BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT - Moraga Projects/BollingerValley... · BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH NUMBER 2006112061 Town of Moraga Planning Department

BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT

Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH NUMBER 2006112061

Town of Moraga Planning Department 329 Rheem Blvd, Suite 2

Moraga, CA 94556

February 22, 2013

prepared by Hauge Brueck Associates

2233 Watt Avenue, Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95825

in association with

Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants

B O L L I N G E R V A L L E Y P R O J E C T D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

2/19/13 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TOC-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the EIR ............................................................................................. 1-3 1.2 Tiering from the Moraga General Plan EIR ........................................................ 1-3 1.3 Public Involvement Process ............................................................................... 1-3 1.4 EIR Scope .......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 EIR Review Process .......................................................................................... 1-6 1.6 Agencies and Approvals .................................................................................... 1-7 1.7 EIR Organization .............................................................................................. 1-10

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Location ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 2-4 2.3 Project Applicant ................................................................................................ 2-5 2.4 Project Description ............................................................................................. 2-5 2.5 Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 2-14

3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

3.1 Project Description Summary ............................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Impact and Mitigation Summary ........................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Areas of Controversy or Expressed Concern .................................................. 3-16 3.4 Alternatives Summary ...................................................................................... 3-16

4.A AESTHETICS

4.A-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.A-1 4.A-2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.A-6 4.A-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................... 4.A-8 4.A-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.A-35 4.A-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.A-36

4.B AIR QUALITY AND GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.B-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.B-1 4.B-2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.B-8 4.B-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.B-15 4.B-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.B-33 4.B-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.B-34

4.C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.C-1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4.C-1 4.C-2 Regulatory Environment ............................................................................... 4.C-27 4.C-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.C-33 4.C-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.C-51 4.C-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.C-52


PAGE TOC-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2/19/13

4.D CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.D-1 Cultural Resources Setting ............................................................................. 4.D-1 4.D-2 Cultural Resources Inventory .......................................................................... 4.D-3 4.D-3 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.D-6 4.D-4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................... 4.D-9 4.D-5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.D-15 4.D-6 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.D-15

4.E GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY

4.E-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.E-1 4.E-2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................ 4.E-14 4.E-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.E-17 4.E-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.E-34 4.E-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.E-34

4.F HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.F-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.F-1 4.F-2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.F-5 4.F-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.F-11 4.F-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.F-31 4.F-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.F-31

4.G LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

4.G-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.G-1 4.G-2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.G-4 4.G-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................... 4.G-5 4.G-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.G-27 4.G-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.G-28

4.H NOISE

4.H-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.H-1 4.H-2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.H-5 4.H-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.H-10 4.H-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.H-16 4.H-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.H-17

4.I POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT

4.I-1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.I-1 4.I-2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.I-3 4.I-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 4.I-3 4.I-4 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 4.I-8 4.I-5 Preparers ......................................................................................................... 4.I-9



4.J PUBLIC SERVICES 4.J-1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 4.J-1 4.J-2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................... 4.J-4 4.J-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 4.J-6 4.J-4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 4.J-23 4.J-5 Preparers ....................................................................................................... 4.J-24

4.K SCHOOLS

4.K-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.K-1 4.K-2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 4.K-2 4.K-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................... 4.K-3 4.K-4 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4.K-8 4.K-5 Preparers ........................................................................................................ 4.K-9

4.L TRANSPORTATION

4.L-1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 4.L-1 4.L-2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................ 4.L-23 4.L-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 4.L-33 4.L-4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 4.L-60 4.L-5 Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4.L-81

4.M UTILITIES AND HAZARDS

4.M-1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................... 4.M-1 4.M-2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................... 4.M-6 4.M-3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 4.M-8 4.M-4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.M-23 4.M-5 Preparers ..................................................................................................... 4.M-24

5 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS

5.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects ................................................. 5-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................ 5-3 5.3 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5-3 5.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ............................................. 5-3 5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................. 5-4 5.6 Alternatives Considered and Rejected ............................................................... 5-5

6 PREPARERS AND REFERENCES

6.1 Preparers of the EIR .......................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 References Cited in the EIR .............................................................................. 6-1



FIGURES Figure 1-1 Regional Locator Map of Project Area in Town of Moraga, Contra Costa County, CA .................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 2-1a Regional Overview Map Showing Location of Bollinger Valley within the Town of Moraga ........................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-1b Project Location Map ......................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Existing and proposed Amendments to General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning in the Bollinger Valley Project Area ................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-3 CDC Plan for the Bollinger Valley Project Showing Proposed Single-family Residential Lots, Grading, and Detention Basins .............................................. 2-8 Figure 2-4 Proposed Project Improvements to Valley Hill Drive from Bollinger Canyon Road to the Development Area .......................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-5 Conceptual Site Plan for Alternative 2 (8 units) ............................................... 2-18 Figure 2-6 Conceptual Site Plan Illustrating the Potential Buildout of Alternative 3 (37 units) .......................................................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-7 Conceptual Site Plan for Alternative 4 (Clustered Housing Alternative) (100 units) ........................................................................................................ 2-24 Figure 2-8 Valley Hill Drive Improvements under Alternative 4 (100 units) ....................... 2-25 Figure 2-9 Conceptual Site Plan for Alternative 5 (121 units) ........................................... 2-27 Figure 2-10 Conceptual Grading Plan for Alternative 5 (121 units) ..................................... 2-28 Figure 2-11 Alternative 5 (121 units) Conceptual Emergency Vehicle Routes, including the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) .............................................. 2-29 Figure 4.A-1 Photographs of Bollinger Valley Project Area and Vicinity .............................. 4.A-2 Figure 4.A-2 Photographs from the Interior of Bollinger Valley ........................................... 4.A-3 Figure 4.A-3 Existing Aerial Photograph .............................................................................. 4.A-4 Figure 4.A-4 Scenic Corridors, Major Ridgelines, and Other Visual Resources in Moraga . 4.A-5 Figure 4.C-1 Vegetation types in Bollinger Valley ................................................................ 4.C-3 Figure 4.E-1 Regional Geology Map ................................................................................... 4.E-2 Figure 4.E-2 Site Plan and Geologic Map for the Project (126 lots) .................................... 4.E-7 Figure 4.E-3 Regional Fault Map ....................................................................................... 4.E-12 Figure 4.F-1 Existing Streams, Ponds, and Wetlands in Bollinger Valley ........................... 4.F-3 Figure 4.L-1 Study Area and Study Intersection Locations ................................................. 4.L-5 Figure 4.L-2 Study Area and Study Intersection Locations ................................................. 4.L-6 TABLES Table 2-1 Project-Related Mass Grading Quantities and Acres ...................................... 2-10 Table 2-2 Project and Alternatives Summary ................................................................... 2-31 Table 3-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................. 3-2 Table 4.A-1 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................ 4.A-8 Table 4.A-2 Aesthetics, Open Space, Visual Resources, Impacts ..................................... 4.A-8 Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics .. 4.A-10 Table 4.A-4 Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to

Aesthetics ..................................................................................................... 4.A-17 Table 4.B-1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and SFBAAB Attainment Status ............................................................................................ 4.B-2 Table 4.B-2 California 2004 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory .................................. 4.B-5 Table 4.B-3 Air Pollutant Monitoring Data .......................................................................... 4.B-8 Table 4.B-4 BAAQMD Project-Level CEQA Thresholds of Significance .......................... 4.B-10 Table 4.B-5 Greenhouse Gas Regulations Summary ...................................................... 4.B-11 Table 4.B-6 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance .............................................. 4.B-13



Table 4.B-7 Air Quality Impacts – All Alternatives ............................................................ 4.B-15 Table 4.B-8 Exhaust Emissions Associated with Project and Alternatives ....................... 4.B-18 Table 4.B-9 Evaluation of Consistency with 2002 General Plan Policies Applicable to Air Quality and GHGs ................................................................................... 4.B-22 Table 4.B-10 Clean Air Plan Implementation: General Plan Transportation Control Measures ...................................................................................................... 4.B-24 Table 4.C-1 Existing Vegetation in the Project Area ........................................................... 4.C-2 Table 4.C-2 Special Status Plants Potentially Affected by the Project ............................... 4.C-8 Table 4.C-3 Special Status Wildlife Potentially Affected by the Project ............................ 4.C-18 Table 4.C-4 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance .............................................. 4.C-32 Table 4.C-5 Biological Resource Impacts – Project and Alternatives ............................... 4.C-33 Table 4.C-6 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to Biological

Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.C-48 Table 4.D-1 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................ 4.D-8 Table 4.D-2 Cultural Resources Impacts ............................................................................ 4.D-9 Table 4.D-3 Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.D-10 Table 4.E-1 Summary of Project Area Soil Types .............................................................. 4.E-4 Table 4.E-2 Historic Earthquakes Above than Magnitude 5.0 within 25 miles of Bollinger

Valley ............................................................................................................ 4.E-10 Table 4.E-3 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale ................................................................... 4.E-11 Table 4.E-4 Summary of Faults within 100 km of Project Area ........................................ 4.E-14 Table 4.E-5 Impact Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance .................................. 4.E-16 Table 4.E-6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts – Project and Alternatives .............. 4.E-18 Table 4.E-7 Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to Soils and Geology .... 4.E-24 Table 4.F-1 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................ 4.F-9 Table 4.F-2 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance – Surface Water Quality ....... 4.F-10 Table 4.F-3 Hydrology, Surface Water Quality and Groundwater Impacts ....................... 4F-11 Table 4.F-4 Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to Hydrology and Water

Quality ........................................................................................................... 4.F-13 Table 4.G-1 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................ 4.G-4 Table 4.G-2 Land Use and Agricultural Resources Impacts ............................................... 4.G-5 Table 4.G-3 Evaluation of Project Consistency with Moraga General Plan Policies Applicable to Land Use and Planning ........................................................... 4.G-16 Table 4.G-4 Evaluation of Project Consistency with Lafayette General Plan Policies ...... 4.G-22 Table 4.G-5 Cumulative Development Projects ................................................................ 4.G-27 Table 4.H-1 Typical Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 4.H-3 Table 4.H-2 Existing Baseline Traffic Noise Levels in Moraga ........................................... 4.H-4 Table 4.H-3 Existing Ambient Noise Monitoring Results (June 2-3, 2008) ......................... 4.H-5 Table 4.H-4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ......................... 4.H-6 Table 4.H-5 Subjective Reaction to Changes in Noise Levels of Similar Sources ............. 4.H-7 Table 4.H-6 Effects of Various Vibration Levels on People and Buildings ......................... 4.H-8 Table 4.H-7 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................ 4.H-8 Table 4.H-8 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................ 4.H-10 Table 4.H-9 Noise Impacts ............................................................................................... 4.H-10 Table 4.H-10 Project Consistency with 2002 General Plan Policies Applicable Noise ....... 4.H-13 Table 4.H-11 Comparison of Bollinger Canyon Road Traffic Noise Levels ........................ 4.H-15 Table 4.I-1 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................. 4.I-3 Table 4.I-2 Population and Housing Impacts ..................................................................... 4.I-3 Table 4.I-3 Evaluation of Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to

Population and Housing ................................................................................... 4.I-6



Table 4.J-1 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................. 4.J-5 Table 4.J-2 Public Services Impacts ................................................................................... 4.J-6 Table 4.J-3 Evaluation of Project Consistency with General Plan Polices Applicable to Public Services ................................................................................................ 4.J-9 Table 4.K-1 2010-2011 School Capacity, Enrollment, and Residual Capacity ................... 4.K-2 Table 4.K-2 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ................................................ 4.K-3 Table 4.K-3 School Impacts ............................................................................................... 4.K-3 Table 4.K-4 School Enrollment Projection and Impact Fees .............................................. 4.K-5 Table 4.K-5 Evaluation of Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to

