, ..� r v "`- Lam.�`\ .,�:ry .� �, � � o� r z �t rn,...JJ I�( �\�>�\: ,t , s't� tis-- z + {r.,,-,e?�„�.=,'+f ✓• \y,��.,'"�3��y_; i�, f� i �'W 7 e•��/�.i_r� £... -\40p I '''�...'.a %�F" iev-. �,\1..-.,;; v, ��...-^.^,.•��!ss�\ •�•,\.`-: f�J r r� tY� .:I„ �::� � \< !`l.r ���YF. -�'\ r f J/ JJ / \��`. \\ F�,Ci� ��i~J�1-, 'vt �'t✓ ^;.�! �'V' -75 it ,.' A,..,, \•,`; � 'c\..s t� �..�\\r;�vr`j� �. `'� ".\ `\• + `♦!`/'/;L�� `,ti... �y L'�..'�,�jj��j .,nip' +; �r� 'r /!• ♦/r ♦..../�j,r:,...: �`"tt )L el �``°�/��- '�c '���.--,. pot''.41`.. � �-\ ,`� �)rf / r� r �_.•' ?--- �-^��.i`+ '' _„_v^�i1'\�rt ��'• If— f�� '•i i, .Z�r� \ ,�� /-^�;-'/ .� .� J�r-,-' 1 4-.�� �\ .,r °! i / n )Y / tip! -.�,,.r� (♦. !r: ..� /,s I!-' c.l:' +� `"�..., ,l�` 11r tr1✓�;4. 7i i r t �� : J }"., Z, r A a„,� ♦♦ i;f•'✓s✓l/;,5 ,s,\ <�/Y Lam' \✓r 1 , l { �—J •v fi 1. �ay �t3✓ !` dna _1kk /��• � }, '��\ �.it_. r.J r a\ v`ti 11r \v�f flj -moi, ^ � ! f-y`1. ..it � 'w r r�ci''ss.. .E.lwv "'♦ _ r c� '<1 \ ; ^.� \c 4 s<. +. 3 �^'• �� s t» `\`•.w-' -)tr a - �.✓'f S r-!i�',\ ♦ � ,. /'1 .�. / ♦r� / /�\`F��. �;1 i� z'.+:�. �L y�►j,. r�'r r ® 3 ,C„!f� w / '( !, � \ v; \ ' /\\,Jr;:1✓ � : 90../ ' �\ , a % -'}Subria C�'-...✓."' ?` \ 1 \i°^,/i! ~t r'`-^ '4`a \ ,. \..�� `(''. "'`ti ,(xb .,'reSfay'\�' c+q3 •ic $ tls"'\', ^�\ 1 z. \ �''q3� ♦ �.\ ♦ A, \ ��^V> ... r+° x \, \gin ,&'f •. �♦ ,.lvti ��Q ''+,:I •�� \ •� rs ''4 y,;•�, �ty,r---.�qt"y.v ��i s � / ;�;1. ,r�D <z �, ��( 'c. s,'" Nw""'`. .:6 S 5 `'; �_ 4A y_ v !♦�'„... -Q`�j. 44'��+0 "„v."`:°v'l1+ 1\+��-� µp� ♦�l�i�+ Pro ect BoundaryV. 2 MOM Figure: 3-4 Proposed Gale Ranch II Graphic "YERRaw Subse went EIR & Windemere I on USGS scale: q Topographic Base 0 1500' 3000' 3-5 O�ROAD •i' pNy ' s o a; ,t 3: J' I {�P/SP f, r nn4 ��PR OS SM SM ♦S SM / 1 r PR sM �PESP ML CANYON P/SP goUlN6ER J MS .� NOER C O SOON ROAD Os 4 Dw" ♦ SM PR P/S ," ML J �{ J PH HOS t QS f SM � P/SP Es MH sM PH: ML P/SP MH j ES 't',' OS - /C EAST RANCN SM 01 SM OS \ PR + OS9a PR - ,;BSM pR OS STAGING 1c COMMUNItYRARN tT' AREA P/SP OS 2 \/ ES f. \ MU g= P/SP s SM ML �& PR l � F A STAGING AREA AD� R<��� Dw P/SP cc ♦ Legend SM SINGLE FAMILY. MEDIUM C COMMERCIAL PR PARKS AND RECREATION D DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY LOW MU MIXED USE VILLAGECENTER INCLUDES ML OS OPEN SPACE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MH MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH 7P/SP PRIMARY ROADS DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE,ELEMENTARY,MIDDLE NIGH SCHOOLS,OTHER Figure: 3-5 D:mm o `otw Adopted General Plan/ Graphic o Specific Plan Land Use Map Scale: Subsequent EIR 0 800' 1600' 3200' 3-6 e�DN nOAD ■ , cA � •l o 4 W r, PR P/SP MS • ML SM '5,. SM P! R • SM 5 � C SH /SP G�DH pOPO• P/SP , .. OS � � P/SP I `SM ML • <PFi . .' ML SM PES 1 ML PR ` P/ SM pR ML PR C .•ate SP ES R. MH ML SM SM ` MH OS ` OS SM pR MU Sm OS ,~AEA' £OAK TY • � MU PSP E SM Es ; • SM10 { ` PR } r STAGING 1[I AREA 13 Legend SM SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SH SINGLE FAMILY HIGH C COMMERCIAL PR PARKS AND RECREATION DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ❑ MULTIPLE FAMILY LOW MIXED USE VILLAGE CENTER INCLUDES ML MU MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OS OPEN SPACE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNm COLLEGE,COMMERCIAL,CIVIC MH MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH P/SP PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ELEMENTARY,MIDDLE. PRIMARY ROADS HIGH SCHOOLS,OTHER Fq Figure: 3-6 Dom o `ct7 Proposed General Plan/ Graphic Specific Plan Land Use Map Scale: Subsequent EIR � 0 800' 1600' 3200' 3-7 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION change. When the adopted Specific Plan was prepared a land exchange between Nindemere and the U.S. Army was contemplated. The exchange is no longer proposed, so the plan is modified in that area. Additionally, the location of school sites, trails, and parks was refined based on more detailed site planning studies; a small commercial area on the Shapell property was relocated; and road alignments were adjusted in response to modification of the grading concept. The NOP, which is presented in Appendix A, lists the major modifications proposed in the General Plan Amendment and Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Amendment. Modifications to the Specific Plan The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan provides the opportunity to plan for the Shapell and Windemere properties comprehensively, based on more specific information about site conditions and the surrounding physical, environmental and policy context. Specific Plans establish the nature, character and location of activities and development,guide the orderly growth of an area and describe other aspects of planning. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan and associated development plans for Gale Ranch II and Windemere I have resulted from the settlement agreements and more detailed planning studies. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan is organized to parallel the structure of the Contra Costa County General Plan, and land use categories in the Specific Plan Land Use Map are identical to land use categories in the County General Plan. Specific Plan chapters, following introductory information, are as follows: Chapter 4: Land Use Chapter 5: Housing Chapter 6: Streets, Transit, Trails Chapter 7: Open Space Chapter 8: Parks/Recreation and Community Facilities Chapter 9: Requirements and Routes for Water, Reclaimed Water, Sewer, Storm Drainage, Electricity, Gas and Communication Systems The following discussion outlines the key changes in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. Land Use The proposed Dougherty Valley Land Use Map is presented on Figure 3-6. Table 4.1-2, in the Land Use chapter,summarizes the land use program. The key land use changes are listed below. Gale Ranch. The Land Use Map for this area is proposed to be modified to: 1) relocate and enlarge a commercial site;2) add a childcare center(C); 3) add a fire station site(P/SP);4)modify the open space/development envelope (net reduction in the footprint of development); and 5) 3-8 `� 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION revision of density designations single-family, medium density(SM) to multiple-family, low density (ML) and ML to single-family, high density (SH). Windemere. The Land Use Map for this portion of the Dougherty Valley is proposed to be modified to reflect an increase in open space area (OS). Additionally: 1) a commercial site has been moved from the east to the west side of Bollinger Canyon Road (C); 2) a fire station site is proposed to be included on the west side of Bollinger(P/SP); and 3) an elementary school site will be relocated to take better advantage of the planned pedestrian circulation system and provide access to the ecologically rich open space area known as Hidden Valley;' and the Community College site will be an allowable use in the Windemere portion of the Village Center. The Village Center has not been increased in acreage. The adopted Specific Plan provides for up to 680,000 gross sq.ft. of neighborhood-serving retail, service office and civic uses, up to 400 units of high density housing, and a 72-acre community park. The concept is to allow for college buildings to the village center without necessarily reducing retail or commercial uses. This concept is consistent with the density transfer concept in the adopted Specific Plan. Camp Parks. The Dougherty Valley portion of Camp Parks is proposed for designation as open space (OS). The U.S. Army has determined that it will not make land available for a public use. Housing This chapter of the Specific Plan was modified to make reference to the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program as the document that shall define the affordable housing requirements for the Dougherty Valley. Within Dougherty Valley, 25 percent of units are required to be affordable to persons of very low, low and moderate income. Policy H-6 in the 1993 Specific Plan has been deleted. (This policy was superseded by the provision of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program.) Streets, Trails The alignment of arterial streets have been modified and some typical sections have been refined. the changes in the alignment of arterial roads also resulted in some changes to trail alignments. Open Space The adopted Dougherty Valley Specific Plan provides a summary of Open Space/Parks & Recreation lands in the planning area, excluding Camp Parks. This table, which includes the Country Club at Gale Ranch, shows total acres of OS/PR at 3,026 acres in Dougherty Valley 1 The Hidden Valley area is located in the northeast portion of the Windemere property. 3-9 3.0 PROJECT,DESCRIPTION (59 percent of the total acreage). The amended Specific Plan calls for 3,023 total acres of OS/PR (59 percent of the total area). The apparent decrease in open space is artificial and requires some explanation. The Adopted Specific Plan assumed a land transfer between Windemere and the U.S. Government that added 96 gross acres to Windemere. In the amended Specific Plan, the area controlled by Windemere Ranch Partners is used to calculate that property's gross acreage. The effects of this change in allocation was to add 96 acres of open space to the Camp Parks total. Consequently, evaluation, of the proposed Specific Plan should include Camp parks in the comparison: • Total Open Space and Recreation (Adopted Specific Plan): 3,304 acres �- • Total Open Space and Recreation (Proposed Specific Plan): 3,548 acres Policy OSC-3 has been modified to specify that roadway crossing of the West and Main Branches of Alamo Creek should be configured to allow wildlife to utilize the creek corridor as a conduit to access the large open space areas on the perimeter of the project. Community Facilities Table 4 of the adopted Dougherty Valley Specific Plan provides a summary of Dougherty Valley Community Facilities and a map in that report identified locations. Comparison of proposed Specific Plan with the adopted Specific Plan indicates the number, type or acreage facilities have not changed, but locations have been refined. Public Safetv A study was performed that tested the need for two fire stations in the Dougherty Valley. It found that one fire station, if properly located on Bollinger Canyon Road in the Windemere I project area, is capable of providing an urban standard of service (five-minute response time for emergency calls) in Dougherty Valley. Utilities: Potable Water In the proposed Specific Plan, DSRSD is identified as the preferred provider instead of EBMUD. However,EBMUD is identified as an alternative provider of water service. The amended Specific Plan notes that DSRSD has entered into contract to purchase 7,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) of water entitlement. The text of the Specific Plan outlines the means to be used by DSRSD to deliver and treat water for domestic use. It also discusses water demand and storage requirements. 3-10 ,� 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION �\ Utilities: Reclaimed Water No text changes from the adopted Specific Plan are proposed. Utilities: Sanitary Sewers No text changes from the adopted Specific Plan are proposed. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District continues to be identified as the preferred provider. Utilities: Other Services No changes in the adopted Specific Plan are proposed for: 1) electricity, 2) natural gas, 3) telephone/communications, and 4) police protection. The Specific Plan discussion of storm drainage, and fire protection have not changed, but considerable new information is provided in the Subsequent EIR on these subjects. Implementation Chapter 13 of the proposed Specific Plan was revised to clarify and update information on the implementation process. Preliminary and Final Development Plans Purpose and Objectives The purpose and objectives of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, as set forth in the Specific Plan are to provide the following: • A new, primarily residential community accessible to employment opportunities within the Tri-Valley region, in which housing costs reflect the income levels associated with those employment opportunities. Homes offering a diverse range of housing types and densities for all age groups and housing sizes. • Homes affordable to very low, low and moderate income households(based on 25 percent of the total number of homes built). • Facilities and services necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare and to meet established growth management standards. • Needed housing in a suitable location to meet the demand generated by major nearby employment centers. • Public transit,roadways and trails to serve the planning area, linked to and compatible with existing and planned circulation systems. 3-11 3.0 -PROJECT DESCRIPTION • A P en comprehensive network of o space and trails that enhance the environment,and P p separate Dougherty Valley from adjacent development. • A system of parks accessible to Dougherty Valley residents and the Tri-Valley region offering a variety of recreational opportunities. • A portion of the village center that includes commercial, office, and community facilities accessible to all residents, located at the meeting place of the central transportation and open space corridors. • A well designed community that integrates in scale and form a mix of uses and offers a desirable way of life. • A Allow for a community college located to serve the existing and growing Tri-Valley area. • A community park plan. _ Project Land Use Descri tion The land use summary for the Gale Ranch II and "Windemere I projects are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The major design elements of the project are detailed in the following section. The Gale Ranch and Windemere descriptions are separated for clarity. Gale Ranch II An Illustrative Plan for the Gale Ranch II project is presented in Figure 3-7. Key features that r can be seen on the map include the following: • Dougherty Road will be improved from the north boundary of Dougherty Valley to its intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road. Bollinger Canyon Road will be extended from the East Boundary of the Country Club at Gale Ranch to the boundary with the Windemere I project. • The channels of the West Branch and Main .Branch of Alamo Creek are retained as natural channels and enhanced with plantings. • The Gale Ranch II project contains a variety of single-family residential lot sizes, as well as cluster housing (townhouses and apartments). The project is broken into definable neighborhoods. • Non-residential uses include an elementary school intermediate school, four parks, commercial center, fire station, park-and-ride lot, day care center and 555 acres of permanent open space. t A more detailed discussion of the Gale Ranch Il project is presented below. 3-12 �{ nowi - 0. n � (D Cu SI � �. o y' cu n co �p _ m cu --__ �� �1y11`t• •d �T� -t I'vi ' � P� H h k jY' �.' } Y''IIC�I 411 a. .a'� Ln[d� '3r ':' 7" inr't4",id�r� • �....ppix ,,l .-�„ r��� `, ql i � �,y ��iney',� t,�' x , �, �� .. F. .yP. �� �^� `as .• ,.,,,. '� 1�,,t�n�{r "'ti..' a3� �:• i^��%.' a �r C n' a' Ii l _ t•• S , � x:"v : �t Y � ,. ,. .i.ti d1 �� 'r W 3�i m•t,uP',,'�,., �I.,'�Ilu�,�^' d { eepp y 1 i ,P Il it I� � a a !r p 'r #+7�`. � ���tl. �` m° + a•^., .x ;y,�, '�a x u9 ..r s.d � � 1 r 3 a r lip N CD �. { 'r fnr� 7 °j' }'� c'd� - IadmiaL _,.'.."�5 t '�p d .} T'•f„ k, OQ �.*� ,r N r, hwt id{X Y �*'t •�' N fi"..irYt �F P Y .t'' `},• 7.! t" Tu'*uC-Y�• Ft t 1 -*t da ,.,4°wi �.V' [D 411 W f O� r.r y� ,W" ,� dr r r" �^ u"`y ".x� v`•. �„ Irk � ,}�` '+::r,T klr'"a ^ �v F ` � a. kb ..CF "'�« a, �.a +• +"�x 6 H s . � 1 i, � �, a a sI:; t ✓ � a a� 1 ♦? ,�,Inu Cw` xn � a � .:;A, i, n �lP au�a��N{ �'�.��E�'�u��h��f4�n� tl�i��U 4+' .F�' �S`°�: _ N• .p �� ^i �;{Y 1 ta4"� ���� y,9'^5 irJ. �d t ,.,.a.+u^�li+ �.�I�+j�' ''�y'"�n��4r'�`���r .� ^S5't�"� � d'�x ;,,�uq y'�� h W'. "*'' • 71'�i� a r �� "k.� �a�'.r a�' j a Jd a�"C r�� ji.wa^� t �`� � :�' 'r M� },r t�,",�uT�:f fie, s - fi � P•e m der �.' Tip i 7k x4� T �sva Z Td I{TM+"t��� . v _ sr" a xf -a J'<. � ,� i`;, apt a�S>i" 1 r�, nea' ,� q,yd� �,aS. }�'• .. __ " �° �� �...x' - �' ry.�• is a c I "4 �T. ` ' dVyCrCy� V D...� � fi�:ti=�,:}x°• .f"'0.'y£T ¢ kry'i a T� -ti'V�` .i;r' (D I!� H� CDNO x V 7d o o cu •a _ CD --- -- - �� �74 CA ~ N C b �2 CD a C+ N o � w� (A N �r � �s � �r ,� rr �r � �s ar � � � � r � �r �r -.�. �... �. ��> �,. -� �-' 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Creek Revegetation. LSA, the biologic consultant for the project proponents, prepared a creek revegetation plan to respond to federal, state and local requirements to protect riparian corridors, avoid impacts on wetlands and compensate for the loss of wetlands resulting from unavoidable impacts. The plan provides for revegetation and enhancement planting of approximately 69 acres along 2.4 miles of creek corridors within the Gale Ranch II site. These are the creek corridors along the West Branch and Main Branch of Alamo Creek. Restoration activities include removing exotic species, implementing erosion control and creek bank stabilization measures, planting native riparian trees and shrubs genetically appropriate for the site, and installing a temporary irrigation system and browse protection devices as needed. Upland areas within the creek revegetation zone will be planted with native oak species. Private Recreation Facilities. The multi-family portions of the project and the higher density neighborhoods of single-family will include private recreational facilities such as tot lots,swimming pools, picnic facilities and tennis courts. Pocket Parks There are two pocket parks proposed at junction points between the internal trail system. Typical features of the pocket parks will be tot lots, picnic tables and seating benches and shade structures with seating. Neighborhood Parks There are three neighborhood parks equally distributed in the Gale Ranch II project.The three parks(total 24.5 acres) include both active and passive recreational amenities. Tennis courts, soccer fields and softball fields are mixed with play equipment areas and shaded seating and picnic areas. All the parks will have restroom facilities and off-street parking. School/Park The 10-acre elementary school/park and the 15-acre middle school/park are both planned for joint public educational and public recreational use. The final design of the facilities will be performed in consultation with the San Ramon Unified School District and State Architectural Board, but the recreational elements are anticipated to be of an active nature such as playing field and hard surface sport courts. Trail System. There is approximately five miles of improved d trail system including 2.5 miles within the creek corridor. The internal trails are intended to be utilized by both pedestrians and bicyclists and to provide a link to the neighborhood parks, pocket parks, creek trails and regional trail system. The creek trail system is proposed on one side of the creek channel (one side to remain passive) and be designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Amenities to be included on the trail system include par courses, seating areas and drinking fountains. Streetscape. The project includes substantial landscape treatments on Dougherty Road, Bollinger Canyon Road and the major streets. 3-15 3.0 .PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 3-1 LAND USE SUMMARY Gale Ranch II Project Net Net Land Use Units Acres:.: Du/Ac 5o Acre RESIDENTIAL USES 751 X 901 lots 160 35.5 4.5 60'x 80'lots 264 41.9 6.3 50'x 80'lots 478 62.5 7.6' Courtyard Units 256 31.1 8.2 Carriage,Units 196 26.3 7.5 Townhomes 239 30.0 8.0 Apartments 232 12.9 18.0 SUBTOTAL 1,825 240.2 7.6 25% NON-RESIDENTIAL USES Retail Commercial* 10.7 �1 Fire Station 1.0 Park-and-Ride Lot 2.0 Day Care Center* 1.0 Elementary School/Park 10.0 Middle School/Park 15.0 Bollinger Canyon Road 28.8 Dougherty Road 9.7 64'ROW Collector Streets 20.0 56'ROW Residential Streets 27.0 48'ROW Residential Streets 35.9 Parks 27.5 SUBTOTAL 177.9 18% OPEN SPACE Creek Corridor 96.6 Common Open Space 458.3 SUBTOTAL 554.9 57% PROJECT TOTAL (GALE RANCH II) 1,825 973.0 100% 11 * Commercial center and childcare facility are conceptually shown for General Plan and Rezoning Applications. Final .site plan,building architecture and landscaping will be finalized on a subsequent Final Development Plan. Source: Ruggeri-Jensen and Associates. 3-16 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Park-and-Ride Lot. In accordance with the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan,a major two-acre park- and-ride lot is proposed near the Dougherty Road/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection; the park- and-ride lot will be located near a bus turnout and will be lighted for safety and fully landscaped. Commercial Center. A neighborhood scale commercial center is proposed for the northeast corner of Dougherty Road at Bollinger Canyon Road. The 10.7-acre site (125,000 sq.ft. net maximum) will include a major supermarket anchor and a number of uses such as restaurants, specialty food store, personal care provider, book store, storefront medical, hobby stores, etc. The commercial center is oriented to be both accessible to the bus turnouts on Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road as well as pedestrian access to and from the adjacent neighborhoods. Schools A 10-acre elementary school and 15-acre middle school are within the project boundary. Final design of the schools and joint use public park will be performed in consultation with by the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and the State Architectural Board. Childcare. A one-acre commercial childcare site is proposed adjacent to the elementary school site. The private childcare operator should be able to accommodate 125 children at a facility of this size. Fire Station Site. The Specific Plan calls for up to two fire stations in the Dougherty Valley (one on Gale Ranch and one in the Village Center). A one-acre fire station site is shown on the Final Development Plans for Gale Ranch II just east of the PG&E easement on the South side of Bollinger Canyon Road. Residential. 1,825 dwelling units are proposed on the Gale Ranch II site. A variety of multi-family and single-family product types have been included to respond to the variety of lifestyles and income levels. The total net average density of all the product types is 7.6 du/ac. The project includes 232 apartment units(18 du/ac) and 239 garden townhome units(8.0 du/ac) and 902 single- family detached units (4.5 to 7.6 du/ac). Additionally, 256 courtyard homes (three to five homes clustered around a private driveway) are planned for three separate neighborhoods (8.2 du/ac). The Carriage Homes are small single-family detached homes with garage access from a rear alleyway. A separate small studio/in-law dwelling unit over the detached garage is included on some plans. The Carriage Homes are planned for 196 units in two neighborhoods (7.5 du/ac). Open Space. A total of 554 acres (57 percent) of the Gale Ranch II project is set aside as permanent open space. Creek corridors account for 96 acres (17 percent) of the open space. The remainder is on the perimeter of the development envelope or within the PG&E easement. 3-17 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Grading. The Gale Ranch II project will require site grading of an estimated 10.2 million cubic yards of cut and 10.5 million cubic yards of fill. Grading will include the necessary landslide stabilization and creation of building pads. Grading within the creek corridors will be limited to road crossings and fills parallel to the West Branch Creek for the construction of Dougherty Road. The grading will conform to the provisions of the Grading'Permit issued by the County. The final grading plan will be required to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and all applicable conditions of approval, as-well as the provisions of the Grading Ordinance. An erosion control plan shall accompany the final grading plan and shall conform with all the applicable criteria and standards of the County, the Association of the Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Windemere I An Illustrative Plan for the Windemere I project is presented in Figure 3-8. Key features that can be seen on the map include the following: • Bollinger Canyon Road will be improved from the north boundary of the project area (boundary with the Gale Ranch II project) south to its intersection with Dougherty Road. • The Windemere portion of the Village Center is located at the southern limit of the Windemere I project. It is being designed to accommodate a community college along with compatible retail, commercial and civic uses. • The project includes 1,285 multiple-family residential dwellings located in the area east of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek and west of Bollinger Canyon Road. • Non-residential uses, in addition to the Village Center, include a small commercial center, .elementary school and four parks. • The design concept includes retaining and enhancing the Main Branch of Alamo Creek; and realignment and enhancement of the East Branch of Alamo Creek. A more detailed discussion of the Windemere I project is presented below. Creek Revegetation. LSA prepared a creek revegetation plan to respond to federal, state and local requirements to protect riparian corridors, avoid impacts on wetlands and compensate for the loss of wetlands resulting from unavoidable impacts. The plan provides for revegetation and enhancement planting of approximately 47.4 acres along 2.3 miles of creek corridors within the project site. Restoration activities include removing exotic species, implementing erosion control and creek bank stabilization measures, planting native riparian trees and shrubs genetically appropriate for the site, and installing a temporary irrigation system and browse-protection devices as needed. 3-18 a • tr^� k ,T'i� a e`MY '"�.��a4 � � � ����„�"W�p i�d`:yy op j p a�°i�O�M ti^'t•a„ara o atop ^�o. W, lVPw�: c°vm�a�°`a:y° '`,k, oti�.•o"a�°°�'°a La rp °�. ,r a ,a : �,,..,. •�s•..�.�r� r e ry .a\ ' � N�, 1 c � p.' v0�'•s o00,J �.os, tj i,. \S�� 'C ,y a. �. . °' �� '=r a" t v �t N ,�"a� w�� o .Q;(o t�,.. y^"-► .'�a 4aa o,.oo e a �. is\�a'e I,.,t -: '. :. r{• .1, 'w;,;' '-w:a. .. \ b ' ar: °b'o s`Wro a'•:{;, a Q�� .�0 ;}ooi � ���}^"° '�Lo k �° �;'" t, ,d u, �_�.' \�, a o.ri° °on �•�°s a .o n -:. i`�'^ ^v, .int, �1 `�vr :d.k+ T3cY '�' 4 n'k,t �m o+0 1 .P a a # Poc:r u o'�o f r ♦ .«: p r0 a� \ t m � 0'O P O 4 e b=4`• Or �•' ,' � j p,,+r�r ✓ Jf _ry. : O °�h.a.4a:�,Q f A 'P'a:Q,y .F� K �•�� S h+°. + y 'ct. M-c r a n' F.-,.?'' t .` .ayr' ^, '4` v `\N °r o�. a°ao ,!` a,�'a.r`1v }rj'd o °. r .`c ° ii^^ °"�•H i t7 ` P ,?r'� '§ r1J Y a , .,r. <,..v�y% h` �'� ar' r� h,`t='Li� �,�ar° "o ar.�..., ,.•v.rj,�qu,. .-1 �'£ '°8. _ ,�� .t...:nr .�,a a a4 ° -+ . .. »".�._- +. - a .a C ^n� ±�.a;J^ Mw.^,v a A o:..•a a�Y°°,� b' •.°a y�+•''r+.�a�W o00 a, k. '^� ew��,-Q. .p;°84'x• o ° ,g .s' oa.e+°rtip?o� ,°,as '�s i°9.o0'! a�'ak-, 4 a'..j' ��� ��'i�, ":sir\ "�' =+,P�+'i. ( :^1 ��, QO ��. tea .Arf n. ��mo..",«.. np. &c ,&bas',t 3o.x''.,t,'� .1«� D �'W" .:� a�:.1:;1 ��:,. ro so.. ;wd �o,✓'.�#` ,O . .a � -�.: t `-:•w,y •oo a a°�'a't",k u p ,�s, op. �^ •8t°.'�waRiyo dr xyf l''t ri��q s,�/l�{ ti-.+`�a.., ";Fi a o.�' •�o 'w. �« p d�. "�, ,o"„-'Fp!+.��_ ,Nn' O,� @ b`����000 -'v 6 D^`,'e°..a.�a49'040��',oa. a t :�I ' '4 .u>.. A ,.,5 o l .`° +`i•?�.., .k.�4v' .tt.� 1♦);!+"'; ••C� J c `^w�.o, e,s :0�'4 ,en ;+0 � .aL o p'; ..poo •c, 'l6t�� d \ df... ,t.. ma a :�, :.j'�f• o °1 .,� !w.:.r:, :,,','" :L e� °+'"�rrt ;1���to r�4* \ejoo• oo°aRw�`o'oax •�b��,1 ro°p �..s•m° o, ay�a G �`�pd'.°+?« �,y,"„ ';; ,a `.%4S. �a`'':•`..i" �°�^' ... �` '�(,_. a�.S�"a.'.a'.. �o o O u'� ���;t\ 8 ..,.h^ � ,:,�. ;t doe"e'o s•..� .•'!o :�°-.n`i° `._°•Opb.-Qa/w .,a w. .:•*�a„w"` .:-- rt%? '\to-:.,...,•..c+.roa ad ,,+ i r.:,rt' a��°�' `i��tro"t+`.� �:°' .,.aa j:ti�."'�.;°4 6 Q�.: � ... aon 4P •1-V ! o`o G�•��1,�,�:, ,n* oo a. c _ 1♦ e a ) rt n° r mo '?otS•- '.•f't o• �' `o>° °l�'i' i• � oi° �;.¢i s` d4 0 ��`4,. l,£ v,,v,,. d: ap o ta'S' -xt ,tJr o y.a o` °O aa.. t e° " �' °pot a, `�oq,a ,c •},�' ��. 4 0:. W 0�4 �' ,,,1 J+ �,# -'�� 1A l°.r} L\o ' �7i p• a���r•� �«;t�j•'«rt.S«y; � s. •.5. "ro° eS. ,, h° •1, o°! .O A �rv:n��"y�e,. -n ,f a.. �P t v- .t .�° o�. ,nr + :aS;, 16s1ai��` a;,'»!�V: o. ;l o. �a, e2 +4.•' ad...OYt'• °:�•;0-s{ •.0 n S S -^s' � ;,. ;4` ° esu .' r•r <. r&•u,►r: tSr 5+:.`7- °:.5.:«4.,tww; '.Ha.,�ao. >�,'mr. .e7 i• l.,°e rc op•�4. tr:=.:P o,�-nw,'1`oi' '`^.t..J. ,6a'•O a Yla',r W.;;.f:'. ' +� �° /-a.., iw o e�, t ° .� sa.try •� •'S.,.�44 t. a °o' p ,k,.,.,a !. 8 M.,; w 5` `i, .r°,.° , :t•rc'•. �,;ti^.`.':.'faw .'✓,.:V:.",, Rfi. 7;^;YL«8S•..<;.¢+,,1�° ro`E'S�' gC•p.'!�'c�i,. �'•a ,_d '�'Pc .h °`i PP '.t:l .`d ;n! o tt4:, \u.. '" ', `l*., t ro`..t a °d'f�. si(...'�j.'( spko. .�•:° .;r �. T;"e, o� ..5.•.a.«; ad's'''"a ` .iy n'.. r �L.i : � a 7: r. �a'n�' .o��';�'.••.�, 9 r�„,�:'f• 7��"a.. 9.:' .,s •d:�'n °+ �u. `s p.�o: °.- "'♦:°' °^:A. aon .° a �.'g'.nastr.ndm� e' rani r:°;+V. �':. o!"oma} O77j... "o, "- o,•.Yd oa4 nt$, x'41'9 u;'• r 4 's° 6� ° •` `a '�� +�a Y�� •,p�• 4 Ott 'P. aaa oY.• ,•O°�:::. -C. f�°�4•va ')Trb. c0'••.I i ,O o N •m J.p:r.t•.p:. �j C,,...�'Q••''c x.52 �•�Q,°, gaRO a 4a '"H• ,} 44' \` ��'. Or,, ,;.ai +�-'a 'a•a'`!'�•�..� ���."�-r. r..0 ��iia�d'«,, < .e +�:, f'k p� °o a ° e•,•b:.K°o{gid.'• a°e .o c ?aa: ..�`:z:,T�...,.po. o' X40 .a t°tl °gg°''a`A. d�'3,�, :.,�`:so sa tsy.n �,�n. ,•°gr, rta.a„D•�•�� a✓ p�'& � F ��W,�,J,3,, ay "."• ! '�r a,a° .O' •a0\ 04 N�, ��. a c� -Y Od C ,O ooa 4 4 Hoc O C i tt> �°5°'�' .7 0'O d':✓•.a., � �i q�. Lct a• P ,•1* .-uTr� ° 9;;a``'. ,op S p aou,t� S _��� � �::♦�:7, o a-o.-Or•;�' 'ra�0' k�t}"�L.� p�..�� .+a:.a\M�' 4�xi\,.v.. � R adOd °v'^e p„ a t` ,�t'ta.a a_- t,n.va;nnm• 'amu h td;t, •reu.a'�'', '4! q ,.s .x�yyr- q`D-° rmv>^ t,. :2a dqq .^'o .a n :«!. .S. .i«3 A M.•:m n.- ar �.V o• a Orl . ➢• o'.' •il�p^.r a w+ Apr"•?,t: =:%:,� �0,_ •r,'r�° 40 °-�,. n t nW��y[rfj�,,o J,..•(: °o� .b a or",• .�w° ,,,�g\ y\` rb� . : o 'ti �c� 0 66 or.�lr'oe' +.•":mac° a'� m"�};+'•ew• .ai a � ,.T.•a nom,°.00at ;°fir' � o �P' `kW). ' '�(jJPsw ,n m`• o•^oabo Y+Ogq• y tr0.� ..o-;Wane aetub p'•C o ,ra�3p 7 ,:'aSm E¢b,. a°od¢mrz1 .o.¢gra tslni°er p t'9rJ ttV�i� .:�°.,,.•r u�+do� �.�ca4 �• pi�:.ratl r O '"� \ .� LK Q doe:: ogoq a •gin .. r..uaa'�w�`,.oC;,'�,a°'ad-' a,. .� '! ".:1d a a' p:`O -•-1».s1.9, is Y'°o a°+?1°., a r'b a°e .. o pa ,4 ,Y••. ,,}�,ar' •a°av 6Ugtl' ^a'a.., .. ,r�. J'4 ao so:. aR gl:p�.+ u•.1'"-*" Irn� ��°4.`aQor v3r.o °kig°{,�'• o„A,4•.,,. ,aq Op O ��, r.. �„� r° w;'' p., •`a- OUiy ° a n ?i4% .r.a. ,;>„ Z.-'' a.a}. '! U f b Q ',\rvy' .a� '1 .: • J 4 C, d s a U.. ,...�.. n'a'o•;�� atuUq@4 aAo..a °' ° s'4o�4�aot; m,•?{i4 ttvo `;° impar 1^s �a .Aa�� °,,:"aO 0 .t' '(. �`` 1` � 5 . q :�...,.^.,�'�'ov� .r<.,. ° ,. p000v°,,Y..®dq(ggO '��t'g4D.+., '':�*`Y (-u• � c D �` �. .. ac. � \ a y���s<b..-('og000.�8�ap? L�.'�°�, v iv,. Q i.,•' ;t .:�.,� K, ooaw t+U.js)� '�oo c.�:.,•rr((uc°.'k:Q ;� 0 7,,! ,a ,��r •� Qr, ,, b•;ta'�'r�' '•` 'y �o „o U d R�' h.,'�'.; 2 „1.-,. • - oo. gtaO a° 'p..f. r Y✓�f);am n0 d° &' '0 b° •� 1peep a d rJS�a �'•l�ti i, fh+�.•k !✓r-^�",^,,,.. j` , Cyd .. a •. " .,�, ` ,1 t<'�l-y ��'• (..� L pti , 4,. t'( a�*-�_...x-- !�f""�` � ,"`at=.b ,..°• �,a q0} �u,� �:�,..•a`« , 1 0 .•� ,�. X'' � opp vg4�yyyod ,J .,4 rXx j(;.. i. �; (�j: �\,\'V � l�, t' w�� .,,f \t, t{ :M` '`n.yi,., '�=aa cxub •arodAaa:.:.::.n_ok •.ee;c? .,p>ootrcto4 �ppti'd a'e„aj°7 � t t` b - --------- ME „ N,.. . "``u„-r•• � �' � 6'�., . Ste.- �._;�''{ :t�4a>sOAS,�..gear Svdaaoa'•...aaaa vr;,-•�°v - .+va`nc.yq�.� 'poo° .�, P',!�. �, j> '�.,. •Y'• a1.:. ' `� � .J o+ tM4&R ,„� ..."a{�.'rUO ..g,,.af p..��°j'�...�ao .•o.,°a•V�.ag.; rroot, +je�[r .�", ,.X't .f.Z._ \, r '�"� .. ( ,, �"`+ .c'i "Ptl a° L�,c bt, .�S° S,a ;¢�c:p p u.w ::1tM l`�•':m',t t57•��pp��`r ,,p, ',1.r' `tlfi` -£.. .'"S. „th z.y��!};,,,° ^. >:o�o ,�+o�: 'o ..R �-'.,�';• {c. ' �5d�:. �-+•�.;ST `t :r.� .d 4).tO 't�''fi�: t>r e rrifi'. S ;•.� �c� ,ti,_ .��`u a--a&roo. +L n w e e -a'�`, r .;r ,.,1A1 S tv ,y ''\: W.`" 44t.t'�' .�^ ^p'�rF'N�"" ". y°a a� •,) `° ,��. 0 pa.•P ���,i� � ° ♦i.. ,¢ � �` � Ta ':��' gip)' Vt`mp,,a l5 'R s� ,�.,stnf c ,i�y�'7•�" � �,• t_S,• &ct ttD. +r- alr � � � o �` a a �'t•!e_S o - `Y e ♦.; ty ^ r p1 a ., i r l o t' ♦e, '' rr �r'4 w" �.. oa. o\ 4 .°d ;. '�,!' Fj•t°- .�' b: �, 4 Q.. 4a r� ,Ji tJ' , 1 'M �, ''`o�`toib ' ,y\ G"1�r"�• e.,. �f! a .1 .•+ �*" r�. `' '8"� Lr°° a z'hks 2^" z q .,G•. 4 �.• - - - 6J rJ '.. � t t •.� )/ ���4a�., t l:. .,,�� o Pa } °o. c. °� rt „�.. 4,,,v I cop l G `I 1. q ��v a,�� P' g• ly ,,� MLx t� (t /} "'k a t,� Y«f i tr 1\ f 0' p' c «o� QvB� �� � r� f• �� r..• 'Y °a J�y,`. q ��-. ±�� ® `Y t�o�crt�c .,lh„l,fr j) q .N� t 0�.�7t U 4) ;O Y� ,mqy�i+•. ms:t��.Y' df ala' o � 1 u O ad ,� \;•'1 F� o tl V y�:++ 7 � o°° opy,µo mon° ` r t7 tJ t 4 �i• .s� ; z �y 'S 1t. •p� i a tS tt .,aa�ae a '`''co '� x, di ia �'��•t.rt ,7 f) @v4 �v„ } "-•.-�. ,1 a as�` r o•ia c`.>at .1"h - Il +? S �d •••���rrr �a G e t �\I m �°�)° n o r�y � ••!`�� `\�1 r\ it O 1 v ..t aQ �• °p���t4� }"'+ ° alaa� - "�'"s,r`rD � 4� t U" �'\tv µt` -`"{��,�y a �` ��' '• � tt ;t'1' yG"`'n..'�,j t i,,y��v 115�N �q o {'• v :A ��v{ @ tt �zWITIFU , • o • I • I • I ° / / t ��,: "�J /_'.� �"�.---- j 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Upland areas within the creek reve etation zone will be planted with native oak species. It is P g P P anticipated that additional environmental mitigation work will be performed in the Hidden Valley area of Windemere. Private Recreation Facilities. The multi-family portions of the project and the higher density neighborhoods of single-family will include private recreational facilities such as tot lots,swimming pools, picnic facilities or tennis courts. Linear Parks The multi-family villages located west of Bollinger Canyon Road will be linked by a linear park system. Typical features of the linear parks will be pedestrian paths with enhanced paving, tot lots, seat walls and shade structures with seating. Neighborhood Parks. There are three neighborhood parks equally distributed in the Windemere I project. The three parks(total 16.9 acres) include both active and passive recreational amenities. Tennis courts, soccer fields and softball fields are mixed with play equipment areas and shaded seating and picnic areas. All the parks will have restroom facilities and off-street parking. Additionally, the multi-family villages west of Bollinger Canyon Road will be linked by some 4.5 acres of linear parks. School/Park The 12-acre elementary school/park is planned for joint public educational and public recreational use. The final design of the facilities will be performed in consultation with the school district and the State Architectural Board. The recreational elements are anticipated to be of a more active nature such as playing field and hard surface sport courts. Trail System. There are approximately 2.4 miles of improved trail system within the creek corridor park. There are also internal trails and sidewalks intended to be utilized by both pedestrians and bicyclists to provide a link to the neighborhood parks, pocket parks, creek trails, regional trail system and the various neighborhood villages of Windemere. The creek trail system is proposed on one side of the creek channel and be designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Amenities to be included on the trail system include par courses, seating areas and drinking fountains. Streetscape. The project includes landscape treatments on Bollinger Canyon Road, Windemere parkway, the major collectors, streets in the landscape corridors and in the light rail right-of-way. Village Center. The Windemere portion of the Village Center is envisioned to include the various uses called for in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, including a potential South County Campus of the Contra Costa Community College District. The south county campus would, at buildout, enroll 8,400 students and require 200,000 gross sq.ft. of floor area. This space would include a 50,000 sq.ft. library, childcare teaching facilities and police sub-station. It is also anticipated that 3-21 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION retail activities in the Windemere portion of the Village Center such as bookstores and food P g ( service) will be leased by Windemere Ranch Partners to private business concerns not affiliated with the college. Commercial Site. A small neighborhood-scale commercial center is proposed for the northwest corner of Bollinger Canyon Road/Windemere Parkway intersection. Typical uses on the 1.5-acre site (30,000 sq.ft. net maximum) are likely to include a convenience market/deli,real estate sales, office, personal care providers, dry cleaners, etc. The commercial site is oriented to be both accessible to the bus turnouts on Bollinger Canyon Road as well as pedestrian access to, and from the adjacent neighborhood villages. Schools. A 12-acre elementary school is within the project boundary. Final design of the school and joint use public park will be prepared in consultation with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District and the State Architect. Childcare. No facilities are shown within the Windemere I project. Provisions for childcare/ childcare provider education may be incorporated into the Community College campus at the Village Center. Fire Station Site. The Specific Plan calls for up to two fire station sites in Dougherty Valley. The M� Final Development plans for the Windemere I project do not identify a fire station site. Residential. The Windemere I project includes 2,249 dwelling units. A variety of multi-family and single-family product types have been included to accommodate a variety of lifestyles and income levels. The total net average density of all the product types is 14.5 du/ac. As Table 3-2 indicates, the Windemere I project includes 984 units in the multi-family, high density(MH)neighborhoods; 541 units are in the multi-family, low density (ML) neighborhoods; and 724 units in the single- family, medium density (SM) neighborhoods. Open Space. At buildout of all phases of Windemere lands, and with the addition of 42 acres of land to its open space, Windemere will exceed the 55 percent open space goal established in Policy OSC-2 of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. However, the only open space that is included in the Windemere I project are parks and creek corridors. Grading. The development will require site grading of an estimated 8.5 million cubic feet of cut and 8.5 million cubic yards of fill. Grading will include landslide stabilization and creation of building pads. Grading within the Alamo Creek corridors will be limited to road crossings and cuts necessary to facilitate a realignment of East Branch and construction of the outfall points of small diameter storm drainage pipes. ' 3-22 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 3-2 LAND USE SUMMARY Windemere I Project Cross Gross Nev. Number of Net Villa e g Minimum Area to Net Area ' Dwelling Denstt* Number Proposed Use Lot Size (Acres) Factor (Acres) Units (DUs/Ac) AREA A(MH) 1 Multi-Family NA 5.9 0.75 4.4 106 24.1 2 Multi-Family NA 11.3 0.75 8.5 318 37.4 3 Multi-Family NA 5.5 0.75 4.1 88 21.5 4 Multi-Family NA 4.4 0.75 3.3 64 19.4 5 Multi-Family NA 7.7 0.75 5.8 120 20.7 6 Multi-Family NA 4.2 0.75 3.2 80 25.0 7 Multi-Family NA 10.5 0.75 7.9 272 23.4 8 Multi-Family NA 6.6 0.75 5.0 117 11.9 9 Multi-Family NA 6.2 0.75 4.7 120 25.5 SUBTOTAL AREA A 62.3 46.9 1,285 27.4 AREA B (ML) 10 Single-Family 60'x 90' 25.5 0.75 19.1 130 6.8 it Single-Family 55'x 100' 17.6 0.75 13.2 92 7.0 12 Single-Family 50'x 70' 12.6 0.75 9.5 85 8.9 13 Single-Family 50'x 70' 13.8 0.75 10.4 91 8.8 14 Multi-Family NA 9.2 0.75 6.9 120 17.4 SUBTOTAL AREA B 78.7 59.1 518 8.8 AREA C(ML) 15 Single-Family 50'x 70' 15.0 0.75 11.3 108 9.6 16 Single-Family 60'x 100' 15.4 0.75 11.6 76 6.6 17 Single-Family 60'x 90' 14.3 0.75 10.7 67 6.3 18 Single-Family 50'x 70' 10.7 0.75 8.0 75 9.4 19 Multi-Family NA 10.0 0.75 7.5 120 16.0 SUBTOTAL AREA C 65.4 49.1 446 9.1 SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL 206.4 155.1 14.5 Mixed Use 21.2 Commercial 1.4 School/Park 12.0 Neighborhood Park 16.9 Linear Park 4.4 Creek Corridor Park 47.4 Landscape Corridor 4.4 Light Rail 8.9 SUBTOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 116.6 MAJOR STREETS(COLLECTOR&ARTERIAL) 64.6 PROJECT TOTAL (WINDEMERE PHASE I) 387.6 2,249 Windemere: Multi-Family 1,525; Single-Family 724. Source: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson. 3-23 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Master Plan—Village Center and Community Park Windemere's Final Development Plan incorporating a portion of the Village Center triggered the requirement for a Master Village Neighborhood Plan and concept plan for the entire 72-acre Community Park. The applicants have prepared a Master Plan for the Village Center and Community Park which is presented in Figure 3-9. Specific components of the proposed Village Center include a joint use commercial/community college site centered on a "Main Street" design. More traditional commercial and high density residential is adjacent on the Shapell portion of the Village Center. The Community Park includes numerous active uses such as ballfields, tennis courts and basketball courts which are spread out throughout the park, each.with localized parking. Tot lots, walking trails, a turfed amphitheater, restrooms, shaded picnic areas adjacent to active uses, youth play structures, an ornamental pond, creekside bike and pedestrian trails. The specific design details of the Village Center and Community Parkwill be reviewed during the project approval process. Project Infrastructure The proposed project will require an extension of the existing infrastructure system. Extension of , existing sanitary sewer,water, gas, electric, phone and cable TV systems will follow the expansion of the public and private roadway system.New flood control facilities and reclaimed water facilities will also be required. Social and service infrastructure such as fire and police protection, schools, childcare and commercial support for the residents is also proposed. The following agencies have been identified as providers of public services and utilities to the project. • Sanitary Sewer. The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) is the preferred service provider. • Flood Control. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. • Road Maintenance and Storm Drains. Contra Costa County Public Works Department for public roads and drainage structures in road rights-of-way. If the projects are annexed into the City of San Ramon, the City would take over maintenance responsibility. • Potable Water. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the preferred water provider. However, EBMUD could provide water service subject to terms and limitations after January 1, 2002. 3-24 aQ ee ,e ,dap QO,ad n QID ��.ejQ�ekrax•a Q. d .. � - .p� a'•.�`.•.��'n:'.•a�•i� a � O C''a .. O C '1.� i�A a :'a�.Yr eq*,;,�,u,,o '.••a�" n£seg" tee• o a / •n +? ��•�i�••u!.n `�" C �'�C* ;ted da'n es `f° O' de •`o�t•.A "� 1�^'� d oto E.,. � Oe �••f ti � , rvd' d9q �9p'.0 r t w '^ r• Aq —.A �� G}�S�/. ;�qd oro� a •`� •r s d r.•;�4�.•,t • ��. � • est sa .r � �Y o•dirt /•r ar� O i„ •� a\i^,,r�,�zs ' ♦,t! a� � ri ` ,,,,,,�„er �r �t • t Q r 41•Yw� a C. '`riisi♦ x7' o : :a}E i`:: ty�,, fa �: ♦ • t`v-tom ste +'° •. r SS'' •. '`i��•a aA�•♦ t•. `a••'�,`yds• +y 'e .O 1�1 •I�• 8.4 J ar�. :oo°Os'`t'�' � � �a ..n i � ...7�' •� °T.9 =•�»r f'< ..`6 da �� °•o`o�oe.o i'e0.;�� • • 1t2i�' !� rt r} "�oa w to ' �``p d� b OCD 4�s v' . �8:". �•w+,....++...+wwr tl a ,r o g •o�a ze. • r t • ..-. O ° a• - Qi. °a eL 91.•O'���. • '�s' g• • D a e >�ju oozy ao°.oCN A aOla°si tya if v•gill- 6a i 9 �;b�20��uyt e ° • e+32e� poo 0�4 p •t � t,µ�♦ ,,./��jri+ • O�,i�..' uo, 6°e0 yao a� a• Q �dii Q .Z'' • 5�:.'! .- a +s ` no air• 0 Paa d: it••..r #ate, \ . Q '" '*> o id �� do b �, � oa�aoa,. � O ��• � `+ �� ba e �` � >°pao� o° °° sod u�`" � •�' .�Ma 3Ra!a °� "• � ya a • � OO qe Ob aa6 Of ai '� I+ ♦ d''4.,.� O - • A o7 ..m�°Y'oa �••ba v. g tioi•��'•�+'� of �: "�G `�a/:,.�� `{ `• ° v � .`a 'tQ ;s a+•f aw i°'r •••//r Vep�c°a oboe � d. � + ri Y e rd' o r a.w�•• a r•�t'o s oC0 LAa •how:,b� ig;.i 'a.� k�G * H �r _� G 10 a � �r..•i a'h 4�0�'d � 9°ra\a♦.ar�^P t ~S nj+� C � '� i pg'a' ,! (� aC:9 C a Oe�t r �••• '•i ' S.� x� Li (a� ? i _ +a°P 0 • .r °rye•O°j�Ae •1� �♦ `tom :x 9 6•, 7'a ,y p a z SoJ �°,k3 8 a�aa •.C/ � ! ,.x � C•� r ; %P c d `� `° odpa4p alg o°°•a,°,a�Q.rrg+a � y`C.tp'ta ° �`xa +u o » a a ' e°i ;' °ep6 G e 3� dgo0 0 rx!!Q A•� "'iar.+ S Q v 7 � ° r '� a' •• p, �z D obq °b��°iia^ •i fir✓ �:�r t. �i� x,••_. • �� }G ° 'n O°b+=$af`- o8q t t�"t ! !,rl e %' x °C�dit�� ,syc �i is • `MOM. o boon •v� f t. t O a 1• O to MO . ;iv�AO •ia• r/ t•2+y�i p 4 u1t^amuQ� +�+•r h � : a ♦x dog �°08�°••0! :oogo,> •.a k. +"..•w" o c'x�l � ti or a� e e ooe"e'c� .t•�,• a o" a B�, ��. k �e �.a `e o. a s d A f$•�A ,�omen •• a a� ro .'' �' t e a o Q '`� dop Orb?a A o'�tr •!*CE 7.T`�'a,��� �ayf�xP� O+ a +Q •^2 b'° ttef,a ar�eN .e�•R }5n•,. .�rJr, �-I'Or a a � .,7r�,� GeQtiQ�4o atS ate+e. p '!0.,� ,: +��w`'ir..t N a �• Q .Q " .a j;,_,;•. °O .0 1•Y ae •DSP ru5•�%"t��gx r' S.� Q O \4.xbn`V i. :Qpe`Sa d6! w• R.°Pk+ t+.v �r b Q•_ A o• Gx �•�°a� ��.yaata Q�o'a'` M4S-.,."e- ?' Q • g eo � i�np•a` a f � ✓ T� • �s�y � A 7'9.d ae aJ///•�y,�y e.°am-•,A•i°v`s'e� eee�0� '� o ...�Q••�•"1^i�{1 a�O°ti y oaa�0 ° r C` � t ••fl��,Y"•y� 64 b Q G o t, Baa • SOt:� o �. • a1• • «Z` -a 4Q e�����,,�`F' �•�y.Zt°bio\ i o�•i� �`•"`t��'��r,���� a• '�a.,•� T •r r O 9QC� �♦} C••• o���a1t "p `rQ. 09 • < ' rT �II w`'� .eaSTpe p\S:•^ u" ot�o- ,'it:w ti• a • is• ti's aar� �� Oar � • °a� .rs.Y Ysaza.a.•eY. ..eY.Yey.r �K,y�, 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Reclaimed Water. The DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA). • Gas and Electricity. Pacific Gas and Electric. • Telephone. Pacific Bell. • Cable Television. Viacom, Ponderosa and other provider. • Fire Protection. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District or Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. • Police Protection. Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department. If the project annexes into the City of San Ramon, the City Police Department would have responsibility of police protection. • Park Maintenance. County Serving Area M-29. The County of San Ramon would assume maintenance responsibilities if the property was incorporated into the City. • Maintenance of Open Space. County Service Area M-29 and Geologic Hazard Abatement District. If the project annexes into the City of Ramon the City would have maintenance responsibilities. • Schools. San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Other Project Entitlements Geologic Hazard Abatement District. The County may establish a special district to fund any needed remedial grading work necessary to address any slope instability in previously graded areas on the Windemere property. Shapell Industries has requested annexation of Phase I into the existing West Branch GRAD. Subsequent phases of Gale Ranch are also proposed to be annexed D into the West Branch GRA . Windemere Partners have not made a proposal to ensure long-term maintenance of the hillside areas in its project. Options include annexation into the West Branch GHAD or establishing a Windemere GHAD. Construction of Infrastructure Improvements The County and local service and utility agencies shall ensure construction of pipelines and other facilities necessary to serve the project area. Some of the needed infrastructure must be constructed outside the planning area (e.g., pipelines, pump stations). Annexation. The Dougherty Valley planning area is within the sphere of influence of the City of San Ramon. The project may be annexed into the City in the future. 3-26 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Aizencies Having, Permit Granting Authorit Y Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO). The Contra Costa County LAFCO is the agency responsible for modifying sewer, water, municipal and other urban service districts' spheres of influence. Granting of modifications to the SOIs by LAFCO is needed prior to annexation of Dougherty Valley lands into urban service districts. Appropriate urban service districts are those that would provide services and facilities to the area, as called for in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. The Alameda County LAFCO may have jurisdiction over DSRSD annexation or may need to grant jurisdiction to Contra Costa County LAFCO. California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). DFG approves Streambed Alteration Agreement 1601 for construction or restoration activities within planning area creekbeds. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB issues a NPDES permit for ' stormwater discharge. The RWQCB also determines water quality certification in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps issues a Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for fill or discharge into jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the United States. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD . EBRPD may agree tooperate and maintain major open space areas for regional park purposes. Other approvals may be required by federal, state or local agencies, or special districts needed to implement the project. This EIR is expected to serve as the environmental document for all of the above entitlements, and any other necessary approvals. 1 3-27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ... ........ ..... ............ 4.1; LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY SETTING 1992 EIR The 1992 EIR provides an overview of the regional land use setting of the Dougherty Valley Planning Area. It describes the historic land uses on the property,identifies the PG&E easements along with the existing EBMUD water tank, and identifies the off-site impact area for the Windemere Parkway extension to Camino Tassajara. (These features are shown on Figure 4.1 of the 1992 EIR.) The previous EIR then discusses Williamson Act Preserves, and Figure 4.2 shows lands under contract to the east and northeast of Dougherty Valley. It also discusses the General Plan Land Use Map for the area surrounding Dougherty Valley, as well as showing the location of the planning area with respect to the "urban limit line" (ULL). The 1992 EIR discusses zoning designations in the project area, as well as characterizing the land use goals and planning policies ' of San Ramon, Danville, Dublin and Alameda County. The 1992 EIR summarizes relevant planning policies and regulatory factors of Contra Costa County (pages 4-17 through 4-30). Items discussed are listed below: • Contra Costa County General Plan: 1990-2005 • Measure C (1988) • Funding Issues (assurance of funding for infrastructure) • Capacity Issues (assurance of adequate capacity of public facilities) • Applicable General Plan goals and policies • Measure C (1990) • Local Agency Formation Commission • Special District Spheres of Influence • San Ramon Sphere of Influence Expansion and Potential Annexation 4.1-1 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Dougherty Valley Update g Y Dougherty Valley has been utilized for grazing cattle and dry land farming for approximately 100 years. A request for non-renewal of Williamson Act (agricultural preserve)contracts was filed for the Shapell property in 1981 and for the Windemere property in 1982. Shapell's Williamson Act contract expired November 1991. Windemere's Williamson Act contract expired April 1992. The 1991 Contra Costa County General Plan update changed the designation of the Shapell and Windemere properties from"Agricultural Preserve"to"Agricultural Lands"and placed them within the ULL. Camp Parks was designated "Public and Semi-Public" and placed outside the ULL. Approval of the 1992 Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment resulted in designation of Windemere and Shapell properties for development of up to 11,000 dwelling units; 680,000 gross square feet of commercial/office development; and schools, community facilities and a golf course. Over one half of the 5,800-acre area was to be retained as permanent open space. The population at buildout of the community was estimated to be 29,810 persons. An amenity within the planning area was a 150-acre community college,which was proposed on lands owned by the U.S. Government; the Camp Parks Property. Approval of the Specific Plan and associated GPA resulted in the County's General Plan Land Use Map being redrawn, to reflect the land uses shown on the approved plans. Agreement to Settle Litigation between Danville, San Ramon and Contra Costa Coun In May 1994, an agreement was reached among Contra Costa County, the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon and the Dougherty Valley Developers—Shapell Industries and Windemere Ranch Partners ("Danville Settlement Agreement"). The purpose of the agreement was to establish the principles for the development of the Dougherty Valley, including standards for the provision of services, infrastructure and facilities. The agreement established a cooperative process by which development will be reviewed, approved, and carried out. The agreement addresses annexation, operation and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure, and delivery of public services, in accordance with certain standards that have been agreed to by San Ramon and Danville. The County, San Ramon and the developers have discussed terms which may, subject to adequate funding arrangements, result in annexation of Dougherty Valley into the City of San Ramon. The agreement allows construction of 8,500 dwelling units, provided that the developers fund the roadway improvements that are specified in the agreement. In effect the agreement indicates that with these certain roadway improvements the traffic level-of-service (LOS) standards of San Ramon and Danville will not be compromised. Permits beyond 8,500 units will not be issued without further traffic analysis to ensure that actual traffic LOS agreed to in, the settlement will not be exceeded. This agreement establishes a methodology for monitoring traffic, and remediating exceedences of traffic service impacts during the buildout of the project. 4.1-2 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Gale Ranch I Project In 1994, Shapell gained approval for a 1,216 dwelling unit project along with an 18 hole championship calibre golf course and associated private open space on 618 acres in the northwest corner of Dougherty Valley. This project is named Country Club at Gale Ranch (Gale Ranch I project). It is the only portion of Dougherty Valley within a water district at the present time. Country Club is currently under construction,with the first units expected to be completed in 1997. Windemere and the remaining Shapell property is still grazed by cattle. Camp Parks is expected ' to remain an Army Reserve training ground for the forseeable future. Surrounding Lands rCountry Club at Gale Ranch is bordered to the west-and north by residential development within the City of San Ramon. The remaining Shapell property is bordered to the west by the hills that define the east boundary of the San Ramon Valley. Just west of Dougherty Valley is residential development within San Ramon. Camp Parks is bordered by residential development within San Ramon to the west. The rural residential neighborhood along Lawrence Road and the West Branch development bound Dougherty Valley on the north. The Lawrence Road neighborhood is in the Town of Danville; West Branch is in the City of San Ramon. To the east and northeast of Dougherty Valley are agricultural lands in the unincorporated area. These lands are the subject of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA) Project,which is being processed by the County. iPending Projects Since the 1992 EIR was prepared, development has proceeded at a relatively slow pace. Nevertheless there have been some significant events which are described below. Tassajara Project The location of this project area is shown in Figure 4.1-1. It includes lands east and northeast of the Windemere Partners Ranch. The applicants for this project have requested approval of a general plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary development plan and related entitlements. The Tassajara project area encompassed 4,491 acres, and project plans call for 5,950 dwelling units; 300,000 gross square feet of commercial/office space and 2,646 acres for parks and open space. The development is requested to be constructed in a series of phases over an anticipated 20-year buildout period. Contra Costa County has determined that the project requires preparation of an EIR, and a Master EIR is being prepared for this project. It is expected to be released during the fall, 1996. 4.1-3 ,ea[a rT;� •• � ��.....(a•all«.tt j ,tx.,o <x.t.w.«. �t. .°cf`�� \ '° ..:; t� l 31 32 /• p- " It L\\\4 l L\ 44♦\LL ��\ 44\ \v\\\ � ,} f a.K / '� � •. �\\ 4\\44♦ 1-41 \\4 \ 1111 i•.K as I• + • - { �' . {( ISM ISLE vt ♦♦ +.\\♦4\ /.. . IW SE cu.si ,I.t• 3 J ttwua ♦.nVrt m 3 .4.w.e' 1 \�`. }, \ 141E\4 41 Lk\\\ 4.\4\\\ ••o�va A \4Kr{14L1 \4L'F\\\\\\ '( y,o • n•wrrtl L 44 244\\L\\ Ci♦4 4 ♦ 44\ ♦^L \4\ 1111♦ / <j• � •e,fll/l u c{' 4R \♦ O S'•\44\V\ 4 � 4R°R�taE\ k1 \\ Y.S_1\h� 4♦444 \ 4 1444Cs\\\4 \4 4 44V1�4 - m«aflp•a ,1 � �I.'•D. I y xfh.n,,� .. �'w� n`st•c`� R\\ �....t 44\\\\ 4 \1\144\ \\ \\ \ \♦\♦44 y y,.\ 4144\\\ 44\\\441444414\ \♦ L♦44\4 o.f�c a.sx•c ` ( .� i I kl 4144\\\ \\4L\44\44441\\4 4444 144E\k Mai c I 4\\ 444\\44 141\444444\\\4♦4 4441 \V\\44 2 ♦•at T'- Itx •c g :M \\V 44\44\V14\\\4 4\44\\4Iy\4\4\\\\ 4\\\ 4 / S V2 \\\41\\44\L lfti an\44ti L't4\\4\\\4 4 \4 \\\\\\\444S�f1 444\1+44\44\11a\\\ 444♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ;,'_,,,L•. 1 11 ��,,,�/ 4 �.i�" \ �� mag L\4���.k1.�,t`�\\4Y.�' 144\14L444V4\\\\ �n,w 4♦♦ ••' . j 1. �.. � ! � k�l"��44\44\4 +f4\V\•�\L444\44\4!y 14 4\L /•J, c �{' _ .•� ll �� 444♦L4L \1\44\L4 \\\4♦4\4\4\444\ 4 L 4\4 a3 •�.. f• 44411 \444\\ \444\4444\\\\444 4 \\\ \,7�• ,a .fV 4444\ \ L\1\4\44 44L441\4444\44V4 � \44 /•L 1. f•c 4 1\\\44�LLyy4\\444\ L \\4 .w` i - AM y1W' SS\4444['♦4RFSl - ` 1•y o � 1 � \444\4444444\\\4 4 3. 14\44 i •a'"\ � � ` q f /t 1a 4\V\\444b 4444\\\\ \ 1WF\ ' � \\\44444b 4441444 \� va Yc�l .J •tu ":"� f , - Lvv444L4 4414 44\44 w••J i /y'% !+ 33�� •: � '' t j � � S \v4444V\♦ 3 4A4L \ \V\ ♦. *A �/ �. i )� . � 444444,4\44 \, i f � I,�, Yr.•- \444111\\4 \\\L\\ 11 1� r ) � 4\444\4♦\444444\ \L\ a} ♦ \ 1 / 4414\\y'S�\L\4\444\ t 11.444\♦ � ii- � � � r F 41\\\I�CYC1\\\4444'+ 4444♦\ /�'' �-•'�_ 1' �.• I � �': �: 4444\44�\V41`t�`�444 \k4 4\4\1 �:• \\44411L\\ \41 1\\\4 v�. �,v. LL\\♦4444 4♦44�}14 k3] \1\\4 •,� 4 � �i � •t ^•.,. L\V4\4414\\ 444\'i\\ 44V1 \11444 \\41\\yl\4 44L\\ 44,44)\4\444 -.10% \1\44♦44 \ 4Va4L\\\\44 4•S4\4\\♦ 4♦44V4 \\41♦L\4444 i •, ° ? '•O'u /^ j �,./'': '�'� 41\V4.14 \ 41\414yy 4 ' f ` 444\hMM\1\4,x. 4♦ 4445 i � }�•�; ,h �' .. 4\ Lkt Atter\� \\4� Ao `:,� /"' f N' •� � A � © l ♦4\44 4 V V\444 144. f ♦441\\444\ 4444 444111.01.4\5 Spic * R 'A 1 N \ J/J//( `�' - f 111NADb F3 f ♦o ac 4 14\ 4 V\4\ \4 \4�4}T+.44\LS ' � ` J TTf x K 7h4\14 ♦444ti�tii 444 ��t %Z 151 ..�\ }-"�' JYK,' /ji � 444♦ 414441k444\ 4\\�41b4�'iC, i /. 444444\14444 M•a ' 7K.r of f f 4\4\L\14\444444 k\44 44k ••i. �' r 1 44\1411\\4\L\\ 414\ 444 - �•'L 1� „• ( ^/. b J41\Skk11414\ ♦\4\♦441\5 '4\•�!(Itg4k 44 4 4444\ 4\44�• •v 4L 7 �w • �� F E 1 ♦fF May: "C6 � + f Y ', j { t• 4141\\\\LL 4 \4L1414\1��-� X r+ ( \\441\\\4 4444\\\\ Ixata. VfaLJ 4 f !' i X1,444\44\ 44 44441\444\44���, /tet �,• n � �j 'Nv< "�" �'� „••,�.� f 4\x.1\4444 VL L\\ \\R'4TaTSf r______ 'baa.aVfa •c.1''� � e �. x a � \ \♦411\ 44\ •4844\\\1 \\4\ 41 \444 441 \4 44\\\4 i' \444\4 14\Y\\VOLL,,\♦44 \ < /� ` i c ov� �. { / } \4141\\\\\ L41\ RZ44L♦1.44444 �y♦a•c cT' / , 1 -� { \\LL\\\444 44♦4 144\\\44V1\44 •x�KJ \4\4\444\V ♦44 k4\\\4\44t\441'Snt L�1\\%= •I - ••a i �• V V. \\L♦\44\4\4 4 1♦444\\\1•w41xkN= y, i` P 3 4\\L\1/11.41`\4 4\".�4\\4'•CCl44 V11 sa.M• � i.. Y•«. 4\1\\\\\\44SL\ \\+1�♦141\1141` ' • Z r \411\VfWi^4k�.44 1\Va444\\4\1V'4.� �=� "• V\4\1y\14\4 4\4\44414y,L� ` � ♦ � 4��o•J` 9 � j.� 44414`11444 41414\1.\ftiM":,/I t 1 1 tC .y�i✓ i y''`��:r±'`�\ 1'1 y� gas•. _� _� 7:" ugherlalley is Plan PaNce v► :. -�:a /'" �; as t C&A' !4',P 'P A R K S ..� air z 10 K&B Project (Tassajara Meadows) ' 02 Shapell Industries (Wendt Ranch) ® Shapell Industries (Tassajara Project) ® Country Club @ Gale Ranch Figure: 4.1-1 O ' DOm ILa� Graphic Pending Projects Scale: Subsequent EIR 0 500' 2000' 5000' 4.1-4 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Camino Tassajara/Lawrence Road Area Kaufman and Broad has proposed construction of a 230-unit residential project on 44 acres in the southeast corner of the Lawrence Road/ Camino Tassajara intersection (see Figure 4.1-1). This project is named Tassajara Meadows (Subdivision 958000). Approximately 1,500 feet east of Tassajara Meadows is another proposed residential project called Wendt Ranch The applicant of that parcel is Shapell Industries. It is a proposed 296-unit residential project on 165 acres (RZ963037). EIR's are being prepared on each of these projects, with an anticipated release date of August, 1996. Contra Costa County General Plan The Contra Costa County General Plan: 1995-2010 is the County's chief planning document. Adopted in July 23, 1996, the Plan sets out goals and policies for development throughout the County. The land use policies described in the General Plan are implemented by means of the County's Zoning Code,which further defines permitted land uses and development requirements. The General Plan Land Use map is a part of the General Plan Land Use Element and shows the land use designations for all areas of the County. Figure 4.1-2 shows the General Plan designations for the Dougherty Valley planning area and vicinity. Within Dougherty Valley the land uses shown are those which were approved in 1992 when the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and GPA were approved. ' As Figure 4.1-2 shows, the General Plan designations for areas adjacent to the northeast and east are designated Agricultural Land (AL). Developed land bordering the planning area on the north ' carry designations for SL, SM, PS and OS. These designations, along with the prevailing land use designation for the Dougherty Valley, are summarized below. SL Single-Family Residential-Low Density; allows a range of one to 2.9 single-family units per net acre. Sites can be as large as one acre. Unique environmental characteristics of a parcel may justify larger lot sizes. SM Single-Family Residential-Medium Density; allows between three and 4.9 single- family units per net acre. Lots can range up to one-third acre. SH Single-Family Residential - High Density; allows between five to 7.2 single-family units per net acre. Typically lots are 7,000 sq.ft. or larger. ML Multiple-Family Residential-Low Density; allows seven to 11.9 units per net acre 1 MM Multiple-Family Residential-Medium Density; allows 12 to 20.9 units per acre ' 4.1-5 ---- ------ os.� PSL SL DS SL 21 19! 20 JI Or—.6t PR L: SL S V S ---------------- ---------- .. L SL.,, ©s. -Os SL! SL 26 -5L ism11 PR I.M si1 Ds " ' ' r OS -SL W s .......... Os SL r V. Sq 3tSL 3.3 -j SL SM C ,. . I AL Os SM Its L IS— R SM L M. IPR sy A L it PF PSMM Ile MM Os , I Os 11 IV Um d" psi Co -TV Vw asp M . '� .,c _:MIL, INH f ..�,. "''�514! z �. f ' t A Oi 7 T' 'V, 7 ------ Is 7)s1 .............. 'OS PR A PR Os CO M L QS tO W. - 1� A L SL 'y SL 05. S Ok w R -Iter ee Chapter 4.1 for % explanation of symbols. v a yq 'Os A F Figure:4.1-2 Land Use Map/Adopted Graphic Scale: Subsequent EIR County General Plan Source:Contra Costa County 0 1000' 5000, 4.1-6 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY MH Multiple-Family Residential-High Density; allows 21 to 29 units per net acre. P Y g Y MU Mixed Use; this designation is restricted to the Village Center. The Specific Plan and Community Design Handbook(1992)provide a discussion of the uses, densities and design parameters. This designation is being modified to allow community college use for Dougherty Valley. ' C Commercial; the Specific Plan includes two commercial sites, to be developed for convenience retail. They are intended for convenience stores, pet shops, pharmacies, automotive support uses and similar scale uses; 10,000 gross square ' feet of retail space per acre is suggested by the Specific Plan. PS Public and Semi-Public; includes properties owned by governmental agencies such as libraries, fire stations, schools, etc. PR Parks and Recreation;includes all publicly owned city, district, County and regional park facilities, as well as all golf courses. OS Open Space; includes publicly owned open space lands which are not designated as Public, Watershed or Parks and Recreation. Lands designated Open Space include, without limitation, wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological resources or geologic hazards. The Open Space designation also includes privately owned properties for which future development rights have been deeded to a public or private agency. ' AL Agricultural Lands; includes most of the privately owned rural lands in the County. Most of these lands are in hilly areas and are used for livestock grazing or dry grain farming. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of, and generally used for, the production of food, fiber and plant materials. The maximum allowable residential density is 0.2 units per net ' acre. Zoning The County Zoning Ordinance prescribes standards for development, including allowable uses, setbacks,building heights, and parking requirements. Figure 4.1-3 is a zoning map of the planning area and vicinity. It indicates that Dougherty Valley is designated P-1 (Planned Unit District). Adjacent lands to the east are predominantly zoned for agriculture, with designations of A-2,A-3, A-20, A-40 and A-80. These designations are summarized below. 4.1-7 .� _ Cain tl� � ^7 N�j i �+r+Fl r,w I:i i t 4 a`I(-F � n�I tl" I I! }9 �i l d7 •• .. -# "w�nawy nuei l� II + bt I l 111 iL} eO J� i ��hi tIIr4 �� � i ��. bS#P / a A��I�1 �l! 1 i 1111�}i 1t1���N�.N as Iti til �Spi rfddx�ll7} f��l �i"'-Ilw+�l fstt .e.�:"• a a '471 a ,K,bp Iit 114�1.fd�1 orf l y.0 4r{ l.VI ( ,�� ,} Srr 7�ti1"$7 v,(}r t+�nBMF I`Y,i k II'�tlpp •t .�t�1 X41 ia1}}4 , ..� I[e.WitM° t� ���i 01,11411,11 4!'N, b �.3 ��� Y- G Glx 7 d I as acre K'17��r�liN� ' _. . r m -_ �.. • - �"n�a�'. �xrax •A- � 1�i�1i111��f li����i jC��C�I rn rt�! I�h��i� ����I�I i t � •:!' � .. t��tA",�i st cr»»r aen ar +'.,, I,��il�� �:J �� i. •: Yf N w III Iy �(�57 Z.au-• a..r.x�-'.!^r-.—�i.\ ,,,.^� •... � -Ti, w'"` �� � •o h 1 r i I lye �� �1. m.ef to � "�»+�""` € te ;OK '^z •f• r+u,1 i�za u ryt 1 tf nd It pal �I 14 at e ti x E�t r I a f, .rwm � xy � ., � } nwlw I lytdr $14 1 N1aT �ICp atict I�1h�` , r 41 �e r✓s :r. 1�f a r44 I J1� lil1J� ail !1� r I� 1FI r � I it ir'rlf t� k'ilgfy4i "i hl rlX y �yb;,?n{1 1.��� 411 I}� rq'Su yN4 �o f I 1,. a jaYl 11 t) 1 �1 4+-NVII X11 r, 1 t I� I I l lhij yi u tr t t�� I ��\ .} °)i .�t>il I`4 xP• ! }Pljr I kfi�� Ill i1��4s' dyk tlr°Y: I ��, if 411ut 4F c1, 1 � 1i¢� r11tI - ,.: ,Fn. 7 f 1 �a I,ya U I t"� 11'c 4v l lh d l# s,� 1 n li,4"th•t 1 `"t`yn,I1 ,�h u`'#i * w f4 L I,}L f 4 1� r it �4 fit! i t tl''lil� 1' 37ry �S 1 f r� t ki 4 q I rj I p .ar.wM !'V� y.J.rai...P.. f I �24T�W`d i }) rl��d;� I✓ t i� fi • �,.� �1t� r a r � 1>tF, + c 'ICk+ e r'I1 �1���: / •+a` a�P. 41}E�f bI}y per,y Tt��.Yilyifi Ea4"tai}"rit.1I'td'�Ii�.r 4�ilrIigtiiit�i tl r/}J�1! I14�' s�"�iU �r Xrr71r1-I�PI�a fIfll xta"ln� + ItxJ(ln{"U1:}ir7 l" 'o � 41 ""�� ` Y r"�I h i 1 .✓) � t RI II�� iif k� VI f lli �� 111�ssr �j irl} t llylull 1.111, I Ar11M1 y ��., r •` P i ly k ��r i N pi i 11. 3 yl t 1 4!�4�t ,� .r >r I i` � a �tYF � � ill �-�.wa.t / ..M i ��fS�t�ll i�l}��.1 � 1+111 a }}Ili li �l L 11�+ 41 15114 �'rli 11 11 11 111 tl dtl�`ttlt �1 }yil'p`'� ♦xt.W I ^�'t ••'" "! °A{d 111�y1 X 1i �{1t y1{' illi lb,!rl �l'S ,4t 1! 14rylllp.—1 yl y1a�Il I ��}�i(I.' �` 'Y - r6w r tt f~ 1 `� 15 I N}v t d{��F�.R:Ir ���`-UeiV jxl4rih� F�,1 �• 1 `....Sy,� � " li I ! rt 11 tI I VI7 1 i}ili,"�i 1a 11� t � yi �� � t"r lq1�1 I}� •�,. ..1`,•'*^. � { �+ t I rrJi f t i l �rt1,,1111.�uc Ietfil Nil I , B '%6 ZI i a� t i�^� i I� �t� I u41 �A M.}•}o0 It 1111 I 41i lhlti vo ablla w s 11f 1. mr. r i'�'I i}I tlt�k4' FI4K�ly�>4�a ytV�ll I5 __C"�,.;ya +1 - ..�v{.. I {i Itr_ ��tx.n ac I •a� IS) ��•. '•uSg as ,j-`:'' I v4 �7 li�/ °pt�irl int xi1 X11 �M rn�a}h ,�+,e.IMI ' 1114 I ati 4u ifs. ��.., pir f11 X41'war,.i,{I 1 �7j II ! i f r f1 r �}:Kill"� P(11 � rl�ifit h L'r'I r1 1 t 1 1 iJl 4 I III 1,11 Illi �. � I .•'^� y �s P t l �1 t t l ��` ,I k!I t t�.w 1(� Ill �t } 74 4 }1+ r 4 f i t _ .,. .--iL. +�4'+'•+n �in 1 I I �J t �r I"(i 1, yh lVl h 1 t r I � i t t ti. ,� +.. � ! III.. 4o it r ------- --"-- �'' ♦a �,!�! /^ I 1 I�u t ��J rll 1} i19�f �I II �1 ii��1 t11 kA •�` . 6 �'IfA' .�"�,.!`1 +P• ✓ 11) 1A gl t�rl�ii"F� tt� �I Y4 li�}t 4d��f7rJF fi hA117�tj14r yx I� r 4 4{1 �'t" i f• •. �1 ,. I r 1r��!; � �rn 3� i f +�� � 1 laa.n w� a,aa '�,.a.s �l�Ih1�1414�13 +xl� nir. � 11•, .'�: I t IQ4i .1IOCamp ;i �,�;,., ,�;•�= Warks ad •.fir'- �'Y: ! *�^ f �� 9 1 \�` .S�•t '�'.•. i'4"t Ci t J C`A' !S P A X P $ n ' A20 DenLLsrcty Figure:4.1-3 Zoom Ma Graphic Zoning p Scale: a Subsequent EIR 0 500' 2000` 5000' 4.1-8 i 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY ' P-1 Planned Unit District; intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open spaces, while ensuring substantial compliance with the General Plan, Specific Plan and intent of County Code provisions necessary to protect the public health and general welfare. ' (Within Dougherty Valley the provision of the Specific Plan and the Community Design Handbook (1992) would guide the design of individual projects and structures.) A-2 General Agriculture; five-acre minimum parcel size. A-3 Heavy Agriculture; 10-acre minimum parcel size. A-20 Exclusive Agriculture; 20-acre minimum parcel size. A-40 Exclusive Agriculture; 40-acre,minimum parcel size. A-80 Exclusive Agriculture; 80-acre minimum parcel size. Comparison of Adopted and Proposed Land Use Plans General The adopted Specific Plan land use program called for a transfer of land titles between Windemere i and Camp Parks (U.S. Army). Under this land transfer, Windemere would have had a net gain of 95 acres of land. This transfer did not occur, and is no longer necessary. As a result, total gross acres for the Windemere Ranch in Table 4.1-2 is 95 acres less than that shown in Table 4.1-1. These 95 acres were added to the open space in the Camp Parks column of Table 4.2-2. The developers have reduced their planned development envelopes as follows: ' Windemere. Comparison of Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 indicate that the footprint of the developed area in the proposed Specific Plan is less than that provided by the adopted Specific Plan. Key changes 1 are as follows: • residential development areas reduced by 40 gross acres. • commercial/mixed use development areas reduced by five gross acres. • public/semi-public areas reduced by 10 gross acres. • unimproved open space reduced by 38 gross acres.' 1 Ninety-five acres of Windemere open space shown in Table 4.1-1 was reassigned by the revised Specific Plan to open space in Camp Parks. Considering only lands controlled by Windemere,the proposed Specific Plan provides more open space than the adopted plan. 4.1-9 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Table 4.1-1 , ADOPTED DOUGHERTY VALLEY LAND USE PROGRAM (Assumes Maximum 11,000 Dwelling Units) , Gross Acres (DU/Gross Acres)By Owner Land IlseWindemere Shapell; Camp Parks Totat Acres:; , SM 718 555 1,273 (2,794) (2,548) (5,342) ML 592 592 ' (3,082) (3,082) MH 303 303 (2,176) (2,176) MU (Village Center) 10 10 20 (200) (200) (400) 1,031 AC 1,157 AC 2,188 AC Residential 5,170 DU 5,830 DU 11,000 DU C 7 7 14 MU (Village Center) 15 19 34 Non-Residential 22 26 48 ' Schools 85 35 120 Religions Institutions 10 3 13 Community College 150 150 Public/Semi-Public 95 38 150 283 Creek Corridors 70 147 217 Staging Area 6 3 .9 Community Park 15 57 72 Golf 200 200 Unimproved Open Space 1,104 1 997 1 705 1 2,860 Open Space/Parks & Recreation 1,195 1,404 705 3,304 Major Roads 73 83 156 Total Gross Acres 2,415 2,708 855 5,979 Note: 1. Open Space/Parks and Recreation total does not include School/Playing Fields,Neighborhood Parks, ' Pocket Parks and Tot Lot acreage or other improved open space within residential areas. 2. This table does reflect land transfer acreage. Source: PBR, February 1993. 4.1--10 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY ' Table 4.1-2 PROPOSED DOUGHERTY VALLEY LAND USE PROGRAM (Assumes Maximum 11,000 Dwelling Units) Gross Acres (1)U/Gross Acres) By Owner Land Use Windemere Shapell Camp Parks Totat Acres SM 690 458 1,148 (2,520) (2,131) (4,651) SH 175 175 (151) (151) ML 221 470 691 (1,365) (3,348) (4,713) MH 80 80 (1,285) (1,258) MU (Village Center) 10 10 (200) (200) 991 AC 1,113 AC 2,104 AC Residential 5,170 DU 5,830 DU 11,000 DU C 2 11 13 MU (Village Center) 15 19 34 Non-Residential 17 30 47 Schools 85 35 120 Religions Institutions 3 3 Public/Semi-Public 85 38 123 Creek Corridors 70 147 217 Staging Area 3 3 6 ' Community Park 15 57 72 Golf 200 200 Unimproved Open Space 1 1,066 1 1,037 1 950 3,053 ' Open Space/Parks & Recreation 1,154 1,444 950 3,548 Major Roads 73 83 156 Total Gross Acres 2,320 2,708 950 5,978 ' Note: 1. Open Space/Parks and Recreation total does not include School/Playing Fields,Neighborhood Parks, Pocket Parks and Tot Lot acreage or other improved open space within residential areas. 2. The Community College is included in the Windemere Mixed Use (MU) Village Center. ' Source: PBR,May 31, 1996. 4.1-11 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY • Sites for religious facilities (churches, temples) were eliminated. • Staging areas for trails reduced from six to three acres. , ShapelL Comparison of Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2' for. Shapell's Gale Ranch project may be summarized as follows: , • Residential development areas reduced by 44 gross acre. • Commercial/mixed use development increasedby four gross acres. ' • Public/semi-public areas were not changed. • Unimproved open space was increased by 30 acres for the pending application and an additional 10 acres for the Gale Ranch as a whole. Residential ' Windemere. With regard to residential land use categories in the Windemere project the major change is a substantial reduction in the MH category. The amended Specific Plan substitutes an ' ML designation for most land in the multiple-family residential category. The specific changes are as follows: • The amended Specific Plan calls for a reduction of 28 acres of SM acreage. • The amended Specific Plan calls for 301 acres in the multiple-family residential categories. However, 221 acres are designated ML and only 80 acres are designated MH. The adopted Specific Plan provides 303 acres of MH and none of the Windemere Ranch was designated ML. , • In the amended Specific Plan, no residential use is provided for the Windemere portion of the Village Center. The adopted Specific Plan allowed 10 acres of mixed use residential (200 DU's) in the Village Center. ' • The amended plan yields 5,170 DU's (2,650 multiple-family units and 2,520.single-family units). ' ShapelL With regard to residential uses on the Gale Ranch, the amended Specific Plan increased the number of acres planned for single-family residential uses and decreased the acreage devoted ' to multiple-family uses. The specific changes are as follows: • The amended Specific Plan calls for 453 acres of SM and 175 acres of SH(total 628 acres). ' The adopted Specific Plan provides 555 acres of SM. • The amended Specific Plan provides 470 acres of ML. The adopted Specific Plan provides 592 acres of ML. 1 4.1-12 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY • The amended plan yields 5,830 DU's (3,348 multiple-family units and 2,131 single-family units and 200 Village Center units). Offen Space/ Parks and Recreation ' Tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 identify lands proposed for open space/parks and recreation in the adopted Specific Plan and amended Specific Plan, respectively. These tables indicate that the total amount ' of open space increased from 59 percent in the adopted Specific Plan to 60 percent in the amended Specific Plan. Specific comments of individual properties are as follows: I Windemere. The total acres in Table 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 do not agree because the land exchange with the Army did not occur. Changes in open space categories include reducing staging areas from six to three acres in the amended Specific Plan (currently only one staging area is proposed). Neighborhood parks have been increased by five acres in the amended Specific Plan, but pocket parks have been reduced by five acres. Improved internal slope areas have been reduced by six acres. The total combined acreage of lands designated OS and PR total 1,367 gross acres (59 ' percent of the Windemere property). Shapell. The amended Specific Plan shows an increase of four acres of pocket parks, 30 acres of ' unimproved open space, and 10 acres of improved internal open space. The total combined acreage of lands designated OS and PR is 1,656 acres (61 percent of the Shapell property). Community Facilities Tables 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 compare the community facilities provided by the adopted Specific Plan and ' the amended Specific Plan, respectively. These facilities are discussed individually below. Schools No changes are proposed in the acreage or number of elementary, intermediate or high ' school facilities. However, the proposed location of some school sites have been refined. The locations shown remain consistent with setting criteria in the Specific Plan. The Community College District and Windemere Ranch Partners have reached a conceptual agreement to locate the community college in an urban setting, within the Village Center. Parks This portion of Tables 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 show no changes in planned park facilities. Public and Semi-Public. Tables 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 indicate sites for religious facilities (churches, temples) require three to six acres each. Table 4.1-5 indicates that the available land for such facilities amounts to 12 to 16 acres. In the amended project, no sites for religious facilities are specifically designated on the Windemere property and one site totaling three acres has been designated for a religious facility on the Shapell property. ' 4.1-13 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Table 4.1-3 ' ADOPTED DOUGHERTY VALLEY OPEN SPACE/PARKS & RECREATION (Excluding Camp Parks) Cross Acres perlUndowner. Land Use Windemere Shapell Total Acres , Golf - 200 200 Creek Corridors 70 147 217 Staging Area 6 3 9 ' Community Park 15 57 72 Neighborhood Parks 20 20 40 Neighborhood Parks at School Sites E 2 @ 5 AC E 2 @ 5 AC 55 M1@5AC M1@5AC H1@25 AC Total 40 AC Total 15 AC Pocket Parks 11 8 19 Tot Lots 3 3 6 Unimproved Open Space (does not include 1,104 997 2,101 slopes internal to residential areas) Improved Internal Slope Areas (6% of total 145± 162± 307 gross acres) , Total Acres of OS/PR 1,414 1,612 3,026 Total Acres per Land Use Plan 2,416 2,708 5,124 Percent Open Space 59% 60% 59% ' Note: These numbers are based on Table 4.1-1. Source: PBR,February 1993. , Civic Facilities The proposed facilities include a library, community center, senior center, fire station(s) and police substation. It is the intent of Windemere, Shapell and the Community College District that the library and police substation be operated as dual use facilities serving the , needs of both Dougherty Valley residents and the Contra Costa Community College District. A fire station site has been identified on the Windemere Ranch, and a second site, if needed, is available on Gale Ranch. The settlement agreements require that the project provide a senior center and a community center,.but the design details (e.g., architecture, colors,textures)have not been prescribed by the settlement agreements. ' • The proposed Specific Plan reduces the footprint of the development and provides more permanent open space. 4.1-14 ' 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Table 4.1-4 PROPOSED DOUGHERTY VALLEY OPEN SPACE/PARKS & RECREATION (Excluding Camp Parks) Gross Acres per„Landowner Land UseWindemerei ShapeIt Total Acres .' i _ . Golf -- 200 200 Creek Corridors 70 147 217 Staging Area 3 3 9 Community Park 15 57 72 Neighborhood Parks 25 32 45 ' Neighborhood Parks at School Sites E 2 @ 5 AC E 2 @ 5 AC 55 M1@5AC M1@5AC H1@25 AC Total 40 AC Total 15 AC Pocket Parks 6 12 18 Tot Lots 3 3 6 Unimproved Open Space (does not include 1,066 1,015 2,093 slopes internal to residential areas) Improved Internal Slope Areas (6% of total 139± 172± 311 gross acres) Total Acres of OS/PR 1,367 1,668 3,035 Total Acres per Land Use Plan 2,320 2,708 5,028 %Open Space 59% 62% 60% Note: These numbers are based on Table 4.1-2. Source: PBR,May 1996. • No exceptions from growth management standards are proposed. The settlement agreements and agreements with the school district specify the timing of construction for certain civic structures, schools and road improvements. • The development potential of Dougherty Valley was not increased. The proposed Specific Plan has adjusted/refined the location of certain land uses. However, the treatment of the creek channels has not changed; the ridge crest areas on the rim of the valley continue to be protected; and Hidden Valley (located in the northeast corner of Dougherty Valley) continues to be retained as a major open space area. • All of Camp Parks is designated Open Space. ' 4.1-15 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Traffic and Circulation ' The amended Specific Plan includes changes in the location of major roads; some changes in the typical sections for roads; and relocation of some trails in response to changes in the alignment ' of arterial streets. Figure 4.1-4 shows the proposed Specific Plan land use map on a base that is a screened version of the adopted Specific Plan. Note the changes in the alignment of the East ' Branch Road and Windemere Parkway. Additionally, the alignment of Bollinger Canyon Road has been modified on the Windemere Ranch. Typical sections for roads are presented in Appendix C. The proposed modifications to typical ' sections for minor streets are presented in Appendix C, Sections H through M. Miscellaneous Changes , Figure 4.1-4 indicates locations where the boundary between open space and the urbanized area have been modified. For example, northeast of the high school site the area proposed for development has been constricted, resulting in a substantial increase in open space (approximately 60 acres). In other areas the footprint of development has been expanded (i.e., east of the elementary school site in Windemere I there is an area designated SM where the development area has been expanded by approximately 50 acres). Overall, there has been a one percent increase in open space uses on the Gale Ranch and Windemere properties, and all of 950 acres ' of Camp Parks in Contra Costa County has been designated open space on the revised land use map. LAFCO California law has mandated the establishment of Local Agency Formation Commissions(LAFCO) to administer the incorporation and annexation of cities and special service districts in California. The Contra Costa County LAFCO board represents local county and city governments and are charged with establishing spheres of influence(SOI) that represent ultimate and logical boundaries for city and service area annexations. In addition, applications to extend city boundaries or services are reviewed by the LAFCO in which the city or service district is located. Before approving boundary changes, the LAFCOs are required to make findings regarding orderly ' development and the efficient provision of services, logical boundaries and preservation of prime agricultural land from premature development. A plan for the provision of services must be ' approved for each application that addresses service standards and how these services would be financed. Services that may be required to annex the Dougherty Valle Specific Plan area to their service ' Y q Y Y P districts include water,wastewater, lighting, landscaping and open space'maintenance, and police services. See Section 4.2, Public Utilities and 4.3, Public Services, for further discussion of , annexation issues. 4.1=16 ' = •,. �..;,4.,, ^/ k ,,.....:_..,....,^d„5uvs-----x-"^`-,."aa,. i .. .�„euh s ,........_.,..,�., E Am peq -. _ _ LL:: rrtisiwfw. n. y + X41, C VK r'b ML , MLS .ply •'��llt, s`'< � '; �,F ML wx : `r Os w - ' PA Os Ifst" = 4 PAP' ., ar - c Co$tj C Correaa Co' 't3 See Chapter 4.1 for explanation of symbols. ' Figure:4.1-4 Superposition of Graphic Revised Land Use Scale: VERRaw Subsequent EIR 0 1500' 3000' 4.1-17 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Table 4.1-5 ADOPTED DOUGHERTY VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES Gross Acres ' Communit Facilrt y y..:,: Quantity per FacilityTotal Gross Acres;:: Schools' 240 ' Elementary 4 5 20 Middle 2 10 20 High 1: 50 50 Community College 1 150 150 Parks 405-481 , Pocket parks 12 1-4 12-48 Neighborhood Parks 8 5-10 40-80 Neighborhood Parks at.School Sites E 4 5 20 ' M 2 5 10 H 1 25 25 Community parks 1 72 72 ' Creek Corridors -- 217 217 Staging Areas 2 3-6 9 Public/Semi-Public 216 Religions Facilities 4 3-6 12-16 Golf Course 1 200 200 Civic Facilities 3-6 Library 1 <1 <1 , Community Center 1 <1 <1 Senior Center 1 <1 <1 Fire Stations 2 1 2 , Police Substations 1 <1 <1 e. Schools does not include Neighborhood Parks acreage at school sites,see "Parks" table. b If a middle school is not needed on the Shapell property, that area shall be utilized as project open space. Source: PBR,January 1993. ' 4.1-18 ' 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Table 4.1-6 PROPOSED DOUGHERTY VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES ' Gross Acres Community Facil'►ty Quantity per Facility Total Gross Acres Schools' 80 Elementary 4 5 20 Middle 2 10 20 High 1 25 25 ' Parks 402-481 Pocket parks 12 1-4 12-48 Neighborhood Parks 8 5-10 40-80 Neighborhood Parks at School Sites E 4 5 20 M 2 5 10 H 1 25 25 Community Parks 1 72 72 Creek Corridors -- 217 217 ' Staging Areas 2 3-6 6-9 Public/Semi-Public 206 ' Religions Facilities 1 3-6 3-6 Golf Course 1 200 200 Civic Facilities 3-6 Library 1 <1 <1 ' Community Center 1 <1 <1 Senior Center 1 <1 <1 Fire Station(s)' 1-2 <1 1-2 Police Substations 1 <1 <1 Community Colleges 1 15 15 ' Schools does not include Neighborhood Parks acreage at school sites. ° If a middle school is not needed on the Shapell property,that area shall be utilized as project open space. If the middle school or high school site is not needed on the Windemere site that area shall be utilized as SM residential. ` If these sites are not required for fire stations, the land use destination reverts to the adjoining residential use designation. ' a Community college may be accommodated in the Village Center. Acreage is approximate. Source: PBR,May 1996. ' 4.1-19 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY Community College g The South County Campus has been relocated in the proposed Specific Plan from the Camp Parks property to the Windemere portion of the Village Center. This campus would be designed for a ' maximum 8,400 student capacity and would be designed to fit into the community; utilizing private bookstores and local restaurants to provide many services to its students. As a result of the move, the community college is no longer planned to have its own sports fields, but it will have use of the athletic fields within the adjacent community park. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into by the Contra Costa County , Community College District and Windemere Ranch Partners on February 28, 1996. It stated that the Army had determined that the Camp Parks property would not be available for a college campus, that the Windemere portion of the Village Center was an appropriate place for a community college campus, that the campus would be integrated with the community and a hub of local activity. The MOU shall remain in effect until December 31, 1996 and may be extended until June 30, 1997, at which point either a formal agreement shall be made or a or termination of the MOU shall occur. The MOU listed the entitlements, approvals and land use changes , required to consummate a complete and final agreement for the acquisition of property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' Significance Criteria This section uses the criteria from. CEQA Appendix G (Significant Effects) and Appendix I (Environmental Checklist) as well as standard professional practice to determine the level of significance of an environmental impact. An impact is considered significant if the project would: ' 1. Conflict with adopted Contra Costa County environmental plans and goals, as expressed in the Contra Costa County General Plan land use element; , 2. Result in substantial alteration of existing and planned land uses of the planning area; 3. Conflict with existing and planned uses of the planning area; 4. Result in the substantial conversion of open space or agricultural lands into urban or suburban ' land uses; 5. Conflict with text or map Policies or.designations of any applicable local general plans, , community plans, or zoning or with land use provisions of any applicable regional plans; 6. Contribute substantially to adverse cumulative regional land use impacts; or , 4.1-20 ' 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY 7. Conflict with or exhibit land use incompatibilities with adjacent existing or approved development. ' The 1992 EIR which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ' identified five significant impacts and associated mitigation measures and three less-than-significant impacts (see Appendix B, pages B2 through B5 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigations are summarized in Table 4.1-7. The following discussion is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. ' Open Space Impact 4.1-1 The revisions to the Specific Plan and General Plan have created more ' permanent open space in the Dougherty Valley Planning Area. The 1992 Specific Plan called for a land exchange between Windemere Ranch and the U.S.Army, and it proposed a 150-acre college campus on Camp Parks. Considering all lands in the planning area, the adopted Specific Plan provided 3,730 acres of lands designated open space/parks and recreation. The proposed Specific Plan provides 3,985 acres in these land use categories. This is an increase of 255 acres of open space land uses. Of the 5,978 acres in the planning area, 66.7 percent are designated for open forms of land use. This is considered a beneficial impact. ' Mitigation Measure None required. ' Compatibility with Uses on Camp Parks Impact 4.1-2 The revisions to the Specific Plan and General Plan have the potential to create conflicts between the military use of Camp Parks and adjacent residential uses. This potential impact was identified in the 1992 EIR (see Table 4.1-7, Impact 3). At that time a land transfer between the U.S. Government and Windemere Ranch Partners was contemplated. In that scenario an arterial street would have served to buffer the residential uses on the Windemere Ranch from Camp Parks. That land exchange is no longer contemplated, and residential neighborhoods will adjoin Camp Parks. Potential land use conflicts include aircraft fly- overs; artillery and shooting range exercises; trespass by planning area residents onto Camp Parks and associated safety considerations. This is considered a significant impact. ' 4.1-21 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY ' Table 4.1-7 , SUMMARY OF LAND USE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR ' Land Use The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Conversion of substantial portions of county's stock of convertible land to urban use. Mitigation Measures: ' * Developer will construct one or more maintenance facilities to store equipment to maintain the open space. , * Developer will create a large, contiguous, wildlife preserve along the east side of the planning area. 2. Impact: Conversion of approximately 6,000 acres of non-prime agricultural land to urban and open spaces uses. Mitigation Measure: * . No mitigation is available. ' 3. Impact: Potential internal land use incompatibility of residential land uses with Camp Parks. Mitigation Measures: * Project proponents will install security fencing and 'No Trespassing" signs along the northern perimeter of Camp Parks. ' * Locate noise sensitive uses on the Project site so that noise levels from Camp Parks do not exceed County standards. Alternatively,the Project proponents may enter into an agreement with the Army to have noise generating activities at Camp Parks relocated. ' * The Project proponents shall provide a detailed acoustical analysis describing how the interior noise level standard will be achieved for each.residential area. 4. Impact: Potential incompatibility-with adjacent land uses. Mitigation Measure: * Plan neighborhoods and use setbacks,buffering,landscaping, fencing,grading,natural topographic features, , building orientation,urban design solutions,and other approaches to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts. 4.1-22 ' 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY ' Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measures are required to reduce the risk of land use conflicts to a less-than- significant level. 4.1-2(a) The project proponents should install security fencing around the northern perimeter of the Camp Parks portion of the planning area. 4.1-2(b) Prior to approval of units adjacent to Camp Parks, require assessment of noise impacts from military activities to ensure that adopted County noise standards are not exceeded, and require that the interior and exterior noise levels within residential neighborhoods comply with the standards 4.1-2(c) Require that a statement be recorded at the County Recorders Office for residential parcels created within 300 feet of Camp Parks. The statement shall be a notification that there is an established military base within 300 feet of the property and that potential property ' buyers should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase. Impact 4.1-3 Maps in the Specific Plan and Specific Plan Policy CF-7 conflict with the results of a fire response study. The adopted and amended Specific Plans both state that "A one-acre site is reserved within the village center for the development of a fire station.... Another one-acre site from which SRVFPD can effectively serve the community will be identified" (Policy CF-7). The locations of the two fire station sites proposed on the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects are shown in Figure 4.3-6. This map is presented in the DK Associates report and shows the sites proposed by Shapell Industries and Windemere Ranch Partners. The Proposed Windemere fire station site is shown to be in the northwest corner of the Bollinger Canyon Road/ Windemere Parkway intersection. However, the Final Development Plans for the Windemere I ' project do not expressly identify the fire station site. The land use map contained in the proposed Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment designates the northwest corner of the Bollinger Canyon/Windemere Parkway intersection Commercial (C;see Figure 4.1-4). The Gale Ranch II fire station site shown in Figure 4.3-6 is designated Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) by the amended Specific Plan. 4.1-23 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY ' In 1996 DK Associates was retained to perform a Fire Response Study of the DoughertyValley.' ' The purpose of the study was to estimate the response time to each street in Dougherty Valley from potential fire station sites. In performing the study, DK Associates utilized criteria and ' standards developed by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. The primary conclusion of this study was that a single fire station was capable of providing an urban level of service to all neighborhoods in Dougherty Valley.' The DK Associates report is discussed on EIR page 4.3-16, and the location of the fire station site recommended in the report issued by DK Associates is presented on page,4.3-20. The District has reviewed the report and agreed that one properly ' located station is capable of providing an urban level of service to all neighborhoods in Dougherty Valley. This is considered to be a significant impact. Miti ation Measure The following mitigation measures are required to reduce fire protection impacts to a less-than- significant level. , 4.1-3(a) The proposed Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment must be revised to , accommodate the fire station site(s) under consideration on the Windemere I project. Specifically, the text discussion of a Village Center fire station must be amended, and the land use map must designate the site(s) selected as P/SP. Alternatively, a fire station site , should be relocated to the Village Center. 4.1-3(b). The treatment of fire stations in the policies and tables in the Specific Plan would be ' modified as needed to be internally consistent. In determining the size of fire station site(s), there should be consultation with the District. Impact 4.1-4 A function of the Village Center is to create a gathering lace for residents. p g g gp The Specific Plan and Community Design Handbook provide the context for ' creating an inviting Village Center. For the Village Center to be functionally successful, it must be.true to the vision of the Specific Plan. The Master Plan for the Village Center and Community Park (Figure 3-9) is an attempt to provide ' a context for processing permits for the Windemere I.portion of the Village Center. The key elements of the Specific Plan, as they pertain to the design of the Village Center include: a) ' ignore property lines and create a unified Village Center design, b) provide a main street, c) provide focal points within the Village Center, d) provide public gathering places, e) provide views z DK Associates,Fire Response Study, Dougherty Valley, May 21, 1996. , s The standard for an urban level of service is a response time from emergency calls of five minutes or less. 4.1-24 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY of the Community Park and distant hills, and 0 provide a functional design for the community park. This is considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure ' The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. 4.1-4(a) The Master Plan for the Village Center and Community Park shall be revised to more closely respond to the design issues identified by the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and Community Design Handbooks. No building permits shall be issued in the Village Center until the Master Plan is approved by the Zoning Administration. ' 4.1-4(b) The Master Plan for the Village Center should include strong architectural controls to ensure land use compatibility. It should include an architectural "vocabulary" that would define the design elements, textures and colors to be utilized. Not every structure in the Village Center will have all or most of these elements, but they will serve as a unifying context. Impact 4.1.5 When the 1992 General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted a ' minor modification to the ULL was included. This resulted in approximately 61 acres of Camp Parks being placed inside the ULL. The change in the ULL was made in anticipation of a land transfer between Windemere Ranch Partners and the U.S. Army. (The portion of Camp Parks that was placed inside the ULL is shown in the Alternatives Chapter, see Figure 5-4.) At that time it was planned to utilize ' Windemere Parkway as the boundary between the military property and the planned unit development on the Windemere property. Because the property boundary is irregular, the precise alignment of the road could only generally follow the surveyed boundary line. The land exchanges were envisioned as a method of allowing military control of land south of Windemere Parkway, and having lands north of the roadway included in the Windemere development. Because the land exchange did not occur and is no longer being pursued, there is no justification for placing any of the military reservation inside the ULL. This is considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 The ULL should be moved back to its original boundary along the Windemere Ranch/Camp Parks common property line. This mitigation measure will reduce the ULL impact to a less-than-significant level. 4.1-25 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY 4.1.26 �1 .:42:::::PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER Introduction The Specific Plan Amendment designates the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) as the preferred provider of potable water. This is a change from the 1992 Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, which identifies the EBMUD as the preferred provider of potable water and DSRSD as an alternative provider. LAFCO actions amending the DSRSD sphere of influence (SOI) and approving annexation of the Dougherty Valley to DSRSD will be necessary for DSRSD to provide water service to Dougherty Valley. 1992 ETR The discussion of water supply in the 1992 EIR begins on page 5-4 of that document. It identifies the EBMUD as the preferred provider of potable water and DSRSD as an alternate provider. The EIR analysis of water service was based on a study prepared by Brown and Caldwell (B&C),' which estimated demand for water service, identified pressure zones for the alternative service providers,calculated the required reservoir storage and presented a preliminary water distribution system. (The B&C report is presented in the Technical Appendices to the 1992 EIR.) Figure 5-3 in the 1992 EIR shows the location of Dougherty Valley with respect to the EBMUD and DSRSD district boundaries. This map indicates that,the site of the Country Club at Gale Ranch is within the EBMUD district, but the remainder of Dougherty Valley is outside both the SOI and district boundary of both EBMUD and DSRSD. Thus extension of water service would require approval of both LAFCO, and the water district Board of Directors. The 1992 EIR also discusses EBMUD's water rights to the Mokelumne River system and the American River system. It also discussed EBMUD's existing water distribution system. 1 Dougherty Valley Water, Wastewater and Recycled Water Facilities Plan, May 1992. 