The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.2 Gumpert Ranch EIR mirrow 0 AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: August 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Draft EIR for Gumpert Ranch, Contra Costa County EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. July 21, 1983, transmittal letter 2 . Excerpts from Draft EIR regarding Summary, Project Description, Transportation and Circuation, Utilities and Public Services, Alternatives Note: Full Draft EIR available for review in the Dublin Planning Department. RECOMMENDATION: .. Direct Staff to transmit suggested mitigation measures and comments as underlined in the following sections to the Contra Costa County Planning Department FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: I. BACKGROUND The Contra Costa County Planning Department has forwarded the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Gumpert Ranch for review and comment. The Gumpert Ranch project involves a request to amend the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan of Conta Costa County. The site covers 2 , 300 acres and is located north of Camp Parks, east of Dougherty Road. As an amendment to the General Plan, the project does not include any specific proposals for development. However, an Alternate Use Plan has been prepared to conceptualize the proposed land use. The Plan calls for a range of 6, 700 to 9 , 200 dwelling units, limited to approximately 33% of the site. The dwelling units per acre would range from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 15 . It is anticipated that a mix of housing types and densities would be developed. Sixty percent of the site would remain undeveloped. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines provide that reviewers of EIR' s should focus on the sufficiency of the EIR in: 1) discussing possible impacts upon the environment; 2) ways in which adverse effects might be minimized; and, 3 ) alternatives to the project. Public agencies should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, submit data or reference in support of such comments. If the public agency fails to comment within a reasonable time, it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that the agency has no comment to make. The Contra Costa County Planning Department has requested comments by September 6, 1983 . ITEM NO. /• Li COPIES TO: 3 II. ISSUES 1 . Traffic : The Draft EIR discusses the impact of unsatisfactory level of service (LOS) on Dougherty Road for each of four alternative roadway systems. The suggested mitigation is to widen Dougherty Road from two lanes to either four or six lanes . 2 . Housing: The Draft EIR states that the 6, 700 to 9, 200 housing units would help offset possible housing shortages resulting from increased employment opportunities in the Tri- Valley area, but the extent of the housing shortage is unknown As a mitigation, the Draft EIR suggests that a comprehensive housing analysis be completed for the entire Tri-Valley area. The analysis would identify potential housing shortages as well as the types and cost of required housing. 3 . Sewer and Water: The extension of DSRSD water and sewer service is discussed as an impact. The mitigation would be for the developer to finance extension of service and capital improvements . 4 . Alternatives : The Draft EIR discusses four alternatives : 1) No-project Alternative; 2 ) Slope/Density Alternative; 3 ) Cluster Alternative; and 4 ) General Plan Amendment for a different location. III. COMMENTS On August 15, 1983 , the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft EIR, concurred with the above underlined mitigation measures, and recommended the following comments for City Council consideration: - The traffic impacts on Dougherty Road and other streets in Dublin, such as Amador Valley Blvd. , need to be further investigated. - The impacts related to extending DSRSD services to the project site need to be clarified. - The school system needs to be carefuly 'planned for the project. 1 Planning P De artm . . Contra Costa = :County Administration Building, North Wing P.O. County .O. Box 951 C v Martinez, California 94553-0095 Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning v.tjr w'ir''`• Phone: 372-2035 v: /•, 'i"?.; • • TO: INTERESTED AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GUMPERT RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ._ COUNTY FILE 1131-82-SR DATE: JULY 21, 1983 The enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being distributed for review and comment in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and State and County Guidelines. Substantive comments or information will be included, and, if necessary, res- ponded to, in the Final Environmental Impact Report. For accuracy of record, written comments are desirable and encouraged, and should be supported by factual information whenever possible. Comments may be mailed to the Contra Costa County Planning Department, P. O. Box 951, Martinez, California 94553 by September 6, 1983. If written comments cannot be made, an oral presentation may be made at the • public hearing which will be held on this matter. For additional information on the Environmental Impact Report, please feel free to contact me at (415) 372-2035. Sincerely yours, Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Jim Cutler, Chief Comprehensive Planning JWC/mb5a ,DECEIVED cc: File No. 31-82-SR JUL 2 5 1983 DUBLIN PLANNING Contra Costa = County • r _hr's i e GUMPERT RANCH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT July 1983 • 1. SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, known as Gumpert Ranch, is located in the San Ramon Valley in south central Contra Costa County, east of Dougherty Road and south and west of Camino Tassajara Road. The 2,300-acre site is topographically diverse ranging from steep hillside slopes to flat river valleys. The land is currently vacant and used for agricultural purposes and grazing. The project sponsor has filed an application to amend the San Ramon Valley.Plan from the current designation of Agricultural Preserve to several general designations including Transit Related Residentinl, Low Density or Transit Related Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Public, Semi-Public and Open Space. Parallel to the request for General Plan Amendment the applicant has filed a petition to withdraw the project site from a Land Conservation Contract under the one-time "window" provision of A.B. 2074. An Alternate Use Plan, prepared as a requirement of the contract cancellation, conceptualizes the proposed land use for the site. The Plan calls for a range of 6,741 to 9,196 dwelling units limited to approximately 33% of the site. Sixty percent of the site would remain in some form of undeveloped use (e.g. Open Space,. Agriculturc. Grazing, Riparian Corridor). Dwelling units per acre would range from •a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 15. 1 • Fr ''t V'A. a' �1 v �� tars • • g . 7: �' r - flfl �tp' ;rxti � :u . C . . tl .wy � r,y:.:r�.r.?`z... S:a.xai�•�.�r•_.�..` .k r.-:.:=:.�.- .,,�r--....rt., r.�..d"'wn...�.v+ye:y� :•� r IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION • MEASURES A. Socio-economic Issues • I. •Land Use and 'Relationship to • Plans ti• • Zoning • The proposed project conflicts • No mitigation is possible. with the intent of the Tassajara Rezoning (2218-RZ), which was intended to curb premature urbanization in the Tassajara area. Internal • The proposed project calls for • Area designations should be Conflicts/ higher densities in the loop consistent with the community Proposed areas than in the village core, plan and with existing density Densities while its "community plan" text designations defined by the calls for the.opposite County. If new density • configuration. Proposed designations are neeeded these densities include new designations should be categories not defined by the explained from a perferr cnce County. criteria. Internal • The proposed project provides • The project sponsor should Conflicts/ insufficient land for public and dedicate approximately 211 Public community facilities. acres to community facilities. Facilities . Internal • The Special Concern Area lies • No structures should be built Conflicts/ within the f loodplain. in the Special Concern Area; Special it may be appropriate to Concern dedicate this land to open Area space. Internal • No measures are proposed for • Performance standards should Conflicts/ design or management of the be proposed to protect the General open spaces. riparian corridor, and allow Open Space easy access to community open space. An adequate buffer should be provided to separate urbanized areas from agricultural uses. l � 2 17... . ✓ r t :r^. l,C= - N f S 4;N � J r5 '174 „ i a K:e... �, "� .•.A.Viss hat::f ` re .e` . w_.. , , a :! +: 1L ,4 t.%;-"/Z.: W..i� _ ;`? Conflict With • A "weapons ranges safety zone" • An adequate buffer area Nearby is proposed for Camp Parks on should separate the southern Uses/Camp land adjacent to the proposed loop residences from Camp Parks project. Parks' noise and hazards. Impacts • The project would introduce a • None is possible. large urbanized area in the middle of a large agricultural area, encouraging continued . urbanization on adjacent lands. SRVAGP: • The project would not be • The project should avoid Land Use/ predominantly single family and higher densities on steeper Residential would develop high densities on slopes. steep slope areas. SRVAGP: • The proposed project does not • Approximately ten acres Land Use/ include sufficient land for local should be set aside for local Commercial commercial facilties. shopping facilties. and Office SRVAGP: • The project would conflict with • No complete mitigation is Open Space the goal of protecting possible, but impacts on and Con- agriculture. agricultural viability would be . servation • somewhat reduced if large buffer areas were created between the proje •t site and adjacent agricultural uses. SRVAGP: • The proposed project does not • The project sponsor should Open Space include bicycle and hiking trails provide or contribute to the 11' and Cir- or public transit. development of these culation amenities. SRVAGP: • Insufficient land is • The project sponsor should Community provided for needed dedicate approximately 221 Facilities community facilties. acres for schools, parks, a fire station, a library, and neighborhood commercial needs. LAFCO • The proposed project would • If the ro p posed project is Considera- require large extensions of approved it will be neccessary tions service districts beyond those to apply to LAFCO for now delineated in LAFCO annexations to extend the Sphere of Influence Maps. Spheres of Influences for a These extensions in themselves number of agencies including may be growth-inducing. EBMUD, Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District, and the San Ramon Unified School District. In other cases it may be neccessary to incorporate new CSAs. No mitigation is possible for the growth- • inducement impacts. ..mac y r\'`.yx r t��••�.c� { ..:�...a i t;Y vl 0-7 _rr R A s.�' t -�';'•.rr- i s <` k s -'l s r`.t a. a:.•>: t.t ?.. -r 4i• 'e. � �,e. �� ,iytr 4�a: 'R`},h'-sr30.� '�>�va .�• s a :£fix�� i�. r � ,t Kv f'•Yf r�t^tt°" �t w � � 1 :,,�Eiz �Z{ t• r • `t '��' .3 .;..{ ? .,r'h�`' -+ r. $ ^s.}. ..�'l.Y M Y[ -'Cj�' t LX :Y+t ( �i ,.N 3 e ,�-' '�...ls.aw�:it�,,,y�'!rt: x f.....�1 t_.... :...v fn..,.'.+*f'.ww,. l.�N.•n ..+.. .:,,s.,.?..t r 2. Transportation For purposes of this EIR, the trips generated by future developments and the proposed project were assigned to four alternative roadway networks. (See Figures 14-17, pages 53 to-56.) The transportation impacts for each alternative are summarized below.., • Roadway Network - Alternative A o Unsatisfactory (Level of o Widen from four to six lanes. - Service 'E' or 'F') Service Level on Diablo east of 1-680. o Unsatisfactory Level of o Widen from four to six lanes. - Service (LOS) on Sycamore east of 1-680. o Unsatisfactory LOS on Camino o No feasible mitigation; Tassajara between Sycamore maximum width (eight lanes) and Blackhawk. required prior to Gumpert Ranch. o Unsatisfactory LOS on Camino o Widen from two lanes to six Tassajara between Blackhawk lanes. and Lawrence. o Unsatisfactory LOS on Crow o Widen from eight lanes to ten Canyon between 1-680 and lanes. Alcosta. o Unsatisfactory LOS on Crow o No feasible mitigation; Canyon between Alcosta and maximum width (eight lanes) Camino Tassajara. required prior to Gumpert Ranch. o Unsatisfactory LOS on Old o Widen from two lanes to four Ranch. lanes. o Unsatisfactory LOS on Alcosta Y o Widen from four to six lanes. between Old Ranch and 1-680. • • 1 ` 7-,','.`,';'.;t4-:::'-:17.....--.' � � , f t s Zk ♦ .3'n 41'. C N; fi. j p N ` i! Y sF • $ . �. _'R n. 7 � ,+- ✓ i i • , � j � e3 h l � , t � _ jJ W ,. s ` - Alternative A o Unsatisfactory LOS on • Widen Dougherty between (cont'd) Dougherty from Crow Canyon Crow Canyon and Gumpert to I- 680: Ranch (south of Bollinger) from two to six lanes. • Widen Dougherty between Gumpert Ranch and Old Ranch . Road from two to eight lanes. Note: The LOS would still be • unsatisfactory. Eight lanes was assumed to be th maximum width. v• Widen Dougherty between Old Ranch and 1-6.80-from two to six lanes. ':-_;',7= • Unsatisfactory LOS on • Widen from two to six lanes. Lawrence. - Alternative B • Unsatisfactory LOS on Diablo • Widen from four to six lanes. east of 1-680. • Unsatisfactory LOS on • Widen from four to six lanes. • Sycamore east of 1-680. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Camino • Widen Camino Tay lajjara Tassajara from Diablo to between Diablo arid Sycamore Lawrence. from four lanes to six lanes. I I • No feasible mitigation between Sycamore and Blackhawk; maximum width (six lanes) required prior to Gumpert Ranch. • Widen from two to six lanes between Blackhawk and Lawrence. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Crow • Widen from eight to ten lanes. Canyon between 1-680 and Alcosta. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Crow • No feasible mitigation; Canyon between Dougherty and maximum width (eight lanes) Camino Tassajara. required prior to Gumpert Ranch. • Unsatisfactory LOS on • No feasible mitigation; Bollinger between 1-680 and maximum width (10) lanes Camino Ramon. required prior to Gumpert IRanch. 1 c '. �M aj Mifldri.LI jy.J`: .u1•c�"`�2' " ) . y �i� ,t...., .t..