CITY OF FREMONT, CALIFORNIA
Mission Creek Planned District
INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MAY 2012
Mission Creek Planned District Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary Information ...... 1 Description of the Project...... 2 Site Description and Surrounding Uses...... 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 15 Determination...... 16 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...... 17 I. Aesthetics...... 17 II. Agricultural Resources ...... 26 III. Air Quality...... 30 IV. Biological Resources...... 34 V. Cultural Resources ...... 42 VI. Geology and Soils ...... 49 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 56 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 58 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality...... 68 X. Land Use and Planning ...... 76 XI. Mineral Resources ...... 79 XII. Noise...... 80 XIII. Population and Housing ...... 92 XIV. Public Services...... 94 XV. Recreation ...... 98 XVI. Transportation/Traffic...... 99 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ...... 103 Mandatory Findings of Significance...... 109 Report Preparation...... 110 Mitigation Measures ...... 111
Initial Study MISSION CREEK PLANNED DISTRICT i
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Site Location Map ...... 8 Figure 2 Illustrative Site Plan ...... 9 Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan...... 11 Figure VQ–1 Existing Views of Hills...... 18 Figure VQ–2 Existing Views of Riparian Corridor ...... 19 Figure BR–1 Biological Habitats on the Project Site...... 35 Figure N–1 Noise Measurement Locations and Modeled Noise Receptor Locations...... 87
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table N–1 Typical Noise Levels ...... 81 Table N–2 Summary of Existing Short-Term Noise Measurements...... 85 Table N–3 Existing and Predicted Future Noise Levels at Residential Receptors...... 86
Initial Study ii MISSION CREEK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Mission Creek Planned District, PLN 2012-00109
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Fremont Community Development Department Planning Division P.O. Box 5006 Fremont, CA 94537-5006
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Scott Ruhland, Associate Planner (510) 494-4453 [email protected]
4. Project Location:
42186 Palm Avenue Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 513–0472–006–2, 513–0472–007–2, and 513–0473–012–10.
The 15.8 acre project site is located on the east side of central Fremont, immediately northwest of the Interstate 680 (I–680) interchange at Mission Boulevard. The site frontage is along Palm Avenue, approximately ½ mile west of the freeway interchange. Four Winds Terrace, a private road, currently provides access to the site from Palm Avenue. The site is generally bounded by I–680 on the south, Mission Boulevard on the east, Mission Creek on the north, and Palm Avenue on the south. Existing single-family residential development is located to the north and west of the site.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Mission Peak Company 40480 Encyclopedia Circle Fremont, CA 94538
Contact: John Wong (510) 354-0880 [email protected]
6. General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential (2.2 to 8.7 du/acre) (15.8 acres).
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 1
7. Zoning:
Agricultural (A) and Residential Single Family (R–1–10)
8. Description of Project:
Overview The Mission Peak Company is proposing to develop a residential subdivision of 42 single- family homes on an approximately 15.8-acre site located in eastern Fremont. The site location is shown on Figure 1 (all of the figures are consolidated at the end of the following section, Section 9). The site is currently, and historically has been, used as a dwarf citrus nursery. Mission Creek and a dense riparian corridor flanking the creek run along the north edge of the eastern two-thirds of the site. Additional details on the project site are provided in Section 9.
The irregularly-shaped project site is comprised of three parcels located in a longitudinal alignment. The westernmost parcel is separated from the other two parcels by an 80-foot-wide linear parcel owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); this parcel is underlain by two large pipelines conveying water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the Sierra Nevada. (Hereinafter, the San Francisco parcel is referenced as the Hetch Hetchy parcel.) Two proposed roadways across this parcel would require easements from the SFPUC.
The two eastern parcels on the site are separated by a linear parcel owned by the City of Fremont that is intended to provide a connection between Mission Creek and a future park planned for the property immediately to the south of the project site. The project also involves a property exchange between the City and developer to acquire this finger shaped parcel and incorporate it into the project. The City would receive access rights to the common area lot to facilitate future trail improvements and access to the park site. The project would also construct full right-of-way improvements and install utilities along the City parcel frontage but entirely on the development site. The applicant and City will enter into a Property Exchange Agreement to facilitate this transaction.
For simplicity of reference throughout this Initial Study, the three project parcels are hereinafter referenced individually as Parcel 1, Parcel 2, and/or Parcel 3, with Parcel 1 being the western parcel, Parcel 2 being the middle parcel, and Parcel 3 being the eastern parcel.
The project site has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. Parcels 1 and 2 are zoned Agricultural (A) and Parcel 3 is zoned Residential Single Family (R–1–10). The proposed project includes a request to rezone the site to a Planned District (PD) for single-family residential use.
Proposed Development The proposed project would consist of 41 new three- and four-bedroom, two-story detached single-family homes ranging in size from approximately 3,000 square feet to 3,600 square feet with various floor plans. Each home would have an attached two-car garage. One existing home would be retained on site.
As shown on the site plan on Figures 2 and 3, the homes would be located along a new roadway extending the length of much of the site, except at the eastern end of the site. The majority of the mostly rectangular parcels within the proposed development would range from approximately 5,180 square feet to approximately 6,900 square feet, with an average lot size of 6,015 square feet. A larger lot of approximately 12,770 square feet (Lot 34) is currently
Initial Study 2 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
developed with a single-family residence and detached garage. This home and garage on Parcel 3 would be retained on the site, along with a large adjacent coast live oak tree.
Overall, the proposed development would result in a gross density of 2.65 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a net density of 4.72 du/ac which is consistent with the General Plan land use of the site.
Circulation and Parking As shown on the site plan, Figure 2, the homes would be located along a new road, Four Winds Court, connected to Palm Avenue that would roughly bisect the rectangular Parcel 1. It would then turn south along Parcel 2 and then continue eastward on Parcel 3 along the site’s southern edge until terminating with a cul-de-sac. San Marco Avenue, a residential street that currently terminates at the Hetch Hetchy parcel, would be extended to the project site, connecting with the on-site roadway.
Four Winds Court, which would extend eastward across Parcel 1 and southward across Parcel 2 to the southern property line, would have a 56-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW), including a 34- foot roadway (two 10-foot travel lanes and 7-foot parking lanes on both sides of the street). A 5- foot-wide sidewalk and 6-foot-wide landscape strip would be located on each side of the street. Where the road curves back through Parcel 2 and toward the east onto Parcel 3, it would narrow to a 46-foot ROW with a 34-foot-wide curb-to-curb dimension. It would include two 10- foot travel lanes and 7-foot parking lanes on both sides of the street. A sidewalk and landscape strip would flank the north side of the roadway. The south side would remain unimproved without sidewalk and landscape strip improvements along the adjacent undeveloped City property.
The final length of the roadway would curve south past Lot 34, then northeast, following the property line. At Lot 35, where the roadway would turn to the northeast, it would narrow to a 29-foot roadway in a 41-foot ROW. This would allow two 11-foot travel lanes and one 7-foot parking lane on the north side of the street, with no parking allowed on the south side of the street. The roadway would terminate at a cul-de-sac with a 40-foot radius, located about 400 feet west of the eastern property line.
The site plan would accommodate on-street public parking for approximately 106 cars. Each home would have a two-car garage, providing a total of 86 covered parking spaces. Driveway parking would accommodate an additional 86 cars (two per home).
Open Space/Trail The project would include permanent protection of approximately 6.9 acres of passive open space extending alongside Mission Creek and the northern edges of Parcels 2 and 3. A paved 10-foot-wide recreational trail would extend most of the length of these parcels. On the west, it would terminate at the northwest corner of Parcel 2, allowing for a future connection to an existing sidewalk that currently ends at Fontes Drive just north of the project site. At the eastern end, the proposed trail terminates at the cul-de-sac at the end of Four Winds Court. Within the private common open space of the proposed project there would be a community garden and small park for the benefit of the project’s residents.
Wooden benches would be placed at select locations along the trail, which would also be planted with groupings of native trees and shrubs, spaced at intervals, to complement the riparian corridor flanking the creek. The trail would be maintained by a Homeowners’ Association (HOA), but would be open to general use by the public.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 3
The community garden would be developed in the open space area. Gravel paths would separate the garden beds and a paved pathway would connect to the round-about. An existing orange tree orchard would be supplemented with additional plantings and located near the community garden, separated by a row of existing oak trees that would be preserved.
Landscaping Street trees would be planted throughout the proposed development in the landscape strips within the public ROW, spaced every 35 feet or less. Proposed street and open space trees could include California buckeye, western sycamore, Oregon ash, sweet bay, grey pine, Chinese pistache, flowering cherry, blue oak, coast live oak, coast redwood, water gum, California bay laurel, and others. Front yards would also be landscaped with a variety of ground covers, shrubs, and small trees with low water needs; 75 percent would be drought-tolerant species. Rear yards would be separated by 6-foot-high lapped wood privacy fences along the sides, or by open pattern iron fencing where they abut the open space easement and trail.
To provide visual and sound buffers from I–680 and to absorb air pollutant emissions from the vehicles traveling on the freeway, a long wedge-shaped buffer strip would be densely planted to the south of the closest homes to the freeway, on Lots 35 through 42, on the eastern half of Parcel 3. An additional clump of trees would be planted immediately east of Lot 42 to act as an additional buffer. These tree buffers are illustrated on the site plan (Figure 2).
Grading, Stormwater, and Wastewater With a relatively level site, extensive grading of the project site would not be required, and grading would be nearly balanced between cuts and fill. Approximately 21,290 cubic yards of cuts and 25,150 cubic yards of fill are planned, requiring about 3,860 cubic yards of imported fill. However, retaining walls are proposed throughout the site. All of the residential lots on Parcel 1 would be separated by retaining walls of up to 2 feet in height. A retaining wall would extend along the northern edge of this parcel. It would be a maximum of 3 feet in height until the last two lots at the eastern end (Lots 17 and 18), where it would increase to 4 and then 5 feet, respectively. A retaining wall would extend along the back of the five lots (Lots 19–23) adjacent to the east side of the Hetch Hetchy parcel. It would be up to 3 feet high north of San Marco Avenue and up to 4 feet high south of San Marco Avenue.
Retaining walls of 1.5 to 2.5 feet in height would separate most but not all of the residential lots located on Parcel 3. A retaining wall of 1.5 to 2.5 feet in height would also be created at the rear of the two lots (Lots 24 and 25) that would abut the west side of the linear City of Fremont parcel separating Parcels 2 and 3. An additional retaining wall would separate Lots 24 and 25.
The proposed grading plan would result in street grades of 1.5 percent to 4.2 percent, with the greatest slope near the eastern end of Four Winds Court. The grade at the terminating cul-de- sac, which would also serve as an emergency vehicle access (EVA) turnaround, would be limited to slopes of 1.5 percent.
All stormwater runoff from the developed portion of the site (i.e., excluding the open space) would be treated on site in grassy bioswales prior to discharge into the storm drain. The engineered swales would be located along the south edge of the roadway and in the landscape strips along both sides of the Four Winds Avenue right-of-way. The project site is also subject to hydro-modification requirements and would include three stormwater vaults to meter stormwater outfall into the storm drain system.
The project would create approximately 6.12 acres (266,400 square feet) of impervious surfaces, and, under Section C.3 of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, would require
Initial Study 4 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
treatment capacity for 10,644 square feet, based on a sizing factor of 0.04. The project would provide 11,013 square feet of vegetated swale, exceeding the C.3 requirements.
Stormwater collection and drainage would occur along the proposed streets. Catch basins would be located at intervals in the roadway adjacent to the curbs, and would be connected to the main storm drain in the center of the road with 18-inch pipes. Collected stormwater would flow from east to west in a 66-inch storm drain that would discharge to an existing 24-inch storm drain in Palm Avenue. The easternmost 380 feet of Four Winds Court would be discharged separately, into an existing 96-inch storm drain that crosses the site between proposed lots 35 and 36. This storm drain extends under I–680, crosses the site in a northwesterly direction, and discharges into a concrete dissipator outfall within the bank of Mission Creek.
The proposed project would include 8-inch sanitary sewer lines running underneath the site roadways, and joining the existing wastewater system at the intersection of Four Winds Avenue and Palm Avenue. Wastewater collection and treatment in the area is provided by the Union Sanitary District.
Service and Utility Providers The proposed project would be served by City of Fremont, Alameda County, Fremont Unified School District, Union Sanitary District, Alameda County Water District, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the East Bay Regional Parks District, and PG&E.
City Approvals Planned District Rezoning: The project would require approval of a Preliminary and Precise Planned District, including site plan and architectural review, pursuant to Title VIII, Chapter 2, Article 18.1 of the City of Fremont Municipal Code.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map: The project would require approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and recording of a Final Subdivision Map, in accordance with Title VIII, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the City of Fremont Municipal Code.
Site Plan and Architectural Approval: Pursuant to Section 8-22702 of the Fremont Zoning Code, site plan and architectural approval would be required prior to issuance of building permits.
Preliminary Grading Plan: The project would require approval of a Preliminary Grading Plan in accordance with Title VIII, Chapter 4, Section 8-4108 of the Fremont Municipal Code.
The project would also require an encroachment permit from the City of Fremont Public Works Department and building permits from the City of Fremont Building and Safety Division.
The City would also approve the Property Exchange Agreement to convey land in exchange for street improvement and access rights.
Other Approvals Alameda County Water District would grant approval for water service and water connections.
Union Sanitary District would grant approval for sanitary sewer service and connections.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 5
San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): The project would also require filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP addresses control of stormwater pollution during construction through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District would grant approval for flood control connection and discharge into Mission Creek.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission approval would be required to grant access across their easement.
Caltrans approval may be necessary if the applicant pursues construction of a sound wall along Interstate 680.
9. Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses:
The far eastern edge of the project site is located about 150 feet southwest of the Mission Boulevard on-ramp to Interstate 680, as shown on Figure 1. However, there is no access to the site at this location; access to the site is only provided from Palm Avenue. The project site encompasses approximately 15.8 acres of land currently developed with a dwarf citrus nursery owned and operated by Four Winds Growers. The adjacent riparian corridor is designated Open Space–Resource Conservation/Public, as is the Hetch Hetchy parcel. Additional information about the site is provided in Section 8.
The project site consists of two distinct areas: the developed nursery, and a portion of Mission Creek, including a dense riparian corridor flanking the creek. The nursery portion of the site is occupied by dwarf citrus trees, greenhouses, an office, other nursery buildings, soil mix stockpiles, and circulation roadways, both paved and unpaved. In addition, two residences occupy the site: one is adjacent to Palm Avenue at the site entrance and used as an office, while the second, larger home is located near the midpoint of the long, comparatively narrow site, in proximity to Mission Creek and used as a residence. As noted in the project description, this larger home would be preserved and incorporated into the proposed subdivision, while the smaller home at Palm Avenue would be demolished, along with all of the nursery buildings.
The irregularly-shaped project site ranges in elevation from about 231 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the eastern end of the site to about 174 feet msl at the western end of the site. Because this change in elevation occurs gradually over a distance of about 2,500 feet, the site appears to be essentially level, with the exception of the banks along the creek.
Surrounding Land Uses With the exception of some of the immediately adjacent uses, the project site is essentially surrounded by single-family residential development, and the project would effectively be infill development similar to the surrounding uses.
Single-family residences are opposite the site’s frontage on Palm Avenue, extending west of Palm Avenue. Large single-family homes are located immediately south of Parcel 1, lining San Marco Avenue. Immediately north of Parcel 1 is a small farm of several acres, with a residence, barn, orchard, and cultivated field. North of the farm, more single-family homes line Fontes Drive, which terminates in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the farm property.
Initial Study 6 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
As previously noted, Mission Creek and the associated riparian corridor is located adjacent to the northern edge of Parcels 2 and 3. North of the creek is a subdivision of single-family homes. A large residential property of a couple of acres is located just north of the northeast corner of Parcel 3, with frontage on Mission Boulevard.
State Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) runs in a northwest/southeast direction just to the east of Parcel 3. A water treatment plant operated by the Alameda County Water District is located on the east side of Mission Boulevard, about 300 feet east of the project site. To the north and east of this facility are large private ranches extending into the hillsides that form the visual backdrop to the City. These properties consist primarily of undeveloped grazing land, but also include some large, isolated residences. This is true of the open hillsides that continue on the south side of I–680. However, the east side of Mission Boulevard south of I–680 is developed with single-family homes. A park-and-ride lot is located at the northeast corner of the I– 680/Mission Boulevard interchange. Just to the south is a McDonald’s restaurant and Shell gas station.
Interstate 680 runs in a northeast/southwest direction immediately to the south of the eastern half of Parcel 3. A narrow strip of land (generally between 20 and 30 feet in width) within the I– 680 ROW separates the project site from the freeway. South of the freeway is more single- family residential development.
Immediately south of Parcel 2 and south of the west half of Parcel 3 are large parcels of land owned by the City of Fremont and planned for future development as a park. The owner of the Four Winds Growers nursery currently leases the land from the City and uses it to cultivate dwarf citrus trees. Just to the west, and south of San Marco Avenue, is additional land owned by the City. It is currently vacant and covered with weeds and grasses except for a residence and some outbuildings in the southwest corner, adjacent to Palm Avenue.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 7 MISSION BLVD
FREMONT
680 238 Project Site
DRISCOLL RD PALM AVE
W AS HIN GT O 101 N B 80 LVD 37 PASEO PADRE PKWY NOVATO VALLEJO San Pablo Bay 4 1 SAN RAFAEL RICHMOND CONCORD
BERKELEY WALNUT 24 CREEK S a 80 680 n OAKLAND F SAN 1 r a RAMON n ALAMEDA c SAN FRANCISCO is c o DALY CITY B 580 a y HAYWARD 280 92 FREMONT SAN MATEO P a c i f i c 880 O c e a n SITE 101
280
CAMPBELL SAN JOSE
0 1000 2000
FEET
Figure 1
Site Location Map Source: Douglas Herring & Associates Figure 2 Illustrative Site Plan Source: Mission Peak Company Figure 3A Preliminary and Precise Site Plan Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar Figure 3B Preliminary and Precise Site Plan Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The following list indicates the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project. Those factors that are indicated as a "Potentially Significant Impact" in the initial study checklist are labeled “PS” while those factors that are indicated as a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” are labeled “M”.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources M Air Quality
M Biological Resources M Cultural Resources M Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions M Hazards & Haz. Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources M Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Population/Housing
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems
M Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 15
DETERMINATION:
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 X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” 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 based on the earlier analysis as described on the 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
City of Fremont Printed name For
Senior Planner Review
Initial Study 16 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
Explanation: The proposed project site is situated near the foot of a local range of hills trending northwest to southeast that rise to more than 2,000 feet in elevation and form the dominant visual backdrop to the City of Fremont. The hillsides are largely undeveloped open space, and for purposes of this analysis, they are considered a major scenic vista. These hillsides also provide the dominant visual backdrop to the project site and to some offsite locations in proximity to the site. Figure VQ–1 shows two views of the hillsides from the project site.
Fremont residents have voted to protect the hills as open space on several occasions, confirming their value as a scenic resource. The visual importance of the hillsides is further denoted by the City’s designation of Mission Boulevard, which extends along the base of the hills, as a Scenic Corridor. The segment of I–680 within the City and east of Mission Boulevard is also designated as a Scenic Corridor. Goal 4-5 of the Community Character Element of the General Plan calls for the protection of Fremont’s aesthetic and visual character, and specifically cites the scenic backdrop created by the East Bay hills as an important component of the City’s visual character.1
Mission Creek and the riparian corridor flanking the creek extend along the northern edge of Parcels 2 and 3 of the project site, as well as immediately adjacent to the site.2 Although not identified as a scenic vista in the General Plan, views of the riparian corridor could also be considered a scenic vista, though a considerably less expansive one. The trees are a prominent visual feature of the site, and are visible from numerous nearby offsite locations. Figure VQ–2 shows two views of the riparian corridor from the project site.
The majority of the project site is occupied by dense rows of dwarf citrus trees in containers, which generally range in height from 2 to 4 feet. Most of the structures on the site, which include a residence, office building, greenhouses, and sheds, are concentrated on the north half of Parcel 1. An additional residence, shown on Figure VQ–2(a), is located on Parcel 3 adjacent to the riparian corridor.
1 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, page 4-52, July 2011. 2 See the Project Description for a description of Parcels 1, 2, and 3.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 17 Viewing east along Parcel 1 toward distant hillsides
Viewing southeast across Parcel 2 toward distant hillsides
Figure VQ-1
Existing Views of Hills Source: Douglas Herring & Associates Riparian vegetation as viewed from Parcel 2
Existing home and detached garage on Parcel 3, adjacent to riparian corridor
Figure VQ-2
Existing Views of Riparian Corridor Source: Douglas Herring & Associates Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Public views across the site are generally available from four locations: (1) from Palm Avenue at or in proximity to Four Winds Terrace; (2) from the east end of San Marco Avenue; (3) from Palm Avenue south of San Marco Avenue and north of I–680; and (4) from I–680 in proximity to the project site (i.e., south of Mission Boulevard and north of Palm Avenue). Views of the site are not available from residential streets to the north of the site due to intervening houses, fences, and trees. Views of the site are not available from residential streets to the south of the site due to a sound wall lining the I–680 freeway. Each of the four public vantage points are discussed individually below. Where applicable, discussions of adjacent private views are also provided.
There are no objective standards of significance under CEQA for evaluating visual impacts, nor are there any widely accepted quantifiable methods for assessing impacts. The significance criterion under consideration here, as established in the CEQA Guidelines, is whether the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The City does not consider changes to private views a potentially significant impact under CEQA.
Palm Avenue at/near Four Winds Terrace Due to the generally open nature of the project site, relatively unobstructed views of the hills to the east are visible across Parcel 1 of the project site from Palm Avenue and, more obliquely, from the private residences located along the north side of San Marco Avenue. The latter views are more dominated by the near-distance views of the riparian corridor, with partial views of the hillsides visible through the trees.
Development of the proposed project would substantially alter and constrain the existing scenic views across Parcel 1 of the project site. From Palm Avenue, the field of view would be narrowed to the view corridor along Four Winds Avenue, lined by two-story homes on either side of the street. The homes would be set back 10 feet from the public ROW on each side of the street. With a 56-foot ROW, there would be an effective view corridor of 76 feet in width. The total site frontage along Palm Avenue is about 206 feet wide. While it would therefore appear that the view corridor would be reduced by about 65 percent, the view along the north side of the existing Four Winds Terrace is already constrained by the residence, nursery office building, and other structures. Taking into account these obstructions, the existing view corridor is about 150 feet wide. The proposed development would therefore reduce the view corridor by about 50 percent. While the field of view would be restricted by the proposed new development, the hills and riparian trees would still be visible from Palm Avenue. As the proposed street trees grew to maturity, the view would be somewhat more constrained, but the distant hillsides would still be visible from public vantage points along or aligned with Four Winds Avenue.
The proposed project’s impact on scenic views across Parcel 1 would not be a significant impact for the following reasons: 1) The public vantage points currently offering a scenic view across the site are limited to the street and sidewalks in front of a portion of the site; 2) Following project implementation, the creation of Four Winds Avenue would increase the public vantage points providing views across Parcel 1 toward the eastern hills;
Initial Study 20 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
3) While the field of view of existing views to the eastern hills would be narrowed, the hills would still be visible and the changes to the views would not constitute a substantial adverse effect on the views; and 4) The number of affected private views would be extremely limited and the changes would not constitute substantial adverse changes.
East End of San Marco Avenue The most dramatic and scenic views across the project site from an offsite location are available from the east end of San Marco Avenue, viewing east across the Hetch Hetchy parcel and Parcel 2, and south across the City of Fremont parcel. From this public vantage point, an expansive, panoramic view is available of the riparian corridor and of the hillsides to the east and the south, and to a lesser extent to the north.
This view would experience the most significant change following implementation of the project. The view corridor along San Marco Avenue would be extended eastward from its current terminus to a new intersection with Four Winds Avenue where it crosses Parcel 2. Two new homes would be developed on the east side of this three-way intersection, on Lots 24 and 25. These homes would be located approximately 250 feet from the current vantage point at the end of San Marco Avenue. The view corridor would be roughly centered on the side yards between the two houses. However, the proposed street and landscape trees and the two homes would block a portion of the hillside views when viewing due east from San Marco Avenue. The hilltops would still be visible above the houses. The view would be even more constrained by the proposed homes on Lots 22 and 23 because they would be closer to the current vantage point—approximately 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively.
Viewing toward the northeast, the proposed homes on Lots 19, 20, and 21 would similarly constrain views of the riparian corridor along the north edges of Parcels 2 and 3. However, a substantial view corridor toward the southeast and south would remain unaltered, which would include a view of the most prominent eastern hills. Furthermore, the proposed road extension would create a new public vantage point on the Hetch Hetchy parcel that would provide unconstrained views to the south. Additionally, new public vantage points would be created along the western stretch of Four Winds Court, which would provide expansive, unconstrained views to the south and southeast.
The proposed project’s impact on scenic views currently available from the east end of San Marco Avenue would not be a significant impact for the following reasons: 1) The most significant public vantage point currently offering a scenic view across the site is from the cul-de-sac at the end of San Marco Avenue. During a field inspection of the site no one was observed to utilize this vantage point and, because there is no public destination nearby, it is assumed this location is used infrequently as a viewing point (if at all), and by a small number of people; 2) Substantial scenic views to the south and southeast, including hillside views, would still be visible from this location following project implementation; 3) The location does not appear to generally be used as a vantage point for scenic views and, therefore, few people would be affected by the change in views; and
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
4) The project would create new public vantage points along the extended San Marco Avenue and along the western stretch of newly-created Four Winds Court, resulting in more viewing locations with scenic vistas comparable to the one provided currently at the end of San Marco Avenue.
