HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.4 Neg Decl I-580/Tassjar AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CITY CLERK
File #0400-20
May 16, 2000
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Interstate
580/Tassajara Road Interchange Improvements Project
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
2) Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Improvement Project
3) Project Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements
4) Response to Public Comments Received
RECOMMENDATION~~
1) Open Public Hearing
2) Receive Staff presentation
3) Receive public testimony
4) Close public hearing
5) Deliberate
6) Adopt Resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Improvement
Project
7) Direct Staff to work with Developers and Caltrans on the
development of the necessary Funding and Cooperative
Agreements to Construct Project.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There is no financial impact associated with the adoption'of the
project Mitigated Negative Declaration. Approval of this environmental document is a necessary step in
completing the Project Report required by Caltrans.
DESCRIPTION: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment
outlined the planned development north of 1-580, east of Hacienda Drive and west of Tassajara Road. As
a result of the increased traffic associated with this development, the need for infrastructure improvements
at the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange was identified in the Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.
In addition, development south of the interchange area has recently been completed in the City of
Pleasanton. Hence, the purpose of the proposed interchange improvements would be to increase
interchange capacity in order to accommodate future traffic demand, including traffic generated by several
recently approved developments north of the project site, and to accommodate existing development south
of the interchange. The improvements would alleviate existing and projected congestion, improve safety,
and improve traffic operations.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
G:\miscproj\580-Tassajara\agst pub hearing neg dec I580-Tassajara IC.doc
The proposed improvements to the interchange would include the following:
· Demolishing the existing two-lane northbound Tassajara Road overcrossing
· Constructing a new three-lane northbound Tassajara Road overcrossing.
· Constructing an auxiliary lane along eastbound 1-580 from the northbound to eastbound Santa Rita
Road on-ramp to the E1 Charro Road off-ramp.
· Widening the westbound 1-580 off-ramp to a two-lane exit and providing a 400-meter (1,312-foot)
auxiliary lane in advance of the exit.
· Widening the eastbound off-ramp to provide a second left-mm lane at the ramp termini at the
intersection of Santa Rita Road and Pimlico Drive.
· Lengthening the left turn lane on southbound Tassajara Road approaching the Pimlico Drive
intersection.
· Narrowing the existing median along westbound Pimlico Drive to provide a four-lane approach at the
Santa Rita intersection.
· Reconstructing the westbound 1-580 loop on-ramp.
· Widening the diagonal westbound 1-580 on-ramp to two lanes.
The existing traffic signals at the ramp intersections would be modified to accommodate the proposed
lane arrangements. Ramp metering, ramp entrance lighting, and intersection lighting would also be
modified as appropriate for the proposed improvements.
The City's consultant has prepared the proposed Negative Declaration for the project in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Caltrans Environmental Guidelines. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared and Staff has determined that there Will not be a significant
adverse effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
Negative Declaration. Measures to mitigate the project impacts and monitoring requirements are
summarized in Attachment 3.
The Notice of Public Review of Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project was mailed to property
owners directly impacted by the project, posted in City Information Kiosks, and published in the Tri-
Valley Herald, with the 30-day public comment period officially concluded on April 24, 2000. Three
letters corresponding to the project impacts, as well as comments via telephone, were received. The
responses to comments received are summarized in Attachment 4. Staff concludes that the comments
received are adequately addressed in the environmental document.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the resolution
adopting the Negative Declaration for the Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project. Staff
further recommends that the City Council direct staff to work with the developers and Caltrans on the
development of the necessary Funding and Cooperative Agreements for the construction of the 1-580/
Tassajara Road interchange improvement project.
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. -00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
INTERSTATE 580/TASSAJARA ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment outlined the
planned development north of 1-580, east of Hacienda Drive and west of Tassajara Road; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the increased traffic associated with this development, the need for
infrastructure improvements at the 1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange was identified in the Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed interchange improvements would be to increase
interchange capacity in order to accommodate future traffic demand, including traffic generated by several
recently approved developments north of the project site, and to accommodate existing development south of
the interchange; and
WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act
and Caltrans Environmental Guidelines, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration haS .been prepared for the
project and mitigation measures have been included; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has issued a Notice of Public Review of Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Improvements to appropriate agencies and
property owners with the 30-day public comment period officially concluded on April 24, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
comments received during the public review period.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange
Improvements Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AB S TAININ G:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
I,¥1;ERSITi TE 580/TASSA',
INTEl: CH;4 N6E IMPRO
fin' tlie
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
General Project Information ............................................................................................................ 1
Project Locati(Jn and Context ........................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 7
Determination .................................................................................................................................. 7
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 8
Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................ 10
Attachment to Initial Study ............................................................................................................ 21
Discussion of Checklist ...................................................................................................... 21
I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 21
II. Agricultural Resources .......... ., .............................................................................. 22
III. Air Quality ........................................................................... , ................................. 23'
IV. Biological Resources ............................................................ ................................. 25
V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 34
VI. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 35
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................... 37
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ 40
IX. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. ' ............. 42
X. Mineral Resources ............................................................ : .......................... .' .......... 43
XI. Noise ............................................... ~ ...................................................................... 44
XII. Population and Housing ......................................................................................... 47
XIII. Public Services ....................................................................................................... 48
XIV. Recreation ............................................................ ~ ................................................. 49
XV. Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................ 50
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................. 52
XV. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 53
References ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Report Author and Consultants ...................................................................................................... 56
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Regional Location Map ............................................................................................ 3
Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 4
Aerial Photograph ...... : ............................................................................................. 5
Proposed Interchange Improvements ....... ................................................................ 6
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Natural Environment Study (H.T. Harvey and Associates)
Cultural Resources Analysis (Basin Research Associates)
Initial Environmental Site Assessment (Parikh Consultants)
Noise Analysis (MO'C Physics Applied)
ii
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) and assesses the potential environmental impact 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.
General Project Information
Project Title:
Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Improvements
Project
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person:
Project Location:
Ferdinand Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer,
City of Dublin Public Works Department
(925) 833-6630
Interstate 580/Tassaja~a Road-Santa Rita Road Interchange
Project Applicant/Contact Person:
General Plan Designation:
Lee S. Thompson
Public Works Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Arterial Roadway/Freeway Interchange
Other public agency required approvals:
Grading and Building Permits (Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton)
Encroachment Permits (Caltrans)
Project Location and Context
The proposed project site is the existing Interstate 580 (I-580)/Tassajara Road interchange, located
within the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. The project site is located at the approximate middle of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1994 for the purpose of directing long-term land use,
circulation, infrastructure and environmental protection for 1,336 hectares (3,302 acres) of land
located in eastern Dublin and north of 1-580. At full buildout, a range of residential, commercial,
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 1
March, 2000
office, employment, and open space uses would be located in this area.t In addition, there has been
much recent development south of the interchange area, in the City of Pleasanton. The purpose of
the proposed interchange improvements would be to accommodate future traffic demand, including
traffic generated by several recently approved developments north of the project site, as well as to
accommodate existing development south of the interchange. Regional and vicinity maps of the
interchange area are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. An aerial photograph with existing
land uses is shown on Figure 3.
Project Description
The 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange improvements would maintain the existing partial cloverleaf
(Type L-9) interchange configuration while increasing the capacity of the interchange ramps and
ramp termini intersections. As shown on Figure 4, the proposed improvements to the interchange
would include:
· Constructing a new three-lane northbound Tassajara Road overcrossing.
· Demolishing the existing, two-lane northbound Tassajara Road overcrossing.
· Constructing an auxiliary lane along eastbound 1-580 from the northbound to eastbound Santa
Rita Road on-ramp to the E1 Charro Road off-ramp.
· Widening the westbound 1-580 off-ramp to a two-lane exit and providing a 400 meter (1,312
foot) auxiliary lane in advance of the exit.
· Widening the eastbound off-ramp to provide a second left-turn lane at the ramp termini at the
intersection of Santa Rita Road and Pimlico Drive.
· Lengthening the left mm lane on southbound Tassajara Road approaching the Pimlico Drive
intersection.
· Narrowing the existing median along westbound Pimlico Drive to provide a four-lane approach
at the Santa Rim intersection.
· Reconstructing the westbound 1-580 loop on-ramp.
· Widening the diagonal westbound 1-580 on-ramp to two lanes.
The proposed improvements would extend from approximately Highway Station 96+80 to Highway
Station 116+80. The existing traffic signals at the ramp intersections would be modified to
accommodate the proposed lane arrangements. Ramp metering, ramp entrance lighting, and
intersection lighting would also be modified as appropriate for the proposed improvements.
The project would be constructed entirely within the existing Caltrans right-of-way. Project
construction would be completed in stages. Construction of the proposed interchange improvements
may require temporary lane closures on 1-580 (night-time only), the interchange ramps and Tassajara
Road. Traffic would be controlled and re-routed around construction work as necessary. Detailed
stage construction and traffic handling plans would be developed during the detai'led design phase of
the project.
Purpose And Need Of The Proposed Project
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan outlined the planned development
north of 1-580, east of Hacienda Drive and west of Tassajara Road. As a result of the increased
traffic associated with the planned development, the need for infrastructure improvements at the I-
580/Tassajara Road interchange was identified in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
~ City of Dublin, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "H", File No. PA 98-
070, November, 1999, p. 2.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 2
March, 2000
SAN
FRANI
BERKELEY
OAKLAND
· DUBLIN
· HAYWARD
· UNION CITY LIVERMORE
FREMONT IPLEASANTON
CITY
PALO/~
SUNN'
SANTA CI
MILPITAS
'~ Intemhange Improvements Area
LOS
GATOS
N.T,S.
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE I
3
RD.
~_, FALLoN f .... --,....~
TASSAJARA RD.
LIVERMORE
EL CHARRO
'~a Ya~OVH
DOUGHERTY RD.
GqON~V
WILLOW
DR.
RD,
RD.
4
. . : .. . ... ' . . , . . . ,. . t.:., i ":~' ' ' "
.. ''~ .... ~',.'," '.....~' ;..., "" '"i:;....": ! ','.~i'!;,','....."...i!,:'!"i,.' ,..'~,i. :.. '~ .. . ' ""',,~..,..',
. . . '. ~'~,. "' . '.:I '.' , :'.. ii' ::".id' '. ':ii.':. ~r.'.~ :I:' ..:..' . '.. '.:' i.: .~h: ~ ..:' ' ," '. :; ' ::" . ..' ' '.'
' ~ ' . · · °~,;.. ' .'.. ~. . ~ ?.'""? .i, "..i: ~: i:~'.'...'. ..' ~.1:: . ?: "~ii ,........: .. : . :ii:.~ .... ". ...... . · .:
: ..",: '"'~..~ '..:..l"::".ii~["~' ' . :;I.'I:.~ ;':::'i:l'' ',."[~ii' !"'q..:. : ..... ..:.I' . .. ' . ..
. ', "~".,..;;~;~; ~ ' ".~!'..:".'.' "', ....,I ... ",";i,."..:i!~.]{..'.',~:.qi'.'.:i'' ".'! ..... :~.:..!.,,t'( "'""il!':" ' ~' ,. 'J'."h.~'.., ..4' ,;...' ...."."!',.!... '!".
. . .,...,~.. '%....;,,%> ... ~.':i'".! 'i"': '!' ~.i.":.'!i r...~:'~, '~ ,"' .. ' ._--~.~ :' ..,. ~.~!' .. i~:.,.. . '
' ' . '. ...... :~i ':',". "'?:' "';'..':.~i'.i.:?':i: '..:i", .. ::~'L:.:' .,';L.i: '."'{EXISTING S._O. U.~ND W...A.~L?' '~,~ :!,.,., h:".' ,.,.?" ....".
....... . ...... . ,.,..., , ......... ...... , ........ ... ;...
,,, ~ ....... .,.:,: .,~:~'*: ....... .,:~""""'~,~'~,,~" ,"~.~'"'~'.,'.?~';~,';, ,'¢ ~,. ,"' ': ~' '- :~i'
', , : ~ ."I~',!'i' ~:,~"":'" ~ .,..,,~' . , , :,. I ., ~,., , ,_,,~ ,,, ,,:~,{.,, .,~r,~, , ,q ~:,' , · ,~,
.... ' ' , "'"I "~" ' ' , ,' '"' i ' ' , ,4,, ,' ~., ~iG~' ':,'";I ~:,,.,,,.~v,.~¢N,:,,, '.,,': ,.,'q" ':.'":'~' """:",:,~,"i~,:.' ~:.': ~'~" .' ' ~ ' ' 'i"
.... . " ~,. : ....... ,COMMERCIAL[,. ': "'. .... /:,",,~.. '~¥,,,". ....~ ..... :,., ............ '*' ~,~,. ........ '~,~, ' ........
...... .. .,, ' .,, . . . .... ..... '~.. :" .. ',"';,. ,,,. ~ .,,~'~..,,.:,, ..~ ' .':. 'r.V .... '..,.,..,,,. '~.i:, ;,,,.~ ...... i'". ~.""'.'"" TM "'
'"" . ' , ' " "'.'. .... '" '"' <"' "'"' :' :"'"%' ".'"'""' *,.', . "";" :'RESIDENTIAL[ :' ,...'['..
'" .......... '"'~ ......... ' '""'""'~' ' · '"'"J~,~i '.' ,i' e'' t~,.,~..,., ...,~ ...... ,,, ":L ', ~ , ~; .. . {*,.'~l:,, *.. ,,,~ :.,l*:,.
, " " "~:., "' , ~' ~.~{,' "},, , , .#" ..... .Iq ,, ,,{w · * '~ ,~ ....... ~"t' ,' , ,: ,, ,' TI4' ~, "
........ ,r ...... { . ,. ' , ., " .... .. Yl:,i. ~' ~'l:'.:j',r. } ........... , ....... :' ,.., ..~. :.. ,* .......... ,, r ......
' ' ' : ' J" ' ~ ~"F'~tt :" '~' j,,k: ~,, .~ ..~,,, ~ .~ . ' ~ .k ~ . ~ . ...{, ....... ,~.~ ....... I .... : ... { ...
I . ll I I I { {IlI {{l lI { I '~l II ' : ' [ . I l~ m'[ ~ {{?l Ill ' I .l{l ll l .....
' ' < {' l{l:l l:llll .llI i "~l*i{l~l Ii;l 'l l,}llIII ..... l, ~ III ~ ll~ 'l . ' . , ' ' ' : .............
r.... I Il l,l , ' ' , ~' I. .... i ''l
' ii ilil. lI' ~:l {il l~ :{',l~ll{~ * ' I :. I. {~ ill ~ l~[l {l ~[~ l
I I : : I ~ I II ~ I {[ I {[ ~ {41 ~I II ~ ,[ Iiil: {II{ .....
I I III :~ { I ll'll~ I: I : ..... I I
i ~ {{I lll~ ~ ~I { [ [} i I l{ l~[ i III
l, [;l illll : i i ~I ~ l~l{L{[{il[ I{ I I { { I
':l:: :l ~:i ::!, l'l:[:
I,I~ II Il{
,:
~II {~i~{ '~ : ll[~j ...... ~II ~iI [ [I : I'I II ~
II~';;'Cll!!i."'l[}','? Irl';[)f(~'/('),rlll(}ll'lS L()~,Y. (')'~' ~
SCi,ii(:. ,I, I 5 ()i:) P!''I'"'')'~,) Dar(.:: 2 '2. ,..),u,
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES
FIGURE 3
Specific Plan EIR. In addition, development south of the interchange area has recently been
completed, in the City of Pleasanton. Therefore, the purpose of the proposed interchange
improvements would be to increase interchange capacity in order to accommodate future traffic
demand, including traffic generated by several recently approved developments north of the project
site, as well. as to accommodate existing development south of the interchange. The proposed
interchange improvements would alleviate 'existing and projected congestion, 'improve safety, and
improve traffic operations.
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.
[] Aesthetics [] Agricultural Resources [] Air Quality
[] Biological Resources' [] Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils
rn Hazards and [] Hydrology/Water [] Land Use/Planning
Hazardous Materials Quality
[3 Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population/Housing
[] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/
Circulation
[] Utilities/Service [] Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
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 a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 the following pages have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
.environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 7
March, 2000
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigat6d" impact on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
base on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Date:
Printed Name: For:
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 parentheses foll6wing 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 standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-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 is 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 Impact 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 a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced)..
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 8
March, 2000
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. Identify 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)
Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). 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.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 9
March, 2000
Environmental Checklist
This checklist was used to identify environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is
implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s)for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for
each answer except "No Impact" are found on the pages following this checklist. In some instances,
where the basis for a "No Impact" determination needs explanation, a discussion can also be found
on the pages following this checklist.
Less Than
PotentiallySignifiCant Less Than
Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST significantWith Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Source(s)
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1
scenic vista? [3 [] · [] [3 p. 21
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a 1
state scenic highway7 [] [3 · D r~ p. 21
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~.
character or quality of the site and its 1
surroundings? [] vi · vi [3 p. 21
.d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or 1
nighttime views in the area? vi vi [3 · vi p. 22
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non- 2,3
agricultural use? O [] [] · [] p. 22
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 2,3
use, or a Williamson Act contract? vi [] [] · [3 p. 22
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 2,3
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? vi [3 [] · vi p. 22 '
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementationof 1,4 .
the applicable air quality plan? O [] · [] [] p. 24
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 10
March, 2000
Less Than
PotentiallySignificant Less Than
Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST significantWith Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation lmpact Impact Source(s)
Incorporated
III. AIR QUALITY (continued)
Would the project:
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,4
quality violation? ~ [] · [] [] p. 24
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant forwhich the
project region is classified as non-attainment
under an applicabl~ federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for 1,4
ozone precursors)? CI ~ · [] [] p. 24
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 1,4
pollutant concentrations? [] [] · [] [] p. 24
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1
substantial number of people? [] ~ · [] O p. 24
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and 5
Wildlife Service? CI · [] ~ . [] p. 30
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and 5
Wildlife Service? CI ~ · CI [] p. 33
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 5
interruption, or other means? [] FI · [] [21
p. 33
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 11
March, 2000
Less Than
PotentiallySignificant Less Than
Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SignificantWith Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
(continued)
Would the project:
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, impede the use of 5
native wildlife nursery sites? vi [21 ~ ·. rq p. 33
e) Conflict with any l'ocal policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree 5
preservation policy or ordinance? ~ [21 ~1 · rq p. 33
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 5
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [21 F1 [21 · [-I p. 33
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource as defined 6
in §15064.5? [2 [2 [2 · Cl' p. 34
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 6
pursuant to §15064.5? [2 [2 0 · [21 p. 34
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique 6
geologic feature? [2 ~ [2 · [2 p. 34
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 6
interred outside of formal cemeteries? O [2 [~ · tn p. 34
VI. 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
described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
(R~fer to Division of Mines and Geology 1,2,3
Special Publication 42.) [2 ' 0 · [2 0 p. 35
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 12
March, 2000
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (continued)
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
1,2,3
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [3 [3 · [3 [3 p. 35
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 1,2,3
liquefaction? [3 [3 · [3 [3 p. 35
iv) Landslides? 1,2,3
[3 [3 [3 · [3 p. 35
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 1,2,3
topsoil? [3 [3 · [3 [3 p. 36
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, 1,2,3
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ~ ~3 · ~ [3 p. 36
d) Be locate? on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or 1,2,3
property? D D · ~ ~] p, 36
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available 1,2,3
for the disposal ofwastewater? [3 ~ ~ · ~ p. 36
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, 1,7
or disposal of hazardous materials? [3 [3 · [3 [3 p. 38
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 1,7
environment? [3 · [3 ~3 [3 p. 38
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? [3 [3 · D [3 1,7
p. 38
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580fTassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 13
March, 2000
Less Than
!PotentiallySignificant Less Than
Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
VII. HAZARI)S AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS (continued)
Would the project:
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the 7
public or the environment? 13 13 · 13 13 p. 39
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 result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the 1
project area? 13 I3 13 · 13 p. 39
f) For a project within the vicinity ora private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the 1
project area? 13 13 13 · 13 p. 39
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency response 1
plan or emergency evacuation plan? 13 13 [3 · 13 p. 39
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 1
intermixed with wildlands? 13 13 13 · 13 p. 39
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,3
discharge requirements? 13 · 13 13 · 71 p. 41
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 pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have 1
been granted)? 13 13 13 · 13 p. 42
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 14
March, 2000
- Less Than
PotentiallySignificant Less Than Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SignificantWith Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY (continued)
Would the project:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem
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 1,8
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? [21 [21 · O [] p. 42.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,8
in flooding on-or off-site? [] ~ · [] [] p. 42
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 1,8
runoff?. [] [] · ~ O p. 42
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? .. 1,8
[] · [] [] O p. 41
g) Place'housing within a 1 00-year floodhazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
B~undary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other 1,8
flood hazard delineation map? [] ~ [] · [] p. 42
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood 1,8
flows? [] ~ O · [] p. 42
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 1,8
levee or dam? [] [q [2 · [] p. 42
j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 1,8
mudflow? [] ~ [2 · [] p. 42
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
1,2,3
a) Physically divide an established community? [] [2 ~ · [] p. 43
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, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding .or mitigating an
environmental effect? [] ~1 [] · [] 1,2,3
p. 43
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 15
March, 2000
PotentiallySignificant Less Than Benefi6ial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SignificantWith Significant No Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Source(s)
Incorporated
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING (continued)
Would the project:
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1,2,3
conservation plan? [] [] [] · [] p. 43
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the 1
region and the residents of the state? rn [3 [3 · . [] p. 44
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1
or other land use plan-? [] [3 [] · vi p. 44
XI. NOISE
Would the project 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 1,'2,3
al~plicable standards of other agencies? [] rn · VI [] p. 45
b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundbome vibration or 1
groundbome noise levels? [] ~ · [] ' [] p. 45
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,2,3
existing without the project? [] [] · vi [] p. 45
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 1,2,3
above levels existing without the project? [3 · [] [21 [] p. 46
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 in the project area to 1
excessive noise levels? [] [] [] · [ZI p. 47
f) For a project within the vicimty of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1
excessive noise levels? [] [] vi · CI p. 47
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 16
March, 2000
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant With !Significant No Impact Beneficial Information
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Source(s)
Incorporat?d
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other 1,3
infrastructure)? [3 [3 · [] [3 p. 47
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of 1
replacement housing elsewhere? [3 [] [] · [] p. 48
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement 1
housing elsewhere? [321 [] [3 · [] p. 48
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated With ~e provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
1
Fire Protection? [] [3 [] · [3 p. 49
Police Protection? 1
[3 [3 [] · [3 p. 49
Schools? 1
[] [] [3 · [3 p. 49
Parks? 1
[3 [3 [3 · [] p. 49
Other Public Facilities? 1
[3 [3 [] · [] p. 49
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing ~
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would 1
occur or be accelerated? [3 [3 [] · [] p. 49
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 17
March, 2000
Less' Than
PotentiallySignificant Less Than Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SignificantWith Significant No Impact Impact Soume(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an 1
adverse physical effect on the environment? Fl Fl Fl · Fl
p. 49
XV. TRANSPORTATION/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 of 1
roads, or congestion at intersections)? Fl Fl Fl [221 · p. 51
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for 1
designated roads or highways? Fl FI FI Fl · p. 51
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 1
safety risks?. FI FI Fl · FI p. 5 1
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., 1
farm equipment)? · FI FI FI FI · p. 51
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1
FI FI FI r-I · p. 51
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1
FI FI FI · FI p. 52
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation 1
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? FI Fl [21 · r-I p. 52
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatmentrequirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 1
Board? FI FI FI · FI p. 52
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 1
effects? Fl Fl Fl · , FI p. 52
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 18
March, 2000
Less Than
PotentiallySignificant Less Than
Beneficial Information
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST significantWith Significant No Impact
-Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Source(s)
Incorporated
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS (continued)
Would the project:
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which 1
could cause significant environmental effects? ~ ~ · ~ ~ p. 52
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project, from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements CI ~ ~ · ~ 1
needed? p. 52
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 1
provider's existing commitments? [21 ~ [21 · [21 p. 52
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid 1
waste disposal needs? ~ ~ ~1 · ~1 p. 53
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1
and regulations related to solid waste? ~ [21 CI · CI ' p. 53
XVII. 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 or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of 1,5 p.
California history or prehistory? [21 · ~ [21 ~ 21-54
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 currentprojects, and the effects of 1 p.
probable future projects)? ~ [ZI · ~1 ~ 21-54
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either d!rectly or indirectly? [21 ~ · ~ ~ 1 p.
21-54 '
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 19
March, 2000
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Professional judgment and expertise of environmental specialist preparing this assessment,
based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of project plans.
City of Dublin General Plan.
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report, Part I, Prepared by Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality
Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996.
H.T. Harvey and Associates, Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project Natural
Environment Study, November 9, 1999.
Basin Research Associates, Preliminary Constraints Analysis - Proposed Improvements of
Tassajara Road Interchange, Pleasanton/Livermore Area, Alameda County, California,
October 29, 1999.
Parikh Consultants, Inc., Initial Environmental Site Assessment, December, 1999.
State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1-580/Tassajara Road
Interchange Modifications, Combined Project Study Report/Project Report, Prepared by CCS
Planning & Engineering, January, 2000.
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)].
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts, and mitigation measures for this Initial Study
refer to environmental information contained in the 1994 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #91103064). This document is referred to in
this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." Copies of this document are available for public
review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, during
normal business hours.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 20
March, 2000
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Environmental Checklist
The potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project were identified using the
Environmental Checklist presented previously. Discussions of the basis for answers identified on the
Checklist as being potentially significant or less than significant are described below. Where the
basis for a "No Impact" determination needs explanation, a discussion can also be found below.
I. AESTHETICS
Environmental Setting
The existing visual and aesthetic character of the project site is that of an existing freeway
interchange. Views of the project site are limited to the immediate foreground, the adjacent grazing
and hillside areas, and Tassajara Road-Santa Rita Road. The project site is located in a developing
area within the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton. The interchange is 'currently surrounded by
undeveloped agricultural/grazing lands to the north and existing commercial land uses to the south;
however, development has be~n approved on the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan
lands to the north of the interchange.. Single-family residences are located southeast of the
interchange (refer to Figure 3).
Thresholds of Significance
A visual and aesthetic impact is considered significant if the project would:
Substantially alter existing views of scenic vistas or resources; or
· Substantially damage scenic resources; or
· Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
· Produce substantial light or glare, such that it poses a hazard or nuisance, or interferes
with nearby land uses.
Project
a)
b)
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
WouM the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
WouM the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
The assessment of a project's visual and aesthetic impact is dependent upon an evaluation of
the character and design of the proposed development and the degree to which the project is
visually compatible with the surrounding community. The primary criteria that are
considered in this assessment include: 1) the alteration of the visual character of the site; 2)
the project's visibility from the scenic surrounding area and the potential to block scenic
views; and 3) the degree to which the project would visually contrast with the surrounding
area.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 21
March, 2000
The project site is an existing freeway interchange. Development of the proposed
improvements would not substantially change the visual character of the site. Because of the
topography and location of the site, as well as the presence of surrounding development,
views of the project site are limited to the immediate surrounding area. Although 1-580 is a
state designated scenic highway, the project site itself is not located within a scenic view
corridor. While the project includes the addition of pavement on the interchange, ramps and
auxiliary lane, the project would not impede views of scenic vistas or resources. For these
reasons, the development of the proposed interchange improvements would not result in a
significant negative visual or aesthetic impact. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The project is not anticipated to create additional light and glare. The proposed project
would not introduce additional sources of nighttime lighting on the site that do not currently
exist on the interchange. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant visual and aesthetic
impacts.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of an existing freeway interchange, which is currently adjacent to
undeveloped agricultural lands to the north. However, development has been approved on the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan lands to the north of the interchange,
which are designated as farmlands of local importance.2 The loss of these farmlands as a result of
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project was addressed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
An agricultural resources impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Result in the conversion of lands .designated as: Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, to a non-agricultural use.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Although the properties to the north are designated as farmland of local importance and are
currently used for-agricultural and grazing uses, the proposed interchange improvements
2 City of Dublin, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,
Part I, Prepared by Wallace Robert~ & Todd, August 28, 1992.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 22
March, 2000
project would not impact prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide
importance. The proposed interchange improvements would be constructed within existing
Caltrans right-of-way. There are no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements on the
properties adjacent to the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange. The proposed interchange
improvements would not impact agricultural uses or result in the conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not result in agricultural resource impacts.
III. AIR QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the local agency authorized to
regulate stationary air quality sources in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD develops and enforces air
quality regulations for non-vehicular sources, issues permits, participates in air quality planning, and
operates a regional air quality monitoring network. The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several
locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The monitoring site closest to the project site is in
Livermore, southeast of the site. The Livermore monitoring station measures levels of ozone,
particulate matter (dust), as well as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides in the project vicinity.
Ozone and fine particUlate matter (PM-10) are considered regional pollutants in that concentrations
are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region.
The number of violations per year varies due to several factors, including meteorological' conditions.
Carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides are local pollutants, high concentrations are normally only
found very near sources. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless.; poisonous
gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually only found near areas of
high traffic volumes.
The project site is located in the Th-Valley Air Basin. Both ozone and PM-10 levels are known to
occasionally exceed the state standards in the project vicinity. The project vicinity currently does
not experience exceedences of the carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxide standards.
The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive population groups (children,
the elderly, and the acutely or 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. Single-family residences are located southeast of the interchange site
(refer to Figure 3). In addition, future residential units associated with the approved Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan will be located north of the interchange site.
Thresholds of Significance
An air quality imPact is considered significant if the project would:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;3
or
3For localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, this includes an increase in predicted concentrations that would
cause a new violation of the most stringent state or federal standard (20.0 ppm for one-hour, 9.0 ppm for eight-
hours) or contribute substantially to an existing violation of the standards.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 23
March, 2000
Result in substantial emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality; (The significance
thresholds re. commended by the BAAQMD are considered to represent "substantial"
emissions. These thresholds are 80 pounds per day for all regional air quality pollutants
except carbon monoxide. The significance threshold for carbon monoxide is 550 pounds
per day, although exceedance of this threshold only triggers the need for estimates of
carbon monoxide "hot spot" concentrations. A substantial contribution to an existing
carbon monoxide exceedance would be defined as greater than 0.1 parts per million,
based on the accuracy of the monitoring instruments).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the
BAAQMD, because the project consists of improvements to an existing freeway interchange
and does not include the development of trip-generating land uses. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact)
c)
Would the project 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 is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors) ?
Would the. project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?..
Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The proposed project would accommodate future traffic from approved development in the
interchange vicinity. The proposed interchange improvements would not generate additional
traffic trips. The proposed improvements would reduce existing and projected congestion at
the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange, which would reduce concentrations of carbon monoxide
in the interchange area. For these reasons, the project would not result in a significant long-
term impact upon air quality. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proPosed interchange improvements would result in short-term air quality
impacts due to the generation of dust by construction equipment and vehicles. Clearing,
grading and earthmoving activities are the major sources of construction dust emissions;
however, traffic and general disturbance of the Soil also generate substantial dust emissions.
The local effects of construction activities would include increased dustfall and locally elevated
levels of PM~0 downwind of construction activity. Depending on the weather, soil conditions,
the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of.dust control efforts, these impacts could
extend downwind from the site, affecting neighboring properties. Dust blowing from the site
could also affect motorists on nearby roadways and 1-580. Given the size of the proposed
construction area and the short-term nature of project construction activities, this increase in
particulates is considered a less than significant short-term air quality impact of the project.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 24
March, 2000
Construction equipment would also be a source of exhaust emissions, which would contribute
to short-term air quality impacts during project construction on the site. Solvents in adhesives,
paint thinners, and other materials evaporate into the atmosphere and contribute to the creation
of ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a brief period after its
application.
Mitigation Measures
In order to minimize temporary construction-related dust impacts, the project would conform to
the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and procedures identified in Caltrans specifications.
The specific measures implemented could include the following:
· Water all active constrUction areas daily.
· Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as
needed (to be determined by resident engineer).
· Sweep streets if visible soil material is carded onto adjacent public streets as needed (to
be determined by resident engineer).
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Install windbreaks, or plant vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction
areas.
· Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one
time.
Conclusion: The project would not result in significant air quality impacts.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based upon a Natural Environment Study (NES) of the interchange area
prepared by H.T. Harvey and Associates for the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange area. The NES
included a review of relevant background information and field surveys, in accordance with the City
of Dublin's guidelines and the guidelines prepared by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). As shown on Figure 1 of Appendix A, the boundaries of the surveys included all
quadrants of the interchange, as well as the area along 1-580, east of the interchange. The purpose of
this investigation was to identify biotic habitats, evaluate botanical and wildlife resources, and assess
the suitability of the study area to support special-status plant and animal species. A copy of this
NES is provided in Appendix A.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page .25
March, 2000
Environmental Setting
Biotic Habitats
Two biotic habitats, ruderal and man-made drainage ditches, were identified within the I-
580/Tassajara Road interchange site. These habitats are briefly described below.
Ruderal/Omamental
Ruderal/omamental habitat occupies all of the non-hardscape areas within the Tassajara
interchange project area. All four quadrants of the interchange are landscaped with both
ornamental trees and ground cover. Since this landscaping was installed, ruderal species
have invaded where shade, ornamental rockery, and dense ornamental ground cover permit.
Ornamental species include various species of plum (Prunus spp.), acacia (Acacia spp.),
hollyleafed oak (Quercus ilex), olive (Olea europaea), oleander (Nerium oleander),
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), German ivy (Senecio mikanioides) and other ornamental
species not readily identifiable. Ruderal species observed were those associated with non-
native grasslands. These species include wild oats (Arena fatua), Italian rye (Loliurn
multiflorurn), various bromes (Bromus spp.), bristly ox- tongue (Picris echioides), yellow-
star thistle (Centauria solstitialis), fireweed (Epilobium spp.), prickly lettuce (Lactuca
serriola), and others. East of the interchange, along 1-580, ruderal species begin to dominate
at apprgximately half way to the Fallon Road interchange. No trees within the interchange
quadrants or along the freeway appear to be of ordinance or heritage tree size.
Ruderal/ornamental areas can provide important habitat for a number of wildlife species if
the ruderal component is sufficiently extensive and is not surrounded by deVelopment.
However, the habitat present on the project site is bordered by highly disturbed areas
associated with 1-580. Therefore, most wildlife use of this habitat is expected to be by
species most typical of developed areas. Amphibian and reptile species expected include
slender salamander (Batrachoceps attenuatus) and western fence lizard (Sceloperus
occidentalis). The mammals found here are also limited by the proximity of the site to
disturbance and include Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground
squirrel (Otosperrnophilus beecheyi) and feral cat (Felis catus). Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura), House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and Northern Mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos) were birds observed in this habitat during site visits.
Man-Made Ditches
Four man-made ditches are present at the Tassajara interchange. Three of the ditches are
located along the outside of the 1-580 ramps and one ditch extends from the 1-580 east on-
ramp to the Fallon Road interchange. Portions of the ditches along the 1-580 ramps north of
the freeway are concrete-lined, while those south of the freeway are earthen and in some
places overgrown. While some ornamental species such as German ivy (Senecio
rnikanioides) dominate in the ditches, most are dominated by ruderal species including wild-.
oats, poison hemlock (Conjure maculaturn), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and
horseweed (Conyza canadensis), among others. Some ditches contained standing water at
the time of the survey, or appeared to have had standing water into the summer season, the
source of which was likely stormwater runoff. These ditches supported hydrophytic species
such as barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), cockleburs (Xanthiurn spp.), spikerush-
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 26
March, 2000
(Eleocharis macrostachya), tall umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), bulrush (Scirpus
rnaritimus), rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and cattail (Typha spp.).
A variety of wildlife species typically associated with other habitats use these ditches as
water sources for part of the year. However, these ditches are of limited brOader value to
many wildlife species due to the paucity of emergent and riparian vegetation, their
intermittent (or seasonal) nature, and close proximity to 1-580. These drainages may provide
marginal breeding habitat for western toads (Bufo boreas) and pacific treefrogs (Hyla
regilla) in wet years. Few birds occur in this habitat because of its proximity to 1-580.
The man-made ditches at the site are not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (see
discussion below). A letter from the Corps disclaiming jurisdiction of these drainage ditches
was received in February 2000.
Existing Bridge Structure
The bridge structure provides no suitable habitat' for vegetation.
Some bridges provide habitat or potential habitat for a number of volant (flying) wildlife
such as swallows or bats. However, the Tassajara Road-Santa Rita Road bridge is subject to
extreme disturbances due to a constant high volume of vehicular traffic. Swallows are
sometimes observed nesting on bridges; however, no evidence of nesting birds was observed
on the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange. No other wildlife is expected to utilize this habitat.
Special-Status Species
Special-Status Plant Species
Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted in September 1999 for habitats capable of
supporting special-status plants within the project site. Several special-status plant species
are known to occur in the vicinity and region of the project site. However, the limited
number of habitats and soil types within the project area, as well as the highly maintained
nature of the interchange, restricts the potential occurrence for most special-status plant
species. Six special-status plant .species were identified as potentially occurring on-site due
to the presence of ruderal habitat that is floristically similar to valley and foothill grasslands
(suitable habitat): San Joaquin saltbush, Congdon's tarplant, crownscale, brittlescale, bent-
flowered fiddleneck, and recurved larkspur. However, no evidence of these species was
found during site surveys. Therefore, these special-status plant species are presumed to be
absent from the site. Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed discussion of the survey
methodology and likelihood of occurrence of special-status plant species.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted on the site in September 1999. In addition, a
number of surveys for special-status animal species have previously been conducted on-site
and in areas adjacent to the site.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 27
March, 2000
No suitable habitat exists for, and/or the project site is outside the known distribution of:
Conservancy fairy shrimp, Longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool
fairy shrimp, foothill yellow-legged frog, western spadefoot, western pond turtle, Alameda
whipsnake, Yellow-breasted Chat, San Joaquin kit fox, and ringtail. Special-sfatus terrestrial
vertebrates that may only be occasional visitors, migrants, or transients include: the
American Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon, Loggerhead Shrike, Long-billed Curlew,
Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Fermginous Hawk, Northern Harder, Golden Eagle,
Merlin, White-tailed Kite, Tricolored Blackbird, California Yellow Warbler, California
Homed Lark, Pallid Bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and California mastiff bat. Please refer
to Appendix A for a detailed discussion of the survey methodology and likelihood of
occurrence of special-status wildlife species.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
Surveys cc~nducted over the past 10 years in the project site vicinity have not detected San
Joaquin kit foxes near the project site and no evidence of kit foxes was observed on the
project site or adjacent properties during any of the recent surveys.
