The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 7.2 Arroyo Vista Legis Action Attch 2 Exhibit D (2)3g~ °~f" X55 Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the substantial evidence in the record. Four impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: • Short-term cumulative (Year 2015) traffic impacts at the intersection of Dougherty Road/Amador Valley Boulevard during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (Impact 4.11-2). • Short-term cumulative (Year 2015) traffic impacts at the intersection of Haaenda Drive/I-580 Westbound Offramp during the a.m. peak hour (Impact 4.11-3). • Cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods if the Camp Parks RFTA access road is not relocated to be opposite Amador Valley Boulevard (Impact 4.11-5); • Cumulative (Year 2025) traffic impacts at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection during the p.m. peak periods Impact 4.11-6). Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 176 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 3~a ~ X55 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7.1 Persons and Organizations Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this DEIR: City of Dublin Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner Kristi Bascom, AICP, Senior Planner Frank Navarro, Associate Civil Engineer john Bakker, City Attorney Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Val Guzman, Police Services Department Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department Dublin San Ramon Services District Rhodora Biagton, Senior Engineer Aaron Johnson, Assistant Engineer Stan Kolodzie, Associate Engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Kathy Schmidt, Senior Project Developer, Eden Housing Charles McKeag, Vice President, Citation Homes Mike Sullivan, Citation Homes Amador Valley Industries Karen Brighi, service planner 7.2 References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06 Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development Arroyo Vista, Terrrasearch, Inc., August 2007 Hrroyo vista rro~ect f A o7-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin ~• Page 177 January 2009 Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Pro osed Arroyo Vista Development Terrasearch, Inc. July, 2007 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, August 2007 California Department of Conservation, Alameda County Important Farmland Map, 2000 Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 178 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~~~ ~~5 8.0 Appendices Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 rage ~ is Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 3S5 ~ X55 Appendix 8.1 Initial Study Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 180 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin 3%b ~- q55 Initial Study Project: Arroyo Vista Project City File No. PA 07-028 Lead Agency: City of Dublin December 2007 3~~~ ~ ~ 55 ~~ Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................2 Introduction `~~ Applicants ......................................................................................................................2 Project Location and Context ...................................................................................... 2 ~~~ Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 1 l Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 13 ............................................................................. Attachment to Initial Study ............ 25 '"~ 1. Aesthetics ............................................ ................................................... 25 2. Agricultural Resources ......................................................................... 26 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................. 26 4. Biological Resources ............................................................................. 27 5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 28 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................. 28 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................... 29 ~ '" 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................30 9. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 33 ,~ 10. Mineral Resources ..........:......................................................................33 11. Noise .......................................................................................................34 p g ......................................................................35 12. Po ulation and Housin .......................................................................................36 13. Public Services `~' 14. Recreation .............................................................................................. .37 15. Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................ .38 16. Utilities and Service Systems......: ....................................................... .39 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................. .40 Initial Study Preparers ................................................................................................. .42 ......................... Agencies and Organizations Consulted .......................................... .42 ""~ ......................................................................... References ............................. ................ .42 ,, 388' af- qsy City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Applicants Eden Housing 409 Jackson Street Hayward CA 94544 Attn: Kathy Schmidt, Senior Project Developer (510) 5821460 Citation Homes 404 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 100 Santa Clara CA 95050 Attn: Charles McKeag, Vice President (408) 985 6071 Project Location and Context The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Dublin:"More specifically, the site is located on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, a regional multi-use trail. The western boundary of the site is Alamo Creek, a regionally significant creek in eastern Alameda County. The site contains approximately 23.8 acres of land. The site is presently occupied by the Arroyo Vista housing development, which restricts occupancy to households with certain income limits. The current Arroyo Vista project includes 150 detached dwellings, on-site parking, a childcare center, recreation facilities and landscaping that is owned and managed by the Dublin Housing Authority. The site is generally flat with a gradual slope to the west, towards Alamo Creek. A noise barrier wall has been built along the project's Dougherty Road frontage with a height of approximately six to seven feet. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project site in context with nearby features, including roadways and Alamo Creek. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project November 2007 PA 07-028 3g~t ~ X55 Existing land uses adjacent to the Project site include Parks RFTA (Parks Reserve Forces Trainin Center) to the east, multi-family dwellings and an auto service station convenience store to the north and south and Alamo Creek to the west. Project Description Overview The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 150 dwellings on the project site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the site. The project also includes upgrading of municipal services to the site and approval of land use entitlements by the City of Dublin. Development concept The proposed Arroyo Vista development is proposed as a community of approximately 378 units comprised of 198 market rate units (with 141 attached and 57 detached '"~' dwellings), 130 income-restricted family residential dwellings (with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units in a combination of stacked flats and townhouses) and 50 senior income- restricted apartments (with 491-bedroom apartments and 1 2-bedroom manager unit). '"'"" Proposed dwellings would include a mix of two- and three-story residential wood- ~,, frame buildings. This development will replace 150 units of public housing on site. At the core of the development, the Village Center would include a Community Building ~° with central recreation space and a new Child Care Center. Additional satellite recreational areas, both passive and active, would be scattered throughout the proposed development. ~ ,,, Three types of housing are proposed: 50 income-restricted Senior Units, 130 income restricted family dwellings and 198 market rate dwellings. The unit breakdown is as follows: Table 1. Proposed Dwelling Unit Summary Hsng T e Income-restricted Famil Units Income-restricted Senior Units Market Rate Sin le Fami1 Total Unit Type 121-Bdrm Flats 491-Bdrm Flats 12Bdrm Flat 66 2-Bdrm Townhomes 141 Attached 36 3-Bdrm Townhomes 57 Detached 16 4-Bdrm Townhomes Sub-total 130 Units 50 Units 198 Units 378 Units Source; Project applicants, 2007 All of the market rate dwellings would be "for sale" units. All of the other dwellings proposed to be constructed on the site would be rental dwellings. The Affordable Senior units would be targeted to occupancy by seniors with incomes at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Family units would be targeted to `~ occupancy by families with incomes between 30% and 60% of AMI. City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project November 2007 PA 07-028 ~ 3qo ~f- ~i55 A central main street is proposed to link the various community elements and create a unified, pedestrian-friendly development. The affordable housing would be located at the heart of the site while the market-rate units would be split into two areas creating "bookends" around the affordable family and senior units. This layout would: Balance the needs of residential management (affordable family and senior housing need a cohesive physical plan to facilitate high-quality property management); Create a Village Center supporting the affordable family, senior and market-rate units; and Integrate market-rate and affordable components of the project, thus achieving a greater degree of economic diversity. The Village Center, located at the crossroads of main street and the central entry drive, would contain a concentration of community-based uses: the 3,000 square foot child care facility, the 3,000 square foot Community Building, and two primary large open spaces. The senior housing also would be located at the Village Center to enhance the connection between young and old. Residential buildings are arranged to create satellite recreation areas, enabling all units to have excellent open space access. Larger open space green belts would lead from Alamo Creek into the site to connect the development to the larger natural environment. A mixture of building types would be developed to create choices for residents and variety for the broader community. The townhomes would have tuck-under parking and parking for the affordable units would be located in adjacent satellite lots. Area access, parking and circulation Access into the site would continue to be provided via three driveways from Dougherty Road. One or more of the driveways may be signalized. On site circulation would consist of a public roadway paralleling Dougherty Road, identified as Public Streets A and B on Exhibit 3. The streets would lead to a public roadway loop in the approximate center of the site. Driveways into individual areas would branch off of the main public streets. Parking within the development would include a total of 828 spaces, some of which would be located within garages or carports, others would be open parking spaces and some would be located adjacent to public streets within the Project. A number of the proposed spaces would consist of compact spaces as well as handicapped-accessible spaces. Infrastructure The existing Arroyo Vista development is presently served by water, wastewater, drainage, solid waste, electrical, telecommunication and natural gas facilities. Water service is presently provided from Zone 7 and, as part of the proposed Project, water service responsibility would be provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). All other existing services would continue to be provided to the site, although portions of existing facilities may need to be replaced or upgraded to service additional dwellings proposed for the site. City of Dublin rage 4 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project November 2007 PA 07-028 3G1 ~~- q55 Property disposition The proposed Project includes sale of the 23.8-acre site from the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) to the two Project applicants (Eden Housing and Citation Homes). This action would require approval by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Existing residents of the Arroyo Vista complex will be moved with Section 8 housing vouchers provided by Alameda County, Requested entitlements As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of this Project. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment. The Dublin General Plan presently designates the Arroyo Vista site as Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development between 6.1 and 14.0 dwellings per acre. The proposed Project includes a density of approximately 17 dwellings per acre, which would not be consistent with the current residential density range. Therefore, the applicants have requested an amendment to the General Plan to re-designate the Project site as Medium/High Density Residential. This designation allows residential development between the ranges of 14.1 and 25 dwellings per acre. If approved, the requested General Plan land use designation would allow the density proposed as part of the Arroyo Vista Project. The Amendment requires a public hearing by the Dublin Planning Commission to review the application and forward a recommendation to the Dublin City Council. The City Council must then hold a public hearing on the application prior to making a decision. ~~a~= 1 ~ ~ 1-idi~teu lieveiopment t<ezorung and Development Plan. The Arroyo Vista site is presently zoned PD-Planned Development. The existing PD zoning district only allows the current configuration of buildings, the existing number of .~ dwelling units on the site, parking and other site features. A zone change will be required, also to a PD-Planned Development zone, to allow the proposed development concept to be constructed. ~ "'' Similar to the requested General Plan Amendment, the rezoning requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Site Development Review. Site Development Review (SDR) approvals must be granted by the City of Dublin to ensure that building architecture, landscaping, signs and other facilities are consistent with the design guidelines and other policies contained in various City land use regulations and guidelines. Tentative and Final subdivision maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the Project site. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project November 2007 PA 07-028 w~ ~q~ ~~" X155 l 6 _.-~ .. t~s4lonrV Martinez q Concord aeo Walriut ~ Creek DUBl1N Livermore Hayward Sunnyvale Santa Ctara Pleasanton San Jose Exhibit 1 CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA INITIAL STUDY REGIONAL LOCATION N 0 2 4 6 8 10 mlfes Blue c7x Aswciates, 8e*~y, cacr«nia e-2e-2oo7 CITY OF DUBLIN N ARROYO VISTA INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 2 ~-~"°' PROJECT LOCATION ~~ ---•- City Limit 0 L4 v2 yq ~ ml~e ~, . - .... .... .. nneucsrnEete ~± -- jflUl,"1~fTlJlTiIUT .~ ~tl_ 4J l 14t '. -. ~. '. ' .' . ~. ~. ~ ~ . PUBLIC SIREEI'Fl ,__~. v i -.i.._....-__ _. ... __.._ .._ ._._ _... .._.,_ _.... _ ... ... _. . ~- ..: _ - ._ - - - - ,. . ~ , . .t. '. -..'- '. ~ E . 1 ::' ~. ; PARR-iah@lAPIDCOUNT UNFFMIXANDCWM ~e~~ ~ ewewr CC tpYe11Y fUld Y we~wYw1L YARRE[IG'[ER&~7UAL CMIQ R p pIMC N IYML LA AFWADABIBFAI~.Y ~7TIAL raeoen em a oeex In Yore. ... m. ~AOR AFPOIIDABIF RP~9NUe1. (OJRe P YI pl/e[ 0 lelGl. ]I DAYGRB.OU~MYfY WDMtAONPL IYML SRE~~~ x SECI B Y IYrM. A MAa~r aaa ~cs¢>PxrteL ewec ewi SOIN edlM eneam eeleS MA VO RTMAU levee 0 S) Yluen I YI 51 lY)N._IA AFPDRDABIB PAlN.Y RFSIOB7f UL BYlDtle rrt e c o xlxln ^ e ~ e ~ m M1 @xeM Mt N@ e W o@en e e 'x o x ~ u u e lY u x a c e x o s o r s o o s o o e lOrIIL Ix SBII~. AflCRDABtE ~lUAL Yee TRF ONMn 1 ixWW H ) emxw •ielwn we l ... ... . __.. _. lOfeL A ~~f ': ~ @ i@ alr SCAIE M-@ MYS_AtlfAnr[ael SOURCE: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., 8-6-21107. CITY OF DUBLIN ARROYO VISTA INITIAL STUDY WILL BE 11 X 17 IN THE FINAL Exhibit 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN W S -~, s v, 3~5~~~~ 1. Project description: Removal of the existing 150 income-restricted dwellings on the Arroyo Vista site and construction of up to 378 dwellings. Replacement dwellings would include 50 income- and age-restricted senior dwellings (including 1 manager unit), 198 market-rate attached and detached dwellings and 130 income- restricted Family townhouses. The Project also includes a community building, child care center, a central open space, on-site parking and landscaping. The Project also includes relocation of existing residents during Project construction and transfer of ownership of the site to the Eden Housing and Citation Homes. Requested entitlements include an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to allow more intensive development on the site, a Stage 1 & Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning and Development Plan, Site Development Review and subdivision maps. The Project also includes the following actions that must be approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development: disposition (sale) of the site to the Project applicants. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Erica Fraser Senior Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: West side of Dougherty Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and the Iron Horse Trail. Assessors Parcel Number 941-0007-001-07 5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin 6. General Plan designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac) 7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development 8. Public agency required approvals: • Disposition of Project site to Project applicants (HUD) • Approval of Amendment to the Dublin General Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of PD-Planned Development Stage 1 & Stage 2 rezoning and Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~. 3~11~ ~f- X155 • Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) • Issuance of demolition, building and grading permits (City of Dublin) • Approval of water connections (DSRSD) City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 3~~ ~- ~~ Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. x A th ti es e cs - Agricultural Resources x Air Quality x Bi l i l o og ca Resources x Cultural Resources x Geology/Soils x H d d azar s an Hazardous Materials x Hydrology/ Water Quality x Land Use/ Planning - Mi l R x- nera esources P bli S x- Noise x Population/ Housin x u c ervices Utiliti - Recreation x Transportation/ Circulation es /Service Systems x Mandatory Findings of Si nificance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ""~ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation ~~° measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X_ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" on the environment. An Environmental Impact Report is required. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because aII potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 0 398 of- X55 Date: (~ ~ ~'~ ~ U""'j Signature {:.Y'1 C G•-.- G --Fr'C~-~~' For: Printed Name: City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead . agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to aless-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, maybe cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 .~ 0 Page 13 December 2007 Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. ~;, yno ~ ass general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of Dublin rage ~4 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~~D~ ~ ~~5 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 5) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 7) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland o Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 5) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 5) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use? (Source: 5) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 6) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 6) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X r X X X X X City of Dublin Page 15 ~, Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 wr you ~~- qs5 c) 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? (Source:6) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 6) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 6) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 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 California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 6) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 5) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 5) d) 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? (Source: 5) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 16 December 2007 X03 °~ ~ 55 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1, 5) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 5} b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy' a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 5) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Source: 2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 2) iv) Landslides? (Source: 2, 5) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (5) c) 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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 17 December 2007 '~~' `~ ~" 155 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporti~ the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 4) 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would t~ project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or tl environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 3) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or tl• environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 3) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 3, 6) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 6) e) 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 of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 5) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source; 5) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Potentially Less Than Less than Significant Significant Significan Impact With Impact Mitt ation No t Impact ig X ~e ie X ~e X X X X X X Page 18 December 2007 ~-1~5 ~~ ~~5 "~ h) 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? (Source: 5) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 5) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 4) c) 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? (Source: 5) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including througl 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 inflooding on- or off-site? (Source: 5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 5) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 5) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazar~ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 4) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X n X X X d X City of Dublin ~ ~yv ~ V Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~ 0 ~ ~°~- ~5 5' h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 4) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 4) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (Source: 2) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community` (Source: 1, 5) b) 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 or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpos of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 5) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 5) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) b) 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? (Source: l) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) 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? (Source: 6) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 6) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 6) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 20 December 2007 1~~~ ~ ~Sy d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source:6) e) 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 expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 6) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 5, 6) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (5, 6) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacemen of housing elsewhere? (Source: 5, 6) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial advers physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 4, 6) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 .Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X t X e X X X X X X Page 21 December 2007 ~o~ ~~ I55 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existin neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 6) b) Does the project include recreational faciliti or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment` (Source: 6) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 6) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency fog designated roads or highways? (Source: 6) c) 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? (Source: 6) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 6) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (6) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 1) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Potentiall Significan Impact y Less Than t Significan With Miti ation Less than t Significan Impact No t Impact g X ;s r X X X X X X X X Page 22 December 2007 ~~a D~ X55 '" 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 6} b) 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? (Source:6) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 6) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 6) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 6) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (4) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (1) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degradE the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population t~ drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten ti eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restric the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X ~ X t City of Dublin rdyc LO Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 y-o ~f ~5s b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Miti ation X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Dublin General Plan 2. Geotechnical Investigation (Terrasearch) 3. Phase I & II ESA (Terrasearch) 4. Discussion with City staff or service provider 5. Site Visit 6. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None have been used in the preparation of this Initial Study. Page 24 City of Dublin December 2007 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Settin The Project is set in an urbanized area of Central Dublin that has been developed for a number of years. The Project site is relatively flat and has been developed for more than thirty years with the Arroyo Vista income-restricted housing Project. The current Arroyo Vista Project includes approximately 150 residential units, on-site parking, achild-care center, community room and landscaping. Many of the dwellings are single story, but a number of two-story dwellings have also been built in the complex. A six to seven foot tall noise barrier wall has been constructed along the site's Dougherty Road frontage. Properties to the north and south have also been developed with multi-story multiple family dwellings. Parks RFTA exists to the east, across Dougherty Road, with views into the facility blocked by a tall berm. The Arroyo Vista Project allows for views of local foothills to the north, east and west from various vantage points within the Project area. Some views are blocked by adjacent multi-story developments and mature trees, both on and off the Project site. As a largely developed area many light sources exist on and adjacent to the Project site, including streetlights along Dougherty Road, porch lights and similar light sources within the Arroyo Vista Project and on adjacent properties. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. The Project site has been developed with anincome-restricted housing Project and contains common areas on the site that provide significant scenic view or vista, including a tot lot area and outdoor recreation areas. The proposed Project would include similar outdoor gathering places for residents that would not significantly change views of foothills. Therefore, approval and implementation is expected to result in a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas. b) c) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 25 December 2007 Substantially damage scenic resources, including resources within a state scenic highway? PS. Although the Project site is not located adjacent to a scenic highway, implementation of the proposed Project would require removal of a number of mature trees on the site, some of which may qualify as heritage trees. This would be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings? LS. The Project site has been developed with a similar type use for many years. Although the proposed Project would increase residential density on the site, the overall appearance of the site would not significantly change and `.~ ~ a - X15 5 the proposed Project would be similar in appearance to the three-story apartment. project to the south and west (the Park Sierra project) and the multi- story project to the north , so that there would be ales-than-significant impact with regard to degradation of the visual character of the site. d) Create light or glare? PS. Although the Project site and surrounding area contains several light sources, construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in the form of additional dwelling units. This would be a potentially significant impact and will be addressed in the EIR. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Settin The Project site has been developed for the existing Arroyo Vista residential Project for approximately 30 years and is not used for agricultural production. The site is also not zoned for agricultural production and is not encumbered by a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract. The Arroyo Vista site is depicted as a "Urban and Built Up" area on the California Department of Conservation's Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000). Project Impacts a-c) Convert prime farmland to anon-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural us, including conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts ? NI. The Project site has been developed for residential Land uses for more than 30 years and is designated as an urban area on the State Department of Conservation Alameda County Important Farmland Map. Therefore, approval and construction of the proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. 