Palm Avenue Between San Marco Avenue and I–680 A view across the site that might be considered even more scenic than the one from San Marco Avenue is available from Palm Avenue south of the houses along San Marco Avenue, viewing across the vacant field owned by the City of Fremont. However, from this location, the closest proposed project homes that would be in line with views of the hills would more than 1,500 feet in the distance, and they would not substantially interfere with or alter the current views of the hills. Although views of the riparian trees on and adjacent to the site would be more reduced by the proposed homes along Four Winds Court, those homes would be between 850 feet and 1,400 feet away, and would occupy a minute fraction of the total viewshed from Palm Avenue.
Only a couple of the ten private residences lining Palm Avenue opposite the City of Fremont property have significant views across this property. At most of the residences, the line of sight is obscured or the homes do not have view windows facing Palm Avenue. Any altered views from these residences would not be substantial for the same reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph for the public views from Palm Avenue.
Given the distance of the project site from this stretch of Palm Avenue and the very limited changes in the existing views from this location that would be caused by the project, the project’s impacts on the scenic views available from Palm Avenue south of San Marco Avenue would be less than significant.
Interstate–680 Public views across the site are available to passing motorists traveling in both directions on I– 680 near the project site. The freeway is elevated where it passes adjacent to Parcel 2; it is about 18 feet above ground level at the eastern end of the site, dropping quickly west of the Mission Boulevard (SR 238) interchange, and is about 6 feet above ground level near the southwestern corner of Parcel 3. Thus, the freeway provides elevated views across the site. There are few trees, shrubs, or other visual obstructions, so much of Parcels 2 and 3 can be seen from the freeway, depending on viewing location.
Westbound travelers cannot see the site until abreast of it, due to intervening trees near the east end of the site. Eastbound travelers have views of the site across the vacant City of Fremont parcel before they are adjacent to the project site itself.
Following project implementation, the proposed homes, landscaping, and street trees would be plainly visible from both sides of the freeway. Due to the elevated vantage point, much of the riparian canopy along Mission Creek would remain plainly visible. More importantly, dominant views of the eastern hills visible to eastbound travelers would remain largely unchanged. Where the new homes would be most prominent—where the freeway passes adjacent to the site—they would be screened from view by a densely-planted buffer strip of trees. This would partially obscure views toward the north that include hills now only partially visible behind the riparian canopy, but would not be in the line of sight oriented northeast and east toward the hills. Homes further from the freeway on Parcel 3 would be visible but less
Initial Study 22 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
prominent, and would also be partially screened by street trees along Four Winds Court. At greater distances from the site, such as alongside the City of Fremont parcels east of Palm Avenue, the homes throughout the site would be only minimally noticeable against the much more prominent backdrop of hills. From these freeway locations, the views of the hills and riparian corridor would be largely unchanged.
The changes on the site would be most visible to westbound travelers, who would be closer to the site and able to see down onto it—more so from the right travel lane than from the middle and left lanes. The proposed tree buffer would obscure much of the eastern half of Parcel 3, except near the eastern end, where no homes would be developed. Once past the tree buffer, drivers would have an unobstructed view of the new homes on the west half of Four Winds Court. However, the homes would be more distant (350 to 700 feet) and screened by street trees. In addition, drivers would need to divert their attention from the roadway and look 90 degrees or more to the right to register the visual conditions on the site, and would be past the site within a few seconds during normal travel speeds.
The proposed project’s effect on scenic views currently available from I–680 would not be a significant impact for the following reasons: 1) The most significant scenic views currently available from the freeway are views of the eastern hills visible to eastbound travelers, and these views would be unaltered at most locations and in most directions, or would be so minimally altered as to be unnoticeable; 2) Existing views across the site available to westbound travelers, dominated by potted nursery plants, are not deemed particularly scenic, and the visual changes that would result from the project would not be substantially adverse; and 3) To the extent that the visual changes caused by the project would be noticeable to freeway travelers, they would be visible only for a few seconds during normal travel conditions, and would primarily be perceived only by car passengers, who comprise a small percentage of travelers on this freeway.
In conclusion, for all of the reasons set forth in the preceding discussion, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on a scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Explanation: Interstate 680 is designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a scenic highway from east of Mission Boulevard to the Contra Costa County line and beyond.3 As noted in the preceding discussion, the segment of I–680 within the City and east of Mission Boulevard is also designated by the City of Fremont as a Scenic Corridor. However, the project site is not visible from I–680 where it is designated a scenic roadway. Furthermore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources on the site. The
3 California Department of Transportation, website, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed March 3, 2010.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 23 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
dense riparian corridor of trees along Mission Creek would be preserved, as would a large and majestic coast live oak tree on Parcel 3 south of the existing house. There are no rock outcroppings or other scenic resources on the site, and the buildings on the site were evaluated by an architectural historian and determined to not be significant historic resources (see Section V for additional information).
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
Explanation: The visual character of the site is agricultural in nature and is dominated by acres of flat ground with a surface of bare, exposed soil occupied by rows of dwarf citrus plants in 2- to 5-gallon containers. A dense riparian corridor of trees and shrubs grows along the northern edge of Parcels 2 and 3. Parcel 1 is mostly developed with structures, including a house, office building, barn, greenhouse, and other nursery buildings. A single residence surrounded by trees and other landscaping is located near the middle of Parcel 3, adjacent to the riparian corridor. While the riparian trees provide a substantial enhancement to the aesthetic quality of the site, the site is not particularly high in aesthetic value.
The proposed project would eliminate the current agricultural activity from the site and replace it with a residential subdivision of 41 new single-family homes on landscaped private lots, with approximately 6.9 acres of passive open space along the northern portions of Parcels 2 and 3 as well as at the east end of Parcel 3. A public paved recreation trail would extend the length of the open space corridor, parallel to Mission Creek. A dense band of trees would be planted along the length of the east half of Four Winds Court, on the south side of the street. A community garden and a small orchard of citrus trees would also be created.
While the proposed changes would be visually dramatic and some viewers might object to the conversion of rows of potted plants and agricultural buildings to suburban residential development and passive open space, the alteration in visual character of the site would not constitute a “substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site,” established as a primary criterion of significance for visual impacts in the CEQA Guidelines. The project site would be developed with an attractively designed and landscaped residential development with more than half the site preserved as open space, and the riparian corridor that comprises the most aesthetic feature on the site would remain unchanged and enhanced by integrated open space. The proposed changes would not represent a substantial degradation in the visual quality of the site. This would therefore be a less-than-significant impact.
Initial Study 24 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Explanation: The proposed project would not result in the introduction of a substantial source of new glare. The proposed homes would not be covered in reflective surfaces and the amount of fenestration would be modest and in line with common residential developments. While parked cars can provide new sources of daytime glare on sunny days, parked cars would be spaced intermittently around the site; there would be no concentrated surface parking that could create a substantial source of glare. All homes would have enclosed two-car garages, further reducing the potential for glare from parked cars. The offsite visual receptors with the greatest potential to be affected by glare emanating from the project site would be travelers on I–680. Street trees and the proposed tree buffer along the eastern half of Four Winds Court would effectively block most glare from affecting drivers on I–680. In any event, the amount of glare created by the project would be negligible. The potential for new project-generated glare to adversely affect offsite properties or viewers would therefore not be significant.
The project would introduce new nighttime light sources from interior and exterior lighting of the proposed homes. Where project buildings are visible during the day from offsite locations, the interior household lighting would be visible in these buildings at night. However, nighttime lighting of this nature is contained by window coverings, fixture shades, and intervening building surfaces, and does not create nighttime glare. Although a lighting plan was not available for review during preparation of this document, the applicant would be required to provide street lighting in accordance with City of Fremont standards. General Plan Policy 4-4.6 requires lighting to be “restrained and targeted to its purpose to protect dark skies, reduce glare and glow and promote sustainability.” Site lighting would also be prohibited from shining on adjacent properties. Compliance with this condition of approval would ensure that the proposed project’s light and glare impacts would be less-than-significant.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forestry Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown X on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Explanation: The project property is designated “Unique Farmland” on the most recent map of important farmland published by the Department of Conservation (DOC), a department of the California Resources Agency.4 The DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The FMMP updates the maps every two years; the most recent map was prepared in 2008. There is no Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the vicinity of the project site. The City of Fremont parcel currently being leased by the Four Winds Growers citrus nursery is also designated Unique Farmland, while the vacant City of Fremont parcel located to the south of San Marco Avenue and immediately east of Palm Avenue is designated Grazing Land.
Unique Farmland consists of land that is used to cultivate the State’s leading agricultural crops, but with lower quality soils than Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. It is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards. The land must have produced crops at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date in order to qualify for this designation.
To ascertain whether implementation of the proposed project could result in a significant impact to agricultural resources, the agricultural value of the project sites was further evaluated using the DOC’s Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997). The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is used to rate the relative quality of land
4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, “Alameda County Important Farmland 2010” (map), April 2011.
Initial Study 26 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of the Agricultural LESA Model was the result of Senate Bill 850 (1993), which charged the Resources Agency with developing, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), an amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines concerning agricultural lands that would “provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process.”5 SB 850 provided for the adoption of the LESA Model in lieu of an amendment to Appendix G.
LESA Model Parameters The LESA Model evaluates a project’s size, the quality of soils on the site, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. These factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a single numeric score, which becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance.
Two Land Evaluation (LE) factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality, while four Site Assessment (SA) factors provide measures of a site’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. Each of these factors is separately rated on a 100–point scale, weighted relative to one another, and combined, resulting in a single, maximum attainable score of 100 points. The LE and SA factors each comprise 50 percent of the total weighted LESA score.
The two LE factors that are rated separately include the USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) and the Storie Index. The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receiving the highest rating (Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. For the evaluation of the proposed project, the weighted LCC for the site was calculated based on the information in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey for the Alameda County area.
The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based on a 100–point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture; it is based on soil characteristics only. The four characteristics and qualities of the soil used to calculate the index include profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and “other factors” (e.g., drainage, salinity). A Storie Index score was not reported in the evaluation of the project site because the USDA web database did not provide a score for the project area.
The four LESA SA factors include: (1) the project site size rating; (2) the water resources availability rating; (3) the surrounding agricultural land rating; and (4) the surrounding protected resource land rating. The project site size rating relies upon acreage figures that are tabulated as part of the LCC capability rating and the relative proportions of different soil classes within a given project site. This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high–quality agricultural land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be considered significant agricultural resources.
5 Public Resources Code, Section 21095.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 27 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The water resources availability rating is based on identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property and then determining whether certain physical and economic restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non–drought.6 The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past, but should also consider how the water system is anticipated to perform in the future.
The surrounding agricultural land rating is based on the project’s “Zone of Influence” (ZOI), which is defined as the land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site.7 This rating is designed to provide a measurement of the general level of agricultural land use in the vicinity of a proposed project.
The surrounding protected resource land rating is similar to the surrounding agricultural land rating and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long– term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land, including: lands under Williamson Act contracts; publicly–owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resource; and lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses.
The DOC has assigned the following thresholds of significance, based on the total LESA Model score:
Total LESA Score Significance 0 to 39 points Less Than Significant 40 to 59 points Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 points Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 points Significant
LESA Model Results A LESA Model evaluation of the project site was performed by ENGEO Incorporated.8 Based on USDA soil survey data, ENGEO determined that the predominant soil type at the site is
6 A physical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agriculture practices (e.g., planting a crop that uses less water or leaving land fallow). An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. This could result from surcharge increases from water suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of pumping more groundwater to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of groundwater from deeper within the aquifer. 7 The ZOI accounts for surroundings up to a minimum of 1/4 mile from the project boundary. In a simple example, a single 1/4–square–mile project site (160 acres) would have a ZOI that is a minimum of eight times greater (1,280 acres) than the parcel itself. 8 ENGEO Incorporated, Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Modeling, Dillon Property, 42186 Palm Avenue and 401 Four Winds Road, Fremont, California, July 13, 2011.
Initial Study 28 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Danville silty clay loam with 0- to 2-percent slopes (Map Unit Type 111). With a Land Capability Classification of IIs, the site received an LCC score of 80. Because data on the Storie Index was not available, the Storie Index total was 0. ENGEO noted that even if this index had received a high score, it would not have affected to significance level of the LESA model results.9
The project size and water resource scores were 30 and 65, respectively. Although the adjacent City of Fremont parcel is designated Unique Farmland by the DOC, the scores for surrounding agricultural lands and surrounding protected resource lands were both 0. This is because such lands must comprise at least 40 percent of the land area within the zone of influence (which in this case was ¼ mile) in order to generate a score above 0; the majority of land in the project’s zone of influence is developed with residential uses.
After applying scaling and weighting factors, the combined total LESA score was 34. Therefore, based on the LESA evaluation and the significance thresholds listed above, the proposed conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural use would have a less-than-significant impact on agricultural resources.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
Explanation: Parcels 1 and 2 of the project site are zoned Agricultural (A), while Parcel 3 is zoned Residential Single Family (R–1–10). No portion of the site lies within a Williamson Act contract area.10 The proposed project would include rezoning of the entire site to a Planned Development (PD) district for single-family residential use. Conversion of the site to residential use has been planned for by the City through the land use designation of the property as part of its recent General Plan Update, adopted by the City on December 13, 2011. For the reasons of conforming the zoning to the planned land use designation and the analysis of the site as not a significant agricultural resources per the LESA analysis, the conflict with the existing zoning would be a less-than-significant impact.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section X 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Explanation: The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland. While the site supports numerous trees, they are concentrated in a riparian corridor that would be preserved, as would the majestic coast live oak in the central portion of Parcel 3. The proposed project would therefore have no impact on forest or timber land.
9 Scott Johns, P.E., ENGEO Incorporated, personal communication, February 15, 2012. 10 Scott Ruhland, Associate Planner, City of Fremont, personal communication, January 25, 2012.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 29 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? X
Explanation: See Item II(c), above.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Explanation: The conversion of farmland is addressed above in Item II(a). As discussed in Item II(c), the project would not cause a conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan?
Explanation: The air quality agency with jurisdiction over the project site is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which is responsible for monitoring regional air quality, developing regional clean air plans, and responding to citizen air quality complaints. BAAQMD is also the agency with permit authority over most types of stationary sources in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone standards, the State respirable particulate matter (PM10) standard, and the State and federal fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The Bay Area 2005 Strategy and the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) have been developed by BAAQMD to address the ozone nonattainment issues. No
PM10 or PM2.5 plans have been prepared or are required under State air quality planning law. The Clean Air Plan focuses on improvement of air quality throughout the basin. A network of BAAQMD monitoring stations continually measures the ambient concentrations of these pollutants for reporting purposes. The closest such monitoring station is #1014 at 40733 Chapel Way in Fremont. Ozone precursors and particulate matter are the primary air pollutants of concern for construction projects. These include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). General conformity to the Clean Air Plan considers qualitative analysis of consistency with planning assumptions and growth estimates for the City and Bay Area in preparation of the Clean Air Plan and control measures.
Project level conformance to the Clean Air Plan relates to the project consistency with the planning assumptions used as the basis for preparation of the plan. The proposed development application allows for a density of 3.4 units per acre which is within the prescribed range of low
Initial Study 30 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
density development prescribed by the current land use designation of 2.3 to 8.7 units per acre. The proposed development is consistent with land use plan and growth projections of the City and would not obstruct the implementation of the adopted Clean Air Plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation?
Explanation:
Operational Emissions The General Plan Update EIR did not identify any impacts related to violations of air quality standards, or related to causing a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (next Checklist item). Furthermore, the project would be considerably below the screening criteria the BAAQMD recommends for determining whether a project has the potential to result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that would exceed its adopted thresholds of significance. For single-family residential development, the screening size is 325 dwelling units, considerably greater than the 42 dwelling units proposed by the project applicant.11, 12 Therefore, air emissions generated by traffic (the primary source of emissions from a residential project) from the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially contribute, either individually or cumulatively, to violations of air quality standards.
Construction Emissions Construction operations for any sizeable project have the potential to result in short–term but significant adverse air quality impacts. Construction equipment emits criteria air pollutants, ozone precursors, and GHGs. In addition to being emitted by construction equipment, PM10 is generated by site grading, excavation, movement of vehicles over unpaved surfaces, and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Particulate emissions from these sources can contribute to adverse health effects and cause nuisance effects such as reduced visibility and deposition of dust on parked cars, window ledges, and other horizontal surfaces.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines establish conservative screening criteria for project construction impacts on air quality. The Guidelines state that if all of the screening criteria are met, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality, and a detailed quantification of construction emissions is not required. All of the following screening criteria must be met: 1. The project is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1; and
11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Table 3-1, page 3-2, Updated May 2011. 12 Although the BAAQMD’s updated CEQA Guidelines, adopted in June 2010 and updated in May 2011, were suspended in March 2012 by an Alameda County Superior Court judge pending review of the guidelines and thresholds of significance under CEQA, the proposed project would also fall well below the previous screening threshold of 320 dwelling units, and would therefore fall well below the previous, less stringent thresholds of significance.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 31 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction; and 3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following: a. Demolition activities inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing; b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously); c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high-density infill development); d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.
For single-family residential development, the construction screening size is 114 dwelling units.13, The proposed 42 dwelling units would therefore be below the applicable screening level size, and the project would not include any of the prohibited construction-related activities listed above. The BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, whether or not construction-related emissions would exceed the applicable significance thresholds. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the project’s construction–generated dust is assumed to be a potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to a less–than–significant level by implementation all of the controls listed in Mitigation Measure AQ–1.
Mitigation Measure AQ–1: The project applicant shall require the construction contractor to reduce the severity of project construction period dust impacts by complying with the following control measures: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
13 BAAQMD, op. cit.
Initial Study 32 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is X non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Explanation: See the discussion in Section III(b), above.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations?
Explanation: The residents of the proposed project would be considered sensitive receptors. The greatest potential for exposure of the residents to substantial pollutant concentrations would be from vehicle exhaust emitted by trucks and cars traveling along nearby I–680. Implementation 7-7.3.B of the Fremont General Plan establishes a risk threshold for residential infill development of 100 additional incidents of cancer per million residents exposed. In addition, for new development projects within 1,000 feet of a freeway or major source of toxic air contaminants (TACs), Implementation 7-7.3.C requires an assessment of health risk for the site.
In accordance with Implementation 7-7.3.C, an air quality assessment was performed by Illingworth & Rodkin in September 2011.14 The future emissions of diesel particulate matter
(DPM), total organic gas (TOG) TACs, and PM2.5 from traffic on I–680 were calculated using the latest version of the EMFAC2007 model with defaults for Alameda County. Individual cancer risks were computed using methods recommended by BAAQMD and the California Office of
14 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Dillon Property Residential Development Air Quality Assessment, Fremont, California, July 29, 2011, updated September 12, 2011.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 33 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and assumed long-term residential exposure to TACs for 9-, 30-, and 70-year periods of nearly continuous exposure.
Cancer risk varied across the project site, but was highest at proposed Lot 42, where the increased cancer risk was determined to be 22.7 cancers per million population with a 9-year exposure, 33.0 cancers per million with a 30-year exposure, and 44.2 cancers per million with a 70-year exposure. These risks are the same both for single-source exposure (I–680) and for cumulative multiple sources. Thus, the maximum increase in cancer risk would be well below the City’s threshold of significance of 100 additional incidents of cancer per million exposures. This would therefore be a less-than-significant impact.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
Explanation: Potential odor impacts correlate to long-term exposure to significant sources based on a list of specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project boundaries. The operation of residential uses would not be anticipated to result in odor emissions different than the surrounding similar uses. Offensive odors are typically associated with industrial land uses, not residential uses. The impact of the project with regard to odors would therefore be less than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as X a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Explanation: The information presented in Section IV, Biological Resources, is based on a biological assessment of the project site performed by Olberding Environmental, Inc.15 As part of the biological assessment, an Olberding Environmental biologist conducted reconnaissance- level surveys of the project site in December 2011 and January 2012. Surveys consisted of walking throughout the area and evaluating the site and adjacent properties for presence of wetlands, special-status plant and wildlife species, and other significant biological resources. A map of the general habitats present on the site is shown on Figure BR–1.
Special-Status Plants The biological consultant for the project conducted a search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and
15 Olberding Environmental, Inc., Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Mission Creek Property (Dillon Property), Santa Clara County [sic], California, March 2012.
Initial Study 34 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Figure BR-1
OlberdingBiological Environmental, Habitats Inc.on the Project Site Source: Olberding Environmental, Inc. 3170 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 260 San Ramon, California 94583 Figure 7 Phone: (925) 866-2111 Riparian Map of the Mission Creek Property This document is not intended for detail design work. Alameda County, California Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
the rare plant inventory maintained by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to identify all special-status plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur on the project site. Only one special-status plant species was identified as potentially occurring on the site: Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii).
Congdon’s tarplant is a small spiny annual that flowers during the late spring and early summer. It is typically found within grasslands and seasonal wetlands, in moist clay soils. It has been recorded twice in the CNDDB as occurring in the vicinity of the project site, once in September 2008, approximately 2.3 miles to the southwest of the site, and again in August 2010, about 1.3 miles to the north. According to the USDA’s soil map survey website, the project property does contain suitable clay soils that could potentially support this species. However, the species was not identified during the December and January reconnaissance surveys by an Olberding Environmental biologist and, given the property’s long-term use as a nursery occupied by buildings and containerized citrus plants, which has eliminated most vegetation on site with the exception of the riparian corridor, Olberding Environmental concluded that Congdon’s tarplant does not occur on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect any special-status plant species.
Special-Status Birds and Mammals The CNDDB search identified 13 special-status wildlife species with some potential to occur on the project site, including five mammal species, four bird species, two amphibians, and two reptiles.
The bird species included red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). The ruderal lands and riparian habitats present on the site provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for all three species, as well as the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Although no raptor nests were observed during the biological surveys, courting behavior was observed between two red- tailed hawks during the December 2011 survey. Based on project plans available for review during preparation of this Initial Study, no trees were proposed for removal. However, were any trees removed during the nesting season, raptor nests and eggs and future nest habitat could be destroyed. Nesting birds and raptors are protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5, and 3800. Removal of trees during the nesting season would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure BR–1: If ground-disturbing activities or impacts to on-site shrubs and/or trees occurs during the breeding season (approximately February 1 through August 31), pre-construction nesting surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The pre-construction survey shall occur within 14 days prior to the ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. Surveys shall be conducted within suitable nesting habitat on and within 250 feet of the area to be disturbed. If the survey does not identify any nesting special-status bird species in the area potentially affected by the proposed activity, no further mitigation is required.
Initial Study 36 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
If nest sites or young are located, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the active nest. The biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to determine the size of the no-disturbance buffer, which will be marked off with temporary orange construction fencing. Active non-status passerine nests identified at that time should be protected by a minimum 50-foot radius exclusion zone. Active raptor or special-status species nests should be protected by a minimum 250-foot radius exclusion zone. A qualified biologist shall decide the exclusion zone buffer width, which may vary depending on habitat characteristics and species. The exclusion zone shall be physically marked with fencing. Exclusion zones shall remain in place until August 31 or until the young have fledged (typically three to four weeks). If exclusionary buffers are encroached upon by construction activity during the breeding season, work shall be immediately halted and a qualified biologist contacted to assess the status of the nest. If the biologist finds that the nest has been abandoned, CDFG and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be contacted.
The special-status mammal search identified three bat species as potentially occurring, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). These protected bats roost in rock crevices, caves, tree hollows, dense riparian areas, and buildings. While the riparian habitat and outbuildings on the project site provide potentially suitable roosting and foraging habitat to support these species, bats generally seek roosting areas away from human disturbance. For this reason, and because no evidence of roosting or foraging bats was encountered during the field surveys, Olberding Environmental concluded that bats are unlikely to occur on the property, and are presumed to be absent. Nonetheless, with mature trees and buildings providing marginally suitable habitat, the presence of protected bat species cannot be ruled out. Demolition of the buildings on the site could therefore cause a potentially significant impact on roosting bats. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure BR–2: A pre-construction survey for bats shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist prior to the removal of any existing trees or structures on the project site. The survey shall be performed no more than 14 days prior to tree removal or building demolition. The bat biologist shall identify all measures necessary for the protection of bat species, including humane bat eviction or exclusion, as warranted, and the project applicant shall comply with all bat protection measures identified by the biologist.
The other potential special-status mammal species were San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). The San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) lives in annual grassland habitats where friable soils are present in which the fox may excavate den sites. The closest known occurrence of the SJKF in the vicinity of the project site was recorded about 4 miles northeast of the site in July 2006. However, suitable grassland foraging and denning habitat is not present and, given the site’s urban location, the SJKF is presumed absent. Olberding Environmental also concluded that dusky-footed woodrat is absent from the site because none of their telltale unique nests constructed at the base of trees are present on the site.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 37 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The amphibians listed on the CNDDB as potentially occurring on the site are California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). The California tiger salamander (CTS) is found in rolling grassland and oak savannah habitats, spending most of the year in subterranean retreats such as rodent burrows, but they may be found on the surface during dispersal to and from breeding sites. The preferred breeding sites are vernal pools and other temporary ponds, but permanent manmade ponds may also be used for breeding. A number of manmade stock ponds are located north and east of the project site, and CTS was recorded in the area, about 1 mile from the site, in 2009. While CTS could potentially access the site via Mission Creek, if any individuals are present upstream of the site, there is no suitable breeding or foraging habitat for the species present on the project site. No CTS were observed on the site and, due to the lack of suitable habitat, Olberding Environmental concluded that the species is absent from the site.
The California red-legged frog (CRLF) breeds from December to March in permanent bodies of water. These frogs prefer low-gradient (i.e., still or slow moving) intermittent streams with water at least two and a half feet deep, with relatively intact emergent or shoreline vegetation. They generally occur only in those waters where introduced fish and bullfrogs are absent. They also utilize upland habitat to take in small mammal burrows during periods of high water flow.