Schools ........................................................................................................... 4.K-7 Table 4.K-6 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Public Schools ............................................. 4.K-8 Table 4.L-1 Baseline Intersection Level of Service (AM and PM Peak Hours) .................. 4.L-7 Table 4.L-2 Baseline Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrants (AM and PM Peak Hours) .................................................................................................. 4.L-11 Table 4.L-3 Volumes and Delay Indices – Routes of Regional Significance ................... 4.L-16 Table 4.L-4 Approved Scenario Development Projects ................................................... 4.L-17 Table 4.L-5 Cumulative Scenario Development Projects ................................................. 4.L-18 Table 4.L-6 Bollinger Valley Vehicle Trip Generation Rates ............................................ 4.L-22 Table 4.L-7 Bollinger Valley (126 units) Vehicle Trip Generation .................................... 4.L-23 Table 4.L-8 Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to Transportation, Circulation, and Parking ................................................................................ 4.L-24 Table 4.L-9 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Standards ...................................... 4.L-28 Table 4.L-10 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Standards .................................. 4.L-28 Table 4.L-11 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance .............................................. 4.L-30 Table 4.L-12 Traffic Volume Contributions by Study Intersection (AM and PM Peak Hours) .................................................................................................. 4.L-33 Table 4.L-13 Intersection LOS (AM and PM Peak Hours) ................................................. 4.L-36 Table 4.L-14 Transportation, Circulation, and Parking Impacts ......................................... 4.L-39 Table 4.L-15 Approved Development Scenario Baseline Intersection LOS (AM and PM Peak Hours) ............................................................................. 4.L-75 Table 4.L-16 Cumulative Development Scenario Baseline Intersection LOS (AM and PM Peak Hours) ............................................................................. 4.L-78 Table 4.M-1 EBMUD Demand and Supply Projections ...................................................... 4.M-3 Table 4.M-2 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance ............................................... 4.M-7 Table 4.M-3 Public Utilities and Hazardous Materials Impacts .......................................... 4.M-9 Table 4.M-4 Evaluation of Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Applicable to Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... 4.M-17 Table 5-1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts by Alternative .......................................... 5-1 Table 5-2 Comparison of Potential Impacts (Project and Alternatives) .............................. 5-6 APPENDICES Appendix A Revised Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the

Proposed 126-Unit 186-Acre Bollinger Valley General Plan Study Appendix B Bollinger Valley General Plan Study EIR Scoping Summary Report


2 / 1 8 / 1 3 I N T R O D U C T I O N P A G E 1 - 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Bollinger Valley Project (Project) proposes to establish land use designations and zoning on two parcels covering 186.33 acres in Bollinger Valley in the eastern portion of the Town of Moraga, Contra Costa County, California. The City of Lafayette borders the Project Area to the north, and unincorporated Contra Costa County is located adjacent to the Project Area to the east. In Moraga, residential areas and St. Mary’s College are located to the west and south. A general location map of the Project Area and surrounding vicinity is shown in Figure 1-1.

The Project Area currently has a “Study” land use designation in the Moraga 2002 General Plan. The Project would amend the General Plan land use designation on 92 acres from Study to Residential – 2 Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) (R2), and adopt zoning as Single Family Residential Planned Development with Density Transfer (2-PD-DT). The land use designation and zoning amendments would provide entitlements for up to 126 detached single-family homes with lot sizes ranging from 15,000 - 40,000 square feet (sf). On the remaining 94.33 acres in Bollinger Valley, the Project would amend the General Plan land use designation from Study to non-Moraga Open Space Ordinance (MOSO) Open Space (N-OS), and the zoning would be Open Space Planned Development with Density Transfer zoning (OS-PD-DT).

Moraga is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency, and the Town Council is the decision-making body for amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the Project. This Bollinger Valley Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considers information and analysis regarding the potential environmental effects of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Town Council will make a decision on whether to amend the General Plan land use designations and zoning in the Project Area based on information and analysis in the EIR, and on oral and written comments received from the public and other local governments and regulatory agencies.

Residential development projects on sites more than 10 acres in size in Moraga undergo a three-step review process, which require an applicant to submit a Conceptual Development and Conservation Plan (CDP), followed by a General Development Plan (GDP) and finally a Precise Development Plan (PDP). In the first step, the Project Applicant submits a CDP for Town review. The Study land use designation in the Moraga 2002 General Plan also requires the Bollinger Valley landowners to complete a General Plan Study – including a CDP, General Plan consistency analysis and opportunity and constraints analysis – for the Town’s consideration prior to adopting permanent land use designation and zoning. The Project Applicant completed a General Plan Study in 2003 (The Planning Team 2003). Based on information received from the public and Town officials during the first EIR Scoping Process, the Project Applicant submitted a “Mitigated Project Alternative” designed to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts associated with the Project (Loewke 2007). After additional discussions with residents in the Project vicinity, the Project Applicant submitted the Open Space and Clustered Housing Alternative in 2010 (Loewke 2010b). The 2010 “Open Space and Clustered Housing Alternative” and 2007 “Mitigated Project Alternative” are evaluated in this EIR as Alternatives 4 and 5.

After the Town accepts the Project Application materials, the Town conducts an environmental review of the Project and a reasonable range of alternatives that would substantially meet the Project objectives. This EIR serves as the environmental review under CEQA for the Project. The CDP is not a detailed description of the Project, but instead serves as an illustration of a feasible and reasonable development that meets Project objectives. The CDP is used, therefore, to assess potential environmental effects of the Project. The first step in the three-step planned development process concludes when the Town Council certifies the adequacy of the EIR and, based on the information and analysis in the project record, makes a


P A G E 1 - 2 I N T R O D U C T I O N 2 / 1 8 / 1 3

determination on whether to approve the Project or an alternative, and makes findings on the potential effects of the selected project (or alternative) and mitigation measures to adopt.

The second step in the development process involves the Project Applicant submitting a General Development Plan (GDP) with increased Project details. The third step involves the Project Applicant submitting a Precise Development Plan (PDP) consistent with the EIR findings and the Project or alternative selected by the Town Council. The PDP may include a detailed grading plan and supporting information as needed such as design guidelines, photosimulations, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map application.

Figure 1-1. Regional locator map of Project Area in the Town of Moraga, Contra Costa County, CA.



1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR

Moraga has prepared this EIR pursuant to CEQA. The purpose of an EIR is to describe significant environmental effects of the Project and identify appropriate mitigation measures and feasible Project alternatives consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 that avoid or reduce significant impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21002.1(a)). Environmental effects that must be addressed include significant, growth-inducing, and cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects. Public agencies are required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment of projects they approve or carry out or identify and adopt statements of overriding considerations based on findings of public necessity.

1.2 TIERING FROM THE MORAGA GENERAL PLAN EIR

This EIR tiers from the Town of Moraga General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] Number 2000032129), incorporated into this EIR by reference. The General Plan EIR is available for review during normal business hours at:

• Town of Moraga Planning Department, 329 Rheem Boulevard, Moraga, CA 94556; and

• The Moraga Library, 1500 St. Mary’s Road, Moraga, CA 94556.

The Moraga Town Council certified the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update and adopted the General Plan by Resolution 21-2002 on June 4, 2002. The General Plan EIR identified significant impacts resulting from growth accommodated in the General Plan regarding land use conflicts, bicycle and parking facilities, biological resources and habitat disturbance, geological hazards, cultural resources, and public services. Mitigation measures included in the General Plan EIR (Moraga 2000, 2001, 2002) reduce these impacts to less than significant. General Plan buildout, however, would cause significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation, including impacts to State Route (SR) 24 at the Caldecott Tunnel and roadway intersections in Lafayette and Orinda (Moraga 2000, 2001).

1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

Two Notices of Preparation (NOPs) of an EIR were prepared and circulated for the Bollinger Valley General Plan Study. The first NOP was issued on November 9, 2006, and the Town received comments through December 11, 2006. The Town held a public scoping meeting on November 20, 2006 to hear oral comments. Oral and written comments were recorded and considered during the preparation of the EIR.

The second NOP was issued to address public comments to provide more information on Project components and potential environmental effects. The second public scoping period was February 6, 2007 – March 19, 2007, and the Town heard oral comments at a second public scoping meeting on March 19, 2007.

The Town received 42 scoping comment letters from individuals, groups, and agencies in additional to oral comments. Scoping comments are summarized below by subject area and specific issues.

1.3.1 Summary of Scoping Comments Received

Aesthetics. Homes may be built on or near a ridgeline that is visible from designated Scenic Corridors in Moraga and the City of Lafayette. The EIR should include a visual simulation analysis of the potential impacts of new houses on the visual character of the area.



Air Quality. The EIR should evaluate potential air quality impacts, including fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust during construction, and vehicle exhaust associated with increased traffic along Bollinger Canyon Road.

Biological Resources. The Project may impact wildlife species and habitats. The Project has the potential to affect special-status species, including the Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog, both federally-listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The EIR should evaluate if the Project will be a barrier to wildlife movement to Las Trampas Regional Wilderness, and if increased traffic would affect the movement of California newt, ensatina, and Pacific tree frogs. Rare plant species have been observed in the Project Area, and the EIR should include an analysis of impacts to rare plant species.

Cultural Resources. The Project may have impacts on cultural, historic, and Native American (Saklan Indians) resources. Paleontological resources along Bollinger Canyon Road (visible fossils) should be evaluated.

Geology and Soils. The Project contains steep slopes that are susceptible to surface and deep landslides. A geologist should evaluate potential risks associated with landslides and soil erosion in the Project Area, and the potential for construction trucks to damage Bollinger Canyon Road and cause rock and mudslides. The EIR should consider the potential fiscal constraints of long-term hillside maintenance.

Hydrology and Water Quality. Drainage from new development and roadways have potential to adversely affect the capacity and water quality in Las Trampas Creek due to increased stormwater runoff, siltation, and contaminants. The EIR should evaluate the existing and with-Project runoff rates and evaluate if runoff would cause siltation and damage wetlands, streams, and riparian areas. The EIR should include calculations for sizing, routing, and sites of water quality basins and associated infrastructure. The EIR should discuss funding sources required for the maintenance of the drainage system. The EIR should analyze how the Project would comply with NPDES requirements under the town of Moraga’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinances.

Land Use. The EIR should analyze if development is consistent with the Moraga 2002 General Plan and the 1984 Hunsaker/Bollinger Goals and Policies Statement. The development should be subject to the Moraga Open Space Ordinance (MOSO) as the Project Area exhibits many of the characteristics that would be subject to MOSO. The EIR should evaluate if the residential densities in the Project Area are consistent with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The EIR should address potential impacts to the use of Las Trampas Regional Wilderness, and describe how open space in the Project Area will be managed. The EIR should address potential land use conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands and include a productivity analysis.

Noise. The EIR should include an analysis on the noise impacts due to Project construction and increased traffic levels along the access roadway to adjacent residential areas. Mitigation measures should be included to decrease or alleviate these impacts.

Population and Housing. The EIR should evaluate Project impacts on Moraga’s ability to meet fair share affordable housing targets in the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Public Services. The EIR should evaluate the impacts to emergency police, fire, and medical response and evacuation plans as they relate to increased population and traffic. The Project ingress and egress does not meet current emergency access standards of the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD). The Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) should be detailed and analyzed in the EIR and not set aside for future



approval. The EIR needs to determine if Lafayette Fire District (LFD) is required to serve the Project based upon the proposed EVA into the City of Lafayette.

Transportation and Traffic. The EIR should include an analysis of potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians with increased traffic on Bollinger Canyon Road, and provide mitigation measures to offset these impacts.

The Project would generate two to three times more traffic than estimated in the NOP. The EIR should evaluate Level of Service (LOS) impacts at major intersections and provide mitigation measures to improve the operation and safety of affected intersections. Bollinger Canyon Road is narrow and contains blind curves; and existing intersections with St. Mary’s Road, Joseph Drive, and Valley Hill Road are dangerous and already overcrowded. LOS for the affected intersections should be calculated using Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methods in the EIR.

Bollinger Canyon Road and Valley Hill Road were not constructed for heavy use, and construction trucks and increased traffic with the Project may degrade road integrity. The EIR should identify impacts to roads and provide mitigation measures.

Installation of underground utilities along Bollinger Canyon Road and Valley Hill Road will likely result in closures required for construction trenching. As the only ingress and egress for many properties, the EIR should analyze how this construction can occur without disrupting access for the existing residents; and if the roadway provides adequate emergency access and evacuation. The EIR should also include a detailed description of the EVA identified to the north in the City of Lafayette.

Utilities and Service Systems. Development will require connections to public utilities. The EIR should evaluate potential impacts to the capacity of existing service systems and impacts due to construction of new utility connections. Funding for the extensions of public utilities shall be identified in the EIR. The EIR should analyze potential impacts related to East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water supply and development of distribution facilities required to serve the Project.