�..J0.1 _ Alternative B • Unsatisfactory LOS on Alcosta • Widen from four to six lanes. (cont'd) between Old Ranch and 1-680. • Unsatisfactory LOS on • Widen from four lanes to six Dougherty between Crow lanes between Crow Canyon Canyon and 1-580. and Bollinger. • Widen from two lanes to six • lanes between Bollinger and • South entrance to Gumpert Ranch. • Widen from two lanes to eight lanes from south entrance to Gumpert Ranch to Old Ranch. • •Widen from four lanes to six lanes from Old Ranch to 1-580. • Unsatisfactory LOS on • Widen from two lanes to four Lawrence. • lanes. - Alternative C • Unsatisfactory LOS on Camino e Widen from two lanes to four Tassajara between Blackhawk lanes. and Lawrence. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Crow • No feasible mitigation; Canyon between Alcosta and maximum width (eight lanes) Dougherty. required prior to Gumpert Ranch. • Unsatisfactory LOS on • No feasible mitigation; Bollinger Canyon between 1-680 maximum width(ten lanes) and Camino Ramon. required prior to Gumpert Ranch. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Old • Widen from two lanes to six Ranch. lanes. Note: Six lanes is the maximum width and LOS will still be unsatisfactory. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Alcosta • Widen from four lanes to six from Bollinger to 1-680. lanes. Note: Between Old Ranch and 1-680 the LOS will still be unsatisfactory as six lanes-is the maximum width. 1 ' 1 r •.t..,?..Z 1� tS �( ieS•5 -rr + t��}(` 1r� s. �,�tcS• f:�. 3R i.4 t� � � s� �s ?t. s� 1 7a •x it '~• O� Y eI 4 W •. ° + . �: a :•2` : 1: .... . . fffl)1 OO YNf iiil[l .NM1 �' .�....._• ---:�,---�•','. a.......... . .. �` a. '.[.i+�xt,rl3 —`-z — Alternative C • Unsatisfactory LOS on • Widen from two lanes to eight (cont'd) Dougherty between south access lanes between south access and to Gumpert Ranch and 1-580. Old Ranch. Note: LOS will remain unsatisfactory as eight lanes is the maximum width. • Widen from two lanes to four lanes south of Old Ranch. • - Alternative D • Unsatisfactory LOS on • Widen from eight Iares to ten Bollinger between 1-680 and lanes between 1-680 and Dougherty. Camino Ramon. Note: LOS will remain unsatisfactory as 10 lanes is the maximum - width. • Widen from six lanes to ten lanes from Camino Ramon to Alcosta. • Widen from four lanes to eight lanes between Alcosta and Dougherty. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Old • Widen Old Ranch from two Ranch. lanes to four lanes. • Unsatisfactory LOS on Alcosta • Widen from four lanes to six south of Old Ranch. lanes. • Unsatisfactory LOS on . • Widen from two lanes to four Dougherty from Bollinger to lanes between Bollinger and south of Old Ranch. south entrance to Gumpert Ranch. • Widen from two lanes to eight lanes south entrance and Old Ranch. • Widen from two lanes to six - lanes south of Old Ranch. Freeway 1-680 • Unsatisfactory LOS on 1-680. • This situation will occur Excessive volume w i l l extend without Gumpert Ranch peak hour, cause significant traffic. Mitigation measures congestion at interchanges and could include ramp meeting to on adjacent local streets; and improve freeway flow. This diversion to local streets would cause further con- further exacerbating already gestion on local streets. congested conditions. I I i • 7 Q ' 1 ' .iit�v i`1 �hj}irv,lt, j=•• 7 `ta•��r�jt w�' 13 i. ro.�'� '} M{ 3 }h~T..:a T i. iX R-r a `..r:.r.r�,auti�.v}]re.w.:Y�`SP j,'J -.- •b.r.:...-_ _Y- t.-'•-•-•-•"- .. .. Alternative D • Widening 1-680 from six to eight lanes would improve Freeway 1-680 conditions somewhat. (cont'd) Capacities would still be very insufficient; the peak hour would not be extended as long. • • Unsatisfactory Levels of • Mitigation can include Service on roadways in study physical improvements to area. roadways. • Without completely mitigating all unsatisfactory LOS conditions, traffic will divert . to other streets where possible ' and the peak hour will be extended. 3. Housing and • Provide between 6,700 and • To determine the extent, if . Population 9,200 housing units. These any, of the Tri-Valley's - units would help to offset potential housing shortage. possible housing shortages A comprehensive housing resulting from increased analysis should be completed employment opportunities for the entire Tri-Valley area • within the Tri-Val ley area identifying potential housing • (Livermore -Pleasanton - San shortages and types and cost Ramon Valley). However the of required housing. extent of this housing shortage is unknown because of the lack of a comprehensive study. - • Using the information from • If it is determined that the study, the County should residential uses on the site are establish more specific plans appropriate, then the project and conditions for could provide a variety of development guaranteeing the housing types (e.g. single development of housing and family, townhouses, and other community facilities multiple family). that would meet the needs of local employees. This would include ensuring the provision of a variety of housing at a variety of•prices. 4. Agricultural • Remove approximately 75% of • This impact is unmitigable. Conversion/ the 2,300-acre site from its However, 25% of the site is Growth current agricultural use. Lands proposed to be kept in Inducement in the lower and flatter agricultural use. To maintain portions of the site would be the viability of agricultural removed from agricultural use. use/grazing on the site, adequate access must be maintained to the agricultural areas. • -fit OStrwaa�c i 1 f i.iwv .+i.._ +l t• , } y R1 t lf;r j.1 „ f�'?t . r i n. , f SR'�Y • lFNN1(1( �9` f} A f a.` q t il.^� lY rte+ S !�t � `� l� Z' � � _} •� • .... JAI ._. ._ .. ..,"'-:S �.�»a v� -.c t 4. Agricultural • Potential conflict between the • The Alternate Use Plan Conversion/ site's urban uses and adjacent provides buffer zones between Growth areas remaining in agricultural all residential and agricultural Inducement use. Conflicts include uses. In addition the use of (cont'd) increased vandalism of crops chain link fences may be and farm equipment and necessary. Also the County residential complaints of farm could consider developing a related odors and use of "Right to Farm" Ordinance. pesticides. • Cancellation of the site's • If development is considered Williamson Act contract under to be premature, deny the 'window' provisions of AB cancellation at this time and .- 2074. Cancellation requires allow the Williamson contract that discontinuous development to expire in 1992 under non- would not result. There is some renewal procedures. question regarding the Alternatively the project contiguity of Gumpert Ranch to sponsor could file for existing urban development. cancellation at a later time. • A direct growth-inducing o Unavoidable. impact of increasing the area's population by up to 27,000 .people, resulting in significant increased demand for public services. • Induce off-site commercial • Provide for more on-site development. commercial development. • Indirectly, induce similar • Enact stronger agricultural development on nearby lands. preservation procedures, for example, establishing a transfer development rights program. S. Utilities & Public Services 1 Water Supply • Maximum day domestic demand • Low-flow fixtures, drought would be about 4.S mgd (million resistent landscaping, and gallons/day). other water conservation measures should be incorporated in the project. • Service would have to be • Developer would be required extended either from Danville to finance extension of by EBMUD or from Dublin by service. DSRSD. Both agencies currently have policies which do not permit serving the site. • a Q a.oaamuaMMsae wa . . '• '; i e \ � -w 1 4 i, f .y h 1 7w :11 Z 1 •'fl ] 1-•t 3 1 qRW n T ` `y n � �v 'IL' -.. 1 1,`.t d 1 , -:'--:' -r ; .'3 1 y � A',271. I � 3 - �r� �. n. e,r . 5. Utilities & Public Services (cont'd) • Wastewater ,Maximum day usage is • If CCCSD is unable to serve estimated at 4.1 mgd CCCSD the project, the developer service would require force would be required to pay mains. DSRSD service is DSRSD annexation fee and . dependent upon ongoing participate in assessment capacity analysis. If DSRSD ; ` district to finance capital service is available, Zone 7 / improvements. If on-site wastewater policies would not system is necessary, Zone 7 permit an on-site system. regulations should be closely followed. Solid Waste •"Project would generate 240 • Mechanical service would tons of-waste per—Week which reduce costs of service. could be deposited either in the Contra Costa Acme landfill or _ the Alameda Co. Altamount landfill, which has much greater capacity. Schools a The project would generate the • A developer impact fee would need for three elementary be required to help find schools, one intermediate and temporary facilities, but one high school in the San additional developer fees Ramon Unified School District. should be levied to cover the total costs of the schools. Additional schools sites would . also be required. Fire Protection • An additional fire station and a • The developer should be crew of nine men would be required to fund the fire required. Three service station. The road system must providers are available: be designed to fire safety Tasajara (which is all standards, particularly major volunteer), San Ramon Valley access roads connecting the Fire District, and DSRSD Fire project to the fire stations. Department. Fire control measures should be adopted for the open spaces in the project to prevent brush fires. Police • The CHP would require an • The project units should be additional car for patrol and designed with crime the County Sheriff would preventive devices and high require 28 additional officers. visibility. Streets should be designed for safety. • N ij• T J V =. .▪ �'S l i; ppyly��Ayy{ q��@.eV� p��yra,'.yp�� }lpp� Z "�:�o, �• Y '« r.{°''1 hL �,_-. L�R �S7 ~ iwd: � 3rs yO Y.� Af�.��r y,k A.��Y•��.�i.L�•�1-.yA`l: -.:..ia�lZ l:i•�!. n+3' _ ..,•��r_..r..+..;. _ .'-t V Parks and • The project would generate the • The developer would be Recreation need for I 10 acres of County required to pay a County park parks and would generate development in-lieu fee. The demand for regional parks. parks should consist of large areas rather than a number of small parks. The developer should either dedicate park land to the East Bay Regional Park District or participate in the District's "adopt-i-park" program. Libraries • An additional 10,000 sq. ft. • The developer should be _ library would be required. required to provide a library. 6. Fiscal Impact Analysis Williamson Act • Project sponsor would pay a No mitigation required. Cancellation $350,000 cancellation fee to - the State. County General e County would incur a deficit of • No feasible mitigation. Government nearly $1.2 million annually at full project buildout. I � County Library • Cost of new library would be • The developer should provide $911,500 to $916,500. the facility or an assessment could be levied by vote of the residents to finance the library. EBMUD • Service would have to be • Developer would be required extended from Danville. to pay annexation fee of $1.4 million, fund a preliminary design study, and pay a major facilities charge to cover the allocated cost of the service extension. CSA R-7 • Cost of purchase and • Developer would be required construction of 110-acre park to pay a park development in- would be more than $3 million. lieu fee of $2.2 million. The Cost of operating the park parks should be maintained by would be about $560,000 a homeowners association to annually. The district would avoid reallocation of the realize $60,300 annually in property tax to offset property tax revenues. operating costs. 11 � � m!� ill�i0�.. .. 11a.�0001u�� • l ,.JS�• •..t'„ is-V4Lij ,f. .rarti..i-•t..�v•f"th �..•,~ J•„''G.-f;.'i`-i�-)....-.a..i.�P':3l•Snw ai r�f" e,�1+• < }.fi`t...r'tin fir• ,..:�ry7-•..�.«x. ' � i" J vL-•`y'�'ra '♦. f ^ C .ba gyp GAT11:-,' 1 k . 7 thr7 .r j + r^ - • 1 Tassajara Fire • Would require $500,000 in • The developer should pay the District capital improvements and costs of the fire station and $340,000 in annual costs. The required equipment. property tax revenues would pay for these costs by year 9 of project development. San Ramon Fire • In addition to capital costs Protection District as above, the district would • incur $325,000 in annual costs, which would be covered by property tax revenues by year 7 of project development. • DSRSD s Would incur costs for fire N .• Developer would be required service, sewer service, solid to pay sewer'and fire • waste and parks and recreation annexation fees of $17.4 services. million and $5 million, respectively. Sewer — " - connection would be financed by assessment district. Developer would pay for fire protection capital improvements. San Ramon Unified • Cost of six schools is estimated • Developer required by School District at $12.4 million. ordinance to pay impact fee estimated at $3.7 million for temporary facilities. Additional developer fees would be necessary if state assistance is not granted for permanent schools. B. Resource Iss - I. Geology and • There is a 50% probability of a • Earthquake-induced damage Seismicity magnitude 6.0+ earthquake can be reduced by responding occurring on the Calaveras to the City and County Safety Fault within the next 50 years, Elements; i.e. applying at which could result in structural least UBC structural design damage or human hazards. standards which would resist earthquake forces; locate structures away from unstable slopes; etc. • Landslides existing through the • Landslides in or near property could damage developed areas should be developed property and create repaired. Structures should life-threatening situations. be clustered to avoid unstable or potentially unstable slopes. • ` -•� c �,L•, ^ Y 1 � `J A]�'T��j( ir)(pS`;�! �.i`* Y.. < yy�p..; o !.:,,r.-:s:.::',,- � ~` :{ D.( . M * vu ..1 c•x -'-••4' MP f D i� �:if�s�Sd.+�ll�" 1•tflx^ �'.1? t �. -, } .ax1 1.? .,: <1. 1 B. Resource Issues I. Geology and • Expansive soil and • Expansive soils should be Seismicit intraformational slippage treated or removed. Further cont'd) could cause subsidence study of intraformational resulting in building damage. slippage is needed to determine if existing treat- ment (i.e., removal and back filling) is adequate mitigation. • Class II soil would be removed • An agricultural mana dement from agricultural production. and implemen implemented to offset the - loss of soil productivity. . - 2. Hydrology and e Erosion and sedimentation • An erosion and sedimentation Water Quality hazard would be increased by control plan for the construc- construction activities. tion phase as well as the life- time of the project should be incorporated in the - development plan. • Stormwater runoff would • A floodway analysis should be increase by about 13% for the I prepared to define - 100 year storm. downstream improvements needed to reduce or prevent flooding. On-site structures should Je clustered I I outside flood-prone areas. • The quality of surface runoff • Catchment basins should be would be altered by the used to trap certain urban addition of urban pollutants. i contaminants prior to discharge into natural drainages. • Groundwater quality could be • On-site waste water adversely affected by on-site treatment should be wastewater treatement considered only if no other facilities. option is available. • Groundwater quality and • Groundwater should not be quantity are probably considered as a potential insufficient to be used as a water supply. reliable water supply for future development. • The impoundment of surface • A hydraulic study should be water for water supply could made of each proposed dam adversely affect down-stream site and of the downstream flow volumes. effects of reservoir construction. I, II . . 