The CRLF is found in lowlands, foothill woodland and grasslands, near marshes, lakes, ponds or other water sources. Critical CRLF habitat designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is located approximately 3.1 miles southeast of the project site, and the frog was recorded in 2002 about 2.7 miles north of the site. The stock ponds mentioned above could provide habitat for CRLF, as could Sabercat Creek and the oxbow portions of Mission Creek. The box culvert located under Mission Boulevard provides a viable corridor for CRLF to migrate to the project site from the open space located to the north and east.
The project site supports emergent wetland vegetation in the creek channel of Mission Creek, which could be utilized by the CRLF for dispersal purposes. Given that the site has suitable cover habitat, potential breeding ponds are in close proximity, and USFWS personnel have documented recent potential occurrences along Sabercat Creek, the CRLF may occur within or adjacent to the riparian habitat on the project site. If this species is present on site, construction activities could result in a potentially significant impact to special status amphibians, which would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure BR–3: No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site grading, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a preconstruction protocol-level survey of the project site in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements in order to definitively determine whether any individual California red- legged frogs (CRLF) are present within the confines of the site. If any CRLF are encountered, they shall be relocated in consultation with the USFWS prior to initiating ground disturbing activities.. To the extent practicable, all site-disturbing construction activities shall be performed during the dry season (April 16th through October 14th).
Initial Study 38 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) and Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) are the special-status reptile species potentially occurring on the project site. The Alameda whipsnake is typically found in chaparral, northern coastal sage scrub, and coastal sage habitat. During the breeding season (April to November), the whipsnake will utilize annual grasslands, oak woodlands, and oak savannah. Such habitats are absent from the site, and the whipsnake is therefore presumed absent from the site. The southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) , a smaller relative to the western pond turtle, is also a California species of concern, occupies the same habitat, and shares the same life history as described for the western pond turtle.
The western pond turtle is found in marshes, ponds, streams, and irrigation ditches where aquatic vegetation is present. The turtles require basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg laying. The biological consultant concluded that the western or southwestern pond turtle would be unlikely to find any part of the creek corridor on the project site suitable for its life cycle due to the seasonal nature of Mission Creek and the lack of a deep permanent water source. Although western and southwestern pond turtles are presumed absent from the site, their potential presence cannot be ruled out. If either species is present, construction activities could result in a potentially significant impact to special status reptiles. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure BR–4: No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of any disturbance within the riparian corridor along Mission Creek, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a preconstruction protocol-level survey of the project site in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements in order to definitively determine whether any individual western pond turtles or southwestern pond turtles are present within the confines of the site. If any turtles are encountered, they shall be relocated in consultation with the USFWS prior to initiating ground- disturbing activities. To the extent practicable, all site-disturbing construction activities shall be performed during the dry season (April 16th through October 14th).
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local X or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Explanation: Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species and CDFG Species of Special Concern, areas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habitat types. (Wetlands are addressed separately in Section IV(c).) The majority of the project site is comprised of developed areas and ruderal (i.e., disturbance-tolerant) habitat.
The plant species present in the ruderal habitat are largely non-native grasses and broad-leaved plants, including rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium),
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 39 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
California bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), cheese weed (Malva parviflora), wild oat (Avena fatua), wild mustard Hirschfeldia incana), and wild radish (Raphanus sativa). Embedded within these ruderal stands were ornamental plantings that included prickly pear cactus (Opuntia sp.) and pepper tree (Schinus molle). Adventive (i.e., locally naturalized) plants included ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis) and English ivy (Hedera helix). Scattered native and non-native tree and shrub species observed included coyote brush (Bacharis pilularis), northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), box elder (Acer negundo), olive (Olea europaea) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia).
The riparian corridor of Mission Creek lies along the northern boundary of project Parcels 2 and 3. The riparian habitat along the top of bank is limited to a narrow zone flanking the creek, and consists of dominant native and non-native trees and shrubs including coast live oak, eucalyptus, willow (Salix sp.), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). The understory is largely covered with vines such as English ivy and periwinkle (Vinca major). Vegetation on the sides of the deeply incised channel of Mission Creek is generally rank and consists of various lianas (i.e., climbing/draping woody vines) and dense shrubs, including English ivy, wild grape (Vitis california), California manroot (Marah fabaceae), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Vegetation growing towards the bottom of the channel within the creek banks include a mix of woody and coarse herbaceous plants including willow, northern California black walnut, horsetail (Equisetum spp.), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), giant reed (Arundo donax), water cress (Nasturtium officinale), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia filifera).
The project proposes minor trail improvements within the identified riparian corridor. However, the trail path would be set back from the top of the creek bank, and located only within the tree canopy area of the riparian zone. The minor amount of trail work would not cause a significant impact in terms of riparian habitat loss as the extent and character of the riparian area would be unchanged. Grading and excavation activities could expose soil to increased rates of erosion during project construction. Surface water runoff could remove particles of fill or excavated soil from the sites, or could erode soil down-gradient if the flow were not controlled. Stormwater runoff during this period could increase turbidity in Mission Creek and downstream waterways, thereby endangering aquatic life, and reducing wildlife habitat downstream. This issue is addressed further in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Although this would be a potentially significant impact, implementation of the Mitigation Measures GS–7 and GS–8 (see Section VI, Geology and Soils) would ensure that impacts to aquatic organisms would be less than significant. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water X Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Explanation: Results of the biological resource analysis survey conducted by Olberding Environmental, Inc. in December 2011 and January 2012 identified no areas within the project property that exhibited positive indicators of wetland soils, hydrology or vegetation. Based on the results of the reconnaissance survey, the site does not meet any of the criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to classify wetlands. However, Mission Creek is shown as an intermittent blue line on the U.S.
Initial Study 40 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Geological Survey (USGS) topographical map for the Niles quadrangle, which includes the project site. It is therefore considered “waters of the U.S.” and “waters of the state,” and is regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any activities which result in the potential discharge or placement of fill into the channel would require permitting from the Corps, CDFG, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Development of the proposed project would not entail the placement of fill into Mission Creek or encroachment of construction activities into the banks of Mission Creek. Therefore, the project would not cause an adverse impact on Waters of the U.S. regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with any X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Explanation: The biological assessment of the site did not identify use of the intermittent stream by migratory fish or use of the site as a migratory wildlife corridor. Although potential raptor foraging and nesting habitat is present on the site, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR–1 (see Section IV(a)) would reduce potential impacts on this wildlife resource to a less-than- significant level.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance?
Explanation: The City of Fremont’s tree preservation ordinance, codified in Table IV, Chapter 5 of the Fremont Municipal Code, protects all trees having a trunk diameter of 6 inches or greater at breast height (i.e., at 4.5 feet above natural grade). Removal of trees subject to the ordinance requires a permit from the City and planting of replacement trees of stipulated sizes. The commercial fruit-bearing trees on the site are exempted from the ordinance. Based on plans available during this environmental review, development of the project would not require removal of any ordinance-sized trees from the site.
As discussed in more detail in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the City has adopted a variety of General Plan policies pertaining to the protection of open space, creeks, wooded areas, and other biological resources. The project would not conflict with any the City’s adopted policies protecting biological resources.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 41 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: There are no habitat conservation plans or other similar plans applicable to the project site.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X
Explanation: Section 15064.5 defines an historical resource as a resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources. California historic resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed on the California Register. A lead agency under CEQA also may determine an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript to be an historical resource, provided the determination is “supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.”16 A lead agency may generally consider a resource to be historically significant if it is 50 years or older (except for rare cases of “exceptional significance”) and meets one or more of the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Those criteria include the following: • the resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • the resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, of possesses high artistic values; or • the resource has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, to be eligible for the California Register, the resource must retain enough of its historic integrity to be recognizable as an historical resource. Following the National Register integrity criteria, California Register regulations specify that integrity is a quality that applies to historic resources in seven ways: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.17
An evaluation of the buildings and landscape features on the project site as potentially significant historic and/or architectural resources was performed by architectural historian Ward Hill and landscape historian Denise Bradley in September 2011.18 This evaluation consisted of a detailed archival literature review and performance of a systematic on-site field survey of the project site, with photo documentation of the exterior and the interior spaces of the buildings and various landscape features of the property. Archival research was conducted
16 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3), revised October 26, 1998. 17 The definition of integrity under the California Register follows National Register of Historic Places criteria. Detailed definitions of the qualities of historic integrity are in National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation, published by the National Park Service. 18 Ward Hill, Denise Bradley, and Beth Armstrong, Historic Evaluation Report: The Four Winds Nursery, 42186 Palm Avenue, City of Fremont, Alameda County, California, September 2011.
Initial Study 42 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
at the Bancroft Library and the Natural Resources Library Map Room at University of California at Berkeley; the Museum of Local History in Fremont; the History Center at the Fremont Main Library; the Alameda County Assessor‘s office in Oakland; and the Helen Russell Library of Horticulture at the Strybing Arboretum in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. In addition, the researchers interviewed Don Dillon, Sr. and Don Dillon, Jr., son and grandson, respectively, of Floyd Dillon, who began operating the Four Winds Growers nursery on the project site in 1957. (Don Dillon, Jr. continues to operate the nursery today.)
Historical Background The Four Winds Growers nursery is located on what was originally part of Mission San Jose, the third Catholic mission established by Spanish colonists on a site that had been occupied by the Ohlone tribe of Native Americans (referred to as “Costanoans” by the Spanish) until the arrival of Europeans to the region. Established in 1797, Mission San Jose was the largest and most prosperous of the northern California missions, and was known for its agricultural productivity, which included the cultivation of fruit, wine grapes, olives, wheat, barley, and corn, as well as vast areas grazed by cattle, horses, sheep, and pigs. Nearly 2,000 Native Americans, converted to Catholicism, worked on the Mission.
The missions were later secularized by the Mexican government, which issued huge land grants to private citizens in what today are Alameda and Contra Costa counties. This portioning of the missions into ranchos began in 1820 and continued into the 1840s. Mission San Jose ceased to function as a mission in 1834. The last sizable remnant of ex-mission land, comprising 30,000 acres in the vicinity of present-day Mission San Jose, Irvington, and Centerville, was transferred to private ownership in 1846.
Following the creation of Alameda County in 1853 from portions of what had been Contra Costa County in the north and Santa Clara County in the south, the new county was divided into six townships. Washington Township encompassed the present-day cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The four towns in the township—Alvarado, Centreville (later Centerville), Mission San Jose, and Washington Corners (later Irvington)—were linked together by one of the earliest roads in the township. Four additional towns developed near train stations once rail lines were introduced to Washington Township in the late 1860s and early 1870s: Vallejo Mills (later Niles), Newark, Decoto, and Warm Springs (originally Harrisburg Station). By the early 1870s, the roads joining the eight towns of Washington Township created the primary system of traffic arteries still found today in Fremont/Union City area.
Most of the roughly 20 adobe buildings in the town of Mission San Jose were destroyed by a powerful 1868 earthquake on the Hayward Fault, including all but one wing of the original mission compound and the church. The church and commercial district along Vallejo Street were rebuilt with wood-frame structures, and a residential neighborhood grew west of the main road. The successful vineyards and wineries surrounding the village enabled it to thrive as an agricultural center. However, the town experienced little growth between the turn of the century and the 1950s; virtually no new commercial buildings were constructed during this period, and the population of about 800 persons in 1900 increased very little.
Many of the miners who came to California in the 1850s to seek their fortunes during the Gold Rush turned to agriculture when they failed to strike it rich. Numerous nurseries were established in the Bay Area to serve the growing market for fruit, flowering plants, ornamental
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 43 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
shrubs, and shade trees, and Alameda County developed as an early center for the nursery business. Among other notable nurserymen, John Lewelling operated a nursery with 52,000 trees in Mission San Jose, along with a second nursery of comparable size in San Lorenzo. The nursery business in California and the Bay Area continued to expand into the 20th century. There were about 100 nurseries in southern Alameda County in the early 1960s, about half owned by first-generation Japanese.
History of the Project Site The Four Winds Growers property was part of the original land owned by Mission San Jose that included many acres of vineyards, olive orchards, fruit orchards and wheat fields near the mission buildings at what is today Mission Boulevard and Washington Boulevard. The Dillon property (i.e., the project site) was part of the Rancho Ex-Mission San Jose, one of four ranchos created as land grants by the Mexican government when it secularized Mission San Jose. In 1867, following an extended legal challenge to the land grant, Elias Lyman Beard and his stepson Henry G. Ellsworth received title to over 3,500 acres of original mission land. They sold off much of their land in 1878, but retained a 368-acre estate named Palmdale that included the project site. Much of this land was purchased in 1881 by Juan Gallegos, who amassed approximately 1,500 acres in Mission San Jose and established one of California‘s largest wineries.
In 1904 the Palmdale estate was subdivided into 48 parcels of varying sizes that were primarily sold for small family-run orchards that principally produced apricots. One of these parcels, Lot 23, was an 11-acre lot that included part of the present-day Four Winds Growers property. Based on Alameda County Assessor‘s maps Joseph F. Souza owned Lot 23 in 1917, and is believed to have constructed the house and barn that remain on the property today, though both have been altered.
Lot 23 was split between Joseph Souza on the east (4.93 acres) and Rose Souza on the west (6.17 acres) in 1920. By 1929 the eastern parcel was owned by H. Fujii and the western parcel was owned by James and Mida McBride. The McBrides apparently stuccoed the wood siding exterior of house during the 1930s. By 1942, ownership of the Fujii parcel had passed to John Ura, and Margaret and Emile Cernich owned the McBride property. The parcel west of and adjacent to the Cernich property was owned by Hal and Lillian Tibbetts. Historic aerial photographs of this area indicate that all three of the parcels were planted with orchards into the 1950s.
Floyd Dillon founded the Four Winds Growers in 1946 on rented land in southern California (Ventura County). The nursery specialized in dwarf fruit trees planted in tubs or small boxes. When a disease infecting citrus trees began spreading to Ventura County in the early 1950s, threatening the viability of the business, Dillon decided to relocate the nursery to the disease- free Mission San Jose area, which he had learned had a frost-free microclimate good for growing citrus trees, while the growing Bay Area provided a good market for his dwarf trees. In 1954, Dillon began renting part of the Tibbetts property, which was just west of the Four Winds Growers current location. When Tibbetts died in 1956, Dillon moved the nursery to the current location at the request of Tibbetts’ widow, purchasing the adjoining 6-acre Cernich parcel (present-day Parcels 1 and 2), which included the small house near Palm Avenue, a barn, tank house and another building the Dillons originally used as the nursery office. Dillon lived in the house with his wife Mildred, who continued to live there until 1972.
Initial Study 44 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Floyd Dillon died in 1963 and his son Don Dillon, Sr. took over operation of the nursery. He also participated in the early organization of the City of Fremont, which was incorporated in 1956, and served on the City Council from 1962 to 1978. During this period, Don Dillon, Sr. served five one-year terms as mayor of Fremont, from 1963 to 1966 and in 1974. He was recognized as California‘s “Nurseryman of the Year” in 1987.
The greenhouse on the project site was built in the late 1960s, about the time that Interstate 680 was constructed just to the south of the nursery. In 1970 the Dillons moved a former housing sales office building to the nursery property to replace the old office building. The nursery owners purchased the approximately 10-acre Parcel 3 in 1978, more than doubling the property. The nursery also currently leases part of the adjacent City of Fremont parcel. Don Dillon, Jr., who has managed the Fremont nursery in recent years, built the house and detached garage on Parcel 3 in 1983.
Project Property Evaluation The Four Winds Growers nursery is considered a vernacular cultural landscape, meaning that is a geographic area shaped by human activity, with function being the driving force in the shaping of the landscape. The key processes to the formation of a cultural landscape include land uses and activities, patterns of spatial organization, responses to the natural environment, and cultural traditions. According to U.S. Department of Interior guidelines for evaluating rural historic landscapes, individual features do not exist in isolation within a cultural landscape, but rather in relationship to the landscape as a whole, and it is the arrangement and the interrelationship of these character-defining features—as they existed during the period of significance—that is most critical to understand in evaluating the significance of a cultural landscape.
The land use of the site since Floyd Dillon purchased the original property in 1956 has been as a container nursery, with residences for the owners being a secondary use. The spatial organization of the nursery is oriented around a number of different use areas. Structures that house various operational aspects of the nursery are grouped into rows along the north side of Parcel 1. They include a house (c. 1910; remodeled in the 1930s); an office (1968; moved to the site in 1970); a structure where the grafting operations occur (1997); a barn used for storing nursery equipment (c. 1910; remodeled in 1958); a propagation building where the grafts are initially grown (1997); a large greenhouse structure used for growing young trees (c. 1968); and a variety of smaller structures used for storage, a lunch room, etc. A mixing shed (c. 1990) and storage piles for materials used in the soil mix are located on Parcel 2. Parcel 3 contains stands of "mother" trees growing in the ground, a large compost pile, a fenced dog kennel, a fenced area for chickens, various informal storage areas, and a house, the home of Don Jr. and Donna Dillon (1983), and its residential landscape setting.
The majority of Parcels 2 and 3 and the southern portion of Parcel 1 are devoted to containerized cultivation of dwarf citrus trees arrayed in a grid of rectangular blocks. Internal roads, which provide vehicular access, separate these blocks. Within the blocks, the containers of plants are arranged into rows separated by narrow foot paths. The area along the north side is more irregularly arranged due the Mission Creek alignment.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 45 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Circulation on the site is integrated with the blocks of containerized trees. A primary road extends the length of the site, starting from the entrance gate at Palm Avenue, and generally paralleling the southern property line via a series of 90-degree turns. Narrower, gravel-paved roads divide the site into planting blocks and provide access between these blocks. This internal road network was developed within the first few years of the establishment of the nursery on the original parcel (i.e. between 1956 and 1959), and was extended to Parcel 3 following the purchase of that property in 1978. The exact location of the system of secondary roads between the blocks has been reconfigured at different times to accommodate changes within the growing area or an expansion into a new area.
The types of vegetation located within the Four Winds Growers cultural landscape include the container-grown nursery stock, the "mother trees" trees that are grown in the ground and used to supply the grafting materials for the containerized trees, the ornamental plantings around the two residences, large eucalyptus and other trees and vegetation growing along the edges of the property next to Mission Creek, and several seasonal vegetable garden plots near the east end of the site. Various types of container-grown citrus trees and other edible plants grown for sale by the nursery are the most prominent vegetation features, and have been a consistent part of the cultural landscape throughout the life of the nursery, although exact locations of the container- grown plants have varied at times. Two large palm trees at the west edge of Parcel 1 were present when Floyd Dillon purchased the property in 1956, and the large coast live oak tree on Parcel 3 was present when that property was purchased in 1978.
The period of significance for the project site is 1957 to 1961. Because the character of the property has been substantially modified since that time, the Historic Evaluation Report concluded that the property lacks historic integrity of setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and is therefore not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. The only buildings on the site surviving from the period of significance are the original house and the barn, both of which have been substantially modified. The original office building, the tank house, the propagation building and other structures for sheltering the nursery‘s trees have been replaced, and most of the buildings extant on the site today all post- date the 1957-1961 period; they were constructed from circa 1970 to the late 1990s. Furthermore, the spatial relationships between the different functional parts of the nursery were also substantially altered when Parcel 3 was added to the site in 1978, more than doubling the size of the nursery.
As previously noted, Don Dillon, Sr. was an important figure in the area of politics and government as a Fremont councilman, mayor, and “pioneer” supporter of Fremont‘s incorporation. However, he did not live on the nursery property, and a home usually represents the accomplishments of an individual while living in that home. The Historic Evaluation Report concluded that the Four Winds Growers property does not appear to be eligible for the California Register due to its association with Don Dillon, Sr.‘s political career.
For purposes of CEQA, the project site does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion on the Fremont Register and, therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on historic resources.
Initial Study 46 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X
Explanation: An archaeological resources evaluation of the project site was performed by Holman & Associates in August 2011.19 The evaluation included a review of archival archaeological literature on file at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California, as well as a field reconnaissance of the site by archaeologist Miley Holman.
Prior to European contact, the Fremont area was inhabited by the Ohlone tribe of Native Americans, referred to as “Costanoans” (“Coast people”) by the Spanish. By the 19th century, forced missionization and the epidemic spread of western diseases had reduced the Ohlone population significantly, resulting in the disappearance of local tribelets. The archival search of archaeological resources in the area indicated that the closest prehistoric archaeological sites are located in and around Mission San Jose, approximately one-half mile southeast of the project site.
Two previous archaeological surveys in the vicinity encompassed a portion of the project site. A 1989 survey by Basin Research Associates for a water treatment project evaluated a small area on the adjacent City of Fremont property that apparently included a small area within the project site, but no cultural resources were encountered. The second survey was performed by Pacific Legacy in 1999 of the Souza property discussed in Section V(a). Pacific Legacy encountered site scatter, and recorded the historic site informally as Site 521-001H. It was recorded formally by Caltrans later that year as P-01-002171. The historic scatter, subsequently removed, was found adjacent to the Souza ranch house. The area is currently developed with single-family homes. Although no artifacts were encountered on the project site, the Pacific Legacy report noted that the Dillon property could not be surveyed due to the gravel and pavement surfaces on the site.
The Holman report notes that Mill Creek previously crossed the center of the Dillon property, but was undergrounded in a large pipe in the late 20th century. The pipe discharges into Mission Creek just east of the current Dillon residence on Parcel 3. Mission Creek had also been realigned in the late 19th century to conform with the southern side of Mission Boulevard.
Miley Holman’s July 2011 field reconnaissance of the site was restricted to about an acre of the property because the ground surface over most of the site was obscured by buildings and pavement and/or gravel occupied by citrus trees. The survey was concentrated in the undeveloped areas along the south side of Mission Creek. However, based on the presence of Mission Creek and the former presence of Mill Creek, the site supported conditions that were favored by Native Americans in the area for villages or summer camp sites. A recorded prehistoric site (Ala-342) in Mission San Jose was situated in a very similar environmental setting adjacent to a deeply cut creek. Site Ala-342 and others nearby were used by the Ohlone
19 Holman & Associates, Cultural Resources Study of the Dillon Property, Fremont, Alameda County, California, August 25, 2011.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 47 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
as seasonal villages from which to harvest vegetable resources in the spring. Ala-342 yielded numerous soap root roasting pits, which were ultimately abandoned and used to bury the dead.
Given the environmental context of the site, Holman concluded that there is a moderate to high potential for buried archaeological resources to be present at the project site. If present, such deposits could be damaged or destroyed during site grading and other subsurface disturbance of the site. This would constitute a potentially significant, adverse impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR–1: Following demolition of the existing buildings on the site, but prior to initiation of site grading or other ground disturbance, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified archaeologist to develop and implement a mechanical subsurface testing program to methodically excavate test pits and collect soil samples and artifactual/ecofactual material as warranted for analysis. If archaeological soils or artifacts are encountered, the archaeologist shall design and implement a mapping and recovery program, subject to approval by the City of Fremont, to map the aerial extent and depth of cultural deposits. As warranted by the results of the subsurface testing, the archaeologist may identify additional precautions to be followed during the remainder of project construction, such as monitoring of all site disturbing activities and site grading by a qualified archaeologist, or training of construction personnel, prior to the initiation of construction, to be alert to and recognize potentially significant cultural resources that could potentially be exposed during site- disturbing activities. The project sponsor shall comply with any such recommendations identified by the project archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure CR–2: If any cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance in the vicinity shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource(s) and, if necessary, recommend mitigation measures to document and prevent any significant adverse effects on the resource(s). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City of Fremont Planning staff of the encountered archeological deposit. The results of any additional archaeological effort required through the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 shall be presented in a professional-quality report, to be submitted to the project sponsor, the City of Fremont, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. The project sponsor shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c)-(f) of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
Mitigation Measure CR–3: In the event that any human remains are encountered during site disturbance, all ground-disturbing work shall cease immediately
Initial Study 48 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be prehistoric or historic period in date. If determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner’s Office will notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which, in turn, will then appoint a “Most Likely Descendant” (MLD). The MLD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor, will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for reburial.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Explanation: The EIR for the City’s recent General Plan Update concluded that, while no paleontological resources are known to be present in the portions of the City where development is anticipated under the General Plan, which includes the project site, the presence of such resources cannot be ruled out. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure CR–4: Should paleontological resources be encountered during construction or site preparation activities, such works shall be halted in the vicinity of the find. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the nature of the find and determine if mitigation is necessary. All feasible recommendations of the paleontologist shall be implemented.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Explanation: See Section V(b).
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 delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault X Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 49 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Explanation: In California, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (formerly the Special Studies Zoning Act) regulates development and construction of buildings intended for human occupation to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. This Act and supplemental amendments groups faults into the categories of active, potentially active, and inactive faults. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well defined” by detailed site-specific geotechnical explorations in order to determine that building setbacks might be established.
The project area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone shown on the official Alquist- Priolo fault zone of the area prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey.20, The nearest active fault to the project site is the Hayward Fault, located about 1 mile southwest of the site. There is therefore no potential for fault rupture at the site.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
Explanation: The information and analysis presented in Section VI, Geology and Soils, is based on a site-specific geotechnical analysis prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (CEG) for the project.21, The CEG report was peer reviewed by Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA), which concurred with the findings of CEG and provided some additional recommendations, which have also been incorporated into this section.22
The geotechnical investigation included subsurface testing, with two exploratory borings of 25 feet and 50 feet deep, respectively, drilled in the western portion of Parcel 3 and six cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) (five on Parcel 3 and one on Parcel 1). The CPTs were advanced to a depth of 50 feet, except one (CPT-3), which met refusal at approximately 29 feet due to a dense soil layer. The CEG report also reported on previous borings performed by ENGEO and Aqua Sciences in 2011.
20 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), “State of California Special Studies Zones,” Niles Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, Effective January 1, 1980. 21 Cornerstone Earth Group, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Dillon Property, 42186 Palm Avenue, Fremont, California, March 16, 2012. 22 Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Dillon Property Tract 8106, Mission Creek Homes, 42186 Palm Avenue, April 23, 2012.