Project Alternatives. The EIR should include alternatives that reduce the density of development to be consistent with adjacent neighborhoods, and to decrease impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, hazards, noise, public services, and traffic.

1.4 EIR SCOPE

Moraga determined that the scope of this EIR, based on comments received during the public scoping process and other information, should address potential impacts related to:

• Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biology • Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Agriculture • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services and Recreation



• Schools • Traffic and Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems

1.5 EIR REVIEW PROCESS

The 45-day review period for this EIR begins on February 22, 2013 and ends on April 8, 2013. Bound copies can be purchased at the Moraga Planning Department for the cost of reproduction. Copies of the EIR are available for review online on the Town website (www.moraga.ca.org), and at the following locations during business hours:

• Town of Moraga Planning Department, 329 Rheem Boulevard, Moraga, CA 94556; and

• The Moraga Library, 1500 St. Mary’s Road, Moraga, CA 94556.

Comments should be focused on the adequacy of the EIR in identifying and analyzing potential Project impacts and ways in which the significant effects may be avoided or mitigated. Written comments on the information and analysis in the EIR must be submitted by the end of the 45-day comment period.

Comments on the Bollinger Valley EIR should focus on questions such as:

• Are the appropriate issues identified;

• Is the background documentation and data appropriate;

• If data is not available, are the appropriate assumptions used;

• Is the setting (existing conditions) appropriately described;

• Are the appropriate criteria used to evaluate environmental effects;

• Are the environmental thresholds assigned to each environmental criteria appropriate;

• Are the Project alternatives appropriate;

• Is the environmental analysis adequate and appropriate;

• Are there environmental impacts identified that can be avoided; and

• Are the mitigation measures effective in reducing environmental impacts to be less than significant?

A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the EIR and the date of the public hearings are published concurrently with distribution of the EIR. The Moraga Planning Commission will host an informational meeting on the content of the EIR and the public review process. The public hearing will provide an opportunity to submit oral comments on the information and analysis in the EIR.

The public hearing on the Bollinger Valley EIR will be held at:

Moraga Planning Commission Joaquin Moraga Intermediate School Auditorium (Building B) 1010 Camino Pablo, Moraga, CA 94556 Monday, April 1, 2013 7:00 PM



Written comments on the EIR should be delivered by April 8, 2013 to:

Moraga Planning Department 329 Rheem Boulevard, Suite 2 Moraga, CA 94556 email: [email protected]

After the public comment period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will include comments received, written responses to comments, any necessary corrections or other changes to the EIR text, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the implementation of mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR.

1.6 AGENCIES AND APPROVALS

The Project is in Moraga, and the Town is the Lead Agency for the preparation of environmental documentation for the Project under Article 4, §15051 of CEQA. After Certification of this EIR, the Town Council will use the information and analysis in this EIR to make decisions on amending the Town’s 2002 General Plan to adopt land use designations in the Bollinger Valley Study Area, amending appropriate portions of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, and approving the Project or an Alternative.

The Lead Agency must consult with and seek comments from public agencies with jurisdiction by law with respect to projects including neighboring cities and counties, and federal, state, and local agencies that exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the Project (CEQA Guidelines §15086). A Responsible Agency has responsibility for carrying out or approving an aspect of a project and complying with CEQA (CEQA Guidelines §15041[b]), §15042, §15096, and §15381). Responsible agencies may need to review this EIR or conduct separate environmental analyses and documentation for aspects of the Project. Trustee Agencies have jurisdiction by law over certain natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of California (CEQA Guidelines §15386). The following summarizes Responsible or Trustee agencies, or agencies with jurisdiction by law, for the Project.

1.6.1 Federal Agencies

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), responsible for permitting impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the United States (WoUS), including perennial and seasonal streams, wetlands, and lakes under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §404;

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), responsible for enforcement water and air quality laws and regulations; and

• United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), responsible for permitting incidental take of federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species under the federal Endangered Species Act, species protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and nesting bird species listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

1.6.2 State Agencies

• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), responsible for transportation improvements on State roads and highways;

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), responsible for impacts to wildlife under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and State Fish and Game (F&G) Code; rare plants



under CESA and the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA), and streams under F&G Code; and

• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), responsible for water quality protection and issuance of Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plans (SWPPP) pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and responsible for federal CWA §401 Water Quality Certifications or Waivers.

1.6.3 Regional Agencies

• Contra Costa County (County), responsible for transportation improvements to County roads, stormwater runoff, flood protection, and land uses adjacent to the Project;

• EBMUD, responsible for municipal water supply;

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), responsible for air quality management and attainment of State and federal air quality standards;

• Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), responsible for electricity and gas connections and supplies;

• Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), responsible for wastewater transport and treatment; and

• East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), responsible for management of parks and open space in the Project vicinity.

1.6.4 Local Agencies

• Town of Moraga Planning Department, Planning Commission, and Town Council, responsible for Project planning and approval;

• The City of Lafayette (Lafayette), responsible for review and approval of the EVA route, transportation improvements on local streets, and land uses in and adjacent to the Project area;

• The City of Orinda (Orinda), responsible for review and approval of transportation improvements on local streets;

• Moraga School District (MSD) and the Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD), for review of impacts to local public schools;

• Town of Moraga Parks and Recreation Department and Commission, responsible for project planning related to public parks, open space, and facilities;

• Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), responsible for transportation planning, congestion management, and related air quality improvements in Contra Costa County;

• Lamorinda Program Management Committee (LPMC), responsible for determining whether a proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Lamorinda Action Plan;

• Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD), responsible for fire suppression, emergency response services, and compliance with emergency access and evacuation standards; and

• Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District), responsible for flood control and water quality.



1.6.5 Trustee Agencies

In addition to the responsible agencies listed above, the EIR will be used by “trustee agencies,” which are those state agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources that could be affected by the Project. There is one trustee agency expected to use the EIR:

• CDFG, responsible for permitting impacts to:

o Lakes, streams and associated riparian habitats under Lake or Stream Bed Alteration Agreements (LSAA) (Fish & Game Code §1602),

o Rare plants under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA),

o Fish and wildlife protected under Fish & Game Code, and

o State-listed Threatened or Endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

1.6.6 Approval Process

Moraga will require review of, and approvals of the following for the buildout of the Project:

• General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendment

• Conceptual Development and Conservation Plan

• General Development Plan

• Precise Development Plan

• Conditional Use Permits

• Tentative Subdivision Map

• Design Review

• Architecture and Landscape Design Guidelines

• Hillside Development Permit

• Grading Permit

• Final Subdivision Map

• County Building Permits

• Public Park, Open Space, and Facilities Plan

• Encroachment Permit


P A G E 1 - 1 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N 2 / 1 8 / 1 3

1.7 EIR ORGANIZATION

The format and content of the EIR are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The report is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction. Describes the Project background and location, EIR process, public review process, and EIR format.

Chapter 2: Project Description. Describes the Project (126 units), including Project objectives, general setting, actions, construction, operation, and maintenance. Chapter 2 describes the range of reasonable alternatives considered, and describes the Project Alternatives selected for consideration in the EIR. The Alternatives analyzed include:

• Alternative 1 – No Project; • Alternative 2 (8 units); • Alternative 3 (37 units); • Alternative 4 (100 units); and • Alternative 5 (121 units).

Chapter 3: Summary of Findings. Presents a brief comparative summary of the impacts and mitigation measures of the Project and Alternatives.

Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. For each resource category evaluated, this chapter describes the existing environmental setting, regulatory framework, impact evaluation criteria, thresholds of significance, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. The impact discussion evaluates direct, indirect, temporary, permanent, and cumulative impacts of the Project.

Chapter 5: CEQA Determination. Discusses the permanent impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, including significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible impacts, and growth-inducing impacts of the Project.

Chapter 6: References. This section includes bibliographic references for the documents and other sources of information cited in the text.

The Appendices include:

Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (February 6, 2007); and

Appendix B: Scoping Report, including scoping letters received, and minutes of the Scoping Meetings (including oral comments), and a summary of issues raised during the scoping period.


2 / 1 8 / 1 3 P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N P A G E 2 - 1

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This chapter describes the Project, including development plans, objectives, approvals, and entitlements necessary for implementation. The Project would amend General Plan land use designations in the 186.33-acre Project Area from Study to approximately 92 acres of Residential – 2 DUA (R2) and approximately 94 acres (50%) of Non-Moraga Open Space Ordinance (MOSO) Open Space (N-OS). The Project would amend the zoning ordinance, changing the existing zoning from Study to Single Family Residential Planned Development with Density Transfer 2-PD-DT on 92 acres and OS-PD-DT on 94.33 acres. The amended land use designation and zoning would provide the Project Applicant with entitlements to develop 126 single-family detached homes, with lots ranging from 15,000 – 40,000 sf (average of 20,000 sf, 125 feet wide). The Project would construct up to 25 (20%) of the homes with second units.

It is necessary to note that the Project Area is designated as “Study” within the General Plan and “Open Space – Study” and is not designated MOSO Open Space. Not all undeveloped areas or Open Space are MOSO Open-Space. MOSO Open Space policies and development standards apply to lands specifically designated as “Public Open Space – Study” and “Private Open Space”. Since the Project Area is “Study” and “Open Space – Study”, MOSO does not apply. Please refer to the Zoning Map and Municipal Code, which identify the Project Area as “Study” and includes specifications for the “Study” district as opposed to “MOSO Open Space” and “Non-MOSO Open Space” districts. While the Project Area is undeveloped and as such displays characteristics of open space, it is not designated open space.

The Project, Project Area, and alternatives are described below. As required under CEQA, this EIR considers the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1), which considers the potential effects of the continuation of existing land uses or changes to land uses that require no discretionary approvals. The EIR also considers four action alternatives that encompass a range of alternatives to the Project (126 units), which may be feasible and may meet the basic objectives of the proposed Project. Alternative 2 (8 units) considers a very low-density development (1 dwelling unit per 20 acres [0.05 DUA]) alternative that is based on the premise that new utility (water, wastewater) infrastructure or road improvements are not required. Alternative 3 (37 units), considers a low-density alternative (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres [0.2 DUA]) with the similar intensity of development in the Project Area that was assumed for the cumulative impact analysis in the Town of Moraga General Plan EIR (Moraga 2000, 2001, 2002). The Project Applicant designed and submitted Alternative 4 (100) and Alternative 5 (121 units) to reduce the potential environmental effects of the Project (126 units). This section also describes alternatives considered but rejected from analysis in this EIR, and provides a brief rationale for excluding them from further analysis.

2.1 SITE LOCATION

Located in the eastern most portion of the Town in the southern portion of the County, the 186.33-acre Bollinger Valley Project Area is approximately ½ mile northeast of St. Mary’s College and is accessible from St. Mary’s Road by driving east on Bollinger Canyon Road and then north on Valley Hill Drive. A Project vicinity map showing the location of the Project in the Town of Moraga is shown in Figure 2-1.

Bollinger Valley is located east of the Moraga Bluffs neighborhood, south of the Burton Valley area of City of Lafayette, and west of unincorporated portions of the County. Low hills to the north and south provide a physical separation from adjacent developed areas in Moraga and Lafayette. Screened by surrounding hills below Las Trampas Ridge to the east, much of the Project Area is situated in a topographic “bowl” and is hidden from view from major public transportation corridors in Moraga and Lafayette. Shown on the Las Trampas Ridge 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle, Bollinger Valley


P A G E 2 - 2 P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N 2 / 1 9 / 1 3

consists of gentle to steeply sloping terrain, ranging from 520 to 1,075 feet above mean sea level (United States Geological Survey 1959).

The Project Area is drained by an unnamed tributary to Las Trampas Creek, which flows into Lafayette Creek and then Walnut Creek, ultimately discharging into Carquinez Bay 12 miles to the north. The project area has historically been used for cattle grazing, contributing to eroded slopes and ravines. Existing facilities include several horse corrals, a caretaker’s residence near the site entrance (consisting of a travel trailer), a house and adjacent barn structure, and a shed.

Figure 2-1a. Regional overview map showing location of Bollinger Valley within the Town of Moraga.



Figure 2-1b. Project location map.