4.2-1 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES The discussion of DSRSD's water rights and delivery system points out that DSRSD purchases .. treated water from Zone 7, and that Zone 7 will have a maximum water entitlement of 46,000 acre feet (ac-ft) in 1997. Therefore, DSRSD and/or Zone 7 would need to purchase additional water entitlements to serve the Dougherty Valley. At the time that the 1992 EIR was prepared, EBMUD stated opposition to annexing any areas { to its Ultimate Service Boundary. The EBMUD comment letter and the EIR response are presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Letter #18. t DSRSD's comment letter on the 1992 DEIR indicated the District was exploring'the possible extension of services to Dougherty Valley, and pointed out that Camp Parks was in the district (i.e., the southern portion of the Dougherty Valley planning area was already in the district). The action plan outlined by the DSRSD for delivery of potable water had three components. • Acquisition of water rights that can be transferred to Zone 7 and/or DSRSD. • Infrastructure planning that would provide future use of recycled water. • Completion of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation. Law Suit and Settlement Agreement Following certification of the 1992 EIR_and approval of the Dougherty Valley General Plan and Specific Plan, EBMUD filed a lawsuit. Ultimately, EBMUD, Contra Costa County and the developers of Dougherty Valley entered into a settlement agreement. The key points in the settlement agreement may be summarized as follows: • Early Consultation Between EBMUD and County. The County and EBMUD shall hold regular meetings to consult on issues of mutual concern relating to land use planning and water supply management planning. Exhibit A to the Agreement sets forth a process for the County's prompt notification and consultation with EBMUD concerning development applications when EBMUD may be considered as a provider of water service. • Confirmation of Service to Country Club at Gale Ranch. EBMUD confirms its intention to serve that portion of the Dougherty Valley already located within its service district boundaries, i.e., the Country Club at Gale Ranch development.EBMUD will not oppose the annexation into its service area boundary of the adjacent elementary school site, provided that, after consultation among the parties, it is determined that EBMUD would be the most logical provider for that site. • Designation of DSRSD as Preferred Water Provider/EBMUD as backup. The parties agree that DSRSD will be the preferred water provider, utilizing water transferred from the Berrenda Mesa Water District.Developers agree to use best efforts to accomplish this,and agree to consult with EBMUD throughout the process of those negotiations so that 4.2-2 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES EBMUD can protect its own rights in the event they may be adversely affected. EBMUD will not file a legal challenge to that water arrangement to the extent it is carried out in rJ substantial conformance with the program for the proposed water transfer as described in ■ specified documents. • In the event the DSRSDBerrenda Mesa water cannot be secured, the developers agree to use best efforts to locate alternative water suppliers, again in consultation with EBMUD. • The Specific Plan is to be amended to reflect the designation of DSRSD as the preferred water provider. • Approval of tentative maps shall be conditioned on verification of an adequate water supply for the subdivision, the condition to be satisfied prior to recordation of the final map. If EBMUD is to be the supplier, it shall not be required to verify prior to annexation of the area into its service boundary. • Failing the developers' efforts to locate an alternative water supplier, EBMUD agrees to serve the project beginning in 2002, subject to specified terms and conditions, including an agreed-upon schedule for the submission and processing of any requests for preliminary work, project development, annexation etc. • Unless EBMUD has developed a sufficient water supply to meet demand in the EBMUD service area and the Dougherty Valley, any water service to the project shall be subject to an offset fee to fund the cost of conservation programs or other methods necessary to offset additional water demand created by new hookups in the development.The number of new hookups per year would not exceed 600,with a maximum carryover of 150 from any preceding year. No new hookups would be issued during any period in which the District has declared a drought emergency. • Projects Must Be Designed to Accommodate Reclaimed Water. All projects in the Dougherty Valley must be designed and built to accept and utilize reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in public and semi-public areas. The parties will consult in order that reclaimed water programs contemplated for the Dougherty Valley may be coordinated and compatible with EBMUD's reclamation programs. • Future Approvals. EBMUD retains the right to oppose and file a legal challenge against any subsequent approvals for the Project with respect to the subject of water availability or quality to the extent such approvals are not based upon or in substantial conformance with the 1992 approvals, as modified to reflect the Country Club at Gale Ranch approvals and the Settlement Agreements. r 4.2-3 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES Dublin San Ramon Services District Background The DSRSD is identified as the preferred provider of potable water in theendin amendment P g to the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. Figure 4.2-1 shows the existing District boundary. It also shows the boundary of lands within EBMUD. This is a change from the 1992 Specific Plan which i identified DSRSD as an alternate water supplier..Table 4.2-1 summarizes the tasks that have been completed since the 1992 EIR was certified. They are evidence of DSRSD's past and continuing planning efforts toward extending water service to Dougherty Valley. In addition to the 1992 �. Brown and Caldwell (B&C) study, which modeled and described possible service by DSRSD, a Plan of Services Investigation has been performed by John Carollo Engineers(September 1995) for the Windemere portion of Dougherty Valley. The analysis performed by B&C analyzed the transmission, treatment and distribution facilities needed to serve the Dougherty Valley. Capacity would have to be added in the Zone 7 system to treat the water for the project (i.e., buildout of Dougherty Valley). Following treatment, it would be conveyed to Dougherty Valley through DSRSD facilities. The JCE study prepared for the Windemere portion of the property,and providing additional detail and corroborates the B&C model. A similar design level study will be commissioned to fully integrate Windemere and Gale Ranch service plan. The report issued by JCE includes a plan that shows major on-site infrastructure for potable water, including the location of pump stations, water reservoirs and mains. The location of planned reservoirs appears identical to the location shown in the B&C report. Similarly, both B&C and JCE named pressure zones (PZs) in conformance with existing DSRSD pressure zones. PZ 2 provides water service in the elevation range of 390 to 520 feet with the overflow elevation of the \ storage facilities at 620 feet. PZ 3 provides water service in the elevation range of 520 to 740 feet with the overflow elevation of the storage facilities at 840 feet. Potable water storage within the distribution system provides a reserve for equalization of peak demands (i.e., to provide the difference between the rate of supply and peak demand),'a reserve for fire flow, and a reserve for emergency conditions other than fire flow. The storage required for each pressure zone modeled for Windemere is based on DSRSD's design criteria. Two reservoir sites were modeled--one for Pressure Zone 3 and one for Pressure Zone 2. DSRSD supplies water to approximately 6,115 residential, commercial, industrial, governmental and landscape irrigation customers in the City of Dublin. Approximately 22,600 persons reside within the DSRSD water service area. DSRSD's current water service area includes the City of Dublin and approved development in Eastern Dublin. The current service boundaries are shown in Figure 4.2-1. In addition to water service, DSRSD provides wastewater treatment for the City of Dublin, a portion of the City of San Ramon and, by contract, to the City of Pleasanton. 4.2-4 INI -,v ? ny �z ,-Y V_ • MO Qt= UA V, e V;I iL X% Dougherty Valley Boundary Water District Boundaries JiW, Figure: 4.2-1 � Water District Boundaries Graphic Scale: Subsequent EIR 1 0 500' 1000' 3000' A wool 4.2-5 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES , Table 4.2-1 TASKS COMPLETED RELATED TO PROVISION OF WATER SERVICE TO DOUGHERTY VALLEY 1. Water Resources Acquisition Study (October 1993): Concluded that a south-of--the-Delta State Water Project supply was the best option to pursue. 2. Analysis of State Contractors (November 1993): Concluded'that DSRSD should work with Berrenda Mesa �! Water District as the best opportunity for a transfer. 3. Water Supply Agreement (August 1994): Baseline agreement for addressing water sales from Zone 7 to DSRSD. 4. Agreement with BMWD (September 1994): DSRSD/BMWD agreed to base transfer (2500-3500 ac-ft/yr with 5000 ac-ft/yr option), fixing price, subject to completion of certain tasks during Feasibility Period. 5. Reimbursement Agreement with Windemere (September 1994): To participate in transfer and investigation of impacts. ' 6. Impacts study of Additional Water (January 1995): "First Cut" assessment of facility needs for Windemere. 7. KCWA Approval (April 1995): Consented to transfer subject to implementation of Monterey Principles. 8. Proposal to Zone 7 (April 1995): DSRSD offered to assign water entitlement to Zone 7 in exchange for agreement to facilitate transfer-through SWP, and its facilities, and to treat and store the water (the "Twelve Points"). 9. SWRCB Approval (May 1995): State Board concurred Dougherty Valley within "Place of Use" of SWP water right and therefore no approval required. i 10. KCWA Member Unit Right of First Refusal (July 1995): No agency_in Kern County exercised its right. 11. Shapell Reimbursement Agreement (August 1995): To participate in transfer and investigation of impacts. 12. Amendment No. 1 (August 1995): Increases base transfer to 2500-7000 ac-ft/yr. 13. Extension of Feasibility Period (September 1995): Feasibility Period extended until March 1996. 14. Windemere Plan of Services Investigation (October 1995): Shows how DSRSD would provide water (and recycled water) service to Windemere's holdings. 15. EIR on the Transfer of Water from Berrenda Mesa Water District (February 1996)- 16. Fiscal, Institutional and Operational Report (June 1996) prepared by Montgomery Watson to study various options for acquisition, conveyance, storage and distribution of water to be transferred from BMWD. 17. Zone 7 Resolution supporting full integration of Dougherty Valley into Zone 7 water system absent use of main basin. 4.2-6 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES DSRSD currently receives 100 percent of its treated water from Zone 7, which is a State Water Project contractor. Water enters DSRSD's distribution system from the Zone 7 Cross Valley ` Aqueduct through two turnouts. The original turnout, No. 1, is located at the intersection of Dougherty Road and the abandoned Southern Pacific right-of-way. Turnout No. 2 was added in a 1985 at the same time the jointly-owned Zone 7/DSRSD Dougherty Reservoir was constructed. Turnout No. 2 is located at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. DSRSD Distribution S stem The existing DSRSD water distribution system consists of threeP ressure zones, which are identified in Table 4.2-2. The entire distribution system contains approximately 61 miles of pipelines. As previously described, water delivered from Zone 7 can be flouridated and chlorinated at the turnouts before it enters the DSRSD Zone 1 distribution system. Water is then pumped into Zones 2 and 3, the successively higher western portions of the water service area from Zone 1. Zone 1, called the Lower Zone in the 1981 Water Master Plan, is the largest pressure zone in DSRSD's service area and contains about 500 major pipelines (roughly 49 miles). This zone encompasses the entire valley floor in Dublin and is served by two reservoirs, No. 1 and the Dougherty Reservoir. Zone 2 is located in the lower hills of the western portion of the City and contains approximately 75 pipelines(roughly eight miles). Zone 2 is served by the Hansen,Betlen and Shannon Pumping Stations and Reservoir No. 2. The Zone 3 distribution system is located on the mid-slopes of the western hills and will have approximately 50 major pipelines when completed. This zone has approximately four miles of pipelines and is served by Pump Stations 3A, 3B, 3C and the William J. Black Reservoir. DSRSD Storage and Pumping Facilities DSRSD owns three storage reservoirs in the distribution system and jointly owns the Dougherty Reservoir with Zone 7. Reservoir No. 1 and the Dougherty Reservoir serve Zone 1, Reservoir No. 2 serves Zone 2, and William J. Black reservoir serves Zone 3. The Dougherty Reservoir is located in the Dougherty Hills northeast of the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. The reservoir is fed by the Zone 7 Cross Valley Aqueduct and represents the terminus of the aqueduct. Reservoir No. 1 is on the west side of dublin near Vomac Road/Rhoda Avenue intersection. Reservoir No. 2 is in southwest Dublin at the end of Betlen Drive and is served by three booster pump stations—Hansen, Betlen and Shannon. The William J. Black Reservoir, serving Zone 3, is located above Brittany Drive and is currently served by Pump Stations 3A and 3B, which are on Creekside Drive and Bloomington Way, respectively. The extreme south part of Zone 3 is discontinuous with the rest of Zone 3 at this time and it is currently served by pump station 3C. ,� 4.2-7 I 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Table 4.2-2 SUMMARY OF DSRSD PRESSURE ZONE ELEVATIONS Elevations Served (Feet) Minimum Static.Pressure. Pressure Zone Minimum m (psi)':; Maximu Zone 1 330 430 33' Zone 2 390 520 48 Zone 3 520 740 38 ( ' J At top of zone. DSRSD Connections with Other Water Agencies ' DSRSD currently has three pipeline interties, two with EBMUD and one with the City of Pleasanton,for rapid emergency response. Another intertie is planned to be installed with the City of Pleasanton within six months. The interties are strictly for emergency conditions, such as a , major pipeline break, supply contamination,or interruption of deliveries due to earthquake,flood, or other disaster. These connections would allow either agency to obtain water from the agency during an emergency. Zone 7 DSRSD receives treated water from Zone 7, which it in turn provides to its customers. DSRSD's most recent contract with Zone 7 became effective on August 23, 1994 and will be in effect until 2024. Zone 7 is a contractor with the State Water Project (SWP). A discussion of Zone 7's water supply,distribution,treatment,storage and conveyance systems can be found in Fiscal,Institutional and Operational Report (June 1996), which is on file with Zone 7. Other water retailers served by Zone 7 include the Livermore District of the California Water Service Company, the City of Livermore's Water Department, and the City of Pleasanton. Commercial and residential growth in the region since 1963 has required continuous increases in the capacity of Zone 7's treatment,pumping, storage and distribution facilities. Since 1994, Zone " 7 has identified potential expansion projects required to meet future treated water requirements. These projects form the basis of Zone 7 water connection fees. As described in the Fiscal, Institutional and Operational Report,adding Dougherty Valley (exclusive of Country Club at Gale ; Ranch) demand would require incremental increases to some of those projects and acceleration of portions of Zone 7's construction schedule. The projected changes would be: an increase of capacity in the South Bay Aqueduct from 15 cfs to 26 cfs; the addition of seven million gallons per !� day (mgd) to the planned 30 mgd capacity increase as the Patterson Pass Water Treatment Plant; / 4.2-8' 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES �1 the upsizing of the planned Livermore-Dublin pipeline from 48 inches to 54 inches; and the construction of eight rather than seven additional injection/extraction wells with well head demineralization capacity. DSRSD currently is exploring alternatives to increase water supplies, including recycled water supplies and groundwater supplies, in addition to a transfer from the Berrenda Mesa Water District to provide water to serve Dougherty Valley. BMWD Transfer In 1994, the Berrenda Mesa Water District (BMWD) entered into an agreement with DSRSD to transfer a portion of its SWP entitlement to provide a permanent water supply to Dougherty Valley. The agreement provides for the transfer up to 7,000 ac-ft/yr of SWP water.entitlement from BMWD to DSRSD,or to Zone 7 for conveyance to DSRSD,to provide service to Dougherty Valley. The agreement also provides DSRSD with an option to increase the amount of transferred entitlement by an additional 5,000 ac-ft per year. The agreement recognized the need to complete ' several tasks, including preparation of an environmental document, written approval from Kern County Water Agency (KCWA), written approval from land owners to detach their land from BMWD, and offering KCWA member agencies the right-of-first-refusal before transferring a 1' portion of the water entitlement outside of KCWA. The steps completed to date are listed in Table 4.2-1. BMWD prepared an EIR, which analyzed the environmental effects of various alternative means for accomplishing the BMWD transfer. The Final EIR was certified by BMWD on 29 February 1996. According to Mr.Bert Michalczyk,DSRSD Manager,the 7,000 ac-ft entitlement would yield 4,500 ac-ft of treated water for Dougherty Valley (long-term average). This is adequate to serve all of Dougherty Valley (excluding the Country Club at Gale Ranch), provided that reclaimed water is used to irrigate parks,medians and other public areas planned for irrigation in Dougherty Valley. Use of reclaimed water implies efficient use of water, which is one justification for the water transfer. On June 12, 1996, the Zone 7 Board of Directors authorized staff to proceed with negotiations with DSRSD to reach agreements necessary to complete the transfer and provide service to Dougherty Valley, including an amendment to existing contracts between Zone 7 and DSRSD. In providing this authorization, the Zone 7 Board considered a Financial, Institutional and Operational Analysis of Options for Providing Water to Dougherty Valley, which analyzes options for completing the BMWD transfer and providing service to Dougherty Valley. This report is on file with Zone 7. The approval of contracts necessary to complete the transfer and provide service to Dougherty Valley will be subject to environmental review. In December 1994, the State Water Contractors and the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) developed the Monterey Agreement as a statement of principles to form the foundation 4.2-9 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES for agreements and amendments among the contractors and DWR to settle disputes over g P allocation of SWP water and certain operational aspects of the SWP. Transfers of water entitlements are a key component of the Monterey Agreement. The Monterey Agreement forms the basis for amendment of SWP contracts. The major provisions of the Monterey Agreement address: 1) allocation of SWP water, 2) transfer of water entitlements, 3) increased water supply reliability, 4) integration of the SWP terminal reservoirs into local water systems, and 5) stabilization of water rates. These provisions are addressed in 14 principles that were part of the Monterey Agreement. East Bay Municipal Services District Recent Engineering and Environmental Studies The following studies and reports pertaining to EBMUD have,been published since certification of the 1992 EIR. Final Environmental Impact Report Updated Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) SCH 89030122 Prepared by EDAW, Inc. (EIR dated September 1993) Revised Water Demand Projections for San Ramon Valley Master Plan, including San Ramon Pressure Zone Prepared by Harvey Hanoian, EBMUD staff (Reported dated March 1995) Final Facilities Report ' San Ramon Pressure Zone Improvements Prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee (Reported dated December 1995) An overview of the key findings of these reports is summarized below. A copy of these reports +� is available at the EBMUD offices in Oakland. Water Supply Management Program WSMP. In 1993, EBMUD completed the environmental review of its Updated Water Supply Management Program. The description and analysis of EBMUD's water supply and demand set forth below summarizes information in the Final EIRre ared for EBMUD's Updated Water P P P Supply Management Program (WSMP) which is hereby incorporated by reference and cited as EDAW 1993. (Final EIR, Updated Water Supply Management Program, EBMUD SCH #89030122, September, 1993.) r' 4.2-10 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES One purpose of the Updated WSMP is to provide an adequate water supply. The future "need for water," as defined by EBMUD, is the additional water required for Year 2020 levels of development. An EBMUD criteria is to limit rationing to 25 percent of normal water demand levels when a worst case drought occurs. With regard to annexation of the Dougherty Valley, the significance of the Updated WSMP is as follows: Water Supply. EBMUD has entitlements to draw water from the Mokelumne River. As described below, the quantity of water available from this source is characterized by EBMUD as potentially insufficient to meet future demands. EBMUD's Updated Water Supply Management Program states that the District does not currently have an adequate, reliable supply of water for existing and projected future customers within its current ultimate service boundary (USB) in times of drought, and is projecting water shortages in times of drought (EDAW, 1993). The District has water rights to withdraw up to 325 mgd of water from the Mokelumne River system. However, during drou hf ears, EBMUD may not be able to divert this much water Y g g Y Y because of other entitlements and instream resource protection. Because many of these other water rights holders have entitlements senior to EBMUD's entitlements, EBMUD must allow these users to fulfill their allotments before the District can divert from the river. After other entitlements are satisfied during an average year, EBMUD currently obtains approximately 220 mgd from the Mokelumne River (EDAW, 1993). During drought periods of two or more years, however, EBMUD has been limited to withdrawing as little as 198 mgd. An anticipated increase in the demand for Mokelumne River water by other water agencies will affect the District's ability to serve its customers and meet other water release commitments in dry years. The demands of users upstream of EBMUD's Mokelumne River reservoirs are expected to increase by the year 2020, from approximately 16 thousand ac-ft per year (TAF/year) to 31.6 TAF/year. (One ac-ft is equal to 325,800 gallons.) Use by senior water rights holders downstream of EBMUD's Mokelumne River reservoirs is expected to increase from 90.6 TAF to 104.2 TAF/year in wet and normal years, and from 55.1 TAF to 58.7 TAF/year in dry years. Thus the total demand by other agencies is expected to increase by 28.8 TAF/year in wet and normal years and 22.7 TAF/year in dry years. In addition, a 1961 agreement between EBMUD and the California Department of Fish and Game requires that EBMUD make fishery releases of 13 TAF/year. EBMUD anticipatesthat it faces possible reductions in supply due to increased allocations of Mokelumne water to fisheries. In response, EBMUD has proposed a Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan (LMRMP), under which the District will increase these releases to 19 TAF in critically dry years. 73 TAF in dry years, and 114 TAF in normal and wet 1 years (EDAW, 1993). The District has recently signed "Principles of Agreement" with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game that provide flows in addition to the LMRMP. 4.2-11 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES New uses of Mokelumne River water by other water agencies could also affect EBMUD water supplies. Several agencies are pursuing water projects on the Mokelumne and have applied for water rights permits. However, predicting the ultimate outcome of these applications and their ' effects on EBMUD's operations would be speculative. Any new projects could reduce the amount of water available to EBMUD (EDAW 1993). EBMUD's contract with the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation allows it to withdraw up to 150 TAF/year (approximately 134 mgd) from the American River system. EBMUD's contract to withdraw this water was challenged in.Alameda County Superior Court but was upheld. However,the court also established minimum flows that must be present in the lower American River before EBMUD can divert from this source. To use this water supply, EBMUD would have to construct an aqueduct from the Folsom South Canal (which originates at Folsom Lake) to its service area, and would + probably have to develop additional storage facilities because EBMUD could divert this water only r when the American River flows are above the minimum flow levels (EDAW 1993). Water Demand Relying upon 1990 ABAG projections and comments from local jurisdictions, the FEIR for the Updated WSMP projected that the total number of households in EBMUD's existing service area would increase from 485,000 in 1990 to 565,000 in the year 2020, reflecting a rate of increase of about 0.5 percent per year. In addition to new households, more than 5,600 new commercial, institutional, industrial and major irrigation accounts are expected to be served by 2020 (EDAW, 1993). Demand for water in EBMUD's service area was approximately 220 mgd in 1990. EBMUD 1r projects that the total demand for water in its service area will increase from 220 mgd to 250 mgd by the year 2020. This figure assumes a reduction in total gross demand by 27 mgd due to existing and adopted conservation and reclamation methods (EDAW, 1993). EBMUD's planning for water needs through 2020 in its Updated Water Supply Management Program define the District's need for.additional water as the amount of additional water required to assure that shortages in EBMUD's supply do not necessitate imposing drought restrictions resulting in more than a 25 percent reduction from normal water demand levels, while providing ; water required to meet all of its downstream Mokelumne.River obligations. Without any action to increase EBMUD's water supply and assuming the demand for water in the service area increases to projected 2020 levels, EBMUD estimates that in normal or wet hydrologic conditions, the Mokelumne River water supply is adequate to meet the projected demand of EBMUD customers and other uses on the river at the 2020 level of development (EDAW; 1993). The WSMP EIR describes water demand in terms of development within the District's existing . service area. However, in responses to comments, the Final EIR states that the inclusion or exclusion of certain geographic areas does not relate to the consideration of strategic system-wide 4.2-12 ,� 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES planning options of long term supply issues. The additional households planned for development in the Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley and the Westside Specific Plan area would result in a maximum increase of 4.4 percent of total demand. This increase does not affect the analysis of the Updated WSMP because: (1) the range of increase lies well within the range of uncertainty in the EBMUD 2020 demand projections; (2) total demand generated by those projects would likely be less than 4.4 percent because the increase in housing in those areas would likely displace some development within the existing service boundary; and (3) after preparation of the Draft EIR, ABAG's 1992 report was issued and the projected number of new households expected within the District's ultimate service boundary in the year 2020 had declined by about 16,000, which nearly offsets the unit count of those identified projects (18,800). Thus, even including potential additional demand of large projects currently outside the District's boundaries, the difference would not be considered significant in the context of a system-wide analysis (EDAW, 1993). However, shortages would occur during drought periods due to diminished river runoff and the fact that EBMUD's reservoir system storage capacity is not sufficient to provide the needed quantity of water through EBMUD's drought planning sequence. EBMUD estimates that, in the absence of any steps to add additional water supply or additional storage capacity, and/or increase conservation and reclamation , the water shortage at the third year of its drought planning sequence would be 113 TAF. Assuming implementation of EBMUD's Lower Mokelumne River Management Plan, EBMUD estimates the shortage at the third year of its drought planning sequence at 130 TAF by 2020. The "Principles of Agreement" increased in-river flows and would increase this shortage to 160 TAF. Taking account of the need to ensure adequate supplies during drought years, EBMUD estimates the shortfall in its ability to meet its projected 2020 drought- period demand at 40 mad (45 TAF/year) if the LMRMP is not implemented and 64 mad (72 ' TAF/year) if the LMRMP is implemented (EDAW, 1993). The estimated shortage increases as a result of the "Principles of Agreement". In October 1993 EBMUD adopted a preferred Water Supply Management Plan alternative for meeting its projected need for water through the year 2020. At that time, EBMUD expressed its intention to proceed with development and evaluation of the feasibility of specific project elements within the framework of that alternative. The approved alternative includes the following components: a net reduction in water demand of 13 mad by 2020, over and above water savings �j achieved from existing and previously adopted conservation programs; promotion of the use of reclaimed water and expansion of existing water reuse programs with the objective of reducing potable water demand by 8 mad by 2005; implementation of a groundwater storage/ conjunctive use program sized to provide EBMUD with a water supply from ground water storage of up to 50 TAF in dry years, to be operational by 2002. EBMUD projects that implementation of these components of the EBMUD Water Supply Management Plan will be sufficient to ensure that the 4.2-13 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES projected increase in demand for water by 2020 in EBMUD's service district is met' (EDAW,. 1993). On September 12, 1995, EBMUD decided to initiate implementation of an additional Updated WSMP Alternative, which could include pursuing EBMUD's contract rights for up to 150 TAF (about 134 mgd) of American River water per year, subject to instream flow requirements. This Alternative would also include the construction of a pipeline from the Folsom South Canal to the Mokelumne Aqueducts, sized to carry up to 145 mgd. If implemented, this alternative would provide an additional supply of high quality water in the event of diminished availability of �. Mokelumne water (EDAW, 1993). Implementation of the American River/Folsom South Canal component in addition to the Preferred Alternative could produce a surplus of water supply over ti project demand through the 2020 forecast period. In the event EBMUD does not implement some of the components of its approved alternatives, � . other options for increasing its water supply are available to EBMUD for its consideration in „f meeting increased water demand including, but not limited to, expansion of Mokelumne River storage facilities and development of additional local reservoir facilities. These options for 41 addressing future demands on EBMUD's water supplies were explored during EBMUD's Water Supply Management Plan Update process. The EBMUD board has determined that in the event the groundwater storage/conjunctive use program proves infeasible, further study and evaluation will be given to other alternatives identified in the WSMP FEIR. Those alternatives are described in more detail in the District's WSMP FEIR (EDAW, 1993). EBMUD anticipates it will take approximately 10 years (from 1993) to fully implement any of the alternative actions. If annexations to the District were to occur during this period prior to implementation of the Updated WSMP, the risk of shortages to existing customers would increase, due to the overall increase in demand. However, the two basic components, Conservation Level II and Reclamation A-1 are currently being implemented. These components are expected to create a reduction in demand which should help to ameliorate the drought period supply for existing customers. San Ramon Pressure Zone Camp Dresser&McKee Report (CDM). CDM was retained by EBMUD to study the San Ramon Pressure Zone. The purpose of this study was to determine the additional storage, pumping and pipeline. capacity required to serve the Country Club at Gale Ranch development and any projected buildout within the San Ramon Pressure Zone (SRPZ), including pass-through flows to other zones and the effect of water reclamation projects. The study identifies the nature and location of required improvements at a preliminary design level to meet District needs. The facilities plan report will allow the District to proceed immediately into final environmental 4.2-14 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES documentation and design of water facilities improvements to meet near-term needs, and to plan effectively for long-term needs. The location of the SRPZ with respect to the Count Club at Gale Ranch is shown in P �' Figure 4.2-2.The San Ramon Zone provides water service in the elevation range of 450 to 650 feet with the overflow elevation of the storage facilities (i.e., water reservoir) located 100 feet above the top of the pressure zone (elevation 750 feet). A typical pressure zone serving a 200-foot elevation band provides 43 pounds per square inch (psi) static pressure at the top of the zone and 130 psi at the bottom of the zone. Currently, the San Ramon Zone serves nearly 10,000 dwelling units, along with commercial, institutional, park and golf course users. The SRPZ has 29 million gallons of distribution storage contained in three reservoirs supplied from two pumping plants with a rated capacity of 51 mgd for in-zone and out-of-zone demand needs. The Amador (F4A) Pressure Zone relies directly on water from the San Ramon Zone (175130 through rate control stations. Higher pressure zones g pump water out of the San Ramon Zone. These higher zones include the Scenic, Blackhawk, Acorn, Apollo, and Derby Pressure Zones. The Country Club at Gale Ranch is a project consisting of 1,216 dwelling units, three parks, and an 18-hole golf course, located mostly within the San Ramon Zone. A very small portion of the development(55 dwelling units) is within the Scenic Pressure Zone(elevation 650 to 850 feet),and will be served by existing Scenic Zone facilities. CDM's tasks included making water demand projections and analyzing the distribution system, reservoir and other pipelines needed to serve the Country Club at Gale Ranch. The new facilities were analyzed with respect to the need to improve pumping capacity, system reliability and operational flexibility. The CDM analysis took into account the effect of use of reclaimed water on peak demand. The primary product of the CDM report was a plan to provide water service to the Country Club at Gale Ranch, which included alternatives (e.g., alternative locations for reservoirs). Each - alternative was evaluated in terms of cost, compatibility with EBMUD criteria, compatibility with long-term needs and other factors. EBMUD has not performed similar detailed studies for the remainder of the Dougherty Valley Planning area because these areas are currently outside the District's ultimate service area. Until such studies are performed, design details for the distribution system are not known. 4.2-15 ................::_::•: ::::......... ..::: ::i::::::• x :.::::................:::::.°.::::: Scenic/ .....::....:::::.:.:::.:...: ::::::::::::::-: ..HS j Blackhawk/ 680 ;..::a:::c`.':ai .i's'siisss:€ ii` ii Scenic Acorn Res Blackhawk Pressure Zones p�cQ` Scenic . PP (F7E, 178A, F10A) ........ ..... 4- a - :; --L ............. .........:.: .................... PPss k 4 i MIN S Terrace ` Y alae re ky . : Pressure ANV[ za LL3z Zone 4 (F5Ba) Blackfiawk � , Res S 8�2 _ Montair and San Raman R�[�its y i3s' 24' T r ' Las Trampas PP r i + sum Pressure ` t ' ` Blackhawk t fZt'I� ; Zones East'PP � `'"'��"'�. �n�>�� ���Eie>��.>� �i i l - $i}n Ramone — I�eSt � n ( k �r 5 i ,� by Country Club at f Gale Ranch a �r 80 Dougherty t . Valley0l , I `OFT `� RAMON a 1 Amador t •Pressure Alcosta Bollinger Zone Rate (F4A) Rate Control 4 Controlit Station Station Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association DUBLIN —LEGEND— Ultimate Service Boundary Service Zones. Elevations Danville Pressure Zone 250'—450' Amador Pressure Zone 340'—450' Say 13az�ao °f'.resst�e Zane�?I;50" 650`r �� Diablo Pressure Zone 450'—650' Figure: 4.2-2 San Ramon Pressure Zone Graphic Subsequent EIR Scale: p 1 Mlle 2 Miles 4.2-16 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Off-Site Infrastructure A large project like Dougherty Valley can require infrastructure modifications outside the Dougherty Valley planning area. One example is the EBMUD treatment plant in Walnut Creek. It is essentially at design capacity at present, and substantial growth in demand for water service could result in the need to bring treated water from the existing Lower San Leandro treatment I� plant to the San Ramon area, which would yield a desirable loop in the system. Such improvements would be analyzed and designed to EBMUD standards and the District would be the lead agency for environmental review of such projects. Dougherty Valley Project In 1992 B&C was retained by Contra Costa County to perform a facilities plan report for the entire Dougherty Valley planning area, including the Country Club at Gale Ranch. This study, which was included as an appendix of the 1992 EIR, analyzes water demand and provides a plan and model for the water distribution system in Dougherty Valley. At the time that the B&C report was prepared, EBMUD staff was unable to provide criteria to guide B&C's analysis. Although this report has not been formally reviewed by EBMUD, there is an opportunity to test the validity of B&C's analysis in terms of EBMUD's standards and criteria. Specifically, B&C analyzed the water demand and water distribution system for all of Dougherty Valley, including the Country Club at Gale Ranch. EBMUD's consultants (CDM) analyzed the Country Club. If - the B&C and CDM studies reached similar conclusions regarding water demand and infrastructure requirements for the Country Club, there is basis for inferring that B&C's conclusions and t recommendations for the remainder of Dougherty Valley are generally compatible with EBMUD's requirements. It should be emphasized that detailed design studies are routinely required prior to annexation, and prior to extending service to the Gale Ranch II and/or Windemere I projects, or other portions of the Dougherty Valley. Those future studies would address the treatment, transmission and distribution improvements required to serve Dougherty Valley, including both potable and reclaimed water. Comparison of CDM and B&C Reports. The CDM report is very specific in its evaluation of the Country Club at Gale Ranch. For example, it provided in considerable detail the design parameters for water reservoirs (see CDM report page 4-10); it presented grading plans for three specific tank sites that were under consideration (scale 1 inch = 100 feet); it provided cost estimates for construction of the alternatives; and CDM evaluated tank sites relative to transmission pipeline length, amount of excavation, access, geologic conditions, structural design issues, visibility of site, etc. (see CDM Table 4-10). CDM was charged with developing a plan of service only for the Country Club at Gale Ranch, and no tank sites outside of EBMUD's service boundary were considered. 4.2-17 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES , The B&C report is broader in its scope, outlining a water distribution system intended to serve all of Dougherty Valley. It did not identify a water reservoir site on the Country Club at Gale Ranch, but it did identify a potential water reservoir site on the same ridge, further to the south and in the same pressure zone. B&C indicates that the reservoir sites presented in their report took into account local soil conditions,potential visual impacts and optimum distribution system hydraulics. The B&C report does not include a grading plan for each reservoir and its access road, but it provides criteria for sizing reservoirs and pipelines. The purpose of the B&C report was not to provide final design details, but to identify the overall system needed to serve the entire Dougherty Valley. It was recognized that during final design more detailed studies would be required and that those studies would/could result in adjustments to their plan of service. In summary, the B&C report is more generalized than the design level reportprepared by CDM. Nevertheless, the forecasts of water demand, reservoir sizes, pressure zones and distribution system generally , conform with EBMUD standards. RECYCLED WATER 1992 EIR ' The discussion of recycled water' in the 1992 EIR commences on page 5-8 of that document. It references the.B&C report which was presented in Appendix E of the EIR. The report noted that although recycled water service is not available, B&C analyzed five alternatives for the use of Water service in Dougherty Valley. The report also estimated demand for recycled water in Dougherty Valley, and presents a conceptual -water distribution system, including mains, reservoirs and booster pumps. Recycled water policies from the General Plan are presented on page 5-23 of the 1992 EIR. Events Since Certification of the 1992 EIR DERWA The 1992 EIR notes that EBMUD and DSRSD signed a memorandum of understanding establishing a framework by which they may work together to provide a joint potable/reclaimed water service area. Such an agreement was a critical first step in provision of recycled water la because in California the treatment,distribution and sale of recycled water requires a cooperative z Recycled water is wastewater that has been treated to be safe for reuse for nonpotable purposes. The State Department of Health Services (DHSD)has established standards for the use of recycled water in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 60301 through 60357 (known as "Title 22"). Title 22 establishes requirements for treatment processes,redundant process units,power supplies, alarms, and quality sampling and analysis for various uses of the recycled water.Requirements for recycled water used for irrigation of parks,playgrounds and schooiyards are more stringent than those for irrigation of golf courses and highway landscaping where public exposure is not as great. Wastewater is considered adequately disinfected for protection of public health when coliform organisms do not exceed 2.2 parts per 100 milliliters of wastewater. 4.2-18 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES effort between a water purveyor and a waste water treatment agency. Exeludin the Count Club Yg Country at Gale Ranch and Camp Parks, the planning area is presently outside the service area boundaries of all water purveyors and waste water treatment agencies. DSRSD and EBMUD have entered into a Joint powers agreement to establish DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA). DERWA will plan for recycled water use in the San Ramon Valley, and its service area will be determined as part of a facilities plan and EIR currently under preparation by DERWA.' It is anticipated that an agreement between DSRSD and EBMUD to provide recycled water service will be executed in the future. DSRSD DSRSD currently recycles between 0.2 and 0.4 mgd of secondary effluent for irrigation of highway landscaping near the intersection of Highway 680 and Stoneridge Drive. DSRSD is planning to rehabilitate the existing filters and improve the hypochlorite disinfection system to provide recycled water for unrestricted landscape irrigation of golf courses, parks,playgrounds, and greenbelts.The filters have not been used since 1980. As proposed, the filters would be brought back on line in three phases. Rehabilitation of one of the three existing filters during the first phase will result in a recycled water capacity of 5.2 mgd. DSRSD has recently completed a Recycled Water Distribution Master Plan which addresses the needs for transporting and storing recycled water for use within DSRSD's service area. If all of DSRSD's potential service area for recycled water made optimum use of recycled water, the District would need additional effluent to satisfy the demand. Conceivably, effluent could be sent to DSRSD from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). Brown and Caldwell Report The 1992 EIR includes a technical appendix that estimates demand for recycled water for various land use designations, including parks; athletic fields and landscaped areas at schools; road medians; and landscaped portions of commercial sites. Their study identified 541.4 net acres within Dougherty Valley where use of recycled water was feasible. Taking into account the evaporation rate, B&C estimated average day demand, seasonal peak demand, and instantaneous peak demand. The forecasted demand took into account the Country Club at Gale Ranch, including its golf course, as well as the then proposed 150-acre community college campus on Camp Parks property. For all of Dougherty Valley, B&C estimated average day demand to be 1,104 gallons per minute (gpm) and seasonal peak demand to be 2,538 gpm. The B&C report examined five alternatives for providing recycled water service which ranges from one to two 'The map contained within the DERWA Notice of Preparation (NOP)designates Dougherty Valley as an"Approved Development outside DSRSD/EBMUD Service Areas." Two of four scenarios propose extending recycled water to Dougherty Valley. 4.2-19 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES pressure zones, and a range of distribution system options. Figure 4-1 for the B&C report ort g P g P presented a recycled water distribution system, including reservoir sites and main diameters. The proposed service area for recycled water was shaded on this plan. John Carollo Engineers Report In 1995, John Carollo Engineers (JCE) issued a report that was prepared for DSRSD and which provided a plan of services for the Windemere Ranch Partners portion of Dougherty Valley. That study included analysis of recycled water. In accordance with adopted policy, DSRSD will require use of recycled water in Dougherty Valley as a condition ofrovidin potable water. Recycled P g P cY water, therefore, shall be used to the extent practicable for the irrigation of on-site landscaping. The public could come in contact with areas of the development irrigated with recycled water, such as parks, and therefore the Title 22 unrestricted use standard for recycled water treatment is assumed. According to DSRSD, the developer would be required to provide necessary conveyance; treatment, and distribution facilities for recycled water. The JCE report estimated the recycled water service demand for buildout of the Windemere development. The irrigated areas considered in their analysis includedparks, median strips and common areas of multi-family housing units: (No use of recycled water for irrigation of single- family residential lots was considered.) The irrigation requirements were based on plant type,local climate and irrigation system efficiency. The results of the JCE analysis are presented in Table 4.2-3. This table indicates that the maximum day demand would be approximately 1.31 million gallons, and that the annual total demand for recycled water totals 459 ac-ft. Figure 4.2-3 histogram that shows the calculated variations in demand for recycled and potable water over the course of a full year, month-by-month. Peak demand for water occurs in July and amounts to approximately 4.53 mgd. Of this total, approximately 23 percent can be met by use of recycled water. The facilities plan prepared by JCE calls for construction of two recycled water reservoirs, constructed in two pressure zones on the Windemere site. A single pump with 1.6 mgd capacity could supply both reservoirs (including a 33 percent standby capacity).. No similar study has been performed for the Shapell property. Although both properties are roughly equal in total developed area and number of units, the John Carollo Engineers study cannot be doubled to determine accurately the water facility needs. If both properties are served by the same service `' provider, certain efficiencies would result. 4.2-20 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Table 4.2-3 ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR RECYCLED WATER ON WINDEMERE PROPERTY Recycled Water Condition Requirement Average Day,mgd 0.41 Average Day, Maximum Month, mgd 1.04 Maximum Day,mgd 1.31 Peak Hour, mgd 4.49 Annual Total,mgd 1.50 Annual Total, ac-ft 4.59 Source: John Carollo Engineers, September 1995. 04 _ ......—.......... ------------ _._ __ —_---._._.__.—__....._.....__. -a cu3 —:.____ _-._.______.___..._...._._._.-_..__.-._ _-- a) a CU 2 a� ca O Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Recycled WaterME Potable Water Figure: 4.2-3 Not to Scale Windemere Potable & � Subsequent EIR Recycled Water Demands Source:John Cazoilo Engineers(1995) 4.2-21 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES I WASTEWATER Background Dougherty Valley, except for,Country Club at Gale Ranch, is not in a sanitary district service area. Figure 4.2-4 shows that Dougherty Valley is bordered by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) on the north and northwest and by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) on the south and southwest. After the 1992 EIR was certified, CCCSD annexed the Country Club at Gale Ranch into its service area and is considered the preferred provider of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services for the remainder of Dougherty Valley. CCCSD is identified as the preferred provider by the amended Dougherty Valley Specific Plan for the following reasons: • Portions of CCCSD's San Ramon and A-Line Interceptors have adequate available capacity to serve Dougherty Valley, thus minimizing the need to upgrade off-site facilities. • The Dougherty Valley settlement agreements list CCCSD as the preferred provider of service. • DSRSD does not have adequate capacity on its collection treatment and final effluent q P Y , disposal systems. DSRSD is also a possible choice for wastewater services since the gravity flow of wastewater is to the south, toward DSRSD. The future development of the East and West Dublin areas will be served by DSRSD. Economies of scale would allow East and West Dublin, along with Dougherty Valley, to receive wastewater services with a single large pumping station and upgrades to a single treatment plant for less total cost than other wastewater alternatives." However, the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Agency, which controls the export pipeline to San Francisco Bay used by DSRSD, is currently unwilling to allow its outfall to be used to serve the 9,784 units remaining to be built in Dougherty Valley.' A portion of the Dougherty Valley (approximately 7,000 dwelling units)could be served by DSRSD. However,political considerations would not allow.the Dougherty Valley to be served by DSRSD. Should politics change and the export pipeline size be increased to accommodate Dougherty Valley buildout,DSRSD could serve the project. °Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD, letter dated September 8, 1992. Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD, personal communication, 1996. 4.2-22 00Y e'er ilJ r L Doughert Valley Boundary z 1 Jr1fl�/ I Sanitary District Boundary f"11 lc� > Yel �v For, A(-i Ali am 9 7 pjy mage Figure: 4.2-4 Sanitary Districts Graphic Scale-. Subsequent EIR Source:CCC Assesors Office and DSRSD o 5oo- l000, 3000' A 4.2-23 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Treatment Facilities CCCSD operates a wastewater treatment plant in the northeast quadrant of the State Route 4/ I-680 interchange. The plant currently treats an average dry weather flow of approximately 33.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater (three-year average). Treated effluent is discharged through an outfall pipeline. into Suisun Bay. Existing facilities and some currently under construction will be used to recycle a portion of the plant's effluent for industrial processes and urban landscape irrigation in the northern and western portion of CCCSD's service area. Collection System CCCSD operates a collection system that includesgravity-flow interceptors,force mains, and pump stations. The facilities that would be affected by service to the planning area include the A-Line Interceptor, San Ramon Valley Interceptor, and Larwin Pumping Station. The locations of these facilities are labeled in Figure 4.2-5. The A-Line and San Ramon Valley Interceptors convey wastewater from the southern portion of CCCSD's service area to the wastewater treatment plant. CCCSD has plans to increase the capacity of the A-Line Interceptor by 2009 because it anticipates that wet weather flows originating within the District's current service area will exceed the capacity of the interceptor at that time. All but Phase 3 of the San Ramon Valley Interceptor has been constructed. The Phase 3 project extends from Norris Canyon Road (in San Ramon) to St. James Place (in Danville). EIR's have been completed for the San Ramon Valley Interceptor project and for the acquisition of right-of- way for the A-Line Interceptor project. These planned improvement are needed whether or not Dougherty Valley is served. The Larwin Pumping Station was built in 1974. It is located within a residential neighborhood, at the intersection of Mangos Drive and Ensenada Drive, in San Ramon. Odor is not a significant problem at the pumping station due to effective operating procedures and odor control equipment. Project-Related Infrastructure Two collection infrastructure scenarios are being considered by CCCSD to link Dougherty Valley. to the District's existing collection system: Pumping Station Alternative and Tunnel Alternative. Pipe sizes are approximate and may be altered following further engineering studies by the District. Both alternatives were discussed in the Dougherty Valley Sewer Service Study Final Report by G.S. Dodson & Associates for CCCSD, published November 1995. In addition to serving the Dougherty Valley, both alternatives are expected to accept gravity flows from approximately 700 dwelling units in West Branch and approximately 600 dwelling units in the Lawrence Road area, thus removing the need for several existing and planned small pumping stations in these areas. (Leavitt, 1996) 4.2-24 1•� } ' o CLYDE ILLDw PASS RD ; -- ~�' . *.;'�PACHrc 4 a orb =¢ ���� � � e `zsz an/ 5 r a MARTIN>:Z �o ' II#nw�I VE i ep CONCORD ,---, ,�- VAILEY�r 9�f y�i�A � �•� �_<q\yTOH �'. Qp . T Rp RD \ l m, EtKER �•'" F99 L ik J p f ! CLAYTON >w tls r 68a . 2 Pp MOUNT DIABLO �, ate# �F �`,• �+ '�'�3 ; �,>,�a 'QO^•s � ` yy r �. JMli�Rt# rA � w et LEGEND' DANVIL c, Source: CCCSD. 1996 Existing CCCSD Wastewater 860 Treatment Plant 9 �•�' �-""-- Existing Lorwin Pumping 9yi\ • Station y• -✓`. O7 Expansion of rhe Lorwin Pumping Station ?, .. OParalleling existing forcemains �� San Ramon Valley Interceptor Project. Phase 3 1 (q) A-Line Relief Interceptor Project / 1 O/ Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion O SAN and improvements -� Major new sewers RAM,,N CCCSD Area n........ Figure:4.2-5 Dom o ����� Graphic CCCSD Planned Improvements Scale: VMR13W Subsequent EIR. Source:CCCSD D 1 MILE 2 MILES �' 4.2-25 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Pumping Station Alternative This alternative is shown in Figure 4.2-6. A new 10.8 mgd pumping station in Dougherty Valley would be required. Wastewater from the Dougherty Valley would enter the Dougherty Valley Pumping Station where four 125-hp,variable speed pumps (three service plus one standby)would pump the wastewater north along Bollinger Canyon Road approximately 9,600 linear feet through dual 18-inch forcemains to a ridge just east of Dougherty Road. Both 18-inch forcemains would be required to transport peak wet weather flows (10.8 mgd). Each forcemain could transport peak dry weather flows (4.8 mgd) with the other forcemain out of service. The forcemains would connect to a new 21-inch gravity sewer that would flow 5,000 linear feet west along Bollinger Canyon Road and connect to a future Country Club at Gale Ranch sewer. The future Country Club sewer will flow south, parallel to Coyote Creek for approximately 4,300 linear feet and connect to the District's existing gravity sewer located at Canyon Green Drive. Some new relief sewers would be constructed parallel to the District's existing gravity sewers(between Canyon Hills Road and Canyon Green Drive, and beneath portions of Summerwood Loop, Fallen Leaf Circle, Fallview Street, and the former Souther Pacific right-of-way) to provide adequate capacity to the Larwin Pumping Station. In this alternative, the Larwin Pumping Station's capacity would be increased to 17.7 mgd. This would entail replacement of the existing pumps at Larwin with four 250-hp,variable speed pumps (three service plus one standby). An addition would be built onto the existing pump station building, and additional landscaping would be used to screen the expanded pumping station. Included in the pumping station improvements would be a larger wet well, new motors, variable frequency drives, discharge piping, standby generator,.and other auxiliary equipment. A new 21- inch forcemain, along with the existing 12-and 14-inch forcemains,would be required to transport peak wet weather flow (17.7 mgd) northward in the former Southern Pacific right-of-way 12,800 linear feet to the District's San Ramon Interceptor located approximately 500 feet north of Norris Canyon Road. A new 21-inch forcemain would be capable of transporting peak dry weather flows (8.1 mgd) with the existing 12- and 14-inch forcemains out of service. The 12- and 14-inch forcemains together would be capable of transporting the peak dry weather flows with the new 21- inch forcemain out of service. Tunnel Alternative Under this alternative, wastewater from the approved Country Club at the Gale Ranch project would be handled separately from wastewater generated by the remaining portions of Dougherty Valley. Wastewater generated by the Country Club project will be conveyed in a main across Canyon Lakes Golf Course and connect to the District's existing sewers. In the remainder of Dougherty Valley,wastewater would be collected in sewers and flow by gravity to the low point in the development, which is near the confluence of the Main Branch and West 4.2-26 Gr,NYO, u� OA` CkOW � r••• ".� \Xx t f 1 ow � t SHAPELL .r —,•� PHASE I f �• 1, � '��' �cr, 9 1 7 �DgP`> .1 RDS iRD £L 560 P rCR'FL •5001 ' i { ( ?��`✓� •war' r^ � ,SQA✓/' �f � p 680 OOUGHERTY (ELLa o) S. LARWINmoo„ (10.8 MGD (EL 38PGRA0) C 9 INCLUDES (UDE v B WINDEMERE TO 17.7 MGD) po Ro iia r RANCH FLOW) IN �g DLO o . " CAMP PARKS 2 j L 1j` Y�,B `Sy�i- LEGEND: 4 EXIST GRAVITY SEWER -EXIST FORCEMAIN —- - —DISTRICT SERVICE BOUNDARY _= RIDGE LINE PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER -PROPOSED RELIEF SEWER -� -� PROPOSED FORCEMAIN PROPOSED PUMPING STATION DLANDS TO BE ANNEXED INTO COM Figure: 4.2-6 Dom m o lhsT�77 Pumping Station Alternative Graphic Scale: Subsequent EIR Source:CCCSD Dougherty Valley Sewer Service Study-November 1995 0 500' 1 2500• 5000 4.2-27 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Branch of Alamo Creek in Dougherty Valley. At this point,wastewater would enter mains within a 4,800-foot long, 8-foot diameter tunnel. The mains in the tunnel would convey wastewater to the west, toward Alcosta Boulevard (see Figure 4.2-7 for a map showing the location of the tunnel). As envisioned by CCCSD, the tunnel would be a utility conduit containing dual 18-inch gravity sewers. Both mains would be required to convey peak wet weather flows (10.8 mgd). Either main could convey peak dry weather flows (4.8 mad)with the other gravity sewer removed from service. Wastewater would continue to flow downstream of the tunnel in a 36-inch main for 3,500 feet using one or more of the following streets to reach the Larwin Pumping Station: Alcosta Boulevard, Ensenada Drive, Estero Drive, Delmar Drive, and Mangos Drive. Modifications to the Larwin Pumping Station would be the same as for the Pumping Station Alternative. Downstream District Facilities Expansion of the San Ramon Valley Interceptor from Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon to St. James Court in Danville is planned by CCCSD (the Phase 3 project). When this would become necessary is yet to be determined. The San Ramon Valley Interceptor lies within the former Southern Pacific right-of-way as does telephone and other utility easements. The former Southern Pacific right-of-way is also used as a trail. This upgrade was adequately discussed in CCCSD's 1986 San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer Improvement Project EIR. . Expansion of the A-Line Interceptor capacity was addressed in the Districts 1991 Pleasant Hill/A-Line Sewer Outflow Protection Project EIR. A future environmental document will be prepared by the District following design of this expansion (early next decade) to update the 1991 EIR. Expansion of CCCSD's wastewater treatment plant and sludge handling facilities are possible long term needs. Expansion of the wastewater treatment plant at an appropriate time, if needed to meet cumulative demand, is feasible as land is available at the existing site to accommodate additional facilities. The District has based its facilities plans on an ultimate condition of maximum buildout within the District's boundaries and maximum pipe deterioration (maximum water infiltration) by 2035. Other Considerations Should DSRSD need additional effluent to satisfy the needs of its customers for recycled water, effluent from Dougherty Valley or the Lanvin Pumping Station could be sent to DSRSD for treatment and distribution as recycled water. This possibility is being studied by the DSRSD- EBMUD Recycled Water Authority(DERWA) as part of a project independent of the Dougherty Valley development project. 4.2-28 C� yy BOUNDARY OF DOUGHERTY t VALLEY W/O CAMP PARKS AGhv CPOW SHALL :o1 PHASE I o iI ' RD (RD EL 566} t S2O 8Q .� jr1,"1.1' m , '.(CR FL 51)0 •� 0. 9 G <� \ a Q �y` W ;� . dL` 76 LAWN P.S- (£L < UPGRADE TO 17.7 MGD) P gC m f p`N zi- 'BI OLD CAMP PARKS LEGEND: END: EXIST GRAVITY SEWER x -EXIST FORCE:MAIN —DISTRICT SERVICE BOUNDARY —RIDCE LINE - r — PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER _ PROPOSED RELIEF SEWER -- -- PROPOSED FORCEMAIN LANDS TO BE ANNEXED INTO CCCSD Figure: 4.2-7 Dom o L�c�w Tunnel Alternative Graphic Scale: Subsequent EIR Source:CCCSD Dougherty Valley Sewer Service Study-November 1995 0 500' 2500' 5000, 4.2-29 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES SOLID WASTE 1992 EIR Discussion of solid waste collection services in the 1992 DEIR began on page 5_9. It stated that Dougherty Valley would be served by a private collection company and that the County would provide landfill space. Landfills The 1992 EIR states that.County landfills had less than one year of remaining capacity at that time,but that the County subsequently opened the Keller Canyon landfill and approved the Marsh Canyon landfill. Each was said to have about 40 years of life .expectancy (based on County generation rates of 2,600 tons per day). Waste was being exported to Alameda and Solano Counties at that time due to landfill shortages in Contra Costa County. Solid Waste Collection The 1992 EIR discusses waste reduction and recycling programs and states that Valley Waste Management serves San Ramon for solid waste collection services. It states that service to Dougherty Valley would be contracted on a bidding system. Update The older landfills in Contra Costa County have since closed. Keller Canyon landfill was opened in 1992 by Contra Costa County and is operated by Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). It is expected to remain in operation until at least 2024. It has a total capacity of 60 to 64 million cubic yards of which 1.5 million cubic yards have been filled. Early 1995 deposits at Keller were at a rate of 800 to 900 tons per day. Recent contracts have increased the rate of deposits at Keller to 1300 to 1400 tons per day.6 BFI also operates the Vasco Road landfill in Alameda County. Waste Management Incorporated (parent company of Valley Waste Management) operates the Altamont landfill at the Altamont Pass in Alameda County. The Aftamont landfill has a life expectancy of approximately 50 years.' BFI serves much of Contra Costa County's unincorporated area, based on competitive bidding. Valley Waste Management serves San Ramon, Dublin, and Livermore and provides greenwaste and recycling services to Tassajara Valley. If annexed to San Ramon, Dougherty Valley may be e John Freedman, Manager, Keller landfill,Browning Ferris Industries,personal communication, 1996. 'Dan Borges, General Manager, Valley Waste Management, personal communication, 1996. 4.2-30 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES served by Valley Waste management. If not annexed, the County could open competitive bidding for waste collection service to Dougherty Valley.' San Ramon has a 10-year contract to send its waste to BFI's Vasco Road landfill, east of Vasco Road, just south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. This is done without use of waste transfer stations. Valley Waste sends its waste from Dublin and Livermore to the Altamont landfill. If Valley Waste Management is the service provider to an unannexed Dougherty Valley, then solid waste would likely be sent to the Altamont landfill. If BFI serves an unannexed Dougherty Valley, waste would likely be transferred to large semi-trucks at a transfer station near Martinez and trucked to the Keller landfill.' GAS AND ELECTRICITY 1992 EIR The discussion of gas and electricity service in the 1992 EIR commences on page 5-18. It notes that PG&E was the service provider, and that there is an existing high-pressure natural gas main that crosses the Gale Ranch. The discussion notes that there is an existing need to alleviate low pressure problems in the Blackhawk area. Power Line Easements PG&E currently owns and operates three transmission and distribution lines that transverse Dougherty Valley. The largest PG&E easement is 300 feet wide and trends north-northeast through Gale Ranch. Within this easement are 230 kV and 21 kV electrical transmission lines. Additionally, a 21 kV line follows the existing Dougherty Road alignment, and a 21 kV line crosses the Windemere property trending generally east-west. This line is in a 100-foot wide easement. (The location of the PG&E easements are shown in Figure 3-3 of the 1992 EIR.) Recent Events Land Use Plan The Gale Ranch II project, when implemented, will bring development adjacent to the 300-foot wide PG&E easement on Gale Ranch. The Preliminary Development Plan indicates that Bollinger Canyon Road and a park and ride lot are planned within this easement (see Figure 4.2-8). Additionally, minor streets and trails cross the easement. A fire station, neighborhood park and s Dan Borges, General Manager, Valley Waste Management, personal communication, 1996. 'Dan Borges, General Manager, Valley Waste Management, personal communication, 1996. . 4.2-31 owl � w,� ,t.t_... .r 'i,►�i1r �•► is r .•: j.., a r Ifj tj�• �' •..5.;Q NO S s�_;„ '� •� ��� �`_+r►a .a, • �.:�.�1� Ito .t�► .ri?•• /�* tom. � I� ;1 • . �,• �:1 '�:.. int*• �«� ,�477:�a,i:� ti>?1 .�� 'ani ►�± .► 7��I=� '�•��j t!�+ r tat+i 1�V r!�;�•t► :7.,.:�` j�.�-T}ir! ��fi�.� x Q � w l• S Ir �- ♦•�' ra JI ..a'iv► Nom.!• tura ♦� x SS t': �► fl{Nlili': , .o tjp— . „r. � jib ►rY. .*y�,r s f r+� ' ,t. i ...- �' �/ l� �► ,t�� i•{:S. �� �►1 Yaf 1 �� -"`�i,'� ��t ate;�►�ai . ''►: •!! ;l�.4 ca if ! t.Q,�j'• r ►•'iii ta'''w •a' bs Qnt9 u�i� :+�r�i•.�O a:'a— t . fa* 11 r: r� . fir`%j�Q,�iy���O�i`1�:' +��••���M��'�*',;;;_ ✓� ISM, + It • 4 .. .� �� �•+ 1� !r, + :5;..at -+"•1 ! t!� L�?,� ..tis,;��,�+ *t•i''f•• . a'g� ' � 1 ..•r 1 �� � r�� ♦ :i"t `�l�a� �� '�.,.�.-�.+�i�+�� '.iii tr. 'Q' b', 0� Til(� �! y�, '• a'ta *•�:a` l�ir�ji'rt�,� ��* �ii0 • c; (j k:`n +x .�. �. '�� f!. 167 171j riolit �� "�L `7 , t:' ` ,j • *1' �.i i�a `.` ?��.,4 s4i i� 3 a o, c�d, �' ,: .►. :.:rr ,,. .� 1 1� :�� �jr i�it t► . •,ra q•- i•—��►assts ;,',� tip �? ;.��. t': !t� {WO !3Qtpo � �s .r d90 ,a! v! .av �a�py ed+a .:oat 163 a 1 x 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES single-family lots are planned adjacent to this easement. According to PG&E's Concord office,10 parking lots and road crossings are acceptable uses within easements as long as they meet with "GEO '95" requirements and no permanent structures are built. GEO '95 requires 17 feet of clearance between street/parking lights and electrical conductor lines and towers. PG&E, as a private utility, does not have regulatory authority over properties adjacent to its easement. It does not have any stated concern over properties adjacent to its easement, but has provided to the developers and local agencies the most recent information on electro-magnetic field (EMF) research so that they can make their own decision on development along power line easements. EMF concerns are discussed in Chapter 4.11. High Pressure Gas Main PG&E is planning to install a six-inch diameter high pressure natural gas line within its easement on the Gale Ranch property. It is being extended from the south to Camino Tassajara. Representatives of PG&E have met with Shapell's planning and engineering consultants to minimize conflicts between the two construction projects. PG&E plans to begin installing the pipeline in September, 1996. COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES Telephone Pacific Bell provides telephone service to the Dougherty Valley from existing facilities in Danville. Cable Television There are three cable companies operating in the project area. ViaCom, Inc., provides cable television service to the San Ramon area, including Camp Parks and other areas west of Dougherty Road. Ponderosa Cable and TCI Cablevision serve the Danville and Blackhawk areas. Service to Dougherty Valley may also be provided by a company formed specifically to serve the project. o Alan Spatcher, personal communication, 1996. j 4.2-33 I 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria Impacts of the proposed project on public utilities were considered significant if implementation of the project would: • cause a substantial increase in demand for any utility above those the agency plans to accommodate; • cause a substantial decrease in the quality or level of service for any utility such .that Contra Costa Count General Plan public services performance standards may not be met; Y P or • require extension of an utility to an area not planned for service. Assumptions Made by 1992 EIR 1. SOIs indicate the probable ultimate service boundaries of utility providers. 2. TWA included proposed development of the planning area in its growth projections for the , Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys. 3. Recycled water will be used to irrigate public landscaping, and low-flow fixtures would be installed in residences. 4. No land within the Cam Parks area will be available in the near future as a community Y college site or for managed open space. 5. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan is proposed in an area of the County not currently served by most utility providers. . 6. All on-site water, wastewater, and recycled water improvements identified by Brown and Caldwell (1992) would be provided by the project proponents as needed to serve development. Regarding Assumption 1, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has annexed the Country Club at Gale Ranch into its service area; a County Service Area has been established to maintain roads, trails, drainage facilities and other infrastructure; and potential service providers are examining the service demands and facilities required by the Dougherty Valley project which are a prerequisite to annexation. 4.2-34 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Assumption 2 is no longer valid. The TWA no longer functions as an agency. Furthermore, the adopted and proposed specific plans identifies CCCSD as the preferred wastewater service provider. Assumption 3 remains valid. With regard to Assumption 4, the Specific Plan has been revised to allow for development of a Community College in the Village Center area. Assumptions 5 and 6 remain true at present, but several studies and actions have occurred since 1992 which have better defined infrastructure needs of Dougherty Valley, deficiencies of existing facilities and means of upgrading facilities to serve the project. For example, in 1992 DSRSD's water entitlements were needed to accommodate expected growth within the district. An agreement has been reached for a water transfer from the Berrenda Mesa Irrigation District that would provide the water needed to serve Dougherty Valley. Similarly, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, EBMUD, and other potential service providers have taken essential steps that provide a framework for annexation. The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, identified eight significant impacts and associated mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B7 through B14 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in Table 4.2-4. The following discussion is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. Potable Water Impact 4.2-1 The Gale Ranch and Windemere projects, excluding the Country Club at Gale Ranch, are not within the existing service district of a water supplier. According to DSRSD,these projects will generate a demand for approximately 4,500 ac-ft/yr of potable water. At the time of the previous Specific Plan and 1992 EIR EBMUD was the preferred provider of potable water. The current preferred provider of potable water service is Dublin-San Ramon Services District with EBMUD identified as an alternate provider. DSRSD has contracted to increase its water supplies and would increase the stability and decrease the price per unit of water in Zone 7 by annexation of this project. EBMUD faces potential future shortfalls of water and is unwilling to consider annexation at this time, however,EBMUD is willing to annex this area into its service boundary, if necessary, under terms and restrictions that would result in no net loss of supply to existing customers. This is considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measures will reduce water service impacts to a less-than-significant level. 4.2-1(a) LAFCO should amend the SOI and annex the remainder of Dougherty Valley into DSRSD, the preferred water service provider; or to EBMUD, should that alternative become viable. 4.2-35 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES 4.2-2(b) DSRSD and Zone 7 should implement the BMWD program or purchase water from another source and extend water service to Dougherty Valley. In the event that DSRSD/Zone 7 cannot serve Dougherty Valley, EBMUD should annex Dougherty Valley and implement the Water Supply Management Program. 4.2-3(c) Prior to approval of final subdivision maps within the Gale Ranch II and iindemere I projects, the applicants shall submit will-serve letters or equivalent from the water district. This necessarily implies that modification of the SOI and annexation to the water district will have been completed, and that the developer and water district have reached an agreement on funding the infrastructure needed to serve Dougherty Valley customers. Water Tank Sites 1 Impact 4.2-2 Extending water service to Dougherty Valley will require construction of water reservoirs at appropriate elevations on ridges, as well as maintenance/access road to the tank sites. Delivery of water will require the construction of water transmission facilities (pumps, mains, tunnel and related facilities). Figure 18 of the adopted Specific Plan presented a water distribution map, based on the Brown and Caldwell study which assumed all of Dougherty Valley would be served by EBMUD. Although the Country Club at Gale Ranch will be served by EBMUD, but the remainder of the Dougherty Valley is currently proposed to be served by DSRSD. Conceivably there may be some changes to reservoir sites may be necessary. EBMUD is constructing a reservoir to serve the Country Club at Gale Ranch. That site is within the current boundary of EBMUD. Brown and Caldwell proposed a tank further south of the tank site currently proposed by EBMUD. The RV reservoir in the southwest corner of Gale Ranch and the R4 reservoir in the northeast corner of Windemere's development footprint on the adopted Specific Plan may not be necessary. An additional reservoir may be needed on the ridge located east of the Village Center, as shown on Figure 18 of the proposed Specific Plan. Distribution lines have been moved to reflect the new road alignment, but his is not considered a significant impact upon the distribution system. It should be recognized that the sites shown on the adopted Specific Plan were chosen by Brown and Caldwell due to their soil conditions, minimal visual impact and optimum hydraulic engineering location. This is considered to be a significant impact. r ii The location of potential reservoir sites is shown in Figure 18 of the adopted Specific Plan,including the R3 and R4 reservoir sites. 4.2-36 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 Table 4.2-4 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Utility Services The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Need for collection and treatment of 2.5 to 3.1 million gallons per day of wastewater. Mitigation Measures: * Annex the planning area to the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District(Central San). * If obtaining wastewater service from Central San would be infeasible or if other reasons justify serving the Project through another agency, the developers shall obtain annexation of the planning area to DSRSD for wastewater service. * If DSRSD collects wastewater and TWA conveys it to Central San in addition to the Central San improvements listed above, except the expansion of the Larwin Pump Station/construction of Fallen Leaf Pump Station, the following improvements could be required: a relief gravity sewer, a raw sewage pumping station, and flow equalization facilities. The possible off-site impacts of these improvements is described below. * The developers will provide the planning area's pro rata share of all off-site wastewater service improvements necessary to serve the planning area. 2. Impact: Construction and operation of off-site wastewater facilities. Mitigation Measure: * Impacts are too speculative to be assessed at this time. 3. Impact: Need for distribution and treatment of approximately 4.7 To 5.4 million gallons per day of potable water. Mitigation Measures: * Annex the planning area to EBMUD. * If obtaining water service from EBMUD is infeasible, the developers shall obtain annexation of the planning area to DSRSD for water service. If DSRSD supplies water to the planning area,the District may need to construct: a new aqueduct turnout from Zone 7 facilities along I-580; an upsize of the existing aqueduct turnout from Zone 7 facilities west of Dougherty Road in North Dublin; 4.2-37 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Table 4.2-4 continued 14=and 16-inch diameter water mains, including 7,200 feet of 16-inch diameter (or greater)water main, along Dougherty Road from the existing Dublin Zone 7 turnout; two to four booster pump stations; and at least two storage reservoirs. These facilities would be constructed partially to serve East Dublin. If East Dublin development began before or during Dougherty Valley development, pumping stations and water mains would need to be sized to accommodate both development areas. If development in East Dublin does not begin until after development starts in the planning area,water mains would need to be sized to accommodate Project planning area water demands only. DSRSD may need to acquire and develop water rights independent of its contract with Zone 7. * The County shall require all landscaping to be irrigated with drip systems or water-efficient sprinkler systems. Landscaping will limit the amount of water allowed for new landscaped areas and impose other water conservation measures. * Maximum use of recycled water will be made, where feasible, for irrigation of open space areas, median strips and private landscaping. * The developers will provide the planning area's pro rata share of all off-site water service improvements necessary to serve the planning area. 4. Impact: Construction and operation of off-site water facilities. Mitigation Measures: * Impacts and mitigation measures are too speculative to be determined at this time. 5. Impact: Need for approximately 1,100 gallons per minute of recycled water. Mitigation Measures: * The developers shall provide the planning area's pro rata share of all off-site recycled water service improvements needed to serve the planning area. * Open space, median strip, and private lot landscaping shall consist of drought-tolerant, non-invasive, low-water use plant species. 6. Impact: Need for recycled water distribution system. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Public Service & Utilities Impact 3. * The Project proponents will develop all on-site recycled water service improvements necessary to serve the planning area. Construction of these improvements shall be phased to make recycled water available for irrigation as the schools and golf courses that would receive service are constructed. 4.2-38 4.2. PUBLIC UTILITIES Table 4.2-4 continued 7. Impact: Generation of approximately 25,000 tons of solid waste per year. Mitigation Measures: * Participate in the Countywide curbside recycling program. * Participate in the County composting program. 1 Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure will reduce water reservoir impacts to a less-than-significant level. 4.2-2 The Specific Plan identifies tank sites at a specific plan level of detail. The geology/ seismicity/grading chapter and visual quality chapter address the significant impacts posed ' by water reservoirs and their maintenance access roads. No other mitigation is required. Recycled Water Demand Impact 4.2-3 The proposed Gale Ranch II and Windemere I project, excluding the Country Club at Gale Ranch, are not within existing service district for recycled water. According to DSRSD, buildout of all of Windemere Ranch will generate a demand for approximately 460 ac-ft/yr of recycled water. The addition of all of Gale Ranch (excluding the Country Club)would approximately double the demand for recycled water (920 ac-ft/yr). This is considered a beneficial impact because it decreases demand for potable water. John Carollo Engineers estimated the annual demand for recycled water on the Windemere portion of Dougherty Valley to be 459 ac-ft. The estimated demand for the Gale Ranch portion of Dougherty Valley has not been assessed by DSRSD but is likely to be the same order of magnitude. Most of this demand would come during the dry season. This is considered to be a significant impact. To implement recycled water service will require cooperation with DSRSD and EBMUD. It would also involve modifications to the SOI and annexation into a district for access to recycled water. The 1992 EIR presented mitigation measures for recycled water (see Table 4.2-4, Impacts 5 and 6). Additionally, the mitigation measure listed below is proposed. 4.2-39 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES Mitigation Measure Implementation of this measure will reduce impacts to a'less-than-significant level. 4.2-3 LAFCO should amend the SOI and annex Dougherty Valley into a district able to deliver recycled water to the planning area. Impact 4.2-4 The extension of domestic water and recycled water services to Dougherty Valley by DSRSD/Zone 7 or EBMUD will result in short-term construction impacts outside Dougherty Valley. The extension of domestic water and recycled water services to Dougherty Valley by DSRSD/ Zone 7 or EBMUD would require expansion of water treatment and conveyance facilities, resulting in potential impacts outside Dougherty Valley. Construction impacts will be subject to environmental review b the District,p � y s rict, when facilities are planned. Mitigation measures are routinely incorporated into project design and construction contracts, and they will be enforced by the District. Based on information currently known, the impacts of treatment and conveyance enhancements required to serve the increase in demand resulting from the project would not be expected to have significant adverse impacts since the improvements needed involve routine expansion of existing facilities. It is anticipated that adding capacity to the South Bay Aqueduct would involve the expansion of conveyance and/or pumping capability within existing facilities. Treatment needs would be met by expansion of existing facilities through the addition of seven mgd of treatment capacity to the existing PPWTP, and is therefore not expected to involve any significant impacts. In the event Zone 7 chooses to build a new treatment facilPPV ;TP to meet future treated water requirements, expansion of the PPTP would not be required. However, construction of a new facility is not necessary to address the demands of this project. Upsizing of the planned Livermore-Dublin pipeline and the addition of one well (increased to eight the number of wells already planned for future needs) can also be expected to have no new significant impacts. These projects will also be subject to environmental review by Zone 7; if impacts not anticipated at this time are discovered, Zone 7, as lead agency, will be responsible for determining whether and how to carry out those projects, and for implementing appropriate mitigation measures. As the alternative provider, EBMUD has not analyzed the off-site facilities expansions that would �. be required to serve the Dougherty Valley. Should EBMUD become the water purveyor for the project,-any construction or expansion of off-site facilities would be subject to environmental review by the District. These construction impacts are considered to be a significant impact. 4.2-40 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 Miti ation Measure 4.2-4 The construction and cumulative impacts of off-site projects. will be subject to environmental review of the affected Districts. Design level plans and construction contracts routinely include provisions to minimize such impacts, including provisions that address restriction of access, slowing of traffic, increased dust and noise, interception of utility service, public safety hazards and removal of vegetation. The County should also condition project approval on payment of connection fees to the appropriate District to finance construction of needed facilities and provide water service to the site. Because of their limited duration and the implementation of BMP's by the District, off-site construction impacts are considered to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Wastewater Impact 4.2-5 The Gale Ranch and Windemere projects, excluding the Country Club at Gale Ranch, are not within the existing service district of a sanitary district. This is a ' significant impact. Mitigation Measure t4.2-5 LAFCO should amend the SDI and annex the remainder of Dougherty Valley into CCCSD, the preferred wastewater service provider. This mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.2-6 Wastewater service by CCCSD would create demands on existing facilities and require construction of new facilities on-and off-site. This is a significant impact. Due to existing deficiencies in the collection system, CCCSD is planning various up-grade projects to expand capacity. These improvements will be made whether or not CCCSD serves Dougherty Valley. When completed, these facilities will be able to accommodate wastewater generated by urban lands between the site and the District's treatment plant. In addition to trunk sewers in roads, the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II project will require either a Dougherty Valley pumping station and forcemains or a transport tunnel and trunk sewers to reach the Larwin Pumping Station. Additionally, the pumping capacity of the Larwin Pumping Station will need to be expanded. The construction activities can slow traffic, interfere with access, generate noise and dust, and require removal of vegetation. Moreover,the effects can be both on- site and off-site. Generally, these are only short-term construction effects. Construction impacts 1 are analyzed in the geology, noise and air quality chapters. 4.2-41 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES The tunnel is environmentally superior to the pumping station and forcemain alternative because ' it saves energy, avoids the potential reliability problems with mechanical pumping systems, avoids the potential need for odor suppression equipment, and avoids the need for fencing and screening an above-ground pumping station at Dougherty Valley. Mitigation Measure 4.2-6(a) If wastewater service is provided by CCCSD, project applicants will be required to comply with CCCSD Capital Improvement fees and user fees to mitigate the cost of CCCSD's related wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system capacity expansion projects. 4.2-6(b) Adopt the tunnel alternative provided that geotechnical,.as well as design and economic issues, can be resolved. This mitigation measure will reduce impacts on CCCSD to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.2-7 The extension of wastewater service to Dougherty Valley by CCCSD will result in short-term construction impacts outside Dougherty Valley as well as cumulative impacts. This is considered to be a significant impact. The EIRs prepared for the San Ramon Valley and A-Line Interceptors expansion'project have identified significant short-term unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from construction. These impacts include. restrictions of access to residences and businesses; disruption and slowing of traffic; disruption of hiking trail use; increased noise levels; generation of dust; potential interruption of utility service; increased public safety hazards; removal of vegetation; potential erosion and drainage effects; and reduced underground utility capacity. Although each of these impacts would be mitigated, it is not certain that they would be mitigated to a level of less-than- significant. With the addition of Dougherty Valley project flows to the San Ramon Interceptor(Phase 3) and the A-Line Interceptor expansion projects, no new significant impacts would result.. However, for both interceptor projects the previously identified impacts would occur sooner than originally anticipated. The San Ramon interceptor design would accommodate the project flow with no change in construction impacts. The A-Line Interceptor would require a somewhat larger pipe than originally envisioned to meet the project's incremental capacity needs. Such a pipe could be accommodated within the project's approved construction zone and right-of-way,thus no additional impacts would occur. The Dougherty Valley project would contribute to the cumulative demand for wastewater treatment services. Any future expansion of wastewater treatment plant facilities which may be 4.2-42 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES needed due to cumulative demand would be addressed by CCCSD in a separate environmental analysis closer to the time such expansion is needed as the impacts of such action currently would be speculative. Mitigation Measure 4.2-7 The construction and cumulative impacts identified above were the subject of previous EIRs prepared by the District. Design level plans and construction contracts routinely include I provisions to minimize such impacts, and the mitigation monitoring performed by the District will ensure compliance with the intent of the measures. Even with effective implementation of mitigation measures to control construction impacts, there is a significant, unavoidable impact. BIBLIOGRAPHY Contacts Solid Waste, Dan Borges, General Manager, Valley Waste Management. ' Solid Waste, John Friedman, General Manager, Browning Ferris Industries. PG&E, Dave Gregory, Electro-Magnetic Fields. PG&E, Alan Spatcher, Concord Office, Land Agent for Alameda County. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Russell Leavitt, Planning Assistant. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Mark Caughey, Water Distribution Planning. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Harvey Hanoian, Associate Civil Engineer. Dublin San Ramon Services District, Bert Michalczyk, Technical Services Manager. Dublin San Ramon Services District, Bruce Webb, Engineering Planner. Dublin San Ramon Services District, Bob Gresens, Master Planning, Recycled Water. References Brown and Caldwell Consultants, Modeling of Dublin San Ramon Services District Water and Wastewater Services to the Planned Dougherty Valley Development for Windemere Properties, July 30, 1992. Camp Dresser & McKee, East Bay Municipal Udlity District: Final Facilities Plan ReportSan Ramon Pressure Zone Improvements, December 1995. John Carollo Engineers,Dublin San Ramon Services District:Plan of Services for Wtn demere Ranch Partners portion of the Dougherty Valley, September 1995. 4.2-43 41 PUBLIC UTILITIES Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. San Ramon Valley Trunk Sewer Improvement Project EIR, September 1986. Ci hof Dublin, "Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance," Ordinance #18-92 Adopted December , 14, 1992. Contra Costa County CommunityDevelopment Department,Draft Environmental Impact Report: ' Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific.Plan, and Related Actions: County File #2-91- SR SCH #91053014, June 1992. Contra Costa County Community Development Department,Draft Environmental Impact Report: Country Club at Gale Ranch: General Plan Amendment: Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan (3010-RZ); Final Development Plan (3010-92); Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (Tract 7796), SCH #93081082, August 1994. Contra Costa County Community Development Department,Final Environmental Impact Report: Country Club at Gale Ranch:' General Plan Amendment: Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan (3010-RZ); Final Development Plan (3010-92); Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (Tract 7796), SCH #93081082. Dublin San Ramon Services District "DSRSD Recycled Water Service Identification Map," Y P� December 4, 1995. Dublin San Ramon Services District, 'DSRSD Water Service Identification Map," December 4, 1995. , East Bay Municipal Utility District, Final Environmental Impact Report: Volume One: Updated Water Supply Management Program, September 14, 1993. Environmental Science Associates, Inc., Central Contra Costa Sanitary District:Pleasant Hill/A-Line Sewer Overflow Protection Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #90030204, March 1991. Settlement Agreement. Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report and Relating to the Water Supply Management Program and Environmental Impact Report of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. 4.2-44 4.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 Letters Dublin San Ramon Services District/East Bay Municipal Utilities District Recycled Water Authority (DERWA), Notice of Preparation of EIR, Bert Michalczyk, January 12, 1996. Department of Water Resources, "To: California Cities and Counties and Others Interested in Assembly Bill 325: The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act", Marsha Prillwitz, Water Conservation Office, Division of Local Assistance, August 14, 1992. Dublin San Ramon Services District to "James W. Cutler, Assistant Director for Comprehensive Planning, Contra Costa County Community Development Dept., Subject: Water Service to Dougherty Valley," Bert Michalczyk, November 20, 1995. Dublin San Ramon Services District to 'Debbie Chamberlain, Senior Planner, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Country Club at Gale Ranch," Bert Michalczyk, September 19, 1994. Dublin San Ramon Services District to "James W. Cutler, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Subject: Comments on the Dougherty Valley Draft Specific Plan-Contra Costa County, ' April, 1992-County File #2-91-SP," Bert Michalczyk, September 8, 1992. 4.2-45 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43PUBLIC SERVICES INTRODUCTION This section examines the affect of the proposed project on schools,the community college district, open space, police protection, fire protection, and other public facilities. SCHOOLS Background The discussion of schools in the 1992 EIR commences on page 5-12, and school-related General Plan policies are presented on page 5-29 and 5-30. Dougherty Valley is identified as being within ' the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (page 5-12). Enrollment and capacity data for 1992 is presented on page 5-15. The EIR goes on to state that the District was expected to "reach capacity by 1996, creating the need for additional school facilities." Financing options being considered by the District are briefly reviewed. In 1989, California High School was expanded. However, the downstairs classrooms are considered unusable due to needed renovations. Capacity at the District's high schools is being .estimated by the District concurrently with the development of this EIR, but will meet current enrollment needs. Estimated District-wide high school enrollment is 5,247 (September, 1996). Iron Horse Middle School will open in September 1996 as a sixth/seventh grade school with 450 students. The following school year it will expand to 650 students in grades six to eighth and will be considered at its ultimate capacity. District middle schools will have a September 1996 capacity of 4,392 students and an enrollment of 3,975 students. Middle school enrollment for September 1997 is estimated at 4,357 students. District elementary schools will have a September 1996 capacity of 9,000 students and an estimated enrollment of 8,822 students. However, these calculations were based upon 30 students per classroom. The State Legislature has recently proposed a standard of 20 students per classroom in grades K-3. Meeting this standard would bring the District to capacity for elementary school classroom space. Proposition 203, approved by the voters in March 1996, provided $2 billion 4.3-1 43 PUBLIC SERVICES statewide for school facilities. Construction of Tassajara Elementary ry School' is being fundedwith a combination of Proposition 203 and local funds. The school is being designed for a capacity of 650 students and is expected to be ready for occupancy around January 1998. ' Total District enrollment is estimated at 18,773 students (September, 1996). Agreements Between Developers and School District Shapell , 1988 Agreement. On 13 December 1988 an agreement was reached regarding Shapell's West Branch subdivision and Gale Ranch. West Branch is located immediately north of Dougherty , Valley (see Figure 4.3-1). This agreement stated that Shapell would provide two 10-acre r elementary school sites and one 15-acre intermediate school site within its Gale Ranch subdivision. It was agreed that the Gale Ranch schools would serve the children generated by both Shapell ' projects. In addition,Shapell agreed to assist the District in its dealings with the State Department of Education, State Board of Allocation and other governmental entities, provide$10 million per 475 high school students generated by Shapell's West Branch and Gale Ranch projects to offset ' the District's cost of providing facilities (less any state matching funds or other alternative funding sources), and build one 650 student elementary school on the Gale Ranch property. Fifty percent of State funds received by the District as a result of Shapell's assistance would be credited to ' Shapell against future builder's fees. Full credit against builder's fees would also be made for land irrevocably transferred to the District for school sites and for construction of school facilities. The District agreed to declare and support that Shapell's efforts to comply with this agreement fully mitigates and meets Shapell's financial obligations for school facilities arising out of development of West Branch and Gale Ranch. , Mitigation Monitoring. The Phasing and Mitigation Monitoring Program of the 1992 EIR defined a school's"fully operational condition" as including: hard court areas, school/neighborhood parks , with turfed areas, landscaping around the schools, and furniture and equipment as outlined in the State school building program. It defined student generation factors to be used and the school capacities: 650 student elementary, 1,200 student middle, and 1,800 student high school. It allowed schools to be constructed in phases,but required design development through construction to begin 36 months prior to the arrival of students that would bring student numbers to two-thirds of capacity for the first stage of school construction. (For example, if elementary school is going to be built with 300 student capacity with plans to later be expanded to 650 student capacity, then it must begin design development 36 months prior to an expected student generation of 200 students. If the elementary school was going to be built with 650 student capacity to begin with, ' 1 This school site front on the north side of Camino Tassajara,just east of the eastern entrance to the Blackhawk , development. 4.3-2 i V i mite l/�— ' r-vv.'�"v f j'V-� ({ 1(/ r /" t t,"S,� /.•. r` t - `^+'',./ ''�•I` g- '.. o F ^y� z —4tS {/ (t i i'� I1 ( y ' i it n a t + r / t l , s .� 1 , c r,r J L �. �`' tS r ✓ � � t"f. � ? •} ti:. ,/ �� €r.}/ �'A � �'����itty o i �� �i t.� �lFr'r �ti� �/��. 6/�`� tib, r ��'' ,/c V'i ,� 's a( �'%� -"• ..r)d:; S,� v., r u••; ,Fqs\ ;1 v�.._„-,,;.R �,. \ 7i F -'y/.jy .:} '\ � 1 � f"'� f.., �u { �� ! .i„�1 / 7 �� ^*✓" zi, / l 1 �j ii�e,t � ""y.. �t,a t 'r. }l.-� :Ar `-^v 4 ti�`t rs• ' �t t � tr,r,., ��(� /1 f K3 \4 ' .'.`�� \ ti "�..r'! _ �L•� r•.. �:�/t^'`.J" J/f t't--~��.':.$)1�� �t� ,.,, r€f d�. �„a n�%�„^�.—.1tir �'/lt�,.l�'� 8 Y t"�f(�� i 1 ru;t\ �1� ✓ i ilk n s� ,. � \ �V �Lbs /�i (!��� �\� t�� •` / -�. �� 1� �`r-- t�,�' \~` r�-'���"� t r t / �'• .`�( y ( .:r f J4zV �1•L _C _ / L.� .J i^� �: /`�\ ditd �• I � f`/ � ��}t,`\\lf;�f' �./r//�-� /t iS_.Sx-_i"`-�\`°„aL`/ w wit nt � �4 • <.^%� �� i l\.*, ,„ -4: �� t ��\ s R;�� ` r _ t,�• i' 4 v?: ' _ • /f f""''-,�i . (, 177. �{ t�- ',fll''J• -., 'tl n \ ti s _ •'//... I ,�\ / \ � _ tt��� � l xAa �.zo' it-Y �k J t ] / Ft r-^ Subm trµs/—'°� � :' 1 \M�,.,P `�\ d+S' �,•�'�ay� _✓.1 s x � � C r .� `� y> €1 \ 1 '�\?,.'\ ��5 I \�•'s � � � 57'�\.I: \✓"'-.\-•ana r+.`^'M.s,�Y.ti..... \ yF % �' s;: r a h z fi`' .;w Lr\ � t f1 ,� a ; rk 'T ' .,. a,� �• .>t •.;� / �s'T � \, v�lr y'::t S'+,,� t r l 7 f(�.l� Y tt z � � � •� t \ fix,.�v��\ F'}t R, ) :.�,� '.�y y,° C:�'��.,75..,.x.-!y/,,,,,L•Vii, a,�\ "ua � s I'C Aja d ,kANA[3t� f t yM i' T J r L t)U6'7fs1¢Wti�K\y s J� �: t1i 'kll0TT; t A ., jFigure: 4.3-1 West Branch Graphic Location Map Scale: � Subsequent EIR 0 800' 1600' 3200' 4.3-3 i 43 PUBLIC SERVICES ' the design development would need to begin 36 months prior to an expected student generation of 433 students.) 