The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4.6 Ridgeland Park Feasibility Study (2) t �O~ L+@ CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 11, 1985 SUBJECT Written Communication Regarding Ridgeland Regional Park Feasibility Study EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from East Bay Regional Park District dated February 27, 1985 ; Ridgelands Regional Park Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION W Receive report FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time DESCRIPTION Attached is a copy of the Ridgelands Regional Park Feasibility Study which has been prepared for the East Bay Regional Park District . As indicated in Mr. Trudeau' s letter of February 27 , 1985 , the District will be conducting 3 public meetings to receive comments on the recommendations of the Pleasanton Ridgelands Parks Advisory Committee . One of these meetings will be held in Dublin at the Shannon Community Center on March 26 , 1985 . If the City Council wishes to take any public position with respect to this item, direction should be given to Staff to prepare a letter with comments from the Council . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES T0 : ITEM N0. T• (a P ECEI " ED BOARD MAR 1 �zj85 WALTER COSTA, TORS East Bay ED RADKEOSV ce President -7 CI'T'Y O� p�B1B�y JOHN J.WEBS. Secretary LYNN BOWERS.Treasurer Regional Park District HARY LEE JEEEARLAN KESSEL JOHN O'DONNELL 11500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE(415)531-9300 RICHARD C.TRUDEAU General Manager February 27, 1985 Mayor Peter W. Snyder Members of City Council P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin CA 94568 Dear Mayor Snyder and Members of the Council: In April, 1983, our Board of Directors approved a set of guidelines and criteria regarding the steps that had to be taken before a park could be established in the Pleasanton/Sunol Ridgeland area. We are at a significant juncture in that process, and I want to share with you where we are and what will occur during the months ahead. Since early 1983, 25% of the registered voters in and around the communities of Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton and Sunol have signed a petition encouraging the Park District to formally study the feasibility of creating a park in the Pleasanton/Sunol Ridgeland area. The District moved ahead with such a study by appointing a 33—member citizens committee, chaired by Joe Bort, asking for their recommendations on the subject. That committee's recommendations were presented and taken under advisement by our Board of Directors on February 19, 1985. The full report, entitled "The Ridgelands Regional Park Feasibility Study," is over 150 pages. An Executive Summary has been prepared and is enclosed for your information and review. A copy of the complete text certainly can be provided if you prefer. The Board of Directors is not expected to take any formal action on the recommendations contained in the Feasibility Report until late April or early May, 1985. Between now and that time, four things will occur: 1. We will hold three public meetings to receive comments on the recommendations of the Pleasanton Ridgelands Park Advisory Committee. 2. During March and April we will hire a professional public opinion survey firm to reach out and get the opinions of area residents about the proposed park. 3. A Land Use Issues Study commissioned in December, 1984, to evaluate potential land use conflicts in the context of land stability in the study area will be completed. This is a supplement to the Feasibility Study asked for by area landowners and agreed to by the Park District as a way of systematically addressing items of mutual interest and concern. Many of the issues raised relate to future 2 - changes in zoning and general planning over which the Park District has no control. Therefore, the Land Use Issues Study will be of interest and value to the County of Alameda and the cities of Hayward and Pleasanton. 