Initial Study 50 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The project area is located at the northern end of the Santa Clara Valley, defined by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and the Diablo Range to the northeast. Local active fault systems in the region include the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas, which include the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault. Mapped geologic units in the area consist of Pleistocene-age alluvial and fluvial deposits. The Mission Hills to the east are underlain by Briones Sandstone, Ourson Sandstone, an unnamed sandstone and claystone, and Tice Shale.
Similar to most urban locations throughout the Bay Area, the project site is potentially subject to strong seismic ground shaking during an earthquake on one of the major active earthquake faults that transect the region. At least five known earthquakes of Richter Magnitude (RM) 6.5—four of them greater than RM 7.0—have occurred within the San Francisco Bay Area within the last 150 years. According to a 2007 analysis by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, an expert panel co-chaired by U.S. Geological Society seismologists, there is a 63 percent probability that an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater will occur in the San Francisco Bay Area in the next 24 years. It is therefore likely that a major earthquake will be experienced at the project site during the life of the project, and such an earthquake would product strong seismic ground shaking. CEG conducted a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and determined that there is a 10-percent probability that seismic ground shaking will product a peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) of at least 0.7 at the site within the next 50 years. The analysis factored in the potential geologic slip rate of all active faults and background seismicity within 10 kilometers (75 miles) of the site.
A major earthquake on any of the active faults in the region could result in very strong to violent ground shaking. The intensity of earthquake ground motion would depend upon the characteristics of the generating fault, distance of the site to the earthquake epicenter and rupture zone, magnitude and duration of the earthquake, and site-specific geologic conditions. A strong seismic event could seriously damage the proposed project and put its occupants at risk, which would be a potentially significant impact. However, the geotechnical consultant for the project concluded that proper site preparation, structural design, and construction techniques would enable the project structures to withstand the maximum probable ground shaking at the site. Accordingly, the following measures are required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GS–1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall prepare a design-level geotechnical and geologic investigation report, subject to review and approval by the City of Fremont Building and Safety Division. The investigation shall be based on site-specific subsurface investigation (e.g. borings, test pits, geophysical methods, etc.) and laboratory testing sufficient to characterize site landslides and slope stability, and design appropriate mitigation measures. The report shall verify that the project has been designed in compliance with seismic design criteria contained in the latest version of the California Building Code (CBC). The report shall also incorporate California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, and include an analysis of expected ground motions at the site from known faults. The investigation report shall specifically address potential hazards related to localized creek
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 51 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
bank instability, liquefaction-induced settlement, undocumented fill, expansive soils, and soil corrosion potential. The report shall provide specific geologic and geotechnical criteria and standards for site grading, drainage, foundation design, landslide mitigation, utilities, roadways, and other structures or facilities potentially affected by the project. Site grading and landslide mitigation measures shall conform to all applicable codes, ordinances, and requirements. The stability of cuts and fills shall be supported by appropriate static and seismic stability analyses. The design level geotechnical and geologic investigation report shall be signed and stamped by appropriately licensed professionals.
Mitigation Measure GS–2: The design-level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1 shall address the additional recommendations presented in Cotton, Shires and Associates’ April 23, 2012 peer review report on the March 2012 preliminary geotechnical analysis prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (CEG) for the project. Those recommendations include performing supplemental slope stability analysis in the vicinity of proposed Lots 19, 34, and 41; evaluation of maximum allowable differential fill thicknesses in the vicinity of Lots 30, 31, and 32; additional exploration of liquefaction potential on Parcel 1; further analysis of building foundation design requirements; and identification of requirements for over-excavating and backfilling soil above the 96-inch storm drain on Parcel 3.
Mitigation Measure GS–3: The proposed single-family homes shall be set back at least 50 feet from the top of the adjacent creek bank (Mission Creek) and utilities, swimming pools, parking areas, and other structures shall be set back at least 25 feet from the top of bank. To provide for adequate stability for the existing home on Lot 34, which encroaches into the 50-foot setback zone, a buried reinforced stitch pier shall be constructed between the home and the creek bank in accordance with specifications determined by the design- level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1.
Mitigation Measure GS–4: All existing debris, slabs, septic tanks, leach fields, sump pumps, underground storage tanks (USTs), and abandoned underground utilities shall be removed from the site and the resulting excavations shall be backfilled with engineered fill. The UST sites and undocumented fill areas (including the former ravine on Parcel 3) shall be over-excavated down to native soils prior to backfilling. The depth of overexcavation and engineering requirements of the backfill shall be performed in accordance with specifications determined by the design-level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1. Any
Initial Study 52 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
disturbed native soils within residential lots or street areas shall also be removed and replaced with engineered fill.
Mitigation Measure GS–5: Building foundations and roadways and other pavements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications presented in the March 2012 preliminary geotechnical analysis prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (CEG) for the project, or as modified by the design-level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1.
Mitigation Measure GS–6: During site grading and landslide remediation activities, the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and/or landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and the installation of all subdrains, including connections and outlet structures. Cut slopes shall be observed and mapped by the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer who will provide recommendations for slope modifications (if any) based on the actual conditions encountered during grading. Placement of fill shall be observed and tested by the project engineer and the test results shall be included in a final report for the project.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
Explanation:
Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained soils are exposed to strong seismic ground shaking. The soils temporarily lose strength and cohesion due to buildup of excess pore water pressure during earthquake-induced cyclic loading, resulting in a loss of ground stability that can cause building foundations to fail. Soil liquefaction may also damage roads, pavements, pipelines, and underground cables. Soils susceptible to liquefaction include saturated, loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low- plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits.
The portions of Parcels 2 and 3 flanking Mission Creek are mapped by the California Geological Survey as within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. CEG evaluated subsurface conditions and determined that this area is underlain by native alluvial and fluvial deposits of stiff to very stiff lean clay, sandy lean clay, and silt to depths ranging from approximately 20 to 35 feet. These upper layers are underlain by interbedded stiff sandy lean clay, medium-dense clayey and silty sand, and medium-dense to dense silty and sandy gravel layers to the maximum depth of exploration, 50 feet. CEG’s analysis determined that the soils could experience liquefaction that could result in settlement of ½ to 1 inch, with differential settlements of ¾ inch or less over a horizontal distance of 50 feet. While this would be a potentially significant impact,
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 53 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
implementation of Mitigation Measures GS–1 through GS–6 would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level.
Seismically-Induced Lurching or Lateral Spreading Lurch cracking and lateral spreading can occur in weaker soils on slopes and adjacent to open channels that are subjected to strong ground shaking during an earthquake. CEG determined that soil displacements of a few inches to a few feet could occur in the vicinity of Mission Creek. Although this would be a potentially significant impact, implementation of Mitigation Measures GS–1 through GS–6 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Additional information on creek bank stability is provided below in the discussion of landslides (Section VI(a)(iv)).
Earthquake-Induced Settlement Settlement of the ground surface can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. During an earthquake, settlement can occur as a result of the relatively rapid rearrangement, compaction, and settling of subsurface materials (particularly loose, non-compacted, and variable sandy sediments). Settlement can occur both uniformly and differentially (i.e., where adjoining areas settle at different rates). Areas are susceptible to differential settlement if underlain by compressible sediments, such as poorly engineered artificial fill or unconsolidated sediments. Because the soils at the project site are predominantly stiff to very stiff clays and medium-dense to dense sands, CEG concluded that the potential for seismically-induced differential settlement to adversely affect the proposed development is low.
iv) Landslides?
X
Explanation: A landslide is a slope failure created by down-slope slippage of a mass of earth or rock that typically occurs as a planar or rotational feature along single or multiple surfaces. The banks of Mission Creek present the greatest potential for landslide on the project site. CEG’s creek stability analysis determined that the steepest and highest bank adjacent to the proposed residences has a factor of safety for static loading conditions of 1.5 to 2.2, which is at or above the minimum acceptable level of 1.5. The slope’s seismic loading factor of safety is between 0.9 and 1.0, which is at or slightly below the minimum acceptable level of 1.0.
CEG also performed a slope deformation analysis that determined that ground displacement up to several inches could occur within 30 feet of the top of the creek banks during seismic shaking. Buildings and underground utilities, fences, or backyard improvements located within 30 feet of the creek could be exposed to movement and potential damage. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GS–1 through GS–6 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
Explanation: Soil erosion is a particular concern on steep slopes which have been disturbed during development grading and which are exposed to seasonal precipitation without adequate
Initial Study 54 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
slope protection. Stream banks are especially prone to excessive erosion when changes in flow patterns and volume of water occur, such as during large storms. On the project site there is potential for minor toe scour of the southern bank of Mission Creek on the outside of a bend in the adjacent Mission Creek channel. CEG concluded that the potential for future bank scour and erosion at the site is moderate.
Any construction project that exposes surface soils creates a potential for erosion from wind and stormwater runoff. The potential for erosion increases on large, steep, or windy sites; it also increases significantly during rainstorms. Grading of the project site would remove buildings, pavements, and vegetation that currently prevent excessive erosion. Site grading activities would also require excavation, scraping, grading, embankment construction, and stockpiling of rock and soil. Because the proposed project would occur on a large site with adjacent steep creek banks, and would require significant grading entailing movement of large amounts of soil, the potential for erosion during project construction would be high. Stormwater could carry significant amounts of suspended sediment, potentially degrading water quality in Mission Creek and other downstream receiving waters. This would be considered a potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the following mitigation measures. Although preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is a standard requirement of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, inclusion of the requirement as a project mitigation measure ensures more effective tracking and monitoring.
Mitigation Measure GS–7: All cut-and-fill slopes shall be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. No site grading shall occur between October 15th and April 15th unless authorized in writing by the City of Fremont and approved erosion control measures are in place.
Mitigation Measure GS–8: A Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepared and submitted along with grading permit applications. The SWPPP shall provide for temporary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction. The requisite plans shall be prepared in accordance with the standards provided in the Association of Bay Area Government’s Manual of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures (2005) or the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks for Construction and for New Development and Redevelopment (2009). Implementation of the plan will help stabilize graded and stockpile areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation. The plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be adhered to during construction activities. Erosion-minimizing features such as hay bales, water bars, covers, sediment fences, sensitive area access restrictions (for example, flagging), and/or retention/settlement areas shall be implemented as necessary before the onset of inclement weather. Mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities. The plans shall incorporate
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 55 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program and other applicable federal, State, and local requirements.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Explanation: The potential for landsliding, lateral spreading, lurching, and liquefaction was addressed above in preceding sections, and mitigations were identified to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial X risks to life or property?
Explanation: Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. Fine- grained clay sediments are most subject to expansion. CEG reported that the soils at the site are moderately expansive, with a Plasticity Index (PI) ranging from 22 to 25. Structural damage could occur over a long period of time, usually as a result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. Heaving and cracking of pavements and slabs-on-grade can also occur on expansive soils as a resulting of shrinking and swelling in response to seasonal wetting and drying. While expansion of soils could damage building foundations, which would be a potentially significant impact, the potential hazard due to expansive soils would be mitigated by incorporating the grading and foundation recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation report required by Mitigation Measure GS–1.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Explanation: The proposed project would be tied to the municipal sewer system and would not require the use of a septic or alternative wastewater disposal system.
VII GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS—
Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X environment?
Initial Study 56 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: With the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), the State of California acknowledged the role of greenhouse gases (GHG) in global warming and took action to reduce GHG emission levels. AB 32 set a Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In doing so, it contemplated economic expansion and growth of population to 44 million people by 2020. It also called for the State’s Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan encompassing all major sectors of GHG emissions for achieving reductions consistent with AB 32’s goals. The Scoping Plan, adopted in December 2008, creates an overarching framework for meeting the GHG reduction goal of returning to 1990 emissions levels by 2020.
GHG analysis uses carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), measured in metric tons, to adjust for the different warming potential of a wide range of greenhouse gases, not just exclusively CO2. The State 2005 GHG emission inventory was 479 million metrics tons of CO2e. CARB projected that under business-as-usual conditions (no reduction effort) GHG emissions would grow to 596.4 million metric tons of CO2e by the year 2020. According to the Scoping Plan, reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels requires cutting approximately 30 percent from the business-as- usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from 2010 levels. The target amount for the 2020 goal is an emission level of no more than 427 million metric tons of CO2e (the 1990 levels). On a per capita basis, this means reducing current annual emissions of 14 tons of CO2e for every person in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020. The City of Fremont greenhouse gas emission inventory estimate for 2010 was 1.99 million metric tons with a service population of jobs and residents of 304,489.23
Because of the broad context and setting of the potential impacts of contributing to global climate change, the assessment of project-level emissions looks at whether a project’s emissions would significantly affect the ability of the State to reach its AB 32 goals. This is identified within the City’s General Plan Conservation Element and certified EIR as the context for reviewing project effects and global climate changes. The Fremont General Plan EIR established analysis considering the projected increase in emissions from new growth through the year 2020. The proposed project meets the description of the “standard housing” development profile of single-family dwellings established in the General Plan EIR analysis. The project includes the green building requirement of achieving 50 points on the Build It Green checklist and specifically includes a requirement to exceed Title 24 energy usage allowances by 15 percent. The estimated total annual emission of CO2e in 2013 terms is 777 metric tons or a per capita rate of 6.02 metric tons per person. The estimate was prepared using the BAAQMD modeling tools of URBEMIS 2007 v 9.2.4. and the spreadsheet program BGM Calculator 1.1.9.24 As a development project consistent with the General Plan land use projections and greenhouse gas emissions the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable projected increase in emissions and would not hinder or delay the ability of the State to reach the goal- levels set forth in the Scoping Plan. As such, the project would have a less-than-significant effect on global climate change.
23 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, Table 4-44: Projected GHG Emissions Per Service Population, page 4-356, July 2011. 24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), URBEMIS and BMG Training Videos, accessed at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Urbemis-and-BGM-Training- Videos.aspx
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 57 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X greenhouse gases?
Explanation: See the discussion in Section VII(a), above. The project conforms to General Plan policies and projections.
VIII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials?
Explanation: The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Residential occupants of the site would be expected to store and use small containerized quantities of hazardous household, yard care, and automotive products of a wide variety. This type of usage is typical of all residential development, and would not constitute a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Explanation: As discussed in Section VIII(a) above, the proposed project would not introduce hazardous materials beyond those generally found within residential uses, including containerized household, yard care, and automotive products. There is therefore no potential for project operations to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, as discussed below, there is existing contamination on the site that must be remediated prior to project implementation.
Phase I and Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) A Phase I and Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Four Winds Growers property was performed by ARCARDIS U.S. Inc. in 2011, the results of which are summarized herein.25 The purpose of the ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions on the project site, including the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, whether through an existing release, past release, or threat of a release into structures, into the ground, or into surface or groundwater.
25 ARCADIS U.S. Inc., Phase One and Preliminary Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, Four Winds Growers Property, 42186 Palm Avenue, Fremont, California 94539, September 12, 2011.
Initial Study 58 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The ESA included a review of publicly available local, State, and federal environmental databases; several publicly available historical sources; aerial photographs; fire insurance maps; and physical setting sources. ARCARDIS also conducted a reconnaissance of the property and interviews with persons knowledgeable of site history and conditions. The ESA also included a limited subsurface investigation with groundwater and soil sampling and testing.
The western portion of the project site (Parcel 1) was acquired by Four Winds Growers (FWG) in the 1950s and the eastern parcels were acquired by FWG in 1979. Prior to the 1950s, the site and surrounding properties were used primarily for orchard farming, during a period when lead arsenate and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were commonly applied to orchard trees. Since acquisition by FWG, the site has been used as a nursery for dwarf citrus plants, primarily in containerized cultivation. Use of herbicides and pesticides on the site, as well as other hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, such as battery packs, paints, and fertilizer, has continued to the present day. Chemicals are stored in a shed located next to the fertilizer injection room, in the northeast corner of Parcel 1.
A 1,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) used to store fuel for nursery equipment was installed on the west side of Parcel 1 in 1966; it was removed in 1987. Two soil samples were collected from the excavation floor of the former UST and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, toluene, and xylenes (BTEX). None of the samples contained concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits.
Two new double-walled 1,000-gallon USTs with sensors and monitoring equipment for leak detection were installed on the west side of Parcel 1 in 1987. The USTs store gasoline and diesel fuel, respectively, used to power motorized carts, tractors, and backhoes. Waste oil for the equipment is stored in various sizes of containers on pallets in the center of Parcel 2. Other than some surface oil staining near the fueling area, no evidence of the release of petroleum products onto the site was observed by ARCADIS during the site reconnaissance.
An abandoned aboveground storage tank (AST) is located on the north end of Parcel 2. The AST previously stored gasoline to fuel the “smudge pots” (orchard heaters) that were used as frost protection, mainly in the western portion of the site.
Two septic tanks northwest of the residence on Parcel 1 previously provided onsite sewage treatment and disposal. Subsequent to being connected to the municipal wastewater collection system operated by Union Sanitary District in 1984, the tanks were emptied and filled with concrete.
To further evaluate potential environmental concerns at the site, ARCARDIS conducted soil and groundwater testing at the site in August 2011. Three deep borings were advanced in the vicinity of the UST and the former septic tank to assess the soil and groundwater quality at these locations, and surface soil samples were collected from multiple locations across the site, including at four potential areas of concern. The borings were advanced to between 29 and 35 feet below the ground surface (bgs), the approximate depth of groundwater. Depending on sample locations and their historical associations, the soil and groundwater samples were tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel (TPH-D), TPH as kerosene (TPH-K), TPH as gasoline (TPH-G), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) using recommended U.S. Environmental Protection
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 59 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Agency (EPA) test methods. Soil samples collected from the waste oil storage area were also analyzed for heavy metals, including cadmium, chromium, nickel, zinc, lead, arsenic, and copper.
The laboratory analytical results of the soil and groundwater samples were compared to the applicable environmental screening levels (ESLs) established by San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board for soil and groundwater at residential properties where the groundwater is a potential source of drinking water. Most contaminants were below their ESL, with the following exceptions: • One soil sample collected from the pesticide liquid storage area had an elevated lead concentration, most likely from peeling lead-based paint on the building. • Three soil samples had TPH-D concentrations above the ESL (one from the AST area, and two from the composite samples collected from across the site.) • Although two soil samples from the AST area had PCB concentrations above the ESL for direct contact, the concentrations were below the ESL to protect groundwater.
Because the TPH-D detected in soil and groundwater samples did not resemble a typical fuel pattern, and a subsequent analysis for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—the primary compounds responsible for driving the risk to exposure to TPH-D—were below their respective ESLs for residential land use, ARCADIS did not recommend further investigation regarding TPHd at the site. However, they did recommend further investigation of PCBs in the soils in the vicinity of the AST, as well as additional soil sampling for lead contamination. Consequently, additional testing was subsequently performed, as described below.
Soil and Groundwater Assessment An additional soil and groundwater assessment was performed by Aqua Science Engineers, Inc. (ASE) in December 2011.26 ASE collected soil and groundwater samples from five deep borings: one near the former UST, two near the current UST, one near the AST, and one near the freeway runoff area. ASE also collected soil samples from three shallower borings (up to 24 feet bgs) into the area on the west side of Parcel 3, where unknown fill was placed in the gully formed by historic Mill Creek in 1976. An additional 24 shallow borings (up to 2.9 feet bgs) were made across the site, including where elevated PCBs were previously detected near the AST, where lead contamination was previously identified, in the oiled site roadway, in growing areas, and near the smudge pot. Finally, three surface soil samples were collected from within the greenhouse in order to analyze the soil samples for herbicides and pesticides. The soil and groundwater samples were subjected to similar analytical testing to that performed by ARCADIS. The following elevated concentrations of contaminants were identified in the laboratory results: • A soil sample collected near the AST from 1.5 feet bgs contained TPH-D at 87 parts per million (ppm), which was barely over the ESL, and 1.6 ppm Aroclor 1260 (same concentration as total PCBs), which was over the ESL.
26 Aqua Science Engineers, Inc., Soil and Groundwater Assessment Report at Four Winds Growers, 42186 Palm Avenue, Fremont, California, ASE Job No. 4416, December 29, 2011.
Initial Study 60 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• Two soil samples collected in road areas from 1.0-feet bgs contained 120 ppm and 150 ppm TPH-D, respectively, exceeding the ESL of 83 ppm, but still be considered to be low concentrations. • A soil sample collected from a growing area at 1.5-feet bgs contained 0.11 ppm of the pesticide dieldrin, exceeding the ESL. • A greenhouse surface soil sample contained 0.87 ppm a-chlordane and 0.75 ppm g- chlordane, both of which exceed their respective ESLs for these pesticides. A second greenhouse surface soil sample contained 0.052 ppm dieldrin, which exceeded the ESL. Based on these results and the elevated dieldrin concentration in the growing area, additional sampling was warranted, and was subsequently performed by ASE, as described below. • All three soil samples collected from borings in the fill area contained arsenic and vanadium concentrations that exceeded ESLs. However, the maximum arsenic concentration of 6.5 ppm and the maximum vanadium concentration of 69 ppm are within expected natural background concentrations for these metals in the San Francisco Bay Region, which ASE confirmed with Alameda County Water District staff. • Of five groundwater samples from collected from the deep borings described above, only tert butyl alcohol (TBA) was detected. It was measured at a concentration of 2.2 parts per billion (ppb), which is below the ESL for drinking water.
ASE collected five soil samples from the building area where ARCADIS had previously identified an elevated lead level. However, the highest detected concentration as 12 ppm, well below the ESL of 200 ppm. The ARCADIS sample contained lead at but not above the ESL. ASE concluded that there was no evidence of widespread lead contamination on the site.
Aside from the exceptions listed above, none of the collected soil and groundwater samples contained contaminants above the applicable ESLs. Based on these results, ASE concluded that there does not appear to be any significant soil or groundwater impacts related to the current or former USTs or in the freeway runoff area, and no additional investigation was recommended.
The elevated TPH-D and PCBs concentrations found in one of the soil samples collected from the AST area indicate that contamination is present, the horizontal extent of which is not currently defined in the eastern direction. The testing results indicated that the vertical extent of TPH-D and PCB contamination extends to 3.5 feet bgs. The elevated TPH-D concentrations in the roadway soil sample also indicate that a low level of contamination is present in this area. Disturbance of the soils in these areas could result in exposure of construction workers and other persons to hazardous materials, potentially threatening their health and safety, which would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Note that these measures are also intended as mitigation for other potential impacts discussed subsequently in this section. The Fremont Fire Department, as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), has indicated that it wants to see one plan, one report, and one permit for all remediation and closure activities at the site.27
27 Curtis Ruel, Hazardous Materials Technician, Fremont Fire Department, personal communication, April 10, 2012.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 61 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Mitigation Measure HM–1: Prior to removal of any agricultural chemicals, waste oil, fuel, or other hazardous materials; prior to removal of the above-ground storage tank (AST), underground storage tanks (USTs), or septic tanks; prior to any demolition activities; and prior to any site grading or other surface disturbance, the project sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive Remediation Work Plan and Facility Closure Plan (RWP/FCP), to be reviewed and approved by the Fremont Fire Department/Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and implemented under supervision of the CUPA, as required. At a minimum, the RWP/FCP shall address the following issues: 1) The RWP/FCP shall identify required measures for additional soil sampling and testing in the vicinity of the AST where elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D) were identified, and in the road areas where elevated TPH-D concentrations were identified. The RWP/FCP shall stipulate appropriate procedures for excavation, and require proper disposal of contaminated soils at a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. The RWP/FCP shall require remediation of the PCB and TPH- D contamination in soils to below their applicable environmental screening levels (ESLs). 2) The RWP/FCP shall include remediation of the pesticide contamination in soils within and in proximity to the greenhouse to below the applicable ESLs. 3) The RWP/FCP shall identify required procedures for the proper handling and removal of agricultural and other chemicals and petroleum products from the site. Prior to implementation of the RWP/FCP, the project sponsor shall file a Facility Closure Notification with the CUPA, which will conduct an inspection of the facility prior to authorizing closure activities, such as the removal of chemicals. 4) If the USTs currently present on the site are to be abandoned in place, the project sponsor shall obtain No Further Action (NFA) letters from the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) for the tanks. Copies of the NFA letters shall be provided to the Fremont Fire Department (FFD). If the project engineer determines that the USTs must be removed to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant shall obtain a tank removal permit from the Fremont Fire Department and the tank(s) shall be removed in accordance with Title 23, Article 7 of the California Code of Regulations. Tank removal shall be performed under the observation of a Hazardous Materials Inspector from the FFD/CUPA and the ACWD. If the
Initial Study 62 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
inspectors determine that soil sampling is warranted, based on the presence of odors, stained soil, or other indicators, the project sponsor shall submit soil samples to a State–certified laboratory for analysis for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. If the results reveal contaminant levels in excess of regulatory limits, remediation of the soils in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the RWP/FCP shall be performed to the satisfaction of the FFD/CUPA and the ACWD. 5) Removal of the AST will also require permitting and oversight by the FFD/CUPA, and may require core soil sampling and testing, depending on conditions around the tank. If any soil contamination extends more than 3 feet below the ground surface, remediation shall also be performed under the supervision of the ACWD.
