Mission Peak draft EIR

October 2015

S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N 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

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012102048

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

MISSION PEAK REGIONAL PRESERVE STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT

State Clearinghouse Number: 2012102048

October 16, 2015

NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that the East Bay Regional Park District (District), as Lead Agency, has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project (project). The Draft EIR is available for public review and comment and this notice is provided pursuant to Section 21092 of the State Public Resources Code.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD: The public review for the Draft EIR is October 16 - November 30, 2015. The District must receive all written comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR within this time period. Written comments are encouraged and may be submitted by mail or by e-mail, and should be directed to:

Michelle Julene, Senior Planner East Bay Regional Park District PO Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 Email: [email protected]

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the District has prepared a Draft EIR which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project. A Final EIR will be prepared following public review and comment. The District will consider this information when deliberating on the project. Following certification of the Final EIR, the District may take action to approve the project.

PUBLIC MEETING: The District will hold an informational meeting on the Draft EIR on Monday, November 9 at 6:00 p.m. at the Warm Springs Community Center, 47300 Fernald Street, Fremont. The District will present the project at this public meeting and will accept verbal comments. The District will respond to comments in the Response to Public Comments document that will be prepared at the end of the public review period as part of the Final EIR that will be presented to the District’s Board of Directors.

A public hearing by the District’s Board of Directors to consider certification of the EIR and project approval is anticipated in spring 2016. A separate notice of this meeting will be provided to those who comment on the Draft EIR and posted on the District’s website when the date is determined.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Draft EIR is available online, and may be downloaded from the District website: www.ebparks.org/parks/mission/Stanford_Avenue_Staging_Area_ Expansion_Project. Copies of the Draft EIR are also available for review at District headquarters at the address listed above and at the Fremont Main Library Reference Desk, 2300 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ebparks.org/parks/mission/Stanford_Avenue_Staging_Area_%20Expansion_Project

PROJECT LOCATION: The project area is located at the western entrance to the Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Preserve) at the terminus of Stanford Avenue in the City of Fremont, Alameda County. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (staging area) provides limited parking for 43 vehicles and serves as the primary access to the Hidden Valley Trail and the Peak Meadow Trail which access the summit of Mission Peak.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. It is anticipated that developing a new staging area at this location will help to reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets resulting from Preserve visitors parking on public streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. The Draft EIR fully analyzes the environmental impacts of two potential options for a staging area location, either of which would provide a maximum of 300 new parking spaces within the existing Mission Peak boundaries. The options are:

• Option A: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located 250 feet to the northeast of the existing staging area. The Option A site encompasses a total of 11.71 acres. Approximately 9.64 acres would be permanently disturbed, 2.78 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces. The remaining 2.07 acres consist of temporarily disturbed areas.

• Option B: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located approximately 875 feet to the southeast of the existing staging area. The Option B site encompasses a total of 16.76 acres. Approximately 10.45 acres would be permanently disturbed, 3.10 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces or bridge structures. The remaining 6.31 acres consist of temporarily disturbed areas.

Each option would include a gate controlled access to the staging area, kiosk, new public restrooms, picnic tables, and associated landscaping and utility improvements. Each option also would also include paved vehicle access roadways from the existing staging area to the project as well as new graveled roadways and/or trail connections. Post-construction stormwater controls would include treatment through bioretention within the staging area and hydromodification management utilizing a detention pond.

Development of Option A would include a headwall repair to an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek. Development of Option B would remove an existing culvert and restore the channel to its natural condition along a different section of Agua Caliente Creek. Development of Option B would also include a new vehicular bridge and a trail bridge at two separate locations over the creek.

ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The Draft EIR provides an evaluation of the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Potential significant impacts were identified for the following environmental topics: biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, and noise.

QUESTIONS: If you have questions about the Draft EIR, please contact Michelle Julene, Senior Planner, East Bay Regional Park District, at 510-544-2351, or [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

October 2015

S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N 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

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012102048

Submitted to:

East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court

P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, California 95605-0381

Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street

Berkeley, California 94710 510.540.7331

L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . O C T O B E R 2 0 1 5

S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RT A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR ..................................................................................................... 1 B. REGIONAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 1 C. PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 3 D. EIR SCOPE......................................................................................................................... 4 E. REPORT ORGANIZATION .............................................................................................. 5

II. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 7 A. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW ............................................................................................ 7 B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................... 8 C. SUMMARY TABLE ........................................................................................................ 12

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 55 A. PROJECT AREA .............................................................................................................. 55 B. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 58 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 62 D. PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................... 63 E. PROJECT APPROVALS AND USE OF THIS EIR ........................................................ 74

IV. PLANNING POLICY ................................................................................................................ 77 A. CITY OF FREMONT GENERAL PLAN ........................................................................ 77 B. CITY OF FREMONT ZONING ORDINANCE .............................................................. 93 C. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT MASTER PLAN .................................... 94

V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 105 A. LAND USE ..................................................................................................................... 109 B. VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 123 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 143 D. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 197 E. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................. 221 F. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 229 G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................... 233 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................... 257 I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................... 279 J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................................... 289 K. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 321 L. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................... 349 M. NOISE ............................................................................................................................. 367 N. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................... 385 O. RECREATION ............................................................................................................... 389 P. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 403 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 415



P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15) ii

VI. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................... 425 A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 427 B. REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE .............................................................. 431 C. PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE EXISTING STAGING AREA

ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................. 436 D. OFF-SITE PARKING ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................ 441 E. MAXIMUM PARKING ALTERNATIVE .................................................................... 445 F. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER

EVALUATION IN THIS EIR ........................................................................................ 450 G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ................................................ 457

VII. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 459 A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ................................................................................ 459 B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................ 460 C. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES .............................................................. 460

VIII. REPORT PREPARATION ...................................................................................................... 463 A. REPORT PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 463 B. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 464 C. COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................... 472

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Scoping Information A-1: NOP and Comment Letters A-2: Scoping Session Notes and Comments A-3: District Master Plan Meeting Comments

Appendix B: Latent Visitor Demand Study

Appendix C: Geotechnical Report

Appendix D: Transportation Impact Analysis

Appendix E: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

Appendix F: Noise Data



P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15) iii

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure I-1: Project Vicinity and Regional Location Map ........................................................... 2 Figure III-1: Aerial View of the Project Area .............................................................................. 59 Figure III-2a: Option A – Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................ 65 Figure III-2b: Option A – Conceptual Site Sections ...................................................................... 66 Figure III-3a: Option B – Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................ 67 Figure III-3b: Option B – Conceptual Site Sections ...................................................................... 68 Figure V.A-1: Aerial Photograph of the Project Area, Surrounding Land Uses and Photo

Location Map ........................................................................................................ 111 Figure V.A-2a: Existing Land Use Photos ..................................................................................... 112 Figure V.A-2b: Existing Land Use Photos ..................................................................................... 113 Figure V.A-2c: Existing Land Use Photos ..................................................................................... 114 Figure V.B-1: Viewpoint Location Map ...................................................................................... 125 Figure V.B-2a: Viewpoint 1 – Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option A) ............................. 127 Figure V.B-2b: Viewpoint 1 – Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option B) ............................. 128 Figure V.B-3a: Viewpoint 2 – Mission Peak Summit (Option A) ................................................. 129 Figure V.B-3b: Viewpoint 2 – Mission Peak Summit (Option B) ................................................. 130 Figure V.B-4: Viewpoint 3 – Fence Line – Option A .................................................................. 131 Figure V.B-5: Viewpoint 4 – Fence Line – Option B .................................................................. 132 Figure V.G-1: Map of Quaternary Faulting – Conceptual Parking Options ................................ 239 Figure V.G-2: Landslides and Related Features ........................................................................... 240 Figure V.G-3: Regional Landslide Map ....................................................................................... 241 Figure V.J-1: Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................... 290 Figure V.J-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................... 295 Figure V.J-3: Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................ 297 Figure V.J-4: Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................... 298 Figure V.J-5: Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 299 Figure V.J-6: Cumulative Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 301 Figure V.J-7: Streets Most Heavily Used for Parking by Trail Users ......................................... 303 Figure V.J-8: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................ 311 Figure V.J-9: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................ 312 Figure V.J-10: Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 315



P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15) iv

TABLES

Table II-1: Summary of Option A Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 13 Table II-2: Summary of Option B Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 34 Table III-1: Comparison of Option A and Option B Staging Areas ........................................... 64 Table III-2: Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................ 75 Table IV-1: Relationship of Proposed Project to City of Fremont General Plan Policies .......... 80 Table IV-2: Relationship of Proposed Project to East Bay Regional Park District

Master Plan ............................................................................................................. 97 Table V.1: Cumulative Projects .............................................................................................. 108 Table V.A-1: Stanford Avenue Staging Area and Environs Hours of Operation (2014-

2015) ..................................................................................................................... 110 Table V.C-1: Plant Species Observed at the Project Sites .......................................................... 145 Table V.C-2: Wildlife Species Observed on or Adjacent to the Project Sites ............................ 148 Table V.C-3: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the

Project Sites .......................................................................................................... 151 Table V.C-4: Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the

Project Sites .......................................................................................................... 157 Table V.C-5: Projects in the Fremont Region that May Contribute to Cumulative

Biological Resources Impacts ............................................................................... 195 Table V.G-1: Local Faults ........................................................................................................... 234 Table V.G-2 Modified Mercalli Scale ....................................................................................... 236 Table V.H-1: Impaired Water Body Pollutants for South San Francisco Bay ............................ 261 Table V.J-1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ............................................ 292 Table V.J-2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ....................................... 292 Table V.J-3: Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project) .................. 300 Table V.J-4: Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project) ............ 302 Table V.J-5: Project Trip Generation Estimates ........................................................................ 309 Table V.J-6: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project

Conditions ............................................................................................................. 313 Table V.J-7: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project

Conditions ............................................................................................................. 313 Table V.J-8: Intersection Level of Service Summary Under Cumulative Conditions ............... 314 Table V.J-9: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ..................................................................... 316 Table V.J-10: Friday Parking Demand Estimates–Existing and Plus Project Conditions ........... 318 Table V.J-11: Saturday Parking Demand Estimates–Existing and Plus Project Conditions ....... 319 Table V.K-1: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants ........................................................ 322 Table V.K-2: Ambient Air Quality at the San Francisco Air Basin ............................................ 328 Table V.K-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................ 331 Table V.K-4: Bay Area Attainment Status .................................................................................. 336 Table V.K-5: Option A Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day ........................... 342 Table V.K-6: Option B Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day ........................... 344 Table V.K-7: Daily Project Operational Emissions .................................................................... 345 Table V.K-8: Annual Project Operational Emissions ................................................................. 346 Table V.L-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases ................................................. 350 Table V.L-2: City of Fremont 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (MTCO2e) ............ 362 Table V.M-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms ........................................................................... 369



P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15) v

Table V.M-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ....................................................................... 370 Table V.M-3: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................. 371 Table V.M-4: Summary of EPA Noise Levels ............................................................................ 372 Table V.M-5: Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn ............................. 372 Table V.M-6: Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise Environments ............... 374 Table V.M-7: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax .......................... 380 Table V.Q-1: Existing Water Supply .......................................................................................... 415 Table V.Q-2: Water Treatment Facilities Characteristics ........................................................... 416



P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15) vi

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\1-Introduction.docx (10/14/15) 1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this report describes the environmental consequences of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project (proposed project) located at Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve) in the City of Fremont (City), Alameda County. Although Mission Peak is within the jurisdictional boundaries of Fremont, it is operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (District); therefore, the District is the Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed project. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is designed to inform District decision-makers, responsible agencies, and the general public of the proposed project and the potential physical consequences of project approval. This EIR also examines alternatives to the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant physical impacts. This EIR will be used by the District and the public in their review of the proposed project and associated approvals, including those described in Chapter III, Project Description. B. REGIONAL CONTEXT

The project area is located within Mission Peak, in the southeastern area of the City of Fremont. Ohlone College, the City, and the District own portions of the lands within Mission Peak. However, the District operates and maintains the park on Ohlone College and City-owned lands under respective lease agreements. The project area is located on land owned by the City but within the boundaries of Mission Peak and leased by the District. The project area is located within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area which provides direct access to several trails within Mission Peak. Figure I-1 shows the location and ownership boundaries of Mission Peak within the local and regional context and identifies the location of the project area. The District is a State-authorized independent special district operating 65 parks on approximately 119,000 acres of land in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The District’s core mission is to acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of interconnected park lands that balances public usage and education programs with protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources. District facilities include over 1,250 miles of trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding and nature study. The District also offers lakes, shorelines, campgrounds, visitor centers, interpretive and recreation programs, picnic areas, indoor/outdoor rental facilities, and golf courses. Mission Peak is located within this park system and is heavily used by visitors from throughout the Bay Area, making Mission Peak (at an elevation of 2,516 feet) a regional destination.

Option A and Option B Sites

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Mission Peak Regional Preserve Boundary

FIGURE I-1

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRProject Vicinity and Regional Location MapSOURCES: EBRPD; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_I1.ai (4/21/15)

24

17

1

9

9

280

880

680

101

580

PROJECTLOCATION

REGIONAL LOCATION

Fremont

Milpitas

Hayward

San Mateo

Palo Alto

Los Gatos

San Jose

San Francisco

Berkeley

PACIFIC OCEAN

San Francisco Bay

FREMONT HILLSOPEN SPACE

MISSION PEAKMISSION PEAK

REGIONALREGIONAL

PRESERVEPRESERVE

OPTION A

OPTION B

OhloneCollege

Land

City ofFremont

Land

East BayRegional ParkDistrict Land

MISSION PEAK

REGIONAL

PRESERVE


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RI . I N T R O D U C T I O N


C. PROPOSED PROJECT

The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (staging area) at Mission Peak. It is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this location will help to reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. The new staging area is proposed to be developed at one of two potential locations within the City-owned portion of Mission Peak on land leased by the District and near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. As such, this EIR analyzes the environmental impacts of two potential staging area locations, either of which would provide a maximum of 300 new parking spaces within the existing Mission Peak boundaries. The options are:

Option A: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located 250 feet to the northeast of the existing staging area. The Option A site encompasses a total of 11.71 acres. Approximately 9.64 acres would be permanently disturbed, 2.78 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces. The remaining 2.07 acres consist of temporarily disturbed areas.

Option B: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located approximately 875 feet to the southeast of the existing staging area. The Option B site encompasses a total of 16.76 acres. Approximately 10.45 acres would be permanently disturbed, 3.10 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces or bridge structures. The remaining 6.31 acres consist of temporarily disturbed areas.

Each option would include a gate controlled access to the staging area, kiosk, new public restrooms, picnic tables, and associated landscaping and utility improvements. Each option would also include paved roadways from the existing staging area to provide access to either location as well as new graveled roadways and/or trail connections. Post-construction stormwater controls at each location would include treatment through bioretention and hydromodification management utilizing a detention pond. Development of Option A would include a headwall repair to an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. Development of Option B would include removal of an existing culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails and restoration of the channel to its natural condition along a different section of Agua Caliente Creek. Development of Option B would also include development of a new vehicular bridge and a pedestrian bridge at two separate locations over the creek. The existing staging area would be retained under either option, resulting in a maximum of 343 parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The increase in the availability of parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area is expected to better serve the demand for parking, and according to surveys prepared for the District,1, 2, 3 could increase visitor demand by between

1 East Bay Regional Park District, 2007. Park Visitor and Vehicle Count, Mission Peak Stanford Staging Area.

August 11.




approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (See Section V.J., Transportation and Circulation). This potential increase in visitation is also evaluated as part of the project in this EIR. The District will utilize the environmental analysis provided in this EIR to inform and support any decision to approve one of the two project options. The District’s Board may decide not to approve either project option, and it could instead direct District staff to further analyze one of the alternatives considered in this EIR. Refer to Chapter III, Project Description, for a complete description of the proposed staging area development options and to Chapter V, Alternatives, for a description of the No Project alternative and consideration of other project alternatives. D. EIR SCOPE

The following environmental topics are addressed in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures of this EIR:

Land Use

Visual Resources

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

Mineral Resources

Geology and Soils

Hydrology and Water Quality

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Transportation and Circulation

Air Quality

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Noise

Population and Housing

Recreation

Public Services

Utilities and Service Systems

2 East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Mission Peak Parking Use Survey, February-July. 3 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study. June 29.




The EIR also includes an evaluation of the project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies (see Chapter IV, Planning Policy) and an evaluation of alternatives to the project (see Chapter VI, Alternatives). E. REPORT ORGANIZATION

This EIR is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter I – Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose, provides a summary of the proposed project, and summarizes the organization of the EIR.

Chapter II – Summary: Provides a summary of the proposed project and of the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and describes mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid significant impacts. A summary of alternatives to the proposed project is also provided.

Chapter III – Project Description: Provides a description of the project area, project background, project objectives, required approvals, and details of the project itself.

Chapter IV – Planning Policy: Identifies relevant regional and local plans and evaluates the proposed project's consistency with these plans and policies.

Chapter V – Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for all environmental topics evaluated in this EIR: existing conditions (setting); potential environmental impacts and their level of significance; and measures to mitigate identified impacts. Potential adverse impacts are identified by level of significance, as follows: less-than-significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable impact (SU). The significance of each impact is categorized before and after implementa-tion of any recommended mitigation measure(s). Each topical section also includes an analysis of the cumulative effects of the project.

Chapter VI – Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of five alternatives to the proposed project options, including the No Project alternative.

Chapter VII – Other CEQA Considerations: Provides additional required analyses of the proposed project’s growth-inducing effects and significant irreversible changes.

Chapter VIII – Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the EIR, references used, and persons and organizations contacted.

Appendices: The appendices contain the NOP and comments on the NOP, technical studies and calculations, and other documentation prepared in conjunction with this EIR.





P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\2-Summary.docx (10/14/15) 7

II. SUMMARY

A. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the environmental consequences of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project (proposed project) located at Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve) in the City of Fremont (City), Alameda County. Although Mission Peak is within the jurisdictional boundaries of Fremont, it is operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (District); therefore, the District is the Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed project. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (staging area) provides limited parking for 43 vehicles and serves as the primary access to the Hidden Valley Trail and the Peak Meadow Trail which access the summit of Mission Peak. The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing staging area. It is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this location will help to reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. The new staging area is proposed to be developed at one of two potential locations within the City-owned portion of Mission Peak on land leased by the District and near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. As such, this EIR analyzes the environmental impacts of two potential staging area locations, either of which would provide a maximum of 300 new parking spaces within the existing Mission Peak boundaries. The options are:



Each option would include a gate controlled access to the staging area, kiosk, new public restrooms, picnic tables, and associated landscaping and utility improvements. Each option would also include paved roadways from the existing staging area to provide access to either location as well as new graveled roadways and/or trail connections. Post-construction stormwater controls at each location would include treatment through bioretention and hydromodification management utilizing a detention pond.


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RI I . S U M M A R Y


Development of Option A would include a headwall repair to an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. Development of Option B would include removal of an existing culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails and restoration of the channel to its natural condition along a different section of Agua Caliente Creek. Development of Option B would also include development of a new vehicular bridge and a pedestrian bridge at two separate locations over the creek. The existing staging area would be retained under either option, resulting in a maximum of 343 parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The increase in the availability of parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area is expected to better serve the demand for parking, and according to surveys prepared for the District,1, 2, 3 could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (See Section V.J., Transportation and Circulation). This potential increase in visitation is also evaluated as part of the project in this EIR. The District will utilize the environmental analysis provided in this EIR to inform and support any decision to approve one of the two project options. The District’s Board may decide not to approve either project option, and it could instead direct District staff to further analyze one of the alternatives considered in this EIR. Refer to Chapter III, Project Description, for a complete description of the proposed staging area development options and to Chapter V, Alternatives, for a description of the No Project alternative and consideration of other project alternatives. B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect on the environment as “… a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project…” Therefore, in identifying the significant impacts of the project, this EIR focuses on its substantial physical effects and mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or otherwise alleviate those effects. This EIR examines the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the project and focuses primarily on changes in the environment that would result from project development. This EIR examines all phases of the project including construction, operation, and maintenance. This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This summary includes a discussion of: 1) potential areas of controversy; 2) significant project-level impacts; 3) cumulative impacts; 4) significant irreversible and unavoidable impacts; and 5) alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or avoid the environmental impacts of the project.

1 East Bay Regional Park District, 2007. Park Visitor and Vehicle Count, Mission Peak Stanford Staging Area.

August 11. 2 East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Mission Peak Parking Use Survey, February-July. 3 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study. June 29.




1. Potential Areas of Controversy

The District circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on October 22, 2012 notifying responsible agencies and interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the project and indicating the environmental topics anticipated to be addressed in the EIR. A total of 20 comment letters were received in response to the NOP in addition to verbal comments provided and comment cards submitted at the public scoping session, held on November 8, 2012. Comments were received from a variety of groups, including nearby neighbors and visitors to Mission Peak. A copy of the NOP and each comment letter received is included in Appendix A of this EIR. Appendix A also includes a summary of the verbal comments made at the scoping session and copies of the comment cards. In the fall of 2012, the District also held a series of community meetings to gather input on revisions to the District Master Plan, which at the time was under revision. Some of the comments submitted at these meetings also pertained to the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project, and these comments are also reproduced in Appendix A. Scoping comments generally included the following concerns:

Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and safety

Adequacy of existing and future parking supply to meet demand

Geotechnical and slope stability issues, including erosion

Ability of existing cattle operations to continue

Crime and safety and illegal littering

Overuse of the park and creation of illegal trails

Loss of habitat and open space

Access to existing hang gliding landing zones

Noise impacts to residents

Flooding and drainage issues

Impacts to natural springs

Cultural resource and artifacts

Air quality impacts associated with idling cars Many of these concerns relate to the existing and future intensity of use at Mission Peak, and can be summarized as relating to the “carrying capacity” of the park and the potential overuse of resources. The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with anticipated increases in visitor use due to the provision of additional parking. Existing and future operations of Mission Peak are currently being addressed through ongoing maintenance and operations activities of the District, as discussed further in Section V.P, Public Services. Furthermore, the District conducts ongoing public outreach efforts to address a variety of issues including hiker safety; hiking with dogs and children; trail restoration; consideration when parking in the neighborhoods; identification of other challenging hikes at other District facilities; and parking at Ohlone College. One public outreach event was held in 2013 and six were held in 2014 (refer to Chapter III, Project Description for additional information).




Many commenters also provided suggested alternatives to the proposed project. Project alternatives are analyzed in Chapter VI, Alternatives of this EIR. Due to high and ongoing public interest in the proposed project, comments regarding the proposed project continue to be received by the District via email, at regularly scheduled District Board meetings, and at City of Fremont City Council meetings. 2. Significant Impacts

Implementation of the proposed project options for providing additional parking has the potential to result in adverse impacts in several environmental areas. As shown in Tables II-1 and II-2 at the end of this chapter, impacts in the following areas would be significant under both development options, although all of these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in Chapter V:

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Geology and Soils

Hydrology and Water Quality

Air Quality

Noise 3. Cumulative Impacts

CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered togeth-er, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. As discussed in Chapter V, the proposed project would not result in any cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. 4. Significant Unavoidable Impacts

As discussed in Chapter V, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable environmental impacts. 5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could attain most of the project’s basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly adverse environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. CEQA states that an EIR should not consider alternatives “whose effect cannot be ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.”




The five alternatives to the proposed project options analyzed in Chapter VI of this EIR are summarized below. These alternatives (with the exception of the CEQA-mandated No Project alternative) were intended to achieve the key objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding significant environmental effects. The following five alternatives were developed to reduce the significant impacts of the project.

The No Project alternative, which assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the project sites. No additional parking or restrooms would be constructed within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This entrance to Mission Peak would continue to be inadequately served by available parking and restrooms within the Preserve. It is assumed that visitors to the Preserve would continue to park on adjacent streets at the current levels and the associated issues such as noise, litter, and congestion would continue at the current levels.

The Reduced Project Size alternative, which would construct a new staging area with parking for approximately 225 vehicles and additional restrooms within a reduced area on the same site as proposed project Option A site.

The Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area alternative, which would construct a multi-story parking structure to provide approximately 300 parking spaces and additional restrooms within the existing footprint of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

The Off-site Parking alternative, which would entail development of an off-site parking area on a parcel owned by the City of Fremont that could provide up to 75 spaces outside of the Preserve boundaries but within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

The Maximum Parking alternative, which would construct staging areas on both the Option A and Option B sites, for a total of 643 (new and existing) parking spaces and additional restrooms provided at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve.

The No Project alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative in the strict sense that while the existing condition in the neighborhood would continue, impacts to the physical environment associated with its implementation would be the least of all the scenarios examined (including the proposed project). However, the No Project alternative would fail to achieve any of the project’s objectives. Among the remaining alternatives, all would reduce some impacts and increase others compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Size alternative would likely be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, while it would reduce impacts to cultural resources and biological resources compared to the proposed project, it would result in continuing existing noise, trash and other overflow parking issues to a greater extent than the proposed project, and would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.




C. SUMMARY TABLE

As previously discussed, Tables II-1 and II-2 summarize the impacts and mitigation measures for each environmental topic identified in Chapter V of the EIR. Table II-1 identifies the impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of Option A and Table II-2 identified the impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of Option B. Each table is arranged in four columns: (1) impacts; (2) level of significance without mitigation; (3) mitigation measures; and (4) level of significance after mitigation. Levels of significance are categorized as follows: SU = Significant and Unavoidable; S = Significant; and LTS = Less Than Significant. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific discussion in Chapter V of the EIR.




Table II-1: Summary of Option A Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Environmental Impacts

Level of Significance

Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures


With Mitigation

A. LAND USE There are no Option A impacts related to land use. B. VISUAL RESOURCES There are no Option A impacts related to visual resources. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Option A BIO-1: Development of the Option A site could result in take of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped racer.

S Option A BIO-1: The District shall implement the following measures before, during, and after construction at the Option A site to avoid significant impacts to individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Additional measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permitting process. • A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger

salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers shall be present onsite during all ground disturbing activities to search for salamanders and frogs that may be unearthed during excavation. The biological monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt work if a California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, or Alameda striped racer is found onsite. California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, and/or Alameda striped racers shall be removed from the construction area following the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species permits (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7 Biological Opinion). The District shall report all discoveries of listed species in the construction areas to resource agencies according to the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species permits.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-1 Continued • Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction personnel, including all project representatives. Training sessions shall also be required for any new construction personnel before being allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall include an overview of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology (including habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and CESA, and project-specific avoidance measures being implemented to avoid impacts on California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.

• Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the work area to prevent California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work area during construction. The fence must be constructed of a material that is durable and has been approved by the USFWS and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing frogs, salamanders, and snakes from passing under, over, around, or through the fence. The qualified biologist shall be on site during fence installation and initial site clearing and grubbing activities. The biologist shall inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing construction activities to ensure it is properly maintained and functioning to exclude California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from the work area. The fence shall remain in place until all construction is completed and equipment is demobilized.

• To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 3-inches deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-1 Continued • Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall (less than 0.25 inch per 24-hour period and less than 40 percent chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the 72-hour weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior to the startup of any ground disturbing activities on the project site. Construction activities shall cease 24 hours prior to a 40 percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction may continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is no precipitation in the 24-hour forecast. Contractor specifications shall include the following worker restrictions and guidelines, at a minimum: Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within o

designated work areas. Entry into adjacent Preserve lands or established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.

All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All otrash (e.g., food scraps, cans, bottles, containers, wrappers, cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed in closed containers and properly disposed off-site.

No pets or firearms shall be allowed on site. o All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or o

lubricated in a designated area at least 100 feet from aquatic habitats.

In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or oinjured or if a special-status species is observed to be injured, dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall immediately notify the District, work shall stop, and the District shall notify the USFWS and CDFW.









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-1 Continued • As part of the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implementation, the District shall include in the specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of natural materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion control to ensure that special-status species do not get trapped. Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material shall be prohibited.

• Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be restored to pre-project grades and contours and stabilized to prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized grass and forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed by the project. The seed shall be from sources that are regionally appropriate for the site.

Option A BIO-2: Development of the Option A site would result in the permanent loss of upland habitat for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer

S Option A BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of California tiger salamander upland habitat and thus ensure Option A will not have a substantial adverse effect on its habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options: • Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off

site in a suitable location for California tiger salamander and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement must be documented to support California tiger salamanders through observation of California tiger salamander larvae in a breeding pond on or immediately adjacent to the grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the parcel to be acquired as mitigation, must also be preserved in a conservation easement or other appropriate land use restriction instrument or be located on preserved land (County or State park) to ensure the viability of the grassland as California tiger salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be documented to regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to be considered successful breeding ponds;

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-2 Continued • Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program; or

• Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County.

Option A BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda striped racer habitat and thus ensuring Option A will not have a substantial adverse effect on its habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options: • Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off

site in a suitable Alameda County location and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement or other appropriate land use restriction instrument must be documented to support Alameda striped racers through observation of Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to the grassland area;

• Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program;

• Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County; or

• Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity.









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-3: Development of the Option A site may result in the destruction of burrows occupied by burrowing owls, a California Species of Special Concern.

S Option A BIO-3: No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction/take avoidance survey for burrowing owls using methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report). If no burrowing owls are detected during the initial take avoidance survey, a final survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that owls are still absent. If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within the construction footprint, individuals may be excluded from burrows using one-way doors provided that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Given the availability of suitable burrows in lands adjacent to the Option A site, passive relocation of burrowing owls at Mission Peak is not expected to significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local population. Any burrow exclusion efforts shall be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to ensure that substantial adverse effects are avoided. If burrow exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season, daily monitoring shall be conducted for one week prior to the exclusion to confirm that any young of the year have fledged. If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during the breeding season, occupied burrows shall be avoided by establish-ing buffers around the burrows in which no work shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest attempt has failed or that young have fledged and can forage independently of the adults. A minimum buffer of at least 250 feet shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing owls present on site after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless focused monitoring by a qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl reproductive behavior indicates that the observed individual is unpaired or that egg-laying has not yet begun. A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan will be developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-4: Development of the Option A site could result in impacts to nesting loggerhead shrikes, white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code.

S Option A BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in searching for passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

LTS

Option A BIO-5: Development of the Option A site could result in impacts to three special-status grassland plant species, if present.

S Option A BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and round-leaved filaree and in late summer/early fall (August–October) for Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz tarplant is found during the focused botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be reviewed to evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants cannot be avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage and recovery plan for the affected species. The plan shall incorporate the following, at a minimum:

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-5 Continued • Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the develop-ment and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and monitoring plans;

• Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined goals focusing on plant establishment (stability, succession, reproduction) and non-native species control measures;

• Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or seeds;

• Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and monitoring program by a qualified restoration team to ensure that the project goals and performance standards are met. The monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as needed to correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report, prepared by the District and subject to approval by CDFW, shall document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and monitoring shall be specified; and

• Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements and the responsibility for implementation.

Option A BIO-6: Culvert repair activities associated with Option A development could result in the mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and/or western pond turtles potentially occurring in the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek.

S Option A BIO-6: Construction activities within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek associated with development of Option A would be subject to the following additional measures: • All work within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option

A culvert repair) shall be conducted between August 1 and October 31, and typically subsequent to California red-legged frogs breeding activity (egg deposition, tadpole development, and metamorphism).

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-6 Continued • The USFWS and CDFW qualified biologist shall survey the in-water work areas within 48 hours before the initiation of construction activities. If any life stage of California red-legged frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is found, District biologist shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to determine if moving them is appropriate. If the agencies approve relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a USFWS and CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior to the initiation of construction. The biologist shall maintain detailed records of any individuals that are moved (e.g., size, coloration, any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning to their original point of capture.

• The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be diverted using gravity flow through temporary culverts/pipes or pumped around the work area with the use of hoses, discharging downstream to maintain flow.

• Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel locations and no more than 20 feet upstream or downstream of the work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when construction of the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be constructed only from materials that will cause little or no siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags (filled with clean sand), or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent seepage into or out of the work area. Cofferdams shall be placed and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering system shall remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows shall be restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work by removing the dewatering system.

• The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters (mm) to prevent California red-legged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from entering the pump system.









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-6 Continued • The contractor and qualified biologist shall check daily for stranded aquatic life as the water level in the dewatering area drops. All reasonable efforts shall be made to capture and move all stranded, native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas. Capture methods may include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets, and or by hand. Captured native aquatic life shall be released downstream of the dewatered area. The biologist shall perma-nently remove any individuals or exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and centrarchid fishes, from the work area.

• No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be operated within the live stream.

Option A BIO-7: Development of Option A would impact a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, a jurisdictional water of the United States.

S Option A BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits from the Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA Section 401 water quality certification), and CDFW (Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek and its tributary due to excess sedimentation shall be avoided through the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The SWPPP shall include the following major components: • A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting

areas to remain undisturbed and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas.

• A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices to be used during construction and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff.

• Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-7 Continued • A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance and identifies the party responsible for monitoring.

• A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all restricted areas to be left undisturbed.

Option A BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as recom-mended or required by the Water Board to protect water quality. These measures shall include the following: 1) a moratorium on grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain storms; 3) prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action; 5) delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing plastic monofilament is prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8) control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9) management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10) liquid waste management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation wherever possible.

Option A BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to their pre-project condition via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed portions of the stream channel and banks shall be re-vegetated with native riparian species.

Option A BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside of, the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill shall be allowed to enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e., silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the construction footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-qualified biological monitor for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog shall oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically monitor the work area to ensure avoidance of the stream channel.









With Mitigation

Option A BIO-7 Continued Option A BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream channel. All stockpiled fill and other materials shall be kept at least 50 feet from the channel edge.

Option A BIO-8: Option A could result in impacts to trees protected under Fremont’s Tree Preservation Ordinance within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek.

S Option A BIO-8: All impacted trees shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in accordance with the City of Fremont’s tree ordinance, the District shall plant trees of a species and in a location approved by the City. If the site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings, the District shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site, which would be used to fund tree planting by the City. For the proposed project, it is expected that mitigation for tree removals under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance can be accomplished concurrently with the riparian restoration effort associated with the Option A culvert repair.

LTS

D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Option A CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the Option A site could adversely affect a prehistoric archaeological deposit that qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA.

S Option A CUL-1a: Prior to development of the Option A site, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology shall prepare a Treatment Plan (Plan) for the archaeological site identified at Option A. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a guide to conducting data recovery archaeological excavations and archaeological monitoring at Option A to ensure Option A does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resources. The Plan shall include: 1) a description of the field and laboratory methods to be used at Option A; 2) a research design detailing important questions that can be addressed from investigation of Option A; 3) archae-ological and Native American monitoring procedures to be used during the construction of the project; and 4) protocols for treating archaeological deposits and human remains identified during construction. The Plan may also provide for reburial of the historical resources at the location of their discovery or in a location near the

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A CUL-1 Continued project site. An Ohlone representative or representatives shall be consulted as part of the Plan’s preparation to interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American traditions and lifeway and to provide input to the District regarding the treatment of these resources. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the District prior to project ground disturbance. The District shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation and implementation of the Plan. The District shall be responsible for implementing the Plan. Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the District for review and to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, consistent with professional reporting standards in cultural resources management.

Option A CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered during project subsurface construction activities that is not associated with treatments prescribed under Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to assess the situation (if one is not already on-site), consult with agencies as appropriate and an Ohlone representative, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the District shall be responsible for funding and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resources. Such measures may include recording the archaeo-logical deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach.









With Mitigation

Option A CUL-1 Continued Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review. Where consistent with the recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall be submitted to an appropriate curation facility or the District and used for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in coordination with an Ohlone representative. The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological deposits and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are encoun-tered during project subsurface construction and an archaeologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials. Archaeological deposits can include shellfish remains; bones; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian, chert, and basalt; and mortars and pestles.”









With Mitigation

Option A CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option A site could adversely affect paleontological resources.

S Option A CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of this mitigation, a “qualified paleontolo-gist” shall be an individual with the following qualifications: (1) a graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological journals; (2) at least two years of professional experience related to paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall be implemented to ensure that Option A does not destroy the paleontological resource. Measures may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleon-tological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A CUL-2 Continued “The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.”

Option A CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option A site could adversely affect Native American skeletal or cremated remains.

S Option A CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains by including the following directive in contract documents:

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A CUL-3 Continued “If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted (if one is not already on site) to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Work within 25 feet of the discovery can resume only after the MLD has inspected the site, provided recommendations, and the remains and associated grave goods removed from the site by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the MLD”

E. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES There are no Option A impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources. F. MINERAL RESOURCES There are no Option A impacts related to mineral resources. G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Option A GEO-1: Implementation of Option A could result in adverse impacts associated with slope instability.

S Option A GEO-1a: The District shall conduct annual inspections of the Option A staging area and document any indications of cracking or deformation of pavements, flatwork, and slopes that may be the result of slope instability. Any conditions that could result in hazards to users shall be promptly repaired.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option A GEO-1 Continued Option A GEO-1b: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional, and submitted to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation for the project and fully complies with the CBC. In accordance with the CCR Title 14, Section 3724, prior to approving the project, the lead agency shall independently review the geotechnical report to determine that the nature and severity of the seismic hazards at the site have been evaluated and addressed. This review shall be conducted by a certified engineering geologist or registered civil engineer, having competence in the field of seismic and slope stability hazard evaluation and mitigation. All recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation and design-level geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition, as a condition of approval for grading permits, a qualified and licensed professional shall be required to be present as a construction monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the stripping of deleterious material and to provide consultation, as required, to the grading contractor(s), ensuring compliance with the CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations.

Option A GEO-2: Implementation of Option A could result in adverse impacts associated with expansive soils

S Implement Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1a. LTS

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY There are no Option A impacts related to hydrology and water quality. I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS There are no Option A impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION There are no Option A impacts related to transportation and circulation.









With Mitigation

K. AIR QUALITY Option A AIR-1: Construction of Option A would generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards.

S Option A AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when required by the BAAQMD, including: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,

graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be

completed as soon as possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage of this measure shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

LTS

• A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the East Bay Regional Park District regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours.

L. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS There are no Option A impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.









With Mitigation

M. NOISE Option A NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at the Option A site would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

S Option A NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce construction noise levels: • Construction of the project shall comply with the City of

Fremont's General Plan Policy 10-8.5 by: Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate o

sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation;

Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted onoise is directed away from the closest off-site sensitive receptors;

Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize othe distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during construction, which could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;

Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as oneeded, could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;

Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion oengines.

• All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday construction shall be prohibited.

LTS

N. POPULATION AND HOUSING There are no Option A impacts related to population and housing. O. RECREATION There are no Option A impacts related to recreation.









With Mitigation

P. PUBLIC SERVICES There are no Option A impacts related to public services. Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS There are no Option A impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.




Table II-2: Summary of Option B Impacts and Mitigation Measures





With Mitigation

A. LAND USE There are no Option B impacts related to land use.

B. VISUAL RESOURCES There are no Option B impacts related to visual resources.

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Option B BIO-1: Development of the Option B site could result in take of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped racer.

S Option B BIO-1: The District shall implement the following measures before, during, and after construction at the Option B site to avoid significant impacts to individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Additional measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of the ESA and CESA permitting process. • A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger salaman-

ders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers shall be present onsite during all ground disturbing activities to search for individuals that may be unearthed during excavation. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work, if a California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, or Alameda striped racer is found onsite. California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, and Alameda striped racers shall be removed from the construction area following the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species permits (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7 Biological Opinion). The District shall report all discoveries of listed species in the construction areas to resource agencies according to the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species permits.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-1 Continued • Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction personnel, including all project representatives. Training sessions shall also be required for any new construction personnel before being allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall include an overview of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology (including habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and CESA, and project-specific avoidance measures being imple-mented to avoid impacts on California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.

• Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the work area to prevent California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work area during construction. The fence must be constructed of a material that is durable and has been approved by the USFWS and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, Alameda striped racers, and other vertebrates from passing under, over, around, or through the fence. The qualified biologist shall be on site during fence installation and initial site clearing and grubbing activities. The biologist shall inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing construction activities to ensure it is properly maintained and functioning to exclude California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from the work area. The fence shall remain in place until all construc-tion is completed and equipment is demobilized.

• To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 3-inches deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-1 Continued • Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall (less than 0.25 inch per 24-hour period and less than 40 percent chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the 72-hour weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior to the startup of any ground disturbing activities on the project site. Construction activities shall cease 24 hours prior to a 40 percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction may continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is no precipitation in the 24-hour forecast. Contractor specifications shall include the following worker restrictions and guidelines, at a minimum: Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within o

designated work areas. Entry into adjacent Preserve lands or established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.

All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All otrash (e.g., food scraps, cans, bottles, containers, wrappers, cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed in closed containers and properly disposed off-site.

No pets or firearms shall be allowed on site. o All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or o

lubricated in a designated area at least 100 feet from aquatic habitats.

In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or oinjured or if a special-status species is observed to be injured, dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall immediately notify the District's construction inspector, who will stop work and notify the USFWS and CDFW.

• As part of the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implementation, the District shall include in the specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of natural materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion control to ensure that special-status species do not get trapped. Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material shall be prohibited.









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-1 Continued • Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be restored to pre-project grades and contours and stabilized to prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized grass and forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed by the project. The seed shall be from sources that are regionally appropriate for the site.

Option B BIO-2: Development of the Option B site would result in the permanent loss of upland habitat for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer

S Option B BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of California tiger salamander upland habitat, and ensure Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on this habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options: • Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off

site in a suitable location and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement or other appropriate restriction would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement or other appropriate deed restriction must be documented to support California tiger salamanders through observation of California tiger salamander larvae in a breeding pond on or immediately adjacent to the grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the parcel to be acquired as mitigation, must also be preserved in a conservation easement or be located on preserved land (County or State park) to ensure the viability of the grassland as California tiger salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be documented to regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to be considered successful breeding ponds;

• Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program; or

• Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-2 Continued Option B BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda striped racer habitat, and ensure Option B will not have a substantial adverse effect on this habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options: • Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off

site in a suitable location and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement or deed restriction would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement or deed restriction must be documented to support Alameda striped racers through observation of Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to the grassland area;

• Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program;

• Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County; or

• Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity.

Option B BIO-3: Development of the Option B site may result in the destruction of burrows occupied by burrowing owls, a California Species of Special Concern.

S Option B BIO-3: No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction/take avoidance survey for burrowing owls using methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report). If no burrowing owls are detected during the initial take avoidance survey, a final survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that owls are still absent.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-3 Continued If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within the construction footprint, individuals may be excluded from burrows using one-way doors provided that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Given the availability of suitable burrows in lands adjacent to the Option B site, passive relocation of owls at Mission Peak is not expected to significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local population. Any burrow exclusion efforts shall be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to ensure that substantial adverse effects are avoided. If burrow exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season, daily monitoring shall be conducted for one week prior to the exclusion to confirm that any young of the year have fledged. If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during the breeding season, occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing buffers around the burrows in which no work shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest attempt has failed or that young have fledged and can forage independently of the adults. A minimum buffer of at least 250 feet shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing owls present on site after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless focused monitoring by a qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl reproductive behavior indicates that the observed individual is unpaired or that egg-laying has not yet begun. A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan will be developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation.









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-4: Development of the Option B site could result in impacts to nesting loggerhead shrikes, white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code.

S Option B BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in searching for passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

LTS

Option B BIO-5: Development of the Option B site could result in impacts to three special-status grassland plant species, if present.

S Option B BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and round-leaved filaree and in late summer/early fall (August–October) for Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz tarplant is found during the focused botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be reviewed to evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants cannot be avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage and recovery plan for the affected species The plan shall incorporate the following:

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-5 Continued • Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and monitoring plans;

• Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined goals focusing on plant establishment (stability, succession, reproduction) and non-native species control measures;

• Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or seeds;

• Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and monitoring program by a qualified restoration team to ensure that the project goals and performance standards are met. The monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as needed to correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report, prepared by the District and subject to approval by CDFW, shall document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and monitoring shall be specified; and

• Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements and the responsibility for implementation

Option B BIO-6: Culvert removal and/or bridge construction activities associated with Option B development could result in the mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and/or western pond turtles potentially occurring in Agua Caliente Creek.

S Option B BIO-6: Construction activities within Agua Caliente Creek associated with development of Option B would be subject to the following additional measures, at a minimum: • All work within Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option B culvert

removal and bridge crossings) shall be conducted between August 1 and October 31, when red-legged frogs are less likely to be present.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-6 Continued S • The USFWS- and CDFW- qualified biologist shall survey the in-water work areas within 48 hours before the initiation of construction activities. If any life stage of California red-legged frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is found, the District biologist shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to determine if moving them is appropriate. If the agencies approve relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a USFWS- and CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior to the initiation of construction. The qualified biologist shall maintain detailed records of any individuals that are moved (e.g., size, coloration, any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning to their original point of capture.

• The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be diverted using gravity flow through temporary culverts/pipes or pumped around the work area with the use of hoses, discharging downstream to maintain flow.

• Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel locations and no more than 20 feet upstream or downstream of the work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when construction of the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be constructed only from materials that will cause little or no siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags (filled with clean sand), or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent seepage into or out of the work area. Cofferdams shall be placed and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering system shall remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows shall be restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work by removing the dewatering system.

• The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters (mm) to prevent California red-legged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from entering the pump system.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-6 Continued • The contractor and/or biologist shall check daily for stranded aquatic life as the water level in the dewatering area drops. All reasonable efforts shall be made to capture and move all stranded, native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas. Capture methods may include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets, and or by hand. Captured native aquatic life shall be released downstream of the dewatered area. The qualified biologist shall permanently remove any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and centrarchid fishes, from the work area.

• No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be operated within the live stream.

Option B BIO-7: Development of Option B would impact Agua Caliente Creek, a jurisdictional water of the United States.

S Option B BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits from the Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA Section 401 water quality certification), and CDFW (Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek due to excess sedimentation shall be avoided through the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The SWPPP shall include the following major components: • A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting

areas to remain undisturbed and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas.

• A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices to be used during construction and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff.

• Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-7 Continued • A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance and identifies the party responsible for monitoring.

• A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all restricted areas to be left undisturbed.

Option B BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as recommended or required by the Water Board to protect water quality. These measures shall include the following: 1) a moratorium on grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain storms; 3) prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action; 5) delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing plastic monofilament is prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8) control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9) management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10) liquid waste management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation wherever possible.

Option B BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to their pre-project condition via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed portions of the stream channel and banks shall be re-vegetated with native riparian species.

Option B BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside of, the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill shall be allowed to enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e., silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the construction footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-approved biological monitor for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog (see Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-1) shall oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically monitor the work area to ensure avoidance of the stream channel.









With Mitigation

Option B BIO-7 Continued Option B BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream channel. All stockpiled fill and other materials shall be kept at least 50 feet from the channel edge.

Option B BIO-8: Option B would result in the removal of approximately six coast live oaks protected under Fremont’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and could also result in the removal of other trees within the Agua Caliente Creek channel.

S Option B BIO-8: All impacted trees will be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in accordance to the City of Fremont’s tree ordinance, the District shall plant trees of a species and in a location approved by the City. If the site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings, the District shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site. For the proposed project, mitigation for tree removals under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance can is expected to accomplished concurrently with the riparian restoration effort associated with the Option B culvert removal

LTS

D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Option B CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the Option B site could adversely affect a prehistoric archaeological site (CA-ALA-431), that qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA.

S Option B CUL-1a: Prior to development of Option B, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology shall prepare a Treatment Plan (Plan) for CA-ALA-431. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a guide to conducting data recovery archaeological excavations and archaeological monitoring at CA-ALA-431 to ensure Option B does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resources. The Plan shall include: 1) a description of the field and laboratory methods to be used at CA-ALA-431; 2) a research design detailing important questions that can be addressed from investigation of CA-ALA-431; 3) archaeological and Native American monitoring procedures to be used during the construction of the project; and 4) protocols for treating archaeological deposits and human remains identified during construction. The Plan may also include reburial of the historical resources at the location of their discovery or in a location near the project site.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B CUL-1 Continued An Ohlone representative or representatives shall be consulted as part of the Plan’s preparation to interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American traditions and lifeway and to provide input to the District regarding the treatment of these resources. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the District prior to project ground disturbance. The District shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation and implementation of the Plan. The District shall be responsible for implementing the Plan. Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the District for review and to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, consistent with professional reporting standards in cultural resources management.

Option B CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered during project subsurface construction activities that is not associated with treatments prescribed under Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to assess the situation (if one is not already on-site), consult with agencies as appropriate, and an Ohlone representative, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the District shall be responsible for funding and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resources. Such measures may include recording the archae-ological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach.









With Mitigation

Option B CUL-1 Continued Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review. Where consistent with the recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall be submitted to an appropriate curation facility or the District and used for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in coordination with an Ohlone representative. The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological deposits and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction and an archaeologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials. Archaeological deposits can include shellfish remains; bones; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian, chert, and basalt; and mortars and pestles.”









With Mitigation

Option B CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option B site could adversely affect paleontological resources.

S Option B CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of this mitigation, a “qualified paleontolo-gist” shall be an individual with the following qualifications: (1) a graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological journals; (2) at least two years of professional experience related to paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall be implemented to ensure that Option B does not destroy the paleontological resource. Measures may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleon-tological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B CUL-2 Continued The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.”









With Mitigation

Option B CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option B site could adversely affect Native American skeletal or cremated remains.

S Option B CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains by including the following directive in contract documents:

“If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted (if one is not already on site) to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Work within 25 feet of the discovery can resume only after the MLD has inspected the site, provided recommendations, and the remains and associated grave goods removed from the site by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the MLD”

LTS

E. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES There are no impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources.

F. MINERAL RESOURCES There are no impacts related to mineral resources.









With Mitigation

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Option B GEO-1: Implementation of Option B could result in adverse impacts associated with slope instability

S Option B GEO-1a: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional, and submitted to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation for the project and fully complies with the CBC. All recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation and design-level geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition, as a condition of approval for grading permits, a qualified and licensed professional shall be required to be present as a construction monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the stripping of deleterious material and to provide consultation, as required, to the grading contractor(s), ensuring compliance with the CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations.

LTS

Option B GEO-2: Implementation of Option B could result in adverse impacts associated with expansive soils

S Option B GEO-2: The District shall conduct annual inspections of the Option B staging area and document any indications of cracking or deformation of pavements or flatwork. Any conditions that could result in hazards to users of the facility or could contribute to continued deformation shall be promptly repaired.

LTS

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Option B HYD-1: Development of the bridges at Option B could cause erosion in and near Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries.

S Option B HYD-1: As a condition of approval of the final grading plan, the District shall prepare and submit a detailed bridge design report (for both the vehicular and pedestrian bridges) to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer. The report shall present details of the bridge design, including locations of abutments (and associated piers), and ensure that the bridge does not encroach into the channel of the creek or create an obstruction to the flow of water in the creek. The report shall also include supporting calculations that confirm that the channel and the proposed bridge configurations can pass the 100-year flood flow and the SWPPP shall include measures to ensure that grading and excavation does not encroach beyond the top of bank (e.g., exclusion fencing, monitoring).

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B HYD-2: Development of Option B could cause localized flooding by blocking flows in Agua Caliente Creek

S Implement Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1. LTS

I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS There are no Option B impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION There are no Option B impacts related to transportation and circulation.

K. AIR QUALITY Option B AIR-1: Construction of Option B would generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards.

LTS Option B AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when required by the BAAQMD, including: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,

graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be

completed as soon as possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage of this measure shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

LTS









With Mitigation

Option B AIR-1 Continued • A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the East Bay Regional Park District regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours.

L. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS There are no Option B impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.

M. NOISE Option B NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at the Option B site would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

S Option B NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce construction noise levels: • Construction of the project shall comply with the City of

Fremont's General Plan Policy 10-8.5 by; Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate o

sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation;

Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted onoise is directed away from the closest off-site sensitive receptors;

Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize othe distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during construction which could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA; and

Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as oneeded could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;

Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion oengines.

• All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday construction shall be prohibited.

LTS









With Mitigation

N. POPULATION AND HOUSING There are no Option B impacts related to population and housing.

O. RECREATION There are no Option B impacts related to recreation. P. PUBLIC SERVICES There are no Option B impacts related to public services. Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS There are no Option B impacts related to utilities and service systems.


P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\3-ProjectDescription.docx (10/14/15) 55

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This chapter describes the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project (project) that is evaluated in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (staging area) at Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve). It is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this location will help to reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. The new staging area is proposed to be developed at one of two potential locations within the City-owned portion of Mission Peak on land leased by the District and near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. As such, this EIR analyzes the environmental impacts of two potential staging area locations, either of which would provide a maximum of 300 new parking spaces within the existing Mission Peak boundaries. The options are:



Both options are evaluated fully in this EIR. The District will utilize the environmental analysis provided in this EIR to inform and support any decision to approve one of the two project options. The District’s Board may decide not to approve either project option, and it could instead direct District staff to further analyze one of the alternatives considered in this EIR. In addition to a description of both proposed project options, the following includes a summary description of the proposed project’s regional and local context, a detailed description of the planning process, background, and objectives, as well as a discussion of the intended uses of the EIR and required project approvals. A. PROJECT AREA

The following describes the geographic context of the two project option sites (referred to either as the “Option A site” or the “Option B site” or collectively as the “project area”) evaluated in this EIR and provides a brief overview of existing land uses within and around the project area. A more


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I R I I I . P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N


detailed description of the local and regional context and environmental setting can be found within each of the topical sections of Chapter V of this EIR. 1. Regional Location and Access

The sites identified for potential development of either Option A or Option B are generally located at the western entrance to Mission Peak at the terminus of Stanford Avenue in the City of Fremont (City), Alameda County. Mission Peak consists of over 3,000 acres of open space consisting mostly of open grasslands and oak woodlands. The Preserve provides recreational opportunities for hiking, hike-in camping, and hang gliding/paragliding. Access to Mission Peak is primarily provided via the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, located immediately west and south of the project area, and parking areas within Ohlone College, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project area. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is accessed via Stanford Avenue and provides parking for visitors accessing the popular and most challenging Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails that provide access to the summit of Mission Peak within the Preserve. The staging area consists of 43 paved parking spaces (including two ADA-accessible spaces1), a vault toilet restroom, three portable restrooms, and a picnic area. A bicycle rack is also provided. The staging area is almost always full when the park is open (from 6:30 a.m. until sunset as of August 2015) and parking availability is very limited; overnight parking is not allowed. Because the existing staging area cannot accommodate the current demand for parking at this location (in order to access the most popular trails), visitors to the Preserve often park in nearby residential areas beginning at and west of Vineyard Avenue during the early morning hours and throughout the day.2 The gated entrance to Mission Peak from the staging area limits vehicular access to District maintenance and cattle operations vehicles only. Visitor access to the lands within the Preserve that are leased from the City is also prohibited when the staging area is closed. Visitors to Mission Peak may also park their vehicles in public parking spaces at Ohlone College, located at 43600 Mission Boulevard. Parking Lot G is generally accessed via Pine Street and Witherly Lane off of Mission Boulevard and provides access to the Peak and Panorama trails within Mission Peak. The College recently constructed a 900-space South Parking Lot structure and visitors to Mission Peak are able to utilize the public spaces in this location as well.3 Ohlone College parking is available daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As of August 15, 2015, the College charges a $4 parking fee Monday through Saturday when school is in session, and parking at this location is free on holidays, after 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays when school is not in session. Parking is usually available at the College lot, even on busy weekends.

1 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces are those that accommodate and are reserved for those with

disabilities. 2 Most of the residential areas that immediately border Mission Peak to the west are gated, and no public parking is

available in these neighborhoods. These streets include: Vinehill Court, Vinehill Terrace, Napa Court, Vinehill Circle, Rutherford Terrace, Grapevine Terrace and Hidden Valley Terrace. Residential areas located along Saguare Court, Saguare Commons, and Saguare Terrace are public roadways, but do not provide parking within easy walking distance of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance because these roads do not provide direct access to Stanford Avenue.

3 Ohlone College, 2015. South Parking Structure. Website: www.ohlone.edu/core/mapsdirs/parking/ parkingstructure.html. (accessed September 9, 2015).




Mission Peak is also accessible from trails within Sunol Regional Wilderness via the Ohlone Wilderness Trail to the east, and from trails that originate within Ed Levin County Park in Milpitas to the south. Regional vehicular access to Mission Peak is provided by Interstate 680 (I-680). Local access to both the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the Ohlone College parking area is via Mission Boulevard. Existing transit service in the area is provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District, and the closest bus stop is located on Mission Boulevard, near Paseo Padre Parkway, approximately 0.75 miles southwest of the project area. An informal stop is also located at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and Mission Boulevard. The Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is located approximately 7 miles to the northwest. Refer to Section V.J Transportation and Circulation for a detailed description of available public transportation opportunities in the vicinity of the Preserve. Figure I-1 in Chapter I, Introduction, depicts the project area and regional and local context. An aerial view of the project area is shown in Figure III-1. Existing land uses within Mission Peak and the surrounding areas are described in more detail in Section V.A, Land Use in this EIR. 2. Location of Project Sites

Two potential sites are under consideration for the provision of additional parking and other staging area facilities at Mission Peak. To provide visitor access to the most popular trails, both sites are located near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area: the Option A site is located to the northeast and the Option B site is located to the southeast (see Figure III-1).

(1) Option A Site. The Option A site is located near the entrance to Mission Peak, just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail, in a grassland area with a bowl-like topography. The total project area for Option A encompasses 11.71 acres. Of this, approximately 9.64 acres would be permanently disturbed in this location, including the addition of 2.78 acres of new impervious surfaces. The site generally lies between 0 and 12 feet below the surrounding area. The Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club operates a hang gliding operation under agreement with the District. The landing zone for paragliding and hang gliding activities is located immediately east of and uphill from, but not within, the Option A site as shown in Figure III-1.

(2) Option B Site. The Option B site is located approximately 875 feet southeast of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and west of the Peak Meadow Trail. The total project area for Option B encompasses 16.76 acres. Of this, approximately 10.45 acres would be permanently disturbed in this location, including the addition of 3.10 acres of new impervious surfaces. Grazing infrastructure at Mission Peak is currently concentrated primarily within the Option B site. This site is currently used by the District’s grazing contractor as a corral used for holding cows for immunizations, weaning, and transportation of cows to other grazing sites via trucks a few times per year. A small solar-powered pump, which provides water from the for the cattle operations, is located on the site. The majority of the Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public. The South Bay Soaring Society (SBSS) also operates radio-controlled gliders, under agreement with the District, from a location near but not within the Option B site, as shown in Figure III-1.




Access to the Option B site is currently via an existing roadway which crosses over a culverted portion of Agua Caliente Creek as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails. Vehicular access is currently provided on this roadway only for District employees, emergency vehicles, and the District’s grazing contractor. B. PROJECT BACKGROUND

The following provides an overview of existing conditions related to operations and management of Mission Peak, the existing and projected demand for parking facilities within the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, and the process undertaken by District staff to address the need for more parking facilities to accommodate visitor demand. 1. Mission Peak Operations

Mission Peak is a heavily visited recreation and open space area and hosts thousands of visitors on the weekends. Increased use of the Preserve over the last several years has resulted in an increase in overflow parking on neighborhood streets. Residents experience vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion, as well as associated issues such as noise, litter, and light from headlamps and flashlights. District staff currently maintains the Preserve and addresses issues in the surrounding neighborhoods through ongoing operations and management efforts. Ongoing actions include:

1. Public outreach efforts to address a variety of issues including hiker safety; hiking with dogs and children; trail restoration; consideration when parking in the neighborhoods; identification of other challenging hikes at other District facilities; and parking at Ohlone College. One public outreach event was held in 2013; six were held in 2014; and as of September 2015, eight have been held in 2015 with two more planned. In addition to public outreach events, the District continually updates the Mission Peak webpage with current information, maintains a District-sponsored Mission Peak Facebook page, and maintains a NING site as an open public forum.

2. Utilization of two trail counters, one located at the trailhead gate at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and one installed at the Peak Meadow Trail to better understand existing visitor use trends,

3. Installation of signage and public outreach to encourage Mission Peak visitors to utilize parking at Ohlone College.

4. Initiation of seasonal hours for the lands leased from the City of Fremont (which are accessed only via the Stanford Avenue Staging Area) along with targeted enforcement of the park curfew by the District’s Police Department (refer to Section V.A, Land Use, of this EIR for additional information on park hours and enforcement).

5. Installation of portable restroom facilities to supplement the existing vault-toilet restrooms at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

Hidden Valley T

errace

Vinehill Ct

R

ain

dan

ce

Rd

Sentinel Pl

Ro

aadru

nnn

er R

d Saguare Ct

S

enti

nel

Dr

Sagu are Com

m

Sundance Dr

Paseo Padre Pkwy

VViin

eeyaarrd A

ve

Antelope Dr

Vinehill Circle

Vin

ehill Terrace

Nap

a C

t

Stanfoorrdd AAvve Ow

hanee Ct

Stanford Ave

MISSION MISSION PEAKPEAK

REGIONALREGIONALPRESERVEPRESERVE

Weib

el A

ve

CorralCorral

Agua Caliente CreekAgua Caliente Creek

MISSION PEAK

REGIONALPRESERVE

ExistingStanford Avenue

Staging Area

OPTION A

Agua Caliente Creek

Corral

OPTION B

Wings ofRogallo

Landing Area

SBSS Launch Site

Unnamed CreekUnnamed CreekUnnamed Creek


WarmSprings


H

id

den

V

alley

Tra

il

Peak Meadow Trail / Horse H

eave

n

Tr a il Hidden Valley T

errace

Vinehill Ct

R

ain

dan

ce

Rd

Sentinel Pl

Ro

adru

nn

er R

d Saguare Ct Sagu are C

om

m

S

enti

nel

Dr

Sundance Dr

Paseo Padre Pkwy

Weib

el A

ve

Antelope Dr

Vin

eyard A

ve

Vinehill Circle

Vin

ehill Terrace

Nap

a C

t

Stanford Ave Ow

hanee Ct

Stanford Ave


eave

n

Tr a il

H

id

den

V

alley

Tra

il


Area covered by both Option A and Option B

Option A

Option B

feet

5000 250

FIGURE III-1

SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 8/29/12; LSA ASSOCIATES, 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III1.ai (9/10/15)

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRAerial View of the Project Area








6. Trail restoration efforts to restore bootleg trails to natural conditions utilizing volunteers from Irvington High School and the Mountain Goats mountain bike club. Specifically, in 2012, the District began a variety of operational measures including restoration work to address the 15 bootleg trails within Mission Peak. In 2014, the District completed restoration work on a 1,700-foot-long bootleg trail alongside the Peak Meadow Trail. This restoration area has been fenced and signs are in place to remind visitors to stay on designated trails. In 2015, the District monitored and made adjustments to the previous years’ efforts in addition to installing exclusion fencing and wattles on two newly created bootleg trails, one on the Horse Heaven Trail and one on the Hidden Valley Trail. Three benches and two additional garbage cans were also provided at the base of the summit.

2. Existing and Future Demand for Parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area

The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area currently provides 43 parking spaces4 for park visitors, which is insufficient to meet existing visitor demand as demonstrated by the large number of visitors parking in the neighborhood. The existing staging area and residential streets that surround the existing staging area are congested, especially on weekends and holidays. The existing staging area usually fills up early in the day and remains full throughout the day. Overflow parking on neighbor-hood streets frequently occurs throughout the night and during the early morning hours, resulting in the above-described issues that affect neighborhood residents. The District has conducted several park visitor surveys including one in 2007;5 a second in 2011;6 a third in 2013 during a public outreach and information event; and a series of six surveys in 2014 that were conducted during public outreach and information events. The City also conducted a survey to determine demand for use of Mission Peak in 2012. All of these surveys have indicated the public need and desire for additional parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance. In addition, at its November 13, 2012 City Council Meeting, the City voted to support the District in pursing an EIR for the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project.7 The addition of new parking spaces at Mission Peak is also considered in the City of Fremont’s General Plan, as follows:

“The park includes a number of staging areas and trailheads, but there are no significant improvements planned within its boundaries, with the exception of potential parking lot expansion.”8

4 Note that in a survey conducted in 2012, it was assumed that the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area provided

47 parking spaces. This was because at the time, 47 vehicles were observed to be parked within the staging area. Some of these vehicles were however parked in unmarked spaces. The existing Staging Area currently provides 43 marked spaces for vehicles.

5 East Bay Regional Park District, 2007. Park Visitor and Vehicle Count, Mission Peak Stanford Staging Area. August 11.

6 East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Mission Peak Parking Use Survey, February-July. 7 Fremont, City of, 2013. Fremont City Council Meeting, November 13, 2013, Minutes. November 13. 8 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Community Plans Element. December.




3. Site Selection and Project Design Process

The demand for more parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance is expected to be addressed by the proposed project. While several potential locations were considered for development of additional parking, the two project site options were selected for further evaluation in this EIR because of the ability of each site to accommodate a sufficient number of parking spaces (in terms of size and topography) to better accommodate parking demand. In addition, these sites are located within lands operated and managed by the District pursuant to a lease agreement with the City. Other parcels within Fremont in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area were also considered for the development of a new staging area but were ultimately deemed to be infeasible. Also refer to Chapter VI, Alternatives, which includes a discussion of the range of potential staging area locations and other alternatives considered in addition to the two project site options. Preparation of this EIR to analyze the two options for providing an expanded staging area near Stanford Avenue was authorized by the District Board of Directors on September 4, 2012, Resolution No. 2012-09-224. C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The Mission statement for the East Bay Regional Park District defines the “essential role” of the District as follows:

“The East Bay Regional Park District preserves a rich heritage of natural and cultural resources and provides open space, parks, trails, safe and healthful recreation and environmental education. An environmental ethic guides the District in all of its activities.”9

Consistent with this essential role of providing open space, parks and trails, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. It is estimated that Mission Peak received nearly 270,000 visitors in 2014, at an average of over 22,000 visitors each month. Of these total visitors to the park, over 19,000 visitors each month used the trails departing from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.10 With only 43 parking spaces available at this location, visitors to Mission Peak generate a demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance that exceeds the capacity of the existing parking area due to the popularity of the trails that originate at this entrance and provide access to the summit of Mission Peak. It is anticipated that development of additional parking at this location will help reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. The following project objectives have been identified for the project:

Objective 1: Develop additional parking on land leased from the City of Fremont.

9 East Bay Regional Parks District, 2013. Master Plan 2013. July 16. 10 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29.

The Trail count numbers are based on TRAFFIX counters installed by the District.




Objective 2: Develop additional parking that minimizes costs associated with construction, operation, maintenance, and implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures to the extent feasible while still achieving the purpose of the project.

Objective 3: Develop additional parking that incorporates best management and best engineering principles into the design, particularly in the area of geologic stability and stormwater management, avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts to the greatest degree feasible.

Objective 4: Develop additional parking that serves the visitors to Mission Peak Regional Preserve who want access to the most popular trails in keeping with the District’s mission to provide open space, parks, and trails.

Objective 5: Develop additional parking that would help reduce parking on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

Objective 6: Construct additional restroom facilities near the location of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to accommodate park visitors.

D. PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project includes development of an additional staging area on land owned by the City and leased to the District to augment existing parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, which provides access to the Preserve’s most popular trails. The new staging area would be developed at one of two potential locations within Mission Peak, referred to as the Option A site and Option B site. Each option would include a gated staging area with a maximum of 300 parking spaces, including 8 ADA parking spaces; traffic controller; bicycle parking; kiosk; new public restrooms connected to sewer; replacement of the existing vault toilets at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area with two flush toilets connected to sewer; picnic tables; and associated landscaping and utility improvements and stormwater controls. Each option would also include paved roadways from the existing staging area to provide access to each optional location as well as new graveled roadways and/or trail connections. Table III-1 provides a general comparison of the characteristics of each option. For example, it shows that the Option A site would include 9.64 acres of permanently disturbed, 2.78 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces and that the Option B site would include 10.45 acres of permanently disturbed areas, 3.10 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces or bridge structures. Figures III-2a and III-2b show the conceptual site plan and cross sections for the Option A site and Figures III-3a and III-3b show the conceptual site plan and cross sections for the Option B site. General characteris-tics of both site options are discussed below and the following subsection fully describes the proposed development programs for Option A and Option B. Development of Option A would include a headwall repair to an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. Development of Option B would include removal of an existing culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails and restoration of the channel to its natural condition along a different section of Agua Caliente Creek. Development of Option B would also include development of a new vehicular bridge and a pedestrian bridge at two separate locations over the creek.




Table III-1: Comparison of Option A and Option B Staging Areas Use/Area Option A Option B

Total project area (acres) 11.71 16.76Total area of permanent disturbance (acres) 9.64 10.45Total paved area (acres)a 2.78 3.10Total area of temporary disturbance (acres) 2.07 6.31Total access roadways (linear feet) 630 990Vehicular bridge length (linear feet) N/A 120Pedestrian bridge length (linear feet) N/A 80Culvert removal (diameter x length, feet) N/A 5 x 60Culvert repair (diameter) 5 N/ATrees removed 0 6Grading, cut (cubic yards) 35,000 12,000Grading, fill (cubic yards) 12,000 30,000Grading, off-haul (cubic yards) 23,000 0Grading, import (cubic yards) 0 17,000a Includes new paved roadways. N/A = Not Applicable Source: East Bay Regional Park District, 2015.

Post-construction stormwater controls at both locations would include treatment and hydromodifica-tion management to meet all applicable stormwater requirements. Treatment would be incorporated into parking area planters, and curb openings would direct sheet flow off the paved area and into planter areas. Each planter would consist of a bioretention area sized to treat a minimum of 80 percent of the tributary pavement runoff over the life of the project. Hydromodification management would be implemented at each site using a detention pond with controlled discharge. All stormwater flows from the staging area would be directed to bioretention areas and the detention pond. In addition, a subdrain system would be provided along the back of keyway excavations for the fill slopes and along toes of cut slopes to fulfill geotechnical requirements. The subdrain system would flow unrestricted to the detention pond to quickly remove water from the soil at key locations for slope stability. Both proposed options would also have secondary stormwater discharge locations due to trail and road construction. Some of the stormwater would be captured by a swale on the uphill side of the road and directed to the existing storm drain facilities at the top of Stanford Avenue. Sheet flow would continue south towards Agua Caliente Creek, but at a reduced rate. Refer to Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional details. Potable water provided by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) would be supplied to the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at either site for restroom facilities, drinking water, and irrigation. A new pump near the Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom would be needed to provide adequate water pressure for either the Option A or Option B site. Electrical services provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) would be required to run the water pressure booster system. Sewer connections to the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the new staging area would also be provided by connections to Union Sanitary District lines located within Stanford Avenue. Other than new restrooms and a new water pump to provide water to the staging area, no permanent modifications to the existing staging area are currently proposed; however, it would be closed and used for materials and equipment storage during construction of the proposed project, which is expected to occur over a six month period. During this period, vehicular and pedestrian access to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance to Mission Peak would be prohibited. All visitor access would be directed to the Ohlone College parking areas and nearby trailheads for the duration of construction.

1A - 2 Corresponds to section locations show in Figure III-2b

feet

2400 120

SOURCE: EBRPD, JUNE 10, 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III2a 11x17.ai (7/15/15)

FIGURE III-2a

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIROption A - Conceptual Site Plan

feet

1200 60 Note: Section locations are identified in Figure III-2a.


I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III2b 11x17.ai (7/9/15)

FIGURE III-2b

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIROption A - Conceptual Site Sections

•

•

•

Corresponds to section locations show in Figure III-3b feet

2400 120 2B - 2


I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III3a 11x17.ai (7/15/15)

FIGURE III-3a

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIROption B - Conceptual Site Plan

feet

1500 75 Note: Section locations are identified in Figure III-3a.


I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III3b 11x17.ai (7/9/15)

FIGURE III-3b

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIROption B - Conceptual Site Sections




The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be retained under either option, resulting in a maximum of 343 parking spaces at this entrance to Mission Peak (after construction of Option A or B). While the purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, surveys prepared for the District suggest that the provision of more parking and restrooms near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (refer to Appendix B of this EIR for additional information).11 This projected increase in demand is evaluated in this EIR as part of the proposed project. This projected increase in visitor demand is based on responses to a survey question that assumed parking at the new staging area would be free. However, when respondents were asked about future visits if a $5 parking fee were charged for the new staging area, this estimated latent demand for parking disappeared, and in fact overall visitation was projected to decrease slightly compared to current visitation rates. Because no decision has been made with respect to any future fees associated with the staging area and, to be conservative in its analysis of environmental impacts, this EIR analyzes potential impacts associated with a 38 percent projected increase in visitor demand. 1. Option A

Development of Option A would result in construction of a new parking lot, a new vehicular roadway, and a new trail connection. The conceptual development plan for Option A, including the temporary limits of disturbance during construction, is depicted in Figure III-2a. Figure III-2b shows the conceptual cross sections looking north and east. As shown in Table III-1, the total area of disturbance for Option A would be 11.71 acres, consisting of 9.64 acres of permanent disturbance, including 2.78 acres of paved (parking) surfaces, and 2.07 acres of temporary disturbance. A total of 630 feet of linear access roadways would be constructed. Areas of temporary disturbance would be restored to natural conditions upon project completion. Option A would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, from the summit of Mission Peak, and from the main access trail from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Development that would occur with implementation of Option A is described in detail below. It should be noted that the existing landing zone for hang gliding and paragliding activities, which is located approximately 250 feet east of the site, would not be directly disturbed by the project. a. Staging Area. The new staging area would be located within the existing bowl-like area on the site and would include a gated surface parking lot with up to 300 new parking spaces, including 8 ADA-compliant spaces, and stormwater controls. Two new picnic tables, drinking fountains, and four restrooms would be located at the southeast corner of the staging area. b. Access and Circulation. The new, two-way vehicular roadway to access Option A would be approximately 24 feet in width and would consist of an approximately 630-foot linear connection from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the new staging area. The roadway would consist of asphalt paving and would have a maximum grade of 12 percent. A gate, traffic controller, and kiosk would be installed at the entrance to the new vehicular roadway at the existing trailhead gate

11 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study. June 29.




accessed from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Fencing would be provided around the perimeter of the new roadway, parking area, and bioretention areas. Pedestrian access to Mission Peak from the existing staging area would continue to be provided by the existing Hidden Valley Trail connection near the existing staging area restroom. A new 12-foot-wide trail connection would also provide access from the new parking area to the existing Hidden Valley Trail. The new connection would be approximately 320 linear feet and would consist of compacted aggregate base rock. The maximum grade of the new trail connection would be 5 percent. c. Culvert Repair. Development of Option A would include repair of an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. The existing concrete headwall would remain; however, a new rock-tail-wall and outfall would be installed at the existing 5-foot diameter culvert. A 1.5-foot layer of rock (approximately 20 cubic yards) would also be installed over filtered fabric. The total area of permanent disturbance would be about 600 square feet. d. Drainage and Landscaping. As shown in Figure III-2a, approximately 2.78 acres of new impermeable pavement would result from development of the new roadway and staging area at Option A. Vegetated bioretention areas would serve to capture parking area and roadway stormwater run-off. A bioretention area would be developed along the north edge of the new vehicular access roadway. New storm drainage facilities would consist of bioretention areas within the parking area and a detention pond at the north side of the parking area. After rainfall infiltrates through the filter medium in the bioretention area, the treated runoff would be conveyed in perforated pipes that would be buried near the bottom of the bioretention area to the detention pond. The system would be equipped with overflow piping to convey water directly to the detention pond if the capacity of the bioretention area were to be exceeded during intense runoff events. These facilities are designed to treat 80 percent of the annual runoff from the paved areas and to restrict flows above critical erosive flows to preconstruction conditions. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would be located just north of the site (see Figure III-2a). The detention pond would have a storage capacity of approximately 40,000 cubic feet and would be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. Discharge from the detention pond would be concentrated at an outfall into an existing earthen swale. The discharge point would be armored with rock revetment designed to dissipate the energy and prevent erosion. A new gravel road, 10-feet wide and 550 feet in length, would be developed to provide operation and maintenance access from the staging area to the detention pond. A gate would control access to the detention pond from the new staging area. No trees would be removed with development of Option A. Landscaping would include new trees and native grasses and shrubs within the parking area, as well as additional tree plantings around the parking area to provide screening. Approximately 46 15-gallon sized coast live oak trees would be planted as shown in Figure III-2a. e. Utilities. New water, sewer and electrical connections would be required to provide services to the proposed Option A site. The existing water supply is not adequate to meet the requirements of the proposed Option A staging area. In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed parking area per Fire Code requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter main waterline would be extended 480 feet up Stanford Avenue to reach the existing staging area. In order to provide adequate water pressure for potable water and irrigation, a booster pump system would be installed near the




restroom in the existing staging area to boost the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe to supply the Option A site, located at a higher elevation. The proposed four-unit restroom located at the Option A site would be connected to a new 1,600 foot long sewer line that would flow by gravity to the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed two-unit restroom installed in place of the existing single-vault toilet at the existing staging area would also be connected to this new sewer line. Outdoor lighting is typically not provided at District staging areas and is not proposed as part of this project. However, new power would be required to operate the pressure booster system located near the restroom in the existing staging area, and buried electrical line could be installed under the proposed road to the Option A site to provide electrical power to the proposed restroom facilities. Approximately 910 linear feet of a new 8-inch sewer line would also be installed to connect the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom facilities to the existing manhole at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 685 linear feet of a new 6-inch line would continue beneath the new access roadway from the existing staging area to the new restrooms at the Option A site. f. Grading and Construction. The total area of disturbance for development of Option A would be 11.71 acres, including all roadways, trails, and graded areas. Once complete, the total area of permanent disturbance would be 9.64 acres and would include the access road, parking area, connecting trail, and stormwater detention pond. The total area of temporary disturbance would be 2.07 acres. An approximately 6-foot-tall earthen berm would be developed along the western border of the new staging area, at the edge closest to existing homes, to provide visual screening. Grading would require approximately 35,000 cubic yards of cut, 23,000 cubic yards of which would be off-hauled. The remaining 12,000 cubic yards of soil would be balanced on site. Construction would occur over a six-month period. The most intensive excavation and grading activities would occur over a three- to four-month period. Construction activities would occur outside of the rainy season, when feasible and in conformance with City of Fremont ordinances and regulations. Construction and grading equipment is expected to include the use of earthmovers, backhoes, rollers, and compactors. Public access to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would be prohibited during the construction period and visitors would be directed to the Ohlone College parking area. 2. Option B

Development of Option B would result in construction of a new staging area, a new vehicular access road including a new vehicular bridge over Agua Caliente Creek, relocation of the Peak Meadow Trail, and two new trail connections to the existing Hidden Valley Trail, including one new non-vehicular trail bridge. As shown in Table III-2, for Option B, the total area of disturbance would be 16.76 acres, consisting of 10.45 acres of permanent disturbance, including 3.10 acres of paved (parking) surfaces, and 6.31 acres of temporary disturbance. A total of 990 linear feet of access roadways would be constructed. The new vehicular bridge would span 120 feet and the new pedestrian bridge would span 80 feet. Areas of temporary disturbance would be restored to natural conditions upon project completion.




Option B would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, and from the summit of Mission Peak. The conceptual development plan for Option B, including the limits of temporary disturbance during construction, is depicted in Figure III-3a. Figure III-3b shows the conceptual cross sections looking north and west. The proposed development plan is described in detail below. The existing corral in this location would be relocated to the southeast to provide the area required for the Option B staging area. The corral structures and fencing within the Option B site would be removed and the grazing area would be serviced by the new potable water system. Existing fencing and corral areas to the southeast of the site would remain and new fencing would be installed south of the Peak Meadow Trail. The new corral and livestock area would be approximately 5.5 acres in size. a. Staging Area. The new staging area would be located within the existing corral area and would include a maximum of 300 parking spaces, including 8 ADA-compliant spaces. Two new picnic tables, drinking fountains, and four restrooms would be located at the northeast edge of the staging area. b. Access and Circulation. The new staging area would be accessed by a new paved two-way vehicular access roadway of approximately 24 feet in width and 990 feet in length. The new roadway would connect the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the Option B staging area and would begin along the existing Hidden Valley Trail alignment, near the existing staging area restroom. The vehicular access roadway would then divert from the existing trail south along a portion of the Peak Meadow Trail and then begin a new alignment, crossing over Agua Caliente Creek with a new vehicular clear span bridge before entering the new staging area. The vehicular access roadway would consist of asphalt paving and the maximum grade would be 8 percent. The new clear span vehicular bridge would cross Agua Caliente Creek to provide access to the Option B staging area. The vehicular bridge would be approximately 25 feet in width, 120 feet in length, and would be made of steel and/or concrete with concrete abutments. A new section of sidewalk, approximately 5 feet in width and 130 feet in length, would continue from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area along the new roadway to connect with the section of the Peak Meadow Trail that would be relocated to accommodate the new vehicular roadway. The relocated section of the Peak Meadow Trail would begin on the existing Hidden Valley Trail, then drop down the slope to roughly parallel the new vehicular access roadway. The maximum grade of this new trail would be 12 percent. The relocated section of the Peak Meadow Trail would be approximately 12 feet wide and 1,255 feet in length. Two new trail connections would also be developed east of the Option B staging area to provide access to the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails. The new connection to the Hidden Valley Trail would extend to the north and cross over Agua Caliente Creek via a new 80-foot long non-vehicular pedestrian bridge, of approximately 8 feet in width. This new trail connection would also include new compacted gravel trail sections approximately 12 feet wide and a total of 300 linear feet. The connection to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails would extend to the east approximately 190 feet before meeting the existing trail. This new trail connection would also be approximately 12 feet wide and constructed of compacted gravel. Two sections of the existing Peak Meadow Trail alignment would be abandoned and restored due to the realigned trail segments, including 560 linear feet north of the Option B site and 630 linear feet east of the Option B site.




A gate, traffic controller, and kiosk would be installed at the entrance to the new vehicular roadway at the existing trailhead gate accessed from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Fencing would be provided around the perimeter of the new roadway, parking area, and bioretention areas. c. Culvert Removal. The existing 5-foot diameter, 60-foot-long culvert and crossing over Agua Caliente Creek would be removed and the area restored as part of Option B. Adjacent willow tree cuttings and boulders salvaged from culvert removal would be used to restore the creek to natural conditions in this location. The total area of restoration would be about 5,000 square feet and a total of 250 cubic yards of material would be removed. d. Drainage and Landscaping. As shown in Figure III-3a, approximately 3.10 acres of new impermeable asphalt pavement would result from development of the new roadway and staging area at Option B. Vegetated bioretention areas would serve to capture parking area and run-off. A bioretention area would be developed at the uphill edge of the new access roadway. New storm drainage facilities would consist of bioretention areas within the parking area and a detention pond at the north side of the parking area. After rainfall infiltrates through the filter medium in the bioretention area, the treated runoff, would be conveyed in perforated pipes that would be buried near the bottom of bioretention area to the detention pond. The system would be equipped with overflow piping to convey water directly to the detention pond if the capacity of the bioretention area were to be exceeded during intense runoff events. These facilities are designed to treat 80 percent of the annual runoff from the paved areas and to restrict flows above critical erosive flows to preconstruction conditions. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would drain to an existing concrete channel west of the site. The detention pond would be approximately 20,000 square feet in size and would have a storage capacity of 65,000 cubic feet. Other than directing the proposed incoming flow downstream, no modification to the existing ditch would be required. Approximately six coast live oaks along the creek corridor would be removed with development of Option B to allow for construction of the new vehicular bridge. While substantial tree pruning would be required for installation of the pedestrian bridge, no trees would be removed. As described above, willow cuttings would be salvaged as part of the creek culvert removal and would be used to restore the channel to natural conditions in the vicinity of the new bridges. Landscaping would include new trees and shrubs within the parking area, as well as additional tree plantings around the new parking area to provide screening. Approximately 27 15-gallon sized new coast live oak trees would be planted as shown in Figure III-3a. e. Utilities. New water, sewer and electrical connections would be required to provide services to the proposed Option B site. The existing water supply is not adequate to meet the requirements of the proposed Option B staging area. In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed parking area per Fire Code requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter main waterline would be extended 480 feet up Stanford Avenue to reach the existing Staging Area, then a 6-inch line would continue up the new road another 600 feet to the proposed hydrant. In order to provide adequate water pressure for potable water and irrigation, a booster pump system would be installed near the restroom in the existing staging area to boot the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe to supply the Option B site, located at a higher elevation.




The proposed four-unit restroom located at the Option B site would be connected to a new 2,600-foot long sewer line that would flow by gravity to the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed two-unit restroom installed in place of the existing single-vault toilet at the existing Stanford Staging Area would be connected to this new sewer line. Outdoor lighting is typically not provided at District staging areas and is not proposed for this project; however, new power would be required to operate the pressure booster system located near the restroom in the existing staging area, and buried electrical lines could be installed under the proposed road to the Option B site to provide electrical power to the proposed restroom facilities. Approximately 910 linear feet of a new 8-inch sewer line would also be installed to connect the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom facilities to the existing manhole at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 1,700 linear feet of a new 6-inch line would continue beneath the new access roadway from the existing staging area to the new restrooms at the Option B site. f. Grading and Construction. The total area of disturbance for development of Option B would be approximately 16.76 acres, including temporary construction disturbance and permanent disturb-ance. Once complete, the total area of permanent disturbance would be approximately 10.45 acres of which approximately 3.10 acres would consist of new impervious pavement. Therefore, the total area of temporary disturbance would be 6.31 acres. Grading would require approximately 12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of which would be off-hauled. Net import includes approximately 17,000 cubic yards of soil for fill and 13,000 cubic yards of building materials. Construction would occur over a 6-month period. The most intensive excavation and grading activities would occur over a 3- to 4-month period. Construction activities would occur outside of the rainy season, when feasible. Construction and grading equipment is expected to include the use of earthmovers, backhoes, rollers, and compactors. Public access to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would be prohibited during the construction period and visitors would be directed to the Ohlone College parking area. E. PROJECT APPROVALS AND USE OF THIS EIR

This EIR will provide environmental review for all discretionary and required approvals necessary for implementation of either option. The District’s Board of Directors (Board) will consider the information provided in the EIR, along with other information which may be presented, in deciding whether or not to: 1) certify the EIR and; 2) approve the proposed project or direct further study of the project alternatives. A list of the required permits and approvals that may be required by the Board and other agencies is provided in Table III-2.




Table III-2: Required Permits and Approvals Agencies Permit/Approval

Lead Agency East Bay Regional Park District • Certification of EIR

• Project approval Responsible Agencies City of Fremont • Environmental Impact Assessment Application

• Preliminary Grading Plan • Building Permit • Grading Permit • Encroachment Permit

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board)

• NPDES permit for stormwater discharge • Section 401 water quality certification

State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit United States Fish and Wildlife Service Possible Incidental Take Permits as part of Section 404 Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1602 Streambed Alteration permit Alameda County Water District Approval of new water line and connections Alameda County Flood Control District Approval of bridge construction Union Sanitary District Approval of new sewer lines and connections City of Fremont Fire Department Approval of site plan






P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\4-Policy.docx (10/14/15) 77

IV. PLANNING POLICY

This chapter discusses the proposed project’s relationship with planning-related land use policies. A project’s inconsistency with a policy, per CEQA Guidelines, is only considered significant if that policy was adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Policies are described in select topical sections of the EIR where applicable policies relate to physical elements and are intended to avoid or mitigate physical environmental effects. In reviewing this chapter, it is important to understand that the determination of whether a project is consistent with a specific policy can be subjective, and that consistency determinations are best made with a broad understanding of the often-competing policy objectives in a planning document. As a result, policy consistency determinations are ultimately made by the local decision-making body. As previously discussed, the East Bay Regional Park District (District) is the lead agency for environ-mental review. Therefore, the District’s Board of Directors (Board) would determine the project’s consistency with District plans and policies. The City of Fremont (City) also has discretionary authority over project approval and will evaluate the project’s consistency with local plans and policies. The analysis in this chapter is intended to provide decision-makers with a list of the goals and policies that are pertinent to the project and project area, and a recommendation regarding whether or not the proposed project would directly conflict with relevant planning directives. These recommendations are intended to supplement decision-makers’ own understanding of the various policy considerations. A conflict with an applicable policy is not itself a significant impact unless it results in a significant environmental impact, as described below. The main guiding documents regulating land use and planning within and around the project site are: 1) the City of Fremont General Plan; 2) the City of Fremont Zoning Ordinance; and 3) East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan. A. CITY OF FREMONT GENERAL PLAN

A description of the 2011 Fremont General Plan1 is provided below. An analysis of the project’s potential to conflict with relevant goals, policies, and implementation measures identified in the General Plan is also provided. Refer to Table IV-1 for a list of relevant policies and the project’s relationship to those policies. Relevant goals, policies, and implementation measures from the City of Fremont General Plan are also identified in the appropriate topical sections of this EIR (see Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) to the extent that these policies relate to physical environmental effects.

1 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. December.


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RI V . P L A N N I N G P O L I C Y


1. Description

The Fremont General Plan acts as the “constitution” for the City’s development by providing priorities and goals for the future of the City over a 25-year horizon. The City Council adopted the most recent General Plan on December 13, 2011. The General Plan contains the seven required elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety and also includes seven optional elements: Sustainability, Community Character, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities, Community Plans, and Implementation. Each element establishes goals to guide future land use activities and development within the City limits and Sphere of Influence. The goals are followed by policies that provide implementation measures to accomplish each goal. The General Plan Vision Statement acts as a general guideline in developing the goals and policies within the General Plan. The Fremont General Plan Vision Statement is: “Fremont will serve as a national model of how an auto-oriented suburb can evolve into a sustainable, strategically urban, modern city.” The Land Use Element establishes districts and policies to designate appropriate uses for those districts. The project site is located within the Resource Conservation and Public Open Space (RCP) designation. The RCP designation includes open spaces that are located below the Toe of the Hill (TOH) and owned by public or quasi-public agencies. The purpose of this designation is to Preserve natural open space and restore and enhance native habitat. This designation is assigned to land owned by agencies other than the City. In this particular case, the project area is owned by the City but managed by the District (refer to Figure I-1 in Chapter I, Introduction for jurisdictional boundaries within Mission Peak). With implementation of the proposed project, the project area would remain within the RCP land use designation and no changes to the existing General Plan are proposed. Development of a staging area within Mission Peak would not conflict with the intent of the RCP designation. The new staging area would be constructed within existing open space areas within the existing Preserve and both site options are located near the Preserve’s boundaries with urban areas. Conversion of either site option from grassland areas to a new staging area would not result in a substantial reduction in the natural open space areas or habitat available throughout the Preserve and would not conflict with the overall intent of this designation because support facilities, such as a staging area, for open space uses are allowed in the RCP-designated areas. Furthermore, implementation of either site option would result in creek restoration activities, which would further the intent of the RCP designation. 2. Potential Conflicts

Applicable General Plan policies are outlined in Table IV-1. The potential for the proposed project to directly conflict with these policies is also described. General Plan policies applicable to the proposed project address: land use classification, open space, conservation, parks and recreation, and community character. The proposed project would expand the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and include a maximum of 300 additional parking spaces, restrooms, and picnic areas as well as associated roadways and infrastructure to connect to the new staging area at either site option. The General Plan considered expansion of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak in the Community Plans Element, as follows:




“The park includes a number of staging areas and trailheads, but there are no significant improvements planned within its boundaries, with the exception of potential parking lot expansion.”2

As discussed in Table IV-1, below, the proposed project would not directly conflict with any General Plan policies adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding physical impacts to the environment. Specifically, the project would not conflict with the General Plan policies related to community preservation, adequate infrastructure, parking management, landscaping, and economic development. One of the proposed project’s objectives is to reduce existing noise, litter, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The project would directly implement Land Use Policy 2-3.12, as implementation of the project is expected to reduce noise, littering, traffic, and other activities that disrupt the adjoining Fremont neighborhood. The proposed project would also not directly conflict with General Plan policies that relate to preservation of open space and development within the Hill Areas of Fremont.

2 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Community Plans Element,




Table IV-1: Relationship of Proposed Project to City of Fremont General Plan Policies Policy Policy Text Project’s Relationship to Policy

LAND USE ELEMENT Policy 2-1.3: Maintain Fremont’s Open Space “Frame”

Conserve the unique ecological characteristic of the Fremont Hills and San Francisco Bay shoreline and wetlands and recognize the contribution of these features to Fremont’s identity and livability. Future land use decision should ensure the long-term protection of these areas as open space.

The project area is located within and near the western boundary of Mission Peak, in the Fremont Hills. Both project site options are located in existing grassland areas that primarily serve as open space, although the Option B site is often used as a corral and is not open to the public. Although the project would develop existing grassland areas at either site option with a new staging area, these areas are located at the base of the hill areas and are immediately adjacent to urban uses. Furthermore, the new staging area is intended to serve the open space uses within Mission Peak. The remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved. Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of impacts to unique ecological features that would be affected by the proposed project. As discussed, impacts to plant and wildlife communities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.