4. A committee of the Board of Directors will continue to meet with representatives of area landowners to discuss and resolve concerns related to any future park. We are at an important juncture with this project. After reviewing the enclosed material, if you have any questions or would like more detailed information, please contact Dennis Beardsley (531-9300, ext. 312) or myself and we can meet and discuss the matter with you. Sincerely, Richard C. Trudeau General Manager RCT:bjs Enc. cc: EBRPD Board of Directors Richard C. Ambrose, Dublin City Manager Park & Recreation Director, Dublin East Bay Regional Park District 11500 Skyline Boulevard Oakland, CA 94619 Contact: Dick Cox (408/281-9875) or Linda Chew (415/531-9300) PLEASANTON RIDGE PARK COMPROMISE PLAN GOES TO EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS BOARD The compromise plan for a Pleasanton Ridge regional park of 2,700 - 3,500 acres was formally presented to East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors at their February 19 meeting. No action will be taken by the directors until later in the year. During the presentation, three public meetings were announced for late March by project coordinator Dennis Beardsley. They will be held at the Shannon Community Center Auditorium in Dublin on March 26, at Sunol Glen School. Auditorium on March 27 and the Pleasanton City Council Room on March 28. All three meetings will start at 7:45 p.m. The public is invited to learn about the plan and comment accordingly. Presentation of the plan climaxes an eight-month study by the Pleasanton Ridgelands Park Advisory Committee, a group of 33 area residents, including both supporters and opponents of the park project. Sole task of the committee was to decide the feasibility of a park in the Pleasanton-Dublin-Sunol area and make a recommendation accordingly to park district directors. The group looked at two more costly proposals, one for a 6,000-8,000 acre park stressing preservation of the hill country's natural setting, and one that highlighted recreational uses involving 5,000-7,000 acres. The two plans had price tags ranging from $22 to $31 million. The compromise selected by the committee has two sections: the larger land area is located on Pleasanton and Sunol Ridges, west of Castlewood --more-- PLEASANTON RIDGE, page 2 Country Club and north of Sunol. That area, according to the committee's report, would be devoted to picnicking, camping areas and hiking trails. The second smaller area, situated southwest of the 580-680 Interchange, would provide facilities for more concentrated recreational uses, such as playing fields and swimming. Based upon other land purchases in the general area, District staff estimates a price tag of $13 to $17 million for acquisition. In addition, development costs are projected at $4-$5 million for the park. The committee report was submitted to Park District board members by Tito Patri, of the Planning Collaborative Inc. , the park planning and consultant firm which prepared the study. Interest in the park project started with the 1982 election of Director Lynn Bowers, a supporter of the park project. Subsequently, 13,000 registered voters, 25 percent of the electors in the Sunol-Pleasanton-Dublin-San Ramon areas, signed a petition asking for the park study. Park supporters contend that the Alameda County portion of the two-county park district has less acres of parkland per 1,000 residents than any Bay Area county except San Francisco. Persons interested in receiving information about the plan and the public meetings should call East Bay Regional Park District headquarters, phone (415) 531-9300. 46��6 �.� � �i .4 (" T..r' '+'•rJ'iY 1�,��1'�!�'�, .�i',� r: . �t av`,Ry � ' i= Y�,W ^�+��1"i: ,.. z ''�'.r�• a#.,AJrt tr�..o �'"� rr �ya�e. frz r rf .�u �. q '' �° y f � r.4c.-�f �• ,,, !qr, t'k. 'r j w �°° � !NC�-.-+.•.s F 1'ys'� • w,i.. f�„F'' ,� ,!t"'�`1..+t� r � `�:t ”,� r,�, �r + f., ;��.t ; or" .�rj 7G°'t'r . ..t.J3, r!.�� r�!r.T �y �`'�J2.�,!..iy.�i) ~ � � Ii. �t /'• �.. y _ .- •' Sf �� ^. ,yj�T �•'• rW c � R rrnr!t�9. 'S'AL� e• f`t � + k� tl- ',, r�i' ? o'••�. .p ��r'�llM1 '�i �' '�Po ��f1a��y'A, F ct7�•ixM1, a� ' S� - 5*�,`� w� � ', ; �� w "�i + � t"-�~ �� i to ��1^�!f 4:��h�h '+7� ^+' ,.�5+"�� r•��; Y�!. r•,w Yr f�'l,r.,,�✓'r �- 1; ./�` � �' � }.�i1��'�,�� * .� r� �;�L s 3+'�;p' !'�* �Y G .T�, �M ,1� , .✓'• •' r-•"Y' xf !� � � r r''t =�,•�.t�ar' 7i .�„ .tw,�:.. v,`w��C��4'AJnk+�°'� � '. '` �''.t r,+ �'1 t .4"f `"-.sc..1+��y ��r� •r -4h t s t- ,1,.r �,4.4s+�'' � �� i � �Y-�-t�. y 44 L s i k yr '+ T}" �yre''..1+, ad.�i,.�, r{ ,rf .r - 'f .,,,�" '�•'� - ft.a .fir '..w•i t�4�t '� .��• r�r i <P.. � +'r. 7; '�`:i.��r�,kY�J. ,�'�, .�. . r - •"��.ad`' .=i��-L � hdis Syft' � - tr*�. ' Y st rJnr' �✓/� n �c ~ { ,�.r1 �. • 1 + Ap'p� 4-M d'fs��v ' S t 'Su di!"°:r; 1'Q� ''l� r}•, .•srr'^��yi,..��SYyi c `t& rs8 'y ,t, "ill•. �I t L .!>.'' 'v r "' yf "�. 1 r•i + r x��a '1. �'�'i.. r• a •: yM .�• FMF 't 4 �� <.%fir, ., r:: { .A''�.'� •7.• ;; -�.r"t' t'L�?„Fa,gy�,v;3Jr�,� ^�y,ST.,'�G• �;� `;F-f.- ..°" "r -°`• �' i�� I� °'i" -� . 77�t'"�`'' 1Y'Y4b'' `°Y .. .Yt J.L 9 . °.q+k� i��h'y� "d "".:.rr, n,'.ttb'�. 'd d ?