Mitigation Measure HM–2: For all remediation work performed in compliance with Mitigation Measure HM–1, the project sponsor shall prepare and implement a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and a Soil Management Plan (SMP). The HASP shall identify the measures necessary to protect workers and to prevent their exposure to hazardous contaminants that are present in the soils on the site. It shall be prepared in consultation with the San Francisco Bay Area Consultation Service Office of the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupation Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and in accordance with all applicable State and federal occupational safety and health standards, including Cal/OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Guidelines (CCR Title 8, Section 5192). The SMP shall address the proper handling and disposition of potentially contaminated soils that may be encountered during excavation, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Fremont Fire Department/CUPA and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
Supplemental Soil Investigation As noted above, elevated pesticide concentrations were identified by ASE during their December 2011 soil and groundwater investigation of the project site. Pesticide concentrations above the residential ESLs were encountered in the greenhouse and in the outdoor growing area south of the greenhouse. To further define the horizontal and vertical extent of these elevated pesticide concentrations, ASE conducted supplemental soil testing in these areas, drilling 12 shallow soil borings and collecting soil samples at depths of 0.5 feet, 1.5 feet, and 2.9 feet bgs.28
28 Aqua Science Engineers, Inc., Additional Soil Assessment Report at Four Winds Growers, 42186 Palm Avenue, Fremont, California, ASE Job No. 4416, January 5, 2012.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 63 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Samples from two of the borings contained dieldrin in concentrations that exceeded the residential ESL of 0.0023 ppm. In the first boring (BH-HH), dieldrin was present at 0.065 ppm in the sample taken at 0.5 feet bgs, but was not detected in the sample taken at 1.5 feet bgs from the same boring. Similarly, the sample from the second nearby boring (BH-JJ) was detected in concentrations of 0.014 ppm and 0.0041 ppm at depths of 0.5 feet and 1.5 feet bgs, respectively, but was not detected in the sample collected at 2.9 feet bgs. These results indicated that the pesticide contamination is limited to soil shallower than 2.9 feet bgs. The horizontal extent of the contamination was defined by the lack of elevated pesticide concentrations in soil samples collected from surrounding borings. No other contaminants were detected in the soil samples collected during the supplemental soil assessment.
The pesticide contamination in soils within and in proximity to the greenhouse pose an environmental hazard and a potential threat to worker health and safety, which is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM–1 and HM–2, above, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Other Environmental Conditions In addition to the soil contamination identified by ARCADIS and further characterized by ASE, as summarized in the preceding discussions, the Phase I ESA performed by ARCADIS identified additional Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) and other environmental hazards that are or may be present at the project site. They include: • the agricultural chemicals and waste oil currently used and stored on site; • the USTs and AST still present on the site; • the abandoned septic tanks on Parcel 1; and • the potential for asbestos to be present in the buildings on the site.
Each of these concerns is addressed separately below.
The agricultural chemicals and waste oil currently used and stored on site would be removed prior to project construction. During this removal there is a potential for spills or improper handling, which could potentially release the materials to the environment and/or expose workers to hazardous materials. This would be is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM–1 and HM–2, above, would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
The AST still present on the site would be removed as part of site preparation activities, and removal of one or both of the existing USTs could be required during or prior to project grading. Removal of the tanks and/or disturbance of soils in or around the tanks could expose workers to hazardous materials. This would be a potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact through implementation of Mitigation Measures HM–1 and HM–2, above.
The historic use of septic tanks on the property presents the possibility that hazardous chemicals could have been disposed of through the septic system at some point in the past. If this occurred, the soils in the associated leach field could be contaminated. In addition, the septic tanks represent underground structural hazards, and should be removed. This would be
Initial Study 64 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact through implementation of the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure HM–3: The septic tanks on the project site shall be removed or abandoned under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) and in accordance with Alameda County Septic Regulation 9. The project sponsor shall obtain a permit from ACDEH as required by Regulation 9 for the removal or abandonment. The project sponsor shall provide the Fremont Community Development Department with a copy of the Final Approval letter issued by ACDEH once the Department has inspected the property and signed off on the abandonment.
Due to the age of the extant buildings on the site, there is a potential for asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) and lead-based paint (LBP) to be present in the buildings. During the proposed demolition of these structures, friable asbestos and/or lead could be released into the environment, posing a health hazard to workers. If not addressed properly, the potential hazards posed by these facilities on the site would represent a potentially significant adverse impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HM–4: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing buildings on the site, a survey for asbestos–containing building materials (ACBM) shall be conducted by a qualified asbestos abatement contractor. If ACBM is identified, all friable asbestos shall be removed prior to building demolition by a State-certified Asbestos Abatement Contractor, in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified ten days in advance of any required abatement work. To document compliance with the applicable regulations, the project sponsor shall provide the Fremont Community Development Department with a copy of the notice required by BAAQMD for asbestos abatement work, prior to and as a condition of issuance of the building permit for the proposed project by the City of Fremont Building and Safety Division.
Mitigation Measure HM–5: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing buildings on the site, a survey for lead–based paint (LBP) shall be conducted by a qualified lead assessor. If LBP is identified, lead abatement shall be performed in compliance with all federal, State, and local regulations applicable to work with LBP and disposal of lead–containing waste. A State-certified Lead-Related Construction Inspector/Assessor shall provide a lead clearance report after the lead abatement work in the buildings is completed. The project sponsor shall provide a copy of the lead clearance report to the Fremont Community Development Department.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 65 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Aside from the issues addressed in the preceding pages, no other Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) were identified on the project site.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Explanation: There are no schools within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the project site. The nearest public schools to the project site are Joshua Chadbourne Elementary School, located about 2,000 feet northwest of the site; Mission Valley Elementary School, located about 3,400 feet west of the site; William Hopkins Junior High School, located about 3,200 feet northwest of the site; and Mission San Jose High School, located about 1,300 feet north of the site. In addition, there are several small private schools nearby, but more than 1,300 feet away. Gan Sameach Nursery School is located at 42000 Paseo Padre Parkway, about 1,600 feet to the southwest. Montessori Schools of Fremont is located at 1901 Washington Boulevard, about 3,000 feet southwest of the project site. The proposed single-family residential homes and recreational trail would not emit hazardous gases, waste, or other substances with a potential to pose a threat to students in these schools or to residential properties in closer proximity to the site.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to X Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Explanation: The Phase I ESA for the project included a reconnaissance-level site visit, review of historical background information and regulatory records, and interviews with the site owner and government officials. As part of these investigations, a search was conducted of State and federal databases listing sites associated with hazardous materials or hazardous waste generation, storage, or spills.
Due to a former UST and the two active USTs located on the site, discussed in Section VIII(b), the project site is listed in active and inactive UST databases, including the Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST database, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) UST database, California Facility Inventory Database (CA FID UST) database, HIST UST database, and HAZNET database. The potential hazards presented by the former and current USTS, the AST, and the storage and use of agricultural chemicals, petroleum products, and waste oil on the site were previously addressed in Section VIII(b). With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section VIII(b), these facilities and materials would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
The Phase I ESA also identified the following two off-site properties listed in the hazardous materials databases:
Initial Study 66 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Mission Pass Shell Station, 42816 Mission Boulevard, approximately 1,200 feet southeast of the project site. This facility is included on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database for having a release of gasoline that migrated to groundwater, and has been listed with an “open-site assessment” status with the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) since 1989. Monitoring and sampling have been conducted at this facility since 2005. Ongoing remediation at this facility includes dual-phase vacuum extraction and soil-vapor extraction systems in conjunction with natural attenuation. Groundwater flow from this gas service station property toward the west-southwest, away from the project site. Based on the direction of groundwater flow and the distance of this facility from the project site, ARCADIS concluded that the hazardous materials release from this facility does not pose a threat to soil or groundwater at the project site. John Ura Farm, 42154 Palm Avenue, immediately north of the site (Parcel 1). This farm is listed as a on the LUST database for previously having a release of gasoline that migrated to the soil. The cleanup of this facility was reportedly completed and the case was assigned a case closed status by the regulatory oversight agency on May 23, 2001. Because remediation was completed and the case closed, ARCADIS concluded that the release at this facility is not expected to pose a threat to soil or groundwater at the project site.
No other sites listed on hazardous materials/hazardous waste databases were identified with the potential to adversely affect the proposed project.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a X public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Explanation: There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site; the nearest airport is Moffett Federal Airfield in Santa Clara, located approximately 10.7 miles southwest of the site.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area?
Explanation: There are no private airstrips within 2 miles of the project site.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan?
Explanation: In the event of a large-scale disaster, emergency response to the site would be coordinated by City responders with other response in the City. The proposed project is
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 67 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
consistent with the land use and development density envisioned for the site in the General Plan and does not provide access or staging areas for emergency response plans. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to City implementation of emergency evacuation or response plans.
h) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Explanation: There are no wildlands on or adjacent to the project site. As defined in Public Resources Code Sections 4103 and 4104, “wildland” is uncultivated land, other than fallow land, neglected or maintained for such purposes as wood or range-forage production, wildlife, recreation, protective watershed cover, or wilderness. The riparian corridor adjacent to Mission Creek does not meet this definition. Furthermore, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) maps areas in each county susceptible to wildland fires, and produces similar maps for cities with susceptible areas. The project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone29 or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,30 as mapped by CAL FIRE. However, the project site is located in a City of Fremont Fire Hazard Severity Zone as shown on Diagram 10-8, Safety Element of the Fremont General Plan. As such, the project would be required to provide adequate setbacks from the riparian corridor, manage vegetation, and maintain defensible space around the proposed homes. The project would therefore have a less-than-significant impact related to exposure of people and structures to a risk of wildland fires.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X
Explanation:
Operational Impacts For residential development projects, the most common source of pollutants with a potential to degrade surface water quality is the automobile, which deposits oil and grease, fuel residues, heavy metals (e.g. lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc), tire particles, and other pollutants onto roadways and parking areas. These contaminants can be washed by stormwater runoff into surface waterways, degrading water quality.
29 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Alameda County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA (map), adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. 30 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Alameda County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (map), As Recommended by CAL FIRE, September 3, 2008.
Initial Study 68 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Urban/suburban developments introduce a variety of other pollutants that contribute to surface water pollution, including pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers from landscaping; organic debris (e.g. grass, leaves); weathered paint; eroded metals from painted and unpainted surfaces; organic compounds (e.g., cleaners, solvents, adhesives, etc.); nutrients; bacteria and viruses; and sediments. Even building rooftops are a source of pollutants, because mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are airborne pollutants that get deposited on roofs and other impervious surfaces. While the incremental pollutant load from a single site may not be significant, the additive, regional effects of pollutants from all development have a significant adverse effect on water quality and the innumerable organisms that depend on the region’s surface water bodies. Even low concentrations of heavy metals such as mercury bioaccumulate in fish, resulting in levels that adversely affect the health of sea animals and humans that eat them. Testing in the San Francisco Bay Area has shown elevated levels of mercury and PCBs in the sediment of urban storm drains throughout the region.
Operation of the project following completion of construction would have the potential to result in a significant, adverse impact on surface water quality, for the reasons set forth above. Although compliance with the stormwater treatment requirements described below would ensure that operational impacts are less than significant, Mitigation Measure WQ–3 is required to provide a means for monitoring and verifying compliance.
Operational stormwater discharges from new development are regulated by the terms of each jurisdiction’s municipal stormwater permits. In the City of Fremont, development projects must comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS612008) issued to the Clean Water Program Alameda County (CWPAC) (formerly the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program) and other Bay Area jurisdictions by the RWQCB (NPDES Order No. R2-2009-0074). The revised Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) was issued on October 14, 2009 and replaced the previous permit originally issued in February 2003 with substantial new requirements for development and redevelopment projects.
Under the current MRP, any private or public development project that would create or modify 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces must comply with Provision C.3. Projects subject to Provision C.3 must include low-impact development (LID) measures to treat stormwater runoff. Project applicants are required to implement appropriate source control and site design measures and to design and implement stormwater treatment measures in order to reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), a standard established by the 1987 amendments to the federal Clean Water Act.
Following construction, stormwater collection and drainage would occur along the proposed streets to curb cuts located along Four Winds Court and San Marco Avenue just east of the Hetch Hetchy parcel. Water would flow through the curb cuts to vegetated swales that would provide natural detention and filtration of pollutants entrained in the stormwater. Following this onsite treatment, stormwater would be discharged from the bio-swales into a 66-inch storm drain running the length of the on-site streets. This storm drain would step down to an 18-inch line at the west edge of the site before connecting to an existing 24-inch storm drain running under Palm Avenue. This line continues north in Palm Avenue and discharges into Mission Creek about 1,000 feet north of the project site.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 69 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Stormwater runoff from the houses and residential lots would be treated separately in landscaped treatment swales located at the front corners of each lot. Treated water would then be discharged into the main storm drain.
Stormwater collected from both the street and the residential lots located on the east end of Parcel 3 would be discharged into Mission Creek through an 18-inch pipe that would be connected to the existing 96-inch storm drain culvert that passes between proposed lots 36 and 37. Stormwater is currently and would continue to be discharged into rock rip-rap in the existing outfall area of the culvert along the south bank of the creek. Stormwater discharged at this location would be collected from lots 37 through 42 and from the street frontage of these lots.
The project would create about 6.12 acres of impervious surfaces, and, under Section C.3 of the MRP, would require treatment capacity for 10,644 square feet. The project would provide 11,013 square feet of vegetated swale capable of treating storm runoff from 275,325 square feet (6.32 acres) of impervious surfaces, exceeding the C.3 requirements. As a result, operational runoff from the completed project would not violate water quality standards.
Provision C.3 of the MRP also includes hydromodification management (HM) requirements for certain projects located in areas susceptible to hydrograph modification. Hydrograph modification occurs when an undeveloped site is developed with impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavements, which prevents natural infiltration by rain water, and which results in an increase in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from the site. Hydrograph modification has the undesirable effect of increasing erosion of natural creeks and earthen channels, which can cause flooding, property damage, degradation of stream habitat, and deterioration of water quality. Projects that create or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surfaces on sites within a designated “susceptible area” as mapped by the CWPAC must implement HM measures to control the flow and duration of stormwater runoff. HM measures can include site design and hydrologic source control measures, on-site structural HM measures, and in-stream restorative measures.
Although the proposed project site is not within a hydromodification-susceptible area as mapped by the CWPAC,31 some of the stormwater from the project would be discharged into Mission Creek, which is designated a hydromodification-susceptible creek. Accordingly, the City is requiring the project to incorporate HM measures.32 In compliance with this requirement, the project applicant is proposing to construct three underground vaults that would function as detention basins. One vault would be constructed in the open space to the north of Lot 19. It would have a storage capacity of 18,000 cubic feet (cf). A second vault with a capacity of 11,135 cf would be nearby in the open space to the north of Lot 24. The third vault would have a capacity of 16,200 cf and would be located just north of Lot 37. The discharge from this third vault would be emptied into the existing 96-inch storm drain that empties, via an existing concrete box culvert, into Mission Creek. These detention vaults would function to reduce peak stormwater discharge from the project site in comparison with existing conditions.
31 Clean Water Program Alameda County, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance: A Handbook for Developers, Builders, and Project Applicants, Version 3.0, Attachment A: HMP Susceptibility Map (January 26, 2007), December 1, 2011. 32 Colt Alvernaz, P.E., Project Engineer, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, personal communication, April 27, 2012.
Initial Study 70 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Construction Impacts Construction activities could potentially affect water quality as a result of erosion of sediment. In addition, leaks from construction equipment; accidental spills of fuel, oil, or hazardous liquids used for equipment maintenance; and accidental spills of construction materials are all potential sources of pollutants that could degrade water quality during construction. If not properly addressed, construction impacts on water quality could be particularly severe due to the proximity of Mission Creek. Furthermore, storm runoff from the site ultimately drains to San Francisco Bay, which is on the list of impaired water bodies compiled by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. Because the State is required to develop action plans and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality within these water bodies, uncontrolled discharge of pollutants into them would be particularly detrimental.
As part of any new development at the site, the project sponsor would be required to obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and carry out measures required to manage and control erosion from the site during construction pursuant to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would include, but not be limited to, minimizing the migration of sediments off-site, covering soil stockpiles, sweeping soil from streets or other paved areas, site preparation in dry periods, and the planting of vegetation or landscaping in a timely manner. These measures should be consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures (2005 Updated Edition). Although project construction effects on surface water quality could result in a potentially significant impact, implementation of Mitigation Measures GS–7 and GS–8 (see Section VI, Geology and Soils) would ensure that construction impacts on water quality remain less than significant.
In addition to the requirements discussed above, the project would be required to comply with requirements set forth in the Chapter 4, Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the City of Fremont Municipal Code. The City may identify additional measures to protect water quality as conditions of the grading permit required for the project.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there X 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 that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Explanation: During the geotechnical investigation of the site (see Section VI), ENGEO encountered groundwater at depths of about 21 feet to 33 feet below existing grades. Seismic hazard reports for the area indicate historical groundwater levels at depths of approximately 10 to 20 feet. Groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally and over longer periods in response to variations in rainfall, temperature, irrigation, and other factors.
The City of Fremont is underlain by the Niles Cone groundwater basin, a large sub-basin of the Santa Clara Valley groundwater basin that also underlies the City of Newark, along with
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 71 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
portions of Union City and Hayward. Its primary recharge area is east of the project on the slopes of the East Hills. It extends from the east slopes of these hills west to San Francisco Bay. The Niles Cone basin is bisected on the east by the Hayward Fault running along the base of the East Bay Hills, which interrupts the westward flow of groundwater and separates the basin into two zones: above the Hayward Fault (AHF) and below the Hayward Fault (BHF). The AHF basin has significantly higher ground water levels than that of the BHF.
The Niles Cone groundwater basin has been adversely affected by the intrusion of salt water from San Francisco Bay. The salt water intrusion was first noticed in the 1920's and occurred due to historical pumping from the basin that was in excess of recharge (i.e. overdraft). Since 1962, the ACWD has purchased State Water Project water supplies to supplement local recharge and raise groundwater levels. Although there has been substantial improvement in the basin, a considerable volume of saline water still remains in the aquifers, and the ACWD has implemented an Aquifer Reclamation Program to pump out brackish groundwater from the impacted areas of the aquifer system. Historically, this brackish water has been discharged back to San Francisco Bay through local flood control channels.
In addition to the open space hillsides east of Mission Boulevard, the groundwater in Fremont is primarily recharged through percolation in Alameda Creek and in the Quarry Lakes. Groundwater extraction occurs at ACWD wells in the Peralta–Tyson and Mowry Wellfields, the District’s Aquifer Reclamation Program (ARP) wells, and private (non–District) wells.
Although the proposed project would create 6.12 acres of new impervious surfaces, which would be a net increase of 3.0 acres compared to existing conditions, the site is not a significant source for groundwater recharge. The most groundwater recharge from the site occurs within the Mission Creek channel, which would be unaffected by the proposed project. The portion of the site proposed for development represents a very small fraction of the overall regional groundwater recharge area. In addition, the stormwater treatment swales that would be located adjacent to project streets to comply with the C.3 stormwater provisions discussed in the previous section would detain surface water runoff and allow some infiltration to the underlying ground. Given the above considerations, the project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table level.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Explanation: Existing drainage on the site occurs primarily as sheet flow across the undeveloped portions of the site. Stormwater flows generally from east to west, and is discharged from the site into Palm Avenue, where it is collected by existing storm inlets and discharged to the City’s storm drainage system. On the site, sheet flow is interrupted by and flows around thousands of containerized citrus trees placed in rows across much of the site. On Parcel 1, stormwater flows around and off of existing buildings, which occupy the majority of the parcel. On Parcels 2 and 3, much of the stormwater runoff flows into Mission Creek.
Initial Study 72 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The proposed project would alter the existing drainage pattern on the site by capturing runoff from the new impervious surfaces, directing it to onsite treatment swales, and channeling the treated runoff into the onsite stormwater collection system. Most runoff from the preserved open space would flow directly into Mission Creek. The proposed changes would incrementally reduce the amount of runoff into the creek because rain falling on the developed portion of the site would be captured and directed into the onsite stormwater treatment system, whereas currently, some of the rain falling onto these areas flows to the creek relatively unimpeded. Although in theory this should serve to reduce the potential for erosion and siltation of the creek, it would be a small incremental improvement that would not substantially alter the amount erosion and siltation in and adjacent to Mission Creek.
The most significant drainage pattern that occurs on the project site is within Mission Creek itself. The proposed project would not affect the course of the stream or increase erosion of the creek banks. It would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff into the creek. Stormwater runoff would be collected in a more controlled manner than is currently the case, and all stormwater from developed areas would be captured and treated onsite, which is not currently the case. The proposed project would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on existing drainage patterns. Issues of erosion and increased siltation are also addressed in Section IX(a).
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course X 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?
Explanation: As summarized in the preceding discussion, the project would not alter the course of a stream or river although it would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1 (Section IX(a)) would reduce the potential for on- or off-site flooding during construction to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-3 (Section IX(a)) would require the project to comply with NPDES C.3 requirements specified by RWQCB NPDES Order No. R2-2009-0074 and the Clean Water Program Alameda County, thereby ensuring that operation of the completed project would not result in on- or off-site flooding.
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Explanation: Drainage facilities in the project area are under the jurisdiction of the City of Fremont and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD). Generally, the City of Fremont maintains catch basins and storm drains in public streets, while, the ACFCWCD maintains creeks, flood control channels, and other facilities that serve as regional drainage facilities. The ACFCWCD also reviews the drainage aspects of land development applications, flood control and drainage permit applications, and environmental impact documents for projects located in unincorporated areas.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 73 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
In performing due diligence for the project, the project engineer consulted with both ACFCWCD and the City’s Public Works Department; neither agency identified any concerns or constraints regarding adequate stormwater drainage capacity to serve the proposed project.33
As discussed in more detail in Section IX(a), the project would include construction of three underground detention vaults that would have a combined storage capacity of 45,335 cubic feet. As a result of the detention function of these vaults, the peak rate of discharge during the 10- year storm event would be 12 cubic feet per second (cfs), in comparison with the existing rate of 15 cfs under the same storm event. Thus, the rate of peak stormwater discharge from the project site would be reduced in comparison with existing conditions and have a less-than- significant impact on drainage capacity.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
Explanation: See Sections IX(a) and IX(d). Other than the impacts identified therein, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade water quality.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Explanation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps for the Fremont area show that the channel of Mission Creek, which passes through the northern edge of parcels 2 and 3, is an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual chance flood (i.e., is within the 100-year flood zone).34 The creek channel is designated Zone A, which signifies that FEMA has not determined the base flood elevation. The flood zone is confined to the deeply incised creek channel, and no other portion of the project site is within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, no housing would be placed within the flood plain.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X
Explanation: No development is proposed within the channel of Mission Creek (see Section IX(g), above).
33 Eddie Sieu, P.E., Principal, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, personal communication, February 14, 2012. 34 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Alameda County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 466 of 725, Map Number 06001C0466G, August 3, 2009.
Initial Study 74 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Explanation: The City of Fremont is located downstream of the following three reservoir dams:
• Calaveras Dam, which impounds Calaveras Reservoir, located about 6.2 miles southeast of the project site and upstream along Alameda Creek. Owned by the City and County of San Francisco, the reservoir has a capacity of 100,000 acre-feet (AF). • Del Valle Dam, which impounds Del Valle Reservoir, located about 11.4 miles northeast of the site. It drains toward the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore in the Arroyo Valle. The reservoir is owned by the California Department of Water Resources, and has a capacity of 77,100 AF. • James H. Turner Dam, which impounds San Antonio Reservoir, a 50,500-AF facility owned by the City and County of San Francisco. It is located approximately 4.9 miles northeast of the project site.
Failure of any one of these dams has the potential to flood large portions of the City via Alameda Creek. However, the project site is not located within a dam failure inundation zone, as mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments.35
Two levees that could potentially fail and result in adjacent property inundation are located in Fremont: one along Alameda Creek and the other along Coyote Creek. There is no potential for the project site to be inundated in the event of failure of one of these levees.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Explanation: Tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are long-period waves that are typically caused by underwater disturbances (landslides), volcanic eruptions, or seismic events. Areas that are highly susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to be located in low-lying coastal areas such as tidal flats, marshlands, and former bay margins that have been artificially filled but are still at or near sea level. The project is located about 8 miles from the margins of San Francisco Bay and is more than 170 feet above sea level; the site is therefore not subject to inundation by tsunami. It is also not within a potential tsunami inundation area as mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments.36
A seiche is a free or standing wave oscillation(s) of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi- enclosed basin that may be initiated by an earthquake. The project is not located next to any significant surface water bodies. Therefore, there is no potential for seisches affecting the site.
35 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, Figure 4.9: Dam Failure Inundation Areas, page 4-200, July 2011. 36 Association of Bay Area Governments, “Tsunami Inundation Emergency Planning Map for the San Francisco Bay Region,” accessed February 14, 2012 at: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/Tsunami/.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 75 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Debris flows, mudslides, and mudflows begin during intense rainfall as shallow landslides on steep slopes. The rapid movement and sudden arrival of debris flows can pose a hazard to life and property during and immediately following a triggering rainfall. The project is not located downslope of unstable areas that would be subject to mudflows. However, as discussed in Section VI, Geology and Soils, the banks of Mission Creek could be susceptible to an earthquake-induced landslide. Were such a landslide to occur, it would occur outside the proposed development area, and would flow to the north, away from the proposed homes. At the east end Parcel 3, the northern embankment for the southbound on-ramp to I–680 has also been mapped as susceptible to earthquake-induced landslide. The slope hazard is located east of the proposed homes; were a slope failure to occur, it would slide into undeveloped open space.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X
Explanation: The project site consists of an agricultural property that is organized into citrus growing areas, an area of consolidated support buildings and an office building, and two private residences. There is also an undeveloped riparian corridor and creek along the northeast portion of the site. Throughout its history the site has been used for agricultural purposes, and has never been developed as a community in historic times. The proposed project would create a small residential subdivision of 42 homes that would constitute a new community on the site where none currently exists. The proposed development would not alter access to any of the existing residential neighborhoods located in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project X (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
General Plan: Land Use Located on the eastern side of the City of Fremont, development of the project site is subject to the provisions of the City of Fremont General Plan, adopted on December 13, 2011. The General Plan establishes City policy for growth, development, and management of the City’s future during the 20- to 25-year planning horizon assumed in the General Plan, encompassing a planning area of nearly 90 square miles.