California Red-Legged Frogs
Juvenile California red-legged frogs were observed in a small pond about 2.1 kilometers (1.3
miles) northeast of the project site. While red-legged frogs are not expected to breed in this
pond, a breeding population of red-legged frogs is present in a pond approximately 3.28
kilometers (2.05 miles) upstream from the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange site. The
juvenile red-legged frogs occurring in the pond 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) from the site are
believed to have dispersed from the breeding pond farther upstream. In addition, a single
red-legged frog has been observed in a pond approximately 1.2 kilometers (0.75 miles) north
of the site, near Tassajara Road.4
Since the area between the 1-580/Tassajara Road and 1-580/Fallon Road interchanges is
regularly disked, there is no hydrological connection between this upstream source of
juveniles and the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange. Breeding habitat for California red-
legged frogs does not exist on-site and none have been observed. No recent records exist for
this species within the project site, Therefore, this species is presumed to be absent from the
project site.
California Tiger Salamander
Extensive surveys for this species have been conducted in the project vicinity. No adult or
larval California tiger salamanders have been found on-site or immediately north of 1-580
during surveys of the area between the 1-580/Tassajara Road and 1-580/Fallon Road
interchanges from 1996 to 1999. California tiger salamander populations do exist in the hills
north of 1-580, and tiger salamanders were observed breeding in a stock pond approximately
0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) northeast of the 1-580/Fallon Road interchange site in 1998 (H.T.
Harvey and Associates, 1998). In addition, California tiger salamander larvae were
reportedly observed in a pond approximately 1.2 kilometers (0.75 miles) north of the site,
near Tassajara Road?
Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates, Inc., written and personal communications, 2000.
Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates, Inc., written and personal communications, 2000.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 28
March, 2000
The drainage ditches on-site do not provide breeding habitat and no tiger salamanders were
observed. Based on four years of surveys, tiger salamanders appear to be extirpated from the
fields and the intermittent wetlands located north of 1-580 near the project site. For these
reasons, this species is not expected to occur on the project site.
Burrowing Owls
Neither Burrowing Owls, nor any indicators of their presence, were observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys conducted in September 1999. However, since Burrowing
Owls occur in the region and active ground squirrel burrows occur on the site, potential
habitat occurs on-site. Areas on-site with short vegetation and California ground squirrel
burrows could provide nesting sites, and the adjacent and on-site habitats provide appropriate
foraging habitat.
Jurisdictional Waters
Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed discussion of the regulations and survey
methodology for jurisdictional waters.
Jurisdictional Wetlands
No potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified on-site. The project Site is not
hydrologically connected to other wetlands in the area. All the drainage ditches supported a
mixture of invasive annual hydrophytes and upland species. Common hydrophYtes observed
included species such as Italian rygrass (Loliurn multiflorurn; FAC), bristly ox-tongue (Picris
echioides; FAC), rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis; FACW+), swamp grass
(Crypsis schoenoides; OBL), and cattails (Typha latifolia; OBL). Many of these hydrophytes
were distributed along the upper ditch banks and in adjacent upland areas as well as within
the bed of the ditches. This observation indicates that these particular species are not'
dependable indicators of wetland vegetation.
EvidenCe of saturation or inundation, flowing water, sediment deposition, water marks, or
drainage patterns observed Were the result of stormwater runoff from 1-580 and adjacent
surface streets.
Tributary_ Waters
No channels were identified within the project site that meet the definition of tributary
waters.
Other Waters
No lakes, seeps, seasonal ponds or springs, or other areas containing standing or running
water and lacking hydrophytic vegetation were observed within the project site.
Areas Not Meeting the Regulatory_ Definition of Jurisdictional Waters
The four man,made ditches within the interchange area were not considered to meet the
regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps for the following reasons:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580frassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 29
March, 2000
1)
The ditches were excavated in uplands and are maintained for the purpose of
capturing stormwater runoff from nearby roadways. They continue to function as
originally designed and constructed.
2)
Although wetland vegetation was present and evidence of past inundation or
saturation was observed within these ditches, their actively maintained status as
stormwater drainage ditches, as well as the lack of an ordinary high water
(OHW) mark, precludes their being described as potential jurisdictional waters.
3)
Although water tends to flow from the isolated wetlands situated in the fields
north of the freeway during high rainfall events, there is no discernible incised
channel between the potentially regulated waters (i.e. wetlands) in the fields
north of the freeway and drainage ditches located along the west-bound freeway
lanes between the 1-580/Tassajara Road and 1-580/Fallon Road interchanges.
A letter disclaiming jurisdiction of these drainage ditches was received from the Corps in
February 2000. All other areas of the project site did not meet the regulatory definition of
jurisdictional waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Thresholds of Significance
A biological resource impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status .species in local Or regional
plans, policies, or regulations; or
· Have a substantial adverse effect' on any riparian habitat or other'sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations; or
· 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; or
· 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;'or
· Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
Project Impacts. and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special-Status Plant Species
The project site offers only marginal habitat for six special-status plant species including:
San Joaquin saltbush, Congdon's tarplant, bent-flowered fiddleneck, crownscale, brittlescale,
and recurved larkspur. However, these special-status plant species have been excluded as
potentially occurring on-site based upon surveys conducted during the blooming period
and/or the relatively disturbed and modified condition of the site. Therefore, impacts to the
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 30
March, 2000
marginal habitat on, site for special-status plants are less than significant. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Loss of Habitat
No suitable habitat exists for, and/or the project site is outside the known distribution, of the
Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool
fairy shrimp, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, western spadefoot, western pond turtle, Alameda whipsnake, Yellow-breasted
Chat, San Joaquin kit fox and ringtail.
Special-status terrestrial vertebrates that may only be occasional visitors, migrants, or
transients include the American Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon, Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-
shinned Hawk, Fermginous Hawk, Northern Harder, Golden Eagle, Merlin, White-tailed
Kite, Tricolored Blackbird, California Yellow Warbler, California Homed Lark, Loggerhead
Shrike, Pallid Bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and California mastiff bat. Therefore, project
impacts to habitat for these special-status animal species is expected to result in a less-than-
significant effect. The. site does not support breeding habitat for any special-status animal
species, with the exception of possibly the Burrowing Owl (see discussion below). (Less
Than Significant Impact)
Individual Burrowing Owls
Neither Burrowing Owls, nor any indicators of their presence, were observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys conducted on 17 and 23 September 1999. However, since
Burrowing Owls occur in the region and active ground squirrel burrows occur on the site,
potential habitat occurs on-site. Areas with short vegetation and California ground squirrel
burrows could provide nesting sites, and the adjacent and on-site habitats provide appropriate
foraging habitat. Therefore, conditions are suitable for use by Burrowing Owls, and this
species could move onto the site prior to construction.
If Burrowing Owls are present on-site at the time of construction, construction disturbance
during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or
otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss
of reproductive effort is considered a "taking" by the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG). Furthermore, the destruction of occupied Burrowing Owl burrows is also
considered a taking. Any loss of Burrowing Owls or fertile eggs and any activities resulting
in nest abandonment, or the destruction of occupied Burrowing Owl burrows, would
constitute a significant impact. Construction activities such as tree removal, site grading,
etc., that disturb a nesting Burrowing Owl on or immediately adjacent to the site, or results in
destroying occupied burrows, would constitute a significant impact. Additionally, although
the site is not presently occupied by Burrowing Owls, Owls could move onto the site's
suitable habitat prior to completion of all phases of development. The loss of occupied
habitat would constitute a significant impact.
City Of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 31
March, 2000
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are included as part of the
project, would mitigate potential impacts to Burrowing Owls to a less than significant level.
The following mitigation measures were identified as mitigation measures 3.7/20.0 and
3.7/27.0 in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment EIR.6 The project applicant would
implement measure 4.1, and if Owls are found on the site, would also implement measures
4.2 and 4.3. If no Burrowing Owls are found during measure 4.1, then no further m~tigation
would be required.
4.1
In conformance with federal and state regulations protecting raptors against direct
"take," a qualified ornithologist would conduct pre-construction surveys for
Burrowing Owls prior to any soil-altering activity, construction, or development on
the site. The preconstmction surveys would be conducted per CDFG guidelines (no
more than 30 days prior to the start of site grading), regardless of the time of year in
which grading occurs. If no Burrowing Owls are found, then no further mitigation
would be warranted.
If, as determined by the ornithologist in consultation with the CDFG, Owls are
located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a construction-free buffer zone of at
least 300 feet around the active burrow would be established. No activities,
including grading or other construction work, would proceed until the buffer zone is
established, or a CDFG approved relocation of the birds has been perfOrmed (such
relocations can occur only during the non-reproductive season (September through
January). .-
'4.2
If preconstructi0n surveys confirm that Burrowing Owls occupy the site, then
avoidance of impacts to the habitat utilized by these Owls would be considered the
preferred mitigation method. Avoidance would allow the use of areas currently
occupied by Burrowing Owls to continue uninterrupted.
4.3
If preconstruction surveys determine that Burrowing Owls occupy the site, and
avoiding development of occupied areas is not feasible, then habitat compensation on
off-site mitigation lands would be implemented. Off-site mitigation typically entails
evicting the affected Owls from the project site and setting aside and managing
specific areas for Burrowing Owls. Burrowing Owls would not be evicted from the
site during the breeding season.
A single, large, contiguous mitigation site is preferable to several smaller, separated
sites. The mitigation site would preferably support Owl nesting and be contiguous
'with or at least proximal to other lands supporting Burrowing Owls. Sites with a
long history of Burrowing Owls use, or that have at least been in a suitable condition
for occupancy are preferred. Grazing is compatible with Burrowing Owl occupancy.
If Owls are found on-site, then the project will conform with the CDFG guidelines,
which require that off-site mitigation lands be set-aside at a ratio of 2.6 hectares (6.5
acres)/pair, or individual Owl (if only an individual is observed): The City of Dublin
6 City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR, Prepared by Wallace
Roberts & Todd, August 28, 1992: p. 3.7-14-3.7-17.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/'l'assajara Road Interchange Project
Page 32
March, 2000
could identify and set aside the mitigation land prior to site grading if Owls are
located on-site. Alternatively, the project sponsors could place a security deposit or
other financial assurance (e.g., performance bond, letter of credit, etc.) into a CDFG
Burrowing Owl mitigation fund prior to grading. Funds would be expended towards
the acquisition and long-term management of a mitigation site.
Implementation of the mitigation measures described above would reduce potential impacts.
to individual Burrowing Owls to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated)
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
As described previously, no riparian habitat or jurisdictional wetlands are present on the
project site. Corps staff members have reviewed the drainage ditches on-site and concluded
that these areas are not within the Corps' jurisdiction. Therefore, the proposed interchange
improvements would not result in impacts to riparian habitat or federally-protected wetlands.
(No Impact)
Would the. project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resideni or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The drainage ditches in the site vicinity may be used for some animal migration, and some
movement of wildlife across the interchange site likely occurs. However, no significant
wildlife movement occurs on or across the interchange site. Development of the interchange
improvements, as proposed, would not preclude wildlife movements. (No Impact)
Would 'the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no trees of ordinance or heritage size present on the existing 1-580/Tassajara Road
interchange site, and the project would not result in impacts to local tree preservation
ordinances or policies. The project site is an existing interchange and is not located within
the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans. (No Impact)
Conclusion: Implementation of the measures identified above would reduce potential
biological resources impacts to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 33
March, 2000
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
An archaeological literature and records search was undertaken in May of 1999 by Basin Research
Associates, Inc. A copy of this report is presented in Appendix B. The purpose of this investigation
was to determine if any archaeological or historic resources are located within the area of potential
effect of the interchange improvements.
Environmental Setting
The cultural resources investigation found that, in spite of the high sensitivity for archaeological
resources in the project area, no recorded archaeological sites or known Native American settlements
have been identified within or adjacent to the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange area.7
ThreSholds of Significance
A cultural resources impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Cause damage to an important archaeological or historic resource.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064. 5?
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or
unique geologic feature?
d) Would the project disturb any human remains,, including those interred outside of f°rmal
cemeteries?
As described above, the archaeological literature and records search completed by Basin
Research Associates found that, in spite of the high sensitivity for archaeological resources
in the project area, no recorded archaeological sites or known Native American settlements
have been identified within or adjacent to the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange area.
An archaeological field inventory was conducted on February 22, 2000, which consisted of
random transects not exceeding intervals of 20 meters. The field inventory focused on the
areas to be impacted by the project that had not been previously impacted by construction
activities. No prehistoric or significant historic cultural materials were observed during the
field survey? For these reasons, the project would not impact important archaeological or
historic resources. (No Impac0
Conclusion: The project would not result in impacts upon cultural resources.
7 Basin Research Associates, Preliminary Constraints Analysis - Proposed Improvements of Tassajara Road
Interchange Pleasanton/Livermore Area, Alameda County, California, May 2 I, 1999, Revised October 29, 1999.
8 Basin Research Associates, Preliminary Constraints Analysis - Proposed Improvements of Tassajara Road
Interchange Pleasanton/Livermore Area, Alameda County, California, May 21, 1999, Revised October 29, 1999.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 34
March, 2000
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the north-central portion of Alameda 'County. The project site
consists of a broad plain underlain by Quaternary alluvium and is part of the northern edge of the
Livermore-Amador Valley. This area ranges in elevation from approximately 104 to 114 meters
(341 to 374 feet). The project site hrea generally slopes gently downward to the southwest. Ridges
and hills, which are part of the Coast Ranges of California, are located north of the interchange site.9
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region. The Uniform
Building Code designates the Bay Area as Seismic Activity Zone 4, the most seismically actiye zone
in the United States. The most significant seismic hazard affecting the site would be Shaking caused
by an earthquake on one of th.e .major faults' in the region. There are no known active earthquake
faults or fault traces crossing the site.
The major earthquake faults in the project area are the Calaveras Fault and the Hayward Fault,
located at a distance of 5.2 kilometers (3.25 miles) and 14.8 kilometers (9.25 miles) to the west,
respectively, and the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 44.4 kilometers (27.75 miles) to the
southwest. In addition, the Pleasanton Fault is potentially active and is located approximately 3.4
kilometers (2.1 miles) southwest of the site. The Greenville Fault zone is considered active and is
located approximately 6.8 kilometers (4.25 miles) northeast of the site?
Thresholds of Significance
A geology and soils impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Be located on a site with geologic conditions, which may pose a substantial' hazard to
property and/or human life (i.e., active fault, active landslide etc.); or
· Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through
the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the 'project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 0 Rupture ora known earthquake fault,
as described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking; ii0 seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
iv) landslides?
The project site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. Although there
are no earthquake faults on the project site or in the immediate area, a major earthquake
centered oh one of the region's active faults would result in strong seismic shaking at the
site. Such shaking has the potential to damage the pavement and structure of the
interchange.
No geologic conditions exist on the project site that would preclude development of the
proposed interchange improvements. While the site is located within a seismically active
9 City of Dublin, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment an, d Specific Plan,
' Pai-t I, Prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd, August 28, 1992.
l0 City of Dublin, Draft Envkonmental Impact Report, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,
Part I, Prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd, August 28, 1992.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/'l'assajara Road Interchange Project
Page 35
March, 2000
area, the proposed interchange improvements would be designed and constructed in
accordance with all Caltrans requirements, including appropriate structural foundations and
other techniques to overcome potential seismic impacts.
While the improved 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange would include an additional three-
lane bridge structure, the site would be subject to seismic shaking to a similar degree as the
existing interchange facility. The risk associated with this shaking in the event of a major
earthquake is not significant, given the absence of buildings or structures on the interchange.
In addition, the potential impaCt to the improved interchange from a landslide in the hills to
the north would be similar as the potential impact to the existing interchange facility. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Construction of the proposed interchange improvements could result in erosion and
sedimentation of soils on the interchange site. As described subsequently under Hydrology
and Flooding, the project would be required to comply with the Caltrans National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit requirements. Prior to construction grading, the applicant would prepare and
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies measures that
would be included in the project to minimize and control construction and post-construction
erosion and runoff. With adherence to these measures, the project would not result in
substantial soil erosion impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Would the prbject 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 collapse?
Would the project 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 ?
No geologic conditions exist on the project site that would preclude development of the
proposed interchange improvements. While portions of the lands adjacent to the site contain
expansive soils, the proposed interchange improvements would be designed and constructed
in accordance with all Caltrans requirements, including appropriate structural foundations
and other techniques to overcome potential impacts due to the presence of expansive soils.
(Less Than Significant Impact)
Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
The project consists of improvements to an existing freeway interchange and does not
include the construction of uses where septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems would be required. Therefore, the project would not require septic tanks or
wastewater disposal systems. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The proposed project would not be subject to significant geologic hazards
impacts. With implementation of the measures in the SWPPP, the project would not result in
significant soil erosion impacts. Implementation of appropriate design and construction
measures would reduce potential impacts from expansive soils.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 36
March, 2000
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion is based on an Initial Environmental Site Assessment (IESA) report
prepared by Parikh Consultants, Inc., in December 1999 for the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange
site. The purpose of this IESA was to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts associated
with contamination from hazardous materials on property that may be acquired as right-of-way
and/or disturbed during project construction. The IESA included a review of previous land uses in
the area through review of historical aerial photographs, a field inspection of the interchange area,
and a review of federal and state agency listings of recorded incidents of spills, contamination,
transfer, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. A copy of the IESA is presented in Appendix
C.
Environmental Setting
Aerial Photograph Review
Review of' the historical aerial photographs indicated that previous land uses in the
interchange area were primarily limited to agricultural uses. The agricultural lands
surrounding the project area slowly converted to commercial or residential uses during the
1980's and 1990's. '
Site Visit
A site reconnaissance was conducted on September 10, 1999 to visually identify potential
nearby sites or land uses that could adversely impact the interchange area. The majority of
the identified land uses which likely use or contain hazardous materials are located either
down-gradient or too far up-gradient to impact the interchange site.
The project site area is a traffic-bearing road in the eastern Alameda County area. As
mentioned above, historical aerial photographs show that 1-580 has supported vehicular
traffic from the 1950's. Due to this vehicular activity, the soils along the project site are
likely contaminated with aerially-deposited lead from exhaust of cars burning leaded
gasoline. In addition, according to Caltrans, a previous lead investigation of 1-580 within the
project site area detected lead at elevated levels.'
Database Search
A database search was conducted to identify sites that could pose an environmental concern
to the interchange area. There are no known hazardous waste sites within the project limits.
The database search identified two sites that cOuld potentially impact the interchange area:
the Santa Rita Shell station, located at 6750 Santa Rita Road, and the Hand Car Wash on
Pimlico Drive. Both of these sites contain underground gasoline and diesel storage tanks.
However, both of these sites are south and down-gradient of the 1-580/Tassajara Road
interchange. The database report did not identify any releases to soil or groundwater from
either of these sites, and during site visits, no evidence of active remediation was observed.
Therefore, neither of these locations is anticipated to impact the interchange area.
~ Memorandum from Celia McCuaig, District Branch Chief, Office of Environmental Engineering, California
Department of Transportation, November 15, 1999.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 37
March, 2000
Diesel Spill at Fallon Road
On December 28, 1998, a truck traveled off of Fallon Road, and crashed into the field
northwest of the 1-580/Fallon Road interchange, approximately 1.6 kilometers (one mile)
east of the site. Investigation of the soil in the area disturbed by the truck accident identified
elevated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons. Remediation of the area was
performed by excavating the affected soil. Following excavation, samples of soil remaining
at the accident site did not reveal concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, or MTBE. The Alameda County Department of Health
Services has confirmed the completion of the soil investigation and remedial action for this
area, and has indicated that no further action is required.
Thresholds of Significance
A hazardous materials impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Expose the public to a significant risk associated with the storage, use, production or
disposal of hazardous materials on the site or from existing hazardous materials
contamination on or near the site; or
· Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death; or
· Create a public health hazard.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) WouM the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project 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?
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Because the 1-580/Tassajara ROad interchange area has supported vehicular activity since the
1950's, it is highly likely that the surface soils along these areas contain aerially-deposited
lead from exhaust of cars burning leaded gasoline, The release of lead during construction of
the proposed interchange improvements could impact nearby residences and land uses.
However, implementation of the mitigation measures described below would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-
quarter mile of the project site.
Mitigation Measures
In order to minimize potential impacts from the likely presence of aerially-deposited lead,
the following mitigation measures are included as part of the project.
7.1
Surface samples of soil from the interchange area would be collected and analyzed
prior to project construction to determine the applicability of reuse under the
Department of Toxic Substance Control Lead Variance. Soils contaminated with
elevated levels of aerially-deposited lead would be disposed in accordance with the
requirements of the Department of Toxic Substance Control Lead Variance. These
soils would either be removed from the site prior to or during construction or buried
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 38
March, 2000
within the fill soils during project construction. (Less Than Significant Impact With
Mitigation Incorporated)
7.2
Prior to the demolition and removal of the existing bridge structure, an asbestos
surVey would be conducted in conformance with the requirements of Caltrans. This
surVey would be included with the notification to the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District for the bridge demolition.
Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As described above, the database search identified two sites that could potentially impact the
interchange area: the Santa Rita Shell station, located at 6750 Santa Rita Road, and the Hand
Car Wash on Pimlico Drive. However, both of these sites are located south and down-
gradient of the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange. In addition, the database report did not
identify any releases to soil or groundwater from either of these sites. For these reasons,
these sites are not likely to impact the project site. (Less Than Significant Impact)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan ha} not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area ?
Th~ project site is located northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport. However, the site
is located outside the referral area for the Airport, and the Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission has no jurisdiction over the project site. The proPosed interchange
improvements would not result in safety hazards associated with the Livermore Municipal
Airport. (No Impact)
Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project consists of improvements to an existing freeway interchange facility. The
proposed improvements would increase the capacity of the interchange and would improve
traffic operations and safety of the interchange. For these reasOns, the project would not
affect any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (No Impact)
Would the project 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?
The lands located north of the interchange site are currently vacant fields and are subject to
grass fires. However, the long-term development of these properties has been approved by
the City of Dublin, Development of these properties would include the addition of new
water lines and new fire stations and personnel in the vicinityd2. The proposed project would
not affect the risk of wildland fires. (No Impact)
~2 City of Dublin, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "H", File No. PA 98-
070, November, 1999, p. 33.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 39
March, 2000
Conclusion: With implementation of the mitigation measure descr/bed above, the potential
hazardous materials impacts associated with aerially-deposited lead would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting
There are two major watersheds in the vicinity of the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange area,
Tassajara Creek to the west of the interchange and Rancho Drain to the east of the interchange. Both
of these creeks drain areas north of 1-580, flow south across 1-580, and discharge into the Arroyo
Mocho. According to the December 3, 1997 "Hydrologic Procedures and Design Discharges" study
prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers, for the Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), the 100-year design flows are 122 cubic meters per
second (4,300 cubic feet per second) and 30 cubic meters per second (1,050 cubic feet per second),
for Tassajara Creek and Rancho Drain, respectively. J3
Currently Zone 7 owns the reaches downstream of 1-580 for both creeks. The two reaches,
designated as Line K for Tassajara Creek and Line G-3 for Rancho Drain, are adequate in conveying
the FEMA 100-year design flows, based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Cities of
Dublin and Pleasanton, published in 1997.
Based on the same FEMA maps, the areas immediately to the north of 1-580 for both creeks are
designated as the 100-year floodplains. According to information from Zone 7, Tassajara Creek
upstream of 1-580 is being improved as part of the development plan for the area and thus will have
adequate capacity to convey the 100-year design flow. Therefore, the areas adjacent to Tassajara
Creek will be taken out of the base floodplains.
In discussions with City of Dublin staff, future planned drainage improvements north of 1-580
include the construction of a box culvert and an open drainage channel from the existing Line G-3,
easterly of Tassajara Road, to Fallon Road. These improvements, which are further described in the
"Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan" (MacKay & Somps, May 1999), will be designed to convey
the projected 100-year flows of the upstream drainage. It is anticipated that these drainage
improvements will be in place prior to the interchange reconstruction. These planned drainage
facilities, although not a part of this project, will be funded and constructed by the City Assessment
District that is currently under formation to fund and construct the proposed interchange
improvements.
Thresholds of Significance
A hydrology and water quality impact is considered significant if the project would:
Increase the potential for flood related property loss or hazard to human life; or
· Significantly increase peak stormwater runoff; or'
· Significantly increase stormwater pollution discharges to stormwater systems; or
· Substantially degrade water quality; or
· Cause substantial flooding.
43 State of California Department of Transportation (caltrans), 1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Modifications,
Combined Project Study Report/Project Report, Prepared by CCS Planning & Engineering, December 1999.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 40
March, 2000
'm
Project
a)
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Would the project violate any Water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The proposed interchange improvements would result in an incremental increase in 'runoff
due to the increased pavement areas. Surface runoff from the site would contain increased
concentrations of oil and grease, heavy metals, fertilizers, and pesticides from roadway
pavement and landscaped areas. Due to the size of the project site, however, it is not
anticipated that the proposed interchange improvements would result in significant long-term
impacts to water quality.
Construction of the proposed interchange improvements would require grading and
overcovering of the soil in order to construct additional lanes and on-ramps. Erosion during
project construction could increase pollution and sedimentation impacts to the drainages on-
and off-site.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures, which are included as part of the project, would reduce
potential short-term water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
8.1
The project would be required to comply with the Caltrans National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and General ConstructiOn Activity
Storm Water Permit requirements. Prior to construction grading, the applicant would
prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan .(SWPPP) that
identifies measures that would be included in the project to minimize and control
construction and post-construction erosion and runoff. Measures included in the
SWPPP would preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system and
require monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system.
8'.2
The project would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) of Caltrans to
prevent stormwater pollution and minimize potential sedimentation during
construction. These BMPs could include the following specific measures:
Using silt fencing to retain sediment on the project site;
Providing temporary cover of all disturbed surfaces to help control erosion
during construction;
Providing permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction
has been completed,
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce potential water quality
impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 41
March, 2000
c)
Would the project, 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 pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
Would the project 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?
Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Would the project 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?.
Would the project place housing within a lO&year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
Would the project place within a l O0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?'
The proposed project would have no impac~ to Tassajara Creek since runoff from the project
site does not drain directly to the creek. With the area adjacent to the northwest quadrant
being raised, it will be removed from the base floodplain. As a result of the surrounding
development improvements and the ongoing .improvements to Tassajara Creek, the potential
0fflooding of the westbound onramp is greatly reduced. (No Impact)
Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project site is not located near a major body of water which could result in a seiche or
tsunami. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or
mudflows.have been identified adjacent to the site? (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not result in significant hydrology, flooding and water
quality impacts.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of an existing freeway interchange, which is under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project site is contained within the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area and is also regulated by the Eastern Dublin
General Plan.
14 city of Dublin, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "H", File No. PA 98-
070, November, 1999, p. 36.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 42
March, 2000
Thresholds of Significance
A land use and planning impact is considered significant if the project would:
Be incompatible with surrounding land uses or. with the general character of the
surrounding area; or
Physically divide an established community; or
· Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation; or
· Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project site is an existing freeway interchange that is surrounded by currently vacant
lands to the north and commercial uses to the south. Future development has been approved
on lands adjacent, to the interchange site as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Therefore, the project impacts would be limited to the area of the existing interchange and
would not divide or disrupt an established community. (No Impact)
Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The'project consists of improvements to an existing freeway interchange. The proposed
improvements are identified in the City of Dublin General Plan and in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The proposed improvements have been designed according to Caltrans
guidelines. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the goals and policies of
applicable plans, policies, and regulations. (No Impact)
Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan' or natural
community conservation plan?
There currently is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
within the interchange site area. The proposed improvements would not impact any such
plan for the general area. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not result in land use and planning impacts.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange site contains no known mineral resources.
Thresholds of Significance
· A mineral and resources impact is considered significant if the project would:
· 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; or
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 43
March, 2000
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.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability ora known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project 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?
The site consists of an existing freeway interchange and the Eastern Dublin EIR does not
indicate that deposits of minerals exist on the site. Therefore, the project would not result in
mineral resource impacts. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not result in mineral resource impacts.
XI. NOISE
The following discussion is based upon a noise analysis conducted by MO 'C Physics Applied for the
project. A copy of the noise repOrt is presented in Appendix D.
Environmental Setting
The project site is the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange along 1-580, an eight- to ten-lane freeway,
and is located within a developing area. The major sources of noise in the project area are traffic
along 1-580,-traffic 'along Tassajara/Santa Rim Road, and occasional aircraft flyovers from
Livermore Municipal Airport? Traffic on 1-580 generates substantial noise in the immediate area,
with noise levels dropping as one moves farther away from the freeway. Heavy.tracks make up a
portion of the traffic on 1-580 in this region. Based on information in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the
interchange site is subject to long-term exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL.
There are no sensitive receptors present in the immediate project site area, except in the southeast
quadrant. In. that location, a 'residential neighborhood area is present, with single-family detached
and attached homes located just south of 1-580 (refer to Figure 3). Some noise attenuation is
currently provided by an existing 3-3.3 meter (10-11 foot) pre-cast soundwall, which runs along the
southern side of 1-580. The wall extends for the entire length of the residential area, except near
Annis Circle because the homes are set back from the freeway, and was designed as part of the
residential project to provide mitigation for noise from traffic on 1-580.
Future residential units, associated with the approved Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, will be located
northeast of the interchange site, approximately 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) from the noise source.
Development of tow- to medium-rise commercial structures and sound walls between these
residential units and the noise source will deflect and reduce traffic noise at these locations.
15 City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin' General Plan Amendment and Specific~Plan Draft EIR, Prepared by Wallace
Roberts & Todd, August 28, 1992.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/'rassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 44
March, 2000
Thresholds of Significance
A noise impact is considered significant if the project would:
Result in a substantial change in the ambient noise levels; or
· Generate noise that would result in a conflict with established plans and policies; or
· Expose people to substantial noise levels during constmction.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The proposed interchange improvements project would not generate additional traffic.
Rather, the project would accommodate approved development within the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area and existing development in Pleasanton.
Existing peak-hour noise levels were measured at two locations along Pimlico Drive, within
the City of Pleasanton. With the existing 3-3.3 meter (10-11 foot) sound wall in place, the
existing peak-hour noise levels are a maximum of 68 decibels at these locations.
The proposed project, by constructing an outside auxiliary lane, moves traffic closer to the
existing residences on the south side of 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, and
therefore, has the potential to increase noise levels. A noise analysis was completed to
quantify this potential impact. The noise analysis determined that with existing walls,
residents to the southeast of the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange would experience
increases in peak-hour traffic noise of 1-3 decibels, from 67-68 to 69-70 decibels (refer to
Appendix D). According to the noise analysis, a three decibel increase in noise levels is
barely perceptible, and a one decibel increase is generally not perceptible?6 Therefore, the
increase due to the project would barely be perceptible and is not considered to be significant
under CEQA. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Because the project site is a Caltrans facility, the investigation of noise abatement measures
must conform to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans guidelines. The
noise abatement policies of the FHWA and Caltrans require the consideration of noise
abatement measures when predicted peak-hour outdoor noise levels with a proposed roadway
improvement project would "approach or exceed 67 decibels" at an outdoor use area on the
roadway side of a residence. Abatement measures must be undertaken if "reasonable and
feasible" measures are available. Caltrans evaluates the reasonableness and feasibility of
abatement measures by several criteria, the most important of which requires that abatement
measures provide at least five (5) decibels of noise attenuation. According to Caltrans, if this
requirement is not met, the measures are not reasonable and feasible.
Noise Study, 1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange, Prepared by MO'C Physics Applied, March, 2000.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 45
March, 2000
In order to offset the increase in noise levels resulting from the project, the noise analysis
investigated the construction of a 5.0-meter (16.4-foot) soundwall along Pimlico to replace
the existing wall. This height ,was chosen as it represents the maximum height of soundwalls
that Caltrans will allow along freeways. The noise analysis determined that ieplacement of
the existing wall with a 5.0-meter (16.4-foot) wall would reduce noise levels at the
residences by 3-4 decibels. Because the replacement of the existing wall would not achieve
the mandatory five decibel reduction in noise levels, the replacement of the existing wall is
not warranted.
WouM the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Operation of heavy equipment during project construction would result in short-term noise
increases in the site area. The major noise sources would be associated with site grading and
pile drivifig activities. Construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on the
construction phase, equipment type and 'duration of use, and the distance between the noise
sources and the receptors. Construction noise sources typically generate noise levels of
about 76 to 85 decibels at a distance of 15.2 meters (50 feet), with higher noise levels of
about 88 to 89 for certain types of equipment. Because sensitive receptors (residences) are
located adjacent to the project site, these short-term construction noise impacts are
considered to be significant.
Mitigation Measures
In order to reduce the significant shOrt-term construction noise impacts on the residences
located southeast of the interchange, the project includes the following mitigation measures.
General construction activities would be limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00
PM to avoid the more sensitive early morning and evening hours. General construction
activities would not occur on Sundays or holidays. The erection of falsework and the
demolition of the existing bridge structure' are exceptions to this requirement. These
construction activities require diversion of traffic on 1-580 and must be completed at
night.
Project construction would use quiet or new technology equipment, particularly the
quieting of exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers. All equipment would be
maintained in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or
poorly running vehicles engines.
· Residents within 91.4 meters (300 feet) would be provided with advance written
notification of planned construction activities prior to each new stage of construction.
· Noise-generating equipment such as generators and compressors would be located as far
as possible from residential uses.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce short-term construction
noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 46
March, 2000
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 in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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?
The Proposed project site is an existing freeway interchange structure. No one would live or
work on the site, with the exception of temporary construction workers. Therefore, noise
from aircraft flyovers from Livermore Municipal Airport would not significantly impact the
interchange project area. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not result in or be subject to significant long-term noise
level increases. Implementation of the mitigation measures described above would reduce
potential construction-related noise impacts upon nearby residences to a less than significant
level.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Setting
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections '98, the City of
Dublin's population (within the sphere of influence) was 26,300 in 1995 and is projected to be
33,300 in 2000. The State Department of Finance population estimates indicate that the City of
Dublin had a population of 28,707 as of January 1, 19997
Thresholds of Significance
A population and housing impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure); or
· Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Proposed project itself would not create demand for additional development. The
project is designed and proposed to address projected transportation deficiencies on the
existing 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange, which are based on current land use designations
and projections of future traffic in the area. While development of the proposed project
would result in improvements to the transportation system and could remove obstacles to
development in the site area, the proposed project does not assume any intensification of
~ City of Dublin, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "H", File No. PA 98-
070, November, 1999, p. 38.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 47
March, 2000
c)
land uses beyond that contained in the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. Therefore, the project is considered to be "growth accommodating", rather than
"growth inducing". (Less Than Significant Impact)
Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site consists of an existing freeway interchange. Construction of the proposed
interchange improvements would not displace either housing units or people. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not induce substantial population growth nor displace
housing or people.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Setting
Fire protection services are provided to the City of Dublin by the Alameda County Fire Department,
which contracts with the City of Dublin for fire suppression, fire prevention, education, and
inspection services, and hazardous materials control to the City. Fire protection services are
provided to the City of Pleasanton by the Pleasanton Fire Department. Police service is provided to
the project area by the Alameda County Sheriff Department, which operates under contract lo the
City of Dublin. The Pleasanton Police Department prOvides police protection services to the City of
Pleasantonl
Educational services are provided to the site area by the Dublin Unified School District and the
Pleasanton Unified School District. Park facilities within their respective cities are provided and
maintained by the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton.
Solid waste collection service is provided to the area by the Livermore Dublin Disposal Company.
Thresholds of Significance
A public services impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of public
services; or
· Result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause physical environmental impacts
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 48
March, 2000
The proposed interchange improvements project would not impact the provision of any
public services in the site area, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or
other facilities and services. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not result in public services impacts.
XIV. RECREATION
Environmental Setting
Park facilities within the cities are Dublin and Pleasanton are provided and maintained by their
respective City. The project site area contains several planned community and regional park
facilities within the City of Dublin. Emerald Park, a 20.2-hectare (50-acre) City park is currently
being developed by the City of Dublin in Eastern Dublin along Tassajara Road, approximately 610
meters (2,000 feet) from the site. In addition, several neighborhood parks and two community parks
are planned for within the Dublin Ranch development. The combined area of the two future
community parks is 51 hectares (126 acres). Each park would provide facilities for organized sports
activities, individual sports, and passive recreational activities.~8 No City of Pleasanton park
facilities are located in the immediate area.
Thresholds of Significance
A recreation impact is considered significant if the project would:
· Increase the 'use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would o~cur or be
accelerated; or
· Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
The proposed interchange improvements project would not include the construction of new
residences at the site. Therefore, the project would not impact neighborhood or regional
parks or recreational facilities. (No Impact)
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Because the interchange improvements project does not include residential development,
construction or expansion of recreational facilities is not required. Therefore, the project
would not result in adverse environmental impacts from the construction of new or expanded
recreational facilities. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The project would not result in recreation impacts.