2/1/12 9:45 AMMoraga, CA - Google Maps

Page 1 of 2http://maps.google.com/

Imagery ©2012 DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Map data ©2012 Google -

To see all the details that are visible on thescreen, use the "Print" link next to the map.

Project Area



2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The following summarizes the quantitative and qualitative objectives of the Project. The design and description of the Project must be consistent with the objectives, and meeting the objectives guides the development of a range of feasible alternatives to the Project. CEQA requires that Project alternatives substantially meet most of the objectives of the Project. The objectives assist the Town in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary (CEQA Guidelines §15214[b)]).

It is the property owner's primary objective to fulfill General Plan policy LU6.1 by establishing a permanent residential land use classification to accommodate single-family homes in a semi-rural setting, consistent with the more detailed objectives established in the opportunities and constraints analysis completed in November 2003, that include:

(a) Preserve primary oak woodland and riparian habitat areas onsite.

(b) Preserve open space suitable for revegetation as oak woodland and natural grasslands.

(c) Achieve a pre-development average slope of under 25% as called for under Moraga Zoning Section 8.136.020.

(d) Provide a balanced grading design that avoids the need to import or export material in order to meet design constraints or soil conditions.

(e) Incorporate design that manages site drainage and runoff in accordance with current County detention criteria as well as C-3 water quality guidelines.

(f) Incorporate a grading and lot design concept that provides for remediation of potentially unstable slopes to minimize or eliminate continued siltation of the creek system.

(g) Minimize disturbance to wetlands and jurisdictional waters.

(h) Provide safe and adequate on-site and off-site roadways.

(i) Provide roadway stability improvements to Valley Hill Drive.

(j) Provide emergency access to serve as an evacuation route and emergency vehicle ingress/egress.

(k) Provide a safe and reliable source of public water supply with suitable pressure and volume for fire flow and domestic use.

(l) Provide a sanitary and environmentally safe means of serving residential sewer needs within the Project.

(m) Avoid substantial visual exposure to the public traveling along St. Mary's Road or from other designated scenic corridors and major public facilities.

(n) Provide an undisturbed physical connection between the riparian corridor and open lands to serve as a wildlife movement corridor.

(o) Provide single-family housing to help meet Moraga's housing needs.



2.3 PROJECT APPLICANT

Mr. David Bruzzone, P.O. Box 97, Moraga, CA 94556.

2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project would amend the General Plan land use and zoning on 186.33 acres in Bollinger Valley, and provide entitlements for 126 single-family detached homes clustered on 92 acres, with lot sizes ranging from 15,000 – 40,000 sf (averaging 20,000 sf, 125 feet wide). The 94.33 acres that would be designated N-OS includes 46 acres of coast live oak woodland and 48 acres of restored coast live oak woodland, riparian, wetland and grassland habitats. At buildout Bollinger Valley would have a net residential density of 0.68 DUA and 50% permanently protected open space.

Specifically, the Bollinger Valley Project would:

1. Amend the Moraga General Plan Land Use Element to replace the current “Study” designation with a mix of 92 acres of “Residential 2 du/ac” and 94.33 acres of “Open Space” in accordance with the proposed Conceptual Development and Conservation (CDC) Plan, and Policy LU6.1 of the 2002 Moraga General Plan which calls for establishment of a permanent land use classification to accommodate residential development as follows: "Due to the special character of the Bollinger Canyon area, its unique development issues, and its status as one of the few remaining areas of development potential in the Town, the Bollinger Canyon Area will be the subject of a ‘special study’ conducted by area property owners to document the site’s opportunities and constraints and define a conceptual plan of development consistent with the goals and policies of the Town’s General Plan. This study will focus on that area identified on the General Plan Diagram as ‘Study Area’. The Action Plan may include:

• An ‘Opportunities and Constraints’ Analysis • A Conceptual Development and Conservation Plan • A General Plan Amendment to Implement the Conceptual Development and Conservation

Plan in Town Policies"

• Rezone Bollinger Valley from 186.33 acres of Study to 92 acres of 2-PD-DT and 94.33 acres of OS-PD-DT consistent with the amended General Plan Land Use Diagram and the CDC Plan;

• Approve the proposed CDC Plan in accordance with Moraga Zoning Section 8.48.090. This action represents the first step in the Town’s three-phase Planned Development District process (pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.48);

• Approve a Development Agreement to secure the foregoing entitlements for the property owners and provide assurance that the property can be developed in accordance with the General Plan amendment, Rezoning and CDC Plan for a period of up to 10 years. A development agreement would: (a) provide for the long-term conservation of natural resources on the property; (b) provide certainty for funding of major capital improvement investments; (c) avoid premature development of the property; and (d) ensure that future development takes place in a manner consistent with the approved CDC Plan;

• Provide entitlements for 126 single-family detached homes, up to 25 (20%) of which would be built with second units consistent with Town Design Guidelines;



• Improve Valley Hill Drive to meet the Town and Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) minimum access standards for a private roadway. The existing roadway is in poor condition and varies from approximately 10 to 24 feet in width. Valley Hill Drive would be structurally re-built with two continuous 18-foot wide paved travel lanes plus a conventional 5-foot wide sidewalk within the existing 60-foot wide roadway and utility easement. Slope retention structures such as H-pile and concrete lagging wall systems would be utilized to minimize grading and impacts to streams and trees along Valley Hill Drive. Roads that include arched, natural bottom culverts over stream channels would be used to facilitate wildlife movement through the Project Area. Excess cut material would be incorporated into mass grading in Bollinger Valley;

• Provide an emergency vehicle access (EVA) across lands owned by the project applicant, in order to establish a second means of access for emergency services and evacuation of properties within and adjacent to the Project. The proposed EVA would meet Town of Moraga and MOFD access standards including an all-weather surface and locked access gates to prevent unauthorized vehicle use. The EVA would start as an extension of an interior loop road in the Project Area and then follow an existing fire road that terminates at the end of Driftwood Drive in Lafayette;

• Provide or construct public utility service connections to serve developed areas, including municipal water connections, sewer lines and other below ground infrastructure;

• Conduct grading to remediate landslide risks and create geotechnically safe residential lots, house pads, and streets; and

• Provide surface water detention basins to prevent continued historic erosion of creek channel banks, control stormwater runoff from developed areas and provide for biofiltration to manage water quality and increase infiltration to groundwater. The CPC Plan design calls for three detention basins, a series of grassy swales, natural surface water energy dissipation structures, and controlled outfall systems.

Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 provide conceptual illustrations of the Project for the purposes of conducting the environmental analysis in this EIR. Figure 2-2 shows existing and proposed land use designations and zoning. Figure 2-3 illustrates the CDC Plan, showing proposed single-family residential lots, detention basins, and grading. Figure 2-4 illustrates proposed improvements to Valley Hill Drive between Bollinger Canyon Road and developed area in the Project.



Figure 2-2. Existing and proposed amendments to General Plan land use designations and zoning in the Bollinger Valley Project Area.



Figure 2-3. CDC Plan for the Bollinger Valley Project showing proposed single-family residential lots, grading, and detention basins.

Source: P/A Design Resources, Inc. 2007a.



Figure 2-4. Proposed Project improvements to Valley Hill Drive from Bollinger Canyon Road to the development area.

Source: P/A Design Resources, Inc. 2007a.


P A G E 2 - 1 0 P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N 2 / 1 8 / 1 3

After the Town has certified this EIR, it will consider the following currently requested entitlements: (1) Amendment of the General Plan Land Use Designation; (2) Rezoning of the property; (3) Approval of the CDC Plan or an Alternative; and (4) Approval of a development agreement to provide assurance that the Property can be developed in accordance with the foregoing entitlements. The Project Applicant would subsequently prepare and submit future discretionary applications for consideration by the Town and others to implement the Project, including the following:

• Approve a GDP and PDP that would include a detailed grading plan, proposed lot lines and streets, design guidelines and potential vesting tentative subdivision map application. These actions represent the second and third steps in Moraga’s 3-step Planned Development District process as described in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.48.

• If approved and as appropriate, expand and modify the approved Development Agreement (DA) for inclusion of the foregoing GDP and PDP entitlements.

• Establish a homeowners association (HOA), Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) or other privately funded mechanism to maintain roads, open space, and drainages in Bollinger Valley.

• Pursue annexation of the Project area to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) in order to receive potable water service.

The Project CDC Plan proposes a balanced grading plan; minimal hauling of fill or excavated material to or from the Project Area is anticipated for completing mass grading. Mass grading would be required for geotechnical slope stabilization and for creating internal Project site roads, detention basins, and residential lots. Grading is also required for construction of the EVA and Valley Hill Drive improvements. Mass grading quantities for the Project (126 units) are shown in Table 2-1 below.

Table 2-1

Project-Related Mass Grading Quantities and Acres

Project Component

Grading Project

(126 units) Bollinger Valley: geotechnical slope stabilization, roads, detention basins, and residential lots Cut (yds.3) 1,378,590 Fill (yds.3) 1,447,955 Net (yds.3) -69,365 Acres 118.2 Valley Hill Drive Improvements Cut (yds.3) 29,308 Fill (yds.3) 3,208 Net (yds.3) 26,100 Acres 5.4 Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) Cut (yds.3) 97,129 Fill (yds.3) 27,569 Net (yds.3) 69,560 Acres 16.1 Totals Cut (yds.3) 1,505,027 Fill (yds.3) 1,478,732 Net (yds.3) 26,295 Acres 140

Sources: EarthCalc, Inc. 2004, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c.


2 / 1 8 / 1 3 P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N P A G E 2 - 1 1

The applicant’s goal is to balance cut and fill on the Project. The foregoing "net" volume of total cut may therefore be absorbed into the placed fill volume during final design, in order to achieve a no net import or off-haul condition. The Project includes conventional improvements to Valley Hill Drive designed to satisfy current minimum Town and MOFD standards for a private roadway. The improvements would both structurally stabilize and improve the safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement along this roadway, from Bollinger Canyon Road (a Town-maintained collector street) into the site. Project improvements include two 18-foot paved travel lanes (36-foot roadway) plus a 5-foot wide conventional paved sidewalk within an existing, recorded 60-foot wide roadway and utility easement. Utility lines, including water, sewer, telephone, cable and gas would be buried beneath the new surface improvements, and fire hydrants would be placed at intervals along the roadway, as determined by the MOFD. Improvements include a new structural base, uphill cut/fill slopes, and downhill H-piers supporting concrete lagging walls.

The Project would connect to an existing Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) gravity flow trunk sewer in Bollinger Canyon Road. The connection is expected to include an 8-inch diameter main line from the Project Area, extending approximately 5,500 feet in Valley Hill Road and Bollinger Canyon Road. A pump station would be installed along the Project sewer line within the shoulder of Bollinger Canyon Road right of way, between Joseph Drive and Valley Hill Drive. The pump station would be a below ground structure constructed within the existing disturbed area along Bollinger Canyon Road. The existing service capacity of the CCCSD trunk line is adequate to accommodate the Project (Leavitt 2007). EBMUD would provide water service through an annexation process in accordance with EBMUD Board Resolution 33347-03 and current LAFCO Policy.

2.4.1 Public Services

Agencies listed below would provide public services and utilities to Bollinger Valley:

• Schools: Moraga School District (MSD) and Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD);

• Fire protection and emergency services: MOFD and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCFPD);

• Police protection services: Moraga Police Department (MPD), and Contra Costa County Sheriff (Sheriff);

• Water: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), following annexation to the District;

• Wastewater: CCCSD;

• Solid Waste and Recycling: Allied Waste Industries and Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal;

• Recycling: Valley Waste Management, Inc.;

• Parks and Recreation: Town of Moraga and EBRPD;

• Communications (Cable, Internet, Phone): AT&T and Comcast; and

• Gas and Electricity: PG&E.

The Project would include extension of existing, belowground water, wastewater, gas, electric, and communication lines to serve new homes. Hydrants placed along Bollinger Canyon Road and Valley Hill Drive would provide water for emergency fire protection, but would not provide a source of future domestic water supply for any property outside the Town of Moraga. Lots would be served from the wastewater system either by gravity or an individual pump service. Gravity wastewater and water mains



would be installed in accordance with CCCSD and EBMUD standards, respectively. No onsite water storage is proposed for the Project.