Policy 2-1.11: Infill Emphasis Focus new development on under-developed or “skipped over” sites that are already served by infrastructure and public streets. Strongly discourage, and where appropriate prohibit, the conversion of open space or underdeveloped land on the fringes of Fremont to urban uses. All of the growth projected for Fremont over the next 20-25 years is anticipated take place within the existing urbanized area. By growing more compactly, the City can preserve its hills and Baylands as open space.

The project area is located within and near the western boundary of Mission Peak. Both project site options are located in existing grassland areas that primarily serve as open space, although the Option B site is often used as a corral and is not open to the public. Infrastructure, including new roadways and utilities would be extended onto either site to serve the new staging area. The proposed project would not convert open space to an urban use, but instead would convert an existing area within the Preserve to support the continued use of the Preserve. The remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved.

Policy 2-2.8: Constrained Land Recognize certain areas as having natural constraints which preclude their safe or environmentally sound development. These constraints are discussed in the Safety and Conservation Elements of the General Plan. The allowable density or intensity of development shall be set to recognize such constraints. The designations on the General Plan Land Use Map reflect this policy. Hillsides and wetlands are generally designated as Open Space on the Map to recognize ecological, safety, access, and aesthetic concerns. This principle would be carried forward through zoning, and through other City ordinances regulating development near earthquake faults, in flood plains, and in other hazard-prone locations. The Safety and Conservation Elements should be consulted for further guidance on what constitutes “constrained” land.

The project area is designated as RCP in the City’s General Plan and is zoned as Planned Development, Hillside Overlay District. As discussed throughout Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures of this EIR, natural constraints, such as geologic conditions, wetlands, hydrology, access etc. have been considered in the project design. The project site options were chosen based on the proximity to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance to Mission Peak and because these two locations represented the fewest constraints for development within the boundaries of Mission Peak and within the District’s jurisdiction. Mitigation measures recommended in this EIR, including Mitigation Measure GEO-1 in particular, would ensure that development of either site option would be appropriately designed to provide a safe and environmentally sound development.





Policy 2-2.9: Adequacy of Infrastructure

Allow new development to occur only when the public facilities needed to serve that development are available or will be provided by the development through the payment of impact fees.

Development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option B site would result in the construction of new infrastructure including new access roadways, bridges, and extension of utility services within the boundaries of Mission Peak. The new roadways would be accessed via existing Stanford Avenue and the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New water, sewer, and electrical connections would be required to provide water and sewer services to on-site restrooms and other facilities and would connect to existing infrastructure within Stanford Avenue. The District would pay connection and other impact fees to Alameda County Water District, Union Sanitary District, and PG&E, as required.

Policy 2-3.12: Community Preservation

Maintain community preservation and code enforcement programs which protect health and safety and keep Fremont neighborhoods free of nuisances and visual blight. These programs should also abate excessive noise, illegal dumping, illegal signage, graffiti, littering, and other activities that disrupt neighborhood quality of life. Fremont’s Community Development Department has a Community Preservation Division that responds to citizen complaints and proactively identifies violations of the Fremont Municipal Code. In most jurisdictions, this operation is known as code enforcement. It addresses businesses operating without permits, illegal or unpermitted land uses, structures built without permits, unsafe or unsanitary housing, illegal fences, vehicle hazards and similar issues. Addressing these issues promptly is important to reducing blight and maintaining the quality of life in the city.

The project would provide additional vehicle parking for visitors to Mission Peak, which is expected to help reduce existing noise, litter, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.





Policy 2-6.2: Hill Area Initiatives

Adhere to the Fremont provisions of the 1981 voter-approved Measure A Initiative and the 2002 voter-approved Measure T Initiative, both of which are officially part of the Fremont Municipal Code, when making land use decisions for the Fremont hill area. These provisions impose more restrictive requirements on hill area development than would otherwise apply in designated open space areas. Adopted December 2011 Land Use | 2-69 General Plan Measure A, approved by Fremont voters in 1981, formally amended the text of the General Plan to add definitions of the “Hill Area,” “Ridgeline,” “Toe of the Hill,” and “Hill Face.” The General Plan Map was likewise amended to depict these features and reduce allowable hillside densities. The intent of the ordinance was to protect the agricultural, recreational, and low density character of the Hill Area and provide special protection to visually sensitive features such as the western hill face and ridgeline. The Measure generally applied to land east and north of Mission Boulevard and I-680. Measure T, approved by voters in 2002, established additional limits on hillside development and incorporated further language into the General Plan. The changes included new minimum parcel sizes for the Hill Area and the City’s sphere of influence. Additional use restrictions were established and further safeguards were placed on areas of special environmental concern. The Measure included provisions for clustering of allowable density, restrictions on lot line adjustments and maximum floor area, and requirements for conservation easements. The area covered by the Ordinance was slightly different than the area covered by Measure T, focusing more specifically on lands above the Toe of the Hill. See the Hill Area Community Plan for the full adopted text of Measures A and T.

The project site is located below the Toe of the Hill and within the area established by Measure A. The proposed project would develop a new staging area within the open space areas of Mission Peak and near existing urban uses at the base of the hill to better accommodate park visitor demand for parking. The proposed project would support the continued use of Mission Peak as a recreation area that serves users throughout the region. The new staging area would consist of a surface parking lot with additional recreational amenities and the extension of infrastructure. Project landscaping and grading would serve as a buffer from adjacent residential uses and serve as visual screening. No impacts to agricultural resources or visual resources would result with implementation of the proposed project (see Section V.B, Visual Resources and Section V.E, Agricultural and Forestry Resources for a description of the project’s less than significant impacts related to these topics). The project area is not located above the Toe of the Hill and is not subject to the development standards and restrictions established by Measure T.

Policy 2-6.7: Environmentally Sensitive Use of Open Space

Regulate recreational and public facility development on lands designated as open space to conserve the overall character of such sites and minimize impacts on recreational activities, mature landscaping, and environmentally sensitive areas.

The project would develop parking and a recreational staging area to allow public access to a regional destination. The project is designed to conserve the overall character of the Mission Peak Preserve and minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.





MOBILITY Policy 3-7.1: Parking Management

Manage on-street parking to ensure the efficient use of curbside space, avoid conflicts with residents and neighborhoods, and provide adequate customer parking for local businesses.

The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is not currently adequately served by on-site parking facilities and nearby residential neighborhoods experience conflicts related to parking and traffic congestion as visitors to Mission Peak often park within the neighborhood. The project would provide a more appropriate level of parking for the Preserve to reduce conflicts with adjacent neighborhoods.

Policy 3-7.4: Bicycle Parking and Storage Facilities

Require the provision of secured bicycle parking at (or near) all new or substantially modified commercial or industrial development projects, education and recreational facilities, and BART Stations and transit centers. In commercial areas, bicycle parking may be consolidated in racks serving multiple businesses to create a cleaner and more attractive street appearance. At larger employment centers and BART Stations, lockers and showers should be encouraged to facilitate bicycle use. Bicycle parking facilities are important to provide security and convenience for cyclists. The availability of such facilities may influence the decision to bicycle to work, school, shopping, or other destinations. Effective bicycle parking requires a properly designed rack or locker in an appropriate location for the adjacent land use.

An existing bicycle rack is provided within the existing Stanford Avenue Staging area and is available for use by Preserve visitors. The new staging area at either site option would also include a new bicycle rack for visitor use and the existing bicycle rack would remain.

COMMUNITY CHARACTER Policy 4-1.1: Elements of City Form

Recognize the basic elements of city form— community plan areas, neighborhoods, centers, corridors, employment districts, and open spaces—as the features that contribute to and define Fremont’s sense of place. Ensure that land use and transportation decisions, including design review, zoning, capital improvements, and development approvals, improve the visual qualities of these features and strengthen their identity as distinct places.

The proposed project would be developed within an existing open space area that is immediately adjacent to low-density residential uses. The new staging area at either location would be visible from various nearby and distant vantage points, including from within the Preserve and adjacent private residences. However, the visual quality and character of the site would not be degraded and proposed landscaping at either site would provide visual screening of the parking area (also refer to Section V.B, Visual Resources.

Policy 4-1.6: Open Space Frame

Protect Fremont’s hills and baylands as an open space “frame” that gives definition to the City and shapes its image and identity. See also Land Use Policy 2-1.11 on focusing new development on infill sites rather than expanding the City’s urban footprint.

Although the project would develop existing open spaces areas within the Fremont hills at either site option, these areas are located at the base of the hill areas and are immediately adjacent to urban uses. Furthermore, the new staging area is intended to serve the open space uses within Mission Peak. The remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved.

Policy 4-5.3: Undergrounding Utility Lines

Reduce the visual impacts of utility lines and poles along corridors by continuing to underground overhead lines within existing development, and by requiring underground utilities in new development.

Proposed utility connections, including electrical services would be underground.





Policy 4-5.7: Tree Planting and Preservation

Recognize trees as a valuable aesthetic, ecological, and economic resource. Protect and preserve Fremont’s existing trees and grow the City’s “urban forest” by planting new trees on public property and promoting tree planting and preservation on private property. New street trees should be appropriate for the function of the street, climate and soil conditions in the planting area, available space for the canopy and root network, expected sidewalk activity, and other factors.

Development of either site option could result in the potential removal of or damage to existing trees within the open space areas of the Preserve and/or within existing waterways. Both project site options would include plantings of coast live oaks within and around the perimeter of the proposed staging area. Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would further ensure that impacts to protected trees would be less than significant.

Policy 4-5.8: Landscape Design Use landscape design to improve the visual appearance of streets, enhance buildings, create and define public and private spaces, create shade, screen unsightly uses, and provide environmental benefits such as absorption of stormwater and air pollutants and reduction of noise. Landscaping provides many benefits, including improved visual appearance and shade. It should be designed to enhance surrounding buildings and the natural environment. Sustainable landscape measures such as the use of drought-tolerant planting and rain barrels should be encouraged and should reinforce green practices in the City

The project would include landscaping and trees that would create shade, screen the proposed staging area, and provide stormwater controls.

Policy 4-6.10: Protection of Native American Remains

Coordinate with representatives of local Native American organizations to ensure the protection of Native American resources and to follow appropriate mitigation, preservation, and recovery measures in the event such resources could be impacted by development.

The District has consulted with representatives of local Native American organizations as part of the EIR process (refer to Section V.D, Cultural Resources for additional discussion). Known historic and archaeological resources are present within both the Option A and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would ensure that Native American representatives continue to be consulted as appropriate.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Policy 6-6.2: Fremont as a Destination

Promote Fremont as a destination for non-residents, including both visitors and Fremont employees, by offering regional shopping, dining, and recreational amenities and opportunities.

The project would expand an existing staging area to provide a more adequate level of parking for the existing Mission Peak Regional Preserve, a regional recreational amenity in Fremont.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT Policy 7-1.1: Preservation of Natural Habitat

Preserve and protect fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitats including wetlands, creeks, lakes, ponds, saltwater bodies and other riparian areas. Maintain these areas for their critical biological values and to help improve water quality.

The proposed project would result in the development of existing grassland areas within the existing Preserve and would directly affect wildlife and plant communities through removal of existing habitat. The remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved. Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of impacts to wildlife habitats and plant communities that would be affected by the proposed project. As discussed, impacts to plant and wildlife communities and wetlands would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.





Policy 7-1.2: Protection of Species

Preserve and protect rare, threatened, endangered and candidate species and their habitats consistent with State and Federal law.

Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of impacts to wildlife habitats and plant communities that would be affected by the proposed project. As discussed, impacts to plant and wildlife communities and wetlands would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.

Policy 7-1.3: Preservation of Hill Areas

Preserve and protect the Hill Area woodlands and vegetative areas, especially along the ridgeline, in canyons and on vegetated north facing slopes.

The project area is located within the Hill Areas of Fremont. The project would not be developed along the ridgeline, in canyons or on vegetated north facing slopes. As discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources, impacts to plant and wildlife communities, including trees and grassland habitat would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.

Policy 7-1.4: Open Space Frame

Maintain and expand the Open Space Frame The proposed project would develop a new staging area within an existing open space area to support the ongoing use of this recreational facility. The remaining areas of the Preserve would continue to be maintained as open space.

Policy 7-1.5: Promotion of Interagency Coordination

Promote interagency coordination for the protection and preservation of biological resources.

As discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources, through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, the District would coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Fish and Wildlife Services, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Fremont, as appropriate.

Policy 7-1.7: Mitigate Development Impacts

Mitigate the impacts of development on the natural environment to the extent possible through sound planning, design, and management of development projects.

As discussed in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, all impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Policy 7-2.1: Preservation of Water Resources

Water resources such as the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long term water resource sustainability.

Development of a new staging area at either site option would increase impervious surface cover at either site through the introduction of new roadways and pavements. Stormwater features would however preserve water quality and promote groundwater recharge. As discussed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. As discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, impacts to biological resources would also be less than significant. Implementation of Option A would also result in repair of an existing culvert within a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek. Implementation of Option B would result in removal and restoration of an existing culvert within the Agua Caliente Creek channel.

Policy 7-2.2: Low-Impact Hill Area Development

Minimize the impact of Hill Area development on creeks and riparian areas

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8, impacts to creeks and riparian areas would be less than significant.





Policy 7-3.3:Enforce Water Quality Requirement

Enforce Federal, State and locally issued mandates regarding water quality such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

As discussed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would comply with NPDES permit requirements and impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

Policy 7-6.1: Awareness of Soil Conditions

Ensure development projects take soil conditions into account Soil conditions within the project area were considered through the site design process and were identified and evaluated in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b, impacts related to unstable soils that could result in landslides and exposure to hazards associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.

Policy 7-6.2: Minimize Soil Erosion

Eliminate soil erosion from development to the maximum extent possible

As discussion in Section V.G, Geology and Soils, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.

SAFETY Policy 10-1.1: Location of Buildings and Structures

Regulate new development and redevelopment in a manner that avoids geologic hazards to life and property

As discussed in Section V.G, Geology and Soils, existing geologic hazards and conditions have been considered in the project design. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that development of either site option would be appropriately designed and monitored to avoid geologic hazards.

Policy 10-1.2: Mitigation of Hazards

Require proposed development in areas of potential land instability to evaluate and sufficiently mitigate such hazards through site planning, appropriate construction techniques, building design and engineering.

Hazardous conditions associated with soil instability within the project area were considered through the site design process and were identified and evaluated in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 a and GEO-1b, impacts related to unstable soils that could result in landslides and exposure to hazards associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.

Policy 10-2.1: Location of Buildings and Structures

Regulate new development and redevelopment in a manner to minimize potential damage and hazards related to expected seismic activity.

Hazardous conditions that could result from a seismic event at the project sites were considered through the site design process and were identified and evaluated in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. As discussed in Section V.G, Geology and Soils, these impacts would be less than significant.





COMMUNITY PLANS Policy 11-5.2: Allowable Uses in the Hill Area

Subject to the prohibitions, restrictions, densities, conditions and requirements imposed by the 2002 Initiative, Hill Area generally compatible uses are agriculture, recreation, and very low density residential uses which comply with standards and densities set out in the General Plan text. According to the 2002 Initiative, the following uses and their normal and appropriate accessory uses and structures (as well as uses preemptively authorized by Federal and State law) are permitted in the Hill Area, if they comply with all of the provisions of this plan and with other City prohibitions, restrictions, regulations, conditions and requirements: a) One single family residence on each legal parcel, secondary units to the extent required by State law, and dwelling units for persons employed on the parcel, or on a ranch or farm that includes the parcel. b) Rental of rooms, including with board, not exceeding two units in a residence. c) Agriculture including grazing, horticulture, floriculture and arboriculture, but not including: 1) commercial feedlots, except for livestock that primarily receive their sustenance in the Hill Area from grazing on a ranch or farm that includes the parcel, 2) large or medium-size pig farms, poultry ranches, or commercial vineyards, or 3) Christmas tree farms. d) Small-scale, low-intensity rearing, custodianship, training or care of animals, other than ruminants which shall be governed as agriculture by subsection (c), that does not cause material environmental harm. e) Commercial uses, limited to the following: 1) Outdoor recreation and pastimes predominantly for active participants (this category of permitted uses does not include, among other things, amusement or theme parks and motor vehicle tracks, courses or recreational activities); 2) Nature observa-tion, study or enjoyment; 3) Accommodations for short term occupancy and for provision of food and drink (including low-intensity campgrounds and picnic facilities), predominantly for persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, study or enjoyment; 4) Uses in historic structures, incidental to preserving the

The proposed project consists of a low-density staging area that would support an existing open space use. Specifically, the proposed project would support outdoor recreation and pastimes predominantly for active participants and nature observation, study and enjoyment through increased access to the existing Preserve.





Policy 11-5.2 Continued structures and their historic qualities and setting; 5) Home occupa-tions and offices, subordinate to residential use and conducted primarily by occupants of the property, that will have no deleterious effects on the environment or visual qualities or materially increase local traffic; 6) Neighborhood stores and services, predominantly to serve the unmet agricultural and other needs of the population of the Hill Area, that cannot practicably be met outside the Area; 7) Healthcare; 8) Cemeteries; 9) Packaging, processing, storage or sale of agricultural produce or plants, a substantial portion of which were grown in the Hill Area; 10) Small-scale extraction and processing of rock, soil, or water; 11) Special, occasional short-term events related to agriculture or animals that do not interfere substan-tially with the use of land for agriculture or cause lasting adverse environmental harm or visual effects, provided that access for vehicles and emergency equipment and for parking meet generally applicable City standards. f) Institutional and other non-profit uses that primarily serve Hill Area residents, or whenever and to the same extent like commercial uses would be permitted. g) City and other government facilities and infrastructure, and public utility facilities, that are limited to meeting the needs created by uses permitted in the Hill Area unless the City Council reasonably finds more extensive public need, that cannot practicably be met outside the Hill Area. However, this exception for more extensive public need shall not apply to waste treatment and disposal or commercial electrical power generating facilities. Publicly provided outdoor recreation and nature observation and enjoyment and ancillary accommodations are permitted whenever like commercial uses would be allowed.





Policy 11-5.5: Consistency of Future Projects with Hill Area Standards

All rezonings (including Planned districts), permits and approvals for subdivision maps, planned unit developments, grading, conditional uses and all building permits, variances, and other entitlements for use, shall be consistent with these requirements and with the associated designations on the General Plan Summary Map and Area Maps. This plan does not affect the validity of existing parcels, development, structures, and uses that are legal at the time it becomes effective. However, parcels, development, structures and uses may not be expanded or changed in ways that are inconsistent with the prohibitions, limits or requirements of this plan, except as authorized by State law. The restrictions and requirements imposed by this plan shall apply to proposed development that has not received all necessary discretionary City and other authorizations and approvals prior to the plan’s effective date, except to the extent precluded by State law.

Construction of the new staging area would require permits from the City of Fremont and the site design would conform to applicable City codes and standards for development within the Hill Area.

Policy 11-5.9: Architectural Review for Hill Area Development

The City shall perform architectural review for any development in the Hill Area in order to ensure consistency with the policies of the General Plan. In addition, all development on the Ridgeline and Hill Face shall be subject to discretionary review and must be approved by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council on appeal.

The project would be developed within the Hill Area and would be subject to review by the Planning Commission.





Policy 11-5.10: Development Standards for Hill Area Sites

Consistent with the Hill Area Initiative of 2002, all development shall be designed to minimize disturbances of the natural terrain and vegetation and to minimize visual impact. The following restrictions shall apply to development in the Hill Area: a) No building site, in whole or in part, may be located on a slope of thirty percent (30%) or more. No building may be located on a site that has access over a slope of thirty percent (30%) or more. No greenhouses, in whole or in part, may be located on a slope of fifteen percent (15%) or more. Cultivated agriculture may not be conducted on a slope of thirty percent (30%) or more. b) Structures may not be located on ridgelines or hilltops, or where they will project into the visual plane of a ridgeline or hilltop, as viewed from public roads, trails, or other public places, unless there is no other building site on the parcel or on a contiguous parcel in common ownership when this ordinance becomes effective or thereafter. c) New or reconfigured parcels, including those resulting from lot line adjustments, must be created or drawn to minimize visibility of development from public places. d) To the extent practicable, structures shall be located, including by setbacks from parcel boundaries, on that part of a parcel or on contiguous parcels in common ownership that minimizes visibility from public places, except agricultural structures necessary for agricultural purposes may be located in more visible areas. e) In all cases, appropriate landscaping, preservation of vegetation, screening, and building materials shall be required by the City to minimize the visual impact of development. Consistent with that end, alteration of topography by grading, excavating, filling or other development activity shall be minimized. Development shall be subordinate to and blend with the natural and open space qualities of the area where located, so as to be as unobtrusive as possible, and not to impair those qualities. To the maximum extent practicable, lighting must be located, designed and shielded so as to confine direct rays to the parcel where the lighting is located. f) The height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. g) All buildings on a parcel shall be placed within a contiguous “development envelope” not to exceed two acres, except for buildings that must be located outside the envelope for agricultural uses or security needs, or for government or public utility facilities that the City Council reasonably finds require a more extensive area. h) The maximum aggregate floor area for all floors (regardless of composition) in buildings on a parcel

The proposed project would consist of a low-density staging area within existing open spaces areas located within the Hill Area of Fremont. The new staging area would not be located on a slope that exceeds 30 percent and would not be located on a ridgeline or hilltop. New trees and other plantings would be located within and around the perimeter of the new staging area to provide visual screening and to ensure that the new parking facilities blend with surrounding urban and open space uses and do not degrade the visual character or quality of the site surroundings. Although grading and excavation would be required, the new staging areas would conform to the existing topography to the extent feasible and new berms would be employed to also provide visual screening from adjacent uses. The proposed project would generally conform to the development standards for Hill Area sites.





Policy 11-5.10 Continued may not exceed one percent (1%) of the parcel’s area, or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, but for any parcel a minimum of 10,000 square feet shall be permitted. Greenhouses are subject to a maximum aggregate floor area of one percent (1%) or 40,000 square feet, whichever is less. Government facilities are not subject to the aggregate limit to the extent that the City Council finds reasonably that they are necessary to serve important public needs, that they cannot practicably be located outside the Hill Area, and that they must exceed the floor area maximum. The City Council may also authorize a larger area if needed for housing for agricultural workers, or for processing, packaging or storage of agricultural produce or plants, a substantial portion of which were grown in the Hill Area, or for other agricultural purpose.

Policy 11-5.13: Environmental Assessments for Hill Area Projects

Require early assessment of environmental constraints and resources for any applications submitted for development in the hill areas. Early consultation with the City regarding the implications of the environmental assessment for proposed development is recommended. Issues to be addressed include geology (e.g., seismicity, soils, slope), biology (e.g., wetlands, riparian zones, landmark trees), mineral resources, and visual sensitivity. These resources and constraints are roughly identified in the Natural Resources and Safety Elements of the General Plan.

The project area is located within and near the western boundary of Mission Peak, within the Hill Area, and existing open space areas within the Preserve would be developed with either site option. The remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved. Natural and geologic constraints were considered in the project’s design. Environmental impacts associated with development of the new staging area are the subject of this EIR. Refer to Sections V.B, Visual Resources, V.C, Biological Resources, V.G, Geology and Soils, and V.F, Mineral Resources, for a discussion of impacts related to unique visual, geological, ecological, and mineral resources that would be affected by the proposed project. As discussed, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Policy 11-5.18: Design Sensitivity to Natural Features

Design new development to be compatible with its natural surroundings. Development shall be designed to maximize retention of natural topographic features, such as drainage swales, slopes, rock outcroppings, vistas, landmark trees, natural foliage and plant formations, historical sites, riparian areas and areas of natural beauty. Development shall minimize disturbances of any natural watercourses or streams and wildlife breeding areas.

Natural and geologic conditions, including existing topography, were considered in the project’s design. As discussed throughout Chapter V of this EIR, impacts to natural topographic features, scenic vistas, trees, natural vegetation, historical sites, riparian areas, and the natural open space characteristics of the Preserve would be minimized and all such impacts would be less than significant with, in some cases, implementation of recommended mitigation measures.





Policy 11-5.20: Minimization of Hill Area Grading

Require development to conform to the natural grades and not scar the existing terrain and vegetation by excessive grading. Buildings should fit the land, not vice versa.

Existing topography and landscape features were considered in the design of the proposed project. Once completed, the new staging area would fit within the natural topography that surrounds either site option and new trees and plantings would blend with surrounding open space uses.

Policy 11-5.21: Minimization of Hill Area Erosion and Pollution Impacts

Require development to minimize erosion and pollution impacts from construction.

As discussed in Sections V.G, Geology and Soils, V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, V.I, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and V.K, Air Quality in this EIR, impacts related to construction-period erosion and pollution would be less than significant with, in some cases, implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Source: City of Fremont General Plan, 2011 and LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.




B. CITY OF FREMONT ZONING ORDINANCE

1. Description

The City’s Zoning Ordinance is included in Title 18 Planning and Zoning, of the Fremont Municipal Code. The Zoning Ordinance implements the goals and policies of the General Plan by regulating land uses and structures within the City. City land is divided into zoning districts that specify standards for new development such as minimum lot sizes, maximum densities, setbacks, heights, and parking requirements. Allowed uses within each zoning district are also established in the Zoning Ordinance which may either be permitted by right or permitted with a use permit or minor use permit. The Zoning Map depicts the zoning districts throughout the City limits. The project site is located within the Hillside-Combining District (H-I) and Planned (P) District. The H-I District is used to promote safe development of hillside areas through the application of require-ments set to meet the challenges associated with development of hillside areas. Development standards for projects in this district are reviewed according to performance standards of the open space district and supplemented with development standards for the H-I District. Performance standards include limiting impervious coverage to 15 percent of the development area; retaining natural vegetation; installing sediment basins; and minimizing visual impacts. Additional develop-ment standards for the H-I District include: minimizing grading and minimizing visual impacts. The maximum height of a building within this district may not exceed 30 feet above grade. Within the H-I District, projects are required to minimize grading by designing structures to fit the land instead of modifying the land to fit the structure. The P District was established to encourage and allow development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and conservation in the City through site-specific planning that includes proper orientation, desirable design, and compatible land uses. Over the last few decades, preservation of the natural features of hillside areas in the City have been the subject of voter-approved measures that establish development standards for these areas and are incorporated into the Fremont Zoning Ordinance. These are described below. a. Measure A. In 1981, Fremont voters approved Measure A and in 1982 the City amended the Hillside District to further incorporate voter-approved development regulations. In addition to protecting the hill face and ridgeline areas, Measure A established development limits on constrained land and design review requirements for much of the Mission San José area. Measure A requirements are codified within the Hillside-Combining Zoning District and are applicable to either Option A or B. b. Measure T. Voters passed Measure T in 2002 which further changed the Hillside-Combining District. Measure T established additional prohibitions above the Toe of the Hill, including buildings or roads on slopes of 30 percent or more, buildings on visible ridgelines and hilltops, development in riparian corridors, commercial vineyards and Christmas tree farms, and agricultural cultivation on steep slopes. Measure T also limited the aggregate size of buildings on a parcel and the development envelope on large tracts, with some exceptions for smaller sites. Additional language in the initiative and implementing ordinances requires that visual impacts be minimized through site planning and design. The project area is located below the Toe of the Hill and would not be subject to Measure T development standards.




2. Consistency

Development of a new staging area within the P, H-1 Zoning District would not directly conflict with any development standards outlined in the City of Fremont Zoning Ordinance. Development within the P District is subject to discretionary review and is not subject to set standards. Within the H-1 District, the development of surface parking lots to serve existing open space uses are neither permitted by right nor expressly prohibited. Impervious surface coverage on the project sites would exceed 15 percent of the total disturbed area (for each site, permanent surface coverage would total approximately 30 percent); however, surface coverage at each site would total about 3 acres, which is approximately 0.1 percent of the total open space area within the 3,000-acre Preserve. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the purposes of the Open Space (OS) District, including use of open space lands as a limited and valuable resource; reasonable use of open lands while protecting the public health, safety and welfare from the dangers of seismic hazards and unstable soils; the continued availability of land in agricultural production and in its natural or near natural state; and preservation of the topography of the city that shapes and gives its identity. The proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts due to this increased surface coverage with implementation of the project design measures and mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. The project’s stormwater treatment and infiltration features would ensure the project would meet water quality standards and not result in significant hydrology impacts. Bioretention areas and a detention pond would also be installed to ensure that water quality requirements are met. Although some natural vegetation would be removed, including grassland habitats and trees, these impacts would be less than significant with recommended mitigation measures. Grading would be minimized and site design and development would conform to the existing topography to the extent feasible. Visual impacts would also be less than significant and new trees and vegetation would provide visual screening. Furthermore, the design standards set forth for the Hill Areas by Measure A would also be implemented and were considered in site design (refer to Table IV-1 for additional discussion). C. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT MASTER PLAN

1. Description

The District Master Plan (Master Plan)1 defines the vision and the mission of the District and sets priorities for the future. The Master Plan provides policies and guidelines for achieving the highest standards of service in resource conservation, management, interpretation, public access, and recreation. The policies applicable to the proposed project are included in Table IV-2 at the end of this subsection, and the project’s consistency with these policies is noted there. Park types and land use designations are further addressed below. a. Park Types. The Master Plan discusses the types of parks within the District’s system. Types of parks include: regional parks, regional preserves, regional recreation areas, regional shorelines, and regional trails. The project site is within Mission Peak Regional Preserve.

1 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Master Plan 2013. July 16.




A Regional Preserve is an area with outstanding natural or cultural features that are protected for their intrinsic value as well as for the enjoyment and education of the public. The essential features of a Regional Preserve may be open space (wilderness, scenic beauty, flora and fauna), or archaeological, historic or geological resources. Generally, the size of a Regional Preserve is determined by the characteristics, nature, and needs of its special features. Mission Peak is 1 of 21 Regional Preserves that the District manages. According to Master Plan Policy PRPT3, the primary objective of a Regional Preserve is to preserve and protect significant natural or cultural resources. A Regional Preserve must have great natural or scientific importance (for example, it may contain rare or endangered plant or animal species and their supporting ecosystems, significant fossils, unique geologic features, or unusual topographic features) or be of such significant regional historic or cultural value as to warrant preservation. b. Land Use Designations. The District establishes Land Use Designations, also known as unit designations, to indicate various levels of resource protection and recreational intensity in the parks. Park lands include both Natural Units and Recreation/Staging Units. The District identifies areas needing special protection or management as Special Protection Features (SPF) or Special Management Features (SMF).

(1) Natural Units. Natural, open space, or wildland areas with lower intensity recreational uses and facilities (primarily trails) will be designated as Natural Units. Natural Units will generally comprise the majority of park land acreage, except in Regional Recreation Areas. Park lands will be designated as Natural Units to maintain open space. Regional Preserves are further subdivided into four categories: Natural, Cultural, Wilderness, and Open Space preserves. The primary objective of a Regional Preserve is to preserve and protect significant natural or cultural resources. The size of a Natural or Cultural Preserve must be sufficient to ensure that its significant resource(s) can be managed so as to be protected and enjoyed. The significant resource(s) consist of botanical, wildlife, geologic, topologic, archaeological, historic, or other features. The Recreation/Staging Unit(s) providing public access and services should comprise no more than 5 percent of the area. An Open Space Preserve will generally consist of at least 200 acres of undeveloped open space land within or bordering an urban area. An Open Space Preserve may be used for agriculture or passive recreational activities that do not require substantial facilities or improvements.

(2) Recreation/Staging Units. Areas intended to provide automobile access to parks as well as parking facilities are designated Recreation/Staging Units. These areas are generally located at the edges of the parks but they may be located within a park in special circumstances. Planning and Management Guidelines for Recreation/Staging Units:

Parks and trails should have at least one area that is suitable for staging/parking purposes; selected staging areas may include horse-trailer parking. Recreation/Staging Units are to be located at the edge of a Natural Unit whenever possible to minimize roads within the park.

The design and landscaping of all facilities will harmonize with the surrounding natural landscape. Facilities will be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on natural resources.




Recreation/Staging Units will be located at strategic access points along a Regional Trail. The District will consolidate staging facilities whenever possible with other regional parklands as well as with local parks, schools, or other facilities. The Recreation/Staging Unit for a Regional Trail will be developed with a primary focus on facilities that are adequate and appropriate for trail users. These may include parking areas for automobiles and/or horse trailers, equestrian centers, sanitary facilities, drinking water, picnic areas, shelters and trailhead signs. A Recreational/Staging Unit may also contain additional facilities that are not primarily oriented toward trail users; including play fields, fishing areas, or landscaped areas as long as these facilities do not conflict with the primary purpose of the Recreation/Staging Unit or conservation of the environment.

2. Consistency

As discussed in Table IV-2 below, the proposed project is intended to serve and support recreational use of the Mission Peak Preserve, which is managed as a Regional Open Space Preserve. The proposed staging area at either site option would be located at the edge of the Preserve and near existing developed areas. The project would directly implement Master Plan Policy PA4, which seeks to provide alternatives to parking on neighborhood streets where feasible. Development of the new staging area would conform to District standards and potential impacts of the proposed project related to biological resources, geologic conditions, historic and archaeological resources, and other features would be less than significant with, in some cases, implementation of mitigation measures recom-mended in this EIR. The new staging area would be located near an existing staging area and would provide direct access to trailheads with some modifications to the existing trail network. As discussed in Table IV-2, below, the proposed project would not directly conflict with any Master Plan policies adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding physical impacts to the environment.




Table IV-2: Relationship of Proposed Project to East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan Policy Policy Text Project’s Relationship to Policy

Policy PA4 The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use. Where feasible, the District will provide alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets. The District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional park system by public transit.

The proposed project would consist of a new staging area within the boundaries of the existing Mission Peak Preserve. The project is intended to provide more on-site parking to better accommodate park visitor demand for parking at this location. The project is expected to help reduce existing overflow parking on neighborhood streets which experience traffic and parking congestion, litter, and noise generated by Preserve visitors. Although not specifically a part of the project, during and after project implementation the District will continue its existing efforts to encourage the use of public transit, access to the Preserve via other entry points, and use of other challenging trails within the District’ service area. These efforts are aimed at reducing traffic and parking congestion within the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area although these efforts alone are not sufficient to reduce parking conflicts on neighborhood streets.

Policy PA5 The District will cooperate with local and regional planning efforts to create more walkable and bikeable communities, and coordinate park access opportunities with local trails and bike paths developed by other agencies to promote green transportation access to the Regional Parks and Trails.

The proposed project would include bicycle parking to promote transportation access via alternative modes to Mission Peak.

Policy PA6 The District will comply with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act and use the current edition of the California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines as its standard for making the improvements necessary to create accessible circulation, programs and facilities throughout the Park District.

Development of the new staging area at either site option would conform to ADA requirements, including the provision of the appropriate number of ADA-compliant parking spaces.

Policy PA7 The District will evaluate and monitor the compliance level of access routes from public transit stops into the parks and encourage local agencies to make the improvements necessary to provide compliant accessibility to the parks.

During and after project implementation the District will continue its existing efforts to encourage the use of public transit to Mission Peak.

Policy RFA1 The District will provide areas and facilities that serve the recreational needs of park users, in accordance with the plans, policies, and park classifications adopted by the Board of Directors. The District will generally not develop or provide facilities that are more appropriately provided by local recreational and park agencies. Where possible and appropriate, the District will provide multiple-use facilities to serve recreational needs.

The proposed project would provide additional parking and restroom facilities at the Stanford Avenue access to the Mission Peak Preserve to better accommodate park visitor demand.





Policy RFA2 The District will provide a diverse system of non-motorized trails to accommodate a variety of recreational users including hikers, joggers, people with dogs, bicyclists, and equestrians. Both wide and narrow trails will be designed and designated to accommodate either single or multiple users based on location, recreational intensity, environmental and safety considerations. The District will focus on appropriate trail planning and design, signage and trail user education to promote safety and minimize conflicts between users.

Development of the new staging area at either site option would include reconfigured and new trail connections. All new trails and trail connections would conform to existing design standards, including trail widths. Signage for new trail connections would be placed as appropriate and visitors would be directed to nearby trailheads from the new staging areas.

Policy RFA6 The District will continue to develop group and family picnic facilities throughout the parks system and continue to improve the reservation system.

Development of the new staging area at either site option would result in new picnic facilities and drinking fountains to improve and enhance the visitor experience at Mission Peak.

Policy KEP2 All District planning documents will be developed and approved in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and when appropriate, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Development of the proposed project and its associated environmental impacts are the subject of this EIR. The District would comply with the requirements of CEQA, as required.

Policy PRPT3 The primary objective of a Regional Preserve is to preserve and protect significant natural or cultural resources. A Regional Preserve must have great natural or scientific importance (for example, it may contain rare or endangered plant or animal species and their supporting ecosystems, significant fossils, unique geologic features, or unusual topographic features or be of such significant regional historic or cultural value as to warrant preservation).

Potential impacts of the proposed project related to biological resources, geologic conditions, historic and archaeological resources, and other features would be less than significant with, in some cases, implementation of mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. Development of the proposed project would support the objectives of the Regional Preserve designation.

Policy PRPT4 The size of a Natural or Cultural Preserve must be sufficient to ensure that its significant resource(s) can be managed so as to be protected and enjoyed. The significant resource(s) will consist of botanical, wildlife, geologic, topographic, archaeological, historic, or other features. The recreation/Staging Unit(s) providing for public access and services will comprise no more than five percent of the area.

Development of the new staging area would result in either 2.78 acres (Option A) or 3.10 acres (Option B) of paved surface parking facilities within an existing open space area within the Preserve. The remaining areas of permanent disturbance would consist of landscaping, trail connections, and stormwater control features (bioretention areas and detention pond). The Preserve consists of approximately 3,000 acres of open space. Thus, development of the proposed project would result in less than 0.1 percent of the existing open space area of the Preserve. In addition, potential impacts of the proposed project related to biological resources, geologic conditions, historic and archaeological resources, and other features would be less than significant with, in some cases, implementation of mitigation measures recommended in this EIR.

Policy PRPT21 Areas of higher level recreational use and concentration of service facilities will be designated as Recreation/Staging Units. Where possible, these areas will be clustered and located on the edges of the park.

The proposed project would result in the development of a new staging area within the boundaries of the existing Preserve and at the western edge of the open space area, adjacent to developed areas.





Policy PRPT24 The District will seek to locate facilities in a manner that preserves open space whenever possible. The District will design proposed facilities so that their color scale, style, and materials will blend with the natural environment. Park improvements will be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife habitats, plant populations and other resources.

The proposed staging area would be located within an existing open space area but at the edge of the Preserve boundaries near existing developed areas. The low-scale use would conform to the natural topography to the extent feasible and would include new plantings including native trees and other vegetation. The new staging area would blend with existing developed uses to the west and would be screened by new plantings. Impacts to wildlife habitat and special-status species would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Policy RM1 The District will maintain an active inventory of its resources and monitor their health and viability. When access to park areas by the public, or other factors, are negatively impacting these resources, the District may institute periodic closures of trails or staging areas to allow these resources and their environs to rest and recover.

The proposed project is intended to better accommodate the demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The District will continue its ongoing maintenance and restoration of the Preserve, including restoration of trails and repair of areas that have been utilized as bootleg trails.

Policy RM2 The District will specifically track and monitor the effects of Climate Change on its resources, interceding when necessary to relocate or protect in-situ resources that are being degraded or lost by this shift in the environment.

The District will continue its ongoing maintenance, including the protection of sites affected by climate change.

Policy NRM1 The District will maintain, manage, conserve, enhance and restore park wildland resources to protect essential plant and animal habitat within viable, sustainable ecosystems.

The proposed project would result in the development of existing grassland areas within the existing Preserve and would directly affect plant and animal communities through the removal of existing habitat. The remaining open space area within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved. Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of impacts. As discussed, impacts related to plant and animal habitat would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.

Policy NRM2 Plant and animal pest species will be controlled by using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) procedures and practices adopted by the Board of Directors. The District will employ IPM practices to minimize the impact of undesirable species on natural resources and to reduce pest-related health and safety risks to the public within developed facilities and/or high-use recreational areas.

The project is not inconsistent with this policy. The District will continue to employ IMP procedures consistent with current District practices and policies during and after project completion.

Policy NRM3 The District will manage park wildlands using modern resource management practices based on scientific principles supported by available research. New scientific information will be incorporated into the planning and implementation of District wildland management programs as it becomes available. The District will coordinate with other agencies and organization in a concerted effort to inventory, evaluate, and manage natural resources and to maintain and enhance biodiversity of the region.

The project is not inconsistent with this policy. The District will continue to manage the Preserve consistent with current District practices and policies during and after project completion.





Policy NRM4 The District will identify, evaluate, conserve, enhance and restore rare, threatened, endangered or locally important species of plants and animals and their habitats, using scientific research, field experience and other proven methodologies. Populations of listed species will be monitored through periodic observations of their condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and distribution. Conservation of rare, threatened and endangered species of plants and animals and their supporting habitats will take precedence over other activities, if the District determines that the other uses and activities would have a significant adverse effect on these natural resources.

Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of impacts to special-status species that would be affected by the proposed project. As discussed, impacts to plant and wildlife habitats would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.

Policy NRM5 The District will maintain and manage vegetation to conserve, enhance and restore natural plant communities, to preserve and protect populations of rare, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species and their habitats, and, where possible, to protect biodiversity and to achieve a high representation of native plants and animals.

The project is designed to conserve the overall character of the Mission Peak Preserve and minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Impacts related to plant and animal habitat would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.

Policy NRM6 The District will evaluate exotic eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress plantations, shrubland or woodland areas occurring along the wildland/urban interface on a case-by-case basis for thinning, removal and/or conversion to a less fire-prone condition, following the methods laid out in the Fuels Management Plan. The District will minimize the widespread encroachment of exotic and/or invasive species such as coyote brush, poison oak, and broom, etc. on parkland and work to preserve native plants where feasible.

The District would manage new landscaping, including trees, within the Preserve according to current District practices and policies. New trees located at the perimeter of the new staging area at either site option would be located a sufficient distance away from nearby residences to provide a fire break.

Policy NRM7 The District will manage agricultural sites and cultivated areas in accordance with appropriate agricultural or landscaping practices and IPM methods to control noxious weed infestation, broom and other invasive, non-native shrubs and to eventually replace these invasive plants with desirable native species.

The District and its contractors will continue to manage the grazing areas within the Preserve consistent with current District practices and policies related to invasive plant species during and after project completion.

Policy NRM8 The District will conserve, enhance and restore biological resources to promote naturally functioning ecosystems. Conservation efforts may involve using managed conservation grazing in accordance with the District’s Wildlife Management Policies and Guidelines, prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, IPM, and/or habitat protection and restoration. Restoration activities may involve the removal of invasive plants and animals, or the reintroduction of native or naturalized species, adapted to or representative of a given site.






Policy NRM9 The District will conserve and protect native animal species and enhance their habitats to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. Non-native and feral animals will be managed to minimize conflicts with native wildlife species. The District will cooperate on a regular basis with other public and private land managers, and recognized wildlife management experts to address wildlife management issues on a regional scale.


Policy NRM10 The District will conserve, enhance and restore native fish and amphibian populations and their habitats; will develop aquatic facilities, where appropriate, to create a wide variety of fisheries; will monitor fisheries resources to determine species composition, size, population and growth rates; and will cooperate with the CDFW to conserve, enhance and manage its fisheries resources for ecological and recreational benefits.

As discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources, through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, the District will cooperate with the California Fish and Wildlife Service, as appropriate.

Policy NRM 11 Park water resources will be used for beneficial purposes. Water quality will be monitored to comply with established standards. The District will participate in cooperative effort to plan comprehensive watershed management and will adopt “best management practice” guidelines for District land use activities to minimize potential storm water pollution. The District will monitor land use planning and development activities by other agencies and cities to avoid potential adverse impacts to parkland from pollutants generated by off-site or upstream sources.

As discussed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, development of a new staging area at either site option would comply with established standards and would ensure that potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

Policy NRM 11b The District will pursue conservation and control technologies for the use of potable and irrigation water. The District will seek to reduce the use of imported water for uses other than human consumption through conservation and by developing other sources of water for irrigation and non-potable needs.

The project would include a new connection to the existing main water line in order to provide an adequate water supply for potable, irrigation, and safety uses.

Policy NRM12 The District will manage riparian and other wetland environments and their buffer zones to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of these important resources and to prevent the destruction, loss, or degradation of habitat. The District will participate in the preservation, restoration, and management of riparian and wetland areas of regional significance, and will not initiate any action that could result in a net decrease in park wetlands. The District will encourage public access to the Bay/Delta shoreline, but will control access to riparian and wetlands areas, when necessary, to protection natural resources.

The proposed project would result in the development of a staging area on an existing grassland area within the existing Preserve and would directly affect wildlife and plant communities through removal of existing habitat. The remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved. Refer to section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of impacts to riparian and other wetland environments that would be affected by the proposed project. As discussed impacts to habitats would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.

Policy NRM 13 The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and misuse.

The District will continue to protect important geologic and paleontological features within the Preserve consistent with current District practices and policies during and after project completion.





Policy CRM 1 The District will manage, conserve and work to restore parkland cultural and historic resources and sites, to preserve the heritage of the people who occupied this land before the District was established and to encourage the cultural traditions associated with the land today.

Known historic and archaeological resources are present within both the Option A and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that these resources are protected and that Native American representatives continue to be consulted as appropriate.

Policy CRM 2 The District may acquire cultural and historic resource sites when they are within lands that meet parkland acquisition criteria and will maintain an active archive of its institutional history and the history of its parklands and trails.

Known historic and archaeological resources are present adjacent to or within both the Option A and Option B sites. The location of these resources would be documented by the District. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that these resources are protected.

Policy CRM 3 The District will maintain a current map and written inventory of all cultural features and sites found on park land and will preserve and protect these cultural features and sites “in situ” in accordance with Board of Directors (Board) policy. The District will evaluate significant cultural and historic sites to determine if they should be nominated for California Historical Landmark status or for the National Register of Historic Places.

Known historic and archaeological resources are present adjacent to or within both the Option A and Option B sites. The location of these resources would be documented by the District. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that these resources are protected.

Policy CRM 4 The District will determine the level of public access to cultural and historic resource using procedures and practices adopted by the Board. The District will employ generally accepted best management practices to minimize the impact of public use and access on these resources, and to appropriately interpret the significance of these resources on a regional scale.

Known historic and archaeological resources are present adjacent to or within both the Option A and Option B sites. The location of these resources would be documented by the District; however, due to the sensitivity of the resources, the specific locations will not be made available to the public.

Policy CRM 5 The District will notify Native Americans and other culturally associated peoples in a timely manner of plans which may affect sites and landscapes significant to their culture and will include them in discussions regarding the preservation and land use planning of culturally significant sites and landscapes.

The District has consulted with representatives of local Native American organizations as part of the EIR process. Known historic and archaeological resources are present adjacent to or within both the Option A and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that Native American representatives continue to be consulted as appropriate.

Policy CRM 6 The District will strive to accommodate requests by Native Americans, ranching or farming communities and other groups to help maintain and use cultural sites and to play an active role in their preservation and interpretation.

The District has consulted with representatives of local Native American organizations as part of the EIR process (refer to Section V.D, Cultural Resources for additional discussion. Known historic and archaeological resources are present adjacent to or within both the Option A and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that Native American representatives continue to be consulted as appropriate.





Policy HR2 The District will maintain a highly motivated and trained workforce to manage, supervise, coordinate, and work on the District’s activities; including park operations, maintenance, public safety, environmental education, recreation, resource management, land acquisition, development program services, and administration. The District will also preserve and expand project opportunities for interns that are both academic and operational in focus.

The District will continue to manage the Preserve consistent with current District practices and policies during and after project completion. Development of either site option would be performed by District workers and/or designated District contractors.

Policy FR1b The District will not open new parkland for public use unless it has adequate resources for planning and meeting the operational needs for public safety, fire protection, resource stewardship, interpretation and recreation services.

The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be closed to the public during the 6-month construction period. Once completed, the new staging area would comply with all operational and safety requirements and would be open to the public during designated operating hours.

Source: East Bay Regional Park District, 2013 and LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.





P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5-SIMM.docx (10/14/15) 105

V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This chapter contains an analysis of potentially significant impacts in each of the topical areas included in this EIR. Sections A through Q of this chapter describe the environmental setting of the project as it relates to each specific environmental issues evaluated in the EIR and the impacts result-ing from implementation of either project option. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts are recommended where appropriate.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.1 The CEQA Guidelines direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. Each impact evaluation in this chapter is prefaced by criteria of significance, which are the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. These criteria of significance are based on the CEQA Guidelines and applicable District policies. In determining whether a project’s impacts are significant, an EIR ordinarily compares those impacts with existing environmental conditions which are referred as the “baseline” for the impact analysis. This EIR compares the project impacts with environmental conditions in existence at the time this EIR was being prepared.

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EIR

The following environmental issues are addressed in this chapter:

A. Land Use B. Visual Resources C. Biological Resources D. Cultural Resources E. Agricultural and Forestry Resources F. Mineral Resources G. Geology and Soils H. Hydrology and Water Quality I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials J. Transportation and Circulation K. Air Quality L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions M. Noise N. Population and Housing O. Recreation P. Public Services Q. Utilities and Service Systems

1 CEQA Guidelines, 2015. Section 21068.


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RV . S E T T I N G , I M P A C T S A N D M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S


FORMAT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC SECTIONS Each environmental topic considered in this chapter comprises two primary sections: (1) Setting and (2) Impacts and Mitigation Measures. An overview of the general organization and the information provided in the two sections is provided below:

Setting. The Setting section for each environmental topic generally provides a description of the applicable physical setting for both project options and their surroundings at the beginning of the environmental review process (e.g., existing land uses, existing soil conditions, existing traffic conditions). An overview of regulatory considerations that are applicable to each specific environmental topic is also provided.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The impacts and mitigation measures section for each environmental topic presents a discussion of the impacts that could result from imple-mentation of the proposed project options. The impacts of expanding the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to either the Option A or Option B sites are evaluated separately in each section in order to address potentially different effects associated with the proposed development program for each option. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which are the thresholds used to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts from the proposed project options and mitigation measures, if required. The impacts of the proposed project options are organized into separate categories based on the criteria listed in each topical section. Cumulative impacts are also addressed.

Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, are specified for either Option A or Option B, and the corresponding mitigation measures are numbered and indented. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated reference to the impact section (e.g., VIS). The following symbols are used for individual topics:

LU: Land Use VIS: Visual Resources BIO: Biological Resources CUL: Cultural Resources AG: Agricultural and Forestry Resources MIN: Mineral Resources GEO: Geology and Soils HYD: Hydrology and Water Quality HAZ: Hazards and Hazardous Materials TRA: Transportation and Circulation AIR: Air Quality GHG: Greenhouse Gas Emissions NOI: Noise POP: Population and Housing REC: Recreation PUB: Public Services UTL: Utilities and Service Systems




Impacts are also categorized by type of impact, as follows: Less Than Significant, Significant, and Significant and Unavoidable. The following notations are provided after each identified significant impact and after identification of mitigation measures:

LTS: Less Than Significant S: Significant SU: Significant and Unavoidable

CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS CONTEXT

CEQA defines cumulative as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound to increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incre-mental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. These impacts can result from a combination of the proposed project together with other projects causing related impacts. “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects.” The methodology used for assessing cumulative impacts typically varies depending on the specific topic being analyzed. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be discussed using either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or Statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. This EIR uses both approaches to evaluate cumulative impacts, and the particular approach used depends on the topical area under consideration. Generally, the City of Fremont’s Development Activity List2 was used to determine past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the proposed project to evaluate cumulative impacts. Projects from the City’s Development Activity List that pertain to the proposed project area are summarized in Table V.1, below. One project that is not included in this list is the Ohlone College South Parking Structure, which will include approximately 900 new public for-fee parking spaces on the Ohlone College campus. This project is currently under construction and is expected to be operational in the fall of 2015. However, for the purposes of the analysis in this EIR, this project is considered to be part of future cumulative conditions since it was not operational at the time that this EIR was prepared. In addition, in some instances, the EIR uses the plan approach to evaluate cumulative impacts. For example, the transportation analysis (and transportation-related noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions) uses the City of Fremont travel demand model. These plans also incorporate extensive local information regarding the locations for expected growth and change within the City, including

2 Fremont, City of, 2015. Community Development Department, Development Activity WebTable. May 4.




past, present, existing, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the area that surrounds the project site. CEQA also specifies that lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. The cumulative geographic context for most project impacts generally extends for a 2-mile radius around the preserve. However, the geographic scope for each topical area may be different depending upon the nature of the environmental impact being evaluated. For example, the geographic and temporal (time-related) parameters related to a cumulative analysis of air quality impacts are not necessarily the same as those for a cumulative analysis of noise impacts because the geographic area that relates to air quality is much larger and regional in character than the geographic area that could be affected by potential noise impacts from a proposed project and other cumulative projects/growth. The cumulative noise impacts are more localized than air quality and transportation impacts, which are more regional in nature. Accordingly, the parameters of the respective cumulative analyses in this document are determined by the degree to which impacts from this project are likely to occur in combination with other development projects. CEQA recognizes that the existing conditions might change during the course of environmental review analysis and preparation of the EIR. The major projects listed in Table V.1 are not inclusive of all possible past projects. Projects no longer included on the list are part of the baseline assumptions for analysis in the EIR. Table V.1: Cumulative Projects City’s Cumulative Project List Number/Project Name Description

-- Ohlone College South Parking Structure43600 Mission Boulevard

• 900 vehicle parking spaces

21 Durham Market Place Northwest corner of Durham Road and Sabercat Road (1.87 acres) PLN2013-00201

• 7,000 square feet of commercial space

42 Mission Palms 43360 Mission Boulevard PLN2014-00323


51 Osgood Retail Center 44009 Osgood Drive PLN2014-00301


62 Sabercat Neighborhood Center2501 Cormack Road (12.2 acres) PLN2006-00153

• 158 multi-family residential units • 55,472 square feet of commercial space

64 Silicon Valley Development 43342 Bryant Street PLN2015-00116

• 3 residential units• 10,000 square feet of commercial space

73 Treviso 44411 Mission Boulevard PLN2014-00037

• 16 residential units

81 Warm Springs Station 44960 Warm Springs Boulevard PLN2015-00174

• 1,000 multi-family residential units • 5,000 square feet of commercial space

Source: City of Fremont, May 2015.



A . L A N D U S E

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5a-LandUse.docx (10/14/15) 109

A. LAND USE

This section describes existing land uses within Mission Peak and on the Option A and B sites as well as the surrounding area, and identifies potential land use impacts. The project’s consistency with land use policies adopted for the purpose of reducing physical environmental effects is discussed in Chapter IV, Planning Policy. 1. Setting

The project site is located within the Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve) on land owned by the City of Fremont (City) and managed by the East Bay Regional Park District (District). Access to Mission Peak is primarily provided via the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, located immediately west and south of the project area, and parking areas within Ohlone College, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project area. The following describes the land uses within Mission Peak, the two staging areas that serve the Preserve, and the two project option sites (referred to either as the “Option A site” or the “Option B site”). An overview of surrounding land uses is also provided. Land uses on and adjacent to the project sites are shown in Figure V.A-1 and are described in detail below. Figures V.A-2a through V.A-2c depict the existing conditions at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (Photo 1), at various locations within Mission Peak (Photos 2 through 4), and at both potential project sites (Photos 5 and 6); photo locations are shown in Figure V.A-1. a. Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Mission Peak consists of over 3,000 acres of open space consisting mostly of open grasslands and oak woodlands. The topography is varied and the ascent to the summit of Mission Peak is approximately 2,200 feet above the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Mission Peak includes a few springs and creeks, including Agua Caliente Creek (Photo 4). The District contracts with a private contractor for cattle grazing operations, and grazing facilities such as fences, gates, and feeding structures are located throughout the grassland areas within Mission Peak. Mission Peak is a popular recreation and open space area and hosts thousands of visitors on the weekends. The peak is served by three multi-use (hiking, biking and equestrian) trails from the western face, including the Peak Trail and the Panorama Trail, which starts from Ohlone College and heads southward towards the summit, and the more popular Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness (Photo 2) and Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails (Photo 3), all of which begin their ascent from the Stanford Avenue staging area. Trails leading to the peak offer panoramic views of the Bay Area. There are also a number of other formal and informal (i.e., bootleg) trails located throughout the park as well as regional trails (i.e., Ohlone Wilderness Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail) that lead to other open space areas. Backpack camping is available at the Eagle Springs Backpack Camp and is by reservation only. Mission Peak is also a popular location for hang gliding and paragliding and for launching remote-controlled aircraft. The Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club operates a hang gliding operation under agreement with the District. The South Bay Soaring Society (SBSS) has a launch site on Radio Control (R/C) Hill, which is also subject to agreement with the District. These sites are shown on Figure V.A-1. As previously discussed, Mission Peak is accessed via two existing staging areas: the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and parking areas within Ohlone College. Existing conditions at these locations are discussed below. Mission Peak is also accessible from Mill Creek Road (walk-in only,



A . L A N D U S E


no parking), which forms the Preserve’s northern border, Sunol Regional Wilderness via the Ohlone Wilderness Trail to the east, and from trails that originate from within Ed Levin County Park in Milpitas to the south.

(1) Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (Photo 1) serves as the primary access to the various trails located throughout Mission Peak. Direct access to the Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails are provided from this location. The staging area provides 43 paved parking spaces. Parking at the staging area is generally very limited and overnight parking is not allowed. The gated entrance to Mission Peak from the staging area limits vehicular access to District maintenance and cattle operations vehicles only. One vault toilet restroom, three portable restrooms, one picnic table, and drinking water facilities are located at the staging area. Although parking is limited, the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance to Mission Peak is popular with park visitors, offering direct ascent from the trailhead to the summit, a challenging hike, and panoramic views along the way. The Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the lands leased from the City are open at 6:30 a.m. daily (as of September 29, 2014). Closing time changes throughout the year in correlation with sunset and daylight savings time. The hours of operation for this area of Mission Peak are shown below in Table V.A-1. Violators are subject to citation and/or arrest per the District’s Ordinance 38. The hours shown in Table V.A-1 apply to lands leased from the City only (see Figure I-1 in Chapter I, Introduction which delineates the land ownership boundaries within Mission Peak). Early morning and late evening park access is available at all other access points, including from trailheads that begin at Ohlone College.

(2) Ohlone College Parking Area. Visitors to Mission Peak may park their vehicles in public parking spaces within the Ohlone College parking areas to access Mission Peak from the north. Ohlone College is located at 43600 Mission Boulevard in Fremont. Parking Lot G is generally accessed via Pine Street and Witherly Lane off of Mission Boulevard and provides access to the Peak and Panorama trails within Mission Peak. The College recently constructed a 900-space South Parking Lot structure and visitors to Mission Peak are able to utilize the public spaces in this location as well.1 Ohlone College parking is available daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As of August 15, 2015, the College charges a $4 parking fee Monday through Saturday when school is in session. Parking at this location is free on holidays, after 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays when school is not in session. Parking lot vending machines accept cash and credit cards. Parking is usually available at the College lot, even on busy weekends.

1 Ohlone College, 2015. South Parking Structure. Website: www.ohlone.edu/core/mapsdirs/parking/

parkingstructure.html. (accessed September 9, 2015).

Table V.A-1: Stanford Avenue Staging Area and Environs Hours of Operation (2014-2015)

Date Range Open (a.m.) Close (p.m.) November 1 – February 1 6:30 6:00February 2 – March 7 6:30 6:30March 8 – March 29 6:30 8:30March 30 – August 30 6:30 9:00August 31 – September 28 6:30 8:00September 29 – October 31 6:30 7:30

Source: East Bay Regional Park District, February 2015.

Hidden Valley T

errace

Vinehill Ct

R

ain

dan

ce

Rd

Sentinel Pl

Ro

aadru

nnn

er R

d Saguare Ct

S

enti

nel

Dr

Sagu are Com

m

Sundance Dr

Paseo Padre Pkwy

VViin

eeyaarrd A

ve

Antelope Dr

Vinehill Circle

Vin

ehill Terrace

Nap

a C

t

Stanfoorrdd AAvve Ow

hanee Ct

Stanford Ave



Weib

el A

ve

CorralCorral



eave

n

Tr a il

H

id

den

V

alley

Tra

il

MISSION PEAK

REGIONALPRESERVE

1 23

45

6ExistingStanford Avenue

Staging Area

OPTION A

Agua Caliente Creek

H

id

den

V

alley

Tra

il

Corral


eave

n

Tr a il

OPTION B

Wings ofRogallo

Landing Area

SBSS Launch Site



WarmSprings

Low DensityResidential



(GatedCommunity)


(GatedCommunity)

Hidden Valley T

errace

Vinehill Ct

R

ain

dan

ce

Rd

Sentinel Pl

Ro

adru

nn

er R

d Saguare Ct Sagu are C

om

m

S

enti

nel

Dr

Sundance Dr

Paseo Padre Pkwy

Weib

el A

ve

Antelope Dr

Vin

eyard A

ve

Vinehill Circle

Vin

ehill Terrace

Nap

a C

t

Stanford Ave Ow

hanee Ct

Stanford Ave



Viewpoint Locations6

Area covered by both Option Aand Option B

Option A

Option B

feet

5000 250

FIGURE V.A-1

SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 8/29/12; LSA ASSOCIATES, 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VA1.ai (9/10/15)

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRAerial Photograph of the Project Area,

Surrounding Land Uses and Photo Location Map

Photo 2: Mission Peak Regional Preserve -- Hidden Valley Trail

Photo 1: Existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area

Stanford Avenue Stag ing Area Expansion Project EIR Existing Land Use Photos

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\fi gures\Figs_VA2a-VA2c.indd (5/15/15)

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2013.

F IGU R E V. A-2a

Photo 3: Mission Peak Regional Preserve -- Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail

Photo 4: Agua Caliente Creek



F IGU R E V. A-2b


Photo 6: Option B Site and surrounding area looking eastward

Photo 5: Option A Site and surrounding area looking eastward



F IGU R E V. A-2c




A . L A N D U S E


b. Project Sites. Both of the project site options are located near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance to Mission Peak. Existing land use conditions at the two project sites are discussed below.

(1) Option A Site. The Option A site encompasses a total of 11.71 acres, which consists of 9.64 acres of permanent disturbance, including 2.78 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces, and 2.07 acres of temporarily disturbed areas. The Option A site (Photo 5) is located approximately 250 feet north of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area near existing suburban development, just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail, in a grassland area with bowl-like topography. The site generally lies between 0 and 12 feet below the surrounding area. No structures or trees exist on the site. The site is open and may be accessed by grazing cattle and the public, although no trails traverse the site of the Option A staging area. The Option A site includes a segment of the Hidden Valley Trail, which is located immediately south of the Option A staging area site. The approximately 15-foot-wide gravel trail provides access to the summit of Mission Peak and the Ohlone Wilderness Trail. A small culverted segment of a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek is located near the Hidden Valley Trail and is also part of the Option A site, as shown in Figure V.A-1.

(2) Option B Site. The Option B site encompasses a total of 16.76 acres, which consists of 10.45 acres of permanent disturbance, including 3.10 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces or bridge structures, and 6.31 acres of temporarily disturbed areas. The Option B site (Photo 6) is located approximately 875 feet southeast of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area near existing suburban development and west of the Peak Meadow Trail in a grassland area. Grazing infrastructure at Mission Peak is currently concentrated primarily within the Option B site. This site is currently used by the District’s grazing contractor as a corral. The corral is used for holding cows for immunizations, weaning, and transportation of cows to other grazing sites a few times per year. A small solar-powered pump, which provides water for the cattle operations, is located on the site. The majority of the Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public. Access to the Option B site currently includes crossing Agua Caliente Creek. Vehicular access is currently provided for District employees, emergency vehicles, and the District’s grazing contractor by an existing roadway which crosses over the culverted creek as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails. Several trees are located on the Option B site, particularly within the creek areas. c. Surrounding Land Uses. Land uses that surround Mission Peak and the two project site options primarily consist of single-family residential uses within the City (to the west) and open space lands within the hillside areas of Fremont and Alameda County. Both project sites are below the “Toe of the Hill” as defined by the City of Fremont General Plan (see Chapter IV, Planning Policy, for additional discussion). The uses in close proximity to the project sites are summarized below. As previously discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, visitors to the Preserve currently park in the surrounding neighborhoods west of Vineyard Avenue, and these areas are often congested with traffic and visitors to Mission Peak, particularly on weekends.2 Refer to Figure V.A-1 for an aerial photograph of the project site and its immediate surroundings.

2 Most of the residential areas that immediately border Mission Peak to the west are gated, and no public parking is

available in these neighborhoods. These streets include: Vinehill Court, Vinehill Terrace, Napa Court, Vinehill Circle, Rutherford Terrace, Grapevine Terrace and Hidden Valley Terrace. Residential areas located along Saguare Court, Saguare



A . L A N D U S E


(1) Option A Site. Land uses within the immediate vicinity of the Option A site include the following:

North: Immediately north of the Option A site is an unnamed drainage channel and grassland areas within Mission Peak. Approximately 500 feet north of the site are the Preserve boundaries, which are fenced. Vineyard Heights, which consists of a gated low-density single-family residential development, directly abuts the Preserve’s boundaries to the northwest. Lots within this neighborhood may range between 5,000 and 20,000 square feet in size and homes that immediately border the site boundaries to the north are concentrated along Rutherford Terrace and Grapevine Terrace. Roadways within this development are not accessible to the public. Lands within Mission Peak continue further to the northeast of the site and the residential development. The Ohlone College campus is located beyond the Preserve’s boundaries approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the Option A site.

East: Grassland and hillside areas within Mission Peak continue east of the project site. The Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club landing zone for paragliding and hang gliding activities is located immediately east of and uphill from the site. Beyond the boundaries of Mission Peak are other open space areas (i.e., Sunol Regional Wilderness and the Fremont Hills) within the City and unincorporated areas of Alameda County.

South: Low-density single-family residential development along the gated Hidden Valley Terrace are located south of the Option A project area and immediately outside of the Preserve boundaries. The Agua Caliente Creek drainage continues south of the site into the residential area. Open space is generally located further to the south of the neighborhood.

West: Low-density, single-family residential uses within the gated community of Vineyard Heights are located immediately west of the Option A site. Homes that immediately border the site boundaries to the west are concentrated along Napa Court and Vinehill Circle. Further west, and beginning at Vineyard Avenue approximately 1,000 feet from the Option A site, are smaller lot (generally 6,000 to 8,000-foot) single-family residential subdivisions with public roadways.

(2) Option B Site. Land uses within the immediate vicinity of the Option B site include the

following:

North: Immediately north of the Option B staging area site is Agua Caliente Creek. Segments of this creek are also within the project area boundaries. The creek is character-ized by dense trees and other vegetation and is culverted in one location near the site to allow vehicular access from the existing staging area to the corral area and to provide access to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails. Grassland areas within Mission Peak continue north of the Option B site. The Hidden Valley Trail is located to the north and provides access to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails (east of the site). Low-density residential development, including the Vineyard Heights gated community, and

Commons, and Saguare Terrace are public roadways, but do not provide parking within easy walking distance of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance because these roads do not provide direct access to Stanford Avenue.



A . L A N D U S E


Ohlone College are located further north beyond the Preserve boundaries. These uses are located approximately 0.3 and approximately 1.5 miles north of the site, respectively.

East: Grassland and hillside areas within Mission Peak continue east of the project site. The approximately 12-foot wide dirt Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail provides access to the summit of Mission Peak and generally borders the Option B site to the east. The South Bay Soaring Club (SBSC) has a launch site on R/C Hill, east of and near the Option B site. Beyond the boundaries of Mission Peak are other open space areas (i.e., Sunol Regional Wilderness and the Fremont Hills) within the City and unincorporated areas of Alameda and Santa Clara counties.

South. Immediately south of the Option B site are additional corral facilities used by the cattle grazing contractor. Further to the south is an unnamed drainage channel. Grassland areas within Mission Peak are located further south.

West: Low-density, single-family residential uses within gated areas are located west of the site and are concentrated along Hidden Valley Terrace and Saguare Terrace (which is a public roadway). Lots in these areas range from 5,000 to 20,000 square feet in size. Further west are residential neighborhoods with public roadways.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to land use that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the land use impacts that would result from development of a staging area at either of the Option A or Option B sites. Please refer to Chapter IV, Planning Policy, for a complete discussion of applicable land use-related policies and analysis of the project’s consistency with these policies. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to land use if it would:

Physically divide an established community;

Result in a conflict between nearby and adjacent uses;

Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, where the project will result in a significant environmental impact as a result of the conflict; or

Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts related to land use. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.



A . L A N D U S E


(1) Divide an Established Community. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, interstate highway, or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction could also impair travel to areas outside of the community. Potential impacts associated with the division of an established community are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result the division of an established community and this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. Informal public access to the Option A development area is currently available although no designated trails traverse the site. The nearest trail is the Hidden Valley Trail, immediately south of the Option A site. Development of Option A would include a maximum of 300 new parking spaces, restroom facilities, kiosk, and a picnic area. Development of Option A would also include construction of a new vehicular access road (approximately 630 linear feet) to connect the existing staging area and the new staging area and a new 12-foot-wide trail connection from the new staging area to the existing Hidden Valley Trail alignment. With the exception of this new connection, no modifications to existing trails would occur except the culvert repair along a section of trail over Agua Caliente Creek. Hiker access to Mission Peak would continue to be provided via the existing Stanford Avenue entrance and trailheads via a new access gate. Vehicular access would be limited to providing access to and from the new staging area. Existing roads/trails within the Preserve would continue to be accessed by District staff, emergency personnel, and the cattle grazing contractor only. Park operating hours would continue to be enforced for all public access at this entrance to the Preserve. Development of the Option A site would not create a physical barrier to travel around the project site or within Mission Peak, but would instead accommodate visitors to access Mission Peak from Stanford Avenue (by the increased availability of parking). A new staging area with visitor amenities (including additional restrooms and picnic areas) would enhance the overall visitor experience at Mission Peak. The provision of additional parking for Mission Peak visitors would also reduce vehicle and pedestrian congestion on the neighborhood streets west of Vineyard Avenue and improve access and mobility for neighborhood residents. As such, the proposed project would not divide the physical arrangement of an established community and would instead improve access and connectivity within the area; therefore, this potential impact is less than significant for Option A.

Option B. The Option B site is currently fenced and is used as a cattle corral. Public access to the grassland areas of the site is currently not available. Access to the Option B site is currently via an existing roadway which crosses over a culverted portion of Agua Caliente Creek as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails, which continue east of the site. Vehicular access is currently provided on this roadway only for District employees, emergency vehicles, and the District’s grazing contractor. Development of Option B would include a maximum of 300 new parking spaces, restroom facilities, and a picnic area. Development of Option B would also include construction of a new vehicular access road (approximately 990 linear feet). The new roadway would connect the existing staging area to the new staging area and would begin along the existing Hidden Valley Trail alignment, near



A . L A N D U S E


the existing staging area restroom. The vehicular access roadway would then divert from the existing trail south along a portion of the Peak Meadow Trail and then begin a new alignment, crossing over Agua Caliente Creek with a new 120-foot-long vehicular clear-span bridge before entering the new staging area. A new section of sidewalk, approximately 5 feet in width and 130 feet in length, would continue from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area along the new roadway to connect with the section of the Peak Meadow Trail that would be relocated to accommodate the new vehicular roadway. The relocated section of the Peak Meadow Trail would begin on the existing Hidden Valley Trail, then drop down the slope to roughly parallel the new vehicular access roadway. The relocated section of the Peak Meadow Trail would be approximately 12 feet wide and 1,255 feet in length (see Figure III-3a). Two new trail connections would also be developed east of the Option B staging area to provide access to the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails. The new connection to the Hidden Valley Trail would extend to the north and cross over Agua Caliente Creek via a new 80-foot long non-vehicular pedestrian bridge, of approximately 8 feet in width. This new trail connection would also include new compacted gravel trail sections approximately 12 feet wide and a total of 300 linear feet. The connection to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails would extend to the east approximately 190 feet before meeting the existing trail. Two sections of the existing Peak Meadow Trail alignment would be abandoned and restored due to the realigned trail segments, including 560 linear feet north of the Option B site and 630 linear feet east of the Option B site. With development of Option B, hiker access to Mission Peak would continue to be provided via the existing Stanford Avenue entrance and trailheads via a new visitor kiosk and access gate. Vehicular access would be limited and access would only be provided to the new staging area. Existing and modified roads/trails within the Preserve would continue to only be accessed by District staff, emergency personnel, and the cattle grazing contractor. Park operating hours would continue to be enforced for all public access at this entrance to the Preserve. In addition, the existing corral at the Option B site would be relocated to the southeast to provide the area required for the Option B staging area. The corral structures and fencing within the Option B site would be removed. Existing fencing and corral areas to the southeast of the site would remain and new fencing would be installed south of the Peak Meadow Trail. The new corral and livestock area would be approximately 5.5 acres in size. Cattle grazing operations and access would not be substantially affected by development of the Option B site. Development of the Option B site would not create a physical barrier to travel around the project site or within Mission Peak, but would instead provide additional opportunities for visitors to access Mission Peak from Stanford Avenue (via the increased availability of parking). Existing trails would be realigned to form new connections to access the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails. A new staging area with visitor amenities (such as restrooms and picnic areas) would enhance the overall visitor experience at Mission Peak. The provision of additional parking for Mission Peak visitors would also reduce vehicle and pedestrian congestion on the neighborhood streets west of Vineyard Avenue and improve access and mobility for neighborhood residents. As such, the proposed project would not divide the physical arrangement of an established community and would instead



A . L A N D U S E


improve access and connectivity within the area; therefore, this potential impact is less than significant for Option B.

(2) Land Use Compatibility. The potential for development of a new staging area at either site option to result in conflicts with nearby land uses is discussed below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant. Associated physical impacts that may result from land use compatibility issues are discussed in more detail throughout this EIR under specific topical sections (e.g., noise, biological resources).

Option A. Development of Option A would result in the location of a new staging area within an existing grassland area of Mission Peak as well as new roadway and utility connections to serve the new staging area and to provide access to the open space areas and trailheads within the Preserve from Stanford Avenue. The introduction of a paved parking lot and associated improvements into an undeveloped area would result in physical changes to the existing site. However, the new staging area is intended to and would support the existing and continued use of the Preserve as a recreational open space area and would not conflict with existing uses within the Preserve, including trails accessed by hikers and bicyclists, the landing area used by the Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club, and continued cattle grazing operations. Staging areas are typically located within or nearby most District facilities and provide a means for visitor access to these areas, the primary purpose of which is to provide open space and recreational opportunities for the regional visitors served by the District. In addition, the location of a new staging area within the Option A site would not result in a significant land use conflict with nearby residential uses, and is expected to reduce existing conflicts with nearby uses related to visitor parking on neighborhood streets. As discussed in Section V.B, Visual Resources, the District would plant trees and vegetation to screen views of the new staging area. Fencing, topography, and new trees and other plantings also would buffer residential uses from visual intrusion, light, glare, noise and other effects of parking lot operations. Furthermore, the existing Stanford Avenue staging area is located near residential areas and, due to the existing condition of Preserve visitors parking on residential streets, nearby residents (i.e., those not within private gated communities) are substantially affected by noise, traffic, and other issues related to overflow parking. Nearby residents also currently experience traffic and pedestrian congestion, noise, litter, and light from headlights and flashlights on residential streets. The expansion of the staging area facilities near Stanford Avenue and development of a maximum of 300 new parking spaces dedicated to visitors of the Preserve would reduce the occurrence of these existing land use conflicts and represent an improvement compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would generally be compatible with existing land uses on and within the vicinity of the Option A site and would have a less-than-significant impact in terms of land use compatibility.

Option B. Development of Option B would result in the location of a new staging area within an existing grassland area of Mission Peak as well as a new roadway, bridge and utility connections to serve the new staging area and to provide access to the open space areas and trailheads within the Preserve from Stanford Avenue. The introduction of a paved parking lot and associated improve-ments into an undeveloped area would result in physical changes to the existing site. However, the new staging area is intended to and would support the existing and continued use of the Preserve as a recreational open space area and would not conflict with existing uses within the Preserve, including trails accessed by hikers and bicyclists, the radio-controlled glider area used by the SBSS, and continued cattle grazing operations. Relocation of the corral facilities would also not affect existing



A . L A N D U S E


cattle operations as these operations would be moved to just south of the site. Staging areas are typically located within or nearby most District facilities and provide a means for visitor access to these areas, the primary purpose of which is to provide open space and recreational opportunities for the regional visitors served by the District. In addition, the location of a new staging area within the Option B site would not result in a significant land use conflict with nearby residential uses, and is expected to reduce existing conflicts with nearby uses related to visitor parking. As discussed in Section V.B, Visual Resources, the District would plant trees and vegetation to screen views of the new staging area. Fencing, topography, and new trees and other plantings also would buffer residential uses from visual intrusion, light, glare, noise and other effects of parking lot operations. Furthermore, the existing Stanford Avenue staging area is located near residential areas and, due to the existing condition of Preserve visitors parking on residential streets, nearby residents are substantially affected by noise, traffic, and other issues related to overflow parking. Nearby residents also currently experience traffic and pedestrian congestion, noise, litter, and light from headlights and flashlights on residential streets. The expansion of the staging area facilities near Stanford Avenue and development of a maximum of 300 new parking spaces dedicated to visitors of the Preserve would reduce the occurrence of these existing land use conflicts and represent an improvement compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would generally be compatible with existing land uses on and within the vicinity of the Option B site and would have a less-than-significant impact in terms of land use compatibility.

(3) Applicable Land Use Plans or Policies. As stated at the beginning of this section, the proposed project’s consistency with land use-related policies is discussed in Chapter IV, Planning Policy. In summary, development of a new staging area at either site option (which are analyzed together in the analysis) would not result in a direct conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

(4) Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plans. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans applicable to the project area are discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources. As discussed in more detail in that section, this impact would be less than significant.



A . L A N D U S E





B . V I S U A L R E S O U R C E S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5b-VisualResources.docx (10/14/15) 123

B. VISUAL RESOURCES

This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on visual resources and views within and in the vicinity of Mission Peak and the Option A and B project sites. The analysis considers the visual quality of the project area, and views to and from the project sites. This section is based on: (1) field surveys of the project site; (2) a review of the data provided by the District’s design staff, including conceptual designs and landscaping plans for each site option (refer to Figures III-2a and III-3a); and (3) view simulations that show “before and “after” representations of Option A and Option B. View simulations have been prepared for representative vantage points in the vicinity of each project site. 1. Setting

The following section describes the visual character of Mission Peak itself, as well as the visual character and quality of each site option and its surroundings, as well as views of the project sites available to the public. Figure V.B-1 shows the locations of the four existing viewpoints depicted in Figures V.B-2, V.B-3, V.B-4, and V.B-5. A description of the existing conditions shown in these viewpoints is provided in this section. For a detailed description of the physical characteristics of the project site, refer to Chapter III, Project Description and Section V.A, Land Use. This section also provides a description of regulatory policies related to visual resources. a. Mission Peak. Mission Peak Regional Preserve consists of over 3,000 acres of open space consisting mostly of open grasslands and oak woodlands. Mission Peak is part of a ridgeline that includes Mount Allison and Monument Peak and forms the eastern boundary of Fremont and other nearby unincorporated areas. The topography is varied and includes hilly terrain with steep valleys and rocky outcrops. A few springs and creeks are located throughout, including Agua Caliente Creek, which is located in the vicinity of the project sites. During the winter and spring months, the hillsides are covered by tall green grasses, while scattered seasonal wildflowers may also appear. Cattle grazing facilities are scattered throughout the park, and are concentrated at the Option B site, and include various fences, gates, and feeding structures. Numerous hiking trails are located throughout the Preserve and consist primarily of compressed gravel or dirt pathways of varying widths, which are visible throughout the grassland areas. Trails leading to the summit of Mission Peak offer panoramic views of the Bay Area; views from the peak vary with weather conditions, but it is common to see the Bay and landmark peaks within the region, including Mount Diablo, Mount Hamilton, and Mount Tamalpais. Views from the peak are also of the cities of Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, and Fremont. On occasion, the Sierra Nevada Mountain range can also be seen approximately 100 miles to the east. While not the highest peak within the region, Mission Peak, at an approximate elevation of 2,516 feet above sea level, is one of the most visible landmarks within the East and South Bays and can be seen from miles around on a clear day. The foothill areas within the City of Fremont that immediately abut Mission Peak to the west are developed with residential subdivisions, the closest of which offer private views of the open spaces and hilly terrain within the park. b. Option A. The Option A site is located approximately 250 feet to the northeast of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail. The site is located in a





grassland area with a bowl-like topography and generally lies between 0 and 12 feet below the surrounding area. There are no trees or other distinguishing natural features on the site. No existing trails are located on or pass through the site; therefore it is not easily accessible to the general public. Option A is generally located at the western most edge of the park, just before the steep ascent to the summit begins. Residential subdivisions are located to the west of Option A within a hilly area. The Option A site generally borders the grassland open space areas that characterize portions of the Preserve and is close to urban areas to the west. The development area for the Option A site is located approximately 150 feet from the nearest residence and approximately 1,200 feet from the farthest residence with views of the site. c. Option B. As previously discussed, the Option B site is located approximately 875 feet to the southeast of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, south of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails. The site is located in a generally level grassland area that is developed with grazing infrastructure, including a corral that is used a few times a year. There are no trees or other distinguishing natural features within the Option B site; however, this site is framed by trees and brush, and access to the site requires crossing Agua Caliente Creek, immediately to the north. An existing roadway currently crosses over the culverted creek as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails and provides access from the Hidden Valley Trail to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails. The creek channel is characterized by dense riparian vegetation and water flow is generally low. There are no trails located on the Option B site and it is currently fenced to allow for cattle enclosures; therefore, it is not generally accessible to the public. Similar to Option A, Option B is generally located at the western edge of the Preserve, just before the steep ascent to the Mission Peak summit begins. Residential subdivisions are to the west and within hilly terrain. Option B is adjacent to a grassland open space area and is close to the urban areas to the west. The proposed development area for Option B is located approximately 250 feet from the nearest residence. d. Regulatory Framework. The City of Fremont General Plan and the District’s Master Plan contain policies and implementation measures related to visual resources. These are discussed below.

(1) City of Fremont General Plan. The Community Character Element of the Fremont General Plan contains the following policies and implementation measures related to visual resources within the City.

Policy 4-1.6: Open Space Frame. Protect Fremont’s hills and baylands as an open space “frame” that gives definition to the City and shapes its image and identity.

○ Implementation 4-1.6.A: Respecting Natural Terrain and Landform. Accentuate Fremont’s natural features from public spaces through design and development. Development should be sited and designed to retain public views of hillsides and ridgelines, enhance vistas to natural landmarks and showcase important natural resources such as creeks and the baylands. Hillside protection has been a priority in Fremont for several decades. The City also recognizes the importance of its baylands and creeks as visual resources. These features should be protected by retaining them as open space.

A

B

Ohlone W

ildern

ess Trail

Stanford Ave

Peak Meadow Trail

Mission

Peak

A

B

1

2

4

3

SSaguare CtSagu are C

om

m

Nap

a C

t

Stanfoorrdd AAvve



CorralCorral


Gra

pev

ine

Terra

ce

2

13

4

ExistingStanford Avenue

Staging Area

Agua Caliente Creek

Corral

Saguare CtSagu are C

om

m

Nap

a C

t MISSION PEAK

REGIONALPRESERVE

Gra

pev

ine

Terra

ce


Viewpoint Locations

Option A

Option B 3feet

5000 250

FIGURE V.B-1

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VB1.ai (7/16/15)

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRViewpoint Location Map






Existing view from Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail

Conceptual simulation of Option A - vegetation at 5 years

Conceptual simulation of Option A - initial planting (15-gallon trees)

F IGU R E V.B-2a

SOURCE: ANDREW McNICHOL, 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\fi gures\Figures_VB2a-VB3b-11x17.indd (7/31/15)

Stanford Avenue Stag ing Area Expansion Project EIR Viewpoint 1 -

Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option A)

Existing view from Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail

Conceptual simulation of Option B - vegetation at 5 years

Conceptual simulation of Option B - initial planting (15-gallon trees)

F IGU R E V.B-2b




Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option B)

Existing view from Mission Peak Summit

Conceptual simulation of Option A - vegetation at 5 years


F IGU R E V.B-3a




Mission Peak Summit (Option A)

Existing view from Mission Peak Summit

Conceptual simulation of Option B - vegetation at 5 years


F IGU R E V.B-3b




Mission Peak Summit (Option B)

Existing view from fence line near Option A



F IGU R E V.B-4


I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\fi gures\Figures_VB4-VB5-11x17.indd (8/4/15)


Fence Line - Option A

Existing view from fence line near Option B



F IGU R E V.B-5


I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\fi gures\Figures_VB4-VB5-11x17.indd (8/4/15)


Fence Line - Option B





Policy 4-1.8: Landmarks. Maintain recognizable or natural landmarks that create a reference point or means of orientation within the City, and create a positive identity of an area or for the City as a whole. In the context of this policy, “landmarks” refers not to historic buildings but the visual features and cures that provide orientation and context within the City.

○ Implementation 4-1.8.A: Create a list of informal City landmarks for reference. Examples include Mission Peak, the Niles hillside letters, the Niles gateway signs, the Irvington Monument, and Mission San Jose.

(2) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District’s Master Plan1 includes the

following policy related to visual resources.

Policy PRPT24. The District will seek to locate facilities in a manner that Preserves open space whenever possible. The District will design proposed facilities so that their color, scale, style and materials will blend with the natural environment. Park improvements will be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife habitats, plant populations and other resources.


This section discusses potential impacts to visual resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the significance criteria, which establish the thresholds used to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project (either Option A or B) and identifies mitigation measures, as appropriate. To guide the assessment of whether the proposed project would create a significant adverse impact when measured against the following criteria, the analysis includes computer-generated photo simula-tions illustrating “before” and “after” views and vistas of the Option A and Option B sites (see Figures V.B-2 through Figure V.B-5). a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact on visual quality if it would:

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible viewpoint that provides expansive views;

Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;

Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or

Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

b. Project Impacts. The following discussion describes the potential impacts to visual resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.






(1) Scenic Vistas. Scenic vistas within the vicinity of the project sites consist of panoramic views available from numerous public vantage points located throughout Mission Peak. Mission Peak is well used and is a regional destination for hikers, bicyclists, and other recreationists because of its scenic character and the expansive views of the East Bay and distant views of San Francisco offered by the trail system. In addition, the topography and various rock outcroppings provide visual interest and contribute to views from and within the Preserve. As previously discussed, Mission Peak can be seen from various points throughout the Bay Area; however, views of the project sites are limited to the immediate surroundings and from points within Mission Peak itself. Implementation of either site option would not adversely affect distant views of Mission Peak that are available throughout the Bay Area and, consistent with the Fremont General Plan, would not affect views from within the City of Fremont of Mission Peak or hillsides and ridgelines, as further detailed below. Impacts to private views of the Preserve that may be available from nearby homes are not considered “significant” because impacts to private views are not considered impacts under CEQA; however, changes to these views are described below for informational purposes. In consultation with District staff, two viewpoint locations from public trails were selected for visual simulations of the proposed project under both Options A and B. These visual simulations show representative views from vantage points at the upper elevations of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail and from the summit of Mission Peak (Viewpoints 1 and 2 as depicted in Figures V.B-2 and V.B-3). These locations were selected because they provide representative, publically-accessible views of the sites from points that are open and not screened by vegetation or topography. Photos of the sites were taken from varying distances to provide different perspectives. The views from the Hidden Valley Trail would be similar to the views in the two simulations as both The Peak Meadow and Hidden Valley trails climb the ridge and are roughly parallel. Views of the sites from other trails within the Preserve would either be similar to the chosen viewpoints or would be less affected because of their location and the topography of the area, which would screen the sites. In addition, for informational purposes, for each option, a viewpoint is provided from the fence line of adjacent properties to show a representative view from nearby adjacent residences (Viewpoints 3 and 4 as depicted in Figure V.B-4 and V.B-5). The visual simulations were prepared using computer modeling and rendering techniques, and are based on site layout data and landscaping plans provided by the District (see Figures III-2a and III-3a in Chapter III, Project Description). Project landscaping would consist of native plantings and new trees would be coast live oaks; the simulations show two patterns of growth: 1) initial plantings of 15-gallon sized trees at the beginning of project operation and 2) growth at 5 years. Figure V.B-1 shows the viewpoint locations. Figures V.B-2 through V.B-5 show existing views of the sites (upper photographs), visual simulations of the proposed site options at initial planting (middle photographs), and visual simulations of the proposed site options at 5 years (bottom photographs) from each of the selected viewpoints. As discussed in more detail below, while Option A and Option B would be visible from public trails, they would not have a substantial adverse effect on the views seen from public viewpoints as both sites are located on lower elevations of Mission Peak near dense urban residential development, and the parking lots would not interfere with the distant scenic vistas visible from the public viewpoints. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.





The following includes a description of existing conditions for each of the representative vantage points followed by an analysis of impacts to scenic vistas associated with the Option A and Option B sites.

Viewpoint 1 – Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint 1 is located on the upper elevations of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail, about 1,500 feet to 1,675 feet from either site option and about 800 feet above either site option. As shown in Figure V.B-2, from this location, expansive views of the lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak are available, which include grassland areas and trees and other vegetation primarily within the Agua Caliente Creek corridor. Various trails within the Preserve are also visible. Distant views of the City of Fremont, San Francisco Bay, and the Santa Cruz Mountain range are also available. The boundary of the open space areas within Mission Peak is clearly defined as the open space area gives way to urban development.

Viewpoint 2 – Mission Peak Summit. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint 2 is located at the summit of Mission Peak, about 4,075 feet to 4,375 feet from either site option and about 2,000 feet in elevation above either site option. As shown in Figure V.B-3, from this location, expansive views of the lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak are available, which include grassland areas and trees and other vegetation primarily within the Agua Caliente Creek corridor. Oak woodlands and trails within the park are also visible. Distant views of the City of Fremont, San Francisco Bay, and the Santa Cruz Mountain range are also available (although all are not necessarily visible within this viewpoint). The boundary of the open space areas within Mission Peak are clearly defined as the open space area gives way to urban development.

Viewpoint 3 – Option A Fence Line. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint 3 is located near the fence line of the nearest residential property to Option A. This viewpoint is included for informational purposes to illustrate the potential changes to views from private residences in the vicinity of Option A. As shown in the existing view depicted in Figure V.B-4, the view from the fence line at this location (and presumably the similar private views available from the rear yards of nearby residences) is of the open grassland areas at the base of Mission Peak, which include the Option A site; however, the site itself is located within a bowl-like area at a lower elevation, and due to the change in topography, the grassland areas within the site are partially screened from view. The scenic ridgeline and hillside areas within Mission Peak are also visible in the distance.

Viewpoint 4 – Option B Fence Line. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint 4 is located near the fence line of the nearest residential property to Option B. This viewpoint is included to illustrate the potential changes to views from private residences in the vicinity of Option B. As shown in the existing view depicted in Figure V.B-5, the view from the fence line at this location (and the similar private view available from the rear yard of the nearest residence, which is located below the ground level) is of open grassland areas at the base of Mission Peak, which include the Option B site. Direct and open views of the site itself, which includes the corral, are available from this location. Trees and other vegetation located along Agua Caliente Creek are also visible. The scenic ridgeline and hillside areas within Mission Peak can be seen in the distance.





Option A. The Option A site is located in a grassland area with a bowl-like topography. The staging area would be cut into the slope to a depth between 0 and 12 feet and would consist of an approximately 2.78-acre surface parking lot, along with associated landscaping and other improvements. Approximately 46 new coast live oak trees in addition to native shrubs and grasses would be planted around the perimeter of and within the new staging area to provide visual screening. Option A would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, from the summit of Mission Peak, and from the main access trail from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The proposed staging area for Option A is located approximately 150 feet from the nearest residence and about 1,200 feet from the farthest residence with views of the site. As previously discussed, representative views of the Option A site are included in three visual simulations (Viewpoints 1, 2, and 3) as depicted in Figures V.B-2a, V.B-3a, and V.B-4. Impacts of Option A development from these vantage points are discussed below. In summary, while Option A would be visible from public trails, development of this site with a new staging area would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the views seen from public viewpoints as the site is located at a lower elevation of the Preserve near dense urban residential development, and the parking lot would not interfere with the distant scenic vistas visible from the public viewpoints. Although the proposed staging area would initially be more visible when new plantings including trees and other vegetation are first installed, Option A would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because of the location of the staging area near existing urban uses and the focus of park users on the distant scenic vistas, which would not be adversely affected. Furthermore, this condition would be temporary and as the trees reach maturity (as shown in the visual simulations that depict 5 years of growth), the staging area would blend to a greater degree with urban development to the west.