.~s City of Dublin, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "H", File No. PA 98-
070, November, 1999, p. 40.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 49
March, 2000
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Environmental Setting
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 580 (I-580), Interstate 680 (1-680), and
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road. The section of 1-580 west of the interchange has four lanes
plus an auxiliary lane in each direction, and the section of 1-580 east of the interchange has
four lanes in each direction. 1-580 runs generally in an east-west direction and serves as a
major commute route between San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose and the Tri-Valley
.(Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore) and Central Valley areas (Tracy, Stockton, and the 1-5
corridor). In the vicinity of the site, 1-580 carries between 169,000 and 187,000 vehicles per
day?
There are auxiliary lanes in both directions between the existing 1-580/Tassajara Road and I-
580/Hacienda Drive interchanges. There are currently no auxiliary lanes between the
existing 1-580/Tassajara Road and 1-580/Fallon Road interchanges. The existing freeway
lanes are 3.66 meters (12 feet) wide, with 3.05-meter (10-foot) right shoulders, 2.44-meter
(eight-foot) left shoulders, and an approximately 12.80-meter (42-foot) median.
1-680 is an eight-lane freeway which runs generally in a north-south direction approximately
4.4 kilometers (2.75 miles) west of the project site.
Tassajara Road-Santa Rita Road is a north-south urban arterial. North of 1-580, Tassajara
Road is within the City of Dublin, and south of 1-580, Santa Rita Road is within the City of
Pleasanton. Tassajara Road is currently under construction to be a five .lane (three
southbound and two northbound) divided arterial north of 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard, then
becomes a two lane, undivided rural highway to the north, with posted speeds' of 88
kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour). Santa Rim Road is a six lane, divided urban arterial,
which is a main thoroughfare into downtown Pleasanton, with posted speeds of 56
kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour). The design speed of Tassajara Road through the
interchange is 56 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour).
Existing Interchange FaciH~_
The 1-580/Tassajara Road-Santa Rita Road interchange is located east of the 1-580/Hacienda
Road interchange and west of the 1-580/Fallon Road-E1 Charro interchange (refer to Figure
2). The existing 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange is a partial cloverleaf (Caltrans Type L-9)
interchange. All ramps are single lane entrances and exits, with the exception of the two
lane eastbound off-ramp. Both eastbound and westbound off-ramp termini are signalized at
their intersections with Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road.
Existing Transit Service
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District's (BART) Dublin-Pleasanton Extension terminates just
west of the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange.
~9 TJKM Transportation Consultants, Final Traffic Operations for Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange,
January, 2000.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 50
March, 2000
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
There are currently no bicycl~ facilities along 1-580 or Tassajara Road in the vicinity of the
interchange. Sidewalks are located on the west side of the bridge structure and along Santa
Rim Road, south of the interchange. Sidewalks are also located on Pimlico Drive.
Thresholds of Significance
A transportation and traffic impact is considered significant if the project would:
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic 10ad and
capacity of the street system; or
· Cause the level of service at an intersection to degrade from LOS C to D or worse under
project conditions; or
Cause an intersection to exceed a standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways; or
· Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature; or
· Result in inadequate emergency access; or
· Result in inadequate parking capacity.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is Substantial in ~'elation 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 of roads, or congestion at
intersections?
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of serviqe standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated road~ o~: highways?
d) .Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g.,farm equipmenO ?
The purpose of the proposed project is to accommodate future traffic from approved
development in the interchange area and traffic from recent development south of the
interchange. The proposed interchange improvements would increase 'the capacity of the
interchange facility. The additional lanes on the Tassajara Road overcrossing and freeway
ramps would improve traffic operations and reduce congestion at the interchange during the
future weekday AM and PM commute periods. In addition, the proposed interchange
improvements would improve circulation and safety on the freeway. These are considered
beneficial transportation impacts. (Beneficial Impact)
Would the project 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?
Because the project involves improvements to an existing freeway interchange facility, the
project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. (No Impact)
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Because the proposed project consists of improvements to the existing 1-580/Tassajara Road
interchange, which are designed to increase capacity and improve traffic operation and
safety, the project Would likely improve emergency access to future residential uses north of
the site. This is considered a beneficial impact. (Beneficial Impact)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580Frassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 51
March, 2000
WOuld the projec, t result in inadequate parking capacity?
Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The project site is an existing interchange facility. Parking is not allowed along the
interchange structure, and the project would not affect parking capacity in the site vicinity.
The proposed improvements would not affect adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. (No Impact)
Conclusion: The proposed interchange improvements would result in beneficial impacts on
transportation and circulation in the interchange area.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Setting
Sewage treatment services and water supply services are provided to the project area by the Dublin
San Ramon Services District.
Storm drainage services are provided by the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, as well as the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a). .Would th.e project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RegiOnal
Water Quality Control Board?
b) WouM the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which couM cause significant
environmental effects?
e) WouM the project 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 provider's existing commitments?
The project would not generate wastewater, and therefore, would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirements or require new water or wastewater treatment facilities. (No Impact)
c)
Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?,
The proposed interchange improvements would include the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities as part of the project. The project includes the installation of new curbs,
gutters and storm drains where necessary (refer to discussion under Section VIII, Hydrology
and Water Quality). (Less Than Significant Impact) .
Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The project consists of improvements to an existing freeway interchange. The project would
not require water supply,, and therefore, would not impact water supplies. (No Impact)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580FFassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 52
March, 2000
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project consists of improvements to an existing freeway interchange. The improved
interchange structure would not generate solid waste, and therefore, would not impact solid
waste disposal service in the long-tenn. Construction of the interchange improvements
would result in the short-term generation of construction and demolition debris, however,
due to the relatively small size of the project, this impact is not considered significant. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
Mitigation Measures
In accordance with the City's Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, the applicant
will complete and submit a Waste Management Plan, detailing how the project will divert 50
percent of construction and demolition debris from landfill disposal. Implementation of the
Waste Management Plan will further reduce the project'.s impacts on solid waste disposal.
Conclusion: The project would not result in significant impacts to utilities and service
systems.
XVII.
a)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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 or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As d.escribed above under Biological Resources, the project would result in less than
significant impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species' habitats. Implementation of
the mitigation measures described previously would reduce potential impacts to individual
Burrowing Owls to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological
resources, with the implementation of mitigation measures which are included as part of the
project. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated)
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) ?
While incremental increases in certain impacts, such as air quality impacts and noise level
increases, would occur as a result of the proposed project, the project would not result in
"cumulatively considerable" impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 53
March, 2000
c)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As described above, the project site has supported vehicular activity since the 1950's, and
therefore, soils on the site likely contain aerially-deposited lead. Mitigation measures
included as part of the project would redUce potential impacts to human beings to a less than
significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated)
.City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 54
March, 2000
REFERENCES
L
Basin Research Associates, Preliminary Constraints Analysis - Proposed Improvements of Tassajara
Road Interchange, Pleasanton/Livermore Area, Alameda County, California, October 29,
1999.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment,
Volume I, adopted December 17, 1997.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts
of Projects and Plans, April, 1996.
citY of Dublin, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "F", Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, File
No. PA-98-068, November, 1999.
City of Dublin, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "G", Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, File
No. PA-98-069, November, 1999.
City of Dublin, Dublin Ranch Planning Area "H", Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, File
No. PA-98-070, November, 1999.
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report, Part I, Prepared by Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
H.T. HarVey and Associates, Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project Natural Environment
Study, November 9, 1999.
Parikh Consultants, Inc., Initial Environmental Site Assessment, 1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange
Improvement, Alameda County, California, November, 1999.
State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange
Modifications, Combined Project Study Report/Project Report, Prepared by CCS Planning &
Engineering, December, 1999.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 55
March, 2000
REPORT AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS
AUTHOR
City of Dublin
Ferdinand Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department
Michael Porto, Consulting Project Manager, Planning Department
Kevin VanKatwyk, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department
Nicole Tutt, City Attorney
Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, Assistant City Attorney
CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
San Jose, California
John M. Hesler, Principal and Vice President
John H. Schwarz, Project Manager
Demetri Loukas, Graphic Artist
H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc.'
Ecological Consultants
San Jose, California
Dan Stephens, Principal
Patrick Boursier, Senior Plant Ecologist,
Mary Bacca, Project Manager
Andrew. Dilworth, Plant Ecologist
Dave Johnston, Wildlife Biologist
Mark Jennings, Herpetologist
Parikh Consultants, Inc.
Consulting Engineers and Scientists
Milpitas, California
Gary Parikh, President
Basin Research Associates, Inc.
Cultural Resources Consultants
San Leandro, California
Colin Busby, Principal
City of Dublin
Initial StudY/I-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project
Page 56
March, 2000
QH.
T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
INTERSTATE 580/.TASSAJARA ROAD
INTERCHANGE PROJECT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDY
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA
By
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist
Mary Bacca, M.S., Project Manager
Andrew Dilworth, B.S., Plant Ecologist
Dave Johnston, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist
Mark Jennings, Ph.D. Herpetologist
Prepared for:
Mr. John Schwarz
David J. Powers & Associates
1885 The Alameda, Suite 204
San Jose, California 95126
October 27, 1999 (Revised February 28, 2000)
Project No. 1623-02
3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 145 · San Jose, CA 951 i8 · (408) 448~9450 · Fax: (408) 448-9454
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Interstate/580 Tassajara Road Interchange project consists of several roadway
improvements. These include: 1) widening of on- and off-ramps; 2) the addition of
retaining walls, ramp meters, and CHP enforcement areas; 3) the partial demolition and
reconstruction of the Tassajara bridge crossing over 1-580 and westbound loop on-ramp,
and; 4) the construction of eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes between Tassajara and
Fallon Roads. All proposed work is to take place between the 96+80 and 116+80 Station
Markers. The area of potential effects (APE) is included entirely within the existing
Caltrans right-of-way.
Two biotic habitats, ruderal/omamental and man-made ditch habitats, were identified
within the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange project site. Acreages were not calculated
since the ruderal/omamental habitat comprises the vast majority of the project area, and the
ditches are of limited biological value.
H. T. Harvey & Associates l~as contacted the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to request Corp
concurrence that these ditches do not meet the regulatory definition of Waters of the U.S.
No other areas within the Tassajara Road interchange project area meet the regulatory
definition of jurisdictional waters. The drainage ditches associated with the Tassajara
Road interchange are not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Department
ofFish and Game. ~.
Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted in September 1999 for habitats capable of
· supporting special-status plants within the project site. The entire interchange area within
the Caltrans right-of-way was surveyed on foot. Several special-status plant species are
known to occur in the vicinity and region of the project site. However, the limited number
of habitats and soil types within the project area as well as the highly maintained nature of
the interchange restricts the potential occurrence for most special-status plant species. The
project site offers only marginal habitat for 6 special-status plant species including: San
Joaquin saltbush, Congdon's tarplant, bent-flowered fiddleneck, crownscale, brittlescale,
and recurved larkspur. Species-level surveys were conducted for those plants that are
potentially still in bloom including Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin saltbush, crownscale
and brittlescale. The remaining species are presumed to be absent from the site based upon
the extreme disturbance and modification of the existing habitats. None of the 4 species
that are currently flowering were observed on site and, therefore, these species are also
presumed to be absent.
No suitable habitat exists for, and/or the project site is outside the known distribution of,
the Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal
pool fairy shrimp, foothill yellow-legged frog, Califomia red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, western spadefoot, western pond turtle, Alameda whipsnake, Yellow-breasted
Chat, San Joaquin kit fox, and ringtail. Special-status terrestrial vertebrates that may only
be occasional visitors, migrants, or transients include the American Peregrine Falcon,
Prairie Falcon, Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk, Northem
H. T. HARVEY &' ASSOCIATES
Harrier, Golden Eagle, Merlin, White-tailed Kite, Tricolored Blackbird, California Yellow
Warbler, California Homed Lark, Tricolored Blackbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Pallid Bat,
Townsend's big-eared bat, and California mastiff bat. The site does not support breeding
habitat for any special-status animal species, with the possible exception of the Burrowing
Owl.
The proposed project will have a number of effects on the biological resources of the
project site. Several of these effects have been determined to have less-than-significant
impacts on the biotic resources. These less-than-significant impacts include loss of
mderal/omamental and man-made ditch habitats. In addition, impacts to special-status
plants and the loss of habitat for certain special-status animal species will also have a less-
than-significant impact. These special-status animal species include: Conservancy fairy
shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp,
foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western spadefoot, western pond turtle, Alameda whipsnake, Yellow-breasted Chat, San
Joaquin kit fox, and ringtail, American Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon, Cooper's Hawk,
Sharp-shinned Hawk, Fermginous Hawk, Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle, Merlin, White-
tailed Kite, Tricolored Blackbird, California Yellow Warbler, California Homed Lark,
Tricolored Blackbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Pallid Bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and
California mastiff bat.
The proposed project was determined to result in potentially significant impacts to several
biotic resources as summarized below.
Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls may result from the proposed project. Proposed
mitigation measures include avoidance and preeonstmctiordpredisturbance surveys and
off-site mitigation for nesting Burrowing Owls on and within 2.50 feet of the project site.
The adoption and successful implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this
NES, and measures included as part of the project description, will mitigate all project
impacts to biotic resources to a less-than significant level.
ii
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iii
Il. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1
STUDIES REQUIRED .................................................................................................... 1
SURVEY DATES AND SURVEYING PERSONNEL .................................................. 1
III. STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 2
IDENTIFICATION OF BIOTIC HABITATS ................................................................ 2
ASSESSMENT OF WILDLIFE USE OF THE PROJECT SITE ................................... 2
IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ................................................ 2
Waters of the U.S. Regulations Overview ................................................................... 2
Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands (Special Aquatic Sites) ............ 3
Identification of Tributary Waters ................................................................................ 5
Identification of"Other Waters". ................................................................................. 5
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CODE SECTIONS
1601-1603 ................................................................................................................... 5
ASSESSMENT OF RIPARIAN IMPACTS ................................................................... 5
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SURVEYS .......................................... 6
Special-Status Species Regulations Overview ............................................................. 6
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 8
Biotic Habit.ats ............................................................................................................... 8
Ruderal /Omamental ...... .. ..................................................................................... il ..... 8
Man-Made Ditches ........................................ ~ ..................... ' ....................................... 10
Existing Bridge Structure ........................................................................................... 11
V. IN-DEPTH STUDIES FOR SPECIAL LAWS .................... : ..................................... 12
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS DELINEATION TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ....... 12
AREAS MEETING THE REGULATORY DEFINITION OF JURISDICTIONAL
WATERS ....................................................................................................................... 12
Identification of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands ......... ........................................... 12
Identification of Tributary Waters .............................................................................. 12
Identification of"Other Waters". ............................................................................... 12
AREAS NOT MEETING THE REGULATORY DEFINITION OF JURISDICTIONAL
WATERS ....................................................................................................................... 12
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CODE SECTIONS
1601-1603 ................................................................................................................ 13
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ...................................................................................... 13
Special-Status Plant Surveys ....................................................................................... 13
Special-Status Wildlife Species .................................................................. : ............... 19
Federally Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species ......................................... 19
California Species of SPecial Concern ....................................................................... 21
VI. PROJECT IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 23
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................. 23
Loss of Ruderal/Omamental Habitat .......................................................................... 23
Loss of Man-made Ditches ......................................................................................... 23
Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Habitat ...................................................... 23
Loss of Habitat for Certain Special-Status Animal Species ....................................... 24
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ......................................................... 24
Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls ........................................................................ 24
111
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
VII. MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................... 26
Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls ........................................................................ 26
VIII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................................................... 28
IX. CITED REFERENCES AND PERSONAL CONTACTS'. ....................................... 29
Cited References ......................................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX A PLANTS OBSERVED WITHIN THE 1-580 /TASSAJARA ROAD
INTERCHANGE PROJECT SITE .................................................................................. 32
APPENDIX B VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE 1-580/TASSAJARA
ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT SITE ...................................................................... 35
LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1. Wetland-indicator status categories for vascular plants ....................................... 4
Table 2. Status and potential occurrence of special-status plant and animal species, on the
1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project Site ..................................................... 16
'iv
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
11. INTRODUCTION
H. T. Harvey & Associates conducted a background review and field surveys for the
Interstated 580/Tassajara Road interchange project during September of 1999. These
studies included a Biological Assessment, a Wetlands Delineation Technical Assessment,
and this Natural Environment Study. All work, including thc preparation of this report,
was conducted according to guidelines prepared for thc California Dcpartmcn! of
Transportation (Caltrans 1997).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Interstate/580 Tassajara Road Interchange project consists of several roadway
improvements. These include: 1) widening of on- and off-ramps; 2) the addition of
retaining walls, ramp meters, and CHP enforcement areas; 3) the partial demolition and
reconstruction of the Tassajara bridge crossing over 1-580 and westbound loop on-ramp,
and; 4) the construction of eastbound and westbound auxiliary lanes between Tassajara and
Fallon Roads. All proposed'work is to take place between the 96+80 and 116+80 Station
Markers. The area of potential effects (APE) is included entirely within the existing
Caltrans fight-of-way. .
STUDIES REQUIRED
H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists surveyed the 1-580/Tassajara Road interChange
project site. The purpose of these surveys was to describe biotic habitats within the project
boundaries, to identify habitats within the Caltrans right-of-way, to identify plants and
animals found on site, and to conduct surveys for special-status plant and animal species,
and their habitats. Surveys were also conducted for wetland and riparian habitats. Such
areas are subject to the jurisdiction of thc U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899), and the
California Department ofFish and Game (DFG).
SURVEY DATES AND SURVEYING PERSONNEL
Field biologists conducted surveys of the project site on 17 and 23 September of 1999.
Personnel from H. T. Harvey & Associates included wetland and plant ecologists, (Patrick
Boursier, Ph.D., Mary Bacca, M.S. and Andrew Dilworth, B.S.), and a wildlife biologist
(Dave Johnston, Ph.D.).. A herpetologist (Mark Jennings, Ph.D.) also visited the site to
assess its suitability for special-status species of amphibians and reptiles.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
III. STUDY METHODOLOGY
IDENTIFICATION OF BIOTIC HABITATS
Field surveys were conducted within an "Area of Potential Effects" (APE). The survey
method involved a vehicular survey of all areas within the entire Caltrans right-of-way of
the project site. Ground reconnaissance was conducted for several areas in order to
effectively document existing resources. All ditches within the project site were
investigated on foot to identify potential jurisdictional areas.
Plant communities were described in terms of their dominant tree, shrub and herbaceous
vegetation composition and wherever possible, classified according to the nomenclature of
Holland (1986) and Sawyer and Kcclcr-Wolf (1995). l.isls were nlainlaincd o£ all phmt
species CHcotH~tcrcd during Iht surveys (Al~pcmlix A).
ASSESSMENT OF WILDLIFE USE OF THE PROJECT SITE
The wildlife survey consisted of hiking the entire project alignment. All biotic habitats on
and immediately adjacent to the project site were assessed for potential suitability as
habitat for individual wildlife species. A list of all wildlife species observed during the
September 1999 surveys and additional species expected on-site is presented in Appendix
B.
IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL wATERS
Field surveys were' conducted within the project boundaries for areas which meet the
regulatory definition of jurisdictional waters. These studies were conducted at a level of
effort sufficient for review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Topographic
maps of the-study area were obtained from several sources and were reviewed prior to field
surveys. These sources included U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle maps of the area
surrounding the project site and aerial photographs contained in the Soil Survey of Alameda
County (SCS 1966).
Waters of the U.S. Regulations Overview
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of "Waters of the United States" are subject to the
regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Am~y Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE under
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972), has jurisdiction over "Waters of
'the United States" (jurisdictional waters). These waters may include all waters used, or
potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow
of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats,
sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined
as "Waters of the U. S.", tributaries of waters otherwise defined as "Waters of the U. S.",
the territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to "Waters of the U.S." (33 CFR, Part 328,
Section 328.3). ~
2
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Areas not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and irrigation
ditches excavated on dry land, artificially-irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for
irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and
water-filled depressions (33 CFR, Part 328).
Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the ACOE. The
placement of fill material into such waters must be in compliance with permit requirements
of the ACOE. No ACOE permit will be effective in'the absence of state water quality
certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources
Control Board is the state agency charged with implementing water quality certification in
California.
Identification of Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands (Special Aquatic Sites)
Surveys were conducted within the project boundaries for areas which meet the technical
criteria of jurisdictional wetlands. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the site were
examined following the guidelines outlined in the "Routine Determination Method" in the
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
The project site was examined for topographic features, drainages, alterations to site
hydrology and areas of significant recent disturbance by driving the entire project
alignment;, areas on site that appeared to support potential jurisdictional waterS were
further surveyed on foot. '. A determination was then made as to whether normal'
environmental conditions were present at the time of the field surveys. Data were used to
document which portions of the site were wetlands. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were
drawn onto an approximately 1-inch: 166 feet topographic general plan figure.
Vegetation. Plants observed at each of the sample sites were identified to species using
The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993). Additional references included A Flora of the
Marshes of California (Mason 1969), Manual of the Grasses of the United States
(Hitchcock 1971), and Weeds of California (Robbins, et al. 1970). The wetland-indicator
status of each species was obtained frOm the 1987 Wetland Plant List, California (Reed
1988). A list of species for each sample site was then compiled and an assessment of the
dominant species made. It was then determined which of the observation areas supported
wetland vegetation.
Wetland-indicator species are so. designated according to their frequency of occurrence in
wetlands. For instance, a species with a presumed frequency of occurrence of 67% to 99%
in wetlands is designated a facultative wetland indicator species. The wetland-indicator
groups, indicator symbol and the frequency of occurrence of species within wetlands are as
follows:
3
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
*Table 1. Wetland-indicator status categories for vascular plants.
Indicator Category
Symbol
Frequency Of Occurreuce
Obligate OBL greater than 99%
Facultative Wetland FACW 67 - 99%
Facultative FAC 34 - 66%
Facultative Upland FACU 1 - 33%
Upland UPL less than 1%
*Based upon information contained in Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). "NOL" = not on the list; "NI" = not an indicator.
Obligate and facultative wetland-indicator species are hydrophytes that occur "in areas
where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce Permanently or
periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the
plant species present" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Facultative indicator species may
be considered wetland-indicator species when found growing in hydric soils that
experience periodic saturation. A complete list of the vascular plants of the project site and
their current indicator status has been provided in Appendix A.
Soils. Where possible, the top 50 centimeters of the soil profile was examined for hydric
characteristics. Such characteristics include the presence of organic soils (histosols), histic
· epipedons, aquic or peraquic moisture regimes, presence of soil on hydric soil list, iron
stains in sandstone matrices, mottling indicated by the presence of gleyed or bright spots of
colors (in the former case, blue grays; in the latter case, orange red, or red brown) within
the soil horizons observed. Mottling of soils usually indicates poor aeration and lack of
good drainage. Munsell Soil Notations (Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgen Instr.
Corp. 1990) were recorded for the soil matrix for each soil sample. The last digit of the
Munscll Soil Notation refers to thc chroma of thc sample. This notation consists of
numbers beginning with 0 for neutral grays and increasing at equal intervals to a maximum
of about 20. Chroma values of the soil matrix which are one (1) or less, or of two (2) or
less when mottling is present, are typical of soils which have developed under anaerobic
conditions.
In sandy soils, such as alluvial deposits in the bottom of drainage channels, hydric-soil
indicators include high organic matter content in the surface horizon, and streaking of
subsurface horizons by organic matter. All soil colors indicated in this report were taken
under clear, sunny skies using moistened soil samples.
Soil Survey of Alameda County (Soil Conservation Service; SCS 1966), the county's most
recent soil survey, was consulted in order to determine which soil types have been mapped
on the project site.
Hydrology. Each of the sample sites was examined for positive field indicators of wetland
hydrology. Such indicators might include visual observation of inundation and/or soil
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
saturation, seeping or flowing water, water marks, drift lines, water-bome sediment
deposits, and drainage patterns within wetlands.
Identification of Tributary Waters
Tributary waters are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the ACOE and extend to the
ordinary high-water (OHW) mark on opposing channel banks. The OHW mark is typically
indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank,
shelving, changes in character of soil, destruction of vegetation, exposed roots on the bank,
deposition of leaf litter and other debris materials or lower limit of moss growth on channel
banks. Potential tributary waters were mapped onto a topographic general plan figure of 1
inch: 166 feet scale (approXimate).
Identification of "Other Waters"
"Other Waters" include lakes, seasonal ponds, seeps, and seasonal springs. Such areas are
identified by the presence of standing or running water and generally lack hydrophytic
vegetation. Potential "other waters" were mapped onto a topographic general plan figure
of 1 inch: 166 feet (approximate).
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CODE SECTIONS 1601-
1603
Activities that 'result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream, or
substantially change, its bed, channel or bank, O~ utilize any materials (including
vegetation) from the streambed require that the project applicant enter into a Streambed
Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), under
Sections 1601-1603 of the State Fish and Game Code. The DFG potentially extends the
definition of stream to include "intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry
washes, sl.oughs; blue-line streams (U.S. Geological Service), and watercourses with
subsurface flows. Canals, 'aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water
conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation,
or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife" (California Department of Fish and Game 1994).
Areas subject to DFG jurisdiction within the project site were mapped onto a topographic
general plan figure with an approximately 1 inch: 166 feet scale.
ASSESSMENT OF RIPARIAN IMPACTS
All potentially significant vegetation impacts were assessed during the biological
investigation. For the purposes of determining appropriate mitigatiOn ratios, the vegetation
to be removed was categorized by habitat quality. The habitat quality categories were
based on observed vegetation characteristics that correspond to fish and wildlife habitat
values, including the presence or absence and the density of the overstory vegetation, the
presence or absence of native plant species, and the complexity of vegetation structure (i.e.
presence of tree, shrub and herbaceous layers). .
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SURVEYS
Information concerning threatened, endangered or other special-status species that may
occur in the area was obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1999) and thc California Native Plant Society's Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Plants of California (1994).
Utilizing Califomia Natural Diversity Data Base reports (CNDDB 1999), a search of
published accounts of the location of these species was conducted for the Livermore U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map in which the project site occurs. ~The search
was extended to the eight surrounding quadrangles including Dublin, Byron Hot Springs,
Tassajara, Diablo, Mendenhall Springs, La Costa Valley, Niles, and Altamont.
Surveys Were conducted for special-status plant species, and plant communities of special
concern within the APE. Several special-status wildlife species are also known to occur in
appropriate habitat in the region. Surveys were conducted in the field to search for special-
status animals and their habitat within the project area.
Speciai-Statos Species Reguhflions ¢)vcrvic~v
Federal and state endangered species legislation gives several plant and animal species
known to occur in the vicinity of the project site special status. In addition, state resource
agencies, and professional organizations, whose lists are recognized by agencies when
reviewing environmental documents, have identified as sensitive some species occurring in
the vicinity of the project site. Such species are referred t° collectively as "species of
special status."
Provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protect federally-listed
threatened and endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take. "Take" under
FESA includes activities such as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct."
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) regulations define harm to include some types
of "significant habitat modification or degradation." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on
June 29, 1995, that "harm" may include habitat modification "...where it actually kills or
injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding or sheltering." Activities that may result in "take" of individuals are regulated by
the FWS. The FWS produced an updated list of candidate species September 19, 1997
(FWS 1997; 50 CFR Part 17). The FWS discontinued the designation of Category 2 and
Category 3 species in 1996 (USFWS 1996). Candidate species are now species regarded
by FWS as candidates for addition to the "List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants." Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under FESA. However,
candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and state agencies during
the environmental review process.
Provisions of California's Endangered Species Act (CESA) protect state-listed threatened
and endangered species. The DFG regulates activities that may result in "take" of
individuals (i.e., "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch,
6
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
capture, or kill"). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the
definition of "take" under the Califomia Fish and Game Code. The DFG, however, has
interpreted "take" to include the "killing of a member of a species which is the proximate
result of habitat modification ..."
The DFG has also produced three lists (amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals) of
"species of special concern" that serve as "watch lists." Species on these lists either are of
limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that
threat to their populations may be imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored.
They may receive special attention during environmental review, but do not have statutory
protection.
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society
(Skinner and Pavlik 1994), and which may or may not have designated status under state
endangered species legislation, are defined as follows:
· List 1B.Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
· List 2.Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous
elsewhere.
· List 3.Plants about which we need more information - A review list.
· List 4.Plants of limited distribution - A watch list.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site, immediately northeast of Pleasanton, includes the 1-580/Tassajara Road
interchange and extends east along 1-580 to just before the Fallon Road interchange
(Figure 1). Improvements will extend from approximately Highway Station Marker 96+80
to Highway Station Marker 116+80. The project site is located on the U. S. Geological
Survey Livermore Quadrangle Map.
The mean annual rainfall for Livermore, the closest reporting weather station, is
approximately 14.5 inches, and the mean annual temperatures range from 45° F to 73° F
(SCS 1966). The approximate elevation of the interchange is 350 feet. The project site is
underlain by 2 separate soil series including San Ysidro loam and Sunnyvale clay loam
(SCS 1966). These series are formed in alluvium from sedimentary rock and/or shale.
None of the soils form natural slopes which exceed 3% on site. Both soils underlie the
project area in approximately equal proportions, yet the interchange is entirely underlain
by the San Ysidro soil. The San Ysidro series occurs on nearly-level old valley fill and is
used primarily for dry-land farming, hay, pasture, and range; this soil has slow runoff, and
is moderately well drained providing for only slight erosion hazards. The Sunnyvale series
occurs on nearly-level valley floors m~d is used primarily for irrigated row crops, pasture,
and dry-land farming; this soil has slow runoff, is poorly drained, has a slight erosion
hazard, and is subject to occasional flooding due to the water table intermittently reaching
to within five feet of the surface.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWl) classilication system of thc U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) identifies only a small area of Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded
land (PEMA) adjacent to 1-580 east between the Tassajara and Fallon Road interchanges,
but does not occur within the Caltrans right-of-way.
Biotic Habitats
The two biotic habitats identified within the project site were ruderal/omamental and man-
made ditches. As the ruderal/omamental habitat covers the majority of the site, and man-
made ditches occur in such narrow strips and are likely to be non-jurisdictional, these
habitats were summarized without the aid of a habitat map. The remaining area within the
right-of-way consists solely of hardscape, and only the bridge structures are discussed in
the context of providing additional biotic habitat for wildlife. Lists of the vascular plant
species observed and vertebrate species either expected to occur, or observed, on the
project site during the field surveys has been provided in Appendix A and B, respectively.
Ruderai / Ornamental
Vegetation. Ruderal/ornamental habitat occupies all of the non-hardscape areas within the
Tassajara interchange project area. All four quadrants of the interchange are landscaped
with both ornamental trees and ground cover. Since this landscaping was installed, ruderal
species have invaded' where shade, omamental roekery, and dense ornamental ground
8
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
~........-....~'.....:....:...: .......~! . ,, ~ .'%.;. ~,~~,, / ~/
. · ~' · · ' ' .' ~ ~'~ I
~ · ,T~I~INe ".ARE~' . ...~ ' .. ' ' ' ' · ~':;' ~ ~ ,~
, ,~ , , .... ~
Ocean ~ ~ ,~
~'~' g ~ ~ ~ ~ HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
~ ~~ Interstate 580~sajara Road Interch~ge
~ : Map Copyrighted Septem~r 1~6 byihe C~ifomia State ~,,. = .* , ,
~-~'~ Automobile Ass~at~on, Reproduced by Pe~ss~on [~~ I
cover permit. Ornamental species iucludc various species of plum (l'runus spp.), acacia
(Acacia spp.), hollyleafed oak (Quercus ilex), olive (Olea europaea), oleander (Nerium
oleander), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), German ivy (Senecio mikanioides) and other
ornamental species not readily identifiable. Ruderal species observed were those
associated with non-native grasslands. These species include wild oats (Avena fatua),
Italian rye (LoHum multijTorttm), various bromes (Bromus spp.), bristly ox- tongue (Picris
echioides), yellow-star thistle (Centauria solstitialis), fireweed (Epilobium spp.), prickly
lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and others. Beyond the interchange, along 1-580 east, ruderal
species begin to dominate at approximately half way to the Fallon Road interchange. No
trees within the interchange quadrants or along the freeway appear to be of ordinance or
herit.age tree size.
Wildlife. Ruderal/omamental areas can provide important habitat for a number of wildlife
species if the ruderal component is sufficiently extensive and is not surrounded by
development. However, the habitat present on the project site is bordered by highly
disturbed areas associated with 1-580. Therefore, most wildlife usc of this habitat is
expected to be by species most typical of developed areas. Amphibian and reptile species
expected here include slender salamander (Batrachoceps attenuatus) and western fence
lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis). The mammals found here arc also limited by the
proximity of the site to disturbance and include Botta's pocket gopher (Thornomys bottae),
Califomia ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and feral cat (Felis catus).
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), House Finch (Carl~odactts mexicantts) and NOrthem
Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) were birds observed in this habitat during site visits.
Man-Made Ditches
Vegetation. Four man-made ditches arc present at the Tassajara interchange, Three of the
ditches are located along the outside of ramps and one ditch extends from the 1-580 east
onramp to thc Fallon Road interchange. Portions of the ditches along ramps north of the
freeway are concrete-lined, while those south of the freeway are all earthen and in some
places overgrown. While some ornamental species such as German ivy (Senecio
mikanioides) dominate in the ditches, most are dominated by ruderal species including
wild-oats, poison hemlock (Conjure maculatum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and
horsewced (Conyza canadensis), among others. Some ditches contained standing water at
the time of the survey, or appeared to have had standing water into the summer season, the
source of which was likely stormwater runoff. These ditches supported hydrophytic
species such as barnyard grass. (Echinochloa crus-galli), cockleburs (Xanthium spp.),
spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), tall umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), bulrush
(Scirpus maritimus), rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and cattail (Typha spp.).
Wildlife. A variety of wildlife species typically associated with the other habitats use
these ditches as water sources for part of the year. However, these ditches are of limited
broader value to many wildlife species due to the paucity of emergent and riparian
vegetation, their intermittent (or seasonal) nature, and close proximity to 1-580. These
drainages may provide marginal breeding habitat for western toads (Bufo boreas) aud
pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla) in wet years. Few birds will occur in this habitat because of
its .proximity to 1-580.
l0
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Existing Bridge Structure
Vegetation. The bridge structure provided no suitable habitat for vegetation.
Wildlife. Some bridges provide habitat or potential habitat for a number of volant (flying)
wildlife such as swallows or bats. However, the Tassajara Road bridge is subject to
extreme disturbances due to a constant high volume of vehicular traffic. Swallows are
sometimes observed nesting on bridges, however, no evidence of nesting birds was
observed on the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange. No other wildlife arc expected to
utilize this habitat.
11
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
V. IN-DEPTH STUDIES FOR SPECIAL LAWS
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS DELINEATION TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Potential jurisdictional waters subject to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act were not identified within the project site. H. T. Harvey & Associates have contacted
the ACOE (letter dated 29 September 1999) to request their concurrence that the man-
made drainage ditches do not meet the regulatory definition of Waters of the U.S.
Although the ACOE have not yet responded regarding this issue at the time this NES was
compiled, we assumed that the ditches are not potential Waters of the U.S. We based this
conclusion on historical information, site characteristics, and ACOE regulatory guldance.
AREAS MEETING THE REGULATORY DEFINITION OF JURISDICTIONAL
WATERS
Identification of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands
No potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified on site. 'All the ditches supported a
mixture of invasive annual hydrophytes and upland species. Common hydrophytes
observed included species such as Italian rygrass (Lolium multijTorum; FAC), bristly ox-
tongue (Picris echioides; FAC), rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis; FACW+),
swamp grass (Crypsis schoenoides; OBL), and cattails (Typha latifolia; OBL). Many of
these hydrophytes were distributed along the upper ditch banks and in adjacent Upland
areas as well as within the bed of the ditches. This observation indicates that these
· particular species are not dependable indicators of wetland vegetation..
Evidence of saturation or inundation, flowing water, sediment dcpostion, water marks, or
drainage patterns observed were the result of stom~water runoff from 1-580 and adjacent
surface streets.
Identification of Tributary Waters
No channels were identified within the Tassajara Road interchange that meet the definition
of tributary waters.
Identification of "Other Waters"
No lakes, seeps, seasonal ponds or springs, or other areas containing standing or running
water and lacking hydrophytic vegetation were observed within the project site.
AREAS NOT MEETING
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
THE REGULATORY DEFINITION OF
The four man-made ditches within the interchange were not considered to meet the
regulatory jursidiction of the ACOE for the following reasons:
12
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
1) The ditches were excavated in uplands and are maintained £or the purpose o£ capturing
stormwater runoff from nearby roadways. They continue to function as originally
designed and constructed.
2) Although wetland vegetation was present and evidence of past inundation or saturation
was observed within these ditches, their actively maintained status as stormwater drainage
ditches, as well as the lack of an OHW mark, precludes their being described as potential
jurisdictional waters.
3) Although water tends to flow from the isolated wetlands situated in the fields north of
the freeway during high rainfall events, there is no discemible incised channel between the
potentially regulated waters (i.e. wetlands) in the fields north of the freeway and drainage
ditches located along the west-bound freeway lanes between the Fallon and Tassajara
interchanges.