The General Plan assigns a land use designation of Low Density Residential to the project site and to the neighboring lands to the north and east of the site. One of five residential land use designations established in the General Plan to provide for a full range of housing types and densities, the Low Density Residential designation is intended for single-family homes in
Initial Study 76 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
traditional subdivisions as well as larger-lot subdivisions with lots of 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. The allowable density is 2.3 to 8.7 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac), but the City relies on zoning to narrow the range of allowable density. Furthermore, projects at the high end of this density range, which would result in lots smaller than 6,000 square feet, are only permitted where specific conditions established by the General Plan and Planned District zoning are met. Principal permitted uses within this land use category include detached single-family homes, schools, child care centers, parks, and religious facilities. Compatible zoning districts include the R–1–10, R–1–8, R–1–6, and R–2 districts. With a net density of 4.72 du/ac, the proposed project would be consistent with the use and density allowed by the General Plan.
The General Plan Land Use Diagram (amended January 12, 2012) designates the Mission Creek riparian corridor as Open Space–Resource Conservation/Public. In addition, the linear Hetch Hetchy parcel that extends in a north-south orientation and separates project parcels 1 and 2 also has this land use designation.
The Resource Conservation and Public Open Space category includes open spaces that are located below the Toe of the Hill (TOH) and owned by public or quasi-public agencies other than the City of Fremont. Open spaces with this designation include regional parks such as Coyote Hills, and land owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (for the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct), the Ohlone Community College District, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge). This designation also includes PG&E transmission line rights of way and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District easements and rights of way. Resource Conservation and Public Open Space lands are intended to remain as permanent open space through the horizon year of the General Plan. Although a limited number of recreational and regional park improvements, such as trails or interpretive nature centers, may be appropriate, the focus in most areas is on the preservation of natural open space and restoration and enhancement of native habitat. The proposed project would not change the land use designation of the riparian corridor as open space and would not alter the Hetch Hetchy parcel other than extending Four Winds Court and San Marco Avenue across the parcel. The project would therefore be consistent with the Open Space–Resource Conservation/Public land use designation.
The project site is inside the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, which is located just to the east of the site. The project site is also adjacent to but outside of the Hillside Open Space (lands below the Toe of the Hill (TOH)) established by voter-approved Measure A, the Hillside Initiative of 1981. This designation is applied to rural parcels generally lying east of Mission Boulevard but below the TOH, and prohibits development on slopes with greater than a 20-percent grade.
No conflicts with adopted General Plan policies were identified for the proposed project. A detailed policy consistency analysis will be performed by Planning staff as part of the project’s entitlement process.37 The project would further the City’s attainment of certain goals and policies. For example, the project would be consistent with numerous General Plan policies pertaining to protection/incorporation of open space, including Land Use policies 2-2.14, 2-6.8, and 2-6.9 as well as mobility implementation measures 3-2.4.B and 3-5.2.C. It would also be consistent with numerous policies in the Conservation Element, including implementation measures 7-1.1.A (protection of riparian areas), 7-3.3.B (stormwater control in new
37 Scott Ruhland, Associate Planner, City of Fremont, personal communication, January 31, 2012.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 77 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
developments), and 7-7.1.D (air quality analysis during environmental review of proposed projects).
The project site is located in the Mission Valley neighborhood, which is located to the northwest of Mission San Jose. It is within the Mission San Jose Community Plan area, which encompasses 7.1 square miles centered around historic Mission San Jose. The planning area includes the business district, public and institutional uses such as Ohlone College, and a number of single- family residential neighborhoods, generally with lower densities than in other parts of the City. The project would be consistent with the goals and policies promulgated in the Mission San Jose Community Plan.
Zoning Ordinance Parcels 1 and 2 of the site are zoned Agricultural (A) and Parcel 3 is zoned Residential Single Family (R–1–10). The proposed project includes a request to rezone the site to a Planned District (P) district for single-family residential use. The Planned District is intended to “encourage and provide a means for effectuating desirable development, redevelopment, rehabilitation and conservation in the city, which features variations in siting, mixed land uses and/or varied dwelling types. The amenities and compatibility of P districts [are] to be ensure[d] through adoption of a precise site plan, showing proper orientation, desirable design character and compatible land uses.”38
According to the Community Character element of the General Plan, Planned districts—or PDs—allow development to depart from conventional zoning and street standards, land uses and/or dwelling types in order to achieve a product that is more attractive and sustainably designed. The overall number of housing units or square footage is determined by zoning, but the distribution or density of those units around the site can vary from traditional standards. This is often achieved by clustering development on one part of a site and leaving the rest as open space, which is the case with the proposed project. This can encourage design solutions that are more responsive to natural terrain and nearby land uses.
Development standards for the P district are governed by the standards of the residential, commercial, or industrial zoning district(s) most similar in nature and function to the proposed P district use(s), although the City can grant exceptions when it finds that such exceptions would encourage a desirable overall environment for the development. Within residential developments, those portions of the P district not devoted to residential use and intended to be designed as public open space must be dedicated to the City or other appropriate public agency, or must be dedicated as an open space easement or other legal device guaranteeing its preservation as undeveloped open space.
The R–1–6 Single-Family Residence District is the residential zoning district most applicable to the proposed project. The regulations for the R–1 district are codified in Article 6 of the Fremont Municipal Code, with the development standards set forth in Section 8-2605. The R–1–6 District requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, with a minimum depth of 100 feet, and a minimum width of 55 feet on interior lots and 65 feet on corner lots. It requires a minimum street frontage of 35 feet, or 20 feet on flag lots. Minimum depths of front and rear yards are 20 and 25 feet, respectively. On corner lots, side yards of 10 feet are required, while on other lots
38 City of Fremont, Municipal Code, Article 18.1, Section 8-21810.
Initial Study 78 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
side yards must be at least 5 feet at the first story and 6 feet at the second story. The maximum allowable building height is 30 feet for the principal structure and 12 feet for accessory structures.
Along Four Winds Avenue on Parcel 1, the proposed lots would be 74 feet wide. On the north side of the street they would be 70 feet deep, while the lots would be 80 feet deep on the south side in order to increase privacy between project residences and those immediately to the south. Lots would vary on Parcels 2 and 3, but would generally be 60 feet wide and between 90 and 120 feet deep. Although the project would not conform to all of the R–1–10 development regulations, the proposed lot dimensions and setbacks would be permitted by the proposed P district. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the project would comply with applicable zoning regulations.
Approval of the proposed P district will be subject to public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, and will require approval of preliminary and precise site plans. The City Council is required to make a number of findings of fact as part of the establishment of a P district; the findings are generally related to the planning suitability of the proposed development.
In conclusion, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? X
Explanation: There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applicable to the project site.39
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state?
Explanation: The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) has identified six sectors of regionally significant mineral deposits within the City of Fremont. The nearest sectors to the project site are Sectors H, I, and LL, which are in the East Hills area adjacent to public park lands and regional preserves.40 The project site is classified Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1 by DMG.41 The MRZ-1 designation is assigned to areas where
39 Scott Ruhland, Associate Planner, City of Fremont, personal communication, February 1, 2012. 40 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, page 4-313, July 2011. 41 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Revised Mineral Land Classification Map, Aggregate Resources Only, South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Niles Quadrangle (Plate 3 of 29), 1996.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 79 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
sufficient data exists for a determination that no significant mineral deposits exists, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. There are no mapped mineral deposits anywhere in the vicinity of the project site. Given the lack of known mineral resources anywhere within the project area, there is no evidence that significant mineral deposits are present on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any effect on the availability of mineral resources in the region and State.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Explanation: The Conservation Element of the City of Fremont General Plan identifies significant mineral resources within the City’s planning area. However, they are located in the hills to the east of the project site or on the west side of the City. The General Plan does not identify mineral deposits in the vicinity of the project. In addition, as noted above in Section XI(a), the California Division of Mines and Geology has not mapped any mineral resources in the region. The proposed project would have no potential to adversely affect the availability of mineral resources; this issue will not be discussed further in the EIR.
XII. 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 X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Explanation: This analysis is based on noise measurements and an environmental noise assessment originally conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin in July 2011 and updated in March 2012.42
Introduction to Noise Descriptors To describe noise environments and to assess impacts on noise-sensitive areas, a frequency weighting measure, which simulates human perception, is commonly used. It has been found that A-weighting of sound levels best reflects the human ear's reduced sensitivity to low frequencies, and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA)43 is cited in most noise criteria. Decibels are logarithmic units that conveniently compare the wide range of sound intensities to which the human ear is sensitive. Table N–1 identifies decibel levels for common sounds heard in the environment.
42 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Dillon Property, Fremont, CA: Environmental Noise Assessment, July 29, 2011. 43 A decibel (dB) is a unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves, traveling outward from a source, exert a sound pressure level (commonly called “sound level”) measured in dB. An A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels.
Initial Study 80 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Table N–1 Typical Noise Levels
Noise Level Outdoor Activity (dBA) Indoor Activity 100-110+ Jet flyover at 1,000 feet Rock Band
90-100 Gas lawn mower at 3 feet 80-90 Diesel truck at 50 feet Loud television at 3 feet Garbage disposal at 3 feet, vacuum 70-80 Gas lawn mower at 100 feet, noisy urban area cleaner at 10 feet
60-70 Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Large business office, dishwasher next 40-60 Quiet urban daytime, traffic at 300 feet room Concert hall (background), library, 20-40 Quiet rural, suburban nighttime bedroom at night 10-20 Broadcast / recording studio
0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Lowest threshold of human hearing
Source: (modified from Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, 1998)
Several time-averaged scales represent noise environments and consequences of human activities. The most commonly used noise descriptors are equivalent A-weighted sound level 44 45 over a given time period (Leq) ; average day-night 24-hour average sound level (Ldn) with a nighttime increase of 10 dBA to account for sensitivity to noise during the nighttime; and community noise equivalent level (CNEL)46, also a 24-hour average that includes both an evening and a nighttime weighting. Noise levels are generally considered low when ambient levels are below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45-60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. In wilderness areas, the Ldn noise levels average approximately 35 dBA, 40 to 50 dBA in small towns or wooded residential areas, 75 dBA in major metropolis downtown areas, and 85 dBA near major freeways and airports. Although people often accept the higher levels associated with very noisy urban residential and residential-commercial zones, they nevertheless are considered to be adverse levels of noise to public health.
44 The Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is a single value of a constant sound level for the same measurement period duration, which has sound energy equal to the time-varying sound energy in the measurement period. 45 Ldn is the day-night average sound level that is equal to the 24-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level with a 10- decibel penalty applied to night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 46 CNEL is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained by addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and an addition of a 10-decibel penalty in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 81 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Noise levels that are generally considered acceptable or unacceptable can characterize various environments. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas than what would be expected for commercial or industrial zones. Interior noise levels above 45 dBA at night can result in the onset of sleep interference.
Most jurisdictions in California have noise exposure standards designed to ensure that noise does not excessively impact the quality of life of its citizens. For noise sources amenable to local control, noise exposure to noise-sensitive land uses is usually regulated by ordinances. These ordinances limit the allowable noise levels at the property line of the source or receiving land use. For the most common noise sources, such as cars, trucks, trains, or airplanes, local jurisdictions are preempted from regulating the noise emissions from the source. Control of exposure due to preempted sources is managed by discretionary land use decisions relative to the receiver.
Noise ordinance standards are typically stated in terms of the Leq metric, or in terms of allowable exposures over stated short time periods. Lmax, the maximum noise level for a specified duration and time period, is also sometimes used as a standard. The City of Fremont uses the weighted 24-hour Ldn to identify acceptable noise levels. Below are the applicable objectives and policies of the General Plan.
City of Fremont General Plan The Safety Element of the City of Fremont General Plan addresses constraints to development in the City that would potentially expose community residents to excessive noise levels. The General Plan noise objective and policies that would be applicable to the proposed project are identified below.
GOAL 10-8: Noise & Vibration: Minimal impacts to residents and property due to noise and ground vibration sources.
Policy 10-8.1: Site Development Acceptable Noise Environment A noise environment which meets acceptable standards as defined by the State of California Building Code and local policies contained herein.
Implementation 10-8.1.A: Noise Standards New development projects shall meet acceptable exterior noise level standards. The “normally acceptable” noise standards for new land uses established in Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise Environments shown in Figure 10-11 shall be used as modified by the following:
• The goal for maximum acceptable noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB(A). This level shall guide the design of future development, and is a goal for
the reduction of noise in existing development. A 60 Ldn goal will be applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family developments and recreation areas in multifamily projects). The outdoor standard will not normally be applied to small decks associated with apartments and condominiums, but these will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. When the City determines that providing an outdoor Ldn of 60 dB(A) or lower cannot be
Initial Study 82 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
achieved after the application of appropriate mitigations an Ldn of 65 dB(A) may be permitted at the discretion of the City Council.
• Indoor noise level shall not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB(A) in new housing units. A noise insulation study, conforming to the methodology of the State Building Code, shall be prepared for all new housing, hotels, and motels exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) or greater and submitted to the building department prior to issuance of a permit. • [other standards not applicable to the proposed project]
The Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise Environments table referenced in Implementation 10-8.1A identifies 60 Ldn as a Normally Acceptable noise level and up to 75 Ldn as Conditionally Acceptable noise level for single-family residential land use.
Policy 10-8.5: Construction Noise Levels Control construction noise at its source to maintain existing noise levels, and in no case to exceed the acceptable noise levels.
Implementation 10-8.5.B: Construction Noise Mitigation Continue to apply the construction hours ordinance to new development to limit noise exposure created by construction activity. Apply best practices to further limit noise such as maintaining construction equipment in good condition and use of mufflers on internal combustion engines, installation of temporary noise barriers, prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion engines, locating staging areas away from sensitive receptors and other feasible best management practices.
Significance Criteria The proposed project would result in a significant noise impact if it would: • Increase traffic noise on area roads to a significant degree; • Increase ambient noise levels such that any of the City of Fremont’s established noise guidelines are violated; or • Expose sensitive receptors to noise levels from existing or proposed sources that would exceed the City of Fremont’s noise standards.
The significance of project-related noise impacts is also determined by comparison of project- related noise levels to existing no-project noise levels. An increase of at least 3 dB is usually required before most people will perceive a change in noise levels, and an increase of 5 dB is required before the change will be clearly noticeable. A common practice has been to assume that minimally perceptible to clearly noticeable increases of 3 to 5 dB represent a significant increase in ambient noise levels.
Existing Conditions The primary existing noise source in the project area is traffic on the nearby Interstate 680 (I– 680). A secondary noise source is generated by traffic traveling along Palm Avenue. To characterize and quantify existing noise levels, Illingworth & Rodkin conducted noise
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 83 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
measurements at the project site in July 2011, performing two long-term noise measurements, approximately 48 hours in duration, and six short-term (10-minute) noise measurements. The long-term measurements were made on Parcel 3 in the location of the back yard of proposed residential Lot 42 (LT-1), and at the northwest corner of Parcel 1 (LT-2). The short-term measurements (ST-1 through ST-6) were made at the same approximate locations, as well as near proposed Lot 34 on Parcel 3 and proposed Lot 19 on Parcel 2. The noise measurement locations are shown on Figure N–1.
Location LT-1 was located approximately 130 feet north of I-680, five feet above the ground. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels at the approximate location of planned residential land uses nearest I-680. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 60 to 67 dBA Leq during the day, and from 57 to 67 dBA Leq at night. The calculated day- night average noise level at this location was 69 dBA Ldn.
The sound level meter at Location LT-2 was positioned approximately 25 feet from the center of Palm Avenue and 12 feet above the ground. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels at the approximate location of planned residential land uses nearest Palm Avenue. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 62 to 67 dBA Leq during the day, and from 46 to 58 dBA Leq at night. The calculated day-night average noise level at this location was 65 dBA L dn.
The results of the short-term noise measurements, all conducted on July 12, 2011, are presented in Table N–2.
As the data in Table N–2 demonstrate, the noise environment at the site varies depending on the proximity of the receptor to adjacent roadways, and the elevation of the receptor with respect to the elevation of I-680 travel lanes. Existing noise levels at portions of the site furthest from I-680 and shielded by noise barriers or existing residences fall within the City’s “normally acceptable” range for residential land use compatibility (i.e., 60 dBA Ldn or less). Exterior noise levels at unshielded residential lots adjoining I-680 are approximately 68 to 69 dBA Ldn at an elevation of 5 feet above the ground. Exterior noise levels are approximately 5 dBA higher at an elevation of 15 feet above the ground (representative of second-story window exposure), and range from 73 to 74 dBA Ldn.
Impact of Existing Noise Levels on Proposed Residences The noise measurement locations were selected to indicate existing noise levels at the locations of proposed homes on the site. Following project implementation, the primary sources of noise at the site would continue to be I–680 and, to a lesser degree, Palm Avenue. Illingworth & Rodkin calculated future exterior noise levels at the site using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM v.2.5), which factors in digital inputs for roadways, barriers, terrain features, and receptor locations using a three-dimensional reference coordinate system. The geometrical input was based on the site plan (see Figures 2 through 4). Roadway traffic volumes, including the vehicle mix ratio, and traffic speeds were also input into the model. Future traffic volume inputs to the model assumed buildout of the Fremont General Plan in 2035. The TNM predicts noise levels assuming calm wind conditions with moderate temperatures and humidity.
Initial Study 84 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Table N–2 Summary of Existing Short-Term Noise Measurements in A-Weighted Decibels (dBA)
Location and Time of Day Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq Ldn
ST-1: ~55 feet from the edge of I- 680, 5 feet above the ground. 72 68 65 62 59 63 69 11:30 a.m.-11:40 a.m.) ST-2: ~55 feet from the edge of I- 680, 15 feet above the ground. 77 73 70 67 64 68 74 11:30 a.m.-11:40 a.m.) ST-3: ~55 feet from the edge of I- 680, 15 feet above the ground. 83 75 69 66 63 67 73 11:50 a.m.-12:00 p.m.) ST-4: ~130 feet from the edge of I-680, 5 feet above the ground. 78 72 63 59 56 62 68 11:50 a.m.-12:00 p.m.) ST-5: ~790 feet from the edge of I-680, 5 feet above the ground. 61 56 51 46 44 48 59 12:30 p.m.-12:40 p.m.) ST-6: ~45 feet from the centerline of Palm Avenue, shielded by 6-foot wood fence. 65 62 56 49 44 53 53 12:30 p.m.-12:40 p.m.)
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2012
Note: Ldn approximated by correlating to corresponding period at long-term site.
The modeling results, shown in Table N–3, include predicted noise levels at each of the noise measurement locations as well as at eight representative residential receptor locations, shown on Figure N–1. The residential receptor locations correspond to the back yards of one residence each on Parcel 1 (R1, on Lot 7) and Parcel 2 (R2, on Lot 20), and six residential lots on Parcel 3 (R3, on Lot 28; R4, on Lot 29; R5, on Lot 34; R6, on Lot 36; R7, on Lot 39; and R8, on Lot 41). The noise measurement locations are representative of the noise environment expected at portions of the project site that would have direct line-of-sight to adjacent roadways, while the additional receptor locations were placed in the approximate locations of private outdoor use areas, which would be partially shielded by the proposed residences, assumed to be on average 27 feet high.
As shown in Table N–3, future noise levels at residential land uses nearest Interstate 680 are calculated to be 68 to 70 dBA Ldn (see LT-1, ST-1, and ST-4) at unshielded first-floor exposures. Exterior noise levels at partially shielded rear yard areas (Receptor R6 through R8) are
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 85 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
calculated to range from 66 to 67 dBA Ldn. Exterior noise levels are calculated to be 76 dBA Ldn at unshielded second-floor exposures (see ST-2 and ST-3).
Table N–3 Existing and Predicted Future Noise Levels at Residential Receptors in A-Weighted Decibels (dBA), Ldn
Existing Noise Level Future Noise Level Measurement or Receptor Location First Floor Second Floor First Floor Second Floor
LT-1 69 -- 69 -- LT-2 -- 65 -- 65 ST-1 68 -- 68 -- ST-2 -- 76 -- 76 ST-3 -- 75 -- 76
ST-4 70 -- 70 -- ST-5 58 -- 58 -- ST-6 54 -- 54 -- R1 -- -- 55 57 R2 -- -- 58 62 R3 -- -- 60 64 R4 -- -- 60 65 R5 -- -- 63 66 R6 -- -- 66 68 R7 -- -- 66 69 R8 -- -- 67 69
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2012
Future exterior noise levels at private outdoor use areas of receptors in the central portion of the site would range from about 55 dBA Ldn to 63 dBA Ldn (Receptors R1 through R5). Exterior noise levels at the second-floor facades of these same receptors are calculated to range from 57 dBA Ldn to 66 dBA Ldn.
At the westernmost portion of the site, adjacent to Palm Avenue, exterior noise levels are calculated to be approximately 54 dBA Ldn, assuming the construction of a 6-foot noise barrier at the westernmost residential property lines. The proposed noise barrier would replace the wood fence that exists along the westernmost property line of the site. Exterior noise levels at the second-floor facades of the homes nearest Palm Avenue (Lots 1 and 10) are calculated to be 61 to 62 dBA Ldn.
Initial Study 86 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT LT-2 ST-6 ST-5 ST-1 LT-1 ST-2 R-4 R-7 R-8 R-5
R-6
R-1
R-2
ST-4 R-3
ST-3
LT-x = Long-Term Noise Measurement Site
ST-x = Short-Term Noise Measurement Site
R-x = Modeled Noise Receptor Site
Shaded area indicates where future exterior noise levels in private outdoor use areas would exceed 65 dBA Ldn.
Figure N-1 Noise Measurement Locations and Modeled Noise Receptor Locations Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
As these results demonstrate, exterior noise levels would exceed the City’s Normally Acceptable noise levels (60 dBA Ldn) but would be within the Conditionally Acceptable level (75 dBA Ldn), which may be permitted only after a detailed analysis identifies the noise reduction requirements, and noise insulation features included in the project design. As previously noted, General Plan Implementation 10-8.1.A states that when the City determines that providing an outdoor Ldn of 60 dBA or lower cannot be achieved after the application of appropriate mitigations, an Ldn of 65 dBA may be permitted at the discretion of the City Council.
While this noise level would be exceeded at various locations on the site, as discussed above, it should be noted that these would be noise levels with no shielding. However, the proposed homes would provide substantial shielding, and additional shielding would be provided by rear patios enclosed on three sides and covered by roofs. Illingworth & Rodkin determined that at the proposed homes closest to I–680 (Lots 35-42), the vast majority of the rear yard area on 47 each lot would have an outdoor sound level of 65 dBA Ldn or less. The sound level would also be below 60 dBA within all of the enclosed patio areas. Therefore, project residents at these lots would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s established standards for outdoor noise levels.
The noise consultant evaluated a noise barrier along the westbound I–680 edge of shoulder to reduce noise levels at the nearest lots to 60 dBA Ldn or lower. Constructing a sound wall on the project site was deemed infeasible, due to the grade differences between the freeway and the project site; sound from freeway traffic would travel over any barrier of reasonable height. Illingworth & Rodkin determined that an 8- to 10-foot sound barrier along the freeway shoulder would reduce future exterior sound levels at the lots nearest the freeway to 60 dBA Ldn or less at the rear yards.48 In this instance constructing an eight foot tall noise barrier would be similar to the existing conditions along I-680 in the generally vicinity of the this site, including across the freeway and would not have any potential adverse effects. However, this would require approval by Caltrans.
Assuming the City Council exercises its discretion to allow a rear-yard exterior noise level of 65 dBA, the project would not expose receptors to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or Noise Ordinance, and this impact would be less than significant. However, if the Council declines to grant this allowance, the rear yard noise levels in some locations would exceed the 60-dBA threshold, which would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level:
Mitigation Measure N–1: In the event that the City Council does not allow for the 65 dBA level in rear yards of the proposed homes closest, the project sponsor shall do one of the following: a) Construct an 8- to 10-foot sound barrier along the westbound edge of shoulder on the I–680 freeway in the vicinity of Lots 35-42 sufficient to reduce rear yard outdoor noise levels to 60 dBA Ldn or lower. The applicant will be
47 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Mission Creek Project, Fremont, CA, Addendum to Environmental Noise Assessment, April 25, 2012. 48 Ibid.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 89 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
required to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans in order to implement this measure; OR b) Redesign the site plan so as to achieve rear yard outdoor noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn or lower on all residential lots; OR c) Incorporate other features or make other project design changes sufficient to achieve rear yard outdoor noise levels
of 60 dBA Ldn or lower on all residential lots.
The ambient noise environment would result in interior noise levels in excess of the 45-dBA Ldn limit. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure N–2: The following design features shall be incorporated into the project: a) Six-foot-tall noise barriers shall be erected to shield the rear yards of Lots 1 and 10. b) All homes shall be provided with a suitable form of forced- air mechanical ventilation, as determined by Fremont Building and Safety Division, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupants’ discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards. c) Sound-rated windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 28 or better shall be provided at the homes on Lots 1 through 26. d) Sound-rated windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 30 to 40 shall be provided at the homes on Lots 27 through 33. e) Sound-rated windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 36 to 42 shall be provided at the homes on Lots 35 through 42. f) Noise insulation features shall be designed to control maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dBA Lmax in bedrooms and to 55 dBA Lmax in other habitable rooms, and to also achieve the 45-dBA Ldn interior noise standard. In addition to sound-rated windows and doors, additional treatments may include, but are not limited to, sound- rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, insulation, acoustical vents, etc. Large windows and doors should be oriented away from the I–680 where possible. Bedrooms should be located away from I–680. g) The final specifications for noise insulation treatments, including the STC ratings of windows and doors, shall be confirmed by a qualified acoustical consultant during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the
Initial Study 90 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans, and shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
Impact of Project-Generated Noise on Existing Sensitive Receptors The primary source of noise that would be caused by the project would be from traffic generated by project residents, visitors, and delivery/service vehicles. Generally, a doubling of traffic volumes is required before an increase in ambient noise will be perceived by the average person, corresponding to an increase of 3 dBA. As discussed in Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would generate an additional 411 daily trips to and from the project site, which would be a small fraction of existing traffic on the area roadways, not a doubling of traffic. Consequently, the incremental increase in noise that would be caused by project-generated would be substantially less than 3 dBA. Therefore, the noise impact from project traffic would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are recommended for traffic-related noise.