*"�. i""Ql. '*'R� "�f'`�• _ �,�4f wr ,i T '�^"s'+eCNr ,y � t% •"S .E, + Mw r't�d s<l • r = E �r�''C� p).y�4,�-'di }��^a ,rpf� 1• �� l �' ��}y,� ,{'%'r./ r.•T, ;;+' r "; yv, s'�„ �`.,-. Vi�t �.r•�� ;'-'1� 1 :i�e," 9°}1> a �� v., v, < Vii. a r ;. .'S• .r r�,Y�..`"'�`. .,,,• � .�: i r. 9�t�d''�,.v.. �.�y i ki ' �*� f ..T tl r- '6.1rriy.�.4,�'�...t;•. � ,.. d`H :n �3 e. t e '�K+°•p,; ^•r, �". � ``1{ ',sdsS,�,��T1'...'1VJ .r i : 'i, ,k t'1,� $^.. �,. 'f .S ,�.i•$• ,� �. '•ff.Gt^ �i l � l�� w � R ,!" it � sr "t� y ��•� � .•, �r� '� �f dt'YYr'.y'i.r„r��7/ J'�'�'`�, .�:�4' N�� i r �:;!"•`r l41 i itZ'r(y 'i '}1�.v �: t i cr•+�`t. 1 rr ,7c. ,tt"v �n' ��r�S -.a' '� r R•�it�• " �.; e��.s��'.. y,�7!Y' �r•V. a r- r' �•�;.° iGt4 t '`IrS yd e ` ;a`�" ,� ,.• ,ai ya jr'' -A`�'� �Y.��'t ,v v.,� Y r, yf.fr':-,7��`�w1L ,�<1 X1,9,' '1�.yJ'J '+.y" •�. .ry _ '.t'a,� ,l ,y.X.a Wi .ii � +" d .�f• a�•>' � ■ {� '•^N'I �a{ {iii� ' °M ti�y+r "i�.. �i��,,/..' ��.�,��+�` .3y 5t. ti:_. y,.,.��.i.�. .5`�� 1`. d .:?4. q,�,yi;:+ •ae,r�' ,ty �..�i.+ y.cy'i�•' f,� 9n+d1`. li .' zN off.,((. ty� ;,utt�Y„�I `•'S'�Jk"' ry}TrEY�; an'�)fi[f, rte,. 4,w{yM N�'...y lLt�u"1 A'o��n.. k � r f. ! j Y1lc' C i� at j S,ay Ja "}• n'J fir.. �r � ZiY �M1N �r � J u''t'A`�4�-.s`�-r�t��r+`'�-VA VITRO nY• t,.I`R dfq�,�.+ w �1 �rnN� 3"3i+' � s �r �;;"`t`.•^>'�` �'1. .w.. v �a-Art:-. a a r �.. ' �fiY l'i"'.. •s':n 'n``'�"!!�� ° e�3 yt: . � r citi 1• r 1�1�, 1�L�ti„;4 ��$h�YN`,�} Pt. 7Ca,"�:p*'S�zbr�r',{�frr.f T" w'�Crr � ,n {'r�',JL ,��j ��A f rn�+'F � �• .. _ j ,,.N ,"f'-tt �. ^'u`k,�-'�' Y �'O� •. � �1t1.'4 i:'�`. � � ,�43'� ¢ -'" A '•! ��'; '.r �.'Cy`G"`� y - .,•.S ,�G,".°,'h4r, aF`x.,�'i"dh��'°�"+1g.'.�R 7't'' 't��"'�4`* M'd+�tr +"'' r F � a s•''�Rr��r ?• .f'i'1: < .: yt ( d r�R 3. q v �•'' 11 r "a-�,. ]_�fi>�`� ttt '".,''„+'t Ffe (y,, +#,�o.;�" �syti ..;w.y� n !� .�.6 r�1E CC r �•'h d t �'�r In rr 3,e F 'T•rf eft ¢. x �''+�� :tik F' bi`e: i1y z}^r I' ,{�v`4�. n. V ��•�.+r;: • a..r -•�,v n'+' r .>i2w'�"'•T.:e^'`Y.Tda:.ti:;.;-. ,;¢.d�a��.�,'Fe,' 1 .+z,�',i w:.. PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FEBRUARY 19, 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Study Participants and Preparers Executive Summary 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Location and Study Area 14 The Planning Process and Study Objectives 21 Chapter 2: Recreation Demand and User Needs Introduction 25 Current National and State Trends 26 Bay Area Region Recreation Demand and Supply 28 Preferences for Recreational Activities 36 Conclusions 42 Chapter 3: Resources Inventory Introduction 43 Topography and Slope 43 Hydrology 46 Vegetation 47 Wildlife 54 Geology and Soils 61 Visual Attributes 62 Roadways and Traffic 63 Urbanization 66 Cultural Resources 68 Chapter 4: Resources Synthesis Introduction 73 Land Types 73 Land Capability Analysis 77 Natural Resource Values 80 Recreation Values 84 Special FeaturesV 87 Chapter 5: Formation of Alternatives Alternative Sites to the Pleasanton Ridgelands 92 Feasibility Criteria and Alternative Park Concepts 93 Access and Staging Options 104 Chapter 6: Resource Management Introduction 108 Resource Management Guidelines/Good Neighbor Policies 108 Buffer Zone Options 117 Chapter 7: Financing and Costs Introduction 122 Comparison of Costs 122 Financing Options 126 Appendices Appendix A: PRPAC Materials and Correspondence A-1: Chronology of Events A-2: List of PRPAC Members A-3: List of PRPAC Approved Motions i A-4: Recreation Activities Survey A-5: Recommended Planning Process Resolution (William Zion Report) A-6: PRPAC Letters Appendix B: Resource Management, District Public Safety Policies Appendix C: Costs and Financing Data Appendix D: Historical and Archaeological Information Appendix E: References ii PARTICIPANTS AND PREPARERS This report was prepared for the East Bay Regional Park District and the Pleasanton Ridgelands Park Advisory Committee. Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District Lynn Bowers Walter H. Costa, President James Duncan Mary Lee Jefferds Harlan Kessel John O'Donnell Ted Radke Richard Trudeau, General Manager EBRPD Dennis Beardsley, Project Coordinator EBRPD The Staff of the EBRPD Hulet Hornbeck Lew Crutcher Chris Nelson Mike Anderson Ed Loss Neil Havlik Tom Lindenmeyer and others Pleasanton Ridgelands. Park Advisory Committee Joseph Bort, Chairman Members listed in Appendix A-2 Consultants The Planning Collaborative, Inc. Tito Patri, Principal°in-Charge Jeff Loux, Project Manager Ron Miska, Landscape Architect Technical Staff: Jim Fraser, Marc Russell, Kathleen Ashley, Terry Bottomley, Kimberlie MacDonald Peter Banks, Principal, California Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Dr. Sam