The remaining ruderal habitat and areas of hardscape on site also do not contain areas
meeting the regulatory jurisdiction of the ACOE.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CODE SECTIONS 1601-
1603
The man-made ditches within project site are not subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of
the DFG under Sections 1601-1603. These onsite seasonal drainage channels are.of
limited value to many wildlife species due to the lack of emergent or riparian vegetation;
their intermittent, seasonal nature; and the close proximity of 1-580. Therefore, the
proposed project will not require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the DFG.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-Status Plant Surveys
Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted between September 21 and 23, 1999 within
the project area. Species-specific surveys were conducted only within vegetated areas of
the Caltrans fight-of-way. An APE extending outside the current project area may reveal
additional habitats requiring the consideration of additional special-status species beyond
those described below.
The special-status plant species that occur in regional habitats similar to those found on the
project area are described below. The process of identifying special-status plant species for
consideration involved twO steps. First, a q.uery of special-status plants in the California
Natural Diversity Database (Rarefind Database) was performed for all quadrangles
surrounding and including the Livermore quadrangle. 'Second, references such as the
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (California Native Plant
Society; CNPS 1994), Status of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Olson 1994), and Unusual and Significant Plants of
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Lake 1999) were used to produce a similar list for
13
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Alameda County. The habitat requirements of each special-status plant species were the
principal criteria used'for inclusion in the list of potentially occurring species on site.
An initial list of 45 special-status plant species was compiled for the region. Of these, 11
were omitted because there was no suitable habitat within the APE, and 28 species were
excluded for one or more of the following reasons: limited distribution within the vicinity
of the project area; serpentine substrate requirements; extinction or extirpation from
Alameda county; species could have been expected to be observed during initial
reconnaissance if present on site, or potential habitat on site was absent. These 28 latter
species include large-flowered fiddleneck, alkali milk vetch, heartscale, big-scale
balsamroot, big tarplant, hispid bird's-beak, palmate bracted bird's-beak, Hoover's
cryptantha, Mt. Diablo buckwheat, stinkbells, fragrant fritillary, Diablo helianthella, Santa
Cruz tarplant, Contra Costa goldfields, woolly-headed lessingia, serpentine linanthus,
large-flower linanthus, Mt. Diablo cottonweed, little mousetail, delta woolly-marbles,
adobe sanicle, Lobb's aquatic buttercup, most beautiful jewel-flower, Mt. Diablo jewel-
flower, showy Indian clover, rock sanicle, Brewer's western flax, and Mt. Diablo fairy
lantern; future surveys for these species are not warranted. No additional species of
concern to the reviewing resource agencies, that occur in Alameda county but which do not
occur in habitats present on-site, have been revealed.
Some of the special-status plant species that occur in the region are found in habitat types
that are not present on site. Relevant, absent habitat types include: vernal pools,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, chaparral, serpentine soils, alkali sink, alkali playa,
coastal saltmarsh, chenopod scrub, north coast coniferous forest, broad-leaved Upland
forest, lower montane coniferous forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, marshes and
swamps, and meadows. In addition, the following sensitive habitats, as identified by
CNDDB (1999), are not present on site: valley sink scrub, valley needlegrass grassland,
northern claypan vernal pool, alkali meadow, serpentine bunchgrass, alkali seep,
cismontane alkali marsh, sycamore alluvial woodland, northern maritime chaparral, and
coastal brackish marsh.
Six special-status plant species have been identified as potentially occurring due to the
presence of ruderal habitat on site which is floristically similar to valley and foothill
grasslands (suitable habitat). These species are listed in Table 2, which also presents the
legal status, native habitats, and suitability of particular habitats on site for each species.
Brief descriptions of these 6 potentially occurring special-status plant species are presented
below.
State Protected Species or CNPS Species
San Joaquin Saltbush (Atriplex joaquiniana). Federal Listing Status: None; State
Listing Status: None; CNPS List: lB. This annual herb occurs in chenopod scrub,
meadows, and valley and foothill grasslands, particularly those with alkaline substrates.
The blooming period extends from April through September. The range of this species
includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa, Glenn, Merced, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito,
Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Solano, Tulare, and Yolo counties (California Native Plant
Society 1994). The DFG Rarefind Database has numerous reports of this species within the
14'
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
immediate vicinity of the project area. A population of San Joaquin saltbush was
discovered on the nearby Dublin Ranch property by an H. T. Harvey & Associates botanist
in September 1999. However, habitat on-site is marginal and this species was not
observed during surveys coinciding with the blooming period. Therefore, San Joaquin
saltbush is presumed to be absent from the project site and further surveys are not
warranted.
Congdon's Tarplant (Hetnizoniaparryi ssp. congdonit). Federal Listing Status: None;
State Listing Status: None;.CNPS List: lB. This annual herb occurs in valley and
foothill grassland, particularly those with alkaline substrates. Thc blooming period extends
from June through November. The range of this species has reportedly been reduced to
Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and possibly santa Clara counties (California Native Plant
Society 1994). However, the DFG Rarefind Database has recent reports of this species
within the former Camp Parks training area. Two populations were discovered on the
nearby Dublin Ranch property by an H.T. Harvey & Associates botanist in August 1999.
A third, small (approximately 20 individuals) population was located on Dublin Ranch
property by an H.T. Harvey & Associates botanist on October 14, 1999. This population is
located immediately west of Fallon Road and north of the interchange. However, habitat
on-site is marginal and Congdon's tarplant was not observed during surveys that coincided
with the blooming period. Therefore, this species is presumed to be absent from the
project site and further surveys are not warranted.
Bent-Flowered Fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris). Federal listing status: None;~ State
listing status: None; CNPS List 4. This annual-herb occurs in cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill grasslands. The blooming period extends from March to June. The
range of this species includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin,' Santa Cruz, Shasta,
and Siskiyou counties (California Native Plant Society 1994). The DFG Rarefind Database
has no reports for this species within the quadrangle search area. The highly disturbed and
modified nature of existing habitats on site, as well as a lack of native species, precludes
the likelihood that bent-flowered fiddleneck is present. Therefore, this species is presumed
to be absent from the project site and no further surveys are warranted.
Crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. coronata). Federal listing status: None; State.
listing status: None; CNPS List 4. This annual herb occurs in alkaline valley and foothill
grasslands, vernal pools and possibly chenopod scrub. The blooming period extends from
April to October. The range of this species includes Alameda, Contra Costa, and 8 other
surrounding counties (California Native Plant Society 1994). The DFG Rarefind Database
has no reports for this species within the quadrangle search area. Habitat on site is
marginal and this species was not observed during surveys that coincided with the
blooming period. Therefore, this species is presumed to be absent from the project site and
further surveys are not warranted.
Brittlescale (Atriplex depressa). Federal listing status: None; State listing status:
None; CNPS List lB. This annual herb occurs in alkaline or clayey valley and foothill
grasslands, playas and chenopod scrub. The blooming period extends from May to
October. The range of this species includes Alameda, Contra Costa, and 9 other
15
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
surrounding counties (California Native Plant Society 1994). The DFG Rarefind Database
has reports of this species occurring within the vicinity of the project area, at the
intersection of 1-580 and Greenville Road, in Livermore. Habitat on site is marginal and
this species was not observed during surveys that coincided with the blooming period.
Therefore, tiffs species is presumed Io be absent 1'1'o111 Iht project site and Further surveys
m'c not warranted.
Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum). Federal Listing Status: None; State
Listing Status: None; CNPS List: lB. This perennial herb occurs in alkaline cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland, and chenopod scrub. The blooming period extends
from March to May. The range of this species includes Alameda, Contra Costa, and 8 other
surrounding counties (California Native Plant Society 1994). The DFG Rarefind Database
only reports a 1945 occurrence in the vicinity of Byron, within the quadrangle search area.
The highly disturbed and modified nature of existing habitats on site, as well as a lack of
native species, precludes the likelihood that recurved larkspur is present. Therefore, this
species is presumed to be absent from the project site and no further su~eys are warranted.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted on the site on 17 and 27 September 1999 by
hiking the entire project site and noting special-status species and habitats potentially
suitable for these species. In addition, a number of surveys for special-status animal
species have been conducted onsite and in areas adjacent to the site for the Pao Yeh Lin
property and Dublin Ranch, both east of the proj6ct site. These surveys included intensive
surveys for California red-legged frogs and California tiger salamanders conducted in 1989
(BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1989), March and May 1993 (H.T. Harvey & Associates
1993), May 1995 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1996), and January, February, April, May,
June, and August 1998 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1998b). Surveys for the San Joaquin
kit fox were conducted during thc summer of 1989 (BioSystems Analysis Inc. 1989),
during April through August 1996 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c) in July 1997 (H.T.
Harvey & Associates 1997d) and during April through July 1998 (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 1998b). Special-status vemal pool invertebrates were surveyed from December
1995 to April 1996 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1996b), December 1996 to March 1997
(H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997e), and December 1997 to June 1998 (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 1998c), and during February through June 1999 (H.T. Harvey & Associates
1999c).
The special-status animal species thai occur in Iht vicinily in habilals similar Io those
found on the project site are described below. Legal status and likelihood of occurrence of
these species onsite are given in Table 3. Expanded descriptions of only those species for
which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the project site or for which the resource
agencies have expressed particular concern are included.
Federally Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species
San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes tnacrotis mutica). Federal listing status: Endangered;
State listing status: Threatened. The San Joaquin kit fox is apparently absent from the
19
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
project site. Surveys of the project site conducted by BioSystems Analysis (1989) as part
of the East Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not detect San Joaquin kit foxes. Subsequently,
in 1991, H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted kit fox surveys on, and in the vicinity of, the
project site at twice the intensity level recommended by the DFG guidelines at the time.
These surveys did not detect kit fox activity on the project site or on the adjacent Dublin
Ranch immediately east of the site. Additionally, a 1992 H.T. Harvey & Associates report
summarizing historical records and kit fox surveys in Contra Costa and Alameda counties
concluded that Dublin is outside of the historic or current range of the San Joaquin kit fox.
The site was resurveyed beginning in October 1996 using the 1993 USFWS protocol.
After the USFWS revised its survey protocol in April 1997, surveys were conducted again
(in July 1998) on the entire Dublin Ranch .site and areas in the vicinity of the range using
the revised protocols. No eVidence of kit fox was observed on the project site or on Dublin
Ranch during any of these surveys.
In addition, detailed surveys have been conducted elsewhere in the vicinity of the project
site, including Las Positas College, North Livermore Valley, and Shea Homes/Collier
Creek (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c, 1997d). During these three surveys, more than
4,200 acres of lands near the project site were thoroughly surveyed for kit foxes, yet no
evidence of kit fox presence was found. These sites lie east of the project site, and
therefore lie closer to known kit fox locatiOns than the project site. There have been only
two sightings of kit fox in the region west of Vasco Road; one was reportedly seen in 1992
on Black Hawk Road, and another reported along Morgan Territory Road, both in Contra
Costa County. H.T.' Harvey & Associates (1997a) has concluded that the sighting~along
Black Hawk Road is likely an outlier and does not represent a resident kit fox population.
This conclusion was based on the preponderance of negative evidence (surveys conducted
at or above protocols established by the USFWS) from eleven surveys in the Tri-Valley
area and the fact that this sighting is nearly 7.5 miles west of the next closest sighting (e.g.,
Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa County) and more than 10 miles west of the first
cluster of sightings (e.g., multiple sightings within a small area) along Laughlin Road in
Alameda COunty. In addition, extensive surveys between July and August 1998 on
adjacent lands failed to find any evidence of kit fox presence in the area.
The lack of historic kit fox records for the region (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a),
combined with the findings of intensive kit fox surveys on the project site and the adjacent
Dublin Ranch and surveys conducted in areas even closer to the fox's known range than
the project site, provide substantial evidence that no kit fox population exists within this
region. The overwhelming picture that is emerging from this fairly large body of evidence
is that while potential prey (e.g., ground squirrels, hares, rabbits, etc.) and refugia (e.g.,
ground squirrel burrows) exist in low to moderate abundance in the region, no kit fox
population is present within this area of Livermore. The San Joaquin kit fox is therefore
presumed to be absent from the project site.
California Red-legged Frog (Rana attrora draytoniO. Federal listing status:
Threatened; State listing status: Species of Special Concern. The California red-
. legged frog is a medium-sized .frog with reddish-colored legs. This species is generally
restricted to riparian habitats in California and northern Baja California. Red-legged frogs.
20
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
prefer deep, quiet pools (more than one meter deep) in creeks, rivers, or lakes below 1,370
meters in elevation. Habitat requirements include fresh emergent or dense riparian
vegetation, especially willows adjacent to shorelines. Red-legged frogs can survive in
seasonal bodies of water that are dry for short periods if a permanent water body or dense
vegetation stands are nearby.
The adults are normally active at night and breed in still water during tiao late winter or
early spring after waters recede. Females attach eggs-in a single cluster to a vegetation
brace just under the surface of the water. The eggs hatch in just over a week and the
resulting larvae feed on plant and animal material on the bottom of the pond. It takes at
least four months for the larvae to metamorphose into juvenile frogs. On rare occasions,
larvae overwinter. Juvenile frogs generally prey on food items smaller than themselves
(including each other). Juvenile frogs are normally active both day and night, but
gradually shift to a more nocturnal activity pattern as they grow. Adults nornaally reach
sexual maturity in 2 to 3 years after metamorphosis. Jennings and Hayes (1994) reported
that California red-legged frogs have disappeared from about 75% of their historic range
due to habitat loss from agriculture and urbanization and the introduction of non-native
aquatic predators (e.g., non-native fishes and bullfrogs [Rana catesbeiana]).
Juvenile California red-legged frogs were observed in a small pond about 1.3 miles from
project site (about 0.25 miles upstream from the 1-580/Fallon Road interchange). Since the
area between the two interchanges is regularly disked, there is no hydrological connection
between this source of juveniles and the onsite Tassajara Road interchange, and no habitat
occurs onsite for red-legged frogs, this species is presumed to be absent from the site~.-
California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Federal listing status:
Candidate; State listing status: Species of Special Concern. The California tiger
salamander's preferred breeding habitat is temporary ponded environments (minimum of
three to four months; e.g., vernal pool, ephemeral pool, or human-made ponds) surrounded
by uplands that support small mammal burrows. The' species will utilize permanent ponds
providing that aquatic vertebrate predators arc not present. Such ponds provide tim
breeding and larval habitat, while small mammal burrows (e.g., ground squirrel
[Spermophilus beecheyi] and Botta's pocket gopher [Thornomys bottae]) in the upland
habitats support juvenile and adult salamanders during the dry season.
Extensive surveys for this species have been conducted for this species in the project
vicinity, for Dublin Ranch, and for the Pao Yeh Lin property both east of the project site
(H.T. Harvey & Associates 1998). To date, no adult or larval California tiger salamanders
have been foUnd onsite or anywhere immediately north of 1-580 during the extensive 1996
- 1999 surveys for the area between the Tassahara and the Fallon Road interchanges with 1-
580 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1996, 1998a, 1998b). The drainage ditches on site do not
provide breeding habitat and this species is presumed absent.
California Species of Special Concern
Burrowing Owl (Atltene cunicularia). Federal listing status: None; State listing
status: Species of Special Concern. The Burrowing Owl is a small, terrestrial owl of
21
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
open country. These owls prefer annual and perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or
nonexistent tree or shrub canopies. In Califomia, Burrowing Owls are found in close
association with California ground squirrels. Owls use the abandoned burrows of ground
squirrels for shelter and nesting.
Burrowing Owl populations are thought to be declining throughout much of their range in
the United States. Loss of habitat and campaigns against the burrowing mammals upon
which Burrowing Owls depend for nesting habitat are suspected causes of this decline. In
California, the Burrowing Owl has been designated as a Species of Special Concern due to
diminishing habitat and concurrent population declines (DFG 1995). The Bay Area
Burrowing Owl population is estimated to have lost 61% of its nesting colonies since the
late 1980's (DeSante and Ruhlen, unpl. data). The South Bay region (from San Mateo on
the Peninsula and Alameda County on the East Bay) supports the state's fourth largest
discrete population. Burrowing Owls are colonially-nesting raptors, and colony size is
indicative of habitat quality. Colony size is also positively correlated with annual reuse by
breeding Burrowing Owls.
No evidence of owls was observed on the site. However, the presence of California
ground squirrel burrows on site, and adjacent to the site, provide potential nesting habitat
for Burrowing Owls..
22
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
VI. PROJECT IMPACTS
The proposed project will have few effects on the biological resources of the project site.
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is included entirely within the Caltrans right-of-way.
In general, the test for significance in this analysis has been the relative abundance of a
given habitat, or its constituent plant and animal species regionally, or the presence of
ordinances, statutes, or other state and federal codes which serve to protect a habitat or
individual plant and animal species (CEQA Appendix G).
For clarification, the APE-identified the maximum zone within which construction
activities will take place; it was not assumed that all biotic resources within this define~l
area were impacted. The project description and engineering plans were used to determine
project impacts. The APE also defined the area within which detailed surveys for biotic
habitats were primarily focused.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The biological resources listed below are considered sufficiently abundant regionally that
project impacts to them, when considered in the context of this project alone, would be
less-than-significant. These biotic resources are otherwise unprotected by local, state and
federal codes, which serve to protect a habitat or individual plant and animal species
(CEQA Appendix G).
Loss of Ruderal/Ornamental Habitat
Construction activities will impact ruderal/omamental habitat which comprises the great
majority of area within the Caltrans fight-of-way. Disturbance or loss of ruderal habitat
within the fight-of-way is expected to vary greatly, however, and the flora and fauna
associated'with this habitat type, with the exception of burrowing owls (See Significant
Environmental Effects Section) are particularly common throughout the region. In addition,
there are no trees within the ruderal habitat to be impacted or otherwise meet criteria for
ordinance or heritage tree classification. Therefore, disturbance to this habitat should be
less-than-significant.
Loss of Man-made Ditches
Several reaches of the man-made ditches will be impacted by the proposed project. The
flora and fauna that utilize this habitat type are common regionally. No riparian or
emergent vegetation is present within these ditches. Therefore, the loss of these man-made
ditches is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.
Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Habitat
The project site offers only marginal habitat for six special-status plant species including:
'San Joaquin saltbush, Congdon's tarplant, bent-flowered fiddleneck, crownscale,
brittlescale, and recurved larkspur. These 6 species have been excluded as potentially
23
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
occurring on site based upon surveys conducted during the blooming period and/or the
relatively disturbed and modified condition of the site. Therefore, impacts to the marginal
habitat on site are expected to result in a less-than-significant effect.
Loss of Habitat for Certain Special-Status Animal Species
No suitable habitat exists for, and/or the project site is outside the known distribution, of
the Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal
pool fairy shrimp, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, western spadefoot, western pond turtle, Almneda whipsnake, Yellow-breasted
Chat, San Joaquin kit fox and ringtail.
Special-status terrestrial vertebrates that may only be occasional visitors, migrants, or
transients include the American Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon, Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-
shinned Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk, Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle, Merlin, White-tailed
Kite, Tricolored Blackbird, California Yellow Warbler, California Homed Lark, Tricolored
Blackbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Pallid Bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and California
mastiff bat. Therefore, project impacts to habitat for these special-status animal species is
expected to result in a less-than-significant effect. The site does not support breeding
habitat for any special-status animal species, with the exception of possibly the Burrowing
Owl (See "Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls" below).
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The biological resources listed below are considered sufficiently rare regionally that
project impacts to them would be considered significant or are otherwise protected by
local, state and federal laws.
Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls
Raptors, including owls, and their nests are protected under both federal and state laws and
regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code
section 3503.5.
Since Burrowing Owls occur in the region and active ground squirrel burrows occur on the
site, potential habitat occurs onsite. Areas with short vegetation and California ground
squirrel burrows could provide nesting sites, and the adjacent and onsite habitats provide
appropriate foraging habitat. Therefore, conditions are suitable for use by Burrowing
Owls, and this species could move onto the site prior to construction.
Neither Burrowing Owls, nor any indicators of their presence, were observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys conducted on 17 and 23 September 1999. However, if
Burrowing Owls are present on-site at the time of construction, construction disturbance
during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or
otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or
loss of reproductive effort is considered a "taking" by the DFG. Furthermore, the
destruction of occupied Burrowing Owl burrows is also considered a taking. Any loss of
24
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Burrowing Owls or fertile eggs and any activities resulting in nest abandonment, or the
destruction of occupied Burrowing Owl burrows, would constitute a significant impact.
Construction activities such as tree removal, site grading, etc., that disturb a nesting
Burrowing Owl on the site, or immediately adjacent to the site or results in destroying
occupied burrows, would constitute a significant impact. Additionally, although the site is
not presently occupied by Burrowing Owls, owls could move onto the site's suitable
habitat prior to completion of all phases of development. The loss of occupied habitat
would constitute a significant impact.
25
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Vll. MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures for those biotic impacts considered significant are proposed below.
The successful implementation of all these mitigation measures will reduce the significant
biotic impacts of the project to a less-than-significant level.
Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls
Implementation of Mitigation 1, in conjunction with either Mitigation 2 or 3, as warranted,
would reduce potential project impacts on Burrowing Owls to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation 1. Preconstruction Surveys and Buffer Zones. In conformance with federal
and state regulations protecting raptors against direct "take," a qualified ornithologist
should conduct pre-construction surveys for Burrowing Owls prior to any soil-altering
activity, construction, or development on the site. The preconstruction .surveys should be
conducted per DFG guidelines (currently no more than 30 days prior to the start of site
grading), regardless of the time of year in which grading occurs. These surveys should
occur on and within 76 meters (250 feet) of the project site. If no Burrowing Owls are
found, then no further' mitigation would be warranted. If oWls are located on or
immediately adjacent to the site, a construction-free buffer zone around the active burrow
would be established by a qualified Burrowing Owl biologist in consultation with DFG.
No activities, including grading or other construction work, would proceed until the buffer
zone is established, or a DFG approved relocation of the birds has been performed (such
relocations can occur only during the non-reproductive season (September through
January). Regardless of the time of year when Burrowing Owls are observed on the site,
implementation of either Mitigation 2 or 3 would be necessary.
Mitigation 2. Avoidance. If preconstruction surveys confirm that Burrowing Owls
occupy the site, then avoidance of impacts to the habitat utilized by these owls would be
considered the preferred mitigation method. In order to effectively avoid habitat utilized
by Burrowing Owls, a buffer distance of 75 meters would be required during the nesting
season (February 1 to August 31). During the non-nesting season, this distance could be
reduced to 50 meters. Avoidance would allow the use of areas currently occupied by
Burrowing Owls to continue uninterrupted.
Mitigation 3. Off-site Compensation. If preconstruction surveys determine that
Burrowing Owls occupy, the site, and avoiding development of occupied areas is not
feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands should be implemented.
Off-site mitigation typically entails evicting the affected owls from the project site and
setting aside and managing specific areas for Burrowing Owls. Burrowing Owls will not
be evicted from the site during the breeding season.
A single, large, contiguous mitigation site is preferable to several smaller, separated sites.
The mitigation site would preferably support owl nesting and be contiguous with or at least
..proximal to other lands suPporting Burrowing Owls. Sites with a long history of
26
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Burrowing Owls use, or that have at least been in a suitable condition for occupancy are
preferred. Grazing is compatible with Burrowing Owl occupancy.
DFG guidelines recommend that off-site mitigation lands should be set-aside at a ratio of
6.5 acres/pair or individual owl (if only an individual is observed). Cal Trans could
identify and set aside the mitigation land prior to site grading. Alternatively, the project
sponsors could place a security deposit or other financial assurance (e.g., performance
bond, letter of credit, etc.) into a DFG Burrowing Owl mitigation fund prior to grading.
Funds would be expended towards the acquisition and long-term management of a
mitigation site. Currently, mitigation fees requested by DFG have included $13,000 per
acre for acquisition, $40,000 endowment per preserve for long-tema management, $20,000
per preserve to cover set-up costs, and a $3000 transaction fee (if required) per project
applicant.
27
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
VIII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
If all of the mitigation measures described in this document ai'e successfully implemented,
the project will have no significant cumulative effects on biological resources in the project
area.
28
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
IX. CITED REFERENCES AND PERSONAL CONTACTS
Cited References
BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1989. East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Area Plan: Draft Biological Assessment. 67 pp.
Caires, T., D. Dawn, D. DiNunzio, A. Harris, N. Kogut, M. Kutilek, S. H. Ladd, J.
Stanziano, M. Stickler and A. Webber 1993. Preliminary survey of biodiversity in
the Warm Springs Seasonal Wetland, Alameda County, California. Prepared for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Complex.
Califomia Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambcd
Alteration Agreements. Sections 1600-1607. Environmental Services Division.
California Department of Fish and Game.
mitigation. 8pp.
1995. Staff report on Burrowing Owl
California Department of Fish and Game.
mitigation. 8pp.
1995. Staff report on Burrowing Owl
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 1997. Guidance for Consultants:
Procedures for Completing the Natural Environmental Study and Related
Biological Reports.
California Native Plant Society. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California. Edited by M. W. Skinner and B. Pavlik.
CNDDB 1999. California Natural Diversity Data Base, Rarefind. California Department
offish and Game.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Department of the Army.
Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press.
Hitchcock, A. S. 1971. Manual of the Grasses of the U. S. Dover Publications.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. California Department ofFish and Game.
H. T. Harvey & ASsociates. 1990. Rare Plant Survey of the East Dublin Property,
Alameda County. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 555-03.
29
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
H
T. Harvey & Associates. 1992. Final U.S. Amay Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional
Analysis Dublin Ranch, East Dublin. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No.
555-02.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1993. Dublin Ranch Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile
Surveys. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 555-09.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1996. Dublin Ranch: 1995 Special-Status Amphibian and
Reptile Surveys. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 555-11.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North
Part of Its Range. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 673-11.
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. Dublin Ranch (Phase I) Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan. Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin. Project Number 555-14.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997c. North Livermore Valley San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey.
Project No. 1037-01.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997d. Shea Homes-Collier Canyon Project San Joaquin Kit
Fox Survey. Prepared for Kevin Peters. Project No. 1251-02.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997e. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys. Prepared for
Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 555-10.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1998a. Pao Yeh Lin Identification of Potentially Suitable
Special-Status Plant Habitats. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 555-18.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1998b. Pao Yeh Lin Property Special-Status Species Surveys.
Unpublished technical report. Project No. 555-23.
lt. T. Harvey & Associates. 1998c. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys. 1997/1998 Wet
Season. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 555-17.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. Dublin Ranch (Phase II) Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan. Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin. Project Number 555-26.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999b. Dublin Ranch, Identification of Waters of the U.S.
Project No. 555-30
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999c. Poa Yeh Lin Property Fairy Shrimp Surveys.
1997/1998 Wet Season. Prepared for Ted C. Fairfield. Project No. 555-27.
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special
concem in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland
Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iii+255 p.
30
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Kollorgen Instruments Corp. 1990. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New York.
Lake, D. 1999. Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
5th Edition. California Native Plant Society.
Mason, H. L. 1969. A Flora of the Marshes ol'California. University of California Press.
Olson, B. L. 1994. Status of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. 3ra Edition. California Native Plant Society.
Reed, P.B. 1988. Wetland Plant List of California. USFWS.
Robl~ins W.W., M.K. Bellue and W.S. Ball. 1970. Weeds of California. California State
Department of Agriculture.
Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California
Native Plant Society.
Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil Survey of Alameda County. U. S. Department of
Agriculture.
31
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX A
PLANTS OBSERVED WITHIN THE
1-580/TASSAJARA ROAD INTERCHANGE
PROJECT SITE
32
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
:Appendix A. Plants Observed within the Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project Site.
FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME INDICATOR
STATUS
Apiaceae Conium ntaculalttm t poison hemlock FACW
Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace NOL
Foeniculum vul~are sweet fennel FACU
Apocynaceae Nerium oleander oleander NOL
Asteraceae Baccharis l~ilularis coyote brush NOL
Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle NOL
Cirsiurn vulgare bull thistle FACU
Conyza canadensis horseweed FAC
Hemizonia pun~ens spikeweed FAC
Lactuca serriola, prickly lettuce FAC
Picris echioides bristly ox-tongue FAC
Senecio mikanoides German ivy NOL
Xanthium spinosum spiny cocklebur FAC+
Jfanthiu.t slrtonarittm cocklcbur FAC+
Bora§inaceae ilc, liotrol~ium ¢'Ul'a$$aviCtllll hclioh'ope (')1~,1,
Brassicaceae Brassica hi~ra black mustard NOL
Hirschfeldia incana field mustard NOL
Caprifoliaceae Lonicqrajaponica Japanese honeysuckle NI
Chenopodiaceae Atriplex trian~ularis spearscale : FACW
Atriplex setnibaccata Australian saltbush : FAC
Salsola ~ra~,tts Russian thistle FACU+
Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed NOL
Cyperaceae C?perus eragrostis tall umbrella sedge FACW
Eleocharis rnacrostach?a creeping spikerush OBL
Scripus maritimus bulrush OBL
Fabaceae Acacia sl~t~. Acacia ---
Fagaceae Qttet'ctts ilex holly lea f oak NOL
Frankeniaceae Frankenia salina alkali heath FACW+
Malvaceae Malvella leprosa Alkali mallow FAC
Oleaeceae Olea europaea olive NOL
[Onagraceae i Epilobium spp. fireweed ---
Plantaginaceae [Piantago lanceolata i English plantain FAC-
Poaceae i Avenalfatua wild oats NOL
Bromus diandrus rip-gut brome NOL
Bromus hordeaceus soft chess brome FACU
Crypsis schoenoides swamp grass OBL
Cynodon dactylon bermuda grass FAC
Distichlis spicat a salt-grass FACW
Echinochloa crus-galli barnyard grass FACW
Hordeum marinurn ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley FAC
Loliurn rnultijlorum Italian ryegrass FAC
Polypogon, maritimus Mediterranean beard grass OBL
33
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Appendix A. Plants Observed within the Interstate 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project Site.
FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ' COMMON NAME INDICATOR
~ ~ :' i ' ' STATUS
polyPogon monspeliensis annual beard grass i FACW+
Vulpia spp. fescue ---
Polygonaceae Poly~onum aviculare I prostrate knotweed FAC
Rumex crispus curly dock FACW-
Rosaceae Pt'tttttt.v ,x'pi~, .... o~'nam¢~ta. 1 l~lum ---
Typhaceae ?'),pha spp. cattail ---
The species are arranged alphabetically by family name for all vascular plants encountered during the
plant survey. Plants are also listed alphabetically within each family. Ornamental plants which surround
private residcnces were not listed in entirety.
34
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX B
· VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE SPECIES OF THE
1-580/TASSAJARA ROAD INTERCHANGE
PROJECT SITE
35'
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Common Name [ Scientific Name I Status I Predicted [ Observed
CLASS: AMPHIBIA
ORDER: CAUDATA (Salamanders)
FAMILY: PLETHODONTIDAE (Lungless Salamanders)
California Slender Salamander I Batrachose?s attenuat,~s I
ORDER: SALIENTIA (Frogs and Toads)
FAMILY: BUFONIDAE (True Toads)
Western Toad ] Bufo boreas ]
FAMILY: HYLIDAE (Treefrogs and Relatives)
Pacific Trcerros I nyta,',,s#l,, I
CLASS: REPTILIA
ORDER: SQUAMATA (Lizards and Snakes)
SI]I}OI[I)EI[: SAIIRIA (lAzar{Is).
FAMILY: IGUANIDAE ~lguanids)
Western Fence Lizard [ Sceloporus occidenl,:lis
FAMILY: ANGUIDAE (Alligator Lizards and Relatives)
Southern Alligator Lizard .J El~aria nmllicarinatltS J
FAMILY: COLUBRIDAE (Colubrids)
Racer
Coachwhip
Gopher Snake
Common Kinssnake
Common Garter Snake
Western Terrestrial Garter Snake
FAMILY: VIPERIDAE
Western' Rattlesnake
I
I
Coluber constrictor x
Masticophis flagelhmt x
Pituo?his melanoleucus x
Lampropeltis get.la x
Thamnophis sirtalis x
Tharnnophis elevens x
/ipers)
Crotalus viridis [ [ x I
CLASS: AVES.
ORDER: CICONIIFORMES (Herons, Storks, Ibises, and Relatives)
FAMILY: ARDEIDAE (Herons and Bitterns)
Gmat l}ltJc IIcron [ Ar, Ica/wrodia,~' x
Great Esret [ Ardea Mba x
Snowy Esret [ Egretta thula x
FAMILY: CATHARTIDAE (New World Vultures)
Turkey Vulture [ Catl, artes aura [ I x
ORDER: ANSERIFORMES (Screamers, Ducks, and Relatives)
FAMILY: ANATIDAE (Swans, Geese, and Ducks)
Mallard I A,,as?~=,yr~,y,,chos I I x
ORDER: FALCONIFORMES (Vultures, Hawks, and Falcons)
FAMILY: ACCIPITRIDAE (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers)
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus CSSC x
Sharp-shinned hawk Acci?iter striatus CSSC x
Cooper's Hawk Acci?iter coo?erii CSSC x
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis x
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos CSSC. SP x
FAMILY: FALCONIDAE (Caracaras and Falcons)
American Kestrel [Falcosparverius I x
Merlin Falco columbarius CSSC x
Peregrine Falcon Falco l,er~ri.tts x
36
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Common Name I Scientific Name ] Status ] Predicted I Observed
FAMILY: CHARADRIIDAE (Plovers and Relatives)
Killdeer I Charadrius vociferus
FAMILY: SCOLOPACIDAE (Sandpipers and Relatives)
ORDER: COLUMBIFORMES (Pigeons and Doves)
FAMILY: COLUMBIDAE (Pigeons and Doves)
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura x
ORDER: STRIGIFORMES (Owls)
FAMILY: TYTONIDAE (Barn Owls)
Ir? ,,#,,, I Ix I
FAM! LY: STRIG! I)AE (Typical ()wis) .
Burrowing Owl [ Athene, cunicularia
! ORDER: APODIFORMES (Swifts and Hummingbirds)
FAMILY: APODIDAE (Swifts)
White-throated Swift [ Aeronautes saxatalis [ I x [
FAMILY: TROCHILIDAE (Hummingbirds)
Anna's Hummingbird Cal?pte anna x
Rufous Humminl~bird Selasphorus t-~¢ts x
Allen's Hummingbird gelasphorus gasin x
ORDER: PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds)
FAMILY: TYRANNIDAE (Tyrant Flycatchers)
Black Phoebe[ Sayornis ni~,ricans x
Say's Phoe, be [ x
FAMILY: LANIIDAE (Shrikes)
Loggerhead Shrike I Lanius ludovicianus I'CSSC I x [
FAMILY: CORVIDAE (Jays, Magpies, and Crows)
Western Scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica x
American Crow Corvus brach?rh, w~chos x
Common Raven Corvus corax x
FAMILY: MONARCHIDAE (Monarch Flycatchers)
American Robin [ Turdus mi~ratorius [ [ [ x
FAMILY: ALAUDIDAE (Larks)
California Homed Lark [ Eremophila alpestris actia [ CSSC [ x [
FAMILY: HIRUNDINIDAE (Swallows)
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor x
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina x
Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis x
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica x
CliffSwallow Petrochelidon p?rrhonota x
FAMILY: TROGLODYTIDAE (Wrens)
Bewick's Wren I Thryomanes bewickii I [ x [
FAMILY: MIMIDAE (Mockingbirds and Thrashers)
Northem Mockingbird
FAMILY: STURNIDAE ~Starlings)
European Starling [ Sturnus vulsyaris [ [ x I
FAMILY: MOTACILLIDAE (Wagtails and Pipits)
American Pipit [ Anthusrubescens [
FAMILY: PARULIDAE (VCood Warblers)
O ange-crowned Warbler I cet , I I I
37
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
'i' Common Name I Scientific Name I Status I Predicted I Observed
Common Yeilowthroat Geothl?pis trichas x
FAMILY: EMBERIZIDAE (Emberizines)
California Towhee Pipilo crissalis x
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis x
Son~ Sparrow Melospiza melodia x
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leuco?hrys x
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla x
FAMILY: ICTERIDAE (Icterines)
Rcd-win~;ed Blackbird A~elaius phoeniceus x
Tricolorcd I~lackbird , , /_~f~,'laittx tri,'ol,,r ..(~
Wcslch~ Mcadoxvlark ,N'lttl'tt~ 'll, ttu i~h', 'l,: x
Brewer's Blackbird Eft?babus c?anocc~o/laltts x
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater x
FAMILY: FRINGILLIDAE (Finches)
Purple Finch Carpodacus pur?ureus x
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus . x
Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psahria x
American Goldfinch Card. elis tristis x
FAMILY: PASSERIDAE (Weaver Finches)
~o~se Sparrow I?~s~.~o.,~.c,,~ I I Ix
CLASS: MAMMALIA
ORDER: MARSUPIALIA (Opossums, Kangaroos, and Relatives)
FAMILY:' DID. ELPHIDAE (Opossums)
Virginia Opossum
FAMILY: TALPIDAE (Moles)
Broad~tboted Mole I S'"'I''"'"''' ~"""""""~ I Ix I
ORDER: CHIROPTERA (Bats)
FAMILY: VESPERTILIONIDAE (Vespertili0nid Bats)
Yuma Myotis Myotis yuma.ensis x
Western Pipistrelle Pipistrelhts ltes?erus x
Bi~ Brown Bat E?tesicusfuscus x
Townsend's Bi,-eared Bat Cor. p. or]iitttts townsendii CSSC x
FAMILY: ANTROZOIDAE (Pallid Bats)
Panid ~at I~.~o~o~s?~"i~,,. I cssc Ix 1
FAMILY: MOLOSSIDAE (Free-tailed Bats)
Br~ilian Free-tailed BattTadaridabrasiIiensis I I I
Western Mastiff Bat Eumops ?erotis CSSC x
ORDER: RODENTIA (Squirrels, Rats, Mice, and Relatives)
FAMILY: SCIURIDAE (:Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots) ,,
California Ground SquirrelISpermophihts bccche),i I I I x
FAMILY: GEOMYIDAE (Pocket Gophers)
Botta's Pocket Gopher
FAMILY: CRICETIDAE (Deer Mice, Voles, and Relatives)
Western Harvest Mouse Reitl~rodontomys me~alotis x
Deer Mouse l erom. lwctts .~at~ictdattt$ x
California Vole Microlus californictts x
FAMILY: MURIDAE (Old World Rats and Mice)
Black RatI~a,.sra,.s I I· I
Norway Rat Rattus norve~,icus x
38
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
I Common Name I Scientific Name
House Mouse I Mus musculus
ORDER: CARNIVORA (Carnivores)
FAMILY: CANIDAE (Foxes, Wolves, and Relatives)
Red Fox Vullu'$ vullws
Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoar~,enteus
FAMILY: PROCYONIDAE (Raccoons and Relatives)
Raccoon [ Proc?on Iotor
FAMILY: MUSTELIDAE (Weasels, Badgers, and Relatives
Long-tailed Weasel [ Mustela fi'enata
FAMILY: FELIDAE (Cats)
Feral House Cat I Felis callus
Bobcat I I.),nx furies
FAMILY: CERVIDAE (Deer, Elk, and Relatives)
Black-tailed Deer I Odocoileus hemionus columbianus
Status I Predicted
X
IX
X
I
Ix
Ix I
Ix I
] Observed
FE=
FT=
SE=
ST =
FPE =
FPT =
SCE =
SCT =
FC=
CSSC =
SP=
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES CODE DESIGNATIONS
Federally listed Endangered
Federally listed Threatened
State listed Endangered
State listed Threatened
Federally Proposed Endangered
Federally Proposed Threatened
State Candidate Endangered
State Candidate Threatened
Federal Candidate. Sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list
the species as Endangered or Threatened
California Species of Special Concern
State Protected Species
39'
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
February 24, 2000
RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
1933 DAVIS STREET
SUITE 210
SAN LEANDRO. CA 94577
VOICE (510) 430-8461
FAX (510) 430-8443
Mr. John Schwarz
David J. Powers & Associates
1885 The Alameda, Suite 204
San Jose, CA 95126
RE:
Constraints Analysis - Proposed Improvements of the
Tassajara Road Interchange, Pleasanton/Livermore Area, Alameda County
Dear Mr. Schwarzl
Please let this letter report stand as our cultural resources review for the initial constraints analysis
of the Tassajara Road Interchange~ at Interstate Route 1-580 located in the Cities of Dublin and
Pleasanton and [Figs. 1-2]. The review is based on a cultural resources archive and literature
review completed by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest
Information Center (CHRIS/NWlC), CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park (File. No. 99-303)2, a review of
various records and maps on file at BASIN and a systematic field inventory of the proposed
interchange.3 BASIN did not request project specific 'historic information from the Cities of
Dublin, Pleasanton, or the County of Alameda for the interchange or immediately adjacent areas.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The areas to the north of Interstate Route 1-580 have been assigned an "extreme" archaeological
sensitivity rating near the interchange and the areas to the south have been assigned a "high" rating
on planning study maps for Alameda County (Quaternary Research Group 1976). These ratings
reflect the presence of major Native American villages and ancillary sites in the Livermore Valley
associated with an extensive former marsh system in the vicinity of the interchange. A former
major "Tulare Lake" or "Lagoon" associated with this system was present south of the
interchange, but may have extended to the south side of the Tassajara Road Interchange.4
However, in spite of the high "predicted" sensitivity for potential archaeological resources based
on previous environmental factors, no recorded archaeological sites (CHRIS/NWlC File. No. 99-
Kilometer Post 28.8 (DJ-P 1999).