2.4.2 Homeowner’s Association/Special Districts

A homeowners association (HOA) and/or Geological Hazard and Abatement District (GHAD) would be created to maintain the property. The HOA would be responsible for maintaining improvements in common areas and managing the dedicated open space. The Town would review and approve, as part of subsequent approvals, the HOA’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that would govern the HOA.

The purpose of a GHAD is as an independent public entity overseeing geologic safety by means of prevention, mitigation, abatement, and control. A Plan of Control (POC) would govern the Bollinger Valley GHAD. A POC is a legally required guiding document for the operation of a GHAD, prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist. A typical POC contains a monitoring schedule, prioritization of GHAD involvement, the scope of the GHAD’s responsibilities, and a list of items not covered by the GHAD. Supplemental property tax assessments would fund the Bollinger Valley GHAD, triggered by the sale of the individual lots. The Project may enter into an existing GHAD or form a new GHAD with other developments in the vicinity.

2.4.3 Community Design

The Bollinger Valley Community Design Section of the General Plan Study (page 2.1) calls for site planning, architectural design, and landscaping to retain “natural topographic features and scenic qualities” (Planning Team 2003). The perimeter hills of Bollinger Valley would substantially screen Project grading, roads, and structures from designated visual corridors and public facilities in Moraga and Lafayette. The perimeter hills, coast live oak woodlands, and riparian corridors would mostly be located in protected and undeveloped areas, permanently designated N-OS. The details of residential architecture and landscape design for the Project Area would be addressed in future applications, as required under Moraga’s GDP and PDP review procedures (MMC 8.48.110 and 8.48.120).

2.4.4 Architecture and Landscape Design Guidelines

The applicant proposes to develop project specific architectural and landscape design guidelines. The Bollinger Valley Architecture and Landscape Design Guidelines would be consistent with the Town of Moraga 2010 Design Guidelines (Moraga 2010). Homes in the Project Area would be designed to have a semi-rural feel featuring distinct styles of architecture typical of the new homes in Moraga. As part of subsequent approvals, Architectural Guidelines for the Project would be created by the applicant subject to approval by the Town decision-makers (Design Review Board [DRB], Planning Commission [PC] and Town Council). The purpose of these Guidelines would be to establish standards and regulations specific to the design, landscaping and site planning of proposed homes in the Bollinger Valley Project. Architectural Guidelines would be the primary mechanism for regulating the development of future home sites, and would describe home styles, setbacks, and heights. Implementation of the Guidelines would ensure that development proceeds in a coordinated and consistent manner.

The Landscape Design Guidelines would require that locally native and California native plant species and other drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species as listed in the Moraga 2010 Design Guidelines are used for the Project. The Landscape Design Guidelines would include guidelines for the design, installation, and maintenance of natural vegetation restoration in open space, such as along stream banks and drainage basins to restore and enhance natural habitats after grading and construction.



2.4.5 Street System Design

Streets in the Project Area would consist of an interior residential loop road and cul-de-sacs. One cul-de-sac would provide a connection to the EVA at the Moraga-Lafayette boundary. Valley Hill Drive, currently a private entrance road, would be reconstructed as shown in the applicant's plans to meet MOFD standards with two 18-foot travelways. On-site roads are classified as Residential Streets with 32-foot rights-of-way. The entry to the site is a 45-foot right-of-way in order to accommodate a center median.

2.4.6 Stormwater Management

A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) would be developed to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Town of Moraga C.3 NPDES permit requirements. The Project would use bioswales along roadways and detention basins to maintain stormwater runoff rates and volumes to pre-development levels. Bioswales are proposed to capture runoff adjacent to impervious surfaces, allowing surface water to slow and infiltrate to groundwater before reaching detention basins. Appropriately sized and situated detention basins would prevent receiving streams from being subjected to peak discharges above those before construction. Detention would increase groundwater infiltration and filtering of sediments and nutrients before discharge to streams. Bioswales and detention basins would be designed to maintain downstream restored stream channels; and reduce pollutants, erosion and sedimentation that can degrade streams, wetlands, riparian, and aquatic habitats. Measures expected to be incorporated into the Project include the following Best Management Practices (BMPs):

• Maximizing vegetated areas while minimizing impervious areas.

• Designing irrigation system volume, rates, and spray patterns to avoid or minimize runoff.

• Reducing directly connected impervious areas to maximize vegetated areas.

• Educating the public on reducing fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, and fungicide use.

• Educating the public on avoiding discharge of solvents, cleansers, detergents, oils, and other sources of pollutants into the storm drainage system.

• Revegetating disturbed areas with a mix of native plant species to establish vegetative cover to stabilize hillsides, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and promote infiltration of runoff.

2.4.7 Recreation, Park and Open Space Amenities

The secluded setting of the Project Area, combined with the Project Applicant’s intention to preserve coast live oak woodlands and riparian habitats in Bollinger Valley, limits on-site opportunities to provide a developed recreation facility. The General Plan and General Plan EIR document existing and projected future deficit of recreational facilities in Moraga (Moraga 2000, 2001, 2002). There is considerable public interest for new or improved facilities for active sports such as basketball and volleyball. As part of the GDP and vesting tentative map process, the Project Applicant proposes to work with Town officials to identify an appropriate location for active recreational uses and field sports, or work with the Town to pay an appropriate in lieu fee for recreation facilities. This commitment to enhance and/or add new active recreation facilities is proposed to be guaranteed as part of the DA.

2.4.8 Project Construction

The Project would be built in phases by one or more builders over the 20-year span covered by the DA. The initial phase includes rough grading of the Project Site, site preparation, recontouring for drainage



and roadways, and improvements to roadways. The second phase includes final grading of lots and pads, and the construction of individual homes.

2.5 ALTERNATIVES

CEQA requires that an EIR describe and analyze alternatives to the Project (CEQA §21002.1[a]). The CEQA Guidelines provide the following guidance with respect to the analysis of alternatives in an EIR:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6[a]).”

The range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice must be examined:

The EIR need examine in detail only the [alternatives] that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6[f])

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context) and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[f] [1]).

An EIR must consider a “No Project Alternative.” The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the proposed Project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically provide that the "no project" alternative consider the environmental effects of what would occur if the Project is not approved:

The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6[e][2]).

Because it would be speculative to analyze what may occur should the Project or other action alternatives not be approved, the No Project Alternative studied herein includes the retention of the existing Study land use designation under the General Plan and the continuation of livestock grazing (no development).

Alternatives were developed for evaluation in this EIR to avoid or minimize potential environmental effects of the Project that were identified during the public scoping process. In addition to the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1), this EIR includes analysis of the following: (a) Alternative 2 (8 units); (b) Alternative 3 (37 units); (c) Alternative 4 (100 units); and (d) Alternative 5 (121 units). In the absence of a permanent General Plan land use designation or approved development plan, the EIR prepared for the 2002 Moraga General Plan assumed development of 39 units within the Town’s Study area, which includes the 186.33 acre Project Site. The range of alternatives studied in this EIR includes both lower



and higher residential densities than the development yield assumed in the General Plan EIR (Moraga 2000, 2001).

EIRs must designate an environmentally superior alternative in the Draft or Final EIR. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR must identify an action alternative that causes the least environmental damage.

The development of action alternatives takes into consideration the physical and environmental constraints analysis and statement of Project objectives (see Section 2.2 above). CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c) require EIRs identify alternatives considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible, and discuss reasons for rejection. Rejected alternatives are discussed below.

2.5.1 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Discussion

This section includes a brief description of alternatives considered but eliminated from evaluation in the EIR, and provides a rationale for why these alternatives are rejected from further analysis.

Higher density clustered housing alternatives – Under higher density, clustered housing alternatives, a similar number of residential units as the Project (126 units) would be constructed on smaller lots. This alternative would have a smaller development footprint, allowing for the preservation of more open space and a reduced grading footprint. Higher density units may contribute towards the Town meeting below-moderate income housing goals in the ABAG RHNA. This alternative was dropped from further consideration, however, because General Plan Policy CD5.1 calls for the location of higher density, multi-family housing to be situated in close proximity to commercial centers, schools, and transit to reduce vehicle trips. Higher density housing would be incompatible with the semi-rural, low-density residential developments in the Project vicinity. A project with lower cost housing units may not be economically feasible because of the expected lower market value of smaller homes may not cover the substantial fixed costs to develop utility infrastructure (water, wastewater) to serve the Project Area, grade slopes to create geotechnically stable building areas, construct the EVA, and improve Valley Hill Drive.

Non-clustered housing alternatives – Under non-clustered housing alternatives a similar number of residential units as the Project (126 units) would be constructed on individual lots averaging 1.5 acres in size. This alternative is considered economically feasible because larger homes could be built on larger lot sizes, commanding higher market values to cover fixed site development costs. This alternative was dropped from consideration because it would not meet objectives of resource conservation and open space preservation, and is expected to result in greater environmental impacts due to the lack of permanently preserved open space. Such an alternative would have greater direct impacts to sensitive habitats such as oak woodlands, wetlands, and riparian areas.

Main entrance through Lafayette – In order to reduce traffic impacts on Bollinger Canyon Road and avoid impacts to the riparian corridor along Valley Hill Drive, the main vehicle entrance could be routed through Lafayette along the proposed EVA route. Under such an alternative, the existing unimproved Valley Hill Drive would function as an EVA. A northern entrance road developed to residential street standards would pass through currently undeveloped property within the City of Lafayette and could result in a growth inducing impact by increasing the development potential in lands designated as low-density single family residential (up to 2 DUA) in Lafayette. This alternative was rejected because it could result in visual resource impacts and potential growth inducing impacts to Lafayette.

Midpoint Housing Unit Alternative – An alternative that analyzed some midpoint in the number of housing units between Alternative 3 (37 units) and Alternative 4 (100 units) was considered but rejected from analysis in the EIR because the high fixed costs of development render a lower number of housing



units economically unfeasible, and the impacts associated with access improvements and the required mass grading to create geotechnically stable roads and house pads would be similar to the 100 unit Clustered Housing Alternative (Alternative 4).

2.5.2 Alternatives Selected for Evaluation

There is a vast number of feasible alternatives within the range of no development (no new units) and that of the Project (126 units). Using models and assumptions, it is possible to estimate the change in impacts associated with each reduction in the number of units. Some environmental impacts are related to the design of the Project, such as biological or visual resource impacts dependent on the location of individual roads and homes. Other impacts are directly proportional to the scale of the Project, such as traffic impacts generated by the number of new vehicle trips per new household. The action alternatives were developed based on the range of conditionally permitted residential development typical of semi-rural land in the Town. Based upon the above factors, the alternatives selected for further analysis are as follows:

1. Alternative 1 – No Project: retention of the existing Study land use designation under the General Plan, non-MOSO designation under zoning ordinance and the continuation of livestock grazing;

2. Alternative 2 – Minimum Development Alternative (1 DU/20 Acres, 8 residential units): Amend General Plan Land Use Designation to non-MOSO N-OS, amend Zoning to N-OS-PD-DT on 186.33 acres, limit residential development to 1 DU/20 Acres, allowing up to 8 residential units without requiring offsite utility infrastructure, improvements to Valley Hill Drive, or the construction of an EVA;

3. Alternative 3 – General Plan Density Assumption Alternative (2 DUA, 37 residential units): Amend General Plan Land Use Designation to Residential 2 DUA on 18.5 acres and Open Space on 167.83 acres and Zoning to 2-PD-DT on 18.5 acres and N-OS-PD-DT on 167.83 acres, limiting residential development to 37 residential units. Alternative 3 (37 units) would include public utility infrastructure, and construction of an EVA, and would require improvements to Valley Hill Drive in compliance with current MOFD access standards. The maximum number of residential units proposed in Alternative 3 (37) is based on the maximum residential density that is conditionally permitted in N-OS and OS-M lands in Moraga (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) and the level of residential development currently found on adjacent County lands;

4. Alternative 4 – Clustered Housing Alternative (2 DUA, 100 residential units): Amend General Plan Land Use Designation to Residential 2 DUA on 55.33 acres and Open Space on 131 acres and Zoning to 2-PD-DT on 55.33 acres and N-OS on 131 acres, limiting residential development to 100 residential units. Alternative 4 (100 units) would include public utility infrastructure, construction of an EVA, and upgrading Valley Hill Drive to current MOFD access standards;

5. Alternative 5 – Site Redesign Alternative (2 DUA, 121 residential units): Amend General Plan Land Use Designation to Residential 2 DUA on 71.33 acres and Open Space on 115 acres and Zoning to 2-PD-DT on 71.33 acres and N-OS on 115 acres, limiting residential development to 121 residential units. Alternative 5 (121 units) would include public utility infrastructure, an on-site public water storage facility, construction of an EVA, and upgrading Valley Hill Drive to current MOFD access standards.