McGinnis, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, California State University, Hayward iii t t Executive Summary i b t � � £at x,R?' '�4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Throughout the spring and summer of 1984, The Planning Collaborative Inc. (TPC) and the staff of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) provided technical resource and planning data to a citizens . committee regarding an area of over twenty thousand acres known as "The Ridgelands" or the Pleasanton Ridge Area. Consisting primarily of two abrupt grasstopped ridges, and steep, often densely wooded canyons, this visual.l.y prominent landscape was identified in the Districts 1973 and 1980 Master Plans as a. potential area l:or a. regional park filling a "blank" in the overall areas served by the District, It would coincidentally help provide north/south regional trail connections between Las Trampas Park Regional Park and the Sunol-Ohlone Regional winderness areas. This report presents the results of the technical efforts and the recommendations of the Pleasanton. Ridgelands Park Advisory Committee: (PR.PAC), particularly regarding the feasibility of three possible regional park alternatives. TPC developed and presented two contrasting feasible alternatives (A and B) to PRPAC, which then recommended a third alternative (C) which the consultant: found feasible after analysis and application of criteria "rests". All three alternatives meet the qualitative and quantitative standards iu terms of both the District' s stated policies and reasonable recreation planning norms. In short, all three alternatives were found to have great potential. for serving the recreation needs of today' s public and, following through on the goals of the 1980 District Master Plan, for the future populations of the San Ramon and Livermore Valley areas. Furthermore, all three are enhanced by potential recreational opportunities adjacent to the actual park configurations. 1 Approach Working closely with PRPAC and the staff of the District, the consultants focused initially on the physical and visual qualities of the approximately 20,000-acre study area. Field trips, helicopter flights, aerial photos, analysis of available existing documents and interviews with PRPAC committee members and officials representing local jurisdictions were among the primary means of gathering data. The findings of the consultants efforts were interpreted and displayed primarily in the form of maps and charts. These maps provided a catalyst for discussions with PRPAC and the public attending a series of six working meetings conducted over the duration of the study. The organization of this document reflects the sequence of these meetings and the subject matter and its presentation to PRPAC over that period. Tne maps (prepared at a scale of one inch equaling one thousand feet) presented at each meeting were often accompanied by photographic slides. Some committee members -availed, themselves of the District offer to take helicopter flights over the study area. The general pattern of interaction between consultants and PRPAC involved presentation of map information, committee consideration and discussion and consultant responses to the committee either at the meeting or later in written form. During this process, the committee formulated a series of policy recommendations to be forwarded to the District.. These are included in the appendix to this report. Feasibility Conclusions All three alternatives (A, B and C) meet reasonable standards for regional parks and recreations areas in terms of: o natural resource available, o minimum size, o potential to serve existing and future populations, and o quality of the visual and ecological environment. Specific criteria for a Regional Park as stated in the EBRPD 1980 Master Plan include the following: 1. an area of more than 500 acres; 2. 70-90% of the area should possess a scenic or natural character and be designated as a 2 - "Natural Area" for planning and management purposes; and 3. 