1994 Agreement. On November 9 1994 the Conditions of Approval for Count Club at Gale i�' � PP Country Ranch set a specific schedule tying development of school sites to the number of building permits issued for Country Club and West Branch combined. By the issuance of the 1,570th building permit a fully operational 300 student elementary school is to be completed. By the issuance of. the 1,749th building permit, expansion of the elementary school to 650 student capacity shall , commence. Windemere There have been no formal agreements between Windemere and the District. Negotiations are ongoing. The adopted Specific Plan for Dougherty Valley shows two five-acre elementary schools, one 10-acre middle school and one 25-acre high school, not including neighborhood parks acreage at school sites. The proposed Specific Plan has refined the location of some school sites, but the acreages have not changed. ' School/Neighborhood Parks In Dougherty Valle the size of schools are consistent with the expectations and routine g rtY Y P requirements of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District: elementary schools (10 acres), middle schools (15 acres) and high school (50 acres). For the purposes of compiling.the acreage of neighborhood parks, five acres of each elementary and middle school is, considered to be a neighborhood park, and 25 acres of the high school is considered to be park lands. The location of schools shown in the Specific Plan are intended to be centralized within the neighborhoods served, and sited with respect to access and safety considerations of the County Public Works Department. Student Generation , Buildout of Dougherty Valley Forecasts of the student population of Dougherty Valley can be made using the student generation , factors of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. Those factors are presented in Table 4.3-1. The revised Specific Plan calls for a total of 11 000 total units in Dougherty Valley. Based on the i P � g rtY Y 1988 agreement between Shapell and SRVUSD, the 703 units within West Branch must also be considered when determining students generated by the project. Table 4.3-2 was developed from 4.3-4 i 43 PUBLIC SERVICES 1 Table 4.3-1 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS OF ' SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Single Family Multiple-Family Grades Dwelling Unit: Dwelling Umt K-5 (Elementary) 0.3 0.1 6-8 (Intermediate) 0.15 0.03 9-12 (High School) 0.25 0.05 ' Table 4.3-2 ESTIMATED STUDENT POPULATION YIELDED BY BUILDOUT OF THE DOUGHERTY VALLEY AND WEST BRANCH PLANNING AREAS ' Unit Mix StudentPopulahon SF ' MF' 'total K-5 6-8 912 l ' West Branch 418 285 703 154 71 119 Gale Ranch 2,282 3,548 5,830 1,039 449 748 Windemere 2,520 2,650 5,170 1,021 458 763 ' Total 5,220 6,483 11,703 2,214 978 1,630 the District's student generation factors (presented in Table 4.3-1), unit mix from the revised Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, and personal communication with Shapell Industries for unit mix in West Branch. At buildout the Shapell and Windemere projects are estimated to yield 2,214 elementary-aged students, 978 middle school-aged students and 1,630 high school-aged students. ' The settlement agreements prescribe thresholds for the opening of schools in the Dougherty rtY Valley. Specifically, the Capital Improvement Program includes an infrastructure standard that requires a school to be opened prior to the project generating two-thirds capacity, but must be delivered operational no later than August 1. For elementary schools the design capacity is 650 students. Thus the first elementary school will be opened when the first 433 students are 4.3-5 43 PUBLIC SERVICES generated. The next three elementary schools will be opened at generation of 1,083, 1,733 and 2,383 students. The design capacity of middle schools are 1,100 students, so the first middle school must be ' opened when 733 students are generated. Since full buildout of Dougherty Valley is forecasted to yield 978 middle school students, it is conceivable that the second middle school will not be ' needed. The high school capacity is 2,200, so it would be required to be operational when 1,466 students are generated. Gale Ranch II and Windemere I Projects Table 4.3-3 provides the student population forecasts for buildout of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. It also identifies the students generated by the West Branch and Country Club at Gale Ranch projects. According to this table, buildout of the preceding projects will yield 1,270 elementary school students, 581 intermediate school students and 970 high school students. , At that point there would be the need for two elementary schools. The Preliminary Development Plans of Shapell and Windemere show the location of these schools (see Figures 3-8 and 3-9). One elementary and the intermediate school are shown in the Gale Ranch II project, in the northwest quadrant of the Bollinger Canyon Road/Dougherty Road intersection. The Windemere I project shows an elementary school in the northeast corner of that project. Since construction , of an intermediate and high school in Dougherty Valley would not be triggered by buildoui of the projects listed in Table 4.3-3, students in these grades would attend schools outside Dougherty Valley, pending construction of the intermediate and high school in the later phases of Dougherty Valley projects. As shown in Table 4.3-3, the combined number,of students generated by buildout of Shapell's ' West Branch and Country Club at Gale Ranch projects will be 446 elementary, 210 middle, and 350 high school students. The combined students from Gale Ranch Phase II and the Windemere I project will be 823 elementary, 371 middle, and 619 high school students. Development plans for Gale Ranch Phase II show a 10-acre (minimum) elementary school with adjacent 1-acre child care facility and a 15-acre (minimum) middle school/park site with adjacent open space. Development plans for Windemere I show a 12-acre elementary school/park with adjacent creek corridor park. 4.3-6 , i ' 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Table 4.3-3 ESTIMATED STUDENT POPULATION AT BUILDOUT OF THE WEST BRANCH, COUNTRY CLUB AT GALE RANCH, GALE RANCH II AND WINDEMERE I PROJECTS Unit Miz Student Population SF MF Total K 5th. 6th-8th 9t1i-12th ............ Shapell Industries West Branch 418 285 703 154 71 119 ' Country Club 853 363 1,216 292 139 231 Gale Ranch II 1,354 471 1,825 453 217 362 Subtotal 2,625 1,119 3,744 900 427 713 wndemere Windemere I 724 1,525 2,249 370 154 257 Total 3,349 2,644 5,993 1,270 581 970 Childcare Background Childcare facilities in the San Ramon Valley are quite diverse. There are several private childcare centers, childcare services located on school sites and daycare in private homes. Specialized before-and after-school childcare services in the San Ramon Valley for grades K-5 are offered by Kids' Country, the YMCA and Larson's Growing Room. Kids' Country operates facilities at 10 of the 15 elementary schools in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD), while the YMCA operates centers at two schools and Larson's Growing Room ' operates at three schools.The capacities for the before-and after-school childcare sites range from about 60 to 90 students. The SRVUSD plans these facilities, leases elementary school land at a nominal fee to the non-profit childcare providers and has made provisions in the District's Master Plan for childcare facilities at the future elementary school sites in Dougherty Valley. (Chris Learned, SRVUSD) Family daycare homes serve children from birth to 12 and accounted for 32 percent of the childcare capacity and 29 percent of the childcare in the San Ramon Valley in 1995 (see Table 4.3- 4). Conversely, 68 percent of the capacity was at childcare centers and 71 percent of the childcare was at childcare centers. The vacancy rates for family daycare homes was 20.6 percent and 6.2 percent at the centers. The Contra Costa Childcare Council considers a vacancy rate of 15 percent to be advantageous as it allows for change'in childcare. Family daycare homes are licensed for six to 12 children. Since many family daycare providers choose to care for fewer children than their licenses specify their vacancy rates are higher than at centers. 4.3-7 43 PUBLIC SERVICES ' Table 4.3-4 FAMILY DAYCARE HOMES AND CHILDCARE CENTERS IN THE SAN RAMON VALLEY ' (1995 Yearly Average) Number of Homes/Centers Homes/Centers Total Capacity With Openings Open Slots Family DayCare Homes Alamo 16 124 9 31 Danville' 68 458 39 92 San Ramon 89 636 54 128 173 1,218 102 251 Child Care Centers Alamo 6 279 2 19 ' Danville' 20 1,202 12 61 San Ramon 16 1,086 11 79 42 2,567 25 159 Blackhawk's data is included in Danville's data. Source: Central Contra Costa Childcare Council. Childcare Facilities Standards The California Department of Social Services, which licenses childcare facilities, requires each , facility to have a minimum of 35 square feet of indoor space per child and 75 square feet of outdoor space per child. Given these standards, childcare providers generally agree that to be profitable, a childcare facility must have a capacity of 50 children. Therefore, to care for 50 ' children, a childcare facility must have approximately 1,750 square feet of indoor space and 3,750 square feet of outdoor space. These requirements would probably be met by an appropriately ' sized home on a lot with a minimum area of 5,500'to 6,000 square feet. Childcare Ordinance ' The Contra Costa County Childcare Ordinance requires that an applicant submit an assessment of the estimated childcare needs caused by any proposed nonresidential project having 100 or more potential employees or having a floor area of 15,000 gross square feet, or for residential projects ' of 30 or more units. The childcare survey should include an assessment of the estimated childcare service needs caused by the proposed project. The response program shall show how these needs for childcare services are to be mitigated. (Contra Costa County Code. Chapter 82-22) The 4.3-8 , ' 43 PUBLIC SERVICES ordinance also requires that new facilities constructed to meet childcare demands of residential projects be operating to serve the demands of the project for a minimum of 25 years.The assessment shall use demographic data which is representative of the geographical area in which the project is located, or for nonresidential projects it shall contain data concerning potential employees and the number of their dependents who may need childcare. The number of children between birth through age 12 who need childcare shall be ascertained in both cases. Table 4.3-5 presents the 1990 census data on the numbers of children per,household in the San Ramon Valley. ' Table 4.3.5 SUMMARY OF 1990 CENSUS DATA ON CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD IN THE SAN RAMON VALLEY Children Children 0-4/Ilouschold :5 12 Alamo .164 .325 ' Blackhawk .198 .404 Danville .179 .337 San Ramon -197 -337 ' The number of children per household is dependent on the type of housing. Single-family homes have more children on the average than condos, apartments or townhouses. For example, the SRVUSD uses a student generation factor for grades K-5 of 0.3 children per single-family dwelling and 0.1 per condo, townhouse or apartment.. Thus the number of children needing childcare is dependent on the type of housing. ' The purpose of the Childcare Ordinance is to increase the available supply of childcare where needed.The mitigation depends on the number of children who will need care. For smaller projects the mitigation may be to help increase the supply by helping to increase the size of existing facilities, or perhaps to help generate additional family daycare homes by paying some monies to the Contra Costa Childcare Council to be used for training providers in the area of the development. Some ' land developments have assisted with development of childcare centers at school sites or at private or non-profit childcare centers. ' The childcare assessment should be submitted to the Community Development Department along with the project application. The response program showing how the childcare needs are to be mitigated should be submitted in a timely fashion so that the adequacy of the response document can be determined no later than 30 days prior to the public hearing on the project. The mitigation 4.3-9 43 PUBLIC SERVICES program or provisions for the mitigation program shall be completed before the signing of the final ' map for the project. Childcare Needs Assessment for Windemere I and Gale Ranch II Based on the child generation factors presented in Table 4.3-6, the Windemere project yields an estimated 728 children between the ages of zero to 12 and Gale Ranch II yields 681 children: The number of children who will need childcare outside the home'is estimated to be 236 for Windemere I and 221 for the Gale Ranch II project (see Table 4.3-7). These forecasted needs could change if ' the mix of housing changes? The year 2000 census would provide updated data on the proportions of children with both parents or one parent in single-parent households in the labor force. The childcare ordinance specifies that an assessment of the number of children needing childcare be made and a mitigation plan be presented by the applicants for staff review. A childcare facility is planned adjacent to the elementary school within the Gale Ranch II project. Windemere Ranch ' Partners have not addressed their method of compliance with the child care ordinance with the pending application. Conceivably, a child care facility could be incorporated into the village center but there is not definite commitment to do so. The 12-acre school/park site shown on the ' Windemere I development plans has sufficient room to provide a childcare facility while maintaining its 10-acre lot size shown in the Specific Plan. Table 4.3-6 CHILD GENERATION FACTORS FOR THE 1 WINDEMERE I AND GALE RANCH II PROJECTS Number.of Children Per Unit Age:O-4 Yrs Age 5-12 Yrs Single-Family .19 .33 Multiple-Family .10 .13 Source: Linda Moulton, Demographer, Community Development Department. s The mix of units currently proposed for the Windemere I project is 724 single-family dwellings and 1,525 multiple- family dwellings. Plans for the Gale Ranch II project indicate 904 single-family dwellings and 923 multiple-family ' dwellings. 4.3-10 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Table 4.3-7 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CHILDREN NEEDING CHILDCARE WINDEMERE I AND GALE RANCH II PROJECTS %of Children:' %Needing Number of. with''Both Outside Children Needing?. Children Parents'Working' Childcare Care wndemere I Project ' Children 0-4 291 53.5% 50% 78 Children 5-12 437 72.4% 50% 158 Total 728 236 ' Cale Ranch:II Project Children 0-4 263 43.5% 50% 76 Children 5-12 418 72.4% 50% 151 Total 681 221 ' Data for San Ramon. Percent of children with both parents in the labor force or one parent working in single-parent households. Source: Linda Moulton, Demographer, Community Development Department. ' San Ramon Valley,Campus Assuming the District is able to gain state approval for a new campus and can reach an agreement with Windemere Ranch Partners regarding financing construction, the District anticipates moving from the existing leased property in the south county area to Dougherty Valley in four or five years(year 2000±). At that time the District will be able to offer a broader range of courses than ' are currently available and would have an enrollment of up to 5,000 students. The San Ramon Valley Campus is identified in the application as an integral part of the Village ' Center and enrollments are planned to expand to 8,400 students (maximum) as the population of Dougherty Valley expands to 30,000 persons. Administrators of the District are committed to scheduling classes based on local traffic and parking demand as well as other practical considerations. The new campus will form partnerships with other agencies to efficiently provide community services by sharing space and/or support staff and will rely on local businesses for many student services. Classes will be scheduled to utilize shared parking opportunities with Village Center employers during off-hours. The District will continue its consortium with UC Berkeley Extension and California State University, Hayward for shared facilities and marketing. 4.3-11 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Funding may come from both private developers and public agencies. Buildings may be used for t several different purposes, both public and private, before they are converted to educational uses. It is anticipated that the new campus will make use'of new technologies to improve data retrieval, interactive and distance-education. These goals will be furthered by electronically linking all residences in Dougherty Valley to the campus. The college will use an interdisciplinary approach to teaching; focusing on critical thinking skills. ' OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND TRAILS ' Background 1992 EIR ' The discussion of open space, parks and trails is presented on page 5-17 of the 1992 EIR. Local parks and the park dedication ordinance are reviewed on page 5-18. Standards for parks are , presented on Table 5-3, and related General Plan policies are presented on page 5-30. Figure 5-5 of the previous EIR showed the locations of two trails and a community park that were shown on the General Plan. Adopted Specific Plan , Figure 13 of the Adopted Specific Plan showed the location of mayor trails, bike routes, bridges/underpasses for trails and staging areas for trails. In effect, the Specific Plan interpreted the General Plan and selected alignments for major trails which minimized grading in hillside ' areas. In urban areas trail alignments were selected to take advantage of views of the creeks, to efficiently serve the Dougherty Valley community, and provide linkage to the regional trails. It also shows the location of planned staging areas for regional trails. Recent Events Specific Plan Since the preparation of the adopted Specific Plan, the developers of Dougherty Valley have submitted Preliminary Development Plans that have refined and modified the grading concept and design for the developed area. This has resulted in modifications to the trails map presented in the revised Specific Plan. For example, the adopted Specific Plan showed a trail along Windemere Parkway. When that road alignment changed it necessitated modification to the trails plan. Comparison of Table 3 of the adopted Specific Plan with the revised Specific Plan indicates no net loss of park lands or major open space. The adopted Specific Plan provides 3,026 total acres designated either open space (OS) or park and recreation (PR). This amounts to 59 percent of the total acreage of Dougherty Valley. The revised Specific Plan calls for 3,023 total acres of 4.3-12 ' ' 43 PUBLIC SERVICES OS/PR, excluding Camp Parks. With the addition of Camp Parks, there is 3,973 acres of open space in the planning area. Moreover, the acreages devoted to community, neighborhood and pocket parks has not changed. EBRPD According to the 1992 EIR, it was anticipated that all or portions of the regional open space in Dougherty Valley would be dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). It was ' anticipated that the trails in such open space areas would be designed and aligned to meet EBRPD standards, and that the District would assume maintenance responsibility. While this remains a possibility, it appears more likely that the major open space areas will be owned by County Service ' Area M-29,the existing West Branch GRAD, a new GHAD, or other public agency. Specifically, the Regional Park District has adopted policies which make it difficult to accept lands that are within a Geologic Hazard Abatement District, or lands which have been graded. For these and other reasons it does not appear that dedication of permanent open space to EBRPD is likely. Nevertheless,the operation and maintenance of these facilities by EBRPD is still under discussion. ' Geologic Hazard Abatement District The Gale Ranch property is proposed to be in the West Branch GHAD. The purposes and operation of GHAD's is described in Chapter 4.5. The Windemere Partners Ranch property is not currently in a GHAD. It could be added to the West Branch GHAD or it could form an ' independent GHAD. Final Development Plans/Vesting Tentative Map ' Gale Ranch II This phase of Gale Ranch includes 27.5 acres of parks,96.6 acres of creek corridor and 458.3 acres ' of common open space (total 582.4 acres). The location of parks is shown in Figure 3-8. The details of the planned improvements in neighborhood parks are presented in Figures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3. Windemere I This phase of the Windemere project includes a 12-acre elementary school/park, 16.9 acres of neighborhood parks, 4.4 acres of linear park and 47.4 acres of creek corridor (total 80.7 acres). Figures 4.3-4 and 4.3-5 show the details of planned improvement at the neighborhood parks,along ' with a concept plan for the Creek Corridor Park. 1 4.3-13 Y s Cf t ay � �� _• k� rt `I�� 1 `r � �E "� •: 4��er_ r 1. Y S tom.- pjl- f1y 3MU ;0*4- 5�.'l. i�:: �•-.t. �,.< s, ,' -�11`'. 'G. .:Qty• w a3� )� ""' It�,F.S''°•1h����'�4^CD`�S6z'"�`-. '•fOc rl Si'v irp? 414- tv°$ `•tt JPo fTj P n tat4� 3E -t T t� ♦ i.'fi 3�- ,O.1''e-mss� yq twe IMF 1 mfr. �!� �w't_',. �r�`.:�' �� _3 nhy>.. ,.� e'-`�' .�ff `�$'Sd4�+riy�f •lr 's lax 1p '•� �r kS� _ , Jy� ; x as _ r �` .�3'� • tqr 7f:, 11 of c•. f Dougherty .�, • „ ,,, . - p Valley . -. 1 4 �} ON t f k d gi, Y �{ C` n 4_ vw Lill IN 4 a' �y ti 4. W; Vs 1,YJ +'a•..�aA��C A i , �`��- s s � � - J'.. ��, �� �'-� ��.{ ��•.� t4���. � � ter' � � '�r'`"T���'..s� -1 .:...y 1 '�'{] ��o p ¢ �.? itl{ 4 .��~.'/�+✓{_)� ��i-fie --�?••• eew, ._.g 7 ;7."g v�'�Us�_ 23� - ,+� � .Q� ✓n e''� � l 'is'�a ..L { „L -f� db �C� � �.." ) ..qty. ♦41 >�1 ', �. Dougherty - �� 43 PUBLIC SERVICES POLICE PROTECTION Sheriff ' i Discussion of police services began on page 5-10 of the 1992 EIR. It stated that the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department was responsible for non-traffic-related law enforcement within the unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County. (Traffic-related law enforcement is provided by the California Highway Patrol.) The 1992 EIR discussed the staffing levels for the Sheriffs Valley Substation which serves the south county area. Dougherty Valley was stated to be within Beat 13, be patrolled by one deputy, and have a Priority 1 response time of five to 10 minutes. ' The Sheriffs Department had 1.4 sworn deputies per 1,000 population, but only 0.6 to 0.7 patrol officers per 1,000 population (the remainder being investigators, etc.). This was said to be ' inadequate and discussed that Blackhawk and Alamo had special police districts to fund enhanced police services, funded through added property taxes. Such a district was formed as part of the M-29 County Service Area discussed above. The Specific Plan calls for a Sheriffs substation in ' the Dougherty Valley. The Sheriffs Office provides project review services known as "crime prevention through ' environmental design". The Sheriffs office has reviewed the Notice of Preparation and has no comments on either the modifications to the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan or the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. In summary, Specific Plan modifications are not expected to impact ' police services compared with plans adopted in 1992 and discussed in the 1992 EIR.' If the site is annexed to the City of San Ramon, the City will provide police services rather than the County Sheriff. ' California Highway Patrol ' The 1992 EIR stated that the California Highway Patrol's Dublin office is responsible for traffic- related law enforcement in the Dougherty Valley. This office requested in 1991 that the State fund 70 officers to adequately patrol its jurisdiction. The State responded by funding 55 officers. ' The hiring of additional officers is not expected for the foreseeable future. Nothing has changed regarding highway patrol service in this area since 1992. The Highway patrol ' has no comments on the modifications to the Dougherty Valley project. Plan modifications since 1992 are not expected to impact traffic control services compared with plans adopted in 1992 and discussed in the 1992 EIR.' A potential shortage of patrol officers to control traffic in Dougherty Valley remains unchanged. 3 Sgt. J. DeVaull, Administrative & Community Services, Office of the Sheriff, letter dated March 26, 1996 and personal communication, 1996. Officer Steve Creel, Dublin office, personal communication, March 15, 1996. 4.3-1b ' ' 43 PUBLIC SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION Background San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) is the provider of fire protection and emergency services for Dougherty Valley. Discussion of SRVFPD began on page 5-11 of the 1992 ' EIR. On page 5-13 of the previous EIR is a map of existing fire stations in the District. In the past, stations had to be placed such that urban first response radii were 1.5 miles, which assured a five-minute(maximum) response time. Newer engines can drive faster(particularly uphill), thus ' allowing larger first response areas in some situations. SRVFPD remains committed to maintaining a five-minute response time for fires and emergency calls, which is the standard for urban areas specified by the Growth Management Element. Road design is a primary concern in determining how quickly emergency vehicles can respond. The loop configuration of Bollinger Canyon Road and the design of residential streets which are laid out to create neighborhoods and ' discourage/prevent through traffic, requires emergency vehicles to drive longer distances to reach some destinations. ' Planning Policies The revised Specific Plan identifies two fire stations in Dougherty Valley on the Community Facilities Map. With regard to the text, the revised SP (page 9-14, first paragraph) states that two fire stations are required to serve the area. Lower on the page, under Station Needs, "potentially two' and "up to two' new fire stations are referenced. Measure C (1988) requires new ' development to provide the fire stations and emergency response equipment needed to provide an urban level of service. For example, if buildings in the village center will be four story the fire station serving the village center would require a ladder truck and hoses capable of efficiently fighting fires in four-story buildings. Moreover, the fire district may require a larger staff, more equipment and a larger station than would be true of a station serving a residential community made up exclusively of one- and two-story buildings. (Assistant Chief Coggiola, SRVFPD, pers. ' comm. 1996) Emergency Response Studies DKAssociates, in cooperationwith SRVFPD and the developers,were retained to perform a study of emergency response times to various points within Dougherty Valley. The study, which was ' completed in May 1996, addresses the number of stations needed, the preferred station location and speed of new engines (see Figure 4.3-6 for proposed fire station locations). The report prepared by DK Associates indicates that one fire station in Dougherty Valley is capable of providing a five-minute response time, provided that it is located at a specific location on Bollinger Canyon Road. The site nominated by the consultant is on Windemere Ranch, approximately 1.1 miles east of the northern Bollinger Canyon/Dougherty Road intersection;nearly ' 4.3-17 :j:1 Y���h� r�./L•Yn �J� J X 3 vf'C 71COY— RIV RM ' arc• �c ��,'+—e-u'• \ `�? x t -- �F+ a �, .axj Fr -„q�`' ��x�j. m `�ra'.y 'E'�tF -.y'4.J -.r�F•fix r ��1 �r=}73a� \�T'�•'" "�%:"r'��. .. <.+. }I•i� �.+t,I`F.- �t'' a ��s.+' 7x w G Fy � e,. .. ...0 +•siv.��� a i� � k. ���z!�i� °�f�3,Sjr `�.y_��.�yv �$ty��` rn- { p°"1 'r '1 r's'nYs W�����s�{` wr �1 Ota c+jFF k„ r y '_f"i,1s Een,..q �+t�i �c�i ,u, ? +� � yEl H' •des" • • / 1 111 ' . � J r 1 _. �i �� ty vY�.'•s�:LL�' 9Ra A"WIPM �Ya• �� s ty � ��� � ^wju s�~, ����-=�'�.i�r,�J-z�iC�'.e�`w�xRn; a 9 y t 6gA + sjk .e . o `. Mal Ear ' � :2�,5���aj 2 ii�.�s y k �� ,��7 ��•�u{„ �c �u t 3+i 3 X 3 ` 7 yam,. Y•' °P*[�-�� �u$�'• R�F•.n�,.y"�`4�5° °�� ����`�y`.• i��' � �2 ',y�"`� Qr e�'�.r'�� �F r. S' 3 a.-�� s .fi.. Co- _ ;• • • / 1 111 � • i y ' ��R ihr g, �`�'��r•vF;f•`�I T�ir�c�T'n'F �` "'�ti '•ems x .� -arCr'_y`.�c^i v�L��xY �:.; t' �\\� - �/*�'� y!9a ��?'> «�'� ,�,•.. 9�?���� ��.SyS�;h.� int y t^�'.YP;�I •!� �J*M1� !%'ScP R�QY �Y��� A .. ,'��gS•SY'! g7p1(� •• D .5•:.�Gtt ti¢' 1 D D lava�F�� �`� �k1'a� ��:��,k-kms tl��•+�+fir -�w`�'#�`� ��..a �•;s *!S•: �� uS ._,fir.. a�'zw'�` FY +Y� +-� p 'Y &`ti °:''. .�• �•tK�•... .•��' Win„`' .•�• � -=m d33�g �r ' • 11 111 ' . b •�1�y fir etS ,�€c �' €..� 'tt �t,.� �'� rya Sal M +' tr R f c h •6- -c x../ ` �;�;��• 'ry' s• b P'zt*. f> '3 vF' �.-yr, - ,d`S Su9�y�...4c3 ✓x�V "t- �..�..tl1� - 1"5 .,w o.'A�' ���`:'.' E._�{�A it ��?b t,��.r '� : �, � a" • j DKy.� 7��.Ib•4°y��'Y" by L' i •illl'cP �+ : $fit° AND If of d.�������1 osPj!• 3135n G t ,�.� � t� - xt. 1 • 1 � • Valley 43 PUBLIC SERVICES ' one-third of a mile north of the proposed Windemere Fire Station shown in the Specific Plan;and ' 400 feet west of a proposed signalized intersection in Windemere Ranch. For the purposes of the fire response-time study, it was assumed that fire engines would be capable of speeds of SS MPH on arterial roads where the gradient was 10 percent or less. The Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Gale Ranch II project shows a fire station site adjacent the PG&E easement and fronting on Bollinger Canyon Road. While this site, in combination with a site shown in the revised Specific Plan on Windemere Ranch, are capable of providing a five-minute response time to all proposed parcels in Dougherty Valley, neither of the sites shown can independently provide a five-minute response time. The DK Associates study identified only one , potential fire station site that was capable of providing a five-minute response time to all neighborhoods in Dougherty Valley. It should be recognized that the site identified in the study performed by DK Associates is not at a major intersection. It is on a curve, where sight distance may be limited. It would require a ' break in the road median, an on-demand traffic signal, and creation of a new entry point on Bollinger Canyon Road between two planned intersections. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES Corporation Yard The Specific Plan does not show or discuss the need for a corporation yard, and the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects do not designate a site for a corporation yard. However, the Settlement Agreement with San Ramon and Danville indicates that a corporation yard will be provided in Dougherty Valley, and it states that the site and delivery dates are to be determined by the County. It should be recognized that such facilities are normally sited in areas which are not visually prominent and which have good access. For example, the village center or locations within or immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods are not ideally suited for use as a corporation yard. Because the Specific Plan does not speak directly to this issue, it is conceivable that the construction of a corporation yard will be deferred to a later phase of development, which may have limited options for selecting a corporation yard site. Post Office The Settlement Agreement with San Ramon and Danville states that a site for a satellite post office be provided within Dougherty Valley. Its size and date of delivery are to be determined by the County in consultation with the U.S. Postal Service. The delivery date has not yet been determined. Moreover, no sites are designated either in the Specific Plan or development plans currently under consideration. Depending upon the requirements of the U.S. Postal Service, the 4.3-20 Existing Blackhawk Fire Station � 1 f t � a SHAPELL INDUSTRIES ?{ t s WINDEMERE RANCH 'i .. „`* 5,.., a �� •Y e€' "`� PARTNERS i •t ••a `� p •v i ..� •fir ^L , «,�� � F t '.fzl% �„ •�'•� ProposedR Gale Ranch •;. � ,•* J/ 3 Fire Station ,� � '� � •fir G f` ,. ., �� jr ExistingAlcosta ; Boulevard Fire Station t Proposed b ° S L Relocated ••Windemere ' \y o' :, ;F r ': Fire Station. t •'q•"z•"w" ''; { � ' f `'Proposed a?s s mere a n FiFire re Station.; its"4 c.--4 y 'n^r%� 5� n € P'� ` j.•; �T cep. 'k rE °�;<9 r • GRAPHIC$Ci1£ B �OOWMPRTT�R412Y :{$ � �� snm et' TIME FROM FIRE STATIONS TO SELECTED LOCATIONS STARTING LOCATION TIME TO FIRE STATION LOCATION WINDEMERE PROPOSED Zj, 4 min. 14 sac. FIRE STATION WINDEMERE PROPOSED FIRE STATION ALI 4 min. 59 sec. 4 WINDEMERE PROPOSED i 5 min. 00 a®c. ,a FIRE STATION ALCOSTA BOULEVARD i A 4 min. 42 sac. EXISTING ... STATION WINDEMERE PROPOSED i min. 00 sec. FIRE STATION �I Figure: 4.3-6 Fire Station Ma Graphic P Scale: Subsequent EIR Source:DKAssociates(1996) 0 500' 1000' 3000 43-21 43 PUBLIC SERVICES ability to fit a post office into the Gale Ranch II or Windemere I projects is not established. Potential locations for a post office are in either of the commercial centers, the village center, or on the site of the fire station shown on the development plans for the Gale Ranch II project. As previously noted,the DK Associates study indicates that a single fire station, if sited at a suitable location in the Windemere I project area is capable of providing an urban level of service to all neighborhoods in Dougherty Valley. Note that if the post office were constructed in the Gale Ranch portion of the village center, Dougherty Valley would not have a post office until approval of the final phase of Gale Ranch development. Recycling Center The solid waste disposal companies that operate in the San Ramon Valley provide curbside recycling of newspapers, aluminum cans, glass and PET. Household chemicals, gardening chemicals, petroleum products and similar substances are more difficult to recycle. Settlement agreements do not address the need for a recycling center and this subject is not addressed by the Specific Plan. However, best management practices (BMP's) for water quality find recycling �I centers that accept household chemicals to be an effective means of protecting water quality in urban watersheds. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria Impacts of the proposed project on public services were considered significant if implementation of the project would: • cause a substantial increase in demand for any public service above those the agency plans to accommodate; • cause a substantial decrease in the quality or level of service for any public agency such that Contra Costa County General Plan public services performance standards may not be met; or • require extension of any public service to an area not planned for service. 4.3-22 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Assumptions Made by 1992 EIR 1. Spheres of Influence indicate the probable ultimate service boundaries of public service providers. 2. No land within the Camp Parks area will be available in the near future as a community college site or for managed open space. 3. Open space and parkland locations depicted on Figure 9-3 in the Contra Costa County General Plan are approximate. 4. The parkland dedication standards for neighborhood and community parkland presented in Table 5-3 were in error and should be reversed so that the neighborhood parkland standard is 1.5 acres per 1,000 population and the community parkland standard is 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. 5. The DVSP is proposed in an area of the County not currently served by most public l service providers. These assumptions are still valid. The 1992 EIR, which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identified 11 significant impacts and associated mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B14 through B21 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures, which are a part of the previously certified EIR, are summarized in Table 4.3-8. The revisions to the General Plan and Specific Plan considered by this Subsequent EIR have not created any new impacts. The Preliminary and Final Development Plans for the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II have not created any new significant impacts. 4.3-23 �1 V�r 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Table 4.3-8 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Public Services r�The 1992 findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Need for approximately two (2) CMP positions to provide traffic-related law enforcement service. Mitigation Measures: * The California Highway Patrol should create two additional patrol positions at the Dublin office. If the CHP is unable to create additional patrol positions,the County Sheriff Department shall provide adequate staffing. 2. Impact: Need for approximately five (5) sheriffs deputies and necessary equipment. Mitigation Measures: * The developer shall provide 4,500 square feet of substation space. * The County shall provide a minimum of five sheriff's deputies and vehicles to provide non-traffic-related law enforcement service to the Planning Area. * The County will circulate development and open space management/improvement plans to CCCSD for review and incorporate feasible suggestions or produce alternative recommendations before approval. 3. Impact: Need for additional fire stations and equipment. Mitigation Measures: * One fire station site shall be dedicated and a second site reserved for dedication in the planning area. SRVFPD shall approve (1) fire station construction plans and specifications; (2)location.and staging of fire station sites; and (3) equipping of the fire stations. Two fire/medical emergency response facilities shall be constructed. One site shall have the capability to serve as a police substation in a separate facility. * Fire stations shall be constructed and acquisition of equipment needed to provide adequate fire and emergency medical response to the planning area shall be funded when the SRVFPD cannot meet time and distance response standards. 4. Impact: Increased fire hazards. Mitigation Measures: * See Mitigation Measures forTublic Service & Utilities Impact 11. g P * SRVFPD shall review all plans for development of the planning area and recommend the incorporation of fire breaks,fire buffers,fire roads,non-combustible roofing,sprinklers,and other measures,where necessary to reduce fire hazards. 4.3-24 t 43 PUBLIC SERVICES Table 43-8 continued * The East Bay Regional Parks District(EBRPD)or other responsible open space management agency should incorporate fire prevention measures approved by SRVPPD into its management of planning area open space areas. See Mitigation Measures for Public Service & Utilities Impact 16. These fire prevention measures could include fire breaks, grazing intensities, weed abatement strategies, controlled burns, access roads or other measures to reduce fire hazards. 5. Impact: Need for additional school facilities to accommodate 2,618 elementary school, 1,241 middle school and 2,068 high school students. ' Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall dedicate land for the seven primary and secondary school facilities to the SRVUSD. * Building permits will not be issued until the Community Development Department establishes the adequacy of existing or planned school facilities. * During the initial phases of development, the need may arise for excess students to be housed at alternative sites prior to the completion of new school facilities. If the SRVUSD is unable to accommodate additional students, the Project proponents will provide temporary space at existing or alternative facilities until new facilities can be constructed. 6. Impact: Need to accommodate approximately 1,329 community college students. Mitigation Measure: * The Community Development Department, CCCCD, San Ramon, and Danville shall continue to work together to identify and develop an appropriate site for a community college in the San Ramon Valley. 7. Impact: Need for childcare facilities. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall ensure that childcare facilities are provided to serve the planning area according to the County's childcare ordinance. Each final development plan shall indicate how needs for childcare would be met. Childcare facilities shall be located on school sites or transit routes and within 0.25 miles of the schools that the children housed at the facility attend. * The San Ramon Valley School Age Childcare Alliance shall plan a before-and after-school childcare facility on the existing middle school site in the.planning area. * The Project proponents shall establish an acceptable funding mechanism and plan for providing temporary modular buildings capable of housing children at any off-site elementary schools,if necessary due to delays in opening on-site schools. 4.3-25 43 PUBLIC SERVICES 1 Table 4.3-8 continued 8. Impact: Need for managed open space. Mitigation Measures: * The County shall ensure that open space areas would be managed by EBRPD or another appropriate agency. Management shall include, but not be limited to,construction and maintenance of trail staging areas,creek corridor improvements, habitat improvement, maintenance of trails and firebreaks, management of grazing contracts,weed abatement, and maintenance of a buffer between the open space and adjacent land uses. * The developer will construct one or more maintenance facilities for equipment storage to maintain the open space. 9. Impact: Need for a regional trail easement along the eastern boundary of the planning area. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall revise the alignment of the trail easement so that it is entirely.within the planning area and least environmentally damaging. This mitigation measure shall be implemented prior to adoption of the final development plan. * EBRPD should acquire off-site easements from the landowners to the north and south of the Windemere property to allow connection to a regional trail system. This mitigation measure should be implemented during construction of the regional trail on the Project site soon after completion. * The County shall establish a landscape and lighting district or Mello-Roos community facilities district to finance the maintenance of the regional trail east of Dougherty Road and its corresponding staging area. This mitigation measure shall be implemented as soon as EBRPD is able to connect this trail section into the constructed portions of the trail system. The developers shall be responsible for financing trail construction. 10.Impact: Need for 43.5 acres of neighborhood parkland and 72.5 acres of community parkland. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall dedicate land for parks and build facilities according to the General Plan and the County park dedication ordinance. Parks shall be constructed to maintain the 4 acres per 1,000 population parkland standard in the General Plan. * The County shall form a Mello-Roos or landscape and lighting district to manage the parks and recreational , facilities and resources in the planning area, including those areas managed by EBRPD or another public agency. This mitigation measure shall be implemented as soon as possible after development is initiated in the planning area. 11.Impact: Need for 11,600 square feet of library facilities. o> Mitijation Measures: 1 * The Project proponent shall dedicate one site for a public library and provide 11,600 square feet of library space. * Thero onents shall construct the library and fund acquisition of the materials necessary tooperate the P P 9 pe library. 4.3-26 43 PUBLIC SERVICES BIBLIOGRAPHY Contacts San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, Assistant Chief Coggiola. San Ramon Valley Unified School District, Chris Learned, Facilities Director. M-29, Skip Epperly, Special District Coordinator. GHAD, Skip Epperly, Special District Coordinator. Contra Costa Community College District, Tom Beckett, Facilities Planning. California Highway Patrol, Officer Steve Creel, Dublin Office. Sheriff, Sgt. Juroid DeVaull, Administrative & Community Services. Postmaster James Evans, San Ramon References Contra Costa County Community Development Department,Draft Environmental Impact Report: Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Related Actions: County File #2-91- SR, SCH #91053014, June 1992. Contra Costa County Public Works Department,Dougherty Valley. County Service Area M-29.•Plan For Providing Service, Resolution 95/610 adopted December 12, 1995, plan is undated. Contra Costa County Community Development Department,Draft Environmental Impact Report: ' Country Club at Gale Ranch: General Plan Amendment: Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan (3010-RZ); Final Development Plan (3010-92); Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (Tract 7796), SCH #93081082, August 1994. . Contra Costa County Community Development Department,Final Environmental Impact Report. Country Club at Gale Ranch: General Plan Amendment: Rezoning with Preliminary Development s Plan (3010-RZ);Final Development Plan (3010-92); Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (Tract 7796), SCH #93081082. Letters Office of the Sheriff, Sgt. J. DeVaull, Administrative and Community Services, 26 March 1996. i i 4.3-27 i 43 PUBLIC SERVICES r i r 4.3-28 4 4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY SETTING 1r 1992 EIR The 1992 EIR describes the climate and identifies the watersheds which drains Dougherty Valley. ' Figure 10-1 of the previous EIR is a watershed map that divides Dougherty Valley into four watersheds: Coyote Creek, West Branch of Alamo Creek, Alamo Creek and Arroyo Mocho Tributary. Within the Specific Plan area this map identifies the master streams, as well as second and third order tributary channels. It also identifies areas that are to remain as open space,where grading would be restricted to construction of special facilities (e.g., trails, water reservoirs) (pp. 10-1 to 10-3). Figure 4.4-1 of this EIR highlights the location of the Alamo Creek watershed in Contra Costa County. The portion of Dougherty Valley that is within the Country Club at Gale Ranch coincides with the Coyote Creek watershed. The Arroyo Mocho tributary watershed in Dougherty Valley is the Shaded area in the south portion of the planning area (i.e., southeast half of the Camp Parks and southeast corner of Windemere Ranch). Figure 4.4-1 also shows existing detention basins in the Alamo Creek watershed; a detention basin site proposed in the Tassajara project; and the detention basin sites in Dougherty Valley that were identified in the 1992 EIR. Basin #1 is in the West Branch watershed; Basin #2 is in the Main Branch watershed; Basin #3 is in the East Branch watershed; and Basin #4 is in the Coyote Creek watershed. Flooding The 1992 EIR discusses the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and Figure 10-3 of that EIR identifies FEMA's mapping of the Special Flood Hazard area (i.e., area subject to inundation by peak runoff from the 100-year flood). Key points made in that discussion (at pp. 10-3 to 10-5) are outlined below. • The West Branch of Alamo Creek drains an area of 2,981 acres. The existing Bettencourt detention basin, located just north of Camino Tassajara, was designed to convey runoff from the 100-year storm without use of the emergency spillway. It has capacity of 50 acre- feet (ac-ft), and the design storm has a duration of 12 hours. According to a basin routing study performed by the Flood Control District, the effect of the basin is to reduce peak flows immediately below the basin from 1,557 cfs to 901 cfs. Downstream from the �� 4.4-1 ^ v .� f `� -.i' � \ '�moi , r^���€,: ^�.'`�...• "� �`3 �� �"-� 'asp'\ � >i,� 5. ~ " �. ershed Boundary t y ..� —P, ILI r« ShBdwv r r' �y�..Pp ♦. ,/ V/ r j kf� 1 i Bast iA- ara fVA Pr le( € dl � �j ♦ .a I Basin#2 yyyy ' \ � �� \ '�,.: l� Svc :.. • � � � ,F f fs �� � �'^. �'� . Project Boundary Ira: Potential �Y a.F' ;�� � i • �'�� �Et�et�euric.. ,,l.'<;"-� _,' , , t . Potential Dougherty s i ! Valley Basin Sites Identified in 1992 EIR a �t Existing Detention BasinsSa , w Figure:4.4-1 Alamo Creek Graphic Subsequent EIR Watershed Map s°aie' 0 1000' 9000' soon• 4.4-2 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Bettencourt basin is Shapell's West Branch project. This reach of channel has been reconstructed in a new alignment and designed on the basis of performance standards established by the Flood Control District. The basin was designed to keep post- development flows on the West Branch (i.e., following buildout of the Bettencourt Ranch and West Branch projects) at pre-development levels. • Upstream from the Dougherty Valley planning area the Main Branch of Alamo Creek has a watershed of 2,433 acres. A detention basin was constructed in the Shadow Creeks project. It was designed to keep post-development peak flows (i.e., following buildout of Shadow Creeks) on the Main Branch at pre-development levels. Similarly, development of the Tassajara (and other) projects along the Camino Tassajara corridor have an obligation to take actions to keep peak flows on Alamo and Tassajara Creeks at pre- development levels. This can be accomplished by either participating in construction of a regional detention basin or construction of a project specific basin. The Flood Control District is on record as favoring regional basins that are designed to district standards and maintained by the district. • Downstream from the planning area Alamo Creek has been channelized into what is known as the Alamo Canal. Presently the channel is incapable of conveying 100-year flows. The most severe downstream problem exists five miles south of the planning area where Arroyo de la Laguna flows under I-680. Alameda County has established developer assessment programs to correct flooding problems in the downstream watershed. Developers in Contra Costa County are not required to contribute fees for this purpose, but Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have agreed that the existing 100-year peak flow is 4,670 cfs, at the County line. There is an agreement between Alameda County Zone 7 and the Contra Costa Flood Control District specifying that post development flows in the Alamo Creek watershed will not be allowed to increase above the prevailing 4,670 cfs for the 100-year runoff event. ' With regard to the Dougherty Valley detention basins, the 1992 EIR states that the basin on the West Branch was to have a storage capacity of 90 ac-ft and was located chiefly in the 300-foot wide PG&E transmission line easement. The basin on the Main Branch was to be located on the high school site and have a storage capacity of 200 ac-ft; and the East Branch basins were to have been located just southeast of the Village Center and designed to have a capacity of 40 ac-ft; • The Coyote Creek basin will be constructed during the 1996 construction season as part of the golf course being graded by Shapell in its approved Country Club at Gale Ranch. �l 4.4-3 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Water ualit Policies . The 1992 EIR presents an explanation of the NPDES program, followed by a listing of all water- related general plan policies from the Safety and Conservation.Elements (at pp. 10-5 to 10-8). Previous Investigation Hydrology studies were performed for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects'during 1996. The Gale Ranch II study was performed by Ruggeri-Jensen & Associates (RJA), and Windemere hydrology was analyzed by Carlson, Barbee& Gibson, Inc (CBG). M Design Criteria The primary goal of the hydrology studies has been to regulate flows at the County line. Post- developments are not allowed to result in any increase in flows at the County line. The available data suggest that 100-year storm with a 12-hour duration will generate the highest peak flow rates and was for the hydrologic model runs. MethodoloQv ` The District uses a computerized hydrologic model to calculate peak runoff events. The rainfall intensity data used in the model was developed from 60 years of local precipitation records. For . large watersheds, the District uses the Hydrograph method to determine peak flow and volume of runoff for a particular storm. The watershed is divided into subwatersheds for analysis. Each r, subwatershed is used as a building block to obtain the total flow of selected points in the watershed. Each area is then added to those above it to obtain the cumulative flow in the creek at 15-minute intervals throughout the duration of the storm. The addition process is somewhat complex since the flows must be added together, considering the timing of the runoff. Other factors affect the process, so a simple sum will not give the most accurate results. Factors considered by the program in determining runoff, including infiltration rates and roughness factor, are described below: • Infiltration Rate. As the watershed develops, the ground is covered with structures, resulting in less precipitation entering .the ground and more surface runoff. This is accounted for by using an "infiltration rate" factor which is the amount of rainwater that will enter the ground during each hour of rainfall. As watershed development proceeds, the rate of infiltration decreases. For purposes of analysis, the District assigned infiltration I� factors to the subwatersheds based on several parameters,including topography,vegetation, soil conditions and land use information. • Roughness Factor. As a watershed develops, usually there are improvements in the drainage systems as a part of the development process. This change in the drainage 4.4-4 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY systems will permit the flows to run off sooner than would be the case in the unchanged (i.e., current) condition. The model accounts for this change of a roughness factor "n". r As in the case of infiltration rates, the District assigns roughness factors based on the assumed future land use. Using their hydrologic method, the District can calculate estimated peak flows for a storm with a 100-year recurrence interval (the design storm). Subsequently, improvement alternatives can be evaluated that would convey peak runoff from the design storm through the watershed without causing overbank flooding and yielding peak flows at the County line that do not exceed 4,670 cfs. A point that should be emphasized is that the District's hydrologic method, while based on procedure developed by the Corps of Engineers, is unique to the District. The data submitted by the applicants' civil engineers simulated peak flows using the HEC-1 model, which is used by Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control. It is also used by FEMA for floodplain evaluation. In summary, the HEC-1 model is similar, but not identical to the Contra Costa County Model (CCCM). There is no method that can be used to correlate directly between the two models, which is a complicating factor in analyzing the existing data. Hydrologic models are only an indicator of the behavior of runoff in a watershed. The actual volume of runoff and peak flow can be expected to vary from calculated values. There are accepted methodologies for selecting values for the parameters that are used in the calculations. For the ultimate design of regional drainage facilities, the hydrologic calculations will be done by District staff, using the District's model. The calculations of the applicants' civil engineers are intended to provide a preliminary assessment of the runoff characteristics of the watershed. Those calculations have been critically evaluated by the staff of the Flood Control District, and the District's comments are presented later in this chapter of the Subsequent EIR. Ao>'roach During the conceptual design of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects the civil engineers for Shapell Industries and Windemere Ranch Partners began their analysis with a request to the Contra Costa County Flood Control District for hydrologic computations to be performed with the District's HYDRO rainfall-runoff simulation model. The consultant provided parameters which were input into the model by District staff. To streamline the review process, District staff reviewed the input parameters concurrently with running the HYDRO program. Then, the District provided the applicant with the flood hydrograph output for each of the nodal point' locations and development conditions requested. The civil engineers retained by the applicants utilized the flood hydrograph output from the HYDRO program to input into the HEC-1 flood routing program published by the Army Corps 'Anodal point is a location on the channel where peak runoff values for the 100-year storm were calculated. �` 4.4-5 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY of Engineers. The HEC-1 program is capable of generating the flood h drogra hs independent Y P P from the HYDRO program.' The flood hydrograph input is only a portion of the HEC-1 analysis which also included the channel routing, detention basin routing, and confluence analysis. The consultant performed the HEC-1 model using their own system design (channel and detention basins). The proposed drainage system was submitted to the District for review, including the supporting HEC-1 calculations. The District provided comments regarding the adequacy of the proposed basin scheme and guidelines for the final design. Basin Routing Studies General � The objectives of the hydrology studies performed by the civil engineers for Shapell Industries and Windemere Ranch Partners was to establish locations for detention basins in Dougherty Valley that met the flood control objectives established by the County Flood Control District and were compatible with the development concepts for Dougherty Valley. The detention basins shown in the 1992 EIR were fora somewhat different approach to grading. Those sites were acceptable to the Flood Control District, and they were capable of controlling runoff at the property line. However, they are not the only potential sites, and the basin routing studies were conceptual. No schematics were, prepared in 1992.showing how the basins were to be designed and operated. These detailed design studies are routinely performed after the Preliminary and Final Development Plans are approved. At that point grading and development patterns are established. The District will review the final design drawings for compliance with District standards. For detention basins, those standards include two feet of freeboard above the maximum 100-year water surface elevation and a 15-foot wide perimeter service road with access from a public roadway.In- tract drainage infrastructure will be reviewed and approved by the County. At final design, a detailed HEC-II floodplain analysis (open channel hydraulics) will be performed to assure that the surrounding homes are protected from the 100-year floodplain. The purpose of the hydrology studies presented in the EIR is to document that basins at the locations selected can control peak flows at the county line; that developed areas in Dougherty Valley are protected from flooding; and that the area identified as a basin site has sufficient capacity. The district also reviews basin sites in terms of maintenance constraints, maintenance costs and other parameters. For their hydrologic studies, CBG analyzed a large basin site in the East Branch watershed, along with two small basins on the East Branch. RJA analyzed one basin 'The District prefers that the hydrograph values are based on the results from the District's HYDRO program as this rainfall distribution is based on historic rainfall data,specific to Contra Costa County. 4.4-6 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY in the West Branch watershed. The basin sites analyzed are shown in Figure 4.4-2. This figure also shows the control points. Model Runs: Windemere A series of nine scenarios were analyzed for the Subsequent EIR by CBG. They may be described as follows: 1. Existing conditions. ' 2. Windemere developed with no detention. 3. Windemere developed with detention basin A. 4. Windemere developed with detention basins A and B. 5. Windemere developed with detention basins AB and C. 6. Windemere and Gale Ranch developed with no detention. 7. Windemere and Gale ranches developed with Windemere detention A and Gale Ranch �i detention D. 8. Windemere and Gale Ranch developed with Detention A and B, and Gale Ranch detention D. 9. Windemere and Gale ranches developed with Windemere detention A, B and C. Results. Table 4.4-1 summarizes the results of the HEC-1 calculations for scenarios #1 through #9. The location of control points' are shown in Figure 4.4-2. Some of the key points made by this table may be summarized as follows: At the point where the Main Branch enters Dougherty Valley (Control Point 1) peak flow for the 100-year storm is 1,347 cfs under existing conditions. - The HEC-1 model analysis performed by CBG calculates peak flows on Alamo Creek at the County Line (Control Point 6). For the 100-year storm, flows of 4,722 cfs are forecasted under existing conditions. (This is 52 cfs greater than the maximum flow which Zone 7 has agreed to accept at the County line.) With buildout of Windemere only peak flows at the County line would increase to 5,172 cfs (assuming no detention). Buildout of both Windemere and Gale Ranch would yield peak flows of 5,400 cfs at the County line. 'Control points(or nodal points)are selected stations along the creek where peak runoff values for the 100-year stone have been calculated. 4.4-7 ,t S� �� ✓^r <..i,.^�l .,,, -..;.2". aw ; ;.i !'V auk /' r `. v-"� +�"�'�, r '+'. '"". i i-.�l. �}�'�` :. I� .r�e .�-'�:. � �{5 Y r!� rte..-•. .r .;moi� � -�ry 1�-. �.-^^\ ,� L 1 y\.-. a ;',, °�•�1y�ti�1;\ r(l�{j{r')(�-1 t i E r"�, �f i j j� � � fi, �-���T"`;'� � /'�\: y}�� ,,"�t,"'F�S� � y,,,�j`� � :- \y"+' ,I .J�/it•`J""•1 E -r i t SIi` 1 i< cYlf -� ..r. v!/ /"✓�..r"'� .-'.. t ,} °tt \,�t``av( /'.�;.. \u `I .> / ) t ( n "\ } x rr+/ Vt 1 r../ ' %"ht v.�r x�. •� ti. Irl\ tf n�•" r f:a lv�f./f h' ��� c,/� r r �..-';) � rn-.�i }' ••: � ! n '�. j n y✓ :�!r �ry (. �{ to \r j Il li,} \r�\"'y �{ j(i 4f,� / L /,'t! r \i .✓ f , y (..r f/ / -._.."'1 f 'r`i ��+. i ((` ,�yc .✓' �C; � ',:/y�i�r�".. �r ./`,tX[f }�� I� �" �I� J r' S i t�1 � �t,,�/ r r✓'�..,V � ' /j,- 1�'c�: �..-; �rfl��..:lf \ ���1�t. l\ y��r a�\y v"`'o�/,-.// / �:,� !F �f.,✓f<r y(—� ' r y / \ a: `•. 1 ' ti..,,4 •^,...r� r.. )i �\\ i�� i., s� i Wi .i�. �•-('� ^. "✓ir ll d) . { 3 rl"51 t - �' /r //:v<f/ } //i• J 6. C•...rr , r."'.'1 }, f /RM }r —e rui ,�'� `l // /,'` J'`' , ✓jai .l/ r -` r }`c �^`.-l. yC J.,,._a \,, �.. �l1 /,I/-•h( ,r,t ��..,\`� •e���ri r' _� ..r`�!.�, , i l`r f' �' 1��Y��r '`�'• l i '.`tel. \\d'r'�k' ) \ E / �r-� /�, '� J r t�r i T Com" ..� /n"x Y,r ,z. !r; r / a✓ /-i �4.. f''�.r hl- r Y .�n t cf=Y,�"'sy� ew-'r' •� C \\\ ��i .:% r C ,.r ,h' / - \\ i �✓ -•�`]<� `l4'� 3�� Wil/ 4� -P }}CC �:_/t'����,c�� z.; •� �r .� � -... r �` —.:C� r' 'y E` � Yti 1,-,�`�,-i t}r��', � v,�,, 1 Main Branch at Windemere North Boundary 2 Main Branch at Bollinger Canyon Road \ E "'l ' j���r ✓ = 1`t e' �` . 3 Main Branch @ Junction With New Creek \ 3�� ; 's \.� yL / /�• �� e 4Main Branch upstream of confluence with West Branch 4a West Branch upstream of confluence with Main Branch 5 West Branch and Main Branch confluence / r rT 6 Main Branch @ CountyLine D • ProPosed detention basin sites analyzed by Carlson, Barbee&Gibson(1996)and by Ruggeri-Jensen and Associates(1996) �' `^ °.: �\ /�fr r •Y s, y b \ � s • se� � : `"s„�(p hLJ�D,� �� � r a/ � ', r � b��i98A.M8 1 a� �i r J y' )act Ell o w Village 4 /. } �,:,�. -�€• �:v;,,� Figure: 4.4-2 Control Points and Graphic Potential Detention Scale: Subsequent EIRBasin sites o soo tsoo szoo 4.4-8 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Table 4.4-1 COMPARISON OF 100-YEAR FLOW RATES (cfs) FOR NINE MODEL RUNS Control Point Scenano 1 2 3 4 4A: S 6 #1 1,347 -- -- 2,764 1,631 4,380 4,722 #2 1,347 1,928 2,861 3,237 1,631 4,853 5,172 #3 1,347 1,928 2,539 2,898 1,631 4,511 4,851 #4 1,347 1,928 2,639 2,904 1,631 4,510 4,899 #5 1,347 1,928 2,588 2,864 1,631 4,453 4,847 #6 1,347 1,928 2,861 3,237 1,777 4,999 5,400 #7 1,347 1,928 2,539 2,898 1,343 4,007 4,388 #8 1,347 1,928 2,592 2,948 1,343 4,043 4,436 #9 1,347 1,298 2,588 2,864 1,343 3,994 4,369 Definition of Scenarios: 1. Existing conditions. 2. Windemere developed with no detention. 3. Windemere developed with detention basin A. 4. Windemere developed with detention basins A and B. 5. Windemere developed with detention basins A, B and C. 6. Windemere and Gale Ranch developed with no detention. 7. Windemere and Gale Ranch developed with Windemere detention A and Gale Ranch detention D. 8. Windemere and Gale Ranch developed with detention A and B, and Gale Ranch detention D. 9. Windemere and Gale Ranch developed with Windemere detention A,B and C and Gale Ranch detention D. Source: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., 1996. • Basin routing studies performed using the HEC-1 model indicate that with the construction of basins A and D, peak flows at the County line can be reduced to 4,388 cfs, which is 282 cfs (six percent) lower than the 4,670 cfs that Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control is prepared to accept. • The construction of detention basins A, B, C and D would reduce peak flow at the County line to 4,369 cfs, which is 301 cfs lower than the 4,670 cfs that Alameda County Zone 7 Flood Control is prepared to accept. �� 4.4-9 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Overbank Flooding. CBG performed a hydrology study to determine if the existing channel of the Main Branch is adequate to contain peak runoff from the 100-year storm. For their analysis CBG used HEC-2 model, and assumed that detention'basins A and D were constructed. The results of that study are presented in the 'Preliminary Drainage Study, Volume P' issued by CBG (1996). The analysis was based on generalized profiles prepared using available topographic maps (rather than field-surveyed, accurate profiles). The results of this study indicate that overbank flooding will occur on a 1,500-foot reach of the Main Branch near the downstream boundary of the Windemere property. Specifically, the inadequate reach of channel extends from the Village Center area upstream to the planned location of the confluence of the East Branch with the Main Branch. According to CBG, water depths in the floodway would be two to three feet during peak runoff from the 100-year flood. Proposed Improvements Collection System Within the urban area, drainage improvements in lots will be sized to comply with the standards of the Flood Control District. Where lots are proposed adjacent to the channels of the West ' Branch or Main Branch, they will be constructed on fill pads that are elevated well above the peak water surface elevation. According to District standards,watersheds of one square mile or greater but less than four miles must be designed to contain, with sufficient freeboard,'peak runoff from a 25-year storm; for watersheds of four square miles or larger, the facilities must be able to contain, with sufficient freeboard, peak runoff from a 100-year event. The storage capacities of detention basins are designed to detain runoff from the 100-year storm. f. Because neighborhoods in the project will have watersheds of less than one square mile, the storm drainage system in project roadways will be sized to pass the 10-year design storm. Detention Basins The hydrologic data submitted by the civil engineers for Shapell and Windemere have concluded that one basin on the Gale Ranch (on the West Branch) and one basin on Windemere Ranch (on the Hidden Valley tributary of the Main Branch) were capable of keeping flows at the county line below 4,670 cfs during peak discharge from the 1007year storm. However, there is some question whether,the proposed Windemere basins will mitigate peak flows without the benefit of the Gale a Ranch Basin (i.e., Basin D in Figure 4.4-2). Therefore, each phase of Windemere should include a drainage study to verify the adequacy of the downtown system. r °Freeboard is that part of a structure,channel or levee that is built above the design water surface elevation to assure that design flows can be handled. 4.4-10 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Windemere: Basin A A conceptual plan for the design of Basin A was prepared by CBG. The proposed location of the basin is shown in Figure 4.4-2, and its conceptual design is presented in Figure 4.4-3. Precise construction drawings would be prepared during the future processing of the application, prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The concept is to grade a large, nearly level area just east of the channel of the East Branch tributary. Low flows would be carried by the creek channel,but during episodes of heavy runoff, the basin would begin to be inundated,and would store water for periods of time up to approximately 24 to 30 hours(maximum). Figure 4.4-3 indicates that athletic fields could be established in the basin. Depending on the design of the basin, athletic fields could be elevated so that they are only inundated by the 10-year storm, for example. The basin shown in Figure 4.4-3 covers an area of approximately seven acres. The design of the basin would be required to comply with Flood Control District specifications. The conceptual plan calls for the.roadway south of the basin to be constructed on a fill pad that is elevated well above the creek level. This fill would also serve as a levee. The north i embankment on the flank of this road would have a 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient: The primary spillway is a culvert that would convey low flows across the right-of-way of a collector street and discharge runoff into the downstream channel. During episodes of heavy runoff the culvert would be unable to pass all of the flow carried by this tributary stream. In those times runoff would begin to backup behind the levee. The emergency spillway shown in Figure 4.4-3 is a low segment of the road within approximately 50 feet of the culvert. The basin would be sized such that the design 100-year storm would store runoff without any flow being carried by the emergency spillways. Detailed routing studies would provide data on the depth of the water in the basin during the storm, duration of storage, and volume of runoff stored at 15-minute intervals, throughout the duration of the storm. Figure 4.4-4 shows a line of section through the basin. Section AA is an east-west cross-section which indicates that relatively minor grading is required to construct the basin. The conceptual plan is to raise the elevation of the channel by an estimated 40 feet, and shift the location of the low flow channel approximately 60 feet further west. The grading to create the detention basin includes cuts up to 25 feet deep and fills up to 30 feet thick. The floor of the detention basin would have a gentle slope toward the channel, so water will not pond in the floor of the basin. The road that is just south of the basin would be elevated 10 to 20 feet above the grade of the detention basin. The levee that is south of the basin would be designed so that it is at least two �j feet higher in elevation than the peak water surface elevation in the detention basin. The design of the primary spillway would include wing walls and a trash rack that would prevent floating debris (i.e., limbs) from obstructing or partially obstructing the culvert. Fencing, signing 4.4-11 / _ i ( c coo — ._%• �/ sem, � c�cl) / Or OCR U O C n O2J !' m 029 pa r \ L ♦ �yC { t L { { { { S S { G { ; i L OLB t { { { { { L 2 { { { { { { { { S { { { { �. {moi { {�.� 2 L { { { { { S L S { { { { {1{ S S L t S { { { 2 ; { S { { •r,^y { { \2 { { { t { { S C S { < { { S { 2 { { ( { { S < 2 < { < { S t { < c { s 2 2 2 2 < ( 2 2 ( L { < L { C"444 ; { { i { < L ( � t < 2 S { { { { { { { L { ; { S { S S { L { s i { { ; s t { t t s { s { t t s s 1 S { •t±i`g ; f s G t < L t S { ; G t i S ( { < { t L 009 S S \ } • / �..moi "' � � 009 Q� V 4 00 cu p / 001 / 1 t 1 4.4-12 0 w U q0 M C)! d CID 3 t J w 01 4.4-13 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY and the trash rack would be designed to discourage/deny access to the culvert by small children. The District's standards do not allow for emergency spillway facilities to discharge over roads. Design details for proposed Basin A have not been finalized. Windemere: Basin B This potential basin site is located on the East Branch, just above its confluence with the Main Branch. As Figure 4.4-5 (top) indicates, the basin analyzed is a trapezoidal reach of channel that has a bottom width of 50 to 60 feet; the side slopes are 20 feet high and possess a gradient of 4:1 (H:V). The shaded area in the figure represents the extent of the ponded area when the water surface elevation is at +500 feet. At the top-of-bank the channel is approximately 200 feet wide, and is 750 feet in length. The primary spillway is a culvert that conveys runoff directly into the channel of the Main Branch, and a concrete lined low point on the levee at the west end of the basin will serve as the emergency spillway. The area immediately below Basin B would be designed with energy dissipaters. Because of its setting within'a multiple-family residential area, the proposed location of Basin B may not be compatible with the surrounding land use. Windemere: Basin C This potential basin site is located in the southeast quadrant of the East Branch Road/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection. This site is on an unnamed tributary of Alamo Creek which carries runoff from the northern portion of Camp Parks and adjacent portions of Windemere Ranch. The site evaluated generally corresponds with Basin #3 analyzed in the 1992 EIR. Figure 4.4-5 (bottom) shows a conceptual plan for the basin. It is a generally triangular-shaped site, with side slopes that are at least 25 feet high and the embankments possess a gradient of 3:1.5 The area of the basin site is six acres. The embankment fill required to construct Bollinger Canyon Road will serve as a levee at the northwest terminus of the basin. The extent of the ponded area at the peak water surface elevation approximately corresponds to the shaded area in Figure 4.4-5. A culvert passing across the road corridor would serve as the primary spillway and regulate flows exiting the basin. It can be anticipated that final design plans would show a low flow channel on the basin floor, provide details on the trash rack at the basin outfall point, and provide an energy dissipater at the point were the culvert discharges concentrated runoff into the natural channel which is located downstream from Bollinger Canyon Road. Final design plans would also provide details on the emergency spillway. An advantage of this basin is its location adjacent to Bollinger Canyon Road. The views of the'basin from the road would be of a grassy open space area with a creek channel. There might also be the.opportunity to grade the side slopes such that they mimic natural terrain features, further adding to the aesthetic value of the basin. 5 The District's Detention Basin Guidelines indicate that embankments must be no steeper than 4:1 (horizontal:ve rtical). 4.4-14 N .•1 /Y/ N a rr1 a J f?e V OV P.91 Wcc z p rr Loll mss- -j-- � � tt s Extent of ponded area Basin Site B in basin when water surface elevation is+500 feet. (Approximately 2.5 Acres) r �O[' $pLL� AhhA�A�A��A����rA�A�h�A�h�AA�AAn-CA A��a�h�AAAArA,.�,J�s�o>�,�z��A.,AnFnt rya/ Extent of ponded area in basin when water surface elevation is+480 feet. " (Approximately 3.0 Acres) S00 Basin Site C Figure: 4.4-5 Windemere Detention Graphic Basins B & C Scale: Subsequent EIR 0 100' 200• 4.4-15 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Gale Ranch: Basin D The conceptual plan for Basin D was prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen and Associates (RJA). The location of the basin is presented in Figure 4.4-2, its conceptual design is presented in Figure 4.4-6, and a typical section is presented in Figure 4.4-7. The concept is to construct a levee across the West Branch just upstream from its confluence with the Main Branch. The levee is to possess a crestal width of 20 feet and side slope of 4:1 (horizontal to vertical). No grading is required in the creek corridor upstream from the basin. The primary spillway is to consist of a 120-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipes (RCP's). Figure 4.4-7 identifies planned cut and fill slopes on the perimeter of the creek corridor. Note that this figure does not show grading within the urban area. For information on the Preliminary Grading Concept for development areas; see Figures 4.5-9 and 4.5-12. The existing channel of the West Branch will carry low flows. During episodes of heavy runoff, flows which exceed the capacity of the primary spillway will be detained in the basin. RJA performed a basin routing study for several scenarios. The worst-case scenario relative to runoff is a 100-year storm having a duration of 12-hours. For buildout of the Dougherty Valley (assuming no detention) flows of 1,682 cfs are forecasted at the basin site (i.e., Control Point 4A on Figure 4.4-2). The construction of Basin D as shown in Figure 4.4-6 reduces peak flows to 1,380 cfs (i.e., a reduction of 302 cfs near Control Point 4a). The HEC-2 model run �! indicates a peak water surface elevation of +482.7 feet (water depth 14.7 feet). The extent of the ponded area at the peak water surface elevation corresponds to the shaded area in Figure 4.4-6. At this stage the peak storage is 85 ac-ft,6 and the area inundated is approximately 16.7 acres. Annotation of the figure indicate that it could be integrated into the trail system and used as a pedestrian path. Conceivably, it could also serve as an emergency vehicle crossing of the West Branch. The District's Detention Basin Guidelines do not allow for emergency spillway facilities to discharge over roads or pedestrian trails. Therefore, special design features would be required to separate such features from the emergency spillway. Creek Crossing Development of Windemere I will require one crossing of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek; realignment of the lower 1.4-mile reach of the East Branch; and three crossings of the reconstructed channel of the East Branch. The Gale Ranch II project proposed,one crossing of the West Branch. Windemere proposes to use a Conspan precast bridge system or equivalent at each of these locations, except for detention basin control structures. Construction details will be governed by the requirements of the Flood Control District, and permit granting agencies. Figure 4.4-8 (top) 'The proposed basin has a storage capacity of over 50 ac-ft,so it must meet the design standards of the State Division , of Safety of Dams. 4.4-16 I , r Top oTgraded slope shown J / ;• on Preliminary Grading Plan "\ (see Figure 4:5-9 and 4.5- T, :Ili \^\ 'fig F ! ' 100 Year water surface ," } elevation:+482.7 feet . _ pproximate Area 16.7 Acres DETENTION T BASIN i. .�� `k � .. •I t`. ��! til t / D' Figure: 4.4-6 Graphic Gale Ranch Basin D Scale: Q5 Subsequent EIR 0 150' 300' Or 4.4-17 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY provides details on the ranges of sizes that are available. The system consists of modular, recast Y P concrete arches, headwalls and wingwalls. Arches are available with spans of up to 42 feet and in heights of up to 14 feet. The design selected will be capable of passing the peak 100-year flows. The advantage of this system is that it minimizes disturbance to the creek channel'immediately upstream and downstream from the bridge, and the existing floor of the creek can be retained. The tabular data to the right of the schematics in Figure 4.4-8 provide information on the cross- section area that is available to carry peak flows. For example a 32-foot span with a 10-foot rise allows a cross-sectional area of 280 sq.ft. to.convey surface runoff. Figure 4.4-8 (bottom) is a schematic of a creek crossing that utilizes this type of system. It illustrates that use of reliefed concrete can add to aesthetic values by creating textures, shadows and depth. D D'; 20' Energy Dissipator below outfall of culvert Trash 100 Year Water Surface Proposed Levee Rack 4 Flow Line tt r::::::::::r: of Creek F1QW -- Primaryspillway See Figure 4.4-6 for line of section Figure: 4.4-7 Not To Section, D - D Scale , Subsequent EIR • 4.4-18 eo WATERWAY AREA o r (SQUARE FEET) 0 a-0 RISE SPAN (FT.) 4 i� R (FT.) 28 32 36 42 8 195 216 9 223 248 268 10 251 280 304 333 11 279 312 340 375 t Span t 12 344 376 417 13 412 459 14 5�1 Conspan Bridge System Details ,r :.c =- t` �. �` Mme•. .r .. s.; Schematic View of Bridge Figure: 4.4-8 Conspan Bridge System and Schematic Schematic, Subsequent EIR Not To Scale Lj 4.4-19 4.4 FLOODMAZARDS/DRAINAGEMATER QUALITY Data Analysis General Comments Review of the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II hydrology data is summarized below: ' • Maintenance. A Benefit Assessment District as a mechanism to assure perpetual maintenance of basins. According to the Flood Control District, the estimated annual cost of maintenance is $30,000 per basin. The funding of this item must be independent of the funding to maintain any recreational or dual use facility. • Dual Use. District reserves the right of review and approval of any proposed dual use basins. This includes the District entering a licensing agreement which defines the conditions, restrictions and maintenance responsibilities of the dual use. • Permits. The developer will need a drainage permit for any construction work within creeks or basin areas from the County, which will be subject to the permit requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The District recommends that the developers engage in early coordination efforts with these agencies to facilitate the process. • Basin Plans. Plans should indicate how maintenance access will be provided, including a perimeter road or a bench above the control structure for debris removal. The District prefers that roads and pedestrians facilities not be used for emergency spillways. Windemere I The memorandum identifies numerous questions pertaining to the hydrology model runs, assumptions, location of control panels and other details of the analysis. These technical issues must be resolved prior to final design of the basins. Other key findings of the District are listed below: • Mitigation of Peak Flows. The District's opinion is that the basin locations identified by CBG on Windemere Ranch are not capable of mitigating peak flows at the Alameda/ Contra Costa County line without the benefit of the Gale Ranch Basin (i.e., Basin D in Figure 4.4-2). The memorandum states that each phase of Windemere must include a drainage study to verify the adequacy of the downstream system. • Detention Basin B. Because of its setting within a multiple-family residential area, the proposed location of Basin B may not be compatible with the surrounding land use. (The proposed location of this basin is shown in Figure 4.4-2;and a conceptual plan is presented in Figure 4.4-5.) 4.4-20 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Gale Ranch II Like the hydrology study prepared for Windemere 1, the memorandum identifies technical questions pertaining to the hydrology model runs. The memorandum does not raise questions about the suitability of the proposed basin site or about the ability of a properly designed basin to control peak flows. Safety: Drainage Facilities The project includes construction of detention basins, re-alignment of the East Branch channel, bridge crossings, and installation of storm drainage facilities. These drainage structures will be designed to Flood Control District standards. The objective of these facilities is to keep post- development peak flows at or below pre-development peak flows, to protect areas planned for urban land use from flooding, and to enhance the wildlife habitat and aesthetic values of the West Branch and Main Branch Creeks. The proximity of a large urban population to these project features creates an opportunity for possible conflicts between hydraulic function of drainage facilities, use of these areas by the public for relaxation and recreation, and potential safety issues. Mosquito Abatement District The Contra Costa County Mosquito Abatement District monitors and controls mosquito populations within the Alamo Creek watershed. Mosquito problems have been effectively controlled by introducing mosquito fish, which eat mosquito larvae. Marshy areas containing standing water, roadside ditches, etc., would be of concern to the District. Water and Soil Contamination The Dougherty Valley has been used for agricultural purposes for a century or more; Dougherty Road traverses the property, which provides public access to the planning area; and a petroleum company drilled an exploration well on the Windemere Ranch. There is no record of soil orwater contamination on the site, and with the exception of a septic system, there are no buried tanks on the property. Water Quality Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County and the cities within the County, along with the Flood Control District, joined together in 1991 to create an organization called the "Contra Costa Clean Water Program" (hereafter referred to as the CWP). This program represents the local response to Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Federal and state regulations have mandated local jurisdictions to radically reduce or eliminate all pollutants from stormwater, which will enhance water quality in the Bay/Delta estuary. 4.4-21 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY The Regional Water Quality Control Boards within the state are responsible for overseeing the program. In 1993, a general NPDES permit was granted by the RWQCB to the CWP. After the permit was issued, these local agencies began a process of self-monitoring as stated in the permit. The general permit issued addresses construction-related water quality effects. Through adherence to Best Management Practices, an applicant can request that their grading project be covered under the general permit issued to the CWP. A general NPDES construction permit from the i State Water Quality Control Board will also be needed. Under the State permit, potential pollutant impacts to nearby water bodies from construction activities are identified and mitigation measures are outlined in a stormwater pollution prevention plan. For projects in the unincorporated area, such as the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I, the Grading Division of the Building Inspection Department requires a grading permit,and a part of the permit procedure is submittal of an erosion control plan. During grading, County inspectors monitor field operations to ensure that the measures called for in approved plans are installed and are effective. If erosion or sedimentation problems occur, the County has enforcement powers to ensure that corrective work is undertaken. Ultimately, the NPDES roaram will address the water quality of urban runoff in developed Y program 9 Y P communities. Because the project site would develop over a period of 15 years or more, the preliminary development plan, and other exhibits provided by the applicant, indicate an intent to anticipate the regulatory standards which are coming. Runoff from open lands would be intercepted and conveyed to the West, Main or East Branch Creeks. During the grading period, plans call for the runoff from disturbed areas be routed through small, temporary sedimentation basins designed to improve water quality prior to discharge of runoff into on-site creeks. Plans also call for construction of drainage ditches at the toe of open space areas that surround urban development. This provides the opportunity to route runoff from open space areas directly to creeks, thereby minimizing the problem of erosion control in the graded portion of the site. Within the graded area applicable measures also include straw wattles, hydroseeding, and silt fences. Water Quality Standards Water quality objectives for inland surface waters are set forth in the California Inland Surface Waters Plan of the State Water Resources Control Board (April 1991). This plan seeks to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of the State's inland water resources. The Plan defines inland surface waters as all waters of the State except the ocean, enclosed bays, or'estuaries. Water quality objectives for these water bodies are detailed in the aforementioned California Ocean Plan (Source State Water Resources Control Board, 1900)and the California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan (Source: State Water Resources Control Board, 1991),respectively. 4.4-22 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY The Inland Surface Waters Plan contains narrative, toxicity, and numerical water quality objectives and states that in no case shall a discharge of waste cause a violation of these objectives. Narrative water quality objectives include the following: • Inland surface water communities and populations, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species shall not be degraded as a result of the discharge of waste. • The natural taste and odor of fish, shellfish, or other inland surface water resources used for human consumption shall not be impaired. • Toxic pollutants shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate ion aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. • The concentration of contaminants in waters that are or may be sources of drinking water shall not occur at levels which are harmful to human health. • The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments, or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Toxicity objectives of the Water Resources Control Board include the following: • There shall be no acute toxicity in ambient waters, including mixing zones. • There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters outside mixing zones. Numerical water quality objectives of the Water Resources Control Board (April 1991) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life are presented in Table 4.4-2. Water quality objectives for protection of human health are presented in Table 4.4-3. These standards are numeric objectives for the selection of priority pollutants in each Region. Alamo Creek is not used as a source of drinking water. It flows to Alameda Creek and is ultimately discharged into South San Francisco Bay, so standards in the left-hand column in Table 4.4-3 are not applicable to Alamo Creek. Ambient Water Quality No studies of water quality in Alamo Creek or its tributary channels were undertaken by the project proponents. The adjacent watershed to the east (Tassajara Creek) was sampled by the hydrologists for the Tassajara project during mid- and late-season storms in the 1992-1993 winter rainy season. Additionally, sampling was done on the Main Branch of Alamo Creek just upstream from Windemere Ranch. The data gathered was averaged (i.e., Tassajara Creek data was combined)with Main Branch data to characterize conditions in the Tassajara project area. While these data are not derived from on-site measurements, they nevertheless provide information on ambient water quality in this portion of Contra Costa County. 4.4-23 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Table 4.4-2 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR PROTECTION OF FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE 4=Day Daily 1=Hour Instantaneous Constituent:: Unit' Average Average Average Maximum: Arsenic ugA 190 -- 360 -- Cadmium um to -- -- Chlordane ng/l -- 4.3 -- -- Chromium (VI)' ugA 11 -- 16 -- Copper ugA ` -- -- DDT ngA -- 1.0 -- -- Dieldrin ngA -- 1.9 -- -- Endosulfan ng/l 56 -- 220 Endrin ng/l -- 2.3 -- 180 Heptachlor ngA -- 3.8 -- -- Hexachlorocyclohexane-gamma ngA -- 80 -- -- Lead ugA -- -- Mercury ugA -- -- 2.4 -- Nickel ugA -- -- PCBs ngA -- 14 --P� -- Pentachlorophenol u -- -- P Selenium ugA 5.0 -- 20 -- Silver ugA -- -- -- Toxaphene ngA 0.2 -- 730 -- Tributyltin ngA 20' '40 -- 60 Zinc ug/l Notes: ugA = microgram(s) per liter;ngA = nanogram(s) per liter; -- = not applicable. e Dischargers may, at their option, meet this limitation as total chromium. b 4-day average cadmium = �0.785214 - 3.490; 1-hour average cadmium = J.128H - 3.828. For example, where . hardness is 50 mg/l,the 4-day average cadmium = 0.66 ugA and the 1-hour average cadmium = 1.8 ugA. 4-day average copper =.0.8545H-1.465; 1-hour average copper = �0.9422H-1.464. For example,where hardness is 50 mgA,the 4-day average copper = 6.5 ugA and the 1-hour average copper = 9.2 ugA. d 4-day average lead =J.27311-4.705; 1-hour average copper = �1.273H-1.460. For example,where hardness is 50 mgA,the 4-day average lead = 1.3 ug/l and the 1-hour average copper = 34 ug/l. 4-day average nickel = .0.846H- 1.1645; 1-hour average nickel = e0.846H-3.3612. For example,where hardness is 50 mg/1,the 4-day average nickel = 88 ugA and the 1-hour average copper = 790 ugA. f Instantaneous maximum silver=�1.72H-6.52. For example,where hardness is 50 mgA,the instantaneous maximum silver = 1.2 ugA. , a 4-day average zinc =�0.84711 + 0.7614; 1-hour average zinc = �0.8473H + 0.8604. For example,where hardness is 50 mg/l,the 4-day average zinc = 59 ug/l and the 1-hour average zinc = 65 ugA. b 4-day average objective for pentachlorophenol is e1.005(ph)-5.290. This is 13 ugA at pH=7.8. The 1-hour average objective,for pentachlorophenol is e1.005(pH) -4.830. This is 20 ugA at pH = 7.8 ' Six-month median. Source: Water Resources Control Board, April 1991. 4.4-24 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Table 4.4-3 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH Existing or`Potential Sources of Drinking Water Other Waters 30 -Day 30 Day Const4tuent; Unit' Average Unit _.Average.: Noncarcinogens -- -- Cadmium ugA 10 4-chloro-3-methylphenol ugA 3,000' -- -- Chromium (VI)' ug/1 0.05 -- -- Copper ug/1 1,000.0' -- -- 1,2-dichlorobenzene* ug/1 2,700 mg/1 18 1,3-dichlorobenzene ug/1 400 ug/l 2,600 .2-4-dichlorophenol ugA 0.30 Endosulfan ugA 0.9 ug/l 2.0 Endrin ugA 0.8 ug/1 0.8 Fluoranthene ugp 42 ug/1 42 Lead ugA 50.0 -- -- Mercury ngA 12 ng/l 12 Nickel mg/1 0.6 mg/1 4.6 Phenol ugfl 300 -- -- Selenium ug/1 10 -- Silver mg/! 0.05 Toluene ugA 10,000 mg/1 300 Zinc mg/l 5.0- Carcinogens Aldrin pg/1 130 pg/l 140 Arsenic ug/1 5.0 Benzene ugA 0.34 ug/l 21 Chlordane* ng/1 0.08 pg/! 81 Chloroform ug/1 100 ug/l 480 DDT` ngA 0.59 pg/l 600 1,4-dichlorobenzene ug/1 9.9 ugA 64 Dichloromethane ug/1 4.6 ug/1 1,600 Dieldrin pgp 140 pg/1 140 Halomethanes ug/1 100 ug/l 480 Heptachlor ng/1 0.16 ngA 0.17 Heptachlor ngA 0.16 ngA 0.17 Heptachlor epoxide ng/1 0.07 ng4 0.07 Hexachlorobenzene ng/1 0.66 pg/1 690 4.4-25 i_ 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Table 4.4-3 continued Existing:or Potential Sources of Drinking Water Other Waters 30-Day 30 Day Constituent Urut: Average Unit Average Alpha ngA 3.9 ng/l 13 Beta ng/l 14 ng/1 46 gamma ng/1 19 ng/1 62 PAHs ng/l 2.8 ng/l 31 PCBs pg/1 .70 pg/1 70 Pentachlorophenol ug/1 0.28 u/g1 8.2 TCDD equivalents pgA 0.013 pgp 0.01 4 Toxaphene ngp 0.67 pg/1 690 2,4,6-trichlorophenol ug/1 0.34 ug/1 1.0 Notes: mg/1 = milligram(s)per liter,ug/1 = microgram(s) per liter;ng/1 = nanogram(s) per liter,pg/1 = picogram(s) per liter; -- = not applicable. Taste and/or odor-based objectives. Source: Water Resources Control Board, April 1991. In summary, stormwater study of the Tassajara project found generally good water quality for the constituents measured. During low flows, there could be some problems relative to specific constituents. For example, groundwater in the general area tends to have elevated boron , concentrations. When stream flows are low and fed chiefly by springs, boron concentrations could be elevated. The Balance Hydrolo ics report (1993) provides an explanation of the protocols followed during sampling, and all testing was performed by a State certified laboratory. Table 4.4-4 compares concentrations of key chemical constituents with formal water quality standards of the California Department of Health Services (DOHS). Briefly summarized, arsenic values are substantially below thresholds for acute or chronic effects on freshwater biota. Barium, cadmium and chromium values were well within acceptable limits for drinking water. Selenium, silver, lead and mercury levels were below the limits of detection. Similarly, concentrations of sodium, boron and sulfate fell within the prescribed standards for drinking water. Ammonia-N and Nitrate-N values fall within the range common for nearby streams: Both Tassajara and East Branch Creeks have nitrate-N levels that are within the allowable range for drinking water. East Branch nitrate-N levels are relatively higher than Tassajara Creek. The result hints at runoff from fertilized lawns in Shadow Creeks and Blackhawk as a likely source for the nitrate nitrogen. 4.4-26 4.4 FLOODMAZARDS/DRAINAGF,/WATER QUALITY TABLE 4.4-4 SUMMARY OF 1993 STORM RUNOFF SAMPLING AND COMPARISON WITH WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS Tassajara/ Alamo Creek D011S Drinking ..,........ Aquatic .Constituent Averages' Water Standardsb Acute Toxicity` { pH 7.25 6.5-8.5 -- Specific Conductance (µmhos) 687 900,160 Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 360 none Ammonia -N (mgA)` 0.15 30 -- Arsenic (mg/l) <0.005 0.05 0.19 Barium (mg/l) 0.29 1.0 -- Cadmium (mg/l) <0.005 0.005 0.0115 Chromium (mg/1) 0.03 0.1 Cr(3+)3.80 Cr(6+)0.016 Lead (mg/l) <0.05 0.05 0.275 Mercury (mg/1) <0.005 0.002 0.0024 Nitrate -N(mg/1) 1.12 10.0 Orthophosphate (mg/l) 0.21 none Selenium (mg/1) <0.005 0.010 0.020 Silver(mg/1) <0.01 0.1000 0.0210 Sodium (mg/l) 40 n/a Sulfate (mg/1) 74 250,500 none ' Balance hydrology data are the average of four stations from storm runoff sampling conducted during 1993 by Balance Hydrologics. ('Three stations of Tassajara Creek; one station on Main Branch.) b EPA drinking water standards and health advisory table,August 1991 (max.contaminant levels):2 values represent recommended and "mandatory" values. California water quality control plan - San Francisco Bay Basin, 1991 (used hardness of 260 mg/1 as CaCO' in calculating value). a At elevated concentrations or proportions, these constituents constrain plant or crop growth;no primary drinking water standards have been set. Un-ionized ammonia concentrations exceeding 0.025 mg/l can be toxic. f Biostnnulating constituents. Source: Balance Hydrologics, 1993. 1 4.4-27 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (1992 amended) indicate that a project will normally have a significant adverse effect on the environment if it.will increase the amount of surface runoff (beyond that which can be conveyed in the downstream channels without damage), change the pattern of surface runoff(to the extent that off-site damage occurs from the resulting increase or decrease in flows), or alter water quality (to the extent that beneficial uses are reduced or eliminated). Assumptions Made by 1992 EIR 1. The preliminary post-project hydrologic analyses performed by the Flood Control District and the pre-project analysis by Philip Williams and Associates are sufficient to determine potential project impacts. 2. The results of the preliminary detention basin feasibility analysis developed by the Flood Control District are sufficient and are used to determine potential project impacts and develop mitigation measures. The preliminary analysis indicated that the construction of several detention basins will reduce 100-year event post-project peak flood flows below the peak flows for the 100-year event under existing land uses. 3. The constraint imposed on the Contra Costa County Flood Control District by Alameda County (Zone 7, Flood Control) for Alamo Creek peak flows at the County line is 4,670 cfs or less. 4. The proposed creek restoration and revegetation program will be designed to remove areas zoned for project development out of the existing FEMA 100-year floodplain, or areas in the floodplain will have pad elevations above the 100-year flood levels. With regard to Assumption 1, the pre-development flows have been calculated by the.Flood Control District. These calculations supersede the. previous studies of Philip Williams and Associates. The grading plans and design details have changed since the 1992 EIR was prepared. The hydrologic studies of Ruggeri-Jensen & Associates (1996) and CBG(1996)were based on the current grading and development concepts. The assessment of impacts for this Subsequent EIR are based in part on technical review of the 1996 hydrology studies by the staff of the Flood Control District. Assumptions 2 and 3 remain valid. The creek restoration and revegetation program discussed in Assumption 4 is designed to improve wildlife habitat value of the creek corridor, as well as improve aesthetic values. Protection of the urban area is achieved by raising all building pads well 4.4-28 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGEJWATER QUALITY above the elevation of the peak water surface, and by designing creek crossings to pass peak flows from the 100-year storm. The 1992 EIR, which analyzes the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identified six significant impacts and associated mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B67 through B72 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in Table 4.4-5. The following discussion is intended to analyze impacts and information not previously addressed by the 1992 EIR. Impact 4.4-1 Increased runoff from the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects. Construction of these first two projects in the Alamo Creek watershed will trigger the need to construct detention basins. Without these facilities, the project would result in an increase in peak flows at the County line. This is. considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) The Flood Control District would not be adverse to providing maintenance to the proposed basins provided that the following conditions are satisfied: • that basins are designed and constructed conforming to the District's standards and specifications; • that an adequate, perpetual, funding mechanism, such as a Benefit Assessment District, is in place to assure perpetual maintenance of the basin facilities; and • that any planned dual use of the basin right-of-way is covered by a joint use agreement which should first be reviewed and approved by the Flood Control District. 4.4-1(b) So that they can be maintained by the Flood Control District, each basin must have a capacity of at least 15 ac ft. 4.4-1(c) Detention basin capacity must be developed concurrent with construction in the affected watersheds. They should be completed with the first phase of construction. Alternatively, construction of a detention basin may be phased, so that its volume is adequate to mitigate the runoff effects of graded and developed areas of the project. 4.4-1(d) The design of detention basins should include features to avoid ponding stagnant water. The maintenance plan for each basin shall include measures to control mosquito populations, dust and wildfire hazards. 4.4-29 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Table 4.4-5 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM 1992 EIR Hydrology and Water Quality. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Increased runoff from the planning area. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponent will construct on-site detention basins to reduce post-Project peak floodflows to predicted pre-Project levels so the stormwater flow limitation at the County line is not exceeded. * The Project proponents will establish a storm drain infrastructure system throughout the proposed Project that safely conveys runoff from individual homes,lots,and streets to the major creeks via a system of culverts, gutters,and swales. This local flood protection shall be provided for at least the 10-year local flood event. A benefit assessment district (or compatible mechanism) shall be established to maintain the drainage facilities for Alamo Creek. 2. Impact: Risk of flood damage from development in the 100-year flood plain. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Public Services & Utility Impact #7. * The Project proponent shall submit a letter for map revision to FEMA to reflect the new flood plain due to the channel changes proposed in the restoration program. Development within the anticipated revised flood plains shall be designed to withstand flooding. 3. Impact: Increased erosion during construction. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Soils and Geology Impact #5. 4. Impact: Increased water quality degradation because of urban runoff. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents will construct, as appropriate, on-site retention or detention facilities or install silt or grease traps in the storm drain system. 5. Impact: Increased runoff and flooding downstream of the planning area. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents will construct on-site detention basins to.reduce post-Project peak floodflows to predicted pre-Project levels so that storm limitations at the County line are not exceeded. 6.Impact: Increased channel erosion due to construction of bridge crossings. Mitigation Measures: * Design and construct bridges large enough that they do not constrict flows. 4.4-30' 4.4 FLOODMAZARDS/DRAINAGEMWATER QUALITY Table 4.4-1 continued 7. Impact: Need for drainage infrastructure. Mitieation Measures: * The Project proponents shall construct on-site detention basins,which may include on-site storage facilities, to reduce post-Project peak floodflows to predicted pre-Project levels and promote infiltrations. * The Project proponents shall establish a storm, drain infrastructure system throughout the proposed Project that safely conveys runoff from individual homes,lots, and streets to the major creeks via a system of culverts,gutters,and swales. This local flood protection will provide for at least the 10 year local flood event. * The Project proponents will increase the capacity of existing on-site major drainages. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan proposes a creek restoration program which includes regrading,terracing and revegetating creeks to accommodate major flood events. 4.4-1(e) The basin sites nominated by the hydrology studies (sites A, B, C and D) shall be kept available for a flood control use until adequate basin improvements are constructed, as determined by the District, which meet or exceed the necessary mitigation requirements for the project. The preceding mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with increased runoff to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.4-2 The channel crossings and channel realignment required for the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects have the potential to increase erosion due to the construction of bridges and disturbance to creek banks and the channel floor by earthmoving activities. This is considered a significant impact. ' Mitigation Measures 4.4-2(a) Limit earthwork and construction in channels to the dry, summer construction season. Any work done between October 15th and April 15th shall be specifically approved by the Ar my Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. Between October 15th and April 15th, before work is allowed to continue, erosion and sediment control materials shall be located on-site and ready to be installed within 24 hours if rain is forecast. 