One compliance report on file with the CHRIS/NWIC includes the interchange (Love et al. cai 1976).
Historic Properties Directory (CAI. JOHP 1999) which includes National Register of Historic Places information,
California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and other survey evaluations. In addition the
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976); Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CAL/OHP
1988); and, Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California (ASCE 1977) were
consulted.
After Oakland Tribune (1880) and Thompson and West (1878:42). The marsh area, as illustrated by Higley
(1857) and Oakland Tribune (1880), does not appear to extend as far north as 1-580.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
2
303) or known Native American settlements5 have been identified in or adjacent to the
interchange.
The general alignment of Interstate Route 1-580 conforms to the general location of a major
prehistoric and historic tmil~ linking the interior with the. bayshore. An American Period road
following the current alignment of 1-580 was in existence by at least 1878.7
None of the Hispanic Period exploring expeditions8 travelled near the vicinity of the interchange
and no Hispanic em adobe dwellings or other features were situated in or near the interchange?
The interchange was located in an undeveloped area about equidistant from Dublin to the west,
Pleasanton to the south, and Livermore to the southeast~0 and no early American Period
structuresn appear to have been located in or near the interchange.
An archaeological field inventory was conducted by Mr. Stuart A. Guedon (M.A.) on February 22,
2000 in accordance with standard archaeological practice. Mr. Guedon focused on the area to be
impacted by the project that had not been impacted by previous construction. The inventory relied
on random transects not exceeding intervals of 20 meters. Surface visibility was approximately 5-
10% due to vegetation. No prehistoric or significant historic cultural materials were observed
during the field inventory.
No recorded local, state and/or federal historically or architecturally significant structures,
landmarks or points of interest appear to be situated within or adjacent to the interchange.
CLOSING REMARKS
.Please dOn't hesitate to contact me for clarifications or further information on this. constraints
analysis.
Sincerely yours,
Principal
CIB/dmg
5. After Bennyhoff (1977:167, Map 4b after Anonymous 1824); Levy (1978), Brown (1994), Milliken (1995).
6. After Elsasser (1986:48-59, Table.4, Fig. 10). If this trail conforms to Higley (1857), the trail was located south of
1-580.
7. For example, after Thompson and West (1878:52-53) and Nusbaumer and Boardman (1900).
8. After Cook (1957:145, 1960:258), Fink (1966:18), Hoover, et al. (1966:5-6), Beck and Haase (1974:#17), and
Bolton 1930:IV:405).
9. After Hendry and Bowman (1940:608-617) and Hoover, et al. (1966:11-12, 19).
10. After Higley (1857), Thompson and West (1876:52-53), Nusbaumer and Boardman (1900), and USGS series
(1906, 1961, 1980a-b; US War Dept 1940, 1943).
11. After Goddard (1857), Higley (1857), Croze (1859) and Dyer (1862).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
REFERENCES CITED OR CONSULTED
American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco (ASCE)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern
California. The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section,
American Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, h.p.
Anonymous
1824
Plano de la Mision de San Jose, 1824. Map on file, Bancroft Library, University
of California, Berkeley (Illustrated in Bennyhoff 1977).
Beck, W.A. and Y.D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California (Third printing). University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Bennyhoff, J.A.
1977
Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at
Davis Publication 5.
B~~t~n, H.E.
1930
Anza's California Expeditions, Vol. IV. Font's Complete Diary of the Second
Anza Expedition (1775-1776). University of California Press, Berkeley.
Brown, Alan K.
1994
The European Contact of 1772 and some later Documentation. In The Ohlone
Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region, pp. 1-42,
compiled and edited by Lowell John Bean. Ballena Press Anthropological
Papers 42, Menlo Park.
California (State of), Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation
(CAL/OHP)
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. Resources Agency, Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
1988
Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California, The
Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
1999
Historic Properties Directory for Alameda CoUnty. Office of Historic
Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Cook, S.F.
1957
The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
University of California Anthropological Records 16(4).
1960
Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley. University of
California Anthropological Records 16(6).
Croze, John La
1859
Plat of the Rancho San Ramon finally confu'med to Jose Mafia Amador.
Surveyed under the order of the U.S. Surveyor General by John La Croze,
Dep.[uty] Sur.[veyo]r, December 1859. Map on file, gl 18, Bureau of Land
Management, Sacramento.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
4
David J. Powers and Associates (I)JP)
1999 Background Information for Two 1-580 Interchanges in Alameda County:
Tassajara Road Interchange and Fallon Road/El Charro Road. On file, Basin
Research Associates, San Leandro.
Dyer, E.H.
1862
Plat of the Santa Rita Rancho finally confirmed to John Yountz Administrator
of Estate of Jose Dolores Pacheco. Surveyed under instructions from the U.S.
Surveyor General by E. Dyer, Dep.[uty] Sur.[veyor] March 1862. Containing
8894 1/108 acres. On file, #119, United States California State Office,
Department of Land Management, Sacramento.
Elsasser, A.B.
1986
Review of the Prehistory of the Santa Clara Valley Region, California. Coyote
Press Archives of California Prehistory 7, Part I. Coyote Press, Salinas.
Fink, L.G.
1966
The San Ramon Valley. Contra Costa Chronicles, Spring: 15-26(?). Contra
Costa Historical Society, Martinez.
Goddard, George
1857 Britton & Rey's Map of the State of California. Britton and Rey, San Francisco.
Reprinted by The Friends of the Bancroft, University of California, Berkeley.
Hendry, G.W. and J.N. Bowman
1940 The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San Francisco
Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850. MS on file, Bancroft Library, University of
California, Berkeley.
Higley, H.A.
1857
Official Map of the County of Alameda California. Surveyed and compiled by
Order of the Board of Supervisors. Horace A. Higley. Britton and Rey, San
Francisco.
Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch and W.N. Abeloe
1966 Historic Spots in California (Third edition). Revised by William N. Abeloe.
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925
Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Levy, R.
1978
Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North
American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Love, Edward
ca. 1976
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Pipeline Routes and
Reservoir Locations, Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency,
Alameda county, California. MS on file, S-4492, Northwest Information
Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
5
Milliken, Randall Theodore
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San
Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43.
Mosier, P. and D. Mosier
1986 Alameda County Place Names. Mines Road Books, Fremont, California.
Nusbaumer, G.L.
1896
Map of Murray Township.
Library, Berkeley.
Surveyors Office, Oakland. On file, Bancroft
Nusbaumer, G.L.
1900
and W.F. Boardman
Official Map of Alameda County, California. Drown by J.C. Henkenius.
Oakland Tribune Publishing Company. Adopted 1888, issued 1889. Lith.
Oakland [City of] Planning Department.
Oakland Tribune
1880
Oakland Daily & Weekly Tribune Map of Alameda County. Compiled from the
most reliable surveys, and corrected to date. Tribune Publishing Company,
Oakland.
Quaternary Research Group
1976 Archaeology in Alameda County: A Handbook for Planners (written and
designed by D.P. Miller). Alameda County Planning Department, Hayward.
Thompson and West
1878 Official Historical Atlas Map of Alameda County, California. Thompson and
West, Oakland (reprinted by .Valley Publishers, Fresno, 1976).
United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS)
1906 Pleasanton Quadrangle. ToPographic map, 15 minute series. United States
Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
1961
Livermore, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Surveyed 1895. Topographic map, 15 minute
series. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
1980a
Dublin, Calif. (Quadrangle). Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. United States
Geological Survey, Menlo Park (1961, photorevised 1980).
1980b
Livermore, Calif. (Quadrangle). Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. United
States Geological Survey, Menlo Park (1961, photorevised 1980).
United States Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places, National Park
Service (USNPS)
1998 National Register of Historic Places Index by Property Location. Properties in
California, Listed Determined, and Pending. Copy on file, Basin Research
Associates, San Leandro.
United States War Department, Corps of Engineers (US War Dept)
1940 Pleasanton, Calif. [quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series. Reprinted
from Militat3r edition for civil use. United States Geological Survey, Denver,
Colorado or Washington D.C. (reprinted 1964).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
6
1943
Pleasanton, Calif. [quadrangle]. TOpographic map, 15 minute series. Reprinted
from Military edition for civil use. United States Geological Survey, Denver,
Colorado or Washington D.C. (reprinted 1964).
Weber, C.F. and Company
1914 Webers Map of Alameda County, California. C.F. Weber, San Francisco.
Willard, Ruth Hendricks
1988 Alameda County, Calif°mia Crossroads: An Illustrated History. Pictorial
research by D.L2 Wright. Windsor Publications, h.p.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
I1
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
General Project Location
1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange (USGS Dublin, Calif.1980 and
Livermore, Calif. 1980)
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES'
SONOMA
NAPA ~',
SOLANO
~YOLO
l/
MARIN
CONTRA
COSTA
SAN "
MATEO ,,,
,' , "" :i S A N 'fA ,
',,,:": ", '""' CRUZ
ALAMEDA
SANTA ,'-
CLARA
Figure 1' General Project Location
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1.580 TASSAJARA ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
For
CCS Planning & Engineering
6 Crow Canyon Court
San Ramon, CA 94583-1621
PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC.
481 Valley Way, Bldg. 1, Milpitas, CA 95035
(408) 945-1011
"December 1999 (Revised)
Job No. 981821SA.10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 3
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & HISTORIC INFORMATION .............. 4
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................. 4
2.2 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW ................... 5
3.0 PHYSICAL SITE INSPECTION ............................... 7
3.1 SITE VISIT ........................................... 7
3.2 AERIAL LEAD DEPOSITION ............................... 9
4.0 REGULATORY REVIEW ............................ ~..~. ....9
4.1 DATABASE REVIEWS ...................... .............. 9
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 12
6.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................ 14
SITE PLAN ............................................. Plate 1
Database ReViews - EcoSearch Environmental Resources, Inc .......... APPENDIX A
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1-580 TASSAJARA ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT.
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
This preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed by Parikh Consultants,
Inc. to evaluate whether potential sources or indications of hazardous substance contamination
are present in the areas of right-of-way and construction for the proposed 1-580 Tassajara Road
Interchange Improvement Project in Pleasanton, Alameda County. This investigation included
a review of previous land uses in the area through review of historical aerial photographs, a field
inspection of the project route, and a review of listings of Federal and State regulatory agencies
that are responsible for recording incidents of spills, and soil and ground water contamination and
transfer, storage, or disposal facilities that handle hazardous materials.
Previous land uses at the project area were primarily limited to agricultural usage. The
agricultural lands surrounding the project area were slowly converted to residential and
commercial land usage from the mid 1980's to present.
A site reconnaissance of the project area was conducted to identify possible nearby sites or land
uses that might adversely effect the corridor due to environmental hazards. In general, most of
the areas identified were either down gradient or too far upgradient from the stUdy area.
Review of previous land use and the site reconnaissance indicates that the proposed study area
has supported vehicular activity since the 1950's. It is highly likely that the .surface soils along
these areas are effected by deposition of aerial lead. Therefore it is recommended that surface
samples of soil be collected and analyzed for total lead.
Based on review of database records and site reconnaissance data, two sites have been identified
which could have potential long-term impact to the Subject Area. Both sites house underground
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 98182ISA. 10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 2
storage tank for gasoline and diesel. These sites are Santa Rita Shell located at 6750 Santa Rita
Road and 100% Hand Car Wash on Pimlico Drive. Both of these sites are south and
downgradient of the 1-580 interchange. Review of the agency lists did not identify any releases
to soil or groundwater from either of these sites therefore, presently they do not appear to be
impacting the Subject Area.
Ill
Based on the readily available data there are no known hazardous waste sites within the project
limits. Also, the two sites outside the project limits which potentially affect the subject area are
not classified as hazardous waste sites at this time.
Based On the review of the aerial photographs, commercial and residential development of the
.Subject Area increased in the late 1980's. The review of aerial photographs identified a lot in
the'southeastern comer of Tassajara Creek and 1-580, which was used to house automobiles from
-1968-1984. This lot later gave way to Rosewood Drive.
Other than noted above during the site reconnaissance of the Subject Area, environmental areas
of concern were not readily identified or apparent based on the scope of work performed in this
project.
This conclusion, and any and all conclusions, recommendations and information included in this
report, are based upon the information that was readily available to Parikh Consultants, Inc. at
the time of the site visit, and on Parikh Consultants, Inc.'s professional judgment and reviews
using accepted environmental site assessment practices pursuant to the scope of work.
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 95182ISA. 10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed for the proposed improvement at 1-
580 Tassajara Road interchange Project, which extends west fi.om Hacienda Drive Interchange
and extends approximately 3 kilometers (kin) east to 1 kilometer east of Tassajara Road
interchange, in Pleasanton, Alameda County, California (Subject Area) (Site Plan, Plate 1).
The purpose of this investigation was to identify and evaluate potential hazardous waste sites and
evaluate environmental factbrs that may have impacted the soil and groundwater quality at the
Subject Area due to past and present environmental and commercial activities. This report was
prepared by Parikh Consultants, Inc.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed between September 1 and September
18, 1999 and included the following scope of work:
Site visit and visual of exterior of the Subject Area
Review of Site background including historical aerial photographs
· Review of computer database government record search of hazardous waste sites within '
5-kilometer radius.
· Review of area hydrogeology (regional groundwater gradient).
Contacts with state and local agencies.
· Review of available agency records for the Subject Area.
· Preparation of a written report summarizing the results.
The following chapters present the details and findings of the Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment:
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 98182ISA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 4
·
·
·
·
·
Chapter 2.0 - Project Description and Historic Information
Chapter 3.0 - Physical Site Inspection
Chapter 4.0 - Regulatory Review
Chapter 5.0 - Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 6.0 o Limitations
tl
Ill
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORIC INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT.DESCRIPTION
The existing 1-580 /Tassajara Road Interchange is presently a Caltrans Type L-9 Partial
Cloverleaf A Interchange. There are two lanes in the northbound direction that traverse the
existing 8-lane 1-580 freeway on the original interchange bridge constructed in 1969-1970. There
are also three lanes in the southbound direction on a newer bridge that was constructed with the
existing interchange configuration in the early 1990's. The directional off-ramps have three lanes
at the ramp terminal. There are signalized intersections at the 1-580 exit terminal with the
eastbound off-ramp having a free right turn. The intersection of the eastbound off-ramp also
includes, as its fourth leg, Pimlico Road.
The proposed interchange modification remains a Caltrans Type L-9, Partial Cloverleaf A,
interchange with expanded lane arrangements. The existing northbound structure will be replaced
with a new three,lane structure that will traverse a 10-lane 1-580 with a 20m wide median that
will accommodate BART in'the future. The northbound bridge replacement will be two span.
The westbound off-ramp will be widened to four lanes at the signalized ramp terminus. The
eastbound off-ramp will be widened to three lanes at the signalized ramp terminus and will
provide a separate lane for a free right turn southbound. The existing northbound to westbound
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 98182ISA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 5
loop will be reconstructed to conform to the new northbound structure. The westbound
directional on-ramp will be widened to two lanes. The eastbound directional on-ramp will be
modified slightly to tie to an eastbound auxiliary lane to be provided by this project between the
Santa Rita Road and E1-Charro Road Interchanges.
Based on historical aerial photographs reviewed, it appears that the Subject Area was in
agricultural use or unused from early 1980's until present. The area surrounding the Subject Area
has been developed with residential and commercial properties through time.
Based on review of USGS maps (Dublin and Livermore, 7.5 Minute) the elevation of the Subject
Area varies from 100 meters above mean sea level in the west to 103 meters above mean sea
level in the east. Tassajara Creek is located approximately 0.6 kilometers west of the TasSajara
Interchange.. The Creek flows towards the south-southwest. Approximately 1.4 kilometers to the
west of Tassajara creek is Chabot Channel which is located directly east of the Hopyard Road
Interchange. General area drainage is towards west southwest. East and west of Tassajara Creek.
Groundwater gradient is also south/southwest.
2.2 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW
To examine the historical use of the Subject Area, a review of available aerial photographs from
1957 to 1999 was performed at Pacific Aerial Surveys in Alameda, California. Approximately
29 aerial photographs encompassing the Subject Area were examined. A summary description of
the photographs reviewed is presented below.
Review of the 1957 aerial Photograph showed Subject Area is mostly occupied by agricultural
land. 1-580 appears as a four-lane road. An industrial/office complex appears approximately 100
meters north of the 1-580'and west of the Tassajara Creek. On the south side of the highway
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 9glg2ISA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 6
directly east of the Tassajara Creek is a lot that is occupied by about 50 vehicles.
The 1959 and 1963 aerial photographs show little change in the Subject Area and surrounding
land. The 1966 aerial photo shows the first evidence of conversion of 1-580 into a freeway.
Tassajara overpass is also visible in this aerial photograph. There is little change in the 68
through 1971 aerial photographs. Residential properties appear south of Pimlico drive first in the
1973 aerial photograph. 1973 through 1982 aerial photographs show gradual increase of
residential development south of Pimlico Drive and east of Santa Rita Road. The lot located east
of Tassajara Creek and soutti of 1-580 gives way to a vacant lot in 1984. This lot is later
converted to a part of Rosewood Drive.
The 1984 and 1985 aerial photographs show the first commercial development on Tassajara 1-580
interchange. There is evidence of construction activities in the current location of McDonalds,
which is located east of Santa Rita between Pimlico and I'580. The 1988 aerial photograph
shows development of commercial properties southwest of the Tassajara 1-580 interchange.
The 1988 through 1999 aerial photographs show increase in development Of commercial,
residential and office complexes north and south of the 1-580. First evidence of the Shell Gas
Station located in the comer of Pimlico and Santa Rita Road appears in the 1992 aerial
photograph. The properties north of 1-580 and east of Tassajara Creek have always been either
vacant land or been in agricultural use. The properties south of the interchange and west of the
Tassajara creek have been developed for commercial use in the late 1990's.
Issues of environmental concern other than noted above were not observed during the aerial
photograph review.
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 981821SA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 7
3.0 PHYSICAL SITE INSPECTION
Observations made during the site inspection walk through at the Subject Site are described in
the following paragraphs. The site inspection was performed on Friday September 10, 1999.
3.1 SITE VISIT
Subject Area visit consisted of drive through of the area of study and observation of problem sites
or visual contamination. The weather was partly cloudy and the temperature was about 22
degrees Centigrade.
The Subje..Ct Area begins a few meters west of the 1-580 Hacienda Drive Interchange. The
interchange is surrounded by a number of shopping areas and vacant lot..Northwest of the
interchange is vacant land. To the southwest after approximately 100 meters are new office
complexes under development. To the northeast and southeast of the interchange are shopping.
areas occupied by retail stores.
Rosewood Drive runs south and parallel to the 1-580 and interconnects Hacienda and Santa Rita
Road. Rosewood Drive is bounded to the north by 1-580 and to the south by a number of office
complexes. To the east where Rosewood drive turns south to merge Santa Rita Road east of
Rosewood and south of 1-580 and the off-ramp to Santa Rita Road is Pleasanton Auto Mall. Due
to the number o£ cars which had occupied most of the parking areas of the 'dealership, it was
difficult to look for groundwater monitoring wells. Based on visual observation of the drive ways
and the street, no visible evidence of groundwater monitoring wells were observed. South of the
automobile dealership is a mall occupied by retail stores.
II
CCS Planning & Engineering
.lob No. 981821SA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 8
The area north of the 1-580 between Hacienda and Tassajara Road is occupied by vacant land and
retail stores of automobile dealerships. As indicated previously, northeast of the 1-580 Hacienda
interchange is occupied by retail stores. Further to the east north of the 1-580 is a lot occupied
by Auto Nation a retailer of used and new cars. Auto Nation has a show room and a service
station both located north of the outside lot. During the site visit, groundwater monitoring wells
were not observed in the streets leading to or on the accessible areas of Auto Nation. Further
to the east of Auto Nation and west of the Tassajara Road was vacant land. Earth moving
equipment were observed in this area, making room for a new development.
Southeast of the Santa Rita Road and 1-580 interchange is another small shopping center.
Pimlico Drive originates from Santa Rita Road and moves east and intersects Brockton Street
after 300 meters. Pimlico picks up again 80 meters to the north and travels eastward along 1-580.
A Shell gas station was observed south of the Pimlico Santa Rita Road cross street. During
survey of the gas station revealed a number of monitoring wells located between the service bays.
No remediation system was observed and monitoring wells were not observed in the Pimlico
street, Santa Rita Road, or the neighboring stores to the south and east. North of the Pimlico
Drive and Santa Rita Road a McDonalds store. East of McDonald's is Jay's Auto'dealership, and
further to the east is 100% Hand Car Wash. Visual survey of the exterior of Jay's Auto
dealership and the 100% Hand Car Wash did not identify any ground water monitoring wells.
However, during survey of the 100% Hand Car Wash, gasoline dispenser along with evidence
of underground storage tanks (USTs) were observed. East of the car wash is a vacant land and
then across Brockton street is a residential development. Areas south of Pimlico and east of
Brockton are occupied by residential developments. Evidence of ground water monitoring wells
or visual evidence of contamination was not observed during the driveby of these areas.
Northwest of the 1-580 Tassajara Interchange is occupied by vacant land. Evidence of
groundwater monitoring wells or visual evidence of contamination was not readily observed
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 98182ISA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 9
during the drive by on the streets near the land. There was no access to the land since it was
fenced off.
Evidence of surface contamination, spills or surface stains other than noted above were not seen.
Groundwater monitoring wells, which are typical of contaminated sites, were not observed along
'the bypass.
3.2 AERIAL LEAD DEPOSITION
The Subject Area is a traffic bearing road in the eastern Alameda County area. Historical aerial
photographs show that 1-580 has supported vehicular traffic from early 1950's. ~ .Due to this
vehicular activity the soils along the Subject Area are likely contaminated with lead from exhaust
of cars burning leaded gasoline. The lead leVelS in surface soils along highways can reach
concentrations in excess of the hazardous waste threshold, requiring ·disposal at either a Class I
landfill or on site stabilization. Special health and safety procedures should be in effect for the
workers working near lead contaminated areas.
4,0 REGULATORY REVIEW
4.1 DATABASE REVIEWS
A database computer government record search was conducted at the request of Parikh
Consultants, Inc. by EcoSearch Environmental Resources, Inc. to review regulatory agency lists
to identify the presence of hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of the Subject Area. The records
were searched for the existence of National Priority List (NPL) sites; Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Actions (CORRACTS) and RCRA permitted treatment, storage
and disposal facilities (TSD), State SPL (state equivalent priority list), Comprehensive
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 981821SA. 10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 10
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites;
California Waste Management Unit Database System Solid Waste Assessment Test data
(WMUDS/SWAT), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment, storage and
disposal (TSD) sites and generators; State. Equivalent CERCLIS sites (SCL), Statewide Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs), solid waste facilities (SWFs), California Waste Discharge
System Data (WDS), State Cortese List (CORTESE), California Regional Water Quality Control
Board spills, leaks, investigation and cleanup sites (SLIC), Toxic Release Inventory Database
(TRI), State and Alameda County underground storage tanks (USTs), Emergency Response
Notification System of Spills (ERNS), and RCRA Registered small or large generators of
hazardous waste (RCRA Generator), in the area of the Subject Site. A copy of the database
record search is presented in Appendix A.
The database was searched to locate risk sites within' a 1.6 kilometer perimeter ~f the 1-580
corridor. Many of the identified sites in the database are not listed here because they are too far
away or are downgradient with respect to the Subject Area. The following is a summary of the
database search findings.
The databases identified 19 mapped sites and 36 mapped sites within a 1.6 kilometer perimeter
of the Subject Site. Only the sites and the databases that could have a pOtential effect on the
Subject Site are discussed in detail.
No NPL, CERGLA, NFRAP, RCRA-TSD, CORRACTS, ERNS, TRI, CALSITES, SWF,
WMUDS/SWAT, and WDS sites were identified within 1,6 kilometer of the Subject Site.
Sites identified in the LUST and SLIC list were either down or cross-gradient and were therefore
eliminated from further discussion.
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 981821SA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 1 i
Eleven RCRA Generator sites were identified within 0.5 kilometer perimeter. All the sites
identified were small quantity generators meaning they generated less than 1000 kg of hazardous
waste per month. Eight (8) of these sites are within 150 meters of the subject area and are listed
below. The remainder of the sites are either down gradient or cross gradient with respect to the
Subject Area based on the regional groundwater gradient. For the seven sites noted below, there
are no records for any violations. These sites are:
Clean N Press for Less
4,000 Pimlico Drive, Pleasanton, 50 meters south
Hydrologically crossgradient
Arrow
Cleaners
6700 Santa Rita Road, Pleasanton, 120 meters south
Hydrologically crossgradient
Infiniti
of Pleasanton.
4339 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, 120 meters south
Hydrologically crossgradient
Volvo
of Pleasanton
4335 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, 120 meters south
Hydrologically crossgradient
Val Strough Pleasanton Hyundai, Subaru
- 4335 Rosewood Drive., Pleasanton, 120 meters south
- Hydrologically crossgradient
Lexus of Pleasanton .
- 4345 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, 120 meters south
- Hydrologically crossgradient
Acura of Pleasanton
- 4341 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, 120 meters south
- Hydrologically crossgradient
CCS Planning & Engineering
Sob No. 9gI$2ISA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 12
Herrera Caddilac Olds GMC, SAAB,
4350 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, 120 meters south
Hydrologically crossgradient
Seven sites were identified on the CORTESE and LUST lists as being within 1 kilometer of the
Subject Area. These sites are either down-gradient or cross gradient with respect to the Subject
Area and should not pose an environmental concern. The regional groundwater gradient (as
indicated on the site plan) was used to evaluate these sites.
Il
Il
Three Sites were identified on the UST list as being within 0.5 kilometer of the Subject Area.
Two of these sites are down gradient and should not pose an environmental concern. The third
site is the Santa Rita Shell located at 6750 Santa Rita Road. This site is within 100 meters of
the Subject Area. However during the site visit no active remediation systems were-observed at
this area. NO monitoring wells were observed outside of the perimeter of the gas station. There
is also a McDonald's across Pimlico street and no signs of contamination were observed in the
parking lot of McDonald's. Therefore this site should not pose an environmental concern.
Il
An examination of the street addresses of the unmapped sites did not identify any sites that 'are
within 0.5 kilometer of the Subject Area.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Review of previous land use and the site reconnaissance indicates that the proposed study area
along 1-580 and Tassajara overpass has supported vehicular activity since the 1950's. It is highly
likely that the surface soils along these areas are effected By deposition of aerial lead. Therefore
it is recommended that surface samples of soil be collected and analyzed for total lead. Soils
excavated for this project .will need to be analyzed for lead to determine the applicability of reuse
under the Department of TOxic Substance Control Lead Variance.
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 981821SA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 13
Previous land uses in the project area were primarily limited to agricultural usage. Within the
existing highway section it is unlikely to encounter herbicides and pesticides, since they would
have been removed during the previous construction activities. However, some limited surface
pesticide testing may be conducted to verify these conclusions in the unimproved areas that will
be impacted by the new construction.
The review of aerial photographs has showed a parking lot in the southeastern comer of Tassajara
Creek and 1-580. Aerial photographs showed that this lot housed automobiles from 1968 through
1984. This lot has now been 'overrun by Rosewood Drive. This lot has not been identified in
any of the agency lists that were reviewed; therefore likelihqod of contamination is minimal.
Aerial photograPhs also revealed that the Subject Area has been mainly used as agricultural or
vacant land prior to 1980's. Development of commercial and residential areas are visible in the
aerial photographs from late 1980 to preSent.
A i'eview of the environmental database provided by EcoSearch Environmental Resources, Inc.,
and review of available regulatory agency records and site visit identifies two sites that may
potentially affect the Subject Area. One site is the'100% Hand Car Wash locaied on Pimlico
Drive south of the 1-580 on ramp. The other site is the Santa Rim Shell Station located at 6750
Santa Rita Road. This site is south of Pimlico and east of Santa Rita Road. Both sites have
underground fuel tanks. However during the visit of the subject area no evidence of active
remediation was 'observed, therefore they should not pose a short term environmental concern.
Based on the 'readily available data there are no known hazardous waste sites within the project
limits. Also, the two sites outside the project limits which potentially affect the subject area are
not classified as hazardous waste sites at this time.
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 98182ISA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 14
Other than noted above during the site reconnaissance of the Subject Area, environmental areas
of concern were not readily identified or apparent based on the scope of work performed in this
project.
Based on Parikh Consultants, Inc.'s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment findings,
environmental conditions or issues of concerns, other than noted above, were not identified or
indicated.
Based on the Caltrans review comments (11-15-99), an asbestos survey will be required prior to
the removal of the northbound structure at 1-580. The survey is to be included with the
notification to the local Air Quality Management District for all bridge demolitions.
6;0 LIMITATIONS
The operations, facility conditions and information obtained and utilized in the preparation of this.
report have been obtained in part from the client, and their employees or agents, and various
government officials and is assumed by Parikh Consultants, Inc. to be complete and correct. It
should be noted that this information is subject to professional interpretation which leads to
conclusions which may differ based upon opinions specific to individuals.
This report has been presented in accordance with generally accepted environmental assessment
practices, based upon the information set forth within the report narrative, for specific application
to the proposed 1-580 Tassajara Interchange Improvement project in Pleasanton, California. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The conclusions in this report are qualitative opinions based on limited quantitative information.
Soil and groundwater sampling and analysis was not a part of this scope of work. The scope of
CCS Planning & Engineering
Job No. 9glg2ISA.10
December 30, 1999 (Revised)
Page 15
work was limited to observation of the surface at a specific time, a limited aerial survey review,
and environmental database research. This assessment is not designed to predict future site or
off-site conditions. Also, site conditions can differ at locations other than those observed across
the Subject Area. Subsurface conditions can differ from those observed on the surface.
This investigation is not'a risk assessment and is not intended to provide information needed for
public health risk assessment purposes. The consultant has endeavored to determine as much as
practical about the site conditions given what we consider to be a reasonable amount of analysis
and research time. Additional investigation or sampling and analysis could result in information
that would lead to revised conclusions. Additional search can usually mm up more information
but frequently with a diminishing rate of information return for the effort spent. The degree of
c.ertainty of an environmental assessment is proportional to the time and effort spent. However,
the degree of certainty cannot be 100% even with highly detailed exploratory drilling and testing
work well beyond the scope of this study.
APPENDIX A
EcoSearch Environmental Resources, Inc.
9365 Counselors Row Suite 104
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
ph: (317) 574-8830 fax: (317) 574-8840
EcoSearch
Type of Report:
Site Location:
Date;
Report ID Number:
Especially Prepared For:
Environmental Site Assessment
Custom Corridor
Corridor Along 580
Hacienda - Tassajara Interchange
Pleasanton, CA 94588
September 10, 1999
18'63-1302
Parikh Consultants, Inc.
Limits of Information:
Customer proceeds at its own risk in choosing to rely on EcoSearch Environmental Resources, Inc. ("EcoSearch") services, in
whole or in part, prior to proceeding with any transaction. EcoSearch cannot be an insurer of the accuracy of the
information, errors occuring in the conversion of data, or for customer's use of the data. EcoSearch and its affiliated
companies, officers, agents, employees, and independent contractors cannot be held liable for accuracy, storage, delivery,
~oss, or expense suffered by the customer resulting directly or indirectly from any hformafion provided by EcoSearch
Environmental Resources, Inc.
Thank you for choosing EcoSearch.
Introduction
We want to thank you for your order requesting the enclosed site assessment.
EcoSearch makes every effort possible to combine the most accurate environmental
data available into an understandable and easy-to-use format.
While every attempt has been made to ensure accuracy of the information presented,
we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data from the original sources, nor can we
guarantee that no transcription or plotting errors have occurred.
If any concerns.arise from your review of the databases in this report, please call the
appropriate agency involved. As a service, we have included phone numbers in the
database description section of this report to help you in your evaluation.
The enclosed maps present a working approximation of the location of surrounding
environmental sites based primarily on available accurate site addresses. These maps
should not be used for purposes more correctly handled by surveys.
EcoSearch is driven by its mission to present the most responsive, technically sound,
and cost-effective environmental data services available to our customer.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 1
Read Me First
The following suggestions are offered in an attempt to help you in using and understanding this site
assessment from EcoSearch:
Skim over the entire report to familiarize yourself with its contents and layout.
You will notice that the information is presented following this general concept: we begin by giving sections
that summarize data and then give detailed information about these summaries as you proceed further into
the report.
Then refer to the section titled "Statistical Overview". You will need to take a moment to read the column
headings and the data below them. Also, as you go down the first column (left side) you will probably need
to look back at the preceeding section titled "Database Descriptions". Please pay particular attention to the
radius searched as they vary according to the database. These are ASTM standards that we meet and
exceed. Your site's datum is the third, shaded column. Also, the next column showing database hits within
the first radius is important as it will include data about adjoining properties. The unmappable sites have
their own section with a cover page explaining them.
The next section titled "Maps" is. important as it gives a very clear visual presentation of the site, and which
database(s) are at the site itself or within the study radii.
The site summary page(s) tells you by map ID# which database is at that location es well as the site's name
and distance/direction from your study site. You will notice that the numbering corresponds to the distance
from the subject site-- eg. #1 is your site itself or the site closest to it, #2 is further away. This continues
until all database hits have been summarized within the largest study radius. Your report may.extend further
than one mile if you asked us to extend the radii. ,. ~.
As you will recall our format goes from summary-type pages to detailed information. Therefore, the next
section is "Detailed Data". Here extensive data is given about each database hit. The map ID#, distance,
and direction are in the top left corner. Further data follows.
The "Unmappable" section was referred to earlier. In this summary you will find those sites. Please read the
cover page as it describes unmappable sites and our efforts to minimize and/or eliminate them from all of our
site assessments.
The last two divisions -- "Radon" and "Glossary/Acronyms" are self-explanatory and often helpful to our
customers.