1 . . • �.� •t•_y.�.�;�,•, >� rt- r� 'n �„ .5.� /.�--. .�.-:.3 .^^t ��},t' L W't ' Ti i�>.' i��i r L t!-s 3a'ti,,.•2'1-�;''- •w .y774'rs."?.,1.•y 1 _ 4s!3 'iA;c7=k; r• Y � K � �}t;'i�1 ¢}.y"r:2'-')?f� r �C'Y 't. �.} .• �','l `.. .•-..iS/�1Esr:s_>c..-...] .M ..".�✓ •...;. ...L.v .J.-Y��r�3 a'"32`'tiv.�%?••f;+.�...s — ry''.r ,. •... " _.u-x. 3. Vegetation and • ,Increased runoff and potential • Riparian vegetation should be Wildlife erosion problems with Alamo restored to reduce erosion of Creek and its tributaries. creek banks and improve wild- life habitat. • Loss of important spring • Avoid spring yr'seep areas•habitats due to construction of during construction and fence the secondary northern loop these areas to protect them. roadway and satelite low- • density housing east of this • roadway. • • Los's-of aquatic habitat • A Wetlands Management Plan associated with the retention • should be prepared to help - ponds due to construction. improve the wildlife habitat of the remaining ponds after • project completion. • Increased human activity in the • Motorcycle riding within the area such as dirt bike, hunting ( open space areas should be • and refuse dumping causing prohibited with fencing, - significant impacts to the signing and strict natural resources of the site. ! enforcement. •. Introduction of feral cats and I e Strict leash laws should be dogs and non-native wildlife enforced. - - species which could result in the decline of local populations • of native wildlife species. • The "Special Concern Area" near the confluence of Alamo Creek and its major tributary on the site should be left as a natural open space or developed as a large park. • Inappropriate development • The "Special Concern Area" within the "Special Concern near the confluence of Alamo Areas" which could block the Creek and its major tributary wildlife corridor to Alamo on the site.should be left as a Creek. I natural open space or developed as a large park. • Construction impacts of road • The California Department of crossings and streambed Fish and Game in accordance alterations upon the creek with the Section 1603 Stream habitat. 1 Alteration Agreement Requirements should be • consulted for input into the design of any proposed streambed or floodway modifications. • I ' iTJ .s raf a •'7� { / ►/�a��j �p/F��aj � aD. �p8ay {�l^9�j Y.,,is V�V aR � ,. �wa-,< .�,..:.�._ I .... 4. Air Quality • Increases in carbon monoxide • Reduced motor-vehicle travel. 1 concentrations near local roads. Potential increase in large concentrations in down-wind areas. No violations of quality standards is predicted. • S. Noise Construction Noise e Temporary increase in noise • The following should be due to construction activities. implemented to reduce construction impacts. Route construction traffic away from residential areas; properly maintain and muffle construction .vehicles and equipment; limit noise producing construction activities to daylight hours in noise sensitive areas. Operation Noise • Increased noise levels adjacent e Specific plans should to local streets. incorporate the following: • Reduce traffic volumes; use noise buffers such as setbacks, noise barriers, or beams; route trade'traffic away from residences; use low -noise mass transit vehicles, use noise insulations in new buildings exposed to significant noise levels. 6. Energy Construction • Use of the energy equivalent of • No mitigation proposed. Energy 1 18,000 barrels of oil for residential construction. Use of unspecified additional amount for commercial and public facilities including infrastructure and sewage treatment. Operational Energy • Use of the energy equivalent of • Specific plans should 175,000 barrels of oil annually incorporate the following: for residential uses. Use of on Use of energy efficient additional amount of energy for designs in buildings, commercial and public alternative energy sources facilities. Use of 26 million where feasible; energy gallons of gasoline for recovery in sewage treatment; projected generated vehicle periodic energy audits; travel. reduced vehicle miles traveled. 7. Cultural • No anticipated impacts. • No mitigation proposed. Resources • 0 . _ . 1 - III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • A. REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING The project site, known as Gumpert Ranch, is located within San Ramon Valley in south- .. - central Contra Costa County, east of Dougherty Road and south and west of Camino Tassajara Road. It is immediately north of the Camp Parks Military Facility, and approximately 1Y2 miles to the northeast of the intersection of 1-680 and 1-580 (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The San Ramon Valley planning area covers approximately 112 square miles. It extends from the 1-680 corridor eastward approximately ten miles. This area has experienced extensive changes in the past three decades. Once an area identified with predominately agricultural uses, it has experienced extensive urbanization, especially along the 1-680 corridor. During the 1960s and 1970s this area developed as bedroom communities supporting an employment base elsewhere in the Bay Area (e.g. San Francisco, Oakland). More recently the 1-680 corridor has emerged as a major regional ;employment area. It appears that this trend toward developing both employment-generating and residential developments will continue in the San Ramon Valley in the immediate future. A significant portion of the San Ramon Valley, including Gumpert Ranch, is still used for agricultural purposes. The majority of agricultural land is located in the eastern portion of the San Ramon Valley. Three sides of the project site are bounded by lands in agricultural use, the fourth by the Camp Parks Reserve training area. Current access to the site is very limited with the only access being via a dirt road that connects to Dougherty Road west of the project site. In Contra Costa County 79,000 acres have been placed under Williamson Act contract. Lands under contract include Gumpert Ranch (2,300 acres) and lands to the east and west of Gumpert Ranch. State Assembly Bill 2074, passed in 1981, changed the procedures and defined the criteria for canceling Williamson Act contracts. This statute also created a special, one-time procedure for canceling contracts during 1982. It is in association with this "window" provision that the present amendment to the San Ramon Valley General Plan has been proposed. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of a request to amend the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. The site currently is designated as Agricultural Preserve and is being proposed for a mixture of urban and open space uses. The project sponsor has prepared an Alternate Use Plan that conceptualizes how these various uses would be located on the project site (see Figure 4). Proposed land use designations and respective percentages of the site's total land area are as follows: • �r [ 1•} .� a •ty-_,^�:t a`_ j ....is. .\,�1 1 ` t �.as.; r ..t l 7\ �� It till:_. rk;'J I... • .- ,, f t r ►y - ..K j lr ., ..... S :.r' .+(i.rti ' 111 '• *.f.:•..:, '\• it ttTo�f •,...2.<•..1.` . 4 t , 1 t .n.- ♦ - , • Y• S•.-0• 1 - /•. . ` 't '4 • L4 - ' �rA .. TASSAJARA ROAD_•_• g- . \ Circe;_ _ ---'----- -•--•--- —-- •• i - :---- - — - • >1.:: ter'• ' to��' �t.• t 1 - _ , -•f:r , _ •.k . . , PROJECT S i E - 7-k•-• -z,, ,.. Ot ,• # _'.. .tom _ ``-- • {B :'':•1.- .t ... +` � :., . `• ' \ INTERSTATE 580 _ `-'_"� _.-• N - _ - _ �- - t _-,.% :- t: L I • ,•-: N.- ■,-,;....;:..n:'.--;•••••':.- ',:..)-,‘,.' .:.;=.".-•:,:-..-:( .?--t:.-..,:.'''-:.'".": .'-..,::- ' - - '‘i''.. - ':- .' - : . ' .. - -:-::,...,-:-.,''.:-.-;:''...--:ff'•7:::--:::.7. .:1, ••• �.�r,, -G7•,...',..„,71‘...`.� / - • rte, .-7-"',-.__- ! •• - ` cam=`•- _ �� ti 3- \� r _.- +—• `.1,X , ��f'..--•'� `/"�. ' \.r c i' ':,.,• -. \ ' y,� l ter.: t '‘•,a...,•-•r�-_.' .. a M - - rl' \°\' .T i; �• -.'tom"' ' �"'.� ¢ _AKT E,:_-_-`,..„"‘‘i.:::..- ' --t;":"7=•,•'-• / ' .;:v. .i. " ' \ r i^ -:n]i\ .?� r...„2, - „-J,.C',•�''_..-� sd \ :: '.454• .. 1. _ .�. \ 9 1� •.,V .d .._..... } r SCALE s"m ■ FEET eNI 0 3000 45000 12000 VICINITY MAP • 1 �` • • • • .: S CAMfNO TASSAJARA ROAD • ;' • • d _,,.'' ' z - '�L , te- f, \ ,. -s,! } • \ it �� •.��.�' • . . PigIO.lECT SITE - .. _ - - t _• :,' . CAMP PARKS • ;t:.� . SCALE ....,,,,,-4--.: ..--, " <-..: FEETte \ 0 1500 3000 6000 • SITE LOCATION }[�#� ;AVM-_ 0 Designated Use Percent of Site's Land Area Transit Related Residential 6.6 Low Density or Transit Residential 3I .6 Neighborhood Commercial 0. I Public Facilities 0.9 On-Site Sewage Treatment Reserve Area 4.8 Agricultural Preserve 23.9 Community Open Space Buffer 22.5 Riparian Corridor I .6 Special Concern Area 7.9 As proposed, approximately 40% of the site would be developed with urban uses and 60% would remain in some form of undeveloped use (e.g., Open Space, Agricultural Preserve, • Riparian Corridor). Also, because no roads currently serve the site, a proposed primary and secondary circulation network has been incorporated into the Alternate Use Plan (Figure 4). The proposed General Plan Amendment is being concomitantly considered with a petition to withdraw the project site from its Land Conservation Contract under the "window" provision of A.B. 2074. Before the County can approve the contract cancellation, the proposed General Plan Amendment needs to be adopted and a determination made that the cancellation and alternative use will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. Rezoning, review and approval of proposed specific developments, and necessary annexaticis to utility districts would be required before development could occur on the project site. • As the proposed project is an amendment to the General Plan, it does not include any specific proposals for development. However, to analyze the potential impacts of adopting the proposed General Plan Amendment it is necessary to estimate the amount of future development that could occur on the site. Residential use would constitute the major developed use totaling approximately 97% of the site's developable area. The applicant has estimated that between 6,700 and 9,200 residential units could be developed at full build-out. (See Table I for a more detailed description of densities and distribution of units on the site.) It is anticipated that a mix of housing types (single family, townhouse and multiple family) and density patterns would be developed. Land designated for neighborhood commercial and public facilities uses would serve the immediate needs of Gumpert Ranch residents; these uses are not anticipated to provide service to residents of surrounding areas. Future development of the Gumpert Ranch property is expected to be phased over an extended period. No phasing scheme plan has been developed at this time. C. PROJECT SPONSOR OBJECTIVES! "The project sponsor wishes to develop a community of between 6,700 and 9,200 residential units with commercial and public service facilities to serve these residents. Although the community would be self-contained in terms of services, amenities and geographic location, it would also serve as a residential community for the employees of the large industrial and commercial developments planned for central Contra Costa County (e.g., Bishop Ranch) and northeastern Alameda County (e.g., Hacienda Business Park). • t 0 ______(;?, • • . •S / /....7,7-,‘..;\� \`�'y".+ti'1,1 i� lam f 1• \Ir\'_\`.'∎"( �Y Vy ' %.t Y0:V� ., n, _,,.�r'1�\ NJ .. t.;7 / ■1 .l/ c .� r I r= \gyp �i r .� ::. ./(7?-;...r..ii•::;,:',).:;g46?.:,E-4117•.- -,..4:: ::';•-•-,:i-r-it-;.• l 4.,,,,f,--::-./s-_,;(1:;'-‘ %''---7.,':,-- • • ti / * I by - Y��/�I�, li�:f\':�." ,Ir 'I � ��' �/��I�/`�`\��jam\`�1 4 r:271. t 1 04.� C. lam. \•\/� �� rl•� - } w �;r�= 1 , ;`; PROJECT SI Igir, •,-:::::::-R.: ',.i•--. :' -`�� s:7 te: .y S',`�`�L`L«'��ir✓�..ea•. / �*. „:�;':.=- /--;-:,‘7,'`i j 1 1117�fidllllillllifllilili�� ;; - l .,,-` -` /\/ `1 / 1 /`fi.•'/� t.I,∎/_ r—I.I�I, l`=27-\-:,`,':; 1,-,'--% -,.,-,...,s.1_•1_ 'r L ■-,'\4:-:65/ t . ,`I rJ/':-/_/1,-1`-,s''--•;`,l/ , /t'-(1,\' l' ./• ♦_ L'/ y //1'j _I 'K.,,S^ �.'. •,,, �. ''��:I�I``I l\i+t fi mil`/�// - .; /7,-,-,-;t I /l/LS ...ti 'aµ , 1 I <�'dstaa:�a'. _ T • rn -.1 r. i y.•c" `y fah • _.-- --.... :-_. 3 333 .. • .1 ,,_. -_ SOURCE: DAON CORP. SCALE Ir�aeat e F E T `> Trans Related Resicennal l'..-•;11 Agncultural Presery e p 800 1600 3200 X� Low Density or Transit Related Resloenual { Communlly Open Spate gutter 7F�7 ® P e'gnbcmood Commeraal r Ripanan CornAa Secondary C.r>^aanon •.•.i Puohc FauMnes !r�� Special Concern P/ea A1lernalne access ��m I On-sae Sewage Treatment Reserve Area Rana Circulation Gumpert RanCl Prcp!rry 1.ne , � pl R°�' RAMC H ALTER-NATIVE USA PLAN: . . !1 ,.:� _ , v `ate M..a ur: ., . ti t, 0 / \-;\ ( �21, :-...\_ '''-'\ "q:-. Jc--; I • ..)41--7-4.--::'.1". . ... ,... PA) k..) i I I- 2.--, ; PM 101‘ - , / qi 1 ,.,. ....?-% , ,,ir:....40, i S\ - \J "1`"' r~.\: 3` kill'1-ry4i• k 1‘ M.P V\A R 1(- +! . r I f3 . t'f�a s. .1 , - Z...<,..45 _.• s.‘7„.�? 1 f3 i t ..r -c. • V 7".• I • . ill;.... "4-•1.•" ÷..*7 ....F•4.;F ttP3'14_-.1.--,.. - S .1.- •: - ,,,,', ••---■, ,\.•,f•-• 7-7- :), .., • l'a i --- t'-':..411,44.fg;-. ‘1--„-F.,:l ••=e-t-eli ;.ett:.. ..;4-1.-.1.;,-.. ,_•-',..,.1.,.- : 4 l �r f �r1Y 1'v." ��. •�. •1 �. =;rte l ' Ql A r ,f, '4 � i GD• .. �r � ' � i XI v T li ,,�"\ SIAM ,, � 'l � -� \ n l , _ --,,...-1 C , A bf' P ', P A R -K (-• ^`• 1 4. 'Village.\ �I 1 -�_�`�;;,:, 'v�..x�.1=`»' _.•-:'I �; I V�•! O . I,_ - ;Ill -s`f_=r .m .L-: ' -�. r' a' , t `I• ■Sc6 ., 4 i• •. _ wiz % !• H t`e• ,I. 1 �w , 1 lr t,6At'tl - s ,�-�-.t-s+--�"... slIIR l t ,.i.".' - - - r''''.I lam` �. '. f I 7-.t'PI "fa,1 lllK T n) file. . J___�4-LT--- .� - ; ` �/") _-,')k.., ` -- , i 110 1-..1921_•.. t,� i I I I I�.%F. Yr1•--- -�— . —i•i.Tr .r. .'JAS. I `_ • + �..r .'/ 1 _-, ,pct is�,,,:.�. la .I�I ms- �•.�s.3 '7 s. w -� 1 ' ' `/ 'v y/ 9&....1"-_-.),--77.. -�'1�,w•1.- ,� +_- I..'! \ __` -- --. '4.