Viewpoint 1 – Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail. As shown in the visual simulation of Option A depicted in Figure V.B-2a, the proposed staging area would be visible from the upper elevations of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail. Because of its location near existing residential development, a new staging area in this location would generally blend with the existing pattern of urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and other vegetation. Option A would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay, San Francisco Bay and Santa Cruz Mountains, the views hikers and bikers visit Mission Peak to see. Therefore, development of Option A would not have a substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations within the Preserve.

Viewpoint 2 – Mission Peak Summit. Development of Option A would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas available from the summit of Mission Peak. As shown in the visual simulation of Option A and depicted in Figure V.B-3a, the proposed staging area would be visible from the summit of Mission Peak, but the direct and open views would be attenuated by the distance from the summit due to the broad viewshed available, and because, if developed, the site would be a small element in that viewshed. A new staging area at this location would generally blend with the existing pattern of urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and other vegetation, and development of Option A would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay, San Francisco Bay or Santa Cruz Mountains. Therefore, development of Option A would not have a substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations within the Preserve.





Viewpoint 3 – Option A Fence Line. As shown in the simulation of the project depicted in Figure V.B-4, the proposed parking facilities at Option A would not be directly visible from this specific location. As shown in the simulation, and also indicated in Figure III-2a in Chapter III, Project Description, a 6-foot-tall berm would be constructed on the west side of the proposed staging area and this, along with proposed trees and low-level vegetation and the existing low-lying topography of the site, would provide screening of the staging area from view at the ground level in this location. Figure III-2b also depicts the line of sight that would be available from the nearest residence, looking east. As shown in the section depicted in Figure III-2b, with an assumed viewpoint of 20 feet above the existing grade, (the assumed height of a second-story balcony), the proposed berm, trees and other vegetation, and low-lying topography of the site would provide screening of direct and open views of the staging area from the nearest residential properties. Therefore, it is expected that the Option A staging area would be screened from view from second story windows of the nearest residences. In addition, intermittent views of the distant hillsides would continue to be available from this location although views would be partially blocked by new trees located at the edge of the site. Although the view for some residents would be altered by the new vegetation, it would not result in a significant environmental impact. While the proposed staging area may be visible from other private residences located farther to the north, the distance from the site would generally attenuate the view of the staging area, as it would be located further away and would blend with surrounding development to the west. Direct and open views to the east of grassland and hillside areas within Mission Peak would continue to be available from these locations. For these reasons, although changes to existing views in the foreground from the nearby private residences that border the Option A site (and those nearby) would be altered by the addition of new trees, the berm and landscaping would screen the parking facilities both from ground level and second story windows, and there would not be a substantial adverse impact on the visual character or scenic views of the Preserve.

Option B. The Option B site would be developed in an open grassland area that includes fencing and structures associated with cattle operations. The proposed staging area in this location would consist of an approximately 2.78-acre surface parking lot, along with associated landscaping and other improvements. Approximately 27 new coast live oak trees in addition to native shrubs and grasses would be planted around the perimeter of and within the new staging area to provide visual screening. Option B would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, and the top of Mission Peak. The proposed staging area for Option B is located approximately 250 feet from the nearest residence and about 500 feet from the farthest residence with views of the site. As previously discussed, representative views of the Option B site are included in three visual simulations (Viewpoints 1, 2, and 4) as depicted in Figures V.B-2b, V.B-3b, and V.B-5. Impacts of Option B development from these vantage points are discussed below. In summary, while Option B would be visible from public trails, development of this site with a new staging area and vehicular roadway would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the views from public viewpoints as the site is located at a lower elevation of the Preserve near dense urban residential development, and the parking lot would not interfere with the distant scenic vistas visible from the public viewpoints. Although the proposed staging area would initially be more visible when new plantings including trees and other vegetation are first installed, Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because of the location of the staging area near existing urban uses and the focus of park users on the distant scenic vistas, which would not be adversely affected. Furthermore, this condition would be temporary and as the trees reach maturity (as shown in the visual simulations that





depict 5 years of growth), the staging area would blend to a greater degree with urban development to the west.

Viewpoint 1 – Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail. As shown in the visual simulation of Option B depicted in Figure V.B-2b, the proposed staging area would be visible from the upper elevations of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail. Because of its location near existing residential development, a new staging area in this location would generally blend with the existing pattern of urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and other vegetation. Option B would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay, San Francisco Bay and Santa Cruz Mountains, the views hikers and bikers visit Mission Peak to see. Therefore, development of Option B would not have a substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations within the Preserve.

Viewpoint 2 – Mission Peak Summit. Development of Option B would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas available from the summit of Mission Peak. As shown in the visual simulation of Option B and depicted in Figure V.B-3b, the proposed staging area would be visible from the summit of Mission Peak, but the direct and open views would be attenuated by the distance from the summit due to the broad viewshed available, and because, if developed, it would be a small element in that viewshed. A new staging area at this location would generally blend with the existing pattern of urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and other vegetation, and development of Option B would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay, San Francisco Bay or Santa Cruz Mountains. Therefore, development of Option B would not have a substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations within the Preserve.

Viewpoint 4 – Option B Fence Line. As shown in the simulation of the project depicted in Figure V.B-5, the proposed parking facilities at Option B would not be directly visible from this location. As shown in the simulation, and also indicated in Figure III-3a in Chapter III, Project Description, a detention pond would be located adjacent to a berm on the west side of the proposed staging area. Due to the berm – and proposed landscaping, screening, and grading – the proposed parking facilities would not be visible from this location. Figure III-3b also depicts the line of sight that would be available from the two nearest residences, looking north and west. As shown in Figure III-3b, in the view looking north, with an assumed viewpoint of 20 feet above the existing grade (the assumed height of a second-story balcony), the proposed landscaping screening and berm would screen direct and open views eastward toward the new staging area from the nearest residential property, which is located adjacent to the fence line and Viewpoint 4. In addition, intermittent views of the distant hillsides would continue to be available from this location although views would be partially blocked by new trees located at the edge of the site. In Figure III-3b, in the view looking west, with an assumed viewpoint of 20 feet above the existing grade (the assumed height of a second-story balcony), the proposed landscaping screening and berm would screen direct and open northward views of the new staging area from nearby residential properties. Although the proposed staging area may be visible from some of these nearby residences, the site would be partially screened by natural materials and the staging area would not dominate the view. Views of open grassland areas and the ridgelines and hillsides within Mission Peak would continue to be available. For these reasons, although existing foreground views from nearby private residences would be altered, the addition of new trees, the berm and landscaping would screen views of the Option B staging area, both from





ground level and second story windows, and there would not be a substantial adverse impact on the visual character or scenic views of the Preserve.

(2) Scenic Resources. Within the City of Fremont, Interstate 680 (I-680) and State Route 84 (SR-84) are officially designated scenic highways.2 The scenic portions of I-680 cross through the Contra Costa Range through Mission Pass into the Sunol Valley. After crossing the Sunol Valley, the scenic route passes through a narrow canyon of the Arroyo de la Laguna into the south end of the Amador Valley terminating at the Bernal Avenue Interchange near the City of Pleasanton. The scenic aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills of the Contra Costa range contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and east. Mission Peak is within view of this corridor. As discussed in more detail below, scenic resources within the view of a designated scenic highway would not be adversely affected with implementation of either Option A or Option B and this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. The Option A site is located over 1 mile from the nearest segment of I-680 and due to the topography, distance, and location of the site within the grasslands at the base of Mission Peak, the project site is not visible from any point along I-680. Additionally, scenic portions of SR-84 are located over 7 miles from the project site and for these same reasons, the project site is not visible from any point along SR-84. Therefore, development of Option A would not damage scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway.

Option B. The Option B site is located over 1 mile from the nearest segment of I-680 and due to the topography, distance, and location of the site within the grasslands at the base of Mission Peak, the project site is not visible from any point along I-680. Additionally, scenic portions of SR-84 are located over 7 miles from the project site and for these same reasons, the project site is not visible from any point along SR-84. Therefore, development of Option B would not damage scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway.

(3) Visual Character. The overall change to the visual character and quality of Mission Peak and the adjoining residential neighborhoods would be generally similar with development of either site option. As discussed in more detail below, impacts to the visual character of the Preserve and surrounding area would not be adversely affected with implementation of either Option A or Option B and this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. Introduction of a new staging area and new roadways within the Preserve as proposed by Option A would alter the site but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings given the location of the Option A site near existing residential development and the remaining visible park acreage, grassland areas, trees, and other vegetation. Development of Option A would result in a new staging area with parking for up to 300 vehicles and associated amenities such as picnic tables and restrooms near existing urban development. Nearby views of the staging area would be screened by a berm, landscaping, and the existing or modified topography, consistent with the District’s Master Plan Policy PRPT24. Specifically, 46 new coast live

2 California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:

www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 16, 2015). September 7.





oak trees would be planted around the perimeter of and within the new staging area. Staging and parking areas are commonly provided to allow access to and use of regional recreation facilities within District parks. Visitors accessing and utilizing the facilities within the new staging areas would not experience adverse effects to the visual quality of their immediate surroundings. Hang gliders that currently utilize the landing zone near Option A would be landing closer to a “developed area” (if Option A is chosen), and their views and experience when landing would be affected, but the regional park setting, views, and overall open space setting would remain (refer to Section V.B, Recreation for additional discussion). Thus, development of Option A would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site for hang gliders. The project would also not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the residential neighborhood and may improve the visual character by reducing the amount of litter, illegal parking, and traffic congestion and the issue of cars blocking driveways. As described above and shown in Figure V.B-4, development of Option A would not substantially alter the visual character for neighbors immediately near the site, especially given the limited number of individuals and private views that may be affected. Therefore, for the reasons described above, development of Option A would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.

Option B. Introduction of a new staging area and associated roadways and bridges within the Preserve as proposed by Option B would alter the site but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings given the location of the Option B near existing residential development and the remaining visible park acreage, grassland areas, trees, and other vegetation. Development of Option B would result in a new staging area with parking for up to 300 vehicles and associated amenities such as picnic tables and restrooms. Nearby views of the staging area would be screened by a berm, landscaping, and the existing or modified topography, consistent with the District’s Master Plan Policy PRPT24. Staging and parking areas are commonly provided in District parks to allow access to and use of regional recreation facilities. Visitors accessing and utilizing the facilities within the new staging areas would not experience adverse effects to the visual quality of their immediate surroundings. The vehicular and pedestrian creek crossings proposed as part of Option B would not substantially alter the character of Aqua Caliente Creek, given that these are typical facilities found within recreational areas, even those managed as open space preserves, and these facilities would not be highly visible except from within the immediate surroundings. Additionally, any tree removal associated with development of Option B would be mitigated via new trees planted according to the requirements of the City of Fremont (see discussion under Section V.C, Biological Resources). Therefore, specific improvements associated with Option B would not generally result in more severe impacts related to visual quality or character than Option A (see discussion above). The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the adjacent residential neighborhood and may improve the visual character of the residential area located north of Stanford Avenue by reducing the amount of litter, illegal parking and traffic congestion and the issue of cars blocking driveways. As described above and shown Figure V.B-5, development of Option B would not substantially alter the visual character for neighbors near the site, especially given the limited number of individuals and private views affected. Therefore, for the reasons described above,





development of Option B would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.

(4) New Source of Light or Glare. Mission Peak is generally open for public use from sunrise to sunset, seven days a week, and the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area does not include any lighting fixtures. Access to the staging areas would be closed at sunset. New sources of light or glare have the potential to disturb nearby residents and visitors to Mission Peak. However, no new lighting is proposed as part of either site option. Potential impacts associated with new sources of glare are discussed below and as discussed, this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. During daylight hours, hikers and other recreationists could experience some glare due to light reflecting off vehicles parked within the Option A staging area; however, the glare would be limited and would not substantially impact the visual experience of park users. When ascending the trail, visitors’ backs are to the parking lot (including the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area) and when descending, the trail visitors will likely focus their gaze on the trail or the scenic vista of the East Bay rather than the staging area. Any minimal glare would be attenuated by the distance from the cars and would be limited to certain times of day during certain times of year. Furthermore, glare from vehicles within the staging area would generally blend with existing glare emitted from surrounding development, including windows of the nearby residences that border Mission Peak. Residents would also be minimally impacted from any effects of glare because of the hilly topography of the neighborhood and intervening vegetation and trees that would be planted along the perimeter of the staging area.

Option B. During daylight hours, hikers and other recreationists could experience some glare due to light reflecting off vehicles parked within the Option B staging area; however, the glare would be limited and would not substantially impact the visual experience of park users. When ascending the trail, visitors’ backs are to the parking lot (including the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area) and when descending, the trail visitors will likely focus their gaze on the trail or the scenic vista of the East Bay rather than the staging area. Any minimal glare would be attenuated by the distance from the cars and would be limited to certain times of day during certain times of year. Furthermore, glare from vehicles within the staging area would generally blend with existing glare emitted from surrounding development, including windows of the nearby residences that border Mission Peak. Residents would also be minimally impacted from any effects of glare because of the hilly topography of the neighborhood and intervening vegetation and trees that would be planted along the perimeter of the staging area. c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, when considered in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to visual resources. As shown in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, there are few cumulative projects within the immediate vicinity of the site and these are generally limited to small-scale urban infill projects. The recently constructed Ohlone College South Lot Parking Garage is visible from elevated points within Mission Peak; however, the garage is built into the natural slope of the surrounding hillside, blends with existing development that surrounds the structure and, due to the distance, topography, and mature vegetation that surrounds the development, is not prominently visible or within the same view as the proposed staging areas. Other cumulative projects within the vicinity are not located on hillside areas or greenfield sites. Furthermore, foreseea-ble projects in the City would be designed or conditioned, in accordance with City policies, to avoid





significant adverse effects on visual quality or other elements of the aesthetic environment, including limiting adverse effects associated with new sources of light and glare. In addition, the visual changes associated with Option A and Option B are generally limited to the immediate surroundings within Mission Peak and are not expected to result in additional impacts to the open space areas within Mission Peak. Therefore, past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to result in a significant cumulative impact to visual resources, and the project would not make a significant contribution to such an impact.



C . B I O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5c-BiologicalResources.docx (10/14/15) 143

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section describes existing biological resources in the project area, including potentially occurring special-status species, special-status natural communities, and jurisdictional features; identifies potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed project’s development of the Option A or Option B sites with a new staging area; and recommends mitigation measures, where required to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 1. Setting

This subsection describes: 1) the methods used to establish the baseline conditions for biological resources in the project area; 2) the regulatory context related to biological resources; and 3) existing biological resources occurring within and in the vicinity of the project sites. a. Methods. To identify special-status plant and animal species potentially occurring within the project sites and the vicinity, LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)1 and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California2 for known occurrences within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Niles quadrangle, in which the sites are located, as well as the adjacent Calaveras Reservoir, Dublin, Hayward, La Costa Valley, Las Trampas Ridge, Milpitas, Niles, and Oakland East quadrangles. LSA also reviewed District information on known California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) occurrences within Mission Peak and adjacent lands, as well as the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford Avenue Municipal Golf Course, prepared in 1991.3 After reviewing the above sources, LSA’s botanist and wildlife biologist conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the site on April 10, 2013, to identify existing plant and animal species, assess habitat quality for special-status plant and/or animal species, and identify other sensitive biological resources such as jurisdictional waters or wetlands, special-status natural communities, and/or nest sites for raptors and other native birds. An LSA biologist also visited the site on May 4, 2015, with emphasis on surveying areas added to the project site boundaries and that were not visited during the initial April 2013 survey. An LSA soil scientist and biologist also conducted a wetland delineation at the site on May 13, 2015, to determine the location and extent of jurisdictional areas on the project site. Plant taxonomy and nomenclature in this document follows Baldwin et al.4 Common and scientific names for herpetofauna, birds, and mammals conform to Crother,5 the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) Check-list of North American Birds and supplements,6 and Baker et al.,7 respectively.

1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), commercial

version dated May 31, 2015. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento. 2 California Native Plant Society, 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-10b). California

Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Website: www.cnps.org/inventory (accessed July 15, 2015). 3 Wallace Roberts & Todd and CH2M HILL, 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Stanford Avenue Municipal

Golf Course. Prepared for City of Fremont Leisure Services Department. State Clearinghouse No. 9103086. December 16. 4 Baldwin, B.G., et al. eds., 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of

California Press, Berkeley. 5 Crother, B.I., ed., 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north

of Mexico. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) Herpetological Circular 39 and supplements.





b. Existing Conditions. Using all of the identification methods described in subsection 1.a. above, the following section describes existing vegetation and wildlife habitat values, potentially occurring special-status plant and animal species, sensitive vegetation types, and jurisdictional waters within the project sites. Generally, existing conditions are similar at the Option A and Option B sites, unless otherwise noted.

(1) Vegetation.Vegetation within the project area comprises two plant communities: non-native grassland and riparian woodland (see Figures V-C.1a and V-C.1b). A list of plant species observed on the site by LSA biologists is provided in Table V.C-1. The non-native grassland consists of herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses and forbs. Grasslands in the study area were classified as non-native annual grasslands. This community is the dominant vegetation type in both the Option A and Option B sites (Figures V-C.1a and V-C.1b). Non-native annual grassland species were also observed as understory vegetation on the upper banks of the riparian woodland (see below). The dominant grass species observed at both sites include wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and foxtail chess (Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum). Herbaceous, non-grass plant species observed at both sites include black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), and subterranean clover (Trifolium subterranean). The plant community classified as valley foothill riparian woodland occurs along Agua Caliente Creek and its tributary in the northern portion of the Option B site (Figure V-C.1b) and is associated with areas proposed for the clear-span vehicular bridge, culvert removal, and a separate pedestrian bridge that would be developed with Option B. No riparian woodland is present at the Option A site, but riparian understory vegetation is present where the culvert repair is proposed at the tributary channel to Agua Caliente Creek. Native plant species unique to each site option are identified below.

Option A. Native plant species within the non-native grassland unique to the Option A site include: blow wives (Achyrachaena mollis), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), and shining peppergrass (Leidium nitidum). Blue-eyed grass was observed within the area of potential impact on the north facing slope of Site A, but outside of the proposed grading limit. Non-native plant species within the non-native grassland unique to the Option A site include scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), prickly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha), shepherd’s needle (Scandix pectin-veneris), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and spring vetch (Vicia sativa).

6 American Ornithologists’ Union, 1998. Checklist of North American Birds and supplements. Seventh Edition.

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 7 Baker, R.J., et al., 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas

Tech University Occasional Papers 229.





Table V.C-1: Plant Species Observed at the Project Sites FAMILY/Species Name, Scientific FAMILY/Common Name Nativity MAGNOLIIDS LAURACEAE LAUREL FAMILY Umbellularia californica California laurel yes

EUDICOTS ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC/CASHEW Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak yes APIACEAE CARROT Scandix pectin-veneris Shepherd’s needle no ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives yes Artemisia californica California sagebrush yes Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle no Centaurea melitensis Tocalote no Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle no Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle no Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue no Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat’s ear no Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce no Silybum marianum Milk thistle no BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica nigra Black mustard no Lepidium nitidum Shining peppergrass yes CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus Snowberry yes CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING GLORY Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed no FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY Acmispon americanus var. americanus Spanish lotus yes Lotus corniculatus Bird’s-foot trefoil no Medicago polymorpha Bur-clover no Trifolium hirtum Rose clover no Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean clover no Vicia sativa Spring vetch no FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak yes GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree no GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY Ribes speciosum Fuchiaflower gooseberry yes LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY Mentha canadensis Mint no MYRSINACEAE Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel no MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian blue gum no OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY Olea europaea Cultivated olive no OROBANCHACEAE Bellardia trixago Mediterranean linseed no OXALIDACEAE OXALIS FAMILY Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup no





Table V.C-1: Plant Species Observed at the Project Sites FAMILY/Species Name, Scientific FAMILY/Common Name Nativity PHRYMACEAE Mimulus guttatus Monkey flower yes PLATANACEAE Platanus racemosa Western sycamore yes POLYGONACAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum nudum California buckwheat yes Rumex crispus Curly dock no RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY Ranunculus californicus California buttercup yes ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY Rosa gymnocarpa Woodrose yes SAPINDACEAE BUCKEYE FAMILY Aesculus californica California buckeye yes SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY Scrophularia californica Bee plant yes SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Solanum umbelliferum Nightshade yes URTICACEAE Urtica dioica Stinging nettle yes

MONOCOTS AGAVACEAE Chlorogalum pomeridianum Soap plant yes CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge yes IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY Iris douglasiana Douglas’ iris yes Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-eyed grass yes POACEAE GRASS FAMILY Avena fatua Common wild oat no Brachypodium distachyon False brome no Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome no Bromus hordeaceus Soft cheatgrass no Elymus triticoides Creeping wildrye yes Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass no Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley yes Hordeum marinum Mediterranean barley no Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum Hare barley no Phalaris aquatica Harding grass no Stipa pulchra Purple needlegrass yes

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015. (April 10, 2013 and May 4 and 13, 2015 site visits). In addition to the non-native grassland species identified for the Option A site, vegetation associated with the headwall repair of the existing culvert at Option A also includes non-native grass and ruderal plant species. No riparian woodland trees were identified within the Option A site, but riparian understory vegetation, such as poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), was identified along the tributary channel to Agua Caliente Creek where the existing culvert would be repaired.





Option B. Native plant species within the non-native grassland unique to the Option B site includes meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum) and Douglas’ iris (Iris douglasiana). Non-native plant species within the non-native grassland unique to the Option B site include Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), smooth cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra), and cultivated olive (Olea europaea). Riparian woodland occurs along Agua Caliente Creek and its tributary in the northern portion of the Option B site (Figure V-C.1b) where the culvert and trail crossing removal, clear-span vehicular bridge, and pedestrian bridge are proposed. The dominant native tree species in the riparian woodland is coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Other native trees that occur within the Option B site, and are commonly associated with riparian woodlands in the area, include California buckeye (Aesculus californica), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Two stands of non-native Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) occur within the Option B site adjacent to the creek: south of the existing access road to Option B, and east of the proposed pedestrian bridge. The upper banks of the riparian woodland have an herbaceous understory consisting of non-native grasses and forbs, as well as shrubby understory. Understory scrub species associated with the riparian vegetation include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), fuchia flower gooseberry (Ribes speciosum), woodrose (Rosa gymnocarpa), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), snowberry (Symphoriocarpos albus var. laevigatus), and poison oak. The herbaceous understory layer, when present, is a mix of grasses and forbs, commonly including ripgut brome, Italian wildrye (Lolium multiflorum) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). A few herbaceous wetland plant were observed in the creek channel, including tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), mint (Mentha canadensis), and monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus).

(2) Wildlife. Wildlife species expected to occur within the project area are those adapted to the non-native grassland and coast live oak riparian woodland communities of the Central Coast Range foothills surrounding San Francisco Bay. Wildlife species observed by LSA biologists on April 10, 2013, and May 4, 2015, are listed in Table V.C-2. The EIR assumes many additional species are likely to occur on the site throughout the year based on the review of other databases.

(3) Non-Native Grassland Wildlife Species. The extensive annual grassland on both sites provides habitat for a variety of native wildlife species. Common amphibians and reptiles expected to occur (potentially occurring special-status species are discussed later in this section) include Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), western toad (Bufo boreas), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus), California kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and northern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus oreganus). The openness of grasslands provides ideal foraging habitat for raptors such as golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).





Table V.C-2: Wildlife Species Observed on or Adjacent to the Project Sites Common Name Scientific Name Status Reptiles Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis R Northern Pacific rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus oreganus R Birds Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo R Turkey vulture Cathartes aura R White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus R Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii R Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus R Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis R/N Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata R Mourning dove Zenaida macroura R Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna R Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii R American kestrel Falco sparverius R Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis S Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans R Hutton’s vireo Vireo huttoni R Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri R Western scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica R Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota S Barn swallow Hirundo rustica S Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus R House wren Troglodytes aedon R Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii R Western bluebird Sialia mexicana R American robin Turdus migratorius R European starling Sturnus vulgaris R Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata S Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata W Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus R California towhee Melozone crissalis R Song sparrow Melospiza melodia R Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis R Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus R Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater R Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus S Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii S Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria R Mammals California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi R Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae R/burrows Coyote Canis latrans R/scat

R = Year-round resident; expected to nest/breed on the project site or vicinity S = Spring/summer resident; may nest in the project site or vicinity W = Winter resident; winters on or near site but migrates out of Bay Area to nest N = Evidence of nesting observed Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015. (April 10, 2013 and May 4, 2015 site visits).





Smaller songbirds that use grasslands for foraging and/or nesting include western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) appear to be the primary burrowing mammals on the site; gopher burrows were observed along the southern edge of the woodland along Agua Caliente Creek north of Option B while ground squirrel burrows were observed scattered throughout both sites. Ground squirrel burrows in Option A were limited to a few burrow clusters around the topographic high point (i.e., western edge of proposed staging area) while burrows in Option B consisted of more evenly distributed individual burrows in the central, northern, and northeastern portions of the existing corral. Common mammals expected to use the grassland portions of the site include deer mice (Peromyseus sp.), California vole (Microtus californicus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).

(4) Riparian Woodland Wildlife Species. The greatest diversity of wildlife species observed during the April 10, 2013 survey were detected in the riparian woodland along Agua Caliente Creek, which supports a more diverse species assemblage than grassland due to increased structural diversity of vegetation provided by trees, shrubs, and leaf litter. The increased leaf litter, moisture content, and, in some areas, understory vegetation, of riparian woodland provides increased foraging opportunities and cover for amphibians and reptiles. Many of the grassland species listed above are also likely to occur in the woodland along Agua Caliente Creek, with the addition of species that prefer leaf litter and woody ground cover such as arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris) and California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus). Common bird species observed in the riparian woodland include Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis). These species also occur in adjacent residential neighborhoods. The woodland also supports species more closely associated with more natural, undeveloped landscapes such as Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), Hutton’s vireo (Vireo huttoni), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), orange-crowned warbler (Oreothlypis celata), and spotted towhee (Pipilo crissalis). The numerous trees also provide migratory stopover habitat for species such as warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), black-throated gray warbler (Setophaga nigrescens), hermit warbler (Setophaga occidentalis), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla), black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), and western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana). Although none of these species were observed during LSA’s site visit, they likely regularly occur in small numbers during spring and fall migration. Larger trees and snags along the creek (including the numerous blue gums) provide nesting habitat for raptors such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), barn owl (Tyto alba), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). LSA observed an active red-tailed hawk nest (adult flying to nest) in a tall blue gum behind the residence adjacent to the western boundary of the Option B site during the April 10 site visit; the nest has reportedly been active for several years.8

8 Gordon Willey, 2013. Park Supervisor. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. April 10.





Most of the same mammal species that occur in grassland are expected to use riparian woodland. The linear nature of riparian woodlands facilitates movement and dispersal for these species through Mission Peak as well as adjacent residential areas. Larger trees and snags along Agua Caliente Creek may occasionally support bat species such as big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) (winter and migration only), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis).

(5) Special-Status Species. For the purposes of the analysis contained in this document, special-status species are defined as follows:

Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act.

Plant species assigned to California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, or 2.

Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected Species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Species considered as a taxon of special concern by local agencies.

Plants. Based on the results of the database search and literature review, LSA identified 39 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the site vicinity (Table V.C-3). Of these species, 33 are not expected to occur on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat. Six plant species may occur or have a low potential to occur due to the presence of marginal habitat in riparian woodland and grassland: bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), and Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia). The April 10, 2013, reconnaissance survey coincided with the blooming period for all the target species except three that had earlier or later blooming species, round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant. None of the target species that would have otherwise been recognizable at the time of the April 10, 2013, survey were observed. All special-status plant species that potentially occur on the project site were included in Table V.C-3.





Table V.C-3: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Sites

Species

Status (Federal/State/

CRPR) Habitat/Blooming Period Habitat Present? Discussion

Amsinckia lunaris Bent-flowered fiddleneck

–/–/1B Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; openings. Elevation: 50-500 m. Blooms: April-May

Yes Although suitable habitat is present, members of this genus would have been recognizable at the time of the survey (plants have a distinctive prickly appearance to the stem and leaves). No species in the genus Amsinckia were observed during the April 10th visit. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Arctostaphylos pallida Pallid manzanita

FT/SE/1B Arctostaphylos pallida is found on shale barrens and sandy and gravely soils in the East Bay Hills of western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It occurs in broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub Elevation: 185-465 m. Blooms: December - March

No Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. This species is only known from fewer than 10 occurrences in the Contra Costa Hills of the Diablo Range (at a slightly higher elevation range). No manzanitas were observed during the reconnaissance visit, no CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles, and no surveys for this species are recommended.

Astragalus tener var. tener Alkali milk-vetch

–/–/1B Occurs in playas, vernal pools, and depressions in mesic alkaline and adobe clay soils within valley and foothill grassland, wetlands, and wetlands riparian areas. Elevation: 1-60 m. Blooms: March-June.

No Unlikely to occur due to the elevation of the site and lack of suitable alkaline habitat. Closest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.7 miles from the site. An extirpated record is approximately 3.8 miles from the site in the vicinity of Milpitas and a possibly extirpated occurrence is approximately 4.7 miles from the site in the vicinity of Alviso. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Atriplex depressa Britlescale

–/–/1B Alkaline soils and alkaline seeps in chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Elevation: 1-320 m. Blooms: April-October

No Unlikely to occur due to the elevation of the site and lack of suitable alkaline habitat. Closest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.2 miles from the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Atriplex minuscula Lesser saltscale

–/–/1B Occurs in playa habitat within chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland and sandy areas. Elevation: 15-200 m. Blooms: May-October


Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis Big-scale balsamroot

–/–/1B Thin rocky soil, grassy hillsides; foothill woodland, chaparral; sometimes on serpentine. Elevation: 35-1000 m. Blooms: April to May

Yes Although suitable habitat may be present in the park, this species would have been recognizable at the time of the survey (rosettes of distinctive leaves appear prior to large showy flowers). This species was not observed during the April 10th reconnaissance survey. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.






Species



California macrophylla Round-leaved filaree

–/–/1B Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation: 15 – 1200 m. Blooms: March-May

Yes Although suitable habitat may be present in the park, this species was not observed during the April 10, 2013 reconnaissance survey. This plant has conspicuously large leaves that may be red in color. The April 10 survey may have been too late to positively identify this species since a dry water year (like the 2012/2013 season) may cause earlier blooming in some species. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site, yet surveys for this species are recommended.

Calochortus pulchellus Mount Diablo fairy-lantern

–/–/1B Openings in wooded and brushy slopes/ chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and associated grasslands; Elevation: 200-800 m. Blooms: April to June

No Unlikely to occur due to site elevation and the generally disturbed quality of the woodland understory. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles, and no surveys for this species are recommended.

Campanula exigua Chaparral harebell

–/–/1B Chaparral (rocky, usually serpentinite) Elevation: 275-1250 m. Blooms: May-June

No Unlikely to occur due to the elevation and lack of suitable habitat. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles, and no surveys for this species are recommended.

Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon’s tarplant

–/–/1B Occurs within grazed and un-grazed annual grasslands. The soils are alkaline or saline and sometimes described as heavy white clay (saline clay soil.) Elevation: 1-230 m. Blooms: May-October (Nov.).

No Unlikely to occur due the lack of suitable alkaline grassland habitat. Two CNDDB records are located approximately 2.3 miles from the site in undeveloped flatlands of the East Industrial and Baylands districts. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Chloropyron maritimum subsp. palustre Point Reyes salty bird's-beak

-/-/1B Coastal salt marshes and brackish marshes from northern San Francisco Bay to Suisun Bay in Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa Counties Elevation:0-10 m. Blooms: June-October

No Unlikely to occur due to the elevation of the site and lack of suitable marsh habitat. Closest CNDDB occurrence is an extirpated record that is 4.72 miles from the site in the vicinity of Alviso. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Robust spineflower

FE/–/1B Occurs in sandy or gravelly openings on terraces and bluffs in cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub; Elevation: 3-300 m. Blooms: April-September

No Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. Most populations extirpated, and now known from only six extended occurrences. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles, and no surveys for this species are recommended.

Clarkia franciscana Presidio clarkia

FE/CE/1B Occurs almost exclusively in serpentine soils in coastal scrub, and valley grasslands. Elevation: 25-355 m. Blooms: May-July

No Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. Known from fewer than five occurrences. Threatened by Army activities, vehicles, urbanization, and non-native plants. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles, and no surveys for this species are recommended.






Species



Dirca occidentalis Western leatherwood

–/–/1B Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland on brushy slopes, mesic sites. Elevation: 30-395 m. Blooms: January-March (April)

Yes Although this species has the potential to occur in/near woodland habitat, this species would have been recognizable at the time of the survey (if not by its flowers then its fruits). This species was not observed during the April 10th reconnaissance survey. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum Tiburon buckwheat

–/–/1B Occurs almost exclusively in sandy to gravelly soils that may be derived from serpentinite. It is found in the following habitats: cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, chaparral, and valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 0-700 m. Blooms: May-September

No Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. Not clearly distinguishable from var. luteolum north of Tiburon. E. luteolum is similar to E. gracile to the south and E. vimineum to the northeast. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens Ben Lomond buckwheat

--/--/1B Occurs in chaparral, foothill woodland, Ponderosa pine forest communities that are associated with coastal areas of the Santa Cruz County sand hills. Elevation: 50-800 m. Blooms: June-October

No Unlikely to occur at the site due to lack of suitable habitat. Known only to occur in Santa Cruz Sandhills in Santa Cruz County near the towns of Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond, Olympia, Zayante, Felton, Scotts Valley, Glenwood, and Bonny Doon. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover's button-celery

–/–/1B Alkaline depressions, vernal pools, roadside ditches and other wet places near the coast. Elevation: 3-45 m. Blooms: July.


Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale

–/–/1B Alkaline soils and alkaline seeps in chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, and valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 1-835 m. Blooms: April-October

No Unlikely to occur due the lack of suitable alkaline habitat. There is one CNDDB record attributed to an 1896 collection located made by W. L. Jepson in the vicinity of Warm Springs and another record from 2011, approximately 3.8 miles from the site at the Pacific Commons Preserve, west of Fremont. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Fritillaria liliacea Fragrant fritillary

–/–/1B Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and coastal prairie. Often on serpentine. Various soils reported though usually clay. Elevation: 3-410 m. Blooms: February-April.

Yes (marginal)

Although this species has the potential to occur in mesic, annual grassland, it is unlikely to occur due to the lack of associated plant species combined with heavy grazing. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site, yet surveys for this species may be warranted.






Species



Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella

–/–/1B Occurs in openings within broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 60-13,000 feet Blooms: March-June.

Yes Although suitable habitat may be present in the park, this species would have been recognizable at the time of the survey (rosettes of distinctive leaves appear prior to the large showy flowers). This species was not observed during the April 10, 2012 survey. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita

–/–/1B Occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland, usually on soils that are underlain by ultramafic rock. Elevation: 30-860 m. Blooms: May-July (August-October)

No Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (serpentine soils). No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant

FT/CE/1B Occurs in sandy-clay soil in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and in valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 10-260 m. Blooms: June-October

Yes This species has the potential to occur in valley and foothill grassland. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site, yet surveys for this species may be warranted.

Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg’s horkelia

–/–/1B Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime chaparral, coastal scrub, dunes and coastal sandhills; sandy or gravelly openings. Elevation: 10-200 m. Blooms: February-July

No No suitable habitat present. No CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Juglans hindsii Northern California black walnut

–/–/1B Deep alluvial soil in riparian forest and riparian woodland. Few extant native stands remain; widely naturalized. Elevation: 0-395 m. Blooms: April-May

No Juglans hindsii has been widely used as a rootstock for grafting J. regia and has been planted extensively in many parts of California for this purpose. It is now naturalized in many areas where it apparently did not occur before the introduction of commercial walnut growing. This species was not found during floristic surveys. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields

FE/–/1B Valley and foothill grassland and cismontane woodland in vernal pools, swales, and moist depressions (alkaline grasslands). Extirpated from most of its range; extremely endangered. Elevation: 0-470 m. Blooms: March-June

No Unlikely to occur at the site due to the elevation of the site and lack of suitable alkaline habitat. Closest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.5 miles from the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Malacothamnus fascicularis (syn = M. arcuatus) Arcuate bush mallow

–/–/1B Occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub in gravelly alluvium. Elevation: 15-355 m. Blooms: April-September

No Unlikely to occur at the site due to the lack of suitable alkaline habitat. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.






Species



Malacothamnus hallii Hall’s bush mallow

–/–/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub. Some populations on serpentine. Elevation: 10-760 m. Blooms: May-September (October)

No Unlikely to occur at the site due to lack of suitable habitat (serpentine soils). No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are

Meconella oregana White fairypoppy

–/–/1B Coastal prairie, coastal scrub Elevation:250-620 m. Blooms: March-April

No Unlikely to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Monolopia gracilens Woodland wooly threads

–/–/1B Occurs in grassy sites, in openings, sandy to rocky soils in chaparral, serpentine grasslands, cismontane woodland, broadleafed upland forests, and north coast coniferous forests; often seen on serpentine after burns. Elevation: 100-1200 m. Blooms: March-July

No Unlikely to occur at the site due to lack of suitable habitat (rocky, sandy or serpentine soils). No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are

Navarretia prostrata Prostrate vernal pool navarretia

–/–/1B Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal pools/mesic, Elevation: 15-700 m. Blooms: April-July

No Unlikely to occur at the site due to lack of suitable habitat (alkaline soils and vernal pools). Closest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2.6 miles from the site. No surveys for this species are

Plagiobothrys diffuses SanFrancisco popcorn-flower

–/SE/1B Occurs on grassy slopes with marine influence in coastal prairie and in valley and foothill grassland; Elevation: 60-485 m. Blooms: February-June

No Although this species has the potential to occur in mesic, annual grassland, it is unlikely to occur due to the lack of a marine influence. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Plagiobothrys glaber Hairless popcorn-flower

–/–/1A Coastal salt marshes, alkaline meadows, and seeps. Elevation: 15-180 m. Blooms: March-May

No Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (alkaline). This species is believed to be extinct in California. No CNDDB records are within 5 miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Polemonium Carneum Oregon polemonium

–/–/2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation: 0-1830 m. Blooms: April-September

No Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. No CNDDB records are within 5 miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Sanicula maritime Adobe snakeroot

–/SR/1B Occurs in wet meadows, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and wetland-riparian areas with coastal influence and often on serpentine. Elevation: 30-240 m. Blooms: February-May

No Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable coastally influenced habitat. This species is known from fewer than twenty occurrences and is considered extirpated from Alameda County. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.






Species



Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Most beautiful jewel flower

–/–/1B Occurs in openings in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland, usually on rocky or serpentine soil. Elevation: 94-1000 Blooms: April-September

No Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (rocky or serpentine soils). Closest CNDDB record is attributed to an occurrence at unknown location in serpentine habitat in Mission Peak approximately 0.7 mile from the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina Slender-leaved pondweed

–/–/2 Occurs in ponds, marshes, and swamps. Elevation: 300-2150 Blooms: May-July


Suaeda californica California seablite

FE/–/1B Marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Elevation: 0-15. Blooms: July-October


Trifolium hydrophilum Saline clover

–/–/1B Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools Elevation: 0-300 m. Blooms: April-June

No No suitable habitat present. Closest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 3.6 miles from the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.

Viburnum ellipticum Oval-leaved viburnum

–/–/2 Generally occurs on north facing slopes growing in chaparral and Ponderosa pine forests. Elevation 215-1400 m. Blooms May-June


CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank Status Codes: FE = federally listed as endangered FT = federally listed as threatened SE = State-listed as endangered SR = State Rare ST = State-listed as threatened 1A = California Rare Plant Rank 1A: considered extinct in California 1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B: considered rare/endangered in California elsewhere 2 = California Rare Plant Rank 2 – rare/threatened/endangered in California, common elsewhere

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., August 2015





Table V.C-4: Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Sites

Species

Status (Federal/

State/CDFW) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Invertebrates Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi

FE/–/– Vernal pools. Not expected to occur due to lack of vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands that may provide potential habitat.

Bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis

FT/–/– Native grasslands near serpentine rock outcrops in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Requires stands of Plantago erecta for larval host plants; Orthocarpus densiflorus and O. purpurescens are secondary host plants.

Not expected to occur due to lack of native grassland supporting host plants.

Fish Steelhead (central California coast DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus

FT/–/CSC Coastal rivers and streams with cold water and deep (3 feet or greater) pools and runs; for spawning, requires clean, silt-free gravel beds (0.5-5 inches deep), with clear flowing water and shaded stream reaches. Spawning adults occur during winter high water.

Not expected to occur. Agua Caliente Creek does not support a known steelhead run.9

Amphibians and Reptiles California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense

FT/ST Grasslands and foothills that contain small mammal burrows (for dry-season retreats) and seasonal ponds and pools (for breeding during the rainy season).

May occur. No aquatic habitat on project site but known to occur in stock ponds 1 mile northeast of the Option A site and 0.7 mile east of the Option B site.10 Individuals from these sites could disperse across Sites A and B as well as use on-site burrows during dry season.

9 Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San

Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. 10 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013a. Unpublished map of California tiger salamander occurrences on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. April 9.






Species

Status (Federal/

State/CDFW) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence California red-legged frog Rana draytonii

FT/–/CSC Ponds, streams, drainages and associated uplands; requires areas of deep, still, and/or slow-moving water for breeding

May occur. Species has not been observed in Agua Caliente Creek during District surveys11 but could occur during dispersal events. Known to occur in stock ponds 0.5 mile and 1 mile northeast of the Option A site.12 Individuals from these sites could disperse across the Option A and B sites during rain events. California red-legged frog Critical Habitat Unit ALA-2 is located approximately 2 miles to the east of the project site and encompasses the eastern section of Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Figure V.C-2). Because this species is considered a relatively good disperser and critical habitat is considered a core area for this species, this species could occur at the project site.

Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii

–/–/CSC Partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate.

Not expected to occur. Low-quality habitat present in Agua Caliente Creek and species distribution on District lands limited to Alameda Creek watershed.13

Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata

–/–/CSC Ponds, streams, drainages, and associated uplands. May occur. Although habitat is present in Agua Caliente Creek, it has not been recorded in the creek to date.14

11 Bobzien, Steve, 2013. Biologist, East Bay Regional Park District. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. April 10. 12 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013b. Unpublished map of known, potential, and unlikely California red-legged frog habitat on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve.

April 9. 13 Bobzien, S. and J.E. DiDonato, 2007. The Status of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii), Foothill

Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii), and other Aquatic Herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District, California. East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, CA. 14 Bobzien, Steve, 2013, op. cit.






Species

Status (Federal/

State/CDFW) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Alameda striped racer (Alameda whipsnake) Coluber lateralis euryxanthus

FT/ST/– Chaparral and sage scrub with rock outcrops and an abundance of prey species such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Also, frequents riparian habitat.

Unlikely to occur due to small size of scrub patches in the Option B site (road cut below trail just north of proposed pedestrian bridge) and limited rock outcrops. Could occur in riparian woodland along Agua Caliente Creek due to the presence of chaparral and sage scrub in the vicinity. High-quality habitat is present on the slopes east of the sites but individuals potentially occupying these areas are not expected to disperse onto the site due to limited habitat availability. Alameda striped racer Critical Habitat Unit 5B is located approximately 2 miles east of the project site and encompasses the eastern section of Mission Peak (Figure V.C-2). Because this species is considered a relatively good disperser and critical habitat is considered a core area for this species, this species could occur at the project site.

Birds White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus

–/–/CFP Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes. Require dense-topped trees or shrubs for nesting and perching.

Observed flying over the Option A site on April 10, 2013. Numerous trees on site provide suitable nest sites and grassland suitable for foraging.

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

–/–/CSC Nests in wet meadows and marshes, forages over open grasslands and agricultural fields.

May occur. Grassland suitable for foraging but lack of dense ground cover and existing human disturbance precludes nesting.

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

–/–/CFP Rolling foothills and mountain areas. Nests in cliff-walled canyons or large trees in open areas.

May occasionally forage over grassland but not expected to nest in large trees along Agua Caliente due to existing human disturbance.

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

FD/SD/CFP

A variety of open habitats including coastlines, mountains, marshes, bay shorelines, and urban areas. Nest on cliffs, bridges, and tall buildings.

May rarely forage over grassland but not expected to nest due to lack of suitable nest sites. Rocky cliffs downslope of Mission Peak summit may provide suitable nesting habitat. More likely to occur along San Francisco Bay shoreline and wetlands than inland foothills.

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

–/–/CSC Open habitats (e.g., grasslands, agricultural areas) with mammal burrows or other features (e.g., culverts, pipes, debris piles) suitable for nesting and roosting.

May occur. Has not been detected on site to date15 but ground squirrel burrows and short grassland provide high-quality habitat.

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

–/–/CSC Open grasslands and woodlands with scattered shrubs, fence posts, utility lines, or other perches. Nests in dense shrubs and lower branches of trees.

May occur. Numerous trees on site provide suitable nest sites and grassland suitable for foraging.

15 Ibid.






Species

Status (Federal/

State/CDFW) Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia brewsteri

–/–/CSC Riparian woodland; nests in dense shrubs or small trees (e.g., willows).

Unlikely to nest. Willows above existing Agua Caliente Creek road crossing (Option B site) resemble breeding habitat but narrow corridor width, existing human disturbance, and rarity of breeding records around San Francisco Bay reduces likelihood of presence.

Salt marsh common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa

–/–/CSC Salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes; and riparian woodlands. Nests on or near ground in low vegetation near water.

Not expected to occur. Suitable dense vegetation near water not present.

Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor

–/–/CSC Nests in dense vegetation near open water, forages in grasslands and agricultural fields.

May occasionally forage over grasslands but not expected to nest due to lack of dense freshwater marsh or extensive stands of thistle, mustard, or other weeds.

Mammals Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

–/CT/CSC Roosts primarily in caves and abandoned mines, occasionally in buildings, bridges, rock crevices, and hollow trees; forages in open woodlands and along woodland edges.

Unlikely to occur. No caves or mines present onsite or in the immediate vicinity, and no large hollows or cavities were observed in on-site trees. Dispersing or migrating individuals may occasionally fly or forage over site for brief periods, but extended use and roosting not expected.

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

–/–/CSC Roosts in caves, tunnels, buildings, under bridges, and in tree hollows; forages over variety of habitats.

Unlikely to support a roost site (day, night, or maternity) as there are no structures on the Option A or Option B sites. Tree cavities in and along Aqua Caliente Creek, if present, could provide locations for transient day and night roosting. No large hollows or cavities were observed in on-site trees during reconnaissance surveys. Individuals may fly or forage over site for brief periods, especially within the riparian habitat.

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens

–/–/CSC Occurs in forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. Also found in chaparral habitats. Feeds mainly on woody plants: live oak, maple, coffeeberry, alder, and elderberry.

Not expected to occur. Woodland along Agua Caliente provides habitat but no stick nests observed during April 10, 2013, and May 4, 2015, site visits.

American badger Taxidea taxus

–/–/CSC Open, dry habitats (e.g., grasslands) with friable soils. Not expected to occur. Although suitable habitat present in grassland no potential dens observed during April 10, 2013, and May 4, 2015, reconnaissance surveys.

DPS = distinct population segment

Status FE = federally endangered SD = State delisted FT = federally threatened CT = Candidate threatened FD = federally delisted CSC = California Species of Special Concern SE = State endangered CFP = California Fully Protected Species ST = State threatened

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., August 2015





Animals. Based on a review of the information sources listed above and LSA’s habitat observations during the April 10, 2013, site visit, LSA identified 21 special-status animal species as potentially occurring in the site vicinity (Table V.C-4). Species associated with tidal marsh and other Bay shoreline habitats (e.g., California Ridgway’s rail, salt marsh harvest mouse) were immediately eliminated from consideration and are not included in Table V.C-4. The open grassland of the project site provides foraging habitat for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), but none of these species are expected to breed on site due to the absence of suitable nest or roost sites. California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander are both listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (tiger salamanders are also listed under the California Endangered Species Act [CESA]) and are known to occur in nearby stock ponds so are discussed in further detail below. Although Alameda striped racer (Coluber lateralis euryxanthus) is unlikely to occur on the sites, it is also discussed below due to its listing status (federal and State threatened) and the presence of limited scrub on the site. Four additional species, western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), are also discussed below based on the presence of marginal to high-quality habitat on the site. The remaining 10 species are not expected to occur based on the absence of habitat and are not discussed further. All special-status animal species that potentially occur on the project site were included in Table V.C-4.

California Tiger Salamander. California tiger salamanders occur in grassland and oak woodland habitats of the Central Valley and coastal hills and valleys from Santa Rosa southward to the Santa Rita Hills.16 During the dry summer months, adult and juvenile tiger salamanders remain underground in small rodent burrows or soil cracks in order to survive the summer heat.17 After the first autumn rains, adults emerge from underground to mate and lay their eggs in vernal pools, stock ponds, and other ephemeral water bodies where fish and other predators of tiger salamander eggs and larvae are absent. After hatching, larvae remain in the water during metamorphosis to juvenile form. After metamorphosis is complete, juveniles disperse from the aquatic breeding site to underground burrows or crevices for the summer. The distance between upland sites and aquatic breeding sites depends on local topography, vegetation, and the distribution of rodent burrows. A recent study by Trenham and Shaffer18 showed that 95 percent of adult tiger salamanders dispersed to within 2,034 feet of their breeding pond, and that 95 percent of sub-adults dispersed to within 2,067 feet. Another recent five-year study found tiger salamander movements as potentially far as 1.3 miles to and from breeding ponds.19 The CNDDB includes six tiger salamander occurrences within 3 miles of the project area (Figure V.C-2), the closest of which is at Rancho Higuera Park approximately 1.1 miles to the southeast,

16 Stebbins, R.C., 2003. A Field Guide to Western Amphibians and Reptiles. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin,

Boston, Massachusetts. 17 Ibid. 18 Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer, 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population

viability. In Ecological Applications 15(4):1158–1168. 19 Orloff, S. 2007. Migratory movements of California tiger salamander in upland habitat – a five-year study:

Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates LLC, Walnut Creek, CA.





where a single larva was collected from an artificial pond on May 9, 1998.20 In addition, the District has observed tiger salamander larvae in stock ponds 1 mile northeast of the Option A site (upper end of north fork of Agua Caliente) and 0.7 mile east of the Option B site.21 All three of these occurrences are within the 1.3-mile maximum known dispersal distance of tiger salamanders. Although potential California tiger salamander breeding habitat (i.e., stock ponds) is generally absent from the project sites, the presence of suitable underground retreats (ground squirrel and gopher burrows) on both sites and proximity of occupied breeding ponds make it possible for this species to occur on site during dispersal events and/or the dry season. It is expected that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW would consider both sites as potentially occupied by California tiger salamanders.

California Red-Legged Frog. California red-legged frogs occur in and along freshwater marshes, streams, ponds, and other semi-permanent water sources. Optimal habitat contains emergent or riparian vegetation closely associated with deep (i.e., greater than 2.3 feet), still, or slow-moving water.22 Although the species can occur in intermittent streams and ponds, they are unlikely to successfully breed in streams in which all surface water disappears.23 Suitable breeding ponds and pools usually have a minimum depth of 20 inches, but California red-legged frogs do sometimes breed successfully in pools as shallow as 10 inches.24 Regardless of water depth, breeding habitat must contain water for egg, tadpole, and metamorphic development. Limited information is available regarding California red-legged frog use of uplands and other non-breeding habitats. In a recent study of California red-legged frog habitat use in coastal Marin County, however, Fellers and Kleeman25 found that while some frogs remained at breeding sites year-round, 66 percent of female and 25 percent of male frogs moved to non-breeding areas, even when the breeding site retained water. At all of their study sites, frogs moved primarily in one direction, often toward the nearest riparian area. They concluded that non-breeding habitats must have the following characteristics: 1) sufficient moisture to allow amphibians to survive throughout the non-breeding season (up to 11 months); 2) sufficient cover to moderate temperatures during the warmest and coldest times of the year; and 3) protection (e.g., deep pools in a stream or complex cover such as root masses or thick vegetation) from predators such as raptors, herons, and small carnivores. The only CNDDB occurrence within 3 miles of the site is a July 30, 1996 observation of an adult and juvenile California red-legged frog in Agua Caliente Creek, approximately 0.5 mile southwest (downstream) of the project area.26 California red-legged frogs are also known to occupy two stock

20 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015, op. cit. Occurrence No. 446. 21 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013a, op. cit. 22 Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes, 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final

report to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. 23 Ibid. 24 Fellers, G.M., 2005. California red-legged frog. M. Lannoo, editor. In Amphibian Declines: The Conservation

Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley. 25 Fellers, G.M. and P.M. Kleeman, 2007. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) movement and habitat use:

implications for conservation. In Journal of Herpetology 41(2):276–286. 26 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015, op. cit.





ponds along the north fork of Agua Caliente Creek, 0.5 and 1 mile northeast of the Option A site, respectively.27 There are no additional occurrences within 1 mile of the site, which is the distance at which the USFWS evaluates a site’s potential to support the species in its Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.28 Aquatic features within 1 mile of the sites include Laurel Creek (300 feet north of the Option A site), four stock ponds (including the two mentioned above), Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries, and artificially constructed drainage channels in the residential neighborhoods to the west. Although California red-legged frogs have not been observed in the reach of Agua Caliente Creek within the Mission Peak Regional Preserve, it is considered potential foraging and dispersal habitat by District biologists.29 Although the creek contains several permanent pools, stream conditions in the reaches adjacent to the Option A and B sites appear not to be suitable for egg disposition or developing larvae. The grassland within the Option A and B sites is within dispersal distance of occupied ponds and could thus be used by dispersing frogs.

Alameda Striped Racer. Alameda striped racer (or Alameda whipsnake) is found primarily in areas that support scrub communities, including mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral, coastal scrub, and annual grassland, oak woodlands, and valley foothill riparian scrub habitats. Within these plant communities, specific habitat features needed by striped racers include, but are not limited to, small mammal burrows, rock outcrops, talus, and cover types that provide temperature regulation, shelter from predators, egg-laying sites, and winter hibernation refuges. Many of these same elements are important in maintaining prey species (e.g., western fence lizards). Swaim30 described the concept of “core area” in assessing Alameda striped racer habitat. A “core area” is an area of concentrated use by one or more Alameda striped racers, and is believed to be centered on open-canopy scrub on east-, southeast-, south-, and southwest-facing slopes or in grasslands near the scrub community with the same aspects.31 Rock outcrops and woody debris are common components of core areas since they provide cover for Alameda striped racers as well as western fence lizards, the principal food source for the species. The CNDDB contains a lone Alameda striped racer occurrence in the hills approximately 1 mile northeast of the Option B site.32 Extensive stands of chaparral that provide high-quality Alameda striped racer habitat are present on the slopes along the upper reaches of the central and south forks of Agua Caliente Creek, approximately 0.2 mile east of the Option B site. Smaller stands of California sage scrub are present on the slopes adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek approximately 200 feet east of the Option B site, and sparse patches of sagebrush are present along an intermittent drainage and road cut just north of the proposed pedestrian bridge at the northeastern corner of the Option B site.

27 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013b, op. cit. 28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Revised guidance on site assessments and field surveys for the California

Red-legged Frog. Website: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/crf_survey_guidance_aug2005.pdf. August.

29 Bobzien, Steve, 2013, op. cit. 30 Swaim, K., 1994. Aspects of the ecology of the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). M.S.

Thesis, California State University at Hayward. 140 pp. 31 Ibid. 32 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015, op. cit.





Despite the presence of scrub within the Option B site, Alameda striped racer is unlikely to occur on the project sites given the small size, scattered distribution, and openness of available scrub; existing human disturbance levels (including predation pressure from dogs); and lack of scrub or chaparral habitat to the west towards which Alameda striped racers from the east might disperse through the Option A and/or B sites.

Western Pond Turtle. The western pond turtle is a California Species of Special Concern. Pond turtles use permanent or nearly permanent water bodies in a variety of habitats. They can be found in ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches within grasslands, woodlands, and open forests. Basking sites such as logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks are necessary for thermoregulation. Upland areas, frequently in grassland, are used for egg laying. Although pond turtles have not been observed in Agua Caliente Creek to date, the creek, tributary, and adjacent grasslands are considered potential habitat for the species.33

White-Tailed Kite. The white-tailed kite is a California Fully Protected Species. This species nests in trees or large shrubs with dense foliage located near suitable foraging habitat (e.g., grasslands, marshes, agricultural fields). Preferred prey includes California voles and mice. LSA observed a single white-tailed kite flying north across the western edge of the Option A site on April 10, 2013. Although no nests were found during the site visit, the numerous trees along Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries provide suitable nest sites and marginal foraging habitat is present in the grassland. As such, this species may nest on the site in the future.

Burrowing Owl. Burrowing owls have undergone substantial population declines throughout central and coastal California, primarily due to habitat loss.34 This species occurs in open, well-drained grasslands with abundant small mammal burrows, particularly those of California ground squirrels. Burrowing owls also prefer areas with short vegetation so they can easily scan their surroundings and spot potential predators.35 The CNDDB contains five burrowing owl records within 1 mile of the site, the closest of which is a June 19, 2004, observation of five owls near the intersection of Osgood Road and Grimmer Boulevard in the Warm Springs District of Fremont, approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest.36 The remaining occurrences are also within the Warm Springs District, which is one of the few areas in western Alameda County where burrowing owls persist. Burrowing owls have not been observed within the project area to date,37 but the presence of multiple ground squirrel burrows and low grass height on both sites provide ideal habitat conditions for the species. No owls or sign of their presence were observed during LSA’s reconnaissance survey, but burrowing owls may occur on site in the future.

33 Bobzien, Steve, 2013, op. cit. 34 DeSante, D. F., et al., 2007. A census of Burrowing Owls in central California in 1991. Pages 38–48. J. L. Lincer

and K. Steenhof, editors. In The Burrowing Owl, Its Biology and Management: Including the Proceedings of the First International Symposium. Raptor Research Report No. 9.

35 Zarn, M., 1974. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea). Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species, Technical Report T-N-250. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

36 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2013, op. cit. 37 Bobzien, Steve, 2013, op. cit.





Loggerhead Shrike. The loggerhead shrike is a California Species of Special Concern. Shrikes occur in open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, and other perches. They primarily nest in the lower branches of dense shrubs and trees, although they have also been observed nesting in buildings and debris piles. They feed primarily on large insects, small birds, and small mammals. Although no shrikes were observed on the site during LSA’s site visit, the numerous trees and shrubs provide suitable nest and perch sites. This species may nest on the site in the future.

(6) Jurisdictional Waters. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) usually has jurisdiction over the portion of a project site that contains waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. Corps regulation is intended to avoid adverse impacts on waters of the United States, including wetlands. LSA completed a formal delineation of potential waters of the United States in May 2015, which has not been verified by the Corps as of September 2015 (see Appendix C of this EIR). The Corps would verify the wetland delineation as part of the regulatory permitting process. Potential jurisdictional waters at both the Option A and B sites are discussed below.

Option A. Potential seasonal wetlands were observed near the proposed detention pond in the northern portion of the Option A site (Figure V-C.1a). No depressions or drainages containing potential wetland characteristics (e.g., hydrophytic vegetation, evidence of scour) were observed in the other upland portions of the Option A site during LSA’s wetland delineation. At the Hidden Valley Trail, an existing 5-foot diameter culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek is included as part of the Option A site (see Figure III-2a). The tributary to Agua Caliente Creek is expected to qualify as waters of the United States since it is hydrologically linked to San Francisco Bay. The tributary width at this location is approximately 15 feet from top-of-bank to top-of-bank with a stream width of 4 feet.

Option B. The Option B site includes portions of Agua Caliente Creek, including areas for proposed bridge crossings and culvert removal. Agua Caliente Creek is expected to qualify as waters of the United States since it is hydrologically linked to San Francisco Bay. Agua Caliente Creek is also expected to qualify as waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Water Board. The approximate channel width is 20 feet at top-of-bank at the existing Peak Meadow Trail culvert crossing over Agua Caliente Creek. The channel width is 30 to 40 feet at the location of the northern proposed pedestrian bridge crossing in the north end of the Option B site and 60 feet at the location of the southern proposed pedestrian bridge crossing in the middle of the Option B site. The width of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream at this location is 4 feet. The stream substrate is comprised primarily of exposed bedrock, boulders, and cobble. Approximately 300 linear feet of Agua Caliente Creek (180 feet at downstream of Peak Meadow Trail crossing/culvert, 120 feet at upstream crossing/pedestrian bridge) would be within the disturbed area for Option B as depicted in Figure III-3a in the Chapter III, Project Description. The existing culvert at the Peak Meadow Trail crossing is approximately 5 feet in diameter. Agua Caliente Creek and its associated riparian woodland are also under CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. CDFW jurisdiction extends to the outer dripline of riparian woodland. Option B would impact approximately 0.3 acres of riparian woodland for the two new creek crossings and the removal of the existing crossing.





(7) Special-Status Natural Communities. The CNDDB contains records for five special-status natural communities in the site vicinity: northern coastal salt marsh, northern maritime chaparral, serpentine bunchgrass, sycamore alluvial woodland, and valley needlegrass grassland. None of these communities occur on or adjacent to the site. c. Regulatory Context. Relevant regulations concerning biological resources are summarized below.

(1) Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The federal ESA protects listed animal species from harm or “take” which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species under the ESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under the ESA, but may become listed in the near future and are often considered in their review of a project.

(2) California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is administered by CDFW and prohibits the take of plant and animal species identified as either threatened or endangered in the State of California by the Fish and Game Commission (Fish and Game Code Section 2050-2089). "Take" means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill. Sections 2081 and 2080.1 of the CESA allow CDFW to authorize exceptions to the prohibition of take of the State-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species for purposes such as public and private development.

(3) California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or State lists of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in the ESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW.

(4) Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the United States are termed isolated wetlands and, depending on the circumstances, may also be subject to Corps jurisdiction. In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of the United States. The type of permit depends on the acreage involved and the purpose of the proposed fill. Minor amounts of fill can be covered by a Nationwide Permit. An Individual Permit is required for projects that result in more than a “minimal” impact on jurisdictional areas.





(5) California Water Quality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs.Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the Corps must obtain water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). This certification ensures that the project will meet State water quality standards. The Water Board has a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands and typically requires the identification of mitigation for all impacts to wetlands before it will issue water quality certification. When reviewing applications, the Water Board focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the “beneficial uses” associated with waters of the State. Generally, the Water Board defines beneficial uses to include all of the resources, services, and qualities of aquatic ecosystems and underground aquifers that benefit the State. For most construction projects, the Water Board seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of water quality control measures into projects that will result in discharge into waters of the State. The Water Board typically requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices (BMPs) to protect and maintain water quality.

(6) Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most bird species native to North America are protected under this act.

(7) California Fish and Game Code. CDFW is also responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code, which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. For example, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code governs the issuance of Streambed Alteration Agreements. Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by CDFW. The Fish and Game Code also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully Protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code, while Protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their nests. These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds. Non-native species, including European starling, house sparrow, and rock pigeon, are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code.

(8) East Alameda County Conservation Strategy and Associated Biological Opinion. The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a multi-agency/jurisdiction cooperative effort to address conflicts between development and infrastructure maintenance activities and the continued survival of endangered and threatened species. The EACCS is intended to better coordinate mitigation requirements for habitat preservation and to help focus mitigation measures for strategic





biological value. The District is a partner in the EACCS, but the City of Fremont is not. The EACCS was developed in close coordination with the USFWS, the CDFW, and the Water Board. The EACCS includes goals, objectives, and mitigation guidance for endangered and threatened species based on the needs of these species and their habitat, and serves to streamline the permitting processes for projects. The Biological Opinion for the EACCS was issued by the USFWS in 2012, and was developed with the Corps as a tool to implement the EACCS. The Biological Opinion was issued to the Corps for permit, enforcement actions, and mitigation bank projects under Corps jurisdiction and includes general and species-specific minimization measures to minimize adverse effects to listed species and their habitats. The project sites are located just west of the EACCS study area boundary.

(9) City of Fremont General Plan Policies. The Conservation Element of the City of Fremont’s General Plan includes policies encouraging the protection of biological resources. The primary biological resources policies applicable to the proposed project include the following:

Policy 7-1.1: Preservation of Natural Habitat. Preserve and protect fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitats including wetlands, creeks, lakes, ponds, saltwater bodies and other riparian areas. Maintain these areas for their critical biological values and to help improve water quality.

Policy 7-1.2: Protection of Species. Preserve and protect rare, threatened, endangered and candidate species and their habitats consistent with State and federal law.

Policy 7-1.3: Preservation of Hill Areas. Preserve and protect the Hill Area woodlands and vegetative areas, especially along the ridgeline, in canyons and on vegetated north-facing slopes.

Policy 7-1.5: Promotion of Interagency Coordination. Promote interagency coordination for the protection and preservation of biological resources.

o Implementation 7-1.5.A: Maximize the biological values of publicly owned lands, consistent with other public purposes (recreation, flood control, groundwater recharge, etc.) when opportunities for preservation occur.

Policy 7-1.7: Mitigate Development Impacts. Mitigate the impacts of development on the natural environment to the extent possible through sound planning, design, and management of development projects.

(10) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District’s Master Plan38 policies

most pertinent to biological resources in the project area are excerpted and/or summarized, below, as appropriate.

Policy NRM1. The District will maintain, manage, conserve, enhance and restore park wildland resources to protect essential plant and animal habitat within viable, sustainable ecosystems.

Policy NRM2. Plant and animal pest species will be controlled by using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) procedures and practices adopted by the Board of Directors. The District will employ IPM practices to minimize the impact of undesirable species on natural resource and to reduce pest-related health and safety risks to the public within developed facilities and/or high-use recreational areas.

Policy NRM3. The District will manage park wildlands using modern resource management practices based on scientific principles supported by available research. New scientific information will be incorporated into the planning and implementation of District wildland management






programs as it becomes available. The District will coordinate with other agencies and organization in a concerted effort to inventory, evaluate, and manage natural resources and to maintain and enhance biodiversity of the region.

Policy NRM4. The District will identify, evaluate, conserve, enhance and restore rare, threatened, endangered or locally important species of plants and animals and their habitats, using scientific research, field experience and other proven methodologies. Populations of listed species will be monitored through periodic observations of their condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and distribution. Conservation of rare, threatened and endangered species of plants and animals and their supporting habitats will take precedence over other activities, if the District determines that the other uses and activities would have a significant adverse effect on these natural resources.

Policy NRM5. The District will maintain and manage vegetation to conserve, enhance and restore natural plant communities, to preserve and protect populations of rare, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species and their habitats, and, where possible, to protect biodiversity and to achieve a high representation of native plants and animals.

Policy NRM6. The District will evaluate exotic eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress plantations, shrubland or woodland areas occurring along the wildland/urban interface on a case-by-case basis for thinning, removal and/or conversion to a less fire-prone condition, following the methods laid out in the Fuels Management Plan. The District will minimize the widespread encroachment of exotic and/or invasive species such as coyote brush, poison oak, and broom, etc. on parkland and work to preserve native plants where feasible.

Policy NRM7. The District will manage agricultural sites and cultivated areas in accordance with appropriate agricultural or landscaping practices and IPM methods to control noxious weed infestation, broom and other invasive, non-native shrubs and to eventually replace these invasive plants with desirable native species.

Policy NRM8. The District will conserve, enhance and restore biological resources to promote naturally functioning ecosystems. Conservation efforts may involve using managed conservation grazing in accordance with the District’s Wildlife Management Policies and Guidelines, prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, IPM, and/or habitat protection and restoration. Restoration activities may involve the removal of invasive plants and animals, or the reintroduction of native or naturalized species, adapted to or representative of a given site.

Policy NRM9. The District will conserve and protect native animal species and enhance their habitats to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. Non-native and feral animals will be managed to minimize conflicts with native wildlife species. The District will cooperate on a regular basis with other public and private land managers, and recognized wildlife management experts to address wildlife management issues on a regional scale.

Policy NRM10. The District will conserve, enhance and restore native fish and amphibian populations and their habitats; will develop aquatic facilities, where appropriate, to create a wide variety of fisheries; will monitor fisheries resources to determine species composition, size, population, and growth rates; and will cooperate with the CDFW to conserve, enhance and manage its fisheries resources for ecological and recreational benefits.

Policy NRM12. The District will manage riparian and other wetland environments and their buffer zones to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of these important resources and to prevent the destruction, loss, or degradation of habitat. The District will participate in the preservation, restoration, and management of riparian and wetland areas of regional significance, and will not initiate any action that could result in a net decrease in park wetlands. The District will encourage public access to the Bay/Delta shoreline, but will control access to riparian and wetlands areas, when necessary, to protection natural resources.





(11) Other Statutes, Codes, and Policies. This section describes three additional agency policies or designations that are relevant to the project site: California Rare Plant Ranks, special-status natural communities, and the City of Fremont’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

California Rare Plant Ranks. Special-status plants in California are assigned to one of five “California Rare Plant Ranks” by a collaborative group of over 300 botanists in government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. This effort is jointly managed by the CDFW and the CNPS. The five California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) currently recognized by the CNDDB are:

Rare Plant Rank 1A – presumed extinct in California.

Rare Plant Rank 1B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

Rare Plant Rank 2 – rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

Rare Plant Rank 3 – a review list of plants about which more information is needed.

Rare Plant Rank 4 – a watch list of plants of limited distribution. All of the plant species on List 1A, List 1B, and List 2 meet the requirements of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for State listing. Therefore, plants appearing on Lists 1A, 1B, or 2 are considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria and effects to these species would be considered “significant” for the purposes of CEQA.

Special-Status Natural Communities. The CDFW tracks the occurrences of natural plant communities that are of limited distribution Statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. In the most recent list of vegetation alliances/natural communities recognized in California,39 alliances with a NatureServe State ranking code of S1 through S3 are considered to be “highly imperiled” and impacts to stands of these vegetation types/natural communities may be considered significant under CEQA. These special-status natural communities are sometimes considered by lead or trustee agencies, but generally are not afforded the same protection as CNPS List 1B and 2 plant species. Many special-status natural communities support special-status plants and animals and are addressed under CEQA as habitat for those species. Most types of wetlands and riparian communities are also considered special-status natural communi-ties due to their limited distribution in California. While impacts to such communities would be considered significant under CEQA, wetlands and riparian communities are also afforded legal protection under Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code (see above). Project proponents impacting wetlands and/or riparian communities must therefore obtain permits from the Corps, Water Board, and/or CDFW as well as comply with CEQA. As such, these communities are typically addressed separately from “non-jurisdictional” special-status natural communities when evaluating project impacts under CEQA.

39 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2010. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life

Form. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Available online at: www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf (accessed July 2015). September.





City of Fremont Tree Protection Ordinance. Chapter 18.215 of the City’s municipal code (Tree Preservation Ordinance) regulates the removal of Protected and Landmark Trees and makes provisions for native tree and forest retention and mitigation. Protected Trees include: 1) any tree having a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6 inches or more and located on a vacant or undeveloped lot; 2) any tree having a DBH of 6 inches or more and located on a developed lot which is the subject of a contemplated or pending application for a development project; 3) any native tree or tree of exceptional adaptability to the Fremont area having a DBH of 10 inches or more; 4) any tree having a DBH of 18 inches or more; 5) any tree that was required by the City to be planted or retained as mitigation for the removal of a tree; 6) any tree planted or retained as a condition of any City-conferred development project approval, including approvals conferred prior to adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, or 7) one of six or more trees of the same species that are located on the same lot and that each have 6 or more inches in DBH.40 Landmark Trees are those designated by the City Council as having cultural, historic, or social value to Fremont that receive protection beyond that of other Protected Trees. Under the ordinance, mitigation is required for each tree removed and is accomplished by planting of one replacement tree of a species and in a location approved by the City. If the property cannot fully accommodate the mitigation, the applicant can pay the City a fee in lieu of on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site. When a fee payment is received, the City uses the proceeds to plant or upgrade street trees throughout the City, to plant trees in public places, such parks and open spaces, and to fund administrative activity related to the tree protection ordinance and other activities that will benefit the City’s urban forest. The amount of the fee shall be equal to the number of trees impacted multiplied by the per unit cost to the City for a planted tree as established by the City’s last award of a contract following a competitive bid for such work. 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The following section identifies potential impacts to biological resources that could result from the development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option B site. This section first lists the criteria by which significance is determined, followed by a discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, as necessary. a. Significance Criteria. The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;

Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural commu-nity identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;

Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or State-protected wetlands as defined through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

40 Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Section 18.215.050.





Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City's tree preservation ordinances;

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans; or

Result in a substantial conversion of oak woodlands. b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to biological resources. Potential impacts associated with development of the Option A site are discussed first, followed by potential impacts at the Option B site. As discussed in more detail below, development of the Option A site would permanently impact 9.49 acres of grasslands, 0.004 acre of riparian woodland, 0.004 acre of ornamental trees, and 0.15 acre of existing developed areas. Development of the Option B site would permanently impact 9.35 acres of grasslands, 0.28 acre of riparian woodland, 0.002 acre of ornamental trees, and 0.79 acre of existing developed areas.

(1) Adverse Effects to Special-Status Species. Implementation of the proposed project at either site could adversely affect special-status plant and animal species, as discussed below. Addi-tional impacts to special-status species could occur with culvert repair or removal as part of Option A or Option B development, due to construction activities occurring within Aqua Caliente Creek or its tributary. These impacts are also identified in this subsection. As discussed, all impacts associated with adverse effects to special-status species would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of recommended mitigation measures by ensuring the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special-status species, their habitat, or protected wetlands.

Option A. Development of the Option A site could adversely affect California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer, all of which are listed under the federal ESA (California tiger salamanders and Alameda striped racers are also listed under CESA). The project could also affect three CRPR 1B plant species (round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant), if present. Specific impacts to these species and mitigation measures recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level are described below. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would ensure that Option A would not result in a substantial adverse effect on these species. Option A Impact BIO-1: Development of the Option A site could result in take of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped racer. (S) The Option A site is within dispersal distance of ponds known to support breeding California tiger salamanders, and the multiple rodent burrows within the site provide suitable underground retreats during the dry season. However, relocation of California tiger salamanders is not proposed prior to construction due to the distance of the site from the occupied breeding ponds. California red-legged frogs could occur in uplands adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek especially considering the presence of occupied ponds in the vicinity. Because Alameda striped racers may occur in riparian habitats and are known to occur in scrub habitat near the project area, this species could occur in the riparian habitat along Agua Caliente Creek. Grading and other construction activities could result in mortality of





individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and/or Alameda striped racers using burrows, soil crevices, or other retreats within the grading footprint of both sites. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential direct impacts to California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of the proposed Option A site would not have a substantial adverse effect on these species.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The District shall implement the following measures before, during, and after construction at the Option A site to avoid significant impacts to individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Additional measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permitting process.

A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers shall be present onsite during all ground disturbing activities to search for salamanders and frogs that may be unearthed during excavation. The biological monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt work if a California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, or Alameda striped racer is found onsite. California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, and/or Alameda striped racers shall be removed from the construction area following the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species permits (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7 Biological Opinion). The District shall report all discoveries of listed species in the construction areas to resource agencies according to the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species permits.

Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct environ-mental awareness training for construction personnel, including all project representatives. Training sessions shall also be required for any new construction personnel before being allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall include an overview of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology (including habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and CESA, and project-specific avoidance measures being implemented to avoid impacts on California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.

Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the work area to prevent California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work area during construction. The fence must be constructed of a material that is durable and has been approved by the USFWS and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing frogs, salamanders, and snakes from passing under, over, around, or through the fence. The qualified biologist shall be on site during fence installation and initial site clearing and grubbing activities. The biologist shall inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing construction activities to ensure it is properly maintained and functioning to exclude California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from the work area. The fence shall remain in place until all construction is completed and equipment is demobilized.





To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 3-inches deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.

Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall (less than 0.25 inch per 24-hour period and less than 40 percent chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the 72-hour weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior to the startup of any ground disturbing activities on the project site. Construction activities shall cease 24 hours prior to a 40 percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction may continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is no precipitation in the 24-hour forecast. Contractor specifications shall include the following worker restrictions and guidelines, at a minimum:

Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within designated work areas. Entry into adjacent Preserve lands or established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.

All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All trash (e.g., food scraps, cans, bottles, containers, wrappers, cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed in closed containers and properly disposed off-site.

No pets or firearms shall be allowed on site.

All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or lubricated in a designated area at least 100 feet from aquatic habitats.

In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or injured or if a special-status species is observed to be injured, dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall immediately notify the District , work shall stop, and the District shall notify the USFWS and CDFW.

As part of the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implementation, the District shall include in the specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of natural materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion control to ensure that special-status species do not get trapped. Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material shall be prohibited.

Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be restored to pre-project grades and contours and stabilized to prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized grass and forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed by the project. The seed shall be from sources that are regionally appropriate for the site. (LTS)

Option A Impact BIO-2: Development of the Option A site would result in the permanent loss of upland habitat for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer (S). The grassland on the Option A site provides upland habitat for California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Individual California tiger salamanders from nearby breeding ponds may use the available ground squirrel burrows as dry-season retreats and may also move onto the site during dispersal events. Alameda striped racers could also occur in the grasslands on the project site due to the proximity suitable riparian woodland along Agua Caliente Creek. The presence of designated critical habitat for Alameda striped racers just 2 miles east of the





site (Figure V.C-1) also makes it possible that racers could occasionally occur in the upland portions of the project sites. Development of the Option A site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 9.64-acre area, 2.78 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements) and 9.49 acres of impact to grassland (the remaining 0.15 acres consists of existing developed areas). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 11.71 acres. The loss of 9.49 acres of grassland associated with the Option A site would constitute a permanent loss of upland habitat for the species. However, the remaining pervious surface acreage (e.g., landscaping, trails and unpaved roadways, and storm drainage facilities) may continue to provide habitat for California tiger salamanders and Alameda striper racers, although the permanent removal of 9.49 acres of grasslands would continue to be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of California tiger salamander upland habitat and thus ensure Option A will not have a substantial adverse effect on its habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options:

Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off site in a suitable location for California tiger salamander and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement must be documented to support California tiger salamanders through observation of California tiger salamander larvae in a breeding pond on or immediately adjacent to the grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the parcel to be acquired as mitigation, must also be preserved in a conservation easement or other appropriate land use restriction instrument or be located on preserved land (County or State park) to ensure the viability of the grassland as California tiger salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be documented to regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to be considered successful breeding ponds;

Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program; or

Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda striped racer habitat and thus ensuring Option A will not have a substantial adverse effect on its habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options:

Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off site in a suitable Alameda County location and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement or other





appropriate land use restriction instrument must be documented to support Alameda striped racers through observation of Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to the grassland area;

Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program;

Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County; or

Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity. (LTS)

Option A Impact BIO-3: Development of the Option A site may result in the destruction of burrows occupied by burrowing owls, a California Species of Special Concern. (S) Although burrowing owls have not been detected at the Option A site to date, the site contains potential habitat (i.e., ground squirrel burrows within short vegetation). If burrowing owls occupy the site(s) in the future, project construction and grading could result in the destruction of occupied burrows and consequent mortality of adults and/or young. Implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The primary intent of this mitigation measure is to avoid substantial adverse effects to burrowing owls during project construction. Because burrowing owls and California tiger salamander have similar upland habitat requirements (grasslands containing abundant small mammal burrows), lands preserved as California tiger salamander habitat under Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-2 are also expected to benefit burrowing owls provided that burrows are present and vegetation height is kept short during the burrowing owl breeding season (March through August).

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-3: No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction/take avoidance survey for burrowing owls using methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report).41 If no burrowing owls are detected during the initial take avoidance survey, a final survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that owls are still absent. If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within the construction footprint, individuals may be excluded from burrows using one-way doors provided that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Given the availability of suitable burrows in lands adjacent to the Option A site, passive relocation of burrowing owls at Mission Peak is not expected to significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local population. Any burrow exclusion efforts shall be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to ensure that substantial adverse effects are avoided. If burrow exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season, daily monitoring shall be conducted for one week prior to the exclusion to confirm that any young of the year have fledged.

41 California Department of Fish and Game, 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.





If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during the breeding season, occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing buffers around the burrows in which no work shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest attempt has failed or that young have fledged and can forage independently of the adults. A minimum buffer of at least 250 feet shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing owls present on site after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless focused monitoring by a qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl reproductive behavior indicates that the observed individual is unpaired or that egg-laying has not yet begun. A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan will be developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. (LTS)

Option A Impact BIO-4: Development of the Option A site could result in impacts to nesting loggerhead shrikes, white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. (S) Construction activities in and adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek to address the culvert headwall repair may result in the removal of trees and other vegetation that could be used by nesting birds, including special-status species such as loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite. Although development of the Option A site would not remove any trees or shrubs, grading activities could result in the destruction of ground-nesting birds such as western meadowlark and killdeer. If conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), such activities could directly impact nesting birds. Construction-related disturbance (e.g., noise, vehicle traffic, personnel working adjacent to nesting habitat) could also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nests in nearby trees or other vegetation, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by ensuring the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on these protected birds.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in searching for passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. (LTS)

Option A Impact BIO-5: Development of the Option A site could result in impacts to three special-status grassland plant species, if present. (S) Although the April 10, 2013, reconnaissance survey was within the time frame of expected blooming for round-leaved filaree (March–May), the early spring in 2013 may have resulted in the species going undetected due to early blooming. In addition, the survey was conducted outside the peak blooming period for fragrant fritillary (February–April) and Santa Cruz tarplant (June–October).





Habitat for all three species is present in the grassland within the Option A site, and grading activities could result in the loss of populations of these species, if present. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on these grassland plant species.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and round-leaved filaree and in late summer/early fall (August–October) for Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.42 If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz tarplant is found during the focused botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be reviewed to evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants cannot be avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage and recovery plan for the affected species. The plan shall incorporate the following, at a minimum:

Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and monitoring plans;

Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined goals focusing on plant establishment (stability, succession, reproduction) and non-native species control measures;

Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or seeds;

Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and monitoring program by a qualified restoration team to ensure that the project goals and performance standards are met. The monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as needed to correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report, prepared by the District and subject to approval by CDFW, shall document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and monitoring shall be specified; and

Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements and the responsibility for implementation. (LTS)

Option A Impact BIO-6: Culvert repair activities associated with Option A development could result in the mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and/or western pond turtles potentially occurring in the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek. (S) The tributary to Agua Caliente Creek may support dispersing, foraging, and/or resting California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and western pond turtles, even though no CNDDB occurrences

42 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special

Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24.





of these species have been recorded in this stream reach to date.43 Culvert repair activities may result in substantial adverse effects to individual California red-legged frogs and/or Alameda striped racers if appropriate avoidance and minimization measures or not implemented. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and ensure the Option A would not have a substantial adverse effect on these protected species.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Construction activities within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek associated with development of Option A would be subject to the following additional measures:

All work within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option A culvert repair) shall be conducted between August 1 and October 31, and typically subsequent to California red-legged frogs breeding activity (egg deposition, tadpole development, and metamorphism). .

The USFWS and CDFW qualified biologist shall survey the in-water work areas within 48 hours before the initiation of construction activities. If any life stage of California red-legged frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is found, District biologist shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to determine if moving them is appropriate. If the agencies approve relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a USFWS and CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior to the initiation of construction. The biologist shall maintain detailed records of any individuals that are moved (e.g., size, coloration, any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning to their original point of capture.

The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be diverted using gravity flow through temporary culverts/pipes or pumped around the work area with the use of hoses, discharging downstream to maintain flow.

Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel locations and no more than 20 feet upstream or downstream of the work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when construction of the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be constructed only from materials that will cause little or no siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags (filled with clean sand), or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent seepage into or out of the work area. Cofferdams shall be placed and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering system shall remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows shall be restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work by removing the dewatering system.

The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters (mm) to prevent California red-legged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from entering the pump system.

The contractor and qualified biologist shall check daily for stranded aquatic life as the water level in the dewatering area drops. All reasonable efforts shall be made to capture and move all stranded, native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas. Capture

43 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial version

dated May 31, 2015. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento.





methods may include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets, and or by hand. Captured native aquatic life shall be released downstream of the dewatered area. The biologist shall permanently remove any individuals or exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and centrarchid fishes, from the work area.

No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be operated within the live stream. (LTS)

Option B. Development of the Option B site could adversely affect California tiger

salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer, all of which are listed under the federal ESA (California tiger salamanders and Alameda striped racers are also listed under CESA). The project could also affect three CRPR 1B plant species (round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant), if present. Specific impacts to these species and mitigation measures recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level are described below. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would ensure that Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any protected species, habitat, or protected wetlands. Option B Impact BIO-1: Development of the Option B site could result in take of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped racer. (S) The Option B site is within dispersal distance of ponds known to support breeding California tiger salamanders, and the multiple rodent burrows within the site provide suitable underground retreats during the dry season. However, relocation of California tiger salamanders is not proposed prior to construction due to the distance of the site from the occupied breeding ponds. California red-legged frogs could occur in uplands adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek especially considering the presence of occupied ponds in the vicinity. Because Alameda striped racers may occur in riparian habitats and are known to occur in scrub habitat near the project area, this species could occur in the riparian habitat along Agua Caliente Creek. Grading and other construction activities could result in mortality of individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and/or Alameda striped racers using burrows, soil crevices, or other retreats within the grading footprint of both sites. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential direct impacts to California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer to a less-than-significant level by ensuring the development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on these protected species.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The District shall implement the following measures before, during, and after construction at the Option B site to avoid significant impacts to individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Additional measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of the ESA and CESA permitting process.

A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers shall be present onsite during all ground disturbing activities to search for individuals that may be unearthed during excavation. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work, if a California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, or Alameda striped racer is found onsite. California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, and Alameda striped racers shall be removed from the construction area following the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species





permits (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7 Biological Opinion). The District shall report all discoveries of listed species in the construction areas to resource agencies according to the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species permits.

Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct environ-mental awareness training for construction personnel, including all project representatives. Training sessions shall also be required for any new construction personnel before being allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall include an overview of California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology (including habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and CESA, and project-specific avoidance measures being implemented to avoid impacts on California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.

Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the work area to prevent California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work area during construction. The fence must be constructed of a material that is durable and has been approved by the USFWS and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, Alameda striped racers, and other vertebrates from passing under, over, around, or through the fence. The qualified biologist shall be on site during fence installation and initial site clearing and grubbing activities. The biologist shall inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing construction activities to ensure it is properly maintained and functioning to exclude California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from the work area. The fence shall remain in place until all construction is completed and equipment is demobilized.

To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 3-inches deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.

Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall (less than 0.25 inch per 24-hour period and less than 40 percent chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the 72-hour weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior to the startup of any ground disturbing activities on the project site. Construction activities shall cease 24 hours prior to a 40 percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction may continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is no precipitation in the 24-hour forecast. Contractor specifications shall include the following worker restrictions and guidelines, at a minimum:

Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within designated work areas. Entry into adjacent Preserve lands or established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.

All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All trash (e.g., food scraps, cans, bottles, containers, wrappers, cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed in closed containers and properly disposed off-site.

No pets or firearms shall be allowed on site.





All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or lubricated in a designated area at least 100 feet from aquatic habitats.

In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or injured or if a special-status species is observed to be injured, dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall immediately notify the District’s construction inspector, who will stop work and notify the USFWS and CDFW.

As part of the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implementation, the District shall include in the specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of natural materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion control to ensure that special-status species do not get trapped. Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material shall be prohibited.

Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be restored to pre-project grades and contours and stabilized to prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized grass and forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed by the project. The seed shall be from sources that are regionally appropriate for the site. (LTS)

Option B Impact BIO-2: Development of the Option B site would result in the permanent loss of upland habitat for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer (S). The grassland on the Option B site provides upland habitat for California tiger salamanders and Alameda striped racer. Individual California tiger salamanders from nearby breeding ponds may use the available ground squirrel burrows as dry-season retreats and may also move onto the site during dispersal events. Alameda striped racers could also occur in the grasslands on the project site due to the proximity suitable riparian woodland along Agua Caliente Creek. The presence of designated critical habitat for Alameda striped racers just 2 miles east of the site (Figure V.C-1) also makes it possible that racers could occasionally occur in the upland portions of the project sites. Development of the Option B site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 10.45-acre area of permanent disturbance, 3.10 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements, bridges) and a 9.35 acre loss of grassland habitat (the remaining 1.1 acres consists of existing developed areas). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 16.76 acres. The loss of 9.35 acres of grassland associated with the Option B site would constitute a permanent loss of upland habitat for the species. However, the remaining pervious surfaces (e.g., landscaping, trails and unpaved roadways, and storm drainage facilities) may continue to provide habitat for California tiger salamanders and Alameda striped racers, although the permanent removal of 9.35 acres of grasslands would continue to be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of California tiger salamander upland habitat, and ensure Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on this habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options:





Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off site in a suitable location and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement or other appropriate restriction would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement or other appropriate deed restriction must be documented to support California tiger salamanders through observation of California tiger salamander larvae in a breeding pond on or immediately adjacent to the grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the parcel to be acquired as mitigation, must also be preserved in a conservation easement or be located on preserved land (County or State park) to ensure the viability of the grassland as California tiger salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be documented to regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to be considered successful breeding ponds;

Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program; or

Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda striped racer habitat, and ensure Option B will not have a substantial adverse effect on this habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following options:

Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off site in a suitable location and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement or deed restriction would be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement or deed restriction must be documented to support Alameda striped racers through observation of Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to the grassland area;

Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program;

Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda County; or

Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity. (LTS)

Option B Impact BIO-3: Development of the Option B site may result in the destruction of burrows occupied by burrowing owls, a California Species of Special Concern. (S) Although burrowing owls have not been detected at the Option B site to date, the site contains potential habitat (i.e., ground squirrel burrows within short vegetation). If burrowing owls occupy the site(s) in the future, project construction and grading could result in the destruction of occupied burrows and consequent mortality of adults and/or young. Implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The primary intent of this mitigation measure is to avoid substantial adverse effects to burrowing owls during project construction. Because burrowing owls and California tiger salamanders have similar upland habitat





requirements (grasslands containing abundant small mammal burrows), any lands preserved as California tiger salamander habitat under Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-2 are also expected to benefit burrowing owls provided that burrows are present and vegetation height is kept short during the burrowing owl breeding season (March through August).

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-3: No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction/take avoidance survey for burrowing owls using methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report).44 If no burrowing owls are detected during the initial take avoidance survey, a final survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that owls are still absent. If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within the construction footprint, individuals may be excluded from burrows using one-way doors provided that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Given the availability of suitable burrows in lands adjacent to the Option B site, passive relocation of owls at Mission Peak is not expected to significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local population. Any burrow exclusion efforts shall be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to ensure that substantial adverse effects are avoided. If burrow exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season, daily monitoring shall be conducted for one week prior to the exclusion to confirm that any young of the year have fledged. If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during the breeding season, occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing buffers around the burrows in which no work shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest attempt has failed or that young have fledged and can forage independently of the adults. A minimum buffer of at least 250 feet shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing owls present on site after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless focused monitoring by a qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl reproductive behavior indicates that the observed individual is unpaired or that egg-laying has not yet begun. A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan will be developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. (LTS)

Option B Impact BIO-4: Development of the Option B site could result in impacts to nesting loggerhead shrikes, white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. (S) Construction activities in and adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek associated with construction of bridges and culvert removal/restoration may result in the removal of trees and other vegetation that could be used by nesting birds, including special-status species such as loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite. Although development of the Option B site would not remove any trees or shrubs, grading activities could result in the destruction of ground-nesting birds such as western meadowlark and killdeer. If conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), such activities could directly impact

44 California Department of Fish and Game, 2012, op. cit.





nesting birds. Construction-related disturbance (e.g., noise, vehicle traffic, personnel working adjacent to nesting habitat) could also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nests in nearby trees or other vegetation, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on these protected birds.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in searching for passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a preconstruc-tion nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have success-fully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. (LTS)

Option B Impact BIO-5: Development of the Option B site could result in impacts to three special-status grassland plant species, if present. (S) Although the April 10, 2013, reconnaissance survey was within the time frame of expected blooming for round-leaved filaree (March–May), the early spring in 2013 may have resulted in the species going undetected due to early blooming. In addition, the survey was conducted outside the peak blooming period for fragrant fritillary (February–April) and Santa Cruz tarplant (June–October). Habitat for all three species is present in the grassland within the Option B site, and grading activities could result in the loss of populations of these species, if present. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on these protected grassland plant species.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and round-leaved filaree and in late summer/early fall (August–October) for Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.45 If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz tarplant is found during the focused botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be reviewed to evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants cannot be

45 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009, op. cit.





avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage and recovery plan for the affected species The plan shall incorporate the following:

Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and monitoring plans;

Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined goals focusing on plant establishment (stability, succession, reproduction) and non-native species control measures;

Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or seeds;

Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and monitoring program by a qualified restoration team to ensure that the project goals and performance standards are met. The monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as needed to correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report, prepared by the District and subject to approval by CDFW, shall document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and monitoring shall be specified; and

Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements and the responsibility for implementation. (LTS)

Option B Impact BIO-6: Culvert removal and/or bridge construction activities associated with Option B development could result in the mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and/or western pond turtles potentially occurring in Agua Caliente Creek. (S) Agua Caliente Creek may support dispersing, foraging, and/or resting California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and western pond turtles, even though no CNDDB occurrences of these species have been recorded in the creek to date.46 Culvert removal and bridge construction activities may result in substantial adverse effects to individual frogs and/or striped racers if appropriate avoidance and minimization measures or not implemented. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Construction activities within Agua Caliente Creek associated with development of Option B would be subject to the following additional measures, at a minimum:

All work within Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option B culvert removal and bridge crossings) shall be conducted between August 1 and October 31, when red-legged frogs are less likely to be present.