3. Air Quality Environmental Settin The Project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? PS. The proposed Project would increase residential density on the Project site, which may conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. b) City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Would the project violate any air quality standards? PS. The proposed Project would increase air quali emissions, both during construction and nnGt-~n„~+~,~,,~+;~r Page 26 December 2007 ~~~ ~ X55 ~3 operations. Therefore, the proposed Project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds currently enforced by the District. This may be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? PS. For the reasons noted in "b", the Project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. The topic of the proposed Project's contribution to global climate change will also be analyzed in the EIR. d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? PS. The proposed Project includes a senior housing component and construction and operation of the. proposed Arroyo Vista Project could have a potentially significant impact on this sensitive receptor. This topic will be assessed in the EIR. Since the proposed Project does not include manufacturing uses, no objectionable odors would be created. e) Create objectionable odors? NI. Since the proposed Project does not include manufacturing or other odor-generating land uses, no objectionable odors would be created and no impact would result. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The Project site is located in a urbanized area and has been developed with multi-family land uses for approximately 30 years. The site does contain a large number of mature trees and is bounded on the west by Alamo Creek that could contain special-status plant or animal species or their respective habitats. In addition, Alamo Creek is considered a wetland feature. Pro~ct Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? PS. Demolition of the existing housing complex on the site and construction on the same.site could have potentially significant impacts on special-status plant or animal species and/ or their habitats. This topic will be addressed in the EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands? PS. Since he Project site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek, there could be a potentially significant impact on wetlands or waters of the U.S. This topic will be addressed in the EIR. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? PS. The proposed Project could have the potential to interfere with native fish or wildlife species within or adjacent to Alamo Creek This would be a potentially significant impact and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? PS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project could affect native trees and other trees that could be classed as "heritage" by the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 y ~y °~ ~~~ or sycamore tree with a trunk or main stem of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at fifty-four inches above the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; and trees planted as replacements for unlawfully removed trees. Permits are required for the removal of any Heritage Tree. The proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact on native and/or protected trees and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The Project area is not located within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Settin The Project site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek, a major regional creek. Typically, prehistoric and Native American settlements were located adjacent to such creeks due to a nearby food and water supply. Therefore, the possibility of encountering Native American, historic or prehistoric resources is anticipated to be moderate to high. Existing structures on the site are less than fifty years old and would not qualify as historic structures pursuant to CEQA or federal regulations. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resource or human remains? NI. Existing improvements on the Project site are less than fifty years old, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to significant historic resources. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological, paleontological resources or human remains? PS. The Project site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek and could contain significant cultural, prehistoric and./ or Native American resources. Construction of the proposed Project could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources and such impacts will be addressed in the EIR. A Native American tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 will also be undertaken as part of the EIR. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Settin This section of the Initial Study is based on a geotechnical investigation of the Project site by Terrasearch, Inc., August 6, 2007. This report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. City of Dublin Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project Page 28 PA 07-028 December 2007 L~i~ ~ ~~5 The Project site does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo "~ Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake „~ susceptibility include the Pleasanton, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? PS. The potential for impacts related to ground-based seismic hazards, specifically severe ground shaking, ground rupture or other ground failure could be potentially significant, since several major earthquake faults exist in the Bay Area. The Project site, City of Dublin and the region as a whole are all subject to moderate to severe ground shaking and other seismic ground hazards. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? PS. Refer to Hydrology section 8a for a discussion of this topic. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? PS. Due to its location adjacent to Alamo Creek, the Project site could be subject to liquefaction, subsidence or other soil hazards. These could be potentially significant impacts and will be analyzed in the EIR. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary. sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting A Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the Project by Terrasearch, Inc. (July 23 and 24, 2007). These reports are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and are available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The reports note the presence of a water quality monitoring well on the site operated by Zone 7 and the potenttal presence of asbestos and lead based paints due to the age of the existing dwellings. The Phase II report did not identify actionable levels of soil contaminants. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed Project involves construction of a residential development Project. There would be no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed development. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? PS. The Phase I and II reports for the site identify the possibility of demolition of existing improvements on the site to release asbestos and/or lead into the atmosphere. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. No public schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the Project site, based on the document entitled "Demographic Study and Facilities Plan," published by the Dublin Unified School District in October 2004 (Shilts Consulting, Inc.). No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to this topic. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The Project site is not listed by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of August 23, 2007. There is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? PS. The Project site is located adjacent to Parks RFTA, which employs helicopters as part of normal operations. The potential for existing or future helicopter operations to pose a safety hazard would be a potentially significant impact to be analyzed in the EIR. g) Interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would include the re-construction of a residential Project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No impact would therefore result. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are Intermixed with wildlands? NI. The Project area is located in a substantially urban area so no impacts are anticipated with regard to the risk of wildland fire. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Settin Local surface water The Project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay via Alamo Creek. Alamo Creek forms the western boundary of the Project site. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~~~ ~ a~5 Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls e discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities, and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities. Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control; and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes. Existing surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing structures, parking areas and open space uses on the Project area, including but not limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources. Groundwater recharge Although the Project Site is located adjacent to Alamo Creek, a regionally significant water body, the Project Site is designated for residential land uses in the Dublin General Plan and the Site is not reserved for groundwater recharge purposes. Flooding Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency the Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood area (Community Panel #060705 0001B). Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? PS. Approval and construction of the proposed Arroyo Vista Project would add impervious surfaces to the Project site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. This would be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 y~g ~ ~i55 b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. Less- than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since approximately one-half of the Project site is now covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would increase site coverage somewhat to allow for an increased number of dwellings. Also, the proposed water source for this Project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The Project Site is not designated as a groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin General Plan. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? PS. New impervious surfaces would be added to the Project site to accommodate additional new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces. The increase in the amount of stormwater runoff from the Project site could change local and/ or regional drainage patterns that could increase off- site siltation of nearby creeks and streams. This and could result in a potentially significant impact and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? PS. Approval of the proposed Project could result in changed drainage patterns due to an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project site. The potential for on-site or offsite flooding is not known and could result in a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? PS. The ability of downstream drainage facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from the Project site is not known and could be a potentially significant impact. This topic will be addressed in the EIR. Potential impacts related to surface water quality are addressed above in subsections "a" and "c." f) Substantially degrade water quality? PS. This is a potentially significant issue and has been addressed above in item "a." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. The Project site lies outside of the 100-year flood plain and no impacts are anticipated with regard to placing additional housing units within a 100-year flood plain. h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project area is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding properties are also relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. No impacts would therefore result. City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 y~~ ~f X55 - 0 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Settine Existing land uses As identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study, the site has been developed with the Arroyo Vista housing Project for a number of years. Surrounding uses include multi-family dwellings to. the north and south, with multi- family housing located to the west, across Alamo Creek. Parks RFTA is located east of the Project site. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? LS. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would cause the removal of 150 existing, income-restricted dwellings on the site and replacement of these dwellings with a mix of market rate and income-restricted dwellings. Removal of the existing dwellings would not divide existing communities, since the existing Arroyo Vista site is aself-contained community and ales-than-significant impact would result with regard to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avording or mitigating an environmental effect? LS. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, since the Project density would be greater than that allowed under the Medium Density Residential density range (6.1 to 14.0 dwellings per .acre). However, the applicants have requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to redesignate the site to Medium/High Density Residential. This designation allows residential development between the ranges of 14.1 and 25 dwellings per acre, consistent with the proposed Project density. If approved, there would be aless-than-significant impact with regard to conflicts with land use policies and/ or regulations. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. The Project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. See section 4 "f" of this Initial Study. There are no impacts with regard to this Project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The Project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Dublin General Plan. Project Impacts "" a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The Dublin General Plan does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the Project area, so no impacts would occur. "' City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 yao ~f' ~i55 11. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. Regulatory setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Acce table Conditionally Acce table Normally Unacce table Clearly Unacce table Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools, churches, nursin homes 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Neighborhood arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. Major sources of noise near the Arroyo Vista site includes traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from Parks RFTA, and noise generated from on-site uses and activities. An approximate 6 to 7-foot tall noise barrier wall has been built adjacent to Dougherty Road as part of the current Arroyo Vista Project. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? PS. Development of proposed Project could expose additional residents and visitors on the site to significant noise levels from adjacent streets (especially Dougherty Road) and from activities at Parks RFTA. This could be a potentially significant impact and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 -~ a l ~; ~ ~=~~~ b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI. The proposed Project does not include construction or operation elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to vibration. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? PS. Construction of the proposed Project could result in substantial increases in on-site noise levels, based on increases in on-site traffic, HVAC equipment and other sources. This would be a potentially significant impact and this topic will be assessed in the EIR. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? PS. Increased levels of short-term construction noise generated on the Project site could be potentially significant to on-site and/or adjacent residents and will be assessed in the EIR. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? PS. There could be potentially significant noise impacts related to existing and / or future aircraft operations at Parks RFTA. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Settin The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments ,~ organization responsible for preparing and tracking population and demographic changes within the Bay Area region anticipates that the Bay Area .,4, will continue to grow at a steady rate. Factors contributing to this growth include ,~, a favorable climate, recreational activities, top universities and career opportunities. Over the next 20 years, the population is expected to increase to '~" more than 8 million persons, a 16% increase over the current (2007) population. Population increases are expected to be primarily due to increases in births and longer life expectancies rather than significant in-migration. Table 2 depicts anticipated comparative growth in the Bay Area, Alameda County and Dublin. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 0 Table 2. Regional, County and Dublin Total Population (Pop) & Household (HH) Projections 2000 2010 2020 Po HHs Po HHs Po HHs Region 6,783,762 2,466,020 7,42,500 2,696,580 8,069,700 2,941,760 Alameda Co. 1,443,741 523,366 1,542,400 564,880 ],700,700 614,790 Dublin Q,. •n~~ 30,007 9,335 50,000 16,660 62,700 21,310 wu,cc. r+~rw rroJeCT1011S 6UU/ ABAG notes that the Tri-Valley areas are anticipated to experience the highest growth rates in Alameda County over the next 20 years. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. Approval of the proposed Project would increase the population within the central portion of Dublin, since 150 dwellings would be replaced on the same site by up to 378 dwellings. The additional population growth is not anticipated to substantially induce population growth in the area since surrounding properties are largely built out to the south, north and west and Parks RFTA is located to the east. No significant public utilities would need to be extended to serve the proposed Project, so the potential to induce substantial population increase is anticipated to be ales-than-significant impact. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? PS. There would be a loss of approximately 150 dwellings should the proposed Project be approved and constructed. This would be a potentially signifzcant impact and will be assessed in the EIR. 13. Public Services Environmental Settiri The following provide essential services to the community: Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and City of Dublin Page 36 initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~1a3 ~ X55 hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station No 17, located at 6200 Madigan in central Dublin. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin •" Police Services Department, headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center. ~ • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties in the Project area lying west of Tassajara Road. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental f acilities ""'" is the responsibility of the City of Dublin. The City and related service providers, including the Dublin Unified School District, also charge impact fees on new development, which is generally collected at the time building permits are issued. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? PS. Approval of the proposed Project and construction of a residential development on the Arroyo Vista site would likely increase the number of calls for fire and emergency service personnel. The impact of this increase on the Alameda County Fire Department could be potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Police protection? PS. Similar to fire protection, there could be potentially significant impacts to the Dublin Police Services Department and this issue will be analyzed in the EIR. c) Schools? LS. There would be ales-than-significant impact to school service should the proposed Project be approved. Payment of statutorily mandated impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts pursuant to CEQA. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? LS. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with a Iess- than-significant impact in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards, so that long-term maintenance is not anticipated to result in significant impacts. In addition, new development in the community is subject to the City's public facilities fees. e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item 16 "e" and "f," below. 14. Recreation Environmental Settine The existing Arroyo Vista Project contains a number of passive and active open spaces and recreation areas, although no public parks are sited within the boundary. The City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 y a~i °~ ~i55 nearest City of Dublin maintained park is Alamo Creek park, located north of the Project site. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use of nearby City and / or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site permanent population on the Arroyo Vista site. Although the Project is proposed to contain private, on-site recreation facilities, the Project applicants would be required to pay City of Dublin public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and / or improve parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. See item "a," above. 15. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The Project site is served by Dougherty Road, an arterial road that provides access from southern Contra Costa County to the I-580 freeway and southerly into Alameda County south of the I-580 freeway. South of the I-580 freeway, this roadway is known as Hopyard Road. Dublin Boulevard provides primary east-west access. Regional access to and from the Project site is provided by the I-580 and I-680 freeways. On site parking is presently provided by several lots dispersed throughout the site. Emergency vehicle access is provided by three existing driveways along Dougherty Road as well as a paved emergency access drive adjacent to Alamo Creek. Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and street capacity? PS. The proposed Project would contribute additional traffic to local and regional roads due to the increase in the numbers of dwellings on the Project site. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be addressed in the EIR. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? PS. Potential impacts of proposed redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista Project could result in a potentially significant impact on CMA roadways and this topic will be addressed in the EIR. City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~1a5 ~~ ~ 5 5 c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed residential development and related entitlements. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? PS. Potential on- or off-site hazards that could be created as a result of Project construction will assessed in the EIR. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. The proposed Project would have three vehicular access points along Dougherty Road was well as maintaining an emergency vehicle access adjacent to Alamo Creek. No impacts are therefore anticipated. f) Inadequate parking capacity? PS. The provision of on-site parking for the proposed development could be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. g) Conflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation plans, or result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? PS. The EIR prepared for this Project will review the potential of the Project to conflict with alternative transportation plans, including but not limited to bus, bicycle and / or pedestrian modes of transit. Such an impact would be potentially significant. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The Project area is currently served by the following service providers: • Water supply: Zone 7 • Sewage collection and treatment: Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries. • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT & T (formerly Pacific Bell). Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? PS. The proposed Project includes an increase in the number of dwellings on the Project site that would likely increase the demand for potable water. This could be a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed in the EIR. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities ar expansion of existing facilities? PS. New and / or upgraded wastewater systems would be required to serve the amount of development proposed in the Arroyo Vista development application. .~ City of Dublin Pa a 39 ~. Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~a~, ~ f ~I55 Existing dwellings on the site are currently provided domestic water by Zone 7 and new dwellings are proposed to be served water by DSRSD. This increased demand could result in potentially significant impacts that will be analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will also analyze potential impacts of the proposed Project related to the overall water system and wastewater treatment and disposal systems. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? PS. The proposed Project could require new and or upgraded drainage facilities to support proposed development was well as upgraded surface water quality facilities to meet current water quality standards. This impact could be potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? PS. See item "b," above. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? PS. See response to "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. The Project area is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services within Dublin. Amador Valley Industries would provide solid waste and recycling services to new residents of the Arroyo Vista Project. According to representatives from the provider (K. Brighi, 9 / 18 / 07), adequate capacity exists in the Altamont Landfill and other nearby landfills to accommodate future demand generated by this Project. Any requirement for additional personnel or equipment to serve the Arroyo Vista Project would be offset by service charges levied by the provider. Therefore, this impact would be less-than- significant. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed development applications be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ' a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the mayor periods of California history or prehistory? Yes. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources and should be addressed in the EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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). Yes. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 ~Ia~ ~f- ~i55 biological resources, air quality, traffic and similar topics and should be addressed in the EIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. any ui uuoun Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 41 December 2007 ~ a $ a~ 155 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner Frank Navarro, Associate Civil Engineer Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Dublin San Ramon Services District Rhodora Biagton, Service Engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) Website Applicant Representatives Kathy Schmidt, Senior Project Developer, Eden Housing Charles McKeag Vice President, Citation Homes Amador Valley Industries Karen Brighi, service planner References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9 / 14 / 06 Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development Arroyo Vista, Terrrasearch, Inc., August 2007 Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Arroyo Vista Development, Terrasearch, Inc. July, 2007 California Departrnent of Toxic Substances Control, Website, August 2007 California Department of Conservation, Alameda County Important Farmland Map, 2000 City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Arroyo Vista Project December 2007 PA 07-028 Appendix 8.2 Notice of Preparation (NOP) NOP Distribution List Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 181 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin X130 ~f- X55 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: htto:!lwww.ci.dubiin.ca.us Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Scoping Meeting Lead Agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 9 00 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Contact: Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning Division (925) 833- 6690 The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Project Title: Arroyo Vista (PA 07-028) Project Location: Located on the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection of Dougherty Road with Amador Valley Boulevard and north of the intersection of Dougherty Road with the Iron Horse Trail, 6700 Dougherty Road (Assessor's Parcel 941-0007-001-07) Project Description: The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 150 dwellings on the project site and constructing up to 378 new dwellings on the site, including a mix of market rate and income-restricted dwellings, both single family and multi-family "for-sale" dwellings and rental apartments once complete. Scoping Meeting Pursuant to State Law, the City of Dublin has scheduled a Scoping Meeting for agencies and other interested parties on the proposed EIR as follows: Date: Wednesday January 16, 2008 Time: 6:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers, Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Drive, Dublin Due to time limits mandated by State law, comments on the scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report must be submitted at the earliest possible time but not later than 30 days following receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the contact person identified above. Date: December 20, 2007 Signature. Title: Senior Planner Telephone: (925} 833-6610 Area Code (925) • City Manager 833-6650 • City Counci] 833-6650 • Personnel 833-6605 • Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 • Public Worlcs/Engineering 833-6630 • Parks & Community Services 833-6645 • Police 833-6670 PlanninglCode Enforcement 833-6610 • Building Inspection 833-6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Nat ~- ~s5 US Parks Reserve Forces Training Area: Camp Parks Attn: Commander LCC Parks, RFTA Bldg. 790 Dublin, CA 94568 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Attn: Mark D'Avignon 1455 Market Street, 14'h Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ~._ Federal Building Attn: Ryan Olah ~,, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Department of Housing and Urban Development Attn: Enviro. Review Division 600 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Alameda County Congestion Mgmt. Agency Attn: Jean Hart 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612 Fort Irwin Lt. Colonel Paul D. Cramer Director of Public Works PO Box 105097 Fort Irwin, CA 92310 Alameda County Public Works Dept. Attn: Karen Borrmann 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 CalTrans District 4 CEQA East Bay Regional Park District Attn: Steven Yokoi, CEQA Coordinator Attn: Larry Tong 111 Grand Avenue 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94623 Oakland, CA 94605 BART, 1 KB6 Mail Stop LAVTA Attn: Kathy Mayo Attn: Cyrus Sheik Manager of Environmental Compliance PO Box 12688 1362 Rutan Court, Ste. 100 Oakland, CA 94604 Livermore, CA 94550 California Dept. of Fish & Game Bay Delta Region 3 Attn: Scott Wilson PO Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 Zone 7 Attn: Mary Lim 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 Fort Hunter-Liggett, Parks RFTA Attn: Peter Rubin, Director of PW 8790 5jh Street Dublin, CA 94568 U.S. Postal Service Attn: Postmaster 4300 Black Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 PG&E 998 Murrieta Blvd. Livermore, CA 94550 15 copies Office of Planning and Research Attn: Terry Roberts 1400 Tenth Street PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 AT&T Attn: Jon Stradford 2600 Camino Ramon, Rm 2N000B San Ramon, CA 94583 Dublin San Ramon Services District Attn: Dave Requa 7051 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Citation Homes Attn: Charles McKeag 404 Saratoga Avenue, Ste. 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Alameda County Planning Dept. Attn: James Sorenson 224 W Winton Avenue, Rm. 