„4-1...1 ----Iic ': �_' i ' = ,' te a. I • ' • . I I. mot, ' z i.. ,yI an.'nn 1 ; . _d...r~ '-- 'A`. - ,tt� iul s,"- .7.0 - I t ; • ,.1.-----•• _T, ' \ ,! • ! F— ,(a.,..R.,�!.i;,.cn t,"ist = .j�. , Ivaa C CRA. k • �. ',.[- , 1 x `\-�`,i P 325 •\ S • •/. ! SCALE ytl.�` FEET ® SEE TABLE 2 . 0 150 3000 6000 SOURCE: DRAFT EIS, REACTIVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA - REACTIVATION PLAN FOR CAMP . . RD A ii.::)IT_Q TEZ®1DA1DIG FACILITIES - 7 ■ • 2. Transportation and Circulation a. Setting Street Network. Figure 12 shows the existing configuration of the roads and streets surrounding the study area, with roadway sections designated as to number of lanes. Regional access is available via interchanges at Tassajara Road and Dougherty Road along 1-580; and Alcosta Boulevard, Bollinger Canyon Road (proposed), Crow Canyon Road, Sycamore Valley Road, Diablo Road and El Cerro along 1-680. Dougherty Road, which serves the project area, is basically a two-lane rural-type road between Camino Tassajara and 1-580. Dougherty Road widens to four lanes in the vicinity of 1-580. It is proposed that Dougherty will 'T' at the future extension of Crow Canyon. The link between Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon will be abandoned. Camino Tassajara, north and east of the project site, is a two-lane facility between 1-580 and 1-680. In the vicinity of Blackhawk Road, Camino Tassajara widens to four lanes. Blackhawk Road extends from Diablo Road to Camino Tassajara. It is four lanes through the Blackhawk development. Crow Canyon extends west•oEas68of Alcosta eventually it narrowsinterchanging lt is six lanes between 1-680 and Alcosta to two lanes and then becomes discontinuous. Bollinger Canyon R.)ad extends from Crow Canyon west of 1-680 to Alcosta. Between Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon it is two lanes. East of Norris Canyon it is four lanes with plans for widening to eight lanes. As part of the Kaplcn-Wiedemann projec- , it will extend past Alcosta to the east but will not pass through the project. An agreement was made between the developers of the Kaplan-Wiedemann project and the Sierra Club that Bollinger Canyon Road will not be extended through the project to Dougherty. It will terminate in the project and the right-of-way will be maintained as open space. As this was an agreement between the developer and the Sierra Club and did not include the County, the County could extend Bollinger if the need for such an extension arose due to development east of the Kaplan-Wiedemann project. There is no interchange with 1-680 at this time but plans call for one in the future as a part of the Bishop Ranch Development. An assessment district that includes Bishop Ranch and some adjacent residential areas has been formed to fund the project. The interchange should be completed by 1986. Traffic. Traffic flow conditions have been identified in terms of existing volumes and the expected future volumes from anticipat. d developments. Existing Conditions. Existing average dcily link traffic volumes are shown in Table 3. Link levels of service were determined using capacities for typical roadway cross- sections. The capacities associated with each type of cross-section are shown in Table B-1 in Appendix B as are the level of service definitions. These capacities were used to determine the potential operating conditions (levels of service) of the various links in the future and to determine the required roadway widths. Levels of service range from _.__c)_______.___c4___ , QC4 y z(6) 4?() cq 4,,N O 2-4 6) Q.O 1.4 YCAMO - E -q" -4,9 6) 2(6 4 ) , ...... , ,..,!� V i r, ,,. •,:p _______7 o %(S) Ni 2� . ct) R&(/0) Ntl CANON 9! -' G¢O 4O c0 %(S) O '40 G� 0� . cF� 4 iv D „; CANYON 1;`' ' /� a .C\ ti) / • 8 LANES y i 580 8 LANES r • fir) . 2 EXISTING LANES SCALE CE®Of0 11091111101MMa FEETO\ 0 4000 8000 12000 (S)MAXIMUM FUTURE LANES 4 ® INTERCHANGES SOURCE: BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. . ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS . C A. 2. Transportation TABLE 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS( Average Level Daily Volume/ of Link Lanes Trips Capacity Service Blackhawk n/o Camino Tassajara 2 6,500 .37 A Diablo e/o 1-680 2 8,400 .48 A Sycamore • e/o 1-680 2 9,600 .55' A w/o Camino Tassajara 4 2,200 .07 A Camino Tassajara e/o Diablo 2 3,700 .21 A w/o Blackhawk 2 2,800 . 16 A e/o Blackhawk 2 3,000 .24 A s/o Gumpert 2 1 ,400 . I 1 A Crow Canyon e/o 1-680 6 14,000 .31 A e/o Alcosta 6 7,000 . 16 A e/o Dougherty 2 500 .03 'A Bollinger e/o 1-680 6 400 .01 A w/o Alcosta 6 600 .01 A Old Ranch 2 1 ,700 . 14 A Alcosta s/o Crow Canyon 4 4,500 . 15 A s/o Bollinger 4 6,400 .21 A s/o Old Ranch 4 7,600 .25 A Dougherty s/o Camino Tassajara 2 500 .03 A s/o Old Ranch 2 2,000 . 16 A Lawrence 2 1 ,000 .08 A 1-680 n/o El Cerro 6 90,700 .76 C n/o Crow Canyon 6 85,800 .72 C n/o Alcosta 6 59,900 .50 A 1These represent 1981/82 traffic volumes. They do not include approved project traffic volumes. 'A' to 'F' with 'A' representing free flow and 'F' representing forced flow or stop-and-go conditions. The roads serving the study area are all operating at service level 'A'. Future Conditions without Project. Future traffic volumes will include existing traffic plus traffic generated by future developments. future developments that have been identified are shown on Figure 13. They - Bishop Ranch Business Park (7,000,000 square feet of office space) roughly located between 1-680, Bollinger Canyon Road, Alcosta Boulevard and Norris Canyon Road. Of the 585 acres, 382 have been approved for approximately 4,900,000 square feet of building. According to the Traffic Analysis for the Pacific Telephone Office Complex and Surrounding Areas, prepared by Barton-Aschman Associate, February 198 current va the addi rates it could could �n goat another 2.1 million square feet. At high as 3.5 million square feet. - Blackhawk Subdivision (2,185 units) located north of Camino Tassajara. - Sycamore Specific Plan (1,849 units) located adjacent to Camino Tassajara. - Woodhill Subdivision (300 units) located along Alcosta Boulevard south of Bollinger Canyon Road. - Shapell Subdivision (1,000 units) located along Alcosta Boulevard south of Bollinger Canyon Road. There is a General Plan Amendment proposal on this project. The current subdivision approval is for 300 units. - Kaplan-Wiedemann Development (2,200 units) located east of Alcosta Boulevard. There is a proposal for a General Plan Amendment for this project. - West Branch Development (1,325 t adjacent square fet of ty Road. This 126,000 square feet of retaiIlocated 1 ace ) project is currently going through the General Plan Amendment approval process. - Hansen Lane Development (480 units) located north of Camino Tassajara. This project is currently going through the General Plan Amendment approval process. - Hemme Hills Development (273 units) located south of Blackhawk Road. This project is currently going through the General Plan Amendment approval process. - Dougherty Road Development currently(going units) thee Generale Plano ADendmeri Road. This project y 9 approval process. - Various subdivisions (7,100 units) adjacent to Dougherty Road and Camino Tassajara on land that is currently used for agricultural purposes. This is based on an average of 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Much of this area is covered by the Williamson Act and thus would not be developed for at least 10 years or is designated as open space. ,.,, �+!: oaf a ‹-i ) . _ .s. s 's4 ►•• % . . . Za. rp '.elle •Y� •yi'+•• :: /P e'er ot f aa•0'3l5 " % ' ' '*'4.:..:.W:lrtWriitiaztaVgi III S . :- � �,:rt .2.,,.:::...„.:..,......,.L.:„...../..,,/.,../,:,, ,,...,...,,c,d4:: ....,..if:::::..,.... ,„: , ....4,.w...,,,.., r,::.. ---.4.A.--..‹.;••it.a. / Il �" ' //////Y/ L: nt• I .t❖� %. ////////// :VI"C i V•�--:• , ///v 1 z• //// ///i///////////// ' i. F., � a;.►r.t".'••�j!// /: ///i///////II* •j�•4. ,., !•;.1. ••S••i ////////// //// . / \— rt j J•• /////. ./.,,, / NO�• •A• •�V/ ///////; • /, - - , 120SED i . I G'� �ll . ••vs,��N /,,®,--:; "' PERT f 1-Bishop Ranch-approved //////_'///// :.-JEL C °P1 NT 2 Blackhawk approved /// ' 3-Sycamore-approved ,../////../.•. _ 4Woodhill-approved 'i///// _ _ i ' 5-Shapell-proposed GPA .//////1•• 6-kaplan-Weideman-proposedGPA • ;si '/////% I rP 7-West Branch-proposed GPA O /. • 8-Hansen Lane-proposed GPA ' /' 9-Hemme Hills-proposed GPA "'''" i 10-Dougherty-proposed GPA - "'!"' 11-Infill-future •////// 12-Gumpert 13-Hacienda Business Park • I 1 580 3 t +kA w & Y lr v 1- ;y ' . . ... .. -r -- -- .- 04 Ns,` \5 ;:c� k \ r -?W� y It M \ $ ? � - 6,-•,V-"ttg.P...yt.:.1.4. .r4A : `S:'a <T : i � •vi ' w : : � . ' o .M>: 3X \ dw:rt:J>T9A \"n .Y:>MD�tsfiiC:b»+tw u»th 12tAw"i�.:4 —) SCALE FEET 0 4000 8000 12000 SOURCE: BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. • •NEW DEMELOPM T PROPOSALS . #2 ."_). In�1•:PROJECT VICINITY: -,, 0 The potential trip generation of these developments is shown in Table 4. Where traffic studies were available the trip generation data were used as reported. For those developments where no traffic study was available, it was assumed that all residential developments would be composed of single-family dwelling units, that they would generate 10 trips per dwelling unit and five percent of their daily trips would be internal to the development. (Five percent was used because none of the developments included commercial.) Thus, internal trips could only be to schools or other dwelling units, which would represent a very small percentage of the daily trips. Approved projects would generate approximately 143,000 daily vehicle trips. Projects with pending General Plan amendments would generate an additional 80,000 daily vehicle trips for a total of 223,000 daily vehicle trips. Adjacent agricultural lands, if developed, could generate an additional 67,000 daily vehicle trips,bringing the long-range total to 291,000 vehicle trips. The future traffic was assigned to the road network by directions of approach and departure that were based on travel time and distance to activity centers and the location of activity centers. Table 5 shows the assumed directions of approach that will be used for the residential developments. Bishop Ranch traffic was assigned in the Bishop Ranch Business Park and Pacific Telephone Office Complex Traffic Impact Analysis and will be added to existing traffic volumes as assigned in that report. The actual assignment to specific roads was a function of the location of the development. TABLE 5 DIRECTION OF APPROACH/DEPARTURE Direction % North on 1-680 30% East on 1-580 5% South on 1-580 5% West on 1-580 7% Bishop Ranch I 0% Dublin/Pleasanton 30% Danvi I le 8% Internal 5% 100% Source: Discussions with Tom Dudziak of Contra Costa County. 0 CO . . . . A. 2. Transportation : • TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS Development Status of Project! Size Trips/Day • Bishop Ranch Approved 7,000,000 sq. ft. office 75,8252 Blackhawk Approved 2, 185 dwelling unit 20,750 Sycamore Valley Approved 1 ,849 dwelling unit 17,565 Woodhill Approved 300 dwelling unit 28,500 SUBTOTAL 142,640 Shape!! . Pending GPA 1 ,000 dwelling unit 9,500 Kaplan-Weidemann Pending GPA 2,200 dwelling unit 20,900 West Branch Pending GPA 1 ,325 dwelling unit. 16,6003 522,000 sq. ft. office 126,000 sq. ft. retail Hansen Lane Pending GPA 480 dwelling unit 4,560 Hemme Hills Pending GPA 273 dwelling unit 2,595 Dougherty Pending GPA 2,764 dwelling unit 26,260 SUBTOTAL 80,415 223,055 Agricultural Lands 7, 100 67,450 TOTAL 290,505 !Source: Kevin Galley, Planner, Contra Costa County Planning Department. 2Source: Bishop Ranch Business Park and Pacific Telephone Traffic Impact Analysis, February 1983. Excludes trips to residential areas east of Alcosta, assumed 25% of total trips. 3Source: West Branch Draft Environmental Impact Report, February 1983. External traffic only; assumes 29% of traffic is internal. r The trips generated by future developments were assigned- to four alternative roadway networks.3 These alternatives are illustrated in Figures 14 through 17 and are briefly described below. Alternative A -- Crow Canyon Road would extend to Camino Tassajaru opposite Blackhawk. Bollinger Canyon Road would extend beyond Alcosta Boulevard terminating in the Kaplan-Wiedemann development. Dougherty Road would be abandoned north of the Crow Canyon intersection. Lawrence Road would extend to Dougherty Road. Alternative B -- Crow Canyon Road would extend to Camino Tassajara opposite Camino Blackhawk. Bollinger Canyon Road would extend to Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road would be abandoned north of Crow Canyon. Lawrence Road would extend southerly and would not directly connect with Dougherty Road..... Alternative C -- Crow Canyon Road would extend to Camino Tassajara opposite Camino Blackhawk. Bollinger Canyon Road would extend to Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road would be abandoned north of Crow Canyon Road and would be restricted to transit vehicles between Bollinger Canyon Road and the southern access to Gumpert Ranch. Lawrence Road would extend westerly to Dougherty Road. Alternative D -- Crow Canyon Road would extend to Camino Tassajara opposite Camino Blackhawk. Bollinger Canyon Road would extend east, of Dougherty Road. Dougherty Road would be abandoned north of Crow Canyon Road. Lawrence Road would not be extended. The current General Plan roadway network is very similar to Alternative A with the modification that Bollinger Canyon would extend northward to Crow Canyon east of Alcosta. This would be constructed as a part of the Kaplan-Wiedemann project. Also, it should be noted that the Kaplan-Wiedemann/Sierra Club agreement stated that Bollinger Canyon would not extend to Dougherty Road. Alternatives B, C and D would be contrary to this agreement. Traffic was assigned for two conditions: trips generated by future development excluding the infill area and trips generated by future development including the agricultural lands • area. The resulting traffic volumes for future conditions without the project are shown in Table 6. Cross-sections for various links vary under each alternative. Existing cross- sections were used as a base and increased where necessary to maintain a level of service 'D' up to a maximum "reasonable" roadway width. The maximum widths assumed for each link are shown in Figure 12. The information in Table 6 indicates that Alternative A is marginally better than the other three alternatives as no links are projected to operate at a level of service worse than a 'D' under the no conversion of agricultural lands case (Infill) and it generally requires less major roadway widening. Once Infill is added to the roadway network, each alternative would have links with levels of service 'E' or worse even with ultimate widening. The problem areas would be along both Bollinger and Crow Canyon Roads under each alternative roadway network. Under all alternatives, both without and with the Infill area traffic contribution, 1-680 would be experiencing demands way above capacity. As the v/c ratios are indicative of peak hour operations, the results of conditions as predicted 0 wK • • ,1 R� ROAD C,.1 I . gY CAI' //i/O T i gssq✓gR. I 1 1 I �c• >` I I v i -I A:!.IIIki;...?t:t5P RANCH ! B c, ti O. o s i CAI !y OT, ,o ( .... .....,... ,.. . . . / ' G O `.ter----..