The USFWS- and CDFW- qualified biologist shall survey the in-water work areas within 48 hours before the initiation of construction activities. If any life stage of California red-legged frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is found, the District biologist shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to determine if moving them is appropriate. If the agencies approve relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a USFWS- and CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior to the initiation of construction.

46 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015, op. cit.





The qualified biologist shall maintain detailed records of any individuals that are moved (e.g., size, coloration, any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning to their original point of capture.

The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be diverted using gravity flow through temporary culverts/pipes or pumped around the work area with the use of hoses, discharging downstream to maintain flow.

Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel locations and no more than 20 feet upstream or downstream of the work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when construction of the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be constructed only from materials that will cause little or no siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags (filled with clean sand), or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent seepage into or out of the work area. Cofferdams shall be placed and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering system shall remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows shall be restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work by removing the dewatering system.

The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millime-ters (mm) to prevent California red-legged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from entering the pump system.

The contractor and/or biologist shall check daily for stranded aquatic life as the water level in the dewatering area drops. All reasonable efforts shall be made to capture and move all stranded, native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas. Capture methods may include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets, and or by hand. Captured native aquatic life shall be released downstream of the dewatered area. The qualified biologist shall perma-nently remove any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and centrarchid fishes, from the work area.

No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be operated within the live stream. (LTS)

(2) Adverse Effects on Sensitive Natural Communities. Potential impacts to sensitive

natural communities are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. There are no special-status natural communities present on the Option A site. Therefore, development of the Option A site would not result in an impact to special-status natural communities.

Option B. The only special-status natural community on the site is the riparian woodland along Agua Caliente Creek. Culvert removal and bridge construction activities associated with development of the Option B site may involve minor trimming and/or removal of existing riparian trees and shrubs. However, the long-term benefit of restoring the creek channel at the culvert crossing to a more natural condition (including re-planting of native riparian trees and shrubs) is expected to offset the short-term loss of riparian vegetation so that Option B would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian woodland. No other special-status natural communities are present on the site and this impact would be less than significant.





(3) Adverse Effects on Wetlands. Impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters associated with development of Option A and B are discussed below.

Option A. The wetland areas located north of the Option A site would not be affected by development at the Option A site. Culvert repair activities at the Option A site could result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. As discussed below, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures by ensuring that development of Option A would not result in a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands. Option A Impact BIO-7: Development of Option A would impact a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, a jurisdictional water of the United States. (S) Although the project would not result in any permanent fill of jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States, the proposed culvert repair activities associated with development of the Option A site would result in temporary minor impacts to the upstream tributary of Agua Caliente Creek. Up to 30 linear feet of channel could be temporarily impacted under Option A. Option A will likely require dewatering of the work area, re-grading of the existing streambed and banks, and potential sedimentation of receiving waters. If left unchecked, grading and other construction activities in the vicinity of the stream could cause indirect impacts to water quality through the deposition of excess sediment into the channel. Implementation of the following measures would reduce temporary impacts to the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of Option A would not result in a substantial adverse effect on this tributary to Agua Caliente Creek.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits from the Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA Section 401 water quality certification), and CDFW (Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek and its tributary due to excess sedimentation shall be avoided through the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The SWPPP shall include the following major components:

A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas.

A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices to be used during construction and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff.

Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase.

A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance and identifies the party responsible for monitoring.

A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all restricted areas to be left undisturbed.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as recommended or required by the Water Board to protect water quality. These measures shall include the following: 1) a moratorium on grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and





sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain storms; 3) prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action; 5) delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing plastic monofilament is prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8) control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9) management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10) liquid waste management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation wherever possible. Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to their pre-project condition via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed portions of the stream channel and banks shall be re-vegetated with native riparian species. Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside of, the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill shall be allowed to enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e., silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the construction footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-qualified biological monitor for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog shall oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically monitor the work area to ensure avoidance of the stream channel. Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream channel. All stockpiled fill and other materials shall be kept at least 50 feet from the channel edge. (LTS) Option B. Culvert removal, stream restoration, and bridge construction activities at the Option

B site could result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. No other wetlands are present on the Option B site. As discussed below, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Implementation of these measures would ensure that development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands. Option B Impact BIO-7: Development of Option B would impact Agua Caliente Creek, a jurisdictional water of the United States. (S) Although the project would not result in any permanent fill of jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States, the proposed culvert removal and restoration activities associated with develop-ment of the Option B site would result in temporary minor impacts to the upstream tributary of Agua Caliente Creek. Up to 155 linear feet of channel could be temporarily impacted under Option B. Option B will likely require dewatering of the work area, re-grading of the existing stream bed and banks, and potential sedimentation of receiving waters. If left unchecked, grading and other construc-tion activities in the vicinity of the stream could cause indirect impacts to water quality through the deposition of excess sediment into the channel. Implementation of the following measures would reduce temporary impacts to Agua Caliente Creek to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on this tributary to Agua Caliente Creek.





Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits from the Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA Section 401 water quality certification), and CDFW (Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek due to excess sedimentation shall be avoided through the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Preven-tion Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The SWPPP shall include the following major components:

A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas.

A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices to be used during construction and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff.

Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase.

A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and maintenance and identifies the party responsible for monitoring.

A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all restricted areas to be left undisturbed.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as recommended or required by the Water Board to protect water quality. These measures shall include the following: 1) a moratorium on grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain storms; 3) prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action; 5) delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing plastic monofilament is prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8) control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9) management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10) liquid waste management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation wherever possible. Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to their pre-project condition via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed portions of the stream channel and banks shall be re-vegetated with native riparian species. Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside of, the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill shall be allowed to enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e., silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the construction footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-approved biological monitor for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog (see Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-1) shall oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically monitor the work area to ensure avoidance of the stream channel.





Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream channel. All stockpiled fill and other materials shall be kept at least 50 feet from the channel edge. (LTS)

(4) Interfere with Wildlife Movement or Use of Nursery Sites. Potential impacts to

wildlife movement and nursery sites associated with development of the Option A and Option B sites would be less than significant, as discussed below.

Option A. Although the project has the potential to impact the nests of native birds, implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike would also serve to protect the nests of all native birds. The project is not likely to result in a barrier to movement across the Option A site, except temporarily during construction activities. Therefore, Option A would not interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife, and impacts to wildlife movement or use of nursery sites would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, although the project has the potential to impact the nests of native birds, implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike would also serve to protect the nests of all native birds. The project is not likely to result in a barrier to movement across the Option B site, except temporarily during construction activities. Therefore, Option B would not interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife, and impacts to wildlife movement or use of nursery sites would be less than significant.

(5) Conflict with Local Biological Resource Policies or Ordinances. Potential impacts associated with biological resource policy conflicts are discussed below. The only relevant local ordinance is the City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance, with which both Option A and Option B would comply. As discussed, impacts associated with Option A and Option B development would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Option A. Implementation of Option A would include compliance with the City of Fremont’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, if trees are impacted during culvert repair activities. Option A Impact BIO-8: Option A could result in impacts to trees protected under Fremont’s Tree Preservation Ordinance within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek. (S) Culvert repair activities associated with Option A development could affect riparian woodlands within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek and tree trimming could be required. Approximately 30 linear feet of the riparian woodland along the Agua Caliente Creek tributary may be impacted by development of Option A. The precise number of impacted trees cannot be determined at this stage of design and development. While removal of trees would be avoided where possible, trees may need to be removed with implementation of Option A. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that Option A does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and that impacts to protected trees at the Option A site would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Also, as shown on Figure III-2a, new coast live oak trees would be planted at the Option A site, which would likely compensate for any minimal loss of trees.

Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-8: All impacted trees shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in accordance with the City of Fremont’s tree ordinance, the District shall plant trees of a species and in a location approved by the City. If the site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings, the District





shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site, which would be used to fund tree planting by the City. For the proposed project, it is expected that mitigation for tree removals under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance can be accomplished concurrently with the riparian restoration effort associated with the Option A culvert repair. (LTS) Option B. Implementation Option B could conflict with the City of Fremont’s Tree

Preservation Ordinance, depending on the amount of tree removals required to accommodate the two new bridges across Agua Caliente Creek, as discussed below. Option B Impact BIO-8: Option B would result in the removal of approximately six coast live oaks protected under Fremont’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and could also result in the removal of other trees within the Agua Caliente Creek channel. (S) Approximately six coast live oaks are located within the vicinity of the proposed vehicular bridge that could be affected by development of Option B. In addition, culvert removal and restoration activities associated with Option B development could affect riparian woodlands within Agua Caliente Creek and tree trimming could be required. At this time, it is unknown if any trees would be removed. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that Option B does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts to protected trees at the Option B site would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. As shown on Figure III-3a, new coast live oak trees would be planted at the Option B site. Prior to the removal of any protected trees, the District shall secure a tree removal permit from the City of Fremont. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-8: All impacted trees will be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in accordance to the City of Fremont’s tree ordinance, the District shall plant trees of a species and in a location approved by the City. If the site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings, the District shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site. For the proposed project, mitigation for tree removals under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance can is expected to accomplished concurrently with the riparian restoration effort associated with the Option B culvert removal. (LTS)

(6) Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plans. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans applicable to the project area are discussed below. As discussed, development of either Option A or Option B would not result in a significant impact related to this issue.

Option A. The project area is not currently subject to any adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The project site is located just west of the EACCS study area boundary, so this strategy does not apply to the Option A site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans and this potential impact would be less than significant.





Option B. Similar to Option A, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans and this potential impact would be less than significant. c. Cumulative Impacts. The loss of 9.49 acres of grassland and 0.004 acre of riparian woodland, and the temporary impacts to up to 30 linear feet of stream channel under Option A or the loss of 9.35 acres of grassland and 0.28 acre of riparian woodland, and the temporary impacts to up to 155 linear feet of stream channel under Option B would contribute to the cumulative loss of annual grassland, riparian woodland, and stream channel in the Fremont region. These grasslands, riparian woodland, and stream channel may also provide habitat for special-status species such as California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Alameda striped racer, and burrowing owl. The City lists 82 projects with development activity as of May 4, 2015.47 Projects within a 2-mile radius of the project area are identified in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Most of the 82 projects within the City are situated within vacant lots in the urban developed areas of the City. These lots often contain ruderal, non-native grassland fields, but they do not support high quality habitat for special-status species due to their isolation from other large open spaces, human disturbance (e.g., mowing, disking, firebreak construction), and lack of connection to essential habitats such as breeding ponds. Because they fly, burrowing owls are likely the only special-status species that would occupy these isolated grasslands. Protocol-level burrowing owls surveys have been conducted on some of these sites, and burrowing owls have been observed.48 Terrestrial species including amphibians, reptiles, and mammals are unlikely to be able to cross the dense urban areas that surround many of these in-fill sites due to the general unsuitable nature of the urban environment for these species. For example, due to their isolated location from occupied breeding habitat, these urban project sites would not support California tiger salamanders which are dependent on breeding ponds and undisturbed uplands to maintain viable local populations. These urban lots also would not provide suitable habitat for Alameda striped racer due to the lack of chaparral and grassland habitat and connectivity to other occupied habitat that provides suitable foraging and sheltering habitat or California red-legged frogs due to lack of suitable aquatic habitat and adjacent uplands. Table V.C-5 lists the 15 projects that have the potential to impact special-status species and habitats that may occur within the project area. All of these sites support non-native grasslands and may support burrowing owls. Three of the sites (Project No. 17, 34, and 39) have the potential to support California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer. Two of the sites (Project No. 34 and 39) have riparian woodlands and creeks that may also support California red-legged frog and western pond turtle. The closest City project to the Stanford Avenue project area is a proposed mixed-use development project (Project No. 81. Warm Springs Station), which occurs on a site that supports only ruderal/non-native grasslands, approximately 1.4 miles to the west (refer to Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures). Although, these sites are relatively small compared to the adjacent open space that supports most of the aforementioned biological resources in the project’s

47 City of Fremont. 2015. Development Activity Amended through May 4, 2015. Community Development

Department - Planning Division. 48 LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Personal Observations.





vicinity, and the regulatory agencies will likely require compensatory mitigation, the cumulative impacts to biological resources from these 15 projects and the proposed project could be significant when the biological impacts from all the projects are considered together. However, neither Option A nor Option B would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this potential cumulative impact on biological resources. Option A and Option B would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts on grasslands, stream channels or riparian woodlands or to the special-status species that rely on grassland or other habitat provided by the proposed project. Given the small scope of the project and limited amount of disturbance to grasslands, riparian woodlands and the stream channel, and the extensive mitigation proposed for the project to ensure the project will not adversely impact these habitats or the special-status species that rely on these habitats, Option A and Option B’s incremental effects on these habitats would not be cumulatively considerable. Grassland within either of the site options (Option A or B) provides habitat for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Alameda striped racer, burrowing owl, and other native plants and animals. The conversion of this habitat to a staging area that includes an asphalt parking lot would contribute to an overall decrease in grassland in the Coast Range foothills east of San Francisco Bay. However, the incremental loss of grassland habitat within the vicinity of the urban boundary would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended under the grasslands. Inherent in such mitigation is the fact that the managed mitigation habitat would provide greater benefit to the wildlife and plant populations than the removed grassland that affords only marginal habitat for these species. Likewise, the project mitigation measures for all special-status species and the project mitigation measure to protect sensitive habitat would eliminate or reduce the potentially significant biological impacts to such a great extent that the incremental effect of either Option A or Option B, when viewed in connection with the other projects in the area, would not be significant.





Table V.C-5: Projects in the Fremont Region that May Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts

Project No./Name

California Tiger

Salamander

California Red-legged

Frog Alameda

Striped RacerWestern Pond

Turtle Burrowing

Owl Grasslands Creeks/ Streams

Riparian Woodland

6. Bellaire At Patterson Ranch N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A

17. Deer Road Homes Potential

(No CNDDB Records)

N/A Potential N/A Potential Present N/A N/A

18. Delta Americas Headquarters N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 19. Dias Planned District N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 20. Dumbarton Quarry Park N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 28. Hobbs Residential Property N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A

34. Mill Creek Chateau Potential

(No CNDDB Records)

Potential (No CNDDB

Records) Potential Potential Potential Present

Present. Potential Impacts


39. Mission Clay Reclamation Plan Potential

(No CNDDB Records)

Potential (No CNDDB

Records) Potential Potential Potential Present



56. Patterson Ranch Tentative Map & 2014 DA Review

N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A

62. Sabercat Neighborhood Center N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 65. Silicon Valley Logistics Park N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 66. Springhill Suites Fremont N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 76. US Gypsum Site N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 80. Warm Springs Lennar N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A 81. Warm Springs Station N/A N/A N/A N/A Potential Present N/A N/A N/A = Not Applicable, Species or habitat does not occur on the site. Potential = Species may be present on the site based on the presence of suitable habitat. Present = Habitat type is known to be present on the site. CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database.

Source: City of Fremont, 2015.








D . C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5d-CulturalResources.docx (10/14/15) 197

D. CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section describes existing cultural resources conditions in the project vicinity, identifies poten-tially significant impacts on such resources that may result from project implementation, and recom-mends mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to a less-than-significant level. Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have traditional or cultural value for their historical significance. Cultural resources include a broad range of resources, examples of which include archaeological sites, historic roadways and railroad tracks, and buildings of architectural significance. For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and defined as such by CEQA), it generally must be 50 years or older1 and 1) be listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission; 2) be included in a local historical register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or 3) be determined by the lead agency to be a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 (a). Under CEQA, paleontological resources are a subset of cultural resources and include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils representing snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Terrestrial sediments may contain fossils that represent such vertebrate land mammals as mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. 1. Setting

This section: 1) describes the methods used to establish the baseline conditions for cultural resources in the project area; 2) provides a brief historical overview of the project area; 3) includes the State and local legislative regulatory context for cultural resources; and 4) describes the cultural resources identified at the Option A and Option B sites and their significance under CEQA. a. Methods. The cultural resources analysis includes archival records searches, a literature review, and a field survey. This work was done to establish the baseline conditions for cultural resources in the project site and vicinity.

(1) Records Searches. Records searches were conducted to identify cultural resources within and adjacent to the project area. Records searches were conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park; the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Sacramento; and the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), Berkeley. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resources records and reports for Alameda County. The NAHC maintains the Sacred Lands File, which includes the locations of sites with cultural significance to Native American

1 California Office of Historic Preservation, n.d.. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for

purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.





groups. The UCMP’s database includes information on locations where fossils have been identified, the taxa of fossils found at a particular location, and the geological formations associated with a fossil locality. In addition, the District’s Cultural Resource Site Atlas2 was also reviewed. The Cultural Resource Site Atlas indicates the locations of recorded prehistoric and historic cultural resources on District land and is consulted for land management and planning purposes. As part of the records search, the following State of California inventories were also reviewed for cultural resources in and immediately adjacent to the project sites:

California Inventory of Historic Resources;3

California Historical Landmarks;4

California Points of Historical Interest;5

Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California;6 and

Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File.7 The directory includes the listings of the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest.

(2) Literature Review. Publications, maps, and aerial photographs were reviewed for

archaeological, ethnographic, historical, and environmental information about the project sites and vicinity. The purpose of this review was to: 1) identify cultural resources within the project sites, and 2) identify the potential for the project sites to contain such resources. The 1878 Thompson and West Historical Atlas Map of Alameda County depicts the project area as owned by Leland Stanford, former governor of California (1862-1863). Leland Stanford founded a winery just west of the project area (California Historical Landmark #642) in 1869. Although no buildings or structures are depicted within the project area on the 1878 map, the area may have been planted with orchards and vineyards associated with the Stanford Winery. A review of U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers topographic maps published from 1906 to 1961 did not indicate any cultural features (e.g., buildings and roads) within the project

2 East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Cultural Resource Site Atlas. East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland. 3 California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California

Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 4 California Office of Historic Preservation, 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks

and Recreation, Sacramento. 5 California Office of Historic Preservation, 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of

Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 6 California Office of Historic Preservation 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. 7 California Office of Historic Preservation, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. April 5.





area. Aerial photographs dating from 1948 indicate the project sites were not developed during the second half of the twentieth century. Paleontological and geological literature relevant to the project sites and vicinity were also reviewed.8,9 This review identified the project area as being underlain by Holocene alluvium, Pliocene (2.6 to 5.3 million years old) Orinda Formation deposits, and Pleistocene to Late Pliocene (10,000 to 5.3 million years old) Santa Clara Formation deposits. The Orinda Formation and Santa Clara Formation are known to contain fossils. The literature review and archival research confirmed that prehistoric archaeological site CA-ALA-431 is within the project area (see below for a description of this resource). The Fremont Plain was occupied during the ethnographic period by the Tuibun and Alson tribelets.10 The Plano Topografico de la Mision de San José of 1824 depicts the “Christian Village” of Agua Caliente. It is not possible to determine the exact location of this Ohlone village from this map, although, presumably it was at, or in the vicinity of, Mission Peak Regional Preserve.

(3) Field Survey and Presence/Absence Excavation. On April 10, 2013, an LSA archaeologist conducted an intensive pedestrian field survey of the project area, including all areas of permanent and temporary disturbance within the Option A and B sites (including roads, trails, bridges, and culverts). The survey included the horizontal extent of proposed ground disturbance for the project, including all areas of temporary disturbance potentially affected during project construction. The ground surface was examined by walking transects at approximate 10- to 15-meter intervals. Ground visibility was fair at the time of the survey, with weeds, grasses, and leaves covering much of the surface of the Option A and B sites. The ground surface was occasionally scraped free of vegetation to better view soils and possible archaeological deposits. Animal burrows and backdirt were examined for archaeological deposits. Additional archaeological fieldwork was conducted in 2015 for the project’s environmental analysis. A field survey was completed of the proposed stormwater detention pond at the Option A site on May 5, 2015. An excavation was also conducted at this time to determine the presence/absence of archaeological deposits at the Option A site. The results of this survey and excavation are discussed below under the subsection entitled Project Area Cultural Resources. b. Cultural Resources Overview. This subsection briefly describes the prehistory and ethnogra-phy, history, and paleontology of the project site vicinity as determined by the records searches and literature review described above.

8 Dibblee, Jr., and W. Thomas, 2005. Geologic Map of the Niles Quadrangle. Electronic document: ngmdb.usgs.gov/

ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34356 (accessed July 19, 2013). 9 Bell, Christopher J., et al., 2004. The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages. In Late Cretaceous

and Cenozoic Mammals of North America, edited by M.O. Woodburne, 232-314. Columbia University Press, New York. 10 Milliken, Randall, 2006. The Central California Ethnographic Community Distribution Model, Version 2.0, with

Special Attention to the San Francisco Bay Area. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.





(1) Prehistory and Ethnography. The Archaic-Emergent cultural sequence developed by Fredrickson,11 recalibrated by Milliken et al. (2007),12 is commonly used to interpret the prehistoric occupation of the San Francisco Bay area. The recalibrated sequence is broken into two broad periods: the Archaic Period, consisting of the Early Holocene Lower Archaic (8000-3500 cal B.C.), Middle Archaic (3500-500 cal B.C.), Initial Upper Archaic (500 cal B.C.-cal A.D. 430), and Late Upper Archaic (cal. A.D. 430-1050); and the Emergent Period, consisting of the Lower Emergent Period (cal A.D. 1050-1550), and Terminal Late (or Upper Emergent) Period (cal. A.D. 1550-historic). Archaeological excavations done in the vicinity of Mission Peak Regional Preserve offer a limited view of pre-contact Ohlone lifeways. These excavations indicate that this was an area that the Ohlone inhabited and used for resource collection and processing, and burial of their dead. At CA-ALA-514/H, at least three Native American skeletal remains have been recovered, along with shell beads and pendants, a historic-period mortar, and faunal remains.13 A radiocarbon date from this site and temporally diagnostic shell beads indicate this deposit dates from approximately A.D. 300 to A.D. 700, indicating occupation of this area during the Upper Archaic Period. At CA-ALA-431, investigations have identified chert and obsidian flaked-stone debris, marine shell, bedrock mortars, groundstone, (e.g., pestles and “charmstones”), and bone tools. Although deposits from CA-ALA-431 have not been dated, a “Late Period” (Emergent Period) occupation has been suggested.14 Present-day Fremont is within a region occupied for thousands of years by speakers of East Bay Costanoan (also commonly referred to as Ohlone). Six related Ohlone languages were spoken from the northern and southern edge of the Carquinez Strait to portions of the Big Sur and Salinas rivers south of Monterey Bay, and to approximately 50 miles inland from the coast.15 The project area lies near the boundary of the Chochenyo and Tamyen dialects of the East Bay Costanoan language. The exact boundary is unknown. Approximately 58 tribes have been grouped today under the name “Ohlone.” Sometimes referred to by anthropologists as “tribelets,” due to their relatively small populations, the East Bay had approximately “25 such independent tribal groups with well-defined homelands. Each tribe’s leadership and culture varied and each had three to five village locations. Village populations ranged from about 40 to 200. Individuals commonly spoke multiple languages and marriages occurred

11 Fredrickson, David A., 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.

In Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41–53. 12 Milliken, Randall, et al., 2007. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California

Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A Klar, pp 99–124. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, Maryland.

13 Fong, Michael R., Angela M. Banet, and James C. Bard, 1990. Analysis of Native American Skeletal Remains Recovered During Emergency Disinterment at CA-ALA-514/H, City of Fremont, Alameda County, California. Basin Research Associates, San Leandro, California.

14 Porter, J., et al., 1982. Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-ALA-431, on file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

15 Shipley, William F., 1978. Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.





among neighboring groups.” 16 The project area is likely within the homeland of the Alson (aka Patlan), who held the “low marshlands at the very southern end of San Francisco Bay,” probably including present-day Newark, Milpitas, and Alviso; less likely the homeland of the Tuibun, located at the mouth of Alameda Creek and the Coyote Hills. 17 Their nearest neighbor was the Causen, a tribe or a single village in the Sunol Valley. Contradictory mission documents indicated that the Alson may have been at Mission Santa Clara prior to their being noted on Mission San José baptismal records from 1797 to 1801. Members of the Tuibun are noted on Mission San Francisco and San José baptismal registers from 1797 to 1804.18

(2) Project Vicinity History. Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to traverse Alameda County, including the Portola (1769), Fages (1770), and Fages Crespi (1772) expeditions. In 1776 the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition traveled along the East Bay foothills, and a portion of his route is now a National Historic Trail that follows Mission Boulevard west of Mission Peak. In 1797, Mission San José was established near the project sites. During the Mexican Period (1822-1846), vast tracts of land were granted to individuals, including former mission lands which had reverted to public domain. The project sites are situated within the Rancho Agua Caliente, which was originally granted in 1836 to Antonio Sunol and released shortly thereafter to Fulgencio Higuera. Higuera and his family lived on his rancho until the late 1870s. A portion of Higuera’s rancho was purchased by Clemente Columbet in 1850, who erected a popular resort at Warm Springs. Columbet’s resort was largely destroyed by an earthquake in 1868. Governor Leland Stanford purchased Columbet’s resort property in 1869, and Leland’s brother, Josiah, planted vineyards and orchards on the property. The project sites may have been planted with vineyards and orchards during the Stanford’s ownership of the property. Phylloxera19 damage to Stanford’s vineyards in the 1880s and the onset of Prohibition brought an end to Stanford’s winery by the 1920s. The Stanford family sold their property in 1923 to Frank Kelly, who wanted to put a racetrack on the property. Subsequently, the Sisters of Holy Names acquired the property for a college that was never built. Currently, the project sites and vicinity are managed by the District as part of the Mission Peak Regional Preserve.

(3) Paleontology. The project area lies on the eastern edge of the Fremont Plain near the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. The sediments that underlie both project sites include Holocene (10,000 years B.P. to present) alluvial deposits laid down by Agua Caliente Creek, Pliocene (2.6 to 5.3 million years old) Orinda Formation deposits, and Pleistocene to Late Pliocene (10,000 to 5.3 million years old) Santa Clara Formation deposits. Holocene alluvial gravels, sand, and clay eroded from the East Bay Hills and, transported by creeks, formed the plains along eastern San Francisco

16 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Master Plan 2013, p. 49, based on Milliken 1995:21-24, 228-261. 17 Milliken, Randall, 1995:229, 235, 258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San

Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California. 18 Milliken, Randall, 1995:258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco

Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California. 19 Phylloxera is a nearly microscopic root insect, similar to an aphid, that primarily attacks the roots of Vitis vinifera

grape vines. Once infested with the Phylloxera louse, the grape vine's root system can become severely impaired, making it difficult for the plant to absorb the needed water and nutrients to sustain a vine.





Bay. These Holocene deposits are too recent to contain significant paleontological resources (fossils). Specific conditions at each site are discussed below.

Option A Site. The Santa Clara Formation, locally known as Irvington Gravels, is mapped at the western half of the project area, encompassing most of the Option A site. The Irvington Gravels consist of “Poorly to well consolidated, distinctly bedded pebbles and cobbles, gray pebbly sand, and gray, coarse-grained, cross-bedded sand.”20 This geologic unit is paleontologically sensitive, and the Irvingtonian Mammal Age has been named after the prehistoric fauna recovered from gravel pits in Fremont.21 These now abandoned gravel pits, portions of which are overlain by I-680, have yielded numerous fossilized mammals, including ground sloth, dire wolf, giant short-faced cave bear, sabercat, and mammoth.

Option B Site. The Orinda Formation, mapped at the eastern half of the project area and encompassing much of the Option B site, consists of sandstone and pebble conglomerate of Franciscan detritus.22 The Orinda Formation is known to contain vertebrate and invertebrate fossils, including horses, mastodons, shell, and plants.23 c. Regulatory and Legislative Context. The following describes the State, City, and District regulatory and policy requirements for cultural resources that are relevant to the proposed project.

(1) CEQA Requirements. CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that is: 1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (Cali-fornia Register); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s lead agency (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). A historical resource consists of:

“Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3).

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), a substantial adverse change in the signifi-cance of a historical resource is a significant effect on the environment. Significant impacts under

20 Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb, 1996:13. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock

Formations in Alameda County, California: Derived from the Digital Database Open-File 96-252. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

21 Bell, Christopher J., et al., 2004:269. 22 Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 2005, op. cit. 23 University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2013. UCMP Localities. Website: bscit.berkeley.edu/

ucmp/loc.html (accessed July 19, 2013).





CEQA require that specific, feasible mitigation measures be developed to improve adverse environ-mental conditions. CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or neither (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)). Prior to considering potential impacts, the lead agency must determine whether an archa-eological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1). If the archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource, then it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sec-tion 15126.4. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource, then the lead agency determines if it meets the definition of a unique archaeological re-source as defined at CEQA Section 21083.2(g). In practice, however, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical resource.24 Should the archaeological cultural resource meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource, then it must be treated in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.2. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource or an archaeological resource, then effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guide-lines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).

(2) Health and Safety Code: Human Remains. The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5 states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native Ameri-can Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

(3) Public Resources Code: Cultural and Paleontological Resources. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural and paleontological resources. This PRC section prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeologi-cal and paleontological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

(4) City of Fremont General Plan (2011). The City of Fremont’s General Plan Community Character Element includes Goal 4-6, which provides preservation policies and implementation measures for cultural measures. Most of these policies relate to the preservation and documentation of historic built-environment resources in Fremont. One policy, Policy 4-6.10, does include Native American resources, which may be affected by the project. This policy is included below.

Policy 4-6.10: Protection of Native American Remains. Coordinate with representatives of local Native American organizations to ensure the protection of Native American resources and to follow

24 Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-Step Guide on how

to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California.





appropriate mitigation, preservation, and recovery measures in the event such resources could be impacted by development.

(5) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District’s Master Plan (Master

Plan)25 defines the long-term vision for lands managed by the District. The Master Plan provides a decision-making framework for District management, and identifies policies that will achieve district-wide objectives. Park development objectives, land use classifications, and planning and management guidelines are established by the Master Plan. Policies for the preservation and interpretation of cultural resources are woven throughout the Master Plan, including provisions for public participation, interpretation, environmental compliance, open space protection, land acquisition, land use planning, and facility development. Those policies most pertinent to cultural resources in the project area are excerpted and summarized below, as appropriate.

Policy NRM 13. The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and misuse.

Policy CRM 1. The District will manage, conserve and work to restore parkland cultural and historic resources and sites, to preserve the heritage of the people who occupied this land before the District was established and to encourage the cultural traditions associated with the land today.

Policy CRM 2. The District may acquire cultural and historic resource sites when they are within lands that meet parkland acquisition criteria and will maintain an active archive of its institutional history and the history of its parklands and trails.

Policy CRM 3. The District will maintain a current map and written inventory of all cultural features and sites found on park land26 and will preserve and protect these cultural features and sites “in situ” in accordance with Board policy. The District will evaluate significant cultural and historic sites to determine if they should be nominated for California Historical Landmark status or for the National Register of Historic Places.

Policy CRM 4. The District will determine the level of public access to cultural and historic resource using procedures and practices adopted by the Board. The District will employ generally accepted best management practices to minimize the impact of public use and access on these resources, and to appropriately interpret the significance of these resources on a regional scale.

Policy CRM 5. The District will notify Native Americans and other culturally associated peoples in a timely manner of plans which may affect sites and landscapes significant to their culture and will include them in discussions regarding the preservation and land use planning of culturally significant sites and landscapes.

Policy CRM 6. The District will strive to accommodate requests by Native Americans, ranching or farming communities and other groups to help maintain and use cultural sites and to play an active role in their preservation and interpretation.

(6) East Bay Regional Park District Ordinance 38, Sections 805-807. Portions of the

District’s Ordinance 38 address the disturbance of objects or features of cultural significance. Each section is briefly summarized below.

25 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Master Plan 2013. July 16. 26 Pursuant to this policy, the District maintains a cultural and historical resources database.





Section 805. This section states that no person shall damage, injure, collect or remove earth, rocks, sand, gravel, fossils, minerals, features of caves, or any article or artifact of geological interest or value located on District parklands.

Section 806. This ordinance states that no person shall damage, injure, collect or remove any object of paleontological, archaeological or historical interest or value located on District parklands. In addition, any person who willfully alters, damages, or defaces any object of archaeological or historical interest or value or enters a fenced and posted archaeological or historical site shall be arrested or issued a citation pursuant to California Penal Code §622.5.

Section 807. This ordinance states that special permission may be granted to remove, treat, disturb, or otherwise affect plants or animals or geological, historical, archaeological, or paleontological materials for research, interpretive, educational, or park operational purposes.

(7) East Bay Regional Park District Standard Contract Provision. In addition to the

policies included in the District’s Master Plan, the District’s standard contract provision for cultural resources is included in construction documents and applied, as appropriate. The standard contract provision is included below.

Article 22: Protection of Historic Resources and Human Remains. The Contractor shall, during all work, be alert for indicators of historic resources (i.e.; bivalve shells or fragments, stone tools, old china objects or fragments, old glass objects or fragments, old foundations and old privy deposits) and human remains. If such indicators are uncovered, all work within 50 feet shall be halted and the District Inspector immediately notified. The District will have the find evaluated by the proper authorities or professionals. Only the balance of that work day shall be compensated by the District if the Contractor cannot perform work elsewhere on the project. Recommendations from the qualified authorities or professionals may result in a change of work and a change order may be issued.

(8) East Bay Regional Park District Board Resolution No. 198-4-124. This resolution,

adopted on April 18, 1989, establishes the Guidelines for Protecting Parkland Archaeological Sites. The Guidelines state the District will directly consult with and involve the descendants in preserving and interpreting the sites. Such consultation has occurred for this project and is summarized in the Project Site Cultural Resources section, below. The Guidelines further state that in situ preservation is the preferred manner of avoiding adverse environmental impacts to these sites, and that this is best accomplished by capping. If in situ preservation is not feasible, a salvage excavation plan should be prepared in consultation with concerned Native Americans. Mitigation measures proposed in this chapter are consistent with the District’s Guidelines. d. Project Area Cultural Resources. Cultural resources identified through field surveys and excavation at the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below.

Option A Site. A previously unrecorded scatter of sparse shell was identified during LSA’s survey conducted on April 10, 2013, consisting of five small shell fragments (possibly clam) observed in a rodent backdirt pile at the Option A site. In addition, an area of dark, ashy, midden-like soil was noted at the Option A site during the same survey. Although no constituents were observed with these soils (e.g., shell, bone, flaked stone, or fire-affected rock), these resemble the “peripheral midden”27 noted at CA-ALA-431 (see discussion below for the Option B site). No other surface

27 A weakly developed midden soil with few or no archaeological materials.





cultural materials were identified, although the presence of marine shell in a rodent burrow suggests the potential of a subsurface archaeological deposit at Option A. LSA archaeologists conducted a Presence/Absence excavation at Option A on May 5, 6, and 9, 2015. Native American representative Ramona Garibay of the Ohlone Tribe was on site to monitor the excavation. The purpose of the excavation was to determine the extent of the deposit within the proposed Option A site and to identify the cultural materials associated with the deposit. The excavation consisted of three shovel test pits (STPs), 11 auger units (AUs), and two combination STP/AUs. Placement of STPs and AUs was aligned to magnetic north, 10 meters apart along north/south and east/west axes in the vicinity of the shell fragments identified during the survey. The STPs measured 50 centimeters in length by by 50 centimeters in width and varied in depth from 40 centimeters to 100 centimeters. The AUs were 10 centimeters wide and varied in depth from 80 centimeters to 120 centimeters where cultural deposits were present. The excavation was done with shovels, a breaker bar, and an auger in 20 centimeter levels. Excavated soil was screened through 6 millimeter wire mesh to capture archaeological materials. A single STP excavated at the area of “midden-like soil” noted during the 2013 survey did not identify archaeological materials. Based on the results of the excavation, the soil noted at the surface of this location is not indicative of an archaeological deposit. The STPs and AUs excavated in the vicinity of the shell fragments identified during the 2013 survey yielded 31 mussel (Mytilus californianus) fragments from five excavation units, indicating a low-density archaeological site at Option A. The majority of the shell fragments were identified in a single STP (STP-A), at a depth of 60 to 100 centimeters, in a soil horizon consisting of light yellowish-brown silty loam. No archaeological materials (e.g., obsidian or groundstone) other than shell fragments were identified during the excavation. No other cultural resources were identified in the Option A site; however, the potential for encountering fossils during construction cannot be ruled out due to the presence of fossiliferous Irvington and Orinda formations at the Option A site. This issue is addressed below under the impact evaluation (refer to Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-2).

Option B Site. The background research and field survey conducted for the proposed project identified one previously recorded cultural resource within the Option B site. Archaeological site CA-ALA-431 was originally recorded in 1982 by anthropology students from California State University (CSU) Hayward, who identified “four charmstones…three deer scapula serrates, pestles and pestle fragments, bone awl fragments, obsidian and chert points and blades, thermally altered sandstone, oyster shell, Cerithidea californica [California horn snail], and disturbed human bone.”28 Archaeologist George Miller suggested that these artifacts may have been associated with a human burial that had been exposed by erosion.29 CSU Hayward students also identified bedrock mortars (BRMs) and a “possible house pit depression.”

28 Porter, J., et al., 1982, op. cit. 29 Banks, Peter, 1985:26. A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont,

Alameda County, California. California Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Oakland.





In 1985, archaeologist Peter Banks recorded CA-ALA-431 for the District.30 Mr. Banks conducted hand auger excavations at the site to define the depth and contents of the site. Based on the surface survey and auger excavation, Banks identified midden to a depth of nearly one meter (about three feet) below the surface at portions of the site. Banks recorded three midden loci at the site, two BRMs, and a surface scatter of fire-cracked rock and grinding tool fragments. A detailed sketch map of the site was also prepared, showing the locations of midden loci, auger excavations, a fire-cracked rock and groundstone locus, BRMs, surface artifacts, and an “old road” that transects the boundary of CA-ALA-431. In 1991, Holman and Associates conducted an archaeological field survey for the proposed Stanford Avenue Golf Course project.31 The archaeological field survey included the project area and CA-ALA-431. Holman and Associates’ field survey identified CA-ALA-431, and an auger excavation was conducted to better define the site’s boundary. Their investigation characterized CA-ALA-431 as an “extensive site” measuring 290 meters by 115 meters (951 feet by 377 feet) that includes three developed midden areas, a more extensive “peripheral midden,” grinding equipment, projectile points, and flaked stone debris (debitage). Holman and Associates also re-identified the “old road” identified by Banks in 1985. Holman and Associates propose that this road once linked the Warm Springs Resort complex and Stanford Winery west of the project with surrounding fields, orchards, and vineyards during the nineteenth century. LSA’s field survey of the project area re-identified CA-ALA-431 at the Option B site. The survey confirmed the previous findings of Holman and Associates from 1991 as to the resource’s location, loci, and surface boundary. LSA’s field survey identified BRMs, shell (California horn snail), midden loci, fire-affected rock, and chert debitage at CA-ALA-431. No other cultural resources were identified in the Option B site; however, the potential for encountering fossils during construction cannot be ruled out due to the presence of fossiliferous Irvington and Orinda formations. This issue is addressed below under the impact evaluation (refer to Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-2). e. Tribal Outreach. The District conducted initial tribal outreach for the project in 2013. The purpose of this outreach was to identify sites of Native American interest or concern that may be impacted by the proposed project and to solicit opinions for avoiding or mitigating potential impacts to such sites. The District obtained a list of tribal contacts for the project area from the National American Heritage Commission. A total of six contacts were provided. The District mailed a letter describing the project, the project location, background, known cultural and/or historic records, District contact information, and graphic indicating the approximate location of both Option A and Option B to each of the six contacts. The District also offered a site meeting for interested individuals, separate from any public meetings. The District did not receive any responses to the District’s tribal outreach effort or offer for a site meeting.

30 Banks, Peter, 1985. Archaeological Site Record for CA-ALA-431. On file, Northwest Information Center,

Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 31 Ambro, Richard D., 1991. Inventory of Potential Cultural Resources within the Proposed Stanford Avenue Golf

Course Area, Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont, Alameda County, California. Holman and Associates, San Francisco, California.





In accordance with the District’s Master Plan policies and the District’s Guidelines for Protecting Parkland Archaeological Sites, the District conducted a second focused tribal outreach effort. The District organized two on-site meetings, on May 26 and 28, 2015, for local Native American tribes and representatives. Outreach letters were also sent to 19 individuals, including those on the original NAHC list, seeking Native American input on the project. The May 26 meeting was attended by five Native American representatives; the May 28 meeting was attended by 13 representatives. Meeting participants expressed concerns related to the presence of known and unknown cultural resources at both project site options and general concerns related to the ongoing activities at the Preserve, including cattle grazing f. Significance of Cultural Resources under CEQA. For purposes of this project, the District as lead agency considers the newly identified resource at Option A and the CA-ALA-431 site at Option B to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4 due to their ability to yield information important in prehistory. This assessment is based on previous archaeological surveys and excavation at the Option A and Option B project sites that have identified midden, groundstone, flaked stone, shell, and—as noted in 1982 by CSU Hayward students—human remains. These materials and human remains have the potential to provide information on ancestral Ohlone lifeways. This information can address questions related to ancestral Ohlone chronology and culture history; subsistence and settlement behaviors; technology; and social interaction and exchange. As noted by Holman and Associates:

“Faunal and floral remains [at CA-ALA-431] can be used to reconstruct past diet and seasonality. An adequate sample of stone, bone, and other artifacts…would provide data on economic patterns, technology, and chronology. Charcoal in hearths and roasting features may be radiocarbon dated. Obsidian tools can be dated by obsidian hydration, and also sources to provide information on chronology and trade patterns. Any human burials would provide data on genetics, diet, health, and longevity of the population. The associated artifacts accompany-ing burials are units on contemporaneity, and are valuable in chronological discussions, especially when shell beads are present. All these data could help to refine our understanding of the chronology, seasonality, economic, social, and trade patterns of the site.”32

Under CEQA, the lead agency is responsible for first determining if an archaeological site qualifies as a “historical resource” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines at Section 15064.5(a). Only if a site does not qualify as a historical resource is it then evaluated to determine if it qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)). In practice, most archaeological sites that are significant under CEQA qualify as historical resources and not unique archaeological resources. The newly identified archaeological deposit at the Option A site and the CA-ALA-431 resource at the Option B site are historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) due to their eligibility for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4. 33 Eligibility requirements for

32 Ambro, Richard D., 1991:20. 33 Under CEQA, cultural resources are typically evaluated using the eligibility criteria of the California Register.

With a few notable exceptions, resources that are eligible for listing in the California Register would also qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.





the California Register and National Register of Historic Places are substantially similar. Due to this resource’s eligibility under Criterion 4 of the California Register, it should also be considered eligible for listing under National Register of Historic Places Criterion D for its ability to yield information important in prehistory. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(A-B), preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. As noted in the CEQA Guidelines, there are four methods of preservation that a lead agency should consider:

Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;

Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space;

Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site (also known as “capping”); and

Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. The District has considered the feasibility of these four methods of preservation in order to protect intact archaeological deposits and features at both the Option A and Option B sites. Neither avoiding these sites, nor incorporating these sites within permanent open space or a conservation easement are feasible. In order to meet the demand for more parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and to satisfy the project’s objectives, the two project sites were selected by the District after consideration of other potential locations (refer to discussion in Chapter III, Project Description and Chapter VI, Alternatives). Furthermore, the design and on-site locations of the proposed staging areas at Options A and B could not be modified or moved elsewhere within the Preserve to avoid archaeological sites due to potential topographic (i.e., steeply sloped terrain) or geologic constraints. Capping of the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil could not occur as the project sites are not level and would require extensive grading to construct the proposed staging area. This grading would result in material impairment of historical resources as described in the Impacts and Mitigation Measures section below. In summary, although it is the District’s preference to preserve historical and archaeological resources in situ (consistent with District Board Resolution No. 198-4-124), for the reasons stated above and reiterated in this impacts analysis presented below, archaeological sites could not be preserved in place for this project. 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The following section describes potentially significant project impacts to cultural resources. This section first lists the criteria by which significance is determined, followed by a discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, as necessary. Mitigation recommendations are made to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such impacts where possible. a. Criteria of Significance. Implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural and/or paleontological resources if it would:





Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Specifically, substantial adverse changes include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired;

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or

Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to cultural resources. Potential impacts associated with development of the Option A site are discussed first, followed by potential impacts at the Option B site.

(1) Historical and Archaeological Resources. Development of either the Option A site or the Option B site would include grading for the construction of a new staging area, new vehicular roadways, and new trail connections or modifications. The project would have a significant impact related to historical and archaeological resources if these ground-disturbing activities were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource. A substantial adverse change in the significance of these resources would occur from their demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings in a manner that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). Potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources within and in the vicinity of the Option A and B sites, are discussed below. As discussed, with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, these impacts would be less than significant for both project site options.

Option A. Development of the Option A site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 9.64-acre area, 2.78 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavement). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 11.71 acres. These ground-disturbing activities have the potential to impact a prehistoric archaeological site at the Option A site. Option A Impact CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the Option A site would adversely affect a prehistoric archaeological deposit that qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA. (S) The archaeological resource that exists at the Option A site is a historical resource under CEQA as it is assumed eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D)). This resource’s significance is due to its potential to yield information important in prehistory, including information that could address questions related to chronology and culture history, subsistence and settlement, technology; and social interaction and exchange. Destruction of this resource from project ground disturbance would result in material impairment and compromise the ability of the site to yield information important in prehistory.





Under CEQA, preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(A)). Capping would not be feasible because the project site is not level and would require extensive grading and excavation (ground disturbance at the Option A site would result in approximately 35,000 cubic yards of cut, 23,000 cubic yards of which would be off-hauled). Nor are any of the other methods of preservation in place feasible. Option A could not be constructed so as avoid the known historical resource. As discussed in Chapter VI, Alternatives, construction of the project on the portion of the Option A site that does not have a known historical resource is infeasible because it would not meet the purpose of the project and project objectives. Similarly, incorporating the site of the historical resources within open space or placing the site under conservation easement would preclude development of the project and would not achieve any of the project objectives. Thus these measures are also infeasible. Implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, below, would more effectively mitigate this impact than preserving resources in place by enabling scientists to study the historical resources and enabling the public to learn more about Native American life through the District’s consultation with Native Americans to interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American traditions and lifeways. The District’s consultation could provide information regarding the integral place on the cultural landscape occupied by tribes in a manner that incorporates data gleaned from scientific analysis to augment traditional tribal perspectives. In turn, the District could utilize this information in interpretive material for public education, consistent with District objectives, in a more immersive approach than would otherwise be achievable through capping and preservation in place. Therefore, implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, below, would reduce this potential impact to prehistoric archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation is consistent with relevant policies of the District’s Master Plan, including policies CRM 5 and CRM 6; District Ordinance 38, Section 807; and District Resolution No. 198-4-124. Although no archaeological sites have been identified at Option A other than what has been described in this section, there is a potential that previously unrecorded deposits that qualify as historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA could be encountered during construction. Should project construction encounter such resources, a substantial adverse change in their significance (e.g., their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1b would reduce significant impacts to archaeological sites that qualify as historical or archaeological resources at the Option A site to a less-than-significant level.

Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Prior to development of the Option A site, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology shall prepare a Treatment Plan (Plan) for the archaeological site identified at Option A. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a guide to conducting data recovery archaeological excavations and archaeological monitoring at Option A to ensure Option A does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resources. The Plan shall include: 1) a description of the field and laboratory methods to be used at Option A; 2) a research design detailing important questions that can be addressed from investigation of Option A; 3) archaeological and Native American monitoring procedures to be used during the construction of the project; and 4) protocols for treating archaeological deposits and human remains identified during construction. The Plan may also provide for reburial of the historical





resources at the location of their discovery or in a location near the project site. An Ohlone representative or representatives shall be consulted as part of the Plan’s preparation to interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American traditions and lifeway and to provide input to the District regarding the treatment of these resources. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the District prior to project ground disturbance. The District shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation and implementation of the Plan. The District shall be responsible for implementing the Plan.

Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the District for review and to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, consistent with professional reporting standards in cultural resources management. Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered during project subsurface construction activities that is not associated with treatments prescribed under Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to assess the situation (if one is not already on-site), consult with agencies as appropriate and an Ohlone representative, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the District shall be responsible for funding and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resources. Such measures may include recording the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach. Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review. Where consistent with the recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall be submitted to an appropriate curation facility or the District and used for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in coordination with an Ohlone representative. The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological deposits and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction and an archaeologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials. Archaeological deposits can include shellfish remains; bones; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian, chert, and basalt; and mortars and pestles.” (LTS)





Option B. Development of the Option B site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 10.45-acre area, 3.10 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements, bridges). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 16.76 acres. In addition to the ground-disturbing activities that would occur with development of the Option B site, new vehicular and pedestrian bridges across Agua Caliente Creek would also be constructed with implementation of Option B. An existing culvert along Agua Caliente Creek would also be removed, and the Creek would be restored to its natural condition. These project ground-disturbing activities could impact CA-ALA-431 within the vicinity of the Option B site. Option B Impact CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the Option B site would adversely affect a prehistoric archaeological site (CA-ALA-431), that qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA. (S) Development of Option B would have a significant impact on CA-ALA-431 due to project ground-disturbing activities—including excavation, grading, site compaction, and paving—that would destroy or displace archaeological materials. These archaeological materials have the potential to yield information important in prehistory (California Register Criterion 4), and project impacts would potentially destroy their provenience and integrity, which are critical to the site’s information potential. As described above, CA-ALA-431 qualifies for listing in the California Register and is, therefore, considered a historical resource by the District for purposes of this project. Under CEQA, preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(A)). Capping would not be feasible because the project site is not level and would require extensive grading and excavation (ground disturbance would result in approximately 12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of which would be off-hauled). Nor are any of the other methods of preservation in place feasible. The project could not feasibly be constructed so as avoid the historical resource CA-ALA-431. Similarly, incorporating the site of the historical resource within open space or placing the site under conservation easement would not achieve any of the project objectives and is thus also infeasible. Implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, below would more effectively mitigate this impact than preservation in place by enabling scientists to study the historical resources and enabling the public to learn more about Native American life through consultation with Native Americans to interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American traditions and lifeways. This consultation would provide information regarding the integral place on the cultural landscape occupied by tribes in a manner that incorporates data gleaned from scientific analysis to augment traditional tribal perspectives. In turn, the District could utilize this information in interpretive material for public education consistent with District objectives, in a more immersive approach than would otherwise be achievable through capping and preservation in place Therefore, implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, below, would reduce the potential impact to CA-ALA-431 to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation is consistent with relevant policies of the District’s Master Plan (2013), including policies CRM 5 and CRM 6; District Ordinance 38, Section 807; and District Resolution No. 198-4-124. Although no archaeological sites other than CA-ALA-431 have been identified at Option B, there is a potential that previously unrecorded deposits that qualify as historical or unique archaeological





resources under CEQA could be encountered during construction. Should project construction encounter such resources, a substantial adverse change in their significance (e.g., their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1b would reduce significant impacts to archaeological sites that qualify as historical or archaeological resources at the Option B site to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Prior to development of Option B, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology shall prepare a Treatment Plan (Plan) for CA-ALA-431. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a guide to conducting data recovery archaeological excavations and archaeological monitoring at CA-ALA-431 to ensure Option B does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resources. The Plan shall include: 1) a description of the field and laboratory methods to be used at CA-ALA-431; 2) a research design detailing important questions that can be addressed from investigation of CA-ALA-431; 3) archaeological and Native American monitoring procedures to be used during the construction of the project; and 4) protocols for treating archaeological deposits and human remains identified during construction. The Plan may also include reburial of the historical resources at the location of their discovery or in a location near the project site. An Ohlone representative or representatives shall be consulted as part of the Plan’s preparation to interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American traditions and lifeway and to provide input to the District regarding the treatment of these resources. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the District prior to project ground disturbance. The District shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation and implementation of the Plan. The District shall be responsible for implementing the Plan. Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the District for review and to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, consistent with professional reporting standards in cultural resources management. Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered during project subsurface construction activities that is not associated with treatments prescribed under Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to assess the situation (if one is not already on-site), consult with agencies as appropriate, and an Ohlone representative, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the District shall be responsible for funding and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resources. Such measures may include recording the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach. Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review. Where consistent with the recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall be submitted to an appropriate curation facility or the District and used for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in coordination with an Ohlone representative.





The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological deposits and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction and an archaeologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials. Archaeological deposits can include shellfish remains; bones; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian, chert, and basalt; and mortars and pestles.” (LTS)

(2) Unique Paleontological Resources or Sites or Geologic Features. The proposed

project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or geologic feature, as described below. There are no unique geologic features on the Option A or Option B sites and no mitigation measures are required to address impacts to geologic features at either site. Although no paleontological resources have been identified within either project site, the presence of fossiliferous Orinda and Irvington geological formations underlying the project sites indicate paleontological sensitivity. These two geologic formations are known to contain significant paleontological resources. As discussed below, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, this impact would be less than significant with development of either site option.

Option A. Impacts to paleontological resources that could result with the development of the Option A site are discussed below. Option A Impact CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option A site could adversely affect paleontological resources. (S) Should project construction encounter paleontological resources, a substantial adverse change in their significance (e.g., their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would prevent any significant impacts to paleontological resources at the Option A site and would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring Option A does not destroy paleontological resources.

Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of this mitigation, a “qualified paleontologist” shall be an individual with the following qualifications: (1) a graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological journals; (2) at least two years of professional experience related to paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall be





implemented to ensure that Option A does not destroy the paleontological resource. Measures may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontologi-cal resources and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.” (LTS)

Option B. Impacts to paleontological resources that could result with the development of the

Option B site are discussed below. Option B Impact CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option B site could adversely affect paleontological resources. (S) Should project construction encounter paleontological resources, a substantial adverse change in their significance (e.g., their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would prevent any significant impacts to paleontological resources at the Option B site and would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level by protecting the paleontological resources so that they are not destroyed.

Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of this mitigation, a “qualified paleontologist” shall be an individual with the following qualifica-tions: (1) a graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological journals; (2) at least two years of professional experience related to paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be





significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall be implemented to ensure that Option B does not destroy the paleontological resource. Measures may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontologi-cal resources and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.” (LTS)

(3) Disturb Human Remains. The project would have a significant effect on the environ-

ment if it results in disturbance to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Native American skeletal remains have been identified at the Option B site at CA-ALA-431 and have also been unearthed near the project area along Agua Caliente Creek at CA-ALA-514/H. The possibility of encountering such remains, either in isolation or with prehistoric archaeological deposits, during ground-disturbing activities at either site is high. However, as discussed below, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, this impact would be less than significant with development of either site option.

Option A. Impacts to human remains that could result with the development of the Option A site are discussed below. Option A Impact CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option A site could adversely affect Native American skeletal or cremated remains. (S) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains at the Option A site to a less-than-significant level.

Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its





contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains by including the following directive in contract documents:

“If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redi-rected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted (if one is not already on site) to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identifica-tion. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Work within 25 feet of the discovery can resume only after the MLD has inspected the site, provided recommendations, and the remains and associated grave goods removed from the site by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the MLD.” (LTS)

Option B. Impacts to human remains that could result with the development of the Option B

site are discussed below. Option B Impact CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Option B site could adversely affect Native American skeletal or cremated remains. (S) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains at the Option B site to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains by including the following directive in contract documents:

“If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redi-rected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted (if one is not already on site) to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identifica-tion. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treat-ment of the remains and associated grave goods. Work within 25 feet of the discovery can resume only after the MLD has inspected the site, provided recommendations, and the remains and associated grave goods removed from the site by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the MLD.” (LTS)





c. Cumulative Impacts. The disturbance of prehistoric archaeological sites that underlie the project sites, and potential disturbance of paleontological resources and human remains, could have a cumulatively significant impact when considered with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in Fremont. The cumulative geographic context for the project site considered as part of this analysis generally extends for a 2-mile radius around the Preserve. Environmental documents available on the City of Fremont’s website were reviewed for projects identified in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, to assess the project’s potential to cause a cumulatively considerable impact. Development within the immediate vicinity include infill projects within the City of Fremont were reviewed, and no documentation was identified that indicates any of these projects would impact a known prehistoric archaeological site. As is the case with the current project, projects identified in Table V-1 have the potential to result in unanticipated discoveries of historical and archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains during ground disturbance. These developments could adversely affect buried cultural resources through their destruction or disturbance. Before mitigation, therefore, developments within the District’s jurisdiction, as well as other local recent and current developments, have the potential to cause adverse cumulative impacts to cultural resources due to their destruction or loss of historical integrity. However, it should be noted that each development that the District or the City oversees would undergo environmental review, consistent with the District and City’s current procedures, and would be subject to the similar mitigation measures as those recommended above and the applicable lead agency’s standard mitigation measures or conditions of approval. Projects under City of Fremont review generally incorporate mitigation measures for accidental discoveries of buried cultural resources. The closest cumulative project to the project area (Warm Springs Station), for example, incorporates mitigation measures for preconstruction studies and procedures for treating unanticipated buried cultural resources identified during construction. Therefore, implementation of project-specific mitigation measures described herein and appropriate District and City policies and measures and conditions would reduce any potential cumulative impacts related to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, because the mitigation for this project reduces impacts related to the historic integrity of identified resources to ensure the project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of cultural resources, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact to cultural resources.








E . A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O R E S T R Y R E S O U R C E S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5e-AgResources.docx (10/14/15) 221

E. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

This section describes existing agricultural and forestry resources within and in the vicinity of the project area, and evaluates potential impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. 1. Setting

The project sites are located within the City of Fremont, in southwestern Alameda County. The City’s land use pattern is defined by past agricultural uses, which have steadily declined over time as the City developed with more urban uses. As of 2009 (the year for which the most recent data was available), approximately 5,438 acres (9.5 percent) of land in the City was in agricultural use.1 This land generally supports salt ponds and grazing areas, including grazing land within the boundaries of Mission Peak. Only a very limited amount of agricultural land in Fremont is used for field crops or orchards. No large-scale commercial agricultural production facilities are located within the City. Additionally, no land is currently zoned specifically for agricultural uses within the City of Fremont; however, agriculture is an allowed use within the hillside and open space areas of the City, including lands within the Private Open Space, Hill Face Open Space, Hillside Open Space, and General Open Space land use designations. There are no existing uses or zoning designations within the City that support the preservation or production of forestry resources. a. Agricultural and Forestry Resources within the Site Vicinity. The lands within Mission Peak, including both project sites, are designated as Resource Conservation/Public on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map2 and are zoned as either Planned Development or Open Space within the Hillside Overlay areas. Neither site supports agricultural or forestry resource operations, and the lands within Mission Peak are not zoned for these uses. Approximately 6,000 cattle, and 1,000 sheep, and 1,000 goats are spread out over about half of the District’s 65 parks. Cattle grazing takes place within Mission Peak under contract with the District. Cattle grazing within the Preserve is used as a vegetation management tool to maintain and improve habitat conditions for plants and animals and to prevent wildfires. As of the year 2015, an approximate average of 200 cattle are grazed within four designated grazing fields on the lands within Mission Peak at any given time.3 A total of approximately 3,000 acres of the Preserve are subject to cattle grazing. Between 0 and 50 cattle are generally grazed within the Stanford field (in the vicinity of Option A and Option B sites) primarily in the late spring and early summer.4 Existing conditions related to agricultural and forestry resources at each project site option are discussed below.

(1) Option A. The Option A site is located near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and encompasses a grassland area located 250 feet to the northeast of the existing staging area

1 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Land Use Element. 2 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Land Use Map. 3 East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Denise Defreese, Wildland Vegetation Manager. Written communication

with Michelle Julene, Park Planner. July 27. 4 Ibid.





and just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail. Cattle currently graze within this area. There are no existing trees within the development footprint of the Option A site.

(2) Option B. The Option B site is located near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and encompasses a grassland area located approximately 875 feet to the southeast of the existing staging area and near the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail. The site is currently used by the District’s grazing contractor as a corral. The corral is used for holding cows for immunizations, medical treatment, livestock evaluations, branding, and transportation of cows to other grazing sites a few times per year. A small solar-powered pump located on the site provides water for the cattle operations. The majority of the Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public. There are several trees located within the development footprint of the Option B site, including 6 trees that would be within the permanent development area and several others located within the temporary area of disturbance, including several within the Agua Caliente Creek corridor. b. Regulatory Context. This section describes the regulatory context related to agricultural and forestry resources within the State and the City of Fremont.

(1) California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Land Resource Protection established the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) in 1982. The FMMP conducts comprehensive mapping of State farmland. The intent of the FMMP is to provide decision-makers with information regarding State agricultural resources, including data on existing farmland, and farmland development trends. The FMMP compiles maps depicting important farmland, based on United State Department of Agriculture soil surveys and other physical data, such as climate, growing season, and water supply. The FMMP divides land into seven categories, including: 1) Prime Farmland; 2) Farmland of Statewide Importance; 3) Unique Farmland; 4) Farmland of Local Importance; 5) Grazing Land; 6) Urban and Built-Up Land; and 7) Other Land. Lands within Mission Peak, including both project sites, are classified as “Grazing Land” by the FMMP.5 According to the FMMP, Grazing Land consists of land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Lands to the west and north of the project sites, within the residential neighborhoods located in the City of Fremont, are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” The “Urban and Build Up Land” designation applies to developed areas with a building density of at least 1 unit per 1.5 acres.

(2) Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) was passed by the Legislature in response to rapidly increasing agricultural land prices (and, by extension, property taxes) that made it difficult for many farmers to remain in agriculture, along with concerns that prime agricultural land and open space were being irreplaceably lost to urban sprawl. This voluntary program allows property owners to have their property assessed on the basis of its agricultural production value rather than at the current market value. The property owned is thus relieved of paying higher property taxes, as long as the land remains in agricultural production. The purpose of the Williamson Act is to encourage property owners to continue to farm their land, and to prevent the premature conversion of farmland to urban uses.

5 California, State of, 2014. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping

and Monitoring Program, Alameda County Important Farmland 2012 Map. April.





Participation in the Williamson Act in Alameda County generally requires that the area consist of a minimum of 20 contiguous acres for high-intensity farming or 50 contiguous acres for low-intensity farming, such as grazing operations, on land under one or more ownerships. Land within an approved preserve is restricted to agricultural and compatible uses for a period of 10 years. Williamson Act contracts are automatically renewed annually for an additional one-year period, unless the property owner applies for non-renewal or early cancellation. There are limited provisions for cancellation of contracts, specific findings regarding the non-viability of the agricultural use must be made, and a substantial penalty is assessed for the cancellation. Lands within Mission Peak, including the project sites, are not under a Williamson Act contract.6 The nearest Williamson Act contract land (“Non-prime” agricultural land”) is approximately 0.5 miles south of the existing staging area. This land is designated as Hillside on the General Plan Land Use Map. A Williamson Act land designated “Non-Renewal” is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the existing staging area.

(3) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plan’s Land Use Element establishes goals, policies, and implementation methods related to the preservation and management of agricultural resources.

Policy 2-6.6: Agriculture. Allow most agricultural uses in the City’s open space districts, and allow community gardening and “urban agriculture” in a wide range of settings. As defined by zoning, more intense agricultural uses in the hills may require a conditional use permit, consistent with the Hill Area Initiative of 2002.

Policy 2-6.10: Sphere of Influence. Advocate for open space conservation and resource protection in the unincorporated areas east of the Fremont city limits but within the City’s sphere of influence. These areas should remain in agricultural and open spaces uses for the lifetime of this General Plan.

(4) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District's Master Plan includes the

following policy related to agricultural resources.

Policy NRM7. The District will manage agricultural site and cultivated areas in accordance with appropriate agricultural or landscaping practices and Integrated Pest Management (IMP) methods to control noxious weed infestations, broom, and other invasive, non-native shrubs and to eventually replace these invasive plants with desirable native species.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the agricultural and forestry resources impacts that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B.

6 California, State of, 2013. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Alameda County

Williamson Act Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Map. April.





a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to agricultural and forestry resources if it would:

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use;

Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract;

Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as define in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code section 51104(g));

Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or

Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Conversion of Farmland. Potential impacts associated with the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. In addition, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, as discussed in more detail below, impacts to agricultural resources would be less than significant.

Option A. The Option A site is not designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The FMMP designates the entire project site as “Grazing Land.” Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance to a nonagricultural use. The District currently allows cattle grazing to take place within Mission Peak, including the Option A site, under contracts with the grazing operators. The District and its contractors would continue to manage the grazing area within the Preserve consistent with current District practices and policies during and after project completion. In addition, the Option A site is designated in the Fremont General Plan as Resource Conservation and Public Open Space, which permits grazing, but does not require it. Development of the Option A site would result in the permanent conversion of 9.64 acres of existing grazing area to allow for the new vehicular roadway, staging area, and storm drainage facilities. Approximately 2.78 acres of this permanently converted area would consist of paved and other impervious surfaces. The perimeter of the new vehicular roadway leading from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the new staging area, the parking area, and storm drainage areas would all be fenced and cattle would not have access to these areas. Although development of the Option A site would permanently remove existing grazing area within this area of Mission Peak and





the total number of cattle may be reduced, the remaining grazing areas totaling nearly 3,000 acres of the Preserve would continue to be open to cattle grazing. With development of the Option A site, no changes would occur to the existing cattle grazing facilities and corral areas located near the Option B site. Therefore, given the above, development of the Option A site would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use or adversely affect agricultural resources, including existing grazing activities. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. The Option B site in not designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The FMMP designates the entire project site as “Grazing Land.” Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance to a nonagricultural use. The District currently allows cattle grazing to take place within Mission Peak on a seasonal basis under contract with the grazing operator. The Option B site is currently used by the District’s grazing contractor for cattle operations, including as a corral used for holding cows for immunizations, medical treatment, livestock evaluations, branding, and transportation of cows by truck to other grazing sites a few times per year. A small solar-powered pump located on the site also provides water for the cattle operations. In addition, the Option B site is designated in the Fremont General Plan as Resource Conservation and Public Open Space, which permits grazing, but does not require it. Development of the Option B site would result in the permanent conversion of 10.45 acres of existing grazing area to allow for the new vehicular and pedestrian roadways, bridges, staging area, and storm drainage facilities. Approximately 3.10 acres of this permanently converted area would consist of paved and other impervious surfaces. The existing corral and associated structures would be relocated to the southeast to provide the area required for the new staging area. The corral structures and fencing within the Option B site would be removed; however, the on-site solar-powered well would remain and may be connected to the new water system. Existing fencing and corral areas to the southeast of the site would remain and new fencing would be installed south of the Peak Meadow Trail. The new corral and livestock area would be approximately 5.5 acres in size. In addition, the perimeter of the new vehicular roadway leading from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the new staging area, the parking area, and storm drainage areas would all be fenced and cattle would not have access to these areas. New and restored trail connections would not be fenced. Development of the Option B site would result in the relocation of the existing corral facilities to an area that is already subject to grazing activities. The remaining nearly 3,000 acres of the Preserve, including grazing areas within the Option A site, would continue to be open to cattle grazing. The relocation of the corral and associated facilities would not substantially affect grazing operations within the Preserve, as these activities would continue to occur within the immediate vicinity of the existing facilities and would continue without interruption once the new facilities are installed. Therefore, given the above, development of the Option B site would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use or adversely affect





agricultural resources, including existing grazing activities. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

(2) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson Act Contract. Potential conflicts associated with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts are discussed below. As discussed, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, agricultural land or conflict with a Williamson Act contract; therefore, conflicts related to existing agricultural resources would be less than significant.

Option A. The Option A site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside Combining District). This zoning district is intended to encourage desirable development and conservation in the City and promote the orderly development of hillside areas. Lands within Mission Peak, including the Option A site, are not within the City’s A (Agricultural) zoning district.7 In addition, the project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.8 The project site is currently used as grazing land and is located within an existing open space preserve managed by the District. Development of a new staging area and associated improvements at this location would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, agricultural land or conflict with a Williamson Act contract and therefore this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. The Option B site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside Combining District). This zoning district is intended to encourage desirable development and conservation in the City and promote the orderly development of hillside areas. Lands within Mission Peak, including the Option A site, are not within the City’s A (Agricultural) zoning district.9 In addition, the project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.10 The project site is currently used as a corral area to support grazing activities and is located within an existing open space preserve managed by the District. Development of a new staging area and associated improvements at this location would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, agricultural land or conflict with a Williamson Act contract, and therefore this impact would be less than significant.

(3) Conflict with Zoning for or Result in Conversion of Forest Land. Potential impacts associated with the conversion of forest or timberland to a non-forest use and related zoning conflicts are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and no impacts would result related to forest uses.

Option A. As previously discussed, the Option A site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside Combining District). Lands within the City of Fremont, including Mission Peak and the Option A site, are not zoned for forest or timberland production.11 The project site is currently used as grazing land and is located within an existing open space preserve managed by the District. Development of a

7 Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Zoning Atlas, page 590-C-368. June 2. 8 California, State of, 2013, op. cit. 9 Fremont, City of, 2015, Zoning Atlas, op. cit. 10 California, State of, 2013, op. cit. 11 Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Title18: Planning and Zoning. Revised through June 2.





new staging area and associated improvements at this location would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land because no such zoning exists within the City or within Mission Peak. Furthermore, no trees are currently present on the project site and therefore no trees would be affected by construction of the proposed staging area at the Option A site. Therefore, development of Option A would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use and no impacts would result related to forest uses.

Option B. As previously discussed, the Option B site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside Combining District). Lands within the City of Fremont, including Mission Peak and the Option B site, are not zoned for forest or timberland production.12 The project site is currently used as a corral to support grazing activities at Mission Peak and the site is located within an existing open space preserve managed by the District. Development of a new staging area and associated improvements at this location would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land because no such zoning exists within the City or within Mission Peak. Although approximately 6 trees would be removed with development of the Option B site and several other trees within the Agua Caliente Creek corridor would be substantially pruned, none of these trees are part of a designated forest land. Therefore, development of Option B would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use and no impacts would result related to forest uses. c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, when considered in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulative impact to agricultural or forestry resources. This is primarily because these uses are either already limited or do not exist within the City of Fremont or immediately surrounding areas, and no such impacts to these resources would occur with implementation of the proposed project. As shown in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, there are few cumulative projects within the immediate vicinity of the site and these are generally limited to small-scale urban infill projects. Other cumulative projects within the vicinity are not located on hillside areas that could support grazing activities. In addition, although the proposed project would slightly change the location of grazing activities at the site and the location of grazing support facilities, these uses would not be substantially affected once the project is operational and these changes would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the project sites. Therefore, past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to result in a significant cumulative impact to agricultural or forestry resources, and the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impact.

12 Ibid.








F . M I N E R A L R E S O U R C E S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5f-MineralResources.docx (10/14/15) 229

F. MINERAL RESOURCES

This section describes existing mineral resources within and in the vicinity of the project area, and evaluates potential impacts to mineral resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project’s development of the Option A or Option B sites with a new staging area. 1. Setting

Mineral resources have long been a part of Fremont’s land resources and the City’s history includes areas of former quarries, salt ponds, and other mineral deposits that have been mined and are considered an important resource in Fremont. Mineral resources within Fremont include construction aggregate (sand, gravel, and crushed rock); salt; and other resources (clay, mineral springs, and limestone). However, there are currently no active mining activities taking place in Fremont and none are planned. a. Mineral Resources within the Site Vicinity. As depicted on the Fremont General Plan Conservation Map (Diagram 7-4), Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate resources (Sectors I and LL) are located within Fremont’s East Hills, adjacent to (but outside of) the Mission Peak Preserve and other preserves and public open space areas.1 Sector I is located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project sites and extends south into the City of Milpitas. Sector LL is located approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the project sites and consists of three formations along Mill Creek Road. There are no known mineral resources located within or in the immediate vicinity of the project sites and these areas were not previously used for mineral extraction activities. b. Regulatory Context. This section describes the regulatory context related to mineral resources within the State and within the City of Fremont.

(1) Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted in 1975 to address the need for continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. SMARA includes a process called “classification-designation.” The purpose of this process is to provide local agencies with information about the location, need and importance of various mineral resources within their jurisdiction, and to ensure this information is used in local land use decisions. The City of Fremont General Plan (discussed below) reflects these designations and locations of known resources.

(2) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plan’s Conservation Element establishes goals, policies, and implementation methods related to the preservation and management of mineral resources.

Policy 7-5.1: Protect Mineral Resources. Protect identified state designated mineral resources from incompatible development whenever feasible consistent with the City’s long range development plans.

1 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Mineral Resources and Sites Subject to the Surface Mining

and Reclamation Act (Diagram 7-4). December.





Policy 11-5.13: Environmental Assessments for Hill Area Projects. Require early assessment of environmental constraints and resources for any applications submitted for development in the hills areas. Early consultation with the City regarding the implications of environmental assessment for proposed development is recommended. Issues to be addressed include geology (e.g., seismicity, soils, slope), biology (e.g., wetlands, riparian zones, landmark trees), mineral resources, and visual sensitivity. These resources and constraints are roughly identified in the Natural Resources and Safety Elements of the General Plan.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to mineral resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the mineral resources impacts that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to mineral resources if it would:

Result in the loss availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State; or

Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to mineral resources. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Loss of Mineral Resources Valuable to the State or Region. Potential impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result in an impact to known mineral resources of value to the region or the State and this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. The Option A site does not contain mineral resources that are significant to the State or Region.2 The nearest State-designated, regionally significant mineral resources are located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site (Sector I as depicted on the City of Fremont General Plan Conservation Map, Diagram 7-4). The proposed project does not include activities that would affect these mineral resources. Development of the Option A site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 9.64-acre area, 2.78 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (i.e., pavements). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 11.71 acres. The Option A site is not within or near Sector I. No known mineral resources of value to the region or the State would be affected by development of the proposed project.

2 Ibid.





Option B. The Option B site does not contain mineral resources that are significant to the State or Region.3 The nearest State-designated, regionally significant mineral resources are located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site (Sector I). The proposed project does not include activities that would affect these mineral resources. Development of the Option B site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 10.45-acre area, 3.10 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (i.e., pavements, bridges). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 16.76 acres. The Option B site is not within or near Sector I. No known mineral resources of value to the region or the State would be affected by development of the proposed project.

(2) Loss of Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site. Potential impacts associated with the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result in an impact to a known mineral resource recovery site and this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. The Fremont General Plan Conservation Element describes former quarries, salt ponds, and other mineral deposits that have been mined as important resources within the City. These locally important mineral resources are the same as identified State- and regionally-important mineral resources. The Option A site does not contain mineral resources that are of local significance.4 Locally significant mineral resources comprised of construction aggregate are located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site. The proposed project does not include activities that would affect these mineral resources. Development of the proposed project within Mission Peak would not interfere with current or future mineral extraction activities within the vicinity. Furthermore, the site is located within an open space preserve and is within the immediate vicinity of residential neighbor-hoods. No mining activities occur or would occur in the future at or within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State.

Option B. The Fremont General Plan Conservation Element describes important mineral resources within the City. The Option B site does not contain mineral resources that are of local significance.5 The proposed project does not include activities that would affect these mineral resources. Similar to Option A, the proposed project at the Option B site also does not include activities that would affect these mineral resources. Development of the Option B site within Mission Peak would not interfere with current or future mineral extraction activities within the vicinity. Furthermore, the site is located within an open space preserve and is within the immediate vicinity of residential neighborhoods. No mining activities occur or would occur in the future at or within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State. c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, when considered in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.





impact to mineral resources. As shown in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, there are few cumulative projects within the immediate vicinity of the site and these are generally limited to small-scale urban infill projects. Other cumulative projects within the vicinity are not located on hillside areas that could contain mineral resources. Furthermore, foreseeable projects in the City would be designed or conditioned, in accordance with City policies, to avoid significant adverse effects to mineral resources and development within these areas is generally not permitted. The project itself would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to result in a significant cumulative impact to mineral resources, and the project would not make a significant contribution to such an impact.



G . G E O L O G Y A N D S O I L S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5g-Geology.docx (10/14/15) 233

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

This section describes the existing geologic environment within and in the vicinity of the project area and evaluates potential impacts related to geology and soils that could result from implementation of the proposed project. This section starts with a description of the geologic conditions of the project area based on published and unpublished reports and maps of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), and a site-specific preliminary geotechnical investigation (Geotechnical Investigation).1 Information from the Geotechnical Investigation was considered in developing the site-specific setting and impact analysis. Mitigation measures for the identified significant impacts are provided, as necessary. 1. Setting

This section describes the existing geologic and seismic conditions of the project and the vicinity and the associated hazards. a. Geologic Conditions. The topography, geology, sources of seismicity, and soils of the project area and vicinity are described below.

(1) Topography. The project area is located in the foothill area between the valley floor (to the west) and the steeper mountain uplands (to the east). Elevations range from approximately 380 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the western portion of the Option A site to approximately 500 feet msl at the upper eastern portion of the Option B site. The Option A site is centered on a hill that is relatively level at the top and slopes gently downward to the north, south, and west. The northern portion of the Option A site includes the southern slope of a relatively broad swale, with the steepest slope at approximately 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). The Option B site is located on the flank of a gently westward sloping hillside (approximately 6:1). Though gently sloping, the Option B site has relatively little internal topographic relief (e.g., hummocks, swales).

(2) Geology. The project is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, a relatively geologically young and seismically-active region.2 The Coast Ranges are characterized by northwest trending faults, mountain ranges, and valleys which mimic the prevailing structural trends of the underlying bedrock. In general, the Coast Ranges are composed of sedimentary bedrock with layers of recent alluvium filling the intervening valleys. The following discussion of the project area geology is based on the summary included in the Geotechnical Investigation.3 Regional geologic maps4,5,6 indicate that the project area is underlain by

1 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Feasibility Study, Mission Peak

Regional Preserve, Fremont, California. August 13. 2 California Geographic Survey, 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. 3 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit. 4 Graymer, R.W., et al., 1994, Preliminary geologic map of the Niles 7.5-minute quadrangle, Alameda County,

California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-94-132, scale 1:24,000. 5 Dibblee, T.W., 1980. Preliminar-¥ geologic map'of the Niles quadrangle, Alameda County, California: U.S.

Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-80-533-C, scale 1:24,000.





two geologic units: the Orinda formation and the Santa Clara formation. The Orinda formation is a series of sedimentary deposits consisting of sand, silt and clay that were deposited in a shallow sea during the Pliocene to Late Miocene Epoch of geologic time, roughly 10 to 25 million years before present. The Santa Clara formation represents a much younger period of sedimentation during the Early Pleistocene, roughly 50,000 to 125,000 years before present. The project area is located on the west side of the Tularcitos Syncline (a U-shaped fold) which trends northwest below the ridgeline. The regional mapping shows that sedimentary beds are dipping (or tilted) into the hillside at various inclinations between about 30 and 50 degrees.

(3) Faulting. Neither the Option A nor Option B sites is located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A-PEFZ) and no evidence of recent or active faulting at either site was identified in the literature. The State of California considers a fault active if it has demonstrated activity within Holocene time, roughly the past 11,000 years. The geologic map prepared by Graymer shows the Warm Springs Fault crossing the Option A site. Evidence for the presence of the fault includes observed lateral and vertical offsets in the streams (including Agua Caliente Creek and Aliso Creek) and groundwater level offsets noted in local wells.7 The Warm Springs Fault (and the nearby Mission Creek fault) are not considered active by the State of California (as they are not included in an A-PEFZ program). The five nearest active faults, including their distance from the project area and their associated Moment Magnitude8 are summarized in Table V.G-1. Table V.G-1: Local Faults

Fault Name Approximate Distance

from Project Area (miles) Moment Magnitude Hayward 0.9 7.0 Calaveras 3.7 7.0 Monte Vista-Shannon 16 6.5 Mount Diablo 16 6.7 Greenville 17 7.0

Source: Modified from Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015.

(4) Soils. Both sites are underlain by Diablo Clay soils.9 These soils are mapped as having low infiltration capacity and have moderate to high plasticity indices which indicate that they could be subject to shrink-swell hazards. Soils subject to shrink-swell expand and contract in response to

6 Dibblee, T.W. and J.A. Minch, 2005. Geologic map of the Niles quadrangle, Alameda County, California: Dibblee

Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-151, scale 1:24,000. 7 Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California, February. 8 The moment magnitude (denoted as MW or M) is used by seismologists to measure the size of earthquakes in

terms of the energy released. The estimated moment magnitude for each fault is calculated based on fault length and depth and expected slippage.

9 Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed July 7, 2015).





changes in soil moisture, most notably when near surface soils change from saturated to a low moisture content condition, and back again. Expansion and contraction of soils is a negligible hazard in moderate to deep soils where minimal moisture changes and overlying material loads limit movement. The near-surface Diablo Clay soils are prone to expansion or contraction as moisture levels change. b. Seismic and Geologic Hazards. The following section describes existing seismic and geologic hazards present at the project area.

(1) Surface Rupture. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. Surface rupture generally can be assumed to occur along an active major fault trace. No active faults have been mapped at the project site, and the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation found no evidence of recent or active faulting in the literature or during field work; therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the project site is negligible.

(2) Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) is the most commonly used scale for measurement of the effects of earthquake intensity (see Table V.G-2, below). According to regional mapping, the project area would be subject to very strong ground shaking during a 7.0M earthquake on the Hayward Fault.10 A related concept, acceleration, is measured as a fraction or percentage of the acceleration under gravity (g).11 Estimates of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) have been made for the United States based on probabilistic models that account for multiple seismic sources. Under these models, consideration of the probability of expected seismic events is incorporated into the determination of the level of ground shaking at a particular location. The expected PGA (with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in the next 50 years) generated by any of the seismic sources potentially affecting the project site is estimated by USGS as 0.7 (g).12 This corresponds to level VIII on the MMI (Table V.G-2), which indicates the type of damage expected, which would include: slight damage in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. People driving cars would be disturbed.

10 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake Hazard Program, Interactive Mapping. Website:

gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards (accessed July 9, 2015). 11 The acceleration due to gravity, denoted g (also gee) is a unit of acceleration defined as approximately 32 ft/s2,

which is the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface at sea level. 12 U.S. Geological Survey, 2015. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Custom Mapping Page. Website: geohazards.usgs.gov/

hazards/apps/cmaps (accessed July 9, 2015).





Table V.G-2 Modified Mercalli Scale Ma Category Definition I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. 3 II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects

may swing. III Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it

as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated.

4 IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.

V Felt by nearly everyone, many awaken. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.

5 VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.

6 VII Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars.

VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars disturbed.

7 IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken.

8 X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks.

XI Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.

XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted.

a Richter magnitude correlation.

Source: California Geological Survey, 2002b. How Earthquakes and Their Effects are Measured.

(3) Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes transient loss of strength, which commonly causes ground displacement or ground failure to occur. Saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction. Soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. Lateral spreading is a form of horizon-tal displacement of soil toward an open channel or other “free” face, such as an excavation boundary. In a lateral spreading failure, a layer of ground at the surface is carried on an underlying layer of liquefied material over a nearly flat surface toward a river channel or other bank.13 The lateral spread-ing hazard will tend to mirror the liquefaction hazard for a site.

13 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2001. The REAL Dirt on Liquefaction, A Guide to the Liquefaction Hazard

in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Area. February.





Based on mapping maintained by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project area susceptibility to liquefaction is “very low.”14 The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation “encountered clay-rich cohesive materials to the full depth explored, conditions generally not susceptible to liquefaction,”15 confirming the ABAG finding of low liquefaction hazard at the project area. Lateral spreading hazards typically mimic liquefaction hazards and therefore, the lateral spreading hazard is considered negligible. Due to the lack of a permanent elevated groundwater table and the lack of identification of materials susceptible to liquefaction in soil borings and test pits, the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the potential for the project area to be subject to liquefaction and lateral spreading was negligible.16

(4) Landslides and Slope Stability. The strong ground motions that occur during earthquakes are capable of inducing landslides, generally where unstable slope conditions already exist. In addition, heavy precipitation events can induce earthflows or debris flows in areas where soils and rock on a hillslope or in a stream channel becomes saturated and unstable. Slope failure can occur as either rapid movement of large masses of soil (landslide) or slow, continuous movement (creep). The primary factors influencing the stability of a slope are: 1) the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock; 2) the geometry of the slope (height and steepness); 3) rainfall; and 4) the presence of previous landslide deposits. The upland areas east of Fremont are prone to slope instability due to large deep-seated landslides, which include both potentially fast-moving block slides and creeping earthflows. A major landslide that occurred in March 1998, referred to as the Mission Peak Landslide, represented the partial reactivation of a very large bedrock landslide complex that has developed beneath Mission Ridge over a period of tens of thousands of years. This landslide complex extends from just below the ridge crest, down to the approximate position of Mission Boulevard. However, the nearest portion of the1998 landslide, which was just a portion of the larger landslide complex, is more than 0.5 miles to the north of the project area. In other words, the 1998 landslide to the north and the landslide deposits that occur at the Option A site are all part of the greater landslide complex, but just a portion of this complex failed in 1998, and this failure did not directly affect or include the Option A or Option B sites. Several regional landslide mapping efforts have been conducted over the years in the vicinity, including the following:

Herd, D. (Herd), 1977. Map of Quaternary faulting along the Hayward and Calaveras fault zones, Niles and Milpitas 7 1/2' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-77-645, scale 1:24,000.

Rogers, D.; Drumm, P.; Chin, F.; Rogers, R. (Rogers), 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California, February.

14Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Interactive Liquefaction

Susceptibility Mapping, Website: gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility (accessed July 7, 2015). 15 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit., page 13. 16 Ibid.





Wiegers, M. (Wiegers), 2011. Landslide Inventory Map of the Milpitas and Nile Quadrangles, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California, California Geological Survey Landslide Inventory Map Series.

Each of these mapping efforts covers the project area and surrounding vicinity. The portions of the maps that show the landslide conditions at the project area are shown on Figures V.G-1 through V.G-3. Landslide potential and locations at the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below. In addition to the large deep-seated landslides discussed above, which include both potentially fast-moving block slides (e.g., the 1998 Mission Peak landslide) and creeping earthflows, the project area and surrounding vicinity are also subject to debris flows. Debris flows (also referred to as mudslides, mudflows, or debris avalanches) are a common type of fast-moving landslide that generally occurs during intense rainfall on water-saturated soil. They usually start on steep hillsides as soil slumps or slides that liquefy and accelerate to speeds as great as 35 miles per hour or more. They continue flowing down hills and into channels and deposit sand, mud, boulders, and organic material onto more gently sloping ground. Based on mapping by Rogers, the debris flow hazard in the project area is confined to the channel of Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries and would not directly affect the Option A or Option B sites.17

Option A. All three maps indicate that the Option A site is underlain by a landslide. On the Wiegers map, the landslide is shown to be about 6,000 feet long and 3,000 feet wide, extending from about the top of the ridge to about the center of the Option A site. The Herd map shows the landslide extending about 2,500 feet further downslope than shown on the Wiegers map, encompassing all of the Option A site. The Rogers maps shows coalesced smaller landslides, with distinct landslide features at the northern and southern portions of the Option A site. Both the Herd and Wiegers maps show that the landslide’s southern terminus is along Agua Caliente Creek. The Geotechnical Investigation, which included detailed site-specific analysis, including drilling of soil borings, excavation of test pits, and testing of soil samples, agrees with the interpretation that the Option A site is underlain by landslide deposits. In addition, review of historic aerial photographs indicates that the landslide material at the Option A site has not substantially moved during recent above-average rainfall years (1982-83 and 1997-98) and appears to be relatively stable.18

Option B. Both the Herd and Wiegers maps show that the above-described landslide’s southern terminus is along Agua Caliente Creek and does not extend to the Option B site. However, the Rogers map shows that the landslide activity extends to the south side of Agua Caliente Creek, encompassing all of the Option B site. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, which agrees with the Herd and Wiegers mapping that indicates the Option B site is not underlain by landslide deposits, addresses this apparent conflict by noting that the Rogers conclusions were based on reconnaissance-level mapping, while the Geotechnical Investigation was based on more detailed site-specific analysis, including drilling of soil borings, excavation of test pits, and testing of soil samples. Based on interpretation of the aerial photographs combined with the findings from the exploratory

17 Rogers, D., et.al., 2000, Volume 2 – Technical Data Report, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, CA, Map 4B.,

February. 18 Sheilds, Craig, 2015. Professional Engineer and Principal Geotechnical Engineer with Rockridge Geotechnical,

Inc., written communication with Bruce Abelli-Amen of BASELINE Environmental Consulting, August 20.

OPTION A

OPTION B

0 2000

1"=2000'

Conceptual Parking OptionsStanford Avenue Staging Area ExpansionEBRPD Mission Peak Regional Preserve

Stanford AvenueFremont, California

DATE: 4-29-14 Figure 6Project No. 14-617

feet

20000 1000

BASE: PORTIONS OF MAP OF QUATERNARY FAULTING ALONG THE HAYWARD AND CALAVERASFAULT ZONES, NILES AND MILPITAS 7 1/2-MINUTE QUADRANGLES, CALIFORNIA BY HERD,DARRELL G., 1977, OPEN-FILE REPORT SERIES NUMBER 77-645

FIGURE V.G-1

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRMap of Quaternary Faulting -

Conceptual Parking OptionsSOURCE: ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, AUGUST 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VG1.ai (8/25/15)

OPTION A

OPTION B

feet

20000 1000

CROWN OR HEAD SCARP:Zone of deple on, dashedwhere approximate (old).

DEFINITE or PROBABLE LANDSLIDE

QUESTIONABLE LANDSLIDE ACTIVE RAVELING & SLOPE CREEP

AREA LIMITS OF 1998 MISSION PEAK LANDSLIDE

SAG PONDS AND STOCK PONDS

EARTHFLOW

OLDER EARTHFLOWS

FIGURE V.G-2

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRLandslides and Related FeaturesSOURCES: GEOLITH CONSULTANTS, 2000; CITY OF FREMONT, 2015.


OPTION A

OPTION B

0 2000

1"=2000'

Conceptual Parking OptionsStanford Avenue Staging Area ExpansionEBRPD Mission Peak Regional Preserve

Stanford AvenueFremont, California

DATE: 4-29-14 Figure 5Project No. 14-617

LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP OF THEMILPITAS AND NILES QUADRANGLES, ALAMEDA AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP SERIES

LANDSLIDE MATERIALS TYPES

ROCK SLIDE

SOIL SLIDE

EARTH FLOW

CONFIDENCE OF INTERPRETATION

DEFINITE

PROBABLE

QUESTIONABLE

LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY

ACTIVE OR HISTORIC:THE LANDSLIDE APPEARS TO BE CURRENTLY MOVING

(AT THE TIME THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN OR FIELD OBSERVATION OCCURRED) OR TO HAVE MOVED WITHIN HISTORIC TIME.

DORMANT - YOUNGTHE OBSERVED LANDFORMS RELATED TO THELANDSLIDE ARE FRESH OR UN-ERODED, BUT THERE ISNO EVIDENCE OF HISTORIC MOVEMENT.

DORMANT - MATURETHE OBSERVED LANDFORMS RELATED TO THELANDSLIDE HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED AND SUBDUED BYEROSION AND VEGETATION.

DORMANT - OLDTHE OBSERVED LANDFORMS RELATED TO THELANDSLIDE HAVE BEEN GREATLY ERODED INCLUDINGSIGNIFICANT GULLIES OR CANYONS CUT INTO THELANDSLIDE MASS AND/OR MAIN SCARP BY SMALLSTREAMS.

feet

20000 1000

BASE: PORTIONS OF MARK O. WIEGERS, JUNE 2011, LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP OF THEMILPITAS AND NILES QUADRANGLES, ALAMEDA AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP SERIES

FIGURE V.G-3

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRRegional Landslide MapSOURCE: ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, AUGUST 2015.











test pits excavated at the Option B site, the Geotechnical Investigation concludes that the materials underlying the Option B site are not consistent with landslide deposits and thus Option B is not located on an existing landslide.