Also see Section XII(c), below. Other noise generated by the project would consist of typical sounds emanating from residential developments, such as noise from lawn mowers, leaf blowers, children playing, music, etc. These intermittent noise sources would not be excessive, and are typical of all residential developments. The impact from such noise sources would not be significant.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
Explanation: There are no significant sources of groundborne noise or vibration in the vicinity of the project site, and no excessive vibration would be created by the proposed project.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project?
Explanation: The only permanent sources of noise that would be generated by the project would be noise generated by project-generated traffic, HVAC blowers, landscaping maintenance (lawn mowers, leaf blowers), and children playing. Traffic noise was address above in Section XII(a). The other sources would not be significant noise sources and would not noticeably raise ambient noise levels. While landscape maintenance activities in proximity to neighboring residences could be noticeable, they would be temporary, and are commonly accepted noise sources in urban/suburban environments, and are not typically subject to regulation. Therefore, the increase in ambient noise created by the project would be less than significant.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 91 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project?
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project may result in substantial temporary increases in noise in the project vicinity. Most California jurisdictions generally exempt construction noise from their adopted interior and exterior noise standards, and rely on restrictions on construction hours to mitigate construction noise impacts. This is the case in the City of Fremont, where the City has adopted a construction hours ordinance for limiting construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Project compliance with these requirements would limit noise disturbance from project construction to a less-than-significant level.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles X of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation: The project site is not located in an area addressed by an airport land use plan and there are no airports within 2 miles of the project site; the closest airport is Moffett Federal Airfield in Santa Clara, located approximately 10.7 miles southwest of the site. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in X the project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation: The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Explanation: The proposed project would directly generate population growth through the development of 42 new single-family homes. According to the U.S. Census, the population of Fremont in 2010 was 214,089 people, making it the fourth largest city in the San Francisco Bay
Initial Study 92 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Area by population (it is the second largest by land area).49 The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts that the City’s population will increase to 256,200 by 2035.50
Based on California Department of Finance data, the average per-household population in the City of Fremont is 3.03 persons.51 Using this number to estimate the population on the project site, the 42 homes would generate a population increase of 127 persons. This would represent a potential net increase in Fremont’s population of about 0.06 percent; it would be about 0.3 percent of the City’s projected population growth over the next 25 years. However, the actual population growth would likely be less than 127 people because some project residents could be expected to be existing Fremont residents relocating from elsewhere in the City. This incremental increase would not be a substantial change in population.
The General Plan Update EIR noted that the ABAG growth projections for Fremont are considered by the City to be conservative, and the highest level of growth that could reasonably be anticipated under development planned for in the General Plan. The General Plan Update EIR determined that the General Plan Update would not induce population growth, but rather would accommodate the City’s portion of the region’s anticipated growth, and would not involve the extension of infrastructure or public services to undeveloped areas to support new residential development. For these reasons, the EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would have a less-than-significant impact on population growth.
The updated General Plan Land Use Diagram, which formed a primary basis for the future development assumptions in the General Plan Update and associated EIR, designates the developable portion of the project site as Low Density Residential, which has an allowable density of 2.3 to 8.7 dwelling units per net acre. With approximately 9.1 developable acres, based on the Land Use Diagram, up to 79 homes could be developed on the site. This housing would support a population of about 239 persons. Because population growth caused by the proposed project would be about half that, the project would not cause population growth in excess of that already evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere?
Explanation: There are currently two residential structures on the project site, as well as a small office building. The house adjacent to Palm Avenue would be demolished as part of the project. The house on Parcel 3 would likely be retained, though it, too, would be demolished if necessary to accommodate the proposed street and other development. However, the existing homes are occupied by the site owner, who is a willing seller, and one of the owner’s employees. The Four Winds Growers nursery plans to relocate to Watsonville, and the owner and employee who currently live on the site are expected to relocate with the business. Furthermore, the project would develop 42 homes on the site, resulting in a net increase of 41
49 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, page 4-29, July 2011. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 93 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
homes. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, and the project’s impact on housing would not be significant.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
Explanation: As discussed in Section XIII(b), above, the project would not displace substantial numbers of people. In addition to the houses on the site currently occupied by nursery employees, the nursery employs approximately 17 people on the site. Some of the employees will continue to work on the adjacent City of Fremont parcel, which the nursery expects to continue leasing from the City for the foreseeable future, and the remaining employees are expected to relocate to a Four Winds Growers property in Watsonville.52 The number of employees who would relocate would not be substantial, and would not require construction of replacement housing. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? X
Explanation: Fire response to the project site would be provided by the Fremont Fire Department (FFD). The FFD also provides emergency medical response, which accounts for about 60 percent of all emergency calls to the Department. In 2010, the FFD responded to 12,958 calls for service, including 360 fire incidents and 8,700 emergency medical or rescue calls.53 Emergency calls for fire-related incidents account for only about 4 percent of total calls to the Fire Department.54
The FFD’s fire-fighting capacity is augmented through its participation in the Alameda County Mutual Aid Plan with all other fire agencies within Alameda County, who provide supplemental fire-fighting response to member agencies when needed to respond to large fires or multiple simultaneous incidents. The City also participates in the California Master Mutual Aid Plan, which allows a resource request to be filled from an agency outside Alameda County.
52 Don Dillon, Four Winds Growers, personal communication, February 1, 2012. 53 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, page 4-317, July 2011. 54 City of Fremont, City of Fremont General Plan, Safety Element, page 10-59, adopted December 2011.
Initial Study 94 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The closest fire stations to the project site are Station No. 4, located at 1000 Pine Street, about 1.1 miles south of the project, and Station No. 3, located at 40700 Chapel Way, about 1.5 miles west of the project.
The proposed project would be consistent with the use and density identified for the site in the General Plan. The proposed project would not increase or change the determination of need for facilities of or result in any new adverse effects on the Fremont Fire Department. The project would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on fire protection services.
This project would also be subject to citywide Development Impact Fees. These fees may include fees for fire protection, park facilities, park-land in lieu, capital facilities and traffic impact. All applicable fees shall be calculated and paid at the fee rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. b) Police protection? X
Explanation: Police protection would be provided to the project by the Fremont Police Department (FPD). The Department operates out of one large station located at 2000 Stevenson Boulevard, which houses all FPD functions. However, the FPD service area is divided into sectors to minimize response time for emergency calls and enable the Department to meet its response time goal of 5 minutes for emergency calls. The FPD has a current staff of 188 sworn officers, with a staffing ratio of 0.89 sworn officers per 1,000 population.
The General Plan EIR noted that, while not currently planned, the police headquarters could be expanded from 64,000 square feet to 80,000 square feet sometime during 20-year planning horizon of the General Plan; this expansion could occur with or without implementation of the General Plan Update. The proposed project would be consistent with the use and density identified for the site in the General Plan. The proposed project would not increase or change the determination of need for facilities of or result in any new adverse effects on the Fremont Police Department. The project would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on police services.
c) Schools?
X
Explanation: The project site is located within the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD), which serves students in 29 elementary schools, five junior high schools, six high schools, an alternative school (serving grades 7-12), and an adult school. In addition, the FUSD operates an educational center for Native American children and hosts a regional occupational training program. Total enrollment, which has remained stable over the past ten years, was 32,304 students in the 2009-2010 academic year.
In addition to the public primary and secondary schools, the City of Fremont is home to numerous private schools including Montessori schools, parochial schools, nursery schools, remedial schools, vocational schools, art and music schools, and more. The State of California
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 95 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
operates two special schools in Fremont: the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind, both of which serve students from pre-school or Kindergarten age through high school. Ohlone College, a two-year community college, is located about a mile from the project site.
The nearest FUSD schools to the project site are Joshua Chadbourne Elementary School, located at 801 Plymouth Avenue, about 2,000 feet northwest of the site; William Hopkins Junior High School, located at 600 Driscoll Road, about 3,200 feet northwest of the site; and Mission San Jose High School, located at 41717 Palm Avenue, about 1,300 feet north of the site. While students living in the proposed project could be assigned to these schools, the FUSD could assign them to other schools, depending on capacities and enrollment levels at these and other District schools.
Under California law, the payment by a developer of all current school impact fees associated with a proposed development effectively mitigates any impact that such development may have on the facilities of the local school district. The FUSD collects in 2011 at both Level I and Level II school impact fees of approximately $5.00 per square foot for residential development and $0.47 per square foot of commercial development. The proposed project would be required to pay the State-mandated school impact fees, and the project would therefore have a less-than- significant impact on school services for the same reasons that were identified in the General Plan EIR, as discussed above.
d) Parks? X
Explanation: The City of Fremont has a total of 53 parks encompassing approximately 1,053 acres, 865 of which are owned by the City, with the remainder leased from other agencies. The nearest existing City park is Mission San Jose Park, located about 2,000 feet northwest of the site. This large community park provides a variety of soccer and softball/baseball playing fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and two running tracks. Fremont Central Park, a 450- acre recreation park with 83-acre Lake Elizabeth as a centerpiece, is located about 1.3 miles west of the project. This park provides fishing, kayaking, boat rentals, an aqua adventure waterpark, golf course and driving range, dog park, picnic sites, playgrounds, three snack bars, six softball fields, ten soccer fields, 18 tennis courts, two basketball courts, a 1.5-mile exercise course, and a 2-mile walking path.
The City owns the property immediately to the south of Parcel 2 and the west end of Parcel 3 of the project site, which is currently being leased from the City by Four Winds Growers for containerized cultivation of dwarf citrus trees. The City also owns the vacant parcel immediately to the west of this leased parcel. These two City-owned properties are identified in the General Plan as a future park site.55
Other park or recreational resources in Fremont not managed by the City include the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the San Francisco Bay Trail. In addition to providing refuge habitat to waterfowl and a variety of other wildlife, the Refuge provides opportunities for hiking, observation of wildlife, and nature/interpretive classes. The
55 City of Fremont, City of Fremont General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element, Diagram 8-1: City and Regional Parks, page 8-13, adopted December 2011.
Initial Study 96 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
30,000-acre refuge of open bay, salt pond, salt marsh, mudflat, upland, and vernal pool habitats includes approximately 10,000 acres of wetlands within the City of Fremont.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is a planned network of approximately 500 miles of recreational trails encircling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. To date, approximately 310 miles of the Bay Trail have been completed, including two segments within the City of Fremont.56
Additionally, the project site is within proximity to the Mission Peak Regional Preserve (MPRP), a 2,999-acre natural preserve that includes Mt. Allison (elevation 2,658 feet), Mission Peak (elevation 2,517 feet), and a network of regional and local trails. The Ohlone College staging area to MPRP is located on the east side of the college, approximately one-half mile east of Mission Boulevard and 1.1 miles southeast of the project site. Mission Peak Regional Preserve is one of seven regional parks or other regional facilities operated by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) in or in close proximity to the City of Fremont. The other facilities include Ardenwood Regional Preserve, Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area, Alameda Creek Regional Trail, Coyote Hills Regional Park, Sunol Regional Park, and Dry Creek/Pioneer Regional Park. Two additional areas of Fremont are planned for future inclusion in the EBRPD park system, including the former Dumbarton Quarry and an area south of Niles Canyon Road.
As provided by the State’s Quimby Law and as established by the City of Fremont, the project sponsor may make a financial contribution towards the acquisition of parkland or recreational facilities in lieu of the provision of park facilities. The City collects impact fees for parks that may only be used for acquisition and development of parkland as mitigation of impacts of new development.
The proposed project would be required to pay the applicable park facility and parkland in-lieu impact fees as a condition of approval. The project’s impact on City parks would thereby make a proportional in-lieu contribution to Fremont park facilities, and would therefore have a less- than-significant impact on City parks.
e) Other public facilities? X
Explanation: Library services within the City of Fremont are provided by the Alameda County library system, which operates the four public libraries in Fremont: the Main Library in the City Center and branch libraries in Centerville, Irvington, and Niles. Due to budget restrictions, the branch libraries are currently open only one or two days a week. Library facilities, collections, and equipment are owned by the City, while the County provides staffing for the libraries.
The Main Library has a collection of close to 300,000 books, the largest in the Alameda County library system. The building, located at 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, also houses administrative offices for the entire Alameda County library system. The County also operates a bookmobile out of these offices.
56 San Francisco Bay Trail Project, History, accessed February 6, 2012 at: http://www.baytrail.org/history.html.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 97 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The General Plan EIR found that growth under the General Plan would result in an increase in demand for library services, but would not be expected to require expansion of existing library facilities or construction of new library facilities, and the impact on libraries would therefore be less than significant. The proposed project would be included in the future development envisioned in the General Plan, and its impact on library facilities would therefore also be less than significant.
XV. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Explanation: In addition to the park facilities discussed in Section XIV(d), above, the City operates five community centers and one senior center that all provide recreational programs to their patrons. The General Plan calls for new senior centers, one in northern Fremont and another in the Warm Springs, area to meet the needs of a growing population of older adults. The conclusion reached in the General Plan EIR, discussed in Section XIV(d), above, applied both to parks and recreational facilities. The finding of a less-than-significant impact for implementation of both the General Plan and the proposed residential project applies equally to this discussion, and no further analysis is necessary.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Explanation: The proposed project includes preservation of approximately 6.7 acres of open space adjacent to the existing riparian habitat along the north edge of Parcels 2 and 3 and construction of a paved recreational trail extending across the length of the linear open space. Impacts from the development of the trail and open space are included in this project’s environmental review. Construction of these amenities would not result in any environmental effects not already addressed in preceding sections.
Initial Study 98 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance X of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Explanation:
Transportation Network Vehicular access to the project site would be from Palm Avenue via Washington Boulevard, Olive Avenue or Mission Boulevard. Regional freeway access to local roadways would be provided by Interstate 680 (I–680), which runs adjacent to the southern edge of Parcel 3 of the site.
Mission Boulevard, which is part of the State Highway system (SR 238) north of I-680, is a Primary Arterial with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 29,430 vehicles in 2010 on the segment immediately north of I–680.57 South of I–680, the ADT drops to 22,961 vehicles; it drops again to 14,130 vehicles south of Washington Boulevard. Mission Boulevard runs in a northwest-southeast direction in the vicinity of the project and has two travel lanes and a striped bicycle lane in each direction, separated by a landscaped median. Sidewalks are intermittent and generally occur only on one side of the street, with the particular side varying from one location to another. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Mission Boulevard is an existing Class 2 Bicycle Lane.58 Washington Boulevard is a two-lane minor arterial with parking, bike lanes and sidewalks located along both sides of the street.
Palm Avenue is a two-way, north-south Collector Street with one travel lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. In most locations, there are curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. Palm Avenue is designated a proposed Class 3 Bicycle Route in the General Plan.59 In addition, a proposed Class 1 Bicycle Trail is designated along the riparian corridor that extends along the north edge of project Parcels 2 and 3.
Interstate 680 is a major north-south regional freeway linking Walnut Creek (Contra Costa County) in the north with San Jose (Santa Clara County) in the south. In the vicinity of the project site, it has three travel lanes in each direction, separated by a vertical concrete divider. In addition, there is an Express Lane in the southbound direction between Highway 84 and
57 City of Fremont, City of Fremont General Plan, Mobility Element, Diagram 3-2: 2010 Traffic Volumes, page 3-17, and Diagram 3-3: Functional Classification, page 3-27, adopted December 2011. 58 Ibid, Diagram 3-5: Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks, page 3-33. 59 Ibid.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 99 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Highway 237 that electronically charges tolls on a variable rate displayed on electronic signs mounted above the freeway. The dynamic pricing is based on time of day and level of congestion.
Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions discussed in this section are described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). Traffic LOS is a qualitative measurement of traffic operations and flow characteristics, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions with little to no delays, LOS E representing conditions at capacity, and LOS F representing over saturation with excessive delays. Levels of Service definitions vary from one jurisdiction to another, but they are most frequently determined by calculations of delay and/or volume-to-capacity ratio. Within Alameda County, LOS is determined by average travel speeds.
Acceptable versus unacceptable Levels of Service also vary by jurisdiction, but according to the General Plan Update EIR, LOS D is typically considered acceptable for a peak hour in urban areas. In the City of Fremont, the following LOS standards are used for CEQA thresholds of significance:
The City of Fremont General Plan considers an impact on traffic to be significant if project- generated traffic causes any of the following effects at an intersection: • intersection operations deteriorate to LOS E or F under project conditions; or • project traffic causes a substantial increase in average delay (more than 4 seconds) at an intersection already operating at LOS E or F.
For State highways and freeways under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, the General Plan EIR also employed the following significance threshold: any deterioration in LOS at a road segment or intersection already operating at LOS E or F.
Based on existing conditions reported in the General Plan Update EIR, the northbound segment of I–680 between Washington Boulevard and Mission Boulevard operates at LOS C during the AM peak hour, and operates unacceptably at LOS F during the PM peak hour. In the southbound direction, this freeway segment operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour and at LOS B during the PM peak hour.60
The closest I–680 freeway interchange to the project is at Mission Boulevard, immediately southeast of the project site. Based on 2008 traffic counts, the General Plan EIR reported that both the northbound and southbound ramps operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. The only other intersection in reasonable proximity to the project site that was evaluated in the General Plan EIR is the signalized intersection of Paseo Padre Parkway at Driscoll Road, located about 0.8 mile west of the site. This intersection currently operates at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours.
60 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, page 4-61, July 2011.
Initial Study 100 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Project Impacts According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), typical single-family residential development generates an average of 9.57 vehicle trips per unit per day, 0.75 AM peak-hour trips per unit, and 1.01 PM peak-hour trips per unit.61 With 42 homes, the proposed project would therefore generate about 402 daily trips and 42 trips during the PM peak hour. Conservatively assuming that 80 percent of the project’s daily trips were distributed on Mission Boulevard, they would represent approximately 1 percent of the current ADT on that roadway, a minor incremental increase.
The following intersection discussions focus on the PM peak hour because in most Alameda County cities, traffic is generally worse in the PM peak hour than in the AM peak hour.62 Assuming all 42 of the project’s PM peak-hour trips travelled through the northbound I–680 ramps at Mission Boulevard (an unrealistically conservative assumption), they would represent about 1.6 percent of the 2,573 vehicles that pass through this intersection in the PM peak hour. The intersection operates at an acceptable LOS C and the addition of even 42 vehicles (though the actual number would be less) to the intersection would not cause a substantial deterioration in the level of service.
Similarly, the intersection of Paseo Padre Parkway at Driscoll Road currently operates at LOS C during the PM peak hour, with a total volume of 2,187 vehicles. If half of the project’s PM peak- hour trips traveled through this intersection, they would add less than 1 percent to the existing traffic volumes. Again, this would not be enough vehicles to cause a degradation in the level of service.
For the preceding reasons, the additional traffic generated by the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on traffic conditions in the project area.
With respect to cumulative impacts, the traffic analysis of Year 2035 conditions in the General Plan Update EIR represents a cumulative impact analysis. The EIR identified a potentially significant impact at the intersection of Paseo Padre Parkway at Driscoll Road. Impact TRA-26 concluded that the addition of General Plan Update-related traffic would cause the intersection to deteriorate to LOS E. With implementation of Mitigation TRA-26, requiring optimization of signal timing, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The EIR did not identify an impact at the I-680 and Mission Boulevard intersections. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the use and density designated for the project site in the General Plan Update, the project’s potential cumulative impacts on traffic were already evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR and subject to citywide impact fees for transportation improvements, and no further analysis or mitigation is required.
Construction Impacts Proposed site grading would result in the import of a limited amount of fill soil, roughly 3,860 cubic yards. This would generate around 154 one-way truck trips during site grading. These trips would be spread across multiple construction days, and would generally not occur during peak traffic hours. These trips would not adversely affect area traffic.
61 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. 62 Alameda County Transportation Commission, 2011 Congestion Management Program, page 80, 2011.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 101 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
During project construction, traffic would be generated by construction workers traveling to and from the project site, as well as by deliveries of construction materials. The construction traffic would be temporary and would not appreciably affect traffic conditions on area roadways; it would be less than the traffic that would be generated by future project operations, evaluated above. Therefore, the impact of the project’s construction truck trips would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service X standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Explanation: Projects generating fewer than 100 peak-hour trips and conforming to the underlying land use designation are assumed to not cause a substantial adverse effect on the transportation network, and to be consistent with the CMA’s Congestion Management Program.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks?
Explanation: The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns or air traffic levels. The nearest airports are Moffett Federal Airfield in Santa Clara, located approximately 10.7 miles southwest of the site; San Jose International Airport, located about 12 miles south of the site; and Hayward Air Terminal/Hayward Executive Airport, located about 12.8 miles northwest of the site.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Explanation: The proposed project would not create any significant hazards in design, and would not introduce drivers to an existing road or driving hazard.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Explanation: By extending San Marco Avenue into the project site and creating a connection with Four Winds Avenue, the project would provide two access points for emergency responses. The onsite circulation plan will reviewed by the Fremont Transportation Engineering Division for its conformance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The site plan will also be subject to concurrence by the Fremont Fire Department that it provides adequate emergency access and that the proposed project would meet all other fire safety requirements.
Initial Study 102 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, X or otherwise decrease the performance or safety to such facilities?
Explanation: As discussed in Section X(b), no conflicts with adopted General Plan policies were identified for the proposed project. Furthermore, the project would assist the City in achieving certain General Plan goals and increasing compliance with General Plan policies related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities through the creation of a public trail adjacent to the riparian corridor on the site. In particular, the project would be consistent with Mobility Implementation Measure 3-2.4.B, which calls for connections between recreational trails in City and regional parks, access trails along creeks and flood control channels, and sidewalks and bike lanes on local streets to fill the gaps and improve the continuity of the city’s bike and pedestrian trail system. The project would also be consistent with Mobility Implementation Measure and 3-5.2.C, which requires new development to dedicate and improve right-of-way for trails indicated on General Plan Diagrams. A detailed policy consistency analysis will be performed by Planning staff as part of the project’s entitlement process.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X
Explanation: Wastewater from the project would be treated at the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP), operated by the Union Sanitary District (USD). The treatment plant is located near the western edge of Union City, just west of Union City Boulevard and south of Horner Street, about 9.4 miles northwest of the project site. Additional information on the AWTP is provided in Section XVII(b).
The USD received the “Collection System of the Year” award from the California Water Environment Association in 2011. The District received the award for outstanding performance in 2011 in the categories of regulatory compliance, maintenance, safety, training, emergency preparedness, and administration for sewer systems of 500 miles or more.63
The wastewater treatment plant is permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and effluent from the plant is regularly monitored to ensure that water quality standards are not violated. Based on a search of violation reports over the past five years, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB shows no NPDES violations for the USD in the past five years.64
63 Union Sanitary District website, http://www.unionsanitary.com/whatsNew.htm, accessed February 9, 2012. 64 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, Violation Reports, accessed at: http://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportViolationServlet?reportType=Violation&inCom mand=reset on February 9, 2012.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 103 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Explanation:
Water Facilities The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) provides potable water to the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The ACWD’s water system infrastructure includes 12 reservoirs and storage tanks, with 825 miles of delivery pipes. The District operates four treatment facilities, including the Mission San Jose Water Treatment Plant, with a daily capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day (mgd), and Water Treatment Plant #2, with a daily capacity of 21 mgd. In addition, the District operates the Newark Desalination Facility, with a daily capacity of 5 mgd, and a Blending Facility, with a daily capacity of 50 mgd.
Based on a per capita consumption of approximately 128 gallons per day (gpd),65 and an estimated population of 127 residents, the proposed project would generate demand for about 16,256 gpd of domestic water. With a total District-wide consumption of 62,800 acre-feet66 in fiscal year 2009-10, equivalent to about 7,494,707 gpd, the project’s incremental water demand would represent about 0.2 percent of daily demand in the District. This incremental increase, which has been planned for in ACWD projections of future growth in demand, would not require the construction of new water treatment or conveyance facilities. The General Plan Update EIR did not identify any impacts on water treatment or conveyance facilities associated with future development planned for in the General Plan (water supply is addressed separately in Section XVII(d), below. The project would be consistent with the use and density identified for the site in the General Plan Update, and its impacts on water treatment and distribution facilities were therefore already considered in the General Plan Update EIR. The project’s impact on water treatment and distribution facilities can be presumed to be less than significant, and no further analysis or mitigation is required.
Wastewater Facilities As noted in Section XVII(a), above, wastewater from the project would be treated at the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP), operated by the Union Sanitary District (USD). The wastewater treatment plant provides primary and secondary (activated sludge) treatment of wastewater for the Tri-Cities area (Fremont, Newark, and Union City), an area of 60.2 square miles. The current treatment capacity of the plant is 33 million gallons per day (mgd) and average daily flows in 2010 were 25.09 mgd.67
65 Alameda County Water District, Urban Water Management Plan 2010-2015, Figure 2-2: Water Use Trends – Per Capita Water Use: Distributions System and Private Groundwater Pumping, page 2-4, [undated]. 66 An acre-foot is the amount of water necessary to cover 1 acre of land to a depth of 1 foot, and is equivalent to 325,851.43 gallons, or 43,560 cubic feet. 67 Union Sanitary District website, Our Mission, Facts, and History, http://www.unionsanitary.com/mission.htm, accessed February 9, 2012.
Initial Study 104 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The USD gravity-fed wastewater collection system consists of 779 miles of trunk lines and smaller sewers. Over 90 percent of the USD wastewater collection system was built after 1950, so the system is in relatively good structural condition. Most pipes are made of vitrified clay and polyvinyl chloride, although the largest trunk sewers are reinforced concrete. In Fremont, the sewer system is divided into three separate drainage areas (Irvington, Newark, and Alvarado), with wastewater generated in each area flowing to a major pump station near San Francisco Bay. The drainage areas do not correspond to city boundaries, and parts of Fremont are located in each area.68
In 2011, the USD had 107,501 residential connections, 1,765 commercial connections, and 1,337 industrial connections.69 Over 95 percent of total wastewater flows are generated by residential uses.