` •..--•r r.�• . •rte• 1 i i 0 i C i I1580 I I i I SCALE R gee FEET /\ 0 4000 8000 12000 a �\ SOURCE: BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION: . ALTER 43AT1VE A ., - 0 ; (,,___— LACKy A tNK VCAt •• pOAO 4 ,!/1/V0 Tq Ssq✓gR q cR°\M �0 1 10 Q - C --- -.._=u- USED I �Q� Ar yoN _ _ ::G`' : -'T 'ANCH 1 G I \� _'_gam ^ Ph ENT ' CI 1 til 1 ` � -_cOS Tn C5N- ( -� ♦ L �•� C. Co" � N I ' EOA� � O� .-. ALAM . . • N. .......------ 0 O 1-580 I \ ) SCALE ' FEET O• 0 4000 8000 12000 <I t> SOURCE: BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. s" TATION: ALTERNATIVE • \. eCgc tiq kV/ I .V1%'.`:p,0 c47/4/0 S‘1 CW's • Tqs,,, -9R-9 I 0)\\ - ICFO CE. . -`: c sED ` : um.p RT R-NCH I s: 3.EV �OP�9ENT I -.:...• 7 . .. I . .,---------::::....:-..i......'•.`�O••� �L C r TE cos-P,,....,. KAY so.` �Q — ' M.Ah1EDA • Tom- -4 I? 1-580 H --) SCALE FEET �\ p 4000 8000 12000 4 SOURCE: BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION: ALTERWATIVE C I t.fr I ---- e Cq Ckyq 14/I.( . • S•(CA►`ADRE ROAD CqM/gyp l Li 7 r GQ' iII G�G� 1 _ _ _ _ -OPOSED • ....... : _ r =--; GIIMPERT R NCH i .........._. - __= . EVEL0PP.MaNT I 110h11;°CP):Idl i ._......._ __-ti-:- L. . LO _ O " -1 \ � CACO N . i - OA ■ ' I'.r- Q • 1-580 SCALES 2 FEET /� 0 4000 8000 12000 / SOURCE: BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. TRA P RTATIOL1: ALTERNATIVE D e 01 . . 1,5011 0_ O G UcC, < C'...'C LOW O < cL C' <c< < LLW o Q V 41 ::::: N...- c:: : G1nS ::; :c c c �c N Cn c o o ^o c c-<� c c c o o= o 0 cc . C \ .1 .',0 �: ,NC n�^..O •. o.n G1 .. .. OCC r La t �- Nr 3 r C .C1 C4 NO - n. C o CO Cr• C C\C4 Cs n nod of N < 3 N rq N-- N rs N .c ..!N.0 o V'f 1 -' r N .-• OO-' O Z N- C i s a u a Z .� r C C Q tSO% 0 c c < < c c c < 000 WUU < <0< «C< < L LL.t. u C J1 _ r,kr,.n C" o ON CO V-.7 N n-O C C'.r,.O .o .n.tin C • 'C ': - c C iI £0/A n \' V 11 ,C S: V. N CO Cn C1nr N NO.7 v1 CC N C ,n in CV • s W ^ ^ ` ZI c ccc ^ c C CCC c C CCCC C C C O C C C ^ o^ O C C C o C C C C 7. o C c C C C C C C c C V < r r C C.r,.7 ,.1 - r.V n ►1-+N O. -'d.n N C ON••C C C C '• z�av N - -CV - CO--N C r,V -N N h O -'^ O, J - V' n N O N - • N .-..•. .O f,Q nM1 N N CD vs 3 -^ O . >O i C a U13' .7 y `7 0 G V N N N C C C C V C N s- Q N N N N N V V v: - - CC uSO1 0 C • < < CUWc < 00W W<0 U <C© U c c c C L• t.....'.1_ E C! £0/A O .O.'1 C '1,4:47 CT:V c1 ^'-. -C N o. r. C O V r•T C n ^v.= L.0 c s � ...0:7 r-0. c N nn r .s.cv n �.0 r-: v^ n nr, cj ]y' Z cl C C C ^ CC C^C OC ^ C CCC. C^ _^.0 C C '� < < �� c - c ^ cy^c ... ca o c c cc _ oc ^c cc C. C t1 �; r' r,.7 N M V n C CT.7 N C•h V C1 N C C cc <I ZLQF r .n ^ cV\tVNN C' - r. hr v. r' C,^r .nctr c r - c. I-- w i N N N- N r, .r,N V^ Ch vs.7 - N N .7 N N N N N.V NO I G C. ( < saUBrj .. v 47 47 C •O'CNN C CO CCC N v .7 V CO V NO . \:.0 V r - -. Z •I I -" - 'I C ( w 11 1:-U c c < < ccc < 000 WU0 < <0< c00_< < L• LL 11 ` ).- J c v- ^ •lnnc ar r. .. .. co c r.r,s .t r.-n I( S1 v`r'y1 £0/A n 'C NZ CNC C'NN - CV so C ^-^ {+ .X ••_I �+ ,o F- ` I C cl c c 5,-, ,o.:. c - ^ c ccc cc - c - cc ji - ZTry` N `c r c n r1 _n _ r ". n.' _ _ c c -C ... ICI `I ZZQ` N C' ^^ .,1 _ -- .... y.7 C r- r'. N ". - ^ - N ` -re. '-y N ..7^.• .0 N N N - ,r ,/..I CV 3' n ( tSa- I a c c .- c .c N -. N CC .. .. C•oa N c c NN.7 N V.0 NO I 1 {501 _ : i V L tL r C 'f C C1.. NN r. .7.T. N r\..--. o 7 -:• N C^O• !n P. CO n I ,,y £O/A a c n c c Cna a-c C' .0,r, r r. .0N r cry o n C.:, - r -7I --- > c I- < 4I c c c C C C c C ^ C C C C C o c C C C c c c o o c c - W �I ^ C C CC CCC C C C ^^ CCCC C tr1 't.• U <� ZyQF N N C'= - ^ V r, .!,C'C C' 4'.N G1 CV I'1CN V C CCC O O V, C n -f.1 N n C1 C O CO v, C C n r., N C N CO V, n.C C H f•'• 3 N N N- N M,N- V V.r, V N- N -iNM, r1 r1 CN .-, N V.0 ; L Z I ~ isaUH'j V .. .1 s .7 V V N N C O C o V.7 s d.O V V.a o V .7 .O.O V C W - Q g,SO1 U c c< <0 cc< 000 00< < <0< OOU< < LLL o V V V •C- C r. -n C C1 V C. C' ('- C O.C C r.n ON .r.-n O N J'. ..'J/A r V v: �',V V V N C n n O C u1 N N C CO n n v s ,n e..N C C -r, - -, .- 3 cI - ' C C C C C C C C (" C ^ C CCC C C C C CCCC C CCC G ZI c C C cc C c 'O cco o cc cc o C c o > Z < r r cc c nn� c_ 'v G1 nN n is.CC o'00 c ccc O y`LC V C1 G1 N ^ C C- � nnn .l../../. r'. C S.7 J r.r,V N .O n.. C > N --' -'-'• - N- ,!,C S V N- N•-• --_,.-. C.r.U'. t:..3 3 " C • _ = c Isaua! .7 .7 .7.7 v V N N N C C C C.7 d N asJ N N NS N V V V U� C O O 7t -+ C.L _ 1 > Z u c --- L. -: C ` m c ° C s S Y v y > > C > C C - >.C - C o ,••••_ C 2.c,,_ C7 3 yr L I C .. C c C C C C C C C O 0 0 N i .. C .. O C O C N .. O C C `_ .0 (t J O i 3 r y 0. C O C 3 Q) ( N y y _ -= Q r U - G C C y » y y m C J _ I r . ^t., r r'1 • would be to significantly extend the peak hour. There would also be some diversion to local streets thus reducing service levels and significant congestion at the interchanges, which would also reduce operational levels on local streets. Transit Service. The Alameda Contra Costa (AC) Transit District operates two routes in the vicinity of the proposed project. The BART Express D line operates along the 1-680 corridor, specifically along San Ramon Valley Boulevard in the vicinity of the proposed project. The BART Express U line operates along the 51-580 corridor. AC Transit presently is not planning to increase its service to this area. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) currently does not provide service to the San Ramon area. However, it is likely that as occurs,this CCCTA A will provide service along Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty y Ro provisions for CCCTA to provide service south of the Contra Costa County line. b. Environmental Impacts The proposed project, as analyzed in this section, would be composed of 9,196 dwelling units with very limited commercial development. The composition of the development was assumed to include 20% single-family residences and 80% condominiums/townhouses. This assumption was based on the proposed housing densities provided by the developer. Density (units/acre) 8 II II 43 15 46 It was assumed that 10 units per acre or less represented single-family units. Since 43% of the project would be built at an average of I I dwelling units per acre, it was assumed that a portion would be single-family units. Thus, it was assumed that 20% of all dwelling units would be single-family. No differentiation was made between townhouse and condominium because of uncertainty in development plans. Transit. The developer has proposed that the densities of the Gumpert Ranch development could support a transit system that would serve the area with five to seven minute headways over the I.5-hour peak commute periods in the morning and the evening. It was anticipated by the developer that such service would capture 30% of work-related peak hour trips and that the transit service would be oriented toward the Bishop Ranch (60%) and Pleasanton (40%) employment areas. • Several assumptions were made that make these figures questionable. The first is that the transit agencies, CCCTA and AC Transit, would provide this service. At this time no plans have been made to provide the capital expenditures (up to 10 buses) or maintain the operating costs that the proposed system would require. At most, CCCTA is proposing buses at 30 minute headways along Dougherty Road. If the transit agencies were to provide such a service to Gumpert Ranch, they would also have to provide it to everyone, / I • which would be financially prohibitive. Also, the plan is oriented to the peak period and would be even more costly without support during the off-peak period. A second assumption is that of the 55% of the workers assumed to work in Bishop Ranch and Pleasanton over one-half (30% of all workers) could be diverted to transit. As Bishop Ranch is only four miles away and parking will be provided free, even with congested roadways it is unlikely that such a high diversion to transit would be possible even if transit were free. Pleasanton is further away, but parking will still be free and the congestion, with road improvements, would be tolerable. So again it is unlikely that such a transit diversion would occur with conventional, fixed route transit service. Thus, it has been conservatively estimated in this portion of the analysis that Gumpert Ranch will exhibit travel characteristics similar to other residential developments in the area with daily transit usage less than 1%. It is acknowledged that 1% is a conservative figure which could range upward by several percentage points; however, such an order of magnitude would not significantly affect the proposed mitigations. Other transit possibilities will be discussed under mitigation. Trip Generation and Assignment. The trip generation rate varies by size of dwelling unit. The trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation for the proposed development are shown in the following tcble: • 8 Average Daily Rate Trip Generation Single Family 10 trips/D.U. 18,390 Townhouse/Condominium 8 trips/D.U. 58.850 77,240 Trips A total of 77,240 daily vehicle trips are Sprojected these be generated eb t e proposed development. It is assumed that only trips development because of the limited commercial area within the development. It is likely that there eventually will be commercial development in the vicinity of Gumpert Ranch. However, because no proposals have been made at this time, a worst-case condition was assumed, that is very limited commercial. These trips were assigned, using the same directional assumptions described in Table 5, to the four alternative roadway networks shown in Figures 14 through 17. The following describes the four roadway networks as they relate to Gumpert Ranch. Alternative A: Lawrence Road extends through the project to Dougherty Road. A southern east/west facility connects Dougherty and Camino Tasajara. Alternative B: Lawrence Road extends southward, providing access to Camino Tassajara. A southern east/west facility connects Dougherty and Camino Tassajara. Alternative C: Lawrence Road extends southerly and turns west to connect with the extension of Bollinger. A minor road connects the Gumpert Ranch development with Lawrence. The major access to/from the Gumpert Ranch development is on Dougherty, south of the transit link, and Camino Tassajara. Alternative D: Lawrence Road does not extend to Gumpert Ranch. Bollinger extends east, past Dougherty directly serving Gumpert Ranch. Two additional access points are located on Dougherty, south of Bollinger. A fourth access is provided on Camino Tassajara, south of Highland. The assigned volumes for Gumpert Ranch were added to the volumes developed in the previous section (Table 6) and are presented in Table 7. The roadway cross-sections developed for each alternative roadway network for future conditions without Gumpert Ranch were used to calculate v/c ratios. The resulting service levels are also shown in Table 7. It can be seen that Gumpert Ranch would have a significant impact on the roadway network, producing overcapacity conditions in many areas under all alternative roadway networks. By adding Infill traffic to these volumes, the situation would deteriorate even further. Without major roadway improvements it would be difficult to support even a portion of the Gumpert Ranch traffic, much less that associated with Infill. c. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures will respond to the analysis that did not include the Infill area as it is likely that this area would be developed after Gumpert Ranch and as it is not included in the existing Contra Costa County General Plan. Physical Improvements to Local Roadways. The major mitigation' measure that would reduce the traffic impacts of the proposed development would be to significantly improve the road network by adding more lanes to the impacted roadways. Table 8 shows the required roadway improvements necessary to improve the level of service to a 'D' or better for each alternative roadway network. It should be noted that in some cases the maximum roadway width (see Figure 12) possible is not sufficient to improve the level of service to a 'D' or better. It would be impossible to meet demands on all roadway links for any alternative roadway network within the limitations set for maximum roadway cross-sections. Under Alternatives A and B both Diablo and Sycamore Valley roads would have to be widened from four to six lanes east of 1-680. Camino Tassajara would have to be widened from two to six lanes between Blackhawk and Lawrence for Alternatives A and B. For these two alternatives, Camino Tassajara would not work at a satisfactory level of service west of Blackhawk even with six lanes. Crow Canyon would be 10 lanes between 1-680 and Alcosta and eight lanes east of Alcosta for all Alternatives. However, in Alternatives A, B and C there are portions of the roadway expected to operate at unsatisfactory Levels of Service. Bollinger would be 10 lanes between I-680 and Camino Ramon and would vary from four to eight lanes east of Camino Ramon depending on the Alternative. Under Alternative B and C the link between 1-680 and Camino Ramon would be operating at unsatisfactory levels of service and for Alternative B all of Bollinger would be operating at an unsatisfactory level of service. It should be noted that Alternatives B, C and D are contrary to the Kaplan-Wiedemann/Sierra Club agreement that Bollinger would not extend to Dougherty. 0 0 LL L LC li.U.LmCC CU..Ll. tLCC L <CO u LwLL L La.L ' , . r-CV1 a-. -N V1 V NS C S O 10 SON- ut C'.'a CU p N C 03 Cen r1 S0'0 cc co ri NOO 'a ns.oc OC.:c^ e-1 cc a. • a p p Q 3 ON C C C C C C C C C G C O C C C C C 0 0,00 C C C C U' ' cn ON n e^ N v1 n—n N S- r cc N n N S- v1 T c e-1 S_ C C C 'LC _ - - - - - - --- -—o Coen — -o CO n en un CC QCYQ V Nv1 en so uO C a'up v1 N -NS KI S so - N n en N1 en N N- E U S S S'.O'.O NN O C`CO C OO N S 7 N CO NO,0 C S V V V • J — -- U. LLC CLL9G CCL WOO Q QULL LLL LU. L L'-te. Q Y J . O N 3 - 7 CT CO C`Vt-1nC1 CC— C�00 CU N. r4 r-- N renen C v1 N- _ - W -t -- __ N Z Ta D D 0 C 00 C C C o 000 0 e7 C C C C C OCCC C C C C O O C C C C C C C C 0 0 0 C C 0 N N C C C C C C C C C .- 0 _N. _ u1 a'ON n C"CO CO co v1 S as in N_ C C - < — n -S �ONC-01 Nn�O ON VI a� C P'- �O-01 of G- Vf U QC N M C1 N N v1 C.1■■ v1 S V V c.1 N - N c'1 c"1 on Sc^ N C V v N-- Z C c 3 . r N h' U _ s O N N N Cr C CO C V O S N S S-. 