(5) Settlement and Differential Settlement. Settlement and/or differential settlement may occur if buildings or other improvements are built on low-strength soil foundation materials or if improvements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that native soils encountered in borings and test pits installed in the project area are not susceptible to cyclic densification (also known as differential compaction or differential settlement) because of the cohesion of the materials.19

(6) Expansive Soils. Expansion and contraction of soil volume can occur when expansive soils undergo alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles, the volume of the soil changes markedly. Soils subject to shrink-swell expand and contract in response to changes in soil moisture, most notably when near surface soils change from saturated to a low moisture content condition, and back again. Expansion and contraction of soils is a negligible hazard in moderate to deep soils where minimal moisture changes and overlying material loads limit movement. As a consequence of such volume changes, structural damage to buildings and infrastruc-ture may occur if the potentially expansive soils are not considered in project design and during construction. The Diablo Clay soils that occur at both the Option A and Option B sites have moderate to high plasticity indices which indicates they are likely subject to shrink-swell hazards. c. Regulatory Context. The regulatory context related to geology and soils within the project area is discussed below, including federal, State, and local requirements

(1) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established by the U.S. Congress when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law (PL) 95–124. In establishing NEHRP, Congress recognized that earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early-warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and involvement programs. The four basic NEHRP goals remain unchanged:

Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation.

Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems.

Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use.

Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects. Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four primary NEHRP agencies:

19 Ibid.





National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce

National Science Foundation (NSF)

United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security

Implementation of NEHRP priorities is accomplished primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist and guide state, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning.

(2) California Building Code. The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) is another name for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The CBC incorporates by reference the International Building Code (the widely adopted model building code in the United States) with necessary California amendments. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. Compliance with the 2013 CBC requires that (with very limited exceptions) structures for human occupancy be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions. The Seismic Design Category for a structure is determined in accordance with either CBC Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads or American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard No. 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. In brief, based on the engineering properties and soil-type of soils at a proposed site, the site is assigned a Site Class ranging from A to F. The Site Class is then combined with Spectral Response (ground acceleration induced by earthquake) information for the location to arrive at a Seismic Design Category ranging from A to D; D being the most severe conditions. The classification of a specific site and related calculations must be determined by a qualified person and are site-specific.

(3) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PEFZA). Surface rupture is the most easily avoided seismic hazard. The A-PEFZA was passed in December 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Hayward Fault A-PEFZA designated fault zone is located about one mile west of the project area.

(4) Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). In 1990, following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the California Legislature enacted the SHMA to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and other seismic hazards. The SHMA established a State-wide mapping program to identify areas subject to violent shaking and ground failure; the program is intended to assist cities and counties in protecting public health and safety. The SHMA requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. As a result, the CGS is mapping SHMA Zones and has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides: primarily the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles basin. Portions of the project area have been designated as being subject to landslide hazards (but not liquefaction hazards) under SHMA mapping.





In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.7, Section 2697, “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and related regulations establish a statewide minimum public safety standard for mitigation of earthquake hazards. This means that the minimum level of mitigation for a project should reduce the risk of ground failure during an earthquake to a level that does not cause the collapse of buildings for human occupancy, but in most cases, not to a level of no ground failure at all. The State‘s minimum criteria required for project approval within zones of required investigation are defined in CCR Title 14, Section 3724(c), which states that, “prior to approving the project, the lead agency shall independently review the geotechnical report to determine the adequacy of the hazard evaluation and proposed mitigation measures and to determine the requirements of Section 3724(a), are satisfied. Such reviews shall be conducted by a certified engineering geologist or registered civil engineer, having competence in the field of seismic hazard evaluation and mitigation.” The CGS Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California recognizes that “effective evaluation and mitigation ultimately depends on the combined professional judgment and expertise of the evaluating and reviewing professionals.”20

(5) City of Fremont Building Code. The City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, adopts the 2013 CBC, with amendments, as the Fremont Building Code. The Building and Safety Division is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Fremont Building Code.

(6) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plan’s Safety Element sets forth the following goals, policies, and implementation measures related to geology, soils, and seismicity that are relevant to the proposed project.

Goal 10-1: Geologic Hazards. Minimum feasible risk to life and property resulting from land instability and other geologic hazards

Policy 10-1.1: Location of Buildings and Structures. Regulate new development and redevelopment in a manner that avoids geological hazards to life and property.

○ Implementation 10-1.1.B: Limit Development in Areas of Land Instability. Prohibit development in areas of potential land instability identified on State and/or local geologic hazard maps, or identified through other means, unless a geologic investigation demonstrates hazards can be mitigated to an acceptable level as defined by the State of California.

○ Implementation 10-1.1.D: Mitigation Hazards to Acceptable Levels. Ensure all development impacts associated with geologic hazards are mitigated to an acceptable level as defined by the State of California.

Policy 10-1.2: Mitigation of Hazards. Require proposed development in areas of potential land instability to evaluate and sufficiently mitigate such hazards through site planning, appropriate construction techniques, building design and engineering.

20 California Geological Survey, 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,

Special Publication 117A.





○ Implementation 10-1.2.A: Site Specific Geologic Studies. Require site-specific geologic and geotechnical studies for land development or construction in areas of potential land instability as shown on the State and/or local geologic hazard maps or identified through other means.

○ Implementation 10-1.2.B: Peer Review of Site Specific Geologic Studies. Require City initiated peer review of all geologic and geotechnical hazard studies provided by project applicants.

Policy 10-1.3: Limits on Grading. Prohibit excessive and unnecessary grading activity, especially in areas of potential landslide risk as identified on State and local geologic hazard area maps or as identified during site reconnaissance.

○ Implementation 10-1.3.A: Grading Ordinance Consistency. Ensure all grading activity within the City is consistent with the Grading Ordinance.

Goal 10-2: Seismic Hazards. Minimum feasible risk to life and property resulting from seismic hazards

Policy 10-2.1: Location of Buildings and Structures. Regulate new development and redevelopment in a manner to minimize potential damage and hazards related to expected seismic activity.

○ Implementation 10-2.1.A: Consistency with Seismic Safety Criteria. Ensure all proposed development complies with the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and all other seismic safety criteria established by the City of Fremont.

○ Implementation 10-2.1.B: Mitigate Seismic Impacts. Ensure all development impacts associated with seismic hazards are mitigated to an acceptable level as defined by the State of California.

Policy 10-2.2: Building Setbacks from Faults. Prohibit construction of structures for human occupancy (as defined by the State) including attached garages within 50 feet of an identified main fault trace, unless a setback less than 50 feet is approved through site specific geological studies and associated peer review.

Policy 10-2.3: Soil Engineering Standards. Maintain and continually update construction and soil engineering standards that minimize seismic hazards to structures and building occupants.

○ Implementation 10-2.3.A: Seismic Mitigation. Require appropriate engineering and design mitigation measures to reduce hazards for structures located in seismic hazard zones and other areas outside identified seismic hazard zones if information suggests there are seismic issues.


following policy related to geology and soils.

Policy NRM13. The District will identify existing and potential erosion problems and take corrective measures to repair damage and mitigate its causes. The District will manage the parks to assure that an adequate cover of vegetation remains on the ground to provide soil protection. Where vegetative cover has been reduced or eliminated, the District will take steps to restore it using native or naturalized plants adapted to the site. The District will minimize soil disturbance associated with construction and maintenance operations, and will avoid disruptive activities in area with unstable soils whenever possible. The District will arrest the progress of active gully erosion where practical, and take action to restore these areas to stable conditions. The District will notify adjacent property owners of potential landslide situations and risks on District lands, and will conform with applicable law. The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and misuse.






The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to geology and soils that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts related to geology and soils that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to geology and soils if it would:

Expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

○ Rupture of a known active or potentially active 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;

○ Strong seismic ground shaking;

○ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and

○ Landslides;

Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil;

Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;

Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5 of the 2010 California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property; or

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.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to geology and soils. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Fault Rupture. Potential impacts related to fault rupture at the Option A and Option B sites are described below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. Surface rupture generally can be assumed to occur along an active major fault trace. No known active faults cross the Option A site, and therefore impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, no known active faults cross the Option B site; therefore, impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant.

(2) Ground Shaking. Potential impacts related to ground shaking, including shaking-induced liquefaction and ground failure, at the Option A and Option B sites are described below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant. The potential for the Option A and Option B





sites to be affected by landslides, including seismically-induced landslides, is described under subsection 4, Unstable Soils, below.

Option A. All structures and improvements in the Bay Area could potentially be affected by ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The amount of ground shaking that would occur depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of earth materials in between. Very strong ground shaking could occur at the Option A site during expected earthquakes on the Hayward Fault. The proposed development at Option A, which includes a paved parking area, restroom facilities, subsurface utilities, and access roads and trails, would not be particularly susceptible to ground shaking damage, and users of the new staging area and associated facilities would not be at an elevated risk of harm (especially when compared to users of residential or commercial structures that would be occupied by people for extended periods of time). Open space is one of the safer environments for people to be located during an earthquake event. Regardless, the design and construction of all improvements would be completed in accordance with the current seismic design codes included in the currently adopted version of the California Building Code. Design and construction of proposed project improvements in accordance with current building codes would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Based on regional mapping and results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for liquefaction (and related ground failure) at the Option A site is negligible, and therefore potential impacts related to liquefaction and ground failure would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, very strong ground shaking could occur at the Option B site during expected earthquakes on the Hayward Fault and design and construction in accordance with current building codes would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Also the proposed development at Option B, which includes a paved parking area, restroom facilities, subsurface utilities, and access roads and trails, would not be particularly susceptible to ground shaking damage, and users of the new staging area and associated facilities would not be at an elevated risk (especially when compared to users of residential or commercial structures that would be occupied by people for extended periods of time). Open space is one of the safer environments for people to be located during an earthquake event. Based on regional mapping and results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for liquefaction (and related ground failure) at the Option B site is negligible, and therefore potential impacts related to liquefaction and ground failure would be less than significant.

(3) Erosion. Excavation, grading, and construction on the project site would require temporary disturbance and exposure of shallow soils through removal of existing vegetative cover, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Operation of the parking facility could also increase erosion potential. However, as discussed below, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. Construction- and operation-period erosion impacts that could result with implementation of Option A are described below.





Construction-Period Erosion Impacts. Proposed excavation and grading at the Option A site would remove vegetative cover and expose soils, including soil stockpiles and excavations, to runoff and, if not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in the nearby creeks. As described in more detail in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would comply with existing regulations, including the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires the District or its contractor to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts from erosion to surface water quality during the project construction period. The SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and include the minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs), which will ensure Option A does not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Examples of the types of BMPs that are required under the Construction General Permit are listed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality (refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources; Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7b). Under the SWPPP, inspections would be conducted to ensure the BMPs are adequate, maintained, and in place at the end of the construction day. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP would also be responsible for performing all required monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair activities. Full implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementation of a SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts related to erosion and siltation and associated effects to water quality during the construction-period would be less than significant.

Operation-Period Erosion Impacts. During the operation period of the project, the majority of the site would be paved and an integrated drainage system installed, essentially eliminating the potential for operation-period erosion within the parking area. The surrounding areas and slopes temporarily disturbed by grading activities that would not be paved could be subject to erosion. However, the proposed constructed slopes surrounding the Option A parking facility would be relatively gentle (maximum of 3:1), which would reduce the erosion potential. In addition, compliance with NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires stabilization of graded slopes with hydroseeding or mulching (or equivalently effective measure) would ensure that the erosion potential in these areas would be minimized. As summarized in Chapter III, Project Description, construction and operation of the Option A site would likely increase the demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions, increasing the use of the Mission Peak trail segments that originate in the project area (i.e., the Hidden Valley Trail and Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven Trails). This increased usage could result in trail degradation and increased erosion within the Preserve. However, these issues are already addressed through ongoing operations and management efforts by District staff (refer to Chapter III, Project Description for a more detailed summary of the measures the District takes to address trail erosion within the park). Since issues related to trail erosion are already being addressed and will continue to be addressed by existing District programs and operations, the potential impact related to trail erosion due to increased use would be less than significant.

Option B. Construction- and operation-period erosion impacts that could result with implementation of Option B are described below.





Construction-Period Erosion Impacts. Proposed excavation and grading at the Option B site would remove vegetative cover and expose soils, including soil stockpiles and excavations, to runoff and, if not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in the nearby creeks. As described in more detail in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would comply with existing regulations, including the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires the District or its contractor to prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality from erosion during the project construction period. The SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and include the minimum BMPs, which will ensure Option B does not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Examples of the types of BMPs that are required under the Construction General Permit are listed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality (refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources; Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7b).Under the SWPPP, inspections would be conducted to ensure the BMPs are adequate, maintained, and in place at the end of the construction day. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP would also be responsible for performing all required monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair activities. Full implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementation of a SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts related to erosion and siltation and associated effects to water quality during the construction-period would be less than significant.

Operation-Period Erosion Impacts. During the operation period of the project, the majority of the site would be paved and an integrated drainage system installed, essentially eliminating the potential for operation-period erosion within the parking area. The surrounding areas and slopes temporarily disturbed by grading activities that would not be paved could be subject to erosion. However, the proposed constructed slopes surrounding the Option B parking facility would be relatively gentle (maximum of 3:1), which would reduce the erosion potential. In addition, compliance with NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires stabilization of graded slopes with hydroseeding or mulching (or equivalently effective measure) would ensure that the erosion potential in these areas would be minimized. As summarized in Chapter III, Project Description, construction and operation of the Option A site would likely increase the demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions, increasing the use of the Mission Peak trail segments that originate in the project area (i.e., the Hidden Valley Trail and Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven Trails). This increased usage could result in trail degradation and increased erosion within the Preserve. However, these issues are already addressed through ongoing operations and management efforts by District staff (refer to Chapter III, Project Description for a more detailed summary of the measures the District takes to address trail erosion within the park). Since issues related to trail erosion are already being addressed and will continue being addressed by existing District programs and operations, the potential impact related to trail erosion due to increased use would be less than significant.

(4) Unstable Soils and Landslides. Potential impacts related to unstable soils that could result in subsidence (also referred to as settlement or differential settlement), collapse, and/or on- or off-site landslides at the Option A and Option B sites are described below. Differential settlement or ground subsidence may occur if buildings or other improvements are built on low-strength foundation materials or if improvements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that native soils and rock materials in the





project area would not be unstable or result in ground surface settlement.21 Collapse is a geologic hazard that can occur when voids are present in the subsurface and the surface experiences an abrupt collapse of the ground cover. This phenomena is more common in karst terrain (which is not present in the project area), where underground voids have developed due to dissolution of the limestone materials by flowing water or in previously mined areas where underground tunnels have been excavated. As discussed below, with implementation of construction- and operation-period measures, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant with development of either site option. The potential for liquefaction (and related lateral spreading) to occur in the project area is discussed above under subsection 2, Ground Shaking.

Option A. There are no known conditions at the Option A site that would have created underground voids. Therefore, the potential impacts related to settlement and collapse would be less than significant. However, slope instability (i.e., landslide) is an impact that could affect the Option A site. Option A Impact GEO-1: Implementation of Option A could result in adverse impacts associated with slope instability (S) Based on regional mapping and the results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the Option A site is located on the toe (lower end) of a massive landslide complex. Though it is not known how recently the portion of the landslide underlying the Option A site experienced activity (i.e., moved downslope), it is known that a portion of this landslide complex about 0.5 miles to the north experienced a major event in 1998. Construction of the staging area at the Option A site would require grading and excavation within the landslide mass. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that “the comparatively small amount of cuts and fills planned for the proposed Option A parking lot will have a negligible impact on the stability of the existing landslide for both static and seismic conditions.”22 Landslide activity is related to “driving forces” which tend to increase landslide hazards and “resisting forces” which tend to decrease landslide hazards. The main driving force is gravity (which works to pull materials downslope). Slope angle, climate, nature of the geologic materials, water, and seismic shaking can all contribute to the effect of gravity and the driving force. Resisting forces oppose the driving forces. The resistance to downslope movement is dependent on the shear strength of the geologic material, which is a function of cohesion or the ability of particles to attract and hold each other together and internal friction, which is the friction between grains within a material. The landslide underlying the Option A site is an existing condition, and the proposed grading is relatively minor compared to the mass of the landslide. Because of the large differences in mass, the impact of the parking lot cuts and fills on the driving and resisting forces acting on the landslide mass would be minimal. Further, the grading plan for the Option A site specifies that material would be cut

21 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit., page 13. 22 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit., page 14.





(i.e., excavated) from the upslope area of the parking lot and placed on the downslope portion of the parking lot. Since this action would move material downslope and slightly increase the thickness of the geologic material at the lower portion of the landslide, the project would slightly decrease driving forces and increase resisting forces, very slightly reducing the risk of landslide reactivation.23 Based on this conclusion, the potential impacts related to activating the existing landslide and causing damage to downslope properties would be less than significant because project implementation would not increase the probability of landslide activation. The Option A site is located near the downslope terminus of the overall landslide complex. At this location, slope gradients are relatively small compared to the slope gradients in the upper portions of the landslide complex. Because of: 1) the relatively gentle slope gradients; and 2) the lack of observed movement during recent above-average rainfall years (1982-83 and 1997-98) based on review of historic aerial photographs, the risk of fast-moving catastrophic slope failures that could potentially result in injuries or fatalities of users of the facility is negligible (i.e., the potential impact of injury or death related to fast-moving landslide activity is less than significant).24 In addition, since the debris flow hazard mapping indicates that the Option A site is not likely to be affected by debris flows, this hazard is also less than significant. However, because of the presence of the landslide, the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that “site improvements cannot feasibly stabilize or improve the landslide conditions and, therefore, we conclude there is an elevated risk of damage to the proposed improvements [emphasis added] due to earthquake-induced reactivation of all or part of the existing landslide underlying the Option A site.”25 Any activity within the landslide mass underlying the completed Option A parking facility could damage pavements, the restroom facilities, and utilities. This damage could include buckled pavement, cracks, and disruption of utility service and potentially create hazards for users of the staging area if not addressed. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1a (below) as regular inspections and repairs of any damage will ensure that structures and pavements are safely maintained and people are not exposed to trip and fall injuries associated with cracks and buckled pavements. As part of grading and leveling of the Option A site to create the new staging area, the project would create new slopes around the facility perimeter. These slopes could be subject to instability and failure if not properly designed and constructed. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation included a preliminary analysis of the stability of the proposed slopes using a computer-based slope stability analytical program called SLOPE/W (version 6.02) by Geo-Slope International and concluded that the factor of safety for constructed slopes would exceed 2.0 under static (i.e., non-seismic) conditions at the Option A site (the standard of practice generally considers a slope with a factor of safety of 1.5 or higher to be sufficiently stable). The analysis indicated that the factor of safety of the proposed slopes under seismic conditions would be above 1.5 provided the slopes were to be constructed in accordance with the recommendations included in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation. These

23 Ibid. 24 Sheilds, Craig, 2015, op. cit. 25 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit., page 15.





recommendations include, but are not limited to, stripping of vegetation and topsoil, moisture conditioning, and appropriate levels of compaction. Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1b shall be implemented to ensure that the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation are implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1a would also reduce impacts associated with Option A Impact GEO-2 (identified below) to a less-than-significant level.

Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: The District shall conduct annual inspections of the Option A staging area and document any indications of cracking or deformation of pavements, flatwork, and slopes that may be the result of slope instability. Any conditions that could result in hazards to users shall be promptly repaired. Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1b: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional, and submitted to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of the site-specific Geotech-nical Investigation for the project and fully complies with the CBC. In accordance with the CCR Title 14, Section 3724, prior to approving the project, the lead agency shall independently review the geotechnical report to determine that the nature and severity of the seismic hazards at the site have been evaluated and addressed. This review shall be conducted by a certified engineering geologist or registered civil engineer, having competence in the field of seismic and slope stability hazard evaluation and mitigation. All recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation and design-level geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition, as a condition of approval for grading permits, a qualified and licensed professional shall be required to be present as a construction monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the stripping of deleterious material and to provide consultation, as required, to the grading contractor(s), ensuring compliance with the CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations. (LTS)

Option B. There are no known conditions at the Option B site that would have created

underground voids. Therefore, the potential impacts related to settlement and collapse would be less than significant. However, slope instability (i.e., landslide) is an impact that could affect the Option B site. Option B Impact GEO-1: Implementation of Option B could result in adverse impacts associated with slope instability (S) Based on regional mapping and the results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the Option B site is underlain by alluvial fan deposits and not located on an existing landslide. Therefore, potential impacts related to project grading and operation activating existing landslide materials is less than significant. In addition, since the debris flow hazard mapping indicates that the Option B site is not likely to be affected by debris flows, this hazard is also less than significant. Similar to the Option A site, as part of grading and leveling/terracing of the Option B site to create the new staging area, the project would create new slopes within and around the facility perimeter. These slopes could be subject to instability and failure if not properly designed and constructed. The site-





specific Geotechnical Investigation included a preliminary analysis of the stability of the proposed slopes using a computer-based slope stability analytical program called SLOPE/W (version 6.02) by Geo-Slope International and concluded that the factor of safety for constructed slopes would exceed 2.0 under static (i.e., non-seismic) conditions at the Option B site (the standard of practice generally considers a slope with a factor of safety of 1.5 to be sufficiently stable under static conditions). The analysis indicated that the factor of safety of the proposed slopes under seismic conditions would be above 1.5 provided the slopes are constructed in accordance with the recommendations included in the preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, stripping of vegetation and topsoil, moisture conditioning, appropriate levels of compaction, and additional soil testing. Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-1a shall be implemented to ensure that the recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation are implemented and that the actual site conditions are inspected by a qualified professional during grading. Implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-1a would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional, and submitted to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of the site-specific Geotech-nical Investigation for the project and fully complies with the CBC. All recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation and design-level geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition, as a condition of approval for grading permits, a qualified and licensed professional shall be required to be present as a construction monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the stripping of deleterious material and to provide consultation, as required, to the grading contractor(s), ensuring compliance with the CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations. (LTS)

(5) Expansive Soils. Potential impacts related to expansive soils at the Option A and Option

B sites are described below. As discussed below, with implementation of the mitigation measures proposed for slope instability, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant with development of either site option.

Option A. The Diablo Clay soils that occur the Option A site have a moderate to high plasticity indices which indicates they are likely subject to shrink-swell hazards. Option A Impact GEO-2: Implementation of Option A could result in adverse impacts associated with expansive soils (S) Based on the confirmed presence of expansive soils at the Option A site, the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation recommends that foundation and slabs be designed and constructed to resist the effects of the expansive clay by moisture conditioning the expansive clay, providing select, non-expansive fill below concrete slabs-on-grade, and either supporting foundations below the zone of severe moisture change or providing a stiff, shallow foundation that can limit deformation of the superstructure as the underlying soil shrinks and swells. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that even with proper moisture conditioning and compaction of the underlying soil and placement of one foot of select fill beneath the slabs, some movement and cracking of concrete





flatwork may occur due to differential wetting of the soil, which is unavoidable for the proposed improvements. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by regularly inspecting and repairing cracking as required with implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1a, above.

Option B. The Diablo Clay soils that occur at the Option B site have a moderate to high plasticity indices which indicates they are likely subject to shrink-swell hazards. Option B Impact GEO-2: Implementation of Option B could result in adverse impacts associated with expansive soils (S) Based on the confirmed presence of expansive soils at the Option B site, the site-specific Geotech-nical Investigation recommends that foundation and slabs be designed and constructed to resist the effects of the expansive clay by moisture conditioning the expansive clay, providing select, non-expansive fill below concrete slabs-on-grade, and either supporting foundations below the zone of severe moisture change or providing a stiff, shallow foundation that can limit deformation of the superstructure as the underlying soil shrinks and swells. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that even with proper moisture conditioning and compaction of the underlying soil and placement of one foot of select fill beneath the slabs, some movement and cracking of concrete flatwork may occur due to differential wetting of the soil, which is unavoidable for the proposed improvements. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by regularly inspecting and repairing cracking as required with implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-2.

Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The District shall conduct annual inspections of the Option B staging area and document any indications of cracking or deformation of pavements or flatwork. Any conditions that could result in hazards to users of the facility or could contribute to continued deformation shall be promptly repaired. (LTS)

(6) Septic and/or On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems. Potential impacts related to on-

site wastewater treatment systems at the Option A and Option B sites are described below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. Development of Option A would result in the conversion of the existing vault toilet at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to a restroom facility with sewer connections. In addition, new sewer lines would be extended to the Option A staging area to serve the new restroom facilities. No septic systems or on-site wastewater treatment systems are proposed at the Option A site therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Development of Option B would result in the conversion of the existing vault toilet at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to a restroom facility with sewer connections. In addition, new sewer lines would be extended to the Option B staging area to serve the new restroom facilities. No septic systems or on-site wastewater treatment systems are proposed at the Option B site therefore, this impact would be less than significant.





c. Cumulative Impacts. Impacts related to geologic hazards are generally site specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each project area has unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts is limited. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions occur at individual building sites. These effects are site‐specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Even if there were cumulative geologic hazards impacts, given the mitigation measures described above and the design features and nature of the project (i.e., staging area rather than a habitable structure), implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to geologic hazards, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.



H . H Y D R O L O G Y A N D W A T E R Q U A L I T Y

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5h-Hydrology.docx (10/14/15) 257

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

This section describes the existing hydrologic conditions for the project area, including runoff, drainage, and water quality characteristics, based on available information provided within published reports. Data gathered as part of a site reconnaissance conducted in May 2015 was also used to prepare this analysis. This section also identifies potentially significant impacts on hydrological resources that may result from project implementation, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to a less-than-significant level. 1. Setting

This subsection provides a brief description of the existing hydrological setting at and near the project area; the regulations affecting water resources at the federal, State, and local level; and local policies and programs related to hydrology and water quality. a. Climate. The climate of the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized as Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the project area, for the period between 1996 and 2015, was approximately 16 inches, with rainfall occurring primarily from November through March. During the period of record, annual rainfall has varied from about 8.4 inches (2007) to about 26.2 inches (1998). The weather station that reports these precipitation statistics is located approximately 8 miles northwest of the project area on the valley floor on Central Avenue between Blacow Road and I-880 in Fremont. Since the project area is at the base of the mountain uplands (northwestern portion of the Diablo Range), topographic effects are likely to slightly increase rainfall quantities in the vicinity of the project area. Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the region. Data from a rain gage located near the mouth of the Niles Canyon (which has a much longer historic record than the Fremont rain gage) indicates that 35.2 inches of rain fell during the 1998 water year.1 b. Runoff and Drainage. The project area is located in the foothill area between the valley floor (to the west) and the steeper mountain uplands (to the east). Elevations range from approximately 380 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the western portion of the Option A site to approximately 500 feet msl at the upper eastern portion of the Option B site. Agua Caliente Creek, which flows generally east to west, is the main surface water feature in the project area (see Figure III-1 in Chapter III, Project Description). In the vicinity of the project area, Agua Caliente Creek is vertically incised; in some areas, eroded vertical banks exceed 10 feet in height. Two distinct seasonal tributary streams join Agua Caliente Creek just north of the Option B site. During the reconnaissance of the project area in late May 2015, Agua Caliente Creek had a small amount of flow (less than 1cubic foot per second) and the two tributaries were dry. Another unnamed creek, which flows northeast to southwest, is located north of the Option A site. In an undeveloped setting, such as the project area, when rainfall intensities exceed the infiltration capacity of surface soils, runoff flows over the ground surfaces toward established natural drainages. Under current conditions, runoff from the Option A site flows both to the north (to the unnamed

1 Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California. February.





stream that joins Agua Caliente Creek downstream) and to the south (to Agua Caliente Creek). All the runoff from the Option B site flows toward Agua Caliente Creek. Access to the Option B site currently requires crossing Agua Caliente Creek using an existing roadway which crosses over the culverted creek (a 5-foot corrugated metal culvert) as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven Trail. c. Flooding. The project area is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).2 In addition, the project area is not located within an area subject to inundation related to dam failure.3 d. Coastal Hazards. Due to the location and elevation of the project area, approximately 8 miles east of the San Francisco Bay and at a minimum elevation of 380 feet msl, the project area would not be subject to inundation as a result of tsunami, sea level rise, or extreme high tides. In addition, the project area is not located near any open water bodies that would be subject to seiches (an oscillation of a body of water that occurs most frequently in enclosed or semi-enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, or harbors), and therefore inundation hazards from seiches are not a concern. e. Groundwater, Recharge, and Springs. The project area is located along the eastern edge of the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin (Basin),4 a regionally significant managed groundwater supply basin. The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) provides water service to approximately 340,000 people in the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The portion of ACWD’s water supply produced from wells in the Basin has historically been between 30 and 62 percent annually, depending upon seasonal and annual demand requirements.5 Based on regional geologic mapping, the Option A site is underlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks and Quaternary alluvial gravels in a clay matrix,6 with surface soils mapped as Diablo Clay.7 The Option B site is underlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks, and a combination of surficial soils, including Diablo Clay, Los Osos silty clay loam, and Milshoam silt loam. The soils at both sites are mapped as having low infiltration capacity. These soils are mapped as Hydrologic Group C and D soils which are defined as follows:8

2 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community-Panel Numbers

06001C0468G and 06001C0469G, Alameda County, California. August 3, 2009. 3 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Safety Element, pp. 10-23. December. 4 Alameda County Water District, 2015. Water Resources Department, Groundwater Resources Division.

Groundwater Monitoring Report 2014. January 31. 5 Ibid. 6 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Feasibility Study, Mission Peak

Regional Preserve, Fremont, California. August 13. 7 Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/

HomePage.htm (accessed May 19, 2015). 8 Ibid.





Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings or test pits completed as part of the preliminary geotechnical investigation (the boring and pits ranged in depth from 7.0 to 21 feet below the ground surface [bgs]) prepared for the proposed project.9 Available historic groundwater information for the site and vicinity indicate historic high groundwater to be about 10 to 20 feet bgs.10 A small solar-powered pump located on the Option B site is used as a water source for cattle grazing. This pump provides water from the Alameda County Water District system to the site. Based on many of the place names in the site area vicinity that refer to both “springs” and warm water (e.g., Warm Springs, Rancho Agua Caliente, Agua Caliente Creek), springs are a part of Fremont’s history. A spring occurs when the side of a hill, a valley bottom, or excavation intersects the local groundwater table. A spring discharges water onto the land surface. They can range in size from intermittent seeps, which flow only after much rain, to substantial year-round flows. In the vicinity of the project area, it is likely that any spring flow is related to faults, fractures and joints in the underlying highly-deformed geologic units. Water moves through these fractures and where the fractures intersect the surface, water flows onto the land. Spring activity just south of the terminus of Hidden Valley Terrace Road (see Figure III-1 in Chapter III, Project Description) (approximately 500 feet south of the Option A site and 500 feet west of the Option B site) was mapped by previous investigators in a report published in 2000.11 No project area springs were identified during the May 2015 site reconnaissance conducted to support the preparation of this EIR (with the exception of flow in the main stem of Agua Caliente Creek, which is likely supported by spring flow higher up in the watershed). This lack of any observable indication of springs in May 2015 may be due to the extended drought that has been occurring in California. f. Regulatory Context. The regulatory context related to hydrology and water quality is discussed below, including federal, State, and local requirements.

(1) Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is authorized to regulate the discharge of pollutants in the waters of the United States and to regulate water quality standards for surface waters. The USEPA has delegated authority for implementing water quality

9 Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit. 10 Ibid. 11 Rogers, David, et al., 2000, op. cit.





regulations to the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), which has nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards were established by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The project area is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), which is responsible for implementation of State and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations, and policies in the project area.

(2) San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan. The Regional Water Board implements the San Francisco Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), a master policy document for managing water quality in the region.12 The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. The Niles Cone Groundwater Subbasin, which underlies the project area, is listed in the Basin Plan as providing existing and potential beneficial uses of municipal and domestic water supply, industrial process water supply, industrial service water supply, and agricultural water supply. At its closest, the South San Francisco Bay margin is located approximately 8 miles west of the project area and is listed as providing the existing beneficial uses of industrial service supply, commercial and sport fishing, shellfish harvesting, estuarine habitat, fish migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spawning, wildlife habitat, water contact and noncontact recreation, and navigation.

(3) Section 303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Loads. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to identify water bodies that are impaired, and which consequently require further action to support their beneficial uses. Once a water body is identified as impaired, the state is required to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant that is a source of impairment. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, which will ensure the protection of beneficial uses. The Basin Plan establishes TMDLs and the attainment strategies that need to be implemented in order to meet the standards. TMDL attainment strategies are implemented by the Regional Water Board through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which are described below. The project area drains to Agua Caliente Creek which in turn drains ultimately to South San Francisco Bay. The South San Francisco Bay is on the 303(d) list of water bodies that have been identified as impaired. Table V.H-1 below summarizes the pollutants/stressors and their respective sources.13

(4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Fremont are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Storm-water NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted October 14, 2009 (MRP). The MRP is enforced by the Regional Water Board. The City of Fremont is a

12 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Basin (Region

2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Available online at: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/basin_plan07.pdf (accessed July 2015).

13 State Water Resources Control Board, 2010. Integrated Report, (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report) – Statewide. Website: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml (accessed July 7, 2015).





member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP), which assists municipalities and other agencies in Alameda County with implementation of the MRP. MRP Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into development projects in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharges and to prevent increases in runoff flows. Low Impact Development (LID) methods are required to be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls. Table V.H-1: Impaired Water Body Pollutants for South San Francisco Bay

Pollutant/Stressor Source(s) Chlordane Nonpoint source DDT Nonpoint source Dieldrin Nonpoint source Dioxin Compounds Atmospheric deposition Furan Compounds Atmospheric deposition Invasive Species Ballast water Mercury Industrial point source; municipal point source; recourse extraction;

atmospheric deposition; natural source; nonpoint source PCBs Unknown nonpoint source PCBs (dioxin-like) Unknown nonpoint source Selenium Agriculture; domestic use of groundwater DDT = Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls

Source: State Water Board, 2010. MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This MRP provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. The Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map developed by the ACCWP indicates that the project area drains primarily to earthen channels and therefore the project area is subject to hydromodification management requirements.14 In addition, projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit). Construction General Permit activities are regulated at a local level by the Regional Water Board.

14Alameda County Clean Water Program, 2007. Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map. Available

online at: www.cleanwaterprogram.org/uploads/I-ACCWP_C3TechGuide_HM-entire_appendix.pdf (accessed July 2, 2015).





To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project sponsor must provide a Notice of Intent, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other documents required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. Activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as grubbing or excavation. The permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects such as pipeline installations. The Construction General Permit uses a risk-based permitting approach and mandates certain requirements based on the project risk level (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3). The project risk level is based on the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk. The sediment discharge risk depends on project location and timing (i.e., wet season versus dry season activities). The receiving water risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment-sensitive receiving water. The performance standard in the Construction General Permit is that dischargers minimize or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges through the use of controls, structures, and best management practices (BMPs). A SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer that meets the certification requirements in the Construction General Permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges; and 2) to describe and ensure the implementa-tion of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction activity so that no significant impacts to hydrology or water quality occur. Operation of BMPs must be overseen by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner that meets the requirements outlined in the permit.

(5) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFC). The ACFC is responsible for protecting county citizens from flooding by maintaining flood channels and natural creeks within Alameda County. As a condition of receiving a drainage permit, drainage plans for development projects must be reviewed by the ACFC to ensure that they are consistent with its policies and regulations pertaining to runoff, stormwater management and detention, flooding, and erosion. In addition, development projects that involve work within the ACFC right-of-way or that involve construction, modification, or connection to ACFC facilities are required to obtain a Flood Encroachment Permit and must comply with ACFC standards and specifications.

(6) Alameda County Water District (ACWD). The Alameda County Groundwater Protection Act authorizes the ACWD to take action to protect the quality of the local groundwater supply within the ACWD service area by adopting, updating, and revising regulations and standards. Under the Replenishment Assessment Act, the ACWD also has authority to collect fees for water extracted from water supply wells, dewatering wells, and water quality monitoring/treatment wells. The ACWD uses the fees to manage and replenish the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. ACWD Ordinance No. 2010-01 requires a permit to be obtained for the construction, repair, inactivation or destruction of any well or exploratory hole, or any excavation that has the potential to impact a groundwater aquifer. There are no known wells on the Option A or Option B sites.

(7) City of Fremont Municipal Code. Various portions of the City of Fremont Municipal Code address hydrology and water quality, as follows. The proposed project would comply with these regulations as further discussed below in the impact discussion.





Chapter 18.205 Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that future development is performed in a manner that does not strip or remove soil from lands, protects water quality from nutrients and sediments, and retains existing vegetation to the extent practical. The chapter also establishes grading permit requirements.

Chapter 18.210 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The purpose of this chapter is to reduce non-stormwater discharges to the City stormwater drainage system to the maximum extent practicable and to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharge to the maximum extent practicable. The chapter establishes stormwater discharge regulations and requirements, as well as inspection and enforcement actions.

(8) City of Fremont General Plan. The following goals and policies from the City of

Fremont General Plan’s Safety and Conservation Elements related to hydrology and water quality pertain to the proposed project. The General Plan also contains one or more implementing actions for each policy.

Goal 10-3: Flood Hazards. Minimum feasible risks to life and property resulting from flooding and flood induced hazards.

Policy 10-3.2: Design to Minimize Flooding. Design new development and redevelopment projects to minimize hazards associated with flooding and limit the amount of runoff that contributes to flooding.

Goal 7-2 Water Resources. A protected water resource system that offers natural habitat and enhances the biological value of the City.

Policy 7-2.1: Preservation of Water Resources. Water resources such as the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long term water resource sustainability.

Policy 7-2.3: Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Maintenance. Maintain the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin as a reliable water source.

Goal 7-3: Water Quality. High quality water protected from pollutants and managed to improve the quality of the San Francisco Bay and groundwater resources.

Policy 7-3.1: Protect and Improve Water Quality. Protect and improve water quality in all Fremont’s creeks, streams, water courses and water bodies.

Policy 7-3.2: Groundwater Resources. Protect groundwater from contamination, specifically, the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin.

Policy 7-3.3: Enforce Water Quality Requirements. Enforce Federal, State and locally issued mandates regarding water quality such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

Goal 7-4: Water Conservation. A water conservation program with measurable results consistent with Alameda County Water District’s Urban Water Management Plan and with the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Policy 7-4.1: Water Conservation. Maximize community water conservation.

Policy 7-4.2: Reclaimed Water. Encourage the use of reclaimed water for irrigation, industrial purposes and in City operations.





Policy 7-4.3: Water Conservation in City Operations. Maximize water conservation in City operations.

Goal 7-6: Soil Resources. Urban development consistent with soil conditions to minimize erosion and protect health and property.

Policy 7-6.2: Minimize Soil Erosion. Eliminate soil erosion from development to the maximum extent possible.


following policy related to hydrology and water quality.

Policy NRM 11. Park water resources will be used for beneficial purposes. Water quality will be monitored to comply with established standards. The District will participate in cooperative effort to plan comprehensive watershed management and will adopt “best management practice” guidelines for District land use activities to minimize potential storm water pollution. The District will monitor land use planning and development activities by other agencies and cities to avoid potential adverse impacts to parkland from pollutants generated by off-site or upstream sources.

Policy NRM 11b. The District will pursue conservation and control technologies for the use of potable and irrigation water. The District will seek to reduce the use of imported water for uses other than human consumption through conservation and by developing other sources of water for irrigation and non-potable needs.

Policy NRM 13. The District will identify existing and potential erosion problems and take corrective measures to repair damage and mitigate its causes. The District will manage the parks to assure that an adequate cover of vegetation remains on the ground to provide soil protection. Where vegetative cover has been reduced or eliminated, the District will take steps to restore it using native or naturalized plants adapted to the site. The District will minimize soil disturbance associated with construction and maintenance operations, and will avoid disruptive activities in areas with unstable soils whenever possible. The District will arrest the progress of active gully erosion where practical, and take action to restore these areas to stable conditions. The District will notify adjacent property owners of potential landslide situations and risks on District lands, and will conform with applicable law. The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and misuse.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts related to hydrology and water quality that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality if it would:

Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a significant net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level;





Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;

Create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and/or increase upstream or downstream flooding and require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;

Place housing 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;

Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;

Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or

Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, extreme high tides, and/or sea level rise.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Water Quality Standards. Excavation, grading, and construction activities in the project area would require temporary disturbance and exposure of shallow soils through removal of existing vegetative cover, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Operation of the parking facility at both sites could contribute pollutant to runoff, degrading receiving water quality. As discussed below, the project includes implementation of construction- and operation-period measures in compliance with applicable law and with all City regulations and requirements. Thus, these water quality impacts would be less than significant with development of either site option.

Option A. Construction- and operation-period impacts to water quality that could result with implementation of Option A are described below.

Construction-Period Water Quality Impacts. Depending on project timing and duration of grading, soil stockpiles and excavations associated with Option A could be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in water courses at, and away from, the Option A site. The accumulation of sediment could result in blockage of flows, potentially causing increased localized ponding or flooding. The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents could be transported to the nearby creek in stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water,





potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. A detailed SWPPP would address these potential impacts. In accordance with existing regulations (the Statewide Construction General Permit), the District or its contractor would prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality during the project construction period. SWPPPs have two major objectives: 1) to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges; and 2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce to an insignificant level or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater discharge so that construction does not substantially degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The SWPPP must include BMPs that address source control, BMPs that address pollutant control, and BMPs that address treatment control. Under the requirements of the General Permit, the SWPPP would include the following objectives and/or measures to be implemented by the District or its contractor:

Schedule grading activities outside the typical rainy months (October to April), to the extent feasible;

Control pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with grading and all other activities associated with construction activity;

Where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Board permit, identify and either eliminate, control, or treat all non-stormwater discharges; and

Implement BMPs that are effective and result in the reduction to an insignificant level or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity.

Examples of the types of BMPs that are required under the Construction General Permit include:

A moratorium on grading during a rain event;

A requirement that erosion and sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain storms;

Prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within vegetated areas;

Limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action;

Delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts;

Installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing plastic monofilament is prohibited);

Implementing spill and litter controls;

Proper management of fuels and other hazardous materials;

Management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts;

Liquid waste management; and

Preserving existing vegetation wherever possible.





The above-noted BMPs are also included in Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7b (refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources) and are required to be implemented to ensure that impacts to jurisdictional waters are reduced to a less-than-significant level. The SWPPP would be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and would include the minimum BMPs required for this type of project (based on final determination of the project’s Risk Level status, to be determined as part of the Notice of Intent for coverage under the Construction General Permit); these include: BMPs for erosion and sediment control, site management and housekeeping, waste management, management of non-stormwater discharges, runon and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. The SWPPP would include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the project Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. Under the SWPPP, inspections would be conducted to ensure the BMPs are adequate, maintained, and in place at the end of the construction day. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP would also be responsible for performing all required monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair activities. Full compliance with and implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementation of a SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts to water quality during the construction-period at the Option A site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality and thus would be less than significant.

Operation-Period Water Quality Impacts. During the operation period, the proposed project would generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek. In addition, runoff from the project could alter the rate, volume, or duration of discharges into Agua Caliente Creek, which could cause substantial erosion and siltation and contribute to stream channel hydromodification impacts. Development of Option A would increase the impervious area in the project area by 2.78 acres compared to the existing condition, which is unpaved and covered with herbaceous ground covers including annual grasses. The project would be a potential source of pollutants such as sediment; metals; organic compounds such as pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and oil and grease; pathogens; nutrients; and trash and debris. If not properly controlled, these pollutants could accumulate on impervious surfaces, come into contact with stormwater runoff, and be discharged into Agua Caliente Creek and the unnamed creek to the north, thereby increasing the pollutant loading to the creeks compared to the existing condition. The project proposes to manage stormwater runoff during the operation period at the Option A site through a combination of in-parking lot bioretention areas and a detention pond (refer to Figure III-2a in Chapter III, Project Description). Precipitation that falls directly onto the paved areas of the parking facility would be directed toward the stormwater planters, where runoff would infiltrate through a specially-designed soil medium that filters pollutants from the runoff. Near the base of the





stormwater planters, a perforated drainage pipe system would collect the treated water and convey it to the detention pond. Runoff from the adjacent unpaved slopes would not be directed to the in-parking area stormwater planters, but would be conveyed directly to the detention pond by newly constructed stormwater swales and pipelines. The Option A facility would include a detention pond (see Figure III-2a) designed to address potential hydromodification impacts. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would be located just north of the site (see Figure III-2a). The stormwater detention pond would have a storage capacity of approximately 40,000 cubic feet and would be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. Discharge from the pond would be concentrated at an outfall into an existing earthen swale. The discharge point would be armored with rock revetment designed to dissipate the energy and prevent erosion. The storage volume and metered discharge piping associated with the detention pond would be sized using the Bay Area Hydraulic Model (BAHM) which simulates preconstruction and post-construction stormwater flows, as directed by the Clean Water Program. The software uses long term rainfall records and schematic drainage models to generate continuous flow duration curves of project runoff. The requirement is that hydromodification management controls limit post-construction flows - above the critical flow – to flows lower than pre-construction conditions. This requirement would be accomplished by detaining water and releasing at lower flows - below the critical flow - over a longer period of time. The critical flow is taken as 10 percent of the 2-year flow, which is considered low enough to not contribute to creek bank erosion.15 Development of Option A would include repair of an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. The existing concrete headwall would remain; however, a new rock-tail wall and outfall would be installed at the existing 5-foot diameter culvert. A 1.5-foot layer of rock (approximately 20 cubic yards) would also be installed over filter fabric. In addition to the parking facilities, the project also proposes the construction of a new access road and trail segments. Runoff from these road and trail segments would be managed by collecting runoff on the uphill side of the road in a swale before it crosses the road. This stormwater would be conveyed to the existing storm drain inlet and discharged without treatment. Stormwater that falls directly on the road would sheet flow across the road and overland through grassland and trees (with a minimum of 150 feet before reaching the creek). Runoff from trails would discharge to the surrounding open space areas and infiltrate into soils. In addition to the post-construction stormwater control BMPs described above, Option A would also include a design-level stormwater control plan (SCP) that complies with existing NPDES regulations, which require that the District or its contractor comply with the applicable requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP. Implementation of the SCP would ensure Option A complies with all standards and stormwater management requirements and that the project does not substantially degrade water quality. The SCP for the project would include:

15 East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Mission Peak Post –Construction Stormwater Controls, Revised 06-05-

2015. June 5.





LID design details. LID features, include minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and then storing, detaining, evapotranspiring, and/or biotreating stormwater runoff are required by the MRP. In accordance with the existing regulations, the proposed project’s conceptual design, which includes biotreatment in stormwater planters, would be designed and sized in accordance with the MRP, section C.3.c.i.2(b).

Measures to address potential stormwater contaminants. These measures will include regular street sweeping to remove sources of stormwater pollutants from the paved surfaces at the project site or other practices to removed sources of stormwater pollutants.

Detailed detention pond design. In accordance with the MRP, the proposed detention pond would be designed and operated such that stormwater discharges from the project would not cause an increase in the erosion potential of Agua Caliente Creek over the pre-project (existing) condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume would be managed so that post-project runoff would not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. The District must demonstrate to the City that post-project stormwater runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project runoff rates and durations by one of the methods included in the MRP (section C.3.g.ii).

Long-term funding and maintenance responsibilities. In accordance with the MRP and the ACCWP, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, funding for long-term maintenance of all BMPs must be specified. The District would enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to ensure long-term maintenance of treatment BMPs and detention pond. After the maintenance agreement is executed the District would begin to implement the maintenance plan and inspection reports would be submitted to the City as required by the maintenance agreement. In accordance with the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, the maintenance plan must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate to the municipality that stormwater treatment measures and detention pond will receive adequate inspections and maintenance to continue functioning as designed over the life of the project. The C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance includes specifications and requirements for operations and maintenance of flow-through planters and a detention pond (the types of stormwater management features proposed by the project) that must be implemented in accordance with existing regulations.

Full implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementa-tion of a SCP and compliance with the MRP) would ensure that potential impacts to water quality during the Option A site operation-period would be less than significant.

Option B. Construction- and operation-period impacts to water quality that could result with implementation of Option B are similar to those described for Option A, as discussed below.

Construction-Period Water Quality Impacts. Depending on project timing and duration of grading, soil stockpiles and excavations associated with Option B could be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in water courses at, and away from, the Option B site. The accumulation of sediment could result in blockage of flows, potentially causing increased localized ponding or flooding. The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents





could be transported to the nearby creek in stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. A detailed SWPPP would address these potential impacts. In accordance with existing regulations (the Statewide Construction General Permit), the District or its contractor would prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality during the project construction period. The requirements for the SWPPP to be prepared for the Option B site are identical to those described above under Option A. In addition, the above-noted BMPs are also included in Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7b (refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources) and are required to be implemented to ensure that impacts to jurisdictional waters are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Full compliance with and implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementation of a SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts to water quality during the construction-period for Option B would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality and thus would be less than significant.

Operation-Period Water Quality Impacts. During the operation period, the proposed project would generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek. In addition, runoff from the project could alter the rate, volume, or duration of discharges into Agua Caliente Creek, which could cause substantial erosion and siltation and contribute to stream channel hydromodification impacts. Development of Option B would increase the impervious area in the project area by 3.10 acres compared to the existing condition, which is unpaved and covered with herbaceous ground covers including annual grasses. The project would be a potential source of pollutants such as sediment; metals; organic compounds such as pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and oil and grease; pathogens; nutrients; and trash and debris. If not properly controlled, these pollutants could accumulate on impervious surfaces, come into contact with stormwater runoff, and be discharged into Agua Caliente Creek and the unnamed creek to the north, thereby increasing the pollutant loading to the creeks compared to the existing condition. The project proposes to manage stormwater runoff during the operation period at the Option B site through a combination of in-parking lot bioretention areas and a detention pond (see Figure III-3a in Chapter III, Project Description). Precipitation that falls directly onto the paved areas of the parking facility would be directed toward the stormwater planters, where runoff would infiltrate through a specially-designed soil medium that filters pollutants from the runoff. Near the base of the stormwater planters, a perforated drainage pipe system would collect the treated water and convey it to the detention pond. Runoff from the adjacent unpaved slopes would not be directed to the in-parking area stormwater planters, but would be conveyed directly to the detention pond by newly constructed stormwater swales and pipelines.





The Option B facility would include a detention pond (see Figure III-3a) designed to address potential hydromodification impacts. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would drain to an existing concrete channel west of the site. The detention pond would be approximately 20,000 square feet in size and would have a storage capacity of 65,000 cubic feet. Other than directing the proposed incoming flow downstream, no modification to the existing ditch would be required. According to conceptual design information provided by District engineering staff, the storage volume and metered discharge piping associated with the detention pond would be sized using the Bay Area Hydraulic Model (BAHM) which simulates preconstruction and post-construction stormwater flows, as directed by the Clean Water Program. The software uses long term rainfall records and schematic drainage models to generate continuous flow duration curves of project runoff. The requirement is that hydromodification management controls limit post-construction flows - above the critical flow – to flows lower than pre-construction conditions. This requirement is accomplished by detaining water and releasing at lower flows - below the critical flow - over a longer period of time. The critical flow is taken as 10 percent of the 2-year flow, which is considered low enough to not contribute to creek bank erosion.16 In addition to the parking facilities, the project also proposes the construction of a new access road and trail segments, including a new vehicle bridge and a new pedestrian bridge. According to conceptual design information provided by District engineering staff, runoff from these road and trail segments would be managed by collecting runoff on the uphill side of the road in a swale before it crosses the road. This stormwater would be conveyed to the existing storm drain inlet and discharged without treatment. Stormwater that falls directly on the road would sheet flow across the road and overland through grassland and trees (with a minimum of 75 feet before reaching the creek). Runoff from trails would discharge to the surrounding open space areas and infiltrate into soils. In addition, for development of Option B, the existing creek culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails would be removed and the channel would be restored to its natural condition. In addition to the post-construction stormwater control BMPs described above, Option B would include a design-level stormwater control plan (SCP) that complies with NPDES regulations, which require that the District or its contractor comply with the applicable requirements of Provision C.3 of the MRP, including the preparation of a design-level SCP. Implementation of the SCP would ensure that Option B would not substantially degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The measures to be implemented are identical to those identified under the discussion for Option A. Full implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementation of a SCP and compliance with the MRP) would ensure that potential impacts to water quality during the operation-period at Option B would be less than significant.

(2) Groundwater Supplies. Potential impacts to groundwater resources for Option A and Option B are described below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. Option A development does not propose to use local groundwater supplies (i.e., the project would not deplete groundwater supplies by directly extracting groundwater using a water supply well), but does include new impervious cover that could reduce the infiltration of precipitation and recharge of the underlying aquifer.

16 East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015, op. cit.





The soils at Option A are mapped as Hydrologic Group C and D soils which are characterized by slow to very slow infiltration rates. They consist chiefly of clayey soils or soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. Based on the low infiltration capacity of the existing soils, placement of pavement at the Option A site would not significantly decrease recharge of the underlying aquifer and thus would not affect aquifer volume or the groundwater table level. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, Option B development does not propose to use local groundwater supplies (i.e., the project would not deplete groundwater supplies by directly extracting groundwater using a water supply well), but does include new impervious cover that could reduce the infiltration of precipitation and recharge of the underlying aquifer. The soils at Option B are mapped as Hydrologic Group C and D soils which are characterized by slow to very slow infiltration rates. They consist chiefly of clayey soils or soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. Based on the low infiltration capacity of the existing soils, placement of pavement at the Option B site would not significantly decrease recharge of the underlying aquifer and thus would not affect aquifer volume or the groundwater table level. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.

(3) Alter Drainage Patterns and Cause Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site. Excavation, grading, and construction in the project area would alter the existing drainage patterns potentially causing erosion on- and off-site. Impacts associated with development of the Option A site would be less than significant. Impacts to Agua Caliente Creek could result with development of the Option B site; however, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. Option A would not change the course of a stream or river. Erosion impacts during construction are described above under the impact discussion for Water Quality Standards. However, if not properly managed, the change in drainage patterns, which would include new impervious cover, could increase the velocity and volume of stormwater discharges. This increase in velocity and flow volume could cause hydromodification impacts such as stream bank erosion in Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries, which have unprotected earthen banks. In addition, the development of the Option A site would include repair of an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. The project would address potential hydromodification impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns by construction a detention pond. Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond and then released at a lower flow over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of erosive flows from exceeding predevelopment conditions. As previously described, the District would fully address hydromodification requirements under existing regulations.





Repair of the existing culvert would contribute to channel stability and decrease erosion potential over time. Therefore, Option A would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that results in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Option B would not change the course of a stream or river. However, if not properly managed, the change in drainage patterns, which would include new impervious cover, could increase the velocity and volume of stormwater discharges. This increase in velocity and flow volume could cause hydromodification impacts such as stream bank erosion in Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries, which have unprotected earthen banks. In addition, under the development of the Option B site, the existing creek culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails would be removed and the channel would be restored to its natural condition. The project would address potential hydromodification impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns by construction a detention pond. Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond and then released at a lower flow over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of erosive flows from exceeding pre-development conditions. As previously described, the District would fully address hydromodification requirements under existing regulations. Removal of the existing culvert would contribute to channel stability and decrease erosion potential over time by removing the natural channel to culvert transitions where localized erosion is more likely to occur. Impacts associated with the new vehicular and pedestrian creek crossings could result with development of Option B, as discussed below. Option B Impact HYD-1: Development of the bridges at Option B could cause erosion in and near Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries. (S) The Option B site includes a new vehicular access bridge and a new pedestrian trail bridge at two separate locations that cross Agua Caliente Creek. Construction of these creek crossings would require excavation, grading, and construction of foundations near the creek banks. If not properly managed, the near-creek earthwork could result in exposure of creek banks and erosion on-site and sedimentation off-site. The project would construct a new clear span vehicular bridge that would cross Agua Caliente Creek to provide access to the Option B staging area. The vehicular bridge would be approximately 25 feet in width, 120 feet in length, and would be made of steel and/or concrete abutments. In addition, the proposed new trail connection to the Hidden Valley Trail from the new staging area would extend to the north and cross over Agua Caliente Creek via a new 80 foot long non-vehicular trail bridge, of approximately 8 feet in width. Similar to the vehicular access bridge, the pedestrian bridge would clear span the creek. By clear spanning the creek, also referred to as free-span, no excavation within the creek channel would be required and post-construction obstructions to flow in the channel would be minimized at the two bridge locations.





Implementation of the following mitigation measure would be required to ensure that this impact would be less than significant. In addition, implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would be required to reduce Option B Impact HYD-2 (discussed in detail below) to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1: As a condition of approval of the final building permit, the District shall prepare and submit a detailed bridge design (for both the vehicular and pedestrian bridges) to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The design shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer. The report shall present details of the bridge design, including locations of abutments (and associated piers), and ensure that the bridge does not encroach into the channel of the creek or create an obstruction to the flow of water in the creek. The report shall also include supporting calculations that confirm that the channel and the proposed bridge configurations can pass the 100-year flood flow and the SWPPP shall include measures to ensure that grading and excavation does not encroach beyond the top of bank (e.g., exclusion fencing, monitoring). (LTS)

Project features that address hydromodification (such as the stormwater detention pond), compliance with existing regulations, and Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 ensure Option B would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that results in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site. Thus, impacts related to hydromodification and channel erosion would be less than significant.

(4) Alter Drainage Patterns and Cause Flooding On- and Off-Site. Excavation, grading, and construction at either of the project sites could alter the existing drainage patterns potentially causing flooding on- and off-site. Impacts associated with development of the Option A site would be less than significant. Impacts to Agua Caliente Creek could result with development of the Option B site; however, with implementation of recommended Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1, this impact would be less than significant, as discussed below.

Option A. Implementation of Option A would change the existing drainage patterns on the site by installing new pavement and stormwater controls as part of the new staging area and repair of an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. Implementa-tion of Option A would not change the course of a stream or river or otherwise substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The change in drainage patterns from development of the Option A staging area would not obstruct flows (obstructions could result in localized flooding) or substantially increase runoff rates or volumes (which could contribute to downstream flooding) because the detention pond would store then release stormwater at a lower flow rate over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of erosive flows to exceed predevelopment conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, described above, implementation of Option B would alter the existing drainage patterns by installing new pavement and stormwater controls as part of the new staging area, removal of the existing creek culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails, and restoration of the channel to its natural condition. Implementation of Option B would not change the course of a stream or river or otherwise substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The change in drainage patterns on the site would not substantially increase runoff rates or volumes (which could contribute to downstream flooding) because the detention pond





would store and then release stormwater at a lower flow rate over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of erosive flows to exceed pre-development conditions. Therefore, impacts related to changes in drainage patterns would be less than significant. Localized flooding impacts associated with the new vehicular and pedestrian creek crossings could result with development of Option B, as discussed below. Option B Impact HYD-2: Development of Option B could cause localized flooding by blocking flows in Agua Caliente Creek. (S) It is possible that the proposed vehicular and pedestrian bridge spans associated with Option B would be placed at an elevation that may block channel flow during intense runoff events. If high-velocity flows were blocked by one or both of the bridge spans, flood waters could back up around the bridge(s) causing localized flooding. Implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure the bridge would be designed to not encroach into the creek channel, not obstruct creek flows, and be able to withstand a 100-year flood event. With implementation of this mitigation measure, Option B would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or create an obstruction in a manner that would result in flooding and this impact would be less than significant.

(5) Storm Drainage System Capacity. A project-related increase in discharge related to placement of new impervious surfaces could exceed the capacity of downstream storm drainage conveyance systems. Development of both site options would alter the existing drainage patterns by installing new pavement and stormwater collection and treatment facilities. If not properly managed, the change in drainage patterns, which would include a substantial amount of new impervious cover, could increase the velocity and volume of stormwater discharges. This increase in discharge could exceed the capacity of downstream storm drainage conveyance systems. As discussed below, this impact would be less than significant for both site options.

Option A. The Option A project would manage runoff by directing it to a detention pond. Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond then released at a lower flow rate over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of erosive flows to exceed pre-development conditions. As previously described, the District would fully address hydromodification requirements by complying with existing laws, regulations, and requirements. By addressing hydromodification impacts, which would ensure that post-construction stormwater discharges do not exceed preconstruc-tion stormwater discharges, flows to downstream drainage systems would not substantially change. Therefore, Option A would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, increase upstream or downstream flooding, or require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. The Option B project would manage runoff by directing it to a detention pond. Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond then released at a lower flow rate over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential for erosive flows to exceed predevelopment conditions. As previously described, the District would fully address hydromodification impacts by complying with existing laws, regulations, and requirements. By addressing hydromodification impacts, which would ensure that post-construction stormwater discharges do not exceed preconstruc-tion stormwater discharges, flows to downstream drainage systems would not substantially change.





Option B would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, increase upstream or downstream flooding, or require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

(6) Place Housing within a Flood Hazard. Potential impacts related to placement of housing in a flood hazard area are described below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result in an impact related to placing housing within a flood hazard area.

Option A. Option A development does not propose construction of new housing. In addition, the Option A site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, implementation of Option A would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and no impact would result.

Option B. Similar to Option A, Option B development does not propose construction of new housing. In addition, the Option A site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, implementation of Option B would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and no impact would result.

(7) Seiche, Tsunami, Extreme High Tides, and Sea Level Rise. Potential impacts related to inundation by coastal hazards are described below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result in an impact related to hazards associates with seiche, tsunami, extreme high tides, or sea level rise.

Option A. Option A development would occur at a minimum elevation of 380 feet above sea level and there are no surface water bodies (i.e., lakes or bays) in the vicinity. As a result, implementa-tion of Option A would not expose people or structures to a substantial risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, extreme high tides, and/or sea level rise and no impact would result.

Option B. Option B development would occur at a minimum elevation of 400 feet above sea level and there are no surface water bodies (i.e., lakes or bays) in the vicinity. As a result, implemen-tation of Option B would not expose people or structures to a substantial risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, extreme high tides, and/or sea level rise and no impact would result. c. Cumulative Impacts. Stormwater within the City of Fremont, including the project area, ultimately discharges to the San Francisco Bay. Stormwater discharges are affected by urban pollutants that would contribute to impairment of the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. Urban pollutants in stormwater include petroleum hydrocarbons, sediments, metals, and trash. Stormwater regulations have become progressively more stringent since the passage of the federal CWA, and current requirements now require new developments to manage and treat all significant sources of stormwater pollutants; in particular stormwater runoff from past, present, and existing development is managed in accordance with NPDES requirements. As such, a reduction in overall pollutant loads in stormwater is anticipated over time. However, the South San Francisco Bay is listed as water-quality impaired for chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, furan compounds, invasive species, mercury, PCBs, PCBs (dioxin-like), and selenium (see Table V.H-1), indicating that relative to these compounds and constituents, the carrying capacity of the Bay has already been exceeded and a cumulative impact is occurring. The project would not use, handle, or store any of these compounds





or constituents, and therefore, the project’s contribution to this cumulative water quality impact would not be considerable. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in discharge or runoff that could exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system downstream because the stormwater detention ponds would be designed to release runoff at rates and volumes similar to existing conditions. Future projects in the affected drainage area may contribute discharges that could result in exceedance of drainage system capacity and increase the potential for flooding, resulting in a significant cumulative impact. The proposed project includes stormwater controls that would be designed and operated to release runoff at rates and volumes that do not exceed pre-development conditions, and therefore, the project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact would not be considerable. Thus, the potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.








I . H A Z A R D S A N D H A Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5i-Hazards.docx (10/14/15) 279

I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

This section describes the potential presence of hazards and hazardous materials on and near the project area and evaluates the project’s potential impact to public health and safety and the environment. The evaluation presented in this section was based on a visual site reconnaissance of the project area and the review of historical aerial photos and other published materials. This section also identifies potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that may result from project implementation, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of a staging area with up to 300 parking spaces and associated facilities, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be the same under either option. Therefore, the analysis in this section does not generally differentiate between the two project options. 1. Setting

This section describes existing conditions in the project vicinity and summarizes pertinent federal, State, and local agency laws, regulations, and programs related to hazards and hazardous materials. As used in this chapter, the term “hazardous materials” is defined as any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.1 a. Existing Conditions.The following section summarizes existing conditions for hazardous materials released into environment and hazards associated with sensitive school receptors, aviation, emergency response plans, and wildland fire. Existing conditions at either project site options would be similar and are therefore not discussed separately.

(1) Hazardous Materials Release Sites. Based on review of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board’s) GeoTracker database and the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database, there are no hazardous materials release sites reported on or adjacent to the project area. The project area has been under almost continuous use for open grazing since the late 1930s.2 Based on review of historical aerial photographs between 1948 and 2012, the project area has never been developed or used for row crop agriculture.3 No evidence of hazardous materials use that could have resulted in releases to project areas soils was observed in the historic aerial photographs. During a visual reconnaissance performed in late May 2015, the vicinity of the project area was observed to be essentially undeveloped land with access roads and hiking trails. Cattle fencing and water troughs were observed on the Option B site where cattle grazing occurs. No storage or use of hazardous materials was observed within the project area.

1 California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501. 2 Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California. February. 3 Historical Aerials, 2015. Website: www.historicaerials.com (accessed June 18)





(2) Sensitive School Receptors. Based on a review of federal records for public and private schools with grades ranging from pre-kindergarten to 12, there are no schools located within 0.25 miles of the project area.4

(3) Aviation Hazards. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Santa Clara County ALUC have adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for areas surrounding public-use airports within their respective counties. The nearest public-use airport to the project is the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport, which is located approximately 9 miles southwest of the project area. The project area is not located within any protected airspace zones for public-use airports defined by the ALUCs.5,6 In addition, there are no private airstrips mapped within 2 miles of the project area.7

(4) Wildland Fire Hazards. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas in Alameda County with significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, are classified by the CAL FIRE Director in accordance with Government Code Sections 51175-51189 to assist responsible local agencies, such as the Fremont Fire Department, identify measures to reduce the potential for losses of life, property, and resources from wildland fire. The project area is not located in or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapped by CAL FIRE8; however, the City of Fremont has adopted an ordinance that designates areas within the City as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones that were not identified by CAL FIRE. The project area is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone identified by the City.9 b. Regulatory Context. Products as diverse as gasoline, paint, solvents, household cleaning products, refrigerants, and radioactive substances are categorized as hazardous materials. The proper management of hazardous materials is a common concern for all communities. Beginning in the 1970s, governments at the federal, State, and local levels became increasingly concerned about the effects of hazardous materials on human health and the environment. Numerous laws and regulations were developed to investigate and mitigate these effects. As a result, the storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are highly regulated by federal, State, and local laws and regulations. These agencies and information about the laws, regulations, and programs they administer are summarized below.

4 National Center for Education Statistics, 2015. School search tool for public and private schools. Website:

nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch (accessed July 23). 5Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2015. General Plans, Ordinances & Policies; California

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Website: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/airportlandplans.htm. (accessed July 23).

6 Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission. Website: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx, (accessed July 23).

7 Federal Aviation Administration, 2015. Airport Data & Contact Information. Website: www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010 (accessed: July 23, 2015).

8 California, State of, 2008. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Alameda County. September 3.






(1) Federal and State Regulations. Federal and State regulations that apply to hazardous materials are described below. These include regulations related to hazardous materials management, documentation of release sites, transportation, worker health and safety, and wildland fire protection.

Hazardous Materials Management. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the lead agency responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations governing hazardous materials that affect public health or the environment. In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted to provide a general framework for the USEPA to regulate hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its ultimate disposal. In accordance with RCRA, facilities (including construction contractors) that generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to ensure that the wastes are properly managed from “cradle to grave” by complying with the federal waste manifest system.

Hazardous Materials Release Sites. In California, the USEPA has granted most enforcement authority of federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Under the authority of Cal/EPA, the State Water Board and DTSC are responsible for overseeing the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater sites. The provisions of Government Code 65962.5 (also known as the Cortese List) require the State Water Board, DTSC, the California Department of Health Services, and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to submit information pertaining to sites associated with solid waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal, and/or hazardous materials releases to Cal/EPA.

Hazardous Materials Transportation. The California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Transportation, and DTSC are responsible for enforcing federal and State regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials. If a discharge or spill of hazardous materials occurs during transportation, the transporter is required to take appropriate immediate action to protect human health and the environment (e.g., notify local authorities and contain the spill), and is responsible for the discharge cleanup.10

Worker Health and Safety. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) is the federal agency responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to worker health and safety. Under OSHA jurisdiction, the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations require training and medical supervision for workers at hazardous waste sites.11 State worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities are enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). Regulations include requirements for protective clothing, training, and limits on exposure to hazardous materials.

Wildland Fire Protection. As described above, in accordance with California Public Resource Code Sections 4201–4204 and Government Code Sections 51175–51189, the CAL FIRE has mapped areas of Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The law requires only identification of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in local responsibility areas, and the Preserve is not located in such a designated zone.

10 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Social Security, Section 66260.10 et seq. 11 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Section 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency

Response.





(2) Regional and Local Regulations. Regional and local regulations that apply to hazardous materials are described below. These include regulations that apply to hazardous materials emissions, permitting, and emergency response. City of Fremont General Plan policies related to hazardous materials are also discussed.

Hazardous and Acutely Hazardous Emissions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) oversees the protection of air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which includes the project area. Hazardous and acutely hazardous emissions during construction are subject to health risk assessment regulations and permitted conditions of operation to protect nearby sensitive receptors.

Hazardous Materials Permitting. In California, hazardous waste and material handling and storage are regulated under the Unified Program, which ensures consistency throughout the State with regard to administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement. Cal/EPA oversees the program as a whole, and certifies 83 local government agencies known as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) to implement the hazardous waste and materials standards set by five different State agencies. The Fremont Fire Department is the CUPA that oversees the implementation and enforcement of permitting requirements for the routine management of hazardous materials in the City of Fremont. As established by Cal/EPA, the Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following six environmental and emergency response programs:

Hazardous Waste Generator Program (H&SC Chapter 6.5)

Hazardous Waste Tiered Permitting (H&SC Chapter 6.5)

Underground Storage Tank (H&SC Chapter 6.7)

Aboveground Storage Tank SPCC Plan (H&SC Chapter 6.67)

Hazardous Materials Business Plan (H&SC Chapter 6.95)

California Accidental Release Prevention Program (H&SC Chapter 6.95) The purpose of the Unified Program is to ensure that facilities properly manage and disclose hazardous materials used to minimize the risk of a hazardous materials release and improve emergency response actions in the event of a release.

Emergency Response. The City’s 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan evaluates potential risks and impacts posed by natural and manmade disasters (earthquakes, wildland-urban interface fires, landslides, flooding, tsunamis, and climate change) and identifies the City’s mitigation strategy to reduce these impacts. The Fremont Fire Department provides emergency response and implements programs outlined in the 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, such as disaster preparedness and response, outreach and education, and regional collaboration planning.





City of Fremont. The Safety Chapter (Chapter 10) of the City of Fremont General Plan,12 contains the following goals, policies, and implementation measures related to hazardous materials, fire, and emergency response/evacuation that would apply to the project:

Goal 10-4: Fire Hazards. Minimum risk to life and property resulting from fire hazard.

Policy 10-4.1: Fire Safety and Prevention. Promote fire safety and fire prevention in the community.

o Implementation 10-4.1.C: Fire Safety Evaluation. Perform necessary evaluations to focus fire prevention activities on current fire safety problems in Fremont.

Policy 10-4.2: Development Standards. Maintain development standards that limit potential health and safety risks, and the risks of structure damage and severe economic loss due to fire hazards.

o Implementation 10-4.2.A: Fire Code Compliance. Require all new development and renovations to comply with the California Building Code, Fire Code, and all local ordinances for construction and adequacy of water flow and pressure, ingress/egress and other measures for fire protection.

o Implementation 10-4.2.B: Designation of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Designate areas of the City due to location, topography, vegetative cover, or other physical characteristics as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Require these areas to meet more stringent building code standards for exterior materials and construction methods for wildfire exposure.

Policy 10-4.3: Access and Clearance. Require adequate access and clearance for fire equipment, fire suppression personnel, and evacuation for new development.

o Implementation 10-4.3.A: Development Review. Review new projects for necessary fire access, street widths and clearances.

o Implementation 10-4.3.B: Development Criteria. Require all development to provide adequate access and clearance and other fire safety measures as appropriate, and require additional vehicular access or clearance areas as determined by the Fire Department and local amendments to the Fire Code.

o Implementation 10-4.3.C: Fire Resistant Construction. Enforce regulations related to fire resistant construction, sprinkler systems and early warning fire detection system installation. Maintain accurate information on construction methods of structures and location and number of structures on a site.

Policy 10-4.4: Supplemental Fire Mitigation. Require supplemental fire mitigation measures in new development proposed above the Toe of the Hill or other locations which are outside a 6 minute 40 second response time area. Limit development in those areas where, despite fire mitigation measures, an acceptable level of protection is considered unattainable.

o Implementation 10-4.4.A: Supplemental Mitigation. Require supplemental mitigation measures such as wetbands, fire resistant landscaping, defensible space, fire resistant construction, sprinkler systems, vegetation management, and early warning fire detection systems for properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or as determined necessary by the Fire Department.

Goal 10-6: Hazardous Materials and Waste. Minimum feasible risks to life, property and the environment resulting from the use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials.

12 Fremont, City of, 2011, op. cit.





Policy 10-6.1: Hazardous Material Regulation. Maintain sufficient regulation of land use and construction to minimize potential health and safety risks associated with future, current or past use of hazardous materials in Fremont.

o Implementation 10-6.1.A: Land Use Evaluation. Periodically evaluate and update existing land use designations and regulations to minimize risks associated with hazardous materials.

Policy 10-6.4: Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Comply with State law requiring adoption of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

o Implementation 10-6.4.A: County Plan as City Plan. Maintain the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as the City’s Plan.

Policy 10-6.5: Hazardous Material Oversight. Maintain sufficient oversight regarding the storage, transport and handling of hazardous materials within the City.

o Implementation 10-6.5.A: Hazardous Material Enforcement. Enforce the provisions of the City’s Fire and Building Codes, Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) elements and related Hazardous Materials Ordinances.

o Implementation 10-6.5.C: Truck Route Review. Periodically review and evaluate the City’s truck routes to ensure minimum possible risk to the community from the transport of hazardous materials on City streets.

Policy 10-6.7: Emergency Action Plan. Maintain City Emergency Action Plans and sufficient response capability to respond to a hazardous material emergency.

o Implementation 10-6.7.A: Hazardous Material Emergency Response. Respond to hazardous materials related emergencies according to the guidelines in the Hazardous Materials Area Plan.

As noted previously, the City of Fremont has adopted an ordinance that designates areas within the City as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and the project area is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as identified by the City.13

East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District’s Master Plan contains the following policy related to hazards that would apply to the project:

Policy NRM6: The District will evaluate exotic eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress plantations, shrubland or woodland areas occurring along the wildland/urban interface on a case-by-case basis for thinning, removal and/or conversion to a less fire-prone condition, following the methods laid out in the Fuels Management Plan. The District will minimize the widespread encroachment of exotic and/or invasive species such as coyote brush, poison oak and broom, etc. on parkland and work to preserve native plants where feasible.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. Because






potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be substantially similar for either project site options, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would:

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;

Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;

Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;

Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; or

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for either Option A and Option B and does not generally differentiate between the two options as hazardous materials-related impacts would essentially be identical with development of either site option.

(1) Routine Management of Hazardous Materials. Potential impacts related to the management of hazardous materials during construction and operation for either site option are described in this section. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant. Project construction activities at either project option site are expected to involve the routine management of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels and lubricants) that could pose a significant threat to human health or the environment if not properly managed. Workers handling hazardous materials are required to adhere to OSHA and Cal/OSHA health and safety requirements. During operation, it would be expected that small quantities of cleaning and landscaping chemicals would be used (at the restroom facilities and the landscaped areas, respectively). Workers handling hazardous materials are required to adhere to OSHA and Cal/OSHA health and safety requirements. Compliance with federal and State worker health safety requirements would ensure potential impacts related to the management of hazardous materials are less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.





(2) Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials. Potential impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials during construction and operation for either site option are described below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant. Project construction activities at either project option site would include the management of hazardous materials, such as motor fuels, oils, solvents, and lubricants. Common construction activities, such as fueling, maintenance, and operation of construction equipment, could result in an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The use of hazardous materials would be subject to existing hazardous materials laws and regulations, and adherence to these standards would minimize the potential occurrence of an accidental release. In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared for coverage under the Construction General Permit in accordance with the requirements of the State Water Board. The SWPPP requires implementation of Best Management Practices for hazardous materials storage and soil stockpiles, inspections, maintenance, training of employees, and containment of releases to prevent runoff into existing stormwater collection systems or waterways. Since compliance with existing regulations is mandatory and the regulations ensure the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, any impact related to the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

(3) Sensitive School Receptors. The handling or emission of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials near schools must consider potential health effects to school children, who are considered sensitive receptors. Neither site option is located within 0.25 miles of an existing school and would not emit hazardous materials. Therefore, this potential impact would be less than significant.

(4) Government Code Section 65962.5. Neither site option is included on the Cortese List in accordance with Government Code section 65962.5. In addition, based on review of historical aerial photographs there is no evidence of former hazardous materials uses on either project option site. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

(5) Emergency Response/Evacuation Plans. Potential impacts related to interference with emergency access and/or evacuation plans for either option is described below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant. Development of either option site would result in the construction of a new roadway within the Preserve to access the new staging area. This roadway would be open to emergency vehicles and the general public, with access via a gate and kiosk at the existing terminus of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Fire hydrants would be placed within a minimum of 1,000 feet of the proposed staging area. The construction and operation of the project at either site would not be expected to impair implementation of or interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans in the project area vicinity. The project would not affect the configuration of neighborhood or regional roadways that would be used for emergency evacuation. The project’s additional parking is expected to reduce the number of vehicles, congestion, and illegally parked cars currently in the neighborhoods and thus reduce current potential interferences with emergency access. Additionally, the project would comply with City General Plan Policy 10-4.3, which requires adequate access and clearance for fire





equipment, fire suppression personnel, and evacuation for new development.14 Therefore, this potential impact would be less than significant.

(6) Aviation Hazards. The project area is located approximately 9 miles northeast of the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport and is not located within the Airport Influence Area; therefore, structures on either option site would not be considered a potential obstruction to aircraft using the Mineta San José International Airport. In addition, the sites are not located near any private use airstrips. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the navigable airspace of nearby airports.

(7) Increased Risk of Exposure to Wildland/Urban Fires. Potential impacts related to increased wildfire hazards associated with either option are described below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant. The area surrounding both option sites is designated by the City of Fremont as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.15 The proposed project, which would include construction of a staging area with a parking lot and restrooms, would not represent a land use particularly sensitive to wildfire. As summarized in the Chapter III, Project Description of this EIR, construction and operation of either option could increase visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (see Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation), increasing the use of the trails within Mission Peak, particularly those that originate near the entrance to the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (i.e., Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails). This increased usage could result in an overall increase in the recreational use of Mission Peak, which could potentially increase the likelihood of incidental fires. However, based on information provided by District staff, no fires have occurred at Mission Peak in the past year, and no fires have been started by hikers in Mission Peak or any other District parks. Thus an increase in visitors at Mission Peak is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The City of Fremont and the District have adopted policies and implementation measures to address potential fire hazards as discussed above in the Regulatory Context section. These policies and implementation measures include supplemental measures for properties in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones such as wetbands,16 fire resistant landscaping, defensible space, fire resistant construction, sprinkler systems, fuel and vegetation management, and early warning fire detection systems. The project itself would not create any new impacts or make potential impacts from wildland fires more likely, and implementation of City and District policies would ensure potential impacts from wildland/urban fires are less than significant by ensuring people and structures are not exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 A wetband is placed around developed areas to provide fire resistance and may consist of moist vegetation.





c. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts occur when impacts from a proposed project combine with similar impacts from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in a similar geographic area. The geographic context for cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts is the project area and adjoining areas that could be affected by releases of hazardous material or hazards that could migrate across property lines. No impacts were identified that would be compounded by additional projects that may be implemented in the project vicinity (i.e., those identified in Table V-1). Although the development of other projects in the vicinity of the project area could result in similar potential impacts, those impacts would not intensify the potential impacts of the proposed project, and the proposed project would not intensify the potential impacts at other locations in the project vicinity. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce any potential hazards impacts related to hazardous materials during the project construction from affecting adjoining areas. Routine operation of the project would not contribute to any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials because no use of hazardous materials (beyond minor quantities of cleaning chemicals and landscaping materials) would occur during the operational phase of the project, and implementation of the City’s policies and implementation measures and District’s Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan would ensure potential impacts from wildland/urban fires are less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.



J . T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D C I R C U L A T I O N

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5j-Transportation.docx (10/14/15) 289

J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

This section describes the existing transportation, circulation and parking conditions in the vicinity of the project site and addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project in terms of intersection level of service as well as trip generation, traffic distribution, traffic assignment, and potential intersection and roadway improvements to mitigate expected future deficiencies. The project’s potential effects on parking, transit services, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the project area are also evaluated. The discussion below is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis1 prepared for the project and included in Appendix E of this EIR. Because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of up to 300 new parking spaces within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, potential off-site impacts to transportation and circulation would be the same under either option. Therefore, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options. 1. Setting

The setting for the transportation and circulation issues and the scope of the analysis documented in this section are described below. The remainder of this section presents the analysis methodologies and a discussion of the existing setting and future background conditions. a. Scope of Study. Figure V.J-1 shows the location of the proposed project and the adjacent street network. The proposed project would generate vehicular trips that would in turn increase traffic volumes on the nearby street network. The potential traffic impacts related to the proposed project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Fremont. Significant traffic impacts due to the project were determined based on weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday AM peak hour levels of service at seven signalized and unsignalized (indicated by *) intersections study intersections. The study intersections are:

1. Mission Boulevard/Grimmer Boulevard/Antelope Drive

2. Mission Boulevard/Stanford Avenue

3. Mission Boulevard/Paseo Padre Parkway

4. Weibel Drive/Antelope Drive*

5. Weibel Drive/Stanford Avenue*

6. Vineyard Avenue/Antelope Drive*

7. Vineyard Avenue/Stanford Avenue*

1 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015. Stanford Avenue Staging Area, Transportation Impact Analysis.

October 12.

not to scale

FIGURE V.J-1

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRSite Location and Study IntersectionsSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VJ1.ai (7/21/15)





Because the project would generate fewer than 100 weekday PM peak-hour trips, an Alameda County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) analysis is not required. Traffic conditions at the study intersections and street segments were analyzed for the Friday AM and PM peak hours and for the Saturday AM peak hour. The weekday AM peak hour is generally between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and the weekday PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Saturday AM peak hour is generally between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. The Friday AM and PM peak hours represent the peak period of adjacent street traffic, and the Saturday AM peak hour represents the peak period of trip generation for the site. It is during these periods that the existing street traffic volumes combined with the Mission Peak park demand are highest. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:

Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new traffic counts conducted on May 1 and 2, 2015.

Existing Plus Project Conditions. Projected peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the project to existing traffic volumes. Existing Plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine impacts of the project.

Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions represent forecasted future (year 2035) traffic conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes (without the project) were estimated using the City of Fremont’s Travel Demand Model, based on the land use development assumed in the City’s General Plan.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative with project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the project to cumulative traffic volumes. Cumulative Plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative conditions in order to determine project impacts.

The traffic analysis also includes an evaluation of parking conditions on-site and on the adjacent residential streets. b. Methodology. This section presents the methods used to evaluate the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. Traffic conditions in the study area are assessed through the evaluation of peak hour levels of service (LOS) at critical intersections and roadway segments. The LOS concept qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions associated with varying levels of traffic congestion based on a measurable estimate of delay. The various analysis methods are described below. All of the study intersections and street segments are located in the City of Fremont and are subject to the City of Fremont Level of Service Standards for intersections, which is LOS D or better.

(1) Signalized Intersections. Level of service at signalized intersections in the City of Fremont is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) method. TRAFFIX software is used to apply the 2000 HCM operations method for evaluation of conditions at signalized intersections. The 2000 HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Control delay is the amount of delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection, and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The correlation between average delay and LOS is shown in Table V.J-1.





Table V.J-1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions

Level of Service Description

Average Control Delay per Vehicle

(sec.)

A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

10.0 or Less

B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

10.1 to 20.0

C

Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

20.1 to 35.0

D

The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0

E This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

55.1 to 80.0

F

This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.

Greater than 80.0

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, pp. 10-16.

(2) Unsignalized Intersections. Level of service for unsignalized intersections was determined using TRAFFIX based on the 2000 HCM methodology. All four unsignalized study intersections are two-way stop-controlled intersections. For the purpose of this study, the level of service is reported for both the overall average delay and for the worst movement on the side street at the intersection. The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table V.J-2. The City of Fremont does not have formal impact criteria for unsignalized intersections. This condition is common for many jurisdictions because it is generally not the unsignalized intersections that limit the overall capacity of a roadway. Table V.J-2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Description

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio

A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or Less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.





c. Existing Traffic Conditions. The following section generally describes the transportation system in the project study area, including key facilities of the roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle network. Existing lane geometry, peak hour volumes, and level of service conditions for each of the study intersections and roadway segments are also described.

(1) Existing Street Network. Access to Mission Peak would not be altered with development of the proposed project and ingress and egress would continue to be provided by Stanford Avenue. Regional access to Mission Peak is provided via Interstate 680 (I-680). Local access to the site is provided via Mission Boulevard, Grimmer Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, Antelope Drive, Weibel Drive, Vineyard Avenue, and Stanford Avenue. These roadways are described below.

Interstate 680. I-680 is a north/south freeway extending from I-280 in San Jose at the south, to I-80 in Fairfield at the north. I-680 is predominantly six lanes in the study area, with three mixed-flow lanes northbound and three mixed-flow lanes southbound. However, the southbound direction also has an express/toll/HOV lane and an additional auxiliary lane over numerous lengthy sections of freeway. The closest access to I-680 from the proposed project would be via the I-680 interchange at Mission Boulevard.

Mission Boulevard. Mission Boulevard (also State Route [SR] 238 and SR-262 over portions) is a predominantly north-south, major arterial extending from I-880 in south Fremont to I-580 in Castro Valley. Mission Boulevard is four-lanes wide over most of its length, including in the vicinity of the project. Within the vicinity of the project site, Mission Boulevard has sidewalks on the east side of the street and on the west side over the segment south of Paseo Padre Parkway. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. Mission Boulevard provides direct access to the site via Stanford Avenue. Mission Boulevard is also part of SR-238 from I-680 to SR-92 in Hayward, and serves as SR-262 between I-680 and I-880.

Grimmer Boulevard. Grimmer Boulevard has two sections: the southern part, nearest to the site, called South Grimmer Boulevard, and the northern part, called simply Grimmer Boulevard. South Grimmer Boulevard intersects Mission Boulevard at its eastern end, where it becomes Antelope Drive. South Grimmer Boulevard runs east-west and is two lanes wide between Mission Boulevard and Osgood Road/Warm Springs Boulevard and is four lanes wide to Auto Mall Parkway where South Grimmer Boulevard becomes Grimmer Boulevard. The eastern part of South Grimmer Boulevard, in the vicinity of the site, is located in a residential area where it has sidewalks on both sides of the street. South Grimmer Boulevard provides access to the site via Antelope Drive and Vineyard Avenue, and via Mission Boulevard.

Paseo Padre Parkway. Paseo Padre Parkway is primarily an east-west arterial in the vicinity of the project site. It forms a three-quarter loop around Fremont, extending from Warren Avenue at Warm Springs Boulevard at the very southern end of Fremont, to SR-84 into Newark. Paseo Padre Parkway is four lanes wide and has sidewalks on both sides of the street in the vicinity of the site. It provides access to the site via Mission Boulevard.

Stanford Avenue. Stanford Avenue is a two-lane, east-west residential street that extends from Mission Boulevard to the project site. Stanford Avenue provides the only direct access to the site. Stanford Avenue has a sidewalk on the north side of the street over its entire length from Mission Boulevard to the project site, and on the south side of the street between Mission Boulevard and a point just before Weibel Drive.





Antelope Drive. Antelope Drive is a two-lane, east-west residential street that extends from Mission Boulevard eastward to Boar Circle. Antelope Drive changes to South Grimmer Boulevard west of Mission Boulevard. Antelope Drive provides access to the site via Vineyard Avenue and Weibel Drive. Antelope Drive has sidewalks on both sides of the street over its entire length between Mission Boulevard and Boar Circle.

Vineyard Avenue. Vineyard Avenue is a two-lane, north-south residential street that extends from Antelope Drive to Stanford Avenue. Vineyard Avenue provides access to the site via Stanford Avenue. Vineyard Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the street over its entire length between Antelope Drive and Stanford Avenue.

Weibel Drive. Weibel Drive is a two-lane, north-south residential street that extends from Antelope Drive to Stanford Avenue. Weibel Drive provides access to the site via Stanford Avenue. Weibel Drive has sidewalks on both sides of the street over its entire length between Antelope Drive and Stanford Avenue.

(2) Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicycle facilities are divided into three

classes. Class I bikeways are separate bike paths that are physically separated from motor vehicles and offer two-way bicycle travel on a separate path. Class II bikeways are striped bike lanes on roadways that are marked by signage and pavement markings. Class III bikeways are bike routes and only have signs to help guide bicyclists on recommended routes to certain locations. The Fremont Bicycle Master Plan Update2 describes the existing bicycle network in the City of Fremont. The existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site are described below and shown in Figure V.J-2.

Mission Boulevard: Existing Class II bicycle lanes from Paseo Padre Parkway to Telles Lane located just south of I-680 at the northern interchange with Mission Boulevard.

Grimmer Boulevard: Existing Class II bicycle lanes from Paseo Padre Parkway (north, at Lake Elizabeth) to Mission Boulevard.

Paseo Padre Parkway: Existing Class II bicycle lanes from I-680 (north) to Warren Avenue at I-680 (south).

Stanford Avenue: Existing Class II bicycle lanes eastbound from Mission Boulevard to the project site. In the westbound direction there are bicycle lanes only from a point 200 feet west of Weibel Drive to Mission Boulevard.

Hidden Valley Trail: Unpaved bicycle and pedestrian path from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the summit of Mission Peak.

Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of sidewalks along the streets near the existing staging area. Sidewalks are found along virtually all previously-described local roadways and streets in the study area, except as noted in the previous descriptions of the roadways. Crosswalks are provided at the intersections on Mission Boulevard.

2 Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Bicycle Master Plan. January 17.

not to scale

FIGURE V.J-2

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRExisting Bicycle FacilitiesSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.






(3) Existing Transit Service. Existing transit service in the study area is provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District. The transit service provided in the study area is described below and shown in Figure V.J-3.

Line 210. The 210 line runs between Union Landing Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road in Union City and Ohlone College on a daily basis.

Line 217. The 217 line provides service between the Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, Ohlone College, and the Great Mall Light Rail station via Mission Boulevard. The line operates with 30-minute weekday commute-hour headways and 40-minute headways on weekends. Line 218 also runs between BART and Ohlone College.

Line 239. The 239 line provides service between the Fremont BART station and the intersection of Milpitas Boulevard and Dixon Landing Road via S. Grimmer Boulevard and Mission Boulevard, with 45- minute weekday commute-hour headways. The 239 line does not provide weekend service.

The closest bus stop to the existing staging area is located on Mission Boulevard near Paseo Padre Parkway, approximately 0.75 miles from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The Fremont BART station is located northeast of Paseo Padre Parkway between Walnut Avenue and Mowry Avenue, approximately 6.5 miles from the Preserve. Information regarding public transit is posted on the District’s Mission Peak webpage with links to www.transit.511.org and to the Transit and Trails link that provides transit, biking, and walking directions to a variety of parks, including Mission Peak. Public transit information is also printed on the map page of the Mission Peak brochure.

(4) Existing Parking and Ride Locations. Several park and ride lots are located within the City of Fremont. The following provides a description of these lots.

Mission Boulevard/Callery Court. This park and ride lot is located approximately 2.3 miles northeast of Ohlone College and 4.2 miles to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This lot is adjacent to Mission San Jose Community Park and includes 22 parking spaces and four bike lockers.

I-680. This lot is located at the junction of I-680 and Mission Boulevard, approximately 1.4 miles from Ohlone College and approximately 3.3 miles from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This lot provides 133 spaces.

Ardenwood Boulevard. This lot is located on Ardenwood Terrace approximately 10.9 miles from Ohlone College and approximately 11.3 miles from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This lot provides 400 parking spaces as well as 4 bike locks and 20 bicycle parking spaces.

(5) Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes. The existing lane configurations

at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field. The existing intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure V.J-4. Existing peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections were obtained from manual turning-movement counts conducted in May 2015 at the study intersec-tions. The existing peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure V.J-5. Traffic count data is included in Appendix E.

not to scale

FIGURE V.J-3

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRExisting Transit ServiceSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2013.


not to scale

FIGURE V.J-4

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRExisting Lane ConfigurationsSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.


not to scale

FIGURE V.J-5

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRExisting Traffic VolumesSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.