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Dublin Unified School District Attn: John Sugiyama 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 LAVWMA Attn: Ed Cummings PO Box 2945 Dublin, CA 94568 BAAQMD Attn: Environmental Review Div. 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 SF Bay RWQCB 1515 Clay Street, Ste. 1400 Oaklad, CA 94612 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Attn: John Rusmisel 23197 Connecticut Street Hayward, CA 94545 Comcast Cable 2333 Nissen Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Amador Valley Industries Attn: Debbie Jeffrey PO Box 12617 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Eden Housing Attn: Kathy Schmidt ~ 409 Jackson Street Hayward, CA 94544 y3a ~ X55 Dublin Housing Authority Attn: Chris Gouig 22941 Atherton Street Hayward, CA 94541 Contra Costa County Planning Department Attn: Dennis Barry 651 Pine Street, 4~h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Rich Ambrose City Manager Paul Rankin Administrative Services Director Melissa Morton Public Works Director Joni Pattillo Assistant City Manager City of Livermore Planning Department City of San Ramon Planning Dept. Attn: Marc Roberts Attn: Phil Wong 1052 South Livermore Avenue 2226 Camino Ramon Livermore, CA 94550 San Ramon, CA 94583 City of Pleasanton Planning Dept. Attn: Jerry Iserson 200 Old Bernal Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 Contra Costa County, Public Works Attn: Maurice Shiu 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Cpt. Gary Thuman Police Services Diane Lowart Parks & Community Services Director Frank Navarro Senior Civil Engineer Mark Lander City Engineer Jeri Ram, AICP Community Development Director Darrell Jones Dublin Fire Prevention Mary Jo Wilson Planning Manager Elizabeth Silver Meyers Nave Kit Faubion Planning File (Erica Fraser) Meyers nave 15 copies X133 ~ q55 Appendix 8.3 NOP Responses Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 182 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin TAPE OF CALIFO IA BUSINESS 1RANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 ~13'~ ~ f q 55 Flex your power! Be energy e,~icient! January 9, 2008 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 ALA580843 ALA-580-19.859 SCH#2007122066 Dear Ms. Fraser: Arroyo Vista Development Project (PA 07-028) -Notice of Preparation (NOP) Thank yvu for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the early stages of the environmental review process for the proposed project. The comments presented below are based on the NOP of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Arroyo Vista Development Project. As lead agency, the City of Dublin is responsible for all project mitigation, including improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and .lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures in the DEIIt. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. While an encroachment permit is only required when the project involves work in the State Right of Way (ROW), the Department will not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the lead agency ensures resolution of the Department's concerns prior to submittal of an encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Traffic Impact Study Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it znay have to traffic volume and congestion on the State Highway System. We recommend a traffic impact analysis be prepared. The traffic impact analysis should include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The. assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. 2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intersections. ~iEIrEIVIED "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ~r N 1 4 ZQOS DUBLIN PLANNING Ms. Erica Fraser January 9, 2008 Page 2 X35 ~~- X55 3. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, and 3) cumulative for the intersections in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State Highway facilities being evaluated. 5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Special attention should be given to the development of alternate solutions to -- circulation problems that do not rely pn increased highway construction: 6. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. We encourage the City of Dublin to coordinate preparation of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Please see the Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" at the following website for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/operationalsystems/reports/ti sguide.pdf We look forward to reviewing the traffic impact study, including Technical Appendices, and DEIR for this project. Please send two copies to the address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN: Lisa Carboni, Mail Stop #IOD. Community Planning Consider developing and applying pedestrian and bicycling performance measures as a means of evaluating project impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists. These could include sidewalk crowding, intersection crossing distances, and speed of traffic. Also, consider modeling pedestrian and bicycle trips that your project will generate, or applying a pedestrian and bicycle subset of the countywide model, so that impacts can be quantified. Mitigations resulting from this analysis could improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit, thereby reducing traffic impacts on state highways. In addition, please analyze secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists that may result from any mitigations for traffic impacts. Please describe any pedestrian and bicycle mitigations that would in turn be needed as a means of maintaining and improving access to transit and reducing traffic impacts on state highways (for example, pedestrian treatments to counteract impacts from widening intersections to accommodate more traffic). Encroachment Permit Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Ms. Erica Fraser January 9, 2008 Page 3 To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans which clearly indicate State ROW to the address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN: Michael Condie, Mail Stop #SE. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Lisa Carboni at (510) 622- 5491. Sincerely, ~' TIMOTHY SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ,~ '~3l ~ X55 ghee/s ~:. r----- Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authorlfy January 10, 2008 Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Arroyo Vista Development Project Dear Ms. Fraser: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project; the proposed redevelop- ment of 150 units of existing low-income housing into a proposed development of 378 units, including 130 income-restricted family units, SO income-restricted senior units and 198 market rate single family units. This location is served by Wheels route 3, which provides service to Dublin/Pleasanton BART, the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, Dublin High School, Wells Middle School, Shannon Park, the Dublin Senior Center, and the Stoneridge Mall, at a frequency. of 15-60 minutes, in both directions, seven days a week. Route 3 operates in a loop pattern providing service in both directions. All buses enter from Dough- erty Road at North Mariposa, then board and alight at South Mariposa, then return to Dougherty Road. When traveling northbound on Dougherty Road the bus must perform a difficult, unprotected left turn to enter and exit the development. Based on the proposed site plan (exhibit 3 of the initial study), North Mariposa would not be available for entry into the development; therefore, we prefer to move bus service from inside the development to Dougherty Road. LAVTA requests that bus turnouts and bus stops be constructed by the developer on Dougherty Road and North Mariposa and Dougherty Road and 8~' Street; however, Dougherty Road is currently unsafe for pedestrians to cross. We also suggest a traffic signal and crosswalk at Dougherty Road and 8~' Street to ensure pedestrian safety and provide access to the existing bicycle trail. Your consulting with us on this project is highly appreciated. Thank you for allowing us to work with you to ensure that new developments include a safe, attractive infrastructure for users of public trans- portation in our community. Sincerely, Rodrigo Carrasco Transit Analyst Intern RECEtlI'E~ JAN i 4 2008 DUBLtN PLANNING 1362 Rutan Court, Suite 100 Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 455-7555 (925) 443-1375 fax wwwwheelsbus.com `I3g ~f- ~s5 Frc~rn: "Erica Fraser" <Erica.Fraser@ci.dublin.ca.us> ~ubjc-.ct: FW: Arroyo Vista Date: January 17, 2008 7:23:33 PM GMT To: "Jeri Ram" <Jeri.Ram@ci.dublin.ca.us>, "Mary Jo Wilson" <MaryJo.Wilson@ci.dublin.ca.us>, "Jerry Haag" <jphaag@pacbell.neb ,~ 1 Attachment, 1.5 KB FYI From: Jing Firmeza [mailto:jaef0730@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:53 AM To: Erica Fraser Cc: Janet Lockhart; Kate Ann Scholz; Tony Oravetz; Tim Sbranti; Kasie Hildenbrand; kschmidt@edenhousing.org Subject: Arroyo Vista Hello Erica; Thank you for the meeting last night regarding Arroyo Vista. It is gratifying to have you listen to our inputs Dublin residents in scoping Arroyo Vista. Overall, your plans are outstanding and well planned. Eden Housing is a great organization to partner with in regards to our seniors. I hope we will invest and partner more ventures with Eden Housing in the future. I have opposed developments in Dublin due to water shortages, home pricing and traffic, I do wholeheartedly support redeveloping Arroyo Vista. We have opportunities with this development to upgrade the standards of families and seniors in Dublin. Please consider my suggestions for Arroyo Vista. 1. I have been in a couple of council meetings regarding child care in our residential neighborhood. The common opposition is noise and traffic. State mandates and supports child care in residential neighborhood. At Arroyo Vista we have an opportunity to provide entrepreneurship to stay at home moms or anyone for that matter to open a child care business. I have no problem with the child care company slated for the Arroyo Vista project. Mayor Lockhart mentioned on one of those meetings that she supports child care in a homey environment. Not a commercial type establishment. Building per say 10 homes at Arroyo Vista and making it available for sale or rent strictly for child care business operated by a mom or a dad. It provides an opportunity for the mother to care for her child and still earn extra income. It also provides us to redirect enterprising Dublin residents to open a child care business where no residents could oppose due to noise or traffic problems. In the middle of the 10 child care housing units is a small library/class and a playground which is enclosed for safety. This is a better deal for Dublin than a commercial type child care establishment. 2. I have known a few situations for a lack of senior care for semi independent seniors. There is a big need for independent and the ambulatory type seniors. Ambulatory seniors are housed at nursing care and are sometimes bed ridden or on wheel chairs. I have encountered a son and a daughter that are struggling to have someone care for their mom who is semi independent. Because they have to work during the day time, they cannot leave their mom at home alone. Their mom can walk with a walker and is susceptible to seizure and falling on her own. She cannot hold a plate or open the microwave to fix her lunch or snack. Though low income she is not qualified for a nursing home care. The county have IHSS which is in-home care funding. V~th a senior care like this, the son and daughter can drive their mom to the senior day care and pick her up after work. Another senior couple I know is a wife that is blind 100% and an able bodied husband who can still work. The husband loves to work to augment their income. They can get IHSS funding for the blind disabled wife to pay for her day care. We don't have those type of establishment. Arroyo Vista being in the center of Dublin is perfect for this type of senior care. 3. I would also like to extend the affordable housing to a 55 and over seniors who wish to buy down their large equities in their existing homes. Price this homes lower so that seniors can sell their home and still pay a much lower property tax. It is also good for our county and to our city when their homes are sold that new owners will be assessed to the market rate now increasing property taxes collection. With the high inflation ~,3~ ~ X5.5 ~W rates, seniors are having difficulty financially. Cashing out their home equities they can live out of their interest income on these funds. Let us not disqualify this group of seniors with high equities to have a good living. 4. I hate to see a big sound wall fence at Dougherty. It makes the subdivision look like a fortress. I suggest a "' half size fence and use the existing trees as sound barriers. 5. I suggest a single street entrance and exit. I find that this type of subdivision encourages zero crime. Burglars hate single exit entrance neighborhoods. They can be easily caught by just blocking the main entrance. It would also minimize traffic at Dougherty. I have seen commuters pass through the existing subdivision now to skip gridlock at Dougherty. ' 6. Let us keep existing trees at the site. Let us plant more trees and more water conserving landscaping. 7. Low income housing is susceptible to crime. Build a small precinct which is not in the open to be manned by our Dublin Police close to the low income housing. I don't want seniors from Eden housing getting mugged in ~"' the open. We need to encourage our seniors to come out on a nice sunny day to exercise walk or do Taichi at that beautiful planned park next to the senior housing. "" I applaud your efforts in planning this development. It will enhance our city and Dougherty. Good job!!! .Ding Firmeza, Realtor and Mortgage Loan Agent Cell 925-216-3456 Fax 925-847-8999 w ~lyo ~f- ~is5 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRI[;T 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551-9486 , PHONE (925) 454-5000 January 17, 2008 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development Project Dear Ms. Fraser: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture/irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. We have the following comments. As stated on pages 42-43 of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), a greater demand for potable water is anticipated once the new development is complete. Currently, Zone 7 provides potable water service to Arroyo Vista directly. The NOP states that once the site has been demolished, and the new units installed with associated site improvements, that water service will be supplied by Dublin San Ramon Services District or DSRSD. Zone 7 applauds this move, as DSRSD is the local water retailer and is the appropriate party to supply this service. 2. Zone 7 requests that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) explore the use of recycled water at this site to minimize any additional demands on Zone 7. Also, Zone 7's current Capital Improvement Program is designed to meet the ultimate potable water demands as stated in the General Plans of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Therefore, the DEIR should state whether the increased water demands (if any, after accounting for planned recycled water use), coupled with other demands within the City of Dublin and the part of Dougherty Valley served by DSRSD, are within the currently-planned ultimate water demands in the City's General Plan. 3. The development is in the vicinity of one of Zone 7's major transmission pipelines. In addition, Zone 7 owns and maintains the Arroyo Vista Turnout. Please provide draft construction plans for review and comment as they become available. Please note that any relocation of Zone 7's pipeline or turnout will be at the developer's expense. 4. With regards to sub-sections c, d, and e, on page 32, a hydrology study should b,e performed as part of the EIR process to determine the impacts of additional runoff from the proposed project site. The study should be coordinated with and be made available for review by Zone 7 staff. ~iEWEIVEC~ JA~ti 1 s 2008 DUBLIN PLpnNING ~~~ a f a5y Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin, Community Development Department January 17, 2008 Page 2 of 2 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e- mail at mlimna,zone7water.com. Sincerely, ~~ ` Mary Lim Environme tal Services Program Manager cc: Karla Nemeth, Jim Horen, Y.K. Chan, Joe Seto, Jeff Tang , y~l~ "~' X55 ~~~I/ San Ramon \OCA LI!'ORNIA, 90t *~Oq At ~~ CITY OF SAN RAMON 2222 CAMINORAMOx SAx RAMON, CALIFORMA 94583 PHONE: (925)973-2500 WEB SITE: www.sanramon.ca.gov January 24, 2008 Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 RE Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development Project Dear Ms Fraser: The City of San Ramon appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. The City has completed its review of the Initial Study and is submitting the following comments for consideration in the EIR process. The traffic study to be prepared for the Arroyo Vista Development Project should include an assessment of impact related to new project traffic on both Interstate 680 and 580. In addition, the project will result in increased density and will likely negatively impact intersection and roadway levels of service. While it is anticipated that physical roadway and intersection improvements will be proposed in an effort to mitigate project impacts, the City of San Ramon would request the consideration of the following measure to further reduce traffic impacts: - 1. Implementation of a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, similar to the cities of Pleasanton and San Ramon to achieve reduction in the single vehicle occupant trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Dublin should work in concert with neighboring jurisdictions to offer commute alternative incentive programs to residents, commuters, and students. 2. Insist that the Developers finance "seed" money to implement TDM incentive programs to residents, commuters, and merchants located within the project vici~eV~~ ~a~v z ~ 2oos DUBLIN PL~-rvININr~ c;[TY c:ouxcn.: Y!s-zsjo Cm CLERK: 973-2539 PARKS ~ COMMUNRY SERVICES: 973-3200 PLnxNING DEPARTMENT: 973-2560 CIrs~MANAaER:973-2530 HuMAx RESOURCes: 973-2503 POLICE $ERVtCES: 973-2700 PUBLIC SERVICES: 973-2500 CrrrATTORNEV:973-2549 FINAxCEDEPARTMENT:973-2609 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: 973-2554 ENAnueeRnar,SeRVmFS•97i-2670 N~{3 ~- X55 3. Continue to monitor intersection to track peak hour volumes and respond accordingly. 4. A transit evaluation should be developed to review and evaluate effectiveness of future transit service for the proposed project. A written and graphical description of existing and planned transit service located near the project should be developed and include: • Transit routes/description/map • Transit station/stop locations • Site access to major regional transit center • Existing and planned transit schedules and headway information Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at. (925) 973-2567. r Sinc e Laure arr, Senior Planner yyy "f X55 State of CaliFomia-Business, TransporFation and Housing Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 4999 Gleason Drive Dublin, CA 94568-3310 (925) 828-0466 -Office (925) 828-1377 -Facsimile (800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD) (800) 735-2922 (Voice) January 14, 2008 File No.: 390.11767 Ms. Erica Fraser City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Fraser: The Dublin Area office of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) received the "Notice of Preparation" of the Environmental document prepared for the proposed Arroyo Vista Development Project (SCH#2007122066). After reviewing this document, we have a concern with this project. Our concern relates to the impact this proposed project will no doubt have on traffic patterns and public safety in the region. The demolition of 150 existing dwellings, followed by the cont~uption.of ~7.$ new dwellings on the site within the city limits will increase traffic volume on local roadways, which' include Crow .Canyon Road,.,AlCosta goad, .Bollinger. CanyoC~ Road, Dougherty Road, andyDubiin Canyori~Road,` all of which connect to~either Interstate 680 or Interstate 580. The increased traffic may ultimately cause delays in emergency response times. Additionally, the proposed project would necessitate additional resources and officers to provide adequate traffic enforcement, emergency incident management, public service, assistance and accident investigation on the surrounding unincorporated roadways and Interstate freeways. Lieutenant S. Latimer will be our Department's contact person for the project. If you have any questions or concerns, she may be reached at the above address or telephone number. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, ~ti,,'1-,'1--~_ M. M. MUELLER, Captain Commander Dublin Area .. .. ~ ~ .. -' ~~ ~; California Highway Patrol -Special Projects..8ect~on,,and .'Golden .Gate-Division:, .,~~ State Clearinghouse ~ ~' ~ ~. .. _... .. .: , .: ~ . ~ JAi~ 2 ~J 2008 Safety, Service, and Security DUBLIN PL~arvrarNG _ ~ ~~~ ~ ~5`~ ALAMEDA COUNTY .a~ ~ CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY ~~ r 1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220 •OAKLAND, CA 94612 • PHONE: (510) 836-2560 • FAX: (510) 836-2185 E-MAIL: mail~accma.ca.gov • WEB SITE: accma.ca.gov ~; AC 7tansx Director aia Greg Harper January 21, 2008 Alameda County `~~ Supervisors "~~ M'~ Ms. Erica Fraser, AICP .a Scott Haggerty char Senior Planner city of Alameda Community Development Department "~"°` Revery Johnson City of Dublin Ila> 100 Civic Plaza City of Albany Councilmember Dublin, CA 94568 Farld Javandel eax` RANT SUBJECT: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Director Thomas Blalock Impact Report for the Arroyo Vista Development Project lrl the City City of Berkeley of Dublin (PA 07-028) +~ Councllmember Kdss Worthington City of Dublin Dear Ms. Fraser: Mayor am Janet Lockhart Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Dublin's A>•royo Vista City of Emsryvllle Mce-Mayor Development Project in the City of Dublin. The 23.8 acre project area is located on RuthAtldn the west side of Dougherty Road, south of the intersection with Amador Valley !~ City of Fremont Boulevard and north of the intersection with the Iron Horse Trail. The western ~"' wce-Mayor RobeAw~eckowskl boundary is Alamo Creek. The Project involves demolition of the existing 150 City of xsyward dwelling units on site and construction of up to 378 units, both single family and as ~5 myultOfamily forOsale dwellings and rental apartments. ~:.: weeney Mlcha City of Livermore M~ror The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments: Marshall Kamena city of xewark Coundlmembar . The City of Dublin adopted Resolution 120-92 on September 28, 1992 Luis Freitas establishing guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use decisions """ City of Oakland consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMP). ~; CounGlmen~6er LanyReld Based on our review of the NOP, the proposed project appears to generate at City of Piedmont least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over existing conditions. If this is the case, "u` Councilm~e~ 9er the CMP Land Use Analysis Program requires the City to conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model City of Pleasanton for projection years 2015 and 2030 conditions. Please note the following JennlerHOSterman paragraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling. City of San Lsendro Councllmember Joyce R. starosdak ~' o The CMA Board amended the CMP on March 26`h, 1998 so that local e>~ City of Union City jurisdictions are now responsible for conducting the model runs themselves ~"" Mayor Ma~~aen or through a consultant. The City of Dublin has not yet returned a signed a 1~ Vice Chair Countywide Model Agreement to the ACCMA. A copy of the Model Executive Dlroctor Agreement was delivered previously to the City of Dublin. f~EvE1VED Dennis R. Fay JAN 2 ~ 2008 1111Q1 IAI OI Awlwlll~l f~ y~ll~ °f- q55 Ms. Erica Fraser January 21, 2008 Page 2 o Before the model can be released to you or your consultant, the agreement must be signed by the City and the ACCMA and a letter must be submitted to the ACCMA requesting use of the model and describing the project. Copies of the Model Agreement and sample letter agreement are attached. o If the City chooses to use a model other than the Countywide Model for traffic impact analysis, then for the purposes of the CMP Land Use Analysis Program, it should be demonstrated that the selected model output traffic volumes are conservative compared with the Alameda Countywide Model, with regard to the MTS. roadways that are required to be analyzed. This comparison should be included in the environmental document. Potential impacts of the project on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) need to be addressed. (See 2005 CMP Figures E-2 and E-3 and Figure 2). The DEIR should address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. These include I-580, I-680, SR 84, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, Fallon Road/El Charro Road, as well as BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2015 and 2030 conditions. o Please note that the ACCMA does not have a policy for determining a threshold of significance for Level of Service for the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP. Professional judgment should be applied to determine the significance of project impacts (Please see chapter 6 of 2005 CMP for more information). o In addition, the adopted 2005 CMP requires using 1985 Highway Capacity Manual for freeway capacity standards. • The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993, the CMA Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DEIR project mitigation measures: - Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for roadways and transit; - Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate; - Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the CMP or the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The DEIR should include a discussion on the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures relative to these criteria. In particular, the DEIR should detail when proposed roadway or transit route improvements are expected to be completed, how they will be funded, and what would be the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these projects were assumed to be built prior to project completion. • Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See 2005 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for bus service and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART ~I~l~ °~ ~i5 S Ms. Erica Fraser January 21, 2008 Page 3 during peak hours. The DEIR should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the CMA's policies as discussed above. • The DEIR should also consider demand-related strategies that are designed to reduce the need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of existing facilities (see 2005 CMP, Chapter 5). The DEIR should consider the use of TDM measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attaining acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage ridesharing, flextime, transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic trips should be considered. The Site Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the review of the development proposal. A copy of the checklist is enclosed. • The EIR should consider opportunities to promote countywide bicycle routes identified in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, which was approved by the ACCMA Board on October 26, 2006. The approved Countywide Bike Plan is available at httn://www.accma.ca. ov/pages/HomeBicyclePlan aspx • For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of the project. If the analysis finds. an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., soundwalls) should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 if you require additional information. Sincerely, Diane Stark Senior Transportation Planner cc: file: CMP -Environmental Review Opinions -Responses - 2008 .• ~I~I fr ~ X155 Appendix 8.4 Air Quality Analysis 8~ Greenhouse Gas Analysis Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 183 City of Dublin January 2009 ~iy~I o-f- X55 A1R QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED ARROYO VISTA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, DUBLIN Prepared for: Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 May 2008 ~~ o °~- ~ 55 ,~ INTRODUCTION The report was prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended within the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ~ BAAQMD).~ In keeping with these guidelines, the report describes existing air quality, construction-related impacts, indirect emissions associated with project operation and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate any identified significant impacts. ^ The proposed project consists of the development of 50 affordable senior units, 130 affordable family units, and 198 for sale housing units on a 23.8 acre site bounded by Dougherty Road to the east, Alamo Creek to the west, Amador Valley Boulevard to the north and the Iron Horse Trail to the south. hee rdo'ect wouldtreplace 150 ulnts of Community Building and a Child Care Center. T p 1 a public housing currently on the site. EXISTING CONDITIONS ' Air Pollution Climatology The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere"s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. gfi.- The project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small subregional ~ air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mounSt nnRamonf Valleys which ext n'ds ~ surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the northward into Contra Costa County. The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution otential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally p lighter winds and a higher frequency of ca{m conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, .~ severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to but aee earficularly peev~alelnt in the summer be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, p months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. ~ According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management Disnt me,raandofa IIO High temperauhes ,~ the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the su BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (Revised 1999) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2 y51 ~ ~i55 increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozo nts also oc ups betweenfthe Livermope Valley and the San Bay Area. Transport of polluta Joaquin Valley to the east. During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutants Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called criteria pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 1 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 2. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and particulate matter (PM~o and PM2.s) Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. "Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined as "suspend FMaS ~ by def n ttton, or PM~o• Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PMz.5). is included in PM~o. Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)vaith another group of pollutants of concern. There are many different types of TACs, varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at leastforty different toxic air contaminants. The most important, in terms of health risk, are diesel 3 rya ~{- q55 particulate, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage and death. Ambient Air Quality The state and national ambient air quality standards cover a wide variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD maintains a network of monitoring sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the project site is in Livermore. Table 3 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring site for the period 2005-2007. Table 3 shows that the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone and PM~o are exceeded. Attainment Status and Regional Air Quality Plans The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "nonattainment areas". Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco BayArea as a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PM~o and PM2.s standards. Under the California Clean Air ActAlameda County is a nonattainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PM~o and PMz.s)• The county is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air. Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality) and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard. 4 ~, Table 1: Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources Ozone A highly reactive photochemical pollutant !Eye Irritation The major sources ozone precursors are u created by the action of sunshine on ozone !Respiratory function impairment. obiless and evaporation of solvents utom precursors (primazily reactive hydrocarbons and fuels. and oxides of nitrogen. Often called photochemical smog. Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless !Impairment of oxygen transport in the Automobile exhaust, combustion of combustion of wood in fuels Monoxide gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. bloodstream. !Aggravation of cardiovasculaz disease. , woodstoves and fireplaces. !Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. !Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations. Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors the air, !Increased risk of acute and chronic Automobile and diesel truck exhaust, industrial processes, fossil-fueled power Dioxide formed during combustion. res irato disease. p ry lants. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a !Aggravation of chronic obstruction lung Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil-powered power plants, industrial processes. pungent, irritating odor. disease. !Increased risk of acute and chronic res iratory disease. Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, !Aggravation of chronic disease and Combustion, automobiles, field burning, factories and unpaved roads. Also a Matter aerosols and other matter which aze small heart lung disease symptoms. result of photochemical processes. enough to remain suspended in the air fora long period of time. U) t)1 ~ ~'~ °~- X55 Table 2: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal Time Primary Standard Ozone 1-Hour __ 8-Hour 0.075 PPM Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 1-Hour 35.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 1-Hour __ Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 1-Hour __ PMio Annual Average -- 24-Hour 150 /m3 PM2.5 Annual 15 iag/m 24-Hour 35 Ng/ma Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 ~Ig/m 30 Da Avera a -- Sulfates 24 Hour 25 iag/m Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM State Standard 0.09 PPM 0.07 PPM 9.0 PPM 20.0 PPM 0.03 PPM 0.18 PPM 0.04 PPM 0.25 PPM 20 lag/m 50 /m3 12 ~Ig/m 1.5 ~ /m3 PPM =Parts per Million µg/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08) htto://www arb ca gov/research/sags/aaas2 pdf 6 y5s df X55 Table 3: Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007 Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In: 2005 2006 2007 Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2 Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3 Ozone Federal8-Hour 1 5 1 PM~o Federal 24- Hour 0 0 0 PM~o State 24-Hour 0 3 2 PM2.5 Federal 24- Hour 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8-Hour 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http: //www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart) L 7 ~5b °~ X55 Sensitive Receptors The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Residential areas are located near the south, west and northern boundaries of the project site. The project itself would be a sensitive receptor. Significance Criteria California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines provide that a projectwould have a significant air quality impact if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region isnon-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors), • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines2 provide the following refinements to the definition of a significant air quality impact: • A project contributing to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour would be considered to have a significant impact. • A project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) or PM~o. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised December 1999). 8 y5~ ~ X55 cumulative air quality impact. • Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact. Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact. Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of PM~o exceed 80 pounds per day. The BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~o. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. 9 IMPACTS Impact 1: Construction Dust Emissions. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate construction-period exhaust emissions and fugitive dust that would temporarily affect local air quality. This would represent a potentially significant impact. The proposed project would require demolition of existing buildings. The physical demolition of existing structures and other infrastructure are construction activities with a high potential for creating air pollutants. In addition to the dust created during demolition, substantial dust emissions could be created as debris is loaded into trucks for disposal. 0 According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and carbon monoxide related to construction equipment are already included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans, and thus are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon monoxide standards in the Bay Area. Thus, the effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally '~'` elevated levels of PM~o downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 1. Require implementation of the following dust control measures by contractors during demolition of existing structures: • Watering should be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and break-up of pavement. r • Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. • Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. Watering should be used to control dust generation during transport and handling of recycled materials. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following measures shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project: „~ • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 10 y5~(~ X155 • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. The following are additional mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD to reduce engine exhaust emissions: • Use alternative fueled construction equipment • Minimize idling time (5 minutes maximum); • Maintain properly tuned equipment; • Limit the hours of operation of heavy equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use The above measures include all feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for large sites. According to the District threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation of the measures would reduce construction impacts of the project to aless-than-significant level. Impact 2: Construction TAC Emissions. During construction various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use on the site. Exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel particulate would represent aless-than-significant impact. In 1998 the California Air Resources Board identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines.3 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy 3California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Enaines and Vehicles, October 2000. 11 ~~~ ~- ~5~ and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truckstop) were identified as having the highest associated risk. Health risks from Toxic Air Contaminants are function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a period of weeks at any one location. Additionally, construction related sources are mobile and transient in nature, and the bulk of the emission occurs within the project site at a substantial distance from most nearby receptors. Because of its short duration, health risks from construction emissions of diesel particulate would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 2: None required. Impact 3: Permanent Local Impacts. Project traffic would add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets and intersections providing access to the site. This is a less than significant impact. On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document identifies situations where modeling of carbon "'~ monoxide concentrations should be conducted to quantify project impacts.4 They are: 1. Vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide exceed 550 pounds per day, 2. Project traffic would impact signal-controlled intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F, or 3. Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more. Application of the above three thresholds indicates that no intersections require quantitative analysis. An URBEMIS2007 analysis of project emissions found that project carbon monoxide emissions would not approach 550 pounds per day. Level of Service with the proposed project would be LOS C or better at all affected signalized intersections, and the project would not increase traffic volumes on roadways by 10% or more. Project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered to be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3; None required. Impact 4: Permanent Regional Impacts. Additional trips to and from the project would result in new air pollutant emissions within the air basin. The emissions from these new trips and area sources would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of ° Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised December 1999). 12 y~l ~f ass significance for regional pollutants, and would represent aless-than-significant impact. Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emission model. The methodology used in estimating vehicular emissions is described in Appendix 1. The incremental daily emission increase associated with project land uses is identified in Table 4 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PM~o. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established threshold of significance for ozone precursors and PM~o of 80 pounds per day. Proposed project emissions shown in Table 4 would exceed not these thresholds of significance, so the proposed project would not have significant effect on regional air quality. Mitigation Measure 4: None required. Impact 5: Cumulative Regional Impacts. The project would not require a General Plan re-designation, and would not have a cumulatively significant regional airquality impact. According the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project that generates criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds would have a significant air quality impact individually and cumulatively. Proposed project emissions shown in Table 4 would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do provide, however, that projects with individually insignificant impacts could have a cumulatively significant impact.5 If a project requires a General Plan amendment it would have a significant cumulative impact if the project generates more Vehicle Miles Traveled than that anticipated under the previous land use designation. The proposed project does not require a General Plan re-designation, and therefore would not have a significant cumulative air quality impact on regional air quality based on the BAAQMD threshold of significance. Mitigation Measure 5: None required. s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (Revised December 1999) 13 ~aa ~- X55 Table 4: Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Oxides PM~o Vehicular Emissions 33.4 42.4 53.1 Area Source Emissions 22.9 3.5 0.1 Total 56.3 45.9 53.2 BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0 Threshold ~a, 14 APPENDIX 1: NEW VEHICLE TRAVEL EMISSIONS Estimates of construction phase emissions and operational emissions generated by project traffic and area sources were made using a program called URBEMIS 2007 (Version 9.2.4).6 URBEMIS 2007 is a program that estimates the emissions that result from development projects. Land use projects can include residential uses such assingle-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial facilities. URBEMIS 2007 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user- supplied information can also be used when it is available. Default trip lengths and average trip speeds for Alameda County were used. The analysis was carried out assuming a 2009 vehicle mix. Area source emissions were also quantified using the URBEMIS2007 program. The URBEMIS2007 program identifies 5 categories or area source emissions. Four of these categories would be associated with proposed project: Natural Gas Combustion Landscaping Emissions Architectural Coatings Consumer Products Natural gas emissions result from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Estimates are based on the size of project. URBEMIS2007 calculates emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel by landscape maintenance equipment. Equipment in this category includes lawn mowers, roto-tillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used in maintenance of the site. Architectural coating emissions result from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnished, primers and other surface coatings associated with maintenance of structures. This category of emission is associated with operation of project land uses rather than with initial construction of the project. The default assumption is that 10% of structures will be painted each year. The URBEMIS2007 program utilizes VOC (volatile organic compounds) content limits as they have been specified by each air district. Consumer product emissions are generated by a wide range of product categories, including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care produces. Emissions associated with these products primarily depend on the increased population associated with residential development. The URBEMIS2007 program was used to estimate emissions of regional pollutants for 6Jones and Stokes Associates, Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows, Version 9.2, November 2007. 15 Nb~l ~ ~j55 summer and winter months. Summertime emissions of ROG and NOx were utilized since these pollutants are ozone precursors, and ozone is a summertime pollutant. The winter month emission of PM~owas used. The program output is attached. ~- 16 ~b5 ~ X55 ARROYO VISTA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT GLOBAL WARMING GASES ANALYSIS The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which some of the radiant heat from the sun is captured in the lower atmosphere of the earth. The gases that help capture the heat are called greenhouse gases (GHG). While greenhouse gases are not normally considered air pollutants, all of these gases have been identified as forcing the earth's atmosphere and oceans to warm above naturally occurring temperatures. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Certain human activities add to the levels of most of these natural occurring gases. According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report (CCAT), the following climate change effects are predicted in California over the course of the next century: • A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state's water supply. • Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 to 35% increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas. • Coastal erosion along the length of California and sea water intrusion into the Delta from a 4- to 33-inch rise in sea level. This would exacerbate flooding in already vulnerable regions. • Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures. • Increased challenges for the state's important agriculture industry from limited water shortage, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta. • Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. In September 2006, the California legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act (CGWSA), which was added to Health and Safety Code Section 38500 (also commonly referred to as AB32). The CGWSA states that global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. Many scientists believe that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) (defined as carbon dioxide [C02], methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N20], hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are having a significant impact on the global environment by accelerating or even causing global warming. California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Scharzenegger and the Legislation, March 20006. ~~?~~~ ~ X55 The CGWSA requires that the state reduce emissions of GHG to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased-in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, CGWSA directs CARB to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emission levels. The CGWSA mandates that CARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to the level to be achieved by 2020. On or before January 1, 2011, CARB must adopt GHG emission limits and emission reduction measures by regulation to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions in furtherance of achieving the statewide GHG emissions limit, to become operative beginning on January 1, 2012. The BAAQMD has prepared a GHG emissions inventory using 2002 as the base year. The BAAQMD estimated that 85.4 million tons of C02-equivalent2 GHG gases were emitted from anthropogenic sources in the Bay Area in 2002. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles) accounted for approximately 43 percent. Stationary sources, including industrial and commercial sources, power plants, oil refineries, and landfills were responsible for approximately 49 percent. Construction and mining equipment was estimated to account for approximately two percent (or about 1.7 million tons) of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions.3 Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimate Methodology Direct Emissions Estimates of carbon dioxide generated by project traffic and area sources were made using a program called URBEMIS-2007 (Version 9.2.4). URBEMIS-2007 is a program used statewide that estimates the emissions that result from development projects. Land use projects can include residential uses such as single-family dwelling units, apartments and condominiums, and nonresidential uses such as shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial facilities. URBEMIS-2007 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emissions. However, project-specific, user- supplied information can also be used when it is available. z Greenhouse gases are converted into COZ-equivalent values based on their potential to absorb heat in , the atmosphere. For instance, CH4 traps 21 times more heat per molecule than COZ and, therefore, one pound of CH4 has a C02-equivalent value of 21 pounds. a Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bav Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ~ 2006. ~-I lob ~ q 55 Inputs to the URBEMIS-2007 program include trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type and average speed. Daily trip generation for the project was provided by the project transportation consultant. Average trip lengths and speeds for Alameda County were used. The analysis was carried out assuming a 2009 vehicle mix. Area source emissions of carbon dioxide were also quantified by the URBEMIS-2007 program. The URBEMIS program identifies 5 categories of area source emissions: Natural Gas Combustion Hearth Emissions Landscaping Emissions Architectural Coating Consumer Products Natural gas emissions result from the combustion of natural gas for cooking, space heating and water heating. Estimates are based on the number of residential land uses and the number and size of nonresidential land uses. Hearth emissions consist of emissions from wood stoves, wood fireplaces, and natural gas fireplaces related to residential uses. No emissions from this source are expected from the proposed project. URBEMIS calculates emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel by landscape maintenance equipment. Equipment in this category includes lawn mowers, rotor tillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used in residential and commercial applications. This category also includes air compressors, generators, and pumps used primarily in commercial applications. Consumer product emissions are generated by a wide range of product categories, including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care produces. Emissions associated with these products primarily depend on the increased population associated with residential development. In URBEMIS-2007, these sources generate ROG emissions but not carbon dioxide. Architectural coating emissions result from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnished, primers and other surface coatings associated with maintenance of residential and nonresidential structures. In URBEMIS-2007, this source generates ROG emissions but not carbon dioxide. The URBEMIS-2007 results for carbon dioxide are attached. The output shows annual emissions of carbon dioxide. While URBEMIS-2007 estimates carbon dioxide emissions from land use projects, there are other global warming gases that should be considered. Emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) were estimated separately based on the URBEMIS-2007 estimates of carbon dioxide from vehicles and natural gas combustion. CH4 and N20 emission factors from Table 3 in BAAQMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions" were utilized in a spreadsheet to estimate project emissions of these gases. Because these gases are more powerful global warming gases the emissions were multiplied by a correction factor to estimate "carbon dioxide equivalents". CH4 was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 21 times that of C02, while N20 was assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of C02. The attached spreadsheet printout shows the estimated calculation of CH4 and N20 carbon dioxide equivalents and the calculation of total estimated C02 equivalent emissions for the project from all identified sources. Indirect Emissions Indirect emissions are related to secondary emissions of global warming gases emitted away from the site and not directly related to project activities. The most import of these is that portion of the electricity used by the project that would be generated by fossil- fueled power plants that generate global warming gases. Global warming gas emissions related to electricity use were estimated using average "~' annual electrical consumption per residential unit and square foot of commercial space ®F~. recommended by the California Energy Commission. Emission rates for C02, CH4 and N20 per megawatt hour were taken from the California Climate Action Registry General ""' Reporting Protocol, Version 3.0. Project residential units and commercial square .x footage was multiplied by the electrical usage factor and emission rates per megawatt hour to obtain annual emissions for C02, CH4 and N20. These emissions were converted to C02 equivalents. The calculation is shown in the attached spreadsheet. '~' Results The resulting estimated daily emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the project are shown in Table 1. Emissions are expressed as C02-equivalent metric tons per year. Expressing emission in C02-equivalent metric tons per year accounts for the greater global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide. Methane has a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide, while nitrous oxide is 310 times that of the same amount of carbon dioxide. LI ~~l off- X55 No air district in California, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, has identified a significance threshold for GHG emissions or a methodology for analyzing air quality impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. The state has identified 1990 emission levels as a goal through adoption of AB 32. To meet this goal, California would need to generate lower levels of GHG emissions than current levels. However, no standards have yet been adopted quantifying 1990 emission targets. It is recognized that for most projects there is no simple metric available to determine if a single project would help or hinder meeting the AB 32 emission goals. In addition, at this time AB 32 only applies to stationary source emissions. Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector accounted for over 40% of the total GHG emissions in California in 2004. Current standards for reducing vehicle emissions considered under AB 1493 call for "the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles," and do not provide a quantified target for GHG emissions reductions for vehicles. Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is not itself an adverse environmental affect. It is the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in global climate change and the associated consequences of climate change that results in adverse environmental affects (e.g., sea level rise, loss of snowpack, severe weather events). Although it is possible to generally estimate a project's incremental contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere, it is typically not possible to determine whether or how an individual project's relatively small incremental contribution might translate into physical effects on the environment. Given the complex interactions between various global and regional-scale physical, chemical, atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic systems that result in the physical expressions of global climate change, it is impossible to discern whether the presence or absence of CO2 emitted by the project would result in any altered conditions. Greenhouse gas impacts of a single project are therefore considered too speculative to allow a determination of significance. While no mitigation measures are required, the energy efficiency aspects of the project would act to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases. Tablet : Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Metric Tons Per Year (CO2 Eq.) Vehicles Area Sources Indirect Sources Total 3918.8 665.4 969.3 5553.5 Project: Arroyo Vista Spreadsheet to CalculateElectrical Power Emissions and Other Greenhouse Gases for Bay Area Projects URBEMIS ANNUAL CO2 EMISSIONS FROM: VEHICLES: 4303.07 TONS/YEAR AREA SOURCES 730:18. TONS/YEAR ELECTRICITY 1,067 TONS/YEAR CH4 ANNUAL EMISSIONS N20 ANNUAL EMISSIONS 3.02 CO2 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 13.61 CO2 EQUIVTONS/YEAR 0.21 CO2 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 3.08 CO2 EQUIVTONS/YEAR 0.22 CO2 EQUIV.TONS/YEAR 1.52 CO2 EQUIVTONSlYEAR 3.45 CO2 EQUIVTONSNEAR 18.21 CO2 EQUIVTONS/YEAR TOTAL: Tons/year Metric Tons per year Vehicles 4319.70 3918.81 Area Sources 733.47 665.40 Electricity 1068.47 969.31 6121.63 CO2 EQUN.TONS/YEAR 5553.51 CO2 EQUNTONNES/YEAR CH4 and N2O emission factors from Table 3 in BAAOMD's "Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions", November 2006. CH4 assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 25 times that of CO2. N2O assumed to have a Global Warming Potential of 310 times that of CO2. Electrical Power Usage Amounts Units/1000 sq. ft. Usage/Unit Usage mW-hr/year 378 Residences 6.92 261 5.76 Otfice 12.84 p Restaurant 35.62 0 Retail 13.84 0 G~erY 46.96 0 Ret. Warehouse 22.36 0 Warehouse g,Oq 0 Schools 6.82 0 Colleges 10.44 0 Hospitals 21.2 0 Lodging 10.87 0 3 Misc. cmrcl. 12 36 lbs./MWh (from CCAR Protocol) 2651.76 804.54 COz 0.0067 CH° Residential Rate from California Electricity Consumption by County, 2005 (http:!/www.energy.ca.govlelectricity/electricity by count 0.0037 NOZ y 2005 html) Commercial Electricity Use, PG&E systemwide; kWH per conditioned sq. ft./yr, from CEC: http://www.consumerenergycentecorg/pv4newbuildings/downloads/II-6A.pdf ° Calif. Climate Action Registry (CCAR) Protocol ver 2.2 TONS/YEAR 1,067 0.0089 0.0049 y l~ v 1 CO2 TONS/YEAR 1,067 0.22 1.52 O t r~ n Page: 1 7/25/2008 11:41:01 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Don Ballanti\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\arroyovista.urb9 Project Name: Arroyo Vista Project Location: Alameda County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 C02 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 4.05 0.58 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 730.18 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 C02 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 5.54 7.59 64.19 0.04 7.70 1.50 4,303.07 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 C02 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 9.59 8.17 65.37 0.04 7.70 1.50 5,033.25 -~ O ~-~-' Page: 2 7/25/200811:41:01 AM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.04 0.57 Hearth Landscape 0.10 0.01 Consumer Products 3.37 Architectural Coatings 0.54 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 4.05 0.58 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 728.62 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 730.18 Area Source Changes to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Apartments low rise 1.28 1.82 Condoftownhouse general 2.29 3.05 Condoftownhouse high rise 1.43 2.01 Retirement community 0.37 0.46 Day-care center 0.17 0.25 TOTALS (tonstyear, unmitigated) 5.54 7.59 CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 15.41 0.01 1.85 0.36 1,032.17 25.80 0.02 3.09 0.60 1,728.95 17.02 0.01 2.04 0.40 1,140.15 3.92 0.00 0.47 0.09 262.42 2.04 0.00 0.25 0.05 139.38 64.19 0.04 7.70 1.50 4,303.07 Operational Settings w ----{O 1 t~ V' Page: 3 7/25/200811:41:01 AM Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2009 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Apartments low rise CondoRownhouse general CondoRownhouse high rise Retirement communfty Daycare center Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 3.62 11.80 dwelling units 58.00 684.40 5,851.41 12.38 5.79 dwelling units 198.00 1,146.42 9,801.55 1.12 10.50 dwelling units 72.00 756.00 6,463.57 10.00 3.48 dwelling units 50.00 174.00 1,487.65 35.67 1000 sq ft 3.00 107.01 798.03 2,867.83 24,402.21 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percen t Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 49.0 2.0 97.6 0.4 10.9 3.7 90.8 5.5 21.7 0.9 98.6 0.5 9.5 1.1 98.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 d '~ ~ ~ ~ t' Page: 4 7/"25/2008 11:41:01 AM Vehicle Type Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) of Trips -Residential of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Day-care center Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.5 77.1 22.