7 N N S N N O 1 O NO C J _ Kn U L LLC LLLLU^ WLLu. WCL`< L CCC'- LLLLL L U. U.'- �; C J _T F. _ r 3 Nr n c'1 N r r u nNC n -V ON 4.-V v; r o: C C GNCnv? cNN- ON ion N n10= CCC^. . c� C—47 - U. Z .rl> - - --- -- C C — I �j _ ~ . I I C C C C C C C C C C C C CCC C CCC C 0c- C C" Gn C c^ c-vi��:^ ^C CCN v1 -� 1c t^C C c _ • _ �'' < N n N v1 N -nN- N NO CT ON C1 v1 r -CO C\ C V G V re-^ �� I `l< C"1 c"1 N P::l'1 S-- r n so V N- M -Cu S S S �. f"1 N'-- N- tii 3 IL QI iy N a ' C .O S S S SAC`ONN C O C C'-O S S ...7 NO NO VVOGLO S NO NP V I WI o N J1 a� F• YI Cr. C U. LC CL-.C< WWW 00< LL <=U. LLLLL U. L.L.U. J -' 3i ' r-^-,v1 v1- C\-n n on S a'1 co O n r V1 N e"+ r�0 0 C.4 n c^c'1 }-- C` C C 0 0 O-V�O V1 m mC 00 f"! e`1 OC . . Z `i - - - • • • . - - --N- - --- ^I O 0 0 C C C C C O 0 0 0 CD O O C C C C C O O C C C C C C C C C C C C O C C C C G O C C C C C C C C C 0 C C 5a- c v1 �O N GCc'1 r-en Nn V -ON = SOON .._e':C'C Cu C C `•'C _ -S \P CV C1-C\ 10N S V'O v1 0 O�C O C ON O.v; N CS'C 11 IC r - v1 V1 V 10 N— Cu N C1 P1 N S Cl N 0'.0 V Q N c'7 e'1 N N v1 N— Cy-- C 1 ' c S S .S S'ON N N COO O SS N S S c-INNS N so N:.V J o o ~O O O V •vi vii O O 'C H >, >, _ , 1. - I- E 33m - v (c; =: °c c = 3 E ao $ 0 u L c-- >.c= E� U o— Z 3 : 1Q °'OU F-CCC)°��,- o.LQC y�EQ UFO +UCVC U WL%C U o v c ., s Q C C 1.) C v 3 'E a 3 u Ql .n o y v-47, v 3 v O . ii „ ] n n n n 3 = c c O C C vi U U m C < 0 .1 , • 0 C c c << CCUwmC: Uwe+. LLL L <OW LU:L.L m LLL C NO 1 C C S O.n O.-V7 vl v+r- c .0 C•0 CO N N a r O.co NO U o• CO • .Or C..Ow ro.0 so ul C1 n en oC1 Cna Ch •0 CC -C CD C O C CCC C C C C O C C O C CCC C O O C C)C^CC1 N C CCC 3t}- T S C _r C. CN Sqa r C 47_ L• n lC'1 C f'1 d un is.4 N v 1 v 1.O N O.co N d N CD en un 4-4 S S f"1•O d CN N-r . N N N- - N N- • I— < S a - •O.O N N --CD O q co N S•0 NO.O b S a NO.O.O Z 4 ti L1' J < C 0 = CC<-. <000< C U C Ls-LL L <0It C-.1 U..1.L.U- < Lt.Lt.L Y J LY se• U •° r .°- °.NO.NO V3 VI .7710 'OOOOr C Nnc 'C000 C n�� F" ` r .o .o a• • • • • • . . • _ _ -NN --- Z�—� c • O c c c c o c c c o o c o o c c c C c C O O CD C C 0 0 S CC O C C 0 0 C C C C 0 0 0 C C C 0 0 0 0 0 C C C o r 0 a c V'r n c-: •O In�n a a C C •C In S r 0 VI 0 c c c 3 C N O. O.N V1`C--ON C C^O. Cr,n C C'. C C`^.C o CO O.V1 — ON-V1 U N — — UI S a C'•O V1 — NCI N—a Cl C CO•O-- 7 < N_ N f"' C SNNS N NO NO NO N C - S Lu C a J ` �" C L" U < CCCUO CWC LWW W <CU. CC<LL.L C L.U.L. C C C N C _C,..,-,.1 •••n.0 r Cl C C C••N CS iI C. C� ` C r[-: CC1Cn.0 0050 C"1 ON 05 e4 02 V1 •O VI FT.O C Ors...-.- H • r + I -I (1 `I E C I �� c c CCC^c c^c cc^ c 0 0000 c ccc_ L C c C C C C c c-6c c c c c C C C 0000 C c o G• 3'}- C N V:— V1 V1 C.'I a C n N Cl . O.T UC'! n to N N C'C Cl C=C II F- L.J `1 < n C — - vt 0 N N- N C— N-C'0 C. C.0— O a.Cn co Cn n f7 v1 �I O �;� Q I N Cl N- N C. .- •G Cn v1 c:so V1 V1 !171 Cl r-C.4 N N-r C•C N- L <I < z: N U C CC N S•0.O .0NNN a NO.O.O MCC; a S C -- - - C I C W re <i YI H 'C 0 C 0< C=ULC2< CWC WCU L <LU. 0<U.Ls- < U. U.U. D o: .- Ci vt N 0 C'1 r•OO.00 N SN C C3 V1 Cn r—•O Ov1nr — —C J r C •0 S .On—.O v1 C 3;co C\qn r NCr •DC•O C'1 v'f f+v1 C^ 1 _ N -- r1— --- 1 � 1 C C C C C d 0 0 C 0 O C C C C C C C C O C 0 0 C C 0 C C ` C C C C C C O C C C C C C C C C C C C 0000 C C C r n C C C C C I U Vt v1 N C' S Un�n - -C^.r Cn co 171 C C C C e n —.0 O. C n N C 0 C N C C S O. O.—N 3� N -� C- C AO.—O. NO VI 47 N-ClN S C^.471 NO CV CC•0 N N N— NC1-- N-- N C! C NO S N S C S NNNN N NO NO V3 C a ,1 C O I C U C t C '^ C O O O Cc -.Y_y r >' C= C O o . cc o � °0 C. co ugt; o `U c+ II co,-- o0 c N c� c o.c' o ). c • N Y G 0 C1 0O ; C I c▪ .c 37•�U F"CC_JL c.<C `-'<< c ..C;CC ZUOL C u WU L O 0 0 c o__ C O` O O O U`p.O` C�� 0 ^' n----� L------ 0 0�� . v U C J`31 V v 3 'C i7 3 V N N O C C C = us G ..r ` N N N ? N N N N © c C N o c 74 C in U U C < C .� II 11.••■ I U c c< < T�c < 0(2C L_Cw c <c.;c ccC( < l. i; - II C;_, O r V Onrrr - Nr'CC' n NN C N C .r. .n .O Vv^art Or MOCK •C Nr.O `3 CC 4. :,•1 r- V N= • . . . . • . . • • • • I• I z'J _ U CCC J S S NO S J C NO N I i c S S SS J V N •I� <1 I U SNNN N I S NO N N N C C C C V C N I -J S I I �to cC < cc(2coCJ< C C L•'CU L <CIL <<LU` < C U G . J *', N N •C N' V r V V.n CC' Cs -. r C C.4 NO KC C " " 1 •• Z l N C\C V S'C v.: N N=C N I �i S J " S.c J N N — II I{ = � <i- II . I LI C CO CC C N J S S N N N N N I I y S "+V N N N J Z I) II 1 r.fU, < <UC C.^..r�.0 U II I 1 C II 1 I; I{ I ^ — C r ■ r"'� C _ N C _ rr V •C C' C' r !" ` • Z II � I ,1 c = .L C ;I •>; > ;, > = • ..<- C ZI_N I II f•• II C: ' > � I V V NC' CV C — V y N J v NO 'C V— S II L r S �: NO I — _ I I f I I I � _�� 1 _ I I-= 1 I I C SJ S SNNS N - t!: I I ,C S J S S S V NNN C C C C`O S N } I ^U, y •I 1 < U u+ L C< C <C C C 11 U (2, I C ■ II v ' ' - r- = N p,r C-, -.S J C: Q�M O O C — C V��J�i r;.C. co CI^. 'C n co so NO V^r r x �` �` 1---• r,°• C ., c cIN I U{ ZI „ S V HOC O J :( .o J NC NO NN CCC CS y S E c: q 1c ( �- < E off' n — N N N N N •J S J 1.-U y J JJ J V N N N S J N 1 3 3 gel1 c aI c O s G I C - G 1 c r I I 19 u L.II r C � � r s 11 Cy '_' , 1 c c mac ' - cc r _° H � U �a L - c_ II f-;n > !I I `° P �- s °_' c C c c 3• c 3_ c — c■� � T: � = - - � I� - y J I1 3 C �.?•U ~ C=C L m_< ^ ^_Q < v 00CC `UC C . t 2 c:.`� jl 0 •_�— C C) 3 C )ate C ` N a�� sa� v x r u 3 .E m 3 C c m 8 c c _a i d — c r. m a c m o1 m i I+ J J>— il U c c ` I .. I C C t.m U • • Old Ranch Road would have to be widened in Alternatives A, C, and D. Under Alternative C six lanes would still be unsatisfactory. Alcosta would have to be widened from four to six lanes between Old Ranch and 1-680 under all alternatives. Under Alternative A, six lanes would still be unsatisfactory. Dougherty would have to be widened by as much as six lanes. Lawrence would have to be widened to four lanes if it is connected through to Gumpert Ranch. Freeway Improvements. The 1-680 freeway is projected to be operating at very unsatisfactory levels of service. This will cause an extension of the peak hour and diversion to local streets. Ramp metering could be implemented to maintain flow on the freeway. Such a project is not proposed at this time. If implemented, it would cause further congestion on local streets. A negative declaration is being prepared to widen I- 680 one lane in each direction between Benecia and Fremont. No funding has been allocated for this project at this time. Transit. In order for transit to have any chance in modifying the vehicle trip generating characteristics in Gumpert Ranch it would be necessary for the developer to get into the transit business. This could be done by organizing and providing a para-transit service which would include vanpools and possibly even buspools. This type of service is very appropriate for the peak period work trip. It is somewhat flexible. A van can be organized around specific work hours and employment location. Vanpools are more effective the further the place of employment is away from the home and are generally not applicable for one-way travel distances less than 10 miles. Thus they would not be appropriate for the Bishop Ranch area (4 miles) but could be considered for Pleasanton (I I miles), Walnut Creek, Oakland, San Francisco, etc. The mode split for vanpool usage could go as high as 10-15% with very aggressive marketing campaign by the developer.' This would reduce the doily trip generation rate by up to 2% and the peak hour trip generation rate by up to 10%. Generally vanpools are much more successful when organized at place of work rather than at home because of common work schedules and work locations. Thus for a para transit system to be successful at Gumpert Ranch it is absolutely essential that a good marketing program be established and maintained. This mitigation measure would improve the service levels along critical links but not enough to achieve an overall level of service 'D' or better. Other Mitigation Measures. The Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, located between Camino Ramon and Alcosta, is a vacated, north-south rail line. The corridor extends north through Walnut Creek and south through Pleasanton. Several uses have been suggested over the past several years for this corridor. Among the suggestions has been an exclusive transit corridor for buses and/or light-rail vehicles. Transit riders from the Gumpert Ranch area could use the transit service to go north to Walnut Creek and to connect with BART or south to Pleasanton. It is unlikely that the development of the transit corrider would reduce traffic on roads connecting stops with Gumpert Ranch or any other development west of the corridor as access to the transit service will likely be made by automobile as is the case with BART today. However, the transit corridor on the SP right-of-way could reduce the impacts of project traffic on north/south roadways, in particular 1-680. The County has discussed mitigations to Crow Canyon and Bollinger Canyon other than the extensive widening identified in this report. Such a mitigation would be to construct a raised T-section roadway over the median area when the roadway width required to provide a level of service 'D' is not available. The raised roadway section would be used during peak periods and would be reversible. Such a plan would be expensive but may be the only way to address the projected traffic volumes. A similar proposal has been made in Sunnyvale to bypass a congested interchange. Before such a project could be considered, a preliminary analysis should be made of the actual physical appropriateness of the proposal. That is, could the raised roadway be accommodated and in particular, how would access be made. Site Access. Access to the site is off of Dougherty, Camino Tassajara and, for Alternatives A, B, and C, Lawrence. The access off of Camino Tassajara should be designed for two lanes with turn lanes. There should be 10 lanes accessing Gumpert Ranch off of Dougherty in Alterpatives A and B. These can be on two roads, one with four lanes and one with six lanes or in three roads, two with four lanes and one with two lanes. For Alternative C and D there should be two roads with six lanes each or three roads with four lanes each. The access off of Lawrence should have four lanes in Alternatives A and B and two lanes in C as it is a minor road. Site-Specific Traffic Study. A site-specific traffic impact study should be conducted for the project that specifically looks at the peak period and intersection service levels. Internal circulation would also be examined at that time. I Meetings with Tom Dudziak, Contra Costa County Public Works, and Jim Cutler, Contra Costa Planning, February 20, 1983 and March 7, 1983. 2Caltrans trip generation rates and discussions with Torn Dudziak, Contra Costa County Public Works Department. These rates have been used in previous traffic studies for EIRs in Contra Costa County. 3Contra Costa County Public Works Department. 4Telephone conversations with Thomas Dudziak, Contra Costa County Public Works Department, March 3, 1983; Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., February 1983, Traffic Impact Analysis for Pacific Telephone Office Complex and Surrounding Areas, Final Report; and DKS Associates, September 1981, Analysis of the Holdina Capacity of Sycamore Valley. 5Discussions with AC Transit. 6Discussions with Contra Costa County Transit. 7Table "Updated Assessment of Developable Areas," October 15, 1982. 8Based on Caltrans trip generation rates and discussions with Tom Dudziak, Contra Costa County Public Works. 0 0 9A project in Maryland that is privately operated, VANGO, Inc., serves persons in the suburbs of Baltimore that live at least ten miles from downtown. The project is relatively new but Maryland planners estimated that 25% of persons working for firms with at least 200 employees and living at least nine miles from the downtown were prime candidates for the vanpool program. If 50% of the employees could fit into this category vanpool diversion of 12.5% would be experienced. Reported in Traveter Response to Transportation System Changes, U.S DOT, FHWA, 2nd edition, July 1981. • • 5. Utilities and Public Services The following analyses explore in detail the issues related to providing the variety of public services and utilities required for the Gumpert Ranch project. The site is not currently within the service boundaries or even spheres of influence of any of the agencies who would need to extend service. This raises a number of policy and jurisdictional questions and options many of which must be resolved by the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) before the project can proceed. This section of the ElR provides the data necessary to consider in this decision-making process, but a clear resolution of the difficulties that arise from conflicts between established policies and project goals is not apparent. However, it is useful at the outset to describe the clearer options in order to focus the dicussion. The documentation for the stater.lents made below is contained in•the specific subsections. The issue of water service is of major concern. The site is outside the East Bay Municipal Utility Districts' (EBMUD) ultimate boundary and policy decisions to extend,that boundary are not under consideration. The nearest other water service provider is the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), but it is limited by contract with its water purveyor (ultimately the State Water Project) to Alameda County. On-site water provision is not a viable option because of poor supplies cnd quality. Sanitary sewer service is similarly difficult to resolve. The Central Contra Costa Sanitation District considers it infeasible to serve the site with its current and planned system because of the extraordinary pumping requirements. DSRSD has tentatively indicated it could provide service, which would preclude an on-site system under Zone 7 wastewater management policies which require existing systems to be utilized wherever available. It is not DSRSD policy to split services other than water, although this has occurred in portions of its service area. If DSRSD provides sewage service it would also extend fire protection, solid waste and parks and recreation services to the project. This would displace the Tassajara Fire District, which provides a rural (volunteer) level of service and which would require major operational changes to provide an adequate level of service to the project. DSRSD annexation would also preclude the San Ramon Fire Protection District (SRFPD) from serving the site. SRFPD is already preparing to construct a new station which would have direct access to the site if Bollinger Canyon Road is extended to Dougherty Road. County Service Area R-7 could provide parks and recreation services to the site if DSRSD did not annex the site. For other services such as libraries, police protection, and schools