4.4-2(b) Bridges must be large enough so that they do not constrict flows. 4.4-31 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY 4.4-2(c) Were graded areas immediately adjoin a creek channel, more aggressive than normal erosion control measures shall be installed (e.g., redundant facilities, such as multiple silt fences). 4.4-2(d) Disturbed areas in the creek corridor shall be hydroseeded or otherwise revegetated. 4.4-2(e) The performance of disturbed areas along the creek corridor shall be inspected after eac h major storm to ensure that erosion control measures are effective and that necessary maintenance can be performed. The preceding mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with earthwork within creek corridors to a less-than-significant level. Mosquitos ' Impact 4.4-3 Altering the floodway area may result in problems with increased mosquito population. This is considered a significant impact. The Dougherty Valley is an undeveloped area where the mosquito population has not created nuisance or public Health problems. Implementation of the Specific Plan will yield up to 11,000 dwelling units, along with commercial uses to the valley. The development of neighborhood parks with ponds and trails along creeks can result in problems with the Culex tarsalis mosquito. Specifically, these mosquitos prefer shallow water with emergent vegetation. Several species of Culex and Culiseta mosquitos are known to be prevalent in the project area. With regard to public health concerns, Culex tarsalis is a potential vector of Western Equine Encephalitis and St. Louis Encephalitis. Detention basins can be a source of Chironomid midges, which are commonly mistaken for mosquitos. The midge typically develops in mud on the bottom of the pond and emerges in large enough swarms to cause public complaints. A complicating factor is that mosquitos are a food source for the Red-legged fro which is P g q gg g, classified as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act and is known to inhabit the planning area. Therefore efforts to control mosquito populations may deprive the frogs of a potential food source. 4.4-32 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Mitigation Measures 4.4-3 The developers, Flood Control District and staff of the Contra Costa County Mosquito Abatement District should work cooperatively to control mosquito populations This will involve constructing a low flow channel within detention basins;sloping the floor of detention basins to avoid ponds of water; designing manmade channels to avoid ponding of water; and use of mosquito fish to control mosquito populations, as necessary. The preceding mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with mosquitos to a less-than- significant level. Drowning Hazard Impact 4.4-4 Unrestricted access to all areas of detention basins could be hazardous during periods of heavy runoff. This is considered a significant impact. Although the proposed flood control facilities are expected to detain runoff only a few times each year, unrestricted access to all areas of the storage basins could be hazardous during periods of heavy runoff. This is especially true if regular access is stimulated by the improvement of such facilities as parks,trails, and nature areas. The most hazardous features of the flood control basins would be the areas adjoining outflow structures, including the areas of debris catchers(trash racks) in front of these openings. Reaches of open creek channel within the project could also be considered hazardous for small children. However, the proposed creek corridor will be wide, gently sloping, and water depths 1 relatively shallow. Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(a) The proposed facilities should include the provision of fencing and signing, specifically around both the inlet and outflow structures for each basin, and to design the trash rack and outfall structure to prevent access by children. The fencing should be of sufficient height and design to discourage children from attempting to enter these areas 4.4-4(b) If a local park or agency takes over the responsibilityfor the basin(s)for active recreational uses (e.g. trails, informal sport play areas, picnic areas), fencing and signing requirements should be modified to standards appropriate to that use and acceptable to the District. For example, signs could warn visitors of possible hazards. Low chain link fences in combi nation with a landscape screen could be used to restrict access to hazardous areas, without compromising aesthetic values The mitigation measure will reduce the drowning hazard impact to a less-than-significant level. 4.4-33 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY REFERENCES Arcement, G.J., Jr., and V.R. Schneider, 1989, Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2339, 38 p. Balance Hydrologics, 1995,letter to Melissa Morton,Contra Costa County Flood Control District, 1 September. Balance Hydrologics, 1994, letter to Darwin Myers Associates, 2 March. Balance Hydrologics, Inc., 1993, Tassajara Valley: Approaches to Hydrologic Concerns. Balance Hydrologics, Inc., 1993, Quality of Storm Water Runoff in Tassajara and Alamo Creeks, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, CA; Baseline Report. Balance Hydrologics, Inc., 1992,Flood Hazards and Control Alternatives for Portions of Tassajara i and Alamo Valleys, Contra Costa County. Barnes, H.H., Jr., 1967, Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1849, 213 p. Bodhaine, G.L., 1968, Measurement of Peak Discharge at Culverts by Indirect Methods. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 3 (Applications of Hydraulics), Chapter A3, 60 pp. Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., 1996. "Preliminary Drainage Study, Volume I for Windemere, Contra Costa County. Carter, R.W., and Davidian, J., 1968, General Procedure for Gaging Streams, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations 3-A6, 13 p. Contra Costa County, 1992,Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report, Specific Plan and Related Actions, County File 2-91-SR. Contra Costa County Flood Control District, 1977, Hydrologic Standards;Mean Seasonal Isohyets Map and Five Precipitation Duration - Frequency - Depth Curves, Martinez. 4.4-34 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Contra Costa County Flood Control District, 1992, Hydrology Model Runs for 3-Hour Storms on Tassajara and East Branch Creeks (100-Year Analysis/Existing Conditions). Contra Costa County Flood Control District, 1995, memorandum from Paul Detjens to Melissa Morton, 7 August. Contra Costa CountyFlood Control District 1995 review and comments on Balance H drolo ics � Y g letter of 1 September, and hydrologic calculations of Paul Wu, 7 September. Edwards,T.K., and G.D. Glysson, 1988,Field Methods for Measurement of Fluvial Sediment,U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-531, 118 p. Rantz, S.E., 1971, Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of Storm - Drainage Facilities in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Menlo Park. Rickert, D., and A. Spieker, 1971, Water in the Urban Environment - Real-Estate Lakes, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 601-G, Washington, DC. Ruggeri-Jensen and Associates, 1996, "Subdivision 7984, Gale Ranch Phase II, Conceptual Basin Design." Sheaffer, J.R., et al, 1982, Urban Storm Drainage Management, Marcel Decker, New York. Stahre, P., and B. Urbonas, 1990, Stormwater Detention for Drainage, Water Quality and CSO Management, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. I Strubie, G., T. Hromadka II and J. McCarty, 1995, "Usage of Storm Water Best Management Practices in Southern California." ' U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, 1991,Hydrologic Engineering Center,HEC-1,Computer Program. U.S. EPA, 1983,Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Report EPA-600/4-79-020, amended March 1983, 519. . U.S. FEMA, 1987, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Panels 060025-0425B, -0500B and -0600B. 4.4-35 4.4 FLOOD/HAZARDS/DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY , U.S.Geological Survey, 1987,"Rainfall and runoff quantity and quality characteristics of four urban land-use catchments in Fresno, California, October 1981 to April 1983,"Open File Report 84-710. Ward, J.R., and C.A. Harr, eds., 1990, Methods for Collection and Processing of Surface-Water and Bed-Material Samples for Physical and Chemical Analyses,U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-140. 4.4-36 ............. ......... ...... ...... ...... ........ ........... .... ........... . .... ... ...... 4S: GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' SETTING 1992 EIR The 1992 EIR was organized to first present an overview of the regional geologic setting of the Dougherty Valley Planning Area. It then described the conceptual grading plan. (Full-sized grading plans were prepared by PBR at a 400-foot scale with a 10-foot contour interval; reduced scale copies of the grading plan were presented in the EIR at 4,000-foot scale). The previous EIR also presented a slope map which identified slope areas of 26 percent and greater on a base that showed the approximate extent of grading. ' The assessment of seismic and geologic hazards relied largely on the mapping of the California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG),which prepared bedrock geology, landslide features and debris flow maps(Davenport 1986),along with the CDMG Alquist-Priolo maps. Figure 9-9 of the 1992 EIR shows the location of earthquake epicenters and Table 9-2 presents estimated peak acceleration and estimated Maximum Modified Mercalli (MM) intensities for 30 earthquake scenarios involving 15 active faults. Information on soils was taken from the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County. ' The 1992 EIR also listed pertinent policies from the Safety Element of the County General Plan. Finally, it identified eight significant geologic-related impacts and identified 10 mitigation ' measures. Those impacts are presented in Appendix B. Background The planning area is located in the Tri-Valley area, within the California Coast Ranges geomorphic province (see Figure 4.5-1). The Coast Ranges province is characterized by a series of northwest-trending ridges and valleys that are structurally controlled. The Diablo Range was formed by tectonic deformation that has occurred episodically in the region since the Late Cretaceous. Deformation was largely compressional until the Miocene Epoch,when large strike- slip faults developed in the region. A number of these strike/slip faults, including the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and Greenville faults remain active as the region continues to be 4.5-1 t .s • co o , o . s : . •.� • :�o �' :::Great�•-. 11 Y ,.a .. .... . . . . . . . . -`� ••••San. 'S ' Pablo. """" """ ay 11 ; " Bay �" o.;:.:•*-^` .''... : :: _,.:'':•�,,: . A�::,•.{'•.•�,•{ 1'p'{•,..•, "��ContraCosta .' ^ County ,j�`•'•' ''•' " "'Boundary A.. .Ofd',!:'''�''i'•':`�:'•.' nAh 'Shown Dotted �•,:.• • � ..mow• .••:.•:- " ^" Pacific + " Ocean �.. " • San • '•�`�� �:� �^ Francisco Bay top ell p� Legend: Cenozoic Bedrock Units Key A. 0 Great Valley Sequence Map: g ® Franciscan Assemblage C Salinian Block(Granitic Basement) A.Country Club Q Gale Ranch B.Remaining Phase of Gale Ranch `,�r�--•••• Fault(dashed where approximate, and Windemere dotted where concealed) C.Camp Parks,Contra Costa Portion Figure: 4.5-1 , Regional Geologic Ma Graphic P Scale Subsequent EIR Source:Darwin Myers Associates 0 12 mi 4.5-2 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' tectonically deformed. Similarly, compression is on-going, and even rocks that are of Late Pliocene age are tightly folded in many places. As the previous EIR stated, bedrock on the site consists of non-marine sedimentary rocks that are of Pliocene age. The regional dip is to the south, so the upper portion of the Pliocene section occurs in the southern portion of the planning area, and the rocks in the northern portion of the planning area consist of the lower portion of the Pliocene section. According to Wagner (1978), the Pliocene section (referred to by Wagner as the Sycamore Formation) is 3,100 feet thick. Underlying the Pliocene rocks are marine sedimentary rocks of Miocene to Eocene Age. These rocks outcrop on the lower elevations of Mt. Diablo. Basement rocks of the region are generally composed of highly deformed rocks of the Cretaceous Great Valley Sequence, Coast Range ophiolite, and the Late Jurassic/Cretaceous Franciscan Assemblage.' Since the 1992 EIR was certified,the USGS has published a geologic map of Contra Costa County (Graymer, Jones and Brabb, 1994); and Ron Crane, a retired Chevron geologist, has prepared quadrangle maps of Contra Costa County that are being published by the USGS (1996, in press). Additionally, in 1995 the USGS issued a professional paper that describes the engineering properties of hillside materials in the San Francisco Bay Region (Ellen and Wentworth, 1995) and ABAG issued ground shaking maps (Perkins and Boatwright, 1995). These reports are summarized below. USGS Geologic Map General. The USGS map divides Contra Costa County into six assemblages with a unique stratigraphic sequence bounded by faults. The portion of Contra Costa County that is north of Livermore Valley is in Assemblage V. In this Assemblage, the Domingene Formation (Td) is underlain by Cretaceous Great Valley Sequence rocks. The stratigraphic differences between assemblages is due to angular unconformities and changes in depositional environment in one or more large sedimentary basins. Significant offset of major faults has juxtaposed different basins or parts of basins. ' The Great Valley Sequence is depositionally linked to the Coast Range Ophiolite. Although the contact between the two is a fault everywhere in Contra Costa County,elsewhere in California (as close as Alameda County) the lowest part of the Great Valley Sequence (the Knoxville Formation) is clearly deposited on the Ophiolite. The Franciscan Complex presumably underlies all of Contra Costa County. It was emplaced below the Coast Range Ophiolite by accretionary faulting during Cretaceous time,so the contact between the Franciscan and Coast Range Ophiolite and the overlying Great Valley Sequence is everywhere faulted. This fault is known as the Coast Range fault. 4.5-3 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Stratigraphic Units Figure 4.5-2 presents the mapping of Graymer,Jones and Brabb (1994)for the Dougherty Valley area. The map indicates that the valley bottom area is underlain by undivided Quaternary deposits (Qu). The upland portions of the site are in the outcrop belt of the Green Valley/Tassajara Group (Tgvt). This unit corresponds to the Sycamore Formation of Wagner. A volcanic tuff near the middle of the stratigraphic section has an absolute age date of 4.0± 1.0 million years. Tuff layers lower in this unit have been correlated with the Roblar tuff in Sonoma County (5.7± 0.5 million years) and the Pinole tuff (5.2± 0.1 million years). Engineering Geology Properties. The Green Valley/•Tassajara Group consists chiefly of clayey, fine- trained sandstone and mudstone. Relatively clay-free sandstone makes up 10 to 40 percent of the section. These rocks are firm to soft; beds range from less than one foot to 50 feet in thickness, with many beds up to 10 feet thick; and fracture spacing ranges from 0.5 to two inches. The depth of weathering typically ranges from less than eight feet for mudstone to greater than 30 feet for clean sandstone. Much of the bedrock is severely expansive (mudstone) and almost all soil mantle is severely expansive. Structure. By extrapolation from nearly measurements, bedding'on Dougherty Valley is inferred to strike generally east-west and dip steeply. The axis of an anticlinal fold is mapped through the site, and a thrust fault is mapped a short distance north of the Dougherty Valley planning area. Crane Geologic Map.and Cross-Section As Figure 4.5-3 indicates, rocks in the vicinity of the site are tightly folded and cut by faults. The fold axes are colored red (anticlines) and blue (synclines). Faults are colored green. Most faults in the project area trend nearly east-west. Figure 4.5-4 is a geologic cross-section which trends northeast-southwest, crossing Wi.ndemere Ranch just east of the Windemere I project, and it , crosses Camino Tassajara near the Finley Road intersection (see Figure 4.2-3 for line of section, AA). This cross-section is based on interpretation of outcrop data, the logs of oil company ' exploration wells and geophysical data. The section indicates a complex of thrust faults with several thousand feet of displacement,which appear to be radiating away from the Calaveras fault (to the west) and the Greenville-Clayton fault.(to the east). The tight folds are interpreted as a by-product of the faulting. Because geologic units of Pliocene and Pliocene-Quaternary age are offset by these faults, displacement has occurred during the Quaternary Period (age 1.6 million years to present). The tectonic forces within the earth's crust and upper mantle that are responsible for the folds and faults shown in Figure 4.5-4 may be related to the convergence of the North American and Pacific Plates. The deformation is on-going, and the thrust fault may be a seismic source. However, the faults which occur in the project area are not known to offset Holocene alluvium (age 11,000 years to present). Hence, they are not classified as active faults by either the USGS or CDMG. It is also clear that the faults in the planning area would have recurrence intervals that are substantially longer than the known active faults. 4.5-4 xx i p"xW '' '• � # �C � '�....,- ,,r �,.•r �� � �.�rrT� �� � '�,.• �'" � err ,.,of S� S t F ,.E'rr.,f r,: s r �•T � ,� a � xtic,:. 'c P A +' i � .,. •���Ems'. �.:£. iS7 T. a ` '� a i s i a � ���-t�� c"E� t�►ts'��bE*t�"4��'Y :, x � y<�`''"� x � r�,� "^}��� r��i �.. t, l.a >. ..•.,.... < > l ��� .. n";. .... ... ' Figure: 4.5-2 �( o USGS Geologic Map Graphicr Subsequent EIR Emphasizing Bedrock Units Source:Graymer,Jones&Brabb,1994 1 0 500' 1000' 3000' 4.5-5 l� ��„+Yr"% � y � e .,. r x�.� t ,-�,• ,�`f f 1M a2� - r° i �„�:,.• -\4 e�"�V`���r �f I � -.y+Y.J-'1�, , J �• A' y C + � r#! kr �` r ti. x IF 1.. �:Tye A"1 !ip F,i t�'�,�+,�Z'� - •?., t.r � zt•.T �i�it3 ��� � ��� T �?i ti���:+''i',,,,'t't^ Ji r} .'! �Y {✓ T�+ (t'/ t{�r`l: /. �-,: !^'� �i��{, r r � � �, _ $ �.;:� ,� * °yr,k,��� A res .iL:-. ♦ - !r�..:k, J { i` r s lti n `' r tr, a!'` a � F a �. r.ti•F'�'(.� ���lt: � "'•��' -�-" iv- z ,- v; � n � -... �� �` �i ♦ t Y r I y��a'��t Y J /, tl iN3 t .. 1 t \ S �J ? " S�: tJr !)lk y.< r,,.rr,,1�,r�tL•- s-r- #a'` 'p sr °i•;;. `+'.:. �.�{...'K.3i `�c• 't r' q+t -�• 'g� �:� � f 6`+-�.�. -" - � } �,� { t �r � 1. V� ` .\��;}�r� til ... t �=ll 1}r- �1r ���"• •r.S'u..� �� � 3..' S��i< c "'.7'�"� ,� ��K`�) '`H� _ ♦� `.s4 „s )r.� y .._t!'`y/ 3 �Q� nps/ C rr r rn:� \ ..�,, x ,' ♦� l �'�` L a, � f ''��� j.f !t' I { -c r •"�`h rn {�a� �.Y. ^. b \ x•.y;. t _ ��Y R "' � ry'.a e J�`1 r T�i�f��r�.1i !/�.e�. ``-'- ��• ••` 'f�"�-. � ► ��� ;\ ���� � �°:>� �� .: y9 e.'".•-t.l' � -�� +�Y7�♦ -t.. � �~v. � '7' \cam}S'1+ e �.�•.�• `` •.1 1`��..:_ P�+ - Y� c--� tic ♦. 1\ 3.,, .,r a' :l a 1. c�. V 1 \ > > 4 j`Z.:1 '��'w .c•,u.y r �r .L r •.1 i r 5�. �r j.`, , ` F;6� ".^ �"�3 T*t C' SA N !a' , _ .Q.. QR- t ;7.,.•� T .i :;: .r ,g`` t ¢ i 4C: �'yi �5 z� F M;! e1'�''1 G.-.•'aeil, 'j j hl { Fault ��^'r � r 5 � # terns t y c��'f I � 'Y -,r�-� � .e•t Tt 1 , F` ir "° � — Synclinal Foldr z `�.► a:r �,n<�a •�,.a�',�1�r�.���,or�h s i n���-� ��--�wr�;� � 1 1 4r ' Anticlinal Fold ' � 1 r .. Sandstone Bed 4 \.� ti :��1� r��� -%r s a%t =r+•77 �t♦vt�. y � � ',, �� �.i � �� :� ' �, � "yid !n'�rstate♦38U Figure:4.5-3 Crane Geologic Map Graphic Scale: Subsequent EIR Source:Crane(1995) o 2500' 5000, 4.5-6 10009 F 0006 000z .. i 000, F rig 0 ff oa N cz 3aafo��.xsf�ssey �F+� � ' d U gaueg aaauxap ,14 � �z�+ U U O U] O F+ coit O 41 ' am cn cn U a E- E- E-4 rj � o U gauuH aaamuxaputM F �. o w U] s3[jecl duxEaFn c� O 1 21W rte( 0 4.5-7 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Regional Seismicity Seismic Sources and Historic Seismicity The San Francisco Bay Region is located in a seismically active region which has experienced a number of strong earthquakes during historic times. Most but not all active faults in the region have been the source of earthquakes during the past 200± years. , Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Act) of 1972 (amended 1994), "Earthquake Fault Zones"were established by the CDMG i along."active faults" (i.e., faults which have experienced surface rupture during the last 11,000 years). In the Bay Area, these include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Rodgers Creek- ' Healdsburg, West Napa, Green Valley-Concord, and Greenville (Hart, 1992). Other active faults in the Tri-Valley area also include the Verona and Las Positas faults, both of which are located in Alameda County. Table 4.5-1 lists the estimated maximum parameters, including maximum credible earthquakes,for known faults which may affect the planning area. The closest active fault is the Calaveras,which , passes approximately 1.8 miles to the southwest. The Hayward and San Andreas faults pass approximately 10 and 27 miles southwest of the planning area, respectively. The estimated maximum credible earthquake on the Hayward and Calaveras faults is Richter magnitude 7.25 ' (Slemmons and Chung, 1982). The maximum credible earthquake on the San Andreas is a Richter magnitude of 8.3 event. The Concord-Green Valle fault is located approximately 8.5 miles north of the planning Valley pp y pl ng area Like the Hayward fault, the Concord fault apparently steps eastward to the Green Valley fault , beneath Suisun Bay. The estimated maximum credible earthquakes for the Concord and Green Valley faults are magnitude 6.5 and magnitude 6.7, respectively (Geomatrix Consultants, 1992). The Greenville-Marsh Creek fault,located approximately five miles northeast of the planning area is estimated to be capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.5 (Wright, et al, 1982). The most intense historic earthquake ground shaking in the Tri-Valley area may have been associated with the July 3, 1861 earthquake. It is the first recorded earthquake on the Calaveras ' fault, and had its epicenter in the Tri-Valley area and strong shaking lasted for 15 seconds. A fissure reportedly formed on•the west side of the San Ramon Valley which could be traced for eight miles (i.e., possible surface fault rupture). The earthquake created many springs in the San ' Ramon area and it increased the flow of some existing springs (i.e., possible evidence of liquefaction). Adobe houses were damaged and men in fields were unable to stand. The intensity 4.5-8 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Table 4.5-1 MAXIMUM PARAMETERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS EFFECTING DOUGHERTY VALLEY Approximate Distance from Planning Arca Maximum;Credible Event Maximum Credible Peak Intensity Magnitude Acceleration (Modified Ablrevoted Fault(Name Miles Kilonietcrs (liichter) (.Gravity)` Nlercall) _ . Calaveras 3 5 7.30 0.50 X Green Valley 22 35 6.80 0.10 VII Hayward 13 20 7.30 0.21 IX Healdsburg-Rog. Cr. 38 61 6.80 0.06 VI Rinconada-King C. 76 122 7.50 0.05 VI San Andreas-North 31 49 8.50 0.24 IX San Andreas-Creep 66 106 7.00 0.04 V San Greg:Hosgri 37 60 7.60 0.11 VII Antioch 12 20 6.20 0.11 VII Concord 10 16 6.50 0.16 VIII Greenville 4 6 6.50 0.25 IX Las Positas 13 20 6.20 0.10 VII Maacama 69 112 7.20 0.04 VI Sargent 45 72 7.00 0.06 VI West Napa 38 61 5.70 0.02 V ' Notes: 1. The Calaveras Fault is closest to the planning area; about 2.7 miles away. 2. Largest maximum credible planning area acceleration: 0.50 gravity. 3. Largest maximum probable planning area acceleration: 0.54 gravity. Source: ENGEO Inc., 1989. of the earthquake near the present site of Livermore was estimated at MM IX or X, which suggests that the earthquake may have had a magnitude of approximately 7.0 on the Richter Scale. ' Earthquake Forecasting It is likely that a pattern of seismicity similar to the historic pattern described above will persist ' into the foreseeable future. The probability of a large (magnitude 7.0 or greater) earthquake on the San Francisco Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault zone is about 23 percent over a 30- year period(USGS Working Group, 1990). The probability of a large earthquake on the northern segment of the Hayward fault zone, which extends from approximately Mills College in Oakland i 4.5-9 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' to Point Pinole in Contra Costa County, is about 28 percent for the same period, and 22 percent for the Rodgers Creek fault (USGS Working Group, 1990). The probability of a magnitude 6.0 earthquake occurring along the northern Calaveras fault is estimated to be approximately 50 percent in the next 30 years, and 10 percent for a magnitude 7.0 event (Lindh and Oppenheimer, 1992). Overall, the total probability that one or more large , earthquakes will occur in a 30-year period in the San Francisco Bay region is estimated to be 67 percent (USGS Working Group, 1990). The most likely seismic sources to affect the Dougherty Valley Planning Area are the Calaveras, Greenville-Marsh Creek, Concord, Hayward and San Andreas fault zones. The estimated maximum credible earthquakes along these faults could result in peak horizontal accelerations in bedrock and stiff soils of approximately 0.50g, 0.19g, 0.16g, 0.21g and 0.24g respectively (see, Table 4.5-1). ' Geoseismic Hazards Ground Response ' The ground motion characteristics at a particular site in the planning area, resulting from a particular earthquake, will depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the ' energy source, the magnitude of the event, and the site-specific geologic conditions. In general, bedrock areas will experience ground shaking of higher frequency, shorter period, and lower amplitude. Structural damage resulting from shaking tends to be worse for structures located on unconsolidated deposits,such as modern.stream channel deposits. As discussed below, earthquake ground shaking may have secondary effects on certain foundation materials, including liquefaction, ' seismically-induced settlement and lateral spreading. In April 1995, the Association of Bay Area Governments released maps showing estimated MM intensities for communities throughout the San Francisco Bay Region. Figure 4.5-5 shows earthquake intensity forecasts for a magnitude 6.9 earthquake on the Calaveras fault. The ABAG map is digitized, with a grid cell size of approximately five acres. According to Figure 4.5-5, MM intensities on the floor of the San Ramon Valley are forecast to be IX and X. For the Dougherty Valley specific plan area, MM intensities of VII and VIII are ' representative of broad areas. The maps are not intended to depict risk to individual structures, because ABAG does not have site specific information on geologic conditions, nor have they reviewed building plans of specific structures. Nevertheless, the map is used for depicting the general risk within neighborhoods. Table 4.5-2 provides.a description of the MM Intensity Scale. 4.5-10 ' 1 f zt'u� 4x•�, t F %,- a �.-a.--�-�.' �� ��" F"`-" s"'«4-.� t-.cs,%us�"..s,`ii....r'ux r„�F'�s- 'c.ti. ,w.;,,.c t j t•- n�.:�?'•sk:''7-`?r�:�� �r �� ��sr��^-. -��'�, `_'-_`�,`-.. •:�4�X.t�'t„�-,t"sr.x�,.-i:}i+?c'ti ice%=�s�,�4.t;e�t4:gs'�'�rs%�`i�y�st<gt:3 v . k1;.x•;.; ;�'7fI,,Y. � "�''=r'.-���-,-.•'�.�.�'"�"'° :t.y':�,�•.a��9s`,t+�s',t„�`��t'k,4t�c}yx's�i4�t'�zrttl i+,lti�§z�i%� 't'�a `�x-,:y ;"�@ '` ;�C*.� �. -�-a T.�� ��.r `�,.x '~'e� � 1�:°„�n n t saT";ti r r%r s -s•S,� kat ; is an y s zE,:,.tS �'i,�` .r -,+�-� r '$;,ds - 3=s. � Y." i§a z x F :' � k-�,k�, . ""• z, � --�s�� ;s~-'�--="`�' � , �. °;x'' ' `s�``�'}�%, ,�c�f� tts"° -§�NOW +r .-. r , ,. r=-<.:---' 4riY� r' ..-��r '��''Y'` T.., T.`+ S€.r .�-' ' a�+`r e..` ",�""�'x *+te- - ""� c-^... ' z4J4z�;„tt`xtx°' -fit tt' .5;, t "` -.; ,s. "^:' -.- ,r ..�*."`"E '.}��. -, "`esti..,�;+-yd - :e�-" �,�.,..¢ci"`"�.d^•3 - '- -; a' ry�y '''+ r lsr xJs" `.t�" I "_ '�.�'y-.rte x�q��s'».'"'rt`"�, "�' �`:.•.:.' �tr-x.�" '''s`�"'R-u`7..�'��, � s e� 2 � �,a.F ' x,.:"mss "a m--- r _"�,� � _ r r.,•tt }• -rS.$-+ j zs ,zs -�� `� -- d s'.�� "� �i •4^ s, `�' �'S�- s tt h t§o i t4 t ;'.'--�z a ' °� 5.,'0`- .'"' '•"..,�.`' t t^ 'i't''tt ,x,"' ''-' °"";,, wr.., - .; --- z. �,.. � t•4+tixs Vit' tl ='tom Esc � ssj5s t t,, t . i^z � b3� t.4 sls%say � x 5+��.�. s-=."` 'ir-. rs`�`�"�� iE is't«��•+�3 �•... �.'� '�`"-�' �� 'Q` t xC"t I •s ..,ti��� r,A .,n ...sir` 'w` t x� r 4a � ao- S� hd P s 'ext t• x iT rs s,z t z x�t§ ;"i 'iw i~ z s tss �.� �� S� �• ' '�' �1�Fy is tt�t"tf= 1 t§ s.,rxt ii��� ys .t Y 1§J. 'telt;(SA i• '1�1M4 i t't§t.•.is'SS{ �,L"%.�t"s';fir. 4 ,tt.e6} S day ..9 ."4 tt ,x E p t%..� 1 1t S.,i 5;1,° ' ,. Y`t .. t '� ;i•s�Y :+X.F'.•'�iT^�i" sat+-t�1. i._���-tFi `�C��.st ,s sn aSi zt. i.- t s� ,+ �tu =s s � • � -' e" a: 'may , - � I t4,� xt�t>_,r. � x:'zi.Ss�?,"x'p.a s�x•�a u's�'' j.s't+ §'^st'§'L �¢ �e t! t�.x- ��'-�,at� yz,s t.. i t��K w•s -X_'�,- �L�t�; �, >rzx�xr '�&D� -s F�. -sj v.a sMr�sx� 'c .z ttt tit: s �,^ t hr +{at ! i • x. + .t S§t.L ' `+45`� 1 5.•`F: S R t FL.15eW x"4 `x 'E Til 1 1 ^5r„'i'PrE. t'aT"s1At.xr;tzps"j"�}5,��t.: ���t rs.t "� ax i� �'+t,3%z^:i t�~+. :s y��'•% i ,i}['•,;. ,+. '.,4-�«'' � �C'¢tu, tt I,.Itye ; '� iFxj`s:s'.X`"°"''r,•§ IM IMNI;s''zz t»fS s t 1 1 lt- 43, ssy t eK1rt�r,r z tc x s t `� t t%�.1,�.1 t r §� s•g t%tr�i i t �� §s�§ S � '`_ .x„�4-. t..-t =f'...+^,^-'S .*^R+,tt`�t si i}it � tt § ,'fs.,• S' � x }.ri 'YS'•�, t t l t s\ ''�"':, .xt�` €�".�. +txE• S� tri. a� it`* s cx'.a t '§ a sS �K'Y�t t� SkT' r 'zgl � � � t,c•rt '',,� c s � ; :tt „t +� •�."•t� t t 4s--3 �i--'S � - �z•t a ''. �,`'i. �, ��, t tt4 t -tt a�}' n s t -'t t---,t♦-z�,S ql= $,' i �F-s xth 4 s + 4 zMw s t t r 7a'16 t f .�.. +d;".`�. �L�•4 t,-it""`h.t?r..'M�Ki t' � � t i b %E L t\ v. �' t x � „+t4� .• .� '.z.: tis ss xt = �.z nn r �`',s r§er s�t"' t- - ^� ,� - ,.---... �.,#i �s.«�iys.�...yi»,.. t.t L, •s. r -x yr t a s '� zr 3�7v"�r,.t'�f -a a v�, .�� ~t�5 Y+[ � 1 ST'1 A'h 4- rye Y. •'tt r S t F�t I K f�:'^` h3, ^i: -d. i ffi '4}S'%' !TM 3t tx4 L E t. 4, 457 'y fxt'1 ,.•i x y kY r u =y 1To s- s + ,n t x1 z t r >4 Yy f " L L..t S ... �,,:v.;d '�~� ,v'+� F#w r 3 -' '�+- � ,,� G. t, z t C,y s 'is � e • IS *`"�"'y't A*,'r'^ r ``+-i. l '`'f •.,, 'U Ms.. t x- t tt 4 '+3 ix.l �t �t.yt,' f t.- +a va tsc s r t t t tl `4x y"E.�#�.�. t Y �; "T�Xt �'•s 7 m t4 i,yC t..x 4 ,s x ��^• .+ t tr '�' `�.3 .Z� 0 .✓C Fa4 ". !.• B � 2 1' i't' § t 7-,, `xx • .r't' 4 F F .M t t "SK I ti1 t p2'c c t 5 �6 j - YV- ,t� • e b7-isy+s"- d g§- �>� Di { « • e frr t z �1 ,, x'". iii ;e. a .xi ,,; � s. �,7•t:- .;• � � t s t%tilt§t tx:-;�t't s 1'+"• f` " ii5''' `_'� -' t `r`yt � .. +r=`"T^ '-rr:.r:.. a- t tt S; t l it y I rtctVA d'ta tF' i t♦} i fat t ed sCir t 5 st wT:ik rt 1 , s51i 4r i ., i � tib �.K;'``Ss3 ,tt, ,a aNZ 'irN r `'��'•.{ 1� s ti� � ,5- � '.iy. `x""rlfrk et�t�Ar 5~t .� :. � � try n Yr,,��. te„-:. i "r 4•' � : .atr>tu;'gc..: _ t£s... �." tr�•^.y-5-,r a��t�� ;'� �.+'' yyt� � .' .�li' rt l��•j hert �� i • � Vii/ ` Val JUL i tt 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' Table 4.5-2 MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE I. Not felt. Marginal and long period effects of large earthquakes. II. Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed. III. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. Duration estimated. May not be , recognized as an earthquake. IV. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks, or sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking the walls. Standing motor cars rock. Windows,dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the upper range of IV wooden walls and frames creak. V. Felt outdoors, direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing,close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop,start, change rate. VI. Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows,dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring(church,school). Trees, bushes shaken (visibly, or heard to rustle). VII. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D,including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones,tiles, ' cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. VIII. Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to Masonry C; partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B;none to masonry A Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down;loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. D{. General panic. Masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged,sometimes with complete collapse; masonry B seriously damaged. (General damage to foundations.) Frame structures, if not bolted, shifted off ' foundations. Frames racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in - ground. In alluvial areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake fountains,sand craters. X. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and ' bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams,dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly. XI. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service. XII. Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air. Masonry A: Good workmanship,mortar, and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc.; designed to resist lateral forces. ' Masonry B: Good workmanship and mortar, reinforced, but not designed in detail to resist lateral forces. Masonry C: Ordinary workmanship and mortar, no extreme weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces. , Masonry D: Weak materials, such as adobe,poor mortar, low standards of workmanship;weak horizontally. i 4.5-12 ' 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Liquefaction ' Liquefaction is a specialized form of ground failure caused by earthquake ground motion. It is a condition occurring in water saturated, unconsolidated, relatively clay-free sands and silts triggered by hydraulic pressure. Soil particles are forced apart and into quicksand-like liquid suspension. In the process, normally firm but wet ground materials are transformed into semi- liquid mixtures. The loss of strength by a liquefied soil can trigger foundation failure of man-made structures, instability of slopes and lateral spreading of level ground. The increase in pore water pressure within the soil results in the upward flow of water. Evidence of liquefaction observed during past earthquakes include the floating of embedded structures such as tanks; as well as the tilting and settlement of buildings. As the pore water pressures dissipate, the sand densifies, causing ground surface and structural settlements. If he soil deposit is dry and cannot liquefy, vibratory shaking from earthquakes may still produce compaction and accompanying structure settlement. ' Historically, ground failure in its various forms, including liquefaction,has been a problem in areas of continually wet, unconsolidated geologic units. In Contra Costa County, the areas which are most susceptible to seismically triggered ground failure include the geologically young sediments of the San Francisco Bay and the Delta lowlands. as well as recent stream channel deposits. Liquefaction cannot occur in deposits of dense sand or clays. Soils prone to liquefaction include loose to medium dense sands and silts occurring below the watertable. Liquefaction of coarse ' gravels is rare because they are highly permeable and dissipate excess pore water pressures rapidly. In the late 1980's, Contra Costa County retained Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC), a ' geotechnical firm, to analyze available borehole and published data, and develop a liquefaction potential map of the entire County. A reduced scale version of the WCC map is presented in the County General Plan. The General Plan includes policies directed to the hazard posed by liquefaction which are presented in the 1992 EIR, pages 9 through 18 (see Policies 10-18 through 10-21). The County recognizes the problem posed by liquefaction, and General Plan policies toward liquefaction deal with development on a project-by-project basis. It has been determined that information on liquefaction potential is not sufficient to designate areas of "generally high" liquefaction for open space land uses. The reason being that information on the occurrence of liquefiable soils varies in quality from place to place. Many lands classified as "generally high" potential lack silty sands, or the sands are too well consolidated or too clayey to liquefy, or they ' are above the watertable. Instead, the liquefaction potential map is used as a"red flag"to identify sites which may be susceptible to liquefaction. Geotechnical studies are required to evaluate the hazard, based on site-specific borehole and laboratory data. If liquefiable,sands are present, the geotechnical report must identify means to mitigate this hazard. 4.5-13 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING During the review of land development applications, the planning staff examines full-scale copies , of the liquefaction potential maps (scale 1"=2000'). For properties in the area rated "generally high" detailed studies are required to make a site-specific evaluation of the hazard; for properties rated "moderate" to "low", soil reports submitted with subdivision applications are routinely required to include a preliminary assessment of the hazard. Commonly, the scope of liquefaction studies are more rigorous in areas of"generally high"potential.Figure 4.5-6 presents the County's ' liquefaction potential map of the Dougherty Valley Area. It places the alluvium on the valley floor chiefly in the "generally high" category, bedrock in the hills are classified as having a "generally low" liquefaction potential. Debris Flows In general the soils in Dougherty Valley are clayey. As a result the dominant mode of slope failures is slow-moving earthflows. Nevertheless, there are some areas in Dougherty Valley which appear to have characteristics favorable for the development of debris flows. Those characteristics include a thick sandy soil, and relatively steep to precipitous slope. Debris flows form during or shortly following intense rainstorms. Some level of presaturation of the soil mantle is a necessary , condition for debris flow occurrence, but that level can be attained during the course of a single storm. For example, intense and sustained rainfall during the January 3-5, 1982 storm triggered abundant fast-moving debris flows throughout the Bay Region. The source area of those debris , flows was drainage swales or bedrock hollows on the upper portion of steep ridges. The empty scars left by these slides marked the places from which material initially slid, and then flowed down slopes or channels as muddy slurries, generally at high velocities. The January, 1982, storm caused three deaths, the destruction of four homes, damage to tens of other homes, and life threatening situations for approximately 500 families living at the foot of steep hillsides. No residences are planned in areas of highest debris flow susceptibility in Dougherty Valley, but some trails are , proposed near areas considered to have the highest debris flow susceptibility. PROPOSED PROJECT Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation ' The applicants,Shapell Industries and Windemere Ranch Partners,retained Engeo Inc. to perform geotechnical investigations of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, respectively. These ' reports have similar format and the standards and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design are identical. The reports may be identified as follows: Gale Ranch, Phase II Windemere Contra Costa County, California Contra Costa County, California Geotechnical Exploration Geotechnical Exploration (Report dated 28 December 1995) (Report dated 6 November 1995) 4.5-14 ' 00 r c , 'J\ :Off 0 '✓ ;..� ��1� (5,�� n. �\ i 1-k� .._ - � ,L I / � '✓, ,fes w \cY \ <7,, � � J fir, � ." �i �• f ? /�j f��"�— '• rs Jar( ) IAMa coo \ 9(/�• _ •, J�1\`,\ V +� �\.7�� \� �J �J.�/�;\� ••��aoo 7� 1�N��1 �- it �o '` r - C r _�is �� 11 S=.' ,�c; 1}'/,-�\ •��\\\� "l-%���0 S 1,''�./I✓ate �\t`�'�,� `( M VAe Generally High �of R 0 Generally Moderate to Low d ' f F \R�m j Generally ow n on. +� p / fFigure: 4.5-6 �/ Liquefaction Potential Map Graphic Scale: V MRIBW Subsequent EIR Source:Contra Costa County General Plan 0 500' 1000' 3000' ' 45-15 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Gale Ranch II Investigation The scope of the Engeo investigation included review of pertinent maps and reports; geologic ' interpretation of aerial photographs, flown during the period 1949 through 1991; the logging of 29 exploratory-borings, nine probes and 12 test pits within the 230-acre study area;.laboratory testing of representative samples; geological and engineering analysis of the data gathered; and preparation of the report summarizing Engeo's findings and recommendations. A primary product of the Engeo investigation was preparation of an original geologic map that shows the location of the subsurface data points, along with the consultant's interpretation of site conditions, including ' the location of geologic contacts, faults, tuffaceous units, zones of soil creep, springs and landslide deposits. In addition, the map shows the location of borings, probes, test pits and exploratory trenches logged for a previous investigation of the site (Engen Inc., 1992). The geologic map in the Engeo report was presented at a scale of 1 inch=200 feet. This map has been reduced and redrawn on a clean base map so it could be included in this subsequent EIR (see Figure 4.5-7). Some of the significant features shown on the map may be summarized as follows: Bedrock Engeo reports that bedrock on the site consists of claystone and siltstone, pebble conglomerate and volcanic tuff beds. Studies'by others indicate these deposits range in age from 2.5 to 8.5 million years before present. The Engeo map uses the nomenclature of Davenport (1986). Specifically, the oldest rocks exposed on the site occur in the northern portion of the Gale ' Ranch II project area. They are referred to as"undivided continental rocks" (Mcu). The younger rocks in the southern portion of the site are referred to as the Tassajara formation" (Pta). Landforms to the south of this contact are generally more subdued and rounded, suggesting less consolidated bedrock than to the north. Structure. Crane shows a previously unmapped thrust fault crossing the site. One of the thrust faults is mapped close to the contact between Mcu and Pta. The Engeo investigation did not find strong evidence to support the interpretation of Crane. However, Engeo notes that within the ' Gale Ranch II project, thrust faults could parallel bedding planes and therefore be difficult to map from photo interpretation alone. Based on the trenching and mapping done to date, Engeo has not discovered compelling evidence to support the existence of the thrust fault mapped by Crane. The most well known fault on the site is the Sherburne Hills fault. It is an east-west trending fault that is shown crossing the central part of Gale Ranch II (see Figure 4.5-7). In a 1992 investigation ' of the entire Gale Ranch property, Engeo found evidence of this fault but no evidence of Holocene displacement. No structural setbacks were recommended by Engeo in this report for residences, although it was recommended that schools not be constructed astride the fault. , Site Soils/Colluvium. Figure 4.5-7 shows the distribution of colluvium on the site. Colluvium is typically in a weak, unconsolidated state and is susceptible to landsliding (Engeo, 1995). 4.5-16 , 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' Landslides. Landslides identified by g are Engeo mapped in Figure 4.5-7. Of the more than 40 PP g slides shown, the majority are earthflows. Additionally, there are several larger slumpflow complexes, which range up to 30 feet or more in depth. No debris flows were mapped by Engeo in the Gale Ranch II project (Engeo, 1992) and the risks of debris flows in the currently proposed project is low (Engeo, 1995). Some areas of accelerated soil/colluvium creep were mapped as landslides. ' Additional Geotechnical Analysis. Prior to submittal of grading permit application, the following geotechnical analysis will be completed: - Review of 40-scale grading plans. ' - Computer slope stability analyses of significant cross sections. - Detailing of keyways, buttress fills.and debris benches. - Delineation of subexcavation areas (e.g., alluvium, colluvium, landslide debris, etc.). - Identification of lots requiring overexcavation for differential fill thickness or cut/fill transition. - Plotting of subsurface drainage facilities. - Estimating quantities for corrective grading and subsurface drainage. Windemere I Investigation The scope of the subsurface investigation of the Windemere property included the logging of 21 test borings, 20 test pits and 17 exploratory trenches. Additionally, in 1992 Engeo performed a liquefaction study along the channel of Alamo Creek. Seven of the 10 borings logged for that investigation were on the Windemere property. Figure 4.5-8 is a reduced scale copy of the geologic map that was presented in the Engeo report. It shows Engeo's interpretation of site conditions, along with identifying the location of geologic points of observation. The base for this drawing is a map which shows the footprint of grading and development. Features seen on the map are described below. Bedrock The bedrock units mapped are the same as those used in Figure 4.5-7. The northernmost segment of Windemere Parkway follows an east-west trending valley. Rock north of this valley is mapped as Mcu; rock south of the valley is mapped as Pta. ' Structure. Bedding of the site strikes generally east-west and is tightly folded. Two faults are mapped on the property. They trend east-west and are mapped in the northernmost portion of the Windemere Ranch. (No faults cross the Windemere I project.) The locations of the faults are based on the mapping of Davenport (1986). Engeo did not perform trenching of these faults on the Windemere Ranch, so the locations shown should only be considered approximate. 4.5-17 EXPLANA 77ON -----Contact, approximately located 0- Spring or wet area, tail shows ' direction of flow — ?—Fault, approximately located, considered inactive, queried where existence uncertain Soil creep. •?• •Fault, concealed, considered inactive, queried / Landslide• hachures indicate_scarp where existence uncertain �—�'� 6-29 r Strike and dip of bedding �O Boring, this study t7-8 Probe, this stud Approximate strike and direction of �i y dip of bedding TR-12 >� Test trench, this study X Vertical bedding L-10 '$ Boring (ENGEO, 1992a) ' x Overturned bedding e-e�t Boring (ENGEO, 1992a) .p Strike and dip of joints P-16 S Test pit (ENGEO, 1992a) T n = Bedding, triangles indicate tuffaceous units, arrows indicate direction of dip of bedding F. { Test trench (ENGEO. 1992a) ---� Cut slopes higher than 20 feet UNITDSC ZIPTIO'N'S ' Qf Fill Qc Colluvium (Holocene): Primarily unconsolidated clay with lesser sand, silt and gravel derived from weathering of Lhe underlying bedrock and transported downslope by mass wasting processes. Underlies moderate to gentle slopes. Common at the base of slopes and in upper reaches of drainages. May include small or very old landslide debris.-Soils generally expansive, leading to soil creep movement on slopes as gentle as 7 degrees. ' Consequently, deposits may be susceptible to landsliding when located on slopes Qu Alluvium (Holocene-Pleistocene): Areas underlain by unconsolidated sand, silt, gravel and clay deposited by running water. includes older terrace deposits along Alamo Creek and the Nest Branch of Alamo Creek ' Qts Landslide Debris (Holocene)- Masses of rock and soil debris displaced downslope by sliding or flowing. In some areas includes or is transitional with areas of thick colluvium experiencing downslope creep. Queried where existence uncertain QoLs Older Landslide Deposit (Holocene-Pleistocene): Areas exhibiting,subdued features of possible large-scale bedrock landsliding. Queried where existence uncertain Pta Tassajars Formation (Pliocene=Pleistocene): Konmarine.deposits of poorly consolidated, greenish gray claystone interbedded with thin beds of sandstone and,pebble to cobble ' conglomerate. Claystone bedrock is commonly expansive. Beds of dolomite and limestone have also been encountered in the Tassajara Formation and may make up a,small percentage of site bedrock. Contains numerous folds and minor inactive faults. Most side slopes considered naturally unstable and susceptible to landsliding. Wider flat ridgetops arc ' generally considered more stable depending on width. Queried where bedrock unit identification uncertain Mcu Undivided Continental Rocks (Miocene-Pliocene): Discontinuous layers of.nonmarine, poorly consolidated, greenish gray to brown claystone and siltstone, interbedded with moderately, to well consolidated brown to tan sandstone, volcanic Luff and pebble conglomerate. Claystone bedrock is commonly expansive. Contains numerous folds and minor inactive faults. Most side slopes considered naturally unstable and susceptible to landsliding. Wider .flat ridgetops are generally considered more stable depending on width. Queried , where bedrock unit identification uncertain UMT DESCMITIONS NODIFIED fROW DAIEvOP,T(1.986)A:1D DIBBLEE 11.980) NDTE- BOU,IDARIES B£T7rEE,N CEOLOGIC UMTS ARE SOME71AfM GRIDA770YAL OR l.MRFI.vCERED. PARVCMARLY ' BETtrb'EA QC. Qa AAD Qlst THEREFOR£. A DUAL mw DESIGNATION MAY BE USED AND/OR A DISTINCT V VTr BOUNDARY UAE OMITTED. June 18, 1996 4.5-18 ' 'z3. ,x`!-- S.::M... t, r -.:� .'• ,a ``. =s- 3xR'L'�_ �,; n : ./ -,v �F ,✓ ;.s ,.. _._. \ r... ..........F ,,.:r;.,,x ...9 < ,. s :At„ °,t a= l� .�'��`�., -�♦.♦ ., \.., ,♦.<, ) .,-.,-., 7�., � :,-i\, _Y:.es,{, •sr.. ,l•'�•+ r. .,, ...,>.�� .,,.1,.rj r. ,�,.�. •F`T. .,/ l � t..,,. ,F,.. },. ,, .... <,. y �..,, \� ,:,. »r \ ` a, ( f k s sF ai�✓^ ,:x \u•r; .(. t j.. � '.;':�i,..)) ..�. r l .r. P ^>\ \` `,) 7�,. x_ .v�'s.,x ♦: i, C�,. •f. / sx:.. ,V..�. \= r,�, y .r '\\::.;\,,. E.,, ..,1,.,.•t,�F r.,<; „ l "p � � >i�k� t r� r Er;J..rf, ra �-t n•::,:a 3C Et 'i I. 1., � -.:,..i, ,., `:i `i'.'ii�i., :d,!'. is L•, ".�.. ,.,.,. t♦ /. ... ,. ..(( , .� y.. •., /'� -... s [-/.,.(, sS.,,_ ..,/e.;.f..,r°x ts..x. , :+'::+:. x" ,-. } 3. 1 /'.a..7. r ♦ t iil..... t ...i >",.. ,lr,.,�. "<", ,F .,.. i..Y~ 1 ♦ / ,g-r/' k; ..�,:•.F.. .>, \.r..,s, �r ,r e (f `�i t. t <. ,..,��:. :,. .:, ,•- ....,' ..ep."/ , 3 S.- .:._.. :If ....i>// L' .... 'F'. ..-;...,.,:.•_ ..,, <,r,. 1. `:;7 "C. (, �. � JJ {{{ p,. :... .. ,� r ..../� (� ♦♦ ", C_. ,.C� i a 'i♦�. �..�.. sF.er:_.".- +.�:< <t„�' .r.,..1..A.(e�,.,�....,,a+r�,.y.s,3,s'.,'.E,.:,:r�,./...,`/,.i'>�,.rr,,:/,;_.1'-y..�.f4.,',.r.�.�r/,.%>s1,/v1.,r�i��s,l^�.,....�r�.K;.,�r..r...�.�.,.;.:4nS/xfI,>ia�.-:>.�.;?„1....:,t^•�ai....'1 71 is S't:trd5E ��_,(E..�:'�' 3.F.-..:• -t1y\ma> - ,�d.\ t.._fir{tei1.t 1(t1♦tY.;,'> «:.>,Vc.f.::..e,r�,xQ ley' s- t ,� .,!• fi.. �,..., _�._. ...✓,.11�: xr:.:'y rr /�> ('f ,\. _, . .., �. /,.may ../ ., •'•, 1 .�a 9 f:.< r /. , � a. \, Y � �r x' 3 y,\� I ♦ v' x X, S , .sli t �: „a...,<� �••„..i4.. �0- 10, f <.\ .t,,, \ -:,♦ /, if.:,� - ,r^••s-o � �y 5 ;,.ti :: Y�,/... ;: r f„r;,^i i'!:♦ ..:. �..,,: - r' �♦.',o \ Y>.. ,.,:- .:f i Yt:k \ X/f';rJ<-s,, ,.,,'�' •r <s"' H�1 �;;.y.., rr #{ :f 1l1..)t e t l. :,,ln• ,n.y.. F. :♦\' l 1yi.l ,.�y,) ) ('. / •{ y ; r ...✓' N , 'A� ,. „//,, - r� ,y.. kT{ -t.r�.�\� ..aT.: !:•,C '..q :iil',t; ';✓ill 1 l.J:!!\ �/�f;7r>�.., `y`"� ..� -'r�z .--...s;'.. � � kK v �au1 , f J)tll- �\ r�'Yt � :ZS. ;f/t, /.,_� t:��tt //, .�.. r 1(�,,..r F ai�' s //- s ✓ .•;•�;o,+ ,�2'_ / �L i• 3'r, !�� '; T ,s6 :;S Tz-L .g,:;� �:<r fl.. `� zi 4 t�3\.Syy. '�` t tf ;��.., :.,c ,y£ ,t /,l".-"'f;.',�'..��,Y-. � ,�F`�"� .� a ^\ i ../,;r .'F f.3:F;; :i� , � _.�:•a ., �� �'`rs .\:: F �/r'`�i t: ly. .:.4:, ,'/,. t, 5,, - 3- }.. w'\` 5<x r lltt � F,'..F if � ,y res,...x.;:. •cyX.,it ,��. E \'. i .j ':t $ fi.Y ' i` .w *3,�/ 2� , -E. r/.. \ ?' // rI is t�♦ .I(:;i f3 i �., r' y: f /Fi. ;L E,('��c ...-5 r£ � t (�...> �r�.,ca r'4 r `ja \\• `♦-.\ /�. ?„Y. ��:'=i L �'. ,�•.mer rd s;.. b �41/f .. -»�-. �� �`:. "\' °°Y_.,i'�'"' __`> � L i "s�t \' Pi s 2 ?' si .,a? t' K_.. ;3:: " "trel" Y.dr••/.' !t r ERR; tVK F*.:x?I i Y .nts Nx hi `v'S �`€ `,�z`�5F� ,=-A t _t ♦ �' �.«.„„:, L� ��.�\.,,!'G ". . 2f l!`M �' S. �. ,., t= ��\ +t.riS'n".,•,.,�\\`� a ' ""_- r_fff +�' i 4 \ Y£w �' I ✓' _ rLrrj ill• 4- -at �\ \�i r \\Zi, s' ,r ' b a4i Sh ' s ON F '�,,,. ' %>�!'� ✓ .: 7' '.l' ,. )7 ->\ ♦ qf+�,,,a�,. i / ri f Y/ .� C.,/ I" _: ,.�f� �' ••-., .'�' �"'V:'S%"'\'rr�Y L'�.J,� q 1�(4 ~Y`� ,( w ...:' .,,._..., :,a h/:� 1 �(, ,jt,� �\\\,�,; ( Y,;: -M_��Xk Vrc`s g.,t,,K •�•p>- x�.. �a \` rr •4., , -�;;� r _ ., ..f .., .. ..., ,�,.�"e � - _ / =tee- �;f�f ''� t:.� �i•' } �. „ �� 1 � ( _-"7� Q �:.� �c- •r : ,•/ f x' .�"zN. ,..i ",..... .. ....,,...,i\,. '^i �r s ,y, ♦ ............. , { .J f .�.,,, ,t �x ..�;!;%. •�,,.,,,Ky,,./�i.�.,"'",.��-,� "^�[,�s7 J•� 1 F� ,f' :'S i'(1:_Y. )f 1 S, E \.. N,1 rfF .� 't, 9� +`" •. -Y ( ('��@<,'^:..: /�� ✓ Y. �.s„ �' s� '. �i i:;�i.i,J,/ _�, � .3' ♦ t ( s .[ '�3.i�' r a �i ( f ,a:za I t a A ' / .,(SYS, `, 1.Yj +!' � � � rF \♦ ,t •t. � `' ,A�'1'. j a �. :.r. -^y� .',1 ,.,r•.. ,\ i .� E .,: �Y i i t: � ,�:. = 1^ /i'�r: >� 1� -t {i I rr<z! S�,,.; x�,"`h, ate' l__WX �,;\.0 1.`.... ....__..... \\'�� f� /•J�- [^. 1 1� .,,,,.,,,, � ♦ -.t� [ xl( t:I��{iii.: ! ti {(,,.\ .�`r, r;):�^w �.< � ,. 3 l;� .. f! !!i \': ,y'; 1 � !, _.. ,,�Ir+t$t.`?. r r •Y\ 'X � �`�«y�`a\, [;� ti \.'� �;' ��\ y'-' �'rti {;t\. .'���j,',}�E '���} �7 '.L��{ {' :1 5 ,,•" -�»�,.. ,,3.-�',e � `a/� }If.r ��7 i� �,we\ ({t�ll1 t f \\ .:�; r ._.,.,..__._,,.-Y,' ,......,. .� "� �.,.., 'JI,' ,... ., .. • J.. ,_ ( � it yT.,F � ,,i, ._ it •;�1', iL tti�~ 1,\� .. �♦'^c ..,.. ,.: { r ,rir."'- Y �~����Ycm \� ,\rf-� ro� \ \i•�\ t{ a.� r 4 's+x- e?>. �\ iY.,o': ��'�t,';=' +3, Z +r 3T\\'` \��*i:� Y �'��J{-.M r ,i'��k♦t'� r� .< �; �. �t-,�,. � ��Zs:t��'�4; 4 'S j; // l'``�.,r• �`. i �. � � rte=- Y zE ,t •!� ` -'+'.: - �F.>N♦�Y l ry�i � �r f' �}� i�, T�;1 1 { t r F i"� \\�� r "5i ..�`' ��,rr;`�'tdFs L_:......, ' � ';j(� � � 55� \♦y♦(t({ tl� � ssi)?� £s= � �,-- �%� � r .s 5+• �' w4�• �=\e's, • �\ = i ` �.\ 1 t , ♦._ / ''.� 1 /.,x .. i' .: �xx t 'Jx I`�X}t}' \ / �s:. �s Jj •:� / �\ tt-i j� ! J?� �*`F.. �j: a`�+.�� Y j,; 5 f/�r��,♦,�t'3': '`, �`t L�� 4 ) A , �: kY ; " \. � ��;: ,�\ tltl ))tit♦ x � � ,x�` �' x Y, �\♦\�\t ': J `- ! I -I / = j C ,,.:r .-y. ` s a. 'y'Y 4 ^ ":w•: RM \ ��''. r.. \•\` \� ~' � = t �i� ,d i-�i I i�}1 \ t \�� T ,lilt` �, `. tr \ Ye i � x �, r ill,l tl� ♦ CD NN- �' "•k..'��y ��f-'`„�Q' �\\\^';� �j ref{i' 1�t�h`� � \ ` �� x\,�{t`� `'\3� � tJ1 � \ ,.._�\ �\. \,•\ \ {. tai t. � ”.-:...` .�� ♦ .i\\ �.•„ y�t . f�y+ lr� O ♦ \\ ~��L,./ 1 .( �n�i tt \ ♦ / ii�tyn�f trf''!'.''`: :%«�r ^c.�_ � I�� (� t ,�,1.\� `� ''J .�,,, 1 ♦\ t �\ \ � \�"� �4 �•�r� Y., c �. 'titID lI1I`t` (1 L11 Nv cn Id CD tri cD aw OL♦� � � o n - w � � � � � � � � � � r � � � w � � � EXPLANATION Contact,approximately locatea, r- Spring or wet area,tail shows direction —— Contact,showing direction of dip of flow ?— Fault,approximately located,considered Soil creep ' inactive,queried where existence uncertain Debris flow scar(ENGEO, 1992e) .-••z-• • • Fault,concealed,considered inactive,queried . Landslide,hachures indicate scarp where existence uncertain. ' —— — Anticline Abandoned oil or gas well(Crane,1995b) 621 Exploratory boring y Strike and dip of bedding ' -to Exploratory boring(ENGEO,1992c) Approximate strike and direction of dip of bedding2° Exploratory test pit ' x Vertical bedding TR-17 Exploratory trench. Strike and dip of joints - Cut(Fill transition ' Qf -Fill Qc-Colluvium (Holocene):Primarily unconsolidated clay with lesser sand,silt and gravel derived t from weathering of the underlying bedrock and transported downslope by mass wasting processes. Underlies moderate to gentle slopes. Common at the base of slopes and in upper reaches of drainages. May include small or very old landslide debris. Soils generally expansive, leading to soil creep movement on slopes as gentle as 7 degrees. Consequently, deposits may be susceptible to landsliding when located on slopes. Qa -Alluvium (Holocene-Pleistocene):Areas underlain by unconsolidated sand, silt,gravel and clay deposited by running water.Includes older,elevated terrace deposits along Alamo Creek ' and the East Branch of Alamo Creek Qls -Landslide Debris (Holocene):'Masses of rock and soil debris that was displaced downslope by sliding or flowing. In some areas includes or is transitional with areas of thick colluvium experiencing downslope creep. Queried where existence uncertain Q01S -Older Landslide Deposit (Holocene-Pleistocene): Areas exhibiting subdued features of possible large-scale bedrock landsliding. Queried where existence uncertain. 1 Pta -Tassajara Formation (Pliocene-Pleistocene): Nonmarine deposits of poorly consolidated, greenish gray claystone interbedded with thin beds of sandstone and pebble to cobble ' conglomerate. Claystone bedrock is commonly expansive. Beds of dolomite and limestone have also been encountered in the Tassajara Formation and may make up a small percentage of site bedrock. Contains numerous folds and minor inactive faults. Most side slopes considered naturally unstable and susceptible to landsliding. Wider flat ridgetops are generally considered more stable depending on width. Queried where bedrock unit identification uncertain. Mcu Undivided Continental Rocks (Miocene-Pliocene): Discontinuous layers of nonmarine, poorly consolidated, greenish gray to brown claystone and siltstone, interbedded with moderately to well consolidated brown to tan sandstone, volcanic tuff and pebble conglomerate. Claystone bedrock is commonly expansive. Contains numerous folds and minor inactive faults. Most side slopes considered naturally unstable and susceptible to landsliding. Wider flat ridgetops are generally considered more stable depending on width. Queried where bedrock unit identification uncertain. Modified from Davenport(1986)and Dibblee(1980) Note: Boundaries between geologic units are sometimes gradational or interfingered, particularly between Qc, Qa, and QIT, therefore, a dual unit designation may be used and/or a distinct unit boundary line omitted. June 18, 1996 4.5-20 t � ����� � � t t . -- , ter•'• �'- -•1 f ... ,{ •/•.r� lam n- ._ - ._� ''�'� 1\.e,� y' moi°'.'':•--._ �•,�'• - ._ . `rte a .' •� 9 f fir,. .: .�; � J ..- :-� �. mom mmm mm mm mm ..:� 1.-It.-';"� 1 `/ ' . , (�'��fes::- -/��•;. `; • ,WAI 100, " //'��/ :�/f•• ) � ♦r.•+'�1 ,:*- •i"' �`' .v. ,�• ;f `/ �`ter.: �� � 1/' .'�•``'.;�C` '/ x� R•' :@,:::;,.. •.s-, � � •/ ':frit• � �: •,- ./ �'- •:C�;�'•`::4•iiC'i: _ , /;. ;Lr:rtei:... �'► '::>);i'•:::9.. `: •..� %it ,r .%� - •,�r ,I' ��t �':..'++ :��' :tt;'t•;%;. .+ - ; <:l / /` '\\ ��',�''.,_ f;, 1 � , , •'F ,:;f;;kr• '';tip: ;3:,;: •sa •� � � -�' -.:• I M--�r T--7 ti ti 1 _ � �,• ,./I'��'`� .:�`:,;'% .`'' 1..:.��..•.: I , '.;., •"yam'''.'',-y�2"syy;" - .:;;4;r�r;::/, 1;, _ .�.. � _ :- :�. �` ',-- ?; ' ...lt-`...� � 1 1`•, _.�_ �_.. _ i� i' �.: ` �.:��1. _� � may` 'R .^ _' � -f .. � • ice— ` 1•- � ., ;1- .��'/`- -� /' `'.`L. /,•mar ✓.� t: >l,:s. tit;.% r1w. tj IL sae. � '�':' •,.�. •`` .�. - :�'� �'f�� � :�.. ;j � ��~? `!•ai. '�- -� `.':�s:.4v. ,ice'/f ``�•, /.�.r• \ -�•' /!..- !• ,.J ' �' •:%':'�•::?:<;;..�' v;:f.` %x%.4.7...:.. f . •'f S /� � •%r. ' �•�.� : � - :`o:>;j•4>: ::'ii:;icbit3: '-`:% �`7'.y'• lV ly �(� y`V ,�, ! .:::>'>�iF:r\� 1 4--i'::;:;%�i�'+::�:>;{ '•vv4vi'- �¢. Q gm .t. Ail- v " ''d � -�,�' 1�1` r�''. 4 ri� t :�-• - - 'i Kit::%:':.'•:: ;�' _ . '�. t�-y� ►� O •`,f:- ,�j.':\f�:-',t 1 - -'�� '��` �-- ''rte"' -.::>.::'�`�:,;:�'�::;!' -�, `�: `� f C cD ,I:Irte' �_:�>;: .:.�:..• •; ,� :. g' .,\,' 4�.. ,.'\ Imo.- - �'.._ �4:•�-:{!y •.,- / , „�. `I CD i� CD en CD CD co b .. .�-.' :t.'•*(.,.. `! I::$%r.: .:�::'�, _ f-;�••_r�` -•�j�-��� t'•�t': : �,L --t /f\.,• '`,,,f: l y, r' '� .�:��. •-•`.... �i�•:i+''.`.v /�,•,�•I i `�..!' ,,,,.- , r!to t:' '.r • ',. �. -I'. -I•.� I\�,' ��''' tr--may` ,•, ;, i, r{• t .ter ,{ (!"��'�•_ , f w.� _. � '�Yyuui✓' 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Site Soils/Colluvium. Figure 4.5-8 shows the distribution of colluvium is typically in a weak, unconsolidated state and is susceptible to landsliding. Landslides. Landslides identified by Engeo are mapped in Figure 4.5-8. There are approximately 10 landslides within the Windemere I project area, most of which are relatively shallow earthflows. One is an area of accelerated erosion/soil creep that is mapped as Qls + Qc. Future Studies Additional slope stability analysis and specific, detailed geotechnical engineering ' recommendations including keyway designs and subdrain locations will be performed during future review of 40-scale grading plans. Preliminary Grading Plan: Gale Ranch II The application for the Preliminary and Final Development Plan included a Preliminary Grading Plan, submitted at a scale of 1 inch=300 feet. In order to present the grading plan in the EIR, it was photographically reduced to a scale of 1 inch=1,000 feet. The limit of grading an proposed ' contours are represented by heavy, black lines; existing contours have been screened, and appear as faint, gray lines. To provide insight into the grading concept, proposed cut areas are represented with a dot pattern. Areas which lack the dot pattern are fill areas. Within the graded area the contour interval is 10 feet. Additionally, the Preliminary Grading Plan has been annotated (A through P) to provide information on the grading concept (e.g., height of graded slope and slope gradient; depth of cut; and thickness of fill). For reference, the grading plan 1 shows existing units in Shapell's West Branch project as well as the north-northeast trending,300- foot wide PG&E easement. ' According to the engineers for the project, the plans indicate 10.2 million cubic yards of fill. In 1992,when the West Branch project was graded, approximately .03 million cubic yards of fill was placed in the northern portion of the Gale Ranch II project area, and placement of the fill was monitored by the applicant's geotechnical engineer. To illustrate the grading concept in the Gale Ranch II project, a series of three grading cross- sections have been prepared which show the existing topographic profile (dashed line) and proposed final grade (solid, heavy line). Architectural details were added by the project engineer which indicate the approximate locations of residences, streets, creek channels and landscaping. The actual buildings may be of different height and style than shown and the trees shown represent mature vegetation.' The lines of sections are shown on Figure 4.5-9, and the grading sections are presented in Figures 4.5-10 and 4.5-11. The sections may be described as follows: ' x The planting of trees must conform with the recommendations of the developer's geotechnical engineer and botanistAandscape architect. ' 4.5-22 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' Grading Section A This section shows the relationship of existing Alta Mira project in West Branch to proposed ' development in the Gale Ranch II project. The section indicates fill will be placed to create a knoll in lands that are to remain as permanent open space',in Dougherty Valley. The crest of the knoll will be more than 300 feet southeast of Rock Rose Lane; in the vicinity of the crest the fill will be approximately 30 feet thick. The section indicates that the open space will be landscaped. Grading Section B. This section shows the relationship of Gale Ranch II residential development to the channel of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. The section identifies a creek corridor that is approximately 300 feet wide from the centerline of the channel to the top of a proposed fill slope. Within the creek , corridor, the existing channel is to be retained and enhanced with plantings. Two trails will be developed adjacent to the stream (one for bicycles; one for pedestrians). The proposed fill shown in this section is 50 feet thick at the west edge of the creek corridor, and the fill slope has a gradient of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). During exceptionally high flows on the Main branch of Alamo Creek, the trails could be inundated, but the depth of water on the floodplain would be , only a few feet, and the residential lots are safely elevated above the floodplain. Grading Section C This section extends from the middle school site (located 'west of Dougherty Road) to residential lots in the Gale Ranch II project. The middle school site�is to be a cut pad. The depth of cut at the west end of the section is 30 feet. The building pad` on the middle school site is elevated approximately 50 feet above the flow line of the West Branch of Alamo Creek; Dougherty Road is elevated 20 feet above the creek. West of Dougherty Road, a 50-foot high fill slope is shown which possesses a 3:1 slope gradient. The slope is to be landscaped. Preliminary Grading Plan: Windemere I The application for the Preliminary and Final Development Plan includes a Preliminary Grading Plan, submitted at a scale of 1 inch=400 feet. Additionally, for Windemere I the area was submitted-at 1"=100' on a base map that shows proposed"units and roadways. A reduced scale, annotated grading plan for Windemere Ranch is presented in Figure 4.5-12. This map can be used to identify the footprint of the graded area. Bold contours represent proposed grades in the urban area. Within Windemere I project area, the map is differentiated to distinguish cut and fill areas. Unshaded land within the urban area are lands to be graded during future phases of development. For example, Bollinger Canyon Road is shaded to its southern intersection with Dougherty Road, indicating the earthwork is a part of the Gale Ranch project. Conversely, only the segment of Windemere Parkway that is within the Windemere I project area will be graded with this phase of development. 4.5-25 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING The annotations on the map provide insight into the height and inclination of graded slopes in the project, thickness of fill and depth of cut. According to the civil engineers for this project ' (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.), the grading plan is balanced. They estimate that the Windemere I project involves 8.5 million cubic yards of cut and 8.5 million cubic yards of fill. Furthermore, there are relatively. level valley floor areas that can serve as a balance area for grading. The final grades of such areas can be adjusted upward or down to ensure that the project balances. ' To illustrate the grading concept in the Windemere I project, a series of four grading cross- sections have been prepared which show the existing topographic profile (dashed line) and proposed grade (solid, heavy line). Landscape features and residences have been added to the sections to illustrate the developed character of the community. The actual buildings may be of different height and style than shown and the trees represent mature vegetation.' The sections are presented in Figure 4.5-13 and 4.5-14. The features shown in the sections may be described as follows. Grading Section A The section is aligned and positioned to cross a man-made creek in the Windemere I project. It is approximately 800 feet south of a proposed detention basin on the tributary channel that drains the Hidden Valley portion of the Windemere property. Near the left side of this section, the maximum depth of cut indicated is 70 feet. The existing creek channel is approximately 100 feet to the east (right) of the proposed channel. The thickness of fill shown ranges from 40 feet (maximum) and feathers out near the east (right) terminus of the section. ' The detail for Section A shows the proposed geometry of the creek channel. The floor of the channel will be 10 feet wide and the side slopes will have a gradient of 3:1 (H:V). The capacity of the channel, in combination with the upstream detention basin, will be such that developed areas will be protected from flooding. Grading Section B This section shows a 200+-foot high cut slope. The slope will have a gradient of 3.5:1 (H:V). The section indicates that the depth of cut proposed in the vicinity of"A" Street is 60 feet. Near the ' south (left) margin of the section, the depth of cut proposed is 100 feet. The detail for Section B shows a debris bench that would separate "A" Street from the proposed rcut slope. A function of the buttress fill is to stabilize the toe of the slope, intercept mud and ' The planting of trees must conform to the recommendations of the developer's geotechnical engineer and botanist/landscape architect. 4.5-26 t t t � �t� - , �� '� , � gA+- 6 Io 9J'tYl� � j0 t M WR Z � ddg iy 1L ,d 1 1 �1,`� I{,{L1 ►•r j�s;a;s ►I,�,LgtY 1 ��/,i//0� �d��li'-.c ml IT r... {y� L ►! �i►��1 rFa t�� be._.r -�M � •�a�,P �`�� ►•� �.�° ��,��,�,�� sa, �� �e1� ,�. �, .� x `.,• ®•:tppa;z�_,,✓ �•••Llft3 �' �, v^ `!V,7�/ .•'d. gr; : 1,1s 'a9�:.esS:�P vl_' two dbL' .:`:;,©_ yYt�,�•�`-•�_ 39L� Ali�w i_0; p► �,�,sr 5:+� _'�'':a /.�'.�'� ,a�i'�i��o:. `` � , A � �a d 5 � ��ll�b� .rf � �i:r �,J! ry• ��+ ap ♦��W® .,... a,•' I'tl$\� �I a�d� � }\`� ����.. � 1� �. �a�i�j��`+.�e�,9y►�•- />>WQ`y���pl���va.:�s..s�,es ;!� ,f/ � � a$.�\�•:m ��-•..:Lp-:O -;�a1i„• '�'OQL oPi,.��,.•✓ .,�YdA[ e�. '• I' ..:a� \ e''\��a78p, ' ,. �. w ���.,,.� �_ <�' r* '�AA��F! '�'►1��••�.aa�'w,'���..,`pmA'ra b���l��r•�y ►:a+y�Q. �� I li/Jii.. +�W @i.�..�; ^/! a�l�©. S�jS�•��a��;AO`->���I;ie,�'I4Y�j•�:.-.R^®�p ��!f1�ID�3'�S/CI� ;•,,.a:Q j,,; 4� �� r`%' c�►�►�p�'>pi �1�,�� O{�t���� Iib' �.lAI �st�'m� s� o:e( , e�� Q f7f��=%=o�11�1(,r1,`�'�ri.=.>✓:��f�° '>.> �k9s�6'�'.�;' ;.t(.ifdApr��.��'f�d�°�►�ra'�•�'-4'v�•s'r��,.p�•.��''�8L •r'a�,'����s.j�\0�y e'�$�+���'Ifrll♦ti-R vIt�,_,r.e�,Jy�1e.�E�►J���,��a; ��a��q4,I�p, 'Jim Jim � �f►.� O i in,,� epJ'"� •1�'/� �je® if 1411 p�i•� ,�� �.,,, a �,..?��-.,�,►.��I�,p ��/P' /� ��y I ',FT�4•'a:r'.:�!ij'3's�m.• � / '=a^ - rl a►I.I�,� ; 8$�lb ry, 45f d,✓.:�»���®j �.•� ^P�.a�'Mf � ,✓a9 l\P� eu .gyp zw.L-:. �...✓Rss • 4°' $ Ir /�t;�ayam0b�a �,•41p�.•`�, „"`�.!'L�L'!� �®'it p•� �ri�t� ��•.Id�LWipvar \V�':\^ !���• Q� •vl1�Jt��i�p y�°�s'�`.ro¢�PdJ1�L�n:.� wen•rmLL9eLt a�d v':W� [ Iti`8v� ��kr K"", h� ��•M !a �,.6E_1�Y%)1591yR'r t„�> '►0����t,. 16j• ��•' ��,...._ 1�s1�1F64�t® P;% , Lp�F pry 1.0W NO,� W 'ri��,iw• .G� .) ' •� J' !,••►I>� 1O� Ij tL��Y��iu t�L.47Y11�rA ff}j 0- �► •8 j/!��e`� f,oidr•.r.lAtz R 1 Illi bi �,�\��►�!��d'�®i2' @ .M. lgyrr �+ '�O ybY���'+®t�i;T 1/ ai i. rani t!!4� RI'16 mo a,!� � �4' \� Ar �,Qr � ,l`!,� �p 6,�■ Olt .bb. W17 '�,� i®p >o ®s � � .o���s�►/ �j/� ��'�i de�j ...fib ♦♦ 'r' x a 6W.S,'::►li �� 0 sf��ASI ��Oss 0.e��s ,,, �� S�•�I>sq•�♦��'me.0� �'' ��� L I� ���K Ivy 1♦ted 09+1 ♦I ♦ ♦ �! �• .. 11�1I�4 �i.�l,yPe h•�6.! �/��`��°®jOe'��, � s��j���.''®dol, -�, ���,11,,1 ©n�'�/!q OA�AA�► �y ��0��: �1'.it�l%� � �� •A,��<9�♦������y�I1►�♦ ISP •� 0 ����?�,,�a"gig �`�R!'�• �A�OO�O�j'� ,���•. v;,:�'BA��e �1�� tie • � •CiLm�e. �•���Y i • • /' • 1 1 1'1 1 ' 1 1 � 1 "• •� • 11' 1 1 1 1 '1 • • 11' 1 1 • 1'1 • 41MM • 1 Dougherty - • �. Graphic - Valley SubsequentR • .., 1 .11 LLL 0 a J ��� 0 1 U 1c d � �4 � � ; � � $ $ 1 � � � . r S �d � � � `� f'£ $ a 1 Asa • „ � �, � � �� � ` � � � , � x r � � g ,, � � 1 �$ � `�` 4 r=+ o � � � � � � � �+t11 1 * r '� �m ` � � � S" ��� t � � � 1 � � �, Ct5 r � a � � � � w 3 ld ` * o W w `� ��' �� \ � T ^� a � , • r j(�V g � V E`1 � � �\ � ; oti o 1 � i ° � �� O '�. � � s N r � p � `d 9� e w,' W V, 4 5 29 o p iU � � s r x , � r a t U y Lo w W r W a� Q t 4-5-30 rr ■r � rr rr r rr rr �r rr rr rr wr r� rr rr rr r� rr Y,�/:;,�;1�% 'r/. ('i "/ l� i��11 l i i'+A) .i)'�I \� '�. D' ' yj �, I\• `I '�/ ' '��� •� (f 1 i ` y ' �il;'•(' .r:r/`( �/(���`` � 11 r, ,) �Jl i, '��. ,r•�f '!�i I1 I �. , ��.�� ./� J '�o/Il II'�'�' „! �� - '@ /' �Y -( •�I :�\? l ;' � — \'r 111), :/.':� /, '-J ((( '�--�_�./rI !\: �`-, ''�.,f ,/,I/\,�... �' - ` ! II` .� ) 1' �;'. /. "� if l \\.. \(` 1 � �i>�`:!•�`n� If. !//•'__ .,��•�\\ �' ':'�� - Q/ � 1`•x':1 ..�. \\�.'�/i1 - /1� 1 \'J '•oll '%:'/ j/.. ��: `:1 I(( q 1. 1.. 1 II!I l�I ,1,, It, \.,:,�`?)I „1: 1 / \\• \.�°'; _ +, .•.y. z_ ��' ',m;' I l �% - if( r , ,l /+l' - %f \ 1, ";+ 7•, \` `�. ,o .1 / \• I I / 1 .,I. .. \ ,III I) 1`''` I\'�' ��\.\•:i (�,�'-- './'� // i � t\4 �� ..\}.\; ':;\� �I; ti = Il` (:i'S N. `? 1 I! I ',\\.1' - I\, ,.� .i I, ...4:ti\,�i+I �'•.'i' \. ;J l --- ,r"\11111 li_ ri• ,I 'II i r ;1;• - _ r •I\?`��?.. 1 // -- ..\ \ Y of :)� '�'' __ •;!;I r/t• 1 !,` \ I III �'\��:•\ 1 \\ .i '%':i-.. I t:)I'11:\�}''S'-',-r ,1 y y- .l i•,->,�, tl. i t I ( \ ail •� •a ,, - ;, ,: .� ,,. I n o '__-' :\I! _ // �1! .f .p'/ 'lJ� / •.I' r L 1 it �, - , II III •`\_. �/�, A,� 1 Il���� (1,�i1 �•I� I It l'1 I + f !./� �... \y \ \\ �\\ ��\ r I r C � \ V. \ I - B'W° S l / � ` `'� :�' C .TOS .• !�\ ' Z. ,•„• I, / WINDEMERE ,; - f,f, \\ ' f -� ;•\'�. •i I I I ' I I'' f,lo .tti`, ! , I. t \ 111 :5\ j. \ \�` 1 1'• IE i r i. I' - •�% ! ,�'. '% \ bl'r•:•� '-' I` !ll Illi J - ;! / f- ;1.. �. K ,.�,•, - - J�r'i —meq , 1.\ : .r I t 1 li - IPr r/ %,'"{' 1%fig '`i - - � _ �l \'•� `,1\ -- '/� n }- \\. �. - �,. ��a�) \ -..fin'.•/'i �\,.\ (I '\f �.l'� \. � � ;%_.-_ , ti ,.I • I I j / / - , ✓t , 1 y \ .r. !�1.../-/ i;I i I'i C D I / ! _V .. I -.II�' �I/ \ a I I, - of /- rJ' ,I•! I t �: )I, �, 1 \ ♦\ / \ // \ / \ f Fill ` � /� r6 /,�• � , o, ut 1 - \ I 5 1 t , C � L/_ ✓ ` - `':r� 115' high cut slope(contour rounded, 3.5:1) - _ f 'J 190.high-cut slope(contour rounded, 3.5:1) .° �,�\ \\J ©100'deep cuter ,r r ? QD 60'deep cut s _ ® 20'deep fill if►. I` \\ 28'deep fill 20'deep fill j Q 50'high cut slope(3.5:1) 80 high cut slope(3.5:1) \, Realigned creek channel ' 4 'I � - �' k `• �° V. © 55'thick fill ' \ - .,,. 65' thick fill 15 % �` MC�� '•.\!��,w,K° . \.•. ! I !I I / J a C� ,:\ y,lJ . � III: \ \4\ I , I •`\\ flLi !r l -- �' n,n - ...I I•' + ) II :,r I '. �'•�. �� . �1. -r ���`�": • _ _. ..�\ � ���-�! 1 /,. IIS _. � �:�. . �-�� I I . _ �, �I(I l �,, :� � . L ::��, Figure:4.5-12 Note:See Figures 4.5-13 for Cross Sections A&B and 4.5-14 Windemere Grading Plan for Cross Sections C&D. G a phic VMRROW Subsequent EIR I I Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(1995) 0 500' 1000' r� � � � � � � r �r � � ar � � � s � � w M... -��. �. �� �' a 'Va G J p 4 0 Q as�I G I r O� O 45-33 p G � � • � �cc1 LtS � � a > wpm wv o 0 c U 86 u� Q5 U $' o 1 0 � a 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING water before it enters the developed area, and provide maintenance access to the hillside should access be needed. Where a street is proposed at the toe of the slope, the debris bench is required to be at least 15 feet wide, with a concrete lined ditch near the outside edge of the bench. If a residential lot is proposed at the toe of the slope, the geotechnical report recommends the bench be 30 feet wide. The geotechnical report also recommends that the slope between the bench and the road/pad grade have a gradient of 2.5:1 (H:V) and the bench should not be elevated more than 15 feet above road/pad grade (see Engeo, Inc., 1995b; Figure 84). Grading Section C This section is oriented north-south and shows the relationship of a manmade creek to a major open space area (south of creek) and residential lots (north of creek). The section indicates the residential lots would be constructed on fill that ranges up to 45 feet thick. The open space area would not be graded. The Section C detail indicates the floor of the creek channel would be 10 feet wide. The north bank would be a fill slope that possesses a 3:1 (H:V) gradient. The south (right) bank would be left natural, except for slide areas. If the south bank was deemed unstable by the geotechnical engineer, corrective grading would be required. Grading Section D This section illustrates grading treatment in the Village Center area. The section is oriented ' north-south and crosses the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. The south (left) portion of the section is located in the Windemere portion of the Village Center;the right (north)portion of the section is on Gale Ranch II. The section indicates no gradient in the area of the existing Main Branch. The natural channel would be retained, with plantings to enhance its wildlife habitat value and aesthetic characteristics. The Section D detail indicates that the Village Center would be constructed on a fill pad. The fill slope at the edge of the pad would have a gradient of 3:1 (H:V). A similar treatment is proposed on Gale Ranch, but this section does not indicate grading for that property. The width of the creek corridor and height of the fill slope are adequate to protect developed areas from flooding. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' Significance Criteria CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G, 1992 amended) define a significant impact on the geologic or soil environment as ". . . a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project." The guidelines also stipulate that the EIR ' 4.5-35 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING analyze significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development or people into the area affected by geologic or soil hazards. Conflicts of the'proposed development with General Plan policies are also significant impacts. Key Assumptions From 1992 EIR The key assumptions made by the 1992 EIR were as follows: 1. Extensive development and grading will not occur in the areas that are not designated in the preliminary grading plan. 2. The project proponentswill implement mitigation measures according to the timing r mechanisms identified in the measures. 3. The project proponents will prepare additional geotechnical investigations to assess the liquefaction potential of sediments underlying the planning area and implement the precautionary recommendations of the investigations prior to County staff approval of the preliminary development plan pursuant td County Code Title, Article 84. 4. A Geologic Hazard Abatement District could be formed at the discretion of the ' Contra Costa County Board of.Supervisors to establish funding mechanisms for any remedial work required after a project is constructed for landslides or other land disturbances in graded areas. The changes in the amended Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment Land Use Map are consistent with Assumption 1. Specifically, relocation of the proposed Community College to the Village Center and minor constrictions with the footprint of development elsewhere in Dougherty Valley have slightly reduced the extent of areas planned for grading. Assumption 2 pertains to mitigation measures enforced 'during processing of Preliminary- and Final Development Plans; tentative maps and/or during construction. The modifications of the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment that are the subject of this Subsequent EIR have not invalidated those mitigation measures. Assumption 3 was satisfied by three reports prepared by Engeo (1995a, 1995b, 1992f). With regard to Assumption 4, Shapell's West Branch project is in the West Branch GHAD and it is the intent of Shapell Industries to annex all of Gale Ranch into that GRAD. To date Windemere Ranch is not in a GHAD. Windemere Ranch Partners have the option of being included in the West Branch GHAd, or forming an independent GHAD. 4.5-36 ' 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identified nine significant impacts and associated mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B61 ' through B68 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). Table 4.5-3 summarizes the impacts and mitigation measures from the 1992 EIR. The following discussion is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. The following impacts and mitigation measures pertain to the Preliminary and Final Developments plan applications received by Contra Costa County for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Unless otherwise noted, the identified impacts and mitigation measures pertain to both projects. Substantial Change in Topography Impact 4.5-1 Development of the proposed project will require mass grading of hillsides to create stable areas suitable for development. This is a significant impact. According to grading plans prepared for these Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects, approximately 100 acres would be graded. The grading plan strives to create safe, usable development areas. This objective is attained by mass grading most land proposed for development, along with adjacent open space land on the perimeter of the development, with large, integrated open space areas. The plan also shows permanent open space along the channels of West and Main Branches of Alamo Creek, and two detention basins are proposed. Within the ' development,open space is provided by creek corridors and graded slopes separating development areas. Figures 4.5-9 and 4.5-12 shows the anticipated limits of grading. The grading plans were developed using maps at a scale of approximately 1"=300' (Gale Ranch II) and 1"=400' (Windemere), subsequently, tentative maps were prepared at 1"=100'which show grading. Given the long-term nature of this project, the details of grading are subject to refinement as information on geology evolves, and development concepts are finalized. Additional comments on grading are as follows: - The conceptual grading plans for Gale Ranch II indicates cuts up to 100 feet deep and fills ' up to 77 feet thick. The Windemere I grading plans show cuts up to 90 feet deep and fills up to 47 feet thick. The majority of the development areas will be relatively flat-lying with cut and fill slopes graded at 3:1 or flatter. - On the Gale Ranch II project, engineered fill was placed just north of the abandoned ranch buildings. This portion of Gale Ranch was used as a balance area for surplus earth generated by grading of Shapell's West Branch project. Fill placement was done under a grading permit and was monitored by Engeo Inc. The fill was protected from erosion, and it was placed on a portion of the Gale Ranch project that is planned to receive fill. r ' 4.5-37 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Table 4.5-3 ' SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM SOILS AND GEOLOGY CHAPTER OF 1992 EIR Soils and GeoloQY. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Substantial change in topography from grading operations. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents will prepare a detailed grading plan that specifies areas to be graded and shows earthwork balances. * The grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County geologist and incorporated into each final development plan. 2. Impact: Potential for structural damage and injury to people from development in areas susceptible to landsliding and slope failure. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents will avoid construction on large landslides and slide areas. * The Project proponents will stabilize slide areas, construct drainage fills and grade steep slopes. * The Project proponents will participate in a Geologic Hazard Abatement District(GRAD) or an , alternative mechanism to fund remedial work for landslides and land disturbances in graded areas. The developer will be responsible for remedial work to correct all soil/slide problems for two to three winters after the work is performed. 3. Impact: Potential for injury to people in open space and park areas susceptible to landsliding and slope instability. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents will prohibit access to identified slide areas in open spaces and parks. 4. Impact: Potential for structural damage and injury to people from development or materials susceptible to liquefaction. ' Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall prepare and implement a detailed geotechnical report to evaluate the hazard of liquefaction. * The report will be reviewed and approved by the County geologist before approval of the final development plan. 4.5-38 ' 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Table 4.5-3 continued 5. Impact: Potential for increased short term and long term soil erosion rates from development on soils with moderate to high erosion hazards. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents will prepare an erosion control and rehabilitation plan (ECRP)to control soil ' erosion and sedimentation in nearby streams and rivers. The ECRP will include: goals for grading,stabilization, and revegetation consistent with the final grading concept plan; species list,planting density, and irrigation requirements for the restored area; locations of all areas where vegetation will be removed; ' methods to stabilize these areas; locations of areas to be revegetated, quantities, and methods of seeding,mutating planting, fertilizing,and irrigating planted areas; methods to reduce runoff across cut and fill slopes and other graded areas; location and function of sediment traps and debris basins,location and type of temporary measures such as hay bales,earth berms,sand-bagging,or silt fences; and a schedule for implementation so that all erosion control measures will be installed and maintained throughout the rainy season of each construction year. * The site-specific,features of the ECRP shall be incorporated into the final development plan and approved by the County geologist before grading approval by the County staff. ' 6. Impact: Potential for structural damage from development on soils with high shrink-swell potential. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall use special design criteria for structures built on soils with high shrink- swell potential,such as: ' extending building foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation with deep footings or drilled piers, replacing the expansive top soil with a layer of select fill material with low expansion potential,or laying rigid mat or slab foundation designed to resist the fluctuations associated with the soil expansion 7. Impact: Grading on hillsides with slopes of 26%and greater. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall prepare a detailed grading plan that specifies areas to be graded and shows earthwork balances to be included in the Final Development Plan. * The grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County geologist prior to approval of the final ' development plan. ' 4.5-39 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRA.DING Table 4.5-3 continued S.. Impact: Development of NVindemere Parkway extension on potentially unstable land east of the planning area. , Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall design the Windemere Parkway extension based on a grading plan and an engineering geotechnical study. * The Parkway extension grading plan shall be approved by the County geologist prior to approval of the Final Development Plan for the Windemere property. 9. Impact: Development of water,wastewater and recycled water infrastructure on potentially geologically unstable land within and adjacent to the planning area. Mitieation Measures: ' * See the Mitigation Measures for Soils and Geology Impac[ 2. * The Project proponents shall design all potable water,wastewater, and recycled water infrastructure to be located on undeveloped open space based on a grading plan and engineering geotechnical study prepared as part of the grading plans under Soils and Geology Impact 7. , * See the Mitigation Measures for Visual Impact 14. • The conceptual grading plans submitted with the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects i do not show grading for water reservoirs or their maintenance roads. Other infrastructure (e.g., sewage pipelines, pumping plant) may also require hillside grading. The grading of these facilities has not yet been established. Grading is shown for all roads required for these two projects. ' • Slide areas in open space lands which pose a threat to future development will require corrective grading. Decisions on which slide areas would be repaired will be made when 40 scale grading plans are analyzed by the geotechnical engineer. This will occur during , processing of tentative maps. As proposed, the grading for Gale Ranch II will be performed as a single grading project. Similarly, the application for'the Windemere I project indicates it will be graded as 'a single project. The two projects will be graded independent of one another, and each is designed to balance. Because there are broad, generally level areas within the proposed developments, an earthwork balance can be achieved by adjusting pad elevations upward or downward. 4.5-40 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING 1 The geologic/geotechnical report prepared by Engeo, Inc. for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects includes general recommendations and criteria for site grading, drainage and foundation design. In effect, these are mitigations proposed by the project sponsor to keep grading-related impacts to an acceptable minimum. They are prudent recommendations which represent good engineering practice. More specific grading recommendations are to be provided with the processing of grading permits. The following list is to highlight, not supersede, the measures contained in the Engeo reports (1995a, 1995b): • The more expansive soils and bedrock shall be placed at the bottom of deep fills. • All fills shall be adequately keyed into firm, natural material unaffected by shrinkage ' cracks. • Subsurface drainage systems shall be installed in all keyways, and in swales which are filled. • Areas to receive fill shall be properly prepared to ensure moisture between the native earth materials and engineered fill. • Slope gradients of engineered slopes are to meet the standards shown in Table 4.5-4. • Where steeper slopes are desired, supplemental stabilization techniques may be required (e.g., reinforced earth, retaining walls). ' Buttress fills shall be constructed at the toes of all major cut slopes and slide areas which abut development areas. ' Where liquefiable sediments occur along the edges of Alamo Creek, stabilization methods shall be implemented. • Geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist shall monitor earthwork. • Criteria are provided for: a) compaction of fills, b) foundation systems,c) surface drainage, d) retaining walls, e) pavement design. ' Methods to control erosion of slopes are identified as surface drainage improvements, erosion control planting, hydroseeding, and in some cases installation of jute matting. ' Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required reduce the impact of mass grading to a less-than- significant level. 4.5-1(a) Gradient criteria for cut andfill slopes as recommended by Engeo shall be required of future applications when developing the project site. Any conflicts between the future grading plans and these criteria shall be interpreted as evidence that the plan is inconsistent with grading criteria for the project. ' 4.5-41 45 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Table 4.5-4 SLOPE GRADIENTS RECOMMENDED BY ENGEO Fill Slopesl Cut Slopes in McuCut Slopes in Pta' Height Gradient Height Gradient Height Gradient i <8' 2:1 <4' 2:1 <4' 2:1 8'-15' 2.5:1 4'-30' 3:1 4'-10' 3:1 15-60' 3:1 30'-50' 3.25:1 >10' 3.5:1 11 >60' 3.5:1 >50 1 3.5:1 -- -- Mcu Undivided Continental Rocks (Miocene-Pliocene age);Pta Tassajara Formation (Pliocene- ' Pleistocene age). The distribution of these formations is shown in Figures 4.5-7 and 4.5-8. 4.5-1(b) Anygrading which is proposed on a parcel prior to recording a final subdivision map (e.g., , balance areas) should be reviewed to ensure it does not conflict with the planning options for the site, and that graded area is stabilized and protected from erosion. 4.5-1 c) Wherever feasible, grading within open space lands shall be contour-rounded to mimic ' natural terrain features and mantled with topsoil. All graded areas shall be revegetated , (e.g., hydroseeded). With the mitigation measures outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant , level. Fault Ground Rupture ' Impact 4.5-2 Faults on the site have the potential to cause significant damage to improvements. This is a significant impact. ' Geologic structure in Contra Costa County is dominated by active northwest-trending,right-lateral, strike-slip faults, including the Hayward, Calaveras, Concord and Greenville faults. No known ' active fault traverses the site. However, there are numerous thrust faults and blind thrusts' mapped in the Diablo Range, some of which traverse the Dougherty Valley property. Blind thrusts do not reach the earth's surface. Earthquakes on blind thrusts are capable of causing co-seismic deformation (arching of strata,uplift and ground cracks), as well as strong ground shaking. Convergence of the North American and Pacific Plates,which is estimated to be in the range of 1.8 to 3.0 mm/yr,may be responsible for thrust faults in the Contra Costa County area. 4.5-42 ' ' 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Act of 1972, which requires detailed geologic studies prior to development for sites near faults with proven Holocene surface fault rupture, does not apply to these thrust faults and blind thrusts. Although these faults lack definitive evidence of holocene displacement, there is an emerging body of evidence that they are capable of generating moderate to high magnitude earthquakes. Recent California earthquakes on thrust faults and blind thrusts include the San Fernando earthquake (1971, M6.4), Coalinga earthquake (1983, M6.5),Whittier Narrows earthquake(1987,M5.9),and Northridge earthquake(1994,M6.6). None ' of these faults were regarded as active (or capable of generating a damaging earthquake) prior to the seismic event. And while the recurrence interval of significant earthquakes on these faults is/ may be much less than the recurrence interval of the San Andreas,Hayward and Calaveras faults, earthquakes on thrust faults in California have accounted for billions of dollars in damage, as well as loss of life and injuries. In the case of the San Fernando earthquake, surface fault rupture was confirmed. In the other cited earthquakes, the fault did not reach the ground surface, although ' the ground shaking did result in some coseismic ground failure (e.g., landslides, ground cracks, liquefaction). Although the risk of fault rupture is remote, and faults on the site are not considered active by either the USGS or CDMG, additional information is needed to confirm the interpretation of these agencies. Furthermore, sheared rocks in fault zones may present special engineering problems that could affect slope stability and/or foundation design. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(a) The design level geotechnical and geologic studies, which are a normal part of the subdivision process, shall include investigation aimed at providing information on the location, width, engineering character and activity status of faults which traverse lands proposed for development. ' 4.5-2(b) During grading the engineering geologist for the project should prepare an as-built geologic map. Locations of key features (e.g.,fault traces or shear zones)should be referenced from known survey points. The mitigation measure outlined above will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. ' Earthquake Ground Shaking ' Impact 4.5-3 Strong to violent earthquake ground shaking on active fault zones in the region could cause significant damage to improvements, and in extreme cases, loss of life. This is considered to be a significant impact. 4.5-43 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' The project area is located approximately two miles northeast of the mapped trace of the active ' Calaveras fault and five miles northwest of the active Greenville fault (Figure 4.5-1). Historic records of the intensity of ground shaking that accompanied large earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay region have been used to assess regional.intensity of ground shaking likely to result from future large earthquakes,such as along the San Andreas,Hayward and Calaveras fault zones. The ground shaking accompanying such earthquakes has primary and secondary effects. Primary , effects of shaking are those that directly affect improvements. Secondary effects of shaking are indirect effects on improvements resulting from the effects of shaking on earth materials. Secondary effects are of special concern in the project area because of the characteristics of the bedrock and the presence of landslides. The-secondary effects of-earthquake ground shaking include the potential for seismically induced landsliding and settlement, including liquefaction of relatively clay-free sands near the channels of Alamo Creek and its major tributaries. Earthquake ground shaking could result in significant damage to improvements and, in extreme cases, loss of life, either from the primary or secondary effects of shaking, including possible seismically-induced landsliding, differential compaction and/or settlement. Analysis of the liquefaction potential of the Windemere project is presented in Appendix B of the geotechnical ' report (Engeo Inc., 1995b); analysis of liquefaction potentially for Gale Ranch II is provided in the biotechnical report submitted with that application (Engeo Inc., 1995a; p20-23); Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the impact of ground shaking damage ' to a less-than-significant leve 4.5-3(a) Appropriate grading and design shall be used to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking to structures and infrastructures. Cut-and-fill slopes shall be designed to enhance stability of the site under seismic conditions. Measures to reduce the potential significant ' impacts of the secondary effects of ground shaking include:1) slopeinclinations consistent with the recommendations of the Engeo report,justified by stability analysis at the time of the design-level geotechnical investigation; 2) removal or repair of landslides underlying , proposed lots which have the potential to affect downslope project improvements; and 3) installation of subsurface drainage. 4.5-3(b) Engineered retention structures and surface and subsurface drainage improvements shall , be used to improve the stability of potentially unstable colluvium not entirely removed in cut slopes. Engeo proposes use of buttress fill debris benches at the toes of all major cut , and fill slopes. These buttresses provide a necessary buffer between open space and developed lots (see Figure 4.5-15). 4.5-44 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING 4.5-3(c) Engineered fills on the project site shall be properly designed with keyways and subsurface drainage, and adequately compacted (i.e., minimum 90 percent relative compaction as ' defined by ASTM D1557) to significantly reduce both seismically induced and natural fill settlement. As recommended by the Engeo reports (1995a, 1995b),for base keyways and fill located more than 50 feet below final finished grade, minimum relative compaction ' shall not be less than 95 percent. 4.5-3(d) All roads, structural foundations and underground utilities shall be designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts ' 4.5-3(e) Final design of the proposed improvements shall be made in conjunction with a design level geotechnical investigation submitted to the County for review prior to issuing construction permits. This investigation shall incorporate stability analysis of both existing and reconstructed project area slopes. 4.5-3(t7 Project area slopes shall have a factor of safety greater than 1.1 under pseudostatic conditions (i.e., assuming maximum possible groundwater levels during the life of the project and earthquake shaking). ' Finished Grade Existing Slope (Planted Q Lower Elevation) Lined Drainage Ditch Bedrock Planted Slope 3:1 Slops Buttress Fill Existing Debris Bench Slope Bedrock ai I Slops > � Proposed Fill Soil and Severely Weathered Rock O ' (Potentially Unstable) 0 Subdrains ' - ' Figure: 4.5-15 Not to Scale Schematic of Debris Bench Subsequent EIR Source:Darwin Myers Associates 4.5-45 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' 4.5-3(g) K�ways consisting of nonli4uefable compacted soils should be constructed along Alamo Creekchannels between the developed area and existing channel. The approximate dimensions and depth of the keyways and their locations should be recommended by the ' geotechnical engineer during review of final grading plans and shall be reviewed by the County Geologist. Slope Y Stabilit ' Impact 4.5-4 Landslides on the site have the potential to cause significant damage to , improvements and, in the case of a debris flow, loss of life. This is considered to be a significant impact. Landslides (primarily earthflows) were mapped in the project area by previous published as well ' as unpublished site-specific studies (Nilsen, 1975; Davenport, 1985; Engeo, 1992b; 1992e; 1995a; 1995b). Engeo's mapping of landslides is presented in Figures 4.5-7 and 4.5-8 for the Gale Ranch ' II and Windemere I projects, respectively. As previously noted,Engeo has mapped approximately 40 landslides in the lands that are the subject of the Gale Ranch II application, and 10 landslides , in the lands that are the subject of the Windemere I application. Most of the slides are earthflows, slumps or slump flow complexes. Most are mapped on lands proposed for mass grading or they are in hillside areas that are far removed from development. Slope stability is a potential hazard ' where slides are mapped within, or immediately adjacent to, areas planned for development. Because debris flows are fast moving slides, they are a hazard whenever they overlook areas planned for development. In 1992 Engeo issued a map which shows areas susceptible to debris , flows (see Figure 4.5-16). This map identifies one area that is rated "most" susceptible to debris flows in the Gale Ranch II project. (Five debris flows are mapped in this area.) There are four other areas in Gale Ranch II and two areas that overlook the Windemere I project that are rated as "generally" susceptible to debris flows. The area considered "most" susceptible is proposed as permanent open space, and no development is proposed downslope from this area. Areas rated "generally"susceptible are chiefly in the hillside areas that overlook development. Such areas show ' no evidence of being the source of historic debris flows, but have characteristics that geologists consider favorable for the development of debris flows (eg. thick colluvial soils, steep slopes). The , Engeo reports indicate a combination of remedial measures are available to control this hazard, including subdrainage of colluvium filled swales, debris fences, diversion walls, debris basins and impact walls. , Earthflows, slumps and slump flow complexes are much slower moving than debris flows. Within the development area, slides would be removed/stabilized. The details of the repairs would be a part of the design level geotechnical and geologic investigation. Such slides in the open space area , do not pose an injury or loss of life hazard. Moreover, a proposed buttress fill on the perimeter of the developed area will provide maintenance access for men and equipment. Slides which-reach or closely approach the buttress would be repaired as needed. 4.5-46 eo 1r-7;................. v Areas V. gg ' ' s �J ,\`oma, susceptibility in Gale Ranch p 13 :3 - A-0 2--J R; 31� N ,v MOO S, N. C �1`O t .ejo 0 Y, J EXPLANATION: Debris Flow Susceptibility Areas kR LEAST N MARGINALLY k�R GENERALLY A,' .':',\ ! ��� •. �^a /' MOST &n R�Mo Rine, Figure: 4.4-16 Engeo's Debris Flow Graphic Scale: Subsequent EIR Susceptibility Map Source:Engeo(1992) 0 500' 1000 3000' 4.5-47 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING The geotechnical report is not explicit regarding the design of buttresses retainin walls and ' g P P b g g g landslide repairs in general or other improvements. Mitigation Measures ' The mitigation measures outlined below reduce the impact of potential landsliding to a ' less-than-significant level. One or more of the listed approaches should be selected by the project geotechnical engineer, as appropriate, on the basis of the site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation. 