10-30% of the area should accommodate a variety of recreation activities and be designated as a "Recreation Unit". The consultants in their analysis emphasized the potential carrying capacity for activities and developed a "band Capability Map" as an analytical tool. The aetual characteristics upon which the feasibility conclusions were based can be divided into the following categories. • physical resources, • visual. resources, • historic and cultural resources, and • land use and circulation factors. Phvs:LckI rces Resou The natural, resources of the site combined together, constitute a single integrated, ecosystem, or portion thereof. However, to be able to relate this entity to open space and recreational carrying capacities, it must be described in terms of various perceived systems such as hydrology, geologic and soil characteristics (including soil erosion, landsliding and faulting), topography, vegetation and wild life. An added complicating factor to the latter two is that of the past and on--going agricultural uses (primarily grazing and orchards). Areas of high resource value for regional park purposes occur in distinct patterns that are either clustered or are connected by one of the many linear open grass ridge tops or ri.parion corridors. While the natural resource conditions do not qualify the ai:-ea as a "wilderness", the comba.mation of the pattern of historic uses and physiography have left the steep brush, and oak woodland slopes in a relatively "natural" state. This, in combination with the somewhat unusual combination of the two linear ridges (Sunol and Pleasanton) , each representing a similar pattern (dry west facing slopes, open grassy linear ridgetops and heavily wooded east facing slopes) has resulted in high wildlife value. The food web interactions (as presented by Dr. McGinnis) are the best available representation of these values. For example, the complexity and richness of the food web is reflected by the minimum range of the predator at the top of the "pyramid". Coyotes and grey fox survive there 3 - indicating completeness of "membership" in the ecological subsystem. The food web ranges from coyotes to mice and from grey fox to tree frogs. This might not have been the case had the grasslands not been kept free of succeeding woodland over the last two centuries by grazing. The result is a combination of great ecotone length with flanking bands of forage (grassland) and habitat (brush and woodland). Additionally, the very steepness of the slopes has had the effect of limiting grazing and possibly timber removal disturbances. Visual Resources The most noticeable and familiar aspects of the study area are Pleasanton Ridge and Sunol Ridge (particularly in the vicinity of the highest point at elevation 2191). This reflects the two basic characteristics of the area as a visual resource. First, it serves as an important wooded backdrop to much.of the Livermore Valley area (particularly in the Pleasanton area) where the proximity of urbanization to the high and steeply-profiled ridges makes them a dominant form giver and orientation element for those communities. Secondly, the views from almost any of the prominent ridges of the complex (Pleasanton, Sunol or Main Ridges) can be described at the very least as sweeping and impressive. Indeed Sunol Ridge is one of only five major peaks above 2000 feet (surrounding- the bay) and is a prominent regional feature. Views from peak 2191 are 360 in scope. Views from any of the lower portions of Sunol Ridge are unbroken both to the east toward Livermore Valley, and to the west to Walpert Ridge. Views from Pleasanton Ridge are also unbroken eastward and the views westward across the headwaters of Sinbad Creek to Sunol Ridge, while shorter, are nonetheless impressive. Even the smaller transverse ridges which access the main ridges are generally open grassland (as are the main ridges) and provide local unbroken views, virtually free of any hint of urban or residential uses. Historic and Archaeological Resources While the higher ridges and valleys exhibit a high incidence of potential archaeological value (based on a comparison of physiographic conditions) , most of the archeological and historical resources occur within and adjacent to the periphery of the study area. Similarly, while there are several historic sites within the areas bounded by the three - 4 - alternatives, remaining historic structures are found mainly along Palomares, Foothill and Kilkare roads. This is where two identified and registered archaeological sites occur as well. Because of potential connections (e.g., Niles Canyon recreational railroad, and trails connecting the study area to the Pleasanton Livermore area along existing Arroyos), these peripheral resources, if properly identified., could be complementary uses. Notably, some of these historic areas occur in close association with potential minor locations for trail easements at peripheral roads. "Living history" uses, (e.g. grazing and orchards which were generally more feasible economically in the past but still exist in the area) are also considered land uses which tend to support visual and management functions of