The proposed project would generate approximately 8,400 gallons per day (gpd) of sewage, assuming a generation rate of 200 gpd per single-family dwelling. This would represent a negligible increase of 0.03 percent over current (2010) flow rates. The General Plan Update EIR determined that the sewer network and the AWTP currently have the capacity to accommodate the level of development anticipated under the General Plan Update. It identified a potentially significant impact on the sewage collection system for any residential development projects that exceed a density of 29.9 units per acre. With a net density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre, the proposed project would be well below this threshold. The project would be consistent with the use and density identified for the site in the General Plan Update, and its impacts on wastewater collection and treatment facilities were therefore already addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. No further analysis or mitigation is required.
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Explanation: Potential effects of the project’s stormwater drainage are also addressed in Section IX. As noted in that discussion, the project would be required to comply with the NPDES C.3 requirements specified by RWQCB NPDES Order No. R2-2009-0074 and the Clean Water Program Alameda County (CWPAC) (formerly the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program). In addition to requiring onsite stormwater treatment measures to remove pollutants from stormwater, as discussed in Section IX(a), the CWPAC Section C.3 requires that all new projects located in areas susceptible to hydrograph modification (HM) and that would result in an increase in impervious surfaces of more than 1 acre implement HM measures to control the flow and duration of stormwater runoff. HM measures can include site design and hydrologic source control measures, on-site structural HM measures, and in-stream restorative measures. In compliance with this requirement, the project applicant is proposing to construct three underground vaults that would function as detention basins; they are described in more detail in Section IX(a). These detention vaults would function to reduce both the rate and volume of peak stormwater discharge from the project site in comparison with existing conditions.
68 City of Fremont, Fremont Draft General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2010082060, page 4-333, July 2011. 69 Union Sanitary District, op. cit.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 105 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Stormwater drainage would occur along the proposed streets, which would have a positive elevation in the center that would cause stormwater to drain toward the curbs. A series of cutouts in the curbs would direct stormwater into vegetated treatment swales located between the curbs and sidewalks. Stormwater would be cleaned via biofiltration prior to discharge into a subdrain that will feed into an 18-inch storm drain running under the streets. Stormwater discharge from Lots 37 through 42 would be discharged into the 96-inch underground storm drain that runs between Lots 36 and 37 and discharges into Mission Creek via a concrete box culvert.
The proposed construction would not encroach into Mission Creek or the banks of the creek.70 The potential impacts from constructing the stormwater drainage and treatment system, including the proposed detention vaults, are addressed in other sections of this Initial Study, especially Section III, Air Quality; Section VI, Geology and Soils; Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. The construction of the proposed stormwater drainage facilities would not cause any other significant environmental effects not already addressed herein. Because of the flow limits imposed under the CWPAC Section C.3, the project’s stormwater flows would not exceed the current site runoff; therefore, no additional downstream facilities or expansion of existing facilities or lines, would be required for the proposed projects. This would therefore be a less-than-significant impact.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are X new or expanded entitlements needed?
Explanation: As noted in Section XVII(b), above, water is supplied to the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). The ACWD obtains water from three primary sources:71 • State Water Project (SWP). Water from the SWP originates from rainfall and snowmelt runoff in Northern and Central California watersheds. It is stored in numerous reservoirs operated by the State Department of Water Resources, including the largest, Lake Oroville. SWP water flows to the Bay Area via the Feather and Sacramento rivers, then is pumped from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and through the South Bay Aqueduct, or is released from the Del Valle Reservoir. SWP water is either treated at one of the ACWD’s two water treatment plants or released into Alameda Creek to recharge the City’s underground aquifer, where it is stored for later use. About 36 percent of the District’s total distributed water supply is purchased from the SWP. • San Francisco Regional Water System. This system is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Most of the SFPUC water originates in the Sierra Nevada and is transported from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park. A portion of the water originates in the Alameda Creek watershed, and is stored in the Calaveras Reservoir and the San Antonio Reservoir. San
70 Colt Alvernaz, op. cit. 71 Alameda County Water District, Urban Water Management Plan 2010-2015, Figure 3-3: Average Sources of Supply (FY99/00-09/10), Distribution System Demands Only, page 3-2, [undated].
Initial Study 106 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Francisco Water Department water accounts for approximately 25 percent of the ACWD distributed water supply. • Local Sources. Local groundwater and runoff from the Alameda Creek watershed accounts for approximately 39 percent of the ACWD water supply. Natural run-off enters Alameda Creek and percolates into the City’s natural underground aquifer, the Niles Cone, which functions as a huge storage reservoir. Water also percolates from the Quarry Lakes to the aquifer, and additional groundwater recharge occurs releases of SWP water into Alameda Creek. The ACWD pumps out water from wells sunk into the aquifer, treats the water, and distributes it to customers. Because the Niles Cone extends under San Francisco Bay, the drawing down of fresh water has allowed salt water to intrude from the Bay, a process the ACWD is working to reverse.
In addition to these water supply sources, the ACWD has access to up to 13,500 acre-feet (AF) of supplemental stored water from the Semitropic Water Storage District (which has a total of 115,000 acre-feet of water banked to date). This storage is not considered additional water supply, but is regarded as replacement water to be used to augment normal water supplies during drought years. However, ACWD has identified uncertainties regarding recovery of water from the Semitropic Banking Program, creating a risk that the District may not be able to recover 100 percent of its contractual capacity from Semitropic storage.
The ACWD’s planning to ensure an adequate water supply during both wet and dry years is based on future growth projections through 2030, determined by existing land use and vacant land zoned for future development. ACWD water demand projections include all development envisioned in the City’s previous General Plan, but do not include additional development planned in the recently updated General Plan. The General Plan Update EIR reported that the ACWD’s total water supply through 2030 would exceed demand by 9,700 AF in 2010 and by 3,100 AF in 2030 during normal rainfall years. However, during a critical dry year total water demand could exceed total water supply by amounts ranging from 1,500 AF in 2010 to 5,100 AF in 2030.
Additional growth anticipated in the General Plan Update would exacerbate these shortfalls during critical dry years. This was identified as a potentially significant impact in the General Plan Update EIR. The EIR identified two mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Mitigation UTIL-1A requires all new development projects to install the latest technology in water-efficient plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, and landscaping, in accordance with the California Green Building Code (CalGreen), and consult with the ACWD on incorporating the District’s “Water Efficiency Measures for New Development.” Mitigation UTIL-1B applies to development projects located in areas where recycled water is available, and requires installation of a separate, non-potable water distribution systems (i.e., purple pipe) for landscape irrigation and other non-potable water needs. The EIR determined that with implementation of these measures, the impact of the General Plan Update on water supply would be reduced to a less- than-significant level. The impact associated with the project’s water demand would therefore be less than significant.
The proposed project would be consistent with the use and density identified for the site in the General Plan Update, and its impacts on water supply were therefore already addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. The project would be required to implement Mitigation UTIL-1A and, as applicable, Mitigation UTIL-1B. No further analysis or mitigation is required.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 107 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Explanation: See Section XVI(b), above.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
Explanation: Solid waste from the proposed project would be collected by Allied Waste Services of Alameda County, processed at the Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station at 4119 Boyce Road, and hauled to the Altamont Landfill, located 7 miles north of Livermore, for disposal. Some solid waste collected in Fremont may also be disposed of at the Newby Island Landfill in San Jose. The City of Fremont has a long-term contract with Allied Waste for ongoing waste disposal at Altamont Landfill, and the landfill has sufficient existing and planned capacity to accommodate the waste from its service area, according to the General Plan Update EIR. The EIR cited a number of General Plan policies promoting waste diversion (e.g., policies 9-6.1, 9-6.3, 9-6.4, 9-7.1, 9-7.3, and 9-8.3) and concluded that, with effective implementation of the policies, the impact of the General Plan Update on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan; therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on solid waste disposal.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X
Explanation: The proposed project would be required to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste. Although the project would not result in a significant impact on solid waste facilities, landfill disposal capacity is a diminishing resource. Furthermore, the construction and operation of landfills entail a number of adverse environmental effects, including natural resource depletion (i.e., energy and materials), reduction of wildlife habitat, air and water pollution, and contribution to global warming, among others. However, because existing solid waste collection and disposal in the City of Fremont complies with current federal, State, and local requirements, and because the project’s solid waste would enter the same existing disposal stream, the proposed project would not violate any federal, State, or local statues or regulations related to solid waste. Additionally, demolition of existing buildings on the site and construction of the project would be required to comply with the City’s passed Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, which requires minimum levels of recycling of construction and demolition debris.
Initial Study 108 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a X 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?
Explanation: There is a potential for the project to remove foraging and nesting habitat for raptors and cause adverse impacts to nesting raptors. The construction restrictions required by Mitigation Measure BR–1 would determine whether nesting raptors are present and could be adversely affected by project construction, with additional requirements identified to ensure that potential impacts to the raptors would be less than significant. Project construction could also adversely affect special-status bats, California red-legged frogs, and western pond turtles or southwestern pond turtles. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR–2 through BR–4 would ensure that these species would not be impacted. There is a possibility for encountering buried historic/prehistoric cultural resources on the site, but mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential impacts in the event such resources are encountered during project construction.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively X 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.)
Explanation: No significant cumulative impacts were identified for the proposed project.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly?
Explanation: The proposed project, consisting entirely of residential construction, would not introduce any significant hazards to the project area. Measures have been identified to address potentially significant impacts associated with strong seismic shaking, landslide/slope stability, lateral spreading, and expansive soils. There are a variety of potential existing environmental hazards on the site with the potential to adversely affect human beings. These hazards are evaluated in detail in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM–1 through HM–5 would reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project could also result in adverse impacts on water quality, which could result in indirect health effects in swimmers in San Francisco Bay (waterborne diseases) and to those consuming fish or shellfish. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 109 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
REPORT PREPARATION—
This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared under the direction of Douglas Herring & Associates, with support from the City of Fremont Community Development Department.
Project Manager: Doug Herring, AICP, Principal Douglas Herring & Associates 1331 Linda Vista Drive El Cerrito, CA 94530
City of Fremont: Scott Ruhland, Associate Planner City of Fremont Planning Division 39550 Liberty Street Fremont, CA 94538
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 110
MITIGATION MEASURES—
The following mitigation measures have been identified in this document to reduce potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels:
Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ–1: The project applicant shall require the construction contractor to reduce the severity of project construction period dust impacts by complying with the following control measures: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BR–1: If ground-disturbing activities or impacts to on-site shrubs and/or trees occurs during the breeding season (approximately
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 111
February 1 through August 31), pre-construction nesting surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The pre-construction survey shall occur within 14 days prior to the ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. Surveys shall be conducted within suitable nesting habitat on and within 250 feet of the area to be disturbed. If the survey does not identify any nesting special-status bird species in the area potentially affected by the proposed activity, no further mitigation is required.
If nest sites or young are located, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the active nest. The biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to determine the size of the no-disturbance buffer, which will be marked off with temporary orange construction fencing. Active non-status passerine nests identified at that time should be protected by a minimum 50-foot radius exclusion zone. Active raptor or special-status species nests should be protected by a minimum 250-foot radius exclusion zone. A qualified biologist shall decide the exclusion zone buffer width, which may vary depending on habitat characteristics and species. The exclusion zone shall be physically marked with fencing. Exclusion zones shall remain in place until August 31 or until the young have fledged (typically three to four weeks). If exclusionary buffers are encroached upon by construction activity during the breeding season, work shall be immediately halted and a qualified biologist contacted to assess the status of the nest. If the biologist finds that the nest has been abandoned, CDFG and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be contacted.
Mitigation Measure BR–2: A pre-construction survey for bats shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist prior to the removal of any existing trees or structures on the project site. The survey shall be performed no more that 14 days prior to tree removal or building demolition. The bat biologist shall identify all measures necessary for the protection of bat species, including humane bat eviction or exclusion, as warranted, and the project applicant shall comply with all bat protection measures identified by the biologist.
Mitigation Measure BR–3: No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site grading, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a preconstruction protocol-level survey of the project site in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements in order to definitively determine whether any individual California red- legged frogs (CRLF) are present within the confines of the site. If any CRLF are encountered, they shall be relocated in consultation with the USFWS prior to initiating ground disturbing activities.. To the extent practicable, all site-disturbing construction activities shall be performed during the dry season (April 16th through October 14th).
Mitigation Measure BR–4: No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of any disturbance within the riparian corridor along Mission Creek, a qualified
Initial Study 112 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
wildlife biologist shall conduct a preconstruction protocol-level survey of the project site in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements in order to definitively determine whether any individual western pond turtles or southwestern pond turtles are present within the confines of the site. If any turtles are encountered, they shall be relocated in consultation with the USFWS prior to initiating ground- disturbing activities. To the extent practicable, all site-disturbing construction activities shall be performed during the dry season (April 16th through October 14th).
Cultural Resources Condition CR–1: Prior to demolition, the original house adjacent to Palm Avenue and the associated landscaping, including palm trees, should be photographically documented and the photographs (prints and negatives as appropriate) should be donated to the Fremont History Museum archives or other appropriate public archive. The photographic documentation does not need to follow guidelines of the Historic American Building Survey (i.e. large- format negatives). In addition, an historian should conduct an oral history of the Four Winds Growers with Don Dillon, Sr. regarding the founding and early operation of the nursery. A transcript of the oral history should be donated to the Fremont History Museum archives or other appropriate archive. Copies of early documents related to the founding and operation of the Four Winds Growers (such catalogs, labels, or other documents of interest related to its significance in the history of the nursery industry) should also be donated to the Fremont History Museum archives or other appropriate archive.
Mitigation Measure CR–1: Following demolition of the existing buildings on the site, but prior to initiation of site grading or other ground disturbance, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified archaeologist to develop and implement a mechanical subsurface testing program to methodically excavate test pits and collect soil samples and artifactual/ecofactual material as warranted for analysis. If archaeological soils or artifacts are encountered, the archaeologist shall design and implement a mapping and recovery program, subject to approval by the City of Fremont, to map the aerial extent and depth of cultural deposits. As warranted by the results of the subsurface testing, the archaeologist may identify additional precautions to be followed during the remainder of project construction, such as monitoring of all site disturbing activities and site grading by a qualified archaeologist, or training of construction personnel, prior to the initiation of construction, to be alert to and recognize potentially significant cultural resources that could potentially be exposed during site- disturbing activities. The project sponsor shall comply with any such recommendations identified by the project archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure CR–2: If any cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance in the vicinity shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource(s) and, if necessary, recommend
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 113
mitigation measures to document and prevent any significant adverse effects on the resource(s). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City of Fremont Planning staff of the encountered archeological deposit. The results of any additional archaeological effort required through the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 shall be presented in a professional-quality report, to be submitted to the project sponsor, the City of Fremont, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. The project sponsor shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c)-(f) of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
Mitigation Measure CR–3: In the event that any human remains are encountered during site disturbance, all ground-disturbing work shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be prehistoric or historic period in date. If determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner’s Office will notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which, in turn, will then appoint a “Most Likely Descendant” (MLD). The MLD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor, will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for reburial.
Mitigation Measure CR–4: Should paleontological resources be encountered during construction or site preparation activities, such works shall be halted in the vicinity of the find. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the nature of the find and determine if mitigation is necessary. All feasible recommendations of the paleontologist shall be implemented.
Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GS–1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall prepare a design-level geotechnical and geologic investigation report, subject to review and approval by the City of Fremont Building and Safety Division. The investigation shall be based on site-specific subsurface investigation (e.g. borings, test pits, geophysical methods, etc.) and laboratory testing sufficient to characterize site landslides and slope stability, and design appropriate mitigation measures. The report shall verify that the project has been designed in compliance with seismic design criteria contained in the latest version of the California Building Code (CBC). The report shall also incorporate California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, and include an analysis of expected ground motions at the site from known faults. The investigation report shall
Initial Study 114 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
specifically address potential hazards related to localized creek bank instability, liquefaction-induced settlement, undocumented fill, expansive soils, and soil corrosion potential. The report shall provide specific geologic and geotechnical criteria and standards for site grading, drainage, foundation design, landslide mitigation, utilities, roadways, and other structures or facilities potentially affected by the project. Site grading and landslide mitigation measures shall conform to all applicable codes, ordinances, and requirements. The stability of cuts and fills shall be supported by appropriate static and seismic stability analyses. The design level geotechnical and geologic investigation report shall be signed and stamped by appropriately licensed professionals.
Mitigation Measure GS–2: The design-level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1 shall address the additional recommendations presented in Cotton, Shires and Associates’ April 23, 2012 peer review report on the March 2012 preliminary geotechnical analysis prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (CEG) for the project. Those recommendations include performing supplemental slope stability analysis in the vicinity of proposed Lots 19, 34, and 41; evaluation of maximum allowable differential fill thicknesses in the vicinity of Lots 30, 31, and 32; additional exploration of liquefaction potential on Parcel 1; further analysis of building foundation design requirements; and identification of requirements for over-excavating and backfilling soil above the 96-inch storm drain on Parcel 3.
Mitigation Measure GS–3: The proposed single-family homes shall be set back at least 50 feet from the top of the adjacent creek bank (Mission Creek) and utilities, swimming pools, parking areas, and other structures shall be set back at least 25 feet from the top of bank. To provide for adequate stability for the existing home on Lot 34, which encroaches into the 50-foot setback zone, a buried reinforced stitch pier shall be constructed between the home and the creek bank in accordance with specifications determined by the design- level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1.
Mitigation Measure GS–4: All existing debris, slabs, septic tanks, leach fields, sump pumps, underground storage tanks (USTs), and abandoned underground utilities shall be removed from the site and the resulting excavations shall be backfilled with engineered fill. The UST sites and undocumented fill areas (including the former ravine on Parcel 3) shall be over-excavated down to native soils prior to backfilling. The depth of overexcavation and engineering requirements of the backfill shall be performed in accordance with specifications determined by the design-level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1. Any disturbed native soils within residential lots or street areas shall also be removed and replaced with engineered fill.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 115
Mitigation Measure GS–5: Building foundations and roadways and other pavements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications presented in the March 2012 preliminary geotechnical analysis prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (CEG) for the project, or as modified by the design-level geotechnical investigation required by Mitigation Measure GS–1.
Mitigation Measure GS–6: During site grading and landslide remediation activities, the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall observe and approve all keyway excavations, removal of fill and/or landslide materials down to stable bedrock or in-place material, and the installation of all subdrains, including connections and outlet structures. Cut slopes shall be observed and mapped by the project engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer who will provide recommendations for slope modifications (if any) based on the actual conditions encountered during grading. Placement of fill shall be observed and tested by the project engineer and the test results shall be included in a final report for the project.
Mitigation Measure GS–7: All cut-and-fill slopes shall be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. No site grading shall occur between October 15th and April 15th unless authorized in writing by the City of Fremont and approved erosion control measures are in place.
Mitigation Measure GS–8: A Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepared and submitted along with grading permit applications. The SWPPP shall provide for temporary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction. The requisite plans shall be prepared in accordance with the standards provided in the Association of Bay Area Government’s Manual of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures (2005) or the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks for Construction and for New Development and Redevelopment (2009). Implementation of the plan will help stabilize graded and stockpile areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation. The plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be adhered to during construction activities. Erosion-minimizing features such as hay bales, water bars, covers, sediment fences, sensitive area access restrictions (for example, flagging), and/or retention/settlement areas shall be implemented as necessary before the onset of inclement weather. Mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities. The plans shall incorporate requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program and other applicable federal, State, and local requirements.
Initial Study 116 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HM–1: Prior to removal of any agricultural chemicals, waste oil, fuel, or other hazardous materials; prior to removal of the above-ground storage tank (AST), underground storage tanks (USTs), or septic tanks; prior to any demolition activities; and prior to any site grading or other surface disturbance, the project sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive Remediation Work Plan and Facility Closure Plan (RWP/FCP), to be reviewed and approved by the Fremont Fire Department/Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and implemented under supervision of the CUPA, as required. At a minimum, the RWP/FCP shall address the following issues: 1) The RWP/FCP shall identify required measures for additional soil sampling and testing in the vicinity of the AST where elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D) were identified, and in the road areas where elevated TPH-D concentrations were identified. The RWP/FCP shall stipulate appropriate procedures for excavation, and require proper disposal of contaminated soils at a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. The RWP/FCP shall require remediation of the PCB and TPH- D contamination in soils to below their applicable environmental screening levels (ESLs). 2) The RWP/FCP shall include remediation of the pesticide contamination in soils within and in proximity to the greenhouse to below the applicable ESLs. 3) The RWP/FCP shall identify required procedures for the proper handling and removal of agricultural and other chemicals and petroleum products from the site. Prior to implementation of the RWP/FCP, the project sponsor shall file a Facility Closure Notification with the CUPA, which will conduct an inspection of the facility prior to authorizing closure activities, such as the removal of chemicals. 4) If the USTs currently present on the site are to be abandoned in place, the project sponsor shall obtain No Further Action (NFA) letters from the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) for the tanks. Copies of the NFA letters shall be provided to the Fremont Fire Department (FFD). If the project engineer determines that the USTs must be removed to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant shall obtain a tank removal permit from the Fremont Fire Department and the tank(s) shall be removed in accordance with Title 23, Article 7 of the California Code of Regulations. Tank removal shall be performed under the observation of a Hazardous Materials Inspector from the FFD/CUPA and the ACWD. If the inspectors determine that soil sampling is warranted, based on the presence of odors, stained soil, or other indicators, the project sponsor shall submit soil samples to
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 117
a State–certified laboratory for analysis for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. If the results reveal contaminant levels in excess of regulatory limits, remediation of the soils in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the RWP/FCP shall be performed to the satisfaction of the FFD/CUPA and the ACWD. 5) Removal of the AST will also require permitting and oversight by the FFD/CUPA, and may require core soil sampling and testing, depending on conditions around the tank. If any soil contamination extends more than 3 feet below the ground surface, remediation shall also be performed under the supervision of the ACWD.
Mitigation Measure HM–2: For all remediation work performed in compliance with Mitigation Measure HM–1, the project sponsor shall prepare and implement a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and a Soil Management Plan (SMP). The HASP shall identify the measures necessary to protect workers and to prevent their exposure to hazardous contaminants that are present in the soils on the site. It shall be prepared in consultation with the San Francisco Bay Area Consultation Service Office of the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupation Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and in accordance with all applicable State and federal occupational safety and health standards, including Cal/OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Guidelines (CCR Title 8, Section 5192). The SMP shall address the proper handling and disposition of potentially contaminated soils that may be encountered during excavation, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Fremont Fire Department/CUPA and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
Mitigation Measure HM–3: The septic tanks on the project site shall be removed or abandoned under the supervision of the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) and in accordance with Alameda County Septic Regulation 9. The project sponsor shall obtain a permit from ACDEH as required by Regulation 9 for the removal or abandonment. The project sponsor shall provide the Fremont Community Development Department with a copy of the Final Approval letter issued by ACDEH once the Department has inspected the property and signed off on the abandonment.
Mitigation Measure HM–4: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing buildings on the site, a survey for asbestos–containing building materials (ACBM) shall be conducted by a qualified asbestos abatement contractor. If ACBM is identified, all friable asbestos shall be removed prior to building demolition by a State-certified Asbestos Abatement Contractor, in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified ten days in advance of any required abatement work. To document
Initial Study 118 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT
compliance with the applicable regulations, the project sponsor shall provide the Fremont Community Development Department with a copy of the notice required by BAAQMD for asbestos abatement work, prior to and as a condition of issuance of the building permit for the proposed project by the City of Fremont Building and Safety Division.
Mitigation Measure HM–5: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing buildings on the site, a survey for lead–based paint (LBP) shall be conducted by a qualified lead assessor. If LBP is identified, lead abatement shall be performed in compliance with all federal, State, and local regulations applicable to work with LBP and disposal of lead–containing waste. A State-certified Lead-Related Construction Inspector/Assessor shall provide a lead clearance report after the lead abatement work in the buildings is completed. The project sponsor shall provide a copy of the lead clearance report to the Fremont Community Development Department.
Noise Mitigation Measure N–1: In the event that the City Council does not allow for the 65 dBA level in rear yards of the proposed homes closest, the project sponsor shall do one of the following:
a) Construct an 8- to 10-foot sound barrier along the westbound edge of shoulder on the I–680 freeway in the vicinity of Lots 35-42 sufficient to reduce rear yard outdoor noise levels to 60 dBA Ldn or lower. The applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans in order to implement this measure; OR b) Redesign the site plan so as to achieve rear yard outdoor
noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn or lower on all residential lots; OR c) Incorporate other features or make other project design changes sufficient to achieve rear yard outdoor noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn or lower on all residential lots.
Mitigation Measure N–2: The following design features shall be incorporated into the project: a) Six-foot-tall noise barriers shall be erected to shield the rear yards of Lots 1 and 10. b) All homes shall be provided with a suitable form of forced- air mechanical ventilation, as determined by Fremont Building and Safety Division, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupants’ discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards. c) Sound-rated windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 28 or better shall be provided at the homes on Lots 1 through 26.
Initial Study MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT 119
d) Sound-rated windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 30 to 40 shall be provided at the homes on Lots 27 through 33. e) Sound-rated windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 36 to 42 shall be provided at the homes on Lots 35 through 42. f) Noise insulation features shall be designed to control maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dBA Lmax in bedrooms and to 55 dBA Lmax in other habitable rooms, and to also achieve the 45-dBA Ldn interior noise standard. In addition to sound-rated windows and doors, additional treatments may include, but are not limited to, sound- rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, insulation, acoustical vents, etc. Large windows and doors should be oriented away from the I–680 where possible. Bedrooms should be located away from I–680. g) The final specifications for noise insulation treatments, including the STC ratings of windows and doors, shall be confirmed by a qualified acoustical consultant during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans, and shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
Initial Study 120 MISSION PEAK PLANNED DISTRICT