(6) Existing Intersection Levels of Service. The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table V.J-3. The results show that, measured against the City of Fremont Level of Service Standards, all of the signalized study intersec-tions currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the Friday AM and PM peak hours and the Saturday AM peak hour of traffic. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix E. Table V.J-3: Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project)

Intersection Peak Hour a Count Date Average Delay b LOS

AM 05/01/2015 23.0 C 1. Mission/Grimmer/Antelope PM 05/01/2015 15.0 B Sat 05/01/2015 12.9 B AM 05/01/2015 10.7 B 2. Mission/Stanford PM 05/01/2015 9.1 A Sat 05/01/2015 8.7 A AM 05/01/2015 27.9 C 3. Mission/Paseo Padre PM 05/01/2015 30.4 C Sat 05/01/2015 22.1 C a AM and PM peak hours pertain to Friday. Saturday peak hour is between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. b Signalized intersection level of service is based on average control delay for the entire intersection.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2015.

(7) Observed Traffic Conditions. Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify any existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was to: 1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and 2) to identify any locations where the LOS calcula-tion does not accurately reflect level of service as observed in the field. Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during the study periods, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations showed that the following operational issue warrants mention:

Mission Boulevard and Grimmer Boulevard/Antelope Drive. During the weekday PM peak hour, the queue of northbound through vehicles occasionally backed up past the end of the northbound left-turn pocket thereby preventing northbound left-turning vehicles from entering the pocket. However, even on these occasions, all northbound left-turning vehicles appeared to successfully pass through the intersection in a single cycle.

Aside from these conditions, peak-hour traffic operations at the intersections appeared to be satisfactory.

(8) Cumulative Traffic Conditions. It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under cumulative conditions would be the same as described under existing conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated using projections from the City of Fremont’s Travel Demand Model based on land use development assumed in the City’s General Plan. Traffic volumes were forecast for the future year 2035. The cumulative (without project) intersection traffic volumes are shown on Figure V.J-6 and cumulative level of service conditions are shown below in Table V.J-4.

not to scale

FIGURE V.J-6

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRCumulative Traffic VolumesSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.






Table V.J-4: Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project)

Intersection Peak

Hour a Average Delay b LOS

1. Mission/Grimmer/Antelope AM 25.7 C PM 17.4 B Sat 13.2 B

2. Mission/Stanford AM 8.9 A PM 10.1 B Sat 10.7 B

3. Mission/Paseo Padre AM 31.9 C PM 25.6 C Sat 25.2 C

a AM and PM peak hours pertain to Friday. Saturday peak hour is between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. b Signalized intersection level of service is based on average control delay for the entire intersection.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2015. d. Existing Parking Conditions. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area contains a surface parking lot with 43 parking spaces.3 Two of the 43 spaces are ADA-accessible spaces and the remainder are standard parking spaces. With only 43 parking spaces available at this location, visitors to Mission Peak generate a demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance that exceeds the capacity of the existing lot due to the popularity of the trails that originate at this staging area and provide access to the summit of Mission Peak. Visitors park on the public streets (i.e., those that are not gated) in the residential neighbor-hoods generally west of Vineyard Avenue. Streets that are most heavily used by visitors to Mission Peak are shown in Figure V.J-7. As described previously, public streets west of Mission Peak are under the jurisdiction of the City of Fremont. On-street parking is enforced by the City of Fremont Police. Currently, City of Fremont Police can issue citations for parking along red curbs, in front of fire hydrants, and blocking driveways. On-street public parking is currently allowed on these streets except for posted times for street cleaning. Per trail counter data provided by the District,4 trail usage in May is nearly as high as trail usage in the summer months. In summer, however, ambient traffic levels on public streets are significantly lower than in May because school is not in session and people take vacations. When considering the combined effects of both ambient commute traffic and traffic generated from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, it was determined that May would be the most representative time of year to evaluate traffic and parking conditions because both park traffic and ambient street traffic are near their peaks.

3 Note that in a survey conducted in 2012, it was assumed that the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area provided

47 parking spaces. This was because at the time, 47 vehicles were observed to be parked within the staging area. Some of these vehicles were however parked in unmarked spaces. The existing Staging Area currently provides 43 marked spaces for vehicles.

4 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29. The Trail count numbers are based on TRAFFIX counters installed by the District.

not to scale

FIGURE V.J-7

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRStreets Most Heavily Used for Parking by Trail UsersSOURCE: HEXAGON, SEPTEMBER 2015.











Surveys were conducted in May 2015 to determine both: 1) the existing trip generation, and 2) the number of vehicles parked in the surface lot and on the surrounding residential streets during each hour. The peak period of parking accumulation (total number of cars parked at a given time) on a weekday was found to be Friday evening around 7:00 p.m. The peak period of parking accumulation on the weekend was found to be Saturday morning around 9:00 a.m.

(1) Weekday Peak Conditions. The survey showed that on Friday, May 1, 2015, the maximum parking accumulation was 104 vehicles at 7:00 p.m. Because the existing surface lot contains 43 parking spaces, there were 61 vehicles parked on the surrounding streets. Most of those vehicles (46 vehicles) were parked on Vineyard Avenue, with the remainder (15 vehicles) parked on Stanford Avenue.

(2) Saturday Peak Conditions. The survey showed that on Saturday May 2, 2015, the maximum parking accumulation was 464 vehicles at 9:00 a.m. At that time, there were 42 vehicles parked in the Stanford Avenue Staging Area surface lot. The remaining 422 vehicles were parked on the adjacent streets. These vehicles were parked on every available (i.e., non-gated) residential street east of Mission Boulevard within about 0.65 miles walking distance from the trail entrance. Two of the four streets – Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue – were completely filled with parked vehicles. Please note that cars were not parked on Stanford Avenue directly west of the existing staging area because that portion of the street is signed “no parking,” and cars are not parked on Vinehill Terrace or Hidden Valley Terrace (those streets closest to the existing staging area) as those streets are private and gated. The time profile of vehicle parking accumulation indicates that most vehicles arriving between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday would find the existing 43-space lot to be full, and would therefore have to park on the street. e. Regulatory Context. The following is a summary of State, regional, County, and City regulations that apply to transportation and circulation within the study area. All study intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Fremont.

(1) State Regulations. The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) responsibilities include the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of interstate freeways as wells as State highways. Within this study area, I-680, SR-238, and SR-262 fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December, 2002) identifies the information that Caltrans requires in evaluating the effect of local development and land use changes on State highway facilities.

(2) Senate Bill 743. On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743. Among other things, SB 743 creates a process to change the way transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 and following). Currently, environmental review of transportation impacts focuses on the “delay” that vehicles experience at intersections and on roadway segments. Delay is often measured using “level of service,” or LOS as described previously. Mitigation for increased delay associated with a new project often involves increasing capacity (i.e., the width of a roadway or size of an intersection), which may increase auto use and emissions and discourage alternative forms of transportation. Under SB 743, the focus of transportation analysis will





shift from driver delay to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, creation of multimodal networks and promotion of a mix of land uses.5 The Governor’s Office has submitted for review a preliminary discussion draft for how future development projects should be analyzed under CEQA. The guidelines are not finalized. The latest update was provided by the Governor’s Office on May 1, 2015, and describes the various comments on the draft guidelines, but provides no indication of when final guidelines will be released. The draft guidelines propose that a new methodology based on vehicle miles traveled would replace traditional level of service metrics. At a minimum, the new method would apply for areas that are located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop once the guidelines are adopted. Because the proposed project is not be located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop and the draft guidelines are not adopted, the changes proposed in SB 743 do not currently apply to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion project.

(3) Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC functions as both the State-mandated regional transportation planning agency and the federally-mandated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region. As such, it is responsible for regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of transportation facilities within the region. The Commission also screens requests from local agencies for State and federal grants for transportation projects to determine their compatibility with the Plan.

(4) Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) manages the County's blueprint to reduce congestion and improve air quality. In this role, the CMA makes decisions on what local projects can utilize federal and State funding. The CMA prepares, adopts and updates the County’s CMP and the Countywide Transporta-tion Plan, last updated in October 2013 and June 2012, respectively.

(5) Local Regulations. The City of Fremont’s General Plan was adopted in December 2011. The General Plan provides a blueprint for future growth and development within the City with a 2035 year time horizon. The transportation goals outlined in the plan include providing: an efficient, safe, and environmentally sustainable transportation system; increasing transit usage; and improving the pedestrian environment. The General Plan identifies an acceptable standard of LOS D for intersection performance levels. Article 20 of the City of Fremont Zoning Ordinance provides regulations for parking. The purpose of the regulations are to: 1) provide for suitable off-street vehicular parking facilities, 2) ensure the safe movement of traffic on the public streets, 3) protect adjacent residential and institutional uses from the adverse impacts of vehicular traffic and parking congestion generated by various uses, 4) establish minimum standards for the development of parking areas, and 5) regulate the location and storage of

5 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2014. Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA

Guidelines. Available online at www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_Preliminary_Discussion_Draft_of_Updates_Implementing_SB_743_080614.pdf (accessed July 24, 2015). August 6.





recreational vehicles. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide provisions for establishing parking supply for park uses.

East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan. The following policies related to transportation and circulation are located in the East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan.

Policy PA4: The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use. Where feasible, the District will provide alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets. The District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional park system by public transit.

Policy PA5: The District will cooperate with local and regional planning efforts to create more walkable and bikeable communities, and coordinate park access opportunities with local trails and bike paths developed by other agencies to promote green transportation access to the Regional Parks and Trails.

Policy PA6: The District will comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and use the current edition of the California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines as its standard for making the improvements necessary to create accessible circulation, programs, and facilities throughout the Park District.

Policy PA7: The District will evaluate and monitor the compliance level of access routes from public transit stops into the parks and encourage local agencies to make the improvements necessary to provide compliant accessibility to the parks.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to transportation and circulation that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts related to the proposed project. As previously discussed, because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of up to 300 parking spaces within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, potential impacts to transportation and circulation would be the same under either option. Therefore, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options. a. Criteria of Significance. The project would have a significant impact on transportation and circulation if it would:

Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transporta-tion including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit;

Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;

Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks;

Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);





Result in inadequate emergency access; or

Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

A description of the analysis methodologies for the signalized intersection analysis, the unsignalized intersection analysis, the parking analysis, and the Existing Plus Project intersection analysis is discussed below.

(1) Signalized Intersection Analysis. To determine whether the project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy, establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, this analysis used City of Fremont Level of Service Standards to determine significant impacts on signalized intersections. The project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if, for any peak hour:

1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under Project conditions, or

2. The intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under no project conditions, and the addition of the project causes the intersection average control delay to increase by more than 4 seconds per vehicle.

A significant impact at a signalized intersection would be satisfactorily mitigated if measures are implemented that would restore intersection levels of service to an acceptable LOS or restore the intersection to operating levels that are better than no project conditions.

(2) Unsignalized Intersection Analysis. As previously discussed, the City of Fremont does not have formal impact criteria to apply to unsignalized intersections, as is common for many jurisdictions because it is generally not the unsignalized intersections that limit the overall capacity of a roadway. The analysis of unsignalized intersections is typically evaluated by considering overall LOS, movement delay, availability of alternate routes, intersection spacing, and an analysis of traffic signal warrants. b. Existing Plus Project Conditions Analysis. The following includes an analysis of Existing Plus Project impacts. The discussion begins with a description of the proposed project’s trip estimates, trip generation, and trip distribution and assignment. Impacts to signalized and unsignalized intersections are also discussed and these impacts would be less than significant.

(1) Trip Estimates. The magnitude and location of traffic produced by a new development or by a change in the infrastructure are estimated using a three-step process: 1) trip generation, 2) trip distribution, and 3) trip assignment. To determine the number of new trips generated by the project, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the peak study periods. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions which the project trips would travel to and from the project site. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described further below.

(2) Trip Generation. Trip generation for the project could not be estimated using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates because there are no published trip generation rates for a project of this type. Therefore, for this study, the trip generation was determined from infor-





mation gathered from surveys conducted at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (at the trailhead to Mission Peak) in May 2015. The surveys entailed collecting data of two types: 1) counting the numbers of visitors entering and exiting the Preserve at this location on foot during the peak two-hour periods, and 2) observing the numbers of people arriving in vehicles destined for the park (to obtain an estimate of average vehicle occupancy). In addition, the District provided mode split data for the park so that users who walked, biked, or utilized transit could be considered. From these data, the existing trip generation for the Stanford Avenue Staging Area was determined. The project trip generation was estimated based on latent demand for the proposed additional parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. From the estimates of latent demand, which were provided by BAE Urban Economics,6 estimates could be made of how much additional traffic would be generated as a result of adding up to 300 parking spaces near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, according to surveys prepared for the District suggest that the provision of more parking and restrooms near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions,7 for a maximum increase of approximately 18,777 visitors compared to existing conditions (refer to Appendix B of this EIR for additional information).8 The project traffic demand was estimated by applying the maximum percentage increase (38.8 percent) to the existing traffic demand. The resulting project trip generation is shown in Table V.J-5. It shows that the project would generate 21 new peak-hour trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 16 new trips during the PM peak hour. The project would generate 121 new trips during the Saturday AM peak hour. Table V.J-5: Project Trip Generation Estimates

Friday Saturday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour

Intersection In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Existing Trip Generation a 33 20 53 28 12 40 104 207 311 Additional Project Trips Caused by Latent Demand b

13 8 21 11 5 16 41 80 121

a Obtained from surveys conducted at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area on May 1 and 2, 2015. b Based on the results of the latent demand survey, the proposed increase in parking supply would likely increase

demand up to 38.8 percent.


6 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study. June 29. 7 As described in Chapter III, Project Description, this projected increase in visitor demand is based on responses to a

survey question that assumed parking at the new staging area would be free. However, when respondents were asked about future visits if a $5 parking fee were charged for the new staging area, this estimated latent demand for parking disappeared, and in fact overall visitation was projected to decrease slightly compared to current visitation rates. Because no decision has been made with respect to any future fees associated with the staging area and, to be conservative in its analysis of environmental impacts, this EIR analyzes potential impacts associated with a 38 percent projected increase in visitor demand.

8 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. op. cit.





(3) Trip Distribution and Assignment. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic to and from the project area was developed based on a zip-code survey conducted by the District in 2014. The zip code survey data show approximately where existing trail users are coming from to access the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The trip distribution data showed that approximately 70 percent of the project trips would be directed to and from Mission Boulevard to the south, 22 percent to and from Mission Boulevard to the north, 4 percent to and from S. Grimmer Boulevard, 2 percent from Paseo Padre Parkway to and from the west, and 2 percent from Paseo Padre Parkway to and from the east and south. The project trips were then assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the directional distribution described above. The project distribution and assignment of the project trips to the roadways and intersections are shown on Figure V.J-8.

(4) Parking Analysis. The City of Fremont does not have established parking standards for open space uses. Parking deficiencies are not themselves CEQA impacts unless they result in physical impacts to the environment such as noise and air quality impacts from idling cars and additional traffic on neighborhood streets. Even though the proposed project is expected to improve the existing condition by reducing the number of vehicles parking on neighborhood streets and thus not result in any CEQA impacts associated with parking, this topic is addressed in this section for informational purposes. c. Project Impacts. The proposed project’s potential to result in transportation and circulation related impacts is discussed below. This impact assessment applies to both Options A and B, unless otherwise noted.

(1) Conflict with Circulation System Performance Standards. The proposed project’s potential to conflict with adopted measures of effectiveness for the transportation circulation system is discussed below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant.

Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis. Project impacts were evaluated by comparing existing traffic volumes to Existing Plus Project traffic volumes on the existing street system. For the Existing Plus Project scenario, projected peak hour traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the traffic generated by the proposed project. The Existing Plus Project traffic volumes at the study intersections and roadway segments are shown on Figure V.J-9. The results of the level of service analysis for the signalized intersections under Existing Plus Project conditions are summarized in Table V.J-6. The results show that, measured against the City of Fremont Level of Service standards, all of the signalized study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the Friday AM and PM peak hours and the Saturday AM peak hour of traffic under Existing Plus Project conditions. Therefore, according to Fremont Level of Service Standards, the proposed project would not create any level of service impacts at the signalized intersections, and this impact would be less than significant. The detailed level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix E of this EIR.

not to scale

FIGURE V.J-8

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRProject Trip Distribution and AssignmentSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.


not to scale

FIGURE V.J-9

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRExisting Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic VolumesSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.






Table V.J-6: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project Conditions

Existing Existing Plus Project

Intersection Peak Hour

a Average Delay b LOS

Average Delay b LOS

AM 23.0 C 23.1 C 1. Mission/Grimmer/Antelope PM 15.0 B 15.0 B Sat 12.9 B 12.8 B AM 10.7 B 10.9 B 2. Mission/Stanford PM 9.1 A 9.2 A Sat 8.7 A 9.3 A AM 27.9 C 27.8 C 3. Mission/Paseo Padre PM 30.4 C 30.4 C Sat 22.1 C 21.8 C a AM and PM peak hours pertain to Friday. Saturday peak hour is between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. b Signalized intersection level of service is based on average control delay for the entire intersection.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2015. In addition, at all of the unsignalized intersections analyzed, the volumes on the side streets are too low (no greater than 100 peak-hour vehicles) to meet the peak-hour signal warrant. The intersection level of service results for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown in Table V.J-7. The results show that all of the unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS B or better under Existing Plus Project conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and the Saturday AM peak hour. Given that LOS B is considered a very good level of service and that none of the unsignalized study intersections would meet traffic signal warrants, the proposed project’s impact on unsignalized intersections would be less than significant. Table V.J-7: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project Conditions

Peak

Existing Existing

Plus Project Roadway Hour a Count Date Average Delay b LOS Average Delay b LOS

AM 05/01/15 2.6/9.8 A/A 2.6/9.8 A/AWeibel/Antelope PM 05/01/15 1.2/9.2 A/A 1.2/9.2 A/A Sat 05/02/15 1.6/9.5 A/A 1.5/9.6 A/A AM 05/01/15 2.8/8.7 A/A 2.5/8.7 A/AWeibel/Stanford PM 05/01/15 2.7/8.7 A/A 2.4/8.7 A/A Sat 05/02/15 2.2/9.0 A/A 1.7/9.5 A/A AM 05/01/15 0.4/9.3 A/A 0.4/9.3 A/AVineyard/Antelope PM 05/01/15 0.9/8.9 A/A 0.8/8.9 A/A Sat 05/02/15 3.1/9.0 A/A 3.1/9.1 A/A AM 05/01/15 2.1/8.8 A/A 1.9/9.0 A/AVineyard/Stanford PM 05/01/15 2.1/8.9 A/A 2.0/9.0 A/A Sat 05/02/15 3.7/9.0 A/A 2.7/9.6 A/Aa AM and PM peak hours pertain to Friday. Saturday peak hour is between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. b Side street stop controlled intersection level of service is based on average delay reported as follows: overall

intersection delay / worst approach delay. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2015.





Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Analysis. Cumulative traffic volumes with the proposed project were estimated by adding the traffic generated by the proposed project to the cumulative without project traffic volumes. The Cumulative Plus Project intersection traffic volumes are shown on Figure V.J-10. The intersection level of service results under cumulative conditions are summarized in Table V.J-8. The results show that, measured against the City of Fremont Level of Service Standards, all of the signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) under cumulative conditions with and without the project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and the Saturday AM peak hour. Therefore, according to Fremont Level of Service Standards, the proposed project would not create any level of service impacts at the signalized intersections under Cumulative Plus Project conditions and this impact would be less than significant. The detailed level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix E. Table V.J-8: Intersection Level of Service Summary Under Cumulative Conditions

Cumulative No Project

Cumulative Plus Project

Intersection Peak

Hour a Avg.

Delay b LOS Avg.

Delay b LOS

Mission/Grimmer/Antelope AM 25.7 C 25.7 CPM 17.4 B 17.5 BSat 13.2 B 13.3 B

Mission/Stanford AM 8.9 A 9.2 APM 10.1 B 10.3 BSat 10.7 B 11.2 B

Mission/Paseo Padre AM 31.9 C 31.9 CPM 25.6 C 25.7 CSat 25.2 C 25.2 C

a AM and PM peak hours pertain to Friday. Saturday peak hour is between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. b Signalized intersection level of service is based on average control delay for the entire intersection. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2015.

In addition, at all of the unsignalized intersections analyzed, the volumes on the side streets are too low (no greater than 100 peak-hour vehicles) to meet the peak-hour signal warrant. The intersection level of service results for Cumulative Plus Project conditions are shown in Table V.J-9. The results show that all of the unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS B or better under Cumulative Plus Project conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and the Saturday AM peak hour. Given that LOS B is considered a very good level of service and that none of the unsignalized study intersections would meet traffic signal warrants, the proposed project’s impact on unsignalized intersections would be less than significant.

not to scale

FIGURE V.J-10

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIRCumulative Plus Project Traffic VolumesSOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.






Table V.J-9: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

Peak Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project

Roadway Hour a Count Date Avg. Delay b LOS Avg. Delay b LOS AM 05/01/15 2.8/10.6 A/B 2.8/10.6 A/B

Weibel/Antelope PM 05/01/15 1.2/9.7 A/A 1.2/9.7 A/A Sat 05/02/15 1.7/10.2 A/B 1.6/10.3 A/B AM 05/01/15 2.8/8.9 A/A 2.6/9.0 A/A

Weibel/Stanford PM 05/01/15 2.7/8.8 A/A 2.6/8.9 A/A Sat 05/02/15 2.3/9.4 A/A 1.9/10.0 A/A AM 05/01/15 0.4/9.8 A/A 0.4/9.8 A/A

Vineyard/Antelope PM 05/01/15 0.9/9.1 A/A 0.9/9.1 A/A Sat 05/02/15 3.2/9.5 A/A 3.3/9.5 A/A AM 05/01/15 2.2/9.1 A/A 2.0/9.2 A/A

Vineyard/Stanford PM 05/01/15 2.2/9.1 A/A 2.1/9.2 A/A Sat 05/02/15 3.8/9.4 A/A 3.1/10.1 A/A

a AM and PM peak hours pertain to Friday. Saturday peak hour is between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. b Side street stop controlled intersection level of service is based on average delay reported as follows: overall

intersection delay / worst approach delay.


(2) Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Agency Program. The proposed project would generate 100 peak hour trips; therefore, impacts to a CMP-designated road or highway would not result from the proposed project.

(3) Air Traffic Patterns. The San José International Airport, which is the closest airport to the project area, is located approximately 9 miles to the southwest. The proposed project includes the development of a new staging area and would not include any tall buildings or other hazards that would affect the operation of air traffic patterns, therefore, no impact would result.

(4) Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature. Neither Option A nor Option B would increase traffic hazards as a result of the project’s design features or incompatible uses. The proposed staging areas would provide parking spaces, public restrooms, picnic tables, associated landscaping and utility improvements, a paved roadway from the existing staging area to the new staging area, and new trail connections. Development of Option A would include a culvert repair along a trail section that crosses Aqua Caliente Creek and development of Option B would include development of a new vehicular bridge and pedestrian bridge at two locations over Agua Caliente Creek. None of these design features substantially increases traffic hazards. The proposed project does not create any sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or other traffic hazards. The connecting roadway between the existing staging area and proposed project was included to avoid potential hazards that could occur from cars repeatedly entering and exiting different staging areas as they search for parking within the boundary of Mission Peak. Nor do any design features result in traffic hazards due to incompatible uses such as would occur with a project that resulted in farm equipment on roadways. The reduction in the number of vehicles parking on neighborhood streets as a result of the project will reduce the number of pedestrians on neighborhood streets, which will reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. This condition will also reduce conflicts between bicycles and vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians as parking vehicles often block the path of bicycles and result in accidents due to inattention to bicyclists while parking. The bike racks or other bike parking facilities at the staging area will also reduce hazards from conflicts between vehicles and bicycles, and between bicycles and pedestrians. Therefore, impacts associated with traffic hazards from design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant.





(5) Inadequate Emergency Access. The proposed staging areas and vehicular access for both Site A and Site B have been designed to allow turning areas and access for emergency vehicles. The conceptual designs for Option A and Option B comply with all known City of Fremont Ordinances and Design Guidelines, including the Fire Code. City staff will review the final design of this project during the permitting phase, including plans for the construction phase, to ensure that the local requirements are met. Furthermore, the reduction in the number of vehicles parking on neighborhood streets as a result of the project will reduce potential congestion that could interfere with emergency access. Thus, there would be no impacts related to inadequate emergency access associated with development of the project.

(6) Alternative Modes of Transportation. Potential impacts associated with the project’s effects on pedestrian, transit, and bicycle facilities are discussed below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant.

Pedestrian Facilities. As described previously, the majority of the non-gated neighborhood streets - Stanford Avenue, Vineyard Avenue, Antelope Drive, and Weibel Drive – have adjacent sidewalks. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street on all of these streets except for one portion of Stanford Avenue. Stanford Avenue has sidewalks only on the north side of the street and on the south side of the street west of Weibel Drive. Stanford Avenue has no sidewalks east of Weibel Drive. The abundant use of the residential streets for parking creates a significant amount of pedestrian traffic in the un-gated neighborhood generally west of Vineyard Avenue, and residents from within both the gated and un-gated communities experience congested travel lanes as they navigate surrounding streets, particularly Stanford Avenue. Visitors may park up to 1 mile from the Preserve and then travel on foot to the trailheads. Observations in the field revealed that some pedestrians that park in the neighborhood walk in the street instead of using sidewalks. The number of pedestrians, and hence the number of pedestrians walking in the street, is directly correlated with the number of parked cars on the streets. Because the project would reduce overall parking on public streets, it would also have the beneficial effect of reducing both the number of pedestrians on the neighborhood sidewalks and the pedestrians that walk in the street.

Transit and Bicycle Facilities. The proposed project, the expansion of the parking supply at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, is designed to serve motor vehicles. However, the project also would provide bike racks. The bicycle facilities in the area are adequate to accommodate an increase in bicycle trips that could result from implementation of the project. In addition, the project would not result in the removal of, or preclude future planned changes to, any bike or transit facilities. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impacts to bike or transit facilities.

Parking Discussion. The proposed project would add up to 300 new parking spaces at either of the proposed site options. As described previously, the latent demand survey data showed that the project could increase demand by up to 38.8 percent relative to existing demand. Therefore, the project-related parking demand was estimated by applying this percentage to the existing parking demand. The parking conditions with the project can be summarized as follows:

Friday Parking Demand (Existing Plus Project Conditions): Based on the analysis conducted for this EIR, the proposed project could accommodate all park visitors on





Fridays. The maximum parking accumulation with the project on Friday is estimated to be 144 vehicles, based on an estimated 38.8 percent increase in the existing demand of 104 vehicles at 7:00 p.m. The estimated parking demand on Friday would therefore be accommodated by the 343 parking spaces provided with construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the project is estimated to reduce parking on neighborhood streets during the peak weekday use from the existing level of 61 vehicles, down to zero vehicles after the project is constructed (see Table V.J-10, below)

Saturday Parking Demand (Existing Plus Project Conditions): Compared to Existing Conditions, the project will reduce the number of vehicles parking on neighborhood streets on Saturday mornings when Mission Peak has the greatest number of visitors. The maximum parking accumulation with the project on Saturday is estimated to be 644 vehicles, based on an estimated 38.8 percent increase in the existing demand of 464 vehicles at 9:00 a.m. The parking demand on Saturday would therefore exceed the 343 parking spaces provided with construction of the proposed project. Based on the analysis conducted by Hexagon traffic consultants, it is estimated that there would be a maximum accumulation of approximately 301 vehicles parked on the residential streets on Saturday after the project is completed. Therefore, the project is estimated to reduce parking on neighborhood streets from the existing 464 cars on a Saturday morning down to 301 cars, a 35 percent decrease. Under existing Saturday conditions, park users arriving at the site generally park in the neighborhood all day, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. With the proposed project, it is projected that park users arriving at the site would park in the neighborhood between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., because before 7:00 a.m. and after 12:00 p.m. the new parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate projected demand. However, there will still be cars parked on the street after 12:00 p.m. that arrived during the peak period. Therefore, although there would still be Preserve visitors parking in adjacent neighborhoods on Saturday, with construction of the project, the overall number of parked vehicles on neighborhood streets would be substantially reduced (see Table V.J-11).

Table V.J-10: Friday Parking Demand Estimates–Existing and Plus Project Conditions

Existing Parking Demand Parking Demand Plus Project Time Total On-Site a On-Street Total On-Site b On-Street

6:00 a.m. 12 11 1 17 17 0 7:00 a.m. 47 41 6 65 65 0 8:00 a.m. 58 40 18 81 81 0 9:00 a.m. 83 40 43 115 115 0

10:00 a.m. 97 41 56 135 135 0 11:00 a.m. 87 37 50 121 121 0 12:00 p.m. 82 40 42 114 114 0 1:00 p.m. 65 37 28 90 90 0 2:00 p.m. 56 41 15 78 78 0 3:00 p.m. 56 40 16 78 78 0 4:00 p.m. 52 40 12 72 72 0 5:00 p.m. 67 41 26 93 93 0 6:00 p.m. 96 41 55 133 133 0 7:00 p.m. 104 43 61 144 144 0

a Existing lot capacity is 43 spaces. b Parking lot capacity would be 343 spaces with the project.






Table V.J-11: Saturday Parking Demand Estimates–Existing and Plus Project Conditions Existing Parking Demand Parking Demand Plus Project

Time Total On-Site a On-Street Total On-Site b On-Street 6:00 a.m. 43 0 43 60 60 0 7:00 a.m. 347 41 306 482 343 139 8:00 a.m. 444 41 403 616 343 273 9:00 a.m. 464 42 422 644 343 301

10:00 a.m. 409 43 366 568 343 225 11:00 a.m. 359 41 318 498 343 155 12:00 p.m. 267 40 227 371 299 72 1:00 p.m. 220 40 180 305 262 43 2:00 p.m. 192 40 152 266 244 22 3:00 p.m. 148 43 105 205 196 9 4:00 p.m. 130 41 89 180 178 2 5:00 p.m. 135 43 92 187 187 0 6:00 p.m. 127 41 86 176 176 0 7:00 p.m. 123 41 82 171 171 0

a Existing lot capacity is 43 spaces. b Parking lot capacity would be 343 spaces with the project.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2015. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the estimated 33 to 38 percent increase in visitor demand only appeared in the survey results when no cost was assumed for visitors to park at the new staging area. Survey data also showed that if a fee of $5 were charged to park in the new lot, there was no projected increase in visits and in fact visitation was projected to decrease by 13 percent compared to current conditions. With 300 new parking spaces, a decrease in visitation of 13 percent would result in a reduction of overflow parking during peak Saturday morning hours, from 421 cars currently down to 61 cars with the project. As discussed in Chapter VI, Alternatives, the District may consider this operational measure separately from the proposed project. However, to be conservative this EIR analyzes the potential impacts of constructing the new staging area with an assumed 38 percent increase in visitation due to latent demand. The City of Fremont does not have established parking standards for open space uses. The proposed project is intended to increase the supply of parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to better serve existing demand and allow access to the most popular trails. It is expected that the provision of additional parking will alleviate overflow parking (and associated noise, litter, and safety impacts) on the surrounding residential streets. Although the proposed project is not likely to accommodate all of the existing and future demand for visitor parking, the project would substantially reduce the number of existing vehicles parked on neighborhood streets and circling to look for parking. The project also would reduce the physical impacts associated with insufficient parking, including those due to increased air quality emissions as visitors look for parking, and noise and safety impacts.








K . A I R Q U A L I T Y

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5k-AirQuality.docx (10/14/15) 321

K. AIR QUALITY

This section has been prepared using the methodologies and assumptions contained in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Air Quality CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).1 In keeping with these guidelines, this section describes existing air quality and the regulatory framework for air quality including the litigation status of the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. The section also describes the potential effects of the project on air quality, including the effects of project construction and operational traffic on regional pollutant levels and health risks. Mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts are identified, where appropriate to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Air quality modeling results are included in Appendix F of this EIR. 1. Setting

This section describes existing air quality conditions in the project vicinity, beginning with a discussion of typical air pollutant types and sources, health effects, and climatology relating to air quality. a. Air Pollutants and Health Effects. Both State and federal governments have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants:2 carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM). In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants may result in adverse health effects. However, emission thresholds established by an air district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations and could adversely affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants. Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not neces-sarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). Occupants of facilities such as schools, day care centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality. Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 2 Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established

ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.





industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise. Air pollutants and their health effects, and other air pollution-related considerations are summarized in Table V.K-1 and are described in more detail below. Table V.K-1: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary EffectsCarbon Monoxide (CO)

• Incomplete combustion of fuels and other carbon-containing substances, such as motor exhaust.

• Natural events, such as decomposition of organic matter.

• Reduced tolerance for exercise. • Impairment of mental function. • Impairment of fetal development. • Death at high levels of exposure. • Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

• Motor vehicle exhaust. • High temperature stationary combus-

tion. • Atmospheric reactions.

• Aggravation of respiratory illness. • Reduced visibility. • Reduced plant growth. • Formation of acid rain.

Ozone (O3)

• Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in sunlight.

• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

• Irritation of eyes. • Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. • Plant leaf injury.

Lead (Pb)

• Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood functions and nerve con-struction.

• Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10)

• Stationary combustion of solid fuels. • Construction activities. • Industrial processes. • Atmospheric chemical reactions.

• Reduced lung function. • Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollut-

ants. • Aggravation of respiratory and

cardiorespiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort. • Soiling. • Reduced visibility.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

• Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.

• Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores. • Industrial processes.

• Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema).

• Reduced lung function. • Irritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. • Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, fin-

ishes, coatings, etc.

Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2012.

(1) Ozone. Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. The main sources of ROG and NOx, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. In the Bay Area, automobiles are the single largest source of ozone precursors. Ozone is referred to as a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production through the photochemical reaction process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortness of breath and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.





(2) Carbon Monoxide. CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles. While CO transport is limited, it disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological condi-tions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina (chest pain) in persons with serious heart disease. Extremely high levels of CO, such as those generated when a vehicle is running in an unventilated garage, can be fatal.

(3) Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of hetero-geneous solid and liquid airborne particles from manmade and natural sources. Particulate matter is categorized in two size ranges: PM10 for particles less than 10 microns in diameter and PM2.5 for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter. In the Bay Area, motor vehicles generate about half of the air basin’s particulates, through tailpipe emissions as well as brake pad and tire wear. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves, industrial facilities, and ground-disturbing activities such as construction are other sources of such fine particulates. These fine particulates are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest parts of the human lung and can cause adverse health effects. According to the California Air Resources Board (ARB), studies in the United States and elsewhere have demonstrated a strong link between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks, and studies of children’s health in California have demonstrated that particle pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in children. The ARB also reports that Statewide attainment of particulate matter standards could prevent thousands of premature deaths, lower hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disease and asthma-related emergency room visits, and avoid hundreds of thousands of episodes of respiratory illness in California.3

(4) Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. On January 22, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) strengthened the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for NO2.

(5) Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless acidic gas with a strong odor. It is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO2 has the potential to damage materials and can cause health effects at high concentrations. It can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease.4 SO2 also reduces visibility and the level of sunlight at the ground surface.

3 California Air Resources Board, 2011. Fact Sheets. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/htm/fslist.htm#Health.pdf. October. 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, op.cit.





(6) Lead. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery factories. Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The U.S. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and overall levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.

(7) Odors. Odors are also an important element of local air quality conditions. Specific activities can raise concerns related to odors on the part of nearby neighbors. Major sources of odors include restaurants and manufacturing plants. Odor sources near the project site are limited and include those associated with cattle grazing and similar operations. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally-produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds.

(8) Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Some examples of TACs include: benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. Potential human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another. TACs do not have ambient air quality standards, but are regulated by the U.S. EPA, ARB, and the BAAQMD. In 1998, ARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. ARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities and land uses that are characterized by use of diesel-fueled engines.5 High-volume freeways, station-ary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truck stops) were identified as posing the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facili-ties, high volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Monitoring data and emissions inventories of TACs helps the BAAQMD determine potential health risks to Bay Area residents. Ambient monitoring concentrations of TACs indicate that pollutants

5 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division. Risk

Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.





emitted primarily from motor vehicles (1,3-butadiene and benzene) account for slightly over 50 percent of the average calculated cancer risk from ambient air in the Bay Area.6 Unlike TACs emitted from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel particulate matter is emitted from mobile sources – primarily “off-road” sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck-mounted refrigeration units, as well as trucks and buses traveling on freeways and local roadways. Agricultural and mining equipment is not commonly used in urban parts of the Bay Area, while construction equipment typically operates for a limited time at various locations. As a result, the readily identifiable locations where diesel particulate matter is emitted in the City of Fremont include high-traffic roadways and other areas with substantial truck traffic. Although not specifically monitored, recent studies indicate that exposure to diesel particulate matter may contribute significantly to cancer risk (a risk of approximately 500 to 700 in 1,000,000) that is greater than all other measured TACs combined.7 The technology for reducing diesel particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and federal agencies are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and remediate diesel emissions. The ARB anticipates that by 2020, average Statewide diesel particulate matter concentrations will decrease by 85 percent from levels in 2000 with full implementation of the ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan,8 meaning that the Statewide health risk from diesel particulate matter is expected to decrease from 540 cancer cases in 1,000,000 to 21.5 cancer cases in 1,000,000. It is likely that the Bay Area cancer risk from diesel particulate matter will decrease by a similar factor by 2020.

(9) High Volume Roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentrations. Air quality research consistently demonstrates that pollutant levels are substantially higher near freeways and busy roadways, and human health studies have consistently demonstrated that children living within 100 to 200 meters (328 to 656 feet) of freeways or busy roadways have reduced lung function and higher rates of respiratory disease.9 At present, it is not possible to attribute the effects of roadway proximity on non-cancer health effects to one or more specific vehicle types or vehicle pollutants. Engine exhaust, from diesel, gasoline, and other combustion engines, is a complex mixture of particles and gases, with collective and individual toxicological characteristics. Federal and State regulations control air pollutants at the regional level by limiting vehicle and stationary source emissions. However, air quality regulations have not limited the use of vehicles and

6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2007. Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual Report 2003

Volume 1. August. 7 Ibid. 8 California Air Resources Board, 2000, op. cit. 9 Delfino, RJ., 2002. Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages Between

Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health Perspectives.





generally have not protected sensitive land uses from air pollution “hot spots” associated with proximity to transportation facilities. b. Existing Climate and Air Quality Conditions. Regional air quality, local climate, and air quality in the East Bay region, and air pollution climatology are described below.

(1) Local Climate and Topography. Fremont is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The climate of Fremont is characterized by warm dry summers and cool moist winters. The proximity of the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean has a moderating influence on the climate. Fremont is located in the climate subregion of the Bay Area known as Southwestern Alameda County. The BAAQMD monitors air quality in the basin through a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. Southwestern Alameda County encompasses the southeast side of San Francisco Bay, from Dublin Canyon to north Milpitas. The subregion is bordered on the east by the East Bay hills and on the west by the Bay. Most of the area is flat. This subregion is indirectly affected by marine air flow. Marine air entering though the Golden Gate is blocked by the East Bay hills, where it eventually passes over Southwestern Alameda County. These sea breezes are strongest in the afternoon. The further from the ocean the marine air travels, the more the ocean’s effect is diminished. Although the climate in this region is affected by sea breezes, it is affected less so than the regions closer to the Golden Gate. The climate of Southwestern Alameda County is also affected by its close proximity to San Francisco Bay. The Bay cools the air with which it comes in contact during warm weather, while during cold weather the Bay warms the air. The normal northwest wind pattern carries this air onshore. Bay breezes push cool air onshore during the daytime and draw air from the land offshore at night. Winds are predominantly out of the northwest during the summer months. In the winter, winds are equally likely to be from the east. Easterly-southeasterly surface flow into southern Alameda County passes through three major gaps: Hayward/Dublin Canyon, Niles Canyon and Mission Pass. Areas north of the gaps experience winds from the southeast, while areas south of the gaps experience winds from the northeast. Wind speeds are moderate in this subregion, with annual average wind speeds close to the Bay at about 7 miles per hour (mph), while further inland they average 6 mph. Air temperatures are moderated by the subregion’s proximity to the Bay and to the sea breeze. Temperatures are slightly cooler in the winter and slightly warmer in the summer than East Bay cities to the north. During summer months, average maximum temperatures are in the mid-70’s. Average maximum winter temperatures are in the high-50s to low-60s. Average minimum temperatures are in the low-40s in winter and mid-50s in the summer. Pollution potential is relatively high in this subregion during the summer and fall. When high pressure conditions dominate, low mixing depths and Bay and ocean wind patterns can concentrate and carry pollutants from other cities to the Fremont area, adding to the locally emitted pollutant mix. The polluted air is then pushed up against the East Bay hills. In the wintertime, the air pollution potential in southwestern Alameda County is moderate. Air pollution sources include light and heavy industrial, and motor vehicles. Increasing major vehicle traffic and congestion in the subregion may increase Southwest Alameda County pollution as well as that of its neighboring subregions.





(2) Air Monitoring Data. Air quality monitoring stations are located around the SFBAAB and collect data to determine regional air quality. The closest monitoring station to the site is located at 3466 La Mesa Drive in Hayward. The only criteria pollutant measured at this site was ozone as shown in Table V.K-2. Data for other pollutants is representative of the SFBAAB. Data indicates that ozone exceeded Federal and State standards for the years 2012 through 2014. PM2.5 exceeded Federal standards and PM10 exceeded State standards for the years 2012 through 2014. The Federal standard for NO2 was exceeded in 2012. c. Regulatory Framework. Air quality standards, the regulatory framework, and State and federal attainment status are discussed below. The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as for monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. The BAAQMD’s jurisdiction encompasses seven counties – Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa – and portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The ARB and the U.S. EPA regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles.

(1) United States Environmental Protection Agency. At the federal level, the U.S. EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The FCAA required U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (FCAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. U.S. EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the FCAAA and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the U.S. EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area, which imposes additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated timeframe may result in sanctions on transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. The U.S. EPA is also required to develop National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which are defined as those which may reasonably be anticipated to result in increased deaths or serious illness and which are not already regulated. An independent science advisory board reviews the health and exposure analyses conducted by the U.S. EPA on suspected hazardous pollutants prior to regulatory development.





Table V.K-2: Ambient Air Quality at the San Francisco Air Basin Pollutant Standard 2012 2013 2014Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) a 2.9 3.8 3.0 Number of days exceeded: State: > 20 ppm 0 0 0

Federal: > 35 ppm a 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 2.4 2.6 2.6 Number of days exceeded: State: > 9 ppm 0 0 0

Federal: > 9 ppm a 0 0 0 Ozone (O3) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.102 0.096 0.097 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 3 3 3 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.09 0.079 0.080 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.07 ppm 8 3 10

Federal: > 0.08 ppm 4 3 5 Coarse Particulates (PM10)

Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 59.6 58.1 61.3 Number of days exceeded: State: > 50 µg/m3 1 5 1

Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 18.8 22.2 20.0 Exceeded for the year: State: > 20 µg/m3 ND ND ND

Federal: > 50 µg/m3 ND ND ND Fine Particulates (PM2.5)

Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 38.4 57.7 60.4 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 3 13 3 Federal Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 9.5 12.8 12.0 Exceeded for the year: State: > 12 µg/m3 ND ND ND

Federal: > 15 µg/m3 ND ND ND Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.124 0.0726 0.0837 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.250 ppm 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.015 0.016 0.014 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm 1 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

b Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.068 0.050 0.017 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 3-hour concentration (ppm) ND ND ND Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.50 ppm ND ND ND Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.008 0.007 ND Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.04 ppm 0 0 ND

Federal: > 0.14 ppm 0.008 0.007 0.003 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) ND ND ND Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm 0 0 0 a Results based on Alameda County monitoring. a Results based on 1100 21st Street, Oakland monitoring station. ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ND = No data. There was insufficient (or no) data to determine the value.

Source: ARB, EPA, and BAAQMD, 2015.





(2) California Air Resources Board. In 1992 and 1993, the ARB requested delegation of authority for the implementation and enforcement of specified New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the BAAQMD. U.S. EPA’s review of the State of California’s laws, rules, and regulations showed them to be adequate for the imple-mentation and enforcement of federal standards, and the U.S. EPA granted the delegations as requested. The ARB is the agency responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988. The CCAA requires that all air districts in the State achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts should focus on reducing the emissions from transportation and air-wide emission sources, and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources. ARB is also primarily responsible for developing and implementing air pollution control plans to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. ARB is primarily responsible for Statewide pollution sources and produces a major part of the SIP. Local air districts provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. ARB combines this data and submits the completed SIP to U.S. EPA. Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks main-tained by air pollution control and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS (which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS), determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, and off-road vehicles. The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan10 is intended to substantially reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel – a step already implemented – and cleaner-burning diesel engines. The State of California's regulatory efforts for toxic air contaminants are embodied in the Tanner Bill11 (effective 1984), which defines a process for the identification and control of toxic air contami-nants. The ARB identifies the most important toxic pollutants by considering risk of harm to public health, amount or potential amount of emissions, manner of usage of the substance, its persistence in the atmosphere, and its concentration in outdoor air. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment prepares health assessment documents that outline the toxicity of compounds. After a pollutant is listed as a toxic air contaminant, control measures are developed by the ARB and local air districts. Other relevant legislation is the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act12 (AB2588). This bill was enacted in 1987 with the objective of collecting information concerning industrial emissions of toxic air contaminants and making the information available to the public. The bill established a formal regulatory program for site-specific air toxics emissions inventory and health risk

10 California Air Resources Board, 2000, op. cit. 11 California Air Resources Board, 1997. Technical Support Document, Proposed Identification of Inorganic Lead

as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part A – Exposure Assessment. March. 12 AB 2588, Connelly, 1987. Chaptered in the California Health and Safety Code Section 44300, et al.





quantification that is managed by California air districts. Under this program, a wide variety of industrial, commercial, and public facilities are required to report the types and quantities of toxic substances their facilities routinely release into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program are to collect emissions data, identify facilities with potential for localized health impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of risks that are determined to warrant such notification, and reduce significant risks. Because of the robust evidence relating proximity to roadways and a range of non-cancer and cancer health effects, the ARB also created guidance for avoiding air quality conflicts in land use planning in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.13 In its guidance, the ARB advises that new sensitive uses (e.g. residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and hospitals) not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads carrying 100,000 vehicles per day, or within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (warehouse) that accommodates more than 100 trucks or more than 90 refrigerator trucks per day. ARB guidance suggests that the use of these guidelines be customized for individual land use decisions, and take into account the context of development projects. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook specifically states that these recommendations are advisory and acknowledges that land use agencies must balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, eco-nomic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.

(3) National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the U.S. EPA established NAAQS. The NAAQS were established for major pollutants, termed “criteria” pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Both the U.S. EPA and the ARB have established ambient air quality standards for the following common pollutants: CO, O3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and PM. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards establish limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.14 State and federal standards for the criteria air pollutants are listed in Table V.K-3.

13 California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use

Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Website: www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed August 6 2015). October.





Table V.K-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging

Time California Standardsa Federal Standardsb

Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f Methodg

Ozone (O3)

1-Hour 0.09 ppm

(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Photometry

No Federal Standard Same as

Primary Standard

Ultraviolet Photometry

8-Hour 0.07 ppm (137 μg/m3)

0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3)

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)

24-Hour 50 μg/m3

Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation

150 μg/m3

Same as Primary Standard

Inertial Separation and

Gravimetric Analysis

Annual Arithmetic

Mean 20 μg/m3 –

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

24-Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard

Inertial Separation and

Gravimetric Analysis

Annual Arithmetic

Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or

Beta Attenuation 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive

Infrared Photometry

(NDIR)

9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

None Non-DispersiveInfrared

Photometry (NDIR)

1-Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3)

35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

8-Hour (Lake Tahoe)

6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – –


h

Annual Arithmetic

Mean

0.03 ppm (57 μg/m3) Gas Phase

Chemi-luminescence

53 ppb (100 μg/m3)

Same as Primary Standard

Gas Phase Chemi-

luminescence 1-Hour

0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3)

100 ppb (188 μg/m3) None

Lead (Pb) j,k

30-day average 1.5 μg/m3

Atomic Absorption

– –

High-Volume Sampler and

Atomic Absorption

Calendar Quarter –

1.5 μg/m3

(for certain areas)k Same as

Primary Standard Rolling 3-

month averagei

– 0.15 μg/m3


i

24-Hour 0.04 ppm(105 μg/m3)

Ultraviolet Fluorescence

0.14 ppm(for certain areas)i –

Ultraviolet Fluorescence;

Spectro-photometry

(Pararosaniline Method)

3-Hour – – 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)

1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3)

75 ppb(196 μg/m3) –

Annual Arithmetic

Mean –

0.030 ppm (for certain areas)i –

Visibility-Reducing Particlesl

8-Hour

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07–30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is

less than 70 percent. Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through

Filter Tape.

No

Federal

Standards

Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion

ChromatographyHydrogen Sulfide

1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)

Ultraviolet Fluorescence

Vinyl Chloridej 24-Hour

0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)

Gas Chromatography

Table notes included on next page.





a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

b National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies.

c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

d Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

g Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

h To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.

i On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standards to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

j The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

k The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

l In 1989, the ARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

C = degrees Celsius ARB = California Air Resources Board U.S. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion

Source: ARB, 2015.





(4) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The BAAQMD seeks to attain and maintain air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and education. The clean air strategy includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law. BAAQMD Regulation 7 places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.15 This regulation limits the “discharge of any odorous substance which causes the ambient air at or beyond the property line…to be odorous and to remain odorous after dilution with four parts of odor-free air.” The BAAQMD must receive odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period in order for the limitations of this regulation to go into effect. If this criterion has been met, an odor violation can be issued by the BAAQMD if a test panel of people can detect an odor in samples collected periodically from the source.

Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan16 which guides the region’s air quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS. The BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan is the latest Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx), particulate matter, and greenhouse gas emissions. The BAAQMD is in the process of updating this plan and will release the 2015 Clean Air Plan later this year. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on September 15, 2010 by the BAAQMD’s board of directors:

Updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone;

Provides a control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, TACs, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan;

Reviews progress in improving air quality in recent years; and

Establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were prepared

to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an

15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1982. Rules and Regulations, Regulation 7: Odorous Substances.

Amended March 17. 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September.





update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines17 were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. BAAQMD has appealed the Alameda County Superior Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending as of December 2013.18 In view of the court’s order, the BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the thresholds of significance from the 2010 CEQA Guidelines be used as a generally applicable measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts.19 Following the court’s order, the BAAQMD released revised CEQA Guidelines in May of 2012 that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance thresholds. The BAAQMD recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA Guidelines adopted in 1999.20 Although reliance on the 2010 thresholds is no longer required, local agencies still have a duty to evaluate impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, CEQA grants local agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresholds previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.21 Accordingly, the District is using the BAAQMD’s 2010 Draft CEQA Guidelines for thresholds and other guidance to evaluate project impacts in order to protectively evaluate the potential effects of the project on air quality. The District believes that these protective thresholds and other guidance are appropriate in the context of the size, scale, and location of the project in close proximity to sensitive residential uses.

17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, op. cit. 18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Updated CEQA Guidelines. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/

Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. March. 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2013. Plans & Climate. Website: baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-

and-Research/CEQA-Guidelines.aspx (accessed March 26, 2015) December 6. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts

of Projects and Plans. December. 21 Public Resources Code Section 21082: 14 Cal. Code Regs. And Section 15064.7, 15064.4 (addressing greenhouse

gas emissions impacts). See also Citizens for Responsible and Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th.327 (upholding city’s greenhouse gas emissions threshold based on Assembly Bill 32 compliance).





The District also notes that the Alameda County Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds, did not address the merits of the science or evidence supporting the thresholds. The District finds that, despite the court ruling, the science and reasoning contained in the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available. For that reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines.

(5) Attainment Status Designations. The ARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each State standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate pollutant standards. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The law divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. The U.S. EPA designates areas “nonattainment,” “not applicable,” “unclassified,” or “attainment.” In 1991, new nonattainment designations were assigned to areas for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” Table V.K-4 provides a summary of the attainment status for the San Francisco Bay Area with respect to national and State ambient air quality standards.

(6) City of Fremont General Plan. The Conservation Element of the City of Fremont’s General Plan addresses air quality emissions and includes policies to improve existing air quality environments around the City. Polices applicable to the proposed project are included below.

Goal 7-7: Air Quality. Air quality improved over current conditions that meets or exceeds State and Regional standards.

Policy 7-7.1: Cooperation to Improve Regional Air Quality. Support and coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional, and state agencies to improve regional air quality.

Policy 7-7.2: Reduce Air Pollution Levels. Reduce City of Fremont air contaminant levels and particulate emissions below BAAQMD attainment levels, in particular, ozone and particulate matter levels.

Policy 7-7.3: Land Use Planning to Minimize Heath Impacts from Toxic Air Contaminants. Coordinate land use planning with air quality data and local transportation planning to reduce the potential for long-term exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) from permanent sources that affect the community.





Table V.K-4: Bay Area Attainment Status

Pollutant Averaging

Time

California Standards a National Standards b

Concentration Attainment

Status Concentration c,j Attainment

Status

Ozone (O3)

8-Hour 0.070 ppm(137µg/m3) Nonattainment h 0.075 ppm Nonattainment d

1-Hour 0.09 ppm(180 µg/m3) Nonattainment Not Applicable Not Applicable e

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-Hour 9.0 ppm(10 mg/m3)

Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Attainment f

1-Hour 20 ppm(23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm

(40 mg/m3) Attainment


1-Hour 0.18 ppm(339 µg/m3) Attainment 0.100 ppm Unclassified

Annual Arithmetic

Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) Not Applicable 0.053 ppm

(100 µg/m3) Attainment


24-Hour 0.04 ppm(105 µg/m3) Attainment 0.14 ppm


1-Hour 0.25 ppm(655 µg/m3)

Attainment Not Applicable Attainment

Annual Arithmetic

Mean Not Applicable Not Applicable 0.030 ppm


Particulate Matter Coarse (PM10)

Annual Arithmetic

Mean 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment g Not Applicable Not Applicable

24-Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Unclassified

Particulate Matter Fine (PM2.5)

Annual Arithmetic

Mean 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment g 12 µg/m3 Attainment

24-Hour Not Applicable Not Applicable 35 µg/m3 i Nonattainmenta California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except in the Lake Tahoe air basin), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-

hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter – PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that ARB determines would occur less than once per year on average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-third the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.

b National standards shown are the “primary standards” designed to protect public health. National standards other than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent 3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than 1. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially-designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

c National air quality standards are set by U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.

d In June 2004, the Bay Area was designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the national 8-hour ozone standard. U.S. EPA lowered the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.80 to 0.75 PPM (i.e., 75 ppb), effective May 27, 2008.

e The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. f In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard. Table notes continued on next page.





g In June 2002, ARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. h The 8-hour California ozone standard was approved by the ARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17,

2006. i U.S EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006. The U.S. EPA designated the Bay

Area as nonattainment for the 35 µg/m3 PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation is December 14, 2009, and the BAAQMD has 3 years to develop a plan called a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates how the Bay Area will achieve the revised standard by 2014. The SIP for the new standard must be submitted to the U.S. EPA by December 14, 2012.

j To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010).

Lead (Pb) is not listed in the above table because it has been in attainment since the 1980s. ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Attainment Status, 2015. 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This section provides an assessment of the potential adverse impacts related to air quality associated with the proposed project. It begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the air quality-related impacts that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B. a. Criteria of Significance. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment related to air quality if it would:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Air Quality Plan;

Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation by:

○ Contributing to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;

○ Generate average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or

○ Generate operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day, or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.

Result in a cumulatively considerable 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);

Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial pollutant concentrations by:

○ Individually exposing sensitive receptors (such as residential areas) to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds:

■ Increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million;

■ Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute);





■ Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 µg/m3 annual average; or

○ Cumulatively exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds:

■ Increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million;

■ Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic); or

■ Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 annual average; or

Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The emission thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the air basin for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety according to the U.S. EPA, these emission thresholds are regarded as protective. b. Project Impacts. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would primarily occur over the short-term in association with construction activities, including excavation and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term operational emissions would result from vehicle trips to and from the project site. As described in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, the proposed project is anticipated to increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions. The following is a description of potential air quality impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project including short-term construction emissions, such as fugitive dust, and long-term operational emissions. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Consistency with the BAAQMD Plan. The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on September 15, 2010. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehen-sive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project does the following: 1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; 2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. The project’s consistency with these objectives is described below, and as discussed, this impact would be less than significant. The conclusions would be the same for development occurring at both of the project sites, as summarized at the end of this subsection.

Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to: attain air quality standards; reduce population exposure to air pollutants and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. The BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were established to help protect public health. As discussed later in this section of the EIR, develop-ment of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant construction and operational emission impacts.





Clean Air Plan Control Measures.The control strategies of the 2010 Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and transportation control measures. The latest Clean Air Plan also identifies two additional subcategories of control measures, which are land use and local impact measures and energy and climate measures. Stationary source measures in the Clean Air Plan such as those implemented to control emissions from metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces are not applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, consistency with the Clean Air Plan stationary source measures is not evaluated further in this EIR.

Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures. The transportation control measures in the 2010 Clean Air Plan are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in addition to vehicle idling and traffic congestion. Construction of the proposed project at either site option would reduce overall vehicle miles traveled while looking for parking, idling, and emissions by increasing the parking capacity at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. There would be approximately 300 new parking spaces for visitors in this area. Visitors would not have to drive through the nearby neighborhoods and or idle in the existing staging area to find parking, thus reducing tailpipe emissions. Additionally, the District provides information that encourages visitors to Mission Peak to access additional parking facilities within the Ohlone College campus, to reduce congestion and parking demand at the Stanford Avenue entrance. These efforts would continue with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan’s Transportation Measures.

Land Use and Local Impact Measures. The BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan includes Land Use and Local Impact Measures to achieve the following: ensure that planned growth is focused in a way that protects people from exposure to air pollution associated with stationary and mobile sources of emissions; and promote mixed-use, compact development to reduce motor vehicle travel and emissions. The proposed staging area at either site option does not directly relate to the Land Use and Local Impact Measures but would increase access to outdoor recreational areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this measure.

Energy Measures. The BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate Control Measures (ECM), which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants and reduce emissions of CO2. Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms of energy production, reduce the “urban heat island” effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs and parking lots, and promote the planting of (low volatile organic compound emitting) trees to reduce biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air pollutants. ECM-4, Shade Tree Planting, includes voluntary approaches to reduce the heat island effect by increasing shading in urban and suburban areas through the planting of trees. The proposed project would include approximately 2.78 acres of paved area in Option A and approximately 3.10 acres of paved area in Option B which could result in a heating effect. However, the proposed project includes landscaping with trees and shrubs to shade the proposed staging areas at both locations. With development of Option A no existing trees would be removed and 46 additional trees and other vegetation would be planted near the new staging area. Option B would require approximately six trees to be removed for the Agua Caliente Creek crossing and some pruning in other areas of the Creek; however, an additional 27 trees would be planted near the proposed Option B staging area. Therefore, both project site options would be consistent with ECM-4, Shade Tree Planting, to reduce the heat island effect.





Clean Air Plan Implementation. As summarized in the discussion above and below, implementation of either project option would not result in obstruction of Clean Air Plan implementation and this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. As discussed above, development of Option A would generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including transportation control measures and energy measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control measure from the Clean Air Plan and would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan.

Option B. As discussed above, development of Option B would generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including transportation control measures and energy measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control measure from the Clean Air Plan and would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan.

(2) Air Quality Standards. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for operational-related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:

Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;

Generate average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 (exhaust) greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or

Generate operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.

The following section describes the project’s CO impacts and construction- and operation-related air quality impacts. Because both site options would increase the number of operational vehicle trips to the site by introducing 300 new parking spaces at either location, the discussion for localized CO impacts and operational emissions analyzes the impacts of both project site options together. The conclusions are summarized at the end of each subsection. As discussed, impacts for either site option would be less than significant for localized CO emission and operational emissions. Impacts associated with construction-period emissions would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Localized CO Impacts. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. The BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines include recommended methodologies for quantifying concentrations of localized CO levels for proposed transportation projects. Guidance is not provided for evaluation of projects that provide parking. However, in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of the project on air pollution, a screening level analysis using guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was performed. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screen-ing criteria are met:





The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans.

Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below-grade roadway).

Option A. Implementation of Option A would not conflict with the Alameda County

Transportation Commission’s Congestion Management Program for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other agency plans. The project site is not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing of air is substantially limited. In addition, traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of the project site are less than 44,000 vehicles per hour (refer to Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards and this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Implementation of Option B would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Congestion Management Program for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other agency plans. The project site is not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing of air is substantially limited. In addition, traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of the project site are less than 44,000 vehicles per hour (refer to Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards and this impact would be less than significant.

Construction Period Impacts. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly-emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Site preparation and project construction at either site option would involve clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, and building activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase because most engine emissions are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of soils on the site. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5, and to a lesser extent CO, SO2, NOx, and volatile organic compounds. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction sites and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, the silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances





from the construction site. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction sites. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) including the use of water or other soil stabilizers. With the implementation of standard construction measures such as frequent watering (e.g., two times per day at a minimum), fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.22 Construction-period impacts associated with development of the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below. As discussed, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the development of the Option A site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 9.64-acre area, 2.78 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 11.71 acres. Project grading would require approximately 35,000 cubic yards of cut, and 23,000 cubic yards would be off-hauled. The remaining 12,000 cubic yards of soil would be balanced on site. The construction period would occur over six months and the most intensive excavation and grading activities would occur over a three to four month period. Construction and grading equipment is expected to include the use of earthmovers, backhoes, rollers, and compactors. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards, as discussed below. Option A Impact AIR-1: Construction of Option A would generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards. (S) The proposed construction schedule for Option A is estimated to be approximately six months. Construction emissions were estimated for the project using emission factors by equipment type and duration provided by the District with ARB’s EMFAC 2011 model and U.S. EPA’s off-road engine Tier Standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 1039.102). Construction-related emissions are presented in Table V.K-5 for Option A. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F. Table V.K-5: Option A Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day

Source ROG NOx Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM10 Construction Equipment 0.24 3.69 0.23 0.23 Trucks Off-Site 1.18 15.44 0.26 0.26 Trucks On-Site 0.01 0.10 0.0 0.00 Total Emissions 1.43 19.23 0.49 0.49 BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 54.0 82.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015

22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, op. cit.





As shown in Table V.K-5, construction emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and particulate matter would not exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold for average daily construction emissions. The effects of construction activities would be increased dust and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. Although ROG, NOx and exhaust emissions would not exceed the established thresholds, the BAAQMD requires the implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction impacts to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would require implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and would reduce diesel PM exhaust emissions as well as construction dust (PM10 and PM2.5) impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Option A Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when required by the BAAQMD, including:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage of this measure shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the East Bay Regional Park District regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours. (LTS)

Option B. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the development of the Option B

site would result in the construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 10.45-acre area, 3.10 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements, bridges). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 16.76 acres. Project grading would include 12,000 cubic yards of cut, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill, and 2,000 cubic yards would be off-hauled. The construction period would occur over six months and the most intensive excavation and grading activities would occur over a three to four month period. Construc-tion and grading equipment is expected to include the use of earthmovers, backhoes, rollers, and





compactors. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards, as discussed below. Option B Impact AIR-1: Construction of Option B would generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards. (LTS) The proposed construction duration for Option B is approximately six months. Construction emissions were estimated for the project using emission factors by equipment type and duration provided by the District with ARB’s EMFAC 2011 model and U.S. EPA’s off-road engine Tier Standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 1039.102). Construction-related emissions for Option B are presented in Table V.K-6. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F. As shown in Table V.K-6, construction emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and particulate matter would not exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold for average daily construction emissions. Table V.K-6: Option B Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day

Source ROG NOx Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM10 Construction Equipment 0.25 3.81 0.23 0.23 Trucks Off-site 1.60 20.59 0.37 0.37 Trucks On-Site 0.01 0.16 0.0 0.0 Total Emissions 1.86 24.56 0.60 0.60

BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 54.0 82.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015 The effects of construction activities would be increased dust and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. Although ROG, NOx and exhaust emissions would not exceed the established thresholds, the BAAQMD requires the implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to ensure construction impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would require implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and would reduce diesel PM exhaust emissions as well as construction dust (PM10 and PM2.5) impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Option B Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when required by the BAAQMD, including:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.





All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage of this measure shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the East Bay Regional Park District regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours. (LTS)

Operational Emissions – Regional Emissions Analysis. Long-term air emission impacts are

associated with stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source emissions result from the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips and result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. Based on the traffic study prepared for proposed project (see Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, Table V.J-7), development of either site option is projected to generate 121 additional peak hour trips on Saturdays, 21 additional Friday morning peak hour trips, and 16 additional Friday afternoon peak hour trips during the busiest summer months. The project would not be a source of stationary source emissions. Trip generation from May 2015 counts (see discussion in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation) were used to estimate annual emissions for purposes of this analysis. Actual annual trips would likely be lower due to lower visitation levels in the winter months. An analysis of the air quality impacts from additional trips was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Results of the analysis for daily emissions are shown in Table V.K-7, while annual project emissions are shown in Table V.K-8. Results indicate that a new staging area at either site option would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance criteria for operation related criteria air pollutants and this impact would be less than significant. Table V.K-7: Daily Project Operational Emissions

Sources Pollutant Emissions

(Pounds/Day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5

Project Emissions 16.5 3.9 3.0 0.8 Significance Threshold 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Exceed Threshold? (Yes/No) No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.





Table V.K-8: Annual Project Operational Emissions

Sources Pollutant Emissions

(Tons/Year) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5

Project Emissions 3.0 0.6 0.5 0.1 Significance Threshold 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Exceed Threshold? (Yes/No) No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.

Option A. Based on the above, the results shown in Tables V.K-7 and V.K-8 indicate that a new staging area with 300 parking spaces at the Option A site would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance criteria for operation related criteria air pollutants and this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Based on the above, the results shown in Tables V.K-7 and V.K-8 indicate that the new staging area with 300 parking spaces at the Option B site would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance criteria for operation related criteria air pollutants and this impact would be less than significant.

(3) Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 µg/m3.23 A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project in combination with other projects located within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 on an annual average basis.24 Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed below. As discussed below, this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. Residential structures are located approximately 160 feet from the Option A staging area construction and approximately 150 feet from the construction limits of the new two-way access road. Construction activities associated with the project may expose these residents to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) on a short-term basis. As shown in Tables V.K-5 and V.K-6, the project would have PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that are well below the BAAQMD’s significance criteria. Additionally, implementation of the best management practices required in Option A Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce construction-related emissions to a less-than-significant level, thus minimizing possible exposure of these sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, op. cit. 24 Ibid.





Option B. Residential structures are located approximately 210 feet from the Option B site and 100 feet from the construction limits of the new two-way access road. Construction activities associated with the project may expose these residents to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) on a short-term basis. As shown in Tables V.K-5 and V.K-6, the project would have PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that are well below the BAAQMD’s significance criteria. Additionally, implementation of the best management practices required in Option B Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce construction-related emissions to a less-than-significant level, thus minimizing possible exposure of these sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

(4) Odors. During construction, the various diesel powered vehicles and equipment in use at both project sites could create localized odors. Potential impacts are discussed below and would be less than significant.

Option A. Construction-period odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. Odors from the existing uses, including the existing vault toilet, are not generally noticeable beyond the site boundary. The proposed project would include restrooms with plumbing that would reduce odors that may be associated with existing facilities at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New restroom facilities at the Option A staging area would also connect to the sewer system and would be regularly inspected and cleaned. In addition, with development of Option A, cattle grazing would be moved away from the fence line at the western boundary of this area of Mission Peak, which may further reduce offensive odors to nearby residents. Other proposed uses that would be developed within the project site would be similar to existing uses with the addition of open space, and are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Construction-period odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. Odors from the existing uses, including the existing vault toilet, are not generally noticeable beyond the site boundary. The proposed project would include restrooms with plumbing that would reduce odors that may be associated with existing facilities at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New restroom facilities at the Option B staging area would also connect to the sewer system and would be regularly inspected and cleaned. In addition, with development of Option B, the existing cattle corral would be moved away from the fence line at the western boundary of this area of Mission Peak, which may further reduce offensive odors to nearby residents. Other proposed uses that would be developed within the project site would be similar to existing uses with the addition of open space, and are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c. Cumulative Impacts. According to the BAAQMD, regional air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to independently create regional nonattain-ment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, if daily average or annual emissions of construction- or operational-related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold established by the BAAQMD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant





impact.25 As shown in Table V.K-7 and Table V.K-8 the proposed project would not exceed the daily or annual emission thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Therefore the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, Sections 2.1 and 2.6.1, op. cit.


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I R V . S E T T I N G , I M P A C T S A N D M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S

L . G R E E N H O U S E G A S E M I S S I O N S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5l-GHG.docx (10/14/15) 349

L. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

This section summarizes existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and discusses global climate change, its causes, and the contribution of human activities. The section estimates the likely GHG emissions that would result from construction and operational activities including vehicular traffic, energy consumption and other emission sources associated with the project and describes the criteria for determining the significance of climate change impacts. Mitigation measures are recommended, as necessary, to reduce project-related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of up to 300 parking spaces within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, potential impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, which occur on a global basis, would be the same under either option. Therefore, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options. 1. Setting

This section describes existing greenhouse gas emissions in the City of Fremont and the Bay Area, beginning with a discussion of typical greenhouse gas types and sources, impacts of global climate changes, the regulatory framework surrounding these issues, and current emission levels. a. Greenhouse Gases. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. Global surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C (±0.18°C) over the last 100 years (1906–2005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years.1 The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. Greenhouse gases are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.2 Greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are the following:

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4)

Nitrous oxide (N2O)

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 2 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the "greenhouse effect." Just as the glass in

a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature.





Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While manmade greenhouse gases include naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. For this reason, and because its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, water vapor is excluded from the list of greenhouse gases. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. These gases vary considerably in terms of global warming potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (atmospheric lifetime). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The definition of the GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the greenhouse gas to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. Greenhouse gas emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Table V.L-1 shows the GWPs for each type of greenhouse gas. For example, SF6 is 22,800 times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO2. Table V.L-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases

Gas Atmospheric Lifetime

(Years)

Global Warming Potential Relative to Carbon Dioxide

(100-year Time Horizon) Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 25 Nitrous Oxide 114 298 HFC-23 270 14,800 HFC-134a 14 1,430 HFC-152a 1.4 124 PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six greenhouse gases.

(1) Carbon Dioxide (CO2). In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form as CO2. Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals and plants, volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter, and evaporation from the oceans. Human caused sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and deforestation. Natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO2, and, consequently, the gas is building up in the atmosphere.





In 2002, CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion accounted for approximately 98 percent of man-made CO2 emissions and approximately 84 percent of California's overall greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e). The transportation sector accounted for California’s largest portion of CO2 emissions, with gasoline consumption making up the greatest portion of these emissions. Electricity generation was California’s second largest category of greenhouse gas emissions.

(2) Methane (CH4). Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Decomposition occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH4 emissions in California and in the United States as a whole. Agricultural processes such as intestinal fermentation, manure management, and rice cultivation are also significant sources of CH4 in California. Methane accounted for approximately 6 percent of gross climate change emissions (CO2e) in California from 1990 to 2004. Total annual emissions of methane are approximately 500 million tons, with manmade emissions accounting for the majority. As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric methane—a chemical breakdown in the atmosphere—cannot keep pace with source emissions, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.

(3) Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. Nitrous oxide is a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. Nitrous oxide emissions accounted for approximately 8 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) in California from 1990 to 2004.

(4) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). Hydrofluorocarbons are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol.3 Perfluorocarbons and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry leads to greater use of PFCs. Hydrofluoro-carbons, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) in California from 1990 to 2004. b. Impacts of Climate Change. The potential impacts of global climate change are described in the following section.

3 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was designated to

protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.





(1) Temperature Increase. The latest projections, based on state-of-the art climate models, indicate that temperatures in California are expected to rise 3 to 10.5°F by the end of the century.4 Because greenhouse gases persist for a long time in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere cannot be tied to a specific point of emission. The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global temperature. The impact of human activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the observational record. For example, surface temperature data show that 11 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record for global surface temperature.5 Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which would induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include but are not limited to the following:

The loss of sea ice and mountain snowpack resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;

Rise in global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice caps in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;

Changes in weather that include widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones;

Decline of the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for a significant amount of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;

Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century; and

High potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Delta and levee systems due to the rise in sea level.

(2) Precipitation and Water Supply. Most of California’s precipitation falls in the northern

part of the State during the winter. A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers, as the greatest demand for water comes from users in the southern part of the State during the spring and summer.6 The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

4 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July. 5 California, State of, 2008. California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program. The Future

is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. September. 6 California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit.





Some models predict drier conditions and decreased water flows, while others predict wetter conditions in various parts of the world. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, thus reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent over the next 100 years. The extent to which various meteorological conditions will impact groundwater supply is unknown. Warmer temperatures could increase the period when water is on the ground by reducing soil freeze. However, warmer temperatures could also lead to higher evaporation or shorter rainfall seasons, shortening the recharge season. Warmer winters could increase the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge. However, the additional runoff would occur at a time when some basins, particularly in Northern California, are being recharged at their maximum capacity. Where precipitation is projected to increase in California, the increases are focused in Northern California. However, various California climate models provide mixed results regarding changes in total annual precipitation in the State through the end of this century; therefore, no conclusion on an increase or decrease can be made. Considerable uncertainties about the precise effects of climate change on California hydrology and water resources will remain until there is more precise and consistent information about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change.7 The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) supplies water for the City of Fremont, including the project site. The ACWD provides water to the Cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. ACWD’s local sources include fresh groundwater from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, brackish ground-water desalination, and surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir.8 The ACWD addresses the potential effects of climate change of future water supplies and found that much of ACWD’s imported water supplies is held in “storage” in winter and spring as snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. With a diminished snowpack, the water supply yield of the State Water Project and San Francisco Regional System may be significantly impacted.9 As such, the District is developing measures to increase the reliability of their water supply.

(3) Sea Level Rise. Rising sea level is one of the major areas of concern related to global climate change. Two of the primary causes for a sea level rise are the thermal expansion of ocean waters (water expanding as it heats up) and the addition of water to ocean basins by the melting of land-based ice. From 1961 to 2003, global average sea level rose at an average rate of 0.07 inches per year, and at an accelerated average rate of about 0.12 inches per year during the last decade of this period (1993 to 2003).10 Over the past 100 years, sea levels along California’s coasts and estuaries have risen about seven inches.11

7 California, State of, 2006. Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into

Management of California’s Water Resources. July. 8 Alameda County Water District. Urban Water Management Plan 2010 – 2015. Website: www.acwd.org/

index.aspx?NID=365 (accessed July 27, 2015). 9 Ibid. 10 California, State of, 2008, op. cit. 11 Ibid.





Sea levels could rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century as global climate change continues.12 Although these projections are on a global scale, the rate of sea level rise along California’s coast is relatively consistent with the worldwide average rate observed over the past century. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that changes in worldwide sea level rise will also be experienced along California’s coast.13 Sea level rise of this magnitude would increasingly threaten California’s coastal regions with more intense coastal storms, accelerated coastal erosion, threats to vital levees, and disruption of inland water systems, wetlands, and natural habitats. Rising sea levels and more intense storm surges could increase the risk for coastal flooding. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) employed geographic information system software to identify the shoreline areas likely to be most impacted by a one meter rise in sea level.14 In the San Francisco Bay Area, the background rate of sea level rise has been estimated to be approximately 0.079 inch per year over the past 100 years.15 An increased rate of sea level rise is anticipated in the near future due to projected global climate change. Although the rate of increase has not been precisely modeled and cannot be known with certainty, several projections predict a rise in sea level of at least 50 centimeters (approximately 20 inches) and as much as 200 centimeters (approximately 80 inches) by the year 2100.

(4) Water Quality. Water quality depends on a wide range of variables such as water temperature, flow, runoff rates and timing, waste discharge loads, and the ability of watersheds to assimilate wastes and pollutants. Climate change could alter water quality in a variety of ways, including higher winter flows that reduce pollutant concentrations (through dilution) or increase erosion of land surfaces and stream channels, leading to higher sediment, chemical, and nutrient loads in rivers. Water temperature increases and decreased water flows can result in increasing concentra-tions of pollutants and salinity. Increases in water temperature alone can likely to lead to adverse changes in water quality, even in the absence of changes in precipitation. Land and resource use changes can have impacts on water quality comparable to or even greater than those from global climate change. The net effect on water quality for rivers, lakes, and groundwater in the future is dependent not just on climate conditions, but also on a wide range of other human actions and management decisions.

(5) Public Health. Global climate change is anticipated to result in not only changes to average temperature but also to more extreme heat events.16 These extreme heat events increase the risk of death from dehydration, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress, especially with people who are ill, children, the elderly, and the poor, who may lack access to air conditioning and medical

12 California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit. 13 California, State of, 2006, op. cit. 14 California, State of, 2009. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Climate Change.

Website: www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/climate_change.shtml (accessed July 2015). 15 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 2007. Mean Sea Level Trend (station) 9414290 San Francisco,

California. Website: tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 (accessed July 2015). 16 California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit.





assistance. According to the California Climate Change Center, more research is needed to under-stand the effects of higher temperatures and how adapting to these temperatures can minimize health effects. c. Regulatory Framework. The federal and State regulatory framework related to greenhouse gas emissions is described below.

(1) Federal Regulations. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled [549 U.S. 497 (2007)] that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). While there currently are no adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. EPA commenced several actions in 2009 to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change, including the ones described below. On September 22, 2009, the U.S. EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases from large greenhouse gas emission sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide the U.S. EPA with accurate and timely greenhouse gas emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This publicly-available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases, along with vehicle and engine manufacturers, will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this rule. On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed a final action under the FCAA, finding that six greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles contribute to global climate change. This U.S. EPA action does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, the findings are a prerequisite to finalizing the greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles discussed further below. The U.S. EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, U.S. EPA denied these petitions. On April 1, 2010, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a final joint rule to establish a national program consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. U.S. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards under the CAA, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The U.S. EPA greenhouse gas standards require light-duty vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon. In December 2010, the U.S. EPA issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas pollution standards under the FCAA in 2011. The agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries – two of the largest industrial sources, representing nearly 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in the United States. On August 9, 2011, U.S. EPA and the NHTSA announced the first-ever standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. The final





combined standards of the Heavy-Duty National Program will reduce CO2 emissions by about 270 million metric tons (MMT) and save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles built for the 2014 to 2018 model years. The heavy duty sector addressed in the U.S. EPA and NHTSA rules (including the largest pickup trucks and vans, semi-trucks, and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses in between) accounts for nearly 6 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 20 percent of transportation emissions. In addition, air quality will continue to improve as less fuel use leads to reduced ozone and particulate matter.

(2) State Regulations. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is typically the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. There are many regulations and statutes in California that address, both directly and indirectly, greenhouse gas emissions, such as renewable portfolio standards (SB 1078, SB 107, SB 2(1X)) and energy efficiency standards (Title 24, Cal. Code Regs.). Key State regulatory activities specifically addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are discussed below.

Assembly Bill 1493 (2002). In a response to the transportation sector’s significant contribution to California’s CO2 emissions, AB 1493 (Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires the ARB to set greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. These standards (starting in model years 2009 to 2016) were approved by the ARB in 2004, but the needed waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption was not granted by the U.S. EPA until June 30, 2009. The ARB responded by amending its original regulation, now referred to as Low Emission Vehicle III, to take effect for model years starting in 2017 to 2025.

Executive Order S-3-05 (2005). Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05 on June 1, 2005, which proclaimed that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. To combat those concerns, the executive order established California’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, which established the following goals:

Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010;

Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and

Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency is required to coordinate efforts of various State agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce greenhouse gases. A biannual progress report must be submitted to the Governor and State Legislature disclosing the progress made toward greenhouse emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and report possible mitigation and adaptation plans to address these impacts.

Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act. California’s major initiative for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is AB 32, passed by the State Legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The ARB has established the level of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT CO2e. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 required the ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to





global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11, 2008, and contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve the reduction of approximately 169 MMT of CO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 596 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent from 2002-2004 average emissions). The Scoping Plan also includes ARB-recommended greenhouse gas reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s greenhouse gas inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards:

Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e);

The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);

Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e); and

A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e).

Senate Bill 97 (2007). SB 97, signed by the Governor in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; Public Resources Code, Sections 21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Natural Resources Agency guidelines for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by CEQA. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines in January 2010, which went into effect in March 2010. The amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis, but preserve the discretion granted by CEQA to lead agencies in making their own determinations based on substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs when they perform individual project analyses.

(3) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The BAAQMD regulates greenhouse gas emissions through the following plans, programs, and guidelines.

Clean Air Plans. BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with the State and federal Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health through implementation of a control strategy designed to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants. The most recent clean air plan also includes measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

BAAQMD Climate Protection Program. The BAAQMD established a climate protection program to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The climate protection program includes measures that promote energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy, all of





which assist in reducing emissions of greenhouse gas and in reducing air pollutants that affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. As described in Section V.K, Air Quality, the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. As described previously, the BAAQMD recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted in 1999. However, the 1999 CEQA Guidelines do not contain a threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. The 2010 CEQA Guidelines include a quantitative threshold for project level analyses based on estimated greenhouse emissions as well as per capita metrics.

(4) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plan was adopted in December 2011 and addresses climate change through policies, goals, and implementation actions.17 General Plan policies addressing greenhouse gas emissions relate to climate change adaptation, transit-oriented development, mixed-use development, green buildings, waste reduction and recycling, water quality and conservation/recycling, energy conservation and renewable energy, and waste reduction and recycling. The proposed project would develop a new staging area, including additional parking, restrooms, and associated facilities; therefore, the General Plan policies related to climate change are specifically applicable to the proposed project. The City of Fremont has established green building requirements and in 2006 the City adopted a Sustainability Policy that called for all new City buildings over 10,000 square feet in size to be LEED Silver certified. Additionally the City has adopted a solid waste goal to divert 57 percent of solid waste generated in Fremont from the landfill.

(5) City of Fremont Climate Action Plan. The City of Fremont’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in November, 2012. The CAP is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and reinforces the principal of sustainability in the City of Fremont. There are two overarching goals of the Fremont CAP:

To identify specific and achievable actions for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within the City. The actions are organized within a three-tier implementation time frame:

○ Short-term (1-3 years from Plan adoption, 61 actions);

○ Medium-term (3-5 years from Plan adoption, 16 actions); and

○ Long-term (5-10 years from Plan adoption, 8 actions).

To serve as a resource for continued engagement, education, motivation, and inspiration of the community and City organization to work together. The CAP is meant to provide a






roadmap, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to opportunities, such as partnerships and funding mechanisms, when they arise. 18

The City Council has adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020 from 2005 baseline conditions by implementing the actions from their three-tiered program. The City hopes to achieve a reduction of 730,000 MTCO2e from business as usual projections for 2020 resulting in a goal of 1,249,000 MTCO2e 2020 CO2 emissions.19 Municipal and community-wide activities supporting this goal include land use and mobility measures, energy measures to maximize energy efficiency and reducing energy use, solid waste measures, water conservation measures, and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pertaining to municipal services and operations, as follows.

Land Use and Mobility. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by facilitating transit-oriented development, conducting outreach and educational efforts to promote behavior change, and creating the conditions that support people’s ability to make choices which support this goal.

Energy. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency strategies, community education, and collaboration with PG&E and other energy program providers.

Solid Waste. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by decreasing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills through increased voluntary and mandatory recycling, composting, and other materials management strategies, and from methane gas capture and recovery.

Water. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through water conservation and efficient use of water resources, collaboration efforts with other public agencies, outreach and educational efforts to promote behavior change, and creating the conditions that support people’s ability to make choices which support this goal.


following policy related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy RM1. The District will maintain an active inventory of its resources and monitor their health and viability. When access to park areas by the public, or other factors, are negatively impacting these resources, the District may institute periodic closures of trails or staging areas to allow these resources and their environs to rest and recover.

Policy RM2. The District will specifically track and monitor the effects of Climate Change on its resources, interceding when necessary to relocate or protect in-situ resources that are being degraded or lost by this shift in the environment.

(7) Emissions Inventories An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary

human-generated sources and sinks of greenhouse gases is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on global, United States, California, and local greenhouse gas emission inventories.

18 Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Climate Action Plan. November, 13. 19 Ibid.





Global Emissions. Worldwide net emissions (including the effects of land use and forestry) of greenhouse gases in 2010 were 46 billion metric tons20 of CO2e per year.21 This represents a 35 percent increase from 1990.

United States Emissions. In 2012, the United States emitted about 6.5 billion metric tons of CO2e or about 21 metric tons per year per person. The total 2012 CO2e emissions represent a 5 percent increase since 1990 but a 10 percent decrease since 2005. Of the six major sectors nationwide – residential, commercial, agricultural, industry, transportation, and electricity generation – electricity generation accounts for the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 (approximately 32 percent), with transportation being a close second at 27 percent since 1990; these emissions are generated entirely from direct fossil fuel combustion.22

State of California Emissions. The ARB is responsible for developing the California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the State and supports the AB 32 Climate Change Program. According to ARB emission inventory estimates, California emitted approximately 460 million metric tons of CO2e emissions in 2012.23 California ranks second in the nation in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions (Texas is highest), with a per-capita greenhouse gas emission rate of approximately 12 metric tons per person (43 percent less than the national average in 2012); only 5 other states (all in the northeast) have lower per-capita greenhouse gas emissions.24 California greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector—still the State’s largest single source of greenhouse gases, contributing 36 percent of total emissions—declined modestly compared to 2011; however, over the past 7 years, transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 12 percent.25 The ARB attributes much of this decrease to the growing Statewide fleet of fuel-efficient vehicles—the hybrid vehicle market share increased in 2012 to 7.4 percent from the 2011 level of 5.4 percent.26

20 A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons. 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Global

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Website: www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html (accessed June 23, 2014).

22 Ibid. 23 California Air Resources Board, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data for 2000–2012.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014). 24 California Air Resources Board, 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2012: Trends of

Emissions and Other Indicators. 13 May. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014). 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.





ARB staff has projected 2020 unregulated greenhouse gas emissions, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any greenhouse gas reduction actions, would be 507 MMT of CO2e.27 The total emissions are lower than originally forecast (596 MMT) in the AB32 Scoping Plan to account for new estimates for future fuel and energy demand and accounting for the recent economic recession. Greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 from the transportation sector as a whole are expected to increase to 184 MMT of CO2e (2012 inventory is 167 MMT of CO2e). The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions and includes oil and gas production and refining facilities, cement plants, and large manufacturing facilities. Emissions for this sector are forecast to grow to 91.5 MMT of CO2e by 2020, an increase of approximately 3 percent from the 2012 emissions inventory level. The commercial and residential sectors are expected to contribute 45.3 MMT of CO2e, or about 9 percent of the total Statewide greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.28

San Francisco Bay Area Emissions. The BAAQMD established a climate protection program in 2005 to acknowledge the link between climate change and air quality. The BAAQMD regularly prepares inventories of criteria and toxic air pollutants to support planning, regulatory and other programs. The most recent emissions inventory estimates greenhouse gas emissions produced by the San Francisco Bay Area in 2011.29 The inventory, which was published January 2015, updates the BAAQMD’s previous greenhouse gas emission inventory for base year 2007. In 2011, 86.6 million metric tons of CO2e of greenhouse gases were emitted by the San Francisco Bay Area. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector was the single largest source of the San Francisco Bay Area’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The transportation sector (including on-road motor vehicles, locomotives, ships and boats, and aircraft) contributed 39.7 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and the industrial and commercial sectors (excluding electricity and agriculture) contributed 35.7 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area. Energy production activities such as electricity generation and co-generation were the third largest contributor with approximately 14 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Off-road equipment such as construction, industrial, commercial, and lawn and garden equipment contributed 1.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

City of Fremont Emissions. The City of Fremont, in partnership with ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, prepared the City of Fremont Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory to determine the levels of greenhouse gas emissions that the City emits in its base year, 2005, for both community-side and municipal sources.30 The baseline inventory was compiled using ICLEI’s Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software. The community-wide sources within the CACP software are intended to represent greenhouse gas emission from the following sectors: residential, commercial, and industrial energy use, transportation, and solid waste.

27 California Air Resources Board, 2013. Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 2020 Emissions Forecast.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm (accessed June 23, 2014). 28 Ibid. 29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

January. 30 Fremont, City of, and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. 2008. Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Inventory Report. June.





While the baseline inventory is meant to capture emissions that physically occur in Fremont as a direct result of activities within the community, it also includes some of the emissions in other jurisdictions caused as an indirect result of activities within Fremont for which adequate data exists (e.g., electricity use, waste water). Other indirect emissions, such as transportation beyond City limits, air travel by Fremont residents, and the production and transportation of goods consumed in Fremont, are not included in the emission inventory because of their difficulty to accurately quantify. The 2005 baseline greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the City of Fremont is 1,862,221 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. As shown in Table V.L-2, approximately 60 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions are related to transportation. This percentage reflects vehicles traveling on State highways and local roads. 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

This section evaluates significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that could result from the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures where appropriate. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the GHG-related impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. The consistency of the project with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also discussed. A single project typically does not generate a sufficient quantity of greenhouse gas emissions to affect global climate change; therefore, the global climate change impacts of the proposed project are discussed in the context of cumulative impacts, per the approach recommended by the BAAQMD. Therefore, this section begins by establishing the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section identifies greenhouse gas emissions associated with existing operations within the project area and evaluates the greenhouse gas emissions expected to result from the project. Because GHG impacts occur on a cumulative basis and would be the same for both project site options, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options. a. Criteria of Significance. This section evaluates impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Table V.L-2: City of Fremont 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (MTCO2e) Sector GHG Emissions Transportation 1,116,416 Residential 276,172 Commercial/Industrial 405,996 Waste 63,641 Total 1,862,221 Source: Fremont, City of, and ICLEI Local

Governments for Sustainability. 2008. Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report. June.





The BAAQMD has adopted greenhouse gas thresholds of significance for operational emissions in its 2010 CEQA Guidelines.31 The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds for construction emissions but recommends quantification and disclosure of these emissions. Local agencies are encouraged to adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions. This EIR analyzes whether the project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be cumulatively significant, and if so the project would then result in significant adverse impacts on global climate change if it would:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The project would not have a significant effect on the environment if it would meet one of the following criteria:

○ Result in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons of CO2e a year; or

○ Result in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per capita service population (employees plus residents) per year.

Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

These significance thresholds were adopted as part of the BAAQMD’s May 2010 CEQA Guidelines. CEQA grants local agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresholds previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. The BAAQMD’s approach to developing a quantitative threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 was to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation and policy adopted to reduce Statewide greenhouse gas emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, if a project would generate greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. The Alameda County Superior Court did not question the science behind the thresholds or their merit. For that reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and the significance thresholds contained therein. b. Project Impacts. Potential greenhouse gas emissions and impacts associated with the proposed project are discussed below. As previously noted, impacts are not differentiated for either site option as the impacts would occur on a cumulative level and would be the same under either option.

(1) Generate Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project would generate emissions during construction and operation. However, as demonstrated in the following analysis, these emissions would not contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or violate any greenhouse gas emission standard or plan. Therefore, the project’s impacts would be less-than-significant for both project options as described below.

Construction Emissions. Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various

31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June.





sources. During construction of the project, greenhouse gases would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and haul trucks, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels would create greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 would be emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The total construction period anticipated for both project options is approximately six months. Using emission factors from ARB’s EMFAC 2011 model and U.S. EPA’s off-road engine Tier Standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 1039.102) by each piece of construction equipment, it is estimated that total project construction activities would emit approximately 482 metric tons of CO2e for Options A and B. Model output sheets are included in Appendix F. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the threshold is based on a qualitative evaluation of whether the project implements applicable BAAQMD Best Management Practices. Implementation of the construction practices proposed by the project and required by Option A and Option B Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (for either option) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. Therefore, the construction impacts of the proposed project on global climate change would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from mobile sources. The project would generate minimal emissions associated with energy consumption and water consumption associated with the new restroom facilities (refer to Section V.Q, Utilities for additional information). The primary source of greenhouse gas emissions would result from project-generated vehicle trips. Based on the traffic study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D and Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation of this EIR), the project under both options would generate 121 additional peak hour trips on Saturdays and 16 additional Friday PM peak hour trips during the busiest months. Based on ITE data for regional parks, PM peak hour trips would be 2.63 percent of the daily weekday trips, while Saturday peak hour trips would be 18.45 percent of the total daily Saturday trips. Therefore it is estimated that the project would generate 608 weekday trips and 656 Saturday trips. Sunday trips were estimated to be equal to Saturday trips for purposes of the air quality and greenhouse gas assessment. An analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from these additional trips was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Results of the analysis indicate the project would generate 517 metric tons CO2e per year. Motor vehicle emissions are the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. Additional calculation details are provided in Appendix F. Annual emissions of operational-related greenhouse gases for the proposed project would not exceed the significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year; therefore, the operations of the project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the impact of the proposed project on greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.