Alternative 1 – No Project

The No Project Alternative is Alternative 1 and involves no immediate change to the existing land uses, but would necessitate a future amendment from the current temporary General Plan Land Use Designation of "Study" to a permanent designation such as Planned Development in compliance with General Plan Policy LU6.1. Under Alternative 1 (No Project), existing or new agricultural uses require no permits or discretionary approvals from the Town or any other governmental agency.

Alternative 2 – Minimum Development Alternative (up to 8 residential units)

Alternative 2 (8 units) was developed to represent the maximum allowable development of the two parcels in Bollinger Valley that would be permitted without the MOFD requiring access improvements to Valley Hill Drive or the construction of the EVA (Mentink 2011). Under Alternative 2, the 186.33 acres in the Project Area would be developed at a net residential density of up to one dwelling unit per 20 acres, for a total of eight (8) single-family homes with a 5-acre minimum parcel size. This level of development may meet the project objectives of providing residential development and resource conservation without the expense and therefore additional residential development required to pay for access improvements or utility infrastructure.

The impact analyses in the General Plan EIR assumed that 390 acres of Study land use designation, of which the Project Area comprises 186.33 acres would be built out to a net density of 1 DU/10 Acres, or approximately 39 homes, to analyze potential cumulative impacts to traffic, population and housing, public services and utilities, and other environmental factors (Moraga 2000, 2001). Consequently, the cumulative traffic impact analysis and mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR (Moraga 2000, 2001) would apply to the level of development under Alternative 2 (8 units).

To analyze potential impacts of the development Alternative 2 (8 units), this EIR assumes that lots would be configured in an attempt to place homes away from landslides, wetlands, woodlands, and streams. Nevertheless, development of Alternative 2 includes homes, as well as on-site roadways and some site grading on the Project Site. Consequently, potential Project impacts associated with hillside grading and disturbance to wetlands, streams, and coast live oak woodlands would be mostly avoided. The two existing parcels in the Bollinger Valley Project Area would be divided into minimum 5-acre lots. Connections to water supply and wastewater infrastructure are not required because at such a low-density of development, the assumption is that the new homes in Alternative 2 would be served by individual residential well water and septic systems. Alternative 2 (8 units) may be considered economically feasible by the Town because the lower number of homes would require substantially reduced investment in improvements to utility infrastructure and site access.

For the purposes of conducting an environmental impact assessment for this EIR, a conceptual illustration of a potential buildout scenario of Alternative 2 (8 units) is provided in Figure 2-5.



Figure 2-5. Conceptual site plan for Alternative 2 (8 units).

8

1

4

32

5

7

6

Town of Moraga

City of Lafayette

City of Lafayette

UnincorporatedContra Costa Co.

Town of Moraga

Unincorporated Contra Costa Co.

Bolling

er Canyon Rd

Valley Hill DrLas Tram

pa s Creek

1:7,000

Legend

Project Boundary

Conceptual Home Sites

Existing Unimproved Road

Stream

City Boundaries



Alternative 3 – General Plan Density Assumption Alternative (up to 37 residential units)

Under Alternative 3, the 186.33 acres in the Project Area would be developed at a net residential density of up to 1 DU/5 Acres, for a total of 37 single-family homes and residential lots. As with the Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units) would amend the General Plan Land Use Designation to R2 and N-OS, and amend Zoning to 2-PD-DT and OS-PD-DT.

Alternative 3 (37 units) is based on the maximum residential density that is conditionally permitted in N-OS lands in Moraga and a similar level of development analyzed in the 2002 General Plan EIR (Moraga 2000, 2001, 2002) for the Study land use designation. The impact analyses in the General Plan EIR assumed that 390 acres of Study land use designation would be built out to a net density of 1 DU/10 Acres, or approximately 39 homes, to analyze potential cumulative impacts to traffic, population and housing, public services and utilities, and other environmental factors (Moraga 2000, 2001).

To analyze potential impacts of Alternative 3 (37 units), this EIR assumes that homes would be built in similar locations and designs as the Project (126 units). Residential lots would be clustered below ridgelines to minimize visibility, grading would remediate landslide risks, impacts to streams and coast live oak woodlands would be minimized through avoidance, and most of the Project Area would remain as permanently protected open space. The EVA would be constructed similar to the Project (126 units), and Valley Hill Drive improvements would be constructed to the minimum requirements of the MOFD. Improvements to Valley Hill Drive (as shown in Figure 2-8 under Alternative 4 [100 units]) would be limited to two continuous 12-foot wide travelways. For the purposes of conducting an environmental impact assessment for this EIR, a conceptual illustration of a potential residential buildout scenario of Alternative 3 (37 units) is provided in Figure 2-6.



Figure 2-6. Conceptual site plan illustrating the potential buildout of Alternative 3 (37 units).

7

6

9

4

24

3

10

5

2

23

8

1112

13

28 30

33

31

37

29

34

17

20

1

27

2214

3635

21

32

1516

2625

18

19

Town of Moraga

City of Lafayette

City of Lafayette

UnincorporatedContra Costa Co.

Town of Moraga

Unincorporated Contra Costa Co.

Bolling

er Canyon Rd

Valley Hill DrLas Tram

pa s Creek

Legend

Project Boundary

Conceptual Home Sites

Road Alignment

Stream

City Boundaries 1:7,000

water t

anks

To EVA Route

stormwaterdetention

basin



Alternative 4 – Clustered Housing Alternative (up to 100 residential units)

Alternative 4 (100 units) was developed by the applicant and submitted to the Town under the name “Open Space & Clustered Housing Alternative”. It provides for 78 standard single-family residential lots (16,000 sf, 110 feet wide), with the option of either 22 additional standard lots for 100 residential units or 32 narrower lots (10,000 sf, 65 feet wide) for 110 residential units. For the purposes of this EIR, Alternative 4 will include up to 100 standard single-family lots, because the impacts of the 110-lot option are substantially similar to those of the 100-lot plan. A conceptual plan of Alternative 4 (100 units) is provided in Figure 2-7 below.

Alternative 4 (100 units) was developed by the Project Applicant in response to comments received during various meetings held between the Project Applicant and residents in the Project vicinity on October 12 and 26, 2010 (Loewke 2010b), and also based on follow-up discussions with Town staff, the MOFD, and additional analysis. According to the Project applicant, Alternative 4 (100 units) was developed to:

(1) Reduce environmental impact to sensitive habitats, features and public facilities both on and off-site by increasing the amount of permanently protected open space;

(2) Provide a Public Recreation Amenity: Alternative 4 identifies a looping trail system that extends over a total distance of 3.0 miles within the project boundaries. The trail would be designed and constructed for public access and maintained by the owners association. It includes direct connection to Bollinger Canyon Road at Valley Hill Drive, as well as indirect access to Bollinger Canyon Road via an existing public easement at the southwest corner of the site.

(3) Expand the Wildlife Movement Corridor: Compared to the Proposed Project and Alternative 5, Alternative 4 provides an expanded wildlife movement corridor extending through the center of the site and connecting the major open space systems along Las Trampas Creek with additional habitats within the northeast corner of the site and the adjoining unincorporated area to the east. This change has been facilitated by the elimination of several lots along the entry drive and in the middle of the site, included in Alternative 5.

(4) Separate Homes Along Easterly Site Boundary: Alternative 4 has eliminated 5 homes shown in Alternative 5 (and 8 shown in the Proposed Project) directly adjoining the easterly site boundary. This change reduces the development visible to adjoining homes in the unincorporated area.

(5) Separate Entry Drive from Homes Adjoining East Boundary: In the Proposed Project and Alternative 5, the entry drive was aligned in very close proximity to the easterly site boundary (and an existing residence). Alternative 4 separates the entry drive between 200 and 400 feet from the site boundary, and includes berming to further buffer residual noise or headlight glare which might otherwise affect adjacent residential uses.

(6) Reduce Lighting and Glare: Alternative 4 replaces the Project’s "traditional" approach to street and building lighting with a carefully controlled approach of only utilizing shielded street lights at key intersections, and managing exterior home lighting through project design guidelines (to be drafted).

(7) Reduce Traffic: Alternative 4’s reduction in total lots and elimination of planned second units would lead to both peak-hour and average daily trip reductions compared to the Proposed Project.



(8) Provide Emergency Water Supply: Alternative 4 includes water storage and delivery systems to adequately serve the 100 homes within the project, as well as provide hydrants and emergency fire flow protection for nearby residents.

Compared to the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units) reduces potential impacts to visual resources by avoiding construction on ridgelines and on sites adjacent to the property line to reduce the visibility of proposed residential sites from adjacent residences and from Scenic Corridors in Moraga. Potential impacts to hydrology and biological resources are reduced (consistent with Alternative 5) by using a revised alignment of Valley Hill Drive to reduce the tree removal and impacts to the bed and bank of the stream. Figure 2-8 illustrates the revised Valley Hill Drive improvement plans (Loewke 2010a). Improvements to Valley Hill Drive would be limited to two continuous 12-foot wide travelways with an adjacent 6-foot wide trail. Slope retention structures such as H-pile and concrete lagging wall systems would be utilized along Valley Hill Drive to reduce grading and impacts to streams and trees along Valley Hill Drive. Impacts are further reduced by increased clustering of home sites and a smaller grading and development footprint compared to the Project (126 units).

The provision of on-site water storage tanks and hydrants provides for increased reliability of domestic water supply and adequate fire flow for fire suppression for the Project Area and other areas east of Joseph Drive (as in Alternative 5). Improvements to Valley Hill Drive and the EVA provide for emergency vehicle access and alternative evacuation routes for residences and communities accessed from Bollinger Canyon Road. Utilities infrastructure for the Project Area, including wastewater conveyance and communications, provides an opportunity for other residences within Moraga not currently served by municipal wastewater services or communications infrastructure to access these services.

Clustering of housing sites results in 131 acres of permanently protected open space, a 30% increase compared to the Project (126 units). Increased open space allows for the following with Alternative 4 (100 units):

• Reduced direct impacts to wetland and riparian habitats; • Reduced impervious surfaces that may affect stormwater runoff quantity and quality; • Increased riparian habitat restoration; • Reduced potential for visual/aesthetic impacts; • Reduced project traffic; • Reduced lighting and glare; • Expanded wildlife movement corridor; and • Increased recreational opportunities provided by the looped pedestrian trail.

Alternative 4 (100 units) includes a public recreation amenity of a 3.0 mile looped pedestrian trail. The trail, as shown in Figure 2-7, would be designed and constructed for public access and maintained by the owners association and/or a contemplated GHAD. The trail would have direct connection to Bollinger Canyon Road at Valley Hill Drive and indirect access to Bollinger Canyon Road via an existing public easement at the southwest corner of the site.

Alternative 4 (100 units) maintains the existing rural nature of the Bollinger Valley by reducing the potential visibility and noise from proposed residential sites, roads, and entryways from existing homesites in the vicinity. As shown in Figure 2-7, visibility and noise are reduced through development setbacks from the property line, and the creation of an earthen berm to reduce direct lines of site from existing residences. In addition, design guidelines would be



drafted to specify that shielded street lights would be limited to key intersections, and exterior home lighting would be controlled. Perimeter fences and trail signs along the pedestrian trail would be included to discourage trespassing onto adjoining private property. Vehicle speed and noise would be controlled through traffic calming design elements on Valley Hill Drive and residential streets.

Alternative 4 (100 units) would not construct second units. The reduction in second units may increase vehicle commuting with the loss of some home based employment opportunities and lower cost rental housing opportunities. Overall, with no second units, Alternative 4 (100 units) is expected to have reduced population compared to the Project (126 units), and reduced peak-hour vehicle trips and ADTs.