4.5-4(a) The design-level geotechnical report must address the impacts of slope instabilitywith respect to planned improvements. These can be significantly reduced or, in many cases, , prevented by recognition of the conditions, and by one or more of the following, as appropriate to specific areas of the site: • Specific improvements to remove/stabilize, landslides and areas of creeping soils within or affecting proposed lots. • Impact deflection or catchment structures below unmitigated areas "most" or "generally" susceptible to debris flows, and appropriate foundation design. 4.5-4(b) The improvement plans for trails shall avoid their construction within or downslope of , areas designated as"most"or'generally"susceptible to debris flows unless the hazard posed by debris flows is mitigated 4.5-4(c) In areas of development on, or adjacent to, existing landslides, slope repairs should include removal of unstable or compressible slide debris, excavation into underlying competent ' materials, construction of subsurface drainage measures, replacement with compacted engineered fill, construction of surface drainage measures, and planting with erosion-resistant vegetation, as recommended in the design-level geotechnical investigation report. 4.5-4(d) Surface drainage control measures should be incorporated for any areas of remedial work ' associated with slope-repairs 4.5-4(e) The design-level geotechnical and geologic analysis submitted with 40 scale grading plans ' must clarify the proposed mitigation of landslide hazards, and address how improvements at the toe of slides will stabilize upslope areas. ' Impact 4.5-5 The potential failure of proposed cut-and-fill slopes could cause significant damage to improvements. This is considered to be a significant.impact. , 4.5-48 ' 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Adequate cut-slope stability can be achieved primarily by adapting slope inclination to local geologic conditions. The Uniform Building Code(UBC) and County Grading Ordinance standard for both cut and fill is a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). This standard for cut slopes has proven unsuccessful in bedrock materials similar to those that occur on the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I project areas. Danville has enacted a requirement for 3:1 slopes, and many recent large projects in the area have been developed using 3:1 cut slopes. Slaking and swelling of clayey bedrock upon exposure to air in cut slopes may destabilize seemingly stable slopes, a process locally observed in bedrock materials similar to those in the Dougherty Valley area. The bedrock material in the project area can be expected to undergo accelerated weathering when exposed to air and surface runoff. Slope stability analyses are needed for proposed engineered slopes as well as for shallow and deep landslides within or adjacent to developed areas. Of particular concern are relatively large, slump ' flow complexes that range up to approximately 25 to 30 feet deep. Many earth flows, slumps and slump flow complexes are either in open space adjacent to the developed area, or development is planned at the toe of the slide. In summary, plans for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I ' projects calls for development adjacent to marginally stable open space areas. A well-conceived development concept that is sensitive to geologic constraints offers the best opportunity for successfully integrating residential development and major open space areas. Mitigation Measures ' The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce the impact from failure of cut and fill slopes to a less-than-significant level. 4.5-5(a) Use of 2:1 gradients is restricted to fill slopes less than eight feet in height, and cut slopes less than four feet in height. Buttress fills, which are typically less than 20 feet high, and ' which do not support proposed dwellings, are allowed to have gradients of 2.5:1. All other engineered slopes in the project are to have gradients ranging from 3:1 to 3.5:1, depending on the slope height and nature of the material (or bedrock type). 4.5-5(b) A slope stability analysis should be required in the design-level geotechnical report as the development potential of lands in the toe area of large landslides is unproven. This stability ' analysis is needed to support the assertion that buttresses are viable options for mitigation of potential movement near the toe of large, deep-seated landslides that extend into open space. ' 4.5-5(c) The approach to grading and development o the residential units should be to improve the ( ) PP g g P f P stability of the open space lands by corrective grading of landslides, drainage improvements and revegetation of disturbed areas, in areas where development is adjacent to either steep 4.5-49 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' slopes or hillsides which exhibit evidence of instability. Making cuts in the lower portion of a marginally stable hillside should be avoided. 4.5-5(d) Stockpile soils or use as a dressing on cut and ill slopes that are to be retained as open P f g f P P space in the project. 4.5-5(e) A Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GRAD) or other entity (e.g., County service area or financing district) should be established on the Windemere Ranch. This will ensure efficient long-term abatement of geologic hazards, maintenance of drainage facilities and removal of sediment from debris catchment areas. The GHAD should be funded through property tax assessments, and governed by a plan of control. Impact 4.5-6 Potential vertical and lateral movement of fills could cause significant damage to improvements. This is considered to be a significant impact. ' Fills up to approximately 70 feet thick are proposed for the project. Technical literature indicates that even engineered fills that are properly compacted can experience vertical movement (settlement as the fill experiences consolidation; swelling as the fill gradually become saturated). Fills made chiefly with highly expansive soils and bedrock are likely to experience significant ' post-construction movement unless they are properly designed. Lateral deformation of fill generally occurs near faces of high fill slopes which are constructed of ' expansive materials. Such deformation typically occurs after the fill is subjected to long-term irrigation. Some fills in the project are proposed in narrow upland valleys. Single-family lots in such areas may have a differential fill thickness of more than 10 feet, or be located at a cut-fill transition. Residences on such lots could experience damage due to differential settlement. , Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce the impact from vertical and lateral movement of fills to a less-than-significant level. 4.5-6(a) As recommended by the applicant's geotechnical consultant,selective grading shall be used ' to construct major fills. Materials with the highest expansive potential shall be placed at depth with materials of low to moderate expansion potential reserved for use in the upper ' portion of the fill. r 4.5-50 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING 4.5-6(b) Prior to issuance of the grading permit the applicant shall submit a plan identifying sites where a stratified fill would be especially desirable and outline the general approach to be used in the field to yield a stratified fill. 4.5-6(c) Where placement of fill over compressible material is expected to cause an unacceptable amount of compression, the compressible material should be removed to a depth sufficient to mitigate fill settlement. 4.5-6(d) Where tolerance for lateral deformation of a fill is low, the applicant's geotechnical engineer should provide special design recommendations that are sensitive to specific site conditions (e.g., geometry of fill slope, composition of the fill,planned location of improvements and other factors). Reinforced earth has been successfully used to control problems of this type. The grading permit application shall identify areas of the site where special design features ' are proposed to mitigate this problem. 4.5-6(e) Where the differential thickness of fill exceeds 10 feet, over-excavation methods should be ' used to create uniform foundation conditions or foundations should be designed to accommodate differential fill thickness. The over-excavation requirements should be provided in the design level geotechnical report, and the lots where this condition exists shall be identified prior to the issuance of grading permits. 4.5-6(t) For cut/fill transition lots, three feet of over-excavation should be used to make the ' transition more uniform, as recommended by the Engeo reports (1995a, 1995b). This subject should be reviewed in the design level geotechnical report. r4.5-6(g) The post grading testing and observation geotechnical report should include settlement estimates for each major fill. The report should also provide a specific estimate for differential vertical movement of building areas where fill thickness varies by more than 10 feet;for cut/fill transition lots;and provide analysis of lateral movement for lots at the edge of proposed fill slopes. It should also provide specific standards and criteria for selective grading of major fills. ' 4.5-6(h) The design-level report should provide a plan for long-term monitoring of settlement/ swelling and lateral movement of major fills. The engineers for the project should establish monuments in fill areas, especially ravine fills. Monitoring is to commence with the completion of rough grading and continue throughout development of all lots in that phase of the project. Delay construction of residential lots on ravine fills until the final stages of a particular phase, or subexcavate compressible material sufficiently to reduce predicted settlements to acceptable levels. 4.5-51 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING 4.5-6(i) Fills in excess of 80 feet in thickness should be instrumented to allow for accurate monitoring of vertical and horizontal movements. Long-term monitoring of these fills should be the responsibility of the GHAD. Erosion and Sedimentation Impact 4.5-7 The proposed project involves cuts and fills on moderately steep slopes, with a potential to cause significant erosion of unprotected slopes, and downslope sedimentation both on and off-site. This is considered to be a significant impact. ' There are multiple facets to the subject of erosion and sedimentation. Erosion control requires implementation of measures after major earthmoving activities are.completed. Sediment control ' requires working in a situation where the soil is continually being disturbed. Erosion control requires use of techniques which prevent displacement of soil particles by , raindrops,moving water or wind. These techniques include erosion control blankets,mulching and establishing vegetation. Sediment control requires the removal of particles which are suspended in moving water, along with having a knowledge'of drainage control. Neither of these potential ' impacts are easily mitigated, and both require an understanding of the limitations of 'Best Management Practices" (BMPs). Erosion and sedimentation are natural geologic processes which do not conflict with protection of resource values. The problem arises when grading activities result in increased sediment yields that exceed historic conditions. Techniques to reduce sediment from runoff waters include the following: • restrict the amount of land disturbance; • keep graded slopes as flat as possible; • restrict grading to the dry summer season; and • implement BMPs to control erosion and minimize the discharge of sediment into creek ' channels. Placement of barriers (silt fences, straw bales) are a recognized method to control sediment from exiting the graded area and entering a natural drainage channel. However, they are ineffective when runoff waters overtop, tunnel under or flow around the barriers, which is,an all too often occurrence. As a result, drainage control is important and sediment traps/basins are a vital ' component of sediment control. To be effective, they must be designed in accordance with the principles of physics (i.e., viscosity, terminal velocity, Stokes Law). The following criteria should be used to size sediment traps/basins: • Design the basin using peak runoff from a five- or 10-year storm. l 4.5-52 ' 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING ' Design the containments stem around a specific• g y pec�f size ze soil particle to be removed from moving waters. EPA recommends that particles .02 mm or larger be trapped. • Provide a long flow path length to ensure the greatest possible opportunity for sedimentation to occur. iInclude a gravel filter in the sediment trap/basin to allow waters to flow through and drain the structure. • Design the depth of the sediment trap/basin a minimum of at least two feet. • Provide for maintenance of facilities throughout the winter rainy season to insure effective sediment control measures. Mitigation Measures ' The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts to a less-than- significant level. Since the proposed projects would involve significant grading, mitigation measures are required for both: 1) construction-related, short-tern erosion and sedimentation; and 2) long-term erosion and sedimentation. For construction-related, short-teen impacts, one or more of the listed approaches would be selected by the project engineer as appropriate, on a site-specific basis within the ' project area. For long-tern impacts, mitigation measures 4.4-7(d) through 4.5-7(g) are required. 4.5-7(a) Whenever feasible,grading activities should be restricted to the summer construction season ' (April 15 through October 15). Limited grading is allowed after October 15 if all the erosion and sediment control materials are on-site and available to be installed within 72 hours after the forecast of heavy rains. The County Building Inspection Department is tresponsible for determining the appropriateness of grading after October 15. 4.5-7(b) The applicant should provide an erosion control plan prior to approval of the grading plan. The following interim control measures should be employed based on site-specific needs in the project areas: • Grading to minimize areas of exposed erodible material, and to avoid over-concentration of rapidly flowing runoff in unprotected, erodible areas ' • The erosion control plan should include water bars, temporary culverts and swales, mulch and jute netting blankets on exposed slopes, hydroseeding,S silt fences, and sediment traps/basins. ' s Technical literature indicates that successful hydroseeding for erosion control requires care in selection of species. Some species of annual grasses are ineffective for erosion control. The Biological Resources section also points on the importance of selecting native and non-native species that are compatible with the existing vegetation in the area. 4.5-53 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING • Placement of stripped topsoil on graded slopes prior to the onset of winter rains • Because the biggest problem with effective sediment control is lack of maintenance, ' the erosion control plan must have a comprehensive program for inspection and maintenance during the winter rainy season, including provisions for documenting maintenance activities. ' • Wherever feasible, isolate runoff from ungraded areas, thereby simplifying erosion control and sediment control measures within the graded area; this can be ' accomplished by installing lined drainage ditches on debris benches upon completion of hillside grading. 4.5-7(c) Where earthwork is proposed in the channel of West or Main Branches of Alamo Creek, biotechnical slope stabilization measures should be employed (or integrated with engineered structures) to control erosion. ' 4.5-7(d) In order to reduce the potential impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation, the project should incorporate the appropriate design, construction and continued maintenance of one or more of the following long-term control measures. The specific measures should be based on the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer and hydrologist. • Construction of sediment traps/basins and grassy swales at strategic locations to ' control sediment. • Revegetation and continued maintenance of graded slopes, either by a GRAD, homeowners association or maintenance district. Special care should be taken for slopes nearest creek channels. ' • Construction of drainage ditches and buttress fills on the perimeter of the developed area, and integration of the ditches with the existing and planned storm sewer ' systems. • Provide closed downspout collection systems for individual structures. • Design cut and fill slopes to minimize, as much as possible, the velocity of sheet flow runoff. • Provide periodic inspection and maintenance of both individual (lot) and common ' (project) erosion and sedimentation control facilities. 4.5-7(e) Project plans should incorporate drainage treasures to collect and control surface runoff water on sloping lots, including lined ditches and closed downspout collection systems 4.5-7(f) Concentrated runoff should not be permitted to drain over cut or fill slopes. 4.5-54 3 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING 4.5-7(g) The proposed location of lined drainage ditches should be specified on the plans accompanying the design-level geotechnical investigation report, which should be reviewed by the County. Expansive Soils and/or Bedrock Impact 4.5-5 Expansive soils and/or bedrock have the potential to cause significant damage to foundations, slabs and pavements. This is considered to be a significant impact. Expansive soils (those with a high shrink-swell potential) are described and mapped in the project area by the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County (Welch, 1977), and confirmed by Engeo, Inc. (1995a, 1995b). The Engeo reports permits use of expansive native soils as fill, but does not provide specifications and standards for the thickness of non-expansive soils to be placed to achieve finished grade. Moreover, the occurrence and distribution of expansive bedrock within the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I project areas are not described. Damage from expansive soils and/or bedrock is one of the most widespread and costly problems in the San Francisco region. The significant effects of expansive soils and/or bedrock can be mitigated by recognition of the condition and appropriate design. Mitigation measures involving the use of adjustable foundation systems are not generally effective against the effects of regional wet/drought cycles, and are considered undesirable because the systems require periodic ' maintenance. Subsurface drainage alone is also not generally effective against the effects of regional wet/drought cycles. Highly expansive soils have severe limitations for use in engineered fill. Mitigation Measures ' The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce the impact of expansive soils and/or bedrock to a less-than-significant level. 4.5-8 The design-level geotechnical investigation should provide criteria for foundation of pavement design developed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and County Code requirements on the basis of subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. ' The constraints on the use of expansive soil near finish grade should be evaluated in the design-level geotechnical investigation report. 4.5-55 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRA.DING Grading for Infrastructure Impact 4.5-9 The proposed project would result in significant grading for domestic water , reservoirs, pipelines, and variety of urban services needed to serve the community. Although reservoirs can be sited in stable areas, it may not be possible for construction/maintenance roads and ' pipelines to avoid unstable/marginally stable hillsides. This is considered to be a significant '1 impact. Water(and possibly wastewater and recycled water) distribution, pumping,storage, and collection facilities are planned for locations on or near unstable lands that may be subject to landslides, shrink-swell and other geologic hazards. Most of these facilities are planned for areas that would ' be mass graded and stabilized for development. However, certain water storage reservoirs and water lines are planned for locations on undeveloped open space lands that may be subject to faulting, slope instability, landslides and related geologic constraints. Unstable earth conditions could cause damage to potable water,wastewater, or recycled water infrastructure, disrupt services and cause a potential threat to the safety of people. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce the infrastructure grading impacts to a less-than- ' significant leve 4.5-9(a) The appropriate utility provider shall design all potable water, wastewater and recycled water infrastructure to be located on undeveloped open space based on a grading plan and engineering geotechnical study prepared as part of the design level grading plan studies for the project. These plans shall be prepared prior to processing the first tentative subdivision map for the project. The grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by an engineering geologist acting on behalf of the County prior to the County's approval of the Development Plan for the affected property. 4.5-9(b) A design level geotechnical and geologic report shall be prepared concurrent with the design level grading studies This report shall be subject to review and approval by an engineering geologist acting on behalf of the County. 4.5-9(c) Water reservoirs shall be constructed over competent bedrock. The construction o ' ( ) P f reservoirs on highly weathered or sheared rock should be avoided. Construction of reservoirs astride a cut/fill transition should also be avoided. 4.5-56 ' 1 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Liquefaction Potential Impact 4.5.10 Liquefaction of sands on valley floor area have the potential to cause significant damage. This is considered to be a significant impact. . The County General Plan contains a map that classifies the floor of Dougherty Valley as"generally high" susceptibility to liquefaction (see Figure 4.5-6). Engeo, Inc. performed an analysis of liquefaction of the high risk areas along the channels of the Gale Ranch II project. They found that sand layers within the alluvium are generally medium dense in consistency and generally contain a significant amount of fines, ranging from 16 to 44 percent by weight (silt and clay fraction). Detailed evaluation indicates that in localized areas there are sands which would liquefy under conditions of strong earthquake shaking (e.g., sands in boring L-10). Although nearly all of the alluvium penetrated in borings was non-liquefiable, there are liquefiable sands present, and their distribution in the subsurface cannot be accurately established by existing data. The results of the liquefaction study on the Windemere I project were nearly identical to the investigation of the Gale Ranch project. Specifically, layers of silty sand to clayey sand were found in borings B-16, B-17, B-19 and B-21; the sand layers were loose to medium dense and contained fines ranging from 16 to 47 percent by weight (silt and clay fraction). According to Engeo (1995b, page 22) the sands can range from several inches to 10 feet in thickness. The distribution of the sands in the surface is not predictable. It is predictable that unconsolidated, saturated sands would liquefy under conditions of strong earthquake shaking. The consequences of liquefaction include differential settlement and, in the case of a liquefied sand day lighting in the creekbank, lateral spreading6 is a potential problem. This is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures outlined below will reduce liquefaction-related impacts to a less- than significant level. 4.5-10(a) During grading o the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I ro'ects keyways containing non- ( ) gg g f P 1g liquefiable, compacted soil should be placed in the zone adjacent to the channels of the West Branch and Main Branch of Alamo Creek. Design details for these keyways should be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permits ' e Lateral spreading is a failure within a soil zone (possibly due to liquefaction)which causes the overlying soil mass . to move toward an open face, such as the channel of Alamo Creek. ' 4.5-57 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING 4.5-10(b) Improvements on the valley floor should be designed to accommodate the differential settlement that is associated with densification of sands as a result of earthquake shaking or liquefaction. The Engeo reports (1995a, 1995b) indicate settlements of one-half inch are possible. Debris Flows Impact 4.5-11 Locating trails downslope from known debris flows could- expose hikers to ' injury. This is considered to be a significant impact. A debris flow is a moving mass of rock fragments, soil and mud, more than half of the particles being larger than sand size. Rapidly moving debris flow pose a hazard to anyone in its path. (A 1977 debris flow in the Peruvian Andes reached a velocity of 160 km/hr.) Engeo Inc. (1992) prepared a debris flow susceptibility map which is presented in Figure 4.5-16. Note that it ' identifies two areas regarded as "most" susceptible in the Gale Ranch 1I project area. No residential lots are proposed in the path of debris flows. However, the trails Plan Map in the Specific Plan identifies trails below the debris flow source area. These segments of trail are �.. potentially vulnerable to being impacted by debris flows. Figure 4.5-17 shows the segment of trails that could be at risk. Mitigation Measure The mitigation measure outlined below will reduce debris-related impacts to a less-than-significant level. 1 4.'5-11 The trail alignments shall be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for the project. The precise alignment shall be adjusted to avoid high risk areas and/or remedial measures shall be required in the debris flow source area. V REFERENCES Bailey, E.H. and D.R. Harden, 1975, "Map Showing Mineral Resources of the San Francisco Bay Region Present Availability and Planning of the Future." U.S. Geological Survey, Map I-909. Brabb, E.E., H.S. Sonneman and J.R. Switzer, 1971, Preliminary-Geologic Map of the Mount Diablo-Byron Area,Contra Costa,Alameda and San Joaquin Counties,California,U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 71-53. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982", "Special Studies Zones Map, Diablo Quadrangle." 4.5-58 JFFt �syt" �KEi7 IX�� rIgYlest T)ebliS } Htte�t Debias _ �-� � k�duv Sus�epftbx'11ty x � _ fl J F0I ` 7 \ A'lie �Tlgtte�ic a . F['dVt RX r �. ,y y. `� \ t y 1 N t t -�''•4 i .F... s i. - rt r ` q,yV 5 Y 1\ .am"1'1t'a Y ua far }r ._9�9 P.r Explanation Q Highest Debris Flow Susceptibility O-% Major Trails or Paths ® Staging Area Figure:4.5-17 Trail Segments Graphic Vulnerable To Debris Flows scale: Subsequent EIR 0 800' 1600' 3200' r 45-59 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982 "Special Studies Zones Map,Diablo Quadrangle." California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, "Special Studies Zones Map, Tassajara Quadrangle." Contra Costa County, 1992,"Draft Environmental Impact Report,Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Related Actions," County File 2-91-SR. Crane, R., 1988, "Structural Geology of the San Ramon Valley and Environs",in Field Trip Guide ` to the Geology of the San Ramon Valley and Environs, Northern California Geological Society. Crane, R., 1995a, "Geology of the Mount Diablo Region", in Geology of the Mount Diablo Region Guidebook, Northern California Geological Society. Crane, R., 1995b, "Geologic Ma of the Diablo 7.5 Quadrangle", in press). g P g t P ) Davenport, C.W., 1986, Landslide Hazards in Parts of the Diablo and Dublin 7.5' - Minute 1 Quadrangles, Contra Costa County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Landslide Hazard Identification Map 3, Open-File Report 86-7 SF. Dibblee, T.W., 1980a, Preliminary Geologic Map of,the Livermore Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey OFR 80-533. Dibblee, T.W., 1980b, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Tassajara Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey OFR 80-544. Dibblee, T.W., 1980c, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Diablo Quadrangle,Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California U.S. Geological Survey OFR 80-546. Dibblee,T.W., 1980d,Preliminary Geologic Map of the Dublin Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey OFR 80-537. Ellen, S.D. and C.M. Wentworth, 1995, "Hillside Materials and Slopes of the San Francisco Bay Region, California." U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1357. Ellen, Stephen D. and Gerald F. Wieczorek, 1988, "Landslides, Floods, and Marine Effects of the Storm of January 3-5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Region, California." U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1434. 4.5-60 1 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Engeo, Inc., 1995a, "Gale Ranch, Phase II, Contra Costa County, Geotechnical Exploration",File 2489-W100. Engeo Inc. 1995b "Windemere Contra Costa County, Geotechnical Exploration."File 2581-W7. Engeo Inc., 1992a, "Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report, Gale Ranch, Contra Costa County, California"; File N2-2489-W1. Engeo Inc., 1992b, "Debris Flow Hazard Characterization, Gale Ranch, Contra Costa County, California"; File N2-2489-W11. Engeo Inc., 1992c, "Geotechnical Exploration, The Country Club at Gale Ranch, Contra Costa County, California, File N2-2489-W12. Engeo Inc., 1992d, "Debris Flow Hazard Characterization, TVPOA Planning Area, Tassajara Valley, Contra Costa County, California." File N2-3283-W3. Engeo Inc. 1992e Debris Flow Hazard Characterization, W' de ere Project, Costa County, California." File N2-2581-W6. 1 Engeo Inc., 1992f,Liquefaction Study,Windemere,Dougherty Valley, Contra Costa County", File N2-2581-W7A. Engeo Inc., 1991a, Testing and Observation Services, Balance Site, Gale Ranch, Contra Costa County, California." File N1-2489-M6. �. Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones and E.E. Brabb, 1995, 'Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County." U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-622 (Scale 1:75,000). Lindh, A.G., and D.H. Oppenheimer, 1992, 'Probabilities of Large Earthquakes in the East Bay (abs.), in Galehouse, J.S., Program & Abstracts, Second Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, p. 43;. Majmundar, H.H., 1991, Landslide Hazards in the Livermore Valley and Vicinity, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Landslide Hazard Identification Map 21, Open-File Report 91-2. 4.5-61 4.5 GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY/GRADING Perkins, J.B. and J. Boatwright, 1995, "On Shaky Ground—City Maps, San Ramon." ABAG Publication. Shakal,A.G., et al., 1989, Strong-Motion Records from the Santa Cruz Mountains'(Loma Prieta)", in California Earthquake of 17 October 1989. CDMG Office of Strong Motion Studies, Report OSMS 89-06 (196 pages). . Slemmons, D.B. and D.H. Chung, 1982, "Maximum credible earthquake magnitudes for the Calaveras and Hayward fault zones, California in Hart, E.W. and others,.eds., Proceedings of Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area, pp. 115-124. Toppazada,T.R., C.R. Reel and D.L. Parke, 1981,Preparation of isoseismal maps and summaries ■ of reported effects for pre-1990 California earthquakes, California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 81-11, 182 p. USDA, 1977,Soil Survey of Contra Costa County,California,U.S.Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. USGS Working Group, 1990, ."Probabilities of Large Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, California." Circular 1053. Wagner, J.R., 1978, Late Cenozoic History of the Coast Ranges East of San Francisco Bay, U.C. Berkeley Ph.D. i. Wieczorek, G.F., E.L. Harp and R.K Mark, 1988, Debris Flows and Other Landslides in San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Contra Costa, Alameda, Napa, Solano, Lake and Yolo Counties, and Factors Influencing Debris Flow Distribution, in Landslides, Floods, and Marine Effects of the Storm of January 3-5,. 1982, In the San Francisco Bay Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1434. 4.5-62 i ... 6;; TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION The traffic/circulation section of this EIR evaluates the potential impacts associated with the proposed changes in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. These include the General Plan Amendment, which changes the adopted alignments for several roadways and shifts the location of the community college to the Windemere Village Center site. Several other minor land use changes are also proposed,but the total level of development,in terms of number of dwelling units and commercial square footage, remains the same (11,000 dwelling units) as that previously evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR. Finally, the traffic/circulation section evaluates the impacts of the General Plan Amendment,Preliminary and Final Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I developments to identify any additional mitigation measures that might be required within those Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) sites. SETTING Existing Circulation System Three main arterials run near the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan site. To the north of the Project area, oriented in an east-west direction, is Crow Canyon Road. Running through the center of the Valley, in a north-south direction is Dougherty Road. To the west is the present terminus of Bollinger Canyon Road which runs east-west but stops short of the Project area in the Country Club at Gale Ranch development. East of the Dougherty Valley is located an additional north- south arterial, Camino Tassajara, but there is no existing connection between Dougherty Valley Road and Camino Tassajara. Figure 4.6-1 illustrates the roadway network in the project area. Other important arterials that are more remote from the site are Alcosta Boulevard, Sycamore Valley Road and Tassajara Road (in Alameda County). These arterials ultimately lead to two freeways, Interstate 680 (I-680) to the west and Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south. 4.6-1 eO' o etc Q kyAWkRO v R� yyG SMP p � �gMiNO z Z c��`i rASSR✓q qq GALE RANCH II 2 O $ �O O ?may O� p T--`� WINDE RE I D G C� 6 9 do P Oti RD. Sa iLU S r QgyC - i ZP OV�1/� \- %p.MED11 680 OLD / P �� 9O RANCH I �� \ 29 RD. 1\ r � DR. \ m Gds 9 °O 1° Z ' 00 1 Pe GLEASONLI'D ----- o ---------- U h ---- 580 ' DUBLIN CYN.RD. O 0 l ° l � p o o LEGEND. EXISTING ROAD ---- FUTURE ROAD t�. D omelLanty Figure 4.6-1: Project Site V !� ° Subsequent EIR Not to Scale J96022\pue 827/96 4.6-2 1 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The CCTA has developed a criterion to classify the major transportation facilities into Routes of Regional Significance and Basic Routes. The Routes of Regional Significance in the study area are listed below: • I-680 north of the County line; • Crow Canyon Road between the County line and Camino Tassajara; • Bollinger Canyon Road between San Ramon Valley Boulevard and its ultimate extension to Dougherty Road; • Alcosta Boulevard between Village Parkway and San Ramon Valley Road; • San Ramon Valley Road north of the County line; and • Dougherty Road. All other arterials are under the Basic Routes category. As part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP)some Routes of Regional Significance were selected for the CMP Network. The routes included in the CMP Network are monitored periodically as part of the program to follow-up on the performance of the transportation system. The only link in the CMP Network in the study area is I-680 north of the county line. A brief description of these and other major arterials as well as freeways in the vicinity of the Project is provided below. The existing (1993) Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were compiled at select locations and are shown in Figure 4.6-2. The 1993 ADTs were estimated by applying growth factors to the 1990 counts. These growth factors were calculated by comparing recent counts (1993) at select locations to 1990 counts. Barton-Aschman Associates determined the growth factors as described in their 1/7/94 memo to Daniel J. Pulon, AICP, Contra Costa County Community Development Department. A copy of the memo is included in Appendix D. Alcosta Boulevard Alcosta Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway which runs south from Crow Canyon Road to the southerly Contra Costa County limits where it turns west over I-680 to San Ramon Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road at the City Limits of San Ramon and Dublin. The road provides a connection to I-680 for Bishop Ranch and residential areas east of I-680 in San Ramon. 4.6-3 135,000 �o- m o 8�0 1�rO 0�`� 136,000 SyGJP`�oPo Cgyjv o 2 O C�F�2� O T�SS�q/�2p GALE RANCH II 30p �0 16,200 OZ 2,0 O O� v � � 45,900 tea. m WINDE RE I <o �GPNy05�� O .o R R O D G ..,< C'+ 125,000 � 9 \ 2i O c9 R O ELF`\S NyO� RD. 49300 <> w d� �SE��DEO . o _ �� 113,000 �° �0 9<o 0 'Fy, ,_Z OLD O -P�--- 680 0 �� 9O RANCH \ 29 RD. p SDR. deo , N " 40,800 M Z Cr GLEASON�R4.-----� ----0 -- i U ll Z � 580 1'" 145,000 = 35,00y 125,000 135 000 T 0 DUBLIN CYN.RD. 00, o z . � o O LEGEND: 140,000 EXISTING ROAD ---- FUTURE ROAD DO Figure 4.6-2: Existing Traffic Volumes (ADTs) j� V ffiRR(B.7Subsequent EIR Not to Scale Jes-ozz\xN aasern96 4.6-4 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Bollinger Canyon Road Bollinger Canyon Road is an arterial which extends from the northwest corner of San Ramon to its easterly end in the Canyon Lakes-area near Gale Ranch. It is currently designed to accommodate six to seven through lanes plus turn lanes west of Alcosta Boulevard. The street is four lanes wide from Alcosta Boulevard east to its end at Canyon Lakes. Camino Tassaiara Camino Tassajara is an arterial extending from Diablo Road to Crow Canyon Road in Danville. It continues east, then south through the Tassajara Valley to the southerly Contra Costa County line, where it becomes Tassajara Road in Alameda County. Camino Tassajara provides a connection to I-680 via Sycamore Valley and Diablo Roads for trips from Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys. Camino Tassajara is a four to six lane road between Sycamore Valley Road and Lawrence Road and becomes two lanes as it traverses the Tassajara Valley. Crow Canyon Road Crow Canyon Road is a major east-west arterial from I-580 in Castro Valley, through I-680 in San Ramon, to Camino Tassajara in Danville. It provides a connection from the project site to I-680. It also serves as a primary route to the commercial areas near the I-680/Crow Canyon Road interchange. Dougherty Road Dougherty Road is an arterial which extends from the south at I-580 i Dublin a no at g rty n D to the north Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon. It is the only road that extends through the entire Dougherty Valley from north to south. Most of Dougherty Road is two lanes wide. Some sections of the road are in need of pavement rehabilitation. The north end near Crow Canyon Road has been improved. To the south, Dougherty Road has been widened to a four lane street from Old Ranch Road in San Ramon, through the County line to I-580 in the City of Dublin. On the opposite side of I-580, in the City of Pleasanton, the street changes to Hopyard Road which is a six lane road. Sycamore Valla Road Sycamore Valley Road is a four-lane arterial extending west from Camino Tassajara, through the I-680 interchange, to San Ramon Valley Boulevard in Danville. This road provides direct access to I-680 from residential areas along Camino Tassajara, Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard. The interchange at I-680 was improved in 1988. Improvements included widening the overpass from two to four lanes, and the construction of a sound wall. 4.6-5 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Tassalara Road Tassajara Road is the southerly extension of Camino Tassajara in Alameda County. It connects with I-580 and crosses to the City of Pleasanton where it changes its name to Santa Rita Road. It is a rural two lane road. Interstate 580 I-580 is an eight-lane freeway running east-west and located about 4.5 miles south of the Project. At its east end, I-580 connects with I-205 toward Stockton and I-5 south to Los Angeles. To the west from the I-680 interchange, I-580 enters.Hayward then turns northerly toward Oakland. Because of housing growth in the Tri-Valley and San Joaquin County during the 1980s, the freeway has experienced congestion during peak hours. This is especially evident west of the interchange at I-680. Peak congestion typically occurs in the afternoon for eastbound traffic beginning in the area west of I-680. Recent improvements have helped to reduce some congestion in this corridor. The interchanges at Hopyard Road and Santa Rita Road have been upgraded, and a new interchange has been constructed in between at Hacienda Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The Hopyard Road interchange is undergoing more improvement as a part of the construction of the East Dublin ' BART extension and station. Auxiliary lanes have been provided to lengthen weave areas between the I-680 and Hopyard Road interchanges. A two lane connector ramp from westbound I-580 to northbound I-680 has been constructed. The northbound ramp from I-680 to eastbound I-580 has also been reconstructed. Interstate 680 I-680 is a-six lane freeway along with two HOV lanes between I-580 and State Route 24. Starting from I-80 in Solano County, it runs south through Contra Costa County and Alameda County and ends in Santa Clara County at the U.S. 101, I-280 interchange. Several freeway interchanges along I-680 will provide access to the Gale Ranch project. These include Sycamore Valley Road, Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon Road. A critical area of congestion along I-680 is its interchange with I-580. Even with the improvements already discussed, peak period congestion still exists at the loop ramp which connects I-680 from the north to eastbound I-580. Congestion'at this ramp causes southbound traffic on I-680 to back up as far north as Alcosta Boulevard. I-680 also becomes congested in Danville and from Stone Valley Road north to State Route 24 in Walnut Creek. 4.6-6 ,� 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Study Intersections Traffic impacts of the Project were analyzed at major intersections and freeway segments. The level of review needed for a potential study intersection was based on a number of characteristics related to each intersection, including whether the intersection is signalized or unsignalized, existing traffic volumes and level of service, signal timing, the functional classification pursuant to the General Plan, and other factors. The County, in conjunction with the affected jurisdictions, determined that 25 intersections would best serve as indicators of potential impacts of the proposed project, and were thus selected for further analysis. A select zone assignment using the TVTM identified the study intersections (the TVTM and the select zone assignment are detailed in Appendix D of this report). Table 4.6-1 lists the study intersections and their jurisdictional locations. Figure 4.6-3 indicates the geographic location of the intersections within the study area. v e O Existing Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) Turning movement counts for the intersections were taken in 1990 for the calibration of the Tri- Valley Transportation Model (TVTM). Updated counts were taken in 1995. Table 4.6-1 shows the existing LOS and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios- All study intersections are presently operating satisfactorily at V/C = 0.84 (LOS D) or better. Existing Transit Service The project is situated within the BART district and the local transit service area of the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA). BART is presently completing construction of the Castro Valley/I-580 rail extension to Dublin and Pleasanton, and expects to open the East Dublin/Pleasanton station at I-580 east of Hopyard Road in early 1997. BART also provides Route "DX" express bus service in the I-680 corridor west of the project area on weekdays, and local "D" service on weekends. CCCTA operates the "D" line on weekdays as County Connection Route 121. Limited school day service is also provided on Route 221. In nearby Alameda County, the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) is the local operator of Wheels bus service. Three Wheels routes (2,3,4) operate approximately four to five miles south of the project area. Existing transit route alignments in the general vicinity of the project are shown in Figure 4.6-4. In contrast to the dramatic increase in auto traffic volumes of roads of regional significance in the San Ramon Valley during the last ten years, bus transit service levels have declined moderately near the project area. For example, BART DX weekday express bus service to and from Walnut Creek BART decreased from 33 round trips in 1986 to 28.5 round trips in 1996. Similarly, County Connection Route 121 weekday local service on the former D alignment declined from 33 to 30 round trips in the past decade. Saturday and Sunday BART D line service remained at 22 and 19 round trips respectively during this period. Service levels on the Wheels routes consist 4.6-7 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing # Node;: Study Intersection Period V/C LOS Jurisdiction 1 8252 Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.50 A Danville PM . 0.42 A 2• 8258 Blackhawk Road/Camino Tassajara Road AM 0.51 A Danville PM 0.52 A 3 9146 I-680 NB On-Ramp/Sycamore Valley,Road AM 0.80 C Danville PM 0.56 A 7 4 8250 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.40 A Danville PM 0.49 A 5 1760 San Ramon Valley Road/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.49 A San Ramon PM 0.75 C ' 6 1743 I-680 NB Off-Ramp/Crow Canyon Road AM. 0.55 A San Ramon PM 0.49 A 7 6410 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Crow Canyon'Road AM 0.52 A San Ramon PM 0.61 B 8 1776 ' Alcosta Boulevard/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.36 A San Ramon PM 0.64 B 9 8259 Dougherty Road/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.21 A San Ramon PM 0.30 A 10 1716 San Ramon Valley/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.51 A San Ramon. PM 0.56 A 11 8256 I-680 NB Off-Ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.65 B San Ramon PM 0.58 A 12 8255 I-680 SB Off-RampBollinger Canyon Road AM 0.41 A San Ramon PM 0.31 A 13 9100 Camino Ramon/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.56 A San Ramon PM 0.43 A 14 1789 Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.50 A San Ramon �. PM 0.59 A 15 1705 Alcosta Boulevard/Old Ranch Road AM a a San Ramon PM a a 16 9340 Sunset Drive/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.56 A San Ramon PM 0.82 D 17 9101 . Camino Ramon/Norris Canyon Road AM 0.36 A San Ramon PM 0.42 A 18 9339 Camino Ramon/Executive Parkway AM 0.41 A San Ramon PM 0.35 A 4.6-8 , 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-1 continued Existing Node, Study,Intcrsechon Period -/C LOS Jurisdiction . __. 19 1777 Alcosta Boulevard/Norris Canyon Road AM 0.26 A San Ramon PM 0.38 A 20 8260 Dougherty Road/OId Ranch Road AM 0.25 A San Ramon PM 0.23 A 21 3977 Dougherty Road/Dublin Road AM 0.58 A Dublin PM 0.84 D 22 3984 Dougherty Road/Amador Road AM 0.55 A Dublin PM 0.44 A 23 9355 Brookside Drive/Sycamore Valley AM 0.49 A Danville PM 0.33 A 24 9344 Crow Canyon Place/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.45 A San Ramon PM 0.66 B 25 1744 Camino Ramon/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.60 A San Ramon PM 0.64 B Count being obtained from another project and used for this project. of between 17 and 27 round trips at Stoneridge Mall on weekdays, and eight to 10 round trips on Saturdays. Other than the BART D line, no transit service is provided on Sundays in the project area. METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL IMPACTS . Level of Service Concept The concepts of LOS and V/C ratio are used as tools to determine traffic performance at Aintersections and links. The LOS is defined in a scale from"A" to "F." As the LOS goes from"A" to"F,"the traffic demand increases with corresponding deterioration of service measured by higher delays. At signalized intersections the LOS is measured by the V/C of the sum of the conflicting (critical) movements. Both the procedure and the CCTA's recommended software for intersection LOS calculation (VCCC) were used in this effort. Link LOS for arterials, freeway segments and freeway ramps, is measured directly by the link V/C ratios. 4.6-9 o . m B�OKHAWk RO r 6,Q°o 1 0 R 4 3 �/O�GPJO�OPp CSM/q,0 ' " o 0 23 r N y y� ASSq✓ W �Z v� O� lil, A� 2 �° 9 2 aP 9 101D 9 n `O c9Rp �O�GP o I /y G l�•��\ RD.` 5 249 25 8 19 ��G� gyp. 6 17 18 14 ----_-- 16 c6`p GP 1 N 13 -------- y 11G I a Ey��S ANy°N R11" D.0 yN�Q �' 1w p V 9�° G 20 Rp %ME PGOUN -� 680 15 OLD 9L RANCH / \ °y9 RD. ^DR. v O -/ m �P� 22 G�� y pO�JO Z �¢ Of Y G_LMggL RD.-----� -------_ ---- ,' i' U- z a ° p 21 � --------- --� -- L 580 �'" ---- DUBLIN CYN.RD. O LEGEND: �a EXISTING ROAD ---- FUTURE ROAD • STUDY LOCATION - DFigure 4.6-3: - �7^ Study Intersections Subsequent EIR Not to Scale JW02zw e2719 4.6-10 I TO WALNUT CREEK m �ACkh W q o 0 SgG�Po OPO Cq �:� orqs y <9� p��Sq✓qRq GALE RANCH II ?O 2� OT ! >. WINDE RE I O R O 0 N P v O O a - - 1 ' ! O S J V,pE0 y o c --- �\ 3:1 Os9 Ti `^ m p�Np�-- GOON Go ell \-� 680 o O OL -- � 9p �"R�CH 29 i DR a O x GLE,4SONLR4.- ;. �" ---- 580 00 I F�FNfI: DUBLIN EXISTING ROAD ----- FUTURE ROAD 'i A .:;'''' 1:o BART RAIL LINE HAGENOA BUSINESS PARK lu `� EAST DUBLIN STATION STONERIp(,E MALL BART"DX" TO PLEASANTON COUNTY CONNECTION 121/BART"D" m_■ COUNTY CONNECTION 221(SCHOOL TRIPS ONLY) WHEELS RTE 2 WHEELS RTE 3 WHEELS RTE 4 Figure 4.6-4: (mmS-fl"`SIr Existing Transit Service I Subsequent EIR Not to Scale J9&022Vs&27i96 4.6-11 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The correspondence between V/C ratios and LOS for intersections is shown in Table 4.6-2. LOS "A' indicates free-flow conditions with little or no delay. LOS "E" is generally considered the upper limit for acceptable delay. LOS"F' describes unstable operations with high delays and long queues at all approaches. LOS "B", "C" and "D" represent intermediate conditions. Table 4.6-2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA LOS .Sum of Critical i A 0 to 0.60 B 0.61 to 0.70 . C 0.71 to 0.80 D 0.81 to 0.90 E 0.91 to 1.00 F more than 1.00 Source: Technical Procedures, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, August/1992,p.50. Special emphasis is given to intersection LOS analysis. In an urban environment, often intersections limit the capacity and determine the performance of arterials.' This is because at intersections there is additional reduction in roadway capacity induced by conflicting movements. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines establish that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. What constitutes a substantial increase in traffic must be established as part of the traffic analysis. � The Project traffic will impact the jurisdictions of several agencies. Besides the cities and counties comprising the Tri-Valley Area,other agencies with active participation in transportation planning. in the study area include the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and the TVTC. 'Although many study roadways are in rural-like settings,the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual,in Chapter 7 �. recommends using the procedures for Rural Highways when "the distance between signals on the multi-lane highway is 2 mi or greater." None of the study link segments falls in that category. 4.6-12 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Signalized Intersections The study methodology for signalized intersections followed in this report is based on the Technical ' Procedures for Level of Service Analysis developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). For the purposes of this traffic impact analysis, the Contra Costa Growth Management Program performance standards for Basic Routes have been used to establish levels of significance for impacts at all signalized study intersections. Urban intersections must operate at LOS D or better with V/C of 0.89 or less.' However, the Settlement Agreement with the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon states that all parties to the agreement would accept intersections operating at V/C rates of up to 0.91. Unsignalized Intersections The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used to evaluate unsignalized intersections within the study area. This method considers the length of gaps in opposing traffic to determine probable delays for stop controlled traffic. No specific criteria for significant impacts has been established by the County or OCTA. Usually, when levels of service at stop controlled intersections degrade to LOS E or LOS F, signalization becomes a common mitigative action. Therefore, the LOS analysis was combined with a warrant analysis to determine if signalization is appropriate at unsignalized intersections. j� Routes of Regional Significance The Contra Costa County Growth Management (Measure C-1988) and Congestion Management Programs require that localities that review major land developments include an evaluation of that development's impacts on major road facilities. The evaluation must be made of the impacts relative to the Traffic Service Objectives (TSO's) established for Routes of Regional Significance 1 pursuant to the Growth Management Program. In addition, the CMP requires evaluation of project impacts relative to CMP LOS standards. rThe only CMP route impacted by at least 50 project trips is I-680. The project will also impact I-580 in Alameda County.,These facilities have been evaluated as part of this EIR. However, the TSO's and CMP LOS standards have not been used as criteria for significance since they include non-environmental considerations. Instead,freeway segments operating at LOS E or better in the No Project Condition that operate at LOS F with the addition of project traffic are considered significantly impacted by the proposed project. � 2 Technical Procedures, Contra Costa Transportation Authority,August 1992,p. 39. 1 4.6-13 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Traffic Safe The project has significant traffic safety impacts if it includes streets or roadways that do not meet established design standards or if project traffic is added to a facility that does not meet these standards. Alternative Transportation and Trip Reduction Significant impacts result when the project proposes changes to the transportation system that are in conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation modes and trip reduction. In addition, if the project is expected to generate demand for alternative modes that is in excess of available capacity. Traffic Forecasts . The TVTM was used to forecast traffic in the year 2010. The TVTM uses the standard four step transportation planning process: trip generation, trip distribution, mode split and trip assignment. A summary of the modelling approach and specific modifications made to the TVTM is provided in Appendix D. Intersection turning movements produced using the TVTM were adjusted using the Furnessing process as described in the CCTA Technical Procedures. The 1992 EIR, which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan and Specific Plan, identifies significant impacts and associated mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B22 through B40 for a listing of those, impacts and mitigtion measures). They include the cumulative impact of developing 11,000 residential units, along with commercial uses and a community college in the Dougherty Valley. Those impacts and mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are summarized in Table 4.6-3. Future conditions in the year 2010 with and without the proposed PDP were developed. The detailed site plans.for the development plans allow a more refined analysis of localized impacts within the Dougherty Valley than was previously conducted as part of the Specific.Plan-EIR. 2010 No PDP band Use Projections The 2010 land use database in the TVTM was developed from the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)Projections '94. These growth projections have been allocated to individual traffic zones by local jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley Area. The scenario for the cumulative impacts section of this EIR includes pending General Plan Updates in the East County, Tri-Valley and San Joaquin County. The PDP No Build assumes only completion of the Country Club at Gale Ranch within the Dougherty Valley Specific'Plan area. 4.6-14 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-3 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Traffic/Circulation. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Exceedance of Crow Canyon Road planned capacity under 2010 with project conditions. Mitigation Measure: * The Project proponents shall construct or contribute a pro rata share toward improving Crow Canyon Road from a four-lane to a six-lane arterial between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Ranch Road. 2. Impact: Exceedance of Tassajara Road planned capacity under 2010 with project conditions. Mitigation Measure: * The Project proponents shall construct or contribute a pro rata share toward improving Tassajara Road from a four-lane to a six-lane arterial between Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road. 3. Impact: Exceedance of Dublin Boulevard planned capacity under 2010 with project conditions. Mitigation Measure: * Parking will be eliminated on Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road to Village Parkway. Dublin Boulevard will be re-striped to six-lanes between Sierra Court and Dougherty Road. 4. Impact: LOS F expected on I-680 between Bollinger Canyon Road and I-580 under 2010 with project conditions. Mitigation Measure: * No mitigation is available because freeway expansions which would be needed to meet CMP performance standard of LOS E are not consistent with MTC's Regional Transportation Plan recommendations for I-680 and I-580. 5. Impact: LOS F expected on I-580 between I-680 to east of Hacienda Drive under 2010 with project conditions. Mitigation Measure: * No mitigation is available for the reasons stated in Circulation Impact 4 concerning MTC's recommendations for i-580 and I-680 improvements. 6. Impact: LOS F expected on I-680 between Bollinger Canyon Road and I-580 under cumulative no project conditions and with project conditions. Mitigation Measures: * Prepare deficiency plans and action plans for 1-580 and 1-680 4.6-15 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-3 continued * Enhance transit service in the Tri-Valley region by endeavoring to provide: (1) a rail transit system along I-680 and I-580 corridors, (2) feeder bus service to key rail junctions, and (3)expanded local bus service across jurisdictional boundaries. * Create alternative transportation corridors to relieve excessive future travel demands on I-580 and I-680. * Adopt plans to enhance the capacity of freeway corridors,such as ramp metering,high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and an integrated Traffic Operations System (TOS). * Adopt regional land use plans that address the jobs/housing imbalance of existing General Plans and that seek to lessen the demand for automobile travel on the Tri-Valley transportation system. * The.Project proponents shall participate in a regional transportation mitigation program to ensure each Project proponent is paying their share of the costs associated with the Project. * To facilitate implementation of alternative transportation corridors,the following policy and text shall be incorporated into the specific plan along with.corresponding revisions to the specific plan circulation map: "Policy: Provide opportunities to develop enhanced arterial extensions that are being evaluated in the Tri-Valley Transportation,Plan to relieve future travel demands on I-580 and I-680." 7. Impact: Unacceptable LOS expected on I-580 between I-680 and east of Hacienda Drive under cumulative no project and with project conditions. Mitieation Measures. * See the Mitigation Measures for Circulation Impact 6. * The Project will accommodate alternate forms of transportation by constructing park-and-ride lots, bikeways and pedestrian paths linking residential areas to major activity centers, bicycle parking, commercial and service facilities to serve the Project and nearby neighborhoods, bus turn-outs and passenger shelters, and reservation of right-of-way for future rail transit. The following strategies are required to reduce the Project's automobile traffic. * The Project proponents shall provide enhanced transit service to Dougherty Valley to reduce off- site trip generation. At a minimum, regularly scheduled bus service shall be provided between Dougherty Valley and major activity centers. * A collector road system that provides efficient bus routing within 1/4 mile of 80%of the Project households shall be constructed. Where feasible, cul-de-sacs that back up to arterials or collectors shall have a pedestrian/bicycle path between the cul-de-sac and the road to allow convenient access to transit stops. The trail system shall extend Class II bike lanes the full length of Dougherty Road. This system shall be supplemented by on-street bicycle lanes on appropriate local roads to access all neighborhood commercial areas,parks,convenience retail areas,transit stops,park-and-ride lots,and the,Village Center. 4.6-16 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-3 continued * The Project proponents shall establish an ongoing transportation demand management (TDM) program during the buildout of the Project that will include, at a minimum, a transportation coordinator to administer the TDM program, an information program regarding the transportation services, a telecommute work center in the Village Center, coordination efforts with employer-based TDM program in the Tri-Valley area, and a monitoring program to determine the commute habits of Project residents. * The Project proponents will work with the local telephone company to ensure that all housing units are wired for telecommuting. 8. Impact: Change in V/C from acceptable to unacceptable conditions at 11 intersections under 2010 with project conditions as compared with 2010 no project conditions. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Circulation Impact 7. * The Project proponents shall contribute a pro rata share to fund the 2010 With Project intersection improvements. * Provide planned roadway improvements to serve phased growth of the area. * Install traffic signals at all study intersections on site. 9. Impact: Further degradation of an unacceptable LOS at 12 intersections under 2010 with project conditions as compared with 2010 no project conditions. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Circulation Impacts 6 and 8. 10. Impact: Change in V/C from acceptable to unacceptable conditions at 8 intersections under cumulative with project conditions as compared with cumulative no project conditions. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall contribute a pro rata share to implement the cumulative intersection improvements at Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Road, Dougherty Road/Old Ranch Road, and I-680 Northbound on-ramp/Sycamore Valley Road. 11. Impact: Further degradation of an unacceptable LOS at 12 intersections under cumulative with project conditions as compared with cumulative no project conditions. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall contribute a pro rata share to implement the cumulative intersection improvements at Camino Ramon/Crow Canyon Road, Blackhawk Road/Camino Tassajara, Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, and Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound off-Ramp. The Project proponents' share would be that amount required to return the intersection to its LOS under no Project conditions. r 4.6-17 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area in 2010 under the No Project scenario were forecast with the TVTM. The detailed LOS calculations for this scenario are included in Appendix D. The results are presented in tabular form in Table 4.6-4. Table 4.6-4 2010 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PDP CONDITIONS Daily Daily AM Peak PM Peak Tnp Type HBW Other Hour Hour Productions 8,545 24,877 2,418 2,087 Attractions 2,329 24,474 1,904 2,829 HBW = Home Based Work. Other = Home Based Shopping/Other/Home Based Social/Recreation, Non Home Based, Home Based School. 2010 PDP Land Use Projections The Project Conditions represent development of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. This EIR is being prepared to assist in evaluating the PDP being requested for these projects. The combined developments would increase the total development within the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area to 5, 115 dwelling units. The PDP No Build scenario represents completion of the Country Club at Gale Ranch (Gale Ranch I) only. Land Use and Trip Generation Projections The traffic forecasts prepared for the project reflect anticipated population and employment in 2010 both within the project site as well as elsewhere within the Bay Area. The TVTM uses this information to predict the number of trips produced in and how many will be attracted to each traffic analysis zone(TAZ). The model uses several trip types to develop these estimates. Home- Based Work (HBW) and other types of trips generated by the proposed interim (PDP) development (5,115 dwelling units) within the Dougherty Valley are summarized in Table 4.6-4. Roadway Improvements The development of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area will include construction of roadway improvements to serve the project and mitigate identified project impacts. The interim levels of development represented by the Gale Ranch Il and Windemere projects will include 4:6-18 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION implementation of some of these improvements. In addition, development of the Gale Ranch I project will include roadway improvements required as conditions of development at the time of its approval by the Board of Supervisors. The following roadway improvements will be implemented as part of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere Development Plans: • As part of the Gale Ranch II project,Dougherty Road will be improved to a six-lane major arterial from the north boundary of Dougherty Valley to its northern intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road. Bollinger Canyon Road will be extended east from the east boundary of the Country Club at Gale Ranch to the northwest boundary of the Windemere I project. It will be implemented as a six-lane major arterial. • As part of the Windemere I project, Bollinger Canyon Road will be improved from the north boundary of the project (boundary with Gale Ranch II) south to its southern intersection with Dougherty Road. It will be implemented as a four-lane major arterial with sufficient right of way provided to accommodate a six-lane arterial in the future. jIn both projects internal circulation roadways will also be constructed to provide access to the neighborhoods and other land uses. Within the Windemere I project, this will include the initial segment of Windemere Parkway,which will eventually extend east from Bollinger Canyon Road to Camino Tassajara. The following additional improvements are conditions of development for the Country Club at Gale Ranch Project (Gale Ranch I) as described in the Country Club at Gale Ranch EIR (94 EIR). • Construct an additional northbound through lane at the Dougherty Valley Road/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection ('94 Country Club at Gale Ranch EIR-Mitigation Measure 6.4). • Install traffic signals at the intersections of Alcosta Boulevard at Montevideo Drive, Bollinger Canyon Road at Chanterella Drive and at Bollinger Canyon Road at Gale Ridge Road ('94 EIR Mitigation Measures 6.7, 6.9). • Safety improvements on Dougherty Valley Road (through contribution to the County's road improvement fee trust) ('94 EIR Mitigation Measure 6.12). • Construction of new collector streets to supplement the operation of the arterial streets in the Dougherty Valley area. This would include a connection of Dougherty Road to the new development north of Bollinger Canyon Road which would provide a second access ' route to this development and reduce the volume at the Dougherty Road intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road. The new collector streets would include: ' 4.6-19 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION • North Gale Ridge Road. • Lilac Ridge Road (Lantana to North Gale Ridge Road). • '94 EIR Mitigation 6.16. These roadway and intersection improvements are assumed in the modelling and LOS analysis of both the PDP No Build and Build scenarios. Intersection Impacts Table 4.6-5 provides a comparison of the PDP Build LOS at study intersections to the PDP No Build levels. At all but two of the 25 study intersections, the 0.89 V/C ratio threshold of significance criteria will not be exceeded. The significant impacts caused by the proposed Development Plans at these two intersections require the implementation of traffic improvements to mitigate project impacts. , Impact 4.6-1 The Alcosta Boulevard intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road will exceed the LOS standard. This is a significant impact. , This intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service in the PDP No Build Condition. It exceeds the established LOS standard in 2010 with completion of the proposed Gale Ranch II and Windemere PDP. (V/C = 0.91 in AM.and 1.00 in PM peak hours.) Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 On Bollinger Canyon Road, three through lanes in each direction are required at this intersection. This can be accomplished by redesignating the exclusive right-turn only lanes on the east and west approaches to the intersection to through/right-turn lanes On Alcosta Boulevard, The north and south approaches need to include dual left-tum lanes, two through lanes and an exclusive right-turn only lane. This will require widening on the intersection approaches to provide an exclusive right-tum only lane. With these improvements, the intersection will operate at a V/C of 0.83 in the AM peak hour and at 0.86 in the PM peak hour and the impacts of the Development Plans will be fully mitigated. With the mitigation outlined above, the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 4.6-20 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-5 PDP 2010 LEVEL OF SERVICE (Before Mitigation) Existing; No,(PAP Build PDP Build # Node Study Intersection Period V/G LOS V/C T,9S V/C LdS,i 1 8252 Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.50 A 0.43 A 0.43 A PM 0.42 A 0.20 A 0.20 A 2 8258 Blackhawk Road/Camino Tassajara Road . AM 0.51 .A 0.71 C 0.76 C PM 0.52 A 0.67 B 0.76 C 3 9146 I-680 NB On-Ramp/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.80 C 0.73 C 0.72 C ' PM 0.56 A 0.76 C 0.75 C 4 8250 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.40 A 0.40 A 0.39 A PM 0.49 A 0.56 A 0.54 A 5 1760 San Ramon Valley Road/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.55 A PM 0.75 C 0.74 C 0.74 C 6 1743 I-680 NB Off-Ramp/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.55 A 0.71 C 0.70 C PM 0.49 A 0.60 B 0.59 A 7 6410 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.52 A 0.78 C 0.76 C PM 0.61 B 0.67 B 0.68 B 8 1776 Alcosta Boulevard/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.36 A 0.55 A 0.56 A PM 0.64. B 0.64 B 0.64 B 9 8259 Dougherty Road/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.21 A 0.40 A 0.50 A PM 0.30 A 0.56 A 0.63 B 10 1716 San Ramon Valley/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.51 A 0.80 D 0.77 C PM 0.56 A 0.64 B 0.64 B 11 8256 I-680 NB Off-Ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.65 B 0.88 D 0.88 D PM 0.58 A 0.71 C 0.71 C 12 8255 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.41 A 0.57 A 0.58 A PM 0.31 A 0.40 A 0.47 A 13 9100 Camino Ramon/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.56 A 0.80 D 0.89 D PM 0.43 A 0.64 B. 0.78 C 14 1789 Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.50 A 0.70 C 0.91 E PM 0.59 A 0.73 C 1.00 F 15 1705 Alcosta Boulevard/Old Ranch Road AM a e 0.66 B 0.64 B PM e a 0.76 C 0.78 C 4.6-21 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-5 continued Existing NaPDP Build PDP Build ii 16 9340 Sunset Drive/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.56 A 0.81 D 0.87 D PM 0.82 D 0.32 A 0.49 A 17 9101 Camino Ramon/Norris Canyon Road AM 0.36 A 0.32 A 0.30 . A PM 0.42 A 0.41 A 0.39 A 18 9339 Camino Ramon/Executive Parkway AM 0.41 A 0.51 A 0.44 A PM 0.35 A 0.53 A 0.51 A 19 1777 Alcosta Boulevard/Norris Canyon Road AM 0.26 A 0.24 A 0.24 A PM 0.38 A 0.53 A 0.45 A 20 8260 Dougherty Road/Old Ranch Road AM 0.25 A 0.52 A 0.68 B PM 0.23 A 0.38 A 0.72 C 21 3977 Dougherty Road/Dublin Road AM 0.58 A 1.44 F 1.46 F PM 0.84 D 1.46 F 1.50 F 22 3984 Dougherty Road/Amador Road AM 0.55 A 0.65 B 0.86 D PM 0.44 A 0.75 C 0.87 D 23 9355 Brookside Drive/Sycamore Valley AM 0.49 A 0.65 B 0.65 B PM 0.33 A 0.38 A 0.38 A 24 9344 Crow Canyon Place/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.45 A 0.58 A 0.57 A PM 0.66 B 0.71 C 0.72 C 25 1744 Camino Ramon/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.60 A 0.75 C 0.71 C PM 0.64 B 0.81 D 0.83 D a Count being obtained from another project and used for this project. Impact 4.6-2 Dougherty Road intersection with Dublin Road will exceed the LOS standard. This is a significant impact. This intersection would exceed the established LOS standard both in the PDP No Build and Build conditions. (V/C = 1.46 in AM and 1.50 in PM peak hours.) Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 At this intersection, five approach lanes are needed on three of the approaches and six approach,lanes are needed on the fourth leg of the intersection. This will require widening of all of the approaches to the intersection. In the northbound direction ori Dougherty Road, the full intersection improvement required for the General Plan Amendment build out is required to accommodate the PDP. This includes six approach lanes; two exclusive 4.6-22 1 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION left-turn lanes, one shared through/left, two exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right- turn lane. In the southbound direction, Dougherty should be widened to include one left, three through and one right-turn only lane. In the eastbound direction, Dublin Road should be widened to include one left, two through and two right-turn only lanes In the west bound direction,Dublin Road should be widened to include two left-tum lanes, two through and one right-turn only lane. With these improvements,the intersection will operate at a V/C of 0.90 in the AM peak hour and at 0.86 in the PM peak hour and the impacts of the Development Plans although not fully mitigated,will be reduced to an acceptable level based on the Traffic Service Objectives adopted by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and included in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan. Even with the mitigation measure outlined above, the AM peak hour V/C ratio remains a significant impact. Freeway Link Impacts While completion of the Gale Ranch II and Windemere projects is expected to add traffic to I-580 and I-680, project traffic is not expected to create a significant impact (see Tables 4.6-6). INTERNAL CIRCULATION This chapter of the report discusses internal circulation issues within the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area. The internal circulation plans within the individual developments, Gale Ranch 2 and Windemere Phase I are discussed first, followed by a discussion of issues common to both developments and areas in which the circulation plans for the two developments are inconsistent with one another. Gale Ranch II Development Plan Internal Street Network The two primary access routes for the project are Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road, each of which is planned as a divided arterial/parkway with three travel lanes and bicycle lanes in each direction. The internal circulation plan which connects to these major arterials includes two collector streets, Silvervine Drive and Monarch Road, which both have 64-foot rights of way, including one travel lane and a bicycle lane in each direction. Monarch Road intersects Dougherty Drive at a four legged intersection with the extension of North Gale Ridge Road. Monarch Drive extends through the development and curves to the south to cross Bollinger Canyon Road in a four-legged intersection. It has a stub end south of Bollinger Canyon Road, but will eventually be extended further into future phases of the project. This extension will curve to the west and connect to the future Dougherty Road extension, requiring a crossing of the West Branch Alamo 4.6-23 s s s ' � ...::.........:.. :Z: .... .......... :� . y:. W ......E 4 d z m. a o s a a a C U o 0 0 0 0 g g g a g ' e e e a a h M `. EX vi m v o 0 C o U o c o o c a 00 opOgoB i 00 N O M P O O z; a 10 h 00 W � 5 • W � 8 8 � 8 8 O O O %0 oD a\0o, ro, N - o .• o o c o o F W z; 10 8 0 0 b b b N m C O C O N '> o $ o 0 8 OC1.; g C7 vOi �o I 8 N N x fl aC >.': > Q n $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 In a a a s p B a a 0: s m g s g 4444d 16 rt W c o 0 00 ...:..: o 04 e z 9 Q a to o s 00o ' �- U 3< o e a: x x a ? u; d F A o v W o C A o ? $ c 00y 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Creek Corridor. Pursuant to Measure C-1988 Growth Management requirements and Congestion Management rquirements, the project will participate in mitigations of regional freeway impacts through the South Contra Costa Regional Traffic Impact Fee. Silvervine Drive, the second collector street, extends from north of Monarch Drive, intersecting Monarch in a four-legged intersection, to south of Bollinger Canyon Road, also intersecting Bollinger Canyon Road in a four-legged intersection. Until such time as the new Dougherty Road is extended south across Bollinger Canyon Road, Silvervine Drive will serve as the interim replacement for Dougherty Road,as it will connect to the existing two-lane Dougherty Road south of the Gale Ranch II development. A small segment of a third collector street, Lilac Ridge Road, is also included in the Gale Ranch II development, although it is an existing street within the Country Club at Gale Ranch development. There is one other four-legged intersection on Bollinger Canyon Road which provides access to two local residential streets, Briaroaks Drive and Stoneleaf Road. There are also two "T" intersections on Bollinger Canyon Road, at Blueheart Drive in Neighborhood 6 and Lupine Way between Neighborhoods 14 and 15. The local residential street intersections on Bollinger Canyon Road will be restricted to right-turn movements. Peak hour turning movements at each of these intersections are shown on Figures 4.6-5 and 4.6-6. The locations where separate turn lanes are required to accommodate projected turn volumes in excess of 150 turns in the peak hour include the following: • Silvervine Drive/Bollinger Canyon Road-northbound left-turn lane and eastbound right-turn only lane. • Monarch Road/Bollinger Canyon Road - southbound right-turn only lane and westbound right-turn only lane. The four major intersections along Bollinger Canyon Road will eventually be signalized to safely accommodate a light rail transit line down the median of Bollinger Canyon Road. ' Until such time as the new Dougherty Road extension is completed,Dougherty Road will intersect Bollinger Canyon Road in a T-intersection configuration. Traffic traveling between that T-intersection and areas south of the Dougherty Valley will have two alternate routes: (1) via ' Bollinger Canyon Road through the Windemere development, or (2) through neighborhoods 11, 12 and 13 in Gale Ranch II via Tamerisk Drive, which connects into the remaining two-lane portion of existing Dougherty Road. The model results indicate that traffic would split roughly evenly between these two routes. This would result in a significant volume of left turns from 4.6-25 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION northbound Tamerisk Drive to westbound Bollinger Canyon (522 in the AM peak and 689 in the PM peak) as well as very high right-turn volumes from eastbound Bollinger Canyon onto southbound Tamerisk Drive (674 in the AM peak and 385 in the PM peak). Traffic Signal Warrants Based on the peak hour planning level traffic signal warrant, traffic signals are warranted at the following locations on Bollinger Canyon Road: • Dougherty Road • Silvervine/Tamerisk • Monarch Road/South Monarch Road As noted earlier, all of the intersections along Bollinger Canyon Road will eventually need to be signalized to accommodate the light rail trains down the median and safely stop vehicular traffic from crossing the tracks. Provision should be made for hard-wire interconnect of the signals along Bollinger Canyon Road so they can be coordinated with one another and the trains. The timing of the installation of the signals should be determined by the County based on a monitoring program of the volumes on Bollinger Canyon Road and side streets to determine when the warrants are met. Fire/Police Traffic Patterns A fire station site is illustrates on the development plan at the southeast corner of Bollinger Canyon Road and Stoneleaf Road. The access to the station is expected to be off of Stoneleaf Road, which will intersect Bollinger Canyon Road in a four-legged intersection, thus accommodating turn movements in all directions for emergency vehicles. Commercial Site Access A 10.7-acre retail commercial site isrovided at the northeast comer r of Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road, extending east along Bollinger Canyon Road to Silvervine Drive. Impact 4.6-3 The potential exists for vehicles travelling to and from Bollinger Canyon Road to block the access to the 10.7-acre commercial site.. This is a significant. impact. Access to commercial center will be provided right-turn-in/right-turn-out driveways on Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road and via a full access intersection on Silvervine Drive. Limiting the driveways on Dougherty,Road and Bollinger Canyon Road to right turns only will reduce the impacts of those driveways on the arterial street network. 4.6-26 .4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The driveway on Silvervine Drive should be located as far away from Bollinger Canyon Road as possible to accommodate left turns into the center from Silvervine and avoid any back ups of traffic to the Bollinger Canyon Road intersection. It would be advisable to provide a wider cross section on the portion of Silvervine Road from the commercial center driveway south to the Bollinger Canyon road intersection to provide a left-turn lane into the center from northbound Silvervine and a left-turn lane onto Bollinger Canyon Road form southbound Silvervine. In the interim years, until the new Dougherty Road is extended south of Bollinger Canyon Road, Silvervine Road may serve as a significant through traffic route and the major access route to this commercial center, if traffic does not choose to use Bollinger Canyon Road all the way through the Windemere development. The Bollinger Canyon Road/Silvervine Drive intersection therefore may have to accommodate more turning movements than the build out analysis forecasts, during those interim years, and should therefore be designed to include left-turn lanes on Silvervine Drive. Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 In order to accommodate these movements, a separate eastbound right-turn only lane will be needed on Bollinger Canyon Road and a double left-tum lane will be needed on northbound Tamerisk at Bollinger Canyon. The intersection will also require signalization to accommodate these turn volumes. Adequate right-of-way should be provided and should include accommodation of left turns from northbound Silvervine to the Shopping Center. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Pedestrian/Bicycle Flow Four to five-foot sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all internal public roadways. Within the higher-density housing areas (i.e., townhomes, apartments, carriage units, courtyard units) there are some 28-foot wide private streets, which will function similar to aisles in parking areas, which will not include sidewalks. In addition to the sidewalk system, there is an extensive off-street pedestrian and bicycle path system proposed which will connect virtually: every neighborhood to the collector and arterial street bicycle lane system, as well as provide alternates to the on-street lanes. In the north-south direction, three pathways will provide off-street circulation options, two combined pedestrian/bicycle paths and one pedestrian only path. The combined paths are located adjacent to Dougherty Road and along the eastern boundary of the development plan area. The off-street pedestrian path is located in the center of the project, generally following the PG&E easement. The east-west pathway system relies more heavily on the on-street pathway system, particularly for bicycle paths. There are no off-street east-west bicycle routes on the circulation 4.6-27 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION plan. However, the on-street lanes on Bollinger Canyon Road and Monarch Road will provide continuous bicycle lanes through the project area in the east-west direction. There are several east-west off-street pedestrian pathways which connect the neighborhoods to one another, to the street system and the north-south pedestrian pathways. The pedestrian and bicycle path system .proposed in the Gale Ranch II development plan provides excellent opportunities for the use of non-motorized transportation to reduce internal vehicle trip production. School Access The Gale Ranch II project is located within the San Ramon Valley School District. The project is located within the attendance areas of the existing Goldenview'Elementary, Pine Valley Intermediate and California High Schools. The development plan includes sites for both an elementary and middle school within the Gale Ranch II development. They will be located across North Gale Ridge Road from one another, just to the west of Dougherty Canyon Road. The timing of construction of the schools within the Gale Ranch II development is not known at this time, so the existing schools may serve Gale Ranch residents for several years until the development is built out and the new schools are justified. A pedestrian and bicycle path is proposed to be provided parallel to Dougherty Road which will facilitate access via non-motorized ' transportation to the new schools as well as to the Golden View Elementary School in the interim. Vehicle access on North Gale Ridge Road and Lilac Ridge Road will be evaluated in the vicinity of the schools and daycare facilities once construction plans for the schools are submitted to the County. California High School is located on Broadmoor Drive, approximately four to five miles from the development plan area. It is expected that most if not all of the students will travel by auto, as either a passenger or driver, to/from the high school. These trips were included in the traffic study projections as they are reflected in the residential unit trip generation rates. The approximate travel time between the development plan area and the high school is 15 minutes. The addition of bicycle lanes on Bollinger Canyon Road will provide the option for some school trips to be made via non-motorized transportation. Windemere Development Plan Internal Street Network The Windemere circulation plan is illustrated on Figure 4.6-5 which shows the overall circulation plan for the major streets in the complete Windemere project, and on Figures 4.6-6 which show the internal circulation plans for Areas A, B and C of the project which are the subject of this 4.6-28 `r?o 4 X75 v C'40 19, 82 585 1w 16 --�i '} mo (0 29 --► 1 u ",� 67� 10 ---4k � d ro (Qu r 0) 1— 18 j� 941 do 1 o R Gale Mene�ch R Ridge R . 507 —► � Ce) (0 � 6' 669 --lk Q0 97 11 2 26 --4 1 t r 598 996 II � ASS. 25 --10- ao o co d 0 0 0 60 — `� f —111. I ! co W�WU, 1 1 -�i� \��\ � / 1 35 --� M o v 1 \` \� •Y [ I �� 62 V�. Z $ 2 �Q) '`>►�� •� X? 0 411 770 LEGEND: _= - FUTURE ROADWAYS EXISTING ROADWAY REMOVED �. ..� PROPOSED FUTURE CONNECTION Figure 4.6-5: Dun sharty AM Peak Hour Volumes (Gale Ranch II + Wxndmere 1) Subsequent EIR Not to Scale J00.02246mp 8127190 f Vy •�.T.,Ia.V� V 13 V) cr 5 64 4 �� �'21 �h 54 -4 96 9 � C') N C:) 62 � p 0 3 ,t_..65 lc- �--725 i 64 o N.Gale ovate ¢ a, R Ridge R \`\ 57 .� •�076 �• 1 t 6411 ti M "� s cry r~ ' 4 ) ) c! o t>7 �t—9 7) .�—.32 87 10,19 138 -410 I t 2 � `�29 i i 79 --1k u) ` 1 CO 11 1 tl\ 1 1 !1 4 0 't 0 / 1 4--0 0. \ < rt if >8 1,34 15 44 119 ~i j 41>9 2 �� % tiI `v o r.�ttiM LEGEND: -= FUTURE ROADWAYS = EXISTING ROADWAY REMOVED w.. PROPOSED FUTURE CONNECTION Figure 4.6-6: PM Peak Hour Volumes (Gale Ranch II + Windmere I) Subsequent RIR Not to Scale J96.022\pmp 827/96 �r � � r � � � � � ar �r a� w i r � � � �■ .�,: : � �� 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION EIR.3 The proposed project includes the extension of Bollinger Canyon Road, from the Gale Ranch II project, through the Windemere development, to a point approximately one half mile south of the development to where it will tie back into the existing Dougherty Road. The on-site cross section for Bollinger Canyon Road includes a 197-foot right of way with two lanes and a bicycle lane in each direction, and the provision for a future light rail line. Initially the light rail ' line was located on the west side of the street in the proposed Preliminary Development Plan,but it has subsequently been moved to the median, as in the Gale Ranch II development area. The ' right-of-way for Bollinger Canyon Road is similar in the Windemere development plan as in the Gale Ranch II plan, but the number of travel lanes is reduced to two in each direction as compared to three in each direction. ' The other major roadway through the Windemere development is Windemere Parkway which will connect through the development between Bollinger Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara. It is proposed to include two lanes in each direction plus bicycle lanes and a landscaped median island. East Branch Road, another arterial connection between Bollinger Canyon Road and Windemere Parkway, will be constructed as part of a future phase of the Windemere project. Impact 4.6-4 Some internal intersections will experience turning movements in excess of 150 vehicles per hour. 1 As art of the Windemere I development,two collector streets are to be developed. One labeled P P � P A Street, will extend east from Bollinger Canyon Road along the northern edge of Area "B" and one, labeled F Street, will extend from Bollinger Canyon Road east through Area "C", crossing Windemere Parkway to intersect with the first collector. There are no collector streets extending through Area"A", only three cul de sacs extending into the multi-family housing areas in Area "A" and a local street, Alamo Creek Road, which will connect the three cul de sacs and the Windemere Village Center. Another collector street is shown on the long-range development plan extending north from A Street into the Gale Ranch II development. This roadway aligns with L Street, south of A Street, but L Street is not shown as a collector within Area B. The collector street extending north to Gale Ranch does not connect to another street within Gale Ranch (it ' would dead end at the project boundary). The Gale Ranch II development plan should be redesigned to include a collector street in Neighborhood 4 or 5 to connect to L Street. This would require a roadway connection across the Main Branch Alamo Creek Corridor. At the southern end of Area A is thero osed Windemere Village Center and South County P P g Community College Campus which will be accessed via two intersections on Bollinger Canyon s Area A is the portion of Windemere I project that is located west of Bollinger Canyon Road; Area B is in the northeast quadrant of the Bollinger Canyon Road/Windemere Parkway intersection; Area C is in the southeast quadrant of the Bollinger Canyon Road/Windemere Parkway intersection. ' 4.6-33 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Road. The northern access point, a "T" intersection, will serve as the primary access for the commercial area of the Village and the Village 2 multi-family apartment area to the north. It will also serve as an access point to the Community College. The southern access point will initially ' be a "T" intersection, but will eventually be a four-legged intersection when East Branch Parkway is developed. It will serve primarily as a college access point. The development plan for Phase 1 includes five four-legged intersections which will serve as P P � primary access points where left-turn movements to the arterial street network will be accommodated. These include three intersections on Bollinger Canyon Road at A Street, Windemere Canyon Road and F Street, and two locations on Windemere Parkway, at L Street and F Street. There are also two "T" intersections on Bollinger.Canyon Road serving the Village , Center/Community College. The peak hour turning movements at each of these locations are illustrated in Figure 4.6-7. Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 The locations where separate turn lanes are required to accommodate projected turn volumes in excess of 150 turns in the peak hour include the following: • Cul de sac opposite Windemere Parkway—ane eastbound left-turn lane and one through/right-turn lane. • Village Center northern access Road--two eastbound left-turn lanes and one eastbound right-tum lane. • Village Center southern access road—one eastbound left-tum lane and one eastbound right-turn lane. This mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant. g P g Impact 4.6-5 The Specific Plan revisions do not specify an overall configuration of the collector road system to reduce reliance on arterial intersections for internal circulation and improve access to transit and other amenities in the Specific Plan.area. This is a ' significant impact. Such an action was included in 1994 EIR Mitigation Measure 6.16 to reduce cumulative traffic ' impacts on the operation of Dougherty Road/Bollinger Canyon Road. The collector roadways in the Development Plans conflict. The 1992 and 1994 EIRs include other mitigation measures that would benefit from a comprehensive collector road system. These are Mitigation Measures 6.5b ' and 7.17 from the 1992 EIR, and Mitigation Measure 13.9 from the 1994 EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.5b relies more heavily on a collector road system to achieve efficient bus ' routing and adequate household coverage given the reallocation of densities compared to the 4.6-34 ' 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION ' original Specific Plan. Furthermore, active recreational areas in the creek corridor are limited to one side of the creek. However, the Development Plans do not specify provisions to access these ' active areas for development on the non-active side of the corridor. Promotion of access and visibility to the linear creek corridors from surrounding areas is encouraged in Specific Plan Policy OSC-12. This is an impact of the Development Plans and the Specific Plan General Plan amendment. ' Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 Implement the following revisions to the Specific Plan and modify the Development Plans to ensure consistency with these revisions: ' Revise Specific Plan Policy C-1 to delete the specification that collector streets loop back into their respective neighborhood to deter large volumes through residential areas. Existing language in C-1 to discourage direct residential access onto collector streets and the roadway design provisions of Policy C-2 for local streets will maintain consistency with policies to discourage high volumes of traffic using local streets at high speeds. These potential Specific Plan revision would be consistent with the General Plan circulation element policies. • Revise Figure 8 of the Specific Plan to include collectors. The layout of the collector roads shall ensure that 80 percent of the housing in Dougherty Valley shall be located within one quarter mile of a designated transit route consistent with Specific Plan Policy C-S, Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measures 6.5b and 7.17 from the 1992 EIR, and Mitigation Measure 13.9 from the 1994 EIR The layout of collector roads shall promote public access and visibility to the linear creek ' corridors from surrounding areas consistent with Specific Plan Policy OSC-12. Extension of collector road across a designated creek corridor, such as "L" Street between "C" Street in Windemere I to Monarch Road in Gale Ranch II, shall ' include design features to reduce the visual impacts of the crossing on the creek corridor, consistent with Mitigation Measure 11.4 of the 1994 EIR Such features are include use of bridge structure instead of culverts or extensive fill in the creek corridor, design features to retain, contour, grade, drain and revegetate the bridge abutment areas, and the use of surface texture and colors in the bridge design that are consistent with the Dougherty Valley Community Design Handbook. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant ' level. 4.6-35 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION ' Traffic Signal Warrants , Traffic signal warrants are used to evaluate the need for traffic signals at street intersections. ' There are a number of warrants that are intended for use at existing intersections where accurate data can be obtained. There are also peak hour warrants to assist in evaluating the need for signalization at future locations where traffic data must be estimated. These peak hour warrants were used to evaluate study intersections. Impact 4.6-6 Internal circulation in Area A is substandard and inconsistent with the Dougherty , Valley Specific Plan's overall urban form. This is a significant impact. Area A includes a residential area 1,285 multi-family housing units, the Windemere portion of the ' Dougherty Valley Village Center, and the College Campus site. Access to Area A is via Bollinger Canyon Road which delivers motorists to three cul-de-sacs that vary from 400 to about 700 feet in length. Access to Villages 2 through 6 is provided by the cul-de-sac opposite "F' Street via a ' 36-foot wide local street, Alamo Creek Road, which dead ends at a driveway to Village 6 to the north,terminates at a driveway/access road at Village 2 and the College Campus site to the south. There are no collector roads in Area A. Primary vehicular access for the 318-unit Village 2 and ' the north side of the College Campus is via a driveway connecting to Bollinger Canyon Road. There is no clear organizational framework for internal vehicular circulation in the area as called , for in Dougherty Valley Specific Plan policy CD-1. This is an impact of the Development Plan and the Specific Plan General Plan amendment. Mitigation Measure 4.6-6 In conjunction with Mitigation Measure 4.6-4, modify the internal circulation of Area A by , upgrading Alamo Creek Road to collector street standard and connecting this road to the termini of the proposed cul-de-sacs and extending it southerly between Village 2 and the College Campus site to Bollinger Canyon Road. The collector street will be designed in a manner consistent with Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Policy C-2, by providing features to reduce high-speed through-traffic. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. ' Impact 4.6-7 Safety hazards and potential reduced utility of the transit right-of-way due to potential conflicts between auto traffic and transit vehicles at intersections.on the ' transit right-of-way. This is a significant impact. 1 4.6-36 ' ' 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION ' The Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Maps do not specify the configuration of intersections along the mass transit right-of-way. The Specific Plan and County standards do not provide guidelines for such design. Specific Plan Policy C-5 proposes completion of a Dougherty Valley Rail Study to determine the appropriate placement of the rail system within Dougherty Valley. The intent of the last sentence in Policy C-5 is unclear since the Specific Plan has been prepared with the determination that the appropriate placement of rail within the Dougherty Valley is along Bollinger Canyon Road. Furthermore, the policy does not address the near-term ' need to develop intersection designs that will not unnecessarily constrain future use of the transit right-of-way by transit vehicles and reduce the utility of the right-of-way for mass transit use. No designs or County standards have been prepared for the ultimate configuration of intersections along Bollinger Canyon Road that accommodate auto traffic and use of the transit right-of-way. Bollinger Canyon Road needs to be designed to accommodate significant auto volumes at intersections crossing the right-of-way safely while avoiding potential costly revisions to intersections once a rail transit system is implemented. This is an impact of the Development Plans and the Specific Plan General Plan amendment. Mitigation Measure 4.6-7 Delete the first sentence in Policy C-5, and add a statement requiring that, prior to the extension of Bollinger Canyon Road, engineering studies be completed for this facility to ensure it will be constructed to accommodate both its initial use by auto traffic volumes and its future use by rail transit in a cost-effective manner. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. ImPact 4.6-8 The ten intersections along Bollinger Canyon Road will eventually have to be ' signalized to accommodate the movement of light rail trains down the median. This is a significant impact. The timing of the installation of the signals at other locations should be determined by County staff based on the monitoring of travel volumes. The signal locations along Bollinger Canyon Road through the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II project area should be interconnected when the roadway is constructed to facilitate signal coordination of all of the eventual signals. Mitigation Measure ' 4.6-8 Based on the peak hour planning level traffic signal warrants, traffic signals should be installed at the following locations along Bollinger Canyon Road as part of the development ' plans: 4.6-37 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCUI ATION, ' • Windemere Parkway; • Village Center north access road; • Existing Dougherty Road (south of Windemere project); • Dougherty Road, • Silvervine/Tamerisk, ' • Monarch Road/South Monarch Road. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant ' level. Signalization of minor intersections shall be evaluated to determine if adequate signal spacing is ' maintained along Bollinger Canyon Road. Impact 4.6-9 Reduced likelihood of implementation of rail transit due to opposition from adjacent , residences and property owners who may oppose a change in conditions in the Specific Plan area to allow construction of a mass transit system. This is a significant impact. Implementation of a mass transit system along the right-of-way will not occur until long after adjacent parcels are occupied by residents and businesses. Implementation of this mass transit system would have its own environmental review process. However,these residents and businesses may be unaware that the median of Bollinger Canyon Road is dedicated for eventual use by a mass transit system at the time they selected their residence or business location,which may result in their opposition to any change in future conditions to allow use of the right-of-way for mass transit. This is an impact of the Development Plans and the Specific Plan General Plan amendment. Mitigation Measure i 4.6-9 Require the project proponent to install adequate public signage of the right-of-way through the Specific Plan area as a future mass transit corridor, and an advisory disclosure statement should recorded on all deeds and rental contracts/agreements within 1/4 mile of the right-of-way that discloses the future use of the right-of-way for the operation of a mass transit system. ' With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant ' level. t 4.6-38 ' ' 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Fire/Police Traffic Patterns A Police substation is proposed within the Windemere Village Center. This substation will improve police response time to both the Windemere and Gale Ranch developments. The Specific Plan calls for a fire station in the Windemere Village Center, but the proposed fire station in the Gale Ranch II development at the southeast corner of Stoneleaf Road and Bollinger Canyon Road will be within approximately one mile of the center of the Windemere development. ' Contra Costa County General Plan policies 7-62 and 7-63 that state that all urban/suburban areas should be within 1.5 miles or five minutes response time of a fire station. Mitigation Measure 4.1- 3 in this EIR will ensure consistency with the General Plan policies. ' Commercial Site Access There are two commercial sites within the Windemere I development plan area, a 1.3-acre commercial site adjacent to Village 8 at the northeast corner of the Windemere Parkway/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection, and the Village Center at the southern end of Area A. The smaller , ' commercial site will be accessed off of the cul de sac which is the extension of Windemere Parkway across Bollinger Canyon Road. A specific site plan for the commercial area has not been developed, but it should include driveways as far removed from the Bollinger Canyon Road 1 intersection as possible, preferably a minimum of 250 feet. Impact 4.6-10 The potential exists for vehicles travelling to and from Bollinger Canyon Road to block the access to the 1.3-acre commercial site. This is a significant impact. iMitigation Measure 4.6-10 A site plan for the commercial area has not been developed. The site plan, when submitted, should place access driveways on the Windemere Parkway extension a minimum of 250 feet from the Bollinger Canyon Road intersection. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. ' Pedestrian/Bicycle Flow The Windemere Circulation and Trail Plan includes on-street bicycle lanes on Bollinger Canyon ' Road and Windemere Parkway. The Phase 1 development also includes off-street pedestrian and bicycle trails within the Creek Corridor Park, extending along the east and south sides of Areas B and C, and along the west side of Area A. Within Area A, a linear park system is also proposed extending from the Village Center to the north end of Area A between the multi-family villages. 4.6-39 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION School Access The Windemere project is located within the San Ramon Valley School District. The project is ' located within the attendance areas of the existing Goldenview Elementary, Pine Valley Intermediate and California High Schools. An elementary school site is proposed in the Windemere development at the eastern end of Area B. This will allow elementary school children from the Windemere Phase 1 development plan area to walk or bicycle to school, or be dropped off in a short vehicle trip. The nearest middle school will be located on North Gale Ridge Road, just to the west of ' Dougherty Canyon Road, within the Gale Ranch II development . The timing of construction of the schools within the Windemere and Gale Ranch II developments is not known at this time, so I the existing schools may serve Windemere residents for several years until the development is built out and the new schools are justified. Pedestrian and bicycle paths proposed on Bollinger canyon ' Road and parallel to Dougherty Road will facilitate access via non-motorized transportation to the new middle school as well as to the Golden View Elementary School in the interim. It is likely however, that most Windemere students would be driven to the existing schools, due to ,their distance from the Windemere development,and would only shift to non-motorized transportation ' when the elementary school is built within Area B of the Windemere project and/or the middle school is built within Gale Ranch II. , California High School is located on Broadmoor Drive, approximately five to six miles from the development plan area. It is expected that most if not all of the students will travel by auto, as either a passenger or driver,to/from the high school. These trips were included in the traffic study projections as they are reflected in the residential unit trip generation rates. The approximate travel time between the development plan area and the high school is 15 minutes. The addition of bicycle lanes on Bollinger Canyon Road will provide the option for some school trips to be made via non-motorized transportation. Village Center/Community College Traffic The Windemere Village Center and South County Community College Campus will be located on the west side of Bollinger Canyon Road at the southern end of the Windemere I development. The combined facilities will have two primary access points which will accommodate left and right turns into/out of the site. The southern access point will be aligned with the future East Branch , Parkway intersection on Bollinger Canyon Road. The northern access point will be a T- intersection. ' Figures 4.6-7 illustrates the AM and PM peak hour turn movements at the two access points in 2010 with the PDP land use, and assuming enrollment at the community college of 5,000 students. , The build-out estimate of enrollment of 8,400 students would not be attained until 2015. The 4.6-40 ' � O N Cn 1 -�1 249 -j( r 110 VILLAGE CENTER M O ro &COMMUNITY COLLEGE M -Ali 89 '�`b�nr"' � ST gRq�Cy pgRkW 2010 AM WITH PDP O N V �p -�1 479 ---4 166 � r �OV VILLAGE CENTER CV) &COMMUNITY COLLEGE ^C hN 149 197 ��vRF�gsTe '�Moi Kbl'q Y 2010 PM WITH PDP Figure 4.6-7: Dem o Lanty n X77^� PDP Traffic Volumes at V !� ° Subsequent EIR Village Center Not to Scale J96-022WPW 9/18196 4.6-41 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION turning volumes illustrate that the northern access point will be more heavily utilized, at least until such time as East Branch Parkway is constructed. The heavy left-tum volume out of the northern driveway would warrant the widening of the exit to include a separate right-turn lane and two left ' turn lanes. The heavy volume of right turns from Bollinger Canyon Road into the northern driveway in the PM peak hour would warrant a right-turn only deceleration lane in advance of that driveway. Both driveways would operate at below the County's threshold of significance if , signalized. Impact 4.6-11 The design of the northern intersection to the College Campus is substandard. , This is a significant impact. The heavy left-turn volume out of the northern driveway would warrant the widening of the exit ' to include a separate right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes. The heavy volume of right turns from Bollinger Canyon Road into the northern driveway in the PM peak hour would warrant a right- ' turn only deceleration lane in advance of that driveway. Both driveways would operate at below the County's threshold of significance if signalized. This is also an impact of the Development Plan and the Specific Plan General Plan Amendment. ' Mitigation Measure 4.6-I1 In conjunction with Mitigation Measure 4.6-5, design the Windemere portion of the Village Center shall include. • A deceleration lane for the right turns in advance of that intersection at the northern intersection to the College Campus. • Install signals at the northern and southern intersections to the Village CenterlCollege Campus. • Specification of vehicular circulation in the Master Plan for the Village Center. With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant ' level. Transit Services Proposed in Previous EIRs The 1992 Traffic Analysis included three broad recommendations for improved transit services in the project area: ' 1. A rail system in I-680 and I-580 corridors should connect to the BART system at the future East Dublin station and at the existing Pleasant Hill station. ' 2. Feeder bus service should be provided to key rail junctions. 3. Expanded local bus service should be provided across the jurisdictional boundaries of CCCTA , and LAVTA. 4.6-42 ' 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The 1994 EIR prepared by the Country Club at Gale Ranch partially defined these general recommendations by proposing a four-route bus system to serve the project area, including three local routes and one express route. These routes as originally proposed appear in Figure 4.6-8. Local routes A, B and D were proposed to operate between the East Dublin BART station and Bishop Ranch Business Park located east of I-680 between Bollinger Canyon and Crow Canyon Road. Route A would operate via Bollinger Canyon and Dougherty; Route B via Crow Canyon and Dougherty; and Route D via Bollinger Canyon, Windemere Parkway and Tassajara Road. The express Route C would connect East Dublin BART and Walnut Creek BART via Bollinger Canyon, Dougherty and I-680. Future Demand for Transit Service Although adopted mitigation measures require effective transit service to meet future demand, nevertheless patronage expectations appear to be overestimated in the 1994 EIR. Based on the ' patronage and service level estimates suggested in the document, average service productivity (measured in terms of passengers per revenue vehicle hour) for the four-route network is calculated at 27.9 passengers per hour. This level is 80%higher than actual CCCTA's system-wide service productivity as reported in the 1993 National Transit Database statistics, and nearly 148% higher than LAVTA's reported productivity. To generate a more reasonable estimate of transit trips, peak one-hour trips forecast by Meyer Mohaddes Associates using its Traffix model were disaggregated by land use zone and factored to produce trip estimates for a 4-hour peak period(6:00 am - 8:00 am, 4:30 pm -6:30 pm), 16-hour service day (5:00 am - 9:00 pm), and 24-hour weekday. The results of this exercise are shown on Table 4.6-1. Next, transit mode split estimates were applied to each of the defined land use categories. As shown on Table 4.6-5, the peak period mode share for transit ranges from 1.5 percent to six percent during peak hours, and from one percent to five percent during off-peak hours. These estimates are consistent with transit industry norms and CCCfA operating ' experiences in communities such as Danville, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. Cumulative transit ridership is estimated at 495,250 one-way trips annually. Bollinger Canyon Road Transit Right-of-Way A recommendation for a San Ramon Valley light rail transit (LRT) line was included in the 1993 ' Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. The conceptual LRT alignment approaches the project area from the north through Alamo and Danville, and turns east into the project area. The corridor includes the proposed Bollinger Canyon extension east of Canyon Lakes south to Dougherty Road, and ' Dougherty Road south to the East Dublin BART station and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. 4.6-43 STpNF vA44s"RD i' To Walnut Creek ' BART Q� m Et�CKHgWK RD SSG JpO�ppO CqM/ o Np r -71 .cl O�mm lgSSgJqRq _ Op �O7`.'``Y�2 O 5 gNyO 2 �;:Z RD. r.<m � s9B�L � aK/WyFMFnF - - .CRp'GOsp/ N/. \ o Y GONME PG 680 OLD � 0 ----- 9O RANCH \ y RD. - 8m rLR Ix �G� y pOH J0 r Z I o o OJ 580 a� DUBLIN CYN.RD. STONERS GE DR. LEGEND: EXISTING ROAD g��o' z ---- FUTURE ROAD pS�sP $ ' ROUTE A o �.� e y ROUTE B s 0 Qy9R o -- ROUTE C EXPRESS ROUTE D ° ' IM(MMFigure 4.&8: , SON� � Dougherty Valley Bus Routes II Subsequent EIR as Proposed in 1994 EIR Not to Scale J9&022\br94 828/96 ' 4.6-44 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The 1994 EIR Traffic Analysis contained a mitigation measure stating "the project proponent shall reserve right-of-way along Bollinger Canyon through the project for the exclusive use of transit vehicles" ' The planned right-of-way set aside for Bollinger Canyon Road west of Dougherty Road and for the southern section of Dougherty Road is 186 feet, including 61 feet for the transit corridor. On Bollinger Canyon east of Dougherty Road to Alamo Creek, total planned right-of-way of 197 feet. The corridor within the project area is approximately five miles long. ' Impact 4.6-12 The proposed development will create a demand for transit services in an area not currently served by available bus or rail routes. This is a significant impact. The 1994 EIR did not define the relationship between the Bollinger Canyon corridor and proposed future transit service. As a practical matter, construction of a light rail line in the San Ramon Valley will be largely dependent on multi-jurisdictional coordination and external funding sources. The following mitigation measures should be incorporated within each phase of the multi-phase Dougherty Valley Development. Mitigation Measures ' 4.6-12(a) Provide bus stop improvements at bus stop locations identified on Table 4.6-7. Bus stops would be equipped with shelters, benches, information kiosks Major bus stops should be additionally equipped with bicycle storage racks and public telephones consistent with community design criteria. Waiting areas would be set back from the traffic lane to minimize noise and pollution. The County should condition the project proponent to contribute toward the implementation of this measure. The Project's participation in this mitigation measure should be based on its proportionate share of the impact. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department ' would be responsible for implementing this measure when this facility is functioning at its threshold of significance. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for monitoring the success of this mitigation measure. 4.6-12(b) Integrate bus stops on Bollinger Canyon Road with the planned Village Center design ' concepts. The design of the Village Center and community college site would be configured to minimize pedestrian distance between buildings and the bus stops. The bulk of the 1,400 ' planned parking spaces would be relocated to the west side of the planned development behind retail, office, community facilities and community college buildings. Unobstructed pedestrian and bicycle access between the bus stops and the planned buildings would be ' provided. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for implementing this measure when this facility ' 4.6-45 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-7 ' PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LOCATIONS TO THE BUS STOPS I Gale Ranch, Phase 2 , A. Bollinger Canyon Road, north side (westbound) 1. intersection at Dougherty (east side) r 2.* mid-block at 10.7-acre retail commercial site 3. intersection at Silvervine Drive(west side) ' 4. mid-block between Silvervine Drive and Briar Oaks Drive 5.* 1,000-foot east of Briar Oaks Drive 6. planned pedestrian path 1,200-foot west of Monarch Road 7. intersection at Monarch Road (west side) ' 8. planned pedestrian path from Asterbell Place 9. 750 feet west of Blueheart Drive 10. intersection at Blueheart Drive (west side) B. Bollinger Canyon Road, south side (eastbound) ' 1.* 750 feet east of Dougherty 2. intersection at Tamerisk (east side) 3. 600 feet east of Tamerisk 4.* center of planned greenbelt park-ride lot 5. intersection of Cedarbell Road at Jensen Way to Bollinger Canyon 6. intersection of Wineberry Place at Jensen Way.to Bollinger Canyon ' 7. intersection at Lupin Way(east side) 8. mid-block between Lupin Way and South Monarch Road 9. intersection at South Monarch Road (west side) II Windemere Phase 1 ' A. Bollinger Canyon, west side (southbound) 1. 400-foot north of planned cul-de-sac between MF villages 8 and 9 2. planned cul-de-sac between MF villages 8 and 9 (opposite A Street) 3. 400-foot south of planned cul-de-sac between MF villages 8 and 9 4.* planned cul-de-sac at parcel K(1.4 acres commercial) opposite Windemere Parkway ' 5. 650 feet south of planned cul-de-sac at parcel K 6. planned cul-de-sac south of MF village 7 7. 600 feet south of planned cul-de-sac south of MF village 7 8.* planned cul-de-sac between MF village 7 and parcel B (21.2 acres village center) 9. 600 feet south of planned cul-de-sac between MF village 7 and parcel B 10. southern boundary of parcel B B. Bollinger Canyon, east side (northboundl 1. planned roadway south of MF village 19 2. 300 feet south of Windemere Parkway 3.* intersection at Windemere Parkway (north side) 4. planned pedestrian path 300 feet north of intersection at Windemere Parkway 5. planned roadway north of village 10 (south side) 4.6-46 , 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-7 continued C. Windemere Parkway, south side (eastbound) 1. 600 feet east of Windemere Parkway 2. intersection at "L"Street (east side) 3. mid-block between ME' Court and "00" Court 4.* intersection at "F' Street (west side) 5. at "VV" Court D. Windemere Parkway, north side (westbound) ' 1. opposite "VV" Court near boundary of parcel "U" (school/park) and parcel "V" (corridor park) 2.* intersection at "F' Street (west side) 3. 600 feet west of intersection at "F'Street 4. intersection at "L" Street (west side) ' 5. 500 feet west of intersection at "L"Street 6. 200 feet east of intersection at Bollinger Canyon Road ' * = Major bus stops. is functioning at its threshold of significance. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for monitoring the success of this mitigation measure. 4.6-12(c) Integrate bus stops and planned middle and high school design concepts. The design of the planned high school and two middle school sites would be configured to minimize pedestrian distance between buildings on the planned sites and adjacent bus stops. Unobstructed pedestrian and bicycle access between the bus stop and the planned buildings ' would be provided. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for implementing this measure when ' this facility is functioning at its threshold of significance. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for monitoring the success of this mitigation measure. 4.6-12(d) Designate pedestrian and bicycle routes to the bus stops within the project area. The design of the planned arterial and collector street network within the project area would incorporate a network of sidewalks and Class I, II and III bicycle facilities that minimize the distance between residential neighborhoods and the bus route. The design would include non- vehicular paths between subdivision streets and cul-de-sacs as necessary to assure that 80 percent or more of the residents within the project area are within one-quarter mile walking distance from a bus route. The County should condition the project proponent to contribute toward the implementation of this measure. The Project's participation in this ' mitigation measure should be based on its proportionate share of the impact. The Contra 4.67 4.6 TRAFFICCIRCULATION Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department ' would be responsible for implementing this measure at the Development Plan review stage of the project. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for monitoring the success of this mitigation measure. 4.6-12(e) Integrate local transit service with h BART and CCCTA routes serving Walnut Creek significant impact. ' With the mitigation measures outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. ' Future express bus service would be coordinated with, and.supplement as appropriate the existing services operating in the I-680 corridor to northerly destinations in Central Contra Costa County. ' /The County should condition the project proponent to contribute toward the implementation of this measure. The Project's participation in this mitigation measure should be based on its proportionate share of the impact. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible ,for implementing this measure when this facility is functioning at its threshold of significance. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for monitoring the success of this mitigation measure. Park-Ride Lots ' The 1992 EIR recommended that park-ride lots be constructed within the project area to promote ridesharing by project residents. , Impact 4.6-13 Specific locations and parking capacities were not provided in the Windemere ' Project. This is a significant impact. Mitigation Measure ' 4.6-13 A total of 300 parking spaces should be provided within the project for park-ride access Designated park-ride spaces would be located in a number of mixed use parking areas in proximity to commercial development situated along Bollinger Canyon. Locations would ' minimally include the following: planned commercial land uses northeast of the northern intersection of Bollinger Canyon and Dougherty; on the west side of the intersection of Bollinger Canyon and lindemere Parkway, and in conjunction with planned parking facilities at the high school and the Village Center. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for implementing this measure when this facility is functioning at its threshold of significance. • 4.6-48 ' ' 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION tThe Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Public Works Department would be responsible for monitoring the success of this mitigation measure ('92 EIR Mitigation Measure 6.6b). With the mitigation measures outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Trip Reduction/Demand Management Strategies ' In terms of external commute trips, carpooling offers the best likelihood of reducing the number of vehicle trips on the arterial approaches to I-680. ImPact 4.6-14 The project traffic will impact project intersections and intersections and roadways outside of the project area. This is a significant impact. The 1992 Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment EIR required participation in programs ' designed to reduce project trips. Mitigation Measure 4.6-14 As part of the proposed PDP project the project proponent should be required to work with CCCTA and BART to provide transit service to Dougherty Valley, as a minimum, to major activity centers such as Hacienda Business Park, Stoneridge Mall, Bishop Ranch, etc. ('92 EIR Mitigation Measure 6.6a). Trip reduction measures should also be implemented for the Village Center and the High School site. Measures to reduce the number of single occupant trips may include preferential parking for carpools,provision of convenient access for transit (see mitigation 4.6-7a through 7e), bicycle storage facilities and provisions for telecommuting facilities With the mitigation measure outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. ' FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ' Land Use/Trip Generation The traffic forecasts prepared for the project reflect anticipated population and employment in 2010 both within the project site as well as elsewhere within the Bay Area. The TVTM uses this information to predict the number of trips produced in and how many will be attracted to each traffic analysis zone(TAZ). The model uses several trip types to develop these estimates. Home- Based Work (HBW) and other types of trips generated by the proposed full development (11,000 ' dwelling units) within the Dougherty Valley are summarized in Table 4.6-8. 4.6-49 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION ' Table 4.6-8 ' 2010 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Trip Type Daly Daly AM;Peak PM . . . HI3W % Other Nqur Hour Productions 13,407 39,184 3,515 3,333 Attractions 4,681 36,361 2,688 4,392 HBW = Home Based Work. ' Other = Home Based Shopping/Other/Home Based Social/Recreation, Non Home Based, Home Based School. Future Road Improvements , The General Plan Amendment includes the extension of Bollinger Canyon Road to the east of Dougherty Drive through the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I developments. It curves to the south and eventually rejoins Dougherty Road, south of the Windemere project. A new roadway, , Windemere Parkway,will extend east from Bollinger Canyon Road, curving to the south and then east to Camino Tassajara. East Branch Road will provide an additional east-west connection between Bollinger Canyon Road and Windemere Parkway in the southern portion of the ' Windemere development and will intersect Bollinger Canyon Road at the site of the proposed ' Village Center and Community College. The realignments of"Windemere Parkway and East Branch Road are key components of the General Plan Amendment. The general alignments of these future roadways are illustrated in Figure 4.6-5 which also indicates the number of lanes to be implemented on each roadway in the years 2000 and 2010. Other internal circulation roadways will also be provided within each development and are discussed in detail later in this section of the EIR. ' 2010 General Plan Condition Impacts (Cumulative) Impact 4.6-15 The proposed project will impact study intersections expected to exceed the ' established LOS standard. This is a significant impact. The following traffic improvements are modifications to mitigation measures previously identified ' in 1992 General Plan Amendment EIR. The project will contribute to the traffic demand at study intersections. The modifications were prepared in consultation with affected jurisdictions and are consistent with the Settlement Agreement for the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment prepared by the County, San Ramon, Danville and the project proponents in May 1994. Some of the intersections are expected to exceed the established LOS standard unless mitigation is ' 4.6-50 , ' 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION provided. The project will be expected to contribute its fair share of the cost of these improvements. These improvements include those required under the PDP Build Scenario. Mitigation Measures ' 4.6-15(a) Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road intersection improvements. Within existing curb-to-curb pavement section, reconfigure northbound approach (Crow Canyon Road) to provide two left-turn lanes, one exclusive right-turn lane. On Tassajara Ranch ' Drive, remove median and add bike lanes. 4.6-I5(b) Sycamore Valley Road/I-680 northbound on-ramp/Camino Ramon intersection improvements. Reconfigure westbound approach (Sycamore Valley Road) to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, one exclusive through lane, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right- turn lane. 4.6-15(c) Crow Canyon Road/DougheMYRoad intersection improvements. Reconfigure eastbound approach (Crow Canyon Road) to provide three exclusive through lanes, and one 'free" right-turn lane to southbound Dougherty Road. Reconstruct southbound Dougherty Road, south of Crow Canyon Road, to provide dedicated curb lane to accept right turns from 1 eastbound Crow Canyon Road. 4.6-15(d) Bollinger Canyon Road/Camino Ramon intersection improvements. If needed, reconfigure ' southbound approach (Camino Ramon)to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. 4.6-I5(e) Bollinger Canyon Road/Alcosta Boulevard intersection improvements. Reconfigure eastbound approach (Bollinger Canyon Road) to provide one exclusive left-tum lane, three exclusive ' through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Reconfigure westbound approach (Bollinger Canyon Road) to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, three exclusive through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Widen Bollinger Canyon Road, east of Alcosta Boulevard, to provide three.through lanes, plus turn lanes as needed, in eastbound and westbound directions from Alcosta Blvd. to project limits Construct traffic signal at Canyon Lakes Drive. 4.6-I5(o Dougherty Road, re-alignment and construction of a six-lane facility between the northerly project limits and Crow Canyon Road. 4.6-I5(g) Windemere Parkway, construction of a new four-lane, divided arterial facility between the project limits and Camino Tassajara Road. Intersection improvements at the Wndemere 1 Parkway/Camino Tassajara intersection which include a traffic signal, left-turn 4.6-51 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION ' channelization, and transition tapers from six to four lanes on Camino Tassajara north of the intersection. 4.6-I5(h) Windemere Parkway/Camino Tassajara Road intersection improvements, provide left-tum channelization, a four phase traffic signal, and tapers on a Camino Tassajara to transition from six to four lanes north of the intersection. , 4.6-15(1) Crow Canyon Road, widen to six lanes between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Ranch Road. ' 4.6-156) Crow Canyon Road, widen to six lanes from Alcosta Boulevard to Dougherty Road. 4.6-15(k) Dougherty Road widen to six lanes from southerly limits of development to Old Ranch Road. Intersection improvements at the Dougherty Road/Old Ranch Road intersection are included and consist of a traffic signal, left-turn pockets, and right-turn pockets. 4.6-15(1) Dougherty Road, widen to six lanes from Old Ranch.Road to the County line. 4.6-15(m) Dougherty Road/Old Ranch Road, intersection improvements to accommodate four lanes on Old Ranch Road and six lanes on Dougherty Road, with left-turn and right-turn channelization. Install a traffic signal. 4.6-15(n) Alcosta Blvd.101d Ranch Road intersection improvements (Currently, controlled by a three- ' way stop sign). Install a traffic signal. r 4.6-15(0) Bollinger Canyon Road, construct eight lanes from I-680 to Alcosta. 4.6-15(p) Camino Tassajara Road, widen from two to six lanes between Wcndemere Parkway and the ' County line. 4.6-15(q) Camino Tassajara/Sycamore valley Road intersection improvements, widen/restripe ' southbound leg for one left turn/right-turn lane and one left-tum lane. 4.6-15(r) Crow Canyon Road, widen from six to eight lanes from I-680 to Alcosta.. } 4.6-15(s) I-680 northbound off ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection improvements. On northbound leg, widen right-turn radius, construct raised island to convert curb right-turn ' lane to a free right-turn lane, restripe second right-tum lane to stay under signal control, and modify signal control. 4.6-52 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 4.6-15(t) Alcosta/Crow Canyon Road intersection improvements. Add exclusive right-turn eastbound 4.6-15(u) Alcosta/Crow Canyon Road intersection improvements. Add one northbound exclusive right- turn lane. 4.6-15(v) Camino Ramon/Crow Canyon Road intersection improvements. Widen/restripe southbound approach to one right-tum, one through lane, and one left-turn lane; add an eastbound exclusive right-tum lane. 4.6-15(w) Camino Ramon/Crow Canyon Road intersection improvements. Intersection will be congested due to queues from adjacent intersections Add another right-turn lane on northbound off-ramp. 4.6-15(x) I-680 southbound ramps/Crow Canyon Road. Restripe to revise existing right-turn lane to provide shared right/left lane. 4.6-15(y) Bollinger Canyon Road/Sunset Drive intersection improvements. If needed, reconfigure southbound approach (Sunset Drive) to provide one exclusive left-tum lane, one exclusive through lane, and one 'free" right-tum lane to westbound Bollinger Canyon Road Widen Bollinger Canyon Road, west of Sunset Drive, to provide dedicated curb lane to accept right turns from southbound Sunset Drive With the mitigation measures outlined above the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. These traffic improvements have been included in the TVTM network to prepare the forecasts for the General Plan Amendment. The model was used to prepare 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic forecasts with the General Plan Amendment. This approach is consistent with the procedures for evaluating the transportation impacts of the General Plan Amendment described in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan. Intersection Levels of Service Table 4.6-9 illustrates the future conditions with the General Plan Amendment in the year 2010 at the 25 study intersections. The levels of service at each intersection are compared to existing conditions and as noted above were calculated based on the assumption that all of the traffic improvements previously identified would be implemented. The detailed LOS calculations are contained in Appendix D to the EIR. r, 4.6-53 r 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Based on the 0.89 V/C ratio threshold for identification of significant impacts, the General Plan Amendment would result in impacts at two of the study intersections: • Camino Ramon/Bollinger Canyon Road.(V/C = 0.91 in AM peak hour). • Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road (V/C = 0.91 in PM peak hour). At both of these locations the V/C ratio with the General Plan Amendment will be 0.91, which exceeds the threshold of significance criteria for intersection impacts. The City of San Ramon does not support further increases in capacity at these locations. To achieve other objectives, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors agreed to accept a V/C ratio of up to 0.91 at these locations. This V/C ratio is consistent with the Settlement Agreement and the CCCTA's growth management program. The County must adopt findings of overriding considerations for these two impacts because the Settlement Agreement determined this LOS to be acceptable for other non- environmental grounds. Freeway Link Impacts While completion of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan is expected to add traffic to I-580 and I- 680, project traffic is not expected to create a significant impact (see Table 4.6-10). Pursuant to Measure C-1988 Growth Management requirements and Congestion Management requrements, the project will praticipate in mitigating regional freeway impacts through the South Contra Costa Regional Traffic Impact Fee. �1 4.6-54 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2010 LEVEL OF SERVICE Exashng Mitigated GPA Node;. Study Intersection _ Penod V/C LOS . V/C LOS 1 8252 Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.50 A 0.48 A PM 0.42 A 0.21 A 2 8258 Blackhawk Road/Camino Tassajara Road AM 0.51 A 0.75 C PM 0.52 A 0.69 B 3 9146 I-680 NB On-Ramp/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.80 C 0.80 D PM 0.56 A 0.77 C 4 8250 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Sycamore Valley Road AM 0.40 A 0.40 A PM 0.49 A 0.42 A 5 1760 San Ramon Valley Road/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.49 A 0.58 A PM 0.75 C 0.76 C 6 1743 I-680 NB Off-Ramp/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.55 A 0.65 B PM 0.49 A 0.60 B 7 6410 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.52 A 0.76 C PM 0.61 B 0.64 B 8 1776 Alcosta Boulevard/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.36 A 0.60 B PM 0.64 B 0.57 A 9 8259 Dougherty Road/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.21 A 0.57 A PM 0.30 A 0.70 C 10 1716 San Ramon Valley/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.51 A 0.67 B PM 0.56 A 0.63 B 11 8256 I-680 NB Off-Ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.65 B 0.44 A PM 0.58 A 0.69 B 12 8255 I-680 SB Off-Ramp/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.41 A 0.60 B PM 0.31 A 0.51 A t 13 9100 Camino Ramon/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.56 A 0.91 E PM 0.43 A 0.83 D 14 1789 Alcosta Boulevard/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.50 A 0.79 C PM 0.59 A 0.91 E 15 1705 Alcosta Boulevard/Old Ranch Road AM Note 1 Note 1 0.57 A PM Note 1 Note 1 0.74, C 16 9340 Sunset Drive/Bollinger Canyon Road AM 0.56 A 0.87 D PM 0.82 D 0.51 A 4.6-55 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Table 4.6-8 continued Ex!sfing Mittgated GPA :: Node: Study Intersection : Penod< V/C LOS V/C LOS 17 9101 Camino Ramon/Norris Canyon Road AM 0.36 A 0.33 A PM 0.42 A 0.36 A 18 9339 Camino.Ramon/Executive Parkway AM 0.41 A 0.49 A PM 0.35 A 0.56 A 19 1777 Alcosta Boulevard/Norris Canyon Road AM 0.26 A 0.25 A PM 0.38 A 0.40 A 20 8260 Dougherty Road/OldRanch Road AM 0.25 A '0.57 A PM 0.23 A 0.44 A 21 3977 Dougherty Road/Dublin Road AM 0.58 A 0.80 D ; PM 0.84 D 0.72 C 22 3984 Dougherty Road/Amador Road AM 0.55 A 0.65 B PM' 0.44 A 0.76 C 23 9355 Brookside Drive/Sycamore Valley AM 0.49 A 0.62 B PM 0.33 A 0.34 A 24 9344 Crow Canyon Place/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.45 A 0.56 A PM 0.66 B 0.73 C 25 1744 Camino Ramon/Crow Canyon Road AM 0.60 A 0.74 C PM 0.64 B 0.75 C Count being obtained from another project and used for this project. 4.6-56 G M M M M M M N a m.: a E: V < N N M cif O O m•'; O � M m N N h O r 00 O C\ h 00 O :: a a a o0 00 0o r V': C C V O O C O O . S O OO O a kr r ��y+: U U o 0 o U 0 0 0 0 0 0 7!. O� O O r V1 N V1 o U c 0 o o c z o 0 0 0 0 0 A 8 0 rrrnnn p O C1X: .:x.:::.1�z N b M M 1 000 O Fr.;: h V h 10 n 10 h U :: 1::::.:7 0 O C 0 0 W W o o a o 00 � et . b Q ? N N M A/ X.. x x 000 00000 s a z! g � ss � 0 0 0 p p 0 0 0 e 4p z Vj 7 n C ..... ...........:.: i. C = O 9 U d c m 1O oo d.: 0 oo yi t w .0 m 8 3 0 0 .0° L° c0 0o w G t�r+: e � E= a m o `v m o e 000 0 0 = o ° A •° m o 8 OD C w V 7 W 1� 4.6 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION Z r� �t 4.6-58 d.7 BIOIAGICAL<:MSO. RCES SETTING + Background and Methods Identification of the biological resources occurring within the planning area was based primarily on the review and compilation of existing information, particularly the 1992 EIR and detailed studies conducted by the applicants'consulting biologists. The documents provide information on general resources in the area, the extent of sensitive natural communities,jurisdictional wetlands, and the distribution and habitat requirements of special-status species which have been recorded from in the project vicinity. Field reconnaissance surveys of the planning area were conducted on February 27 and April 1, 1996 by the consulting biologist for this Subsequent EIR, focusing on areas where development in the Gale Ranch II and Windemere Ranch I sites is proposed in locations previously identified as open space. The 1992 EIR provides a detailed discussion of biological resources in the Dougherty Valley Planning Area, an analysis of anticipated impacts, and measures to mitigate identified impacts of the Specific Plan. Resources described in the 1992 EIR include: information on plant and animal species associated with both common and important natural communities; a discussion of special- status species reported in the planning area; and a listing of the relevant policies from the Contra Costa County General Plan. Figures 11-1 and 11-2 of the 1992 EIR show the important vegetation and wetland resources, and the known occurrences of special-status wildlife species in the planning area, respectively. Tables and text discussion summarize special-status plant and animal species . known or suspected within the planning area. The impact analysis identified 17 project-related impacts and two cumulative impacts. A total of 27 mitigation measures were identified in the 1992 EIR, which are listed with the relevant impact discussions in Appendix B (see pages B73 through B83). Surveys conducted by the applicants' consulting biologists focus on determining the extent of jurisdictional wetlands and the presence or absence of special-status species in the planning area. A number of these surveys have been conducted since preparation of the 1992 EIR. These include:wetland delineations for the Windemere Property(LSA Associates, 1995)and Gale Ranch Property(LSA Associates, 1993); a 1994 assessment of Gale Ranch for San Joaquin kit fox (LSA 4.7-1 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Associates, 1994);surveys in 1993 for California tiger salamander on Gale Ranch (LSA Associates, 1993a) and Windemere Ranch (LSA Associates, 1993b); and a survey in 1994 for California red- legged frog in the Coyote Creek drainage of Gale Ranch (LSA Associates, 1994a). Creek i revegetation plans for Windemere (LSA Associates, 1995a), Gale Ranch (LSA Associates, 1992), and Gale Ranch II (LSA Associates, 1996) have also been.prepared since completion of the 1992 EIR. A brief description of biological resources in the planning area is provided below, based primarily on information from the 1992 EIR, and incorporating information from subsequent surveys by the applicants' consulting biologists. Chapter 11 of the 1992 EIR is a more thorough description of the natural communities,wildlife species, and information on special-status species. The discussion. presented below also identifies important changes that have occurred since certification of the 1992 EIR. Biological Resources , Natural Community Types and Associated Wildlife , f. Non-native grassland and dryland farmed grassland form the predominate natural communities in the planning area. Important natural communities occur along watercourses and small scattered locations. These include: riparian woodland and forest, freshwater marsh and seeps, valley oak savanna and individual oak trees, and alkali meadow. These important natural community types generally have a high inventory priority with the California Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB) because of their rarity. Figure 4.7-1 shows the important natural communities in the planning area. The base map shows the boundaries of Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects with a black dashed line. Note that the shaded areas on the map, which denote permanent open space, is based on the grading plan developed for the adopted Specific Plan. A more precise map showing the limits of grading for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects is presented in Figure 4.7-2. Non-Native Grasslands. Due, to their abundance and non-native origin, the grasslands in the planning area are not considered a sensitive natural community. The farmed grasslands are disced periodically and seeded with oat,barley, and wheat. Grassland areas not used for agriculture have a higher species diversity and support a variety of forbs. Typical species in the uncultivated grasslands include: wild oats, hare barley, soft chess, ripgut brome, bur clover, lupine, whiter tarweed, and California poppy. Many species of wildlife use the grasslands for foraging and breeding,such as western meadowlark,savannah sparrow,Brewer's blackbird, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, western fence lizard, gopher snake, deer mice, California ground squirrel, and striped skunk. A number of predatory birds and mammals rely on the mammals and birds of the grasslands as an important source of prey. These include: golden eagle, American kestrel, red- tailed hawk, great-horned owl, prairie falcon, red fox, gray fox, and coyote. The expanse of i 4.7-2 z k + FPA S Gaj� Ranc�,' 11 RV P P X i� FFA V0--Q 1" S S 44 0 _V0 W ,7 '00 14 Rw P ........... x 6-AM . ....... Wjhder6rq'l AM P-0 V., HP P S 2, 4 N� Ar S S S FM ........... S FFW S __C HP,6, 77 d. Is 6 Off-Site Impart.ATea HP for Windemere Parkway Exte nsion Legend: Habitat Types AM Alkali Meadow ------ Seasonal Drainage RV Valley Oak Riparian Woodland Perennial Creek RW Willow Riparian Forest FM Freshwater Marsh Developed Impact Area/1 992 Plan HP Horticultural Planting F-1 (Mass Grading) S Seep P Pond Areas in Which Grading Will Be VOW Valley Oak Savanna LLLJ Limited to Development of VO Valley Oak Tree Special Facilities Figure:4.7-1 OO o Important Vegetation Resources of the Dougherty Valley Graphic 0ION go Scale: Subsequent EIR r- Source:EIP 1990;LSA Associates 1990,1991a 0 2400' 4800 j 4.7-3 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES grasslands throughout the planning area and the surrounding undeveloped lands contributes to the importance of this habitat type to larger mammals and raptors, which are able to forage in the grasslands because of the limited human activity. Riparian Woodland and Forest. The riparian communities form a narrow band of trees and shrubs along portions of Alamo Creek and a few seasonal drainages in Camp Parks. Locally, valley oaks form a woodland along portions of Alamo Creek, intermixed with arroyo willow. In some locations, the riparian community is dominated by willows. Understory species along the upper banks include poison oak,California rose,Himalaya berry, nettle, mugwort and bee plant. Cattail, l watercress, curly dock, and rush occur intermittently within the drainage channel. Intensive grazing and trampling by cattle have most likely limited the extent of well-developed riparian vegetation along the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. There is no riparian vegetation on the East Branch within the Windemere I project. Factors affecting the value of riparian habitat to wildlife include the extent of protective cover, complexity of vegetation, availability of surface water, and the proximity of existing development and potential for disturbance by automobile traffic, humans and their pets, Alamo Creek forms the major riparian corridor through the planning area, supporting areas of well-developed forest -and scrub vegetation, with a perennial source of water. Trees and shrubs provide important nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of birds. The creek drainages serve as important movement corridors for larger wildlife species, such as black-tailed deer and raccoon, particularly where dense growth provides protective cover on the valley floors. The trees provide breeding habitat for cavity-nesting birds and small mammals, including Nuttall's woodpecker, i northern flicker,western bluebird, and ash-throated flycatcher. The tree canopy provides foraging habitat for songbirds, such as ruby-crowned kinglet, yellow-tamped warbler, orange-crowned warbler, and warbling vireo. Valley Oak Savanna. Outside the riparian corridors, valley oaks occur as individual trees and in two locations form an open savanna with an understory of non-native grassland. The extensive grazing and livestock disturbance has most likely inhibited the growth of young trees and prevented the establishment of oak seedlings. As with the mature trees in the riparian corridor, the oaks provide important breeding and foraging habitat for a number of birds and small mammals. Figure 4.7-1 indicates'there is one oak within lands proposed for grading and development in the Gale Ranch II project and none in Windemere I. Marsh, Seeps, and Aquatic Habitat. Freshwater marsh occurs along the Main and West Branch of Alamo Creek, and seeps are scattered throughout the ravines and hillside slopes of the planning area. Freshwater marsh is characterized by perennial species such as cattail, common tule, creeping spike-rush,penny wort,watercress, water plantain, and a variety of rush species. In some locations,creek segments with standing water and pond margins contain dense stands of cattail and J 4.7-4 . 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES bulrush. The seeps generally support rushes, sedges, and other species characteristic of a freshwater marsh,but generally with little or none of the ponding necessary to support cattails and bulrush. Aquatic habitat throughout the planning area includes the perennial creeks and seasonal drainages, stock ponds, and seeps. The perennial and seasonal waters and associated wetlands provide important habitat for numerous species of invertebrates,reptiles and amphibians,including special- status species such as the federally-threatened California red-legged frog which has been reported in a number of locations within the planning area. Stock ponds were created to provide drinking water for livestock, but now contribute to the wildlife diversity of the surrounding area, providing breeding habitat for amphibians and pond turtle, foraging habitat for great blue heron, killdeer and other birds, and a source of water for larger mammals. Grazing and trampling by livestock has generally prevented the establishment of marshland vegetation around the perimeter of the ponds, and currently limits their habitat value. According to Figure 4.7-1, the only area of freshwater marsh in the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects is along the West Branch (6,000± lineal feet of channel, extending south from the West Branch/Gale Ranch boundary). ` This channel will be retained and enhanced by the Gale Ranch II project. The only roads which cross this reach of channel are Bollinger Canyon Road and North Gale Ridge Road. (See Figure 3-7 for an Illustrative Plan showing the treatment of this creek.) Alkali Meadows Alkali meadows are characterized by a dense turf of herbaceous perennial holophytic species, interspersed with barren salt-encrusted scalds. This community is dominated by salt grass,with alkali heath,alkali peppergrass,and alkali mallow occurring with less frequency. As indicated in Figure 4.7-1, areas mapped as alkali meadow include an approximately a 1,200-foot reach of the Main Branch, just upstream from its confluence with the West Branch; an upland location on the Windemere I site; and several occurrences in Camp Parks and Hidden Valley. The CDFG now considers alkali sink scrub and alkali seeps to be highly sensitive communities because they often support unique plant and animal species, and because of a continuing reduction in their extent. As Figure 4.7-1 indicates, the channel of the Main Branch and the Hidden Valley Area will be retained as ungraded open space. Wetlands Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration and purification functions. The California Department of 4.7-5 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES �. t Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) each have jurisdiction over 7 certain modifications to river banks, lakes, stream channels and other wetland features.' The 1992 EIR provided a preliminary assessment of wetlands in the planning area. Figure 4.7-1 shows the mapping of perennial creeks,seasonal drainages, riparian,freshwater marsh,seeps,alkali meadows,and ponds,most of which were believed to qualify as jurisdictional wetlands and/or other waters. Since completion of the 1992 EIR, detailed wetland delineations have been conducted by the applicants' consulting biologist for Gale Ranch (LSA Associates, 1993) and the Windemere property (LSA Associates, 1995). While the wetland delineations roughly correspond with the preliminary mapping indicated in Figure 4.7-1, some seasonal drainages were determined to not qualify as wetlands or other waters in the detailed delineations. Figure 4.7-2 shows the reaches of channel which were found to be jurisdictional wetlands. The shaded area in this figure correspond to the lands proposed for grading in the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. Note that there is only one seep and three channels considered to be wetlands in the Gale Ranch II project (approximately 9,000 lineal feet). In the Windemere I project there are two vernal marshes and one channel within the area proposed for grading and development. The development concept for the Windemere I project is to realign and enhance the channel. Special-Status Species Special-status species' are plants and animals that are legally protected under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts'or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, Jurisdiction of the Corps is established through the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters" of the U.S. (including wetlands) without a permit (individual or nationwide). Jurisdictional authority of the CDFG over wetland areas is more limited, and is established under Sections 1601-1606 of the Fish and Game Code,which pertains to activities which would disrupt the natural flow or alter the channel,bed or bank of any lake,river or stream,and requires an agreement identifying appropriate mitigation before any disturbance is allowed by the Department. 2 Special-status species include: designated rare,threatened, or endangered and candidate species for listing by the CDFG; designated threatened or endangered and candidate species for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ,- (USFWS); species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) Guidelines (State of California, 1992),such as those plant species identified on lists 1A,1B and 2 in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California(California Native Plant Society, 1994); and possibly other species which are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status,such as those included on lists 3 and 4 in the California Native Plant Society Inventory or identified as animal "Species of Special Concern" by the CDFG. 3 The FESA of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall utilize their authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal species. The CESA of 1984 parallels the policies of FESA and pertains to native California species, but only for State lead agencies. 4.7-6 '� , .02'N.1,f 1!(� �% ,ir' �i ,•,�'•�:��.�--/�"-f^''.. �..-`� �� :: ��t"y c; i�3'pa 3 °��1!-7�.:atr'a n ;r F�+.�.. is� ��,,� x i �^.�/!`/' \� t �-•� L-���/` � �r\ ,,�� ";-r Y,a:+��,s -r�`>� t rr xis + s��t <ii`/� '�''� ',:�•'• �'� ,(( ri��`� t� �� /�f�/..��` r < - 7�s i�'tvr 4 ��I ikx a,� ra��,v-� S��'a v r /�•-/'\ ,rti ("� n c�,� ��r/tf� \ (i i, 7 '2 r. g i-r r°x'sx ^i�rt' n.., �.. 1 11 f ...�..1��./""��/ {-t1 / �'/'/ f�+i�/✓ N 0 1 r r 1 j L• K r 5 a k, x k a a s ✓ / . .�`j) �/ l!�'r-'s'' ,;...i \� ".,/�Lc 'T f� x: yah�•r r�Fs .. '� �f�� i�\..�� t�"1!,/""r ����.,9i% 7 Jti-_',..� n� ��'/���-' .`,^.. \ +'"'��ra+�al+q� 1 ,..ham-ash.�)}a�-�'i � O//!i'-'-`r /�r^,\ \� "--•..t'\����7,' I� m l �f It"r'�)i''"''1 } C� S i' 1. ''. u ,^" �`�/ �,i\E���._.J j�'�'/ „•/ tj Watej48nk.° �'� xr•, �,-xa..x4 t. Y�a 'Z`��rr.. .: C�i��^:i(\� U;51 1. ..•1 i'� Na 1 .� u V�sr �x; k'xr��� '' ,��t�H � k r°. W.�adrrf'�.S J tr Ai -1V '� I J".'� 'v. � � �' ) i f+ <` i .y,.ya.�,R� F 1�. 312: �°^ .j l/'r/?�.✓� .W�j,V # }��-�•�����, �, J]I•� i1� �, l i;, �r�,4 a��kL fi-r�':.1.w �` �.- �.M L �. � ����i.Cr;v� \..�.^'�.—,",.�.1�� \� i� cV�.M+?.a 'ud,5� 3,�.b.•y5' .m �� ��...rfr '`,/ of r .:a... 1`j J �,� /\.rt n lad` ,!` a•m � �r ssr:_rJ f/ �••�/���`.;�-�!� '' ;i f' (�L"�-'�.--" t, �s r r"'rf.: -! iF�;��I+(i fj i JS,\.1�/ e ��a`r i��� �i -/v ��' e� �,,•� \'� �\/� /�i�fir✓ f soo � ,V ��� 1•,,�..: i .��1� `/7~j<C ff �j�� (�•� , v / .�,soo1;a t /f f GRADED AREAS,(WINDEMERE I&GALE RANCH 11) PROPOSED ROADS 'h STREAMS • SEEPS A STOCKPONDS VERNAL MARSHES Figure: 4.7-2 o Graphic Wetlands Map Scale: Subsequent EIR Source:LSA 0 500' 1000' 2000' 4.7-7 �I 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the Endangered �. Species Acts often represent.major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take"' of these species. The 1992 EIR provides a detailed discussion of the potential for occurrence of special-status plant and animal species in the planning area. Table 11-1 from the 1992 EIR summarizes information on 19 special-status plants species, and Table 11-2 summarizes information on 24 special-status animal species suspected to possibly occur in the planning area. The following is a discussion of special-status species which have actually been observed from or are believed to occur in the planning area. The 1992 EIR provides information on special-status species which have not been observed from or for which essential habitat features were determined to be absent during surveys of the planning area. No special-status plant occurrences have been reported from Dougherty Valley or were �. encountered during field surveys of the planning area. As noted in the 1992 EIR, the surveys did not specifically identify two holophytic special-status species, San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) and brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), as possibly occurring in the planning area. These species are typically associated with alkali meadows. The 1992 EIR concluded that the probability of occurrence of these two species appears unlikely based on the limited extent of alkali meadow habitat and its degraded condition in the planning area. The biologic studies subsequently performed for Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects found no evidence of these plants in areas planned for grading and development. The 1992 EIR concludes that five special-status animal species were observed breeding or were assumed to breed in the planning area. These include: California red-legged frog, western pond turtle,burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, and American badger. A number of other bird species were observed foraging in the planning area, including golden eagle, black-shouldered kite,prairie falcon,northern harrier, and ferruginous hawk. The planning area was also considered to provide "Take" as defined by the Federal Endangered Special Act (FESA) means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,trap,capture or collect" a threatened or endangered species. "Harm" is further defined by the USFWS to include the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, "1 feeding,or sheltering)through significant habitat modification or degradation. The CDFG also considers the loss of listed species habitat as "take,"where the loss will reasonably foreseeably lead to the death of a protected species. Two sections of FESA contain provisions which allow or permit "incidental take." Section 10(a) provides a method by which a state or private action which may result in"take"may be permitted. The applicant must provide the USFWS with an acceptable conservation plan and publish notification for a permit in the Federal Register. Section 7 pertains to a federal agency which proposes to conduct an action which may result in "take,"requiring consultation with USFWS and possible issuance of a jeopardy decision. Under the CESA,"take" can be permitted under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. The applicant must enter into a habitat management agreement with the CDFG,which defines the permitted activities and provides adequate mitigation. 4.7.8 ` 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES potentially suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox and California tiger salamander, although neither of these species have been encountered during systematic surveys conducted before and after preparation of the 1992 EIR. Information on each of these special-status species known or suspected to occur in the planning area is summarized below, with status and typical habitat characteristics indicated in Table 4.7-1. San Joaquin Kit Fox It appears that kit fox historically inhabited most of the alkali sink community of the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent valley systems (Morrell, 1972, 1975). Kit fox also occupied the lower reaches of many of the surrounding foothill grasslands, extending into western San Joaquin and eastern Contra Costa and Alameda counties. However, intensive agricultural development, livestock grazing and ground squirrel eradication through the use of poison, have greatly reduced the extent of suitable habitat for this subspecies during the past half century. Other factors that may affect kit fox populations include illegal shooting and trapping, road kills, lack of adequate denning sites and interspecific competition with and predation by coyote and red fox. Currently, kit fox occur in the remaining alkali scrub and grassland habitat, with sporadic occurrences in savanna, woodland, and suitable agricultural habitat. Eastern Contra Costa County currently represents the northern-most extent of the known range of the San Joaquin kit fox. Kit fox have been reported from a number of locations in Contra Costa County. These include a 1989 observation within the planning area along Dougherty Road, approximately one mile south of Crow Canyon Road; a 1989 observation 9 miles to the north near Marsh Creek; a 1978 observation 10 miles to the northeast at Marsh Creek Road and Camino ' Diablo; and three sightings in 1988-89 approximately 11 miles to the east near Vasco Road (Simons, 1992, cited in The Habitat Restoration Group, and Sycamore Associates, 1992). The CNDDB records indicate a kit fox den was reported in 1975 from Doolan Canyon, located approximately 3 miles southeast of the project area. More recent surveys for the species conducted for the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment (WESCO, 1991 and 1991a), the Stonechase Development (Harding Lawson Associates, 1990), Dublin Ranch (H.T. Harvey & Associates, 1991), and Gale Ranch (LSA Associates, 1994) have not found any evidence of San Joaquin kit fox in the planning area. American Badger. This large mammal occurs in grassland and savanna habitat with an abundant supply of prey. Badgers excavate burrows for denning, and to extract ground squirrels, gophers �i and other prey. This species has declined or been eliminated from large areas of the state due to agricultural and urban development,and has been designated a Species of Special Concern by the CDFG. As indicated in Figure 4.7-3,badgers were observed at Camp Parks during surveys in 1990 (WESCO, 1991). The open grasslands in the planning area provide high quality foraging habitat for badger where ground squirrels are abundant. 4.7-9 _P Ir r 7 B 130 80 1301 0 Gal& Ranch 11 'T B 7 Windeme 17 _7 V off-site lmpact brei Esr P\PM for AWindembre Parkway Extension Legend: California Red-Legged Frog SK San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat and Western Pond Turtle (Designated as Occupied) Aquatic Habitat BO Burrowing Owl Locations Developed Impact Area/1992 Plan F7 (Mass Grading) TB Tricolored Blackbird Locations Areas in Which Grading Will Be AB. American Badger Locations Limited to Development of Special Facilities Figure: 4.7-.3 o Special-Status Wildlife Species Locations and Habitats Graphic Source:Contra Costa County Planning Department Scale: M RSW Subsequent EIR 1983;Ecological Analysts 1991;LSA Associates I 1989,1990; 919 EIP 1990;WESCO 1991,Environmental 0 2400' 4800' Collaborative 1996 4.7-10 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.7-1 SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN PLANNING AREA STATUS . Habitat;Characteristics Taxa;Name Federal/State.: (Occurrence within Project Area).'; AMPHIBLANS/REPTILES Ambystoma tigrinum californiense C/CSC Grassland and open woodlands with temporary or permanent California tiger salamander water (not detected during surveys) Clemmys marmorata */CSC Ponds,marshes,rivers,and streams (present) Western pond turtle Rana aurora drayton FT/CSC Permanent ponds,pools,and streams (present) California red-legged frog BIRDS Agelaius tricolor '/CSC Waterways and adjacent grassland and agricultural fields Tricolored blackbird Tricolored blackbird(individuals observed during surveys) Aquila chrysaetos -/CSC,CP Open mountains,foothills,and canyons(individuals observed Golden eagle during surveys) Athene cunicularia -/CSC Open grassland and fields,farms,and ruderal areas (individuals Burrowing owl and pairs observed during surveys) Buteo regalis '/CSC Forages in variety of habitats,but not known to breed in Ferruginous hawk California(wintering individuals observed during surveys) Circus cuneus -/CSC Marshes, fields,and grassland (individuals observed during Northern harrier surveys) Elanus caeruleus -/CP Open foothills,marshes,and grassland (individuals observed Black-shouldered kite during surveys) Eremophila alpestris actia '/CSC Open habitat with sparse cover(individuals observed during California horned lark surveys) Falco columbanaus -/CSC Forages in variety of habitats,but not known to breed in Merlin California(wintering individuals observed during surveys) Falco meaicanus -/CSC Canyons,mountains,open grassland (nesting habitat absent, Prairie falcon individuals observed during surveys) Falco peregrinus FE/SE,CP Canyons,mountains,open grassland (nesting habitat absent, Peregrine falcon not observed during surveys) Lanus ludovicianus '/CSC Open habitat with scattered trees,shrubs,and other perches Loggerhead shrike (individuals observed during surveys) MAMMALS Taxidea taxes -/CSC Grassland,oak savanna,and woodland(signs of foraging American badger activity observed but no dens detected during surveys) Vulpes macrosis mutica FEST Alkali sink,saltbrush scrub,grassland,and oak savanna (not San Joaquin kit fox detected during systematic surveys) STATUS DESIGNATIONS: Federal: FE= Listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT= Listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. PE= Proposed for federal listing as"endangered". PT= Proposed for federal listing as"threatened". C= A candidate species under review for federal listing. Candidates includes taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. = These species were considered to be category 2 candidate taxa for federal listing until 28 February 1996 when the USFWS revised their status classification system. These species no longer have any candidate designation,but are unofficially classified as species of concern and could be added to the candidate list if information demonstrates they warrant listing. State: SE= Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. ST= Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. CP = California fully protected species; individual may not be possessed or taken at any time. CSC= Considered a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game;taxa have no formal legal protection but nest sites and communal roosts are generally recognized as significant biotic features. 4.7-11 1�r 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES California Red-Legged Frog. This frog has been recently listed by the USFWS as a threatened species. Preferred habitat for red-legged frog consists of permanent ponds with lush shoreline cover where bullfrog and predatory fish are absent. Based on the scattered occurrences along the main creek channels and stock ponds on tributary drainages, the frog appears to disperse throughout suitable aquatic habitat,in the planning area. Most of the stock pond and creek habitat has been degraded by intensive in grazing and trampling, limiting or preventing the establishment of dense emergent vegetation which would otherwise provide important protective cover for larval and adult frogs. Although large pools and dense emergent cover is absent along most of the Alamo Creek corridor, adult frogs are still able to disperse along the main creeks and tributary drainages during the breeding season because of the largely undeveloped condition and limited human access throughout the planning area. Other Amphibians. Surveys for amphibian species of concern have been conducted since completion of the 1992 EIR, focusing on California tiger salamander. The distribution of California tiger salamander has declined due to conversion of valley and foothill grassland habitat to agricultural and urban uses (Stebbins, 1985). Adult salamanders occupy burrows made by California ground squirrel and other rodents for much of the year, and migrate to water sources to breed after the first hard rains in the fall. This subspecies breeds in temporary pools and P Po rY permanent water, usually associated with grassland and open woodlands,where the water source lasts at least through late spring to permit development of larval young. Although suitable breeding and upland habitat for California tiger salamander is present in the grasslands, ponds and creeks, no adult or larval young were observed during the subsequent surveys (LSA Associates, 1993a, 1993b, and 1994a), or are believed to occur in the planning area. Westem Pond Turtle. This species occurs in permanent freshwater ponds, lakes, marshes and creeks where basking and retreat habitat is present. The pond turtle is aquatic, but basks along shorelines and partially submerged logs or rocks, and has been known to lay its eggs in grassland habitat up to 0.5 miles from a permanent water source. As indicated in Figure 4.7-3, the perennial creeks and permanent stock ponds provide suitable habitat for western pond turtle, and turtles have been observed in the Alamo Creek drainage (LSA Associates 1989, 1990). Similar to California red-legged frog, the main creek and tributary drainages of Alamo Creek most likely function as dispersal corridors for this species. P P Burrowing Owl. This owl has no legal status under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts, but is protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and is recognized as a Species of Special Concern by the CDFG, like many of the raptors known to occur in the planning area. Destruction of California ground squirrel colonies, conversion of pastureland to agricultural 5 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not provide protection for habitat of migratory birds, but does prohibit the destruction or possession of individual birds,eggs,or nests in active use without a permit from the USFWS. 4.7-12 l 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES }i 4.7-13 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES and urban development, poisoning and human disturbance have been the major reasons for the decline of this species. As indicated in Figure 4.7-3, burrowing owl have been observed in a number of locations in the planning area, but nesting has not been confirmed. Additional detailed surveys during the breeding season would be necessary to determine the breeding status of burrowing owl in the planning area. Other Bird Species of Concern. Suitable foraging and possibly breeding habitat for several other - bird species of concern occurs in the planning area, including: golden eagle, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, ferruginous hawk, merlin, prairie falcon, loggerhead shrike, horned lark, , tricolored blackbird. Most of these have been identified as Species of Special Concern by the CDFG, but have no legal protective status under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, such as loggerhead shrike and horned lark. Active nests of raptors, including red-tailed hawk, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503.5 of the State Fish and Game Code. Dense marsh vegetation along segments of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek and the perimeter of some of the stock ponds in the planning area provide suitable breeding habitat for tricolored blackbird. The grasslands and fields provide suitable foraging habitat for these species. This colonial nesting species is a Species of Special Concern to the CDFG. Tricolored blackbirds have been observed at three locations during the breeding season (EIP Associates, 1990), as indicated in Figure 4.7-3. The planning area provides foraging habitat for a number of raptors, as discussed in the 1992 EIR. These include: golden eagle, black-shouldered kite, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, merlin, prairie falcon, and peregrine falcon. No active nests of these raptors have been detected in surveys conducted to date, although there remains a possibility that nests for a few species could be established in the future, particularly for northern harrier and black-shouldered kite. Suitable nesting habitat for resident prairie falcon and peregrine falcon is absent from the planning area. Ferruginous hawk, merlin, and bald eagle are most likely winter migrants and uncommon aerial transients that may forage and roost in the planning area, but essential breeding habitat for these species is absent. An active golden eagle nest occurs along the eastern edge of Tassajara Valley, but no nests have been observed within the planning area. Land Development Projects Although not related to new impacts, discussion of the effects of the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects on grassland habitat, tree removal, wetlands and special status plants and animals is warranted. The following discussion cross-references impacts and mitigation measures identified in the certified 1992 EIR. 4.7-14 1� 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Loss of Grassland Habitat The grading required to implement the development plans for the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects will result in loss of approximately 1,100 acres of primarily non-native grassland. The habitat it provides will be replaced by suburban development. Improved access to the hillsides of the planning area could result in off-road vehicle activity through undeveloped land and designated open space, particularly during the construction phase of specific developments. Off-road vehicle activity could result in further damage to grassland and other vegetative cover, disturbance to sensitive wildlife features, and may contribute to erosion of hillside areas and sedimentation in creeks unless adequate measures are taken to prevent unauthorized vehicle access. Landscaping throughout developed areas would likely be composed of both non-native and native species used in ornamental plantings, including a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Non- native ornamentals may compete with native species in open space areas, particularly if highly aggressive species such as eucalyptus and acacia are planted near the interface with undeveloped hillsides and along riparian corridors. Review of the proposed Landscape Plans for Gale Ranch II and Windemere I indicate that plantings in interface areas with open space would generally be compatible with the natural habitat value of these areas, and no significant impacts due to landscape incompatibility are anticipated for these projects. The potential conversion of over 1,100 acres of grassland habitat to suburban development represents a substantial reduction of this natural plant community, and together with the potential for additional damage by off-road vehicle activity and loss of associated wildlife habitat value. Recommendations in the 1992 EIR call for managing grasslands to be preserved to improve the cover and species diversity currently limited by intense grazing. Preservation of the off-site grassland habitat to the east of the planning area and west of Camino Tassajara is also recommended to reduce habitat fragmentation and compensate for the loss of grassland habitat. The Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects must adhere to the mitigation requirements defined in the 1992 EIR for the protection and replacement of sensitive biological resources. With regard to non-native grassland habitat, this includes management of grazing on the grasslands to be retained as open space (defined in Mitigation Measure 11.1). Windemere has prepared a Habitat ` Management Plan' which addresses Mitigation Measure 11.1. Similar land use management practices are anticipated within Gale Ranch. 6 LSA Associates, Inc. 1996. Multi-Species Habitat Management Plan, linden:ere Project, Contra Costa County. Prepared for Windemere Ranch Partners, Walnut Creek, CA. 4.7-15 �1 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Tree Removal As discussed in the 1992 EIR, proposed open space corridors along the Main Branch and West Branch of Alamo Creek would serve to protect most of the mature native trees on the site. Only one mature oak would be removed to accommodate grading for the Preliminary Development Plans, a 51-inch valley oak located within Neighborhood 4 of the Gale Ranch II site. Removal of several willow trees and shrubs would also be required to accommodate development along the fringe of the riparian corridor on the West Branch of Alamo Creek and the Bollinger Canyon Road crossing between the Gale Ranch and Windemere sites. Extensive tree and shrub plantings proposed as part of the Creek Revegetation Plans for the projects would provide more than adequate mitigation for anticipated tree loss. The Creek Revegetation Plan for Gale Ranch II proposes planting more that 950 valley oaks and 180 red willow trees, with over 13,050 trees and shrubs to be planted in the riparian zone outside the channel bottoms. Trees not directly removed by grading or other improvements may be damaged or adversely affected during construction or as a result of long-term changes to drainage patterns,irrigation and other factors. These include two additional mature valley oaks along the northeastern edge of Neighborhood 4 on the Gale Ranch site and trees in the riparian forest along the upper segment of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. Mature oaks and other trees are sensitive to changes in drainage patterns, soil compaction, trenching, landscape irrigation and other modifications within r the root zone. Considerable care is necessary to protect trees in the vicinity of grading, building and roadway construction, and landscape improvements. Increased human disturbance along Alamo Creek could damage riparian habitat and disrupt wildlife breeding, feeding, or roosting activities. The 1992 EIR contains mitigation to protect and replace trees and the habitat value of riparian corridors. These include: use of fencing to control construction damage, restrictions on construction during the breeding season, placement of signs along trails and other interface areas F' to explain the sensitivity of the riparian habitat, and controls on lighting in the vicinity of the creek corridors. Implementation of these measures would be essential to fully mitigate anticipated impacts on the habitat value of the riparian corridors. Specific development plans within the planning area must adhere to the mitigation requirements defined in the 1992 EIR for the protection and replacement of sensitive biological resources. With regard to mature trees and impacts on the riparian habitat of Alamo Creek, this includes use of sensitive construction practices and improvement design along the creek corridors (defined in Mitigation Measure 11.3), and replacement of trees removed to accommodate development (specified in Mitigation Measure 11.4). 1� 4.7-16 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Wetland Effects The Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects include direct modifications to creek channels and seasonal wetlands to accommodate roadway crossings, flood control improvements, and other development, and indirect changes associated with the increased potential for erosion and water quality degradation. Potential erosion and degradation of the wetland and riparian habitat may result from increased urban runoff volumes and degraded water quality associated with proposed _ development. Proposed development would magnify the volume of runoff and potential for urban pollutants, with perhaps the greatest potential damage resulting from sedimentation during the construction phase of the project. Detailed delineations have been prepared by the applicants' consulting biologist which define the extent of possible Corps Jurisdiction on the Gale Ranch (LSA Associates, 1993) and Windemere Property (ISA Associates 1995): • Gale Ranch. Based on these delineations, development of the Gale Ranch site would eliminate jurisdictional habitat associated with two tributary drainages to the West Branch of Alamo Creek, one stock pond of approximately 12,000 square feet, and one seep (approximately 600 square feet), and require three crossings of the West Branch of Alamo Creek. • Windemere. Development of the Windemere I site would require relocation of a tributary drainage connecting Hidden Valley with the Main Branch of Alamo Creek, and two seeps. A single crossing of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek would be required between the two sites to accommodate the extension of Bollinger Canyon Road. The proposed Creek Revegetation Plans for Gale Ranch (LSA Associates, 1992 and 1996) and the Windemere Development (LSA Associates, 1995a) address restoration of the West Branch and Main Branch of Alamo Creek and the recreation of the tributary drainage from Hidden Valley on the Windemere site. The Revegetation Plans define restoration activities such as removal of exotic species, erosion control, creek bank stabilization, planting of native trees and shrubs, and maintenance and monitoring. However, these plans focus only on creation of riparian habitat and do not address other wetland habitat types affected by development. The plans do not quantify wetland habitat lost to development, propose or justify replacement ratios, and are not wetland mitigation plans. Modifications to wetlands and other waters of the U.S., including roadway crossings and flood control improvements affecting the existing creeks, would be subject to jurisdictional review and approval by the Corps and the CDFG. Further review by representatives of these two agencies would focus on avoiding disturbance of sensitive features and minimizing the effects of unavoidable impacts. These agencies recommend avoidance of potential impacts to existing wetland habitat t where possible, and require that replacement wetlands be provided where loss or modifications are 4.7-17 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES unavoidable, often times at a replacement ratio of up to 2:1 (two acres replacement wetlands for each one acre lost to development). - The Specific Plan generally identifies alternative wetland mitigation areas. These include two locations in Hidden Valley; one in the Dougherty Hills; and a fourth area in a large drainage along the northern boundary of the planning area,just west of the current terminus of Lawrence Road. The fourth area is part of an approximately 300-acre watershed which was used as a mitigation location for the West Branch project. Existing mitigation improvements and possible use of the fourth area for mitigation of fills associated with Gale Ranch II project is described in a letter report by the applicant's consulting biologist (LSA Associates, 1996a). A freshwater pond and seasonal/freshwater marsh area were created in this drainage,which is now used by western pond turtle and tricolored blackbird, among other species. Mitigation opportunities in this drainage include creation of impoundments, seasonal wetland habitat, spring enhancement, and oak tree plantings,but no specific details on use of the area as replacement mitigation have been prepared. Mitigation in the 1992 EIR calls for coordination with jurisdictional agencies and avoidance or appropriate compensation for wetland habitat affected by development. This includes creeks and riparian habitat, alkali meadows, seeps, and stock ponds. Specific development plans within the planning area must adhere to the mitigation requirements defined in the 1992 EIR for the protection and replacement of sensitive biological resources. With regard to wetlands, this includes compensating for the loss of unavoidable on-site freshwater marsh, alkali meadow, and stock ponds (defined in Mitigation Measure 11.8 and associated mitigation for impacts on alkali meadow, seeps, stock ponds, and creeks). Kit Fox Although no direct evidence of San Joaquin kit fox use was encountered during systematic surveys, representatives of the USFWS have indicated that the planning area is considered potential habitat for this species (Larson, 1996). Specific comments on kit fox are as follows: • Gale Ranch. In 1993,the USFWS entered into an agreement with Shapell Industries which states that development of Gale Ranch is not likely to adversely affect kit fox and that no formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be required unless new information on kit fox occurrence demonstrates that the species could be affected by proposed development (Shapell Industries, 1993). As a result of this agreement, development of the Gale Ranch Phase II site would not require mitigation for loss of potential kit fox habitat. • Windemere. The consulting biologist for the applicant on the Windemere Property has been involved in informal consultation with the USFWS over possible plan revisions south of the Windemere I project area that would improve wildlife habitat value of open space on the 4.7-18 r� 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Windemere Ranch by reducing fragmentation of the open spaces. Modifications to the Specific Plan and General Plan land use maps have been discussed which link an open space drige that is just south of the Windemere I site with the ridge that defines the east bounds of the Dougherty Valley. In the alternatives chapter, Figure 5-1 resents a ma �' g �Y Y P g P P that addresses this subject. Further consultation with the USFWS will be required for the Windemere property. This alternative shows a 240-acre ridge within the Windemere development connected at its eastern terminus to the major open space area. To preserve the habitat value of the 240-acre ridge, the connection is 0.25 miles wide. Special-Status Plants No special-status plant species were encountered during field surveys in the planning area,but the 1992 EIR indicates a remote possibility that San Joaquin spearscale and brittlescale may occur in the alkali meadow habitat of Hidden Valley. Construction of trails or other open space improvements could adversely affect any populations of these species which may occur in the open space areas. Detailed surveys would be necessary to confirm presence or absence of these species and need for any modifications to proposed open space improvements. No improvements are proposed in the alkali meadow habitat of Hidden Valley as part of the Windemere I project. Consequently, surveys of the area will not be required. Specific development plans within the planning area must adhere to the mitigation requirements defined in the 1992 EIR for the protection and replacement of sensitive biological resources. With regard to special-status species, this includes conducting preconstruction surveys for raptors and American badger (defined in Mitigation Measures 11.11, 11.12, and 11.16), conducting surveys for San Joaquin spearscale and brittlescale (defined in Mitigation Measure 11.9), and providing replacement habitat for tricolored blackbird (defined in Mitigation Measure 11.13). Preconstruction Survey Reports are required by the adopted mitigation measures prior to issuance of grading permits. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines identify potentially significant environmental effects on biological resources . to include: • impacts on a population or essential habitat of special-status plant or animal species; ' 0 substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; and �1 a substantial reduction in habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. ,� 4.7-19 1�I 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Additionally, conflicts with adopted Contra Costa County General Plan policies would constitute a significant impact. Key Assumptions tions from the 1992 EIR 1. Biological resources in areas designated for development would be eliminated or seriously disturbed by the project. 2. Biological resources in areas designated as open space could be adversely affected, directly or indirectly, by project construction or subsequent use of the open space areas. 3. Biological resources in areas designated as parks and recreation would not be adversely affected by the project except where project features such as trails, access roads, or recreation facilities are sited; placement of trails and roads identified in the EIR are presumed to avoid biological resources where feasible. 4. Special-status wildlife species or their habitat in areas designated for development + or recreational facilities would be eliminated by the project. l 5. Camp Parks would remain in military use. 6. Primary creek corridors would average 300 feet wide, and smaller creek corridors would average 100 feet wide. ■ 7. Riparian and wetland habitat enhancement projects would cause a temporary loss of wetland habitat. 8. Financing of restoration and mitigation would be provided by the project proponent and the financing plan would be submitted to the County Community Development Department before a final development plan is approved. The proposed changes to the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan and General Plan land use maps result in increases in the amount of open space, thereby reducing biological resources affected in these locations. Development would be expanded into a few areas previously identified as open space, but most of the additional habitat lost would be limited to non-native grassland. The Public/Semi-Public area in Camp Parks has been redesignated to open space in the proposed General Plan Amendment. Assumption 4 would no longer apply to lands within Camp Parks. Provisions in the Creek Revegetation Plans prepared for Gale Ranch (ISA Associates, 1992 and 1995b) and Windemere (ISA Associates, 1995a) would provide creek corridor widths consistent with Assumption 6. With regard to Assumption 7,varying levels of disturbance would occur within the corridors. The natural channels of the Main Branch and West Branch would be retained, along with existing riparian vegetation along these channels. The East Branch would be relocated 4.7-20 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES within the Windemere I project area. According to Figure 4.7-1, the reach of channel that is to be realigned currently lacks significant vegetation. The Creek Revegetation Plans define monitoring and maintenance for the riparian restoration effort, to be funded by the project applicants, as called for in Assumption 8. Implementation of other mitigation recommended in the 1992 EIR would also be the responsibility of the project applicants. The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, identified 17 project-related impacts and two cumulative impacts pertaining to biological resources, and recommended a total of 27 mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B73 through B83 for a listing of these impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures,which are a part of the previously certified EIR, are summarized in Table 4.7-2. The following discussion is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. Impact 4.7-1 Development of the Dougherty Valley has the potential to reduce the available habitat for the red-legged frog. Development in the planning area would reduce the available habitat for a number of special- status species, and would affect essential habitat features such as breeding and dispersal rsal habitat for California red-legged frog and possibly nesting or denning locations for other species of concern. Grading activities and the potential degradation of water quality associated with runoff from a suburban watershed could cause direct loss of California red-legged frogs along creek corridors and other suitable habitat (e.g., stock ponds). Maintenance and recreational uses along the creek corridors, tributary streams and around ponds would contribute to the likelihood of an unauthorized "take" of individual frogs. Harassment and predation by children and pets could become a serious problem, particularly where the creeks border residential development and improved parks. Due to the threatened status of California red-legged frog, there will be a consultation with the USFWS addressing the possibility of incidental take of frogs as a result of development in the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I project areas. It should be noted that most of the stock ponds in the planning area function primarily as water sources for livestock and are in a severely degraded condition. These features could actually be improved as habitat for the frog (and western pond turtle) if potential management conflicts are resolved. The potential for the project to impact the frog and its habitat is considered a significant impact. 4.7-21 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.7-2 SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Biological Resources The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 3,911 acres of annual grasslands. Mitigation Measures: ' The grasslands appear to have been overgrazed. Project proponents shall manage grasslands according to U.S. Forest Service standards and management recommendations by a qualified range ecologist and wildlife biologist. ' The County and developers shall create and manage a large,wildlife preserve and corridor from the properties along the east side of the planning area. 2. Impact: Elimination or degradation of valley oak woodland, valley oak riparian woodland,and individual oak trees. Mitigation Measures: ' The Project proponents will reroute proposed trails and relocate proposed facilities to the extent possible to avoid adversely affecting oak trees and riparian vegetation in open space and parks and recreation areas. Wildlife breed in groves of valley oak and other riparian areas. Construction within 150 feet of valley oak groves and riparian habits will generally be prohibited during the breeding season (March 15 to July 15). Ground disturbing activities will be prohibited or severely restricted at all times. • If elimination of valley oaks is unavoidable, the Project proponents shall replace lost trees by planting seedlings. 3. Impact: Elimination or degradation of 2.6 acres of willow riparian forest. Mitigation Measures: • See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 2,except that willow seedlings or :. saplings shall be planted. 4. Impact: Elimination or degradation of 0.4 acres of freshwater marsh. Mitigation Measures: • See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 2.*Recommendations from the mosquito abatement district will be used in wetland and riparian habitat design to reduce the need for mosquito abatement activities. 4.7-22 ,� 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.7-2 continued ' The local mosquito abatement district shall minimize the disturbance caused by mosquito abatement activities in wetlands during wildlife breeding season (March 15-July 15).*The Project proponents will fence all freshwater habitats and mitigation areas in designated open space areas to restrict human and livestock access, but allow movement of wildlife. ' The Project proponents shall prevent dredge or fill activities in jurisdictional wetland areas or compensate for the loss of on-site freshwater marsh. 5. Impact: Elimination of approximately 2 acres of alkali meadow. Mitigation Measures: ' See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impacts 2 and 4. 6. Impact: Elimination or degradation of 2.1 acres of seeps. Mitigation Measures: ' See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impacts 2 and 4. 7. Impact: Loss or degradation of stock ponds. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impacts 2 and 4. 8. Impact: Loss or degradation of perennial and seasonal creeks. Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 2 and 4. 9. Impact: Potential loss of San Joaquin spearscale and brittlescale habitat. Mitigation Measures: ' Prior to construction of any trail or other improvements in the alkali meadow area, a survey shall be undertaken to determine whether the San Joaquin spearscale and brittlescale are likely to be affected. If either species is found, they shall be protected by redesign or abandonment of the proposed improvements. 10. Impact: Pollution of Coyote Creek by fertilizers and chemicals from the golf course. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall:maintain a 50 foot buffer on each side of the Creek, use native plants in the plantings,use dense turf grass or hydroseeding on grassy slopes to control runoff, develop runoff retention basins,grade slopes to direct runoff away from the Creek, construct a berm between the Creek and the turfgrass,direct runoff into rough areas, construct subsurface drains to direct excess water toward grassy swales. * The Project proponents shall submit a golf course design plan that minimizes flow into the Creek. 4.7-23 1 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.7-2 continued 11. Impact: Loss of special-status aquatic species and their habitats. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impacts 1,2 and 4. 12. Impact: Loss of special-status raptors and their habitats. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall conduct pre-construction burrowing owl surveys to determine owl �I numbers, locations, and breeding activities. * If owls are found to nest in the planning area, new nesting habitat may be created. The owls ma move to this area on their own or they may be relocated if necessary.. 13. Impact: Potential direct and indirect adverse effects on nesting raptors. Mitigation Measures. * The Project proponents shall commission pre-construction field surveys for active raptor nests. If active nests are found, the Project proponents shall either maintain a buffer zone around the nests or postpone construction until after the raptor breeding season (July 15-January 15). 14. Impact: Loss of tricolored blackbird nesting and foraging habitat and long-term disturbance to tricolored . blackbird nesting habitat. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall develop and implement a plan to compensate for the loss of the \ tricolored blackbird nesting and foraging habitat. 15. Impact: Loss of 3,911 acres of American badger breeding and foraging habitat. Mitigation Measures: C% * The Project proponents shall commission pre-construction surveys to determine the extent to which each construction phase could affect the badgers. If the badger is found, the Project proponents shall implement the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 1. 16. Impact: Adverse effects to seeps, riparian habitat,annual grasslands,western pond turtle, and California red-legged frog from construction of Windemere Parkway extension to Camino Tassajara Road. Mitigation Measures: * If the bridge alternative is selected, the bridge shall be constructed without disturbing the area below the ordinary high water area of the Creek which is associated with riparian vegetation, unless a bridge footing is required within this zone.*If the bridge alternative is selected and the Project proponents need to construct a bridge footing within the ordinary high water line,they will take specific steps to maintain water quality and minimize disturbance of the streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 4.7-24 -� 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.7-2 continued ' The Project proponents shall prevent fill material and sediments from entering the stream by placing silt fences, straw bales, and other erosion control devises around the streamside perimeter of the construction sites. The Project proponents will clean up and remove all loose soil and construction material from these areas on completion of construction. • The Project proponents shall replace trees removed by construction. Project proponents shall enhance Tassajara Creek for a distance of 100 feet upstream and downstream of the centerline o the bridge by planting additional valley oak, arroyo willow, and red willow trees. • If the culvert alternative is selected, Project proponents shall construct culverts at least 10 feet in height,with a natural bottom to allow unimpeded animal access through the culvert. • If the culvert alternative is selected, the Project proponents shall minimize creek fill by designing the crossing to use retaining walls. • The Project proponents shall replace the wetland area lost to road construction by creating replacement wetland.habitat in Hidden Valley. ' The Project proponents shall modify three seeps in Hidden Valley to provide red-legged frog habitat. Project proponents shall transplant red-legged frog tadpoles to these ponds to establishing a breeding population. • The Project proponents shall revegetate all cut-and-fill slopes. ' The Project proponents shall provide undercrossings at drainage culvert undercrossings to allow wildlife movement beneath rather than across the road. ' The Project proponents shall install fencing along the roadway extension to direct wildlife through the road undercrossings. ' Although cumulative losses of kit foxes are not significant, Contra Costa County shall continue to implement relevant General Plan Policies by acquiring and managing habitat, protecting food supplies (i.e. denying permits to control the rodents kit foxes eat) and cooperating with similar efforts by other agencies and organizations. 17. Impact: Cumulative loss and fragmentation of annual grassland habitat for wildlife and special-status wildlife species. Mitigation Measures: ' See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 1. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 The Windemere Ranch Partners have prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that will be used to address the presence of the California red-legged frog and other special-status species. The HCP was prepared in consultation with representatives of the USFWS and CDFG,and provides for the protection,replacement, and management of habitat for California red-legged frog and other special-status species possibly affected by proposed development, including San Joaquin kit fox. The HCP should be approved by jurisdictional agencies prior to recording subdivision maps.. The applicant for the Gale Ranch project will need to consult with the USFWS but do not necessarily need to prepare an HCP. 1 The mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 4.7-25 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REFERENCES Biosystems Analysis, Inc., 1992, San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys at the Mountain House Proposed , Project Site, San Joaquin County, California, Prepared for the San Joaquin County Planning Department. California Department of Fish and Game, 1986, Natural Diversity Data Base, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, 1990, Survey Methodologies for San Joaquin Kit Fox and Other Species. California Department of Fish and Game, 1995, Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Animals. California Department of Fish and Game 1995 Natural Diversity Data Base Special Plants. California Native Plant Society, 1994, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Special Publication No. 1 (5th Edition). California Native Plant Society, 1988, Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Contra Costa County, 1991, Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005, January. Contra Costa County, 1992,Draft EIR on the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and Related Actions, County File #2-91-SR, June. Ecological Analysts, Inc., 1981, Biological Survey of the Alamo Creek Study Area, prepared for Santina & Thompson, Inc., dated April. EIP Associates, 1990,Biological Surveys of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Area, prepared for the City of San Ramon. Entomological Consulting Services, Inc., 1994, TVPOA Study Area, Report on status surveys for candidate insects, letter report from Richard A. Arnold to Mr. Jeff Leon, Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, 24 May. ESA, 1992 Draft EIR on the North Livermore General Plan Amendment. ; .4.7-26 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Hall, F.A., 1983,Status of the San Joaquin Kit Fox at Bethany Wind Turbine Generating Project Site, Alameda, California, California Department of Fish and Game. Harding Lawson Associates, 1990, San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey, Stonechase Development. H.T. Harvey & Associates, 1991, San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch, Alameda County, prepared for Ted C. Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., 1990, Los Vaqueros, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Vasco Road and Utility Relocation Project, prepared for Contra Costa Water District, February. Jones&Stokes Associates, Inc., 1992,Draft Environmental Impact Report,Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Related Actions, prepared for Contra Costa Water District, June. Ingram, W. and C. Lotz, 1950,Land Mollusks of the San Francisco Bay Counties,J. of Entomology and Zoology, vol. 42.1 Hall, E.R., 1981, The Mammals of North America, University of California Press, Berkeley. Larson, Shiela, 1996, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication with James Martin of Environmental Collaborative on 20 May 1996. LSA Associates, 1989, Gale Ranch Resource Survey, prepared for Shapell Industries of Northern California, dated March. LSA Associates, 1990,Aquatic Reptile and Amphibian Survey, Windemere Property, letter to Mr. Darryl A. Foreman,.Windemere, from Malcolm Sproul, dated 7 August. LSA Associates, 1991, Gale Ranch:Aquatic Reptile and Amphibian Survey, letter to Mr.Tom Kosh, Shapell Industries, from Malcolm Sproul, dated December 17. I.SA Associates, 1992, Creek Revegetation Plan, Gale Ranch Development Project, prepared for Mr. Tom Koch, dated 4 November. ISA Associates, 1992a, Camino Tassajara Access Road Alignment: Biological Issues and COE Jurisdiction, letter to Mr. Peter Moot, Windemere, from Malcolm Sproul, dated 21 April. LSA Associates, 1993,Determination of Corps Jurisdictional Area on Gale Ranch Property, prepared for Shapell Industries, dated 12 August. 