(2) Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. The applicable greenhouse gas emission reduction plan is the City of Fremont’s Climate Action Plan which identifies a set of emission reduction measures. Consistency with the Climate Action Plan can be determined if the project does the following: 1) supports the goals of the Climate Action Plan; 2) includes applicable





control measures from the Climate Action Plan; 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Climate Action plan. The project’s consistency with these objectives is described below. The primary goal of the 2012 Climate Action Plan is to reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020 from a 2005 baseline.32 The City has established a summary of proposed actions for community-wide emission reduction. These actions are divided into the following actions: land use and mobility, energy, solid waste, water, and municipal services and operations. The project will be operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Parks District, and therefore is not considered a City of Fremont municipal service or operation per the Climate Action Plan. The proposed project would include development of a new staging area and parking lot to increase the parking capacity for visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. Increasing the number of available parking spaces would provide more readily available parking for the community, and would in turn reduce the tile pipe emissions and idling from cars driving through the area to find an available parking spot. The proposed project would result in a minimal increase in water and energy consumption associated with new restroom. The project would require a small amount of electricity for lighting and possibly hand driers. Additionally, all toilets would be low-flow, consistent with the latest building standards. Minimal water and electricity use would not result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions that would hinder the goals of the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the mobility measures in the Climate Action Plan. c. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, or future projects, that when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (a) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of greenhouse gasses around the world. Land use projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some specific effects felt in California. However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts and global warming. The combination of greenhouse gas emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. No individual project would result in a measurable impact on global climate change. Therefore, this analysis has addressed climate change primarily as a cumulative impact. As noted above, in developing the threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions, the BAAQMD identified the emissions level for which a project would conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide greenhouse gas emissions. According to the BAAQMD, if a project would generate greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.33 As indicated in the analysis presented above, the proposed project would not exceed the project-level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD and therefore the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.

32 Fremont, City of, 2012, op. cit. 33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines Section 2.2. May.







S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A P A R K I N G E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I R V . S E T T I N G , I M P A C T S A N D M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S

M . N O I S E

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5m-Noise.docx (10/14/15) 367

M. NOISE

This section describes existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the project sites, describes criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts, and estimates noise levels that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Where necessary, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project-related noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Noise modeling data is provided in Appendix G. 1. Setting

The section begins with an introduction to several key concepts and terms that are used in evaluating noise and vibration, a related issue. This setting section concludes with a description of current noise sources that affect the project area and noise levels that are experienced in the vicinity of the project sites. a. Characteristics of Sound. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations or cycles per second of a wave that results in the range of tone from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment, and it is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effects on adjacent sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, nursing homes, schools). b. Measurement of Sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation (frequency) of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests in the wave, the speed that it travels, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. The sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness (or amplitude) of an ambient sound, and the decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Because sound can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale1 is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Thus, a 10 dBA (see below for a description of “dBA”) increase in the level of a continuous

1 Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a

sharply rising curve. The logarithmic decibel scale allows an extremely wide range of acoustic energy to be characterized in a manageable notation.



M . N O I S E


noise represents a perceived doubling of loudness, while a 20 dBA increase is 100 times more intense, and a 30 dBA increase is 1,000 times more intense. As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level. Noise levels diminish or attenuate as distance from the source increases based on an inverse square rule, depending on how the noise source is physically configured. Noise levels from a single-point source, such as a single piece of construction equipment at ground level, attenuate at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance (between the single-point source of noise and the noise-sensitive receptor of concern). Heavily traveled roads with few gaps in traffic behave as continuous line sources and attenuate roughly at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all pitches (sound frequencies) within the entire spec-trum, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity in a process called “A-weighting,” expressed as “dBA.” The dBA or A-weighted decibel refers to a scale of noise measurement that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. Table V.M-1 contains a list of typical acoustical terms and definitions. Table V.M-2 shows some representative noise sources and their corresponding noise levels in dBA. There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound, including during sensitive times of the day and night. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn

are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours. Typical A-weighted sound levels from various sources are identified in Table V.M-2. When assessing the annoyance factor, other noise rating scales of importance include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of maxi-mum levels denoted by Lmax for short-term noise impacts. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. Noise impacts can be organized into three categories. The first category comprises audible increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dBA or greater, since, as described earlier, this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in labora-tory environments. The last category is changes in noise level of less than 1.0 dBA that are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.



M . N O I S E


Table V.M-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definitions

Decibel, dB A unit that denotes the ratio between two quantities proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., number of cycles per second).

A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA

The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this section are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.

L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level for 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period.

Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, Leq

The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.

Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL

The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn

The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.

Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Harris, Cyril M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. c. Physiological Effects of Noise. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 1985 Noise Guidebook,2 permanent physical damage to human hearing begins at pro-longed exposure to noise levels higher than 85 to 90 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the ear, and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. To avoid adverse effects on human physical and mental health in the workplace or in communities, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the protection of workers from hearing loss when the noise exposure equals or exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA.3

2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1985. The Noise Guidebook. May. 3 Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2011. Regulations, Standards 29 CFR, Occupational Noise

Exposure 1910.95.



M . N O I S E


Unwanted community effects of noise occur at levels much lower than those that cause hearing loss and other health effects. Noise annoyance occurs when it interferes with sleeping, conversation, and noise-sensitive work, including learning or listening to the radio, television, or music. According to World Health Organization (WHO) noise studies, few people are seriously annoyed by daytime activities with noise levels below 55 dBA, or are only moderately annoyed with noise levels below 50 dBA.4 Table V.M-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels

Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. d. Characteristics of Groundborne Vibration. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the building, the vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration from the rattling of windows or a rumbling noise. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. When assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square

4 World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Website: www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/

guidelines2.html.



M . N O I S E


(rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “VdB.” Human perception to vibration in indoor environments starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associ-ated with the shaking of the building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction. In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). Common sources of groundborne vibration include trains and construc-tion activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Typical vibration source levels from construction equipment are shown in Table V.M-3. e. Existing Noise Environment. The most significant noise sources that contribute to the existing noise environment in the City of Fremont are transportation noise from vehicular traffic, railroad and train noise, industrial uses, and mechanical equipment.5 The proposed project is located in a residential and recreational area where industrial, mechanical, and railroad noises contribute little, if any, to the ambient noise levels.

(1) Existing Ambient Noise Levels. Existing noise sources at and around the project site are generated by neighborhood traffic and traffic from Mission Peak visitors. There are no existing stationary noise sources in the project site vicinity. Parking lot noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, music, and people conversing, occurs in the project vicinity and on nearby streets as visitors park cars to visit the Preserve. Existing traffic data, as described in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, was used to calculate existing noise levels in the area. Under existing conditions, visitors park on the residential streets approximately 50 feet from residential structures. Noise caused by doors slamming and typical parking activities ranges from 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. However, when averaged over a 24 hour period, the instantaneous spikes in ambient noise levels from doors slamming do not cause ambient noise levels to exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL daily threshold.6

5 Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. December. 6 Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code.

Table V.M-3: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment

PPV at 25 ft

(in/sec)

Approximate VdB at 25

feet Pile Driver (impact)

Upper range 1.518 112 Typical 0.644 104

Pile Driver (sonic)

Upper range 0.734 105 Typical 0.170 93

Clam shovel drop (slurry wall)

0.202 94

Hydromill (slurry wall)

In soil 0.008 66 In rock 0.017 75

Vibratory roller 0.210 94 Hoe ram j.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.



M . N O I S E


Under existing conditions visitors sometimes arrive before the park opens and congregate on the neighborhood streets. Noise generated from these activities is an existing issue for nearby residences.

(2) Existing Aircraft Noise Levels. The Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport is the closest airport to the project area and is located approximately 9 miles south-west of the proposed project area. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible within the project area, the project sites do not lie within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours of any airport. The project area is not located in an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. f. Regulatory Framework. The following section summarizes the regulatory framework related to noise, including federal, State and City of Fremont plans, policies and standards.

(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). In 1972, Congress enacted the Noise Control Act. This act authorized the U.S. EPA to publish descrip-tive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels) categories, as shown in Table V.M-4. The U.S. EPA cautions that these identified levels are not standards because they do not take into account the cost or feasibility of the levels. For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to an Leq(24) of 70 dBA. The “(24)” signifies Leq duration of 24 hours. The U.S. EPA activity and interference guidelines are designed to ensure reliable

Table V.M-4: Summary of EPA Noise Levels Effect Level Area

Hearing loss Leq(24) < 70 dB All areas. Outdoor activity inter-ference and annoyance

Ldn < 55 dB Outdoors in residential areas and farms and other outdoor areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a basis for use.

Leq(24) < 55 dB Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time, such as school yards, play-grounds, etc.

Indoor activity interference and annoyance

Leq < 45 dB Indoor residential areas. Leq(24) < 45 dB Other indoor areas with

human activities such as schools, etc.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Informa-tion on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March.

Table V.M-5: Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn Type of Effects Magnitude of Effect Speech – Indoors

100 percent sentence intelligibility (aver-age) with a 5 dB margin of safety.

Speech – Outdoors

100 percent sentence intelligibility (aver-age) at 1.4 feet.

99 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 3.2 feet.

95 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 11.5 feet.

Average Community Reaction

None evident; 7 dB below level of significant complaints and threats of legal action and at least 16 dB below “vigorous action.”

Complaints 1 percent dependent on attitude and other non-level related factors.

Annoyance 17 percent dependent on attitude and other non-level related factors.

Attitude Towards Area

Noise essentially the least important of various factors.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Informa-tion on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March.



M . N O I S E


speech communication at about 5 feet in the outdoor environment. For outdoor and indoor environments, interference with activity and annoyance should not occur if levels are below 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively. The noise effects associated with an outdoor Ldn of 55 dBA are summarized in Table V.M-5. At 55 dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 feet, and no substantial community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may indicate annoyance.

(2) State of California. The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. The “State Noise Insulation Standard” requires noise-sensitive land uses to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the building. The State has also established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses. The City of Fremont has adopted the State’s land use compatibility guidelines, as discussed below and shown in Table V.M-6.

(3) City of Fremont Municipal Code. The City of Fremont Municipal Code7 specifies that construction activity for development projects in any zoning district on any property within 500 feet of one or more residences, lodging facilities, nursing homes, or inpatient hospitals shall be limited to weekday hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and Saturday and holiday hours between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; Sunday construction is not allowed. Construction activity for projects not located within 500 feet of residences, lodging facilities, nursing homes, or inpatient hospitals shall be limited to weekday hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and Saturday or holiday hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. In addition, the performance standards of Section 17.25 of the Municipal Code require that residential lots adjacent to the right-of-way of recreational land uses (among other types of land uses) shall be protected by suitable noise attenuation structures and/or design features, including but not limited to walls, fences and mounds, which are capable of reducing the noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL or lower at these residences. The City’s Municipal Code noise level metric quantifies noise levels using CNEL, which accounts for the increased sensitivity to noise levels during evening and morning hours and is further described in the Measurement of Sound subsection above.

(4) City of Fremont General Plan. The Health and Safety Element of the City of Fremont’s General Plan8 has established a goal to have acceptable noise levels throughout the community with an objective to have noise environments which meet City noise standards. According to the land use compatibility standards, the maximum acceptable noise level in residential areas is 60 dBA Ldn. This level is intended guide the design and location of future development, and is a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. A 60 dBA Ldn goal will be applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments and recreation areas in multi-family housing projects). Projects that increase existing noise environments by more than 5 dBA but remain below 60 dBA Ldn, projects that increase existing noise environments by more than 3 dBA and exceed the 60 dBA Ldn noise threshold, and projects that would result in a significant adverse

7 City of Fremont Municipal Code, op. cit. 8 Fremont, City of, 2011, op. cit.



M . N O I S E


community response due to the unusual character of the noise, are required, by the City, for noise evaluation and mitigation measures. Table V.M-6: Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise Environments

Land Use Category Exterior Noise Exposure (Ldn)

<55 55 60 65 70 75 80 >80

Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential

Hotels, Motels and other lodging

Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds

Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals, Personal Care, Meeting Halls, Churches

Office Buildings, Business, Commercial, and Professional

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special insulation requirements

CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with noise element policies

Source: Fremont, City of, 2011. General Plan, Chapter 10 Safety, Figure 10-4. December. Applicable goals and policies from the General Plan’s Safety Element are included below.

Goal 10-:8 Noise and Vibration. Minimal impacts to residents and property due to noise and ground vibration sources.

Policy 10-8.1: Site Development Acceptable Noise Environment. A noise environment which meets acceptable standards as defined by the State of California Building Code and local policies contained herein.

Policy 10-8.2: Acceptable Noise Environment. If an area currently is below the desired noise standards, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. The impact of a proposed project on an existing land use should be evaluated in terms of potential for adverse community response based on a substantial increase in existing noise levels, regardless of the compatibility guidelines.

Policy 10-8.3 Noise Environment Protection. Protect existing residential neighborhoods from noise. In general, the City will require the evaluation of mitigation measures for projects under the following circumstances:



M . N O I S E


The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 5 dBA or more but would remain below 60 dBA, or;

The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3 dB(A) or more and exceed 60 dB(A), or;

The project has the potential to generate significant adverse community response due to the unusual character of the noise.

Policy 10-8.5: Construction Noise Levels. Control construction noise at its source to maintain existing noise levels, and in no case to exceed the acceptable noise levels.

○ Implementation 10-8.5.A: Noise Ordinance. Consider creating and adopting a noise ordinance to control noise generating activities such as construction activity, heavy industrial equipment, roadway noise, horns, engines, loudspeakers, leaf blowers, and other sources.

○ Implementation 10-8.5.B: Construction Noise Mitigation. Continue to apply the construction hours ordinance to new development to limit noise exposure created by construction activity. Apply best practices to further limit noise in sensitive areas and long-term projects, such as maintaining construction equipment in good condition and use of mufflers on internal combustion engines, installation of temporary noise barriers, prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion engines, locating staging areas away from sensitive receptors and other feasible best management practices.

Policy 10-8.6: Sensitive Uses. Protect schools, hospitals, libraries, places of religious worship, convalescent homes, and other noise sensitive uses from noise levels exceeding those allowed in residential areas.


This section evaluates potential noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and mitigation measures to address these impacts, where appropriate. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the noise-related impacts that would result from implem-entation of either Option A or Option B. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the existing ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Fremont. The proposed project would result in a significant noise impact if it would result in:

Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels;

A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;

A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential noise impacts. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.



M . N O I S E


(1) Applicable Noise Level Standards. The proposed project is located in a relatively quiet area with noise levels falling within the normally acceptable category according to the City of Fremont’s noise compatibility guidelines, as there are no substantial noise generators in the area and existing pass-through traffic levels produce low levels of noise. Neighbors do, however, hear engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, music, and people conversing at the existing staging area and from visitors parking on neighborhood streets (as discussed under subsection e., Existing Noise Environment, above). Implementation of the proposed project could expose existing nearby residences to noise generated from parking lot activities at either of the project site options. The performance standards of Section 17.25 of the City of Fremont Municipal Code require that noise levels emanating from recreational land uses or rights-of-way should be controlled or mitigated so as to not exceed 60 dBA CNEL as measured at adjacent residential property lines. As discussed below, the project would not expose people or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in Fremont’s General Plan and thus these impacts would be less than significant. In addition, existing noise impacts to residential uses on neighborhood streets are expected to be reduced with implementation of the proposed project at either site option. The proposed project aims to reduce on-street parking on neighborhood streets by providing additional off-street parking in the Preserve for visitors to Mission Peak. This EIR analyzes potential noise generated by the proposed project (i.e., noise levels generated from the proposed staging areas at Option A and Option B sites). Existing noise from cars and visitors parking on neighborhood streets would be reduced with implementation of the proposed project such that the new parking areas would locate parking activities away from sensitive receptors. The City quantifies noise impacts in CNEL which measures daily noise levels. Noise from cars and visitors parking on neighborhood streets waiting for the Preserve to open is part of the baseline existing noise conditions. The project would have a beneficial effect by reducing noise levels on some neighborhood streets. Parking lot noise, such as car doors slamming and people conversing, would generate the highest on-site noise levels. These activities may produce noise that could affect noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. In general, noise studies have shown that activities at parking lots can generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. As discussed below, the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project are further than 50 feet away, at between 160 to 210 feet. Parking lot noise is a point source and therefore would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA in noise reduction for every doubling of distance. New parking facilities at either site option would include up to 300 new parking spaces, for a total of 343 parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. As discussed in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, the proposed project would provide additional parking for visitors within the Preserve and is expected to reduce the number of visitors currently parking on public streets. There would be a resulting reduction in noise associated with visitors parking on the surrounding roadways. As discussed above, this EIR analyzes the impacts of the proposed staging area; the City quantifies noise in CNEL, which is a daily noise measurement, and it would be lowered as part of this proposed project.

Option A. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Option A site are residential homes on Napa Court and Vinehill Circle, with the closest property line approximately 160 feet from the



M . N O I S E


proposed staging area. At Option A, the project would include the construction of a 6-foot-high berm that would block the line of sight to the residential properties west of Option A. In addition to visual shielding, this berm would be expected to provide a minimum of a 5 dBA noise reduction of parking lot activity noise levels. Parking lots generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Therefore, based on attenuation and shielding, parking lot noise levels at 160 feet from the parking lot for Option A would be between 45 and 55 Lmax. The Fremont Municipal Code addresses noise in terms of community noise equivalent levels; therefore, to analyze the 24-hour noise impact of the proposed project, park open-hours were used. During the summer months, the park is open from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The day-night average during these months would result in noise levels up to 55.7 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential property line. During winter months (park hours between 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) project noise levels would be approximately 54.9 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential property line. Therefore, the proposed staging area activities associated with Option A would not exceed the Municipal Code’s regulations for maximum day-night average sound level of 60 dBA CNEL at adjacent residential property lines and this impact would be less than significant. As discussed in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, the construction of the proposed staging area at Option A would decrease the number of cars parking on residential streets directly adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors during Preserve open hours, and therefore would result in an overall reduction in ambient noise levels for residential receptors affected by the existing on-street parking conditions. Ongoing maintenance of the existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the occasional use of vegetation management equipment and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities are not expected to result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time, nor would they result in noise levels that would exceed the City’s performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest residential property line. Therefore implementation of Option A would not result in the generation of noise levels in excess of applicable noise level standards, and this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Option B site are residential land uses on Hidden Valley Terrace,9 with the nearest property line located approximately 210 feet from the proposed staging area. Parking lots generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Given the distance of nearby residents and the resulting noise attenuation, staging area activity noise levels could range up to 58 dBA Lmax at the property line. The day-night average during the summer months (when the Preserve is open from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) would result in noise levels up to 58.3 dBA CNEL at the nearest property line. During winter months (Preserve operational hours are between 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) project noise levels would be approximately 57.5 dBA CNEL at the nearest property line. Therefore, implementation of Option

9 The reader should note that the homes on Hidden Valley Terrace are in a gated community with private streets and

Preserve visitors are not allowed to park on these roadways. Therefore, these residents do not experience, to the same degree as residents with homes on public streets, the noise and nuisance associated with visitor on-street parking.



M . N O I S E


B would not exceed the Municipal Code’s standard of 60 dBA CNEL at adjacent residential property lines, and this impact would be less than significant. As with Option A, the construction of the proposed staging area at Option B would decrease the number of cars parking on residential streets directly adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors during Preserve open hours, and therefore would result in an overall reduction in ambient noise levels for residential receptors affected by the existing on-street parking conditions. Ongoing maintenance of the existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the occasional use of vegetation management equipment and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities are not expected to result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time nor would they result in noise levels that would exceed the City’s performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest residential property line. Therefore implementation of Option B would not result in the generation of noise levels in excess of applicable noise level standards, and this impact would be less than significant.

(2) Groundborne Vibration and Groundborne Noise. Potential impacts related to groundborne vibration and noise are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. No permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels would be located at the Option A site. The proposed project would not require the use of pile driving during construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within or around the project site to excessive groundborne vibration or noise and this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. No permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels would be located at the Option B site. The proposed project would not require the use of pile driving during construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within or around the project site to excessive groundborne vibration or noise and this impact would be less than significant.

(3) Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise. Potential impacts related to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant. In addition, existing noise impacts to residential uses on neighborhood streets would be reduced with implementation of the proposed project at either site option.

Option A. As discussed above, parking lot noise generated within the new staging area at the Option A site would be below the City’s applicable standards and would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, the proposed project would relocate the majority of Mission Peak visitors from on-street parking, which is approximately 35 feet from sensitive receptors, to parking areas within the Preserve, which are each more than 100 feet from



M . N O I S E


sensitive receptors (the nearest sensitive receptor to the Option A site is 160 feet); thereby reducing the exposure of surrounding residential uses to the adverse effects associated with noise generated by vehicle parking and visitors. Implementation of the proposed project would generate an increase in traffic noise on local roadways in the vicinity of the project site due to the potential increase in visitor demand; with project trips utilizing Stanford Avenue from Mission Boulevard to access the new staging area. In acoustics, doubling the amount of equal sound energy results in a 3 dBA increase in the combined noise level (3 dBA represents the lowest noise level increase that is perceptible by humans outside of a laboratory environment). A project would result in a significant noise increase of 3 dBA, if it would double existing traffic levels. As discussed in Section V.J., Transportation and Circulation, surveys prepared for the District suggest that the proposed project could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions. The increased traffic from the increased visitor demand would not double existing traffic levels and thus would not result in a perceptible traffic noise level increase. The proposed project would support the continued use of Preserve trails by recreationists. Existing noise associated with recreationists such as hikers and bicyclists may include the intermittent sound of voices. Daily recreational use activities associated with the increase in visitors would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time. Ongoing maintenance of the existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the occasional use of vegetation management equipment and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time nor would they result in noise levels that would exceed the City’s performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest residential property line. Therefore, operational noise generated by the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, and thus is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.

Option B. As discussed above, parking lot noise generated within the new staging area at the Option B site would be below the City’s applicable standards and would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, the proposed project would relocate the majority of Mission Peak visitors from on-street parking, which is approximately 35 feet from sensitive receptors, to parking areas within the Preserve, which are each more than 100 feet from sensitive receptors (the nearest sensitive receptor property line to the Option B site is 210 feet); thereby reducing the exposure of surrounding residential uses to the adverse effects associated with noise generated by vehicle parking and visitors. Implementation of the proposed project would generate an increase in traffic noise on local roadways in the vicinity of the project site; with project trips utilizing Stanford Avenue from Mission Boulevard to access the new staging area. As discussed in Section V.J., Transportation and Circulation, surveys prepared for the District suggest that the proposed project could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions. The increase in visitation would not result in a doubling of traffic and thus would not result in a perceptible traffic noise level increase. The proposed project would support the continued use of existing trails by recreationists. Existing noise associated with recreationists such as hikers and bicyclists may include the intermittent sound of voices. Daily recreational use activities associated with the increase in visitors would not be



M . N O I S E


anticipated to result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time. Ongoing maintenance of the existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the periodic use of vegetation management tools and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time nor would they result in noise levels that would exceed the City’s performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest residential property line. Therefore, operational noise generated by the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, and thus is considered a less-than-significant impact.

(4) Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise. Implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity. Construction is expected to occur for a six month period for either site option. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity but would be limited to the six month construction period. Construction of the proposed project under both options is expected to require the use of front-end loaders, compactors, hydraulic backhoes, and haul trucks among other construction equipment. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Impact equip-ment such as pile drivers would not be used during construction of this project. Typical maximum noise levels generated by rollers, backhoes, front-end loaders, or similar heavy construction equipment range from 80 dBA to 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the operating equipment. Typical construction noise levels are shown in Table V.M-7.10 Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength would increase the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance apart from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operating simultaneously at full power. Sound from a point source, such as the center of an active construction area, attenuates at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance.

10 Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.

Table V.M-7: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax

Type of Equipment

Range of Maximum Sound

Levels (dBA at 50 feet)

Suggested Maximum Sound

Levels for Analysis

(dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jackhammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 74 to 84 80 Scrapers 83 to 91 87 Haul Trucks 83 to 94 88 Cranes 79 to 86 82 Portable Generators 71 to 87 80 Rollers 75 to 82 80 Dozers 77 to 90 85 Tractors 77 to 82 80 Front-End Loaders 77 to 90 86 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 89 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86

Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.



M . N O I S E


Potential temporary noise impacts associated with construction activities at the Option A and B sites are discussed below. As discussed, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. Implementation of Option A would temporarily raise ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the construction period, as discussed below. However, with implementa-tion of the recommended mitigation measure, this impact would be less than significant by ensuring the project does not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Option A Impact NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at the Option A site would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (S) The closest property line for noise-sensitive receptors to the Option A site are residential land uses on Napa Court and Vinehill Circle, approximately 160 feet from the proposed staging area. While, the closest residential façade is located approximately 150 feet from the construction limits of the new two-way vehicular access road that would be constructed generally along the existing alignment of the Hidden Valley Trail. Assuming a direct line of sight, at a distance of approximately 150 feet from active construction equipment, construction noise levels could range up of up to 82 dBA Lmax. At a distance of approximately 160 feet maximum construction levels would be 81 dBA Lmax. Project construction would result in relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance, however these noise events would be temporary and limited to the six month construction period. Construction activities at the Option A site would occur within 500 feet of residential receptors, potentially resulting in a significant noise impact. Implementation of Option A Mitigation measures NOI-1 would require the project to implement and comply with the policies and ordinances of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code to reduce short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level by reducing the sound levels and duration.

Option A Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce construction noise levels:

Construction of the project shall comply with the City of Fremont’s General Plan Policy 10-8.5 by:

Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation;

Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the closest off-site sensitive receptors;

Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during construction, which could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;



M . N O I S E


Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as needed, could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA; 11 and

Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion engines.

All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday construction shall be prohibited. (LTS)

Option B. Implementation of Option B would temporarily raise ambient noise levels in the

vicinity of the project during the construction period, as discussed below. However, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, this impact would be less than significant by ensuring Option B does not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Option B Impact NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at the Option B site would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (S) The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Option B site are residential land uses on Hidden Valley Terrace, with the closest property line approximately 210 feet from the proposed staging area. While, the closest residential façade is located approximately 100 feet from the construction limits of the new two-way access road that would be constructed generally along the existing alignment of the Hidden Valley Trail. Assuming a direct line of sight, at a distance of approximately 150 feet from active construction areas, construction noise levels could be up to 82 dBA Lmax. At a distance of approximately 210 feet maximum construction levels would be 79 dBA Lmax. Project construction would result in relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance, however these noise events would be temporary and limited to the six month construction period. Construction activities at the Option B site would occur within 500 feet of residential receptors, potentially resulting in a significant noise impact. Implementation of Option B Mitigation measures NOI-1 would require the project to implement and comply with the policies and ordinances of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and reduce short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level by reducing sound levels and duration.

Option B Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce construction noise levels:

Construction of the project shall comply with the City of Fremont’s General Plan Policy 10-8.5 by;

Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation;

11 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, User’s Guide. January 2006. Available

online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf



M . N O I S E


Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the closest off-site sensitive receptors;

Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during construction, which could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;

Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as needed, could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA; 12 and

Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion engines.

All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday construction shall be prohibited. (LTS)

c. Cumulative Impacts. Impacts related to noise are generally localized, rather than cumulative in nature, because each project area has a unique noise environment that is subject to existing noise standards and regulations that are imposed on new developments. The proposed project is located within the Preserve and adjacent to a residential neighborhood where the primary sound sources in the area are traffic on local streets and the Preserve visitors. No other nearby projects will contribute to the noise impacts resulting from the proposed project. Even if there were significant noise impacts, the potential noise impacts discussed in this EIR would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to existing noise levels in the area. The proposed project would not exceed thresholds established by the Municipal Code for noise emanating from recreational land uses at nearby residential property lines for either project site options. The project would reduce on-street parking during hours the Preserve is open by adding up to 300 parking spaces and locating car and visitor noise further from sensitive receptors. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to increases in ambient noise levels, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

12 Federal Highway Administration, op. cit.



M . N O I S E





N . P O P U L A T I O N A N D H O U S I N G

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5n-PopHousing.docx (10/14/15) 385

N. POPULATION AND HOUSING

This section describes population and housing statistics in the City of Fremont and Alameda County and evaluates potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project’s development of the Option A or Option B sites with a new staging area. 1. Setting

The following section utilizes data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) and the City of Fremont’s General Plan Housing Element.1 a. Population. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the population of the City of Fremont (City) was 214,089 in 2010.2 Between 2000 and 2010, the City’s population grew by 10,676 residents, approximately 5.2 percent. During that decade, the City’s population growth was consistent with Alameda County’s population growth of approximately 4.6 percent. For the year 2013, it is estimated that the City’s population increased by 2.7 percent to 219,926.3 b. Housing. In 2010, the housing stock within the city consisted of approximately 73,989 housing units.4 Households are considered to be occupied housing units. The Census estimated 71,004 households existed in the city during that time. The majority of these households lived in owner occupied housing units (62.2 percent) with the remainder living in renter-occupied housing units (37.4 percent). The average household size within the city was approximately 2.99 persons. For the year 2013, it is estimated that the City’s average household size increased to 3.05 persons, which is slightly higher than the Alameda County average of 2.75 persons per household. c. Project Area. The project area is located within Mission Peak Regional Preserve, which is managed by the District. The project site is located within the Resource Conservation and Public Open Space (RCP) designation on the City of Fremont’s General Plan Land Use Map. The RCP designation includes open spaces that are located below the Toe of the Hill (TOH) and owned by public or quasi-public agencies. In addition, the project site is located within the Planned Develop-ment (P) and Hillside-Combining (H-I) zoning districts. There is no existing housing or other infrastructure that serves housing or other development within the project area. Residential areas to the west of the Preserve are currently built out and no undeveloped lands designated for future development are within the immediate vicinity of the site. d. Regulatory Setting. The provision of housing within Fremont is influenced by the Association of Bay Area Government’s Regional Housing Needs Allocations and the City of Fremont Housing Element. The proposed project does not include the development of housing and therefore, no policies related to the provision of housing would apply.

1 Fremont, City of, 2014. City of Fremont General Plan, Housing Element. December. 2 United States Census Bureau, 2010. Summary File 1 (SF 1) for Fremont City, California, 100-Percent Data, Table

DP-1. 3 Fremont, City of, 2014, op. cit. 4 United States Census Bureau, 2010, op. cit.






The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to population and housing that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the population and housing-related impacts that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to population and housing if it would:

Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure);

Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or

Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts related to population and housing. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Induce Substantial Population Growth. The proposed project would develop a new staging area at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The project proposes to develop a maximum of 300 new parking spaces, public restrooms, picnic areas, and other facilities to serve visitor demand for recreational uses within the Preserve. The development of housing is not included as part of the proposed project. An extension of roadways and utility infrastructure is proposed to provide access to the new staging area and to allow for the development of public restrooms and provide drinking water within the new staging area. These connections would exclusively serve the proposed project and would not enable further development with the vicinity. Impacts associated with direct and indirect population growth are discussed below for each site option and, as discussed, would be less than significant.

Option A. Development of the Option A site would construct a new staging area, including additional parking, restrooms, kiosk, and associated infrastructure. These facilities would better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. The new staging area would support an existing recreational use and does not propose new housing or other development. Associated infrastructure improvements include an extension of a new roadway to access the new staging area, stormwater controls, and water, sewer, and electrical connections. Utility connections would be limited to the new staging area and would connect to existing infrastructure at Stanford Avenue. The extension of the new roadway and utility infrastruc-ture into the Preserve would not result in indirect population growth in the vicinity. Lands to the east of the site are also within the Preserve and are not proposed for future development. Furthermore, access to developable hillside areas from the project area is limited due to topography (development of these areas is also regulated by Measures A and T, as further described in Chapter IV, Planning





Policy). Therefore, development of the Option A site would not result in direct or indirect impacts to population growth and no impact would occur.

Option B. Development of the Option B site would construct a new staging area, including additional parking, restrooms, kiosk, and associated infrastructure. These facilities would better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. The new staging area would support an existing recreational use and does not propose new housing or other development. Associated infrastructure improvements include an extension of new roadways and bridges to access the new staging area, stormwater controls, and water, sewer, and electrical connections. Utility connections would be limited to the new staging area and would connect to existing infrastructure at Stanford Avenue. The extension of the new roadway and utility infrastructure into the Preserve would not result in indirect population growth in the vicinity. Lands to the east of the site are also within the Preserve and are not proposed for future development. Furthermore, access to developable hillside areas from the project area is limited due to topography (development of these areas is also regulated by Measures A and T, as further described in Chapter IV, Planning Policy). Therefore, development of the Option B site would not result in direct or indirect impacts to population growth and no impact would occur.

(2) Displace Existing Housing or People. Impacts associated with the displacement of housing or people are discussed below for each site option and, as discussed, would be less than significant.

Option A. The project site does not contain existing housing. The site is within the Mission Peak Regional Preserve and is located on a grassland area approximately 250 feet northeast of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Surrounding residential uses would remain and would not be affected by development of the Option A site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people and no impact would occur.

Option B. The project site does not contain existing housing. The site is within the Mission Peak Regional Preserve and is located on a grassland area approximately 875 feet southeast of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The project site is currently used by the District’s grazing contractor as a corral, which would be relocated to the south. Surrounding residential uses would remain and would not be affected by development of the Option B site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people and no impact would occur. c. Cumulative Impacts. As discussed above, the proposed project does not include the development of housing, would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the City, and would not displace housing or people. The proposed project includes development of new facilities to support an existing recreational use. Therefore, the proposed project would not combine with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects within the vicinity to result in cumulative impacts related to population and housing, and the project’s contribution to any such impact is not cumulatively considerable. Thus, no cumulative impact would occur.








O . R E C R E A T I O N

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5o-Recreation.docx (10/14/15) 389

O. RECREATION

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on parks and recreation facilities. Potential impacts that could result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A or B sites are identified and mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate. 1. Setting

The East Bay Regional Park District (District) and the City of Fremont (City) own and operate parks and recreational facilities that serve the project area. The project site itself is located within the Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve). These facilities are discussed below. a. East Bay Regional Parks District. The District operates and maintains 65 parks and 29 regional inter-park trails covering more than 119,000 acres in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The District also manages 40 miles of accessible shoreline including 3 bay fishing piers. The District operates swimming areas, campsites, golf courses, picnic areas, as well as educational centers and banquet facilities. The District maintains its natural areas, park areas, trees, landscaping, buildings, and other structures at the District’s park sites and facilities. Approximately 322 operations and maintenance staff are employed by the District.1 The District distinguishes parkland by type including: regional parks, regional preserves, regional recreation areas, regional shorelines, and regional trails. The District operates six open space and recreational facilities within the City of Fremont. The project site is located within the boundaries of Mission Peak, in the southeastern area of Fremont. District facilities are discussed below.

(1) Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Mission Peak consists of over 3,000 acres of open space consisting mostly of open grasslands and oak woodlands. The topography is varied and the ascent to the summit of Mission Peak is approximately 2,200 feet above the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Mission Peak includes a few springs and creeks, including Agua Caliente Creek. The District contracts with a private contractor for cattle grazing operations, and grazing facilities such as fences, gates, and feeding structures are scattered located the grassland areas within Mission Peak. It is estimated that Mission Peak received nearly 270,000 visitors in 2014, at an average of over 22,000 visitors each month. Of these total visitors to the park, over 19,000 visitors each month used the trails departing from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.2 Access to the summit of Mission Peak is provided by three multi-use (hiking, biking and equestrian) trails from the western face, including the Peak Trail and the Panorama Trail, which starts from Ohlone College and heads southward towards the summit, and the Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven Trails, all of which begin their ascent from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Trails leading to the peak offer panoramic views of the Bay Area. Regional trails (i.e., Ohlone Wilderness Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail) lead to other open space areas that are managed by the District. Backpack camping is available at the Eagle Springs Backpack Camp and is by reservation only. Mission Peak is also a

1 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Municipal Service Review. Prepared for the Local Agency Formation

Commission of Alameda County. January 8. 2 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29. The

Trail count numbers are based on TRAFFIX counters installed by the District..





popular location for hang gliding and paragliding and for launching remote-controlled aircraft. The Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club operates a hang gliding operation under agreement with the District, and the landing zone is located east of the Option A site. The South Bay Soaring Society (SBSS) has a launch site on Radio Control (R/C) Hill, which is also subject to agreement with the District and is near the Option B site. These sites are shown on Figure V.A-1 in Section V.A, Land Use. Increased use of the Preserve over the last several years has resulted in an increase in overflow parking on neighborhood streets. Residents experience vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion, as well as associated issues such as noise, litter, and light from headlamps and flashlights. District staff currently maintains the Preserve and addresses issues in the surrounding neighborhoods through ongoing operations and management efforts. Ongoing actions include:

1. Public outreach efforts to address a variety of issues including hiker safety; hiking with dogs and children; trail restoration; consideration when parking in the neighborhoods; identification of other challenging hikes at other District facilities; and parking at Ohlone College. One public outreach event was held in 2013; six were held in 2014; and as of September 2015, eight have been held in 2015 with two more planned. In addition to public outreach events, the District continually updates the Mission Peak webpage with current information, maintains a District-sponsored Mission Peak Facebook page, and maintains a NING site as an open public forum.

2. Utilization of two trail counters, one located at the trailhead gate at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and one installed at the Peak Meadow Trail to better understand existing visitor use trends,

3. Installation of signage and public outreach to encourage Mission Peak visitors to utilize parking at Ohlone College.

4. Initiation of seasonal hours for the lands leased from the City of Fremont (which are accessed only via the Stanford Avenue Staging Area) along with targeted enforcement of the park curfew by the District’s Police Department (refer to Section V.A, Land Use, of this EIR for additional information on park hours and enforcement).

5. Installation of portable restroom facilities to supplement the existing vault-toilet restrooms at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

6. Trail restoration efforts to restore bootleg trails to natural conditions utilizing volunteers from Irvington High School and the Mountain Goats mountain bike club. Specifically, in 2012, the District began a variety of operational measures including restoration work to address the 15 bootleg trails within Mission Peak. In 2014, the District completed restoration work on a 1,700-foot-long bootleg trail alongside the Peak Meadow Trail. This restoration area has been fenced and signs are in place to remind visitors to stay on designated trails. In 2015, the District monitored and made adjustments to the previous years’ efforts in addition to installing exclusion fencing and wattles on two newly created bootleg trails, one on the Horse Heaven Trail and one on the Hidden Valley Trail. Three benches and two additional garbage cans were also provided at the base of the summit.

The District also provides information on Mission Peak’s webpage and brochure regarding other challenging hikes within the District for visitors who enjoy the Hidden Valley Trail.





In addition to long-term maintenance, restoration, and operations of the Preserve, the Preserve is staffed by a ranger on a daily basis and facilities including the existing staging area parking lot and restroom and picnic areas are maintained throughout the day. Refuse is also collected on a daily basis. Mission Peak is served by two parking areas: Stanford Avenue Staging Area and Ohlone College Parking Area. Access to and facilities at these locations are discussed below.

Stanford Avenue Staging Area.The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area serves as the primary access to the various trails located throughout Mission Peak. Direct access to the Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails are provided from this location. It is approximately 3 miles to the summit of Mission Peak from this location. An average of 40,000 visitors access Mission Peak from this staging area each month.3 The staging area provides 43 paved parking spaces. Parking at the staging area is generally very limited and overnight parking is not allowed. The gated entrance to Mission Peak from the staging area limits vehicular access to District maintenance and cattle operations vehicles only. One vault toilet restroom, three portable restrooms, and one picnic table are located at the staging area. The Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the lands leased from the City are open at 6:30 a.m. daily (as of September 29, 2014). Closing time changes throughout the year (from between 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) in correlation with sunset and daylight savings time. For the years 2014 through 2015, the hours of operation for this area of Mission Peak are shown in Table V.A-1 in Section V.A, Land Use. Violators are subject to citation and/or arrest per the District’s Ordinance 38. The hours shown in Table V.A-1 apply to lands leased from the City only (see Figure I-1 in Chapter I, Introduction which delineates the jurisdictional boundaries within Mission Peak). Early morning and late evening park access is available at all other access points, including from trailheads that begin at Ohlone College. The Option A and Option B sites are located within the vicinity of and are accessed via the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. A brief description of recreational use of the two project site options, is provided below.

Option A. The Option A site is located approximately 250 feet north of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail, in a grassland area with bowl-like topography. The site is open and may be accessed by grazing cattle and the public, although no trails traverse the site of the proposed staging area. The Option A site includes a segment of the Hidden Valley Trail, which is located immediately south of the proposed staging area site. This approximately 15-foot wide gravel trail provides access to the summit of Mission Peak and the Ohlone Wilderness Trail. The Wings of Rogallo, a hang gliding club, operates a landing area east of the Option A project site.

Option B. The Option B site is located approximately 875 feet southeast of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and west of the Peak Meadow Trail in a grassland area. The majority of the Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public. Grazing infrastructure at Mission

3 BAE Urban Economics, 2015, op. cit.





Peak is currently concentrated primarily within the Option B site. This site is currently used by the District’s grazing contractor as a corral. The Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven Trail is immediately east of the site and provides access to Mission Peak. The South Bay Soaring Society operates a launch site west of the Option B site.

Ohlone College Parking Area. Mission Peak is also accessible from Ohlone College to the north of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Visitors to Mission Peak may also park their vehicles in public parking spaces at Ohlone College, located at 43600 Mission Boulevard. Parking Lot G is generally accessed via Pine Street and Witherly Lane off of Mission Boulevard and provides access to the Peak Trail, Panorama Trail, Dry Creek Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail, Spring Valley Trail, and YSC Trail, which are all within Mission Peak. The College recently constructed a 900-space South Parking Lot structure and visitors to Mission Peak are able to utilize the public spaces in this location as well.4 Ohlone College parking is available daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As of August 15, 2015, the College charges a $4 parking fee Monday through Saturday when school is in session, and parking at this location is free on holidays, after 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays when school is not in session. Parking lot vending machines accept cash and credit cards. Parking is usually available at the College lot, even on busy weekends. The District has encouraged Mission Peak visitors to park at Ohlone College through the District’s webpage on Mission Peak and informational signs at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

(2) Ardenwood Historic Farm. Ardenwood Historic Farm consists of approximately 205 acres and is a working farm that also exhibits the Victorian-era lifestyle. The Farm operates a produce stand outside the main gate and sells organic vegetables grown on-site. The Farm is located at 34600 Ardenwood Boulevard in northern Fremont. The Farm operates year round and charges an entrance fee from $2 to $6 dollars depending on the day, season, and age of the visitor. The Farm features educational programs, a farm train, Victorian garden, animal farms, and the Patterson House.

(3) Coyote Hills Regional Park. Coyote Hills Regional Park consists of approximately 978 acres of open space along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The park is located at 8000 Patterson Ranch Road in northwest area of the City. The park features a visitor center with educational displays and exhibits; Tuibun Ohlone village site; picnic areas; group camp sites; and a variety of trails. The park has trails that provide access to the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, which is south and west of the park.

(4) Ohlone Regional Wilderness. The Ohlone Regional Wilderness is 9,737 acres of parkland that is accessible only by the Ohlone Wilderness Trail. The Ohlone Wilderness Trail is approximately 28 miles within southern Alameda County. A hiking permit is required for day use and camping and may be purchased from the District. The permit fee ranges from $2 to $4 per person per year. Overnight camping is permitted along the Ohlone Wilderness Trail at designated campgrounds and by reservation only. The Ohlone Regional Wilderness is accessible from Del Valle Regional Park near Livermore, Sunol Regional Wilderness near Pleasanton, and Mission Peak Regional Preserve.

4 Ohlone College, 2015. South Parking Structure. Website: www.ohlone.edu/core/mapsdirs/parking/

parkingstructure.html. (accessed September 9, 2015).





(5) Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area. The Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area is a water-oriented recreation area that features picnicking, boating, swimming, fishing, and hiking. Quarry Lakes is located at 2100 Isherwood Way in northern Fremont. The Park is open seven days a week and charges an admission entrance fees that range from $2 to $3. Parking is available at Quarry Lakes for a $5 parking fee. The park is open year round with hours that vary depending on the season.

(6) Vargas Plateau Regional Park. The Vargas Plateau Regional Park is located in the Fremont Hills. Currently, the Morrison Canyon Staging Area is being developed. The staging area will include a 25-vehicle parking area, picnic benches, drinking water, and vault toilets. The park is planned to open in late 2015 after the Morrison Canyon Staging Area is constructed. b. City of Fremont. The City operates a variety of park and recreational facilities including citywide parks, neighborhood parks, mini parks, historic parks, civic parks, and linear parks. Citywide parks are intended to serve the entire Fremont community and are typically greater in size to allow for more active play. These parks may also include special cultural facilities such as theaters or museums. Neighborhood parks provide space for daily recreation activities such as picnicking or informal play for residents in the area of the park. Mini parks provide very limited recreation opportunities due to their size or configuration. Historic parks are established around important historic buildings or structures and provide an opportunity to preserve these sites. Civic parks are outdoor public spaces that are typically paved areas that contain trees and ornamental landscaping. These outdoor spaces are located in urban areas and also provide space for the occasional outdoor concert or festival. Linear Parks are paved paths with landscaping the provide opportunities for walkers, runners, and cyclists. These parks are typically constructed on former rail corridors, utility corridors, or similar areas. The following provides a description of City parks that are located within 1.5 miles of the project sites.

(1) Old Mission Park. Old Mission Park is located at 1000 Pine Street within the Mission San José neighborhood of Fremont. The park consists of approximately 27 acres and includes playgrounds, basketball courts, a grassy area, picnic tables with barbeque pits, and restrooms.

(2) Arroyo Agua Caliente Park. Arroyo Agua Caliente Park is located at Gardenia Way and Paseo Padre Parkway in the Mission San Jose neighborhood of Fremont. The park consists of approximately 9 acres and includes a playground, basketball courts, and a grassy area.

(3) Rancho Higuera Historical Park. The Higuera Adobe is located in Rancho Higuera Historical Park at the foot of Mission Peak in the Warm Springs area of Fremont. The park is located approximately 1 mile south of the project site. It is the last of seven adobes built between 1830 and 1840 on Fulgencio Higuera's ranch. The structure consists of a large main room and two small bedrooms with dirt floors, and a stable. The Adobe has been restored and furnished with handcrafted redwood furniture. The park is about 14 acres in size.

(4) Warm Springs Park. Warm Springs Park is located at 47300 Fernald Street in the Warm Spring neighborhood of Fremont. The park consists of approximately 12 acres and includes basketball courts, tennis courts, playground, picnic tables, bathrooms, and a community center. The community center includes a multi-purpose room, two meeting rooms, and an outdoor patio and can be rented out by the public.





c. Regulatory Context. This section describes the regulatory context related to parks and recreation within the City and within the District’s jurisdiction.

(1) General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plan’s Parks and Recreation Element establishes goals, policies, and implementation methods related to the provision of parks and recreational facilities. Applicable policies and implementation measures are identified below.

Policy 8-1.2: Acreage Standards for Park Acquisition and Development. Acquire and develop park land using a standard of five acres per 1,000 residents.

Policy 8-3.1: Recreational Offerings and Facilities from other Agencies. Encourage other land and resource agencies to maintain and expand their offerings of recreational opportunities in Fremont.

o Implementation 8-3.1.A: Existing and Future Regional Parks and Trails. Work with [the East Bay Regional Park District] and others to ensure recreational opportunities at existing parks (Ardenwood Historic Farm, Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Coyote Hills Regional Park, and Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area), as well as future parks (such as Vargas Plateau Regional Park and planned park at the former Dumbarton Quarry), and trails (such as Alameda Creek Trail, Ridge Trail, and Bay Trail).

o Implementation 8-3.1.G: Regional Trail Facilities. Encourage Regional Agencies to provide restrooms, parking, and staging facilities at trailheads of regional trails.

(2) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District Master Plan5 includes the

following policies related to the provision of open space and recreational resources.

Policy PA4: The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use. Where feasible, the District will provide alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets. The District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional park system by public transit.

Policy RFA1: The District will provide areas and facilities that serve the recreational needs of park users, in accordance with the plans, policies, and park classifications adopted by the Board of Directors. The District will generally not develop or provide facilities that are more appropriately provided by local recreational and park agencies. Where possible and appropriate, the District will provide multiple-use facilities to serve recreational needs.

Policy RFA2: The District will provide a diverse system of non-motorized trails to accommodate a variety of recreational users including hikers, joggers, people with dogs, bicyclists, and equestrians. Both wide and narrow trails will be designed and designated to accommodate either single or multiple users based on location, recreational intensity, environmental and safety considerations. The District will focus on appropriate trail planning and design, signage and trail user education to promote safety and minimize conflicts between users.

Policy PRPT3: The primary objective of a Regional Preserve is to preserve and protect significant natural or cultural resources. A Regional Preserve must have great natural or scientific importance (for example, it may contain rare or endangered plant or animal species and their supporting ecosystems, significant fossils, unique geologic features, or unusual topographic features or be of such significant regional historic or cultural value as to warrant preservation.

5 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. District Master Plan 2013. July 16.





Policy PRPT21: Areas of higher level recreational use and concentration of service facilities will be designated as Recreation/Staging Units. Where possible, these areas will be clustered and located on the edges of the park.

Policy PRPT24: The District will seek to locate facilities in a manner that preserves open space whenever possible. The District will design proposed facilities so that their color scale, style, and materials will blend with the natural environment. Park improvements will be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife habitats, plan populations and other resources.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to recreation that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts related to parks and recreation that would result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A or the Option B site. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to parks and recreation if it would:

Result in a substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for park services;

Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or

Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to recreation. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Provision of Park and Recreational Services. Potential impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new park or recreational facilities as a result of the development of a new staging area at the Option A or Option B sites are discussed below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant.

Option A. Development of a new staging area at the Option A site would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered park or recreational facilities. The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. It is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this location would help to reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. Existing recreational use of the Preserve would be supported and enhanced by the proposed project and existing recreational facilities (such as the Wings of Rogallo landing area that is located approximately 250 northeast of the site) would not be





physically impacted by development of a new staging area at the Option A site. Although the existing landing zone would not be directly physically impacted by the project, hang gliders may experience altered wind and thermal currents due to the new surface parking area and vegetation at the Option A site. These conditions may affect typical landing patterns and hang gliders would need to be careful to direct their landings away from the parking area, similar to how existing landings must be directed away from nearby residential uses. The new staging area would be a sufficient distance away (250 feet) from the existing landing area to allow for appropriate landing maneuvers. In the unlikely event that hang gliders are unable to avoid the new staging area, the staging area would not present a hazard to the safety of these recreationists, given that no tall buildings or other large, permanent structures would be located at the Option A site. The Preserve is bordered on the west and north by existing residential subdivisions and on the east and south by open space lands within unincorporated Alameda County. The boundaries of the Preserve would not change with implementation of Option A, although new roadways and trails would extend from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to provide access to the site. Development of the Option A site would not directly or indirectly induce population growth such that the demand for recreational facilities at or near the Preserve would increase. Increases in future demand associated with development of the new staging area and provision of increased visitor access and related increases in use are further discussed below. The project itself would not require the construction of new recreational facilities to serve demand for recreational and open space opportunities in the same way that a residential or mixed-use project would because the project is intended to serve an existing regional and local population and enhance access to existing facilities. District operations and maintenance staff would continue to patrol and maintain this area. Develop-ment of the new staging area at the Option A site would be unlikely to increase the use of nearby open space and recreational facilities within the City of Fremont as these facilities serve the local community and Mission Peak and other District open space lands are intended to serve the region as a whole (also refer to discussion below). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant as Option A would not result in the need for new or physical improvements to governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Option B. Development of a new staging area at the Option B site would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered park or recreational facilities. Like the discussion above for the Option A site, the purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. Existing recreational use of the Preserve would be supported and enhanced by the proposed project and existing recrea-tional facilities (such as the existing South Bay Soaring Society launch site that is located approxi-mately 1,000 feet from the site) would not be physically impacted by development of a new staging area at the Option B site. The boundaries of the Preserve would not change with implementation of Option B, although new roadways, bridges and trails would extend from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to provide access to the site. Development of the Option B site would not directly or indirectly induce population growth such that the demand for recreational facilities at or near the Preserve would increase. Existing District operations and maintenance staff would continue to patrol and maintain this area and new staff would not be required to serve the proposed staging area. Increases in future demand associated with development of the new staging area and provision of increased visitor access and





related increases in use are further discussed below. Development of the new staging area at the Option B site would be unlikely to increase the use of nearby open space and recreational facilities within the City of Fremont as these facilities serve the local community and Mission Peak and other District open space lands are intended to serve the region as a whole (also refer to discussion below). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, as Option B would not result in the need for new or physical improvements to governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

(2) Increased Use of Existing Park and Recreational Facilities. The increase in use of recreational facilities can result in the accelerated deterioration of such facilities if adequate mainte-nance or infrastructure is not present to accommodate demand. As discussed below, the proposed staging area at either the Option A or Option B site is intended to serve visitor demand for parking and would also result in an increase in use of the Preserve due to the increased availability of parking; however, this impact would be less than significant as discussed in more detail below.

Option A. The existing 3,000-acre Mission Peak Regional Preserve is currently open to the public and offers a variety of trails for use by hikers and bicyclists. Hang gliding and remote-controlled aircraft enthusiasts also utilize various areas of the Preserve. Visitors to the Preserve currently park at either the Stanford Avenue Staging Area or the Ohlone College parking areas. Development of the Option A site with a new staging area that includes up to 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) is expected to better serve visitor demand for parking at this location; and according to surveys prepared for this EIR, the availability of more parking could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (see Chapter III, Project Description and Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation). Survey data shows that the increased availability of on-site parking spaces would likely attract new visitors to the Preserve and existing visitors would visit the Preserve on a more frequent basis with easier access to parking. The increase in the number of visitors to the Preserve would result in an increase in use of existing trails that originate at the Stanford Avenue entrance (i.e., the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven Trails) as well as other trails throughout the park. In addition, these visitors could increase the use of connecting trail systems that lead to other regional recreational facilities, including those that connect to the Ohlone Regional Wilderness. The trails can accommodate the increased number of users, but the increased number of visitors and use of the existing trail system could result in deterioration of the trail system over time as well as the creation of “bootleg” trails as visitors leave established trails on a more frequent basis. The District maintains Mission Peak as a regional preserve, the primary objective of which is to preserve and protect significant natural and cultural resources (District Master Plan Policy PRPT3). As such, the District regularly conducts trail and natural area restoration efforts to maintain the natural condition of the Preserve and would continue to do so after construction of the proposed project. These efforts are part of the District’s ongoing operations and management efforts. Mission Peak operations are described in detail in Chapter III, Project Description. Specifically, trail restoration efforts to restore bootleg trails to natural conditions are conducted utilizing volunteers from Irvington High School and the Mountain Goats mountain bike club. For example, in 2012, the District began a variety of operational measures including restoration work to address the 15 bootleg trails within Mission Peak. In 2014, the District completed restoration work on a 1,700-foot-long bootleg trail alongside the Peak Meadow Trail. This restoration area has been fenced and signs are in place to remind visitors to stay on designated trails. In 2015, the District





monitored and made adjustments to the previous years’ efforts in addition to installing exclusion fencing and wattles on two newly created bootleg trails, one on the Horse Heaven Trail and one on the Hidden Valley Trail. Three benches and two additional garbage cans were also provided at the base of the summit. The District will continue these maintenance and restoration activities as part of its normal operations. In addition, Preserve lands within the City of Fremont that are accessed via the Stanford Avenue Staging Area are subject to specified operating hours that vary throughout the year. These hours currently prohibit access during the nighttime hours which also reduce the potential for park visitors to damage natural areas or to cause disturbances to nearby residential areas. Thus, Option A and the increased use of the Preserve that could result from construction of the new staging area would not result in substantial physical deterioration or accelerate deterioration of the Preserve. Development of a staging area at the Option A site would be located approximately 250 feet from the existing Wings of Rogallo landing area, an existing use in Mission Peak. The development of Option A would not increase the use of this landing area and thus require the landing area to expand or be relocated. Furthermore, due to the size of the Preserve, the extensive trail system and linkages, and the daily hours of operation, visitors are somewhat dispersed over time on any given day, and after construction of the project visitors themselves would continue to be dispersed throughout the Preserve along the trails. Therefore, for this reason as well, the increase in use of the Preserve due to the construction of new amenities and enhanced access is not expected to result in a substantial impact to the existing trail system or recreation resources of the Preserve. Development of a new staging area within Mission Peak is not anticipated to increase the use of other nearby regional or local recreational or park space. It is not anticipated that other regional facilities or local parks within the City of Fremont would experience an increase in use due to construction of the new staging area and the resulting anticipated increase in use of the Preserve. Given the above, increased access for low intensity uses to and throughout the Preserve provided by the new staging area at the Option A site would not increase the use of the Preserve to a level that would result in a substantial or accelerated physical deterioration of the Preserve or other parks and recreational facilities and this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, development of the Option B site with a new staging area that includes up to 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) is expected to better serve visitor demand for parking at this location; and according to surveys prepared for this EIR, the availability of more parking could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (see Chapter III, Project Description, and Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation). Survey data shows that the increased availability of on-site parking spaces would likely attract new visitors to the Preserve and existing visitors would visit the Preserve on a more frequent basis with easier access to parking. The increase in the number of visitors to the Preserve would result in an increase in use of existing trails that originate at the Stanford Avenue entrance (i.e., the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and





Horse Heaven Trails) as well as other trails throughout the park. In addition, these visitors could increase the use of connecting trail systems that lead to other regional recreational facilities, including those that connect to the Ohlone Regional Wilderness. The trails can accommodate the increased number of users. Although the use of the Preserve would increase with development of the proposed project, this increase in use is not anticipated to occur at such a rate that substantial physical deterioration of the Preserve would occur or be accelerated. Due to the size of the Preserve, the extensive trail system and linkages, and the daily hours of operation, it is likely that the arrival of visitors would be dispersed over time on any given day, and the visitors themselves would be dispersed throughout the Preserve and nearby connecting recreational facilities. In addition, as discussed above under Option A, any potential deterioration in the trails or recreation facilities from the increased number of visitors at the Preserve will be managed through the District’s ongoing maintenance and restoration program. Therefore, the increase in use of the Preserve due to the construction of new amenities and enhanced access is not expected to result in a substantial impact to the existing trail system or recreation resources of the Preserve. Development of a staging area at the Option B site would be located approximately 1,000 feet from the existing South Bay Soaring Society launch site, an existing use in Mission Peak. The development of Option B would not increase the use of this landing area and thus require the landing area to expand or be relocated. Also similar to the discussed above under Option A, construction of a new staging area within Mission Peak is not anticipated to increase the use of other nearby regional or local recreational or park space with development of the Option B site. Given the above, increased access for low intensity uses to and throughout the Preserve provided by the new staging area at the Option B site would not increase the use of the Preserve to a level that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of the Preserve or other parks and recreational facilities and this impact would be less than significant.

(3) Construction of Recreational Facilities. The proposed project consists of construction of a new staging area to support continued use of recreational use of Mission Peak. Impacts associated with construction of recreational facilities for the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below and would be less than significant.

Option A. Development of the proposed project at the Option A site would result in the construction of a new staging area to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New trail connections would also be constructed to provide access from the new staging area to the existing trail system. The potential construction- and operation-related impacts of development of a new staging area at the Option A site are the subject of this EIR and are addressed within the appropriate topical sections as part of the assessment of overall project impacts. For example, construction-period impacts to sensitive receptors (which primarily consist of adjacent residential uses and recreationists hiking and biking within the Preserve) are addressed in Sections V.K, Air Quality and V.M, Noise. Impacts associated with construction-period air quality and noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. Furthermore, construction activities would be concentrated at the Option A site and it is not expected that park visitors would experience adverse





effects associated with construction activities (e.g., dust and noise) such that the use and enjoyment of other nearby trails within the Preserve (accessed from the northwest) would be adversely affected. The Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and access to the trailheads in this location (i.e., access to the Hidden Valley Trail, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven Trails) would be prohibited during the approximately 6-month construction period. While park visitors would be temporarily inconvenienced during the construction period, access to the Ohlone College entrance and parking areas would continue during this period and signs would be places at and near the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to direct visitors to the Ohlone College access point. In addition, the District’s website would also be updated to advise visitors of this temporary closure as is the District’s practice when District facilities are closed for maintenance, construction, or other reasons. Hang gliding activities may also be temporarily suspended near the Wings of Rogallo landing area due to the proximity of the landing area to the Option A site and due to the limited access to the jumping off point that would occur with the closure of the Stanford Avenue entrance. However, this reduced access would be temporary. Therefore, construction of new facilities that would support the continued use of the Preserve for recreational purposes would be temporary and, in and of itself, the construction and operation of the new staging area at the Option A site would not result in a significant impact on the environment and this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, development of the proposed project at the Option B site would result in the construction of a new staging area to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New bridge and trail connections would also be constructed to provide access from the new staging area to the existing trail system. The potential construction- and operation-related impacts of development of a new staging area at the Option B site are the subject of this EIR and are addressed within the appropriate topical sections as part of the assessment of overall project impacts. For example, construction-period impacts to sensitive receptors (which primarily consist of adjacent residential uses and recreationists hiking and biking within the Preserve) are addressed in Sections V.K, Air Quality and V.M, Noise. Impacts associated with construction-period air quality and noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. Furthermore, construction activities would be concentrated at the Option B site and it is not expected that park visitors would experience adverse effects associated with construction activities (e.g., dust and noise) such that the use and enjoyment of other nearby trails within the Preserve (accessed from the northwest) would be adversely affected. Similar to construction activities described above for the Option A site, the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and access to the trailheads in this location (i.e., access to the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven Trails) would be prohibited during the approximately 6-month construction period for the Option B site. While park visitors would be temporarily inconvenienced during the construction period, access to the Ohlone College entrance and parking areas would continue during this period and signs would be places at and near the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to direct visitors to the Ohlone College access point. In addition, the District’s website would also be continuously updated to advise visitors of this temporary closure as is the District’s practice when District facilities are closed for maintenance, construction, or other reasons. Activities at the South Bay Soaring Society launch site may also be temporarily suspended due to the proximity of this area





to the Option B site and due to the limited access to this area that would occur with the closure of the Stanford Avenue entrance. However, this reduced access would be temporary. Therefore, construction of new facilities that would support the continued use of the Preserve for recreational purposes would be temporary and, in and of itself, the construction and operation of the new staging area at the Option B site would not result in a significant impact on the environment and this impact would be less than significant. c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not contribute to cumulative effects related to recreation. Cumulative recreational impacts would result from substantial increases in population in the District’s service area of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties or within the City of Fremont. However, the District’s Master Plan acknowledges population growth within its service area and the associated need for more open space and recreational resources. The Master Plan is intended to address the increase in population within its service area and provide additional opportunities for new open space and recreational resources. In addition, development projects within the City of Fremont would not result in a cumulative impact because these developments and associated increases in population are anticipated and addressed in the District’s Master Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts to regional recreational resources would not be significant. Even if cumulative recreational impacts were significant, because, as discussed above, the proposed project does not contribute to the recreational impacts or its contribution is so minimal, the project’s impact is not cumulatively considerable.








P . P U B L I C S E R V I C E S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5p-PublicServices.docx (10/14/15) 403

P. PUBLIC SERVICES

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on public services, including: fire protection; police services; and schools. Impacts related to park services and recreation are addressed in Section V.O, Recreation in this EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the analysis below focuses on the potential for the project to create physical environmental impacts associated with the provision of these services. Physical environmental impacts are those that would result from construction of new facilities (such as a new fire station or new police station) that would need to be constructed with the project in order to meet response time goals or other performance objectives. Potential impacts that could result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option B site are evaluated and discussed. 1. Setting

This discussion addresses public services that currently serve Mission Peak and the project sites, including fire, police, and school services. As previously discussed, the Stanford Avenue entrance and immediately adjacent lands of Mission Peak are within the City of Fremont but are operated and maintained by the District. The remaining lands within Mission Peak are also operated and maintained by the District. Fire and police services to the project area are provided by both the District and the City of Fremont. Existing service locations, capacities, and other existing conditions for each service provider are discussed below. a. Fire. The project site is served concurrently by the District Fire Department and the City of Fremont Fire Department. Fremont Fire Department is the first to respond at Mission Peak. Services provided by both fire departments are discussed below.

(1) East Bay Regional Park District Fire Department. The District’s Fire Department works with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as well as local municipal fire departments (including the City of Fremont Fire Department), to protect the wildland-urban interface areas as well as more remote wilderness areas within the District. The District Fire Department provides fire suppression, search and rescue, fuels management, emergency medical services (EMS), and hazardous material response to the regional parkland within Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The Fire Department serves the 65 regional parks including 119,000 acres of parkland that are managed by the District. The Fire Department operates within the East Bay Regional Parks Public Safety Department which is located at 17930 Lake Cabot Road in Castro Valley. Existing staffing, facilities, and services provided by the District Fire Department are discussed below.

Staffing. The Department is organized into three teams: Administrative Staff, Firefighter and Lifeguard Personnel, and Dispatch. Administrative Staff includes the Assistant General Manager for the Public Safety Division, Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, and Assistant Chief of Lifeguard Service as well as support staff. The Fire Department employs 18 full-time, year-round personnel, three short-term (nine-month) employees, and up to 190 seasonal lifeguards for fire, EMS, and aquatic response. Additionally, 48 firefighters are considered to be paid and on-call to assist the department during periods of high wildland fire danger or periods of extraordinary visitor use.1


Commission of Alameda County. January 8.





Facilities and Equipment. The District Fire Department operates 10 fire stations (six in Alameda County and four in Contra Costa County) and 14 engines that serve all District facilities. Fire Station 1, the District’s main operations station, is located in the East Bay Hills and operates seven days a week during daylight hours during wildland fire season. The Fire Department administrative headquarters are located in Castro Valley at Fire Station 10 which is also staffed year-round. The remaining fire stations serve as substations where engines, water tenders, and other safety equipment are stored. Firefighters use the fires stations for overnight fire watches and as rest and recovery areas following fire incidents. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station 7, located at Garin/Dry Creek Pioneer Regional Parks. This station is staffed on an as-needed basis. Equipment utilized by the District Fire Department includes a Type 3 Fire Engine (used for off-road conditions), a Type 4 Fire Engine (a smaller engine used for rapid response), an urban search and rescue engine, a water tender, and a helicopter. The District helicopter is used to respond to search and rescue in order to rapidly transport critical patients from remote locations or to avoid transportation delays. It is also used to transport water and contain fires.2 The Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak provides access for fire and emergency personnel and vehicles to paved roadways and trails within the Preserve. The District’s helicopter also may land on available open land within the Preserve to provide access for helicopter rescue operations that originate at other locations within the Preserve. Currently, Option A site and Option B site both provide a suitable area large enough for helicopter landing, as well as surrounding areas.

Response Times. The Department receives approximately 900 calls for service annually in response to incidents related to fire, emergency medical services, hazardous materials, and mutual aid.3 The majority of these calls occur during warm weather months at the peak of park visitation and wildfire conditions. The District’s response zones include urban areas, suburban or rural areas, and wildland areas. Response times differ depending on the area’s classification; average response times are not equivalent to urbanized areas of municipal jurisdictions. The average response times for the District’s Fire Department are: 11 minutes for medical aid calls; 16 minutes for wildland fires; 9 minutes for vehicle fires, and 12 minutes for injury accidents. The District is capable of delivering an injured person to the appropriate hospital via helicopter within eight minutes from anywhere within the District’s service boundary.4 In 2014, approximately 40 calls were received by the District for emergency medical or personal injury related issues within Mission Peak.5 Response times to Mission Peak generally conform to average District-wide response times.

2 East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Fire Department Operations. Website: www.ebparks.org/about/fire/Fire_

Department_Operations#stations (accessed August 3, 2015). 3 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Municipal Service Review. Prepared for the Local Agency Formation

Commission of Alameda County. January 8. 4 Ibid. 5 McCormick, Dan, East Bay Regional Parks District Fire Chief, 2015. Personal communication with District Police

Lieutenant Lance Brede. March 9.





(2) City of Fremont Fire Department. The Fremont Fire Department (FFD) provides rapid delivery of fire, medical, rescue, and life safety emergency services within the City of Fremont. Administrative headquarters are located at 3300 Capitol Avenue. FFD operates 11 Fire Stations throughout the City.

Staffing. FFD is organized into four divisions: Administrative, Operations, Fire Prevention, and Training/Emergency Medical Services. The Administrative division consists of a business manager as well as five support staff. The Operations division is divided into South Battalion and North Battalion. The South Battalion consists of a Chief, 21 Captains, 21 Engineers, and 21 Firefighters. The North Battalion consists of a Chief, 18 Captains, 18 Engineers, and 18 Firefighters. The Fire Prevention division consists of the Fire Marshal as well as four staff positions related to code enforcement. The Training/Emergency Medical Services division is comprised of a Deputy Fire Chief and four staff positions related to training and medical education.

Facilities and Equipment. FFD operates an on-duty force of 11 fire engines, two aerial ladder trucks, one specialized hazardous materials unit, and one heavy-duty rescue unit, with oversight from two battalion chiefs. Each engine and truck company has at least one certified paramedic. A Special Operation Task Force within the Operations division provides hazardous materials and rescue services. The project site is within the service area for Fire Station 5 and this station would be the first responder to the project area in instances where calls are directed to the FFD or requests for assistance are made by the District Fire Department. Fire Station 5, located at 55 Hackamore Lane, is approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the project area. Station 4 is located at 1000 Pine Street, approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the project area, and is the second closest station to the project site.

Response Times. The project area is located in the Hill Area of Fremont which generally has a higher anticipated response time rate than average for the FFD. However, the project area itself is generally easily accessible via Stanford Avenue and is more accessible than other Hill Area properties. In 2010, the FFD responded to 12,958 calls for service within the city, including 360 fire incidents and 8,700 EMS/rescue incidents.6 In 2014, the FFD’s average response time to Mission Peak was approximately 13 minutes and 46 seconds7. b. Police Services. The project site is served concurrently by the District Police Department and the City’s Police Department when assistance is requested by the District. Services provided by both police departments are discussed below.

6 Fremont, City of, 2011. Draft General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. July. 7 Thurston, Amiel, Acting Deputy Fire Chief, Fremont Fire Department, 2015. Personal communication with Dan

McCormick Fire Chief, East Bay Regional Parks District. August 14.





(1) East Bay Regional Parks District Police Department. The District provides patrol for all of the District’s parkland as well as East Bay Municipal Utilities District watershed and recreation facilities, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s watershed, and State parklands within the East Bay. Existing staffing and patrols, facilities, and services provided by the District Fire Department are discussed below.

Staffing and Patrol Areas. The District’s Police Department is comprised of 60 sworn police officers, 28 authorized civilian staff, and approximately 200 Volunteer Trail Safety Patrols.8 The Police Department operates within the District’s Public Safety Department which is headquartered at 17930 Lake Cabot Road in Castro Valley. The Police Department operates substations at the San Pablo Reservoir in Orinda and the Contra Long Regional Park in Antioch. The Department is comprised of the following units: Patrol Operations, Special Enforcement Unit, Air Support Unit, Investigations Unit, and contract policing. The Police Department also operates an Air Support Unit at the Hayward Municipal Airport. The project site is located within patrol Beat 4, the southwestern area of the District. Beat 4 boundaries are generally Lake Chabot to the north, the San Francisco Bay to the west, Mission Peak to the south, and Bishop Ranch and Garin/Dry Creek/Pioneer Park to the east.

Response Times. The average response time for the District Police Department in both counties was 28 minutes for the month of July in 2011 compared with 19 minutes in July 2002. The District Police Department’s jurisdiction covers vast land and geography and, in many cases, helicopters provide faster service. The District Police Department’s average response times for emergency calls within Beat 4 are17 minutes and 24 minutes for emergency and non-emergency calls, respectively. Response times vary and are dependent on traffic and availability of officers.9 Districtwide, primary law enforcement issues include auto burglaries, armed robberies, or organized criminal activities in transitory “hot spots.” In 2014, the District Police Department responded to a total of 8,125 calls for service throughout the District.10 There were 47 “911” calls, 800 alarm calls and 5,995 other types of calls. A large proportion of workload for the Department is based on officer observation. There were 937 calls or criminal violations observed by officers in 2011. Officer-initiated activity included 1,134 warnings, 397 arrests and 3,995 citations. In 2014, approximately 176 calls for police services were received for Mission Peak. These calls are generally related to medical emergencies and personal injuries (40 calls), 11 burglaries (4 calls), animal-related incidents (20), or missing persons (5).12 Response times to Mission Peak generally conform to average District-wide response times.


Commission of Alameda County. January 8. 9 Albonico, Stephen, Public Safety Systems Administrator, East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Personal

communication with Michelle Julene, Senior Planner, East Bay Regional Park District. August 11. 10 Ibid. 11 The 40 medical calls that were discussed in the District Fire Department section are included in the total 176 call

received by the District. All calls for service, whether they are for Fire or Police go through the same dispatch. 12 Ibid.





(2) Fremont Police Department. The Fremont Police Department (FPD) is located at 2000 Stevenson Boulevard in Fremont. The FPD is comprised of the Administrative Office, Patrol Division, and Special Operations Division. Existing staffing and patrols, facilities, and services provided by the FPD are discussed below.

Staffing and Patrol Areas. The FPD is comprised of 188 sworn officers and maintains an average of approximately 0.89 officers per 1,000 citizens.13 The city is divided into three zones each of which has three patrol teams for each shift (day, swing, mid-night). Each patrol team has both sworn officers and professional staff and is supervised by a Police Sergeant. The number of officers assigned to a shift is based on staffing levels, criminal activity, calls for services, and other information that helps to determine patrol strategies. The project site is located within the Vineyards/ Avalon neighborhood service area within Zone 3, South Fremont.

Response Times. The FPD has set a response time goal of 5 minutes for emergency calls. As of August 2015, the FPD has received an average of 360 incoming calls for service per day and handled approximately 300 incidents per day.14 c. Schools. The project site is within the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) boundary. The FUSD operates 42 schools within the city including: 29 Elementary schools; 5 junior high school; 5 comprehensive high schools; and 3 alternative and extension education facilities. FUSD serves over 34,000 students in grades K-12. d. Regulatory Framework. The City of Fremont General Plan and the District’s Master Plan contain policies and implementation measures related to the provision of public services. These are discussed below.

(1) Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plan’s Public Facilities and Safety Elements include the following policies and programs related to public services:

Policy 9-1.2: Public Safety Facilities. Ensure public safety facilities are added or expanded as necessary to keep pace with population growth and meet operational needs. Take into account the availability of both capital and operating funds when determining the timing of new and expanded facilities.

Policy 10-4.2: Development Standards. Maintain development standards that limit potential health and safety risks, and the risks of structure damage and severe economic loss due to fire hazards.

o Implementation 10-4.2.A: Fire Code Compliance. Require all new development and renovations to comply with the California Building Code, Fire Code, and all local ordinances for construction and adequacy of water flow and pressure, ingress/egress and other measures for fire protection.

13 Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Table of Organization 2014-2015. Website:

www.fremontpolice.org/DocumentCenter/View/40 (accessed July 31, 2015). 14 Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Communications Center Services. Website:

www.fremontpolice.org/index.aspx?NID=129 (accessed July 31, 2015).





o Implementation 10-4.2.B: Designation of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Designate areas of the city due to location, topography, vegetative cover, or other physical characteristics as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Require these areas to meet more stringent building code standards for exterior materials and construction methods for wildfire exposure.

Policy 10-4.3: Access and Clearance. Require adequate access and clearance for fire equipment, fire suppression personnel, and evacuation for new development.

Policy 10-5.2: 6 Minute 40 Second Response Time. Strive to maintain a 6 minute 40 second response time for areas below the Toe of the Hill.15

Policy 10-9.7: Crime Prevention Design. Apply site and building design techniques and standards that are intended to deter criminal activity in new development and redevelopment projects.

o Implementation 10-9.1.A: Police Department Review. Include the Police Department in the review of development projects and solicit comments regarding implementation of crime prevention and Crime Prevention Though Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts.

(2) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District Master Plan16 includes the

following policies related to public services.

Policy HR2: The District will maintain a highly motivated and trained workforce to manage, supervise, coordinate, and work on the District’s activities; including park operations, maintenance, public safety, environmental education, recreation, resource management, land acquisition, development program services, and administration. The District will also preserve and expand project opportunities for interns that are both academic and operational in focus.

Policy FR1b: The District will not open new parkland for public use unless it has adequate resources for planning and meeting the operational needs for public safety, fire protection, resource stewardship, interpretation and recreation services.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to public services that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts to public services that would result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A site or Option B site. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to fire protection, police protection, school, and other public services if it would:

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

15 Note that Mission Peak is located below the “Toe of the Hill.” See Chapter IV, Plans and Policies. 16 East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Master Plan 2013. July 16.





○ Fire protection;

○ Police protection;

○ Schools; or

○ Other public facilities. Please refer to Section V.O, Recreation for an evaluation of potential impacts to park and recreational services. b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to public services. Impacts associated with Option A are discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B. It should be noted that the analysis below focuses on the potential for the project to create physical environmental impacts associated with the provision of these services. Physical environmental impacts are those that would result from construction of new facilities (such as a new fire station) that may be necessary in order to meet response time goals or other performance objectives.

(1) Fire Protection. Potential impacts to fire protection services are discussed below for the Option A and Option B sites. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. As discussed in Chapter V.J., Transportation and Circulation, development of the Option A site with a new staging area that includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) could result in an increase in visitation to the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to existing conditions. This increase is anticipated based on survey data that shows that the increased availability of on-site parking spaces would likely attract new visitors to the Preserve and that existing visitors would visit the Preserve on a more frequent basis with easier access to parking. The increase in visitation to the Preserve could increase the demand for fire and particularly emergency medical services as more hikers and bicyclists would be present within the Preserve, resulting in more injuries and a higher level of calls for service. The District and City of Fremont Fire Departments regularly review staffing and facilities needs at all District parks and within the city. The District regularly assesses anticipated increased need for staffing based on the opening of new parks and expected visitation patterns. In addition, independent of this proposed project at Mission Peak, the District is currently planning to construct new public safety buildings at its existing campus located near Lake Chabot.17 While the District will continue to assess the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional staffing needs would be accommodated by the District’s facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no new facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option A site.

17 East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Lake Chabot Campus Modernization Project Mitigated Negative

Declaration. Available online at: www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/Park_Planning/Lake+Chabot+Campus/NOI+MND+IS.pdf. June 12.





Access to the Option A site for emergency personnel would continue to be provided via the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new staging area is operational. Fire and emergency personnel would access the Option A site via a new roadway that would connect the existing staging area to the new one. In addition, although Option A site is a potential landing area for helicopters, surrounding areas also provide suitable landing sites. Emergency helicopters would continue to land near the Option A site as needed to address emergency situations Response times to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would not be affected as the Option A site is within close proximity to the existing staging area. With development of the Option A site, a new fire hydrant would be installed at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area; this hydrant would be within 1,000 feet of the Option A site and would meet Fire Code requirements. The new hydrant would be connected to the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) water system and existing water lines within Stanford Avenue. Adequate infrastructure, including fire hydrants, water pressure and supply would be available to serve the new staging area at the Option A site. Refer to Section V.Q, Utilities and Service Systems for addition information. Also refer to Section V.I for a discussion of potential fire hazard risks at the project site. During construction of the new staging area, the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be used as a construction staging area for equipment and materials storage. However, access to the Mission Peak gate would still be available for fire and other emergency personnel and helicopter access to the vicinity of the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public access to the construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve would be prohibited during the six-month construction period, limiting the number of emergency situations that would occur in this area compared to existing conditions or conditions that would occur when the project is operational. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak may experience increased demand for fire and emergency services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to the Preserve during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared to existing conditions and would be temporary. Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option A site would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives as existing facilities are adequate to support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for fire services. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to Option A, development of the Option B site with a new staging area that includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) would increase the use of the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to existing conditions (refer to Chapter III, Project Description). The increased use of the Preserve would likely increase the demand for fire and particularly emergency medical services as more hikers and bicyclists would be present within the Preserve and more calls for emergency service would likewise occur. As previously discussed, the District and City of Fremont Fire Departments regularly review staffing and facilities needs at all District parks and within the City. While the District will continue to assess the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional staffing needs would be accommodated by the District’s facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no new





facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option B site. Access to the Option B site for emergency personnel would continue to be provided via the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new staging area is operational. Fire and emergency personnel would access the Option B site via a new roadway and bridge that would cross over Agua Caliente Creek and connect the existing staging area to the new one. The existing helicopter landing area at the Option A site would not be affected and would continue to be used with development of the Option B site. Response times to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would not be affected as the Option B site is within close proximity to the existing staging area. With development of the Option B site, two new fire hydrants would be installed, one at the existing staging area and a second located approximately mid-way along the roadway. In addition, a new fire line (400 linear feet) would be installed along the new roadway to connect with the new hydrant. This hydrant would be within 1,000 feet of the Option B site and would meet Fire Code requirements. The new hydrants would be connected to the ACWD water system and existing water lines within Stanford Avenue. Adequate infrastructure, including fire hydrants, water pressure and supply would be available to serve the new staging area at the Option B site. Refer to Section V.Q, Utilities and Service Systems for addition information. Also refer to Section V.I for a discussion of potential fire hazard risks at the project site. During construction of the new staging area, the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be used as a construction staging area for equipment and materials storage. However, access to the Mission Peak gate would still be available for fire and other emergency personnel and helicopter access to the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public access to the construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve would be prohibited during the six-month construction period, limiting the number of emergency situations that would occur in this area compared to existing conditions or conditions that would occur when the project is operational. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak may experience increased demand for fire and emergency services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to the Preserve during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared to existing conditions and would be temporary. Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option B site would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives as existing facilities are adequate to support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for fire services. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

(2) Police Protection.Potential impacts to police protection services are discussed below for the Option A and Option B sites. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. As discussed in Chapter V.J., Transportation and Circulation, development of the Option A site with a new staging area that includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) could result in an increase visitation to the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to existing conditions. This increase is anticipated based on survey data that shows that the increased





availability of on-site parking spaces would likely attract new visitors to the Preserve and existing visitors may visit the Preserve on a more frequent basis with easier access to parking. The increase in visitation to the Preserve could increase the demand for police services as more hikers and bicyclists would be present within the Preserve, resulting in a higher level of calls for service. As previously discussed, the District and City of Fremont Police Departments regularly review staffing and facilities needs at all District parks and within the City. While the District will continue to assess the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional staffing needs would be accommodated by the District’s facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no new facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option A site. In addition, existing issues related to noise, litter, and illegal parking within the residential neighborhoods west of Vineyard Drive would likely decrease as park visitors would have access to a more dedicated parking within the Preserve boundaries. In addition, the District and City of Fremont Police Departments regularly review staffing and facilities needs in light of the number of calls for service received and the population served within each jurisdiction. No new facilities would be required to be constructed in order to serve the increase in demand for police services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option A site. The Option A site would be developed within a bowl-like topography and the perimeter and interior of the new staging area would be planted with new trees to provide screening and visual interest. However, plantings would be spaced to allow visibility of the staging area from nearby trails and from other points within the Preserve and the area would be regularly monitored by District staff, including District police patrols. Access to the Option A site for emergency personnel would continue to be provided by the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new staging area is operational. Response times to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would not be affected as the Option A site is within close proximity to the existing staging area. During construction of the new staging area, the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be used as a construction staging area for equipment and materials storage. However, access to the Mission Peak gate would still be available for police and other emergency personnel and helicopter access to the vicinity of the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public access to the construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve would be prohibited during the six-month construction period and this area would be fenced and closed when construction activities are not occurring. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak may experience increased demand for police services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to the Preserve during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared to existing conditions and would be temporary. Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option A site would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered police service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives as existing facilities are adequate to support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for police services. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.





Option B. Similar to Option A, development of the Option B site with a new staging area that includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) would increase the use of the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to existing conditions (refer to Chapter III, Project Description). The increased use of the Preserve would likely increase the demand for fire and particularly emergency medical services as more hikers and bicyclists would be present within the Preserve and more calls for emergency service would likewise occur. As previously discussed, the District and City of Fremont Fire Departments regularly review staffing and facilities needs at all District parks and within the City. While the District will continue to assess the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional staffing needs would be accommodated by the District’s facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no new facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option B site. In addition, existing issues related to noise, litter, and illegal parking within the residential neighborhoods west of Vineyard Drive would likely decrease as park visitors would have access to a more dedicated parking within the Preserve boundaries. In addition, the District and City of Fremont Police Departments regularly review staffing and facilities needs in light of the number of calls for service received and the population served within each jurisdiction. No new facilities would be required to be constructed in order to serve the increase in demand for police services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option B site. The Option B site would be developed within an area that is currently used for cattle grazing and new roadways and bridges over Agua Caliente Creek would be required to access to the Option B site. The perimeter and interior of the new staging area would be planted with new trees to provide screening and visual interest. However, plantings would be spaced to allow visibility of the staging area from nearby trails and from other points within the Preserve and the area would be regularly monitored by District staff, including District police patrols. Access to the Option B site for emergency personnel would continue to be provided by the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new staging area is operational. Response times to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would not be affected as the Option B site is within close proximity to the existing staging area. During construction of the new staging area, the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be used as a construction staging area for equipment and materials storage. However, access to the Mission Peak gate would still be available for police and other emergency personnel and helicopter access to the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public access to the construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve would be prohibited during the six-month construction period and this area would be fenced and closed when construction activities are not occurring. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak may experience increased demand for police services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to the Preserve during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared to existing conditions and would be temporary.





Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option B site would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives as existing facilities are adequate to support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for police services. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

(3) School Impacts. Potential impacts related to school services are discussed below. As discussed, the proposed project would not impact these services.

Option A. Development of the Option A site with a new staging area that includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) would increase the use of the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to existing conditions (refer to Chapter III, Project Description). However, the project is intended to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to Mission Peak, a regional preserve and recreational area, which is generated by the existing population throughout the region. No housing would be developed with the proposed project and therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for school services and there would be no impact related to school services.

Option B. Similar to development of the Option A site, development of the Option B site with a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) is intended to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to Mission Peak. No housing would be developed with the proposed project and therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for school services and there would be no impact related to school services.

(4) Other Public Services. Potential impacts related to the provision of other public services, which consist of those provided by District operations and maintenance staff, are discussed in Section V.O, Recreation of this EIR. As discussed, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to these services. c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not contribute to cumulative effects related to the provision of fire, police, or school services. Cumulative public service-related impacts are those that would result from substantial increases in population in the District’s service area of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties or within the City of Fremont. Growth within these service areas is planned for through the District’s Master Plan and the City of Fremont General Plan. In addition, service providers regularly review service needs within their respective jurisdictions to accommodate increased growth and evaluate the need for new facilities. The proposed project is intended to serve an existing recreational use and would not induce population growth. Existing facilities that provide fire, police, and school services would not be physically altered and no new facilities would be required to be constructed to provide these services as a result of the proposed project. Existing service levels and standards would continue to be achieved within existing facilities with the proposed project. Therefore, no new facilities, the construction of which could result in physical environmental impacts would occur as a result of the project. The minor increase in demand for public services associated with development of a new staging area at the Option A or Option B sites would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts to public services would not be significant.



Q . U T I L I T I E S A N D S E R V I C E S Y S T E M S

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5q-Utilities.docx (10/14/15) 415

Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

This section describes the existing utility systems (water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy) that serve the project area and identifies the potential impacts to utility services that could result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option B sites. 1. Setting

This section addresses the following utilities: water supply, treatment, and distribution; wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal; solid waste; and energy. a. Water Service. The following describes the existing water supply sources, water treatment facilities, and the water distribution system that serve the project area. Water service is not currently provided to the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area although a pumping facility is located near the Option B site. Information in this section is based on the Alameda County Water District’s (ACWD) website1 and Urban Water Management Plan,2 unless otherwise noted.

(1) Water Supply. The ACWD provides water to the Cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. ACWD has three primary water supply sources including: the State Water Project (SWP); San Francisco’s Regional Water System (SFRWS); and local supplies. The SWP water is obtained in other parts of California and is pumped from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta through the South Bay Aqueduct. Water from SWP comprises approximately 40 percent of the District’s total water supply. The SFRWS water comprises approximately 20 percent of ACWD’s water supply. This supply is primarily from the Sierra Nevada and travels through the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, but also includes water that is treated by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission from local watersheds. ACWD’s local water supplies consists of groundwater from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin (underlying the ACWD service area), desalinated brackish groundwater, and surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir. ACWD holds the water rights for approximately 42,900 acre feet per year for imported water and local supplies consist of approximately 35,400 acre feet per year. Table V.Q-1 provides a summary of ACWD water supplies. Population growth, recurring drought conditions and the need to set aside water to protect fisheries are making it more challenging than ever for water purveyors to ensure adequate supplies. ACWD will increasingly rely on conservation and use of recycled water to meet customer needs.

1 Alameda County Water District, 2015. Website: www.acwd.org/ (accessed July 31, 2015). 2 Alameda County Water District, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan 2010-2015.

Table V.Q-1: Existing Water Supply

Supply Component Amount

(in acre feet/year)Imported Supplies State Water Project 27,500 San Francisco Regional Water System

15,400

Total Imported Supplies 42,900 Local Supplies Groundwater Recharge 24,500 Del Valle Reservoir 5,800 Desalination 5,100 Total Local Supplies 35,400 TOTAL SUPPLY 78,300 Source: Alameda County Water District, 2015.





(2) Water Treatment Facilities. ACWD operates two treatment plants (Mission San José Plant and Plant #2), the Newark Desalination Facility, and a Blending Facility. The two treatment plants treat SWP and local surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir. The Newark Desalination facility treats brackish groundwater and recently expanded from 5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 10 mgd in 2010. The Blending Facility combines local water supplies with imported supplies to maintain uniform water quality throughout ACWD’s service area. Table V.Q-2 describes each water treatment facility’s treatment process, and capacity. Table V.Q-2: Water Treatment Facilities Characteristics

Water Treatment Facility Treatment Process

Daily Capacity

Mission San José Plant

Treats surface water from the South Bay Aqueduct Treatment process involves two upflow clarifiers, three 200-micron premembrane strainers, and six ultrafiltration (UF) membrane storage with post-filter addition of fluoride and sodium hydroxide.

8.5 mgd

Plant #2 Treats water from the South Bay Aqueduct Conventional ozone plant uses chemical additions (carbon dioxide, chloramines pre-ozone, ozone, ferric chloride). Two separate process trains consisting of six flocculation basins, four sedimentation basins and six dual media filters with post-filter addition of chlorine, ammonia, fluoride, and sodium hydroxide.

28 mgd (Sustainable Production Rate is 22

mgd)

Newark Desalination Facility

Treats brackish groundwater through reverse osmosis membrane filtration process Chlorine, ammonia, fluoride, and sodium hydroxide are added as finished water chemicals

10 mgd

Blending Facility Combines ACWD’s production well water with softer SFRWS water using three parallel in-line static mixers

60 mgd

Note: mgd represents “million gallons per day”

Source: Alameda County Water District, 2015.

(3) Water Distribution System and Facilities. ACWD’s water conveyance system consists of 825 miles of pipes and 11 reservoirs and tanks. In 2010, ACWD’s total distribution was approxi-mately 47,000 acre-feet. Local water supplies stored in the Del Valle Reservoir flow into either of the two treatment plans, Alameda Creek, or into percolation ponds for ground water recharge. Water supplies from SFRWS flow to the Blending Facility to be combined with local supplies. Existing infrastructure within the vicinity of the project site includes a 12-inch water main line that terminates at the end of Stanford Avenue. In addition, an existing solar powered pump is located at the Option B site. This pump is served by ACWD metered water and boosts the pressure to fill a water tank for the cattle troughs in this area. Although the current water distribution network is capable of meeting existing needs, significant increases in demand or new special water service requirements could require distribution system upgrades such as new or increased treated water storage, larger pipes, pumps, pressure regulators, and/or other infrastructure depending on the location and service requirements.





b. Wastewater. The following provides background information on the wastewater system operated by the Union Sanitary District (USD). Information in this section is based on the USD’s Sewer System Management Plan,3 unless otherwise noted. The USD is an independent service district that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to the Cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The USD service area covers approximately 60 square miles.