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4 1 6.8 7.1 7.9 1 4.7 6.6 6.6 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 5.0 2.5 92.5 J V1 0 Mail_Care_Of Name ~.e ~~, y~~ ° f" q55 US Parks Reserve Forces Training Area: Camp Parks Attn: Commander LCC Parks, RFTA Bldg. 790 Dublin, CA 94568 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch Attn: Mark D'Avignon 1455 Market Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal Building Attn: Ryan Olah 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Department of Housing and Urban Development Attn: Enviro. Review Division 600 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Alameda County Congestion Mgm# Agency Attn: Jean Hart 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612 Fort Irwin Lt. Colonel Paul D. Cramer Director of Public Works PO Box 105097 Fort Irwin, CA 92310 Alameda County Public Works Dept. Attn: Karen Borrmann 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 CalTrans District 4 CEQA East Bay Regional Park District Attn: Steven Yokoi, CEQA Coordinator Attn: Larry Tong 111 Grand Avenue 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94623 Oakland, CA 94605 BART, 1 KB6 Mail Stop Attn: Kathy Mayo LAVTA Manager of Environmental Compliance Attn: Cyrus Sheik PO Box 12688 1362 Rutan Court, Ste. 100 Oakland, CA 94604 Livermore, CA 94550 California Dept. of Fish & Game Bay Delta Region 3 Zone 7 Attn: Scott Wilson Attn: Mary Lim PO Box 47 100 North Canyons Parkway Yountville, CA 94599 Livermore, CA 94551 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 15 copies Office of Planning and Research Attn: Terry Roberts 1400 Tenth Street PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 Fort Hunter-Liggett, Parks RFTA Attn: Peter Rubin, Director of PW 6790 5th Street Dublin, CA 94568 U.S. Postal Service Attn: Postmaster 4300 Black Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 AT&T Attn: Jon Stradford 2600 Camino Ramon, Rm 2N0006 San Ramon, CA 94583 Dublin San Ramon Services District Attn: Dave Requa 7051 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568 Alameda County Planning Dept. Attn: James Sorenson 224 W Winton Avenue, Rm. 111 Hayward, CA 94544 Dublin Unified School District Attn: John Sugiyama 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 LAVWMA Attn: Ed Cummings PO Box 2945 Dublin, CA 94568 BAAQMD Attn: Environmental Review Div. 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 SF Bay RWQCB 1515 Clay Street, Ste. 1400 Oaklad, CA 94612 Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Attn: John Rusmisel 23197 Connecticut Street Hayward, CA 94545 Comcast Cable 2333 Nissen Drive Livermore, CA 94550 Amador Valley Industries Attn: Debbie Jeffrey PO Box 12617 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PG&E Citation Homes Eden Housing 998 Murrieta Blvd. Attn: Charles McKeag Attn: Kathy Schmidt Livermore, CA 94550 404 Saratoga Avenue, Ste. 100 409 Jackson Street Santa Clara, CA 95050 Hayward, CA 94544 Dublin Housing Authority City of Livermore Planning Department Attn: Chris Gouig Attn: Marc Roberts 22941 Atherton Street 1052 South Livermore Avenue Hayward, CA 94541 Livermore, CA 94550 Contra Costa County City of Pleasanton Planning Dept. Planning Department Attn: Jerry Iserson Attn: Dennis Barry 200 Old Bernal Avenue 651 Pine Street, 4~' Floor, North Wing Pleasanton, CA 94566 Martinez, CA 94553 Rich Ambrose City Manager Cpt. Gary Thuman Police Services Paul Rankin Administrative Services Director Melissa Morton Public Works Director Joni Pattillo Assistant City Manager Kit Faubion Meyers nave Diane Lowart Parks & Community Services Director Frank Navarro Senior Civil Engineer Mark Lander City Engineer Planning File (Erica Fraser) 15 copies ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ 55 City of San Ramon Planning Dept. Attn: Phil Wong 2226 Camino Ramon ~ San Ramon, CA 94583 Contra Costa County, Public Works Attn: Maurice Shiu 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 ~„ .~~ AICP Jeri Ram , Community Development Director .~ Darrell Jones Dublin Fire Prevention + Mary Jo Wilson Planning Manager Elizabeth Silver Meyers Nave ~». ~~; Pf- y~q ~ ~i55 Appendix 8.5 Biological Site Assessment & Preliminary Wetland Delineation Arroyo Vista Project PA 07-028 Page 184 Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2009 City of Dublin ~ go ~- ~ 55 ~oc~lc F~esau~ces ssessrne~ aR~oYO v~sTA ~ovs~~~ ~u~~~~T ~L~BL1N, ALANlEDA ~AL(F~}RNIA Prepared For: Jerry Haag 2029 University Avenue Ber#ceiey, CA 9470 Contact: Tom Fraser Eraser @ vtrra-ca.com Date: February 2t}08 era 'th:vEfZC.)£~Pf'tv'i,". CO^~Svi. nS~i.S 2 f F>9-~ cos` ~=arisc^ ~?vd., San ~cfael: ~.~ 941 a (=~ 3 5) +b~+-865 tL1 {~ 5; ~3~-~? 29 fax inio~rra-ca.oc~ www.wro-~~.co€n ~ ~' F d-~- ~~' S5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................1 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................... 1 2.1 Federal Regulations .............................................. 1 2.2 State Law ......................................................3 2.3 Local Ordinances ................................................5 3.0 METHODS ...........................................................5 3.1 Biological Communities ........................................... 5 3.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities .......................... 6 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................. 6 3.2 Special Status Species ........................................... 6 3.2.1 Literature Review ............. ........................... 6 3.2.2 Site Assessment ........................................... 7 4.0 RESULTS ..... . 8 4 1 ......................... ............................ Bi l i l C iti . . o og ca ommun es .......................................... . 8 4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities ............................. 10 4.2 Special Status Species .......................................... 12 4.2.1 Plants .................................................. 12 4.2.2 Wildlife ...................... 12 ......................... 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 17 5.1 Biological Communities .......................................... 17 5.2 Special Status Plant Species ...................................... 17 5.3 Special Status Wildlife Species .................................... 17 6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .................................. 19 6.1 Special Status Species ......................... 19 ................. 6.1.1 Impacts to Special Status Species ............................ 19 6.1.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 20 6.2 Riparian Habitat ................................................ 20 6.2.1 Impacts ................................................ 20 6.2.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 20 6.3 Section 404 Wetlands ......................... 21 .................. 6 3 1 Impacts 2 . . ................................................ 6.3.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 1 21 6.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat ..................................... 21 6.4.1 Impacts .............................. 21 .................. 6.4.2 Suggested Mitigation ...................................... 22 6.5 Local Policies .................................................. 22 6.5.1 Impacts ................................................ 22 6.5.2. Suggested Mitigation ...................... 22 6.6 ................ Conservation Plans .......................... 23 ................... 6 6 ilmpacts . . .................................................. 2 Su 6 6 e t d Miti ti 23 . . gg s e ga on ........................................ 23 7.0 REFERENCES ........ .............................................23 ~Iga ~f- X155 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ............................................ 2 Figure 2. Project Area ....................................................... 9 Figure 3. Areas with Wetland Plants ........................................... 11 Figure 4. Special Status Plant Species Occurrences within Five Miles of Project Area ..... 13 Figure 5. Special Status Wildlife Species Occurrences within Five Miles of Project Area .... 14 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A- List of Observed Plant and Animal Species Appendix B- Potential for Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species to Occur in the Project Area Appendix C- Representative Project Area Photographs ~I g 3 ~ f ~I 55 1.0 INTRODUCTION On September 20, 2007, WRA, lnc. performed an assessment of biological resources at the 25- acre existing Arroyo Vista housing site (Project Area).in Dublin, Alameda County, California, which is located along Dougherty Road just north of Highway 580 (Figure 1). The purpose of the assessment was to gather information necessary to complete a review of biological resources, including an assessment of any sensitive habitats or special status species under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This information will be used in the development of an Initial Study and an Environmental Assessment document to support CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and analysis of this project. This report describes the results of the site visit, which assessed the Project Area for (1) the presence of special status species; (2) the potential to support special status species; and (3) the presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. This report also contains an evaluation of potential impacts to special status species and sensitive biological resources that may occur as a result of the proposed project, and potential mitigation measures to compensate for those impacts. A biological resources assessment provides general information on the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats, but is not an official protocol-level survey for listed species that may be required for project approval by local, state, or federal agencies. Specific findings on the occurrence of any species or the presence of sensitive habitats may require that protocol-level surveys be conducted. This assessment is based on information available at the time of the study and on site conditions that were observed on the date of the site visit. 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The following sections explain the regulatory context of the biological resources assessment, including applicable laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigation and analysis of potential project impacts. 2.1 Federal Regulations Special Status Species Federal special status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA affords protection to both listed and proposed species. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and sensitive species included in USFWS Recovery Plans are all considered special status species. Migratory Bird Treaty Act to addition to regulations for special status species, most birds in the United States, including non- status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Under this legislation, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. ~Is~+ ~ q55 ~~ - t r. ~ »:mati =-•~Y"' oar. ~ ~ -'~~~`~'~~ '- ~ ~ !' , ~ ~. -{j _.:` ~ ~..~. - ~ ~= ` ~ ~- .,,--e- ~.~ 1 ~ ti, SbeF.a,~.t',: ~ ~ ~ .,am:x ~ _ ~~~~ ~~ _ ~g ~_ MRDt~R1 ti~ l a"its Ct~ ~ f ~', l rsa ', 1 •~j ~, ~F ~~: .: ' ~: ~~ w 3~"r ~, t' `-~"' c _ ,/ ~, i- _ ~ _ _ - _~ - ~~_..~ ~~~ i ~ ;~ - - Pr~~j~~# Area e ~- ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~f ~.~' - ~ -~=- ,~1 -- ~~ ~ ~x i ~ ~ !~'1°--.: . ; C' , ~ 1 ~; t, y. .:t ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ raVf r~ l --~- ~ „~ ~ . _ . \\~ •`" ~ ril~ _ ~.. _ \ \ s ~~` ~~~~., ~~ ~++ .~ _ YOT,7 F3 ,._ ~ ' .rte-.t. r, s~ ~ CE?~Tr,'P Y_~ '•~• •~ .., ,~.- -~_ ''vim. ~y • r~ _ - ~-~ "~~ ti~l~ _~-~:~Lb,: ,rte^`.~a ~ ,; 1#i 1, '' .' f1 . ,~ .. i ~~ ?-tt~- ~ • ~} r ~ -_ .._ _ ~. _ _~ - _ =:f ~, ~u ti '~y• •4 x ~~. .~~ ;a.~ f.,,~__ "~~' '.~ .. a~ .~ -__. ~. ~` ~ ~ ~ ` tih a ~ -.._ ~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~ GR~` p _,_. ~, ~- .: -z_~ _ _ .'„m~ ~T'"'~- _ ~t 3 ~ ~~ j~ of ~ ,~, a~ ~ -L. ( }! Feet ~` ~•t a 4 #~ © 5001,000 2,000 ~ ~~'~~. ~~ ~~ 1,: "e``~~~ Figure 1. Projec# Area coca#ion Map Dublin Arroyo Vis#a Biological Assessment __ „_ -~ - -a- ~: ~, ~ SM X325 ~~~;~.-- era Et~YiRflNMEN'A: CCNSULFANTS Date: September 2007 BaumaD: t75G5 ToDO Quatl P1aD By: Derek Chan Fiepain'L_\ACatl 2000 Files\36000\16142\4~\ AAFF y85 ~f' q55 Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species' recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA "jeopardy standard." However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed for the species' recovery, are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. Sensitive Biological Communities Federal sensitive biological communities include habitats thatfulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. These habitats are regulated under federal regulations including the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates "Waters of the United States" under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. "Waters of the U.S." are defined broadly as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands stated in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated for sufficient duration and depth to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as "other waters" and are often characterized by an ordinary high water line (OHW). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into "Waters of the U.S." (including wetlands) generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 2.2 State Law Special Status Species State special status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CESA affords protection to both listed and proposed species. In addition, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, and CDFG special status invertebrates are all considered special status species. Although CDFG Species of Special Concern generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. 3 In addition, plant species on California Native Plant Socie considered special status plant species. Impacts to these spec es are considered sign ficant according to CEQA. CNPS List 3 plants have little or no protection under CEQA, but are included in this analysis for completeness. Sensitive Biological Communities State sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. These habitats are protected in California under state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the CDFG Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA. Waters of the State The term "Waters of the State" is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes "isolated" wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. "Waters of the State" are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact "Waters of the State," are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to "Waters of the State," the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. Streams. Lakes and Rioarian Habitat Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFG under Sections 1600-1616 of the State Fish and Game Code. Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term stream, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, orstream-dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG ESD 1994). Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, "vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself" (CDFG ESD 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. 4 Other Sensitive Bioloaical Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive can be identified by CDFG. CDFG ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its Natural Diversity Database. Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFG on their List of California Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). 2.3 Local Ordinances Sensitive Bioloaical Communities Local sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. These habitats are protected by local ordinances or policies (City or County Tree Ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements). Ordinance No. 52-87 of the City of Dublin establishes requirements for the protection of watercourses, including a 20-foot setback area adjacent to open channel watercourses, such as Alamo Creek. Chapter 5.60 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Ordinances also specifies that Heritage Trees are protected. These include any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree having a diameter of 24 inches or more at breast height. 3.0 METHODS On September 20, 2007, the Project Area was traversed on foot to determine (1) plant communities present within the Project Area, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were recorded, and are summarized in a species list in Appendix A. 3.1 Biological Communities Prior to the site visit, the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1966) was examined to determine if any unique soil types that could support sensitive plant communities and/or aquatic features were present in the Project Area. Aerial photographs and previous biological reports for the neighboring area were also reviewed. Biological communities present in the Project Area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified assensitive ornon-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. 5 ~~~ ~~ ~~~ 3.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other state, federal, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. These communities may, however, provide suitable habitat for some special status plant or wildlife species and are identified or described in Section 4.1.1 below. 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities are defined as those communities thatare given special protection under CEQA and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Applicable laws and ordinances are discussed above in Section 2.0. Special methods used to identify sensitive biological communities are discussed below. "' Wetlands and Waters The Project Area was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDFG were present. The assessment was based primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators, but may also include any observed indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils. Any potential wetland areas were identified as areas dominated by plant species with a wetland indicator status' of OBL, FACW, or FAC as given on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include direct evidence (primary indicators), such as visible inundation or saturation, surface sediment deposits, algal mats and drift lines, or indirect indicators (secondary indicators), such as oxidized root channels. Some indicators of wetland soils include dark colored soils, soils with a sulfidic odor, and soils that contain redoximorphic features as defined by the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS, 2002). Other Sensitive Biological Communities The Project Area was evaluated for the presence of other sensitive biological communities, including riparian areas and sensitive plant communities recognized by CDFG. If present in the Project Area, these sensitive biological communities were mapped and are described in Section 4.1.2 below. 3.2 Special Status Species 3.2.1 Literature Review Potential occurrence of special status species in the Project Area was evaluated by first determining which special status species occur in the vicinity of the Project Area through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special status species focused on the Dublin 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles. 1 OBL =Obligate, always found in wetlands (> 99% frequency of occurrence); FACW = Facultative wetland, usually found in wetlands (67-99% frequency of occurrence); FAC =Facultative, equal occurrence in wetland or non-wetlands (34-66% frequency of occurrence). 6 ~-# ~ ~~ °~"- ~j ~5 The following sources were reviewed to determine which special status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area: • California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB) (CDFG 2007) • USFWS quadrangle species lists (USFWS 2007) • CNPS Electronic Inventory records (GNPs 2007) • CDFG publication "California's Wildlife, Volumes I-III" (Zeiner et al. 1990) • CDFG publication "Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California" (Jennings 1994) • A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins, R.C. 2003) 3.2.2 Site Assessment A site visit was made to the Project Area to search for suitable habitats for species identified in the literature review as occurring in the vicinity. The potential for each special status species to occur in the Project Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria: 1) No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime). 2) Unlikely, Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. 3) Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. 4) Hiah Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. 5) Pre ent. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently. The site assessment is intended to identify the presence or absence of suitable habitat for each special status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the Project Area. The site visit does not constitute aprotocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species; however, if a special status species is observed during the site visit, its presence will be recorded and discussed. Appendix B presents the evaluation of potential for occurrence of each special status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area with their habitat requirements, potential for occurrence, and rationale for the classification based on criteria listed above. Recommendations for further surveys are made in Section 5.0 below for species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the Project Area. 7 Sao ~ X55 4.0 RESULTS The entire Project Area has previously been disturbed and does not represent ahigh-value habitat. It is a highly modified site within the city of Dublin, surrounded by other housing developments and ruderal fields. On the east side it is bounded by Dougherty Road; Amador Valley Boulevard is northwest of the Project Area. Alamo Creek flows past the western edge of the Project Area and is fenced off from the site. The elevation of the Project Area ranges from 350 to 372 feet. More than eighty percent of the site is a housing development. Community center buildings, an outdoor basketball court, and a ring of tall redwoods mark the center of the housing development (Figure 2). This development has two main access roads {Monterey Drive and North Mariposa). Houses are clustered on either side of Monterey Drive, both north and south of the loop-shaped North Mariposa road. Houses face inwards towards a shared courtyard consisting of a lawn, parking lot, and pathways. Vegetation throughout the housing subdivision consists primarily of landscaped ornamentals. Domestic or feral cats appear to frequent the Project Area, reducing habitat value for wildlife. The rest of the site is occupied by two undeveloped ruderal fields, one at the northern end of the site (North Field) and one on the western edge of the site (West Field). In North Field brush piles, wood chips, and litter cover much of the ground, and a mix of mostly non-native weedy plants comprises most of the vegetation. A few eucalyptus trees (Eucalytpus sp.) and coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) are growing at the far eastern end of North Field, near Dougherty Road. West Field is more manicured in appearance and is surrounded on all sides by a paved foot/bikepath. A basketball court borders the eastern edge of this field. The central section of this field has been mowed and a layer of sawdust placed around sections of the perimeter of the mowed area. The topography slopes downward from the north and east edges of West Field towards a low point in the northwestern corner, where a drain is located. Shrubs and trees, including willow (Salix sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), and non-native ornamentals are growing along the fence line that borders the western edge of this field. Soils have been disturbed in both of these fields. North Field was disced, and both fields (especially West Field) appear to have been graded and modified with earth-moving equipment. A wide swath of gravel has been laid on top of the soil in the southwestern section of the North Field, serving as what appears to be a temporary roadway/turnaround area. The following sections present the results and discussion of the biological assessment within the Project Area. 4.1 Biological Communities The predominant biological community present in the Project Area is ruderal herbaceous grassland, which is anon-sensitive community. No sensitive biological communities are found in the Project Area, although a small area of wetland plants was found and is discussed below. 4.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities Ruderal herbaceous arassland Although not described in the literature, ruderal herbaceous grassland includes areas that have been partially developed or have been used in the past for agriculture. Wildlife within this 8 ~, 3~ ' ~~ _ ~ .3r'. +Kr .y, ~~ ` ,~ rte` .~'. ~ 7 ~~ . i x. :, ~. ..4 ~ :s .1:. Y ~~• y~: f'~~ ~ / '~ ._ 5 ~ _e~:.e:~' West Field ,~ ~" ~. ~~ ~..i ,~ . r ~..-~~- y ~~ ~. r.t „x ~.~ ,~. ~ .~ fw Pi~~. ' ~ _ Figure 2. Project Area Dublin Arroyo Vista Bio{ogical Assessment Alameda County California y~i ~- ~~s C w F ~ },~ ~ ~~ rt ..~ ~.r "ti" ~ r ¢ ~~» k ~F~ ,~ "t~ ~y~ ~~-~~ `~' Nor'h riefc: ~ ~ -w. ~ ~ x; ~~ ,~ ~ _~ ~ t d ~ w ~ 1. r .~. .. «,r ~, ~~,~. .~ ~ x sy t .. '~ ~~ x ~~~. ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ .k~r r ~;~ ; ~ ~. 4~~ ~~f z:~*- ~ ~.. tN ~.m. ,~ ~~~ » __, .:..~-v~ ~ ~ 4 ~._ ~~ N ~ ~~~ ~~ Z _ ~x ~~' .1 :x ~ - _ __ Beet ~~ '00 200 _ .._400 ~~~ bait: Cctobes 20G7 $ase Ph9t0: TenaSe ve=, 2004 Neap $y: Derek Cian ~aeoata: L:\AtaC 2000f:3es\160001Z614219~s\ community may often include such small rodents as mice and voles, as well as snakes, lizards, and foraging songbirds. Ruderal herbaceous grassland can also be used by special status or larger animals depending on proximity to open space and other factors. The two fields within the Project Area can best be described as ruderal herbaceous grassland, particularly North Field, which is not mowed like West Field. Plant species observed in both these fields include non-native plant species such as wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatics), bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and strawberry clover (Trifolium fragiferum). Additional non-natives occurring just in North Field are cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). Plants growing along the fence line bordering the north portion of North Field include English ivy (Hedera helix), periwinkle (Vinca major), and grape vine (Vitis sp.). The native slender willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum) is also present in North Field. Wildlife use of these areas appears to be limited. Raccoon scat was observed along with several small rodent burrows, likely vole (Microtus sp.) or gopher (Thomomys bottae). Birds in these areas included Wild Turkey (Megeagris gallopavo), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). This community, making up the areas within the Project Area that are not already paved and developed, consists mostly of non-native plants and likely common wildlife species. It is a non- sensitive community. 4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Wetlands According to the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1966), two different soil types occur in the Project Area: Diablo clay (DbC) and Clear Lake clay (CdA). The majority of the site has Diablo clay soils, which are classified as well-drained and occurring on slopes of 7-15%. There is a small inclusion of Clear Lake clay soils in the Project Area encompassing the western half of North Field and just the northwestern tip of West Field. These soils are classified as moderately well-drained, occurring on 0-3% slopes. ""~ Two small (roughly 250 square feet) areas dominated by wetland plants were mapped on either side of the foot/bikepath bordering the northwestern edge of West Field within the area mapped '"' as having Clear Lake clay soils. These plants occur along a drain line in the vicinity of the drain, .;mot as shown on Figure 3 and in the photographs in Appendix C. Plants observed were tall flat-sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), narrowleaf plantain (P/antago lanceolata), California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), and rough cockle-bur (Xanthium strumarium). No other sensitive biological communities are present within the Project Area. 10 4 r. ~; ~` 4.2 Special Status Species 4.2.1 Plants Based on a review of the resources and databases given in Section 3.2.1, thirty-five special status plant species have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project Area (Appendix B). Six of these special status species have been documented to occur within five miles of the Project Area, as shown on Figure 4. These are Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonir), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana), Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea), saline clover (Trifolium depauperatumvar. hydrophilum), and hairless popcorn flower (P/agiobothrys glabe~. No plant species requiring protection were observed during the site assessment. The site assessment occurred during the bloomin between May and October), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (whech blooms between Apraand September), and San Joaquin spearscale (which blooms between April and October); however, these species ~~~ were not observed during the survey. While the survey did not occur during the blooming period of Diablo helianthella and saline clover, suitable habitat does not exist on-site for either of these species. Diablo helianthella was historically found in the hills to the northwest of the Project Area '°` (see Figure 4), and saline clover requires marshes, swamps, vernal pools, or valley and foothill grassland with mesic/alkaline soils. Hairless popcorn flower was historically documented in the Project Area, but this native annual herb is now presumed extinct in California. One naturalized Northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsir) seedling was observed during the September 20"' survey. This seedling was observed along the fence line on the western edge of West Field. This is a CNPS List i B species and is usually found in riparian .~ forest and riparian woodland, at elevations between 0 - 440 meters. It blooms between April and May. Since this species is widely naturalized in cismontane California, and since only native stands ,,,, of this species have protected status, this individual plant does not require any special protection in the Project Area. The remaining species documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area ~' have no potential to occur there, either due to lack of suitable habitat or because the Project Area is outside of the species' elevation range. 4.2.2 Wildlife All of the wildlife observed in the Project Area are commonly found species, and many are adapted to occupying disturbed or urban areas. No special status wildlife species were observed during the site assessment. Thirty-six special status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project Area. • Appendix B summarizes the potential for each of these species to occur in the Project Area. A map showing 2007 CNDDB occurrences of special status wildlife species is provided in Figure 5. No special status species are known to occur or have a high potential to occur within the Project Area. x~ Two special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area: the pallid „~ bat and Loggerhead Shrike. Special status wildlife species of particular interest are discussed below. 12 ,,,~ ~~~ ~- ~ s~ .~ _ _ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ - . _~ '.~" W _ 3 i' ~..« h ~ .. y Yr... • -. f ~^+' ' ~. r^ r ~ v t .. -P-.J .. e . ~__..m x. n-_ _ _ I _ ~ .~, - `_ ` _.. w ~ `hy` F ... ~~: ~3 j ,. `~ ~ ~~` f v . ~-' _ .f `~I~ `' 1a~ .. ~~ > -. _ _ « , ~ _ s ~+ _ -- `° a ~, _ _.,, ~ .._ . .. ' _ ~ e. m - - - :. ~..... _. .- `~ ^..~ _ ~ _ J ~. ~.. ~'. I C _, - ) - r_-' y dye ., ,1~ ** w .:l n ~. ~~ ~ ~ v f 4 - - .._ • T_ y1~ _,. ~ __Q - . - , ~ ~ > ., ~ _ _ - ~ ~- -- ' ~ ~° ~ i ! _ ~~ - 1 4 _ ~. ~ ~ ~, ~ ' ~~ _~ _ .._ _ .: ~~ _ a- ~-~ ~ ~ ~~-_. --.; __. x ._ _ _ r ~_,_. ~~ - ,~ _ .~, _~ r... ~.~. T -- ~_, ~. - _ - -- ~~ . r . ~ __ ~ ~ d -~ arr_ ~, _. _ _ _ o. __. ~_. _~ ,_., r _ _ ~.~ a. ~ r ~ _ - : • ~i' •' e. x a 3 v.,. }, ., .,. ...-.,c-+- ~ ~ ~._ - ,~~, ~_ F --~ +,' < ~- ` `~, - _ - -~ ""' - .... _ , _ .. ~. - ~~ '-_ - r ,~~ _: ~ ~ ~. .. y ,; _ ..~. - ~~,~~ _ -+ -'. '" -s ~ ~ .. ~ -, .. ~ µ v k ~ S., ~~4 1 .ems! .. ~. - ., __^ ```_ g 'z .