regional park use. This is especially true where land management practices such as grazing, at relatively low cost, help achieve objectives such as fire suppression, control over brushland succession and general stabilization of existing visual condtions where this is d.esireable. Access and Roads One very important advantage of the study area is that it is surrounded on all sides by a simple largely unbroken perimeter road system: o: Highway 580 and Dublin Canyon Road to the north, o Foothill Road to the east, o Niles Canyon Road to the south, and o Palomares to the west. This tends to maximize the number of potential access points at low elevation, therefore, allowing lower costs for paved roads. Only at a few points such as Ki.l.kare and Santos Ranch Roads do paved roads eater into the center of the 20,000+ acre study area. In the case of the former, its use as an. access road was ruled out because of extremely limited traffic capacity and the latter has not been accepted as a public road because of its excessive steepness and because it traverses a major landslide. An important consideration was that of potential access under the 580 freeway and across Dublin Canyon Road for pedestrian and equestrian trail connections northward. 5 _ Park Access and Staging Options Sixteen sites were examined for potential access. While many of these might remain as minor emergency or trail accesses, those with potential as entrances were narrowed down to a handful of sites including Cowing Road, Devaney Canyon, and OakTree/Arroyo de la Laguna. The characteristics of these vary depending upon several factors, including: • area available for parking, • overall steepness for vehicular use, • length of the road- from the perimeter, • geotechnical constraints, and • ammenities such as views, existing mature trees, etc. These are all characteristics which influence the value of each as a park access and staging site. Laurel Creek and Moller Quarry areas, while close to high capacity perimeter roads, would not provide normal or easy road access to the interior ridges and canyons. The selection of access and staging areas will. strongly effect the usefulness of all or portions of the three alternatives. Discussion of Alternatives The consulting team presented two contrasting alterantives to PRPAC. Alternative A This alternative emphasized the prime natural resource quality areas (within the total study area) and the potential for maximizing the enjoyment and conservation of these. Recreational use was included, but at a low intensity and focused on trail-related activities. As with all three alternatives, access by vehicle (whether a private or some form of public transportation) was assumed to be limited to the edges of the potential parklands with the exception of Cowing Road and Cook Canyon accesses, and to a lesser degree, Arroyo de la Laguna. One of the major characteristics of this alterantive is the east-west "ecological transect" across the two ridges which allows for maximum diversity of vegetation types and habitats thereby (theoretically) enhancing continued ecological "health" and a diversity of visual and activity experiences. Depending on the extent of buffer areas, this alternative would comprise 6700-8200 acres. 6 - GJW INf� tln.Puawo�eW. pbVANB'f PP1111X nrwv,ema+r PYJ114. ,4?Ni RBLO RBL MY. YfM1tN WPO¢P Ot+'1 GNM W-VANSY CANYON MAIN LAURVJ- _ � Prn�:me,L a�sysz r v� - V rNHVB Pu1L0 R��P7nt Ge",.Y ACf2'w^rGC�a w cANYVN = _ eemun� rrea+rem• � -----____ LEGEND Pa.imw wTrnw ==— G i++MYNF C?1CYU:• _ _-` � 7::141�94C2'1'+Im YIVtM Bran s.6111aaP PPraTVa la�Mt nw�w,Fa+rrlve sansw J f'[i.Tle4. '1-11:�4..(Il'Z> ✓�FFe aw.;;,-Rt s Own �� W !.'17 FQWW6 ftkr,w2EilS:Wxw iuj - L.� EAST DISTRICT T SAY REGIONAL PARK DISTT ; �_LJE lbBay NATURAL RESOURCE Th:PLA4;ir%G wm: y W.W.G.R.A lGn'n-u4b �stf Fr o Ps,-a a GOIlASCX�,t,'i i4'E 6tii°,. GI-w 1sxs:•tieea•^:i�.�ss�rx.uan mss.rc,a+y Alternative B This alternative emphasizes camping, picnic and trail -related activities. It is smaller in size than Alternative A comprising 4800-7000 acres, and deemphasizes the east-west transect. While all activities are of generally low intensity, there would be potentially more picnic and active recreation activities as compared to Alternative A. Specifically, the Laurel Creek and Moller Quarry areas are included and provide for high intensity uses adjacent to high capacity roads (e.g. , the highway 580-680 interchange). Potential uses emphasized in such- an area would include group and family picnicing, active field freeplay, as well as a greater capacity for parking of automobiles. In both