Like the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units) would grant the Project Applicant the certainty of entitlements and uninterrupted continuity of construction over the initial 10-year period and a 20-year DA.



Figure 2-7. Conceptual site plan for Alternative 4 (Clustered Housing Alternative) (100 units).

Source: Loewke 2010b.



Figure 2-8. Valley Hill Drive improvements under Alternative 4 (100 units).

Sources: EarthCalc, Inc. 2006; Loewke 2007, 2010a; P/A Design Resources, Inc. 2007b.



Alternative 5 – Site Redesign Alternative (121 residential units)

Alternative 5 (121 units) was developed by the applicant and submitted to the Town under the name “Mitigated Alternative”. Alternative 5 (121 units) is similar to the size of Project (126 units), but redesigns project components (e.g., access roadways, housing locations) to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with the Project. Compared to the Project (126 units), Alternative 5 (121 units) includes smaller average lot sizes (18,000 sf on average, 120-foot average width), increased permanently preserved open space at 115 acres, and reduced grading footprint and quantities. Like the Project, Alternative 5 would provide for second units in up to 20 percent of the lots (24 second units). A conceptual site plan for Alternative 5 (121 units) is shown in Figure 2-9, and a grading plan is shown in Figure 2-10. At buildout Bollinger Valley would have a net residential density of 0.65 DUs/Acre and 62% permanently protected open space. Improvements to Valley Hill Drive (as shown above on Figure 2-8 under Alternative 4 [100 units]) would include two continuous 12-foot wide travelways with a 6-foot wide trail to minimize tree removal and reduce impacts to streams. Slope retention structures such as H-pile and concrete lagging wall systems would be utilized along Valley Hill Drive to reduce grading and impacts to streams and trees along Valley Hill Drive. Roads that include arched, natural bottom culverts over stream channels would be used to facilitate wildlife movement through the Project Area. The EVA route would differ from that described for the Project (126 units), and Alternative 3 (37 units), by providing improved grades and higher quality year round surface than the existing fire access roadway that connects the project site to St. Mary’s Road. Under Alternative 5, the EVA would intersect directly with St. Mary’s Road to avoid potential conflicts with existing residential areas along Driftwood Drive in Lafayette and to reduce the visibility of the road and minimize grading. A small segment near St. Mary’s Road may require asphalt or concrete surfacing to reduce maintenance requirements. The EVA route and design for Alternative 5 is identical to that of Alternative 4 (100 units). Figures 2-10 and 2-11 provide maps of emergency vehicle routes and the proposed EVA.

Alternative 5 (121 units) reduces the potential visibility of homes with increased setbacks from the western ridgeline and eastern property, and an earthen berm would be created along the western ridgeline (by setting the roadway at a lower elevation from the adjoining natural grade) in order to shield views of the Project Area from public viewing locations in Moraga. Water supply for domestic consumption and emergency fire suppression services would be improved with the provision of two storage tanks designed to meet EMBUD and MOFD design criteria for total water volume and pressure to be placed in the northwesterly portion of the Project Area. Installing two tanks instead of a single tank would provide redundancy for maintenance and emergency needs, and can better deliver the pressure and sustained volume of water required by the MOFD and EBMUD. The storage tanks would be based on the final number and location of residential units and fire hydrants. Alternative 5 (121 units) would install two 325,000-gallon tanks that can provide 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for two hours simultaneously to two hydrants. The dimensions of the tanks are anticipated to be 18 feet tall and 55 feet in diameter. The tanks would be set on a recessed pad between earth berms to shield them from public view.



Figure 2-9. Conceptual site plan for Alternative 5 (121 units).

Source: Loewke 2007.



Figure 2-10. Conceptual grading plan for Alternative 5 (121 units).




Figure 2-11. Alternative 5 (121 units) conceptual emergency vehicle routes, including the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA).




2.5.3 Alternative Sites

As noted in the CEQA Guidelines, “The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location” (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[f] [2]). Only locations that avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.

The Project Applicant’s design and submission of Alternatives 4 and 5 to the Project, avoids or reduces several potential environmental effects of the Project. The change in the number of residential units in Alternative 4 (100 units) compared to the Project represents a 21% reduction. Compared to the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units) entails substantially less grading and impacts to vegetation, riparian habitats, wildlife movement, streams, wetlands, and visual resources with homes removed from a potentially visible ridgeline (Planning Team 2003; Loewke 2007, 2010b).

The following screening criteria were applied to determine the feasibility of an alternative site for the Project. Potentially feasible alternative locations for the Project include sites that:

• Are located in the Town of Moraga;

• Are under the control of the Project Applicant;

• Sites were of comparable or sufficient size;

• Have appropriate General Plan land use designation and zoning;

• Have fewer physical constraints; and,

• Could be developed to meet most of the Project’s objectives.

The Moraga Center Specific Plan (MCSP) includes parcels that are potentially feasible alternative locations for the Project. The MCSP is an infill area, and, compared to the Project, a similar scale development of 126 single-family homes at the MCSP would be expected to result in reduced impacts on biological resources, aesthetics, and traffic. However, an action alternative to the Project in the MCSP area is not included for further consideration in this EIR because of the following reasons:

• The evaluation of an alternative site does not meet the Town’s objective to analyze a “special study” of the Bollinger Canyon area and is therefore not consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.1; and

• Land uses in the MCSP area to support increased residential development at the scale of the Project were previously evaluated in the 2009 MCSP EIR (Moraga 2008, 2009).

• Additional residential unit count and higher density alternatives in the MCSP area were determined to be unnecessary to meet the Town’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA).



Table 2-2

Project and Alternatives Summary

Proposed Project

Alt 1

No Project

Alt 2

Minimum Development

Alt 3

GP Density Assumption

Alt 4

Clustered Housing

Alt 5

Site Redesign

General Plan/Zoning

Land Distribution

(acres)

92 - R2/ 2-PD -DT

94.33 - N-OS/

OS-PD-DT

186.33 - Study

186.33 – N-OS/

OS-PD-DT

18.5 – R2/ 2-PD-DT

167.83 – N-OS/

OS-PD-DT

55.33 - R2/ 2-PD -DT

131 – N-OS/ OS-PD-DT

71.33 - R2/ 2-PD -DT

115 – N-OS/ OS-PD-DT

Permanently Protected Open

Space

51% 0% 100% 90% 70% 62%

Dwelling Units 126 0 8 37 100 121

Second Units 25 0 0 0 0 24

Gross Density

0.68 DUA NA 0.05 DUA 0.2 DUA 0.54 DUA 0.65 DUA

Roadway Improvements

Valley Hill Dr. – 18 ft.

wide lanes/5 ft. sidewalk

None None Valley Hill Dr. – 12 ft. wide lanes

Valley Hill Dr. – 12 ft. wide

lanes/6 ft. trail

Valley Hill Dr. – 12 ft. wide

lanes/6 ft. trail

Improved EVA Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Water/Sewer Connections

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Water Storage Tanks

None None None Two 325,000 gallon tanks

Two 325,000 gallon tanks

Two 325,000 gallon tanks

Grading (yds.3):

Acres disturbed:

1,500,000

139.7

None

None

Not Available

Not Available

Not Available

1,975,000

135.8

Stormwater Management

Bioswales/ Three

detention basins

None None One detention basin

Bioswales/ Three detention

basins

Bioswales/ Two detention

basins

Source: HBA, 2012


2 / 1 8 / 1 3 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S P A G E 3 - 1

3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

The Bollinger Valley Project would amend the General Plan land use designations on 186.33 acres in Bollinger Valley Area from Study to approximately 92.33 acres of Residential – 2 DUA (R2) and 94 acres of non-MOSO N-OS. The Project would amend the zoning ordinance, changing the existing Study zoning to Single Family Residential Planned Development with Density Transfer zoning (2-PD-DT) on 92.33 acres and Open Space Planned Development with Density Transfer zoning (OS-PD-DT) on the 94 acres. The amended land use designation and zoning would provide the Project Applicant with entitlements to develop up to 126 single-family detached homes, with lots ranging from 15,000 – 40,000 sf. Development of the Project would require grading to reduce landslide risks; improvements to Valley Hill Drive; an EVA from St. Mary’s Road in Lafayette to residential developments in the Project Area; and sewer, water, and other utility infrastructure.

3.2 IMPACT AND MITIGATION SUMMARY

Table 3-1 provides a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures that are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The impacts and mitigation measures are identified in one of four categories. Each category is identified with a symbol, which is provided below and at the end of Table 3-1 for clarification.

l Significant and Unavoidable – Impact is significant and cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level;

¤ Significant Before Mitigation – Impact is significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level;

¦ Less than Significant – Impact is not considered significant and no mitigation is required; and

== No Impact.


P A G E 3 - 2 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S 2 / 1 8 / 1 3

Table 3-1

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Potential Effects Level of Significance with Mitigation Mitigation Measures

4.A AESTHETICS 4.A-1. Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources (e.g., natural landforms, trees, rock outcrops and historic buildings along a scenic highway)?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.A-1a: Prepare, Review, and Approve Site-Specific Scenic Corridor Landscape Plan.

4.A-1b: Develop, Review, and Approve Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines.

4.A-1c: Ridgeline and Water Tank Screening.

4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio.

4.A-2. Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.A-1b: Develop, Review, and Approve Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines. 4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio.

4.A-3. Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


4.A-1b: Develop, Review, and Approve Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines. 4.A-3: Light and Glare Minimization

4.B AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.B-1. Will the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?


4.B-1: Reduce Dust Generation and Diesel Exhaust During Construction.



Table 3-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures


4.B-2. Will the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Clean Air Plan?

Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¦ Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l

None.

4.B-3. Is the Project consistent with the Clean Air Plan population and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assumptions and Transportation Control Plans (TCMs)?


None.

4.B-4. Will the Project result in a substantial net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) l Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l

4.B-4: Reduce Energy Consumption from Mobile, Stationary, and Area Sources.

4.B-5. Will the Project result in a significant impact to local air quality?

Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) l Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l

4.L-4: Enhance Transit Service in Lamorinda Area South of SR 24. 4.L-5: Provide for Lafayette Intersection Signals.

4.B-6. Does the Project provide buffer zones around existing and proposed land uses that emit odors and/or toxic air contaminants?

Project (126 units) ¦ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¦ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¦ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¦

None.

4.B-7. Will the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?


4.B-4: Reduce Energy Consumption from Mobile, Stationary, and Area Sources. 4.B-7: Implement Air Pollution Reduction Measures in Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10.

4.B-8. Will the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions?


4.B-4: Reduce Energy Consumption from Mobile, Stationary, and Area Sources. 4.B-7: Implement Air Pollution Reduction Measures in Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10.





4.C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.C-1. Will the Project result in a substantial loss of native vegetation or wildlife populations?


4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1d: Restore March/Wetland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio.

4.C-2. Will the Project cause a permanent loss of sensitive natural communities?


4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1d: Restore March/Wetland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio.

4.C-3. Will the Project result in a net loss of wetlands, streams or other waters of the U.S.?


4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1d: Restore March/Wetland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio.

4.C-4. Will the Project cause a loss of individuals or populations of special-status plant species?


4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1d: Restore March/Wetland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-4: Conduct Preconstruction Botanical Surveys; Restore Removed Populations





4.C-5. Will the Project cause a loss of individuals or habitat of endangered, threatened, rare, or fully protected wildlife?


4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-1d: Restore March/Wetland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. 4.C-5: Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation 4.H-1: Site Specific Surveys and Consultation with CDFG and USFWS.

4.C-6. Will the Project cause a loss of active raptor nests, migratory bird nests, or native wildlife nursery sites?


4.C-6: Implement General Plan Mitigation: 4.H-3: Conduct Pre-Construction Surveys for Breeding Raptors and Migratory Birds.

4.C-7. Will the Project substantially block or disrupt wildlife migration or travel corridors?


None.

4.C-8. Will the Project conflict with local policies or ordinances for the protection of biological resources?


4.C-8: Tree Preservation.

4.C-9. Will the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Project (126 units) == Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) == Alternative 3 (37 units) == Alternative 4 (100 units) == Alternative 5 (121 units) ==

None.

4.D CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.D-1. Will the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA §15064.5?


None.





4.D-2. Will the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA §15064.5?


4.D-2: Protect Unrecorded Archaeological Resources.

4.D-3. Will the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?