single service providers exist. In summary, if services are extended from Contra Costa agencies, CCCSD, CSA R-7 and the San Ramon Valley Fire District would be involved. Another option would be for DSRSD to extend its services north. The third option of creating new independent districts to provide services does not appear probable at this time because of the need to hook the project into an existing sanitary sewage system. Following are discussions of specific services. a. Water Supply Setting At present there is no community water service to the project site. Several windmill pumps and small impoundments of surface water provide water seasonally for cattle n-7 • 3 operations. Two water districts service nearby communities: the East Bay Municipal Utilities Districts (EBMUD) and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). EBMUD serves customers over a 306-square-mile service area which includes most of the urbanized communities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The closest communities to the project site served by EBMUD are Danville and San Ramon, which is served within a pressure zone up to 450 feet elevation. EBMUD receives its water supply from the Mokelumne River in the Sierra Nevada. It has rights to 325 million gallons daily (mgd) and currently uses about 200 mgd. EBMUD also has a contract with the Water and Power Resource Service for a maximum of 134 mgd from the American River but does not currently have the facilities in place to receive this water. Water usage in the district exceeded the safe yield of its Mokelumne River source during the I976-77 drought and water was pumped from the Delta as part of EBMUD's American River allocation to make up the deficiency. The DSRSD is a multi-purpose community service district providing water to the City of Dublin in Alameda County. The district serves a population of 15,000 and currently has reservoir capacity of 2.75 mgd. This capacity is inadequate to serve existing needs and the district is planning to begin construction of an additional 2-4 mgd of capacity in the summer of 1983. DSRSD buys all of its water from the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, which in turn purchases water from the South Bay Aquaduct of the California State Water Project. The use of this water is currently restricted by contract to Alameda County. Zone 7 operates thse water treatment plants, Patterson and Del Valle, with combined capacity of 27 mgd. Its maximum day use is approximately 23 mgd or 85% of capacity. In back-up purposes, Zone 7 has well fields that could contribute 2 or 3 mgd. Impacts Water Requirements: Water requirements for the project are difficult to estimate in the absence of specific development plans. The project units would be of higher density than most other development in the area, but EIilMUD indicates that a conservation water consumption factor would be 500 gpd per unit. Based on this factor, the estimated maximum development of the proposed project area of 9,196 units would create an average household demand of 1,678 million gallons per year or approximately 4.6 mgd. To design a water delivery system, it is necessary to consider maximum day usage and requirements for adequate fire flow. Current EBMUD standards would set maximum day use equal to 13.8 mgd and storage requirements at double that, or 27.6 mgd. These estimates do not take into account landscaping and indoor water demand for other uses such as for schools, community facilities and shopping areas. These demands could be calculated with more detailed descriptions of proposed uses. Three options for water service have been explored in this analysis: on-site source, EBMUD service, and DSRSD service. On-Site Sources: Available water data indicate that groundwater in the area is grerally of sodium bicarbonate character, moderately good quality, but in limited supply. High • concentrations of boron have been found in some wells in the region. Due to the uncertain quality and supply of water in the area the Contra Costa- County Health Services Department declared a moratorium on new well drilling on September I, 1980; this moratorium is still in effect. U.S. Geological Survey studies in the Livermore Valley-San Ramon Valley indicate that the groundwater along Alamo Creek and its tributaries is high in disolved solids. It contains high amounts of sodium bicarbonate and calcium carbonate since these elements leach out of the maritime sediments which form the subsurface deposits at the ranch. Locally, there are high concentrations of nitrate which appear to be related to the disposal of treated wastewater. Many of the wells studied were drawing water from shallow depths (about 100 feet below the surface) and displayed wide variations in the amounts of constituent elements recorded. This wide variat'on in water quality and limited quantity indicates that groundwater is not a viable water supply option for the proposed development. EBMUD Service: EBMUD has indicated that the following planning and policy issues must be resolved regarding water service in the project area. The 2300-acre site lies outside the District's service boundary and the sphere of influence established by the LAFCO. It is also beyond the District's ultimate boundary, which historically has been its planning limits. The District is currently reviewing its policy regarding annexation and extension of service beyond present boundaries, but it has limited this review to areas with an existing alternative supply of water which does not include the project site. It should not be presumed that water service will be provided by the District until the District makes a decision regarding i`s policy which under its current process wT only occur as a result of a submittal of an application for service by the project sponsor. In addition to administrative review by the EBMUD Board of Directors, annexation would require approval of local landowners, and concurrence from the Contra Costa County LAFCO, which will review the annexation and sphere of influence proposal. If annexation were approved, the project sponsor would be required to pay an annexation fee of $600 per acre (or approximately $1.4 million total) and also to fund a preliminary study to determine the design characteristics of a system to serve the project. Pipelines would have to be extended about six miles from existing facilities in Danville. Since the entire project area is relatively undeveloped, the system which would be considered might be designed to serve development in addition to the project itself. The project sponsors would be required to pay8a major facilities charge to cover the cost of the water system allocated to the project. Service From DSRSD: Extension of the service area of the DSRSD would require an annexation procedure similar to the on- • described above for EBMUD, and with several additional complications. First, the DSRSD service area is now entirely within Alameda County, so annexation procedures would i equire approval of both Alameda and Contra Costa County LAFCOs. Moreover, since Zone 7's service area is limited by contract with the State Watv Project, state approval would be required for the extension into Contra Costa County. Second, Camp Parks is located between the DSRSD service area and the project area, so annexation would probably involve inclusion of the base within the service district also. It is possible that a County Service District (CSD) could be formed (with LAFCO approval) to provide water for the project which could then contract with DSRSD for water without requiring formal annexation. However, DSRSD recently disapproved a similar request from a service district in Alameda 8unty, and in any case, Zone 7's contract with the state would have to be renegotiated. A 2.5 to 4 mile extension of infrastructure would be necessary to connect the project to existing DSRSD facilities. Mitigation In addition to financial mitigations to constructing a water service system to the project (mentioned above and discussed further in the Fiscal Impacts Analysis, Section 1V.A.6.), the project should be designed to minimize water use by incorporating low-flow fixtures and avoid the use of heavily irrigated landscaping. EBMUD is currently developing new water conservation guidelines applicable to the project. These piidelines are not in place, but it is expected they will reduce water demand by about 10%. b. Wastewater Management Settina The project area is not currently served by a sewage collection and treatment system; individual homes operate septic tanks and leach fields. The project site is not located within the service district or sphere of influence of any sewage districts. Two sewage service districts are located within ten miles of the project site: the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) and the Dublin San Ramon Sewage District. The CCCSD serves most of the County and presently extends service east to the Biackhawk Ranch development. The CCCSD treatment plant currently has a design capacity of 35 mgd.12 An expansion project planned for completion in 1984 will increase the capacity by 10 mgd, which is roughly equivalent to the flow generated by 100,000 people. This growth is anticipated to occur throughout the district including the San Ramon Valley, but not including the area east of Dougherty Hills where the project site is located. The DSRSD serves a comparatively small area in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, includig Camp Parks. The district's Pleasanton treatment plant capacity currently is 9 mgd. A planning study is underway to increase capacity for the northern part of the district toward the project site by 4 to 7 mgd. This expansion is part of an overall study by Zone 7 to serve the entire watershed. Thus the 4 to 7 mgd expansion is projected to serve the buildout of this northern portion of the watershed. The DSRSD is part of the joint powers agreement which forms the Livermore-Amador Valley Wastewater Management Agency (LAVWMA) which constructed the wastewater export pipeline to the San Francisco Bay. Impacts Sewage flow from the project would be approximately 4.1 mgd. This is consistent with DSRSD standards of 90% of water usage per dwelling unit and CCCSD standards of 150 gallons per person per day. It is the current policy of CCCSD that it is not feasible for it to provide sewage service to the project site. ') The site lies outside the district's ultimate boundary and its sphere of influence. The planning for increased treatment capacity did not include the site and therefore service to Gumpert would likely diszslace planned service to developing areas within the district. Finally, CCCSD would be required to serve the site with force mains (since gravity flow from the site is in the direction of Alameda County) and this would be prohibitively expensive. The project site is adjacent to the DSRSD service boundary at Camp Parks and the district anticipates having capacity to serve the site at the completion of its current expansion 7r6oject which is intended to serve the buildout of the northern portion tf the watershed. In order to annex to the DSRSD, the project sponsor would have to pay a fee of $1,860 per dwelling 'unit (or $17.1 million) and participate in the formation of an assessment district to fund the construction of the system extension. As long as service is available from an existing district such as DSRSD, Zone 7 wastewater regulations will not permit on-site treatment. The project sponsor has proposed an on-site treatment facility but this was contemplated at a time when DMSD service appeared unlikely because of capacity restraints. Mitigation If the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District does not serve the project, then procedures would need to be initiated to annex the project site to the DSRSD. If, as a result of its capacity studies, DSRSD is unable to provide se^iice to the site, an on-site treatment plan would need to be irr plemented. This plan should incorporate all applicable requirements and regulations of the regional water quality board. The Zone 7 Wastewater Mar, cement Plan (WIMP) indicated that:" Land application will be considered acceptable oni) after a feasibility study by Zone 7, or another entity, finds export not feasible. However, wastewater treatment (which may include demineralization) with land application may be permitted if one of the following conditions is met . . . including that the application point is in the fringe sub-basin or upland or highland area, and it can be shown that the project, because of its size and location, together with other possible projects in the area, will not cause adverse water quality effects either locally or in the Central Basin or Niles Cone area. The site specific study will have to demonstrate that the percolate cannot reasonably be expected over time to move, either directly or indirectly, into the Central Basin or Niles Cone and degrade or pollute the ground water. All other State and Federal standards must be met." The above policies allow some degradation oniy when be1rficial reuse of wastewater is proposed, as permitted in the state nondegradation policy. The primary concerns on this site would involve saturation of steep slopes causing landslides and saturation of flat areas due to a perched water table. c. Solid Waste Management Setting At present there is no refuse disposal collection service in the project area. The closest provider of this service is Dublin San Ramon Community Service District, which serves mainly commercial businesses in Dublin. Actual collection is done by the Oakland • County Service Area R-7. This CSA provides parks and recreation services and under its current standards the project would generate the need for 110 acres of parks. The County requires developers to pay a park dedication-in-lieu fee of $300 or dedicate 500 square feet of park land per dwelling unit. At the discretion of the CSA, the developer may comply with either approach or a combination of the two. If the project sponsor pays $300 per unit the total fee would be $2,758,800. At $5,000 per acre the parkland could cost $550,000, which would leave about $2.2 million for construction of facilities. The CSA recently completed construction of a 35-acre park including playing fields and tennis courts at a cost of over $1.5 million. It would appear that the fee paid by the project sponsor would be just adequate to provide the required facilities. The annual property taxes generated for the CSA at full build-out wo9ll be about $60,300. The operating costs for the park are anticipated to be about $559,000, so it seems likely that the level of maintenance and other service to the parks developed for the project would need to be much less than the CSA provides for its