Alternative A & B the OakTree/Arroyo de la Laguna entrances are included and are considered important because of the need to have a southern access from the heart of the ridge area. In addition to this, the OakTree staging area (currently owned by the City of San Francisco) supports a healthy oak/riparian forest on an old flood plain. In addition to its visual attractiveness, it has a potential to serve large parking areas, provide for active field play in natural meadows, and may, in the future, be reached by the proposed Niles Canyon Recreational Railroad and the trails along the Arroyos in the Pleasanton area. Alternative C This alternative resulted from interaction of the team with PRPAC and is that body's recommended park concept. While it does not contain large areas of the northern Sunol and Main Ridges, it retains one of the essential elements of Alternatives A & B, namely the East-West ecological transect (in the upper Sinbad Creek area) and the high intensity recreation area in the Laurel Creek and Moller Quarry areas. It also maintains the OakTree/Arroyo de la Laguna and lower Pleasanton access areas and in the case of Alternative A) includes minor access at the western edge of the transect to Stoneybrook. The following charts compare total areas and percentages in active recreation and natural resource use and a rough breakdown of areas and lengths for use areas, trails and roads, etc. , for each of the alternatives. In the first chart, the lower acreage figure represents the prime areas for potential useage (the area outlined in the dark boundary on the accompanying illustrative maps) and the larger acreage figure includes (along with the prime area) substantial buffer zone areas which enhance or - 8 - GOwlW& ibYOlITIPL PKE6G MaA Lsowelr, WWIN& GRIA4.Y RfMIL,moLI V"W. O PdlfNY FF•6 vFCD RX! p�vANeY -- .� :.. fMWII.Y A060•,IOW F Rf. �_ YONYN MOdi DPY f/VN MVANS'Y CAN'0J MTeN11N.A490&6/pm� FAeMY or—p Fciee,. In"s,� cRNO Rm69 r�wT VVN MAIN _ « 6� -._ R-16UIL.Y 4-Kly, W�it.LEf� N41N EP01'JP IVOPN1tN1 <� wfaNnPL Afd4M APDA, MIS to-�I FPrAX rw.A&.° !m % .•FND�a0 e=w M N&arm`-m" PAZZ RAY. RNNRIVC 4WFN& -- ccJPPEE�� .� �1N \ - IN F4Db& Vi-]N4M6.6Sti►WC _ I FI�L"TiIV6 tdtl>rIW Mlcalt�I�t4D GAi�• _,._....� _.._..__...____ � __ _ _ RIOf SON TIN11rvE tPNNII `, ratnalwcno +t wrwa,M1LN14Nt c»siNo Z L•�i14} 1 `1f J i � ,Y✓� I N.'•YI!FAL,hE^..T.fi41 C':`SA i �G� i; <' - PA. RHI #A*i a•kw n WIT op*MPRO&I Rkwf. p�6ue rmAS,wrtSeFlrter�e. VEKIG•LO N'8',1WIL P�A7� EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT V 7� ? M 0 I°nrr�'yJRAM ��+C4Y?1li��lS�Gul�� (•WINMINr,RWY.Y NGN1L RECREATION USE ELL. E �V,e„TIPI.�cceaa� GR�CKSIDE CONCEPT - ALTERNATIVE S � .�s�f��l �pM0FV.__. naE PLANNING COLLABORATIVE Isar. SLY rte,«.,wrlLr CA.o".. RPY �.rcaca wmn•nv,ue.n t>+av�,�v - 9 - 17EVANEY YPWH pt"rW RAY. Youth arw MY(AW 00VANLY I.ANYDN �\ rot�rtw•s.sea sae. i. Ie M0 idLD o8C@ MY . .'� � I WrwTw.�rca4a Nr► \l`\\�,•..,�,`'?�� Nom.!ovivoew MtAMG IAC.Tku POW ^ft MAY . � RINItWC lamwa �i raecrtnc_Xpom Yaom x.+ra px;94Z re rcim v fwa. c.�voa LEGEND ' °� °�0 •® t�RVa r,�JcR TrAac•r�?a l\ p TWm.asea p6 14V Im uua vgaoLs MD oa waure 1"L Nam aw LIKIS Ofi IClCFVJ.•/p:OL14 �1�.. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT d°`6 C4Q TC� ° S ° SC3 o L PM NATURAL RESOURCE & RECREATION CONCEPT- ALT. C � r®N M p� Tw PLvo"C xA-*sc RAnw w- rrm.Y P" +*MWLY war"a 0.1 NO naw Mm _ �aoeeao.rsemae..uam c.um.M� �"b P �° �°° ® R�CYO_p�'LA Ly46aClNA � � I ref�tw.Av.oea Mp. 10 - protect qualities or potential park uses within the prime zone. These buffer zones may not necessarily have to be acquired in order to achieve those objectives. The buffer zone area is shown in a lighter dotted line outside the prime .park area. All quantitatives shown are rough approximations and are useful primarily for comparative purposes. RIDGELANDS ALTERNATIvES: SUMMARY COMPARISON A-Natural Resource B-Recreation C-Combined aquis. aquis. aquis. Total Area 6700-8200 acres 4.800-•7000 acres 2700-3500 acres (split into two units, one) % in Active 15% + trails 27% + trails 29% + trails Recreation Use % in Natural 85% 73% 71% Res. Area It should be noted that Alternatives A & B contrast to C largely with respect to the amount of access available to the north, either along Cowing Road or off of Dublin Canyon Road. The access from the northeast corner of the property is particularly important because it is close to the 580/680 freeway interchange,- clearly a relatively low impact means of providing access to staging areas without generating high traffic impacts on local, particularly residential, neighborhood