If you would like further help in understanding our reports please call as our intention is to have'this report helpful
to you.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 2
Database Descriptions -- Federal Databases
National Priorities List
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(703} 603-8881
Data Date:
Release Date:
Active Date:
January 11, 1999
January 11, 1999
May 25, 1999
The NPL is a subset of the CERCLIS and lists over 1,150 of the nation's most dangerous sites of uncontrolled or
hazardous waste which require cleanup. Also known as the Superfund List, the sites are scored according to the
hazardous ranking system.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (Active)
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Data Date:
Release Date:
Active Date:
January 11, 1999
January 11, 1999
May 28, 1999
CERCLIS maintains information on over 15,000 sites nationally identified as hazardous or potentially hazardous which
may require action. These sites are currently being investigated or an investigation has been completed regarding the
release of hazardous substances. The most serious of this list as ranked by the hazardous ranking system are transferred
to the NPL.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (NFRAP Archive)
US Environmental Protection Agency Data Date: January 11, 1999
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Release Date: .'January 11, 1999
Active Date: May 28, 1999
For more complete information purposes we include sites which have been reclassified as No Further Remedial Action
Planned (NFRAP) by the EPA. This action was taken by the EPA beginning. February 1995 as a part of.the Brownfields
Redevelopment Program. These former CERCLIS sites, also known as the CERCLIS Archive, have been delisted because
a lack of significant contamination was found.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System -- Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities'
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
{202) 260-4348
Data Date: '
Release Date:
Active Date:
January 1, 1999
February 2, 1999
April 5, 1999
RCRIS contains information on hazardous waste handlers regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It is a national system used to track events and activities which fall
under RCRA. The TSD database is a subset of the complete RCRIS file which includes facilities which treat, store,
dispose, or incinerate hazardous waste. Additionally, compliance and corrective action (CORRACTS) information is
included.
· · EcoSearch Report ID: 1863-1302
Environmental Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Resources, Inc.
Page 3
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System -- Large and Small Quantity Generators
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(202) 260-4610
Data Date:
Release Date:'
Active Date:
January 1, 1999
February 2, 1999
April 5, 1999
RCRIS contains information on hazardous waste handlers regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It is a national system used to track events and activities which fall
under RCRA. The generators database is a subset of the complete RCRIS file which includes hazardous waste generators
which create more than lO0kg of hazardous waste per month or meet other requirements of RCRA. We also include
RCRA Notifiers, Transporters, and formerly regulated RCRA Sites for more complete hazardous waste information.
Additionally, compliance and corrective action information is included.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System -- Corrective Action Sites
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
{202) 260-4610
Data Date:
Release Date:
Active Date:
January 1, 1999
February 2, 1999
April 5, 1999
The CORRACTS database includes RCRIS {Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System} sites with reported
corrective action. This information is also reported in the standard RCRIS detailed data.
Emergency Response Notification System
US Environmental Protection Agency
· Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
1202)'260-2342
Data Date: July 1, 1999
Release Date: July 1, 1999
Active Date: -July'8, 1999
ERNS is a national database which contains information on specific notification of releases of oil and hazardous
substances into the environment. The system stores data regarding the site of the spill, the material released, and the
medium into which it occured. As a joint effort, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection
Agency have collaborated to compile more than 365,000 records.
Toxic Release Inventory
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
{202) 260-1531
Data Date: October 1995
Release Date: June 1998
Active Date: August 10, 1998
TRI contains information from facilities'which manufacture, process, or import any of the over 300 listed toxic chemicals
which are released directly into air, water, or land or are transported off-site. The database includes facts on amounts of
chemicals stored and emitted from the facility. This database is released on an infrequent basis by the US EPA.
EcoSearch includes information from 1987 through the 1995 reporting year.
EcoSearch
EnvirOnmental
Resources, Inc.
· Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 4
Database Descriptions -- State Databases
California Cai-Sites (AWP) Database
California Environmental Protection Agency
Site Mitigation Branch
916°323-3400
Data Date: July 5, 1999
Release Date: July 5, 1999
Active Date: September 7, 1999
The California Cai-Sites are potentially contaminated hazardous waste sites. The California Cai-Sites AWP are active
Annual Workplan Cai-Sites locations. Non-active Annual Workplan sites are listed under the heading CALSiTES {HWS).
California Cai-Sites Database
California Environmental Protection Agency
Site Mitigation Branch
916-323-3400
Data Date: July 5, 1999
Release Date: July 5, 1999
Active Date: September 1, 1999
The California Cai-Sites are potentially contaminated hazardous waste sites. The Cai-Sites database was created from
the Abandoned Sites Project Information System (ASPIS), and the Bond Expenditure Plan (BEP). EcoSearch includes the
current Cai-Sites database. Historical Cai-Sites, including 'some sites from ASPIS and BEP are included under the Cortese
Heading, These sites are non-active Annual Workplan sites. Active Annual WorkPlan sites are listed under the
CALSITES-AWP (HWS) listing.
California CORTESE Database
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Hazardous Materials Data Management
916-445-6532
Data Date:
Active Date:
October 31, 1994
~January 11, 1999
The California CORTESE is a historical database containing information extracted from. the FID, including historical
Cai-Sites, leaking underground storage tanks, sanitary landfills, and landfills with known groundwater contamination.
Curreht information for these databases are found under the heading California Cai-Sites.
California Solid Waste Facilities List
California Integrated Waste Management Board
SWIS Program
916-255-2330
Data Date: July 13, 1999
Release Date: July 13, 1999
Active Date: July 19, 1999
The California Solid Waste Facilities List contains information from the Solid Waste Information System {SWIS) from the
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
California Waste Management Unit Database System/Solid Waste Assessment Test Data
California State Water Resources Control Board
Environmental Database Consulting
916-227-4365
Data Date:
Active Date:
November 9, 1998
January 11, 1999
The WMUDS is the Waste Management Unit Database System and includes among other items, the SWAT (Solid Waste
Assessment Test). This database is used by the State Water Resources Control Board for their portion of the solid waste
facility program tracking.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 5
California Waste Discharge System Data
California State Water Resources Control Board Data Date: March 15, 1997
California State Water Resources Control Board Accounting Office
916-657-1585 Active Date: January 11, 1999
The California Waste Discharge System (WDS) contains information on sites with waste discharge permits issued by the
state.
California Statewide Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data
California Water Quality Control Board
California Environmental Protection Agency-Hazardous Materials Division
916-445-6532
Data Date:
Release Date:
Active Date:
July 20, 1999
July 20, 1999
September 8, 1999
The California Statewide LUST List contains information on leaking underground storage tanks registered with the State
of California and reported to the State Water Quality Control Board. EcoSearch also includes information from the local
Regional Water Quality Control Board as a local/regional database.
California Statewide Underground Storage Tank List
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Hazardous Materials Data Management
916-445-6532
Data Date:
Active Date:
October 31, 1994
January 11, 1999
The California Statewide UST List contains information on underground storage tanks registered with the State of
California. This historical information was extracted from the FID. Refer to the county UST information source, available
in most counties, for more current information.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 6
Database DescriptionS -- Local/Regional Databases
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank IRegion 2)
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Data Date:
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2) Release Date:
510-622-2300 Active Date:
May 2, 1999
May 2, 1999
June 19, 1999
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board LUST Region 2 (San Francisco Bay) report contains information on
leaking underground storage tanks registered with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup Site (Region
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2)
510-622-2300
Data Date: May 2, 1999
Release Date: May 2, 1999
Active Date: June 15, 1999
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board SLIC Sites Region 2 (San Francisco) report contains information on
spills, leaks, investigations, and cleanup sites registered with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.
California Alameda County Underground Storage Tank List
Alameda County Environmental Health Services
Department of Environmental Health
510-567-6700
Data Date:
Release Date:
Active Date:
June 11, 1999
June 11, 1999
June 18, 1999
The Alameda County UST List contains information on underground storage tanks registered with Alameda County.
California Alameda County - City of Berkeley Underground Storage Tank List
California Alameda County - City of Berkeley Hazardous Materials
Toxics Management Division
510-705-8150
Data Date: March 1, 1999
Release Date: March 1, 1999
Active Date: July 19, 1999
The City of Berkeley (Alameda County) Underground Storage Tank List contains information on underground storage
tanks registered with the City of Berkeley. In addition to the county UST, Alameda County also contains UST listings
from selected cities.
California Alameda County o City of Fremont Underground Storage Tank List
California Alameda County - City of Fremont Fire Department
Fire Marshal/Division Chief
510-494-4279
Data Date:
Active Date:
October 15, 1998
January 11, 1999
The City of Fremont (Alameda County) UST List contains information on underground storage tanks registered with the
City of Fremont. In addition to the county UST, Alameda County also contains UST listings from selected cities.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
'Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 7
California Alameda County - City of Hayward Underground Storage Tank List
California Alameda County - City of Hayward Fire Department
Hazardous Materials Program
510-583-4910
Data Date: June 1, 1999
Release Date: June 1, 1999
Active Date: August 21, 1999
The City of Hayward (Alameda County) UST List contains information on underground storage tanks registered with the
City of Hayward. In addition to the county UST, Alameda County also contains UST listings from selected cities.
California Alameda County - City of Oakland Underground Storage Tank List
California Alameda County - City of Oakland Hazardous Materials Division
Office of Emergency Services
510-238-7491
Data Date: June 16, 1999
Release Date: June 16, 1999
Active Date: July 19, 1999
The City of Oakland {Alameda County) UST List contains information on underground storage tanks registered with the
City of Oakland. In addition to the county UST, Alameda County also contains UST listings from selected cities.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 8
EcoSearch Statistical Overview
Custom Corridor
Radii: ASTM*
Zip Code(s): 94588 94568 94566
City: Pleasanton Dublin
County: Alameda
FEDERAL DATABASES Radius Mappable Sites Unmappable Sites
(miles) Total Site ~ ¥~alt~'* ~ l14mi 0.26- 0.50~1 0.50 - 1.00al Zll) Code City Counl~y
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLA (Active) 0.500 0 ~ ~0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0
CERCLA (NFRAP Archive) 0.500 0 O 0 0 0 - 0 0 0
RCRA TSD 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0
RCRA Generator 0.250 11 0 11 0 - - 5 0 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ERNS 0.250 0 0 0 0 - - -
TRI 0.500 0 0 i 0 0 0 - 0 0 0
STATE DATABASES Radius MaPpable Sites Unmappable Sites
(miles) Total Site ~ ~ll~** wtlNn 114ml 0.2S- 0.$0mi 0.$0 - 1.00ml Zip Code City County
CALSITE~-AV~P (HWS) 1.000 '0" 0 '0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0
CALSlTES (HWS) 0.500 0 0 ' 0 0 0 I 0 0
CORTESE 0.500 7 7 0 0 2 4 0
SWF 0.500 0 '0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0
WM U DS/SWAT 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WDS 0,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Statewide LUST 0.500 7 0 :'7 0 0 '7' 0 0
Statewide UST 0.250 3 0 3 0 5 0 0
LOCAL/REGIONAL DATABAS~dius Mappable Sites Unmappable Sites
(miles) Total Site Ama ~it~'* within l14mi 0.25 - 0.50mi 0.50 * 1.00al Zip Code City County
Region 2 LUST 0.500 7 0 7 0 0 4 0 0
Region 2 SLIC 0.250 2 0 2 0 0 2 0
Alameda UST i0.250 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
City of Berkeley UST io.25o o o o o o o o
City of Fremont UST 0.250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
City of Hayward UST 0.250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
City of Oakland UST 0.250 0 0 0 0 · 0 0 0
IMANUAL GEOCODING:A
For this city/township,
62 sites were manually plotted by EcoSearch.
* This database seamh and study radii meets or exceeds the ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) standards for a government
records review.
· * Area Vicinity indicates that Environmental Area Records were found near your study site. These records detail contamination or other
environmental conditions in a wide area which cannot be placed to a single point or more precisely plotted. More research
is necessary to determine the possible environmental impact of these Area Records to your study site.
' Manual Geocoding: Plotting environmental site data using paper maps and phone calls to properly place the information
on the map.
Accurate street addresses are required for records to be found at the study property.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Page 9
II
ID~FI
. *-'-~ ............. -:;:;2; ................................. ;T
// ~ _
)
m
~m
m
m
i
tm
m
:-%
I
EcoSearch Statistical Overview
Mappable Sites are environmental sites which were located and appear on the enclosed EcoSearch Map, Site Summery, and Detailed Data
sections of the report. These sites are summarized based on proximity to the study site.
Unmappeble Sites are governmental records with incomplete or inaccurate address information. These sites could not be located on the street
map, but have been searched by the Zip Codes, Cities, and County specified in the search parameters. Further investigation of these sites and
their relationship to your study site is necessary.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Page 10
Map ID#
1
Database / Agency ID#
Statewide UST
California Statewide UST (Active)
01002941 -
site Summary
Site Name, Address, and County
BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC
4011 PIMLICO DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3464
ALAMEDA
Distance/Direction
0.03500 mi
2
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD981979412
CLEAN N PRESS FOR LESS
4000 PIMLICO DR STE 50
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3463
ALAMEDA
0.03500 mi
3
Statewide UST
California Statewide UST {Active)
01002934-
SANTA RITA SHELL
6750 SANTA RITA RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3400
ALAMEDA
0.05000 mi
4
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CA0000343087
ARROW CLNRS
6700 SANTA RITA RD STE G
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3400
ALAMEDA
0.06500 m~
5
RCRA Generator
RCRA Transporter
CAT080031198
ASHVACINC
5781SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3101
ALAMEDA
0.10000 m~
6A
Statewide LUST
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg
3762
LEW DOTTY CADILLAC
5787 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3101
ALAMEDA
0.10500 mi
6B
Region 2 LUST
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank (R2)
01-0900
LEW DOTTY CADILLAC
5787 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3101
ALAMEDA
0.10500 m~
6C
CORTESE
California CORTESE Database Site
01001016-01-0900
LEWDOTTY CADILLAC
5787 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3101
ALAMEDA
0.10500 m~
6D
Region 2 SLIC
California SLIC Site (R2)
01S0323
LEWDOTTY PROPERTY
5787 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3101
ALAMEDA
0.10500 m~
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD982516197
HACIENDA MOTORS LTD
5885 OWENS DR
PLEASANTON0 CA 94588-3939
ALAMEDA
0.18000 m~
8
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD982503559
INFINITI OF PLEASANTON
4339 ROSEWOOD DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3003
ALAMEDA
0.21500 mi
9A
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD982504086
VOLVO OF PLEASANTON
4335 ROSEWOOD DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3003
ALAMEDA
0.21500 mi
9B
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD982492910
VAL STROUGH PLEASANTON HYUNDAI SUBARU
4335 ROSEWOOD DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3003
ALAMEDA
0.21500 mi
10
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD982503617
LEXUS OF PLEASANTON
4345 ROSEWOOD DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3003
ALAMEDA
0.22000 mi
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Page 11
Map ID//
11
Database / Agency ID//
RCRA Generator'
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD982503492
Site Summary
Site Name, Address, and County
ACURA OF PLEASANTON
4341 ROSEWOOD DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3003
ALAMEDA
Distance/Direction
0.22000
12A
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD983659434
HERRERA CADILLAC OLDS GMC SAAB
4350 ROSEWOOD DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3002
ALAMEDA
0.22500 m~
12B
Statewide UST
California Statewide UST (Active)
01002945-
HERRERA CADILLIAC OLDS GMC
4350 ROSEWOOD DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3002
ALAMEDA
0.22500 m~
13A
RCRA Generator
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
CAD981658610
VALLEY NISSAN
6015 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
ALAMEDA
0.23000
13B
Statewide LUST
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg
2045
VALLEY NISSAN VOLVO
6015 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
ALAMEDA
0.23000 mi
13C
Region 2 LUST
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank (R2)
01-1250
VALLEY NISSAN VOLVO
6015 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
ALAMEDA
0.23000 mi
13D
CORTESE
California CORTESE Database Site
01001748-01-1250
VALLEY NISSAN VOLVO
6015 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
ALAMEDA
0.23000 mi
13E
Region 2 SLIC VALLEY NISSAN VOLVO
California SLIC Site(R2) 6015 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
01S0324 ALAMEDA
0.23000 mi
14A
Region 2 LUST SCOTSMAN GROUP
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank {R2) 6055 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
01-1309 ALAMEDA
0.25000 mi
14B
CORTESE
California CORTESE Database Site
01001420-01-1309
SCOTSMAN COMPANY
6055 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
ALAMEDA
0.25000 mi
14C
Statewide LUST
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg
3128
SCOTSMAN GROUP
6055 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
ALAMEDA
0.25000 mi
15A
Statewide LUST
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg
3730
CHARLES LEMOANE PROPERTY
6085 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
ALAMEDA
0.27000 mi
15B
Region 2 LUST
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank (R2}
CHARLES LEMOANE PROPERTY
6085 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
01-1565 ALAMEDA
CORTESE LEMOANE PROPERTY 0.27000 mi
California CORTESE Database Site 6085 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568-3102
01001010-01-1565 ALAMEDA
0.27000 mi
15C
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: 'September 10, 1999
Page 12
Map ID#
~16A
Site Summary
Database / Agency ID#
Site Name, Address, and County
Statewide LUST
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg
01-0530
EAST BAY BMW
3830 OLD SANTA RITA RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3460
ALAMEDA
Distance/Direction
0.30500
16B
Region 2 LUST
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank (R2)
01-0530
EAST BAY BMW
3830 OLD SANTA RITA RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3460
ALAMEDA
0.30500
16C
CORTESE
California CORTESE Database Site
01000659-01-0530
EAST BAY BMW
3830 OLD SANTA RITA RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3460
ALAMEDA
0.30500
17A
Region 2 LUST
California Leaking Undergron~l' S~orage Tank iR2)
01-1372
SHELL
5251 HOPYARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3305
ALAMEDA
0.40000 m~
178
CORTESE
California CORTESE Database Site
01001485-01-1372
SHELL
5251 HOPYARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3305
ALAMEDA
0.40000 m~
17C
Statewide LUST
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg
5807
SHELL
5251 HOPYARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3305
ALAMEDA
0.40000
18A
Statewide LUST
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg
1674
CHEVRON
5280 HOPYARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3306
ALAMEDA
0.41000 m~
18B
Region 2 LUST
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank (R2)
01-0376
CHEVRON
5280 HOPY;ARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3306
ALAMEDA
0.41000
18C
CORTESE
California CORTESE Database Site
01000504-01-0376
CHEVRON
5280 HOPYARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3306
ALAMEDA
0.41000 m~
Manually Geocoded: ~ite plotted or corrected using paper maps, phone calls, and other resources to properly place the site on the map.
Agency Provided Lat/Long: Site plotted using the latitude and longitude given by the federal or state government agency.
Area Manually Plotted: Area manually drawn using digital and paper maps.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Page 13
Detailed Data
The following pages contain the detailed data concerning the sites plotted on the
map and included in the site summary.
Please Note: Pages are not included for databases not found within the search radii.
These pages are arranged as follows:
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
California CORTESE Data
California Statewide LUST Data
California Statewide UST Data
California Region 2 LUST Data
California Region 2 SLIC Data
Page 14
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
Facility and Compliance Information
Map ID//: 2 Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD981879412
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Unknown
0.035000
o
Name: CLEAN N PRESS FOR LESS
Address: 4000 PIMLICO DR SUITE 50
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name:
Contact Phone:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
415-945-0250
:(.:~;w~p~,-,,--'~li.ilgg ~i.li1 ....... -.mT
No Compliance information Reported
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
CA
94566
Map ID//: 4 Distance (mi): 0.065000 Name: ARROW CLNRS
· Direction: - Address: 6700 SANTA RITA RD STE G
EPA ID//: CA0000343087 City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
Status: Small Quantity Generator
SIC Code:
Land Type: Private Land Contact Name: CARLOS pOusADA
Contact Phone: 510-460-5081
;{# :~-,w :~ ~., .,],.=,* ,ii:I ....... :~l.iilqlll~llJ~T
No Compliance Information Reported
No RAATS information Reported for this Site
CA
94588
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
Map ID//: 5 Distance {mi): 0.100000 Name: ASHVAC INC
Direction: Address: 5781 SCARLET CT
EPA ID#: CAT080031198 City, State, Zip: DUBLIN
Status: Transporter
Land Type: Unknown
SIC Code:
Contact Name:
Contact Phone:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
415-447-7324
CA
94566
No Compliance information Reported
RCRA Wastes and Waste Code Information previously reported by EcoSearch have been removed from the RCRIS database by the USEPA.
Page 15
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
Facility and Compliance Information
, No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site -
Map ID#: 7 Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD982516197
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Unknown
0.180000
Name: HACIENDA MOTORS LTD
Address: 5885 OWENS DRIVE
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name:
Contact Phone:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
415-463-2525
'":~-'~ .... ""'""'""~ ......... ~1'i11111i"""~I'
No Compliance Information Reported
~.r_.v_,.J.-m:~.:,_,w_,~,,,,,,~. ~,,.,.._...,,..~.ili1111,~.~...~
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
CA
94566
Map ID//: 8 Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD982503559
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Private Land
0.215000
Name: INFINITI OF PLEASANTON
Address: 4339 ROSEWOOD DR
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name: JAYSON ARNOLD
Contact Phone: 510-463-4700
:~#:' .... "'"~'""'"'~'""":';'"]'"lllillli:i'if
No Compliance Information Reported
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
CA
94588
RCRA Wastes and Waste Code Information previously reported by EcoSaarch have been removed from the RCRIS database by the USEPA.
Page 16
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
Facility and Compliance Information
Map ID#: 9A Distance {mi):
Direction:
EPA ID#: CAD982504086
Status: Small Quant~y Generator
Land Typo: Private Land
0.215000
Name: VOLVO OF PLEASANTON
Address: 4335 ROSEWOOD DR
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name: STEVE HAMILTON
Contact Phone: 510-463-4700
No Compliance Information Reported
No RAATS information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
CA 94566
Map ID#: 9B Distance (mil:
Direction:
EPA ID#: CAD982492910
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type:, *Unknown
0.215000
Name: VAL STROUGH PLEASANTON HYUNDAI SUBARU
Address: 4335 ROSEWOOD DR
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON CA 94566
SIC Code:
Contact Name:
Contact Phone:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
415-463-4700
No Compliance Information Report'ed
No RAATS information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
Map ID//: 10 Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID#: CAD982503617
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Private Land
0.220000
Name: LEXUS OF PLEASANTON
Address: 4345 ROSEWOOD DR
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name: JASON ARNOLD
Contact Phone: 510-463-4700
No Compliance Information Reported
CA 94588
RCRA Wastes and Waste Code Information previously reported by EcoSearch have been removed from the RCRIS database by the USEPA.
Page 17
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
Facility and Compliance Information
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
Map ID//: 1 1 Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID#: CAD982503492
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Private Land
0.220000
Name: ACURA OF PLEASANTON
Address: 4341 ROSWOOD DR
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name: STEVE HAMILTON
Contact Phone: 510-463-4700
No Compliance Infom~ation Reported
No RAATS Information Reported fOr this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
CA
94566
Map ID//: 12A Distance {mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD983659434
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Private Land
0.225000
Name: HERRERA CADILLAC OLDS GMC SAAB
Address: 4350 ROSEWOOD DR
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON CA
SIC Code:
Contact Name: RAY MEDLOCK
Contact Phone: 510-416-1100
No Compliance Information Reported
No RAATS information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action instrument information for this Site
94588
RCRA Wastes and Waste Code Information previously reported by EcoSearch have been removed from the RCRIS database by the USEPA.
Page 18
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
Facility and Compliance Information
Map ID//: 13A Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD981658610
,Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Unknown
0.230000
Name: VALLEY NISSAN
Address: 6015 SCARLETT CT
City, State, Zip: DUBLIN
SIC Code:
Contact Name:
Contact Phone:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
415-484-0976
EVALUATIONS
Eval. #: 19930526001 Agency: State Contractor Evaluation Date:
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
CA
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
94568
05/26/1993
RCRA Wastes and Waste Code Information previously reported by EcoSearch have been removed from the RCRIS database by the USEPA.
Page 19
California CORTESE Data
California CORTESE Data (Sanitary Landfills with Evidence of GW Contamination)
Map ID#: 6C Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01001016-01-0900
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.10500 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID//: 13D Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01001748-01-1250
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address information: Not Reperted
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.23000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: 14B Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01001420-01-1309
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.25000 mi
o
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: 1 5C Distance {mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01001010-01-1565
EPA ID: Not' Reported*
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.27000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
A[rtarnata Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: 16C Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01000659-01-0530
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.30500 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID//: 17B Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01001485-01-1372
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Informa[ion: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.40000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: 18C Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01000504-01-0376
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not. Reported
0.41000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Page 20
California Statewide LUST Data
California Leaking Underground StOrage Tank Date (From the State Water Quality COntrol Board)
Map ID//: 6A Distance {mi): 0.10500 mi
Direction:
'Agency ID: 3762
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
LEW DOTTY CADILLAC
5787 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Date Leak Reported: 06/15/1989
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked: Not Reported
Date Reviewed: 03/1311995 Status: Case Closed
Date Site Closed: 09114/1994 Case Type: Other
Site Assessment Submitted: 07/11/1990 Regional Board: San Francisco Region
Site Asse. ssment Began: 01/24/1991 Lead Agency: Local Agency
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Excavation and Treatment of Soil, Pumping and
Treatment of Ground Water
Map ID//:
Agency ID: 2045.
Date 'Leak Reported:
Date Leak Confirmed:
Date Reviewed:
Date Site Closed:
Site Assessment Submitted:
Site Assessment Began:
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Date Leak Reported:
Date Leak Confirmed:
Date Reviewed:
Date Site Closed:
Site Assessment Submitted:
Site Assessment Began:
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
13B
Distance {mi): 0.23000 mi
Direction:
08/22/1988
Not Reportad
02/2811995
11/18/1994
1111011989
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Substance Leal~ed:
Status:
Case Type:
Regional Board:
Lead Agency:
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s): ·
10/1011991
Not Reported
03126/1993
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not RePorted
Not Reported
O6101/1992
Not Reported
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Substance Leaked:
Status:
Case Type:
Regional Board:
Lead Agency:
Pollution Characteriza.tion Began:
Abatement Method{s):
VALLEY NISSAN VOLVO
6015 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Not Reported
Case Closed
Soil Only
San Francisco Region
Local Agency
Not Reported
No Action Taken
FIRESTONE RANCH
6015 SCARLETT CT
SAUNAS, CA 93901
Gasoline
Remedial Action
Soil Only
Central Coast Region
Local Agency
Not Reported
Not Reported
Map ID//:
AgencY ID:
3128
14C
Distance [mi):
Direction:
0.25000 mi
Page 21
California Statewide LUST Data
California Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data (From the State Water Quality Control Board)
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
SCOTSMAN GROUP
6055 SCARLETTCT
DUBLIN, CA 04568
Date Leak Reported: 10123/1987
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked: Not Reported
Date Reviewed: 11/3011993 Status: Case Closed
Date Site Closed: 10/1511993 Case Type: Other
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board: San Francisco Region
Site Assessment Began: 0313011989 Lead Agency: Local Agency
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
08130/1989
Pumping and Treatment of Ground Water
Map ID#:
Agency ID: 3730
15A Distance imi): 0.27000 mi
Direction:
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Date Leak Reported: 0611111990
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked:
Date Reviewed: 0812411998 Status:
Date Site Closed: 08125/1998 Case Type:
Site Assessment Submitted: 0711111990 Regional Board:
Site Assessment Began: Not Reported Lead Agency:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
CHARLES LEMOANE PROPERTY
6085 SCARLETTCT
DUBL~,CA 94568
Gasoline
Case Closed
Other
San Francisco Region ..
Local Agency
Not Reported
Excavation and Treatment of Soil, Pumping and
Treatment of Ground Water
Map ID//:
Agency ID:
01-0530
16A Distance {mi): 0.30500 mi
Direction:
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Date Leak Reported: 04109/1990
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked:
Date Reviewed: 0412611995 Status:
Date Site Closed: Not Reported Case Type:
Site Assessment Submitted: 04/0911990 Regional Board:
Site Assessment Began: 0411911990 Lead Agency:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
EAST BAY BMW
3830 OLD SANTA RITA RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
Diesel
Preliminary Site Assessment Underway
Other
San Francisco Region
Local Agency
Not Reported
No Action Taken
Map ID#:
Agency ID:
5807
17C .. Distance (mi): 0.40000 mi
Direction:
Page 22
California Statewide LUST Data
California Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data (From the State Water Quality Control Board)
Name: SHELL
Address: 5251 HOPYARD RD
City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Date Leak Reported: 0912811988
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked: Diesel
Date Reviewed: 0112111998 Status: Leak Being Confirmed
Date Site Closed: Not Reported Case Type: Other
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board: San Francisco Region
Site Assessment Began: 05104/1989 Lead Agency: Local Agency
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
05/1111989
No Action Taken
Map ID#:
Agency ID: 1674
18A Distance (mi): 0.41000 mi
Direction:
Name: CHEVRON
Address: 5280 HOPYARD RD
City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Date Leak Reported: 09/18/1989
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked: Benzene
Date Reviewed: 01/0611999 Status: Leek Being Confirmed
Date Site Closed: Not Reported Case Type: Other
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional.,Board: San Francisco Region
Site'Assessment Began: 07/17/1989 Lead Agency: Local Agency
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
· Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
05/11/1992
Excavation and Disposal of Soil
Page 23
California Statewide UST Data
California Statewide Underground Storage Tank Data (Extracted from FID)
Map ID#: 1
Agency ID: 01002941-
Regulated ID: Not Reported
Status: Active
Date Record Created: 10122/93
Distance (mi): 0.03500
Direction:
Name: BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC
Address: 4011 PIMLICO DR
Mailing Address: PO BOX
Mailing City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94588
Facility Phone:
(415) 463-1089
Map ID#: 3
Agency ID: 01002934-
Regulated ID: Not Reported
Status: Active
Date Record Created: 10122193
Distance (mi):
Direction:
0.05000
Name: SANTA RITA SHELL
Address: 6750 SANTA RITA RD
Mailing Address: PO BOX
Mailing City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Facility Phone: Not Reported
Map ID#: 12B
Agency ID: 01002945-
Regulated ID: Not Reported
Status: Active
Date Record Created: 10/22193
Distance {mi}:
Direction:
0.22500
Name: HERRERA CADILLIAC OLDS GMC
Address: 4350 ROSEWOOD DR
Mailing Address: 1111 S ARROYO PKWY
Mailing City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94588
Facility Phone: (510) 416-1100
Page 24
California Region 2 LUST Data
California Region 2 Water Quality Boards Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data
Map ID//: 6BB Distance (mi): 0.10500 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-0900 Name: LEW DOTTY CADILLAC
Address: 5787 SCARLETT CT
Status: Case Closed City, State Zipi DUBLIN, CA 94568
Map ID//: ]](3C Distance (mi): 0.23000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-1250 Name:
Address:
Status: Case Closed City, State Zip:
VALLEY NISSAN VOLVO
6015 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Map ID//: ]WA Distance (mi}: 0.25000 mi
Direction: -
Agency ID: 01-1309 Name:
Address:
Status:' Case Closed City, State Zip:
SCOTSMAN GROUP
6055 SCARLETT CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Map ID//: ]~B Distance (mi): 0.27000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-1565 Name:
Address:
Status: Case Closed City, State Zip:
CHARLES LEMOANE PROPERTY
6085 SCARLETr CT
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Map ID//: Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-0530
. Status: Preliminary Site Assessment Underway
0.30500 mi
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
EAST BAY BMW
3830 OLD SANTA RITA RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
Map ID//: ]3~A Distance {mi): 0.40000 mi '
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-1372 Name:
Address:
Status: Leak Being Confirmed City, State Zip:
SHELL
5251 HOPYARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Map ID//: ]~B Distance (mi): 0.41000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-0376 Name:
Address:
Status: Leak Being Confirmed City, State Zip:
CHEVRON
5280 HOPYARD RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Page 25
California Region 2 SLIC Data
California Region 2 Spill, Leak, Investigation, and Cleanup Data
Map ID#:
Agency ID:
Status:
13E
OLS0324
Inactive
Distance (mi): 0.23000 mi
Direction:
Name: VALLEY NISSAN VOLVO
Address: 6015 SCARLET CT
City, State Zip: DUBLIN, CA
Map ID//:
Agency ID:
Status:
6D
01S0323
Inactive
Distance (mi): 0.10500 mi
Direction:
Name: LEW DOTTY PROPERTY
Address: 5787 SCARLET CT
City, State Zip: DUBLIN, CA
Page 26
Unmappable Sites
A limitation of many records of governmental databases is incomplete or incorrect
address information. Without proper addresses, it is more difficult to locate and map
these sites.
Instead of leaving these potentially important sites out of the EcoSearch report, we
implement a painstaking manual geocoding strategy aimed at plotting these
unmappable sites by looking at zip codes, city names, and county names identified
with the radius around your study site.. The zip codes, cities, and counties searched
are identified on the EcoSearch Statistical Overview page.
Our sophisticated mapping software, enhanced TIGER street maps, and address
correction database processing methods find and plot most environmental sites. We
then perform manual geocoding, plotting those sites the computer fails to find using a
variety of resources. These include using our in-house collection of paper maps,
directories, cross-referencing database information, and calling post offices, local
government, or the sites themselves to accurately locate environmental records. We
also correct obvious TIGER street map errors and omissions.
This effort at manual geocoding results in a short or non-existant orphan/unmappable
list 'and increases accuracy and reliability of the data in our reports. We have elected
not to comp'Ute~ize this part of our report due to the importance of presenting all data
as completely and accurately as humanly possible-. 'When this function is computerized
it is impossible to produce a report as accurate as one where manual geocoding has
taken place.
The limited number of sites which could not be reasonably found through our
geocoding strategy are presented in this section for further review to assess their
impact on y.our study site.
After the summary unmappable site information, detailed data follows.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 27
Unmappable Sites
Database Agency ID#
Statewide UST '01001942-CAD9816
California Statewide UST (AcG~e)
Site Name and Address
JAMIESON CO
501 EL CHARRO RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-9617
County
ALAMEDA
Statewide UST 01002357-00024903 BERKEY IMPORTED CARS
California Statewide UST (Inactive) 5940 STONERIDGE MALL RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3229
Statewide UST 01002120-00011964 VENEL J. TUMA
California Statewide UST (Inactive) 11878 DUBLIN GR DR ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Statewide UST 01002169-00031518 DSRSD FIRE STATION//1
California Statewide UST (Inactive) 7494 SONOHUE DR ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Statewide UST 01002837- RELIABLE TRUCKING INC
California Statewide UST (Active) ' 51 EL CHARRO RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-9605
CORTESE 0 i000513-01-0365 CHEVRON
California CORTESE Database Site 7007 SAN RAMON VALLEY BL
DUBLIN, CA
CORTESE 01000934-01-0816 JAMIESON COMPANY
California CORTESE Database Site 501 EL CHARRO RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON0 CA 94588-9617
CORTESE 01001414-01-1301 SANTA RITA REHABLITATION FACIL
California CORTESE'Database Site 580 SANTA RITA RD
PLEASANTON, CA
CORTESE 01004750-01350112 NUCLEPORE CORPORATION
California CORTESE Database Site 2035 COMMERCE CIRCLE
PLEASANTON, CA
CORTESE . ' · 01011105-01-2182 INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT . '
California CORTESE Database Site 52 EL CHARR0 RD ' ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-9604
CORTESE 01011116-01-2226 SANTA RITA JAIL ENGINEERS HILL
California CORTESE Database Site BRODER BLVD,
DUBLIN, .CA
Region 2 SLIC 01S0339 DOUGHERTY BOOSTER STATION
California SLIC Site (R2) ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA
Region 2 S~C 01 S0113 HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK
California SLIC Site {R2) HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA
RCRA Generator CAD981975899 DUBLIN RECORDS CENTER
RCRA Small Quantity Generator 6400 DIERA CT ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
RCRA Generator CAD982032013 STONERIDGE MOTOR INC
RCRA Small Quantity Generator 5940 STONERIDGE MALL RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3229
RCRA Generator CAD982462723 RELIABLE TRUCKING INC
RCRA Transporter. 51 EL CHARRO RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-9605
RCRA Generator CAD990788556 B J TRUCK LINES
RCRA Transporter KAISER RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA. 94566
RCRA Generator CA3210022130 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATL LAB-CAMP PARKS
RCRA Notifier Site CAMP PARKS ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94568
Region 2 LUST 01-2139 SANTA RITA JAIL BOILER FOUND
California Leaking Undergrond Storage .Tank (R2) 4TH MADIGAN ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568 ,
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc,
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Page 28
Unmappable Sites
Database Agency ID# Site Name and Address County
Region 2 LUST 01-2456 ARCHSTONE COMMUNiTiES
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank {R2) 5054 HAVENS PL ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Region 2 LUST 01-0816 JAMIESON COMPANY
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank iR2) 501 EL CHARRO RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-9617
Region 2 LUST 01-0874 LAGUNA OAKS PROPERTY
California Leaking Undergrond Storage Tank (R2) FOOTHILL BLVD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Alameda UST ECO49 ALAMEDA COUNTY O. E. S
Alameda County Underground Storage Tank 4985 BRODER BLVD
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Alameda UST ECO60 GTE MOBILNET
Alameda County Underground Storage Tank 10001 DUBLIN CANYON RD
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Alameda UST EC062 HEAVY EQUITMENT REPAIR BL
Alameda County Underground Storage Tank 6089 MADIGAN RD ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Alameda UST ECO63 SANTA RITA FUELING STATION
Alameda County Underground Storage Tank 6175 MADIGAN RD
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Alameda UST ECO97 CALMAT CO
Alameda County Underground Storage Tank 50 EL CHARRO RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
Alameda UST ECO98 RELIABLE TRUCKING, INC
Alameda County Underground Storage Tank 51 EL CHARRO RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
CALSITES (HWS) -01970011 DOUGHERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
· California Cai-Sites Database Site APN 986-0005-003-10 ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA '94568 "
Statewide LuST 1956 PLEASANTON READY MIX CONCRETE
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg Tank 3400 BOULDER ST ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94566-4769
Statewide LUST 4102 PARKS RFTA
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg Tank 0 PARKSRFTA BLVD 790 ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Statewide LUST 6613 ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg Tank 5054 HAVENS PL ALAMEDA
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Statewide LUST 1678 · CASTLEWOOD COUNTRY CLUB
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg Tank 707 COUNTRY CLUB CIR ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94566-9743
Statewide LUST 4086 SANTA RITA OLD GRAYSTONE
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg Tank 580 SANTA RITA RD E ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Statewide LUST 5851 TRI VALLEY HERALD
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg Tank 7132 D JOHNSON DR ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Statewide LUST 2084 JAMIESON COMPANY
California Statewide Leaking Underground Stg Tank 501 EL CHARRO RD ALAMEDA
PLEASANTON, CA 94588-9617
EcoSaarch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Page
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
Facility and Compliance Information
Map ID//: 14UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID#: CAD981975899
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Unknown
0.000000
Name: DUBLIN RECORDS CENTER
Address: 6400 DIERA CT
City, State, Zip: DUBLIN
SIC Code:
Contact Name:
Contact Phone:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
415-833-2808
;;~:c'~:~""'"""'"~"1I ..... :;'11111111111'i~f
No Compliance Information Reported
CA
94568
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
Map ID//: 15UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD982032013
Status: Small Quantity Generator
Land Type: Unknown
0.000000
Name: STONERIDGE MOTOR INC
Address: 5940 STONERIDGE MALL RD
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name: FRANK cLARK .~
Contact Phone: 415-463-1120
No Compliance Information Reported
CA
94566
No FLa. ATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action instrument Information for this Site
Map ID//: 16UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD982462723
Status: Transporter
Land Type: Unknown
0.000000
Name: RELIABLE TRUCKING INC
Address: 51 EL CHARRO RD
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code:
Contact Name: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
Contact Phone: 415-449-9244
No Compliance Information Reported
CA
94556
RCRA Wastes and Waste Code Information previously reported by EcoSearch have been removed from the RCRIS database by the USEPA.