(1) Wastewater Collection. USD operates a collection system of approximately 783 miles of sewers that utilize gravity and force mains. The project site is within the Hill Area and some developments in these areas are served by septic systems; however, the residential subdivisions within the vicinity of the site are connected to the existing sewer system via an existing line and manhole on Vineyard Avenue. The areas of Mission Peak are also within the USD’s sewer service district. Currently, the existing staging area contains one vault restroom and is not connected to USD’s sewer. The USD sewer system is divided into three drainage areas: Irvington, Newark, and Alvarado. Wastewater generated in each area travels to a major pumping station near the San Francisco Bay. The project site is within the Irvington drainage area and would be served by the USD Alvarado Treatment Plant.

(2) Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. The Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in Union City and has the capacity to treat 30 mgd of average dry weather flow. On average, this plant receives 24.5 mgd of wastewater flows. Once treated, water from the Alvarado Treatment Plan is recycled onsite for facility usage or passes through seven miles of pipelines for disposal in San Francisco Bay, north of the Oakland International Airport. c. Solid Waste. Republic Services provides curbside pick-up of recyclables, organics, and garbage in the City of Fremont. The existing staging area contains garbage and recycling receptacles. District ordinances prohibit public littering or dumping of any material within Mission Peak. Illegal trash is removed from Mission Peak by District maintenance crews on a regular basis. The District currently contracts to Republic Services to provide waste management services at Mission Peak. Republic Services is located at 42600 Boyce Road in Fremont. Municipal solid waste is transported by Republic Services to Altamont Landfill near Livermore. The Altamont Landfill has a maximum permitted daily throughput of 11,500 tons and a maximum permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards. As of 2005, the year for which the most recent reporting data was available, the remaining capacity of Altamont Landfill is approximately 45,720,000 cubic yards.4 d. Energy. The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to the City of Fremont and to the residential areas near the project sites. PG&E charges connection and user fees for new development, in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural gas service based on use. PG&E produces much of its energy from renewable sources and has plans in place to increase reliance on renewable energy sources. Of the energy provided to PG&E

3 Union Sanitary District, 2006, Union Sanitary District Management Plan. 4 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2015. Solid Waste Information System

(SWIS), Facility/Site Search. Website: calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0009/Detail/ (accessed June 23, 2015).





customers in 2012 (the year that the most recent data was available), approximately 21 percent of energy came from nuclear generation; 21 percent was from unspecified sources; 27 percent was from natural gas; 11 percent was from large hydroelectric facilities; and 19 percent was from renewable resources (e.g., wind, geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectric sources, and solar). In 2012, PG&E delivered 76,205 gigawatt-hours of electricity to its 5.2 million electrical customers.5 The existing staging area is not served currently served by PG&E as it does not require the use of electricity due to its operating hours. Electrical services are provided to the existing surrounding subdivisions and existing infrastructure is located on Stanford Avenue. e. Regulatory Framework. The City of Fremont General Plan’s Public Facilities Element includes the following policy and implementation measure related to utility services.

Policy 9-3.1: Long Range Planning. Work with the Alameda County Water District, Union Sanitary District, and Alameda County Flood Control District to ensure their long range plans are consistent with the Fremont General Plan.

o Implementation 9-3.1.D: ACWD Development Requirements. Individual development projects shall conform to Alameda County Water District’s development specifications and standard specifications for water main installation and applicable ACWD policies related to development and redevelopment.


The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to utility services, including water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy services, that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts to public services that would result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A site or Option B site. Please see Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of impacts related to stormwater. a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to utilities and infrastructure if it would:

Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board;

Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements;

5 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2015. Clean Energy Solutions. Website: www.pge.com/mybusiness/

environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml (accessed August 6, 2015).





Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;

Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; or

Fail to comply with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. b. Project Impacts. The following section describes the project’s potential impacts to utilities and service systems. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.

(1) Water. Potential impacts related to water supplies, water infrastructure and water treatment facilities are discussed below. As discussed, impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. New water connections would be required to provide services to the proposed Option A site. The existing water distribution infrastructure is not adequate to transport water to the proposed Option A staging area. In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed staging area per Fire Code requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter water main would be extended 480 feet up Stanford Avenue to reach the existing staging area. In order to provide adequate water pressure for potable water and irrigation, a booster pump system would be installed near the restroom in the existing staging area to boost the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe supplying the Option A site, which would be located at a higher elevation. The proposed project would generate demand for water supplies to serve the restrooms, landscaping irrigation, and required fire supply at the existing staging area and the Option A site. The project also would include the extension of water delivery infrastructure to the Option A site. In the context of the existing available water supply, this increase would be minimal. The proposed project would be subject to applicable water conservation measures, including those imposed by federal, State, and local regulations such as CALGreen. Measures include installation of low-flow water fixtures and toilets, Bay-friendly and drought-tolerant landscaping. It is therefore not anticipated that new or expanded entitlements for water supplies would be required to serve the proposed staging area facilities associated with development of the Option A site and this impact would be less than significant. Furthermore, due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that would serve the proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and no new water supply, treatment, or delivery infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be required. Impacts associated with the construction of new water lines within Stanford Avenue and within project roadways that would lead to the Option A site are identified in the appropriate topical sections of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Option B. New water connections would be required to provide water services to the proposed Option B site. The existing water delivery infrastructure is not adequate to transport water to the proposed Option B staging area. An existing solar-powered pump is located within the Option B site. This pump connects to the ACWD system and provides water to serve cattle operations within the





vicinity. No changes to this pump or the water system in this area are proposed, although the water delivery system proposed to serve the Option B site may tie into this existing infrastructure, if appropriate. This connection is not required to serve the new staging area facilities. In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed parking area per Fire Code requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter main waterline would be extended 480 feet up Stanford Avenue to reach the existing Staging Area, then a 6-inch line would continue up the new road another 600 feet to a new hydrant. In order to provide adequate water pressure for potable water, irrigation, and fire service, a booster pump system would be installed near the restroom in the existing staging area to boot the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe to supply the Option B site, which is located at a higher elevation. Similar to the discussion above for the Option A site, the proposed project would generate demand for water supplies to serve the existing staging area and the Option B site and would include the extension of water delivery infrastructure to the Option B site. In the context of the existing available water supply, this increase would be minimal. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to applicable water conservation measures, including those imposed by federal, State, and local regulations such as CALGreen. Measures include installation of low-flow water fixtures and toilets, Bay-friendly and drought-tolerant landscaping. It is therefore not anticipated that new or expanded entitlements for water supplies would be required to serve the proposed staging area facilities associated with development of the Option B site and this impact would be less than significant. Furthermore, due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that would serve the proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and no new water supply, treatment, or delivery infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be required. Impacts associated with the construction of new water lines within Stanford Avenue and within project roadways that would lead to the Option B site are identified in the appropriate topical sections of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

(2) Wastewater. Potential impacts related to wastewater generation, infrastructure and treatment facilities are discussed below. As discussed, impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is currently served by one restroom facility with a vault toilet and three portable restrooms. Sewer services are not currently provided to the existing staging area or to the Option A site. The proposed four-unit restroom located at the Option A site would be connected to a new 1,600 foot long sewer line that would flow by gravity to the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed two-unit restroom installed in place of the existing single-vault toilet at the existing staging area would also be connected to this new sewer line. Approximately 910 linear feet of a new 8-inch sewer line would also be installed to connect the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom facilities to the existing manhole at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 685 linear feet of a new 6-inch line would continue beneath the new access roadway from the existing staging area to the new restrooms at the Option A site.





The proposed project would generate demand for wastewater services to serve the existing staging area and the Option A site and would include the extension of wastewater collection systems to the Option A site. In the context of the existing available wastewater treatment facility capacity (the facility processes an average of 24.5 mgd per day with a total capacity of 30 mgd per day), this increase would be minimal. Due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that would serve the proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and no new wastewater treatment or collection infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be required. Impacts associated with the construction of new wastewater lines within Stanford Avenue and within project roadways that would lead to the Option A site are identified in the appropriate topical sections of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Option B. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is currently served by one restroom facility with a vault toilet and three portable restrooms. Sewer services are not currently provided to the existing staging area or to the Option B site. The proposed four-unit restroom located at the Option B site would be connected to a new 2,600-foot long sewer line that would flow by gravity to the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed two-unit restroom installed in place of the existing single-vault toilet at the existing Stanford Staging Area would be connected to this new sewer line. New power would be required to operate the pressure booster system located near the restroom in the existing staging area, and buried electrical lines could be installed under the proposed road to the Option B site to provide a small amount of power to the proposed restroom facilities. Approximately 910 linear feet of a new 8-inch sewer line would also be installed to connect the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom facilities to the existing manhole at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 1,700 linear feet of a new 6-inch line would continue beneath the new access roadway from the existing staging area to the new restrooms at the Option B site. The proposed project would generate demand for wastewater services to serve the existing staging area and the Option B site and would include the extension of wastewater collection systems to the Option B site. In the context of the existing available wastewater treatment facility capacity (the facility processes an average of 24.5 mgd per day with a total capacity of 30 mgd per day), this increase would be minimal. Due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that would serve the proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and no new wastewater treatment or collection infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be required. Impacts associated with the construction of new wastewater lines within Stanford Avenue and within project roadways that would lead to the Option B site are identified in the appropriate topical sections of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

(3) Solid Waste. Potential impacts related to solid waste are discussed below. As discussed, impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. Regular trash collection services are provided to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and public littering or dumping of any material onto the Preserve is prohibited. Illegal trash is removed from the Preserve by District maintenance crews and properly disposed of. Although use of





the Preserve would increase with development of a new staging area, new trash and recycling receptacles would be provided to serve the increased demand. These facilities would be located at the Option A site as well as the existing staging area. Because the amount of solid waste generated by the project would be small and because the District would properly dispose of any illegal littering, the proposed project would not affect landfill capacity and would comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Option B. Similar to the discussion above for the Option A site, although use of the Preserve would increase with development of a new staging area, new trash and recycling receptacles would be provided to serve the increased demand. These facilities would be located at the Option B site as well as the existing staging area. Because the amount of solid waste generated by the project would be small and because the District would properly dispose of any illegal littering, the proposed project would not affect landfill capacity and would comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

(4) Energy. Potential impacts related to the provision of electrical services to the project sites and energy consumption are discussed below. As discussed, impacts would be less than significant.

Option A. New electrical connections would be required to serve the Option A site in order to provide pressure to the proposed water pressure booster system. No lighting is proposed for the new staging area at the Option A site or at the existing staging area. Overall, the level of public energy required to serve the proposed project would be minimal and would not violate applicable federal, State, or local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards or exceed PG&E’s service capacity or require new or expanded facilities. The proposed project would also be subject to Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Improvements to and extensions of existing PG&E infrastructure required to accommodate the proposed project would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior to installation. Finally, while development of the Option A site would result in an incremental increase in demand for electrical energy, consumption associated with the project would be negligible (also see discussion in Section IV.L, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Therefore this impact would be less than significant.

Option B. Similar to the Option A site, new electrical connections would be required to serve the Option B site in order to provide pressure to the proposed water pressure booster system. No lighting is proposed for the new staging area at the Option B site or at the existing staging area. Similar to the discussion above for the Option A site, while development of the Option B site would result in an incremental increase in demand for electrical energy, consumption associated with the project would be negligible (also see discussion in Section IV.L, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Therefore this impact would be less than significant. c. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative infrastructure-related impacts would result from substantial increases in population in the District’s service area of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties or within the City of Fremont. Growth within these service areas is planned for through the District’s Master Plan and the City of Fremont General Plan. In addition, service providers regularly review service needs within their respective jurisdictions to accommodate increased growth and evaluate the need for new facilities. The proposed project is intended to serve an existing recreational use and would not induce population growth. The minor increase in demand for utility services associated with





development of a new staging area at the Option A or Option B sites would not be substantial in the context of cumulative regional and local service needs. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to water, wastewater, solid waste, or energy service impacts; thus the project’s cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems would not be significant.






P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\6-Alternatives.docx (10/14/15) 425

VI. ALTERNATIVES

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that would “feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly adverse environmental effects of the project.” An EIR does not need to consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason.” The proposed project involves the development of a new staging area within the Preserve boundaries and near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The new staging area is proposed to be developed at one of two potential locations (Option A or Option B) and would provide up to 300 new parking spaces, as described in detail in Chapter III, Project Description. The potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed project are analyzed in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The proposed project has been described and analyzed in the previous chapters with an emphasis on determining and evaluating potential significant impacts resulting from the project and identifying mitigation measures to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The following discussion identifies and discusses five feasible alternatives to the proposed project, compares the impacts of each alternative to the impacts of the project, and determines whether the alternatives meet the project objectives. The five alternatives to the proposed project that are discussed and evaluated in this chapter are the following:

The No Project alternative, which assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the project sites. No additional parking or restrooms would be constructed within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This entrance to Mission Peak would continue to be inadequately served by available parking and restrooms within the Preserve. It is assumed that visitors to the Preserve would continue to park on adjacent streets at the current levels and the associated issues such as noise, litter, and congestion would continue at the current levels.

The Reduced Project Size alternative, which would construct a new staging area with parking for approximately 225 vehicles and additional restrooms within a reduced area on the same site as proposed project Option A site.

The Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area alternative, which would construct a multi-story parking structure to provide approximately 300 parking spaces and additional restrooms within the existing footprint of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

The Off-site Parking alternative, which would entail development of an off-site parking area on a parcel owned by the City of Fremont that could provide up to 75 spaces outside of the Preserve boundaries but within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RV I . A L T E R N A T I V E S


The Maximum Parking alternative, which would construct staging areas on both the Option A and Option B sites, for a total of 643 (new and existing) parking spaces and additional restrooms provided at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve.

The fundamental purpose of the project and the project objectives are identified in Chapter III, Project Description. To assist in evaluating project alternatives, the purpose and objectives are repeated below. The Mission statement for the East Bay Regional Park District defines the “essential role” of the District as follows:

The East Bay Regional Park District preserves a rich heritage of natural and cultural resources and provides open space, parks, trails, safe and healthful recreation and environmental education. An environmental ethic guides the District in all of its activities.1

Consistent with this “essential role” of providing open space, parks and trails, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for access to trails from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. As discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, it is estimated that Mission Peak received nearly 270,000 visitors in 2014, at an average of over 22,000 visitors each month. Of these total visitors to the park, over 19,000 visitors each month used the trails departing from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.2 With only 43 parking spaces available at this location, visitors to Mission Peak generate a demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance that exceeds the capacity of the existing parking area due to the popularity of the trails that originate at this entrance and provide access to the summit of Mission Peak. It is anticipated that development of additional parking at this location will help reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area, and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. The following project objectives have been identified for the project:

Objective 1: Develop additional parking on land leased from the City of Fremont.

Objective 2: Develop additional parking that minimizes costs associated with construction, operation, maintenance, and implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures to the extent feasible while still achieving the purpose of the project.

Objective 3: Develop additional parking that incorporates best management and best engineering principles into the design, particularly in the area of geologic stability and stormwater management, avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts to the greatest degree feasible.

Objective 4: Develop additional parking that serves the visitors to Mission Peak Regional Preserve who want access to the most popular trails in keeping with the District’s Mission Statement.

Objective 5: Develop additional parking that would help reduce parking on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.

1 East Bay Regional Parks District, 2013. Master Plan 2013, page 18. July 16. 2 BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29.




Objective 6: Construct additional restroom facilities near the location of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to accommodate park visitors.

The purpose of this discussion of alternatives to the project is to enable decision-makers to evaluate the project by considering how alternatives to the project as proposed might reduce or avoid the project's impacts on the physical environment. The analysis in this chapter provides a qualitative evaluation of the environmental impacts that could be associated with each alternative and compares those potential impacts to those identified for both proposed project Option A and Option B as described in Chapter V of this EIR. If District decision-makers were to decide to move forward with one of the alternatives identified in this chapter, additional engineering and design work and analysis would be required for the environmental impacts associated with the alternative, and specific mitigation measures for each potentially significant impact would need to be developed and considered. A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

The following provides a description of the No Project alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the No Project alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Project alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the project. 1. Principal Characteristics

The No Project alternative assumes that neither the Option A nor Option B sites would be developed and that both sites and the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would generally remain in their current condition. The available parking supply at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would continue to provide an inadequate number of parking spaces to meet visitor demand for parking. Thus, parking and associated issues on the surrounding residential streets would likely continue at existing levels, including extensive overflow parking on the neighborhood streets, vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion, noise, litter, and lights from headlamps and flashlights. Under the No Project alternative, the District would not develop any additional parking for visitors to Mission Peak. In addition, no visitor-serving site improvements would be made, such as construction of additional restrooms, kiosk, drinking water sources, and picnic tables. Culvert repair associated with Option A and the culvert removal and channel restoration associated with Option B also would not occur. The No Project alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project. Specifically, it would not develop additional parking on lands leased by the District, would not provide parking to serve existing visitors, would not reduce the occurrence of overflow parking on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, and would not construct additional restroom facilities to accommodate visitors.




2. Analysis of the No Project Alternative

The potential impacts associated with the No Project alternative compared to the impacts associated with development of the Option A or Option B sites are described below. a. Land Use. The No Project Alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at the project sites. This alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community and no new land uses would be introduced to the project sites. The Option A site would remain as undeveloped open space open to cattle grazing and the Option B site would remain as an existing cattle corral. Similar to impacts associated with development of Option A and Option B, implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts or impacts related to policy consistency. With this alternative, the existing conflicts with nearby residential uses from overflow parking on the public residential streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would continue, along with the existing contribution to issues including noise, trash, and safety issues. Visitors would continue to be inadequately served by appropriate levels of available parking and restrooms. b. Visual Resources. Under the No Project alternative, the visual quality of both the Option A and Option B site’s natural terrain would remain unchanged and views from existing trails and other scenic vistas available from within the Preserve would not be altered. Views from private residences within the vicinity of the Option A and B sites would also remain unchanged. Implementation of the No Project alternative would result in no visual impacts, compared to the less-than-significant impacts associated with development of the Option A or Option B sites. c. Biological Resources. Under the No Project alternative, neither the Option A nor Option B sites would be developed and both sites would remain in their natural condition. Impacts to biological resources identified for development of either the Option A or Option B sites would not occur. Specifically, impacts to special-status wildlife and native species and their habitat and nursery sites would not result from implementation of the No Project alternative. Impacts to special-status grassland plant species, jurisdictional waters and protected trees would not occur. Similar to the proposed project, there would be no conflict with an adopted conservation or natural community plan. There would be no effects to sensitive natural communities. As such, none of the mitigation measures identified for implementation with Option A or Option B would be required with the No Project alternative. d. Cultural Resources. Under the No Project alternative, neither the Option A nor the Option B sites would be developed and existing historical and archaeological resources known to be located within each of these sites would not be disturbed by construction activities. Likewise, no unidentified paleontological resources or Native American skeletal remains would have the possibility of being disturbed. As such, none of the mitigation measures identified for implementation with Option A or Option B would be required with the No Project Alternative. e. Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The No Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at the project site and, similar to the proposed project, no significant impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would result. Under this alternative, the Option A site would continue to be utilized as grazing land and the Option B site would continue to be used as a cattle corral. Existing cattle infrastructure on the Option B site would not need to be relocated. With this alternative impacts related to agricultural resources associated with development




of Option A and Option B would be less than those associated with the proposed project. The implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any significant impacts related to agriculture or forestry resources. f. Mineral Resources. The No Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at the project site and, similar to the proposed project, no significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to the region or the State would result. g. Geology and Soils. Under the No Project alternative, the existing topography of the Option A and Option B sites would be retained and no ground-disturbing activities, such as soil excavation or grading, would result. Potentially significant impacts related to existing geologic and soils conditions identified for development of either the Option A or Option B sites would not occur and none of the mitigation measures identified for implementation of Option A or Option B would be required with the No Project Alternative. h. Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the No Project alternative, the project sites would be subject to existing hydrologic conditions and both sites would remain entirely covered in pervious surfaces. The less than significant construction and operation-period impacts associated with water quality, groundwater supplies, and storm drainage system capacity identified for the Option A and Option B sites would not occur. Similar to the proposed project, the no impact determination associated with flood hazards or coastal hazards would be the same with implementation of the No Project alternative. The less-than-significant impacts associated with culvert repair that could cause erosion and siltation or localized flooding at the Option A site would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. Additionally, the beneficial impact of repairing the existing culvert at Option A would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. The potentially significant impacts related to erosion and siltation and localized flooding identified as a result of work to be conducted within Agua Caliente Creek as part of the Option B site development would not occur with the No Project alternative and implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would not be required. Additionally, the beneficial impact of removing the existing culvert at Option B and restoring the channel to a natural condition would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the No Project alternative, the project sites would remain in their current natural condition, no construction activities would take place, and automobiles and landscape maintenance chemicals would not be introduced to either site. The less than significant construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a result of wildland/urban fires would not result with the No Project alternative. Similar to the proposed project, no impact would result related to aviation hazards. j. Transportation and Circulation. Under the No Project alternative, the existing on-site parking area would continue to be inadequate to serve demand. Existing public residential streets within the vicinity of the site would continue to be congested with pedestrian and vehicle traffic and on-street parking spaces would continue to be utilized by visitors to Mission Peak.. The less-than-significant impacts associated with the increase in vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area




during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions due to latent demand would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. k. Air Quality. Under the No Project alternative, construction activities at the project sites would not occur and the potentially significant impact associated with construction-period air quality emissions would not result; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would not be required. The less-than-significant project impacts related to consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative because the latent demand associated with the Project would not occur. l. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the No Project alternative, construction activities at the project sites would not occur and no greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted. The less-than-significant impacts associated with construction- and operation-period greenhouse gas emissions, and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans, would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. m. Noise. Under the No Project alternative, construction activities at the project sites would not occur and therefore no noise impacts associated with construction would occur and implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would not be required to reduce construction-period noise levels. As such, although impacts related to construction-period noise identified for the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative and no mitigation would be required. In addition, the less-than-significant impacts associated with operation of the new parking lot would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. Similar to the proposed project, the no impact determination associated with groundborne vibration or noise would be the same for the No Project Alternative. Existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods that is generated by visitors to the Preserve would continue to be experienced by residents with implementation of the No Project alternative. Without the provision of additional parking near or at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, visitors would likely continue to park on the public residential streets and the existing issues including noise would likewise continue. n. Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not result in any significant population, housing or employment-related impacts. o. Recreation. Under the No Project alternative, the project sites would remain undeveloped and the existing staging area would continue to provide an inadequate supply to serve visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. No new visitor amenities such as restrooms, drinking water, or picnic tables would be built and the Preserve would continue to provide an inadequate level of services for visitors. The less-than-significant impacts related to the provision




of recreational facilities identified for the proposed project would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. p. Public Services. Similar to the proposed Project, under the No Project alternative, there would be no impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, similar to the proposed project, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the No Project alternative. q. Utilities and Service Systems. Under the No Project alternative, the site would remain undeveloped and no new connections to existing utility infrastructure would be required and no new infrastructure would be expanded onto the project site. No increase in the demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, or electricity services would result. The less-than-significant project impacts associated with the provision of water supplies and adequate water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy infrastructure and services would not result with implementation of the No Project alternative. B. REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE

The following provides a description of the Reduced Project Size alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the Reduced Project Size alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Reduced Project Size alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. 1. Principal Characteristics

The Reduced Project Size alternative would construct a new staging area within the general boundaries of the Option A site,3 but at a reduced size and with fewer parking spaces compared to the proposed project. This alternative would be designed to avoid sensitive cultural resources that are known to be present within the footprint of the proposed Option A site. The permanent area of disturbance would be approximately 9.14 acres in size and the total area of new impervious surface would be approximately 2.28 acres, compared to a slightly larger 9.64 total acres of permanent area of disturbance and 2.78 acres of impervious surfaces for the proposed project at this location, and a maximum of approximately 225 new parking spaces, or 75 fewer parking spaces than proposed under either project option, would be provided. Similar to the proposed project’s Option A development, the staging area that would be developed with the Reduced Project Size alternative would include new picnic tables, kiosk, drinking fountains, and restrooms. A new vehicular access roadway and new trail connections would also be required to provide access to the new staging area and existing trails and these facilities would be similar to Option A site development. New stormwater controls, landscaping, and utilities infrastructure would

3 This Reduced Project Size alternative was sited at the location of proposed Option A because cultural resources

could be avoided on the Option A site, whereas it is not possible to avoid impacts to cultural resources on the site proposed for Option B.




also be developed and would be similar to the improvements proposed as part of the proposed project’s development of the Option A site. Repair of the existing culvert within a segment of the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek would occur under this alternative, and would be the same as the proposed project. The Reduced Project Size alternative would achieve most of the District’s project objectives. However, given visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak, the reduced amount of additional parking spaces that would be provided by this alternative would not maximize on-site parking potential nor minimize overflow parking on the public residential streets to the same extent that the proposed project would. 2. Analysis of the Reduced Project Size Alternative

The potential impacts associated with the Reduced Project Size alternative are described below. a. Land Use. The Reduced Project Size Alternative would result in the development of the Option A site with a new staging area, but within a smaller footprint than the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Expanded facilities, including a larger staging area with vehicle parking spaces and other amenities intended to serve the existing recreational use of Mission Peak would be introduced to the site, similar to the proposed project. The Option B site would remain as an existing cattle corral. Similar to impacts associated with development of Option A and Option B, implemen-tation of the Reduced Project Size alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related to land use and policy consistency. b. Visual Resources. The Reduced Project Size alternative would develop the Option A site with a new staging area and associated infrastructure and landscaping similar to the proposed project’s Option A development, but within a smaller footprint than proposed by the project. Similar to the proposed project, this new staging area would be visible from existing trails and other scenic vistas available from within the Preserve. Implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative would very slightly reduce the less-than-significant impacts associated with development of the proposed project at this location due to the smaller footprint of development. Implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative would therefore result in less-than-significant impacts related to: views from scenic vistas; potential damage to scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway; degrada-tion of the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings; and light and glare. c. Biological Resources. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, the same impacts to biological resources identified for development of the Option A site would occur under this alterna-tive although these impacts may be slightly reduced due to the alternative’s reduced development footprint compared to the proposed project. Specifically, potentially significant impacts to special-status wildlife and native species, such as California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer, and burrowing owls and nesting birds such as loggerhead shrikes, white tailed kites, and other native birds, and their habitat and nursery sites would result from implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative and project Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-6 would be required. Impacts to special-status grassland plant species would also occur and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be required. Potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional waters and protected trees would also result because, similar to the proposed project, work would also occur within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek and protected trees could be




removed or otherwise damaged by construction activities; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8 would be required. As such, although impacts to biological resources identified for the proposed project would be somewhat less than the proposed project, the same mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts associated with this alternative to a less than significant level. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not conflict with an adopted conservation or natural community plan or result in adverse effects to sensitive natural communities. d. Cultural Resources. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, it is anticipated that with a reduced footprint for the proposed staging area at the Option A site, existing historical and archaeo-logical resources known to be located within this site would not be disturbed by construction activities; therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1a would not be required and this impact would be less than significant. Since construction activities would still occur, the potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological, paleontological or Native American skeletal remains would result with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. Thus implementation of proposed project Mitigation Measures CUL-1b, CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be required. As such, although impacts to cultural resources identified for the proposed Reduced Project Size alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, overall impacts to cultural resources would continue to be less than significant with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. e. Agricultural and Forestry Resources. With the Reduced Project Size alternative the Option A site would be developed with a new staging area but within a smaller footprint than that proposed by the project. Existing cattle grazing areas within this area would be reduced, but to a lesser degree than the proposed project. Similar to the proposed Option A project, this impact would be less than significant. Also similar to the proposed project, impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would be less than significant. f. Mineral Resources. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Site alternative would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to the region or the State. g. Geology and Soils. The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in development of the Option A site similar to the development proposed by the project, but within a smaller footprint. Similar impacts as those identified for development of the proposed project’s Option A site would occur, although impacts may be slightly reduced due to the smaller development footprint; therefore the area affected by potential slope instability would be less. Although development within proximity to existing landslide areas and on expansive soils may be reduced with this alternative, these existing conditions would not be entirely avoided within a reduced development footprint. Adverse impacts to geology and soils from implementation of the proposed Option A project associated with unstable soils and slope instability and expansive soils that could occur during project operation would result with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be required. Less-than-significant project impacts related to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. These less-than-significant impacts would not require mitigation.




h. Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the development of the proposed Option A project, the less-than-significant impacts associated with construction and operation-period impacts related to water quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized flooding, and storm drainage system capacity would occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. Similar to the proposed project, the no impact determination associated with flood hazards or coastal hazards would be the same with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, the less than significant construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a result of wildland/urban fires would result with the Reduced Project Size alternative, although to a somewhat lesser extent due to the smaller project footprint and smaller construction area. Similar to the proposed project, no impact would result related to aviation hazards. j. Transportation and Circulation. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, similar to the proposed Option A project, visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase with the provision of new on-site parking facilities due to latent visitor demand. However, because approximately 75 fewer parking spaces would be provided compared to the proposed project, it is anticipated that the increase in on-site parking supply would not serve visitor demand for access to trails to the same extent that the proposed Option A project would. Existing public residential streets within the vicinity of the site would continue to be congested with pedestrian and vehicle traffic and on-street parking spaces would continue to be utilized by visitors to Mission Peak to a greater extent than with the proposed Option A project, although to a lesser extent than under existing conditions. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative the less-than-significant impacts associated with the increase in vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions would be similar to the proposed project but the increase in visitors and trips would likely be less compared to the proposed Option A project because the Reduced Size alternative staging area provides 75 fewer parking spaces. k. Air Quality. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, construction activities at the Option A project site would occur and similar construction-period air quality emissions would result from project development, although to a slightly lesser extent due to the smaller development footprint; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be required. The number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase compared to existing conditions but would likely not increase as much as with the proposed Option A project as this alternative provides fewer parking spaces than the proposed project. The less-than-significant project impacts related to consistency with the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. However, as visitors continue to search for available parking spaces due to insufficient parking availability, vehicle emissions would continue to be generated and would likely be greater than those generated by the proposed Option A project. l. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, construction activities at the project sites would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted, although to a lesser extent than the proposed Option A project due to the smaller development footprint. The number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would increase similar to




the proposed Option A project but may not increase as much as with the proposed project as this alternative provides fewer parking spaces. The less-than-significant project impacts related to construction- and operation-period greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans would also occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. m. Noise. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, construction activities at the project site would occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise levels would result within the vicinity of the Option A site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to reduce construction-period noise levels. As with the proposed Option A project, potential noise associated with the new parking lot would occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. As with the proposed project, these impacts would be less than significant due to the distance of the site in relation to sensitive receptors. Similar to the proposed Option A project, no impacts related to groundborne vibration or noise would result. Existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods that is generated by visitors to the Preserve would continue with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. Without the provision of the maximum amount of additional parking near or at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, visitors would likely continue to park on the public residential streets and the existing issues including noise would likewise continue. These existing conditions would be lessened with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative but not to the same extent that would occur with the proposed Option A project. n. Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed Option A project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed Option A project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not result in any significant population, housing or employment-related impacts. o. Recreation. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, approximately 75 fewer parking spaces would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the proposed Option A project. Therefore, compared to existing conditions and the proposed Option A project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not serve visitor demand for parking to the same degree when compared to the proposed Option A project. Similar to the proposed Option A project, new amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables would be built at the new staging area. The less-than-significant impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities identified for the proposed Option A project would occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. p. Public Services. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, the Option A site would be developed with a new staging area and visitor demand could increase compared to existing conditions, thereby increasing the demand for police, fire, and emergency services. However, similar to the proposed Option A project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not require new or physically altered government facilities and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed Option A project, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the Reduced Project Size alternative. q. Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative and similar to the proposed Option A project, the site would be developed with a new staging area that would include new restrooms and other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater, and electrical




systems within the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New connections to existing utility infrastructure would be required and new infrastructure would be expanded onto the project site. The increase in demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, or electricity services would be similar to the proposed Option A project. The less-than-significant project impacts associated with the provision of water supplies and adequate water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy infrastructure and services would result with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative similar to implementation of the proposed Option A project. C. PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE EXISTING STAGING AREA

ALTERNATIVE

The following provides a description of the Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area (Parking Structure) alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the Parking Structure alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Parking Structure alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. 1. Principal Characteristics

The Parking Structure alternative considers construction of a parking structure at the location of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This alternative assumes construction of a multi-level structure that would provide a maximum of 300 parking spaces. Construction of the structure would likely require excavation of the slope at the northeast end of Stanford Avenue to minimize disturbance within the Preserve. The Parking Structure alternative would incorporate a living roof and living walls to help screen the structure visually from adjacent residences. This alternative would include construction of new restrooms. Water, sewer, and electrical services would be extended from Stanford Avenue to serve the new restroom facilities, provide potable drinking water, and irrigation. New stormwater controls would also be installed to manage runoff. Vehicle access for District staff and emergency personnel would be maintained from the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve. The Parking Structure alternative would achieve some of the District's project objectives (specifically, Objectives 1, 4, 5, and 6) but would not meet the objectives relating to minimizing costs and reduced environmental impacts, as discussed below. Development of a parking structure would be significantly more expensive, and thus less cost effective, than developing surface parking. The cost for design, construction, and materials for such a structure would be far greater than for development of a staging area with a surface parking lot.4 In addition, factors such as the area's high potential for seismic activity and unstable soil conditions, as

4 Some experts estimate that the costs per parking space is at least five times higher for a new parking structure

compared to a new surface parking lot. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., 2012. Parking Structure Technical Report: Challenges, Opportunities, and Best Practices, prepared for Valerie Knepper, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Parking Initiative. Available online at: www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/6-12/MTC_Parking_Structure.pdf (accessed October 13, 2015). June.




discussed in Section V.G, Geology and Soils, would greatly increase construction costs for such a structure. For these reasons, this alternative would not support Objective 2, which aims to develop additional parking that minimizes costs to the extent feasible while still achieving the purpose of the project. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail below, the Parking Structure alternative would not avoid or minimize environmental impacts to the same extent as the proposed project (Objective 3). 2. Analysis of the Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area Alternative

The potential impacts associated with the Parking Structure alternative are described below. a. Land Use. The Parking Structure alternative would result in the development of the existing Stanford Avenue staging area with a multi-story parking garage structure. The Option A and Option B sites would remain in their current undeveloped conditions. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The new parking structure would be developed on the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area which would place the multi-story parking structure within closer proximity to existing two-story low density residential uses compared to the Option A or Option B sites. The size and bulk of the parking structure would likely not be compatible with existing surrounding uses and would likely conflict with adopted plans and policies and applicable zoning regulations (although applicable variances may be requested). Compared to the proposed project, which would be compatible with surrounding land uses, significant land-use related impacts would result with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative. b. Visual Resources. The Parking Structure alternative would develop the existing staging area with a multi-story parking structure, which would substantially alter existing visual conditions within the immediate site and vicinity. Although the parking structure as described is assumed to include a living roof and walls and associated landscaping, the height and massing of the new structure would likely not be visually compatible with adjacent open space uses within the Preserve. Additionally, existing public views from Stanford Avenue of Mission Peak and the Preserve may be affected by the parking structure, possibly resulting in potentially significant visual impacts. The parking structure would likely be highly visible from nearby areas including other public streets, adjacent residences and trailheads within the Preserve that originate in the vicinity. Although the structure would likely be visible from surrounding area, the structure would likely blend in somewhat with existing surrounding development when viewed from more distant vantage points from within the Preserve (i.e., as seen from the summit of Mission Peak or existing trails at higher elevations). Implementation of the Parking Structure alternative would likely result in greater visual impacts related to degradation of the visual quality or character of the site and surroundings in comparison to the proposed project. The Parking Structure alternative would also be much more visible from public vantage points, and, because of its height, would be more visible than the proposed project at either site. c. Biological Resources. Under the Parking Structure alternative several of the biological resources related impacts that would result from development of the Option A or B sites would not occur as construction would primarily take place within a developed area. Specifically, it is likely that impacts to special-status wildlife and native species, such as California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer, and burrowing owls and their habitat and nursery sites would be avoided and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-6 would not




be required. Impacts to special-status grassland plant species and jurisdictional waters would also not occur and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-7 would not be required. Impacts to nesting birds such as loggerhead shrikes, white tailed kites, and other native birds and protected trees could however result with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative if existing trees are removed or otherwise damaged by construction activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-8 would still be required. d. Cultural Resources. Under the Parking Structure alternative no known historical or archaeological resources would be affected by redevelopment of the existing staging area with a multi-level parking structure. However, redevelopment activities and excavation could reveal previously unidentified resources due to the known archaeological sensitivity of the project area and vicinity. Mitigation Measure CUL-1b, or similar mitigation, would be required to ensure that these impacts would be less than significant. Previously unidentified paleontological or Native American skeletal remains could also be uncovered with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be required. Similar to the proposed project, with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative. e. Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The Parking Structure alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and no significant impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would result. Existing cattle infrastructure on the Option B site would not need to be relocated. Under this alternative, the existing staging area would be developed with a new parking structure. The Parking Structure alternative would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources and thus have less of an impact than the proposed project’s less than significant impact on agriculture and forestry resources. f. Mineral Resources. The Parking Structure alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and development of a new parking structure at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Similar to the proposed project, the Parking Structure alternative would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to the region or the State. g. Geology and Soils. Under the Parking Structure alternative the existing topography of the Option A and B sites would be retained and no ground-disturbing activities such as soil excavation or grading would result at these locations. Potential impacts related to existing geologic and soils conditions identified for development of the Option A and Option B sites would not occur. The Parking Structure alternative would however result in excavation of possibly unstable soils that are known to occur in the project area and construction of the structure would likely result in excavation of the slope at the northeast end of Stanford Avenue Staging Area to minimize disturbance within the Preserve. In addition, the severity of site hazards associated with exposure to a seismic event would likely increase with development of the Parking Structure alternative because site users would be located within a multiple-story structure rather than out in the open during such an event. Similar to the proposed project, a design-level geotechnical report would be required and implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1, as may be modified to address site-specific geologic and soils issues would also be required. Less-than-significant project impacts related to fault rupture, soil erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would also occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.




h. Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the existing hydrologic conditions at the Option A and Option B sites would continue and the sites would remain entirely covered in pervious surfaces. Impacts related to development of the Option B site would not occur and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would not be required. Similar to the development proposed by the project, less than significant construction and operation-period impacts related to water quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized flooding, and storm drainage system capacity would likely occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative. Development under this alternative would comply with applicable stormwater requirements. In addition, similar to the proposed project, no impacts related to flood hazards or coastal hazards would occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the less than significant construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a result of wildland/urban fires would also result with the Parking Structure alternative, although to a somewhat lesser extent concerning wildland fires because the parking structure would be located in a developed area outside of the Preserve. Although inadequate air circulation within a closed parking garage could create hazardous fumes due to vehicle exhaust, it is assumed that the parking structure would be designed to provide adequate ventilation, consistent with applicable requirements. Similar to the proposed project, no impact would result related to aviation hazards because no existing airports are within close enough proximity to impose height restrictions on a multi-story structure within this area. j. Transportation and Circulation. Under the Parking Structure alternative, similar to the proposed project, visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase by between 33 and 38.8 percent with the provision of new on-site parking facilities, due to latent visitor demand. Similar to the proposed project, 300 parking spaces would be provided under this alternative. Under the Parking Structure alternative the less-than-significant impacts associated with the increase in vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions would be similar to the proposed project. k. Air Quality. Under the Parking Structure alternative construction activities at the existing staging area would occur and greater construction-period air quality emissions would result from project development due to the need for more construction vehicles and hours for construction of a parking garage as compared to construction of a surface parking lot. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be required to reduce impacts to an insignificant level. In addition, the number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would increase similar to the proposed project’s projected increase. The less-than-significant project impacts related to consistency with the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative. l. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Parking Structure alternative, construction activities at the existing staging area would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted. The number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would also increase similar to the proposed project. The less-than-significant project impacts related to construction- and operation-




period greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans would also occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative. m. Noise. Under the Parking Structure alternative construction activities at the project site would also occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise levels would also result within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The construction duration and type of equipment and foundations are unknown but the overall duration would be expected to be similar to or greater than the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, it is possible that pile driving would be required for the Parking Structure. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to reduce construction-period noise levels, with special provisions likely required to reduce noise associated with pile driving. In addition, noise associated with the parking structure would be concentrated within a smaller space and within closer proximity to existing sensitive receptors, compared to the proposed project. n. Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Parking Structure alternative would not include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Parking Structure alternative would not result in any significant population, housing or employment-related impacts. o. Recreation. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the same number of vehicle parking spaces would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, new amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables would be built within the Preserve. The less-than-significant impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities identified for the proposed project would also occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative. p. Public Services. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the existing staging area would be developed with a new parking structure and visitor demand would increase similar to the proposed project, thereby potentially increasing the demand for police, fire, and emergency services. As with the proposed project, no new or physically altered government facilities would be required for the Parking Structure alternative. In addition, similar to the proposed project, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the Parking Structure alternative. q. Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Parking Structure alternative and similar to the proposed project, new restrooms and other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater, and electrical systems would be located within the vicinity of the parking structure. New connections to existing utility infrastructure would be required and new infrastructure would be expanded onto the project site. Irrigation for landscaping, including the green roof and other landscaping would also be required but would not be substantially greater than the proposed project. Therefore, the increase in demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, or electricity services would be similar to the proposed project. The less-than-significant project impacts associated with the provision of water supplies and adequate water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy infrastructure and services would also result with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.




D. OFF-SITE PARKING ALTERNATIVE

The following provides a description of the Off-site Parking alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the Off-site Parking alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Off-site Parking alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. 1. Principal Characteristics

The Off-site Parking alternative would require the District to procure or lease an off-site parking area. The City of Fremont owns a small 1.7-acre parcel immediately to the west of the Preserve boundary in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. A parking area at this site would accommodate a maximum of 75 parking spaces. The site is bisected by an underground San Francisco Water District Aqueduct running in the north-south direction. Grading and construction is limited above the aqueduct to prevent damage. This alternative would provide additional parking within walking distance without affecting resources within the Preserve. However, since the property is owned by the City of Fremont, the District would need to negotiate and enter into a new agreement with the City of Fremont for its use. The Off-site Parking alternative would achieve the District’s project objectives related to the provision of additional parking to better accommodate demand for trail access, although to a far lesser extent than the proposed project. However, Objective 1, which aims to develop parking on lands leased by the District from the City, would not be achieved. Objective 6, construction of additional permanent restroom facilities, would also not be achieved. In addition, given the visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue staging area , the additional 75 parking spaces would be inadequate to serve visitor demand. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the project objectives of developing additional parking within the District's leased lands to accommodate park users, would provide only minimal help to reduce overflow parking on neighborhood streets in the surrounding area, and would not construct additional restroom facilities to accommodate visitors. 2. Analysis of the Off-site Parking Alternative

The potential impacts associated with the Off-site Parking alternative are described below. a. Land Use. The Off-Site Parking Alternative would result in the development of a new parking area near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, but outside of the Preserve boundaries. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, although connectivity to existing facilities within the Preserve (for which this alternative is intended to serve) would be reduced due to the off-site location. The Option A and B sites would remain in their current undeveloped condition. Similar to impacts associated with development of Option A and Option B, implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related to land use and policy consistency. b. Visual Resources. The Off-Site Parking alternative would develop a vacant off-site parcel of land with a new surface parking lot. New landscaping would be installed, although new trees and vegetation would be minimal to maximize the number of parking spaces on the site. It is not anticipated that the new parking lot would be highly visible from points within the Preserve because of the existing topography, landscaping including tall trees, and because the site is surrounded by




developed uses. Views of the site from Stanford Avenue and nearby residences would be similar to views experienced by residents, motorists, and pedestrians of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative would very slightly reduce the less-than-significant impacts associated with development of the proposed project. Implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative would therefore result in less-than-significant impacts related to views from scenic vistas; potential damage to scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway; degradation of the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings; and light and glare. c. Biological Resources. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, several of the biological resources related impacts that would result from development of the Option A or B sites would not occur as construction would primarily take place within a developed area, although the site is currently vacant. Specifically, it is likely that impacts to special-status wildlife and native species, such as California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer, and burrowing owls and their habitat and nursery sites would be avoided and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-6 would not be required. Impacts to special-status grassland plant species and jurisdictional waters would also not occur and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-7 would not be required. Impacts to nesting birds such as loggerhead shrikes, white tailed kites, and other native birds and protected trees could result with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative if existing trees are removed or otherwise damaged by construction activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-8 would still be required. d. Cultural Resources. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative no known historical or archaeological resources would be affected by development of a new parking area on the currently vacant site. However, site preparation activities which would include an excavation depth of approximately 6 feet below the ground surface could reveal previously unidentified resources due to the known archaeological sensitivity of the project area and vicinity. Mitigation Measure CUL-1b would be required to ensure that these impacts would be less than significant. Previously unidentified paleontological or Native American skeletal remains could be uncovered with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative and Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be required. Although impacts to cultural resources identified for the proposed project could be reduced compared to the proposed project, overall impacts to cultural resources would likely be similar and, with mitigation, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. e. Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The Off-Site Parking alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and no significant impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would result. Existing cattle infrastructure on the Option B site would not need to be relocated. Under this alternative, a vacant site would be developed with a new surface parking lot. The Off-Site Parking alternative would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources and thus have less of an impact than the proposed project’s less than significant impact on agriculture and forestry resources. f. Mineral Resources. The Off-Site Parking alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and development of a new surface parking lot within a vacant site. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site Parking alternative would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to the region or the State.




g. Geology and Soils. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the existing topography of the Option A and B sites would be retained and no ground-disturbing activities such as soil excavation or grading would result. Impacts related to existing geologic and soils conditions identified for development of the Option A and Option B sites would not occur. The Off-Site Parking alternative would result in excavation of possibly unstable site soils that are known to occur in the project area. The site topography is gently sloped and substantial grading would be required to reduce impacts associated with potential landslide activity. Similar to the proposed project, a design-level geotechnical report would be required and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, as may be modified to address site-specific geologic and soils concerns, would be required. Similar to the proposed project less-than-significant project impacts related to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. h. Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the Option A and Option B sites would be subject to existing hydrologic conditions and the sites would remain entirely covered in pervious surfaces. Impacts related to development of the Option B site would not occur and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would not be required. Similar to the development proposed by the project, less than significant construction and operation-period impacts related to water quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized flooding, and storm drainage system capacity would likely occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. Implementation of this alternative would comply with all stormwater regulatory requirements. Similar to the proposed project, no impacts related to flood hazards or coastal hazards would occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the less-than-significant project construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a result of wildland/urban fires would also result, although to a somewhat lesser extent concerning wildland fires because the parking lot would be located outside of the Preserve. Similar to the proposed project, no impact would result related to aviation hazards. j. Transportation and Circulation. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, similar to the proposed project, visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would increase due to the provision of new on-site parking facilities, although not to the same extent as the proposed project on either site option because fewer parking spaces would be provided under this alternative. Because approximately 225 fewer parking spaces would be provided, the increase in parking supplies would not adequately serve demand to the same extent that the proposed project would. Existing public roadways within the vicinity of the site would continue to be congested with pedestrian and vehicle traffic and on-street parking spaces would continue to be overcrowded with visitors to Mission Peak, to a somewhat lesser extent than existing conditions but to a greater extent compared to the proposed project. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the less-than-significant impacts associated with the increase in vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions would be similar to the proposed project. Location of a surface parking lot within this area could result in increased on- and off-site access and circulation impacts compared to the proposed project due to the existing constraints and width of Stanford Avenue. Specifically, it is likely that circulation conditions would worsen as vehicles would circulate between




the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, the new parking area, and residential streets in search of parking. It would not be possible to establish a vehicular connection between the two parking areas and it is anticipated that vehicles would continually enter and exit Stanford Avenue from these various locations. A pedestrian walkway would need to be developed to provide visitor access from the Off-Site Parking area and the trailheads within the existing staging area, which may create more pedestrian congestion on Stanford Avenue than would the proposed project. k. Air Quality. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative construction activities at the off-site vacant parcel would occur and similar construction-period air quality emissions would result from project development although to a lesser extent due to the smaller development footprint; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would also be required. In addition, the number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would initially increase similar to the proposed project’s projected increase but then would likely decrease compared to the proposed project because this alternative provides less parking. The less-than-significant project impacts related to consistency with the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. l. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative construction activities at the off-site vacant parcel would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted. The number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would also initially increase similar to the proposed project but then would likely decrease compared to the proposed project because this alternative provides less parking. The less-than-significant project impacts related to construction- and operation-period greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans would also occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. m. Noise. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative construction activities at the off-site parcel would occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise levels would also result within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to reduce construction-period noise levels. In addition, noise associated with the new parking lot would be concentrated in a new location within close proximity to existing sensitive receptors with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. Less than significant project impacts related to project operations and the resulting increase in exposure to noise generating activities and increases in ambient noise levels would therefore also occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. Similar to the proposed project, no impacts related to groundborne vibration or noise would result. Existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods that is generated by visitors to the Preserve would continue an issue with this alternative as visitors would continue to park on public residential streets to a greater degree than with the proposed project Existing noise issues would be lessened with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative but not to the same extent that the proposed project would. n. Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site Parking alternative would not include development of or displacement of housing. Under this alternative a new parking area would be developed on an existing vacant parcel. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site Parking alternative would not result in any significant population, housing or employment-related impacts.




o. Recreation. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, approximately 225 fewer parking spaces would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the proposed project. Therefore, compared to existing conditions and the proposed project, the Off-Site Parking alternative would not provide an adequate level of parking when compared to the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, new amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables would not be constructed due to the need to maximize parking at this location and because the site is not within the Preserve boundaries. The less-than-significant impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities identified for the proposed project would also occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative although improvements that would occur with the proposed project would not be implemented under this alternative. p. Public Services. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, a vacant parcel of land would be developed with a new surface parking lot and visitor demand would increase similar to the proposed project, thereby increasing the demand for police, fire, and emergency services. As with the proposed project, no new or physically altered government facilities would be required. In addition, similar to the proposed project, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the Off-Site Parking alternative. q. Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative and unlike the proposed project, no new restrooms or other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater, or electrical systems would be located on or within the vicinity of the off-site parcel. New connections to existing utility infrastructure would not be required and new infrastructure would be expanded into the Preserve. Therefore, there would be no increase in demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, or electricity services and no impacts would result related to the provision of these services. E. MAXIMUM PARKING ALTERNATIVE

The following provides a description of the Maximum Parking alternative, which would consist of construction of both the Option A and Option B staging areas, and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the Maximum Parking alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project, which consists of development of a staging area at either Option A or Option B. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Maximum Parking alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. 1. Principal Characteristics

The Maximum Parking alternative would result in construction of both project Option A and project Option B within the Preserve near the Stanford Avenue trailhead for a total maximum of 600 new parking spaces. These new parking spaces are assumed to be in addition to the existing 43 spaces at the Stanford Staging Area, for a total of 643 spaces with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. The areas of temporary and permanent disturbance would be the same as those identified for development of the Option A and B sites throughout this EIR. The Maximum Parking alternative would result in temporary disturbance of approximately 25 acres within the Preserve of which, there would be a total area of approximately 20 acres of permanent disturbance. The total area of new impervious surfaces would be 5.88 acres at both the Option A and Option B sites.




The Maximum Parking alternative would include new picnic tables, kiosk, drinking fountains, and restrooms at both project Option A and project Option B sites. A new vehicular access roadway and trail connections within the boundary of Mission Peak would be required to provide access to the new staging areas. New stormwater controls, including detention ponds, landscaping, and utilities infrastructure would be required and would be the same as the improvements proposed as part of the project’s development of the Option A and Option B sites. Repair of the existing culvert within a segment of the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek associated with Option A and the culvert removal and restoration to a natural condition associated with Option B would occur with the Maximum Parking alternative. The vehicular bridge to access the Option B site and the trail bridge to access the Hidden Valley Trail from the Option B site would be required with the Maximum Parking alternative. The Maximum Parking alternative does not necessarily assume that both Option A and Option B would be developed simultaneously. One of the sites could be developed initially and the remaining site could be developed at a later date, should the need exist based on parking demand and availability of funding. Regardless of timing, it is assumed that all elements associated with both the Option A and Option B sites described in Chapter III, Project Description would be included in the Maximum Parking alternative; all the potential environmental impacts associated with development of Option A and Option B would result, and implementation of all the mitigation measures identified to ensure a less-than-significant impact would be required. The Maximum Parking alternative would achieve almost all of the project objectives, but would cost significantly more than constructing just one of the two proposed options and therefore would not meet Objective 2 which aims to minimize costs while achieving the project purpose. This alternative would likely provide ample parking to meet visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak, even when considering the latent demand survey results associated with the provision of additional parking spaces. The Maximum Parking alternative would help reduce overflow parking on neighborhood streets to a greater extent than the proposed project. As described below, this alternative would result in twice the amount of construction compared to the proposed project and would thus result in greater impacts on the environment than construction of either option alone. As with the proposed project, these impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 2. Analysis of the Maximum Parking Alternative

The potential impacts associated with the Maximum Parking alternative compared to the impacts associated with development of the Option A or Option B sites are described below. a. Land Use. The Maximum Parking alternative would develop both the Option A site and the Option B site. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Expanded facilities, including a larger staging area with vehicle parking spaces and other amenities intended to serve the existing recreational use of Mission Peak would be introduced at both project sites. The cattle corral at the Option B site would be relocated. Similar to impacts associated with development of Option A and Option B, implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative would not result in significant land use impacts or impacts related to policy consistency. b. Visual Resources. The Maximum Parking alternative would develop both the Option A site and the Option B site with new staging areas and associated infrastructure and landscaping. The new staging areas would be more visible from existing trails and other scenic vistas available from within




the Preserve with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative as compared to development of solely Option A or Option B. However, similar to the proposed project, because of the location of the staging areas adjacent to urban development and the focus of park users on distant views, the Maximum Parking alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related to views from scenic vistas. As with the proposed project, the Maximum Parking alternative would not damage scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway; and not result in significant impacts related to degradation of the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings; and light and glare. c. Biological Resources. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, both the Option A site and the Option B site would be developed with new staging areas and associated infrastructure and landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian bridges, and storm drainage controls. Greater impacts to biological resources would occur with the development of the Option A and Option B sites than with development of just one of the options. Specifically, impacts to special-status wildlife and native species such as California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer, burrowing owls, nesting birds and their habitat and nursery sites would result from implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4 and BIO-6 would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts to special-status grassland plant species would also occur, and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 could reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impact to jurisdictional waters and trees would also result because, similar to the proposed project, work would also occur within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, and trees could be removed or otherwise damaged by construction activities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8 would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Although there would be more and a greater extent of impacts to biological resources with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative, all impacts could be reduced to a less-than-significant level. In addition, similar to the proposed project, the Maximum Parking alternative would not conflict with an adopted conservation or natural community plan or result in adverse effected to sensitive natural communities. d. Cultural Resources. Development of both Option A and Option B would result in greater disturbance of existing historical and archaeological resources known to be located within the Option A and Option B sites than would development of only Option A or only Option B. However Mitigation Measure CUL-1a would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Construction activities associated with this alternative could uncover previously unidentified archaeological, paleontological or Native American skeletal remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1b, CUL-2 and CUL-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources could be reduced to a level of less-than-significant with implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the development of the Option A and Option B sites. e. Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The Maximum Parking alternative would result in the development of both the Option A site and Option B site into new staging areas. Existing cattle grazing areas would be reduced and the cattle corral on the Option B site would be relocated. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related agricultural resources.




f. Mineral Resources. Similar to implementing the proposed project’s Option A and Option B development, the Maximum Parking alternative would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to the region or the State. g. Geology and Soils. As both the Option A and Option B sites would be developed under the Maximum Parking alternative, there would be a larger development footprint and the area affected by potential slope instability would be greater. Specifically, development within proximity to existing landslide areas and on expansive soils would be increased with this alternative. Significant impacts to the proposed parking areas and other facilities associated with unstable soils and slope instability and expansive soils that could occur during project operation could also result with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. However implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Less-than-significant project impacts related to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would also occur with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. h. Hydrology and Water Quality. The Maximum Parking alternative would develop both the Option A and Option B sites resulting in a larger area with impervious surfaces than the proposed project. Less-than-significant construction and operation-period impacts related to water quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized flooding, and storm drainage system capacity could occur with implementation of this alternative. The less-than-significant impacts related to culvert repair that could cause erosion and siltation or localized flooding at the Option A site would occur with the Maximum Parking Alternative. Impacts related to erosion and siltation and localized flooding identified for Option B as a result of culvert removal and restoration of the area to a natural condition within Agua Caliente Creek would occur, and implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Potential impacts related to the alteration of a course of an existing water body that would result with development of the Maximum Parking Alternative would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Additionally, the beneficial impact of repairing existing culverts associated with development of the Option A or B sites would occur with implementation the Maximum Parking Alternative. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. With implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative, the less-than-significant construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a result of wildland/urban fires could result to a somewhat greater extent due to the larger project footprint and larger construction area. Similar to the proposed project, no mitigation measures would be necessary. j. Transportation and Circulation. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak are assumed to increase due to the provision and attraction of new on-site parking facilities. With a maximum of 600 new parking spaces, it is anticipated that the increase in parking supplies would serve park visitor demand to a greater extent than would the proposed project. Existing public roadways within the vicinity of the site would be congested with pedestrian and vehicle traffic to a lesser degree than the proposed project and overflow parking on the public neighborhood streets would be minimized to a greater extent than the proposed project. Under the Maximum Parking alternative the impacts associated with the increase in vehicle trips to the




Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions would be greater than the proposed project, and the increase in visitors would likely be more in comparison to that anticipated with the proposed project as park visitors find the Maximum Parking alternative provides sufficient parking. k. Air Quality. Under the Maximum Parking alternative construction activities at the project sites would occur and similar construction-period air quality emission would result from the project development although to a slightly higher extent due to the larger development footprint; therefore implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The less-than-significant impacts related to consistency with the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air emission associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also occur with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. The number of visitors also could increase due to parking availability, and the increase in vehicle emissions would likely be greater than those generated by the proposed project, however this increase would not cause a significant impact. l. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Maximum Parking alternative construction activities at the project sites would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted at a greater extent than the proposed project due to the development of both project options and the larger development footprint. The number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would also increase at a higher level than the proposed project due to a greater number of parking spaces available. The less-than-significant project impacts related to construction- and operation-period greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans would also result with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. m. Noise. Under the Maximum Parking alternative construction activities at both the Option A and Option B sites would occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise level would also result within the vicinity of the Option A and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. In addition, as with the proposed project, noise associated with the new parking lots would be located near sensitive receptors (i.e., residences that border the existing Preserve boundaries and that are in close proximity to the Option A and Option B sites), however this impact would be less than significant due to noise attenuation. Similar to the proposed project, no significant impacts related to groundborne vibration or noise would result. However, existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods generated by visitors to the Preserve would be reduced through the provision of additional parking within the boundaries of the Preserve. The Maximum Parking alternative would lessen the existing noise conditions on the public residential streets to a greater extent than would occur with the proposed project. n. Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Maximum Parking alternative would not include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Maximum Parking alternative would not result in significant population, housing or employment-related impacts.




o. Recreation. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, a total maximum of 600 additional parking spaces would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the 300 maximum spaces at either Site A or Site B. The Maximum Parking alternative would provide additional parking in addition to visitor amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables. The less-than-significant impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities identified for the proposed project would also occur with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. p. Public Services. Similar to development of either Site A or Site B, under the Maximum Parking alternative, there would be no impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the Maximum Parking alternative. q. Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, both project Option A site and Option B site would be developed with new staging areas that would include new restrooms and other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater, and electrical systems within the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New connections to existing utility infrastructure would be required and new infrastructure would be expanded onto the project site. Although the increase in demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, and electricity services would be slightly greater than that of development of either Site A or Site B, the increase in demand for these utilities would be minimal and would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, the less-than-significant project impacts associated with the provision of water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy infrastructure and services would also result with implementation of the Maximum Parking Alternative. F. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER

EVALUATION IN THIS EIR

During the Notice of Preparation comment period, the District received numerous suggestions for the identification and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project, both in writing and verbally at the scoping hearing (see Appendix A of this EIR). The following provides a description of various potential alternatives that were identified and considered, and the reasons why they were ultimately not selected for further evaluation in this EIR.

Increased Public Education and Outreach. This alternative would continue and expand the District's public education and outreach efforts to provide information to the public in an attempt to influence parking behaviors, among other pertinent topics. Some visitors that park in surrounding neighborhoods block driveways of residents, walk in the middle of the street, are loud, and leave trash on the street and sidewalks. Parking at Ohlone College is available to the public but current use of this off-site parking area has not alleviated overflow parking and associated issues in the surrounding neighborhood. The new Ohlone College parking structure would provide additional public parking, and its use could decrease overflow parking. With this alternative, the District would continue to provide information regarding etiquette when parking in surrounding neighborhoods and regarding the availability of parking at Ohlone College.




The District already implements public education and outreach efforts associated with Mission Peak, including the Mission Peak webpage,5 and use of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to promote parking at Ohlone College. The new parking garage at Ohlone College provides approximately 900 spaces available for public use approximately 3 miles to the west of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Visitors that park at Ohlone College can easily access existing trails within Mission Peak from this location.

This alternative would expand on the District's current efforts by: (1) hosting additional information events at Mission Peak to disseminate information about etiquette when parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, availability of parking at Ohlone College, observance of park rules, safe hiking including hiking with dog, bringing sufficient amounts of water, and wearing appropriate shoes, as well as promoting hikes at other parks; (2) developing and installing additional targeted informational signage to reinforce respect for the neighbors when parking on residential streets, parking at Ohlone College, safety, and observance of park rules; and (3) increasing the number of Volunteer Trail Safety Patrol members, Park Ambassadors, and other volunteer groups to bolster the District's public education and outreach efforts.

The District's existing efforts of public education and outreach have been successful in that the number of park users using off-site parking at Ohlone College has increased in the past year. Use of Ohlone College for parking has not increased enough to reduce overflow parking on the public neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, as evidenced by the ongoing overflow parking condition and supported by the results of the Latent Visitor Demand Study indicating that 37 percent of park users park their vehicles in the neighborhood.6 The availability and promotion of parking at Ohlone College does not guarantee that park users will use it, as evidenced by the fact that only 24 percent of existing park users currently use off-site parking at Ohlone College.7 Also, during the week and on Saturdays the College charges a parking fee, whereas parking in the surrounding neighborhoods is free. This fee would likely deter many from using the Ohlone College parking, as would the distance to the trailhead from the parking structure.

Therefore, continuing and increasing public education efforts, while helpful in many respects, would not provide additional parking for park users or address the impacts of overflow parking on the nearby public neighborhood streets. This alternative would not meet the project objectives as it would not develop additional parking within the District's leased lands to accommodate park users, would not adequately help reduce the occurrence of overflow parking on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area; and would not construct additional restroom facilities to accommodate visitors. Therefore, while the District may continue public outreach, signage, and education efforts, this alternative would not meet the project purpose or objectives and was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

5 East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Website: www.ebparks.org/parks/mission

(accessed August 5, 2015). 6 BAE Urban Economics, 2015, op. cit. 7 Ibid.




Parking Fees at Existing Staging Area. Under this alternative the District would charge visitors to park at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, with the intention that more users would be incentivized to use the Ohlone College parking area and nearby trailheads. Given that the District has 43 spaces in its existing parking lot at the Stanford Avenue entrance, and there is free on-street parking in the adjacent neighborhood, this alternative would most likely result in more park visitors parking in the adjacent neighborhood to avoid the new fee. A substantial number of park users already park in the adjacent neighborhood (approximately 37 percent in 2014, according to the Latent Demand Study) and walk relatively far distances to use the Stanford Avenue entrance. A parking fee at the Stanford Avenue Staging area is unlikely to result in park visitors using the Ohlone College parking since a parking fee is charged there as well (except on Sunday) and visitors would either have to access Mission Peak from the Peak Trail trailhead or walk approximately 3 miles to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The parking fee alternative would not meet the project objectives of developing additional parking within the District's leased lands to serve the existing park users, would not reduce overflow parking on neighborhood streets in the surrounding area, and would not construct additional restroom facilities to accommodate visitors. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this operational measure separately from the proposed project, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

Parking Fees at New Staging Area. Under this alternative the District would construct the new staging area and charge visitors to park in the new parking lot. A survey prepared for the District found that charging visitors a $5 fee to park in a new 300 space parking area would result in a 13 percent decrease in visitation compared to existing conditions.8 The addition of 300 new parking spaces, combined with a 13 percent reduction in visitor demand, would eliminate overflow parking on weekdays and would substantially reduce overflow parking during Saturday peak hours, resulting in only 61 cars parked in the neighborhoods, compared to 421 cars on Saturday mornings under existing conditions. However, it is expected that this reduction of overflow parking would not occur if free, unrestricted parking continues to be available in the surrounding neighborhoods. As discussed above, it is the District’s experience that visitors will park and walk a greater distance to avoid parking fees.

Because this suggested alternative would be the same as the proposed project except for the additional operational and management measure of charging fees, this is not an alternative to the proposed project. This alternative also would not reduce any potentially significant impacts of the project. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this operational measure separately from the proposed project, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

Trail Use Fees. This alternative would require the District to charge a fee to visitors to use the trails leading from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This would be expected to reduce the number of visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and the associated parking demand in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Implemen-tation of this alternative would require installation of a kiosk staffed with District personnel

8 Ibid.




to collect the fee, along with extension of utilities to the kiosk for staff use. This alternative would also require installation of extensive fencing and an entrance gate to prevent visitors from accessing trails without paying the fee. This Trail Use Fee alternative would require a substantial increase in ongoing District operational resources to manage and enforce the fee program.

Charging fees for visitors to hike, bicycle, or ride horses in the park from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be expected to result in a reduction in visitor demand at this access point. A survey prepared for the District found that charging a trail use fee of $5 to hike in the park would result in a 44 percent reduction in park visitor demand.9 Assuming no new staging area, and assuming continued availability of unrestricted residential parking in the neighborhoods, this projected 44 percent reduction in demand would reduce but not eliminate overflow parking in the neighborhoods during peak visitation hours. Thus the implementation of user fees without the provision of additional onsite parking or other measures would be expected to meet one of the project objectives by helping to reduce overflow parking in the neighborhoods.

However, the Trail Use Fee alternative does not meet any of the other project objectives, and does not meet the fundamental purpose of the project, which is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand for access to trails from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This project purpose is consistent with the District’s “essential role” of providing parks, trails, and open space for public use. It is not part of the District's mission to deny or substantially limit access to its parks or public resources. The District must balance public access with the preservation of natural resources in parks, particularly those located within designated regional preserves. Mission Peak and the challenging trails and spectacular views from within the Preserve are a regional destination, and according to District operational staff, Mission Peak has additional capacity for additional users without damage to resources within the Preserve. Therefore the purpose of the project is to provide a more appropriate level of parking and facilities to serve visitors, not to keep visitors from coming to the park.

While the District may wish to consider this operational demand management measure separately from the project, either as an interim or additional measure, because this alternative did not meet the fundamental purpose of the project or the basic project objectives, it was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

Enhance Public Transit with District Shuttle Service. This alternative would encourage increased use of existing public transit options and would provide a District shuttle service from Ohlone College to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Public transportation to Mission Peak is provided by AC Transit routes 217 and 218 that run between the Fremont BART station and Ohlone College. This service is provided seven days a week. AC Transit route 217 also runs to Mission Boulevard and Stanford Avenue, roughly a half-mile walk from the park entrance. Additionally, AC Transit route #210 runs between Union Landing Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road in Union City and Ohlone College on a daily basis. Information regarding public transit is posted on the District's Mission Peak webpage with links to www.transit.511.org and to the Transit and Trails link that provides transit, biking,

9 Ibid.




and walking directions to a variety of parks, including Mission Peak. Public Transit information is also printed on the map page of the Mission Peak brochure.

There are four existing park-and-ride lots in Fremont:

○ Mission Boulevard at Callery Court, provides 22 spaces. It is approximately 2.3 miles to Ohlone College and approximately 4.2 miles to the Stanford Avenue staging area.

○ Highway I-680 at State Route 238, provides 133 spaces. It is approximately 1.4 miles to Ohlone College and approximately 3.3 miles to the Stanford Avenue staging area.

○ Ardenwood Boulevard at State Route 84, provides 400 spaces and is approximately 10.9 miles to Ohlone College and approximately 11.3 miles to the Stanford Avenue staging area.

○ Fremont BART station on Fremont Boulevard, 7 miles to Ohlone College and 7.25 miles to the Stanford Avenue staging area.

Because the District does not own land at Ohlone College or have a provision in its lease relating to shuttle service, in order to implement a shuttle to serve Mission Peak visitors, the District would need to negotiate an agreement with Ohlone College to run a shuttle from the Ohlone College parking lots, or identify another off-site area for parking. The District would also need to purchase shuttle vans and hire additional staff to operate them, or enter into an agreement with a shuttle concessionaire. Fees could potentially be charged for the shuttle service to help offset program costs. However, charging fees would likely reduce ridership demand, particularly when combined with other existing fees for transit or parking at off-site lots such as Ohlone College.

In theory, use of public transit combined with a shuttle service from Ohlone College would remove both vehicle trips and parked vehicles from the adjacent neighborhood. In practice, shuttle services are most effective when there is no available nearby parking, or no nearby free parking. For most users, the time it takes to wait for the shuttle and ride the shuttle to the Stanford Avenue trailhead would exceed the time it takes to park in the neighborhood for free and walk to the trailhead. Thus, even with a shuttle service, overflow parking on the public streets would likely continue with this alternative, as evidenced by the ongoing overflow parking on the public neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and supported by the Latent Demand Survey that indicated that only 24 percent of existing park users currently use off-site parking at Ohlone College.10 This alternative would likely be more expensive over time and less effective than providing additional parking spaces onsite, and therefore would not meet the project objective of minimizing costs to the extent feasible while achieving the project objectives. The operation of shuttle buses through the neighborhoods between Ohlone College and the Stanford Avenue Staging Area could also introduce additional traffic, air quality, and noise impacts not associated with the proposed project. This alternative would not meet the primary purpose of the project to provide additional parking and restrooms within the District's leased lands to better accommodate visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this

10 Ibid.




operational measure separately from the proposed project, either as an interim or additional measure, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

Establishment of Residential Permit Parking. For this alternative, the City of Fremont would institute and implement a residential parking permit program in the neighborhoods affected by overflow parking to restrict public parking during certain designated hours. Requiring permits to park on residential streets would directly control overflow parking in the neighborhoods. Some find residential parking permit programs inconvenient for existing residents because they hinder guest parking on the street, although guest permits are typically provided for residents. Also permit parking programs can have the effect of moving the overflow parking onto other nearby streets where there are no parking restrictions.

For purposes of this EIR, this alternative is infeasible because it cannot be implemented by the District. The City of Fremont has regulatory authority over public City streets, and thus establishment of residential parking permits on public streets is not within the District's authority. At the time of preparation of this EIR, the District is discussing with the City of Fremont a possible residential parking permit program. However, no such program has been proposed or implemented. Even if implemented, this alternative would not achieve the project objectives as it would not develop additional parking or restrooms within the District's leased lands to accommodate visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. However, if implemented in conjunction with the proposed project, a residential permit parking program may help address most of the existing issues in the neighborhood associated with overflow parking.

While the District will continue discussions with the City of Fremont to evaluate this operational measure, this alternative does not meet the fundamental purpose of the project or most of the basic project objectives and is not feasible for purposes of this EIR because it is outside of the District’s regulatory authority. Therefore it was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

Expansion/Enhancement of the Peak Trail Trailhead at Ohlone College. This alternative would improve the Peak Trail trailhead with the intention of making it more attractive to park visitors, which could result in increasing use of the parking at Ohlone College and reducing parking demand at the Stanford Avenue staging area. According to District staff, hikers using the Peak Trail do not have the same user experience as when they use the Hidden Valley Trail, the most popular trail accessed from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, because they are different hikes. The Hidden Valley Trail has unique qualities – including width to accommodate social interaction, steepness etc. – that make them better for fitness and training, and views. Even with changes to the Peak Trail trailhead, the District could not duplicate the combination of trail width, level of difficulty, and views provided by the Hidden Valley Trail. Thus, the District could expend significant resources on both the trail and the Peak Trail trailhead, and users would likely still prefer the Hidden Valley Trail.

In addition, the District does not own the land at the Peak Trail trailhead, and would need to negotiate lease terms with Ohlone College before it could implement this alternative. This alternative would not meet the project objectives as it would not develop additional parking and restrooms within the District's lands leased from the City to accommodate visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. While the District could




consider whether to pursue these trailhead improvements separately from the project, this alternative does not meet the fundamental project purpose and therefore was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

Temporary or Permanent Closures of Stanford Avenue Entrance. This alternative would close the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak during certain hours, on weekends, and/or holidays, for restoration activities, or to close the Stanford Avenue park entrance permanently. This alternative would require blocking the pedestrian access from the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and/or closing the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to vehicles during the designated periods. Permanent closure would require that the Stanford Avenue Staging Area be demolished and that the entrance to Mission Peak would be gated.

This alternative would not meet the fundamental purpose of the project of developing additional parking within the District's leased lands to accommodate park visitors and would not achieve any of the other project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

Limitations on Number of People Accessing the Stanford Avenue Entrance. This alternative would limit access at the Stanford Avenue entrance based on the limited parking capacity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Implementation of this alternative could include installation of a kiosk staffed with District personnel, signs or real time updates to the District's website to direct visitors to the Ohlone College parking area when it is determined that the Stanford Avenue Staging Area is full, installation of vehicle detection devices to discourage drivers from accessing the site when full, and use of electronic or turnstile gates to prevent visitor access. This alternative would require a capital investment and a substantial increase in operational and management costs.

The District must balance public access with the preservation of natural resources in parks within its jurisdiction, particularly those located within designated regional preserves. Mission Peak and the challenging trails and spectacular views from within the park are a regional destination, and according to District operational staff, Mission Peak has capacity for additional visitors without any increased damage to resources within the Preserve. It is not part of the District's mission to deny or substantially limit access to its parks or public resources. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this operational measure separately from the proposed project, either as an interim or additional measure, because this alternative would not meet the project objectives of developing additional parking or restrooms within the District's leased lands to accommodate visitor demand for access to trails from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, or minimizing costs while meeting project objectives, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

In summary, most of the above alternatives address the management and operation of Mission Peak, including parking, and many are aimed at reducing visitor demand at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Therefore as discussed above these alternatives would not meet the project's primary purpose of providing additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand for access to trails from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. As discussed above, many these operational measures would also not meet most of the basic project objectives, including development of parking and restrooms within the District’s leased lands, serving park visitors who want access to the most popular trails, or




minimizing costs while achieving the project objectives. Most of the operational measures would also not reduce neighborhood overflow parking to any greater extent than the proposed project. While the District could consider any of these operational measures separately from the project as part of its ongoing management of the park, these measures do not provide feasible alternatives to the project because they do not meet the project’s primary purpose of providing additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand at this popular park. Therefore, the above alternatives have been considered but ultimately were not selected for further analysis as alternatives to the project. G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative in an EIR from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. For this project, the No Project alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as environmental impacts associated with the project would be reduced or avoided under this alternative. However, this alternative does not meet the objectives of the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Among the remaining alternatives, all would reduce some impacts and increase others compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Size alternative would likely be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, while it would reduce impacts to cultural resources and biological resources compared to the proposed project, it would result in continuing existing noise, trash and other overflow parking issues to a greater extent than the proposed project, and would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.





P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\7-CEQA.docx (10/14/15) 459

VII. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),1 this chapter discusses the follow-ing types of impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging Area Parking Expansion Project at either of the potential site options: growth-inducing impacts; significant unavoidable environmental impacts; and significant irreversible changes. A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

This section summarizes the project’s potential growth-inducing impacts on the surrounding commu-nity. A project is typically considered growth-inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing; if it would remove obstacles to population growth or tax community services to the extent that the construction of new facilities would be necessary; or if it would encourage or facilitate other activities that cause significant environmental effects.2 Examples of projects likely to have significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped. The proposed project would result in the development of a new staging area with 300 parking spaces, restrooms, and picnic facilities within an existing open space area and associated roadways, trail connections, bridges, and water and sewer line connections to serve this use. The proposed staging area is intended to support the existing use of Mission Peak as a recreational facility and serve visitor demand for parking facilities within the vicinity of Stanford Avenue. Development of the proposed staging area at the Option A or Option B site would not directly result in population growth within the City of Fremont as it does not propose new housing. In addition, the new parking facilities would be maintained by existing District staff and would not generate job growth such that indirect population growth could occur. The proposed project would provide additional parking within an existing District facility and would not directly nor indirectly lead to substantial or unforeseen economic or population growth. In addition, the proposed project would result in the extension of utilities for restrooms and irrigation of landscaping at either the Option A or Option B site; however, these extensions would be connected to existing infrastructure within the immediate vicinity and would only serve the existing and proposed staging areas. The project sites are located within and at the border of an existing open space area and are surrounded by either open space that is part of a regional preserve, or existing residential subdivisions. No vacant land suitable for development is located within the immediate vicinity of the sites. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly lead to the development of greenfield sites and no additional growth would occur as a result of project implementation.

1 CEQA Guidelines, 2015. §15126.2. 2 CEQA Guidelines, 2015. §15126.2(d).


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RV I I . O T H E R C E Q A C O N S I D E R A T I O N S


B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As discussed in Chapter V of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. C. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES

An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from implementation of a proposed project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. CEQA dictates that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.3 The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of signifi-cant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use that would commit future generations; 2) irreversible changes from environmental accidents; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources. 1. Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations

Both project site options are located within an existing open space preserve and are surrounded by existing open space generally to the north and east and existing residential subdivisions to the west and south. The project is intended to support demand for parking by visitors to this recreational area. Because the proposed project would not result in the development of a new land use which could not later be redeveloped with a different use (or converted back to open space), it would not commit future generations to a significant change in land use. 2. Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents

No significant environmental damage, such as accidental spills or explosion of a hazardous material, is anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in Section V.I, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of this EIR, compliance with federal, State and local regulations would ensure that the use of hazardous substances within the project site would not cause significant environmental damage. As such, no irreversible changes – such as those that might result from construction of a large-scale mining project, a hydroelectric dam project, or other industrial project – would result from development of the proposed project at either the Option A or Option B site. 3. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources

Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. As previously described throughout this EIR, the project site is located within an existing open space area and the proposed development of a staging area at either the Option A or Option B site is intended to support this existing recreational use. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of energy, including energy produced from non-renewable resources. Energy consumption would occur during the operational period of the proposed project due to the use of automobiles and water pumping facilities. However, energy consumption would be minimal.

3 CEQA Guidelines, 2015. §15126.2(c).




As discussed in the Section V.L, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with construction- and operational-related greenhouse gas emissions, and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project would not require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy as electric service is already provided in the area. As discussed in Sections V.E, Agricultural Resources and V.F, Mineral Resources, respectively, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of agricultural uses to another use or loss of access to existing mining resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact associated with the consumption of nonrenewable resources.





P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\8-ReportPreparers.docx (10/14/15) 463

VIII. REPORT PREPARATION

A. REPORT PREPARERS

LSA Associates, Inc.: Project Management and Report Production; Land Use; Visual Resources; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Agricultural and Forestry Resources; Mineral Resources; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Noise; Population and Housing; Recreation; Public Services; Utilities and Infrastructure, and Alternatives

2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710

Judith H. Malamut, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Theresa Wallace, Associate/Project Manager Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Specialist Corissa Bellis, Air Quality/Noise Specialist Emily Gerger, Assistant Planner Patty Linder, Graphics Manager Charis Hanshaw, Word Processor

157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801

Tim Lacy, Principal, Wildlife Biologist Dan Sidle, Senior Biologist Tim Milliken, Botanist Neal Kaptain, Associate/Cultural Resources Manager E. Timothy Jones, Senior Cultural Resources Manager Gregory Gallaugher, GIS Specialist

Baseline Environmental Consulting: Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; and Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608

Bruce Abelli-Amen, Principal, Senior Hydrogeologist Patrick Sutton, Environmental Engineer

Hexagon Transportation Consultants: Transportation and Circulation

7901 Stoneridge Drive Suite 202 Pleasanton, CA 94588

Brett Walinski, T.E., Vice President and Principal Associate Steven Hough, T.E., Principal Associate


S T A N F O R D A V E N U E S T A G I N G A R E A E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T E I RV I I I . R E P O R T P R E P A R A T I O N


BAE Urban Economics: Latent Demand Analysis 1285 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608

Janet Smith-Heimer, President Jessica Hitchcock, MCP, Senior Associate

Andrew McNichol: Visual Simulations

1760 Harbour Dr. Coquitlam BC V3J-5W3 Canada

B. REFERENCES

AB 2588, Connelly, 1987. Chaptered in the California Health and Safety Code Section 44300, et al.

Alameda County Clean Water Program, 2007. Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map. Available online at: www.cleanwaterprogram.org/uploads/I-ACCWP_C3TechGuide_HM-entire_appendix.pdf (accessed July 2, 2015).

Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2015. General Plans, Ordinances & Policies; California Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Website: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/airportlandplans.htm. (accessed July 23).

Alameda County Water District, 2015. Water Resources Department, Groundwater Resources Division. Groundwater Monitoring Report 2014. January 31.

Alameda County Water District, 2015. Website: www.acwd.org/ (accessed July 31, 2015).

Alameda County Water District. Urban Water Management Plan 2010 – 2015. Website: www.acwd.org/index.aspx?NID=365 (accessed July 27, 2015).

Ambro, Richard D., 1991. Inventory of Potential Cultural Resources within the Proposed Stanford Avenue Golf Course Area, Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont, Alameda County, California. Holman and Associates, San Francisco, California.

American Ornithologists’ Union, 1998. Checklist of North American Birds and supplements. Seventh Edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2001. The REAL Dirt on Liquefaction, A Guide to the Liquefaction Hazard in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Area. February.

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Interactive Liquefaction Susceptibility Mapping, Website: gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility (accessed July 7, 2015).

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake Hazard Program, Interactive Mapping. Website: gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards (accessed July 9, 2015).

BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study. June 29.

Baker, R.J., et al., 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229.




Baldwin, B.G., et al. eds., 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Banks, Peter, 1985. Archaeological Site Record for CA-ALA-431. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Banks, Peter, 1985. A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont, Alameda County, California. California Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Oakland.

Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-Step Guide on how to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1982. Rules and Regulations, Regulation 7: Odorous Substances. Amended March 17.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2007. Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual Report 2003 Volume 1. August.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2013. Plans & Climate. Website: baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-Guidelines.aspx (accessed March 26, 2015) December 6.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. January.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Updated CEQA Guidelines. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. March.

Bell, Christopher J., et al., 2004. The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages. In Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America, edited by M.O. Woodburne, 232-314. Columbia University Press, New York.

Bobzien, S. and J.E. DiDonato, 2007. The Status of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii), Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii), and other Aquatic Herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District, California. East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, CA.

Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.

California Air Resources Board, 1997. Technical Support Document, Proposed Identification of Inorganic Lead as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part A – Exposure Assessment. March.

California Air Resources Board, 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.




California Air Resources Board, 2011. Fact Sheets. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/htm/fslist.htm#Health.pdf. October.

California Air Resources Board, 2013. Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 2020 Emissions Forecast. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).

California Air Resources Board, 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2012: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. May 13. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).

California Air Resources Board, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data for 2000–2012. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).

California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Social Security, Section 66260.10 et seq.

California Department of Fish and Game, 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2010. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Available online at: www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf (accessed July 2015). September.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial version dated May 31, 2015. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento.

California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2015. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), Facility/Site Search. Website: calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0009/Detail/ (accessed June 23, 2015).

California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 16, 2015). September 7.

California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.

California Geological Survey, 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.

California Geographic Survey, 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.

California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501.

California Native Plant Society, 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-10b). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Website: www.cnps.org/inventory (accessed July 15, 2015).




California Office of Historic Preservation 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California.

California Office of Historic Preservation, 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

California Office of Historic Preservation, 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

California Office of Historic Preservation, n.d. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

California Office of Historic Preservation, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. April 5.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Available online at: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/basin_plan07.pdf (accessed July 2015).

California, State of, 2006. Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources. July.

California, State of, 2008. California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program. The Future is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. September.

California, State of, 2008. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Alameda County. September 3.

California, State of, 2009. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Climate Change. Website: www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/climate_change.shtml (accessed July 2015).

California, State of, 2013. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Alameda County Williamson Act Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Map. April.

California, State of, 2014. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Alameda County Important Farmland 2012 Map. April.

CEQA Guidelines, 2015. §15126.2(c)(d); 21068.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Section 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response.

Crother, B.I., ed., 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) Herpetological Circular 39 and supplements.

Delfino, RJ., 2002. Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages Between Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health Perspectives.




DeSante, D. F., et al., 2007. A census of Burrowing Owls in central California in 1991. Pages 38–48. J. L. Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. In The Burrowing Owl, Its Biology and Management: Including the Proceedings of the First International Symposium. Raptor Research Report No. 9.

Dibblee, Jr., and W. Thomas, 2005. Geologic Map of the Niles Quadrangle. Electronic document: ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34356 (accessed July 19, 2013).

Dibblee, T.W., 1980. Preliminary geologic map of the Niles quadrangle, Alameda County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-80-533-C, scale 1:24,000.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2007. Park Visitor and Vehicle Count, Mission Peak Stanford Staging Area. August 11.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Cultural Resource Site Atlas. East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Mission Peak Parking Use Survey, February-July.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Master Plan 2013. July 16.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Municipal Service Review. Prepared for the Local Agency Formation Commission of Alameda County. January 8.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Unpublished map of California tiger salamander occurrences on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. April 9.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Unpublished map of known, potential, and unlikely California red-legged frog habitat on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. April 9.

East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Fire Department Operations. Website: www.ebparks.org/about/fire/Fire_ Department_Operations#stations (accessed August 3, 2015).

East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Lake Chabot Campus Modernization Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. Available online at: www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/Park_Planning/Lake+Chabot+Campus/NOI+MND+IS.pdf. June 12.

East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Mission Peak Post –Construction Stormwater Controls, Revised 06-05-2015. June 5.

Federal Aviation Administration, 2015. Airport Data & Contact Information. Website: www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010 (accessed: July 23, 2015).

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community-Panel Numbers 06001C0468G and 06001C0469G, Alameda County, California. August 3, 2009.

Federal Highway Administration, 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, User’s Guide. Available online at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. January.

Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.

Fellers, G.M. and P.M. Kleeman, 2007. California red-logged frog (Rana draytonii) movement and habitat use: implications for conservation. In Journal of Herpetology 41(2):276–286.




Fellers, G.M., 2005. California red-legged frog. M. Lannoo, editor. In Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Fong, Michael R., Angela M. Banet, and James C. Bard, 1990. Analysis of Native American Skeletal Remains Recovered During Emergency Disinterment at CA-ALA-514/H, City of Fremont, Alameda County, California. Basin Research Associates, San Leandro, California.

Fredrickson, David A., 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. In Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41–53.

Fremont, City of, 2011. Draft General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. July.

Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. December.

Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Bicycle Master Plan. January 17.

Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Climate Action Plan. November, 13.

Fremont, City of, 2013. Fremont City Council Meeting, November 13, 2013, Minutes. November 13.

Fremont, City of, 2014. City of Fremont General Plan, Housing Element. December.

Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code.

Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Zoning Atlas, page 590-C-368. June 2.

Fremont, City of, 2015. Community Development Department, Development Activity WebTable. May 4.

Fremont, City of, and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. 2008. Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report. June.

Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Communications Center Services. Website: www.fremontpolice.org/index.aspx?NID=129 (accessed July 31, 2015).

Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Table of Organization 2014-2015. Website: www.fremontpolice.org/DocumentCenter/View/40 (accessed July 31, 2015).

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2014. Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines. Available online at www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_Preliminary_Discussion_Draft_of_Updates_Implementing_SB_743_080614.pdf (accessed July 24, 2015). August 6.

Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb, 1996:13. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Alameda County, California: Derived from the Digital Database Open-File 96-252. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Graymer, R.W., et al., 1994, Preliminary geologic map of the Niles 7.5-minute quadrangle, Alameda County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-94-132, scale 1:24,000.

Harris, Cyril M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015. Stanford Avenue Staging Area, Transportation Impact Analysis. October 12.

Historical Aerials, 2015. Website: www.historicaerials.com (accessed June 18)




Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes, 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final report to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova.

Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.

McConnell, R., et al., 2006. Traffic, Susceptibility, and Childhood Asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives.

Milliken, Randall, 1995:229, 235, 258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

Milliken, Randall, 1995:258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

Milliken, Randall, 2006. The Central California Ethnographic Community Distribution Model, Version 2.0, with Special Attention to the San Francisco Bay Area. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

Milliken, Randall, et al., 2007. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A Klar, pp 99–124. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, Maryland.

National Center for Education Statistics, 2015. School search tool for public and private schools. Website: nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch (accessed July 23).

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 2007. Mean Sea Level Trend (station) 9414290 San Francisco, California. Website: tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 (accessed July 2015).

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed July 7, 2015).

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., 2012. Parking Structure Technical Report: Challenges, Opportunities, and Best Practices, prepared for Valerie Knepper, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Parking Initiative. Available online at: www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/6-12/MTC_Parking_Structure.pdf (accessed October 13, 2015). June.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2011. Regulations, Standards 29 CFR, Occupational Noise Exposure 1910.95.

Ohlone College, 2015. South Parking Structure. Website: www.ohlone.edu/core/mapsdirs/parking/ parkingstructure.html (accessed September 9, 2015).

Orloff, S. 2007. Migratory movements of California tiger salamander in upland habitat – a five-year study: Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates LLC, Walnut Creek, CA.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2015. Clean Energy Solutions. Website: www.pge.com/mybusiness/environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml (accessed August 6, 2015).




Porter, J., et al., 1982. Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-ALA-431, on file at Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Public Resources Code Section 21082: 14 Cal. Code Regs. And Section 15064.7, 15064.4 (addressing greenhouse gas emissions impacts). See also Citizens for Responsible and Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th.327 (upholding city’s greenhouse gas emissions threshold based on Assembly Bill 32 compliance).

Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Feasibility Study, Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont, California. August 13.

Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California. February.

Rogers, D., et.al., 2000, Volume 2 – Technical Data Report, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, CA, Map 4B., February.

Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission. Website: www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx (accessed July 23).

Shipley, William F., 1978. Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

State Water Resources Control Board, 2010. Integrated Report, (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report) – Statewide. Website: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml (accessed July 7, 2015).

Stebbins, R.C., 2003. A Field Guide to Western Amphibians and Reptiles. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.

Swaim, K., 1994. Aspects of the ecology of the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). M.S. Thesis, California State University at Hayward. 140 pp.

Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer, 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. In Ecological Applications 15(4):1158–1168.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1985. The Noise Guidebook. May.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Website: www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed July 2015). January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Website: www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html (accessed June 23, 2014).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Revised guidance on site assessments and field surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. Website: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/crf_survey_guidance_aug2005.pdf. August.




U.S. Geological Survey, 2015. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Custom Mapping Page. Website: geohazards.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/cmaps (accessed July 9, 2015).

Union Sanitary District, 2006, Union Sanitary District Management Plan.

United States Census Bureau, 2010. Summary File 1 (SF 1) for Fremont City, California, 100-Percent Data, Table DP-1.

University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2013. UCMP Localities. Website: bscit.berkeley.edu/ucmp/loc.html (accessed July 19, 2013).

Wallace Roberts & Todd and CH2M HILL, 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Stanford Avenue Municipal Golf Course. Prepared for City of Fremont Leisure Services Department. State Clearinghouse No. 9103086. December 16.

World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Website: www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html.

Zarn, M., 1974. Burrowing owl (Spetyto cunicularia hypugaea). Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species, Technical Report T-N-250. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

C. COMMUNICATIONS

Albonico, Stephen, 2015. Public Safety Systems Administrator, East Bay Regional Park District. Personal communication with Michelle Julene, Senior Planner, East Bay Regional Park District. August 11.

Bobzien, Steve, 2013. Biologist, East Bay Regional Park District. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. April 10.

Defreese, Denise, 2015. Wildland Vegetation Manager, East Bay Regional Park District. Written communication with Michelle Julene, Park Planner. July 27.

McCormick, Dan, 2015. East Bay Regional Parks District Fire Chief. Personal communication with District Police Lieutenant Lance Brede. March 9.

Sheilds, Craig, 2015. Professional Engineer and Principal Geotechnical Engineer with Rockridge Geotechnical, Inc. Written communication with Bruce Abelli-Amen of Baseline Environmental Consulting, August 20.

Thurston, Amiel, 2015. Acting Deputy Fire Chief, Fremont Fire Department. Personal communication with Dan McCormick Fire Chief, East Bay Regional Parks District. August 14.

Willey, Gordon, 2013. Park Supervisor. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. April 10.