roads. While there is the possibility of bringing higher capacity road access to the Theart of the park along Cowing Road and a. possible road fs:ow Devaney Canyon, the required length of paved roads may be too expensive. Nevertheless, because the landscape in the vicinity of the Sunol and Main Ridge juncture supports primarily trail-related uses, the value of these sites is not diminished if vehicle access were not provided. Only adequate trail and emergency vehicle access would be necessary. However, because of the great distance to the northern and northeast perimeter access roads, Alternative C must, in a sense, rely more on its access from Arroyo de la Laguna and OakTree. Both alternatives A and C provide potential westerly connections across Palomares Road to Garin Dry Creek over Walpert Ridge. - 11 - Even though Alternative C is substantially smaller than Alternatives A or B it is entirely feasible because it conforms to the minimum acreages for natural resource and recreation categories. In addition, it encompasses the east-west ecological transect, provides for clearly distinguished areas of recreational use and, particularly in the lower Pleasanton and Creekside areas, it can provide for both high recreation activity areas and higher parking needs. Cost Implications Using the estimated acreages (shown on the foregoing charts) for each alternative and applying estimated unit costs for acquisition, development and maintenance and operation, rough preliminary cost estimates for the three alternatives were- prepared. The unit costs or multipliers were based on past EBRPD experience modified to reflect 1984 dollars. The parks or- wilderness -areas -which most closely resembled. the Ridgeland situation included: • Sunol Regional Wilderness, • Mission Peak Regional Preserve, • Las Trampas Regional Wilderness, and • The Garin Dry Creek/Pioneer Regional Park. Development costs were estimated by relating specific situations in the above parks or wilderness areas. Rough acreages were planimetered for the subareas and provided a basis for estimating approximate numbers of campsites, picnic areas and tables, amount of parking, length of boundary fencing, entry gateways, service yards, security buildings and the like. Similarly, maintenance and operations expenses were calculated based on an average acreage cost incurred by the District over a number of years. Since the unit price may vary considerably depending on specific geography and physiography, the following breakdown of park and open space areas is illustrative. o Briones - $31.40 per acre o Garrin/Dry Creek - $74.04 per acre o Las Trampas - $26.66 per acre o Mission Peak - $10.60 per acre The average operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs of these parks was applied to this study. Estimated acquisition costs, while preliminary and rough, were based on experience in the region and included input from Robert J. Foley, consultant and a member of the 12 - American Society of Appraisers. A single multiplier was applied even though it is clear that the potential land value per acre will vary considerably over the entire study area. Data was gathered from a number of sources including the County Assessor's office, records of recent sales, and interviews. The figures take into consideration location, existing and potential access, availability of utilities and services, topography and soil conditions, existing zoning and potential highest and best use. The acquisition cost implications are illustrated in the following charts. It should be noted that while Alternative A is considerably larger in size than B, the acquisition costs are almost identical,primarily because high value lands near the 680/580 interchange are included in B. Total development costs for A are actually lower than B because the latter emphasizes a proportionally more high intensity recreation use areas such as at Moller Quarry. By contrast, Alternative C, clearly the most economic initially, involves roughly the same development costs as Alte:rnativ,e L but recu1.F.;s iv. roughly half of the annual operations and maintenance cost. COSTS COMPARISON SUMMARY_ (in 1984 dollars) "All "B" 11CIS COMBINED NATURAL RECREATION RESOURCE AND RESOURCE USE RECREATION CONCEPT CONCEPT _ CONCEPT Acquisition Costs $22-30 million $23-31 million $13-17 million Total Develops ulent Costs $4.7-5.7 million $6.3-7.5 million $4.1-4.9 million Annual Operations & Maiutenance $112,000=-138,000 $105,000-127,000 $65,000-80,000 Costs (per year) PER YEAR PER YEAR PER YEAR. * Includes trail easement acquisition and development costs estimate. 13 -