4.D-3: Protect Unrecorded Paleontological Resources.

4.D-4. Will the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?


4.D-4: Protect Inadvertently Discovered Human Remains.

4.E GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4.E-1. Will the Project or Alternatives expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction?


4.E-1: Design Level Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Report.

4.E-2. Will the Project or Alternatives expose people or structures to major geologic hazards, such as strong seismic groundshaking, or seismic related ground failure including rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?







4.E-3. Will the Project or Alternatives result in placement of structures or infrastructure in locations susceptible to landslides or slope instability?


4.E-1: Design Level Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Report. 4.E-3a: Deed Disclosure. 4.E-3b: Construction Monitoring, Testing, and Reporting. 4.E-3c: Stabilize Areas of Slope Instability and Landsliding along Bollinger Canyon Road.

4.E-4. Does the Project or Alternatives have the potential to result in damage to structures or infrastructure due to settlement of natural deposits or improperly constructed fills?



4.E-5. Will the Project or Alternatives result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) ¦ Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.E-5a: Grading Period. 4.E-5b: Stockpile Topsoil.

4.E-6. Will the Project or Alternatives be located on expansive or corrosive soil, creating substantial risk to life or property?



4.E-7. Will the Project or Alternatives have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Project (126 units) == Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) == Alternative 4 (100 units) == Alternative 5 (121 units) ==

4.E-7: Conduct Soils Investigations for Septic Systems.

4.F HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.F-1. Will the Project construction or long-term operations cause numeric or narrative water quality criteria to be exceeded in Las Trampas Creek?

Project (126 units) m Alternative 1 (No Project) l Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) m Alternative 4 (100 units) m Alternative 5 (121 units) m

4.F-1a: Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies for Source Control. 4.F-1b: Prevent Livestock Access to Streams and Wetlands.





4.F-2. Will the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.E-1: Design-Level Geotechnical and Geologic Investigations Report. 4.E-7: Conduct Soils Investigations for Septic Systems. 4.F-1a: Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies for Source Control. 4.F-1b: Prevent Livestock Access to Streams and Wetlands. 4.F-2: Complete Groundwater Supply Assessments.

4.F-3. Will the Project substantially alter existing drainage patterns and result in erosion, sedimentation, or flooding or result runoff that exceeds storm drain capacity?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) m Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤


4.F-4. Will the Project expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?


4.E-1: Design-Level Geotechnical and Geologic Investigations Report.

4.F-5. Will the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure or a levee or dam?


None.

4.F-6. Will the Project place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, which would impede or redirect flood flows?


None.

4.F-7. Will the Project expose people or structures to increased potential for flooding, bank erosion and/or sedimentation?

Project (126 units) m Alternative 1 (No Project) m Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) m Alternative 4 (100 units) m Alternative 5 (121 units) m






4.G LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.G-1. Is the Project consistent with the Town of Moraga, City of Lafayette, and Contra Costa County General Plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding, minimizing, or monitoring environmental effects?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) m Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.E-1: Design Level Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Report. 4.E-3a: Deed Disclosure.

4.E-3b: Construction Monitoring, Testing, and Reporting.

4.E-3c: Stabilize Areas of Slope Instability and Landsliding on Bollinger Canyon Road.

4.E-7: Conduct Soil Investigation for Septic Systems. 4.F-1a: Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies for Source Control. 4.F-1b: Prevent Livestock Access to Streams and Wetlands. 4.G-1a: Amend Moraga General Plan Land Use Designation. 4.G-1b: Amend Moraga General Plan Land Use Designation. 4.J-1b (1): Fee Payment for Fire Protection Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities, and Fire Protection and Emergency Services Plan. 4.J-1b (2): Amend Moraga General Plan Policy PS3.3.

4.G-2. Will the Project result in conflicts between adjacent land uses (i.e., residential and industrial or residential and agricultural) or result in incompatible residential densities?


4.G-2: Incorporate Buffers.


P A G E 3 - 1 0 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S 2 / 1 8 / 1 3



4.G-3. Will the Project substantially increase densities?


4.E-1: Design-Level Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Report. 4.E-3a: Deed Disclosure.

4.E-3b: Construction Monitoring, Testing, and Reporting.

4.E-3c: Stabilize Areas of Slope Instability and Landsliding along Bollinger Canyon Road.

4.G-1b: Amend Moraga General Plan Land Use Designation. 4.J-1b(1): Fee Payment for Fire Protection Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities, and Fire Protection and Emergency Services Plan.

4.G-4. Will the Project physically divide an established community?


None.

4.G-5. Will the Project convert or result in the conversion of forestland, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural or non-forestland uses, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract?


None.

4.G-6. Will the Project result in loss of potential public open space?


None.

4.H NOISE 4.H-1. Will Project construction expose people to high noise levels or ground-borne vibration?


4.H-1: Implement Construction Noise Control Measures.


2 / 1 8 / 1 3 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S P A G E 3 - 1 1



4.H-2. Will operation of the Project expose people to high noise levels or ground-borne vibration?


None.

4.H-3. Will Project traffic result in increased noise at existing residential land uses that exceed acceptable exterior noise level standards?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¦ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.H-3: Traffic Noise Control Measures.

4.I POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.I-1. Will the Project result in a net loss, through conversion or demolition, of homes occupied by low- or moderate-income households, or of multifamily rental housing?


None.

4.I.2. Will the Project create a demand for housing or induce population growth in excess of growth anticipated in the Moraga General Plan either directly or indirectly?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) == Alternative 3 (37 units) == Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.G-1b: Amend Moraga General Plan Land Use Designation.

4.J PUBLIC SERVICES 4.J-1. Will the Project increase demand for public services to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained and new facilities are required to maintain service standards for the following:

a. Police protection? Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.A-1b: Develop, Review, and Approve Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines. 4.A-1c: Ridgeline and Water Tank Screening. 4.J-1a: Review of Design Guidelines and Project Plans. 4.L-9: Improve Bollinger Canyon Road and Install Left-Turn Lane on Southbound St. Mary’s Road at Bollinger Canyon Road.





b. Fire protection? Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.J-1b(1): Fee Payment for Fire Protection Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities, and Fire Protection and Emergency Services Plan. 4.J-1b(2): Amend Moraga General Plan Policy PS3.3 4.L-9: Improve Bollinger Canyon Road and Install Left-Turn Lane on Southbound St. Mary’s Road at Bollinger Canyon Road.

c. Parks? Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¤ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.J-1c (1): Neighborhood Park Development. 4.J-1c (2): Open Space Corridor Public Trail.

d. Libraries? Project (126 units) ¦ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 units) ¦ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¦ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¦

None.

4.J-2. Will the Project impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan?

Project (126 units) ¦ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) ¦ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¦ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¦

None.

4.J-3. Will the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?


4.J-1b(1): Fee Payment for Fire Protection Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities, and Fire Protection and Emergency Services Plan.

4.K SCHOOLS 4.K-1. Will the Project increase demand for schools to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained and new facilities are required?

Project (126 units) ¦ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 Units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 Units) ¦ Alternative 4 (100 Units) ¦ Alternative 5 (121 Units) ¦

None.





4.K-2. Will the Project conflict with local policies for providing public school facilities?

Project (126 units) ¦ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 Units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 Units) ¦ Alternative 4 (100 Units) ¦ Alternative 5 (121 Units) ¦

None.

4.L TRANSPORTATION 4.L-1. Will the Project create adverse vehicular impacts on Routes of Regional Significance?


None.

4.L-2. Will the Project create adverse vehicular impacts for signalized intersections on streets in Moraga?


None.

4.L-3. Will the Project create adverse vehicular impacts for unsignalized intersections in Moraga?


4.L-3: Install Traffic Signal at the Corliss Drive/Moraga Road Intersection. Alternative Mitigation Measure 4.L-3: Install Roundabout at the Corliss Drive/Moraga Road Intersection.

4.L-4. Will the Project create vehicular impacts for signalized intersections in Lafayette?

Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 units) l Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l

4.L-4: Enhance Transit Service in the Lamorinda Area South of SR 24.

4.L-5. Will the Project create vehicular impacts for unsignalized intersections in Lafayette?


4.L-5: Provide For Lafayette Intersection Signals.

4.L-6. Will the Project create vehicular impacts for signalized intersections in Orinda?

Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) ¦ Alternative 3 (37 units) l Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l

4.L-4: Enhance Transit Service in the Lamorinda Area South of SR 24.





4.L-7. Will the Project create vehicular impacts for unsignalized intersections in Orinda?


None.

4.L-8. Will the Project adversely affect public transit service levels or accessibility to public transit service?


None.

4.L-9. Will the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment on roads)?

Project (126 units) ¤ Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) ¤ Alternative 4 (100 units) ¤ Alternative 5 (121 units) ¤

4.L-9: Improve Bollinger Canyon Road and Install Left-Turn Lane on Southbound St. Mary’s Road at Bollinger Canyon Road.

4.L-10. Will the Project cause adverse impacts on the use of bicycle and/or pedestrian travel ways?


4.L-10: Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Features.

4.L-11. Will the Project create adverse impacts to existing parking or access to existing parking?


4.L-11: Provide Parking Features.

4.L-12. Will the construction traffic from the Project have a significant, though temporary, impact on traffic flow and circulation, parking, and pedestrian safety?


4.L-12: Divert Construction Traffic to Moraga Way or Moraga Road; Maintain Bollinger Canyon Road Pavement Condition.

Additional Mitigation for Cumulative Traffic Impacts 4.L-C2: Widen Moraga Way Approach to Moraga Road. 4.L-C3: Install Roundabout at the Rheem Boulevard/St. Mary’s Road Intersection.





4.M UTILITIES AND HAZARDS 4.M-1. Will the Project increase demand for water, wastewater treatment and disposal, solid waste or hazardous waste disposal that accepted service standards are not maintained and/or new facilities are required to maintain acceptable service standards?


4.E-1: Design Level Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Report. 4.E-7: Conduct Soils Investigations for Septic Systems. 4.F-2: Complete Groundwater Supply Assessments. 4.M-1a: Submission of a Preliminary Work Agreement, EBMUD Annexation Application, and Conservation Measures. 4.M-1b: CCCSD Consultation and Wastewater Facility Construction. 4.M-1c: Energy Conservation Measures. 4.M-1d: Waste Management Plan and Service Contracting.

4.M-2. Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal of, or reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials?


4.M-2: Develop a Mosquito Control Program.

4.M-3. Will the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ - mile of an existing or proposed school?


None.

4.M-4. Will the Project be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?


None.

Key Level of Significance: l Significant impact before and after mitigation

¤ Significant impact before mitigation; less than significant impact after mitigation ¦ Less than significant impact; no mitigation proposed

== No impact



3.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY OR EXPRESSED CONCERN

The CEQA Guidelines (§15123[b][2]) require the summary section of an EIR to identify areas of controversy or expressed concern known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. Issues of concern raised by regional and local agencies and the public were identified through written responses received on the Notices of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and letters of comment received on the NOP are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively. Areas of concern that were raised about the project include:

• Change in the visual character of the area;

• Fugitive dust and increased exhaust emissions due to increased traffic;

• The Threatened Alameda whipsnake, California red-legged frog;

• Loss of rare plant populations, and wildlife corridors;

• Impacts on cultural, historic, and paleontological resources;

• Landslide risks and soil erosion;

• Increased stormwater runoff, siltation, and contaminants in local streams;

• General Plan Consistency;

• Construction noise;

• Moraga’s ability to meet fair share affordable housing targets;

• Emergency police, fire, and medical response and evacuation plans;

• Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians with increased traffic;

• Level of Service (LOS) impacts at major intersections;

• Road degradation;

• Existing utility capacity and impacts due to construction of new utility connections;

3.4 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the EIR identify alternatives that could attain most of the project objectives but might avoid or reduce significant affects of the project. In addition, the EIR must analyze a No Project Alternative that assesses the environmental effects in the event that the project does not occur. This EIR compares the Bollinger Valley Project to the following Alternatives:

• Alternative 1 (No Project)

• Alternative 2 (8 units)


• Alternative 4 (100 units), and


Table 5-2 in Chapter 5 compares the potential environmental impacts of the Project and Alternatives.

Documents

BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT - Moraga Projects/BollingerValley... · BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH NUMBER 2006112061 Town of Moraga Planning Department