existing facilities:'-'The disparity is not quite as large as these number indicate, however, since other residents of the area would use the park and the CSA would have other user revenues to offset a portion but substantially less than the total costs. Tassajara Fire District. This district currently operates on a $43,000 budget and provides all volunteer fire protection service for the project site and the surrounding area. If the district is to provide service to the project when it is built then the Fire Chief has indicated that a paid fire fighting fp ce would need to be hired and substantial outlays for equipment would have to be made. " Nine men would be required at an annual salary cost of $340,000, with equipment and facilities expenditures of about $500,000 if the multi- family units require more sophisticated equipment. The property tax allocation to the district would permit the phasing in of the full crew by the fifth year of project development ten years prior to full build out when the full use of this fire fighting force would be required. Sen Ramon Valley Fire District. County policy stipulates that when developments occur contiguous to urban fire districts, then those developments should be annexed to these districts rather than obtain rural level service from Tassajara Fire district. Although Gumpert Ranch is not contiguous, if the Shappell Nest Branch Project is annexed to the San Ramon Valley Fire District, then it should be in a position to provide service to Gumpert. The personnel and capital costs would be similar to those described for the Tassajara fire district. The district receives an allocation of approximately 8.6% of the 1% property tax in other areas it serves. At this rate, the first year revenues would be $27,300 and the project would return sufficient revenue to fund the full crew after the seventh year. Dublin San Ramon Services District. The DSRSD could provide fire protection, parks and recreation, and sanitary sewer services. The district has not developed specific estimates of the costs of these services to the Gumpert Ranch project, but it has a number of policies regarding the responsibilities of developers requesting annexation. For sewer annexations developers are required to pay a fee of $1,860 per dwelling unit equivalent, which in the case of this project would amount to approximately $17.1 million. Additionally, the district's chief engineer has indicated that an assessment distri4 would need to be formed to pay for the capital cost of extending the sewer mains. User charges are levied to offset operational costs. Since the site could be served by gravity flow, these costs are not anticipated to be extraordinary. r The fire district requires a $550 per dwelling unit fee for annexation, or more than $5 million from the Gumpert Ranch project sponsor. The developer is also required to pay for all facilities and equipment (though not necessarily land costs for a station) . For instance, it is likely that an additional fire station would be required to serve the project area and the project sponsor would be required to defray at least some allocated portion of the cost of that facility. If DSRSD extended fire service to the site, it would replace the Tassajara Fire District and would receive its entire property tax allocation (described above). These revenues appeared adequate for the Tassajara district and the DSRSD fire chief expressed confidence gat a project of this size would generate sufficient revenues to permit adequate service. The DSRSD would receive an additional I% allocation of the property tax as an anr,axing jurisdiction. This is about'20% less than the allocation that CSA R-7 receive. As discussed above it is clear that this amount would not be adequate to oprate parks of sufficient size and development. It is likely that DSRSD would seek to negtiate a larger share of the tax increment for this purpose. would, San Ramon Valley School District. The school district has projected that by the mid !980s when this project would start to be occupied all of its existing schools in the area will Z� at capacity and additional schools will need to be constructed to serve the project. - Based on state standards for adequate space for pupils, it is estimated that three elementary schools, one intermediate school, and one high school will be require. The total costs of these schools, including land purchase, would be about $12.4 million. The project would generate about $2.8 million in annual property tax for the school system at full build-out, but these funds would be funneled into the operating budget of the district which is subsidized by the state. The state guarantees a specific funding level for each student, termed ADA funding, and individual districts cannot spend ab :ve this amount. If additional property tax revenues are generated within the district they simply offset the state's contribution to the ADA. The property tax increment is not available for capital improvements. The central issue is funding for construction of the school facilities and land dedications for school sites. Thei''.j'strict has two basic sources for such funds: developer impact fees and state assistance. By ordinance developers are required to pay a fee of $400 per bedroom per unit above one bedroom, with a maximum fee of $1200. For example, no fee is paid on one bedroom units. A fee of $400 would be paid on two bedroom units and so forth up to a maximum four bedroom unit requiring a fee of $1200. The distribution of units by number of bedrooms has not been specified for the Gumpert Ranch project, but since they are to be relatively high density units it may be assumed that there will be few four bedroom units and that the one bedrooms will approximately equal the three bedrooms. In this situation a reasonable estimate of the fee would be $400 times the total number of units for a total of about $75 7 million. But these funds may only be used for the purchase of portable classrooms and do not address long-term facility needs. In any case, this amount is clearly short of the total $12.4 million required. The district could apply to the state for funding assistance and will likely do so. But this funding is often not available in a timely manner or in sufficient amounts to accomplish sizeable projects such as the number of schools contemplated here. For other large projects the school district has required a fee above those specified by ordinance. This was done for example in the case of the Sycamore Valley General Plan Amendment. It is likely, therefore, that the district will seek additional funds from the project sponsor to cover any shortfall that exists in the capital funding requirements. • VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the no-project alternative the proposed General Plan Amendment would not occur and the present agricultural designation and use of the site would continue for the near future. A notice of non-renewal of the Williamson Act Contract has been 'filed. Without contract renewal, the present agricultural preserve status will expire in 1992, (see Section 1V.A.4.) and, at that time, a new General Plan Amendment would likely be considered. Thus, this alternative would prevent the proposed project, but it would not preclude application for other uses of the site subsequent to the expiration of the Williamson Act contract. In the absence of the proposed General Plan Amendment and subsequent development, the current natural processes on the site would continue. The proposed project's impacts, described in Section IV., would not occur. Without the General Plan Amendment the site could not be used to meet potential housing needs in the San Ramon Valley resulting from employment opportunities in the Tci-Valley _ area. Other developments and General Plan amendments would need to be considered in order to meet the housing needs. This alternative would not represent a financially feasible use of the site for the project sponsor. B. SLOPE/DENSITY ALTERNATIVE An alternative which adheres to the Contra Costa County Slope and Hillside Development Ordinances would result in densities lower than those being proposed for the site. The range of densities specified in the ordinance depend on both the percent slope and the type of residential zoning designation of the land. Since the Gumpert Ranch site has no residential zoning designation, one must be arbitrarily assumed for purposes of this alternative. The following analysis is based on an R-6 zoning designation of the site. This is the highest density allowed by the or finance and would come closest to that proposed by the project sponsor. Applying the slope/density ordinance to the Gumpert Ranch site (based on an R-6 Zoning District), densities: for the Transit Related Village Core would be 7.3 units/acre in the southern portion and I to 2.9 units/acre in the northern portion. In the Northern Loop Area, densities would generally range from I to 2.9 units/acre, with the exception of two neighborhoods which could be 7.3 units/acre. The Southern Loop area would be fairly evenly divided between the ranges of 1-2.9 units/acre and 2.9-7.3 units per acre. The number of units that could be developed, based on these density ranges. are shown on Table 25 in the column labeled "R-6." ,G^ TABLE 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ACCORDING TO THE SLOPE DENSITY ALTERNATIVE Number of Residential Units (minimum/maximum) Residential Area • R-6 R-10 R-20 Village Core 611/713 390/492 - 206/266 North Loop Area 444/894 362/812 228/464 South Loop Area 737/1987 757/1436 467/768 TOTALS 1812/3594 1509/2740 901/1492 The low densities specified by the ordinance would reduce the possible number of units on the site to 30 or 40 percent of the proposed project. These densities are based on single family dwellings and represent an effort by the County to reduce development in hazardous areas. Limiting development to single family units does not take into account that grading for multiple units could be efficiently accomplished if the units were clustered to take advantage of stable ground. This alternative would reduce the residential density, and would reduce, but not eliminate, traffic impacts described for the proposed project. Presumably, larger single family detached houses or clustered units would be developed in place of the high density units proposed for the project. The larger units would have higher values, so property tax revenues, and to some extent sales tax revenues, would not decrease in as large a proportion as the density decrease. Similarly, many service costs such as police patrols, and water and sewer lines, would not necessarily decrease proportionately since the roads serving the single family development would be longer per unit. Service demands for libraries and parks would decrease significantly. For comparative purposes, Table 25 includes calculations for the number of units that would be allowed if lower density zoning designations of the ordinance were enforced on the Gumpert Ranch site. C. CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would differ from the proposed general plan amendment, and subsequent site development, primarily in the amount of commercial land use that would be designated and the acreage and density of residential uses. This more self sufficient alternative would feature a cluster type of development with the highest residential . ` • densities in the village core (II to 15 units/acre). The northern and southern loop areas would contain Tower--density residential development clustered in the most stable areas, avoiding steep slopes and ridge tops (8 to II units/acre). Densities would be relatively high in these well engineered areas but property protection and human safety would also be higher since the liklihood of slope failure would be reduced or eliminated. While the lay out for this alternative would differ from the proposed Alternate Use Plan, it could be accomplished within the range of proposed dwelling units on the site. Therefore, the community service and fiscal impacts of the residential development would not differ significantly from the proposed project. The amount of commerical area under this alternative could increase, from the currently proposed three acres,, to ten acres. Given the remoteness of the site, the potential population of approximately 27,600 would probably support a large neighborhood center of 100,000 square feet. This would increase property tax revenues and would help reduce the drain of tax dollars to Alameda County. The larger commercial development would, however,_increase the need for services, particularly fire, police, water and sewage. The site's ground water quantity and quality is not sufficient to supply the development and hook-up would be required with either the East Bay Municipal Utility District or the Dublin San Ramon Services Districts as for the proposed project. A more self sufficient project could greatly reduce the traffic impacts of the project. Many trips would become internal (as much as 20-30%). Most trips for the proposed project were assumed external to the site because there was so little commercial planned. This alternative would improve the operation conditions of the critical roadways but would not improve them enough to eliminate all problem areas. D. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A DIFFERENT LOCATION Alternative locations for the proposed general plan amendment could include other sites in the San Ramon Valley for which general plan amendments have been approved or are presently being considered. Potential sites in the vicinity of 1-680 include the North Dougherty Hills area, for which a general plan amendment was approved, and the West Branch site, currently under review. North of these sites, the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan designates zoning and design standards for a 2,500 acre area along Camino Tassajara. These other locations would be preferable to the proposed project in terms of infra- structure requirements. Since these sites are more accessible to existing infrastructure than Gumpert Ranch, they could accommodate more affordable housing which the County needs. If the other sites are to be considered as alternatives to the Gumpert Ranch proposal then consideration should be given to increasini their densities wherever feasible. Higher densities would best serve the County's housing needs by providing more affordable housing, and preserving agricultural lands by making more efficient use of developable lands. I Daon Corporation, Alamo Creek Planning Program, Constraint Analysis, San Francisco, California, July 1981, page 10. 2J. Ross McKeever, Shopping Center Zoning, ULI Technical Bulletin 69. Urban Land Institute, Washington, 1973, page 10. ,r„