4.7-27 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LSA Associates, 1993a,1993 Gale Ranch Tiger Salamander Survey, prepared for Shapell Industries, dated 20 October. LSA Associates, 1993b,1993 Windemere Ranch Tiger Salamander Survey, prepared for Windemere, dated 14 July. LSA Associates 1994 San Joaquin Kit Fox Assessment Gale Ranch Contra Costa County, ty, Califomia, prepared for Shapell Industries, dated 20 June. LSA Associates, 1994, California Red-Legged Frog Survey, Coyote Creep Gale Ranch, prepared for Shapell Industries, dated July. LSA Associates, 1995,Delineation of Corps Jurisdictional Areas, Windemere Property, San Ramon, California, prepared for Windemere Ranch, dated 24 August. LSA Associates, 1995a,Draft Creek Revegetation Plan, Windemere Development Project, prepared for Windemere, dated 14 November. LSA Associates, 1996, Creek Revegetation Plan, Gale Ranch Phase II Development Project, dated 15 January. LSA Associates, 1996a, Wetland Mitigation, Gale Ranch Phase 2, letter to Mr. Chris Truebridge, Shapell Industries from Malcolm Sproul, dated 9 May. ISA Associates, 1996b,Multi-Species Habitat Management Plan, Windemere Project, Contra Costa County. Prepared for Windemere Ranch Partners, Walnut Creek, CA. Morrell, 1972, Life History of the San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Fish and Game Journal 58(3): 162-174. Morrell, 1975,San Joaquin Kit Fox Distribution and Abundance in 1975,Administrative Report 75-3, California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch. Munz, P. and D. Keck, 1973,A California Flora and Supplement, Combined Edition, Berkeley: University of California Press. Orloff, S., L. Spiegel and F. Hall, 1986,Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San Joaquin kit fox in the Northern Extreme of its Range, Western Section Wildlife Society (CAL-NEV) Conference Transactions 22:60-70. 4.7-28 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Palmisano, Terry, 1993, Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, personal communication, 16 December. Peterson, R.T., 1969, Field Guide to Western Birds. Shapell Industries of Northern California, 1993, letter to Mr. Richard L. Jachowski, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding Shapell Industries/Gale Ranch, dated 22 September 1993. Simons,Lauri, 1992,Wildlife Biologist,Endangered Species Office,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication cited in The Habitat Restoration Group and Sycamore Associates. Sproul, Malcolm, 1996, Principal, LSA Associates, personal communication with James Martin of Environmental Collaborative on 20 May 1996. 1� State of California, 1992, Califomia Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. Stebbins, R.C., 1985,A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Sycamore Associates, 1992a, Tassajara Valley Vegetation and Wildlife Resources, Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Constraints, February. Sycamore Associates, 1993, Spring 1993 Surveys for California tiger salamander,Tassajara Valley, Contra Costa County, prepared for Tassajara Valley Property Owners Group, 27 May. The Habitat Restoration Group and Sycamore Associates, 1992, Surveys for San Joaquin kit fox, Amphibians, and Other Wildlife Species of Concern, prepared for Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, 18 August. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989, Standardized Recommendations or Protection o the San - f f Joaquin Kit Fox, April. IN d Wildlife Service 1990 San Joaquin Kit Fox Range Ma U.S. Fish an .q g p U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993, San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Kit Fox Range. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995,Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,Animal Notice of Review, Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17. 4.7-29 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES WESCO, 1991, Final Results of Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl in, the Dougherty Valley, Contra Costa County, prepared for the City of San Ramon. WESCO, 1991a, Results of Supplemental Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox on the Dougherty Valley Project site, prepared for Mr. Jim Cutler, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, dated 19 July 1991. WESCO,19991b,Potential Impacts,Planning Recommendations and Mitigation Recommendations for San Joaquin Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl Resulting from Development in the Dougherty Valley, Contra Costa County, prepared for the City of Sari Ramori. Williams, D.F., 1986,Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California, Department of Fish and. Game. Willdan Associates, 1993, Draft EIR on the North Livermore General Plan Amendment. �r 4.7-30 411 VISUAL QUALITY 1992 EIR The 1992 EIR defines visual quality as the visual significance given to a landscape determined by cultural values and the landscape's intrinsic physical properties. Visual resources are elements or combinations of elements in the landscape, such as landform, water, vegetation, and structures, that may be described without reference to quality. A landscape's visual quality, therefore, is a value rating of the aesthetic significance of a view or collection of views of the landscape's visual resources as influenced by the cultural values of the observers. Moreover, preserving the landscape's visual quality has been identified as important to the public, supported by local government agencies and is considered an area of significant impact by the 1992 EIR. Approach The 1992 EIR was organized to first present the General Plan Policies from the Open Space Element that were considered relevant to the projects that were the subject of that environmental document. It described regional visual resources, including land use, landforms and vegetation. It then described the planning area visual resources, character and quality. Items considered included views of the planning area from the surrounding community; views of off-site areas; and within site views. It identifies Dougherty Road as an officially-designated "scenic route" (source: Circulation Element of County General Plan). Figures in the previous EIR included photographs showing the existing character of Dougherty Valley, and three computer generated images that simulate the effect of proposed development on the existing views. View #1 shows the loss of open space and the change in view as seen from the area of the existing Shores Apartment Complex, located north of the Country Club at Gale Ranch. View #2 shows the loss of open space and change in view as seen from the East Ridge Condominiums,located just south of Bollinger Canyon Road at the Dougherty Valley/City of San Ramon boundary. Both of these viewpoints are from projects within,the City of San Ramon, and in each case the features seen in the foreground and middleground are within the Country Club at Gale Ranch. In 1994 the EIR for the Country Club at Gale Ranch subsequently provided new 4.8-1 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY computer-generated images showing the proposed Country Club project in more detail, based on the grading and development approaches prescribed by the final development plan/tentative map. View #3 is a simulation along Dougherty Road, looking north from a point near the northwest corner of Camp Parks. It shows a view of the planned development in the southern and central portions of the Gale Ranch as viewed from the scenic corridor. Gale Ranch II Project This project consists of 1,825 residential units, along with a 10.7-acre commercial area (located in the northeast corner of the Dougherty Road/ Bollinger Canyon Road intersection) and various public facilities (i.e. elementary school, middle school, park-and-ride lot, fire station, parks and trails). Shapell proposes seven different unit types, which will yield a variety of housing opportunities and site plans. Figure 3-7,Illustrative Site Plan, shows the design of the project; and Table 4.8-1 presents a lot summary. To facilitate evaluation of the visual effects of the Gale Ranch II project, two computer generated images have been prepared to simulate the visual effect of the proposed project. Figure 4.8-1 shows the viewpoint locations that were selected. View A is taken from a point west of Dougherty Road on a sloping hillside near the West Branch/ Dougherty Valley boundary. This location is adjacent to Miravilla development in the West Branch project. View A/Existing View. Figure 4.8-2 shows the existing view looking southeast from Viewpoint A. In the foreground is the West Branch of Alamo Creek, which is characterized by clumps of willows. The creek is to be retained in a stream corridor that averages 300 feet in width. To the east of the creek is existing Dougherty Road, a narrow two-lane roadway with soft shoulders. This road trends subparallel to 680 and carries some commute traffic traveling between the Blackhawk area and the City of Dublin. East of Dougherty Road are the rolling, grassy hills of Gale Ranch. The electrical transmission towers of PG&E that can be seen on the skyline bisect Gale Ranch (see Figure 4-1 for the location of the PG&E easement). The crest of the ridge .in the right background (gray toned ridge) forms the east boundary of the Dougherty Valley. ViewA/Computer Simulation. Figure 4.8-3 shows the view after construction of Gale Ranch II. For the purposes of this simulation it was assumed that landscape plants were 8 years old, well maintained and irrigated. This figure shows Dougherty Road as a four-lane roadway with a median. It has a decidedly urban character as opposed to the hillside in the foreground. The road is to have a 142-foot right of way and be elevated 15 to 20 feet above the flow line of the creek. The residential units to the east of Dougherty Road are developed single-family residential lots. that are 60'x80' (minimum) that wrap around an open. space (White Wing Drive Pocket Park). Figure 4.8-1 shows the location of this neighborhood with respect to Dougherty Road and the 4.8-2 NS # ro. v...., '�.t'' lUcIal S� ✓ "# �, � �n`�'`�� 4 Irl 5 t �� dna• x V Cif f� IN yk., s , Water/tank err, 4- Fi-ure: 4, t Viewl')Oints Gale Ranch ' ' iil�scz�c nt; LIIt c WiNs 01"I" vamp I s 'Wyss , Olt ug Pit 4 �,� f �,;,t p rfi 4 �r yid'�: b a,• �'.�" � $ q• .P.E,'. �Ari` MPo� � .v •:!f w'. q yd v ^ x,R g 3 'm F FVis.. �,,, '�• 3. t � � �t � � k r � S S f<••.� r k iw a r a 4 / t � r !! k •-- A� a a � s v 404 P j s� r p, d { ,;res�a ✓`. � rub k R ��i,ta k} idly ti•p.... * r 1 w r s y. t v 4.#t VISUAL QUALM Table 4.8-1, LOT SUMMARY, GALF, RANCH 11 C1tt�t,t'yl)e No.br unit l iit #s W t . 60'x 80 t.nzs _. _179 ..._ .te " 1-179 5-x 90' Lets 108 180-287 il 50,X 80'LOL.Ss 166 288-453 75'x: ' LoLs ° 53 454-506 5{1"x €i()' Lots I68 50774 1= f Carriage Units 81 675-755 j 60's 80' U)ts 84 756-839 I? SU'z 80' Lits 144 844-983 is C`ourtya:rd Units 60 984-1093 Tow nhorncs 93 1044-1136 Aparmeits 232 1137-1368 t Tow,tiYton)es 146 19-1514 1 Courtyard Unitr4 111 1515n1625 Carriage Units 115 1626 1740 E C uurtvard Units 85 1741-1825 (j Total 1825 { creek channel. The; residences on the skyline in Figure 4.8-3 are the neighborhoods that are located just east of the PG&E casement. Commercial Cenfer. The Gale Rarich 11 project contains a 10.7-acre commercial site. It is to serve as a neighborhood hborhood shcilrping arca, containing uses such as a grocery store, drug store,automobile. service station and compatible uses. According to Shapell, buildings in this center will have a gross floor area not to exceed 125,OC10 sq.ft. (11,700 sq.ft. of gross floor area/ac:re). The amended Dougherty Valley Specific flan(elated May,, 1996)contains some design criteria for such centers in the "Community Design"chapter and other criteria are provided in the Community Design Handbook (October, 1992). Shapell's Site Plan for the Commercial Center is presented in Figure 4.8-4. 'The center will be bounded by roads on three sides, and a residential neighborhood to the north.'Grading plans prepared by Shapell indicate that this neighborhood will be elevated 20 to 30 feet above the,grade/'of'the. shopping center. The intervening slope between the residential lots and commercial center is to be heavily landscaped, but these lots will It a 44 �r x A rK �N ss .Mn � �.,� 47 FRI Arm lar 2 1 i Jigs FY —, dab AOL T +► ``' Y £� .. +�►,<. '�'+�.. • fit ge „ '� r yyw.� .�, • � '� � � ,� r a � ►� .. jj : . � ', ,- ,;,���; fir; �•�� '�► „'+ � �,: , WAR' � v :�gF�y7a' `x n qg }spm t tai �v v} r ay 'n?L��{# *'^x. �k't' � as �� �jc•=-}`���»' .� a'ry, e a'fx �` °' 4 - b t -J ;�'`.° d. _• tri'` '�"�#� t r -�^"�*n��;��`, '�- �stt¢ ,,.y C '� Mr � •'x + �$ ��, ,s,.,( z a f Y r ;•, .�.f"' .� " 3Y .� �+ 165 ' t 1 �e y�•✓y' ems' zg fflgi Ons. `.,,rJ 3. * �Yk k x'3 �'" g;�aa��•rtt..�xa`f �� -: ; 5 r . r #.# { i�#� i aR .tsi��{{ y N ftp : �x ,.�^> a�rr ,�.t • c'`�Pt .g f�,. r ��c�. { -^*.T sr �' .y y-a c.«..'`"'$"�'r�" '"'�.,'.i • H. NMI z. � 'r3' "^_ ��.r .z• �„'� � r .tsa`a s "`^� .. ,r � "r a '�,�, • =*nz, o.. K WIN 7M PM, •r �, ;ka% s T xi #�fji "fid ��`.� " � .r• & ';���' r .-.•�� SINKI �is M�� k x x n u 12 f TO c RU s �.#� °is ^��°•k �.x-*-x,71�'!^» � `��. . 409 4,8 VISUAL QUALM! have views of the rear of the large More and its roof. .Attention to tlae design of these elements will minimize the visual effects. The Specific Llan requires that the architectural thence of the shopping center be compatible with the surrounding architecture. Figures 4.8-5 and 4.4-6 present views of the commercial center and adjacent residential neighborhoods as viewed from a location on the east-bound travel lanes of:Ballinger Canyon Itoacl, near the east boundary of the.,Country Club at Gale Ranch. 1%evv BIEvisting l�teiv. Figure 4.8-5 shoes the existing view looking cast from Viewpoint B (see Figure. 4.8-1 for location of viewpoint), The foreground of the photogra})h is a Darla wire fence. :lust beyond the fence is the channel of the Nest Branch,. which is flawing from left to right. In the middle around of the photograph is another.(more prominent) fence line. Beyond that fence is a tributary of the West Branch. Bevond that channel segments of Daugherty Read can been seen. There is an electrical power line, alon{t the; cdoe of the road. The large electrical towers in the;center of the photograph are in the PG&E casement(sec. Figure 4-I for location of Casement). The skyline hills to the left of the; towers are tile.hills that ffortn the east boundarof Doughcrty Valley. The sk}dine, hills to the right of the. towers are hills that forth the cast boundary of the Tassajara Creek \ aterstted. The: lands in the foreground and middleground of this photograph are on the Gale Ranch. Fiera-B1 Computer Simulation. -Figure 4.8-6 shows the view after construction of the Coale Ranch II project. For the purposes of this simulation it was assumed that landscape plants were H years old, well maintained and irrigated. In the foreground are the east bound travel bones of Bollinger Canyon Road. In the middleground of tire photograph a left-turn storage lane can be seen. This turn lane is at the Bollinger Canyon Load/Dougherty, Road intersection. It is a T-intersection at this phase, because the extension of IXwoherts, Road to the south of Bollinger Canyon Road would not occur until the Gale Ranch III project. Partially obstructed from this viewpoint by trees in the median is thc,10.7-acre shopping eenfer that is planned in the northeast corner of the Bollinger Canyon Road/ Dougherty Road intersection. The large building to the.left.(north)of Bollinger Canyon Road is intended to represent a building in the shopping center. Tile buildings beyond the shopping center and to the left of the PG&E towers rare in the Monarch Road Park neighborhood (see Figure 3-8 for location of park and . neighborhood). The strip of open space behind (past of) this neighborhood is the 300 foot wick PGCE casement. The neighborhood in the back—round is part of the. 11oncycastle Drive Park. neWilb arhood. To the right of Bollinger Canyon Road are residential units in the. Gale Ranch Il project that are located in the southeast quadrant of the Ballinger Canyon Road/ Dougherty Road intersection. This is a neighborhood that is bounded by the PG&E casement (oto the east) and the West Branch 4.4.10 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY ............... ............... Crock corridor on tile west. It is a nei,-flihorhood (if (crxilhorrics and c(mi-tvard homes in tile, Tamerisk Drive Park neighborhood (see Figure 3-8 for the location of this neighborhood and park). Windentere I Project The, Windemere:. I project can be divided into three large development areas bounded by two arterial streets: Bollinocr Canyon Roid and Windeinci-c P,11,kw�,% (sec Figure 3-8 for all Illustrative Plan of the proposed project), Area A is west of Bollinger Canyon Road, and is bounded by as creek (channel ('14the Main Branch) can the west. Development areas B and C are separated from one another by the Windernere Parkway, Area 13 is north of Windemere Parkway, and lands to the north of'Arora B are chiefly steep hills that are to be retained as permanent open space. The only exception to this generalization is immediately north of the northwest corner of Area 13. The General Plan Aniendnient and Dougherty 'Valley Specific plan designate this ,is a Illoh school site. Area C includes all development in the Win 41 dcmere I project that is in the, southeast quadrant of the Bollinger Canyon Road! Windermere: Park-way intersection. ']"his development area will be, bounded by a realigned creek and major open space area on the south. Lands to the east of Areas B and C are designated singIc-family rcsidcritial-ni cd lit ill density (SM) by the General Plan Amendment and Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. They will be a part of a future phase of development. Table 3-2 of this Subsequent FIR provides a description oflot yield and other parameters for the Windemere I project. Note that Area A is 623 net acres and it is proposed exclusively for the development (-li'multi-fArnily units, in densities ranoinL! fr()lll 11.9 to 37.4 units/rict acre depending upon the type of unit. Windenicre proposes three story apartments, two story townhonies and two ,,torr condominiums, Elevations subl"llitted by Windernere sh ow stucco exteriors with terraces, trim around windows, pitched roofs. and chimneys. The buildings present interesting footprints (i.e.- instead of a Iong uninterrupted wall the, facade;acade has bay\vIndows and recessed areas to create shadows and architect ti ral IN, interesting buildings). Sorne buildings will have garages oil the, first C- CP floor with the living area above, However, most unit types rely oricarportsand open parking areas for the vehicles of residents. The single-family residential lots in Areas B and C range from 3,5(..)0 to 6,Ck)O sq.ft., arid the density of the single family neighborhoods range, frorn 6.8 to 9.6 units/net acre. No informaoll tiis C, z;l available on the architectural styles for these units. 4,8-II 4 8 VISUAL QUALITY To facilitate evaluation of`the visual effect of the. NVindemere I project, t4vo computer generated image:, have been prepared to simulate tire: as-guilt condition. f)-urc 4.5-7 shows the viewpoint locations that were scIccted. View C is taken from a location in developrriGrrt Arca C. This location is near the south boundary of the development arca and is looking toward a proposed singlc-family residential neighborhood. 11teiv CXvisting 11eiv. figure 4.8-8 shoes the exiting view, looking ��est-riorthwcst. The foreground is the valley of the East Branch Creek. Can the extreme left of the photograph is the Rawer portion of a major ridge. This 240-acre area is to be retained as permanent open space. The green hills in the niiddlcground are hillside areas of the. Windemere I and Gale. Ranch It projects. The towers in the distance are in the: PG&E easement which bisects the Gale Ranch II project. The hills silhouetted on the skyline (gray-toned area) is the crest of Las Trampas Ridge. Miew C/Comimler Simulation. This photograph attempts to depict a view within development. /Area C. In theforeground is a nei<ohborhood park. This park is idcntified as Park 13 on Figure:. 3-9, and the proposed facilities in the park are shown in 1'--klure 4.3-4 (bottom). I-he computer simulation shows a simplified version of the bark. showing only turfed area and clumps of vegetation. The residences on the far side of the park are two-story stucco residences with tiled roofs. The actual architectural details rrray differ frorn the buildings shown. Obscuring views of the: residences are street trees planted along the west boundary of the park. From this vantage point the ridgecrests are not obstructed by the residential neighborhood. Village Center The Village Center is located at the south boundary of the: Windemere I project (sec Figure 3-9). The Dougherty Valley Specific flan calls for a 3=1-acre Vilia;?e Center, consisting of 15 acres on Windc:rrrcre:Ranch and 19 on dale Ranch. The plan shows a 70-acre cornmun ity park immediately west of the Villag " ` e Center. he Windemcre. portion of the Village Center is in the Windemere I project area; the Calc: Ranch portion of the: Village. Cerner will not be developed until a future phase of the: project. The Village Center in the Windemere. I project area is approximately 15 acres, and to the south of the Village. Center is approximately six acres of the community park. The Windernere portion of the Village Center includes the Community Colleoc District's South County Campus,which will require 200,(W gross sel.ft. of floor area. It is also anticipated that retail activities, such as a bookstore, copy service and food service, will be leascd by Windermere Ranch Partners to private business concerns not affiliated with the.college. Campus-related facilities are to include a library, childcare teaching facility and police sub-suition. FiW,ure 4.8-1.0 is a Site plan for the Windemcre portion of the, Village Center. It shows a parking area adjacent to Bollinger Canyon Road, with most campus buildings situated more than 300 feet from the road. It is anticipated that the 4.8-t2 Water ank \ F t If r'' ILI .� `� � I`ii{ � Y• ��"�v�( x���� � �.. '7 +� I 1 MLe �. 600 if 600� t,r J Eat , f Q..... ,, wr Figure: 4.8-7 aphi Viewpoints Wincleniere `kale: S�.z1� ctent lC:f �..._.. 4,9-13 i � D q wwwvv- � Wg w y kms. " r y«/ ? a ?A• `� `� Sr1a}tx: 9res yr too '-W i r x 00 za� ..., .. �rcu �5r x " t%f „ W, h Elm- 3 � � T 00 114 r tr T844 ^' w ,� nS P� Ilf�gi , y°`.0 n... �„,q,3�✓' %g, ".+�'bAn .. lA 4Sol Ak ',�,". � ate••` ��.��« a' �...,. out, Im MEN, Ohn WI r t � ��' a»'ode»'• �,a .• � I r aW11a ra k x to w a��� � Mtl ....m.......�...,..... 1 HER z •. AMMAN A AN wt ` Vola a dam, NUT � y NEW . �i. '� �„ � war•�yy t. •..... f }� 3 3� "s' . U m, „ COMMUNITY C0A,LEGE ' :f.:PtMrD.l�.✓.95354d,"1M5 24,77}.... ?++C tAhC,Ji9.ATK7fiY- MAW 144 4t!u+A UAW 42D 60OKS-1cm Dm 40 f Uxt to LT7n"nETAp, mom aT %uvt(nxL PITA& '1T�0 ..tib r 6AW5 E e.4aus j f _ za f 1 smoTAL ow4s ljxuo v CSARd',4tA+18 Y FAMMES _ 1•.., i � k pK7LM"2 W;r51 AT" 4,tslw^ to .. coww A4t7Y c0-A,-"'4cv qs .`mom as .< TOTAL.Witf4LMEAE V4t,i.AQE ,204433 SrtZtO f 3 � GREEK CURB?OOR PARK f f,_.- 'T a c 4 E �..:...... f tJ 7 ttim� f « g (30LL)NGER CANYON nOA 3 M FUTUK CAST . BRANCH PARKWAY , gam_ _..... ...... __ ..........--------- ...............t_.._ ,,...-... _,._.�— Figure: 4.8- 0 ' i ti1��indeniet�€ `�ll�� Centel-r Graphc South COuniv C:ommUll1ty Subsequent EIR College Campus 4,9-16 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY campus buildings will be three stories, but four story campus buildings are a possibility. Tile Site plan is conceptual because the siting and design of the buildings will be subject to review and approval by the State, Contra Costa County nand W'indemere- Ranch Partners. To the;west of the college buildings is additional parking. as well as au athletic field. The athletic field in this Site Plan is situated at tlae extreme north end of the Community Park. l'ir'a}' lE�isti�aa�� I wiv. This photograph is presented in Figure 4.8-1I. Tile viewpoint for this photograph is shown in Figure; 4.8-7. 1 It is a view frorn the; segment of Bollinger Canyon Road within the southern portion of Gale Ranch. (As part of the; Wincizmc:re I project improvements, Bollinger Canyon Road will be extended south of the Windermere. 1. project to its intersection with Dougherty Road. This intersection is located in the; soutfau'est corner of Picture 4.8-7.) View D is looking north-northeast at the future° site of the VillaLc Ceme°r. The: lands in the foreground of Figure 4.8-1.1, including corral, are lands within Gale Ranch that will be part of a future; phase of development. In the middleground of the photograph the channel of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek is visible, (exposed bank at the base; of the ncare:st grassy slope)., The~ grassy slope is on Gale Ranch; the valley bottom lands between the corral and the creek channel arc can Windernere: Ranch. In the background of the photograph are. hillside, residences located north of Camino Tassajara crest of the Blackhawk. Shoppiaiat Center. The skyline ridge is the lack Hills, which is a foothilll.area of Mount Uiablo. The summit of Mount Diablo is tile; skyline peak on the: left side of the phatooraph. Oew DICon7puter Simulation. Figure 4.8-12 shows a strectscape along Bollinger Canyon Road. The middleground of the photograph presents tiolimpse;s of the Windernere portion of the Village Center. Lands in the, foreground (to the left and right of the, road) would be retained as ungraded open space: in Gale Ranch during buildout of Gale Rarach I.I and NVIndernere I projects. "[the: architecture and positioning of-buildings in Figure 4.8-12 is conceptual. It does not closely follow the footprint of buildings shown in I figure 4.8-10, since this design is subject to revision. Instead it attempts to show a row of four buildings which arc- aligned along/near thea south boundary of Windemere's portion of the Village Center. It should also be recognized that the architectural thenac of the Village. Center has not yet been determined. In preparing tile. Computer Simulation of the vill,,.we Center sonar guidance was provided by representat Wes of the; Winde.inere Ranch Partners in the form of four photographs of existing buildings. The photographs are cal`two and three story buildings that are estimated to range from 33 to 38 feet in height, and it is those buildings which are presented (to scale) in Figure 4.8-1.2. As noted previously=, three (and possibly four) story buildings are planned for the Windemcrc portion of the Village Center, sea tine height of'buildings will range somewhat higher than those shown in the rendering. II, s•- i 4 3 H ak{y,,� elf � E 44 d�_$ t,,;Pik aa• � „�� .p .�'�• ,,,E^•, i �•Y, e'. of H ay g v ED a) '�»� ���� � a �t ✓�i=,� -"� it" III° I!V,I BiT�"X..if �4' >r a �,�� 4": ti of$ r a ,�.�. ;, �} �.�'�• ,tea 5 ur•. :.T�,°�, �v `� � ;."�� `� :,.,; r a i SPIN?! Ali r %<a € I I,VII i,l R� a 4.8 'VISUAL QUALI1Y Figure 4.8-13 presents the photographs of l)uildings which wereprovided to tlae EIR consultant for the purposes of preparing the; computer simulation, While no final decisions have been reachccd by the applicants on design of buildings in tlae Village Center, the architectural elements sten in the photographs may ultimately be selected for use in file Village Center. The structures would be wood-frame, three or four stories. over <a concrete foundation. Tlac exterior appears to be painted wood in all or most of the samplM The photographs suggest lame, wcstertt-style; porches and railings would be incorporated into the: design. Design elements shown include high ceilings in the first floor. prominent vertical elements (posts or columns), and windows with panes and framed with exterior mouldings. The roof lines are variable in the four samples. iNtaster Plan Village Center and Community Park The applicants have prepared a Master Plan for' the Vil.lage Center and Community Park..which -is presented in Figure 3-9. This illustration is intended to implement and provide design detail that interprets the vision of the Dougherty Valley Specific flan and Design Guidelines for the Village Center. A point to be noted is that the Gale Manch portion of the Village Censer would not be developed for many years, so initially the Winders re portion of the. Village. Center must stand alone, but it should be designed and sited so that it is implementing a Master flan. Specific; comments on the designfacsthctics of the Master Plan are as follows: Ciruding. The overall grading concept is to elevate the Village Center and Community Park above the; elevation of the 100-year flood, and to retain the natural channel of Alamo Creek and its major tributaries. The Master flan shows roads and park irnpro ietnents encroaching onto the creek channe=l. Since they will be elevated 1.0 to 20 feet above the flowline of the creek, and since, graded slopes will have an inclination of 3:1,(I-I:V) some setback of facilities from the channel will be needed, The Master.Plan*does not provide any information on where fill slopes would "catch' and w=hat arca would be retained as natural channel. Circulation. The circulation pattern is complex and is not wall related to the various functions. One read connection is proposed on Dougherty Road very near the Dougherty Road/ Hollinger Canyon Road intersection. The Main Street (extension of East Branch Road into the; Village Center) is a driveway that provides access to parking lots, Site Plan. Buildings are laid out as islands in a sea of parking. The linkage between residential and commercial functions are not :.apparent..The loading, service and trash area at the rear of the proposed supermarket is contiguous with a proposed residential area. The buildings in the Gale Ranch portion of the Village Center are spaced out which encourages driving between shops. ....... �3 F < fF�k ■tom.• +. 3�*,V �' °.��a ,� - � A :� S MR- "N"RV E E i r $::' E ....e r➢f.A,,.. � amu+««.. .,. 'eFA` 1e.� �F�^at ry � �,j � A , ta ' t tt I MI mI=131 �< w ,. Nit kt�IF AM, l #:. 0-A4-_, � 47 c E I fs a It-,c 4.8 'VISUAL QUALITY Athletic Fields. The ball ficlds are spaced out. Consolidating the locations might provide more open space between clusters of activity=, and parking areas could be consolidated. Summar); The Master flan for the Village Center seems to be unsuccessful in integrating the Village Center. and in creating a Main Street. Instead. it alnl>cars to respect property)lines, which facilitates the developnncnt cif two separate. Village Centers, neither of which possess a Main Street. Back-ground ori Uillgge Cenier. A quick summary of the direction providcd by fhc.Daugherty Valley Specific Plan and Corntnunity°Design Handbook is larovided by Figure 4.5-I.4. Schematic A shows the Village Center area (designated MU) and the Community Park (designated Pit). The boundaries of the two ranches are shown, but no specific intcrnal uses or circulation patterns are identified. The: value, of this neap lies in .the identification of the overall. area allocated bet-.�=ccn the Park/ Mixed Use functions and their loe<ation with respect to the major elements of the Dougherty Valley Plan. Schematic B in Figurc 4.5-7.4 shows the Village Center. This illustration is reproduced from page, 4-9 of the Daugherty Valley Specific Pian. It identifies the; internal circulation pattern, the axial composition of the"Main Street" is indicated,with two public gathering spaces shown at circulation way crossings. Village commercial uses and gathering spaces are clustered along the developed axis and terminate in a water featurewithin the; Community Park. Note that the: Gale Ranch/ Windernerc Ranch prof-wrty line is not. sh6'n and the dcsittn is treated as a single project. Schematic C is taken from the, Community Design Handbook (page 1.5). If'shows the property line, but this boundary does not influence the design. i�lajor buildings hank this Main Street, and there-is an important circulation loop road that: trends subparallel to Bollinger Canyon Road. There is a multi-family residential project Ticar the southeast boundary of the, Village:: Center. Openings between the buildings provide views of the park and distant ridgelines from the: loop - road and residential units. Art amphitheater, stage and significant water feature are shown i:rn the extension of Main Street and recreational facilities have been consolidated. No roads or parking Facilities are Shown in' the Community Park. This design has several advantages over the. Master Plar1. Figure 4.8-15 illustrates how the applicants:Master Plain could be .adjusted to more closely follow the design direction provided by the; Specific flan. This schematic is not intended to be a Master Plan or mitigation measure.. It merely indicates how the buildings shown oil the applicant's Master Plan could be rearranged to create a Main Street if property lines are ignored. tt s } Sol' is n GAS IV] Rio N.w. d pial an B � .. A ' & �+r 4�i t ,} #� �• 9`j'�.p Jay "..., }Y'S #! # ouy .; IFIK, �43x ✓ ri � '�:'err { SWow gt ROAR PI.5.. al — 4,4 K� Uy q Qum 4014 -, 11 19F jimin in jI Vi.Ilate Center r I Ian ; Coil]Puison 7t1});;E't.juent EIR 4:8-23 f (, i � t Vil ;a`Y] ttt fM4 y��gyrr� � ��. ,e.,•5� •��""'� £4. Lt�s�'o c i ,�ySSI, ) ,.a > ��f #► .?��� s1�3 "�• � �' `��Y>. -� if 4 is TT P 44 Lw- 40 ems. :c „a �a s" `'; ': S21) '�"T �'s.� ��^� „x�, �w"P,�M+•,�u t(�- P^.'�,l -�Wc i L �r "-srSSw:L`"^x'.Yfiny i i 4.8-24 t. 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria The'California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G (1995) indicate that a project will normally have a significant adverse effect on the environment if it will conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located or will have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Specific standard utilized by the 1992 EIR and retained for use in the Subsequent EIR are as follows: • Substantially and negatively affect visual character in areas of moderate to high visual sensitivity through the introduction of visually incongruous elements in terms of scale, form,line,color,or texture(e.g., large buildings or clusters of buildings or large or brightly colored water tanks). • Substantially and negatively change existing visual character of an area or viewshed from ' rural, pastoral, or natural to urban, commercial, or other more developed land use patterns. ' Substantially and negatively alter existing natural landforms from their natural character and pattern to less natural, human-altered, engineered forms and patterns. • Substantially and negatively alter existing natural vegetation patterns or remove structurally larger vegetation types(because of the rarity of larger structural vegetation in the planning area, such as oaks, cottonwoods, willows, and chaparral, virtually any loss of existing ' vegetation types other than annual grassland would constitute a significant visual impact). • Cover(e.g.,culvert or underground)or otherwise substantially and negatively alter to a less natural form important natural drainages (e.g., Alamo Creek or the west branch of Alamo Creek). • Introduce development that substantially and negatively obscures, significantly screens, or ' detracts from existing high-quality views (e.g., views of scenic ridges or Mt. Diablo). • Substantially and negatively changes the landscapes visual resources in conflict with adopted local goals and policies regarding scenic resources. In addition, substantial and negative alterations to areas of moderate to high visual sensitivity are considered significant. Areas of moderate to high sensitivity include: • Scenic corridors designated in the County General Plan. ' Views from existing and proposed trails and bikeways of regional importance. • Areas at or near ridgelines or high on hillsides visible from existing and proposed roads, residences, or recreation areas. 4.8-25 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY , • Drainage corridors containing perennial and intermittent( blueline ) streams or important riparian vegetation. • Important cultural (e.g., historical or rustic rural structures of local importance)or natural (e.g., rock outcrops, mature oaks, or waterfalls) features. Where the above features are located in foreground distance zones from viewer visual sensitivity g � is considered high. Where these features are located in middle ground distance zones, sensitivity is considered moderate. Ridgeline areas in any distance zone are considered to have moderate ' to high visual sensitivity. Significance evaluations are also based on viewer expectations and viewer positions and distances ' relative to the visual resources. Relative visibility of visual resources is based on an estimate of the possible number of viewers and the duration and frequency of views. Assumptions Made by 1992 EIR 1. Goals, policies and other information documented in the County General Plan , accurately reflect the present desires and interests of County residents for maintaining visual quality in the County. 2. Nearly the entire planning area is presently open space land, which, as defined in the County General Plan and State statutes, has important regional scenic values. ' 3. Proposed parks and trails in the area around the planning area and future trails identified as part of the project will be important areas and corridors for , recreationists to view the area, and the desires and expectations of regional recreationists are for a high-quality visual experience that includes extensive and continuous areas of open space. , Assumptions 1 and 3 remain unchanged. Assumption 2 should be qualified as follows. The ' County General Plan was amended after certification of the 1992 EIR. More than 40 percent of the Dougherty Valley is currently designated for urban land uses, and grading is underway on the Country Club at Gale Ranch. ' The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identified fifteen significant impacts and associated mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B92 through B100 for a listing of this impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in Table 4.8-2. There are no new impacts beyond those identified in the 1992 EIR. 4.8-26 , 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY ' Table`4.8-2 SUMMARY OF VISUAL QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM 1992 EIR Visual Quality The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. ' 1. Impact: Change in visual character from rural/pastoral to residential/commercial. Mitigation Measures. ' • No mitigation is available. 2. Impact: Modification of a County-designated scenic route. Mitigation Measures: ' • No mitigation is available. 3. Impact: Substantial alteration of natural landforms. Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents shall include within the proposed design handbook standards to ensure that urban design, architecture, and landscape design features used in the scenic corridor compensate for visual impacts of the Project and enhance the visual quality of this route. • The Project proponents should employ appropriate landform grading techniques to maintain natural landforms and contours as much as possible. • The Project proponents shall design grading to emulate natural landforms in the immediate vicinity of the graded area. All manufactured slope edges shall be rounded and slope percentages varied to create undulating cut-and-fill slopes. Slopes shall average 3:1 horizontal-to-vertical,with no cut slope exceeding 2:1 and no fill slope exceeding 3:1. • The Project proponents shall replant all graded areas, using native species and native regional vegetation patterns. 4. Impact: 45% reduction in visually prominent open space. ' Mitigation Measures: • The Project proponents propose to dedicate the remaining open space areas to a qualified agency or organization to be conserved and managed to maintain remaining open space values in perpetuity. ' 5. Impact: Introduction of structures and other built features that may reduce visual quality. Mitigation Measures: The Project proponents shall screen residential and,commercial development and other facilities with berms and native vegetation where these features will be visible from entrances into the planning area, recreation areas and features (e.g.,trails),and scenic features (e.g.,scenic routes and important viewing locations). 4.8-27 4.8 VISUAL.QUALITY Table 4.8-2 continued ' The Project proponents shall restore native habitat types in key areas within the scenic corridor. • The Project proponents shall ensure that only earthtone colors are used for all structures and buildings ' visible from adjacent residences, gateways, important viewing locations, recreation areas and features, and other important locations both on and off the planning area. ' The Project proponents shall design any signs,other than required traffic signs,to be less than 1 four feet in height and 12 feet in width and constructed of native-appearing materials (e.g.,colored and textured concrete, native stone, or wood) and use only earthtone or subdued colors. • The Project proponents shall set back all houses,garages,storage units,and other structures of more ' than six feet in height a minimum of 25 feet from the center of the rounded edge of cut or fill slopes where the structures are to be located above the slope. • The Project proponents shall limit the height of all structures to 30 feet or less for all housing and ' commercial development on hillsides and terraces and 15 feet or less for areas between 25 and 40 feet from the center of the rounded edge of cut or fill slopes where the structures are to be located above ' the slope. • The Project proponents shall ensure that no buildings or structures interrupt the continuous, unbroken ridgelines within the planning area when viewed from gateway areas, recreation areas, recreation features, residences, or other important on-site or off-site locations. , ' The Project proponents shall design erosion control and drainage features to conform with the natural topography,vegetative patterns, and colors of the area. The Project proponents shall screen these features with berms and native vegetation. 6. Impact: Siting of infrastructure elements and other vertical elements that reduce visual quality. Mitigation Measures: ' The Project proponents shall site facilities in areas of low visual sensitivity,below ridgelines,so that they do not interrupt the continuous, unbroken lines of ridge tops when viewed from important locations both on-site and off-site. • The Project proponents shall site facilities,such as water storage tanks, by minimizing sidewall exposure through methods such as full or partial burial,constructing berms,planting native vegetative screens, and using earthtone colors that blend closely with the natural surroundings. ' ' The Project proponents shall minimize visibility and visual impacts of access and maintenance roads by minimizing sidecast and cut-and-fill requirements, revegetating disturbed areas with native vegetation, siting roads and varying their width to fit the natural topography, designing road portions located high ' on hillsides to be 4% outsloping with rolling dips and road portions located low on hillsides to be insloping with ditches and culverts, and surfacing roads with dense, graded, crushed aggregate. 7. Impact: Roads and road improvements in creek corridors. Mitigation-Measures: ' • The Project proponents shall setback all roads in creek corridors a minimum of 150 feet from the creek centerline to the edge of the road and maintain a native vegetation buffer in the setback area. • Where feasible, the Project proponents shall retain and replant existing natural drainages with native vegetation. ' 4'.8-28 ' ' 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY ' Table 4.8-2 continued 8. Impact: Introduction of recreation features and elements that reduce visual quality. Mitigation Measures: The Project proponents shall minimize grading and alteration of natural landform,creeks, and drainage elements for the golf course and other recreation areas, staging areas, and trails. • The Project proponents shall establish a native vegetation buffer of a minimum width of 50 feet ' between creek centerlines and recreation features for Alamo Creek and the west branch of Alamo Creek. The Project proponents shall design the golf course to maintain all drainages as open drainages and ' use only small bridges and short culverts for pedestrian, cart path, and maintenance vehicle crossings. The Project proponents shall stabilize creek banks and make other improvements in recreation areas using only natural-appearing construction materials (e.g.,timber, rocks, and textured, earth-tone concrete) and native vegetation,where feasible. • The Project proponents shall site recreation trails and other similar features along one bank of the creek corridor and retain the other in a more natural condition. ' 9. Impact: Removal of visually important vegetation. Mitigation Measures: ' See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impacts 1 to 15. 10. Impact: Visual impacts of fencing,fire breaks, and fire roads. ' Mitigation Measures: ' See the Mitigation Measures for Visual Quality Impact 6. ' Where feasible,the Project proponents shall locate fire roads in debris catchment basins on the tops of buttress fill areas. ' The Project proponents shall use low fencing of welded wire mesh or barbed wire strand no higher ' than necessary to control stock and domestic animal access. 11. Impact: Introduction of stormwater detention facilities. Mitigation Measures: ' The Project proponents shall design stormwater drainage and detention facilities to fit the area's natural landform patterns, colors and vegetation. ' 12. Impact: Light and glare on residents both on-site and off-site. Mitigation Measures: ' • The Project proponents shall use downward-oriented, high-pressure sodium lights and physical screening to minimize the visibility of lighting in concentrated night-lit areas. ' 4.8-29 4.8 VISUAL QUALITY 1 Table 4.8-2 continued 13. Impact: Cumulative regional loss of rural/pastoral visual character, reduced views of open space, and loss of scenic views in the region. ' Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Visual Quality Impacts 3 to 15. 14. Impact: Construction of Windemere Parkway extension from Dougherty Valley east to Camino Tassajara Road. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Visual Quality Impact 3. * The Project proponents shall incorporate innovative techniques to retain, contour grade, drain, and ' revegetate road cuts and fills to minimize the overall visibility of the road when viewed from the designated Camino Tassajara scenic route. * The design of the Windemere Parkway bridge across Tassajara Creek will incorporate innovative ' techniques to retain, contour grade, drain, and revegetate the bridge abutment areas and provide a visually appropriate transition to the designated Camino Tassajara scenic route. 15. Impact: Views from adjacent existing and approved residential areas. , Mitigation Measures: * The County shall notify property owners and tenants adjacent to the boundary of the planning area , whose review will be impacted by new homes. The Project proponents shall provide an informational brochure that fully discloses the anticipated visual impacts of their plans,which shall be distributed to interested individuals by the County. r 4.8-30 1 1 r r r .......... NOISE 1 SETTING ' Introduction The noise study presented herein is intended to update the noise study in the 1992 EIR. This chapter is organized to first summarize information from the 1992 EIR. Because a new traffic study has been performed for the Subsequent EIR, one function of this noise study has been to ' determine if the updated traffic study has modified the noise impacts and associated mitigation measures presented in the 1992 EIR. This study re-evaluates the existing noise environment and the potential new noise impacts from traffic, construction and operational activities that could be associated with the project. For the most part the same sensitive receptor locations and evaluation methods have been used, and similar noise concerns and impacts have been assessed using new traffic data and focusing on the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects. Updated information about the existing noise environment has been provided where available, such as for noise associated with Camp Parks south of the project. 1992 EIR ' Sources and Receptors The earlier noise study described the undeveloped nature of the area and the wide variety of noise levels in the project area, depending upon the proximity to existing noise sources, roads and developed land uses. Existing noise conditions for a variety of locations were presented, based upon ambient monitoring and traffic modeling methods at a number of receptor locations. It should be noted that although significant topographic variation and shielding are characteristic of the project area, flat terrain was assumed in the traffic noise modeling. Three primary sources of noise in the project area identified in the 1992 EIR are described below. Streets and Highways A number of major streets on the periphery of the project area were ' identified as primary sources of traffic noise: Interstate Route 680, Interstate Route 580, Alcosta r 4.9.1 4.9 NOISE Boulevard, Crow Canyon Road, and Camino Tassajara. In addition, Dougherty Road was identified as the only existing paved road in the planning area. Aircraft. The Livermore Airport is 5 miles southeast of the planning area. The project is well ' beyond the airport noise protection area, which extends for roughly 1 mile from the airport boundaries. Overflying aircraft are sometimes are audible in the project area, but they are infrequent and not a significant noise source. Camp Parks Training Activities During the months of April through October Camp Parks is ' utilized regularly as a military training area, as well as on weekends throughout the year. Noisy activities include weapons training at firing ranges,ordinance demolition,sporadic helicopter flights ' in the area, and the use of heavy military equipment and vehicles. Future activity levels are expected to increase at the facility. A study of future activities for the Army at Camp Parks' presented noise contour maps showing the noise levels generated by military activities. These noise contours do not include the effects of sporadic use of helicopters. Two mitigation measures were proposed by the 1992 EIR to reduce potential impacts on the , project (Mitigation Measures 8.5 and 8.6). Sensitive Receptor Locations. For the 1992 EIR, a set of 30 typical receptor locations within and ' outside of the project boundaries was selected for acoustical analysis. Noise levels were calculated and potential impacts analyzed. New Information Related to Existing Noise Sources and Receptors Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA) Noise Overview. . The PRFTA (Camp Parks) lies just south of the Windemere and Gale Ranch properties and east of Dougherty Road. As described above, a number of military training , activities occur at the facility that have potential to impact nearby receptors. However, the topography of the area offers significant protection from noise transmission from Camp Parks to residential areas within Dougherty Valley. A.range of steep hills lies along the boundary between ' the project and most noise-generating activities on PRFTA with elevations of 750 to 900 feet. The nearest project residential properties to the north will be in future phases of Windemere. This residential area will be developed on padded lots that will be substantially lower in elevation than the ridge crest, so the hills will tend to shield the Windemere project from noise originating on the PRFTA property.Additionally, most noise-generating activities currently are originating 2,000 to 5,000 feet from the nearest future residential area. r 'Woodward-Clyde Federal Services (1988). 4.9-2 ' 1 4.9 NOISE With respect to the Gale Ranch II and Wind emere I projects, they are located 1.3 miles and 0.5 miles north of the PRFTA property, respectively. Update. In 1995 Woodward Clyde Federal Services completed a new report on noise associated with the anticipated future military training activities at Camp Parks. The principal conclusions of this study are summarized below: • Helicopter Noise. According to the Camp Parks base administrator, less than ten helicopter training flights occur a few days per year, with a few additional flights to bring Army personnel to and from the camp. In general the flights would not be over the project and would not be near or in view of project receptors. For this reason,and the fact that only a few flights per day would occur even during the worst-case training day, along with the terrain protection, it can be concluded that helicopter noise would not affect the project adversely. • Ordnance Noise. Infrequently the Army detonates 1/4-pound explosive charges in the Explosive Ordnance Range (Demolition Pit) at the northeast corner of the site, about 1/4- mile from the closest portion of Windemere Ranch. Noise levels at a similar distance were measured at 95 dBC2 with no terrain or barrier protection. This would translate into a noise level less than 40 dBC with the existing terrain shielding at the nearest project locations. These would be very brief occurrences masked by ambient noise. • Small Arms Firing Range Noise. Various individual military weapons are fired at the ' Small Arms Firing Range in the west section of the PRFTA, about 2,000 feet from Dougherty Road and one mile from the nearest planned residential areas within the Dougherty Valley planning area. Peak noise levels from this activity were measured at 75 ' to 80 dBA at locations a half-mile away with about 30 dBA of terrain shielding. The additional distance to the Windemere and Gale Ranch properties and terrain shielding would reduce peak noise levels an additional 20 to 30 dBA, to 45 to 55 dBA. Again, this ' noise level would be at or below ambient noise levels for traffic and other typical sources, and would not cause disturbance in project areas. In summary, although some sporadic noise sources are associated with the nearby Army PRFTA facility, the attenuation provided by significant distance, terrain shielding, and atmospheric and ground absorption would reduce potential disturbance to a level of minor background noise at the nearest project receptors. z Decibel with C-weighting,htin ,which is used to measure unusual noises, such as engine noise or ordinance noise. g g g ' 4.9-3 4.9 NOISE Sensitive Receptor Locations Sensitive receptors that could be affected by project noise include existing residences on access routes that link Dougherty Valley to I-580 and I-680, as well as proposed residential and school land uses within the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects. Arterial streets carrying significant vehicle trips into and out of the Dougherty Valley include Bollinger Canyon Road, Crow Canyon Road, Camino Tassajara, and Dougherty Road. The traffic and circulation chapter of this Subsequent EIR identifies other arterial and collector streets that will carry a significant number of trips originating or destined for Dougherty Valley. i Within the Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects there are sensitive residential receptors adjacent to major new roadways, including Bollinger Canyon Road and Windemere Parkway. Ten ' selected locations have been selected for acoustical analysis. They are near and within the project area and they represent worst-case residential receptor locations in neighborhoods that could be adversely affected by project traffic and/or operational noise. The locations are identified on ' Figure 4.9-1. Other receptor locations not specifically evaluated would have similar or lesser project noise impacts. Table 4.9-1 presents a.description of the noise monitoring stations. i Ambient Noise Monitoring On March 15, 1996, ambient noise levels were monitored at the selected sensitive receptor ' locations described in Table 4.9-1. A description of the noise measurement procedure and equipment is found in Appendix F. Standard statistical noise descriptors were recorded at each rece for location such as L90 L50 p p , Ll, and Leq. The L90 is the noise level exceeded 90 percent the time, and is generally considered ' the background noise level. The L50 noise level is the median noise level exceeded 50 percent of the time, Ll is the peak noise level exceeded 1 percent of the time, and Leq is the single noise level which has a noise energy equivalent to the overall varying noise monitored. ,Results of the ' field noise monitoring are tabulated in Table 4.9-2. Using the field noise measurements and a standard model of hourly traffic distribution,the existing Ldn was computed for each location using the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) traffic noise model. The Ldn is the long-term average Leq, with a night time"penalty" of 10 dBA, when noise levels are expected to be significantly lower than in the daytime. The ' procedure for this computation is described in Appendix F. 4.9-4 ' 6 c� o� 3 O y x m TpSSA]ARA i 2 1 a G ROAD d ., o • .\. d Ue 011f00 0 YOB Jl i � Ys� `�G �``ray°'➢'� i�� i`I j�xr`.� \ 'r.^'�`,,,� i�� \�`�} i� � y� 1 6 71 i 7fi i \ ' �2. L i —•.. ��' /.fit //�i \ �:'..^`�, ti /,^R�; Yom ' f \ ] C7 no y� R R9 \ o j4 G v Q. 1 Figure: 4.9-1 Graphic Noise Monitoring Stations Scale: Subsequent EIR 0 2000' 4000' 4.9-5 4.9 NOISE Table 4.9-1 DESCRIPTION OF NOISE MONITORING STATIONS Noise levels were analyzed at the following worst-case receptor locations: , 1. North side of Crow Canyon Road near the west intersection of Canyon Crest Drive. Some homes at this location look 20 feet down onto the roadway behind a low masonry wall. ' 2. West side of Camino Tassajara west of the intersection of Old Blackhawk Road.. Homes on both sides of the roadway have an 8-foot masonry wall protection, but second floor windows have a direct view of ' vehicles. 3. Intersection north of Bollinger Canyon Road and east of Silverne Drive, across from the Retail ' Commercial area (now an undeveloped area). 4. West side of Alcosta Boulevard south of Pine Valley Road. Front yard of residences on parallel frontage road. ' 5. North side of Old Ranch Road west of Bent Creek Estates Drive adjacent to residences looking 15 feet down onto roadway. 6. West side of Dougherty Road south of Austin Creek Avenue. First floor areas protected by masonry wall but not second floor areas. 7. Adjacent to Bollinger Canyon Road near the Canyon Lakes Drive intersection. This is now the end of ' J g Y Bollinger Canyon Road, but when the road is completed for the project, the road will carry significant traffic past the existing homes,which have second floor windows looking onto the right-of-way. 8. Northeast comer of intersection Bollinger Canyon Road and Monarch Road(now an undeveloped area in Gale Ranch II). 9. Southeast comer of the intersection of Windemere Parkway and east of Bollinger Canyon Road (now an undeveloped area in Windemere I). ' 10. Northwest comer of intersection of Bollinger Canyon Road and Alamo Creek Road, across from the Village Center (now an undeveloped area in Windemere I). See Figure 4.9-1 for map of stations. 4.9-6 4.9 NOISE Table 4.9-2 AMBIENT NOISE - DOUGHERTY VALLEY PROJECT AREA (dBA) ' )(,ocitrOn L90 L50 Leg Ll Ldn 1. Crow Canyon Road near Canyon Crest Drive (80') 60 66 68 73 70 ' 2. Camino Tassajara near Old Blackhawk Road (60') 51 60 65 71 65 3. Undeveloped area near Dougherty Road (30') (for 43 49 64 72 66 project,intersection north of Bollinger Canyon ' Road and east of Silverne Drive) 4. Alcosta Boulevard south of Pine Valley Road (40') 48 57 61 66 63 5. Old Ranch Road west of Bent Creek Estates Drive 41 49 59 70 60 (60') 6. Dougherty Road south of Austin Creek Avenue 45 59 67 75 69 (30') ' 7. Bollinger Canyon Road near Canyon Lakes Drive 49 51 54 58 55 (100') 8. Undeveloped area (for project, intersection north of 41 45 47 51 46 Bollinger Canyon Road east of Monarch Drive) 9. Undeveloped area (for project, intersection west of 42 46 48 53 47 Bollinger Canyon Road and south of Windemere ' Parkway) 10. Undeveloped area (for project,intersection west of 41 45 47 50 46 Bollinger Canyon Road and north of Alamo Creek Road) Note: If applicable, the distance to nearby traffic is in parentheses. The ambient noise levels resented in Table 4.9-2 generally reflect the significant traffic P g Y � characteristics at each location: the distance to the traffic, the traffic volume, and the average vehicle speed. Background noise levels are established by distant high-volume streets and highways. Ldn noise levels in the 60 to 70 dBA range are typical of locations close to high traffic volumes. In remote areas away from traffic, such as receptor locations (i.e., noise monitoring ' stations) 8 through 10, noise levels are dominated by natural sounds such as birds and wind in the foliage. 4.9-7 4.9 NOISE 1 Contra Costa County Noise Element ' Land Use Compatibility Guidelines The Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element includes land uses compatibility criteria, which are summarized in Table 4.9-3. These guidelines serve as targets to direct future planning decisions. They can also be used to assess potentially significant project-generated noise levels. , Noise levels that fall within the range that is "Normally Acceptable" do not require mitigation. For example, if noise levels for a multiple-family project are 65 Ldn or less, noise is within the normally acceptable range and mitigation is not warranted. ' Table 4.9-3 ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY NOISE PLANNING CRITERIA Land Use Category Limit,Lda' ' Residential -single-family 60 Residential -multiple-family,hotel 65 Schools,libraries,churches, hospitals, parks, 70 Commercial, office and business 70 ' Outdoor recreation, industrial,manufacturing, utilities,agriculture 75 n Noise Element Policies and Implementation Measures ' In addition to the adopted land use compatibility guidelines, the General Plan contains noise- related policies and implementation measures relevant to new projects. the applicable policies and ' implementation measures are presented in the 1992 EIR. Further review in this Subsequent`EIR is not warranted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria ' Two significance criteria were used to evaluate anticipated noise conditions. The first pertains to land use compatibility (i.e., site exposure) as defined in the noise element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, and the second pertains to project-related incremental noise increases at existing off-site sensitive receptors. 4.9-8 ' 4.9 NOISE The noise and land use compatibility guideline is summarized in Table 4.9-3. In addition to considering this compatibility criterion, the incremental increases in noise to off-site land uses ' caused by the project are used to determine significance. An increase in noise of 3 dB or less is typically considered to be imperceptible. An increase in noise of 5 dB is a distinctly noticeable increase and generally used as the threshold for a significant noise increase. Consideration is given to the perceptibility of changes in noise levels in assessing significance at existing sensitive receptors. ' A direct noise impact is considered significant if: • New noise-sensitive land uses that would result from implementation of the project would be exposed to noise level in excess of 60 Ldn. • Predicted noise levels at existing sensitive receptors exceeds the normally acceptable noise ' level specified in Table 4.9-3 and the incremental increase in noise from future no-project conditions to future with-project conditions is greater than 3 dB. • The incremental increase in noise from future no-project conditions to future with-project conditions is greater than 5 dB at existing sensitive receptors. Or, • Noise from the project would result in substantial conflict with surrounding current and planned land uses in the area or would likely result in complaints. A cumulative noise impact is considered significant if: • Noise from the project substantially contributes to a condition where a normally acceptable noise level is exceeded. Or, • The incremental increase in noise from existing conditions to future with-project conditions is greater than 5 dB. Assumptions Made by 1992 EIR 1. Camps parks will continue to be used as a training facility at a level that is equal to or greater than its current level of use. 2. On page 2-5 of the adopted Specific Plan, it is stated that landscaped setbacks with berms ' or low sound walls will be encouraged along all arterials or collector streets instead of high, imposing sound walls. It is assumed that setbacks will be used over the use of sound walls. ' 3. A light rail system, the timing of which is unknown,was not included in the noise modeling in the planning area; however, a light rail corridor will be established as part of the initial planning process. ' 4.9-9 4.9 NOISE Assumption 1 remains valid:With regard to Assumption 2, the statement which is cited has been retained in the amended Specific Plan. However, the Specific Plan does not contain objective standards for setbacks from major roadways, so judging compliance with the intent of this statement is difficult. However, the applicants have.submitted final development plans at a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet. These plans show the amount of setback proposed from arterial and collector streets along with proposed grading. In some cases- the residential development is screened by topography and distance from noise. For example, in the Gale Ranch II project the residential lots on the east side of Dougherty Road are elevated 20 to 30 feet above the grade of , the road and are set back nearly 200 feet. However, in general, relatively small residential lots are adjacent to the right-of-way of arterial and collector streets. The relationship of single-family lots and multiple-family projects to arterial and collector streets can be seen in Figures 3-8 and 3-9. To the degree that building pads are elevated above the grade of the road, the height of sound ' barrier walls could be minimized. Assumption 3 is correct. The typical sections for Bollinger Canyon Road includes space for a transit corridor within the median of Bollinger Canyon Road. There is no proposal to develop a light rail system in the foreseeable future. :Provided that the corridor remains in the center of , Bollinger Canyon Road, it would be unlikely to create a noise impact. A transit corridor on the edge of the right-of-way would not create noise impacts in the Village Center, and in residential areas the planned sound barrier walls would provide shielding. ' The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, identified eight significant impacts and associated mitigation measures(see Appendix B;pages B48 ' through B60 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures).'These impacts and mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are summarized in Table 4.9-4. Traffic noise modeling is based on the EIR traffic study performed by Meyer-Mohaddes Associates. Two traffic conditions have been considered in the study:the"PDP No Build" traffic ' case and the worst-case"General Plan Amendment(1996)"traffic case,which includes an ultimate capacity 11,000-unit project size. Traffic noise impacts were modeled with an improved version of the NCHRP Report 117 Traffic Noise Model. Traffic conditions associated with the PDP No Build and the associated long-term Ldn noise increases associated with buildout of Dougherty Valley were analyzed. Sound barrier walls are planned as part of the project improvements along segments of arterial streets which are within residential areas. No other areas of significant noise impacts were identified under the Windemere I or Gale Ranch II developments by the EIR noise study. Outside of Dougherty Valley no noise impacts were identified beyond those identified in the 1992 EIR (see Table 4.9-4 for a listing of these impacts). 4.9-10 ' 1 4.9 NOISE ' Table 4.9-4 SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Noise ' The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Exposure of on-site and off-site land uses to construction noise. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall employ the following noise-reducing construction practices: All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. Construction activities shall be concentrated during hours that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and shall be commissioned to occur during normal work hours. The County shall set the hours of heavy equipment operation. The contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including,but not limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activities, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, or installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. 2. Impact: Exposure of residents and other noise-sensitive land uses in the planning area to traffic noise levels in excess of Contra Costa County standards. Mitigation Measure: * The Project proponents shall locate new residences and other noise-sensitive land uses outside the 60-dB-Ldn contour lines caused by traffic train and other transit sources. The County may permit the location of noise-sensitive land uses within the 60-dB-Ldn contour lines provided that the (1) location of the use within the contour line is for reasons beyond the Project proponents' control, and (2) the Project proponents provide sound walls, berms, or other noise control measures between the roads and noise-sensitive land uses. 3. Impact: Exposure of residents in the planning area to noise from training activities at Camp Parks. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Land Use Impact 3. 4. Impact: Potential exposure of residents in the planning area to noise from light rail train passages. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Noise Impact * An EIR on the implementation of the light rail train system should be required prior to final Project implementation. r 4.9-11 ,S 4.9 NOISE ' Table 4.9-4 continued 5. Impact: Exposure of residents along Old Ranch Road to a substantial increase in noise. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall provide sound walls along Old Ranch Road adjacent to existing residences subject to the concurrence of the City of San Ramon. , * The Project proponents shall upgrade the acoustical insulation of existing homes that abut Old Ranch Road where sound walls will not be effective in reducing exterior noise. * The Project proponents shall fund improvements to the roadway surface to reduce tire noise. When a roadway surface is in disrepair,irregularities in the roadway surface can result in increased tire noise from the interaction between the tire and the roadway surface. * The County shall reduce the posted speed limit. Reducing the speed of traffic will reduce traffic noise. 6. Impact: Exposure of residents along Dougherty Road near Old Ranch Road to excessive noise levels. i Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall provide sound walls or berms along Dougherty Road adjacent to current residences. * If the Community Development Department, upon further environmental review,determines it necessary, the Project proponents shall upgrade the acoustical insulation of existing homes along Dougherty Road where sound walls or berms will not be effective in reducing exterior noise. * New homes being built in the City of San Ramon should be required to have adequate acoustical insulation so that additional homes will not need to be retrofitted. * See the Mitigation Measures for Noise Impact 5. 7., Impact: Exposure of new residents-to noise from recreational and cultural facilities. , Mitigation Measure: * The Project proponents shall incorporate noise control features, such as setbacks and barriers, into the design of recreational and.cultural facilities that have the potential to generate noise. 8. Impact: Exposure of existing and planned noise-sensitive locations to noise levels in excess of County noise standards. Mitigation Measures: * No mitigation is available. t 4.9-12 4.9 NOISE REFERENCES California Dept. of Health, Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, Office of Noise Control, February 1976. Carlson Barbee & Gibson, Inc, Final Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map, Subdivision 7976, for Windemere Ranch Partners, October, 1995. Contra Costa County, Noise Element of the General Plan, Community Development Dept., January 1991. Jones and Stokes Associates,Draft Environmental Impact Report (Noise Section), Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Related Actions, for Contra Costa County,June 1992. Larry Patterson,Meyer-Mohaddes Associates, Dougherty Valley Project Traffic Study,May 1996. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Highway Noise -A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Research Board, 1971. (Traffic noise model upgraded by ECS to improve accuracy, based on extensive field validation measurements.) Ruggieri Jensen & Associates, Preliminary and Final Development Plan, Gale Ranch Phase 2, for �f Shappell Industries of Northern California, October 12, 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 1971. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., Community Noise, December 1971. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March 1974. Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Installation Compatible Use Zone Report, Implementation of Development Plans for Parks Reserve Training Area, ("ICUZ Study") for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1988. ' 4.9-13 4.9 NOISE Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Noise Source Inventory and Noise Abatement Plan, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, CA for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District; September 1995. . i r� r �f t 4.9-14 { .......... ...... 414 AIR QUALITY SETTING 1992 EIR The 1992 EIR presented information of the climate of the site, the ambient air quality standards applicable within the region, and measured data from the Livermore monitoring site for a three year period. Existing concentrations of a major local pollutant, carbon monoxide,were estimated for worst-case conditions at and near major intersections. The requirements of the federal and i� state Clean Air Acts were summarized. The assessment of project impacts addressed construction impacts, local effects of project traffic on carbon monoxide concentrations, and the regional impact of project traffic on ozone precursor emissions. The CALINE-4 computer model was used to predict carbon monoxide impacts, while the URBEMIS-3 program estimated regional emissions of ozone precursors. t Background Important changes have occurred in the area of air quality management between 1992 and 1996. The BAAQMD has established revised thresholds of significance for regional impacts subsequent to the 1992 EIR. Concentrations of federal nonattainment pollutants been gradually declining in the Bay Area over the past decade. The Bay Area recently was recently redesignated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a "maintenance area" for ozone, and a request for redesignation to "maintenance area" for carbon monoxide has been submitted to the U. S., Environmental Protection Agency. The area-wide plan required by the California Clean Air Act was adopted in October 1991 and updated in 1994.1 The Plan imposes controls on stationary sources (factories, power plants, industrial sources, etc.) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) designed to reduce emissions from automobiles, including indirect sources. Since the Plan does not provide for a 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area '94 Clean Air Plan (CAP), 1994. 4.10-1 4.10 AIR QUALITY percentproposes annual reduction in emissions it ro the adoption of"all feasible measures on an P expeditious schedule". The Bay Area 94 Clean Air Plan forecasts continued improvement in regional air quality. An analysis of carbon monoxide trends shows attainment of the standards throughout the Bay Area and maintenance of the standard through the year 2000. However, implementation of the Plan would not provide for attainment of the State ozone standard even by the year 2000. l;u The project is within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality ' Management District operates air quality monitoring sites throughout the Bay Area,although none are located near the site. The closest monitoring site is located in Livermore. Measured levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide meet all state and federal ambient air quality standards. Concentrations of ozone and PM-10, however, have exceeded federal and/or state standards recently. Table 4.10-1 shows a summary of air quality data from the Livermore monitoring site for the three-year period 1993-1995 for these two pollutants. Table 4.10-1 j AIR POLLUTION DATA SUMMARY LIVERMORE STATION 1993-1995 Pollutant. 1993 1994 1995 t Ozone Highest 1-Hour Concentration, PPM 0.16 0.13 0.16 Days Federal Standard was Exceeded 1 2 7 Days State Standard was Exceeded 7 5 20 Pm, Annual Geometric Mean, µg/m3 20.9 22.1 19.4 Days Federal Standard was Exceeded 0 0 0 Days State Standard was Exceeded 3 4 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria The 1992 EIR cited CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e) and Appendix G as sources for determining significance criteria. A project will normally have a significant impact if it would: • violate any ambient air quality standard; • contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; r. • expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • result in substantial air emissions or deterioration of air quality; _ • create objectionable odors; or 4.10-2 �v. 4.10 AIR QUALITY alter air movement, moisture or temperature or result in any change in climate, either locally or regionally. Methodology Methods for predicting and analyzing air pollutant emissions are constantly being revised and updated to account for changing technology and emissions controls programs. The impact analysis contained in the 1992 EIR has been updated and revised based on the 1996 traffic study performed by Meyer-Mohaddes Associates for this EIR to reflect current practices and methods. These impacts are evaluated using thresholds of significance developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District subsequent to the 1992 EIR. The following impacts discussion utilizes the following refinements to the methodology in the 1992 EIR: • The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has periodically published maps of background levels of carbon monoxide and correction factors to allow forecasts of background carbon monoxide levels in future years for use in environmental documents. These maps and correction factors are used in the SEIR and yield significantly lower background levels compared to those assumed in the 1990 EIR. • The latest version of the EMFAC7 emissions program has been used. The EMFAC program has been updated every few years to reflect current control programs and emissions control technology. In general, the latest EMFAC7 program yields lower emission estimates because it reflects the most current emission standards for vehicles and considers the effects of a variety of emission programs (reformulated fuels, for example) not considered in 1992 EIR. The URBEMIS-5 computer program is used to calculate project impacts for regional emissions. The 1992 EIR utilized the now-obsolete URBEMIS-3 program. • The significance of regional air quality impacts is judged using thresholds of significance developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in its recent guidance document.' The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, identified six significant impacts and associated mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B41 through B47 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigations which are summarized in Table 4.10-2, are of three types: construction-related dust impacts, increases in carbon monoxide concentrations along streets providing access to the site and t increases in regional pollutant emissions. The construction-related dust discussion in the 1992 EIR does not require revision. 'Bay Area Air Quality Management District,BAAQMD CCQA Guidelines, 1995. 4.10-3 4.10 AIR QUALITY Table 4.10-2 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Air Quality The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Increased emission of PM-10 dust. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall use recycled water from water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and increase watering frequency when winds exceed 15 mph. * The Project proponents shall spray all dirt stockpiles daily or as needed. * The Project proponents shall implement permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project revegetation and landscape plans as soon as possible following completion of any soil-disturbing activities. * Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than 1 month after initialradin g g shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. * The Project proponents shall stabilize all disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation using t� approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the BAAQMD. * Construction vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 2. Impact: Generation of construction-related ozone precursor emissions. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall use electric equipment where practical. * The Project proponents shall maintain and operate equipment according to manufacturer's specifications. Project proponents may,however, implement engine timing retard (4 degrees) for diesel-powered equipment. * The Project proponents shall install catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment where required by law. r^� * The Project proponents shall substitute gasoline-powered for diesel-powered equipment where feasible. 4.10-4 i 4.10 AIR QUALITY Table 4.10-2 continued 3. Impact: Violation of carbon monoxide emission standards. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents shall implement the intersection Mitigation Measures in the"Circulation" section of this summary. * The Project proponents or other appropriate providers will implement the following transportation control measures: Commute Travel Vans/Carpools: preferential areas for carpool and van pool pick up and parking,and a community bulletin board for carpool and van pool notices. Bus Service: convenient access to public transportation with bus turnouts,passenger benches,and shelters. Retail outlets will sell transit tickets. BART Connection: feeder buses to BART. Employment: residences located near major employment centers. Bike Paths: an extensive network of bike paths linking the Project to bicycle commuting, recreational and shopping routes. Pedestrian Walkway: an extensive network of pedestrian pathways, both on street and off street. Non-commute Travel Mixed Land Use: mixed land uses within walking distance of one another to reduce the number of vehicle trips. Recreation: recreation facilities,such as open space for hiking,parks, and movie theaters within walking and biking distance of residential units. * The County shall modify signal timing to improve arterial traffic movement. 4. Impact: Increase of ozone precursor emissions. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impact 3. 5. Impact: Increase of carbon monoxide emissions (cumulative impacts). Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impact 3. 6. Impact: Increase of ozone precursor emissions (cumulative impacts). Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Impact 3. �� 4.10-5 4.1p.6 ...... .... ............. .......... ............ .. .. ... ....... 411 PUBLIC HEALTW D SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION �1 SETTING 1992 EIR/Electromagnetic Fields The previous EIR included an entire chapter devoted to potential public health and safety effects associated with development near electric transmission lines. At that time, it was stated that there is reason to consider electromagnetic fields a potential health hazard but that the studies were inconclusive. Additional studies have been completed in the past few years in the U.S. and Europe. Several studies in Europe conclude that magnetic fields pose health problems,specifically childhood cancer or leukemia. However, the data presented have not been widely accepted by members of the U.S. scientific community.' The most commonly accepted U.S. policy is that of "prudent avoidance"—avoiding long-term exposure to strong EMFs when this can be done at minimal cost. Governmental Regulation of EMF City of San Ramon. The City has adopted a Prudent Avoidance Strategy for electromagnetic fields as part of its discussion in the utilities portion of its General Plan, but has no official ordinances or policies? California Department of Education. In May 1993,the Department established a policy of requiring setbacks for new school sites from high-voltage power transmission line easements. Schools must be located at least 100 feet from the edge of the easement for 50-133 kilovolt (kV) lines, 150 feet from the edge of the easement for 220-230 kV lines and 350 feet from the edge of the easement for 500-550 kV lines.3 '1 'KGO Radio,news broadcasts,various news articles,discussions with medical professionals, 1995; Statement by the Council of The American Physical Society,"Power Line Fields and Public Health", April 1995. Z Jeff Eorio, City of San Ramon, Parks Department, personal communication 1996 �l 3 Merritt, Robert E., "OVERVIEW: Electromagnetic Fields: Policy, Planning, and Litigation," Land Use & Environment Forum,published by Continuing Education of the Bar--California, Fall 1994. 4.11-1 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYIENERGY CONSERVATION Alameda County. On 5 May 1994, the East County Area Plan was adopted which included the policy that precludes approval of sensitive uses within the setbacks recommended by the California Department of Education. Sensitive uses were not defined except by example—hospitals, schools, and retirement homes.° City of Irvine. The Zoning Ordinance includes a map showing a 4 milligauss (mG) contour around high voltage power transmission lines,,and policy stating that new residential development is not allowed within this zone. This is perhaps based upon a Johns Hopkins University finding of increased risk of leukemia, lymphoma, lung, prostate and colon cancer among cable splicers who had a long-term exposure to 4.3 mG.' No other local agencies within California have been cited in the literature as having zoning ordinances relating.to magnetic held strength. The California Public Utilities Commission concluded in November, 1993, that"it is not.appropriate to adopt any specific numerical standard in association with EMFs until we have a firm scientific basis for adopting any particular value." Some public agencies require residential builders and real estate agents to disclose the presence c of powerlines to potential buyers and inform them of the ongoing research into potential health hazards associated with electromagnetic fields. Recent Epidemiological Research In September, 1992, Swedish scientists announced the results of an epidemiological study looking at the association between cancer and living in residences adjacent to high voltage (transmission) power lines. Based on its finding of seven or fewer cases of childhood leukemia (out of 436,500 total population) in the highest exposure group, the study concludes that there is an increased risk ' for leukemia in children who lived near high voltage lines. No associations were found between all cancers in children and EMF exposure or cancer in adults and EMF exposure.b On October 9, 1993, the British Medical Journal published the results of the Finnish EMF/childhood cancer study. The subject of the study were 134,800 children, who at any time during the period 1970-1989 had lived within 500 meters of a transmission line in a house that had a calculated annual average 50 Hertz magnetic field exposure from an electric transmission line of 0.1 mG or greater. The authors reached a rather strong conclusion: "Residential magnetic fields of transmission power lines do not constitute a major public health problem regarding Ibid. S Ibid. s Gregory,Dave, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., EMF study for Gale Ranch II project,May 1996. • �I 4.11-2 r as `N •/ / i i� ('� k'wft. %� A 11QS7B �, SL' 1 58�� P . amu.�• � , • .tp \ �4 50 Ss At.. .. ++Ns �Oy \' •�y. %04' ' � •~ '� � t '� � :� �;,,` tea, hhyV � ',\ toy ..A ,-� +.. 117a � .- �,�'; � .� = � /� �• »� �,� �„� �v0 �, P 862 '� t � A Fq � - � ! y,. �/, % : ' n arsi� POS qth 1 � sa• S 6d. v OU vTQ306 Os r '_= tet•, ; !,.� r' 1� I S O^ 77% et o. P ro f �- •pN r � ' � ° � l r—�� .,•� M , Figure: 4.11-1 � EMF IYaverses Graphic Subsequent EIR Gale Ranch II sale: Source:PG&E(1996) 1 0 75' 150' 20.0 ! I I > I ___..._..__...:_...._...._._ ._._..__....__... _..._........... 18.0 ...... 16.0 I,>c l> I l Profile from ! _!.. _!� �_!»,. _...._._.._»» »._.._.,.._...._..._.__._. Ap r i I 1996 Traverse 14.0 I'N I•` I 1 _ _ U __._...�._.. . ._..i. .¢__i-....._»._.__....._....__ »..._..__...._...._...._..._..__..._..__.»_.._...-....__.__,»____.-__._..___; 12.0 M JC -T•� —••�Y•• - .._:..�..._.� I._ ._ ..._..._....__....._._....E.._...,_..__....__._._..._ -__..._ . _...—_—...—.._...._.... _... I < ¢ 1 O I � ._....:t=_...._...._...._....—.... ...__..._.__._...._............ _..._..._.._.... . _....�.._. ___ 6.0 LU _....._...._.._._.._...._....__._....._......_._..'...._.....__...._....._.... .._......_...._...._ ...__.....__....__..__.._.....__.._..._..__...._:..._.. 2.0 I I ! I I i�60 ft—yi ✓ —00 l 482 450 �• 400 350 300 250 X200 150 100 50 0 ri a----150 ft--moi FEET i r 30.0 !> l 1# I# 0 24..0 i I I I Profile from IU IY I I May, 1996 Traverse— Io�c 10 IN ._..._�.__....�.._.__..._...—...._...._.».._.. 7 18.0 1A XF Y r7 Ln o Ic lot I N I a .� LU iZ. 1 < ...... —12.0 ._—_ ___—_ 12.0 E 1 l 0 1 ¢ I �; y f/•1 fd _ �� ¢ 1 —'I 6.0 W' ; I• I I 1 � 1 � O ; I I t v I 0.0 607 550 500 450 400 350 ' 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Figure: 4.11-2 DOS o �C��f Cd/ EMF Profiles Subsequent EIR Gale Ranch II 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION childhood cancer. The small numbers do not allow further conclusions about risk of cancer in strong magnetic fields." With magnetic fields, there is still a basic lack of essential information �i logically linking health effects with exposure dose.' PG&E EMF StudAlong Easement in Gale Ranch II In May, 1996, PG&E completed a study of the magnetic field strength within the 300 foot wide easement in the Gale Ranch II project. There are four existing 230 kV lines in this easement. Measurements were taken on two separate days: • Wednesday, April 10, 1996, from 12:24 p.m. to 12:32 p.m., and • Monday, May 6, 1996, from 3:45 to 4:08 p.m. Figure 4.11-1 shows the location of the easement, towers and transmission lines on the Final Development Plan for the Gale Ranch II project. This figure also shows the location of the April and May traverses of PG&E. The April traverse recorded field intensity where the easement crossed the planned Bollinger Canyon Road alignment. Figure 4.11-2 (top) presents data on the magnetic field strength along the April traverse. Field strength was 12.0 mG directly under the powerlines but dropped to 4.0 mG at the east edge of the PG&E easement. Sixty feet east of the easement, the magnetic field strength dropped to 2.0 mG and continued to decrease as the monitor moved further away. The May traverse was in the hills approximately 150 feet northwest of the April 10 traverse. The power lines were closer to the ground at this location because of local topography. The data gathered from this traverse is presented in Figure 4.11-2 (bottom). Directly under the Contra Costa-San Mateo powerline the magnetic field strength was measured at 26.0 mG and dropped to 4.0 mG at the east edge of the easement. Directly under the Pitt-Moraga #3 powerline field strength was measured at 13.0 mG and dropped to 2.0 mG at the west edge of the easement. During these days the lines were operating under normal conditions,but PG&E reserves the right to carry a higher load at later dates. These results are valid only for the date and time taken. r� Jurisdictional Authority Federal Govemment. The Federal government has begun a$65 million research program on EMF as mandated by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 and managed by the Department of Energy. Known as the EMF RAPID (Research and Public Information Dissemination) Program, its goals are to: 7 Ibid. 4.11-3 i 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYIENERGY CONSERVATION i • Determine whether or not exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic fields affects human health. • Carry out research, development, and demonstration, with respect to technologies to mitigate any adverse human health effects from EMF exposure. • Provide for the collection, compilation, publication and dissemination of scientifically valid information concerning the EMF issue. California Public Utilities Commission. In 1993 the California PUC embarked on a four year EMF . research and information program, managed by the California Department of Health Services. The purpose of the program is to perform research and provide education and technical assistance to benefit Californians. Research will be focused on the following priority areas: policy analysis, r 0 exposure assessment, epidemiology and electrical engineering and mitigation. In summa there are no standards that can be used to assess potential health hazards posed b / �' P P Y EMFs. Agencies of the federal and state governments are currently funding research that will lead to an understanding of the link between human health and EMF exposure, if any. Responsibility for establishing standards relating to public health has long been the domain of agencies such as the California Department of Health Services and federal agencies. Energy Conservation General Plan Considerations The Contra Costa County General Plan: 1990-2005 contains policy direction in the Conservation Element to conserve energy, including Policies 8-49 through 8-53, and implementation measures 8-bp through 8-bt. The implementation measures call for the County to prepare design guidelines for inclusion in the Subdivision Ordinance, and for design review of projects to include provision for solar access. Climate The climate is generally characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The monthly average temperatures range from about 45 in January to 70 in July. Annual extreme temperatures range from minimums in the upper 20's and low 30's to maximums in the 100+ range. Winds tend to be light to moderate because the valley is bounded by relatively high hills. Local climate and temperature significantly affect residential energy use, which in turn leads to establishment of energy conservation design standards for residential development based on the , particular climatic conditions of an area. Criteria for determining future air conditioning and heating needs are based on the number of heating degree days and cooling degree days per year 4.11-4 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION in a given area. Dougherty Valley has approximately 2500 heating degree days' and 1000 cooling degree days. 1�1 Other Factors Influencing Energy Demand Another determinant in potential energy use is income level of future residents in an area. In general, residential development with low income households tends to result in relatively less use of energy to meet heating and cooling needs than for residential development with high income households. Another rule of thumb is that energy demand for space heating and cooling is less for clustered residential development. Unlike predicting energy use for residential development, energy use and conservation for non- residential development are not linearly related to ambient air temperature and number of heating degree days and cooling degree days. For example, during mild weather when outdoor temperatures are comfortable and residences do not require heating, the potential to conserve energy is high. Conversely,commercial/office buildings need maximum lighting, and require office machines(computers, printers,copiers, fax). Typically, heat is generated as a result of such uses. Additionally, design features in non-residential settings often reduce the chance for energy conservation. For example, efficient use of natural ventilation and natural lighting may have conflicts with other legitimate design parameters. New development throughout California is required to comply with Title 24 Energy Conservation Standards of the California Administrative Code. Mandatory features include wall and ceiling insulation,infiltration control,properly-sized space conditioning and hot water equipment,set back thermostats,and requirements governing swimming pool heating, shower and faucets. In addition, the Solar Rights Act and the Solar Shade Control Act, both passed by the State legislature in 1978, require tentative subdivision maps to provide for future passive solar opportunities to the maximum extent possible. Dougherty Valley Energy Demand Development of the Dougherty Valley area will involve direct use of energy for construction and indirect use for production of materials. Also, long-term energy input will be required for the operation of households, recreation facilities, and public utilities, and for maintenance of all project facilities. •til s Degree day,heating: A unit,based upon temperature difference and time,used in estimating full consumption and specifying nominal heating load in winter. For any one day,when the mean temperature is less than 65°F,there exists as many degree days as there are Fahrenheit degrees difference in temperature between the mean temperature for the day and 65°F. 4.11-5 i 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION It is anticipated that the most substantial use of energy for the area will be for residential operation (heating, cooling, lighting, etc.). This is estimated to amount to about 50 percent of total, long-term energy use. The second highest energy use will be fuel consumption for travel to and from the area. This is estimated to be about 30 percent of long-term input.' Because of building code requirements, the buildings will be designed and constructed to make efficient use of energy. Moreover, the proposed development is relatively compact and includes a substantial , number of multiple family units. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES V Significance Criteria r CEQA lists significant effects in Appendix G, criteria applicable to this chapter are as follows: a) conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; f c) substantially effect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; f) Substantially degrade water quality; g) Contaminate a public water supply; n) Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy; ' r) Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards; or v) Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected. The 1992 EIR,which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, identified two impacts and associated mitigation measures for electromagnetic fields and one energy conservation measure (see Appendix B, pages B87-88 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in Table 4.11-1. The following discussion is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. 9 The energy study performed for the Camino Tassajara General Plan Amendment was a comprehensive study of energy demand for the Tassajara Estates and Bettencourt Ranch projects,along with residential uses in the Hanson Lane area. The similarities in climate,as well as the location of those projects in relationship to employment centers,schools and shopping are sufficiently similar to Dougherty Valley to serve as a comparison. The DEIR for Camino Tassajara GPA (1987)provides a full discussion of energy, commencing on Page 119, along with Appendix C. 4.11-6 �. f 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY(ENERGY CONSERVATION EMF's Impact 4.11-1 Although standards for human exposure to EMF's are not established, there f is a potential for adverse health effects. This is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.11-1(a) Where a lot/parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following as a deed notification: "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission 1 line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines Although much more research is needed 1 before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an hypothesis is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made." 4.11-1(b) When a Final Subdivision Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the above note in the report. Even with effective implementation of the mitigation measure identified above, the exposure of EMF's remains a significant unavoidable impact. Soil/Water Contamination Impact 4.11-2 Accidental spills of oils or greases from equipment maintenance activities or other spills during general construction-related activities present a health and safety problem, especially if contaminants reach the creek. This is considered a significant impact. Oils, greases, and coatings from equipment support and maintenance activities, as well as from general equipment use, and from carelessness when working with equipment near the creek, could potentially reach the creek during rainfall events. Lubricating oils and greases, hydraulic fluids, and fuels exist on equipment surfaces by design; and leaks and spills may occur during refueling. Also, fuels, oils and grease may drip from equipment to the ground and be brushed from equipment onto vegetation and soil during grading. Finally, there may be contaminated soils near existing Dougherty Road or elsewhere in the planning area. The impact of these substances on water quality in Alamo Creek and its tributaries is estimated to be minimal unless relatively large quantities are spilled near the creek. ,� 4.11-7 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYIENERGY CONSERVATION Table 4.11-1 SUMMARY OF ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Energy Conservation. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Operations-related energy demands. Mitigation Measures: s / Tentative map for residential developments over 10 units shall incorporate design features to protect solar access. ' Forty percent of the Project units shall meet the California Code design definition of passive solar. Passive solar design features shall include a significant amount of south wall glass, a small amount of non-south wall glass,adequate insulation, and a large area of exposed thermal mass. ' In addition to the requirements for fluorescent lighting in kitchens and baths as prescribed by the 1! Energy Standards, all fixed lighting in new homes in the planning area shall accept fluorescent bulbs.'A portion of the homes shall be provided with solar hot water heating. ' The rights to dry clothes outdoors will be protected. ' All new homeowners will receive a copy of the Home Energy Manual. Electromagnetic Fields The 1992 Findings identified the following significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measure. 1. Impact: Potential internal incompatibility of residential land uses with existing electric transmission lines. Mitigation Measures: ' ' The electric and magnetic field strengths of the transmission lines in the Dougherty Valley planning �1 area will be measured. The measurements will be submitted to the County prior to County for projects adjacent to 230-kV lines. ' A disclosure regarding the adverse health effects of transmission lines will be recorded in all deeds. Alternatively,homes will be set back far enough from transmission lines that electric field strengths are equal to or less than those associated with local distribution lines. v l�. 4.11-8 �. 