Page 30
RCRA TSD and Generators Data
Facility and Compliance Information
No'RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Site
Map ID//: 17UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
EPA ID//: CAD990788556
Status: Transporter
Land Type: Unknown
Eval. #: 19841015001
0.000000
Name: B J TRUCK UNES
Address: KAISER RD
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON
SIC Code: 4212
Contact Name: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
Contact Phone: 415-846-3493
EVALUATIONS
Agency: Stats
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
CA 94566
Evaluation Date: 10/15/1984
No Corrective Action instrument Information for this Site
Map ID//: ;18UN Distance {mi): 0.000000
Direction:
EPA ID//: CA3210022130
Status: RCRA Notifier (Former RCRA Site}
Land Type: Federal Land
Name: LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATL LAB-CAMP. PARKS
Address: CAMP PARKS
City, State, Zip: PLEASANTON CA 94568
SIC Code:
Contact Name: DAWN CHASE
Contact Phone: 510-423-9136
Eval.#: 19860214001
Viol.#: CA3210022130E0001
Enl.#: 19870313001.Agency:EPA
EVALUATIONS
Agency: EPA Personnel
VIOLATIONS
Violation Type: Generator - Any Requkements
ENFORCEMENTS
Type: Written Informal
:~-,~,-.-'=, :~ :,,w_,~, ...... ~ ~,,,,~._,.,,,,,..;[;li1111...~.~ ~, ,~
No RAATS Information Reported for this Site
No Corrective Action Instrument Information for this Sit*
Evaluation Date: 02/1411986
Date: 03/13/1987
RCRA Wastes and Waste Code Information previously reported by EcoSearch have been removed from the RCRIS database by the USEPA.
Page 31
Map ID//:
29UN
California CALSITES Data
California Cai-Sites Data
Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID:
Region of Site:
Lead Agency:
Branch Name:
Water Quality Board:
Hazard Ranking:
Date of Ranking:
Funding:
01970011 Name:
Address:
BERKELEY City, State Zip:
DEFT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
NORTH COAST Status:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY NPL:
Standard Industrial Class:
Not Reported Access to Site:
Not Reported Contributing Sources:
DOUGHERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
APN 986-0005-003-10
DUBLIN, CA 94568
NO FURTHER ACTION FOR DTSC
Not Reported
NATIONAL SECURITY/INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Not Reported
None/Not Reported
VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAl~roundwater Contamination: Unknown
Background Information
Comments
This 10-acre property wes formerly a pert of Camp Shoemaker, a
04/26/99 Voluntary Cleanup Agreement signed with Dublin Unified School
05/11/99 VCA - COMPLETION
military base, and subsequently a part of the Santa Rite
District
05/11/99 VCA - CONSULTATION
Rehabilitation Center, e County prison and farm. At various
05/11/99 No further action letter issued. TPHg up to 1.4 rog/kg, TPHd up
04/26/99 I/SE, IORSE, FFA, FFSRA, VCA, EA
times, the US NAVY, Air Force, Army and Immigration Service
to 420 mg/kg in one area. No PAH, pesticides, herbicides or PCB
occupied Camp Shoemaker. The Site ia being developed as an
detected. They had removed top 6" of soil as part of asbestos
elementary school. The Dublin Unified School District signed a
abatement activities. Metals levels were below U.S. EPA PRGs
VCA with DTSC to evaluate whether the chemicals present, posed a
except arsenic which was within background range for the area.
significant risk under the proposed development plans.
Page 32
California CORTESE Data
California CORTESE Data {Sanitary Landfills with Evidence of GW Contamination}
Map ID//: 6UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01000513-01-0385
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.00000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: 7UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01000934-01-0816
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.00000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: 8UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01001414-01-1301
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.00000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID//: 9UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01004750-01350112
.EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processedi Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Ha.zardous Material: ' Not Reported
0.00000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: I OUN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01011105-01-2182
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address Information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.00000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Map ID#: 11UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01011116-01-2226
EPA ID: Not Reported
Date Processed: Not Reported
Additional Address information: Not Reported
Hazardous Material: Not Reported
0.00000 mi
Name: Not Reported
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: Not Reported
Alternate Name: Not Reported
Page 33
California Statewide LUST Data
California Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data (From the State Water Quality Control Board)
Map ID//: 30UN Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 1956
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
PLEASANTON READY MIX CONCRETE
3400 BOULDER ST
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Date Leak Reported: 0911211997
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked: Diesel
Date Reviewed: 12/1711998 Status: Leak Being Confirmed
Date Site Closed: Not Reported Case Type: Soil Only
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board: San Francisco Region
Site Assessment Began: Not Reported Lead Agency: Local Agency
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
No Action Required
Map ID//:
Agency ID: 4102
31UN Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Name: PARKS RFTA
Address: 0 PARKSRFTA BLVD 790
City, State Zip: DUBLIN, CA 94568 .
Date Leak Reported:' 03/17/1993
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked:.
Date Reviewed: 0912511998 Status:
Date Site Closed: Not Reported Case Type:
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board:
Site Assessment Began: Not Reported Lead Agency:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:.
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
Not Reported
Preliminary Site Assessment Underway
Undefined
San Francisco Region
Local Agency
Not Reported
Not Reported
Map ID//:
Agency ID: 6613
32UN Distance {mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Date Leak Reported: 08/2111998
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked:
Date Reviewed: 0310211999 Status:
Date Site Closed: Not Reported Case Type:
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board:
Site Assessment Began: Not Reported Lead Agency:
Not Reported
Not Reported.
Not Rep~rted
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
POSt Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES
5054 HAVENS PL
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Not Reported
Leak Being Confirmed
Other
San Francisco Region
Local Agency
Not Reported
Not Reported
Map ID//:
33UN Distance (mi): O.O0000 mi
Page 34
California Statewide LUST Data
California Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data (From the State Water Quality Control Board)
Agency ID: 1678
Direction:
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
CASTLEWOOD COUNTRY CLUB
707 COUNTRY CLUB CIR
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Date Leak Reported:
Date Leak Confirmed:
Date Reviewed:
Date Site Closed:
Site Assessment Submitted:
Site Assessment Began:
Remediatien Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
0412411992
Not Reported Substance Leaked: Not Reported
10101 I1998 Status: Case Closed
0211811994 Case Type: Soil Only
Not Reported Regional Board: San Francisco Region
Not Reported Lead Agency: Local Agency
Not Reported Pollution Characterization Began: Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported Abatement Method(s): Not Reported
Map ID#:
Agency ID: 4086
34UN Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Date Leak Reported: 03/2211988
· Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported SUbstance Leaked:
Date Reviewed: ' 0711211995 Status:
Date Site Closed: 07/0711995 Case Type:
Site Assessment Submitted: · Not Reported Regional Board:
Site Assessment Began: Not Reported Lead Agency:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
SANTA RITA OLD GRAYSTONE
580 SANTA RITA RD E
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Miscellaneous Motor Vehicle Fuels
Case Closed - -
Other
San Francisco Region
Local Agency
Not Reported
Excavation and Disposal of Soil
Map ID//:
Agency ID: 5851
35UN Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Date Leak Reported: 05/2611988
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked:
Date Reviewed: 02/1811997 Status:
Date Site Closed: 0211111997 Case Type:
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board:
Site Assessment Began: Not Reported Lead Agency:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedial Action Underway:
POSt Remedial Monitoring
TRI VALLEY HERALD
7132 D JOHNSON DR
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
Not Reported
Case Closed
Soil Only
San Francisco Region
Local Agency
Not Reported
Not Reported
Map ID#:
36UN Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Page 35
California Statewide LUST Data
California Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data {From the State Water Quality Control Board)
Agency ID: 2084
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
JAMIESON COMPANY
501 EL CHARRO RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Date Leak Reported: 10/1411992
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked: Miscellaneous Motor Vehicle Fuels
Date Reviewed: 0712411998 Status: Case Closed
Date Site Closed: 0712211998 Case Type: Soil Only
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board: San Francisco Region
Site Assessment Began: 03/2711989 Lead Agency: Local Agency
Remediation Plan Submitted:
Remedia, I Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
Not Reported
No Action Taken
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
CYPRESS POINT GOLF CLUB
501 EL CHARRO RD
PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953
Date Leak Reported: 0112911992
Date Leak Confirmed: Not Reported Substance Leaked: Gasoline
Date Reviewed: 03/2411993 Status: Case Closed
Date Site Closed: 02121/1992 Case Type: Undefined
Site Assessment Submitted: Not Reported Regional Board: Central Coast Region
Site Assessment Began: Not Reported Lead Agency: Local Agency
Remediation Plan Submi{ted: '
Remedial Action Underway:
Post Remedial Monitoring
Pollution Characterization Began:
Abatement Method(s):
NOt Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Page 36
California statewide UST Data
California Statewide Underground Storage Tank Data (Extracted from FID)
Map ID//: 1UN Distance {mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01001942-CAD98163
Regulated ID: CAD981637
Status: Active
Date Record Created: 10122/93
0.00000
Name: JAMIESON CO
Address: 501 EL CHARRO RD
Mailing Address: PO BOX
Mailing City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Facility Phone: (510) 455-9000
Map ID//: 2UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01002357-00024903
Regulated ID: 00024903
Status: Inactive
Date Record Created: 10122/93
0.00000
Name: BERKEY IMPORTED CARS
Address: 5940 STONERIDGE MALL RD
Mailing Address: 5940 STONERIDGE MALL RD
Mailing City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Facility Phone: {415) 462-9010
Map ID/t: 3UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01002120-00011964
Regulated ID: 00011964
Status: Inactive
Date Record Created: 10122193
0.00000
Name: VENEL J. TUMA
Address: 11878 DUBLIN GR DR
Mailing Address: 11878 DUBLIN GR DR
Mailing City, State Zip: DUBLIN, CA 94568
Facility Phone: (415) 828-3552
Map ID//: 4UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: 01002169-00031518
Regulated ID: 00031518
Status: Inactive
Date Record Created: 10/22/93
0.00000
Name: DSRSD FIRE STATION #1
Address: 7494 SONOHUE DR
Mailing Address: 7051 DUBLIN BLVD
Mailing City, State Zip: DUBLIN, CA 94568
Facility Phone: Not Reported
Map ID/t:
Agency ID:
Regulated ID:
Status:
Date Record Created:
5UN
01002837-
Not Reported
Active
10/22/93
Distance (mi):
Direction:
0.00000
Name: RELIABLE TRUCKING INC
Address: 51 EL CHARRO RD
Mailing Address: 51 EL CHARRO RD
Mailing City, State Zip: PLEASANTON, CA 94588
Facility Phone: (510) 449-8334
Page 37
California Region 2 LUST Data
California Region 2 Water Quality Boards Leaking Underground Storage Tank Data
Map ID#: ]~EalUN Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-2139 Name:
Address:
Status: Case Closed City, State Zip:
SANTA RITA JAIL BOILER FOUND
4TH MADIGAN
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Map ID//: Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-2456 Name:
Address:
Status: Leak Being Conf'mad City, State Zip:
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES
5054 HAVENS PL
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Map ID//: Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-0816 Name:
Address:
Status: Case Closed City, State Zip:
JAMIESON COMPANY
501 EL CHARRO RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Map ID//: Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Agency ID: 01-0874 Name:
Address:
Status: Case Closed City, State Zip:
LAGUNA OAKS PROPERTY
FOOTHILL BLVD
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Page 38
California Region 2 SLIC Data
California Region 2 Spill, Leak, Investigation, and Cleanup Data
Map ID//:
Agency ID:
Status:
12UN
01s0339
Inactive
Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Name: DOUGHERTY BOOSTER STATION
Address: Not Reported
City, State Zip: DUBLIN, CA
Map ID//:
Agency ID:
Status:
13UN
01S0113
Inactive
Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi
Direction:
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK
UNKNOWN HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK
PLEASANTON, CA
Page 39
California Alameda County UST Data
California Alameda County Underground Storage Tank Data
Map ID#:
Agency ID:
Owner Name:
Owner Number:
23UN Distance (mi): 0.00000 mi Name:
Direction: Address:
EC049 City, State Zip:
County of Alameda, GSA
1401
ALAMEDA COUNTY O. E. S
4985 BRODER BLVD
DUBLIN, CA 94568'
Facility Phone: 551-6578
Number of Tanks: 1
Status: Certified
Map ID#: 24UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
Agency ID: EC060
Owner Name: G T E Wireless
Owner Number: Not Reported
0.00000 mi
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
GTE MOBILNET
10001 DUBLIN CANYON RD
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Facility Phone: 416-4592
Number of Tanks: 1
Status: Certified
Map ID#: ·
Agency ID:
Owner Name:
Owner Number:
25UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
EC062
Alameda County, Public Works
399
0.00000 mi
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
HEAVY EQUITMENT REPAIR BL
6089 MADIGAN' RD
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Facility Phone: 803-7000
Number of Tanks: 2
Status: Certified
Map ID#:
Agency ID:
Owner Name:
Owner Number:
26UN Distance (mi):
Direction:
EC063
County of Alameda, Gsa
1401
0.00000 mi
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
SANTA RITA FUELING STATION
6175 MADIQAN RD
DUBLIN, CA 94568
Facility Phone: 828-9043
Number of Tanks: 6
Status: Certified
Map ID#:
Agency ID:
Owner Name:
Owner Number:
27UN
EC097
Calmat Co
Not Reported
Distance (mi):
Direction:
0.00000 mi
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
CALMAT CO
50 EL CHARRO RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
Facility Phone: 846-2852
Number of Tanks: 2
Status: Certified
Map ID#:
Agency ID:
Owner Name:
Owner Number:
28UN
EC098
Distance (mi):
Direction:
Reliable Tracking, Inc
51
O.O0000mi
Name:
Address:
City, State Zip:
Facility Phone:
Number of Tanks:
Status:
RELIABLE TRUCKING, INC
51 EL CHARRO RD
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
510~49-8334
1
Certified
Page 40
EcoSearch Radon Risk Map for California
US EPA Residential Radon Survey
Sample Homes over 4pCi/L Radon Concentration
[] Over 50%
[] 20% to 50%
[] 5% to 19%
[] Under 5%
[] Not Sampled
SOURCE: EPA Map for Radon Zones (California), September 1993. The data is based on the State/EPA Residential Radon Survey
which was conducted in California during the winters of 1989-90. This map shows the percentage of homes in each county registering
over 4 pCi/L (picocuries per liter) radon concentration. For additional information on this survey, consult the next page.
Note: Th.e information provided on this map !s subject to the general disclaimer on the first page. This map is NOT intended to determine
if a property in a given county should be tested'for radon. Properties with elevated levels of radon have been found in all counties.
If or when radon is a concern, all properties should be tested regardless of the county designation.
EPA Residential Radon Survey for California
Sample Homes over 4pCi/L Homes over 20pCi/L
County Size Number Percentage Number Percentage
~,lameda 60 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
~,lpine 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Amador 15 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Butte 44 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
:alaveras 18 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
:olusa 2 0 0,00% 0 0.00%
Contra Costa 60 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Del Norte 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
~1 Dorado 34 3 8.82% 0 0.00%
:resno 106 2 1.89% 0 0.00%
,~lenn 10 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
-lumboldt 36 1 2.78% 0 0.00%
mperial 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
nyo 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
~,ern. 100 2 2.00% 0 0.00%
<ings 12 1 8.33% 0 0.00%
.aka 16 1 6.25% 0 0.00%
.assen 18 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
.os Angeles 69 I 1.45% 0 0.00%
Madera 24 1 4.17% 1 4.17%
Matin 58 2 3.45% 0 0.00%
vlariposa 9 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
vlendocinO 17 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Merced 10 I 10.00% 0 0.00%
Modoc 5 1 20.00% 0 0.00%
vlono 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
vlonterey 20 2 ~ ! 0.00% 0 0.00%
t~lapa 29 2 6.90% 0 0.00%
Nevada 26 3 11.54% I 3.85%
~)range 31 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
~lacer 82 4 4.88% 0 0.00%
Plumes I 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
F{iverside 24 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Sacramento 55 · 1 1'.82% '0 0.00%
San Benito 2 0 0.00% * 0 0.00%
San Bernardino 17 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
San Diego 39 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
San Francisco 20 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
5an Joaquin 22 2 9.09% 0 0.00%
5an Mateo 38 1 2.63% 0 0.00%
San Luis Obispo 15 2 13.33% 1 6.67%
Santa Barbara 90 6 6.67% 0 0.00%
~anta Clara 77 7 9.09% 0 0.00%
~anta Cruz 10 1 10.00% 0 0.00%
Shasta 79 3 3.80% 0 0.00%
Sierra 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Siskiyou 27 1 3.70% 0 0.00%
$olano 43 2 4.65% 0 0.00%
$onoma 82 1 1.22% 0 0.00%
Stanislaus 14 I 7.14% 0 0.00%
Sutter 15 1 6.67% 0 0.00%
Tehama 17 I 5.88% 0 0.00%
]-rinity 6 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Tuiare 63 3 4.76% 0 0.00%
Tuolumne 24 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Ventura 140 6 4.29% 0 0.00%
¥olo 14 1 7.14% 0 0.00%
Yuba 15 1 6.67% 0 0.00%
sOURCE: EPA Map of Radon Zones: California ISeptember 1993)
Thts EPA~tate survey was conducted in California during t~e winters of 1989-90. 1,885 homes were tested with short-term (2-7 day) charcoal oanisters I=~ared iq
the lowest ivable area of ~ home. These lasts determine the radon concenti'ation, measured in pCi/L (picocuries per lite0. The average radon concentral~on
measurement in tl3e U. $. is between 1 and 2: pCiA...,The E PA has established the guideline of 4 pCi/t, as an "etevatecr' indoor radon level.
NOTE. 'rrm ~aml:Ne size in each county may not be sufficient to show stabslical signiacance. ,this ink)n'nation is NOT intended to determine if a property in
a g~ven county should be tested roi' radon. If or when radon is a concern, all ploper~es should be tested regardless of the county statistics
Acid
A large class of substances having a pH less
than seven. An acid waste is considered
hazardous when the pH is 2.0 or less.
Acute Effect
An adverse effect on a human or animal body,
with severe symptoms developing rapidly and
coming quickly to a crisis.
Acute Exposure
A dose that is delivered to the body in a
single event or in a short period of time.
Aerobic
Occurring in the presence of free oxygen.
Alkaline
A substance with a pH between 7 and 14.
An alkaline waste is considered hazardous
when its pH is 12,5 or greater,
Ambient
Existing conditins of air, water, and other
media at a particular time.
Anaerobic
Occurring in the absence of oxygen.
Assessment
An apalysis or examination.
Background Environmental Sample
Samples that are considered to contain no
contaminants or known concentrations of
contaminants.
Base
A substance which forms a salt when reacted
with an acid. Bases have a pH of greater
than seven.
Buffer Zone
An area of land which surrounds a hazardous
waste facility and on which certain land uses
and activities are restricted to protect the
public health and safety and the environment
from existing or potential hazards caused by
the migration of hazardous waste (CH&SC
Sec. 25110.3},
Carcinogen
A substance or agent capable.of causing or
producing cancer in mammals.
Caustics
A large class of substances which form
solutions having a high pH.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Environmental Glossary
Chronic Effect
An adverse effect on a human or animal body,
with symptoms which develop slowly over a
long period of time or which reoccur
frequently.
Chronic Exposure
Low doses repeatedly received by the body
over a long period of time.
Combustible
A term used by the NFPA, DOT, and others to
classify certain liquids that will burn, on the
basis of flash points. Both the NFPA and
DOT generally define "combustible liquids" as
having a flash point of 100° F or higher.
Concentration
The relative amount of a substance when
combined or mixed with other substances.
Contingency Plan
A document setting out an organized,
planned, and coordinated course of action to
be followed in case of a fire or explosion or
release of a hazardous waste from a TSD or a
generator's facility that could threaten human
health or the environment {RCRA).
Corrosive
As defined by DOT, a corrosive material is a
liquid or solid that causes visible destruction
or irreversible alterations in human skin tissue
at the site of contact or in the case of leakage
from its packaging a liquid that has a severe
corrosion rate on steel. A solid or liquid
which exhibits these characteristics can be
regulated as hazardous waste.
Decomposition
Breakdown of material or substance (by heat,
chemical reaction, electrolysis, decay, or
other processes) into elements or simpler
compounds.
Decontamination
The process of removing contaminants from
individuals and equipment.
Deep Well Injection
Disposal of wastes by injecting them into a
geological formation deep in the ground,
sometimes after pretreatment to avoid
solidification.
EPA ID Number
This unique number assigned by EPA to each
generator, transporter, or TSD.
Effluent
Waste material, either treated or untreated,
discharged into the environment.
Environmental Assessment
The measurement or prediction of the
transport, dispersion, and final location of a
hazardous substance when released into the
environment.
Environmental Emergencies
Incidents involving the release (or potential
release) of hazardous materials into the
environment which require immediate
remedial action.
Environmental Hazard
A condition capable of posing risk of exposure
to air, water, soil, plants, or wildlife.
Exception Report
A report that generators who transport waste
off-site must submit if they do not receive a
properly completed copy of their manifest
within 45 days of the date on which the initial
transporter accepted the waste.
Generator
The person or facility who, by nature or
ownership, management or control, is
responsible for causing or allowing to be
caused, the creation of hazardous waste.
Glovebag
A device used to remove a section of pipe
insulation without isolating the entire space or
room.
Groundwater Hydrology
The study of the movement of water below
the earth's surface.
Hazard
A circumstance or condition that can cause
harm. Hazards are often categorized into four
groups: biological, Chemical, physical, and
radiation.
Hazard Classes
A series of nine descriptive terms that have
been established by the UN Committee of
Experts to categorize the hazardous nature of
chemical, physical, and biological materials.
These categories are: flammable liquids,
explosives, gases, oxidizers, radioactive
materials, corrosives, flammable solids,
poisonous and infectious substances, and
dangerous substances.
Hazardous Waste
Any material that is subject to the hazardous
waste manifest requirements of the EPA
specified in the CFR, Title 40, Part 262 or
would be subject to these requirements in the
absence of an interim authorization to a State
under CFR, Title 40, Part 123, Subpart F.
· Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 41
Heavy Metals
Certain metallic elements having a high
density and generally toxic, e.g., lead, silver,
mercury, and arsenic.
Immediate Removal
Actions undertaken to prevent or mitigate
immediate and significant risk of harm to
human life or health or the environment. As
set forth in the National Contingency Plan,
these actions shall be terminated after $1
million has been obligated or six months have
elapsed from the date of initial response.
Incident
The release or potential release of a hazardous
substance into the environment.
Inert
Exhibiting no chemical activity; totally
unreactive.
Innocent Land Owner's Defense
The defense of a purchaser of real property
that he or she exercised due diligence in
having hazards assessed prior to purchase.
Interim Status
Allows owners and operators of TSDs that
were in existence, or for which construction
had commenced, prior to November 19, 1980
to continue to operate without a permit after
this date pending final issuance from RCRA.
Joint and Several Liability
Under federal law each party that contributed
to damages may be held liable for all
damages, but each has the right to compel
the others to contribute and indemnify.
Liability
Being subject to legal action for one's
behavior.
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
Required by OSHA of owners to alert
employees to hazards, their effect, and
protective action.
Manifest
Form which indicates generator, quantity, and
type of waste for each shipment of hazardous
wastes disposed in off-site facilities.
National Contingency Plan
Policies and procedures that the Federal
Government follows in implementing
responses to incidents involving hazardous
substances.
P Wastes
A federal waste list comprised of substances
categorized as acutely hazardous.
Part A
The first part of a two part application that
must be submitted by a TSD to receive a
permit. It contains general facility
information.
Part B ..
The second part of a two part application that
must be submitted by a TSD to receive a
permit. It contains highly technical and
detailed information.
Planned Removal
The removal of released hazardous
substances from the environment within a
non-immediate, long term time period. Under
CERCLA: Actions intended to minimize
increases in exposure such that time and cost
commitments are limited to six months and/or
$1 million.
Poison, Class A
A DOT term for extremely dangerous poisons,
that is, poisonous gases or liquids of such
nature that a very small amount of the gas, or
vapor of the liquid, mixed with air is
dangerous to life. Some examples: phosgene,
cyanogen, and hydrocyanic acid.
Poison, Class B
A DOT term for liquid, solid, paste, or
semisolid substances, other than Class A
poisons, which are known to be toxic to man
as to afford a hazard to health during
transportation.
Pollutant
A substance or mixture which after release
into the environment and upon exposure to
any organisms will or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause adverse effects in such
organisms and their offspring.
Priority Pollutants
A list of chemicals selected from the list of
toxic pollutants by the EPA as priority toxic
pollutants for regulation under the Clean
Water Act.
Remedial Actions
Responses to releases of hazardous
substances on the NPL that are consistent
with a permanent remedy which would
prevent or mitigate the migration of materials
into the environment.
Risk
The probability that an unwanted event will
occur.
Second Responders
Those personnel required to assist or relieve
first responders at a hazardous material
incident due to their specialized knowledge,
equipment, or experience. These include
State environmental protection or health
officials, commercial response, cleanup
companies, and appropriate industry
representatives.
Strict Uability
Holds a party responsible for damages
irrespective of the amount of care taken in
handling a hazardous substance.
Subtitle C
The part of RCRA which pertains to the
management of hazardous waste.
Subtitle I
The part of RCRA which pertains to the
storage of petroleum products and hazardous
substances, other than wastes, in USTs.
Superfund
See CERCLA.
Synergistic
The action of two materials together which is
greater in effect than the sum of the
individuals actions.
TIGER Files
The US Census Bureau's TIGER files provide a
nationwide computerized map with address
range information.
Tort '
A legal wrong, sometimes referred to as
negligence.
Toxicity
The ability of a substance to produce injury by
non-mechanical means once it reaches a
susceptible site in or on the body.
U Wastes
A federal list of hazardous wastes which
consists of substances deemed to be
hazardous for hazards other than acute
hazards.
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID: 1863-1302
Date of Report: September 10, 1999
Page 42
- Adapted from Lincoln Graduate Center, 1993. Real Estate Environmental Scrcening. San Antonio, Texas.
-AIRS
-AST
-ASTM
-BLM
'-BNA
-CAA
-CDC
-CERCLA
-CERCLIS
-CICIS
-COE
-CWA
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
Aboveground Storage Tank
American Society for Testing and Materials
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of National Affairs
Clean Air Act
Centers for Disease Control
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980
CERCLA Information System
Chemicals in Commerce Information System
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clean Water Act
-DDT
-DOC
-DOCKET
-DOE
-DOT
-EPA
-ERCS
-ERNS
-ESA
-FIFRA
-FINDS
-FOIA
-FWPCA
Dicholoro-diphenyl-dichloroethane
Department of Commerce
Enforcement Docket System--Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
Emergency Response Notification System
Environmental Site Assessment
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Facility Index System
Freedom of Information Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
-HHS
-HSWA
-HUD
-LUST
-MSDS
-NEPA
-NESHAP
-NFRAP
-NOI
-NOV
-NPDES
-NPL
-NRC
-NRIS
-OSHA
Department of Health and Human Services
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Material Safety Data Sheet
National Environment Policy Act
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants '
No Further Remedial Action Planned (Delisted CERCLA Site)
Notice of Intent
Notice of Violation
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Information System
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
· September 10, 1999
Page 43
-PADS
-PCB
-POTW
-PPM
-PRP
-RAATS
-RCRA
-RCRIS
-RFA
-RFI
-RI
-SARA
-SCS
-SDWA
-SETS
-SSTS
-SWF/LF
-TIGER
-TRI
-TSCA
-TSD
-USDA
-USGS
-UST
-WWTP
Acronyms and Abbreviations
PCB Activity Database System
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
Parts Per Million
Potentially Responsible Parties
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RCRA Facility Assessment
RCRA Facility Investigation
Remedial Investigation (CERCLA)
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Soil Conservation Service
Safe Drinking Water Act
Superfund Enforcement Tracking System
Section Seven Tracking System
Solid Waste Facilities / Landfills
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System
Toxic Release Inventory
Toxic Substances Control Act
Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility
· u.S. Department of Agriculture - "
U.S. Geological Survey
Underground Storage Tank
Wastewater Treatment Plant
EcoSearch
Environmental
Resources, Inc.
Report ID:
Date of Report:
1863-1302
September 10, 1999
Page 44
Noise Study
1 580/Tassajara Road
Interchange
Pleasanton, California
March 2000
[Revised]
mo'c Physics Applied
1032 ElWell Court, Room 244
Palo Alto, Califomia 94303
(650) 968-5793
http://users.lan minds.com/-moc
moc@mocpa.com
Noise Study
1 580/Tassajara Road Interchange
Pleasanton, California
M.arch 2000
[Revised]
prepared for David J. Powers & Associates
Mike 0 'Connor, Ph.D.
mo'c Physics Applied
http:llusers.lanminds.coml~moc
moc@mocpa.com
Contents
Text
Summary
Other Information
Page
.Decibels as Noise Descriptors
Standards Affecting Mitigation Measures
Caltrans and the FHWA
Methods
Measurement Results
Estimates of Future Conditions...
With and Without Mitigation
Table and Fi_mares
Accuracy Limitations
Wall Cost Effectiveness and Alternative Alignments
Other Project Noise Effects
Disclaimer
Tables
Measured PM Peak-Hour Noise Levels-- 1999
Peak-Hour Furore Noise Levels-- Decibels
Figure A: Outline of Overall Roadway Improvement Area
Figures--Wails, Receptors & EB 1580
1: Pimlico Near Brockton & Saratoga
2: Pimlico Near Belmont & Keneland
3: Pimlico Near Thistle & Creek
4: Pimlico: E. of Creek; W. of Kirkcaldy
5: Pimlico & Kirkcaldy Ct.
6: Brent & Stacey
7: W. End of Annis
8: E. End of Annis
6
7
7
9
10
10
10
11
12
13
14
14
10
15
2
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Summary
Pro_iect Description
The proposed 1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange project, herein referred to as "the
Project", would consist of modifications to the interchange of Tassajara and Santa Rita
Roads with 1-580, and, the construction of a new eastbound auxiliary lane which would
extend from the Tassajara Interchange to the next interchange to the east (which is with
Fallon and E1 Charro Roads).1 Some of the Project's alignments cross the boundary
between the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton.
Figure A exhibits a drawing of roadway alignments and buildings along 1-580 in the
vicinity of the Project. Note especially that the light-gray rectangles on Figure A are
outlines of Figures 1 through 8 which appear, at the end of this report. The eight figures
provide a detailed look at affected receptors and sound wall alignments.
The Project's engineers state that the purposes of the project are to alleviate congestion,
improve safety, and accommodate growth in traffic due to yet-to-be-constructed but
approved local development.2
There are residences in a neighborhood in the southeast quadrant of the Project
interchange with Tassajara and Santa Rita Roads and by relieving some of the congestion
and providing a new auxiliary lane the Project would increase peak traffic volumes on the
segment of 1-580 which runs past the residential neighborhood. The residences there
consist of townhomes and detached 'single-family' homes and are in Pleasanton in a
neighborhood-- it is the study area of this report-- which extends from Brockton Drive
on the west to Annis Circle on the east. Given that the neighborhood is not adjacent to
the Project interchange, the new auxiliary lane would therefore be the only component of
the Project which would directly acoustically affect the residential area.
This study is limited in scope to the Project's impacts on the residential neighborhood.
1 An 'auxiliary lane' is simply an extra lane that runs only between interchanges rather than down the entire
length of a freeway. The proposed auxiliary lane would thus become a new, outer eastbound lane of 1-580.
It would accommodate "weaving" by traffic entering and exiting the main travel lanes of the freeway (the
"mainline"); drivers who now enter the eastbound mainline flow at the Tassajara/Santa Rita Road
Interchange to use the freeway to go only from that interchange to the next could instead remain in the new
auxiliary lane.
2 10/21/99 communication from CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Figure A: Outline of Overall Roadway Improvement Area
Fallon Rd./El Charro Rd. Interchange
N ~
1-580
Outline of Figure
Annis Circle
<. Residences
Pimlico Drive
Tassaja~/.
I
Outline of Figure 1
:~---- Brockton Drive
Santa Rita Rd.
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Other Information
Existing noise levels were measUred at two locations on Pimlico Drive, a street which
runs like a frontage road along the south side of 1-580 through a portion of the residential
neighborhood east of Brockton Drive.
The acoustical effects of operating 1-580 with a new eastbound auxiliary lane were
quantitatively estimated using assumed traffic conditions for the noisiest hoUr of the day
and a noise model which is promulgated by the FHWA and by Caltrans-- at 24 locations
along the alignment. Just as for the measurements, the locations at which future noise
levels were forecast were selected so as to be representative of wayside residential
receptors. For the detached 'single-family' homes at the eastern end of the Project the
locations were almost all in back yards on the 1-580 side of the house. The measurements
and estimates were made in units called 'decibels'. The decibel scale is an index of
loudness.
Heavy diesel truck traffic on 1-580 was also observed and counted during the noise level
measurements. For example, there were about 370 such heavy tracks between 6:30 and
7:30 PM on a weekday. Such an amount of heavy-track traffic is not unusual for an
interstate freeway, but the trucks 'stand out' because an existing wall along 1-580 acts
preferentially to abate noise from automobiles somewhat more than it abates noise from
heavy tracks. That is, there is an existing 3.0- to 3.4-meter-high (10- to il-foot-high)
precast wall of several segments which runs along'on the south side of 1-580. It was
clearly designed so as to provide mitigation of noise from traffic on 1-580 and it runs
along the entire length of the residential area, essentially along the 1-580 right-of-way line
except where it's alignment leaves the edge of 1-580 at Annis Circle at the east end of the
residential area because the lots there do not quite 'back up to' 1-580 (it continues running
eastward parallel to 1-580 along the residential property line behind the lots on Annis
Circle). The existing wall has the following noteworthy feature: exhaust stacks of heavy
diesel tracks typically extend a third of a meter to a meter (one to three feet) beyond the
top of the wall when viewed from ground-floor vantage points at many of the affected
homes-- namely at those west of Annis Circle. At the residences which are thus exposed
to heavy-truck exhaust noise, the fact that the existing wall is not generally high enough
to block the lines of sight (and sound) to the exhaust stacks of the heavy tracks means
that a passby by almost any eastbound heavy track can easily be heard above the noise
from all of the other vehicles.
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY mo'c Physics Applied
If no new walls were to be constructed along the alignment, but existing walls and fences
were to be maintained as they are, then wayside residents would experience slight
increases in peak-hour traffic noise due to the Project of less than a decibel, where the
comparison is between future levels with the Project in place and future levels without the
Project. The increases would be slight because the auxiliary lane would only add one
lane to the eight existing lanes. Increases of that magnitude are hardly noticeable in the
context of environmental noise from a roadway-- in part because roadway noise
fluctuates from minute to minute by several decibels or more but also because the change
in the perceived loudness of a source when it changes in intensity by one decibel is also
inherently slight.
The nois~ abatement policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) declare a
noise impact and a need to consider abatement measures for a residence if predicted
outdoor noise levels with a proposed roadway improvement project in place would
approach or exceed 67 decibels at an outdoor use area on the roadway side of the
residence (the 67-decibel level is called the outdoor noise abatement criterion level, the
NAC). The corresponding policy of Caltrans is to regard projected furore noise levels of
66 decibels or more as 'approaching or exceeding' 67 decibels.
Abatement must be undertaken if 'reasonable and feasible' measures are available. In the
context of the Project the available measures are limited to the construction of sound
walls to intervene between 1-580 and the residences.
The noise measurements and the estimates indicate that future noise levels with the
Project in place would certainly exceed 66 decibels at the residences along Pimlico Drive.