- -~ /III . ' .... ... '~~• ~ ; 5m+le Buffer,from Project Area'"` ' - -~ _ ~ s ti .. . ~ . - - ~~ _ w ~,~ - _ ~°-~ _ _ _ _ -- ~- - pongdon's Tarpbat+i ~~- ~' . - ~ _ _ _ ._ ----- - -- Oiabb Heliar~epa ~ . __ - _. ~_~ ~ - _ _ ~~ - _ ._ ~ ~ - ~ ~- - - r " ML Diabb $uCkw416at ~. -_ _- -'- ~ '' San Joagain Spearspie _ '~`^~ ~ ~ '~ , g _ ~ ~ ~= .y'~ .~ ,Hairless Popoam-flower - ~ ~ a 2 4 .-- Miffs saline Clover s~ Figure 4. Special Status Plant Species ~~ Iles of Pro ect Area ,~ Occurrences w~th~n Five M l E3~3YtR`JNPtiEN'A! CCEVSLLTkNTS Datt: October 2007 Bssemay: ttSGS Togo Quad Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment May By: Derek Chan Fikyath: t:Wtad 200pfiks\76W0\16142\His\ ..~ __~.__~n..... ~.~nna .,~~nre 20~71002.mxd .~ _ ~'~ ~1 ~ ~-- ~ 5 u _ _, ~.- _ _ - -~ ~_ ~I -". '~ - _~ ....~ ~~ , ~.~ ~-. o T ~- t .. .eq~..,~ - .' . ~_ ~- .,.~ ., - . t' -`- .,, _ - _ _ _ . ~~ ,..' ~~~~- t~ _._ s -, t _ _ _ . ~. .. ~ . 7~~~ .. ~ ,-' ~., ~- - . , =- `~ 1 "`~ / ~ ~ ~,. -. ~ _' ~ ~ -~ __i - - --' - r w' ~ ~ - ~ ~- - ._ r ., ,_, .~_ : - - _. ,~ ~. ~ _ ~ _ - ~ .__ ~ - . a _ - -=~-~~- - .~ _-_ '.~~ -- - ~i _t - . .~ ~ ,, 1. _ _ _ ~ ~ s-_ . ~ ~_. M ~ t ~ ~~ -. . 1. b _,. ~ _ , e _ Project Area °~ ~ , ~ j _~ .:- ~ ~ v .. ., . ~ __ ~- ,_ ~~ -h, ._ _.,. - ;, - ~ -.~ T"^± • ~_. _ -t _ _ ~_ ~ ,. ~,'_ _ , i ~ _ ~~ - r . c -- ~ -~ :- -: '- - ti ...~ ~~ .... , -._ _- ~ _ _ _ :f~ r _ ~ ~ _ ~_ ~ .~ -- ., ~ _ -~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ ___ ~ - __ ~~.~~ +~~~y~._.. .. _ `- _ ~ e~ r ti,~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ , n: __ '~ _ __ -` - ~, .., ~, ~ _ - O -: , 5 mile BLiffer,from Project Arear"'j'~' . ~~ ~, ~ ~ . __ ..;, -~ ~ ~= ,_ N - ~ a,, - _. Amerkan Bddger '~ '~ ~ .San Joa~in Krt Fox ~ PaFi~ Sat CaGtcmia Homed Lark Yuma -~ _._ MYoSS ~ 7rrcokxetl Blackbird ~. _ ~ _ .` _-' California LaxJerieBa ~- _ ~. Burraving Owt ~ Wesiem Pond Turge - .` -- •- Catitomia Redae ed fT - . °_ ~. , 99 m9 ~ Gdtlen Eagle ~ WhiS2-taxed tGte - Cakfomia Tiger Salamander tdoitnem Ranier `«- - ~ .~ - , - .y 2 4 n - -. ,~. ~ ; ~ .-. Miles Figure 5. Special Status Wildlife Species Occurrences within Five Miles of Project Area ~!' ~ ~~ ENYIRONM£N?AL CG'IYSLiL7ltNd5 Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment Date: October 2007 8asemaD~ USG5 Topo Quao Alameda Coun California i"~A Sy: Derek Chan tikDLth'L:\ACa6 2000Fik5\260\16142\gis\ ~u p..: ; ~-{q~ ~f- qs5 Burrowing Owl (Afhene cunicularia), CDFG Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Burrowing Owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse-shrub land ecosystems. This species prefers annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies; however, they also colonize debris piles and old pipes. In California, Burrowing Owl is found in close association with California ground squirrels. Burrowing Owl exhibits high site fidelity and usually uses the. abandoned burrows of ground squirrels for shelter and nesting. Burrowing Owl is unlikely to occur within the Project Area because most of the property has been developed, paved, and/or landscaped with lawn grass and ornamental plants. However, numerous occurrences of this species have been documented in grassy vacant lots and open areas just east of the site (Figure 5). The Project Area is mostly surrounded by urban development and is not contiguous with large expanses of grassland that might encourage owls to disperse to the site. Only two open areas are present within the Project Area: North Field and West Field. North Field is disced, a management practice that discourages use by wildlife, particularly burrowing owls. West Field is maintained for recreation, and appears to have a high amount of human activity that would deter wildlife use. No ground squirrels or suitable owl burrows were seen anywhere within the Project Area. California tiger salamander (Ambysfoma californiense), Federal Threatened, CDFG Species of Concern. California tiger salamander (CTS) is restricted to grasslands and low-elevation foothill regions in California (generally under 1500 feet) where it uses seasonal aquatic habitats for breeding. The salamanders breed in natural ephemeral pools, or ponds that mimic ephemeral pools (stock ponds that go dry), and occupy substantial areas surrounding the breeding pool as adults. CTS spends most of its time in the grasslands surrounding breeding pools. It survives hot, dry summers by estivating (going through a dormant period) in refugia (such as burrows created by ground squirrels and other mammals and deep cracks or holes in the ground) where the soil atmosphere remains near the water saturation point. During wet periods, salamanders may emerge from refugia and feed in the surrounding grasslands. CTS is unlikely to occur within the Project Area. CTS have been documented east of the Project Area, as close as two miles away (CNDDB, 2007). However, similar to Burrowing Owl, this species requires relatively undisturbed grassland for foraging and plentiful rodent burrows for shelter. Sites that have been disturbed by development and earth-moving activities are not likely to contain CTS unless CTS can re-colonize the area through a corridor that connects to an adjacent population. In addition, CTS requires nearby pools that hold standing water for at least a few months in order to breed. None of these components are present within or adjacent to the Project Area, which has been thoroughly disturbed by earth-moving activities and is nearly surrounded by urban development. California red-legged frog (Rana aurora drayfoni~), Federal Threatened, CDFG Species of Concern. California red-legged frog (CRLF) is dependent on suitable aquatic, estivation, and upland habitat. During periods of wet weather, starting with the first rainfall in late fall, red-legged frogs disperse away from their estivation sites to seek suitable breeding habitat. Aquatic and breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby, riparian vegetation and deep, still or slow- moving water. Breeding occurs between late November and late April. California red-legged frog estivates during the dry months in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels, and large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds. 15 CRLF is unlikely to occur within the Project Area. Alamo Creek, which passes along the western edge of the Project Area, is the only feature that might attract or support this species. However, CRLF has not been documented in Alamo Creek within five miles of the Project Area. The Project Area itself is heavily developed and disturbed, has high human traffic, does not contain aquatic habitat, and does not contain suitable upland estivation habitat or dispersal corridors. The Project Area is nearly surrounded by urban development and is not likely to ever constitute habitat for this species. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). CDFG Species of Special Concern, WBWG High Priority. Pallid bat is found in a variety of low elevation habitats throughout California. It selects a variety of day roosts including rock outcrops, mines, caves, hollow trees, buildings, and bridges. Night roosts are usually found under bridges, but also in caves, mines, and buildings. Pallid bat is sensitive to roost disturbance. Unlike most bats, pallid bat primarilyfeeds on large ground-dwelling arthropods, and many prey are taken on the ground (Zeiner, et al. 1990). Pallid bat has a moderate potential for occurrence within the Project Area. Buildings and other structures within the Project Area may provide marginal habitat for this species. However, most buildings observed during the September 2007 site visit were in good repair and had few openings or crevices for bats to utilize. Levels of human activity within the housing development are high, and this would likely discourage bats from roosting in this area. Marginal foraging habitat is present along the creek corridor to the west and over grassy areas to the east. A recent occurrence of pallid bat has been documented two miles southwest of the Project Area (CNDDB, 2007). Cautions taken for pallid bat would also be beneficial for other sensitive bats such as Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius /udovicianus). CDFG Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Loggerhead Shrike is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. It prefers open habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines or other perches. Nests are usually built on a stable branch in a densely- foliaged shrub or small tree and are usually well-concealed. The highest densities occur in open- canopied valley foothill hardwood, valley foothill hardwood-conifer, valley foothill riparian pinyon- juniper, juniper, and desert riparian habitats. While this species eats mostly Arthropods, they also take amphibians, small tomedium-sized reptiles, small mammals and birds. They are also known to scavenge on carrion. Loggerhead Shrike has a moderate potential for occurrence within the Project Area. Marginal foraging habitat exists in open areas within and adjacent to the property, and a number of trees and bushes would be suitable for nesting. Steelhead-Central California Coast (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). Federal Threatened. Central California Coast ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in California streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek,. and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), excluding the Sacramento- San Joaquin River Basin. Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending two years in freshwater, though they may stay up to seven. They then reside in marine waters for two or three years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as four- orfive-year-olds. Steelhead adults typically spawn between December and June. In California, females typically spawn two times before they die. Preferred spawning habitat for steelhead is in perennial streams with cool to cold 16 '""` water temperatures, high dissolved oxygen levels and fast flowing water. Abundant riffle areas (shallow areas with gravel or cobble substrate) for spawning and deeper pools with sufficient riparian cover for rearing are necessary for successful breeding. steelhead has no potential to occur within the Project Area since there are no creeks within the property. However, Alamo Creek is immediately west of the Project Area. This creek is a tributary to Arroyo de la Laguna Creek, which has been repeatedly surveyed with virtually no suggestion that this creek constitutes habitat for steelhead (Leidy et al., 2003). Arroyo de la Laguna is a tributary to Alameda Creek, which is thought of as habitat for this species although migration barriers prevent regular spawning (Gunther etal., 2000). Nonetheless, steelhead should be considered in conjunction with land management on properties adjacent to watersheds that could contain this species. Water quality can be impacted by runoff from these properties, and this decreases habitat value for fish. The quality of runoff that enters creeks from adjacent properties such as the Project Area should be carefully controlled through the use of erosion control plans, best management practices (BMPs), and wastewater containment. 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS No special status plant species of concern and no special status wildlife species were observed during the site assessment. One potentially sensitive plant community was identified within the Project Area. Two special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area. The following sections present recommendations for future studies and/or measures to avoid or reduce impacts to these species and sensitive habitats. 5.1 Biological Communities Most of the Project Area is either paved and developed, or comprised of ruderal herbaceous grassland, which is not a sensitive biological community. However, two small 250 square foot areas in the vicinity of the drain in West Field support wetland plants. This area should be further studied to determine whether or not it falls within the jurisdiction of the Corps under. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and RWQCB under the Porter Cologne Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 5.2 Special Status Plant Species No further special status plant surveys are recommended for the Project Area. Of the 35 special status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area, two species were determined to have soi•ne potential to occur in the Project Area. Only one of the two species, California black walnut, was observed in the Project Area, but was a naturalized individual, which does not require protection. Most of the species found in the review of background literature occur in high quality cismontane woodland, chaparral, or valley and foothill grassland habitat, none of which are present in the Project Area. 5.3 Special Status Wildlife Species A small number of wildlife concerns for development within the Project Area can be addressed through the use of mitigation measures. No special status species are known to be present or 17 boo ~ ~~~ '~ have a high potential to occur within the Project Area. Loggerhead Shrike and pallid bat were determined to have a moderate potential for occurrence. Wildlife concerns can be summarized as follows: Nesting birds, including special-status birds such as Loggerhead Shrike, may be impacted by tree and brush removal or development within the breeding season from February to August. Bats such as pallid bat may be impacted by building demolition or tree removal from November through August. Steelhead and other fish could be impacted by a decrease in creek water quality as a result of surface runoff. Nesting birds may be impacted by construction during the bird breeding season from February to August. As mentioned in Section 2.1, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects almost all species of nesting birds, including common species. Special status birds receive additional protection. Ideally, the clearing of vegetation and the initiation of construction can take place in the non- breeding season between September and January. If these activities cannot be done in the non- breeding season, a qualified biologist shall perform pre-construction bird surveys within 30 days of the onset of construction or clearing of vegetation. If nesting birds are discovered in the vicinity of planned development, it will likely be necessary to establish buffer areas around the nest until the nest is vacated. The size of the buffer would be dependent on the particular species of nesting bird. Disturbance of trees, buildings, and other structures in the Project Area may impact bat roosts. As with birds, bat roost sites can change. from year to year, so pre-construction surveys are usually necessary to determine the presence or absence of bat roost sites in a given area. Pre- construction bat surveys do not need to be performed if building demolition work is conducted between September 1 and October 31, after young have matured and prior to the bat hibernation period. However, if it is necessary to disturb potential bat roost sites between November 1 and August 31, pre-construction surveys will be necessary. Pre-construction bat surveys normally involve surveying trees, rock outcrops, bridges, and buildings subject to removal or demolition for evidence of bat use (guano accumulation, or acoustic or visual detections). If evidence of bat use is found, then biologists should conduct a minimum of three acoustic surveys between April and September under appropriate conditions using an acoustic detector to determine whether a site is occupied. If bats are found, they should be excluded from occupied roosts in the presence of a qualified biologist during the fall prior to construction. Runoff from urban development in the Project Area may contribute to degradation of a watershed that may comprise habitat for steelhead and other sensitive fish. In order to avoid sedimentation in the Alameda Creek watershed, thorough erosion control measures should be designed and implemented during construction activities. Such measures are typically required as part of a SWPPP that is submitted while obtaining a grading permit. Protective measures to avoid wildlife impacts can be summarized as follows: Initiation of construction and tree and brush removal should be done during the non- breeding season for birds between September and January. If vegetation removal occurs outside this time period, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist. 18 50l ~- X 55 Initiation of construction, tree removal, and building demolition should be performed in September or October to avoid impacting bats. If all construction activities can not be confined to this period, preconstructionsuweys shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Design and implement a thorough erosion control plan to avoid indirectly impacting steelhead habitat. 6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The proposed project involves the conversion of 25 acres of low-income housing units and ruderal plant communities to a higher density low-income housing development. The proposed conversion project would retain the redwoods circling North Mariposa. The Project Area is completely fenced and surrounded by rural development and roadways, meaning that no significant impacts to wildlife migratory corridors are likely to occur. The potential presence of most special status wildlife species is considered unlikely due to degraded habitat conditions in the Project Area, absence of suitable breeding habitat, and human disturbance in the vicinity of the site due to surrounding residential development. It is likely that no wetlands or potentially jurisdictional waters are present in the Project Area, although the small cluster of wetland plants in West Field (Figure 3) merits further investigation. No significant impacts to special status amphibians, reptiles or invertebrates are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project has the potential to impact one special status bat species and one special status bird species. The project also has the potential to impact nesting. birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and to degrade the quality of a nearby creek that may be upstream from steelhead habitat. The project's potential to impact Dublin heritage trees was addressed in a separate report (Babby 2007). A single heritage redwood tree was identified in the impacted portion of the Project Area. Potential impacts and mitigation measures outlined in a format following the CEQA checklist are discussed below. With the following suggested mitigation measures, impacts to these biological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. 6.1 Special Status Species Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 6.1.1 Impacts to Special Status Species Wildlife Potential impacts to wildlife as a result of development within the Project Area are summarized below. Amore detailed description of these impacts appears in Section 5.3. Nesting birds, including special-status birds such as Loggerhead Shrike, maybe impacted 19 5~a °f X55 by tree and brush removal or development within the breeding season from February to August. Bats such as pallid bat may be impacted by building demolition or tree removal from November through August. Steelhead and other fish could be impacted by a decrease in creek water quality as a result of surface runoff. Plants No special-status plants are determined to be present in the Project Area. Project construction could commence with no further mitigation with respect to special status plants. 6.1.2 Suggested Mitigation Protective measures to avoid wildlife impacts are summarized below. Amore detailed description of mitigation measures can be found in Section 5.3. Initiation of construction and tree and brush removal should be done during the non- breedingseason for birds between September and January. If vegetation removal outside this time period cannot be avoided, pre-construction nesting bird surreys shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Initiation of construction, tree removal, and building demolition should be pertormed in September or October to avoid impacting bats. If all such work cannot be confined to this time period, pre-construction bat surveys shall be pertormed by a qualified biologist. Design and implement a thorough erosion control plan to avoid indirectly impacting steelhead habitat. 6.2 Riparian Habitat Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 6.2.1 Impacts Most of the Project Area is comprised of ruderal habitat which is not considered sensitive habitat *•' under CEQA. The only riparian habitat observed was adjacent to the Project Area on its western .R flank, where Alamo Creek bends around the site. This riparian area is already fenced off from the Project Area, providing a buffer zone that satisfies the City of Dublin's Ordinance No. 52-87 setback requirements for open channel watercourses. .~ 6.2.2 Suggested Mitigation No significant impacts to riparian habitat are anticipated as a result of the proposed project, thus no mitigation is required. 20 so3 of- ~~55 6.3 Section 404 Wetlands Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 6.3.1 Impacts With the possible exception of the small area of wetland plants in West Field, there are no other expected impacts to federally protected wetlands or waters. 6.3.2 Suggested Mitigation Prepare jurisdictional wetland delineation to determine presence or absence of Section 404 wetlands on-site. If it is confirmed that there are no jurisdictional wetlands, then no mitigation will be required. Erosion control measures shall be implemented to reduce or prevent sediment and pesticide run-off from entering Alamo Creek. An Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared for this project. 6.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Would the project 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? 6.4.1 Impacts Development within the Project Area will not substantially impact wildlife habitat or movement corridors. The majority of the Project Area is urban, having been disturbed, graded, developed, landscaped, paved, and otherwise modified and occupied by humans, and therefore does not comprise valuable habitat for wildlife species. The Project Area is also fenced on nearly all sides, so it is unlikely that any wildlife corridors go through the site. A vacant lot in~ the north of the Project Area (North Field), provides open space between grassy vacant lots to the east and a narrow wooded creek corridor to the west, beyond which is open grassland in the north Dublin hills. This is one of only a few places where wildlife could potentially move between open space east of Dougherty Road and open space west of a belt of urban development along Dougherty Road. However, this does not appear to be ahigh-value or regularly used wildlife corridor due to fences on both sides of the bike path that runs along the western edge of the Project Area. High levels of human activity in this area and traffic on Dougherty Road are likely to discourage wildlife from using this route, along with the fact that the corridor is already blocked by fences. Alamo Creek to the west of the Project Area could be considered a tributary to a native wildlife 21 ~~`~°~~iG~S nursery, as juvenile steelhead may be present further downstream. Polluted surface runoff entering this creek could impact habitat quality for steelhead downstream. As mentioned in Section 6.1.1, the Project Area may also provide rearing habitat for juvenile birds and bats in trees and man-made structures. 6.4.2 Suggested Mitigation Since the open space at the north end of the Project Area does not appear to be a practical or substantial wildlife corridor, no mitigation measures are suggested. Mitigation measures for birds, bats, and steelhead are provided in Section 6.1.2 and 6.3.2. 6.5 Local Policies Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordiinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6.5.1 Impacts Some mature native trees .are present in the Project Area that are protected under the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance. This ordinance prohibits tree removal without a permit from any property within the City of Dublin, of any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or greater. The majority of the native trees in the project vicinity occur in the riparian corridor along Alamo Creek that is not part of the Project Area and is fenced off from it. The circle of redwoods lining the west end of North Mariposa will be retained, and there are several heritage-sized trees within this grouping. The project arborist determined that only one heritage tree, a 26-inch dbh redwood, will be impacted by the project. 6.5.2. Suggested Mitigation The project applicant shall submit the arborist's findings and obtain a tree removal permit from the City for any impacted heritage trees (currently projected to be just a single tree). The applicant shall install replacement trees for the removal of any heritage tree in the Project Area at a ratio to be determined by the City and monitor the survival of the replacement trees for a period of three years. Any trees that die during the monitoring period will be replaced and monitored for three years. Heritage trees preserved in the Project Area shall be surrounded by protective fencing during project construction. This fencing will be installed at least ten feet outside the dripline of the protected trees and no construction material or chemicals will be stored within the protective fencing. The City may require additional mitigation for impacts to other native trees including oaks. These mitigation measures may include but are not limited to compensatory tree replacement for impacts to native oaks and monitoring the success of replacement tree plantings. If such mitigation is required by the City the applicant will comply with such measures. This will reduce impacts to 22 ~. 505 ~f- X155 existing native trees to a less than significant level. 6.6 Conservation Plans Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 6.6.1 Impacts No impact. The project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 6.6.2 Suggested Mitigation No mitigation is required as no HCPs, NCCPs, or other conservation plans apply to the Project Area. 7.0 REFERENCES Babby, D. L., 2007. An Arborist Report for the Arroyo Vista Housing Project in Dublin, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento. California Native Plant Society. 2007. Electronic Inventory of Rare.and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. City of Dublin, California. 2007. City of Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 5.60: Heritage Trees. http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/dublin.html Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Gunther, A. J., J. Hagar, and P. Salop. 2000. An assessment of the potential for restoring a viable steethead trout population in the Alameda Creek watershed. Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup. Prepared by Applied Marine Sciences LLC and Hagar Environmental Science. Hickman, J.C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California Jennings, Mark R. 2004. An Annotated Check List of Amphibians and Reptile Species of 23 ~j O lp ~ ~`~ ~ ~~ California and Adjacent Waters. Third, revised edition. California Department of Fish and Game. Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2003. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), and Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. US EPA and Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, version 5.0. G.W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, eds. USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. Reed, Jr., Porter B. 1988. National List of Piant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (24). 244 pp. Stebbins, R.C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3`~ Edition. 2003. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.1966. Soil Survey of Alameda County. California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Quadrangle Species Lists, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 24 •. 50~ ~ X55 APPENDIX A LIST OF OBSERVED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ~O$ °f `f 55 Appendix A. List of Observed Plant and Anima! Species in the Project Area from the site assessment conducted on September 20, 2007. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PiANTS Aesculus califomica California buckeye Arctotheca calendula capeweed Argyranthemum sp. daisy, marguerite Avena fatua wild oat Avena barbata slender wild oat Baccharrs pilularis coyote brush Brassica nigra black mus#ard Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Bromus catharticus rescue grass Carpobrotus edulis iceplant Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Conyza sp. horseweed Cotoneaster sp. cotoneaster Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass .Cyperus eragrostis tall flat-sedge ©iffrichia graveolens stinkwort Epilobium ciliatum slender willowherb Eucalyptus sp. gum Foenicutum vulgare sweet fennel Fuchsia sp. fuchsia Geranium dissectum dissected geranium Hedera helix English ivy Hordeum marinum Mediterranean barley Juglans califomica California black walnut Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce s~~ ~ ~~~ Lavandu/a sp. lavender Liquidambar sfyracif/ua sweetgum Lolium mu/tif/orum Italian rye grass Lotus cornicu/atus bird's foot trefoil Ma/va nicaeensis bull mallow Medicago polymorpha bur clover Mentha pulegium pennyroyal Mentha sp. mint Paspa/um dilatatum dallis grass Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Picris echioides bristly ox tongue Pinus radiata Monterey pine Pinus sp. pine P/antago lanceo/ata narrowleaf plantain Po/ygonum arenastrum oval leaf knotweed Pyracantha sp. firethorn Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Quercus /obata valley oak Raphanus sativus wild radish Rosa sp. rose Rumex crispus curly dock Salix sp. willow, Sa/so/a tragus tumbleweed Scirpus californicus California bulrush Sequoia sempervirens redwood Silybum marianum milk thistle Taraxacum officina/e common dandelion Tribu/us terrestris puncture vine Trifolium fragiferum strawberry clover Tropaeo/um majus ~ garden nasturtium 5l0 ~f ~j55 Vicia sativa common vetch Vinca major periwinkle Vitis sp. grape Xanthium strumarium rough cockle-bur Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily WtLDLfFE Areas platyrhynchos Mallard Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub Jay Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk Calypfe anna Anna's Hummingbird Canis lupus familiaris domestic dog Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Falco sparverius American Kestrel Fells siivestris catus domestic cat Megeagris gallopavo Wild Turkey Microtus sp. vole (burrows) Picoides nutfaJlii Nuttall's Woodpecker Pipilo crissalis California Towhee Procyon lotor raccoon {scat) Stumus vulgaris European Starling Thomomys bottae Bona's pocket gopher (burrows} Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove sii Df ~5s APPENDIX B POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA Appendix B. Potential for Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species to Occur in the Project Area List . compiled from a September 2007 search of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) S ecies List d C lif . p s, an a ornia Native Plant Society (GNPs) Electronic inventory search of the .Dublin, Diablo, Tassajara, Livermore, La Costa Valley Niles Newark H , , , ayward, and Las Trampas Ridge USGS 7.5' quadrangles. A review of other CDFG lists and publications (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Zeiner et al. 1990) was also conducted. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Mammals salt-marsh wandering shrew Sorex vagrans halicoetes CSC Salt marshes of the south arm of No Potential. Salt marsh San Francisco Bay. Medium high habitat not present within marsh 6 to 8 feet above sea level the Project Area. where abundant driftwood is scattered among Saiicornia. pallid bat Antrozous pailidus CSC, WBWG Occupies a variety of habitats at Moderate Potential. This low elevation including species may be somewhat grasslands, shrublands, tolerant of human woodlands, and forests. Most presence and may find common in open, dry habitats roasting habitat in isolated with rocky areas for roosting. trees, buildings, or other structures. Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii CSC, WBWG Primarily found in rural settings in Unlikely. High levels of a wide variety of habitats human activity in and including oak woodlands and around the buildings and mixed coniferous-deciduous general Project Area are forest. Day roosts highly likely to deter this associated with caves and mines. species.. Very sensitive to human disturbance. San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrons mutica FE, ST, RP Annual grasslands or grassy Unlikely. The Project open stages with scattered Area is surrounded by shrubby vegetation. Need urbanization and does not loose-textured sandy soils for contain suitable foraging burrowing, and suitable prey or burrowing habitat for base. this species. American badger Taxidea taxus CSC Most abundant in drier open Unlikely. The few stages of most shrub, forest, and portions of open ground herbaceous habitats, with friable within the Project Area soils. Requires friable soils and that might support this open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents species have been disced . or heavily modified. Birds ' Cooper s Hawk Accipiter cooperii CSC Associated with open or Unlikely. This species interrupted woodland and riparian may utilize the riparian habitats in the Coast ranges and corridor to the west but is foothills surrounding the Central unlikely to nest or forage Valley. Nest sites mainly in within the Project Area. riparian growths of deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains; also nests in live oaks. S 13 `~ ~5~ SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT Sharp-shinned Hawk CSC This species is a fairly common Accipiter striatus migrant and winter visitor throughout California and is found in a variety of habitats, especially woodlands. It usually nests in dense small-tree stands of conifers near water. Preferred roost sites are within intermediate to high-canopy forest areas. 0 POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE + Unlikely. This species may utilize the riparian corridor to the west but is unlikely to nest or forage within the Project Area. Golden Eagle BCC, CSC, (Nesting and wintering) rolling No Potential. Open, Aquila chrysaetos CFP, CDF foothills mountain areas, isolated habitat for nesting sensitive, sage-juniper flats, desert. or foraging is not present BLM sensitive Cliff-walled canyons provide within the Project Area. nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas. "~ Ferruginous Hawk BCC, CSC, (Wintering) Frequents open Buteo regalis BLM sensitive grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills surrounding valleys and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Preys on lagomorphs, ground squirrels and mice. Population trends may follow lagomorph population cycles. Northern Harrier CSC (Nesting) Nests and forages in Circus cyaneus grassland habitats, usually in association with coastal salt and freshwater marshes. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. May also occur in alkali desert sinks. Unlikely. Typical open foraging habitat for this species is not present within the Project Area. Unlikely. Typical grassland/marsh nesting and foraging habitat for this species is not present "" within the Project Area. White-tailed Kite CFP Year-long resident of coastal and Unlikely. This species Elanus leucurus valley lowlands; rarely found away may utilize the riparian from agricultural areas. Preys on corridor to the west but is ~'' small diurnal mammals and unlikely to nest or forage occasional birds, insects, reptiles, within the Project Area. "~ and amphibians. • Prairie Falcon BCC,- CSC (Nesting) inhabits dry, open either level or hilly. terrain Unlikely. Typical breeding and foraging Falco mexicanus , Breeding sites located on cliffs. habitat for this species is Forages far afield, even to not present within the marshlands and ocean shores. Project Area. American Peregrine Falcon FD, SE, CFP, BCC Winters throughout Central Requires protected cliffs Valley Unlikely. Typical breeding and foraging Falco peregrinus anatum . and ledges for cover. Feeds on a habitat for this species is variety of birds, and some not present within the mammals, insects, and fish. Project Area. . ,i~ ~~ SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT ~~~ POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Western Snowy Plover Charadrius a/exandrinus FT, CSC, BCC, RP (Nesting) Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal No Potential. This nivosus population. Found on sandy species is generally restricted to coastal areas beaches, salt pond levees and . shores of large alkali lakes. Requires sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting. Burrowing Owl Athene cunicu/aria CSC, BCC Frequents open grasslands and No Potential. Burrow shrublands with perches and habitat not present within burrows. Preys upon insects, the Project Area. small mammals, reptiles, birds, Frequent human, dog, and and carrion. Nests and roosts in cat disturbance is likely to old burrows of small mammals. deter this species. Project Area is fragmented isolated from appropriate habitat. Loggerhead Shrike Lanius /udovicianus BCC, CSC Inhabits broken woodlands, Moderate Potential. savannah, pinyon-juniper, Joshua Marginal foraging and tree, and riparian woodlands, nesting habitat for this desert oases, scrub and washes. species may be present Prefers open country for hunting, within the Project Area. with perches for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting. California Horned Lark Eremophila a/pestris actia CSC Coastal regions, chiefly from Unlikely. Grassland Sonoma County to San Diego habitat within the Project County. Also main part of San Area is likely too minimal Joaquin Valley and east to , disturbed, and isolated to foothills. Short-grass prairie, " " be utilized by this species. bald hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats. Bank Swallow Riparia riparia ST Migrant in riparian and other No Potential. Suitable lowland habitats in western bank habitat not present California. Nests in riparian areas within the Project Area. with vertical cliffs and bands with fine-textured or sandy soils in which to nest. Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri CSC Yellow warblers prefer dense Unlikely. This species riparian vegetation for breeding. Yellow warbler populations have may utilize the riparian corridor to the west but is declined due to brood parasitism unlikely to nest or forage by brown-headed cowbirds within the Project Area. (Molothrus ater) and habitat destruction. Diet is primarily insects supplemented with berries. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Saltmarsh Common CSC, BCC Frequents low, dense vegetation Unlikely. This species Yellowthroat near water including fresh to may utilize the riparian Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saline emergent wetlands. corridor to the west but is Brushy habitats used in migration. unlikely to nest or forage Forages among wetland herbs within the Project Area. and shrubs for insects primarily. Alameda Song Sparrow BCC, CSC Resident of salt marshes No Potential. The Project Melospiza melodia pusillu/a bordering south arm of San Area is far from the salt ' Francisco Bay. Inhabits Salicornia marsh habitat of the South ~ marshes; nests low in Grindelia Bay. , ~: bushes {high enough to escape high tides) and in Salicornia. , ,~ Tricolored Blackbird CSC, BCC Usually nests over or near Unlikely. This species Agelaius tricolor freshwater in dense cattails, tules, may utilize the riparian or thickets of willow, blackberry, corridor to the west but is „~ wild rose or other tall herbs. unlikely to nest or forage within the Project Area ~" due to lack of suitable habitat. Reptiles and Amphibians California tiger salamander FT, CSC Inhabits annual grass habitat and Unlikely. Project Area '~` Ambystoma californiense mammal burrows. Seasonal and surroundings have ponds and vernal pools crucial to been fragmented, graded, breeding. and heavily altered. .~ Suitable burrow and breeding habitat not '" present. ^ California red-legged frog FT, CSC, RP Lowlands and foothills in or near Unlikely. Breeding Rana aurora draytonii permanent sources of deep water habitat not present within with dense, shrubby or emergent Project Area. Upland ~ riparian vegetation. Requires 11 estivation and dispersal to 20 weeks of permanent water habitat not observed. This for larval development. Must species has some have access to estivation habitat. potential to occur within ^ the creek corridor to the west; however, it is ' unlikely to ever occur within the Project Area. "" foothill yellow-legged frog CSC Found in or near rocky streams in No Potential. Aquatic Rana boylii a variety of habitats. Feed on habitat not present within both aquatic and terrestrial the Project Area. invertebrates. western pond turtle CSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of No Potential. Aquatic Actinemys marmorata ponds, marshes, rivers, streams habitat not present within and irrigation ditches with aquatic the Project Area. vegetation. Need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat for egg-laying. ~~~P ~~ ~~ SPECIES STATUS* WABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Alameda whipsnake Masticophis /ateraiis FT, ST Inhabits chaparral and foothill- No Potential. Grassland euryxanthus hardwood habitats in the eastern Bay Area. Prefers south-facing habitat with rock outcrops t slopes and ravines with rock no present within Project Area. Site is isolated and outcroppings where shrubs form disturbed. a vegetative mosaic with oak trees and grasses and small mammal burrows provide basking and refuge. Fishes Central California Coastal steelhead FT, CSC Adults migrate upstream to No Potential. Aquatic Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus spawn in cool, clear, well- oxygenated streams. Juveniles habitat not present within the Project Area. remain in fresh water for 1 or However, the Project Area more years before migrating is within the Alameda downstream to the ocean Creek watershed, which could be considered steelhead habitat far downstream. Invertebrates Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio FE, SSI, RP Endemic to the grasslands of the No Potential. Seasonal northern two-thirds of the Central wetland depressions and Valley; found in large, turbid vernal pools required for pools. Inhabit astatic pools this species are not located in swales formed by old, present within the Project braided alluvium; filled by Area. winter/spring rains, last until June. longhorn fairy shrimp Branchinecta iongianfenna FE, SSI, RP Endemic to the eastern margin of No .Potential. Seasonal the central coast mountains in wetland depressions and seasonally astatic grassland vernal pools required for vernal pools. Inhabit small, this species are not clear-water depressions in present within the Project sandstone and clear-to-turbid Area clay/grass-bottomed pools in shallow swales. vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta /ynchi FT, SSI, RP Endemic to the grasslands of the No Potential. Seasonal Central Valley, central coast wetland depressions and mountains, and south coast vernal pools required for mountains, in astatic rain-filled this species are not pools. Inhabit small, clear-water present within the Project sandstone-depression pools and Area grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools. vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi FE, SSI, RP Inhabits vernal pools and swales No Potential. Seasonal in the Sacramento Valley wetland depressions and containing clear to highly turbid vernal pools required for water. Pools commonly found in this species are not grass bottomed swales of present within the Project unplowed grasslands. Some Area pools are mud-bottomed and highly turbid. ~1~ ~~ ~~5 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ,r California linderiella SSI Seasonal pools in unplowed No Potential. Seasonal Linderiefla occidentalis grasslands with old alluvial soils wetland depressions and underlain by hardpan or in vernal pools required for sandstone depressions. Water in this species are not the pools has very low alkalinity, present within the Project conductivity, and TDS. Area valley elderberry longhorn FT, SSI, RP Occurs only in the central valley No Potential. Elderberry beetle of California, in association with host plant not observed Desmocerus californicus blue elderberry (Sambucus within the Project Area. dimorphus mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberrry 2 to 8 inches in diameter; some preference shown for "stressed" elderberry. Bay checkerspot butterfly FT, SSI, RP Restricted to native grasslands on No Potential. Project Euphydryas editha bayensis outcrops of serpentine soil in the Area is fragmented and vicinity of San Francisco Bay. near areas of high human Plantago erects is the primary traffic. Host plant not host plant; Orthocarpus .observed during densifforus and O. purpurscens September 2007 site visit. *~ are the secondary host plants. monarch butterfly SSI Winter roost sites extend along Unlikely. Project Area is Danaus p/exippus the coast from northern fragmented and near Mendocino to Baja California, areas of high human Mexico. Roosts located in traffic. wind-protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. Plants large-flowered fiddleneck FE, SE, List Cismontane woodland and valley No Potential. The Project Amsinckia grandif/ora 1 B and foothill grassland. 275-550 m. Area does not contain Blooms April-May. suitable habitat for this species. bent-flowered fiddleneck List 1 B Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane and valley and foothill woodland No Potential. The Project Area is a developed site; it Amsinckia lunaris , grassland. 3-500 m. Blooms does not contain suitable March-June. habitat for this species. slender silver-moss List 2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower No Potential. The Project Anomobryum julaceum montane coniferous forest, and Area does not contain North Coast coniferous forest. suitable habitat for this Found in damp rock and soil on .species. outcrops- usually roadcuts. 100- 1000 m. Diablo manzanita Mt List 1 B Chaparral on sandstone. 135- No Potential. The Project . Arctostaphylos auricu/ata 650 m. Blooms January-March. Area does not contain suitable habitat for this species. ` ~~ t7 ~ 1 ! SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE °~ Contra Costa manzanita Arctostaphylos manzanita List 1 B Chaparral on rocky soils. 500- No Potential. The Project ssp. laevigata 1100 m. Blooms January- February Area does not contain . suitable habitat for this species, and is not in the species' elevation range. alkali milk-vetch Astraga/us tener var tener List 1 B Playas, valley and foothill No Potential. The Project . grassland (on adobe clay), and Area does not contain vernal pools; often on alkaline suitable habitat for this soils. 1- 60m. Blooms March- species. June. heartscale Atriplex cordu/ata List 1 B Chenopod scrub, meadows and No Potential. The Project seeps, and valley and foothill Area is a developed site; it grasslands; often on saline or does not contain suitable alkaline soils. 1- 375 m. Blooms habitat for this species. April-October. brittlescale Atriplex depressa List 1 B Chenopod scrub, meadows and No Potential. The Project seeps, playas, valley and foothill Area is a developed site; it grasslands, and vernal pools; does not contain suitable often on alkaline, clay soils. 1- habitat for this species. 320 m. Blooms May-October. San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquiniana List 1 B Chenopod scrub, meadows and No Potential. The Project seeps, playas, and valley and Area is a developed site; it foothill grasslands; often on does not contain suitable alkaline soils. 1- 835 m. Blooms habitat for this species. April-October. big scale balsamroot Balsamorhiza macro/epis var List 1 B Valley and foothill grasslands and i No Potential. The Project . macrolepis c smontane woodland; often on Area is a developed site; it serpentinite soils. 90- 1400 m. does not contain suitable Blooms March-June. habitat for this species. round-leaved filaree California macrophylla List 1 B cismontane woodland and valley No Potential. The Project and foothill grasslands; often on Area is a developed site; it clay soils. 15- 1200 m. Blooms does not contain suitable March-May. habitat for this species. Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern Calochortus pulchellus List 1 B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No Potential. The Project riparian woodland, and valley and Area is a developed site; it foothill grasslands. 30- 840 m. does not contain suitable Blooms April-June. habitat for this species. chaparral harebell Campanula exigua List 1 B Chaparral; often on rocky and No Potential. The Project serpentinite soils. 275- 1250 m. Area does not contain Blooms May-June. suitable habitat for this species. Congdon's tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp List 1 B Valley and foothill grasslands; Unlikely. The Project Area . congdonii often on alkaline soils. 1- 230 m. Blooms May-October; is a developed site; this species can be found in uncommonly in November. disturbed areas. SPECIES STATUS" HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE palmate-bracted bird's-beak FE, SE, List Chenopod scrub and valley and No Potential. The Project Cordylanthus palmatus 1 B foothill grasslands; often on Area is a developed site; it ~ alkaline soils. 5- 155 m. Blooms does not contain suitable May-October. habitat for this species. ~, western leatherwood List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, No Potential. The Project „ Dirca occidentalis closed-cone coniferous forest, Area does not contain cismontane woodland, chaparral suitable habitat for this , North Coast coniferous forest, species. riparian forest, and riparian ~ woodland; often on mesic soils. 50- 395 m. Blooms January- March; uncommonly in April. ~ Ben Lomond buckwheat List 1 B Occurs on sandy soils in No Potential. The Project Eriogonum nudum var. chaparral and cismontane Area does not contain decurrens woodland, and in maritime suitable habitat for this A ponderosa pine sandhills soils in species. lower montane coniferous forest. 50- 800 m. Blooms June-October. Mt. Diablo buckwheat List 1 B Chaparral, coastal scrub, and No Potential. The Project f Eriogonum truncatum valley and foothill grasslands; Area is a developed site; it usually on sandy soils. 3- 350 m. does not contain suitable ~ Blooms April-September; habitat for this species. uncommonly in November and ; December. fragrant fritillary List 1 B cismontane woodland, coastal No Potential. The Project Fritillaria litiacea prairie, coastal scrub, valley and Area is a developed site; it foothill grassland; often does not contain suitable serpentinite. 3-410 m. Blooms habitat for this species. February-April. Diablo helianthella List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, No Potential. The Project Helianthe!!a castanea chaparral, cismontane woodland, Area is a developed site; it coastal scrub, riparian woodland, does not contain suitable and valley and foothill grassland. habitat for this species. 60- 1300 m. Blooms March-June. Brewer's western flax List 1 B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No Potential. The Project Hesperolinon breweri and valley and foothill grassland; Area is a developed site; it often on serpentinite soils. 30- does not contain suitable 900 m. Blooms May-July. habitat for this species. Santa Cruz tarplant FT, SE, List Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, No Potential. The Project Holocarpha macradenia 1 B and valley and foothill grassland; Area is a developed site; it often on clay, sandy soils. 10- 220 does not contain suitable m. Blooms June-October. habitat for this species. Northern California black List 1 B Riparian forest and riparian Unlikely. The Project Area walnut woodland. 0- 440 m. Blooms does not contain suitable Jug/ans hindsii April-May. habitat for native stands of this species; however, naturalized individuals may be present. 5a o ~- a=~ 5 SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens FE, List 1 B cismontane woodland, alkaline l No Potential. The Project p ayas, valley and foothill Area is a developed site; it grassland, and vernal pools; often does not contain suitable on mesic soils. 0- 470 m. Blooms habitat for this species. March-June. Hall's bush mallow Ma/acothamnus hallii List 1 B Chaparral and coastal scrub. 10- No Potential. The Project 760 m. Blooms May-September; Area does not contain uncommonly in October. suitable habitat for this species. San Antonio Hills monardella List 3 Chaparral and cismontane No Potential. The Project Monardella antonina ssp. woodland. 500 -1000 m. Blooms Area does not contain antonina June-August. suitable habitat for this species. robust monardella Monardella villosa ss List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, h No Potential. The Project p. globosa c aparral (openings), cismontane Area is a developed site; it woodland, coastal scrub, valley does not contain suitable and foothill grassland. 100-915 habitat for this species. m. Blooms June-July; uncommonly in August. Mt. Diablo phacelia Phacelia phacelioides List 1 B Chaparral and cismontane No Potential. The Project woodland; often on rocky soils. Area does not contain 500- 1370 m. Blooms April-May. suitable habitat for this species, and is not in the species' elevation range. hairless popcorn-flower P/agiobothrys g/aber List 1A Alkaline meadows and seeps and No Potential. The Project coastal salt marshes and Area does not contain swamps. 15- 180 m. Blooms suitable habitat for this March-May. species and this species is presumed extinct in California. rock sanicle Sanicu/a saxatilis List 1 B Broadleafed upland forest, No Potential. The Project chaparral, and valley and foothill Area does not contain grassland; often on rocky soils. suitable habitat for this 620- 1175 m. Blooms April-May. species, and is not in the species' elevation range. most beautiful jewel-flower Streptanthus a/bidus ssp List 1 B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, d No Potential. The Project . an valley and foothill grassland; Area is a developed site; it peramoenus often on serpentinite soils. 94- does not contain suitable 1000 m. Blooms April-September; habitat for this species. uncommonly in March and October. Mt. Diablo jewel-flower Streptanthus hispidus List 1 B Chaparral and valley and foothill No Potential. The Project grassland; often on rocky soils. Area does not contain 365- 1200 m. Blooms March- suitable habitat for this June. species. saline clover Trifolium depauperatum var. List 1 B Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland with mesic/ No Potential. The Project hydrophilum alkaline soils, and vernal pools. Area is a developed site; it does not contain suitable 0-300 m. Blooms April -June. habitat for this species. 5a1 X55 SPECIES STATUS" HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE w caper-fruited tropidocarpum List 1 B Valley and foothill grassland No Potential. The Project Tropidocarpum capparideum (alkaline hills). 1- 455 m. Blooms Area is a developed site; it March-April. does not contain suitable habitat for this species. oval-leaved viburnum List 2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No Potential. The Project Viburnum ellipticum lower montane coniferous forest. Area does not contain 215-1400 m. Blooms May-June. suitable habitat for this species. * Key to status codes: ;. FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FD Federal Delisted BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern SE State Endangered .~ ST State Threatened CSC CDFG Species of Special Concern '~' CFP CDFG Fully Protected Animal CDF CDF Sensitive: warrant special protection during timber operations "" WBWG Western Bat Working Group High Priority species BLM Bureau of Land Management sensitive species RP Recovery Plan (species is listed in a local recovery plan) ,~ SSI Special Status Invertebrate List 1A CLAPS List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California "~' List 16 CNPS List 1 B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 CNPS List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere ~ List 3 CLAPS List 3: Plants about which CLAPS needs more information (a review list) J, ~: 5aa ~- X55 APPENDIX C REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS say ~ :- ~J Above: View of North F!e!d {facing east) Below: View of West Field (facing northwest) Photographs taken September 20, 2007 1~wra ENYiRQNMz+ti'R:, :,.fl15U:. `.AN'S Wetland Plants in West Field Above: View facing northwest showing both clumps of plants Below: View facing north showing drain line and drain Pho#agraphs taken September 20, 20{}7. d~wra E:~4YIRCNM£N'kt CJ:~SU L`+Ati'S 5a5 ~~f - ~-55 Above: Homes landscaped with ornamentals Below: Typical lawn found in courtyard of each housing cluster. photographs taken September 20, 2007. ~t~via©Nr~s;vsh~ co:~se~:.~wzs 5a~ ~- X55 Prel~m~nary Section 404 Delilleaion ARROYO VISTA HOUSING PROJECT DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Jerry Haag 2029 University Avenue Berkeley. California 94704 Contact: Tom Fraser fraser~a wra-ca.com Qate: July 2008 _ _ _ - --~~-u=-~• ~--~ - - _ -~-.a3,. ,~4 , ,- ~ ~~„ _..,._ ._ _, ... _ - - .,~. i :~: s ~ ~e b . - "3+,x'1 «`.. ., - v .- ,.r ' 'k „s' ~)wra ENVa~20NM8Nikt CONSiiTANi$ 2169-G East =ran~isca 3~vd., San ~2otoel, CA 9493'; {;? 5) 454-8E68 jai (4.15) 4$4-0 ~ 29 fox info~rrrra-ea.cam www.wra-c¢.cora 5a~ ~ q55 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 1.1 Project Background ..................................................1 1.2 Regulatory Background ............................................... 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS .......................... 1 3.0 METHODS .................. . .......................................... 1 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S .. ................................ 3 3.1.1 Wetlands ....................................................3 3.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S ......................................... 5 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West ................ . . ............. 6 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction ............................... 6 4.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION . .. . ....................................... 7 5.0 RESULTS .............................................................9 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S .. .... . ........................... 9 5.1.1 Wetlands ....................................................9 5.1.2 Other Waters of the U.S ......................................... 9 6.0 REFERENCES .........................................................11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ............................................. 2 Figure 2. Location of North and West Fields within Project Area .......... . ....... . . .... 8 Figure 3. Location of Delineation Sample Points within West Field ..................... 10 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A -Preliminary Section 404 Jurisdictional Data Sheets Appendix B -Representative Photographs of the Project Area 5a~ ~ ~~~ 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background On June 24, 2008, WRA, Inc. (WRA) conducted a routine wetland delineation at the 25-acre existing Arroyo Vista housing site (Project Area) in Dublin, Alameda County, California, which is located along Dougherty Road just north of Highway 580 (Figure 1). This delineation was conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of potential wetlands and waters subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This report presents the results of this delineation. 1.2 Regulatory Background Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States". Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U. S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-fdal waters of fhe U. S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. 2.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS No potential jurisdictional areas were found within the Project Area during the wetland delineation conducted by WRA on June 24, 2008. 3.0 METHODS Prior to conducting field surveys, reference materials were reviewed, including the Soil Survey of Alameda County (USDA 1966), the 2008 USGS 7.5' quadrangle, and aerial photographs of the site. 5aq ~ ~ 5 5 • . s .. . _ ~.. ,, ~." ~ ~ , ~~~ :.., , .~ a~ a ~ N'~ f al ,• ~ `-~ ' ~ ., , '< .,~ ~• ~ V r % ~ h~ rr .. • ,~ , .. . ... .. __ .1 ' ,.Q .~~ acm:.ie ~ ~~~j~ '~~ ~~ ,.~ - ~~ ~. . . ;~~ :. ~~ . ~. ~ ~ t ~~ ~, ,, ~.- ~" , ~~„ ., f ~ ~ ~~ ,. ., ~_ ~ "( .. ... . ~ ___ • ' s~tocu~ ! ' wit i .. ~~: ~ rN/~. ~~ , I ',, r ., , ' ~. - r ~ _ ~ I ,'. ~ . _ -. ~' ~ Hsu a `~ T 1 ~ "1 41,, .. r _ _ ~' .. A r•F + z-h~r ~ it`s r M G~ --~ o' __ ~ ',h"~•~" ~ ~ fti~„ FFDL''R .~ t, Sn ~ 1a9~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~~i~ :, _ ~.. ' ~ _ ~ ~~a~t,~lEd q i~~="aPf~JBGtrlfPa~ ~" 1~ ~ '~~~~.,. ~ ~1 ~,~, °_ ~i '{' .~ x y _ .`~ l ~ ~y ~~ ;;, ~ ~, ._ ~ ~ II "~ ~. ~f ~, ~~.. ,r •~ ~ ~~ f11 ,~ it y m ~ ~~ ~'v ~ ' ~ !~~ ~ ~ ~!~ ~ ~~~U ~~'~. ~~~~ _ ~~~~ ~'r ~ ~ l~j~~~~t f~ ~ it ,. ,~ y \ {;` ~.p. ~` e r ..r" ~:. ~ ` , / ~~_~_ ~ ~ (Ill ~~~~ _ ~.. ... , ..~ _ -.~. 3 ~. .s .~ ~ ~, F ~ ~, . , ~ ~~`- -~?' , ~;:~ ~_ ~ ~ '~ ~ - -~ _ _ ~- - "ice - _ y r ~~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~p _ c ~ ., ~ t. 4 f~ ;L°? ~ ~w t~G~ ti ~ ~~ yam, .!' _ • ~ r „- _ ~e .~ ~ _~ r ,, ~ 4 '. ., ::.. . ~• ~} ~:r ~~rcY~'.tn ~. ._ . GRA ~; ~::_.,~. _. ~ °'.~ -BOCINDA,$7~ .~ - y , _ , e fen ~ ~ _ ~~ ti r^ ~ ~ ~~ 325 r. ~ 1R Feet= ~ `'~ ,'U ~ .~ ~~~ ..i ~ ~ ~ "~. I~0 5001,000 2,000 ;'~y•`"~~~~yy4~~l *~ ~. -.~,, Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ~~ ~~ F ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Date: September 2007 Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment Basemap: USGS TOpo Quad Map By: Derek Chan Filepath: 1:\ACad 2000 Flles\16000\16142\qls\ Alameda Count California McMap\Flgl_LOCMap PS_200709Z5.mxd 530 °~ ~i 55 A focused evaluation of indicators of wetlands and waters was performed in the Project Area on June 24, 2008. The methods used in this study to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters are based on the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ("Corps Manual"; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region ("Arid West Supplement"; Corps 2006). The routine method for wetland delineation described in the Corps Manual was used to identify areas potentially subject to Corps Section 404 jurisdiction within the Project Area. A general description of the Project Area, including plant communities present, topography, and land use was also generated during the delineation visits. The methods for evaluating the presence of wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. employed during the site visit are described in detail below. 3.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 3.1.1 Wetlands The Project Area was evaluated for the presence or absence of indicators of the three wetland parameters described in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Arid West Supplement (Corps 2006). Section 328.3 of the Federal Code of Regulations defines wetlands as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground wafer at a ~'" frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similarareas." -'^- EPA, 40 CFR 230.3 and CE, 33 CFR 328.3 (b) '"~ The three parameters used to delineate wetlands are the presence of: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) wetland hydrology, and (3) hydric soils. According to the Corps Manual, for areas not considered "problem areas" or "atypical situations": "....(EJvidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter (hydrology, soil, and vegetation) must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination. " Data on vegetation, hydrology, and soils collected at sample points during the delineation site visit were reported on Arid West Supplement data forms. Once an area was determined to be a potential jurisdictional wetland, its boundaries were delineated using GPS equipment and mapped on a topographic map. The areas of potentialjurisdictionalwetIands were measured digitally using ArcGIS software. Indicators described in the Arid West Supplement were used to make wetland determinations at each sample point in the Project Area and are summarized below. Vegetation Plant species identified in the Project Area were assigned a wetland status according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988). This wetland classification system is based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as follows: 531 ~ X55 OBL Always found in wetlands FACW(t) Usually found in wetlands FAC Equal in wetland or non-wetlands FACU Usually found in non-wetlands UPL/NL Upland/Not listed (upland) >99% frequency 67-99% 34-66 1-33% <1% The Arid West Supplement requires that athree-step process be conducted to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. The procedure first requires the delineator to apply the "50/20 rule" (Indicator 1) described in the manual. To apply the "50/20 rule", dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the community. In general, dominant species are determined for each vegetation stratum from a sampling plot of an appropriate size surrounding the sample point. In general, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total cover. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species has an OBL, FACW, or FAC status, ignoring + and -qualifiers, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. If the sample point fails Indicator 1 and both hydric soils and wetland hydrology are not present, then the sample point does not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, unless the site is a problematic wetland situation. However, if the sample point fails Indicator 1 but hydric soils and wetland hydrology are both present, the delineator must apply Indicator 2. Indicator 2 is known as the Prevalence Index. The prevalence index is a weighted average of the wetland indicator status for all plant species within the sampling plot. Each indicator status is given a numeric code (OBL = 1, FACW = 2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5). Indicator 2 requires the delineator to estimate the percent cover of each species in every stratum of the community and sum the cover estimates for any species that is present in more than one stratum. The delineator must then organize all species into groups according to their wetland indicator status and calculate the Prevalence Index using the following formula, where A equals total percent cover: PI = AoBL + 2AFACW + 3AFAC + 4'AFACU + 5AUPL `OBL + ' `FACW + ' `FAC + ' `FACU + AUPL The Prevalence Index will yield a number between 1 and 5. If the Prevalence Index is equal to or less than 3, the sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. However, if the community fails Indicator 2, the delineator must proceed to Indicator 3. Indicator 3 is known as Morphological Adaptations. If more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species have morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, that species is considered to be a hydrophyte and its indicator status should be reassigned to FAC. If such observations are made, the delineator must recalculate Indicators 1 and 2 using a FAC indicator status for this species. The sample point meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion if either testis satisfied. Hydrology The Corps jurisdictional wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied if an area is inundated or saturated for a period sufficient to create anoxic soil conditions during the growing season (a minimum of 14 consecutive days in the Arid West region). Evidence of wetland hydrology can include primary 4 53a ~ X55 - indicators, such as visible inundation or saturation, drift deposits, oxidized root channels, and salt crusts, or secondary indicators such as the FAC-neutral test, presence of a shallow aquitard, or crayfish burrows. The Arid West Supplement contains 16 primary hydrology indicators and 10 secondary hydrology indicators. Only one primary indicator is required to meet the wetland hydrology criterion; however, if secondary indicators are used, at least two secondary indicators must be present to conclude that an area has wetland hydrology. The presence or absence of the primary or secondary indicators described in the Arid West Supplement was utilized to determine if sample points within the Project Area met the wetland hydrology criterion. Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) defines a hydric soil as follows: "A hydric soil is a soil That formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Federal Register July 13, 1994, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Soils formed over long periods of time under wetland (anaerobic) conditions often possess characteristics that indicate they meet the definition of hydric soils. Hydric soils can have a hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odor, low chroma matrix color, generally designated 0, 1, or 2, used to identify them as hydric, presence of redox concentrations, gleyed or depleted matrix, or high organic matter content. Specific indicators that can be used to determine whether a soil is hydric for the purposes of wetland delineation are provided in the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U. S. (USDA 2006). The Arid West Supplement provides a list of 23 of these hydric soil indicators which are known to occur in the Arid West region. Soil samples were collected and described according to the methodology provided in the Arid West Supplement. Soil chroma and values were determined by utilizing a standard Munsell soil color chart (GretagMacbeth 2000). Hydric soils were determined to be present if any of the soil samples met one or more of the 23 hydric soil indicators described in the Arid West Supplement. 3.9.2 Other Wafers of the U. S. This study also evaluated the presence of "Waters of the United States" other than wetlands potentially subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Other areas, besides wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction include lakes, rivers and streams (including intermittent streams) in addition to all areas below the HTL in areas subject to tidal influence. Jurisdiction in non-tidal areas extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHW) defined as: "...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impresses on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the 5 ~,. ~. 533 ~f X55 presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." Federal Register Vol. 51, No. 219, Part 328.3 (e). November 13, 1986 Identification of the ordinary high water mark followed the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (Corps 2005}. 3.2 Difficult Wetland Situations in the Arid West The Arid West Supplement (Corps 2006) includes procedures for identifying wetlands that may lack indicators due to natural processes (problem areas) or recent disturbances (atypical situations). "Problem area" wetlands are defined as naturally occurring wetland types that periodically lack indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology due to normal seasonal or annual variability. Some problem area wetlands may permanently lack certain indicators due to the nature of the soils or plant species on the site. "Atypical situations" are defined as wetlands in which vegetation, soil, or hydrology indicators are absent due to recent human activities or natural events. The list of difficult wetland situations provided in the Arid West Supplement includes wetlands with problematic hydrophytic vegetation, problematic hydric soils, and wetlands that periodically lack indicators of wetland hydrology. In addition, the problem area and atypical situation sections of the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) were utilized to determine if any sample points taken within the Project Area met the criteria for a problem area or atypical situation. If any determination was based on less than three parameters, the rationale for the wetland determination was explained on the data sheets included in Appendix A. Although the Corps Manual and Arid West Supplement were utilized in the wetland determination, they do not provide exhaustive lists of the difficult situations that can arise during delineations in the Arid West. As a result, WRA interpreted the gathered data using best professional judgement and our knowledge of the ecology of the wetlands in the region. 3.3 Areas Exempt from Section 404 Jurisdiction Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or Waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man-induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples ofman-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, wetlands resulting from filling of formerly deep water habitats, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a navigable "Waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. 6 53~) ~ q55 4.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The Project Area is approximately 25 acres and is located in Dublin along Dougherty Road north of Highway 580 and near the Highway 680/Highway 580 interchange (see Figure 1). More than eighty percent' of the site is a housing development accessed by two main roads (Monterey Drive and North Mariposa). The rest of the site is occupied by two undeveloped ruderal fields, one at the northern end of the site (North Field) and one on the western edge of the site (West Field) (Figure 2). West Field is surrounded on all sides by a paved foot/bikepath. A basketball court borders the eastern edge of this field. The entire Project Area has previously been disturbed and does not represent ahigh-value habitat. This highly modified site is surrounded by other housing developments and ruderal fields. The elevation of the Project Area ranges from 350 to 372 feet. A biological resources assessment conducted by WRA in September 2007 discovered the presence of wetland vegetation in the northwestern corner of West Field: one obligate wetland species, California bulrush (Scirpus californicus), one facultative wet species, tall flat-sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and three facultative species, dallis grass (Paspalum dilatafum), narrowleaf plantain (Plantago /anceo/ata), and rough cockle-bur (Xanthium strumarium). The June 2008 wetland delineation focused on this site within the Project Area. It was apparent during the September 2007 assessment that soils in West Field have been disturbed, and this field appears to have been graded and modified with earth-moving equipment. The central section of West Field has been mowed and a layer of sawdust placed around sections of the perimeter of the mowed area. The topography slopes downward from the north and east edges of West Field towards a low point in the northwestern corner, where a drain is located. Shrubs and trees, including willow (Salix sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cotoneaster (Cotoneastersp.), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), and non-native ornamentals are growing along the fence line that borders the western edge of this field. Vegetation Vegetation in West Field can best be described as a combination of disturbed/mowed habitat and ruderal herbaceous grassland. Plants observed include non-native species such as slender wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), field bindweed (Convo/vulus arvensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and strawberry clover (Trifolium fragiferum). Hydroloav Natural hydrological sources for West Field include precipitation and surtace run-off from adjacent land within the Project Area. Soils The Alameda County Soil Survey (USDA 1966) indicates that two different soil types occur in the ~ Project Area: Diablo clay (DbC) and Clear Lake clay (CdA). While the majority of the Project Area has Diablo clay soils, which are classified as well-drained and occurring on slopes of 7-1, the area of interest where the wetland plants occur on-site occurs in a small inclusion of Clear Lake clay '" soils. This Clear Lake clay inclusion encompasses the northwestern tip of West Field. These soils are classified as moderately well-drained, occurring on 0-3% slopes. 7 `~- `~ ~J ~ '"`" `s. «S ~' i ~ Q? i- ce1 i~ if ~~ : a4 r? ~ t c. ~~, i x ' ~~ d. n~ is =F iii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ 6 ; ~~': ~ ; _ ~ N l~ t r.Ft. _. /,/ ~ „ u. '. e. ~~s. .fc, sE .1. dr his ~i da0. ~i r,. r ~~ .~ ('} . ~ K ~. I I7' 1 U Huh J; ~ ~~~ ~ zaa r ~~ ,..~ ~~, ;>~r, ~ _ ~~_ ~~. ~'{ p '~,?'i ~ z~S~ ',~~;' r '.;f ~ ? ~Y . ~ ~,y t~ , ~ ~ { ~.. a ^s ~ `. ~1r ~ ~ '~,,-;.... +U"'r ~~~ `~w~l.i~'t~~~l~ Y ~w1f~1 •j~~':: ~.I'Y ~~~~~,,rr~''~~r ~7~'U~~. ~i~~y..~'(~~ ~,~.~J'h ~` ~_~ ~t~4~'~~ ~3 '~~.' .~~~~i~ ,W E.,.,,3t'(f~~,. 7 ~ ,y~{~ ~t444;;'7 . ~t€` ~~* ~. ?t~'!± ~r ., ~ vt ,f Y ~ ij~ o-. ~ t T• (7 ' ~t J =. ,,~~~~ ~~~'"{{'nk,"~ .~..~~'A't :. .. '~''. t *~wl ~~ ~~.°:~~"i'~`ri~,~f l~~.~ ~~ .:~ Iy,~~ '~~4A-' ibx s~ i~>~tf r, ~~s ,` ~~ ~ ~~ '~ *+F.. 1 1 ;~ t ~'' 'iM_t,F1 _° "' } ~-,u;J i, ~u~ l J :~j: r I'J'L< .~ i~ w`#.+. ~ , ~,; ~ x~ ! ^t~r 3+~i , w~ ~,i x ~~ ~ 4 ~ t ~1 ~~ f its 'f';i = ic~~"" S y~l ~y ~ ;/ r•~1~• T ~+,+ vfi~:»~ ~~ r ..1.','C, 1 e PJ ~~ ~ `I° ,~ J s ~` r ~ ~~ ~~~ r~ ,~r~r r' 1j{ ~ ~t. ..W } ws',;ii• .~'. ~j.(• pus J ~~t~ ~b+~ ~~>_ u,~~ ~~r+"~F~s~ ~ i'fi ,~ r _.tly `t ; .1 ~ ~ 4,~' 7 .,f ... 4+>7 p1 ~ y~~a., .2 ' ,( sy` , }t. ^"~n~ 'll 1 J~~'~~~~~'~~'..' -y ~ .; F .L~ ~ "'~~»:~ rr~ "' t~~ ~y` ~" ` ~ 7 {~~. >~: C'* ~.~/~ ~ Y~r ~ sI. ' +Q~ ~r~ ~F~. ~i~~j~',~~ J~,A=~~N~.~t t>~w~~ s ~i?Y1~~ ~f} ~ ~ j~~ h~ il~ ~~e ~ ~~~fYh~ tii~ty ~ ' /, ~» ~~y~J9 ~F~~~ wig.., Ar ,~ '~`l~ ~! :±'}_. f • ~~j.... ! ••~~ R ; ..~F, ~ i >~y ~~r~ ~ 'y Y ~,~ ~~ s~~. ;~ ..~ ~ n. :r. ,r':j ,yyL ~ ~~ ~ :~ i~',,i ,.x~~ :31~ ~f ~~ ~~ y~~~ .1 ~±y~~ ~'~ {{' ~ ~ ~ ! ~})~ti~!',~D'{~ ~.~ Mfr ra\1„ ~ '~s ~~. ~,~ ~i 1 i _ 1 i' A' rgf. s .y ~ ~ t~ ~~ y y `~~,~,~. ,~i ° ~ 17.~~~~.5 s f' i~,., ,r ~b~, ' a ~'~ • ~ i e ~ ~ ' y.. ;~+i.Y, ~ ,ice ,~ i r ,, .. i i !` ~ ? _ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 5.0 RESULTS Vegetation, soils, and hydrology data col-ected during the June 2008 delineation site visit are ~ reported on standard Corps Arid West Region data forms in Appendix A and are briefly summarized below. Photographss of representative portions of the Project Area and sample points are shown in Appendix B. .~ 5.1 Potential Section 404 Waters of the U.S. 5.1.1 Wetlands Two sample points were taken during the June 24, 2008 WRA delineation conducted in the Project Area. These were taken in the two areas identified in September 2007 as supporting wetland plants (WRA, 2007). Both sample points are located in the northwestern corner of West Field (Figure 3). Sample point 1 (P1) to the east of the paved footpath, and sample point 2 (P2) to the west of the paved footpath, as shown in Figure 3. P1 had no wetland indicators. P2 had a dominance of facultative vegetation (dallis grass), and met the hydrophytic vegetation criteria. However, sample point P2 lacked both hydric soils and evidence of wetland hydrology, and is not considered a potential jurisdictional wetland. Soils were somewhat disturbed at both P1 and P2 with fill material (inclusions of gravel, cement, and bark), but below seven inches the soil was mostly intact. In addition, both P1 and P2 were very small areas-only a few square meters in size. 5.1.2 Other Waters of the U. S. No potential "other waters of the U.S." were observed in the Project Area during the June 2008 delineation conducted by WRA. 9 ~, ~; "53l ~f-'~55 F~.. r--..'.' 'n''T N ~n L .i~ '4~R. ~ ,-~ ~l ~ ~~{{'J~ ~~ r ~. . i~ . ~ aC ~ r .~f y sr t, ~ c a `:.,cam „ .,,xo ~ :.mow. < ~,~ vq, ~ ~' ..k ~ -` ~ mt F ~k~~ z ~~ 5:.£ =6b. +~ «~ . ~ ~ ,~"may"".' ° ~"~h' Y 1'. •Y M+kV "~ ~ a ~ ~" ' ~ Y __' ~ Y r ~ (14, Y FOJ - rwr ~ d ~ Q.~rJ~ !'?1t. h .,' ~'~ a, '+t ~, ~ ~ ~+cc ~. .~ .... < ... ~F ~ " w. ~ : > j I~~ 1 ~ It`. ' c.. ~ x , - I.. j M~.Y + ly . t(~~,. .iy'~~y. ~ n _ mow. t {~~qn~M ~,. R k 'F 4 inµ r4~ s t. , .a a "eft x^- Y~ ; `# r s y~~~'` ;s I ~ a ~, ~ n~ ~:. x x s'~r II I: 'O. ... 7 . 'Wr stn ~ ~~MV ~`~, '~ """~"~-.,~.... Y ' ,~ k ' ._ : .''.~=f ~~3 ~' ` ..~ '~~ s~ r Ire ~ ~ ..k.? .~ , ~: y~ :.!#f of ,~ ~ .S . ~ p ~ ~ •+ ~ S ~~. ~*~ +k ~k_ - ;, ~~~~ N r sue., ~- ~ ~k'. ' .r. "~~h'41W~-~ P ~~ w- ~ f i ~ ~ ~'Ir 'j ~ 1h 1t. tN L~ ~: t ~ Fii- 4 •,~ 1. ~t 4 ~'» ~. . T~, .. t f r. ~ ~ .k. ~ `~ } ~ ~+k> ;~ ~`;~ ,~ - ~- ~ ~~;~ Legend 't 3N~~ X ~ k~..r ~ e ' ' ~ 4 ~ * •y Y.,,~rx "`"~;~~ o .iss3e 2009 SamCe Poi^~$ ^^~~ nn ~J Z5 ~U Figure 3. Location of Delineation Sample Points within West Field `' ~~~ ~~ E~:vauoa~n~~r~~n~ cc~tsvtrr~r<~~ Da:¢: June 2COS ~ Dublin Arroyo Vista Biological Assessment 3asep~o:c:ter,ase~e.,2s°° Map 8y: Derek C:'x3s~ Fi3¢Pa.a; t:~.acaC26t}r}-ices\=6~C01:6_c2\4+s\~rct~aa'•, Alameda County, California rca_aer~a€_o6._zs_os.nxa 538 ~ ~i55 6.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219; page 41217. GretagMacBeth. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, revised washable edition. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: California (Region 0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.10). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. December. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil Survey of Alameda County, California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2005. Official List of US Hydric Soils. USDA, NRCA. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying "~"' and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 6.0. In cooperation with the National Technical .~ Committee for Hydric Soils, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Dublin quad. 7.5 minute topographic map. WRA, Inc. 2007. Biological Resources Assessment for the Arroyo Vista Housing Project, Dublin, Alameda County, California. 11 53G ~f ~I55 Appendix A -Preliminary Section 404 Jurisdictional Data Sheets ~~~ ~ ~~~ Wetland Determination Data Form -Arid West Region ProjecUSite Dublin Arroyo Vista City Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 6!24/2008 ApplicanUOwner City of Dublin State CA Sampling Point P1 Investigator(s) Cheryl Vann WRA, Inc. Section,Township,Range sec 31 T2S, R1E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) open field Local Relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope(%) 0% Subregion(LRR) LRR C (Medit. CA) Lat: 37°42'57.56" N Long: 121°54'45.10" W Datum: NAD 83 (feet) Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake clay (CdA) NWI classification None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ^ No (If no, explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ^ Vegetation ®Soil ^ Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ®Yes ^ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ^ Vegetation ^ Soil ^ Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? ^Yes ®No within a Wetland? ~ Yes ®NO Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No Remarks: Sample Point P1 is located in uplands. ~ lr /~ CT A TI/9\I Tree stratum (use scientific names) ~ Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 0 (A) 1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC? 2. Total number of dominant 1 (B) 3 species across all strata? 4. % of dominant species that 0% (p,/g) Tree Stratum Total Cover: are OBL, FACW, or FAC? Sanlina/Shrub Stratum Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % cover of: Multiolv bv: 2. OBL species x1 3, FACW species x2 4. FAC species x3 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: FACU species x4 Herb Stratum UPL species x5 ~, Avena fatua 95 Yes NL Column Totals (A) (B) 2. Hordeum murinum 3 No NL Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 . 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5 ^ Dominance Test is >50% g, ^ Prevalence Index is <!= 3.0' 7. ^ Morphological adaptations (provide g, supporting data in remarks) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 98 ^ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) Woodv Vine Stratum ~, ~ Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 2 must be present. Woody Vine Stratum Total Cover: Hydrophytic ^Yes ®No ° Bare ground in herb stratum 2 /o cover of biotic crust Ve etation Present ? 9 Remarks: During the biological assessment site visit in September 2007 Scirpus californicus was present at this site. It is currently mowed down, as this sample point is within and along the edge of a maintained field. .- US Army Corps of Engineers Hna vvest - version i i- i-zwo 5yl af- ~j55 AIL Sampling Point P1 •ofile description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) depth Matrix __ R dox Feat ~r ,inches) Color (moist) °/a Color (moist) % Type, Loc' Texture Remarks 7 10YR 3/2 > 99 5YR 4/6 < 1 C M clay loam mixed with fill--gravel, cement bark 10 10YR 3/1 _ > gg 2.5Y 7/4 1 C M silty clay no fill mixed in 5YR 4/6 < 1 C M silty clay no fill mixed in ydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ] Histosol (A1) ]Histic Epipedon (A2) ^ Sandy Redox (S5) ^ Stripped Matrix (S6) ]Black Histic (A3) ] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ^ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ^ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ] Stratified Layers (A5)(LRR C) ^ Depleted Matrix (F3) ] 1cm Muck (A9)(LRR D) ] Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ^Redox Dark Surtace (F6) ^ Depleted Dark Surtace (F7) ] Thick Dark Surtace (A12) ] Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ^Redox Depressions (FI3) ^ Vernal Pools {F9) ] Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) estrictive Layer (if present): type: )epth (inches): RC=Root Channel. M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ^ 1cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ^ 2cm Muck (A10)(LRR B) ^ Reduced Vertic (F18) ^ Red Parent Material (TF2) ^ Other (explain in remarks) 3lndicators of hydric vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydric Soll Present ? ^ Yes ®No marks: Top seven inches of soil contained fill material (gravel, cement, bark), but was fairly homogenous and devoid of fill below seven inches. f UKULUGY vuanu nyarviogy maicatorS: _-- imary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Surtace Water (A1) ~ High Water Table (A2) ~ Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1)(Nonriverine) Sediment Deposits (B2)(Nonriverinej Drift Deposits (63)(Nonriverine) ~ Surtace Soil Cracks (66) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) ~ Water-Stained Leaves (69) ^ Salt Crust (B11) ^ Biotic Crust (B12) ^ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ^ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ^ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ^ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ^ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks) eld Observations: ~rtace water present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): ater table present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): jturation Present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): icludes capillary fringe) ascribe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available. Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ^ Water Marks (B1)(Riverine) ^ Sediment Deposits (62)(Riverine) ^ Drift Deposits (83)(Riverine) ^ Drainage Patterns (B10) ^ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ^ Thin Muck Surtace (C7) ^ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ^ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ^ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ^ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Hydrology Present 7 ^ Yes ®No :niaiKS:A drain is located in the field roughly 40 feet north of sample point 1. r~~~~y carps or engineers Arid West -Version 11-1-2006 5~1a ~- X55 Wetland Determination Data Form -Arid West Region Ci Dublin County Alameda Sampling Date 6/24/2008 ProjecUSite Dublin Arrovo Vista ~ State CA Sampling Point P2 ApplicanUOwner Ci of Dublin Investigator(s) Cheryl Vann WRA Inc. Section,Township,Range sec 31 T2S R1E flat ruderal area Local Relief (concave, convex, none) none Slope(%) 0% Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) LRR C (Medit. CA) Lat: 17°d2'~?.R~" N Long: ~~~°Fd'dF ~A" W _ Datum: NAD 83 (feet) Subregion(LRR) - - NWI classification None Soil Map Unit Name Clear Lake clay (CdA) Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? ®Yes ^ No (If no, explain in remarks) Are any of the following significantly disturbed? ^ Vegetation ^ Soil ^ Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ®Yes ^ No Are any of the following naturally problematic? ^ Vegetation ^ Soil ^ Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^ No Is the Sampled Area ~ Yes ®NO Hydric Soil Present? ^Yes ®No within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No Remarks: Sample Point P2 is located in uplands. VEGETATION A bsolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree stratum (use scientific names) % - cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 (A} _ that are OBL, FACW, or FAC? 1 __ _ Total number of dominant 1 (g) 2 _ __ ~ species across all strata? 3. - --- of dominant species that 100% (aB) 4• are OBL, FACW, or FAC? Tree Stratum Total Cover: Prevalence Index Worksheet Saolina/Shrub Stratum Total % cover of: Multiolv bv: OBL species x1 2 _ _ FACW species x2 3. --~- FAC species x3 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: _, _._ FACU species x4 H b Stratum UPL species x5 er ~, Paspalum dllatatum 9 0 Yes FAC Column Totals (A} (B) 2. Avena fatua 5 N_ o NL Prevalence Index = 8/A = 3. ~- Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 4. - -'_ _____ ® Dominance Testis >50% 5. ^ Prevalence Index is </= 3.0' 6 ^ Morphological adaptations (provide ~ ____, supporting data in remarks) 8 _,_ ^ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) Herb Stratum Total Cover: 9 5 ~Moodv Vine Stratum 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 1 _,_ ~- - must be present. 2. ~ Woody Vine Stratum Total Cover: Hydrophytic ®Yes ^ No % Bare ground in herb stratum 5 cover of biotic crust Vegetation Present ? Remarks: Dominated by one facultative species. Not a strong wetland indicator. ,~~. Arid West -Version 11-1-2006 US Army Corps of Engineers AIL Sampling Point P2 •orne oescnption: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) depth Matrix Redox Features 'inches Color !moist) % Color (moist) % Type, Loc' Texture Remarks 11 10YR 3/1 97 silty clay mixed with some gravel and fill 2.5YR 7/4 1 C M sandy prominent mottle Reduced Matrix. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix ydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) ] Histosol (A1) ^ Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ]Histic Epipedon (A2) ]Black Histic (A3) ^ Stripped Matrix (S6) ^ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) ^ 1cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) ^ 2cm Muck (A10)(LRR B) ] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ] Stratified Layers (A5)(LRR C) ^ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ^ Depleted Matrix (F3) ^ Reduced Vertic (F18) ^ Red Parent Material (TF2) ] 1cm Muck (A9)(LRR D) ^Redox Dark Surface (F6) ^ Other (explain in remarks) ] Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ^ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ] Thick Dark Surface (A12) ^Redox Depressions (F8) ] Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ] Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ^ Vemal Pools (F9) 'Indicators of hydric vegetation and _ wetland hydrologv must be present. estrictive Layer (if present): type: 10YR 6/6 < 1 C M silty clay faint mottle )epth (inches): Hydric Soil Present ? ^ Yes ®No marks: Evidence of some fill material mixed in with the soil, but not as much as at sample point 1. Hydric soils not present at Sample Point. (DROLOGY etland Hydrology Indicators: imary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) ~ Saturation (A3) ~ Water Marks (B1)(Nonriverine) Sediment Deposits (62)(Nonriverine) Drift Deposits (63)(Nonriverine) ~ Surface Soil Cracks (66) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ~ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) ^ Salt Crust (B11) ^ Biotic Crust (612) ^ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ^ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ^ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ^ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ^ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks) ~econaary maicarors (t or more required) ^ Water Marks (B1)(Riverine) ^ Sediment Deposits (B2)(Riverine) ^ Drift Deposits (63)(Riverine) ^ Drainage Patterns (B10) ^ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ^ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ^ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ^ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ^ ShallowAquitard (D3) ^ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) eld Observations: ~rface water present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): ater table present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): 3turation Present? ^ Yes ®No Depth (inches): icludes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present ? ^ Yes ®No :scribe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available. :mari<s: No indicators of wetland hydrology present at sample point. Hrmy corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 11-1-2006 Appendix B -Representative Photographs of the Project Area :: ~: -- ~- ~ ~ ~. .~ _ 2 ~~ Y Y Vin: ~'~ :~ ~~ ~ ~;~ ~`~ ~ ~« ~. :,t .. „~. ~: v c _ t t Y 4' ~~ _L , ~' L } 3~'~ y. 1 ~ C'~ 4 L ..~'+~ A l ~ -3.... T Z. ~C` ~ T '.` ~ A y _ Y ~~~ Cj y,.' i' ~ Y.I .,.~, .,~,. b ,~ Y . .~ „ _ ~'Ct r''. ~ .:x H TRH}`..` i ~ ,.`J .._ ~; ,. Above: View north from sample point 1 towards drain. Below: View west with sample point 1 in foreground and sample point 2 across path in background. ~)wra Etd ViiYOM1'M£N'. R: CON$UL7AIn T$ Photographs taken June 24, 2008 O O ca v v N w m L C tD A N 0 f7 o ~ ~: o ~~ ~ n o. ro -o ~ ;-,: ~ cfl a (D ~_ (D O CD Q. 1 O '~ CD ~ ~ ~ o a{ o ~ ~' cn cv ~ ~ m ~° co o .~ a ~. m ~ -. tll ~ ~ O ^` ~~ (4 ,~ ~~ ~ ~ (i'] z C O 7. m z b n O ~~ N i~, l ~\ t~" ~ ~, ~ t a y ~~~; 1 j ~, , C~`fY~`, , ~t '~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ j r a . +` j o 5 i1 ~ ~ ' ~4 ~ ~ f r y t r 1 ~ t ' r ~ . ~ 1' ~ ~ ~ , ~ i -~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ 1r Ir t { + ~ .77r ' ~~ ( ~ ~.l ' ~ ~ ~~ ~rl. -f ~3 ,111 ~ r a - ~ ~ ~' } ' ~ ! psi ~{~ ~ ~ 4 !! n ` ' s 'ti ' ` t+ ! ~ $~ ti',~? As ! ~''~ `~ 3' ~ i ~?. .C,. s'f #t,+, . 1L' ti ~.. , i .. F,/ 1i F ..r ~ ~ 7'{r :y~ rr r. ~jh~~ t~, t a ti ~ ~'f P, ~ .> s ,. * C ~ ~' 1 ~ t ~i1.`Y {,.+r 2'. "y~~ c ,i ~r~ / ~~~y~ypt l'~~x r (i~. t`'fir ~; jr<?rtiJ~ ~.~~d { ~+ ~ r Ey~~ ~ ~ f '' rr irk / ~' ~'r t ' ~ ~ ;rn = ~ „e , jz; N s ~ t c3'Yr l ~, 97 r~t r ~~ .tst ~ i, a4~'~ « f YI¢ ~ iil~ ~ n5,, r ~t}.k~~~~q~t Vii" .~ c rr ,,y~~O ~, i1.~cr.u r.' 71 t.,~{l.~ ~ ra t ,~ ~{ l (' i '° ~~ ate' -„ ~ti , ,~ a ti'; , ~, ~ ~: ~ ~#r' {t a~ ~,{. ~ ly ~ l; l~%tf Is ~ ~1 t~.~ I ~'1'~~j~~~ir7 >y~'°~ `'T i'a.~ ~ '. r+ S ~.,r ~ , Z ~N~~~ ~ i ./ r hi '~ ~ 7 y ~ H ~?4/J. 3f y G~ t- ~ I .. , i j'' n1 ?,~ti~1 Ce' 'i i . )~~s~?~ t,~~ h rr.F, i, i sky Y /. +/ '/e 1 r f 1 F 9~~ a ''~ , ac T, ~, ~ a ,~ r ! ~ ~~ i r~Y~ ~l/ r ~ft ~,}}(~ y y r p,tr Crt fiti ~~{F~ Stt~ .drill. .~ ~1rsH~~~~~~ ~ L ~(~ V ' 5~~ ~f-'~55 Above: View south with sample point 2 on the right of the path and sample point 1 on the left. Below: Soil pit for sample point 2, showing predominance of Paspa/um diJatafum vegetation. ~._ - -- ..._ ~~_ . ^. "':~ z ft? ~ ` I it ~ t ,. x.~ ,: ~~" ~': ~ C~ e :tt f ~J~ ~.~~{ ?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ ;, N ,~ ~~j a{ [ r t`ar'. ~ c "~ 4 1< Y ?r Y` _ \'Y~7 ",. c~ `~~ .x 1., r ,`~. ~ ,i'''^ -~~__ :~x .~ r ~ .~ :' f i ,~ ~w e ~_:~t - ; ~"`~ Y r ~~A wNViROhM~NTAL Ct7 ¢~SUiT.ANTS Photographs taken June 24, 2008