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY/ENERGY CONSERVATION Petroleum fuels, oils, and greases, are absorbed into a wide variety of soiltYP es, and solvents volatilize. The primary mechanism during construction for transport of oils, greases, and coatings to the creek would be by sediment from erosion of contaminated soils. The low solubility of most of these materials, combined with their adsorption to soil particles would result in an expected low n direct effect on water quality. Mitigation Measures 4.11-2(a) Refueling and vehicle maintenance activities shall be avoided from creek corridor area. 4.11-2(b) Any chemicals and petroleum products stored on site during the construction period should be kept within a bermed containment area. Moreover, the handling, storage and disposal of chemicals shall be done in accordance with a business plan (or equivalent) that is on file with the County Health Department/Hazardous Materials Division. Energy Conservation Impact 4.11-3 The project is on the fringe of the urban area and due to its' size the cumulative impact on energy resources is substantial. This is considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 4.11-3(a) The developer(s) shall comply with the California Energy Commission energy budget limits by utilizing the most current CEC prescriptive packages available. The developer(s) will indicate what package (or performance standard) they are utilizing during the Building Department plan checking process 4.11-3(b) Include fluorescent fixtures In addition to the requirements for fluorescent lighting in t kitchens and bath as prescribed by the Energy Standards, all fixed lighting in non-living space (Le., closets, garages, utility rooms, or storerooms) shall accept fluorescent bulbs. This use would not be included in the Title 24 compliance package for the home;it would be included as an additional conservation measure. All homes should initially be outfitted with fluorescent bulbs where appropriate. This shall be a condition of final map approval and verified before issuance of the occupancy permit. 4.11-3(c) Consider the inclusion of solar hot water heaters, high efficiency gas water heaters and/or high efficiency furnace to reduce the energy budget goal by a minimum of 7percent for 100 percent of the homes in the planning area. Alternative measures to achieve the S percent overall reduction should receive equal consideration. Inclusion of these measures would not be part of Title 24 compliance, but rather an additional conservation measure. 4.11-9 4.11 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYIENERGY CONSERVATION 4.11-3(d) Provide all new homeowners with a co o Home Energy( ) copy f Manual (California Energy Commission 1992a), as currently required by the Energy Standards. The manual provides useful information to homeowners on a wide variety of energy-conserving features, designs, appliances, and practices This pamphlet should be provided in the home as any other home/appliance warranty documentation. Compliance should be verified by the County before issuance of an occupancy permit. 4.11-3(e) The developers shall provide, within the garage area of all new homes, a separate electrical circuit for charging of electrical powered vehicles. 4.11-3() Where feasible,provide refueling service station for alternative fuels, including compressed natural gas, within the planned community. Effective implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the energy demands of the project. Nevertheless, demand for energy remains a significant, unavoidable impact. REFERENCES Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010. PG&E Magnetic Field Study for Gale Ranch Phase 2 EIR, May 20, 1996. Land Use & Environmental Forum, 'Electromagnetic Fields: Policy, Planning and Litigation," Robert E. Merritt, Continuing Education of the Bar, California, Fall 1994. The American Physical Society, 'Power Line Fields and Public Health," April 1995. �r 1� 4.11-10 412 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT SETTING Regional Context The 1992 EIR describes the Tri-Valley re ion as an economically, socially and physically inter- related area that consists of the communities.of Alamo, Blackhawk, Danville and San Ramon in Contra Costa County, and the communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore in Alameda County. The chapter on Housing/Population/Employment begins by providing an overview of the existing housing supply, including median values, vacancy rates, growth rates and a discussion of housing tenure and regional housing needs. It also presents County General Plan Housing Goals and Policies on pages 14-8 through 14-10 (see 1992 EIR). This discussion is followed by an assessment of jobs/housing balance in the Tri-Valley region, and applicable General Plan Goals and Policies are presented on page 14-11. Finally, the 1992 EIR presents available data on population, employment and employment centers and analyzes five potential impacts. ' Since the 1992 EIR was issued, additional information has become available on the subjects of housing, population and employment. The following discussion is intended to update and refine information contained in the previous EIR. Housing Existing Supply The entire San Francisco Bay Area, including the Tri-Valley region, is experiencing a housing shortage. The Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG) (1989)projected a requirement for the addition of 283,713 housing units between 1988 and 1995 to accommodate expected growth, and called on the region's local governments to alter existing housing policies to encourage production needed to house workers for jobs being planned in those communities. Although the exact housing increase for 1988-89 is not shown in ABAG's projections and estimates (five year periods are used), the Bay Area added almost 93,000 households from 1990-1995 which would mean that the housing growth did not approach the numbers that ABAG thought were needed. In 1990, the Tri-Valley region supported approximately 78,000 households (1990 Census). Sixty percent of the population and housing supply of the region was concentrated in the southern portion of the region in Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin, where the median housing values are 4.12-1 �I 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT somewhat lower than those in the northern portion of the region (Table 4.12-1). The majority of housing in the region consists of single-family,units. Over 90 percent of Danville's housing supply is comprised of single-family units, and single-family units account for between 71 percent and 79 percent of the remaining communities within the region. By comparison, 60 percent of the entire San Francisco Bay Area housing supply is comprised of single-family units. In 1990, only one residence existed within the Dougherty Valley area, which is part of a cluster of buildings at the ranch headquarters in the south end of the valley. No houses were located on the project site. Presently the first phase of the project is under construction. 1 1990-1995 Period Between the 1990 Census and the end of 1995, population in the Tri-Valley region increased by 14.3 percent, households by 10.7 percent and jobs by 1 percent. Although this growth was relatively slow in comparison with the previous decade, it was faster than the growth experienced ` in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the almost 6 year period, population in the Bay Area increased by 7.9 percent, households by 4 percent and jobs decreased by L5 percent (Table 4.12-2). Median Home Values _ The San Francisco Bay Area has become one of the highest-priced housing markets in the United States for several reasons including the desirability of the area and the shortage of housing ' available to the increasing work force. The Tri-Valley region is an example of such housing costs. The median home value in 1990 was $372,176 in Danville, $324,453 in San Ramon, $297,200 in Pleasanton, $240,900 in Dublin, and $217,300 in Livermore. By comparison, the nationwide median housing price in 1990 was $120,073, and the median housing price for the western region in 1990 was$139,700(Urban Land Institute 1991). A moderate-income family earning 120 percent of the Contra Costa County median income ($58,400 in 1996) and paying 30 percent of their gross income for housing would be able to purchase a home for up to $241,000 (Table 4.12-3). Vacancy Rates In 1990 vacancy rates in the Tri-Valley region ranged from 2.7 percent in Dublin to 5.1 percent in San Ramon for combined rented and owned units (Table 4.12-1). By comparison, the total residential vacancy rate for the San Francisco Bay Area was 3.4 percent in 1990. ABAG declared that vacancy rates at this level were "below an acceptable level to promote mobility and provide choices for those seeking affordable housing" and established a regional vacancy goal of 4.5 percent. This indicates that Livermore, Danville, and Dublin were experiencing a shortage of housing in general, not only housing affordable to lower-income households. Pleasanton and San Ramon achieved vacancy rates at or slightly above the regional goal of 4.5 percent. Vacancy rates within the AlamoBlackhawk community were 3.6 percent. 4.12-2 F \o cn wl \o o0 0? In o0 o\ \0 \0 N r ': ti 00 \O V) \0 V) [- V) sz p S . zo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � M M \0 M 000 0 M 00 M M M dN r � O O a Q z ❑ to N ON N O N M M CD to 00 [- O' L _ r+ N (n M N V) N N O a w a> , a It C, ►yw G �:j Qi: V1 M M N N N N M W ...�.: N z V O Q O N � 0. �.,v QI O N n M 0 cl N IM o0 00 O� Ol O ao O `° CIA N r. r. `° 000— N oo v ch z '*' N oW"W) N C C L r RS ¢ h N U 3 4cn .o c C •- eo .yy. co m ............... ............... .............. ............. u ^i .............. O; 00 \O 00 r• tY O v1 � ............. ;�- o O O O O O o 0 h. M r NM•+ M M C14 N M m 00 CD o � xz ' o � xHON o �o0 CD 0 CD CD'IT r .. C11 .M, 'IT N N 00 M O U s "' N ON � N cQQ � er 0 ON rl = phi O I- 00 O M O: �. Q w 8 8 c S 8 F i0 N \0N h N C, <a:: Z c p o O Or x E< � - a •� � E j ¢ .Nr ...U,: 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT Table 4.12-3 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY RANGES Household 7ncomeCategory Monthly Rent Purchase Pnce' Very low ($0- $29,200)6 Less than $681 Less than $95,500 Low ($29,201 - $41,600)6 $682 to $970 $95,501 to $136,100 Moderate ($41,601470,080)` $971 to $1,752 $136,101 to $241,000 Above moderate (above $70,080)` Greater than $1,752 Greater than $241,000 Estimated assuming a 20 percent down payment on a 30-year mortgage of 8 percent. Annual property taxes and homeowners insurance for purchased housing was assumed to equal 1.5 percent of purchase price. b Housing is assumed to be affordable if monthly housing payments, including property taxes and homeowners insurance, do not exceed 28 percent of household income. Housing is assumed to be affordable if monthly housing payments, including property taxes and homeowners insurance, do not exceed 30 percent of household income. Source: U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development. Growth Rates Between 1980 and 1990, the Tri-Valley region grew at a faster pace than the San Francisco Bay Area. This growth can be attributed to the gradual movement of population west and northward from the San Francisco urban area. In San Ramon, for example, population increased by 70 percent during this period, compared to the entire San Francisco Bay Area, which grew by 16.3 percent. Danville's population increased by 17.9 percent in the decade. ' Between the 1990 census and 1995, Danville's population grew by 16.7 percent and San Ramon's by 13.8 percent while the Tri-Valley region grew by 14.3 percent. Population grew faster than housing due to the increasing number of persons per household. A trend which has been occurring in the Bay Area and California. Housing Tenure According to ABAG (1989), "it is desirable as a general policy that the availability of rental housing should not decline in the Tri-Valley region". Nearly 73 percent of Tri-Valley residents were owner-occupied and 27 percent renter-occupied in 1987 (Gruen Gruen & Associates 1987). In 1990, Danville's housing was 87.8 percent owner-occupied while San Ramon was 69.2 percent owner-occupied. Overall Contra Costa County's housing was 67.6 percent owner-occupied. 4.12-5 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT Reeional Housing Needs by Income Level California state law requires councils of government to determine existing and projected regional housing needs for persons at all income levels. ABAG's most recent Housing Needs Determinations report was published in 1989 and addresses existing and projected regional housing needs for a nine-county San Francisco Bay Region. It categorizes the population into four income groups: very low-income households that earn less than 50 percent of the county median income, low- income households that earn between 50 percent and 80 percent of the county median income, moderate-income households that earn between 80 percent and 120 percent of the county median income, and above-moderate-income households that earn over 120 percent of the county median income. The ABAG report stresses the need for affordable housing for all income levels and recognizes the current housing shortage within San Francisco Bay Area. The following relevant policies and goals are listed in the executive summary of the Housing Needs Determinations report. • On January 1, 1988, the housing vacancy rate of 3.58 percent was below an acceptable level to promote mobility and provide choices for those seeking affordable housing. A regional vacancy goal of 4.5 percent was established. • The Bay Area as a whole needed to add another 283,713 housing units between 1988 and 1995 to accommodate expected growth. • To reduce jobs-housing imbalances in the region, 45,700 housing units were needed in the 38 communities, 17 of which were called on to house 50 percent of the difference between the growth in local jobs and the growth in the local labor supply. Of the 283,713 units needed between 1988 and 1995, 20,000 were expected to be required within _ the Tri-Valley region. According to ABAG's projections, over 18 percent of the demand within the Tri-Valley region, or about 3,600 units would be generated by very low-income households. Low-income households would demand 2,566 units or 13 percent of the regional demand, moderate-income households were expected to demand 3,919 units or 20 percent of the regional demand, and above-moderate-income households were expected to generate almost 49 percent of the region's housing demand, or 9,505 units. Income levels for the Contra Costa County region were obtained from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ,Contra Costa and Alameda Counties showed identical median family incomes ($58,400) for a family of four in March 1996. Income limits for four person households for each income category are as follows: • Very-low income: $29,200; • Low-income: $41,600; and • Moderate-income: $70,080. 4.12-6 '� 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT Contra Costa County Housing Goals Goals and policies included with the Housing Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan are aimed at increasing housing opportunities and variety in the stock of affordable housing. Relevant General Plan affordable housing goals,policies, and implementation measures were listed on pages 14-8 through 14-10 of the 1992 EIR. The only change in these policies since the 1992 EIR was certified is that Policy 6-3 has been amended to read as follows: • Policy 6-3. Appropriate financial and non-financial assistance shall be committed to reducing the cost of development for very low- and low-income housing. Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program Coun General Plan The Contra Costa County General Plan contains broad goals and policies, and specific implementation measures which guide decisions of future growth, development, and the conservation of resources. The General Plan represents the hopes and concerns of County residents in terms of defining and preserving a "quality of life." A critical feature of the "quality of life" is providing for the housing needs of all segments for the community. Dougherty Valley Specific Plan The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, adopted by Contra Costa County on 22 December 1992 contained eleven policies with respect to affordable housing. The amended Specific Plan deletes Policy H-6, referring to the need to create a phasing plan to deliver affordable housing, and renumbers the policies. Policy H-6 became obsolete with the 1994 adoption of the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. The Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program was approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994. The Dougherty Valley project promises to provide a substantial new addition to the housing stock of the Tri-Valley region of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties that could help address important jobs/housing balance considerations and deliver part of the region's need for housing affordable to Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Households. The Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program is designed to provide an implementation structure to the affordable housing requirements and policies of the County General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. The Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program was developed to be consistent with adopted County goals, policies and implementation measures, as set forth in the adopted General Plan (particularly the Land Use Element - Chapter 3, and the Housing Element - Chapter 6). The Affordable Housing Program implements policy guidance of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. In addition, the process of gaining State of California approval of the County's Housing Element ,� 4.12-7 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT provides additional structure to this Affordable Housing Program, as does the Growth Management Program of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program (a.k.a. Measure C), which has been actualized in the County General Plan Growth Management Element. Specific plans, under California law, provide a greater level of specificity than does the general plan. Specific plans are often used for sites of special interest or value. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 22, 1992, sets forth a farsighted vision for this new community, including affordable housing goals and policies that have influence this Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. Primary in this vision is the development of a balanced community including households of all incomes. This vision is implemented by the inclusion of an aggressive requirement that at least 25 percent of all units developed in the Dougherty Valley be affordable to Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Households. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Affordable Housing goals and policies are shown in Appendix F. The Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program outlines and defines the definitions of affordability of rent and ownership and lays out the details of the program. Flexibility in determining the distribution of Very Low and Low income units will be permitted subject to the findings of the compliance monitoring program. However, each phase of the development is to be subject to providing Moderate Income Affordable Units. The substitution of a non-profit entity may satisfy all or a portion of the developer's Very Low and Low Income Unit requirement. To qualify for this substitution, the developer shall create a parcel or parcels of adequate size and density to satisfy the Very Low Income and Low Income Unit requirements. Upon recordation, the initial improved parcel shall be offered for dedication to a non-profit entity for Affordable Unit development. Although Gale Ranch I project has been approved, a report on the affordable housing program is required before the final map is recorded. At this time the developers of the Gale Ranch have not submitted plans for compliance with affordable housing requirements in that project. It will be required in accordance with the rules in the Dougherty Valley Affordable Housing Program. , Due to the large number of multi-family units in Windemere I (1,285 units), Windemere Ranch Partners have an excellent opportunity to meet their affordable housing obligations with this phase of development. In this phase of development Windemere Ranch partners propose a total of 2,249 dwelling units. To meet the 25 percent affordability requirement, the Windemere I project would need to yield 562 affordable units. For the 1,825-unit Gale Ranch II project to provide 25 percent affordable units, Shapell would need to provide 456 affordable units. 4.12-8 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT Existing Jobs/Housing Ratio Within the Tri-Valley region, the ratio of jobs to employed residents increased from 0.63 in 1980 to .97 in 1990 and is projected to increase to 1.07 in 2010 as employment-generating enterprises move to the suburbs of San Francisco. The ratio of jobs to employed residents varied greatly between the six communities. AlamoBlackhawk and Danville had the lowest ratios in 1990, .40 and .41 respectively, while in the other four communities the ratios exceeded 1.00. The same situation is projected to exist in 2010. By that time, the ratio of jobs to employed residents in the Tri-Valley is expected to be higher than 1.0 and exceed the ratio for the Bay Area (Table 4.12-4). The increasing ratio of jobs to employed residents is accompanied by an increase in the amount of housing. However, Table 4.12-5 demonstrates that the number of jobs is expected to increase at a faster rate than housing (64.7 percent vs 55.9 Percent) in the Tri-Valley area. Again, it is expected to vary between the six communities with Danville experiencing the greatest lag in jobs while Dublin is expected to have a high rate of increase for both jobs and housing. The amended Specific Plan provides more open space than the adopted Specific Plan. In providing more open space, the development footprint had decreased but the number of housing units has not decreased. As a result, there has been an increase in housing density (traditionally related to lower housing prices) which may result in housing being more affordable to low and moderate income households. Contra Costa County Jobs/Housing Goals The County expects the countywide jobs/housing ratio to remain relatively constant throughout the next 20 years, reaching approximately 0.74 jobs per employed resident by 2010. County General Plan goals, policies, and Implementation Measures support the County's dedication to reaching a jobs/housing balance. to Emp yment Overview In 1990, Contra Costa County's largest employment sector was services, employing 77,300 people (26 percent of the County work force). The retail trade sector was the second largest industry, employing 61,600 people (20.7 percent of the County work force). The services sector is expected to show the greatest number of additional jobs between 1990 and 1997 growing by 23.3 percent to 95,300 workers. The second largest future growth sector is retail trade, projected to grow to 70,400 workers, an increase of 14.3 percent. 4.12-9 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATIONIEMPLOYMENT Table 4.12-4 RATIO OF JOBS TO EMPLOYED RESIDENTS 19801990 20,10 AlamoBlackhawk .61 .40 .36 Danville .46 .41 .34 San Ramon .53 1.48 1.75 Dublin 1.26 1.12 1.26 Pleasanton .33 1.07 1.21 Livermore .62 1.02 1.00 Tri-Valley Region .63 .97 1.07 Bay Area -99 -97 1.00 Source:ABAG Projections 196. , Table 4.12-5 PROJECTED INCREASE IN JOBS AND HOUSING 1990 - 2010 Jobs Housing Number Percent Number Percent AlamoBlackhawk 180 4.8% 838 13.3% Danville 340 4.0% 4,942 41.1% San Ramon 17,000 54.2% 4,735 36.7% Dublin 21,030 170.1% 10,946 160.2% Pleasanton 18,810 57.6% 91500 50.1% Livermore 20,900 64.7% 12,692 60.5% Tri-Valley 78,260 64.7% 43,653 55.9% Source:Projections 196. 1� 4.12-10 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT Employment Centers One of the stated purposes and objectives of the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan is to provide needed housing in a suitable location to meet the demand generated by major nearby employment centers. "Major nearby employment centers"refers to Bishop Ranch Business Park in San Ramon, Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, and the planned business park development in Dublin. According to the Gruen Gruen &Associates report (1987), the occupational mix in the Tri-Valley differs from the mix in the primary employment center of the San Francisco Bay Area. Major corporations such as Chevron, Pacific Telephone, AT&T Communications, and General Electric have elected to transfer their "back office" divisions (such as accounting, data processing, and credit) to the Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Parks. Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in Livermore is another major Tri-Valley region employment center. Unemployment Unemployment in Contra Costa County followed national and statewide trends of declining unemployment rates between 1983 (when the unemployment rate was about 8 percent) and 1989 (when it dropped to 4.2 percent). During 1995, the unemployment rate was slightly over 6 percent. ,r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria CEQA guidelines (Appendix G, 1995) contains a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether a project may have a significant impact on the environment. For purposes of this section, the project would have a significant impact if it would: • Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; or • Induce substantial growth or concentration of population. Section 15131 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment". Socioeconomic impacts must be discussed only when the socioeconomic impact indirectly causes a physical impact, or the severity of a socioeconomic impact is used to decide the significance of the physical impact. Secondary physical impacts, such as increased traffic, air pollution, and impacts on existing public services and facilities caused by increases in population and housing, are discussed in detail in the appropriate chapters of this report. 4.12-11 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT Assumptions Made by 1992 EIR The key assumptions made by the 1992 EIR were as follows: 1. Existing numbers of workers per household is 1.83. 2. Average population per household by 2005 would be 2.74 persons. 3. Retail and commercial space would generate an average of one employee for every 450 sq.ft. of space. 4. Office space would generate an average of one employee for every 250 s .ft. of space. .5. Elementary schools would generate an average of 31 full-time employees. 6. Middle schools would generate an average of 45 full-time employees. 7. High schools would generate an average of 93 full-time employees. Assumptions (1) and (2) are based on the demographic characteristics of the Tri-Valley region, and they remain valid. Assumptions (3) and (4) are commonly used factors to. estimate employment associated with retail, commercial and office uses. However, the actual number of �. employees can range much higher or lower than those factors would imply. Nevertheless, until specific uses are known the factors appear reasonable. Assumptions (5), (6) and (7) were based on information obtained by the EIR consultant for schools of the size anticipated in Dougherty Valley. Not expressly considered by this list of key assumptions is employment related to the community college. (In 1992 no information was available on enrollment or other parameters for the South County Campus.) In summary, the assumptions remain generally correct, and the modifications to the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment have not substantially altered the number of residential units, affordability of units, mix of residential units or the size of the Village Center. The community college has been relocated to a much smaller site in the Village Center, but it is being designed to accommodate 8,000 full and part-time students. . A primary effect of the relocation of the campus to an urban setting in the Village Center was to eliminate athletic fields that are traditionally associated with a campus. There is no evidence that the relocation impacted the future enrollment of the campus. In brief, the modification to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are not anticipated to have an effect on population, 4.12-12 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT housing or employment in Dougherty Valley, and the previous discussion of impacts remains applicable at a general plan/specific plan level of detail. The 1992 EIR which analyzed the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, presented a discussion of five areas of potential impact, and the document concluded that none were significant impacts in terms of CEQA significance criteria (see Appendix B, pages B89 through B91). The following discussion is intended to analyze information not previously addressed by the 1992 EIR. No new impacts or mitigation measures are posed by the amendments to the Specific Plan and General Plan. The obligation of the project proponents to provide affordable housing has not changed. Jobs/Housing Balance The Tri-Valley region is projected to experience increased employment growth over the next 20 years as shown in Table 4.12-6, indicating that substantial housing development will be needed to supply the existing and future demand for housing by those working within the region over the next 20 years, employment in the Tri-Valley area is expected to increase by 81 percent. Existing �r and future major employment centers within the Tri-Valley region include Bishop Ranch in San Ramon, Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton and a planned business park development in Dublin. The proximity of Dougherty Valley to these employment centers offers the opportunity to increase housing opportunities for Tri-Valley region workers who are currently commuting. Assuming that Tri-Valley employees prefer to live in the region where they work, a portion of the housing provided by the Dougherty Valley projects would be occupied by those currently commuting to the region. The project-related improvement in the region's jobs/housing ratio should help reduce commute distances and traffic congestion, improve air quality, and generally improve the quality of life for existing commuters to the region. Not all of the housing provided by the project would be affordable to workers within the region; however, the entire Dougherty Valley project would provide up to 2,750 units affordable to low- and moderate-income households. The Windemere I and Gale Ranch II projects are required by the Dougherty Valley Housing Program to perform compliance monitoring. 4.12-13 i 4.12 HOUSING/POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT I i Table 4.12-6I PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH 199 5 2005 2015 AlamoBlackhawk 3,790 3,740 4,030 Danville 7,560 8,540 9,190 San Ramon 29,610 42,570 53,700 Dublin 13,300 25,750 41,440 Pleasanton 34,660 44,110 56,730 Livermore 33,110 47,850 56,210 Tri-Valley Region 122,030 172,560 221,300 i i 1 ` I 1 I 1 i 1 i i j I 1� 4.12-14 13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING 1992 EIR The 1992 EIR presents prehistoric and historic background information, summarizes the results of previous cultural resources studies, presents general plan policies pertaining to cultural resources and identifies potential impacts, along with associated mitigation measures. Briefly summarized, the EIR reported that there are no known prehistoric archaeologic sites on the Gale Ranch or Windemere Partners Ranch. However there are ranch buildings and remnants of foundations that represent evidence of early 20th Century and perhaps late 19th Century occupation of the Dougherty Valley. The 1992 EIR did not provide a detailed assessment of these buildings but considered them significant and went on to recommend that the Louis Banke House be preserved and restored. The EIR also contains a recommendation for monitoring of grading because of the potential for buried artifacts. Cultural Resources Background Introduction For the Subsequent EIR,Holman&Associates, archaeologists,were authorized to study the ranch buildings and foundations, provide information on the history of the human occupation of the Dougherty Valley, analyze the structures and document their historic significance, review development plans for Dougherty Valley, and develop detailed recommendations that could be translated into impacts and mitigation measures for the Subsequent EIR presented herein. The report of Holman & Associates, along with the report of their consulting architectural historian, are on file with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. As a normal practice for such investigations, the precise location of sensitive resources cannot be made public. Hence, the EIR cannot present maps of specific sites, and some information in the reports must remain confidential. The following discussion of setting is intended to summarize and highlight the information presented in the reports of the archaeologist and architectural historian. 4.13-1 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES Previous Research Previous surface reconnaissance and record searches for cultural resources have been conducted by Banks and Morris (1981), Holman & Associates (1987), Gerike (1981), Gerike and Stewart (1982), and Roop and Flynn (1981). The two historic resources under discussion in this report were identified by Banks and Morris (1981)- and Holman & Associates (1987). Their recommendations for further study of these two sites were incorporated into the 1992 EIR. Prehistoric Period (before A.D. 1776) The San Ramon region falls within the eastern portion of the known territory of the Ohlone or Costanoan Indians who followed a hunter gatherer lifestyle in the region (Levy, 1978). With the exception of a single projectile point found on the Gumpert Ranch by Banks and Morris, there are no known prehistoric sites within or immediately adjacent to the two ranches under study (Banks and Morris, 1981;page 20). This may be due to less reliable water sources and sparser resources compared to the San Ramon Valley to the south and the Pleasanton area to the south of the Dougherty Valley, or simply because such sites have been covered by alluvium (ibid.). Historic Period (after A.D. 1776) . Between 1776-1797, three Franciscan missions were established in the San Francisco Bay region, and soon gathered the Ohlones to these missions for conversion to Christianity and for labor. r Many died there from disease and other hardships. The Amador Valley/Livermore/Sunol area was claimed by the Mission San Jose and the region was used to graze cattle and other livestock. After secularization of the missions ca. 1820, large grants of land in the region were made to private individuals, and the Project Area falls within the boundaries of the Rancho San Ram6n. Governor Figueroa granted four square leagues (17,754 acres) of land to Jose Maria Amador on August 4, 1835 (Hendry and Bowman, 1940; page 608). This grant extended from the vicinity of today's town of San Ramon south into Alameda County, and from Tassajara in the east to the crest of the hills on the west side of the San Ramon Valley. He built several adobes in Danville and grazed 6,000 head of cattle and 1,000-2,000 horses on his land. What was later to be called Dougherty Road was likely to have been a trail during this period. Discovery of Gold in early 1848 led to the Gold Rush and its influx of Americans and others into California. Amador sold one square league of land in the San Ramon area to Leo Norris, and a small portion of the Dougherty Valley area fell in this sale. However, in 1852, Amador sold another 17,000 acres that included the Dougherty Valley to James Witt Dougherty (Banks and Morris, 1981;page 13; Emmanuels, 1989;page 83). The Dougherty Ranch survived intact into the 20th Century. By the end of the 19th Century, if not earlier, the Dougherty Valley had been divided into parcels and leased to small farmers or ranchers, as reflected on the numbered divisions of the Official Map of Contra Costa County of 1908 (McMahon, 1908). Scattered houses spotted on the USGS map of 1898 were the residences of the various leaseholders of these 4.13-2 '� 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES parcels. Hay and grain farming was a dominant activity in the valley. By the late 1930s the Dougherty Ranch had been sold and was now labeled as the Donahue-Gale Ranch on the County Maps (Arnold, 1938). The old parcels divisions were kept and the tradition of leasing the land of the valley survives to the present time. Since the 1950s, however, cattle raising has replaced hay and grain raising, and as a result, larger areas have been leased to accommodate the needs of livestock. Ranch Sites/ Cultural Resources Two ranch locations were previously identified that merited further research. These were the surviving Banke Ranch and a demolished ranch site nearby on the west side of Dougherty Road (Banks and Morris, 1981; Holman, 1987). Each of these has been mapped and archival research conducted to better document the character and history of these locations. Oral interviews conducted with individuals now living, or formerly residing, at these ranches yielded important " information not available from other sources. CA-CCo-440H: The Banke Ranch The site of the ranch complex is located just east of the confluence of the West and Main Branches of Alamo Creek. Figure 4.13-1 shows the location of the existing buildings on this working ranch with respect to Dougherty Road and the creek channels. The buildings are on the south portion of the Gale Ranch,but outside of the Gale Ranch II project area. The complex was first identified by Banks and Morris in 1981 as part of the investigation of the cultural resources of the Alamo Creek Planning Area (Morris and Banks, 1981; pages 13-15). At that time, an historical site record was filled out and the trinomial was assigned to the site. The site was the home of the Louis Banke family who were long-time tenants of this portion of the Dougherty ranch who leased several farms along Dougherty Road. Banks and Morris interviewed Mr. Rudy Banke, the brother of Louis Banke. The narrative collected indicates the history of occupation was both complex and difficult to document, as might be expected where tenants built and occupied buildings on land rented from others. It also indicates that at least two periods of occupation occurred, the first represented by a prior house that was built and occupied by unknown persons, and later burned prior to ca. 1900. The second occupation was represented by the existing house first built by an unnamed horse trader ca. 1900 and later, in the 1920s occupied by Louis Banke. The 1871 map of Contra Costa County does not identify a structure at the location of CA-CCO- 440H, although its scale and intent might preclude inclusion of tenants' structures (Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1871). However, no structure was plotted at this location on the USGS map of 1898,suggesting that the reported earlier first occupation house was already burned by that date, or possibly built shortly afterwards. ,� 4.13-3 �,�'� � '�•3• '��.:�.� � d ;� ': ,B t �"a ,� ��ya r� ���� '�.,s��•`�'� y� �i� a x,��i rf �.�'_, �� �, s`' � 4 .'b'Y�.s '« dTi g» tcc3rs C f $' d•`L €� a�sy �: £ "s .,a soh ��'�.'�� ,����.�.�t,� 9s x2ts• 5. >. ��i��� a. c �rx1 y' g.:x re '�`s ���� �„��� F� � �f� Y'��a ,� ...r. �:➢�� � a. a, '� ^ a � u . 'w}.ai �•'�'Ste,:§. c � : � '���'`.F J :.r � :as sa �, ,aa CC @ GR r GR II WINDEMERE N,, ' s a ak t �. :.�� .•"' e+ CAMP - a AREA OF PHOTO PARKS " d :< KEY MAP i k N: r s�cx•�`'F .y' " �,m. c �.. �',.`""' zcar d`f" x.3�"fir XM ,,��`y� -�"•�`�n, f zw- a�� ' e �'§ �,�a�a y. ,�.2�sfi e.�sLs w,� "7'x ,,�C"� � �g� z. :. �Y DomFigure:4.13-1 � ����& Aerial Photograph of Graphic Scale: , Subsequent EIR Banke Ranch Complex Photo 1 o 200' 400' 4.13-4 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES Nielsen Family Interview Holman & Associates interviewed four members of the Nielsen family who have leased the land at and around the site for approximately twenty-five years. The Nielsens knew and remembered Mr. Louis ,Banke, and they were able to provide information obtained from him that was not previously collected from his brother Rudy Banke in 1981. The Nielsen family did not build any of the structures (except the modern home). In the 1970s,when the Nielsens first leased the land, Mr. Banke was still living at the ranch house, but later moved away. The Banke Ranch Complex is located in the southernP ortion of Gale Ranch, outside of the area which is the subject of the Gale Ranch II land development project. For that reason further detailed discussions of these existing buildings and foundations is beyond the scope of the Subsequent EIR. Nevertheless, the key findings of the archaeologist and historic architect on the Banke Ranch site, along with other sites, referred to as Locus A and Locus B, are presented in Appendix G. The recommendations of the archaeologist for the Banke Ranch Complex, which are presented in Appendix G,will be considered by County staff when final development plans are submitted for that area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Criteria Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project will be considered to have a significant effect on cultural resources if it will: Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group. . . In addition, CEQA contains provisions relative to preservation of historic and prehistoric cultural sites. Appendix K of CEQA directs public agencies (e.g., Contra Costa County) to "avoid damaging effects on an archaeological resource where feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated. . ." as a means of determining impacts and developing mitigation measures. CEQA Appendix K, Section III, states that an important archeological resource" is one which: • Is associated with an event or person of: 1. Recognized importance in California or American history, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory; • Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archeological research questions; 4.13-5 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES • Hasspecial or particular quality as oldest best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; • Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or • Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only by archaeological methods. To evaluate cultural resource sites against such broad criteria requires consideration of the overall integrity of the site, the regional culture history (the types, ages and distribution of other sites in the region), and the nature of questions that researchers are attempting to address regarding the history or prehistory of the region. r Archeological site evaluation assesses the potential of each site to meet one or more of the criteria for"importance" (CEQA) based upon visual.surface and subsurface evidence(if available) at each site location, information gathered during the literature and record searches, and the researcher's knowledge of and familiarity with the historic or prehistoric context associated with each site. Assumptions Made by 1992 EIR 1. The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan does not indicate how the two identified historic resource sites (CA-Cco-440H and C-723)will be addressed. It is assumed that both sites will be planned for inclusion in open space and avoided. 2. The importance of two identified historic sites (CA-Cco-440H and C-723) has not been fully evaluated. Based on previous studies, site CA-Cco-440H is presumed to be important. 3. An abandoned and deteriorated residence and barn on the east side of Lawrence Road has been adequately addressed ina previous study, which provides insignificant evidence based on the structuress type of construction, materials used, and deteriorated condition (Banks and Morris 1981). 4. The large number of sites recorded in the Camp Parks portion of the planning area may be the result of human or natural forces, and some or all of these sites may, have been damaged or destroyed by subsequent military activities. 5. Any of the cultural resource sites located in areas planned for park or open space uses could be presumed to be important and will be avoided. For the subsequent EIR, the historic sites CA-Cco-440H and C-723 were analyzed by Holman & Associates and their consulting architectural historian, Ward Hill. Additionally, grading information does not appear to have been considered by the archaeologist when the 1992 EIR was prepared. Specifically, because a 70-acre community park was proposed for the Village Center, 4.13-6 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES the previous EIR assumed it would be retained as ungraded open space. Actually, the grading concepts called for retaining the channels of the Main and West Branches of Alamo Creek as ungraded open space. Lands on the valley floor that are outside of the creek corridors, including the Village Center and community park, are to be mass graded. Specifically, these areas are to receive fill, which will raise them well above the elevation of the 100-year flood. Finally, there are specific grading plans for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects. With regard to Assumption 1, the Specific Plan does not indicate how the sites of historic occupation will be addressed. The available information on grading indicates that structures on the Banke Ranch will not be avoided. In fact, those structures are in an area proposed for commercial, residential and civic uses within the Village Center. Assumption 2 is no longer valid. The studies of Hollman and Associates, along with the studies of Ward Hill, have provided information of sites of historic occupation. Assumptions 3, 4 and 5 remain valid. The 1992 EIR, which analyzes the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identified four significant impacts and mitigation measures (see Appendix B, pages B85 through B86 for a listing of those impacts and mitigation measures). These impacts and mitigation measures, which are part of the previously certified EIR, are summarized in Table 4.13-1. The following discussion is intended to analyze the impacts and information not already addressed by the 1992 EIR. Impact 4.13-1 The construction of keyways along the channels of Alamo Creek have the potential to expose pre-historic artifacts. The proposed excavation of a deep trench adjacent to the Main and West Branches of Alamo Creek in the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I projects could entail impacts to archaeological sites. Cutting and filling could impact archaeological resources, and as filling also includes surface scarification, removal of vegetation and compaction, the areas planned for development on the valley floor pose a potential to impact cultural resources. This is considered to be a significant impact. 4.13-7 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES Table 4.13-1 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM CERTIFIED 1992 EIR Cultural Resources �1 The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Damage to or destruction of the historic Louis Banke House (ca-cco-440h). Mitigation Measure: * The historic significance of the Louis Banke House will be reviewed before any development is approved that would remove it. 2. Impact: Damage to or destruction of historic/archeological site (ca-723). Mitigation Measure: * The Project Proponents will fund a review of the historic significance of site CA-723 before tentative maps will be approved for the site. 3. Impact: Damage to or destruction of several important prehistoric and historic archeological sites located on Camp Parks. Mitigation Measures: * A minor change in the road alignment of Windemere Parkway would avoid disturbing the identified prehistoric and historic sites. If these sites cannot be avoided by realigning the road,then further,more detailed archeological studies must be completed to evaluate the resource, and supplemental environmental review may be necessary. * With regard to impacts from construction of a future public/semi-public use(e.g.,a community college), because no specific use is currently proposed for this area, and because any future use would be subject to CEQA review prior to implementation by a public agency, it is impossible to recommend specific mitigation at this time other than complete avoidance. 4. Impact: Damage to or destruction of potential buried archeological resources. Mitigation Measures: * The Project proponents and the County shall monitor grading activities and immediately stop all work and inform the County Community Development Department if buried cultural resources are discovered. * If the find is determined to be important by the County, the Project proponents shall develop a detailed mitigation plan that includes procedures for resource recovery, avoidance and preservation, or restoration. 4.13-8 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measures 4.13-1(a) Personnel for the Gale Ranch II and Windemere I that are involved in earth moving (grading, underground utilities, trenching, etc.) should be alerted to the possibility and instructed to stop work in the general area in the event a bone of any kind, any darker than the surrounding soil,fire altered rock, or concentration of historic artifacts is encountered, until an archaeologist can examine the find. 4.13-1(b) Formulate and implement an archaeological monitoring program for cultural resources This program would require the presence of an archaeological monitor in all areas considered archaeologically sensitive and their immediately adjacent areas They would keep a daily log, collect samples and be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect work so that possible finds may be examined. In the event potentially important resources are encountered, work would cease or be relocated in that area until the find can be more carefully examined and evaluated by the monitor and/or supervising archaeologist. Where warranted, appropriate testing and evaluation and/or mitigation measures would be . formulated and implemented. Such an archaeological monitoring program would be applied to: a) appropriate areas of construction (Le., keyways constructed near creek corridors); b)significant preconstruction activities such as geological or soils trenching,c)hazardous materials remediation;d) creek bank stabilization or retaining wall trenching; and e) demolition of historic buildings, tree removal programs, etc. A possible alternative to monitoring during construction would be a pre-construction survey of sensitive areas by the archaeologist for the project. If such exploration (consisting of logging test pits) discovered no evidence of significant artifacts, the need for archaeologic monitors during grading could be avoided. 4.13-1(c) In the event a human burial or disarticulated human remains are encountered, work would stop or be relocated in the area of the find. The archaeological monitor(s) would notify the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office of the find. If the find is prehistoric in origin, the Coroner's Office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento of the find. The Native American Heritage Commission would identify the "Most Likely Descendant"or"MLD". The MLD in consultation with the archaeologist and Project Sponsors would formulate appropriate treatment plans for the find. 4.13-1(d) Appropriate samples should be collected during monitoring, testing, and mitigation procedures along with full written and photographic documentation. An appropriate 4.13-9 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES professional level program of cataloging, analyses and interpretation of artifacts, samples and other data should be formulated and undertaken as part of all testing/evaluative and mitigativeprocedures. The documentation and evaluation work may require studies and/or testing of samples or artifacts by outside experts or consultants The mitigation measures outlined above would reduce archaeological impacts to a less-than- significant level. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnold, R.R. 1930. Official Map of Contra Costa County, California. Arnold, R.R. 1938. Official Map of Contra Costa County, California. Banks, P.M.; and.J.W. Morris. 1981. "An Investigation of the Cultural Resources Within the Alamo Creek Planning Area, Contra Costa County, California". Prepared for Santina & Thompson, Inc., Walnut Creek CA. Contra Costa County. 1992. "Draft EIR for the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Related Approvals". Martinez, CA. Contra Costa County. 1995. "Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report Regarding Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment,Specific Plan Amendments and Implementing Project Entitlements". Community Development Department, Martinez, CA. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. 1871. Topographical Map of Contra Costa County Compiled from Official State of California and United States Surveys, 1871. Emanuels, G. 1989. "California's Contra Costa County: An Illustrated History'. Diablo Books, Walnut Creek, CA. Gerike, C; and S.B. Stewart. 1982. "An Archaeological Study for the West Branch General Plan Amendment EIR,Near San Ramon,Contra Costa-County,California(County#28-81-EIR-Cco.)". #" On file at the Northwest.Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.. Governor's Office of Planningand Research. 1992. "CEQA California Environmental Quality ty Act: Statues and Guidelines.":"Sacramento, CA. 4.13-10 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES Hendry, G.W; and J.N. Bowman. 1940. "The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San Francisco Bay Counties - 1776 to about 1850". Ms. in collection of the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Holman&Associates. 1996. Additional Information on Historic Sites CA-CCo-440H and CA-723 in the Dougherty Valley Project, Contra Costa county, California, and Recommendations for Mitigation to Impacts to Cultural Resources for the Dougherty Valley Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Holman,M.P. 1987. RE: Gale Ranch Archaeological Field Reconnaissance". Letter report sent to Malcolm Sproul, LSA, Point Richmond, CA. Levy, R. 1978. "Costanoan in California". R.F. Heizer, ed.; Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, 8:485-495. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. McMahon, T.A. 1908. Official Map of Contra Costa County, California. Britton, Rey Company, San Francisco. Praetzellis, M. and A. Praetzellis. 1983. "The Contents of Mrs. Menefee's Will: Possibilities for the Archaeological Study of Family Life". Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly Vol 19(1), p. 27-38. Costa Mesa, CA. Carriage Maker to Undertaker. 1989. "The Redmonds Clean House: Archaeology of an 1870s Family". Report prepared for California Days, Inc. ' Scott, M. 1985. "The San Francisco Bay Area: a Metropolis in Perspective". 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. United States Geologic Survey. 1898. Mt. Diablo, Calif. sheet. 15' series, Washington, D.C. United States Geologic Survey. 1942. Mt. Diablo, Calif. sheet. 15' series, Washington, D.C. United States Geologic Survey. 1947. Mt. Diablo, Calif. sheet. 15' series, Washington, D.C. 953. Diablo Calif. quad. 7.5' series, Washington,United States Geologic Survey. 1 q s, gt , D.C. United States Geologic Survey. 1968. Diablo, Calif. quad. 7.5' series, 1953 updated 1968, Washington, D.C. 4.13-11 4.13 ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES United States Geologic Survey. 1973. Diablo, Calif. uad. 7.5' series, 1953 updated 1973 9 p Washington, D.C. United States Geologic Survey. 1980. Diablo Calif. quad. 7.5' series, 1953 updated 1980, Washington, D.C. 1 t . t 4.13-12 ................. ...................... ........... 5 0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACT OVERVIEW This section focuses on the several subjects that are specifically mandated for discussion with a Draft EIR by the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126b, e, f, and g). Table 5-1 presents a summary of key findings from the 1992 EIR. Because this Subsequent EIR builds upon the assessment in the 1992 EIR,the following discussion is organized to summarize and highlight previous discussion of project effects, followed by a discussion of new effects not considered by the previous EIR. Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects The 1992 EIR discussion of these effects was incorporated into Chapter 4 through 15 of that document. They involve loss of open space, loss of grazing land and the range of environmental effects associated with a large urban development, including increased demand for public services and utilities; increased traffic; air quality and noise effects; exposure of persons and property to potential geologic and seismic hazards;increased runoff from developed areas and associated water quality effects;loss of wildlife habitat;loss of drainage channels; increased runoff,possible impacts to cultural resources; exposure of persons to electromagnetic fields; increased population; visual quality effects. There are no additional unavoidable impacts posed by the pending refinements to the Dougherty Valley projects that are the subject of the Subsequent EIR. Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity Y The 1992 EIR's discussion of these effects commence on page 17-1 of that document. The environmental effects identified include: a) loss of the ability of the land to produce food and fiber; b) loss, degradation or fragmentation of 3,911 acres of annual grassland used by wildlife, including special status species; c) elimination or degradation of individual oak trees; d) elimination or degradation of 2.6 acres of willow riparian habitat; 0.4 acres of freshwater marsh; 2.0 acres of alkali meadow; and 2.1 acres of seep; and e) possible long-term health effects of developing residences within areas subject to electromagnetic fields. The project proponents believe the project is justified because it supplies housing in all price ranges, and because the site is centrally located with respect to work places in the Tri-Valley Region. 5-t 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Table 5-1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS FROM 1992 EIR Short-Term Uses Versus Ione-Term Productivity. The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Conversion of approximately 6,000 acres of undeveloped open space and seasonal grazing/dry farming land to urban uses. Mitigation Measures: * See the•Mitigation Measures for Public Services & Utilities Impact 1 and Biological Resources Impact 1. 2. Impact: Loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 3,911 acres of annual grasslands. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources,Impact 1. 3. Impact: Elimination or degradation of valley oak savanna,valley oak riparian woodland, and individual oak trees. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 2. 4. Impact: Elimination or degradation of 2.6 acres of willow riparian forest, 0.4-acre of freshwater marsh, 2.0 acres of alkali meadow,and 2.1 acres of seeps, including loss or degradation of stock ponds or perennial and seasonal creeks. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impacts 2 and 4. 5. Impact: Possible long term health risks associated with developing residences within EMFs associated with existing high-voltage electric transmission lines. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources Impact 5. 5-2 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project The 1992 Findings identified the following potentially significant impacts and adopted the following mitigation measures. 1. Impact: Growth-inducing impacts of increasing housing and residents in the region. Mitigation Measures: * No mitigation measures are recommended for the population increase impact because it is less-than-significant. No mitigation measures are recommended for the addition of 11,000 units to the Tri-Valley Region housing supply because this is a beneficial impact. 2. Impact: Growth-inducing impacts of extending public services and infrastructure closer to the Tassajara Valley. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Public Services & Utilities Impacts 1 to 13. j3. Impact: Growth-inducing impacts of converting open space and agricultural lands to urban uses. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Public Utilities Impact 16 and Biological Resources Impact 1. 4. Impact: Growth-inducing impacts of increasing growth intensity in the planning area. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Public Utilities Impact 16 and Biological Resources Impact 1. S. Impact: Growth-inducing impacts of converting land from agricultural uses to residential, commercial and open space uses. Mitigation Measures: ' See the Mitigation Measures for Public Utilities Impact 16 and Biological Resources Impact 1. 6. Impact: Growth-inducing impacts of extending service area boundaries. Mitigation Measures: * See the Mitigation Measures for Public Services & Utilities Impacts and Biological Resources Impact 1. 5-3 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES The subject of the Subsequent EIR does not include the Country Club at Gale Ranch, so the figures for acres of grassland effected by Dougherty Valley development, as well as the acres of wetland effected by grading and development are reduced below the figures presented in the 1992 EIR. It should also be noted that the footprint of development is less in the revised Specific Plan that in the adopted Specific Plan. Consequently, the amount of open space and residential densities are slightly increased. The Biological Resource chapter summarizes available information on wetland effects and loss of oak trees. Figure 4.7-1 indicates a valley oak (VO) and one small area of valley oak savanna (VOW) within the Gale Ranch II project. The lone oak possess a ' breast high diameter of 51 inches. This oak, as well as one seep (S), will be lost as a result of the planned Gale Ranch II development. The oak savanna area includes a 39 and 48-inch diameter valley oak. They are in lands that will be retained as ungraded permanent open space but they are immediately adjacent to lands proposed for grading and development. In the Windemere I project, a small area of alkali meadow (AM) was mapped in the previous EIR (see Figure 4.7-1). That area will be lost as a result of grading and development. However, Windemere will be preserving alkali meadow in the Hidden Valley area. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes The 1992 EIR identifies both the commitment of energy and other non-renewable resources used in construction as significant irreversible environmental changes. This section of the previous EIR went on to identify changes to biological resources through conversion of open space and agricultural lands to urban uses as significant irreversible environmental change. The projects that are the subject of the Subsequent EIR do not pose any additional irreversible changes, beyond those considered by the 1992 EIR. Growth-Inducing Impacts The 1992 EIR identified the following points: 1. Dougherty Valley will induce growth because it would directly introduce a significant amount of housing and a large number of new residents into the Tri-Valley region. The project will also introduce indirect economic growth in the area. 2. The project will bring public services and infrastructure closer to the undeveloped Tassajara Valley. 3. Dougherty Valley will convert the project area from agricultural uses to urban uses, and extend roads to the area, which will create growth pressure on the remaining rural lands that are inside the ULL. 5-4 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES 4. Conceivably extending service boundaries may include areas other than those proposed for development under the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. In addition,extending Windemere Parkway to the Tassajara Valley will improve access to that area and facilitate extending other public services to the Tassajara Valley. The projects that are the subject of the Subsequent EIR do not pose any new growth-inducing impact issues beyond those considered by the previous EIR. �j Areas of Controversy The 1992 EIR identified the following areas of controversy: a) public facilities and utilities infrastructure capacity; b) circulation impact on the adjacent roadways, c) impacts on sensitive environmental features, d) cumulative impacts on regional land use, traffic, open space and visual ' resources. The projects that are the subject of the Subsequent EIR have far fewer and less severe areas of controversy. Since the previous EIR was certified, the applicants have reached settlement agreements with nearby cities, utility firms and environmental groups. The revisions to the General Plan, Specific Plan and the design of pending projects have taken into account those agreements. Cumulative Impacts The 1992 EIR discussion of cumulative impacts is presented on pages 17-4 through 17-9. The discussion identified cumulative, foreseeable projects and identified significant environmental effects of cumulative projects. The list of cumulative projects identified in the previous EIR included the Tassajara project,East Dublin, West Dublin, South Livermore Valley and North Livermore Valley. In the intervening years, the anticipated lot yield of these projects and some other details have changed, but the magnitude of these projects is not substantially different. For example, the East Dublin Specific ' Plan is now a 3,500 acre area for development of 12,356 residential units. The 1992 EIR indicated a yield for 11,500 to 20,800 units. The cumulative effects of growth in the Tri-Valley Region were presented on page 17-6 through 17-9 of the previous EIR. They are summarized below: - Land Use Effects. The project would result in cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space; and increase pressure to extend the ULL. - Public Services and Utility Effects. The significant cumulative impacts would be on service providers to maintain the level of service, including collections/treatment of wastewater, distribution/treatment of potable water, provision of recycled water, disposal of solid waste, demand for public services (police, fire, schools, childcare facilities, parks). ' s-s 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES • Circulation Effects The projects will have cumulative circulation effects, including some levels of service (LOS) dropping from acceptable to unacceptable at specific intersections. The most severe cumulative traffic impacts were identified at freeway interchanges and , along certain key intersections on arterials. • Air Quality Effects The project will result in a cumulative increase in regional emissions of carbon monoxide and ozone precursors. • Noise Effects The projects will contribute to the cumulative growth in noise in the Tri- Valley Region. • Biological Resource Effects The project will contribute to the cumulative loss and fragmentation of annual grassland habitat for wildlife, and a potential for cumulative loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat. • Housing, Population and Employment Effects. The project will result in a cumulative increase in population,number of dwelling units and incremental improvement in regional jobs/housing balance. • Visual Effects. The projects will contribute to the cumulative loss of rural/pastoral visual character, reduced views of open space, and loss of scenic views in the region. The projects that are the subject of the Subsequent EIR do not pose cumulative impacts beyond those analyzed by the 1992 EIR. The various chapters contain discussion of cumulative impacts. For example, the Circulation chapter of the Subsequent EIR analyzes cumulative traffic impacts. 1992 EIR Alternatives The State CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall discuss a "range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to this location of the project,which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project." The alternatives evaluated should be focused on "eliminating any significant adverse effects, or reducing them to a level of insignificance," even if doing so would "impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." CEQA requires discussion of the No Project Alternative (Section 15126d). The alternatives analyzed by the previous EIR pertain to General Plan amendment and Specific Plan that were the subject of that EIR. The alternatives evaluated by the 1992 EIR were presented on pages 16-1 through 16-21. They may be summarized as follows: • No Project Alternative. In this alternative the private ranchland was expected to be leased and used for grazing and dryland farming. Camp Parks would continue to be used for military training activities. 5-6 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Lower Density Alternative. This alternative examined a scenario calling for development of ' h, g P up to 5,500 dwelling units on 2,254 residential acres within Dougherty Valley. The concept was for much lower residential densities on the perimeter of the development than were allowed by the Specific Plan, and somewhat lower or essentially the same residential densities in the central part of the planning area. • Moderate Density Alternative. This alternative involved analysis of a scenario calling for development of a maximum of 9,500 dwelling units on 2,254 residential acres. (The footprint of the urban area in this scenario and in the Lower Density Alternative were essentially identical to the area shown for development in the Specific Plan.) This alternative provided 14 percent fewer dwelling units than the proposed project, which allowed greater flexibility to solve design issues. It also resulted in 14 percent fewer vehicle trips and proportionate decreases in demand for utility service and public services. Concentrated Development Alternative. This alternative involved the development of a maximum of 11,000 units on 1,840 residential acres, instead of the 2,224 acres of the Specific Plan, Lower Density, and Moderate Density alternatives. The concept was to intensify development in the center of the residential area and provide an additional 384 acres of open space on the perimeter of the urban area. The advantage of this alternative was a smaller area of physical impact (i.e., less grading, more permanent open space). • Off-Site DevelopmentAltemative. This alternative would leave the Dougherty Valley project site undeveloped, and instead considered the environmental effects of constructing a similar-sized project in the East Dublin Planning Area. The project would result in a total of 11,000 dwelling units at the same densities proposed in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. In addition,the existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center uses would be retained or replaced by similar uses; a business park would be proposed near the I-580/Tassajara Road interchange, and somewhat more open space would be maintained because of the larger acreage of the East Dublin Planning Area. The alternatives analysis in the 1992 EIR remains applicable to the pending amendments to the General Plan and Dougherty Valley Specific Plan,with the exception of the description of the No Project Alternative. That discussion should be updated as follows. i 1 i 5_7 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE In 1992 Contra Costa County adopted the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and.Specific Plan. The Land Use Map from the adopted General Plan is presented in Figure 4.1-2 of this Subsequent EIR. It shows approximately 2,188 acres designated for residential development, as well as lands designated Public/Semi-Public (PS), Commercial (CO), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Open Space (OS). The holding capacity of this plan is 11,000 dwelling units, along with 14 acres of commercial, and a 34-acre village center. The adopted Specific Plan and associated Community Design Handbook provide planning criteria to guide development. It is these adopted plans that represent the No Project Alternative to the pending General Plan Amendment and Dougherty Valley.Specific Plan. As noted in the introduction (Chapter 1) of this Subsequent EIR, the changes to the adopted General Plan and adopted Specific Plan are intended to make these plans consistent with the Settlement Agreements, and they result from more detailed design studies (e.g., the stormwater detention basins have been relocated to reflect more detailed hydrology studies). SPECIFIC PURPOSE ALTERNATIVES The 1992 EIR evaluated four alternatives that considered a range of development types and land use scenarios. Variations on these four alternatives cover a broad range of development options for the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. Further evaluation of total dwelling unit yields for the Dougherty Valley does not appear warranted for.this Subsequent EIR. However, there are some special purpose alternatives that represent refinements that would improve certain aspects of the Specific Plan. Alternative 1: Wildlife Alternative The Specific Plan land use map shows a major open space ridge of approximately 221 acres within the Windemere Ranch that will be surrounded on all sides by urban development. This open space area can be seen in Figure 3-6. It is bounded by Bollinger Canyon Road, Windemere Parkway and East Branch Road. Because it is not connected to regional open space, its wildlife habitat value is severely limited. According to guidelines of the Fish and Wildlife'Service,wildlife corridors should ordinarily be on the order of 0.25 miles in width. Figure 5-1 shows an alternative development concept for a portion of the WindemereroPe P rty. In this scenario a 0.25 mile wide opening is created at the east edge of the 221-acre ridge. Only Windemere Parkway crosses the corridor, and special design features can be incorporated into the ' project to facilitate movement of wildlife across the road right-of-way. Figure 5-1 also includes redesign of the south flank of the 221-acre ridge to create additional developable area here to compensate for the area lost to development at the east terminus of the ridge. In this way the 5:8 � r tJ'�\,�` Nr v i ¢ ,�. ter✓ , Me KIF \� \ 1 :1:1: , t �, r \}`A!i.� r �•rr -7A "lF{f rYe\ yf r •/♦�.; 1 ylj \� \ r � ►'�, ��y,' '� '�?\4�Cr< � \,._.<sc �.r"f� I.: ��n�� r \ at ``J \\\� vh \ \ .;J33t etiY•TC:. 3 ,r ;;.M ,i 'ti r ` E. F \\. \ \ Ir INMA U4 .. ?.��� ..\ \ zra .//'i �♦ -J„ �/r � � r ,� .l�\ �♦ 1:' \ r r e •. I.r. /' Explanation: = E. A` 211 AC Gross acreage of lands proposed It ! for urban uses 977 AC. Gross acreage of lands proposed ♦��w ! l ��n \ for permanent open space IM, Figure: 5-1 x Dom o LQ�w Windemere Ranch Graphic Subsequent EIR Wildlife Habitat Alternative scale: 0 500' 1000' 2000' 5-9 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES wildlife habitat value of open sace in Dougherty Valle can be increased without conflictingwith other development objectives of the project. Another advantage of the wildlife corridor is that it provides an opening which allows persons ' traveling along Windemere Parkway the opportunity to view the open space area. The Specific Plan considers such openings as essential to retaining the visual character of Dougherty Valley. The scenario shown in Figure 5-1 provides a 1,250-foot long reach of the road that will be undeveloped on both sides of Windemere Parkway. Such openings also tend to strengthen the ' sense of neighborhood by using open space areas to create boundaries of neighborhoods. The Wildlife Alternative separates the lands in the south portion of Windemere Ranch from other residential areas in Dougherty Valley. This area has an elementary school site, which will assist in creating a sense of place that is distinct from the other neighborhoods in Dougherty Valley. In this sense the Wildlife Alternative not only benefits habitat values, but it also strengthens the design. Alternative 2: Japonica Way Access Alternative The major circulation elements identified by the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan are shown in Appendix C,page Cl. They include major arterials(Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road) and arterials (Windemere Parkway and East Branch Road). The only road that will cross the Main Branch channel is Bollinger Canyon Road, near the Gale Ranch II/Windemere I boundary. (The location of this creek crossing can be seen in the southeast corner of Figure 3-7 and in the northwest corner of Figure 3-8.) This design concentrates traffic on the Bollinger Canyon Road. If traffic on Bollinger Canyon Road is obstructed in Gale Ranch II project area, vehicles in the Windemere I project would be forced to go south on Dougherty Road toward the City of Dublin. Over the long term, the high school on Windemere Ranch would generate considerable AM peak , hour traffic on Bollinger Canyon Road. Figure 5-2,Japonica Way Alternative, suggests the extension of Japonica Way easterly across the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. This road would be a minor subdivision street crossing. It would be designed so that it would not be an attractive route for through traffic, but would be a valuable by-pass road during a road closure. Additionally, it would provide a more direct access to the high school for residents of the northern portion of the Gale Ranch II project. s-io i r ; j L---7 t I 1. - -7 I I � m / ; Japonica Way °r Extension Across Creek r � - - � /-- Bo9x+9e , Gale Ranch II Windemere Figure: 5-2 Graphic Japonica Japonica Way Alternative Scale: �a IlIlQ� Subsequent EIR 0 300' 600' 1200' 5-11 S.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES ' Alternative 3: Relocated High School Site Alternative The high school site in Windemere is intended to serve all of Dougherty Valley and West Branch. Table 4.3-2 indicates that at buildout of these projects the enrollment of the high school would ' reach 1,630 students. The high school is to have a capacity of 2,200 students, so it has the capability of accommodating students generated by existing and planned development projects north and northeast of the Dougherty Valley. Areas that could be served include existing development along Lawrence Road, as well as the proposed Kaufman & Broad (Tassajara Meadows),Shapell Industries(Wendt Ranch)and the Tassajara projects. Unless a circulation link ' is provided, high school bound traffic originating in the vicinity of the Lawrence Road/Camino Tassajara intersection would reach the high school by driving a distance of approximately 5 miles (Camino Tassajara to Crow Canyon Road to Dougherty Road to Bollinger CanyonRoad,and then east on Bollinger Canyon Road to the high school). Figure 5-3 suggest relocating the high school site to the northern most portion of the Windemere property and extending Lawrence Road as a dead-end cul-de-sac street to the west side of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. A foot bridge would link this parking lot to the high school. The design would not allow connection of Lawrence Road with roadways in the Dougherty Valley. The intent of this alternative is to provide more efficient access to the high school site to the broader community. The precise location of roadways and parking lots for the high school would need to take into account biologic resource factors, anticipated parking, demand, topography and other factors. The locations shown for parking lots and access points is intended to be diagrammatic. It emphasizes that the Lawrence Road is not connected to any streets in Dougherty Valley. , 5-12 O.ROAD �RIIIR•RIIII�a I O� o Lawrence Road x ' ESS Dead eud s '' PR ctlt-cie sac . PfSP Par } SLS km ML HS Dead end h V`S SM SP R eui de sae PR SMs C SH /SP Parking Lqt� �`VNGEP 0 X ' c00 oRRono. PfSP OS ML g SM SM PR ML SMP 'SP Cis ML PR ; } � s SM PR ML C S MH ML SM ` �> SM go MH a } • $M pR MU SM (?$ �c P!� Mr PlSP SM Es a ML SM 3 tF 'a s PR STAGING AREA - GV'EDA00 Ow �t } Legend SM SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SH SINGLE FAMILY HIGH COMMERCIAL PR PARKS AND RECREATION DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ML MULTIPLE FAMILY LOW MU MIXED USE VILLAGE CENTER INCLUDES OS`; OPEN SPACE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY'RESIDENTIAL MH MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH P/SP PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC PRIMARY ROADS DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOLS,COLLEGE,ELEMENTARY,MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOLS,OTHER Fq Dam Figure: 5-3 C> �Q��� Lawrence Road Graphic Alternative scale: Q5 Va RRQ-5107 Subsequent EIR 0 800' 1600' 3200' 5-13 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Alternative 4: Urban Limit Line Alternative The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan creates a major open space preserve in the Hidden Valley ' area, situated in the northeast portion of the Windemere Ranch property. The Specific Plan has set aside development of this area by designating the approximately 762-acre area as Open Space (OS). This is a biologically-sensitive area which also is characterized by some large landslides. , Currently this area is within the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Taking the Hidden Valley area out of the urban area would focus attention on the importance of protecting and/or enhancing its habitat values. , Figure 5-4 shows a modified ULL line that would be setback approximately 100 feet from the area designated for urban development by the proposed Specific Plan. Figure 5-4 shows an area of approximately.61 acres that is currently within the urban area. Alternative 4 calls for amending the ULL in this area so that all lands in Camp Park will be i outside the urban area. In summary the ULL alternative proposes removing two properties from the urban area. The largest parcel is owned by Windemere Ranch Partners and is located in the ' northeast corner of Dougherty Valley. This area, commonly referred to as Hidden Valley, possesses outstanding biologic habitat features. The other area is in Camp Parks. Neither of these areas are proposed for development, and both are designated for an open space land use by the , proposed Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. i 1 5-14 03 ■F �{ 3¢P J� PR P/SP ,. f is ML SM VS SM FJ R. SM ss` C SH PISP •' R q ONION POAO• :.3�ISP F OS a ` P/SP • • ' SM ML Hs 'PFt ML a SM PASP ML PR SM j ML • MH ML SM 33 F R • f V� FY :. •, �� .x 'a sTn�trNG SMMU Sly OS a ``.AREA COMiRRATY .� E� ♦ i � ' MU P/SP gh SM E$ML ' 5 'IX I7rban .ItTii1 Line PR (/�pltTA7S07�11Y}*tT7GTCS} STAGING AREA OLD C � F 2 � Legend -- SM SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM FS7M 1DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SH SINGLE FAMILY HIGH COMMERCIAL PR'' PARKS AND RECREATION DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ' MULTIPLE FAMILY LOW MIXED USE VILLAGECENTER INCLUDES ML DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MU MULTIPLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ;QS OPEN SPACE MH MULTIPLE FAMILY HIGH P/SP PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC PRIMARY ROADS DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNm COLLEGE,ELEMENTARY,MIDDLE, HIGH SCHOOLS,OTHER Figure: 5-4 Douo La��� Urban Limit Line Graphic Alternative scale: Subsequent EIR 0 800' 1600' 3200' ' 5-15 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES , DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVES Gale Ranch Il Alternative ' The characteristics of the Gale Ranch II project are summarized in the project description (see pages 3-12 through 3-18) and Figure 3-7 presents an Illustrative Plan for this project. Based on environmental review of the Gale Ranch II project, an alternative has been prepared which is presented in Figure 5-5. The characteristics of this plan are described below. Land Use This alternative provides for more compact residential uses. Specifically, the footprint of development is reduced by approximately 50 acres but the lot yield remains at 1,825 dwelling units. The residential land use categories may be described as follows: Land Use Category Gross Acres .... Single-family residential,high density (SH) 208.6 Multiple-family residential, low density (ML) 95.0 Multiple-family residential,medium density (MM) 29.8, ' The Gale Ranch II alternative provides three neighborhood parks (28.8 acres), and open space , (approximately 460 acres). The parks and recreation/open space uses total approximately 489 acres. Non-residential uses include a 12.2-acre commercial site. Community/Public Facilities The alternative provides elementary and intermediate school sites (total 46.2 acres). Normally, elementary school sites are 10 acres; intermediate school sites are 15 acres. consequently the proposed school sites are substantially oversized and each site will also serve as a neighborhood park. Other community facilities include a one-acre fire station site and 5.4-acre park and ride lot. If ' a fire station is not needed, this alternative would reserve the site for an appropriate civic/ community use. 5-16 O.Ar • 00 • ........... ......... ....... ..... .... .. ♦ f4 f,'4 MAFIOSO& + +tl+f+F • WO +ff +X PPITf 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES ' Circulation ' The alternative shows only the two proposed arterial streets (Dougherty Road and Bollinger ' Canyon Road). These alignments are consistent with the alignment shown in the Final Development Plans and Vesting Tentative Maps submitted by Shapell Industries. This alternative includes a 60-foot wide transit corridor in the median of Bollinger Canyon Road. Drainage and Flood Hazards In this alternative,like the proposed project,the channels of the West Branch of Alamo Creek and ' Main Branch of Alamo Creek would be retained and enhanced with implementation of a revegetation plan. Low lying areas planned for development near creek channels will be padded up so that they are raised well above the elevation of the water surface during peak runoff from the 100-year storm. Housing and Population i To calculate the holding capacity of the Gale Ranch II alternative, some assumptions must be made about the net acreage available for residential uses and the densities attainable within the i residential areas. For raw land Contra Costa County normally assumes that net acreage is approximately.80 percent of gross acreage. Using this ratio, and assuming that the densities achieved are in the mid-range' for each residential block of land, the Gale Ranch II alternative ' can yield the 1,825 dwelling units provided for by the proposed project. Windemere I Alternative ' The characteristics of the Windemere I project are summarized in the project description (see pages 3-18 through 3-23), and Figure 3-6 presents an Illustrative Plan for this project. Based on environmental review of the Windemere I project an alternative has been prepared, which is presented in Figure 5-6. The characteristics of this plan are described below: 1 For the lot yield computation the minimum and maximum densities for a land use category were added and the resulting number was divided by two. This average density was multiplied by the net acreage in that land use category , to arrive at the lot yield. The procedure was repeated to calculate lot yield in the SH, ML and MH categories. The Windemere portion of the Village Center was assumed to yield no dwelling units. 5-18 .............................................................................. i for 5.7 Atte- . n'*617 Acre F f 4 Station ire ' r to - Wtorin � 64 - fjn.- A. dsin na 44.? q: 2g• A• 3.4 A• PR> �m r' S-S A in e�ere� ar wa 8 1 A• •�� A " r Sil .... r- Use �.. _ ; M Single F \ pQ' �` . Mt High `. a11?�ly 24.0 A. p\`ci r'f ,_ w" y°,multippe�� Res'dejltral le MN ,Lb. mil; I1�ultipie�s�ty y esideht�h ' v,,: PR High p a "Irv' si p parks�•R ,ty w / aeutiai_...., \ ;' ecr r t ppe p/ r n Space /e/1tentar S Fire Stachop/Site in `. "� a " Figur1mx n S` e'5_g w.Tra si orrido ubseq t p,, i cent EZRInde ' Alternative Graphic Scale; , 519 o a50 son.. 1000. 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Land Use This alternative provides residential uses in the following categories: Land Use:Category Cross Acres Single-family residential,high density (SH) 94.1 Multiple-family residential,low density (ML) 51.2 Multiple-family residential,high density (MM) 85.6 The Windemere I Alternative provides a neighborhood park(5.6 acres), creek corridor parks(37.1 ' acres), community park(approximately 10 acres/designated MU),and open space (40 acres). The parks & recreation/open space uses total 92.7 acres. Community/Public Facilities ' The alternative provides a 10-acre elementary school site in the eastern portion of the project, as well as a fire station site on Bollinger Canyon Road in the northern portion of the project. The fire station approximately coincides with the site nominated by DK Associates, based on their emergency response time study. , The community college; as well as the commercial and civic uses provided for by the Specific Plan would be integrated into the Village Center (i.e., lands designated MU). Circulation The location of the Bollinger Canyon Road right of way is not changed. However, the location ' of the transit corridor has been relocated to the west edge of the right-of-way. Where lands designated MH front on Bollinger Canyon Road this change in the plan will shift the nearest travel lane further from the residences than in the case when the transit corridor.is in the median. Appendix C, Section E provides a typical section for this alternative. Even with relocation of the transit corridor Bollinger Canyon Road would have a 44-foot wide median which would taper at intersections to allow left-turn storage lanes and acceleration lanes. In the Village Center the transit corridor would be available for parking (i.e., park & ride lot). In the MH area the transit corridor would be improved with landscape mounds and landscape plant materials. ' Windemere Parkway is relocated to the south edge of development in Figure 5-6, but the width of the right-of-way is unchanged from that shown in the Final Development Plans and Vesting ' 5-20 ' 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Tentative Maps for the Windemere I project. The relocation of the road would not change its transportation function. The intent of the location proposed in Figure 5-6 is to provide views of the open space area. This alignment also serves to separate the urban area from the 240 acre open space area that is located south of this segment of Windemere Parkway. The other collector streets shown on Figure 5-6 correspond with the locations of collector streets on the plans submitted by Windemere Ranch Partners. ' Drainage and Flood Hazards In this alternative the channel of the East Branch of Alamo Creek is realigned through the Windemere I development. The creek corridor averages 150 feet in width. The channel would be engineered,with creek banks possessing gradients of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The plan provides space for pedestrian and bicycle trails within the creek corridor. The channel could ' be designed such that riparian vegetation could be encouraged without compromising the capacity of the channel. A storm water detention basin would be constructed on the East Branch of Alamo Creek immediately upstream from the Windemere I project. The treatment of the Alamo Creek channel in terms of grading and establishing a creek corridor park is essentially unchanged from the plans submitted by Windemere Ranch Partners. Housing and Population To calculate the holding capacity of the Windemere I Alternative, some assumptions must be made about the net acreage available for residential uses and the densities attainable within the residential areas. For raw land, Contra Costa County normally assumes that net acreage is approximately 80 percent of gross acreage. Using this ratio, and assuming that the densities achieved are in the mid-range' for each residential block of land, the Windemere I Alternative yields approximately 459 single family residences, and approximately 1,806 multiple-family residences(total 2,265 dwelling units). The project proposed by Windemere Ranch Partners yields 2,249 dwelling units. Thus, the Windemere I Alternative yields approximately the same number of dwelling units as the project proposed by Windemere Ranch Partners. z For the lot yield computation the minimum and maximum densities for a land use category were added and the resulting number was divided by two. This average density was multiplied by the net acreage in that land use category to arrive at the lot yield. The procedure was repeated to calculate lot yield in the SH, ML and MH categories. The Windemere portion of the Village Center was assumed to yield no dwelling units. 5-21 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Light Rail Transition Alternative Figure 5-7, Light Rail Transition Alternatives, illustrates two possible options for shifting the location of the transit corridor from the median of Bollinger Canyon Road on Gale Ranch to the west edge of the right-of-way in Windemere I. Alternative A indicates that the transition could occur just west of the Main Branch of Alamo Creek; Alternative B shows a transition point in the Windemere I project area,approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the point where Bollinger Canyon Road crosses the Main Branch of Alamo Creek. A possible disadvantage of Alternative B is that the transition occurs at the point where the fire fighting equipment would access Bollinger Canyon ' Road. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Comparison of Gale Ranch II Alternative with Project ' Land Use and Planning Policy The alternative provides approximately 50 more acres of open space than the proposed project and ' 50 gross acres less of residential development. The alternative provides a 12.2-acre commercial site that is intended to accommodate 125,000 sq.ft.of commercial/retail uses (approximately 10,000 sq.ft./acre). Public Utilities As this alternative would generate approximate the same number of unit's, demand for utilities ' would be unchanged from that of the proposed project.The total length of pipelines would be less and more compact development translates into more efficient use of utilities. Public Services This alternative would not substantially change public service requirements. The population would ! be approximately the same, so park dedication requirement would be the same. The yield of school age children would be slightly less. However, the number of schools, parks and other facilities needed to serve the project would not change. ' Flood Hazards/Drainage ' The alternative has not modified the approach to flood control and drainage. The major creek corridors are to be retained, and all developed areas would be raised above the elevation of the 100-year flood. , 5-22 i Al CQ a ct .] ami p° `5 OA C) 5 tiQ U 03 cz o � Q o 3?b i R3 d i a 1 ct �8cz P°p0 s W Z 3 � C7 N a� Lo ' 5-23 i 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES GeoloSy§eismicity/Grading In this alternative, the footprint of grading and development is reduced by 50 acres. The volume of grading would be reduced by approximately 10 percent. ' Biological Resources The alternative would provide approximately 50 acres more of grassland habitat for wildlife. Air QualiMNoise ' The development under this alternative would generate slightly less traffic because it is more compact development. Permanent air quality and noise impacts would be roughly proportional , to the daily vehicle trip generation, so this alternative has a slight advantage over the proposed project. Visual Quality This alternative preserves more undeveloped open space in the northeast portion of the Gale ' Ranch II project. It is an upland region visible from vantage points in Dougherty Valley. Views of the open space from the valley floor are considered important by the Specific Plan. . Archaeology/Cultural Resources The footprint of the urban area is reduced by approximately 50 acres. The potential for archaeologic resources being impacted is reduced because the disturbed area is less in the alternative. Comparison of Windemere I Alternative With Project ' Land Use and Planning Policy The areas proposed for residential development are nearly identical, and the forecast lot yields are ' nearly identical. The alternative does not provide any commercial uses in the Windemere project, except for those allowed within the Village Center. The Windemere Ranch Partners project calls for a 1.4-acre commercial center at the Windemere Parkway/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection. There are no formally designated religious facilities in either the alternative or the proposed project. The three-acre parcel immediately north of the elementary school site in Figure 5-6 is a potential religious facility site. There may also be a potential religious facility site near the Windemere Parkway/Bollinger Canyon Road intersection. Providing a religious facility site(s) in the alternative would reduce the residential lot yield. For example, the three-acre site north of the elementary school has a residential hold capacity of 14 to 15 dwellings. 5-24 ' 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES Public Utilities ' The alternative would generate approximately the same number of units and the ratio of single- family to multiple-family units is very similar. The total length of pipelines would be the same, but the demand for water and amount of wastewater generated would be slightly less for the alternative. Public Services ' The alternative would not substantially change public service requirements. The population would be slightly less in the alternative, so park dedication requirements would be slightly less, and the ' yield of school age children would be slightly less. However, the number of schools, parks and other facilities needed to serve the project would not change. The school site in the alternative is not located on an arterial street, which is desirable. Flood Hazards/Drainage The alternative has selected a different alignment for the East Branch Channel, but the overall ' grading concept is unchanged, with a detention basin on the East Branch of Alamo Creek, immediately upstream from the Windemere I project. All of the developed area would be raised ' above the elevation of the 100-year flood. Geology/Seismicity/Grading In the alternative, public roads would define the north and south limits of development. There would be essentially no potential for landslides to impact residential lots. The overall grading concept for the alternative and proposed project are similar, so the total volume of earthwork ' would be nearly identical. Biological Resources The proposed project of Windemere Ranch Partners provides a creek channel along the extreme south edge of the development (for the portion of the project that is east of Bollinger Canyon ' Road). The relationship of the creek corridor to the wildlife habitat is more desirable from a biological standpoint than the alternatives, which provides a creek corridor within the project. ' Air QualityLoise The development under this alternative would generate slightly less traffic. Permanent air quality ' and noise impacts would be roughly proportional to the daily vehicle trip generation, so the alternative has a slight advantage over the proposed project. ' S-25 5.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES ' Visual Ouali ' The alternative provides continuous views of open space along Windemere Parkway. Additionally, ' the central location of the realigned creek channel within the residential area and its linkage to the elementary school is an advantage. It would be desirable to have a single loaded street on one side of the creek corridor to provide visual access to the creek corridor from neighborhoods within ' the project. Such a road would also facilitate surveillance of the trails,which is desirable from the perspective of safety. Archaeolo Cultural Resources ' The footprint of the urban area is unchanged, so the potential for impacts is identical. , Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires that the environmentally superior alternative be identified. The Gale Ranch II , alternative presented in Figure 5-5 is considered the environmentally superior because it reduces the footprint of development by approximately 50 acres' Specifically, this plan protects wildlife habitat and reduces grading in the northeast portion of the Gale Ranch II project. It does so ' without compromising the architectural, aesthetic, traffic and hydrologic aspects to the proposed plan. ' The environmentally superior alternative for Windemere Ranch includes the revisions to the ULL (as shown in Figure .5-4), and includes the modifications to the open space area illustrated in , Figure 5-1. 3 The alternatives described and analyzed in the 1992 EIR have already considered a reasonable range for the area comprising the Gale Ranch II project. However, to ensure a thorough review, one additional alternative for this area is described and analyzed. It increases density and necessarily results in a reduction in the variety of housing theses that would be available assuming the lot yield is kept at approximately 1,825 dwelling units. This altemative would be denser than the project proposed by Shapell, so traffic congestion may be increased by the alternative. Permanent air quality and noise impacts would be roughly proportional to the daily vehicle trip generation, so this altemative would have impacts ' equivalent to the project. However, the concentration of traffic into a smaller area could result in a light worsening of noise conditions. With regard to visual quality,by increasing the density of the development, the negative visual impact of the houses themselves would increase and make it more difficult to ' implement effective mitigation measures to soften this impact. 5-26 .......... .................. 6 EIR..... UTHO ..... ...... ...... 0RS ' This EIR was prepared by Darwin Myers Associates, under the direction of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Darwin Myers, Ph.D., had overall responsibility for the project management and primary responsibility for data analysis and report writing. Aaron Wishnuff assisted Mr. Myers in the preparation of Public Utilities and Facilities chapters. Others who contributed to the report include Donald Ballanti, Air Quality; Stan Shelly, Noise; Meyer Mohaddes, Inc., Traffic/Circulation, Miley Holman, Archaeology/Cultural Resources; James Martin, Biological Resources; and Via, Visual Quality/Aesthetics. Dan Parker,Architect, prepared report graphics. ' 6-1 California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE OF ✓� Completion of Environmental Impact Report Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 851 PINE STREET NORTH WING-4TH FLOOR MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (510) 335-1236 Contact Person: Jim Cutler ' Project Description and Location: DOUGHERTY VALLEY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ' IMPLEMENTING PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS, County File #GP 96-0001: This is to notify interested individuals, organizations and agencies that the County of Contra Costa has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for modifications to the Dougherty Valley project ' and certain implementing project approvals. The EIR described in this notice will provide the specific additional environmental analysis required to consider the General Plan Amendment (#GP96-0001), Specific Plan Amendments(#SP96-0001), Rezoning W/PDP#RZ953032, vesting Subdivision#7976, Final Development Plan #DP953064, (Windemere), Rezoning W/ PDP #RZ953033, vesting ' Subdivision #7984, Final Development Plan #DP953086, (Shapell) which would implement and modify the prior approvals. The Dougherty Valley includes 5,979 acres of land located on both sides of Dougherty Road from the City of San Ramon boundary on the north to the Alameda County line ' on the south (CT3551.03). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' If you require further information regarding the grg ect itself, please contact Jim Cutler at (510) 335-1236 or Debbie Chamberlain at (510) 335-1213 of the County Community Development ' Department, no later than Monday, October 14, 1996, 5:00 p.m. ' The Environmental Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for review at the address below: ' Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor !Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ' Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: August 30, 1996 October 14, 1996 &JA 13 yll ommunity Development Department Representative ' i:%Amwv.ntc 1 ;; �, r , �, �� � `" ' '� r