Other residences along 1-580 east of Pimlico Drive would also experience outdoor noise
levels exceeding the criterion level-- except for the residences along Annis Circle where
the greater setbacks of those residences and the existing wall which shields them from
1-580 leads to lower noise levels. (See the table on page 15 and the eight figures which
follow page 15.)
4
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Given the need to consider abatement measures for the affected residences, the
effectiveness of constructing new noise walls having heights of up to 5 meters (16.4 feet)
along the edge of the 1-580 right of way throughout most of the residential neighborhood
was evaluated-- at residences where the earlier modelling had indicated that furore noise
levels with the Project in place would otherwise exceed the 66-decibel impact criterion
level. For a particular horizontal alignment which is the horizontal alignment of the
existing precast wall, it was found that wall heights of 5 meters (16.4 feet) would
generally bring about reductions in noise levels of 3 to 4 decibels (the reduction would be
5 decibels at just one residence). Wall segments of such heights would also clearly break
the lines of sight between receptors and exhaust stacks of heavy tracks on 1-580.3
Regulatory constraints exist which limit the scope and extent of certain abatement
measures as being unreasonable or infeasible. There are cost-effectiveness constraints
and Caltrans does not permit noise walls along the edge of the right of way to have
base-to-top heights in excess of 5 meters (16.4 feet). Other restrictions that are based
upon considerations of reasonability or feasibility may be applicable at a given location
and in particular there is an FHWA/Caltrans requirement that any abatement measure
must bring about at least a 5-decibel improvement. There is also a requirement that any
new sound wall should break the lines of sight between .receptors and the exhaust stacks
of heavy trucks on the project roadway.
To conclude this introduction, it was de~ermined that although the installation of sound
walls as high as 5 meters (16.4 feet) in a particular horizontal alignment which is the
horizontal alignment of the existing precast wall would noticeably reduce noise levels, the
measure would unfortunately not generally bring about reductions as substantial as 5
decibels. Although a wall of such height would clearly meet the separate design
requirement that the lines of sight between receptors and the exhaust stacks of heavy
trucks be broken, the failure of such a design to also meet the 5-decibel reduction
requirement means that the existing wall will not be replaced by the proposed Project--
the 5-decibel rule being a requirement that is strictly interpreted by Caltrans.4
3 Ordinarily it would be appropriate to also investigate alternative wall alignments, such as an alignment
that would not run along the right of way line but would instead mn within the 1-580 right of way along the
edge of the near shoulder of the. freeway (such walls which run along the edge of a shoulder of a road are
referred to as "hingepoint' walls). However, in this case such a hingepoint wall alignment would not meet a
requirement of Caltrans that only ultimately feasible wall alignments be considered because there is a
foreseen project which would consist of building tracks and stations for BART in the median of 1-580 and
increasing the number of travel lanes to five in each direction. Such a project would bring about the
removal of any wall that might be constructed along the edge of the shoulder of 1-580 for the Project, the
1-580/Tassajara Interchange project, and therefore a hingepoint wall for the Project would not be
economically feasible. (10/21/99 communication from CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.)
4 The prime environmental contractor for the Project, David J. Powers and Associates, conferred with Mr.
Chris Corwin of the Environmental Branch of Caltrans District IV and was told that the District strictly
observes the requirement that walls must produce a benefit of at least 5 decibels. [Email of 10/26/99 from J.
Hesler of David J. Powers and Associates]
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Decibels as Noise Descriptors
Noise intensity is customarily measured on a 'decibel' scale which serves as an index of
loudness. On this scale sounds as faint as 0 decibels are just barely audible, and only then
in the absence of other louder sounds; intense sounds of 120-140 decibels are so loud as
to be painful or to cause damage to hearing with but a brief exposure.
Such extremes are not often encountered in commonplace environments. Residents of
Pleasanton are most frequently exposed to noise which ranges between 35 decibels and
80 decibels in intensity.
noise environment or event: (conditions) noise level
anechoic chamber: (hearing test) 0-20 decibels
recording studio: (background) 20
quiet woods: (in a rural area, still air) 30
residence: (indoors at night, quiet suburb) 35
office: (busy, open-plan) 55
normal conversation: (3 to 5-foot separation) 60-65
20 mph automobile: (25-foot separation) 65
50 mph dump truck: (50-foot separation) 90
train horn: (lO0-foot separation) 105
claw hammer: (on wooden plank) 120
shotgun: (at shooter's ear) 140
The environmental noise level estimates that appear below are based on the "Lcq", which
is a kind of time average of the intensity of sound. In general, environmental noise levels
fluctuate as trucks, buses, platoons of automobiles or aircraft pass by-- sometimes by
more than twenty decibels over intervals as brief as a few seconds. The maximum and
minimum noise levels within any interval of time are therefore significantly higher and
lower, reSpectively, than the Lq over the same interval. For example, during one
15-minute sample on a weekday evening at the pedestrian bridge over the Creek for the
sidewalk along Pimlico Drive in the residential neighborhood that would be affected by
the Project the lowest of a series of sampled noise levels was 64 decibels, the highest was
72, and the Leq of all the samples was 68. The observed lack of constancy in the sampled
noise levels was of course principally due to the fluctuating nature of noise which came
from heavy-truck passbys on 1-580 and from passbys by local vehicles on Pimlico Drive.
Because traffic noise fluctuates substantially in intensity from minute to minute and
varies greatly in intensity from day to night, whereas a 5-decibel before-and-after change
due to a roadway improvement project is readily perceptible a 3-decibel change is barely
perceptible and a 1-decibel change is generally unnoticeable.
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Standards Affecting Abatement Measures
Caltrans and the FHWA
The standards of Caltrans and the FHWA are applicable to the Project. The
noise-abatement policies and procedures of Caltrans are patterned after those of the
FHWA but are more explicit and specific in some areas. First, it should be understood
that under the procedures of Caltrans and of the FHWA the construction of walls where
there is an indication of a need according to acoustical standards is not entirely
mandatory. The FHWA regulations require only that "reasonable" and "feasible"
abatement measures .be used. Of course, cost effectiveness is deemed to be a major
element of reasonability. Certainly, safety considerations may also override the need for a
wall, as when clear lines of sight are required for traffic safety. Also, if only one piece of
property would be affected by a plan to provide a noise wall, then the owner of that piece
of property may mm down the offer to construct a noise wall. Generally speaking, the
opinions of residents, particularly residents who are owners, are to be given consideration
in regard to the selection and specification of abatement measures. The FHWA
procedures even stipulate that aesthetics and sociological concerns may affect the
determination of the feasibility of an abatement measure. It is recognized that it is
generally infeasible to mitigate noise levels at the second-floor level of detached homes
with walls along the edge of the roadway alignment. Receptor locations for study are
limited lo outdoor use.areas on the side of the building which is nearest to the roadWay, at
the ground-floor level. If there are no such areas then interior noise levels are to be used
as the criterion levels for determining the need for abatement.5
For schools and residences, including motels, the outdoor-noise trigger level for 'the need
to consider abatement is a fixed peak-hour noise level 'approaching or exceeding' 67
decibels. Caltrans interprets a 66-decibel level as a level approaching 67 decibels. (If
interior noise levels are to be evaluated for lack of an outdoor use area on the roadway
side of the building then the criterion level which is applicable to residences and motels
and which triggers a need to consider abatement is 52 decibels.)6
5 It could reasonably be argued that there are no outdoor use areas at some of the townhomes on Pimlico
Drive, but there definitely are outdoor use areas at some of the other townhomes and forecast future outdoor
noise conditions at the' latter trigger the need to consider abatement measures. That need to consider
abatement having been triggered by the outdoor noise abatement criterion level at some of the townhomes,
it is not necessary to also examine whether or not the indoor noise abatement criterion level would be.
exceeded because both the indoor and outdoor noise abatement criterion levels are fundamentally trigger
levels for investigating the reasonability and feasibility of abatement; they are not levels below which
environmental noise must be reduced by abatement.
6 Project Development Procedures Manual (Chapter 30, Section 2); Caltrans, 7/1/99; Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol (Section 2.4); Caltrans, October 1998
1-580/TASSAJARA RD, INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Caltrans has several other types of standards which pertain to noise walls and there are
none more important in the context of the present project than the following three: walls
located within 4.5 meters (15 feet) of the travelled way may not have a height exceeding
4.3 meters (14 feet) and walls further from the travelled way may not have a height
exceeding 5 meters (16.4 feet); there is a requirement that abatement measures generally
contribute at least 5 decibels of attenuation; and, sound wails along a roadway should
break the line of sight between receptors in the first tier of residences and exhaust stacks
of heavy tracks on the roadway.7
Caltrans has new cost-effectiveness guidelines. The conceptual basis of the guidelines is
naturally that the noise benefits of an abatement measure should exceed the dollar costs
of the abatement measure-- in some sense. In order to make this comparison Caltrans
has assigned dollar values to the noise reduction benefits of abatement measures. For
each residence shielded by a noise wall there is assigned a $15,000 base allowance which
is adjusted upwards if the benefit of the wall there is particularly important in prescribed
ways. There are several factors which can increase this base allowance but the maximum
allowed cost will in no case not be found to exceed $45,000 per 'benefited residence'
[1998 dollars] where a 'benefited residence' is one which receives a benefit of at least 5
decibels due to the wall.8 Then, using $151 per square meter ($14 per square foot) as a
wall cost factor-- it is Caltrans's suggested factor for preliminary estimates at 1998
prices-- and multiplying by the average area of the wall per benefited residence, 'the cost
of the Wall per benefited residence is estimated and compared with the $15,000+ benefit
amount.
When noise walls are considered for construction atop ~etaining walls which would need
to be consmacted in any case, then the cost of the retaining wall is not to be given
consideration when determining the cost effectiveness of the noise wall.9 Caltrans would
permit a variety of materials to be used in the construction of a noise wall: masonry
block, pre-stressed concrete, wood (post and plank or framed plywood), metal (ribbed
steel) or composite beam (Styrofoam and wire mesh core with stucco exterior). The use
of other, newer materials such as polycarbonate panels might also be appropriate. 10
7 Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1100, Section 1102.3); Caltrans, July 1, 1995; Traffic Noise Analysis
Protocol (Section 5); Caltrans, October 1998
8 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Section 2.8.2); Caltrans, October 1998
9 Project Development Procedures Manual; Caltrans; 1/1/97, p. 30-20
10 See Section 1102.5 of the Highway Design Manual of Caltrans, July 1, 1995, pp. 1100-3 &1100-4. A
polycarbonate product has been tested and approved by Caltrans (letter of Charles Larwood of Caltrans
District 5 Environmental Planning of 6/10/99).
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Methods
The noise model which was used for this study is the Federal Highway Administration's
current Traffic Noise Model. The noise prediction model is entirely 3-dimensional in
character. The acoustical consultant obtained computer-aided drawing files (CAD) from
the Project's engineeks and derived the noise model directly from those files. The CAD
files are based in part on survey data which are accurate in the vertical dimension to
within about 10 centimeters (four inches) or so. Elevations of points on and off the
travelled way were d. etermined to approximately that accuracy; horizontal positions were
determined to greater accuracy.
"Type II" instrumentation was used for the noise level measurements, which designation
signifies a certain quality. Federal procedures require that instruments of type II or better
must be used for roadway noise studies on Federally-funded projects.TM The readings
were all taken during and throughout the tail end of the PM commute period (the
eastbound flow becomes congested during the PM commute period and the period, during
and after the time of peak congestion was selected for study in order to get readings
during the noisiest operating conditions of the day). Each reading was about 15 minutes
in duration and was taken with a tripod-mounted meter equipped with a windscreen.
Winds were light and did not bias the measurements. A field calibrator was used to
check the instrumentation before each measurement or set of measurements.
The future traffic volumes and speeds that were used for this study were taken to be 1,600
vehicles per lane per hour at 85 kilometers per hour (53 mph). Based on Caltrans track
counts and classifications on the existing route, it was assumed that during the noisiest
hour of the day 5% of all of the vehicles would be heavy tracks and that 2% would be
medium trucks (a 'heavy truck' has more than 2 axles; a medium truck has 2 axles but six
wi'reels; light trucks have four wheels and are placed in the same category as automobiles
and are thus not even recorded as trucks). 12
11 Bruel & Kjaer Type 2237 "Controller" Sound Level Meter; Calibrator Type 4231
12 Http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/97tmck.htm exhibits estimates by Caltrans of daily
track traffic on 1-580 for the year 1997 (access date 10/12/99). Heavy trucks comprise about 8 to 10% of
daily traffic in those estimates of Caltrans and medium tracks are 2% of daily traffic, but the statistic which
is needed, for this study is not the percentage of daily traffic which consists of heavy trucks but the
percentage of traffic during just the peak noise hour. Given that heavy truck traffic does not sharply peak
during the AM and PM commutes, as does automobile traffic, a lower percentage of heavy track traffic
[5%] was assumed for the estimates on page 14. (The Project's traffic consultant has estimated daily truck
traffic at approximately 15%, which estimate pertains to trucks of all sizes [Traffic Operations Analysis for
the Interstate 580~Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Interchange; TJKM Transportation Consultants;
September 13, 1999]. That estimate is higher than the 10 to 12% figures-- 8 to 10% heavy trucks plus 2%
medium trucks-- of the Caltrans data and the latter are based on actual [1996] counts. Other noise model
runs were made using 8% as the heavy truck percentage rather than 5%, which higher percentage represents
about three times the number of heavy trucks per hour than were counted during the noise measurements,
and still the results were that a 5-decibel benefit was not projected.)
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE. STUDY
m o' c Physics Applied
Measurement Results
The measurement locations are shoWn on Figures 2 .and 3 which are to be found among
the pages following page 15. They are denoted thereon by the symbol "M" followed by
the number of the measurement, such as "M 1", just as on the table below which gives the
measured values.
Measured PM Peak-Hour Noise Levels-- 1999
Location Figure Use Level (Leq) Time and Date
(decibels.)
long Pimlico Drive
MI 2
M2 3
Townhomes 67 6:06-6:21 PM on 9/17/99
67 6:24-6:40 PM on 9/17/99
Townhome &.Detached Residence 68 7:47-8:03 PM on 9/17/99
66 6:29-6:44 PM on 10/7/99
68 6:46-7:02 PM on 10/7/99
68 7:03-7:18 PM on 10/7/99
68 7:20-7:35 PM on 10/7/99
Estimates of Future Conditions With and Without Abatement
Tables and Fieures
The estimates of noise levels for future conditions with and without abatement appear in
the table on page 15. Eight figures follow the table which show the locations of the noise
receptors, the measurement locations, and the wall section alignments that were
investigated.
10
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Results of Estimates
The sound wall scenario which was evaluated is characterized by the entries in the table
· on page 15 which are under the columns which pertain to the "Existing Wall Alignment"
wall abatement scenario. The design would either replace certain segments of the
existing precast wall or be placed next to it so as to effectively supplant it. The affected
part of the existing precast wall would be the part which runs from approximately 50
meters (160 feet) west of Brockton Drive at the very west end of the entire residential
area to the west end of Annis Circle (the access street at the very eastern end of the
residential area). If it were to be built the new sound wall would have a base-to-top
height of 5.0 meters (16.4 feet), the maximum height to which Caltrans builds sound
walls.13 .
For example, entries are shown on the table on page 15 under the 5.0 meters (16.4 feet)
column which are opposite receptor locations 1 through 18, indicating that the design
height of the sound wall to which those entries pertain is 5.0 meters (16.4 feet) in the
vicinities of those 18 receptor locations. The design would conform to the existing wall
at a location just west of receptor location 19 at the west end of Annis Circle, so that the
existing wall at the homes on Annis Circle would not be supplanted.
The 5.0-meter (16.4-foot) design height would be such that it would clearly block the
lines of sight to .heavy-truck exhaust stacks from receptors at the ground floor level (at the
level of the ground) and would therefore substantially diminish the intensity of such
intrusive sounds at the ground floor levels of the affected homes. (The existing wall
effectively blocks such lines of sight only at the homes on Annis Circle.)
Comparing the entries under the 5.0 meters (16.4 feet) column of the table [p. 15] with
those for the "No New (Existing)" wall scenario reveals that putting in such a sound wall
would generally reduce noise levels at receptor locations 1 through 18 by 3' to 4 decibels
except at R18 where there would be a 5-decibel reduction. (The comparisons among wall
alternatives, when expressed as decibel differences, are not dependent upon the assumed
traffic volumes or the assumed operating speeds.)
13 Along these segments of the existing wall that would be replaced it is essentially a right-of-way wall.
11
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
Accuracy Limitations
It should be understood that the estimates do not have the absolute accuracy which is
· suggested by the numbers of digits which are shown. The estimates pertain to a furore
year at which time the projected traffic volumes may not be quite as they were projected,
and, there are many other limitations which afflict the noise prediction process itself. In
all, it is likely but not certain that the future noise levels will be within plus or minus two
decibels of the forecast value. (However, comparisons may be made with greater
reliability: it is likely that the difference between a noise level with a wall of one height
and another with the same wall at a somewhat different height is accurate to a fraction of
a decibel.)
One can see from the table on page 15 that a difference of two decibels might make a
difference of about a meter (three feet) in the estimate of the height of a noise wall
requisite to achieve a given amount of attenuation. Notwithstanding the limitations in the
accuracy with which requisite noise wall heights can be estimated, no margin of safety
has been built into the estimates in this report-- the sanctioned methods which the
acoustical consultant has used do not incorporate any such margin of safety· The
acoustical consultant thus does not certify that future noise levels will necessarily not
exceed the estimates which are provided herein·
Wall Cdst EffectiveneSs and Alternative Alignrnent~
The phrase "benefited residence" in the cost-effectiveness guidelines of Caltrans is
intended to exclude residences where the abatement would not bring about reductions in
noise levels (in this case from 1-580) of at least 5 decibels. Only one 'benefited residence
was found, R18 on Figure 7 (see also the table on page 15).
The question which arises is would a wall design to just shield that one residence be cost
effective? To begin, the actual computed reduction was 4.6 decibels (which rounds off to
5 decibels). The margin by which the residence would be a benefited residence is a bare
0.2 decibels (because 4.4 decibels rounds off to 4 decibels). The significance of the slim
margin is that 'flanking' of noise from 1-580 around the ends of any higher wall that
might be built there would have to be carefully minimized by the only available
method-- by making the wall substantially longer than the property line of that lot along
the 1-580 right of way. That property line along 1-580 is approximately 40 meters (130
feet) long and so the area of any wall capable of generating a 5-decibel reduction there
would have to be substantially greater than 40 meters x 5 meters = 200 square meters
(2,150 square feet). Using the recommended preliminary cost factor of $151 per square
meter ($14 per square foot) the result is that such a 5-meter (16.4-foot) wall would cost
substantially more than $30,200.
12
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
The maximum cost allowance under the cost-effectiveness guidelines of Caltrans for the
circumstances of the residence at location R18 is $21,000 which consists of the $15,000
base allowance increased by $4,000 due to the estimated future noise levels with the
Project in place (with no additional abatement) being in the 70- to74-decibel range, and
increased by $2,000 due to the future noise levels with the Project possibly being 3
decibels greater than existing levels (2.5 decibels would be rounded to three decibels).
No other modifications to the base allowance are possible in this case: the home doesn't
qualify as having an achievable noise reduction of more than five decibels; it was not
built before 1978; and, such a wall could not cost an appreciable fraction of the Project's
total cost because the Project incorporates structures (and structures are costly). 14
Given that the preliminary cost estimate for a wall at the residence [R18] is a sum
substantially in excess of $30,200 but the maximum cost allowance is only $21,000 the
indications are that a new 5-meter (16.4 foot) wall at the residence would not be cost
effective. A wall of a lesser height would not produce the required 5-decibel reduction
which'is needed in Order to make the residence a benefited residence, and higher walls are
not allowed by Caltrans.
Estimates were also made of wall construction costs and wall cost allowances for the
complete 5-meter (16.4-foot) wall that is evaluated in the table on page 15 that would mn
along the edge of the right of way of 1-580 past receptors R1 through R18, in essentially
the same alignment as the existing wall-- as though a residence where a wall would
block the lines of sight to heavy-track exhaust stacks could be counted as a 'benefited
residence' under the cost effectiveness guidelines of Cal.trans even though the reduction
in the overall traffic noise level would not amount to 5 or more decibels. That is not the
case because reductions of at least 5 decibels are required, but the exercise was conducted
anyway because a residence where such blocking of lines of sight to heavy-track exhaust
stacks is brought about is a residence that benefits somewhat substantially even if the
overall reduction in noise levels does not amount to 5 decibels.15
14 The cost allowance determination method of Caltrans is defined in their Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol
document of October 1998 at Section 2.8.2. The service at the URL http://www.dataquick.com/consumer/
produced a printout of comparable sales data which shows that the homes on Annis Circle were constructed
in 1993.
15 The Glossary .of the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol of Caltrans [October 1998] defines a "benefited
residence" as: "A dwelling unit expected to receive a noise reduction of at least 5 dBA from the proposed
noise abatement measure [p. 33]." ("dBA" is an abbreviation for decibel.)
13
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
The results were generally that a wall design might be found-- that endpoints for a
5-meter (16.4-foot) wall might be found-- that would be cost effective if the definition of
benefited residence were relaxed as discussed, but that such a wall would be cost
effective by a small margin and only where the majority of the homes were constructed
prior to 1978. The homes along Pimlico Drive east of the townhomes and the Creek and
west of the point where Pimlico Drive turns south were constructed before 1978, and so if
the definition of a benefited residence were considered to include residences where a wall
design would take away the existing view to heavy-truck exhaust stacks on a route that is
rather well travelled on by heavy trucks then such a wall design could perhaps be
considered to be cost effective.
Other PrQect Noise Effects
During construction of the Project heavy diesel-powered earth moving equipment would
be employed which would produce noise levels of approximately 85 decibels at distances
of 15 meters (50 feet). Noise levels from such localized sources drop offabout 6 decibels
per doubling of distance, which means that the noise levels from individual pieces of
equipment in operation would reach adjacent residences along the alignment at levels up
to 75 decibels-- as high as 90 decibels were it not for the mitigating effect of the existing
precast wall. That would be the case because the equipment would at times be used near
.the edge of the right of way. Such levels would constitute a temporary annoyance,
because the residences of the neighborhood in the southeast quadrant are not really near
the Interchange and so the only construction noise to which they would be directly
exposed would be that from the construction of the auxiliarY lane, and the construction of
the auxiliary lane will not go on for an extended period of time near any one residence.
If pertinent parameters change substantially during the final Project design, or if the
public review process concludes with a finding that changes should be made, elements of
the preliminary noise abatement design-- here there is as yet no design because no wall
design which meets all of the requirements of Caltrans has been found-- may be changed
in the final Project design. A final decision regarding the provision of noise abatement
will be made during the completion of the Project design.
14
1-580/TASSAJARA RD. INTERCHANGE NOISE STUDY
mo'c Physics Applied
SE Quadrant
Tassajara lC
Receptor Figure
Brockton Drive
R1
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
Rll
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R18 7
R19 7
R20 7
R21
R22
1123
R24
Notes
Peak-Hour Future Noise Levels Decibels
(The Project With and Without Noise Wall Abatement)
Wall Abatement Scenarios
Notes
No New
(Existing)
to Annis Circle
<Existing Wall Alignment> <Alternative Wall Alignment>
3.0 meters 5.0 meters Change
(lO feeO (16.4 feeO (decibels)
1 67 64 -3 None was evaluated, a
I ...................... ~.8 ...................................................................................... ~ ....................................... .72 ..................... ~.EE. ~.. fP~0[~...~!).P~gE..~., ................ q ...............
68 a
1 ..................................................................................................................... 6~ ...................................... :2
· 68 a
1 ~ ..................................... Z4:
69 a
2 ~ .................................... :4:
2 70 66 -4 a
70 a
2 .................................................................................................................... ~ ....................................... ~4:
70 a
3 ........................................................................................................................ 6~ ...................................... 14: ............................................................................................................................................................
3 69 65 -4 . .' a
69 a
4 .................................................................................................................. ~5 .......................................... 74 .............................................................................................................................................................
4 68 64 -4 a
4 ...................................................................................................................... 68 ~4 .......................................... ~3. ........................................................................................................................................................... a
67 a
4 ...................................................................................................................... ~} ............................................ ;~3.
fi 69 65 -4 a
5 69 . 65 -4 a
6 69 65 -4 a
6 70 66 -4 a
70 66 -5 a
.......... ~ ...................................... ~4: ....................................................................................... :~ ~ .................
64 64 0 b
7, 8 ........ ~ ................................ ~ 0 /~ ...............
8 ................. ~ ................................... ~ o ~ ............
8 ............. ~ .................................. ~ ............................................................................. ~ ~ ...........
8 63 63 0 b
a For the 'existing wall alignment' wall abatement scenario the wall would replace or be placed
alongside the existing precast wall which is 3.0 to 3.4 meters (10 to 11 feet) high.
b For the 'existing wall alignment' scenario the existing wall would remain as it is for these receptors.
all For the abatement scenarios the existence of a column entry for aparticular receptor indicates
the wall height for that receptor. For any particular receptor location the rounded-off difference
' beOyeen the noise levels may not equal the difference between the rounded offlevels.
15
ij
ol
o~
IX<'
i
,?
e~
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Impact Mitigation
Biological Resources
If Burrowing Owls are present on-site at the time of construction,
construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in
the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to
nest abandonment. Although the site is not presently occupied by
Burrowing Owls, Owls could move onto the site's suitable habitat
prior to completion of all phases of development.
Significant Impact
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, which are
included as part of the project, would mitigate potential impacts to
Burrowing Owls to a less than significant level. The following
mitigation measures were identified as mitigation measures
3.7/20.0 and 3.7/27.0 in the Eastem Dublin General Plan
Amendment EIR.
In conformance with federal and state regulations protecting raptors
against direct "take," a qualified ornithologist would conduct pre-
construction surveys for Burrowing Owls prior to any soil- altering
activity, construction, or development on the site. The
preconstruction surveys would be conducted per CDFG guidelines
(no more than 30 days prior to the start of site grading), regardless
of the time of year in which grading occurs. If no Burrowing Owls
are found, then no further mitigation would be warranted.
If, as determined by the omithologist in consultation with the
CDFG, Owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a
construction-free buffer zone of at least 300 feet around the active
burrow would be established. No activities, including grading or
other construction work, would proceed until the buffer zone is
established, or a CDFG approved relocation of the birds has been
performed (such relocations can occur only during the non-
reproductive season (September through January).
If preconstruction surveys confirm that Burrowing Owls occupy the
site, then avoidance of impacts to the habitat utilized by these Owls
would be considered the preferred mitigation method. Avoidance
would allow the use of areas currently occupied by Burrowing
Owls to continue uninterrupted.
1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project 1 May, 2000
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Impact [ Mitigation
Biological Resources (cont.)
If preconstmction surveys determine that Burrowing Owls occupy
the site, and avoiding development of occupied areas is not
feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands
would be implemented. Off-site mitigation typically entails
evicting the affected Owls from the project site and setting aside
and managing specific areas for Burrowing Owls. Burrowing Owls
would not be evicted from the site during the breeding season.
A single, large, contiguous mitigation site is preferable to several
smaller, separated sites. The mitigation site would preferably
support Owl nesting and be contiguous with or at least proximal to
other lands supporting Burrowing Owls. Sites with a long history
of Burrowing Owls use, or that have at least been in a suitable
condition for occupancy are preferred. Grazing is compatible with
Burrowing Owl occupancy.
If Owls are found on-site, then the project will conform with the
CDFG guidelines, which require that off-site mitigation lands be
set-aside at a ratio of 2.6 hectares (6.5 acres)/pair or individual Owl
(if only an individual is observed). The City of Dublin could
identify and set aside the mitigation land prior to site grading if
Owls are located on-site. Alternatively, the project sponsors could
place a security deposit or other financial assurance (e.g,,
performance bond, letter of credit, etc.) into a CDFG Burrowing
Owl mitigation fund prior to grading. Funds would be expended
towards the acquisition and long-term management of a mitigation
site.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project 2 May, 2000
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Impact Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange area has supported
vehicular activity since the 1950's, it is highly likely that the
surface soils along these areas contain aerially-deposited lead from
exhaust of cars burning leaded gasoline. The release of lead during
construction of the proposed interchange improvements could
impact nearby residences and land uses.
Significant Impact
In order to minimize potential impacts from the likely presence of
aerially-deposited lead, the following mitigation measures are
included as part of the project:
Surface soil samples would be collected and analyzed prior to
project construction to determine the applicability of reuse under
the Department of Toxic Substance Control Lead Variance. Soils
contaminated with elevated levels of aerially-deposited lead would
be disposed in accordance with the requirements of the Department
of Toxic Substance Control Lead Variance. These soils would
either be removed from the site prior to or during construction or
buried within the fill soils during project construction°
Prior to the demolition and removal of the existing bridge structure,
an asbestos survey would be conducted in conformance with the
requirements of Caltrans. This survey would be included with the
notification to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for
the bridge demolition.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project 3 May, 2000
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Impact Mitigation
Noise
Operation of heavy equipment during project construction would
result in short-term noise increases in the site area. The major
noise sources would be associated with site grading and pile driving
activities. Construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on
the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, and the
distance between the noise sources and the receptors.
Significant Impact
In order to reduce the significant short-term construction noise
impacts on the residences located southeast of the interchange, the
project includes the following mitigation measures.
General construction activities would be limited to the daytime
hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM to avoid the more sensitive early
morning and evening hours. General construction activities would
not occur on Sundays or holidays. The erection of falsework and
the demolition of the existing bridge structure are exceptions to this
requirement. These construction activities require diversion of
traffic on 1-580 and must be completed at night.
Project construction would use quiet or new technology equipment,
particularly the quieting of exhaust noises by use of improved
mufflers. All equipment would be maintained in good mechanical
condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly
running vehicles engines.
Residents within 91.4 meters (300 feet) would be provided with
advance written notification of planned construction activities prior
to each new stage of construction.
Noise-generating equipment such as generators and compressors
would be located as far as possible from residential uses.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project 4 May, 2000
MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Impact Mitigation
Cultural Resources
The archaeological literature and records search completed by
Basin Research Associates found that, in spite of the overall high
sensitivity for archaeological resources in the project area, no
recorded archaeological sites or known Native American
settlements have been identified within or adjacent to the I-
580/Tassajara Road interchange area. In addition, no prehistoric or
significant historic cultural materials were observed during field
surveys ofthe site.
In the unlikely event that buried archaeological resources are
discovered during project construction activities, work shall be
halted until a qualified archaeologist has been retained and
consulted regarding the significance of any such discovery.
Uncovered resources will be treated in accordance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act, State law, and the
protocol set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.
In the event that the archaeologist determines that future excavation
would endanger a significant cultural resource at this location, it
would be the responsibility of the archaeologist to present the City
with a proposal for the mitigation of impacts to the resource before
work is allowed to continue.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The City of Dublin, as the Lead Agency, shall implement all required mitigation measures identified above. The Director of Public
Works shall ensure that these measures are incorporated into the plans and design specifications for the project.
1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange Project 5 May, 2000
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT INITIAL
STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1-580/TASSAJARA ROAD
INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Several comment letters and telephone calls relating to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the 1-580/Tassajara Road Interchange project were received from public
agencies and concerned citizens. The responses to comments received on the Draft IS/MND are
summarized below:
1. Whether Eastbound Auxiliary Lane Wili Accommodate BART in the Median ofi-580
The purpose of the proposed interchange improvements is to increase interchange capacity to
accommodate future traffic demand in the site vicinity. The improvements proposed are those that
are necessary for the foreseeable future. However, it is understood that BART may eventually
extend through the project site area. The proposed auxiliary lane would be located south of the
number 4 lane. While the proposed interchange improvements (including the auxiliary lane) would
not preclude the BART extension, the proposed location of the auxiliary lane is not the ultimate
location needed to accommodate BART in the 1-580 median. If the BART extension through the
project area is proposed at some future date, separate environmental review of the widening of 1-580
lanes would be required.
2. Added Noise Caused by Auxiliary Lane/Need for Soundwall
As described on page 45 of the Draft IS/MND, because the project site is a Caltrans facility, the
investigation of noise abatement measures must conform to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and Caltrans guidelines. The noise abatement policies of the FHWA and Caltrans require
the consideration of noise abatement measures when predicted peak-hour outdoor noise levels with a
proposed roadway improvement project would "approach or exceed 67 decibels" at an outdoor use
area on the roadway side of a residence. Abatement measures must be undertaken if "reasonable and
feasible" measures are available. Caltrans evaluates the reasonableness and feasibility of abatement
measures by several criteria, the most important of which requires that abatement measures provide
at least five (5) decibels of noise attenuation. According to Caltrans, if this requirement is not met,
the noise abatement measures are not reasonable and feasible.
In order to offset the increase in noise levels resulting from the project, the noise analysis
investigated the construction of a 5.0-meter (16.4-foot) soundwall along Pimlico to replace the
existing wall. This height was chosen as it represents the maximum height of soundwalls that
Caltrans will allow along freeways. The noise analysis determined that replacement of the existing
wail with a 5.0-meter (16.4-foot) wall would reduce noise levels at the residences by 3-4 decibels.
Because the replacement of the existing wall would not achieve the mandatory five decibel reduction
in noise levels, the replacement of the existing wall is not warranted.
3. Noise During Project Construction
As described on page 46 of the Draft IS/MND, the operation of heavy equipment during project
construction would result in short-term noise increases in the site area. The major noise sources
would be associated with site grading and pile driving activities. Construction noise levels would
fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, and the distance
between the noise sources and the receptors. Construction noise sources typically generate noise
levels of about 76 to 85 decibels at a distance of 15.2 meters (50 feet), with higher noise levels of
about 88 to 89 for certain types of equipment.
In order to reduce the short-term construction noise impacts on the residences located southeast of
the interchange, the project includes the following mitigation measures:
General construction activities would be limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
to avoid the more sensitive early morning and evening hours. General construction activities.
would not occur on Sundays or holidays. The erection of falsework and the demolition of the
existing bridge structure are exceptions to this requirement. These construction activities
require diversion of traffic on 1-580 and must be completed at night.
Project construction would use quiet or new technology equipment, particularly the quieting
of exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers. All equipment would be maintained in good
mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly running vehicles
engines.
· Residents within 91.4 meters (300 feet) would be provided with advance written notification
of planned construction activities prior to each new stage of construction.
· Noise-generating equipment such as generators and compressors would be located as far as
possible from residential uses.
Therefore, while it is acknowledged that construction of the interchange improvements would result
in some general disturbance to the site area, it is concluded that with implementation of the above
measures, the short-term noise impacts from project construction would not be significant.
4. Soils Containing Aerially-Deposited Lead
Aerially-deposited lead is found along many California highways. The lead was deposited from
vehicle emissions during the time lead was used as a gasoline additive. In many locations, the
concentration of the lead exceeds thresholds established by various regulatory agencies. Because the
problem of aerially-deposited lead is widespread, the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) has issued a variance to Caltrans. The variance spells out the procedure for dealing
with this issue. It allows Caltrans to retain the lead-contaminated soil on-site, provided that the soil
is covered with "clean" soil and that the concentration of lead does not exceed a specified upper
limit. If concentrations of lead exceed the limit, the contaminated soil is removed and taken to a
special disposal site, which has been certified to handle contaminated waste.
As described in the Draft IS/MND, because the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange area has supported
vehicular activity since the 1950's, it is highly likely that the surface soils along these areas contain
aerially-deposited lead from exhaust of cars burning leaded gasoline. In order to minimize potential
impacts from the likely presence of aerially-deposited lead, surface samples of soil from the
interchange area would be collected and analyzed prior to project construction to determine the
applicability of reuse under the Department of Toxic Substance Control Lead Variance. Soils
contaminated with elevated levels of aerially-deposited lead would be disposed in accordance with
the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substance Control Lead Variance. These soils would
either be removed from the site prior to or during construction or buried within the fill soils during
project construction.
Further, as noted in the comment from DTSC, the project will be required to comply with Section
25157.8 of the California Health and Safety Code. Compliance with the Health and Safety Code will
reduce the potential for impacts from soils containing aerially-deposited lead to a less than significant
level.
If soils containing in excess of 350 parts per million of aerially-deposited lead are encountered during
construction, these soils will be disposed of in a Class I hazardous waste disposal facility, in
accordance with Section 25157.8 of the California Health and Safety Code.
5. Construction Impacts to Line G-3 Channel
As described on page 41 of the Draft IS/MND, the project would implement Best Management
Practices (BMPs) of Caltrans to prevent stormwater pollution and minimize potential sedimentation
during construction. In the unlikely event that construction of the auxiliary lane over the Line G-3
channel results in deposition of soil-laden drainage into the channel despite these measures, or
otherwise interferes with channel operation, the project would include post-construction cleanup
within the channel.
6. Archaeological Resource Impacts During Construction
As stated in Appendix B of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, despite the
overall high sensitivity for archaeological resources in the general site vicinity, there are no recorded
archaeological sites or known Native American settlements in or adjacent to the interchange. In
addition, an archaeological field inventory was conducted in February 2000 for the interchange area
in accordance with standard archaeological practice. No prehistoric or significant historic cultural
materials were observed during the field inventory. Therefore, construction of the project is not
anticipated to impact cultural resources.
In the unlikely event that buried archaeological resources are discovered during project construction
activities, work shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist has been retained and consulted
regarding the significance of any such discovery. Uncovered resources will be treated in accordance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, State law, and the protocol set forth in the
CEQA Guidelines.
In the event that the archaeologist determines that future excavation would endanger a significant
cultural resource at this location, it would be the responsibility of the archaeologist to present the
City with a proposal for the mitigation of impacts to the resource before work is allowed to continue.