INITIAL STUDY

Prepared for: East Bay Regional Park District

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project

Prepared by: Leann Taagepera Environmental Planning 271 W G St. Benicia, CA 94510

July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 2 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 4 Project Description ...... 4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: ...... 13 Determination ...... 13 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ...... 15 I. Aesthetics ...... 17 II. Agricultural Resources ...... 19 III. Air Quality...... 20 IV. Biological Resources ...... 31 V. Cultural Resources ...... 40 VI. Geology and Soils ...... 45 VII. Greenhouse Gasses ...... 48 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 56 IX Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 60 X. Land Use and Planning ...... 63 XI. Mineral Resources ...... 65 XII. Noise ...... 66 XIII. Population and Housing ...... 72 XIV. Public Services ...... 74 XV. Recreation ...... 76 XVI. Transportation and Traffic ...... 77 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ...... 79 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 82 REPORT PREPARERS ...... 84 Information Sources ...... 85

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Project Location...... 7 2. Building Photographs ...... 9

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 3 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Initial Study

INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et esq.) and the CEQA Guidelines. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c), a purpose of an Initial Study is to assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:

(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,

(B) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, and

(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant.

The following Environmental Checklist describes the environmental setting for each environmental issue area, evaluates a range of impacts classified as “no impact,” “less than significant,” “less than significant with mitigation incorporated,” and “potentially significant” in response to the environmental checklist. Each environmental checklist question is discussed and analyzed. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are identified to mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

It has been determined that an EIR addressing the topic of cultural resources is appropriate for this project. Reviewers are requested to comment on the completeness of the analysis contained in this Initial Study. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Project Title: Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, P.O. Box 5381, Oakland, California, 94605-0381

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 4 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

3. Contact Person and E-Mail Address: Brian Wiese, Chief, Park Planning and GIS, [email protected]

4. Project Location: 34600 Ardenwood Boulevard, Fremont, California, 94555

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, P.O. Box 5381, Oakland, California, 94605-0381

6. General Plan Designation: Institutional Open Space

7. Zoning: O-S (Open Space)

8. Description of Project: The proposed project is the demolition of three buildings of potential historic significance (known as the Mowry Schoolhouse and the Bettencourt and Brown Houses) which were moved from other locations in 1984-1985 and stored on cribbing at the Ardenwood Historic Farm Regional Preserve (Ardenwood) (See Figure 1, Project Location).

Previous efforts at restoration and reuse by the East Bay Regional Park District (District) have been unsuccessful due to the high cost of renovation. Because of public safety issues, the District has proposed demolition without replacement of the three structures. Each building is described in more detail below. The Ardenwood property is owned by the City of Fremont but managed by the Park District. The Park was opened to the public in 1985 and includes a working farm and a historic mansion now called the Patterson House which was first constructed in 1857 by the farm's original owner, George Washington Patterson. The Patterson House, landscaping, associated buildings and most of the park’s land have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Patterson called his estate "Ardenwood", after the setting of Shakespeare’s s play, As You Like It. The Park preserves a portion of the former Patterson Ranch, one of the largest working farms in Alameda County during the late

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 5 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

19th century. The park also includes a pool, tennis court, picnic areas, a blacksmith shop and various other farm buildings, plus farm animals and pens. The park hosts many events throughout the year.

The buildings that are the subject of this evaluation have been stored close together in the northwest edge of the park since 1985. This area is occupied by the stored buildings in a wooded area surrounded by Eucalyptus, oak, and other trees. A chain-link fence separates this part of Ardenwood Historic Farm from a paved street and residential homes located to the north. The site is relatively flat. Since being relocated to the site, the buildings have been kept locked, but have suffered from numerous break-ins, vandalism, and small fires over the years, resulting in public safety issues. In addition, the condition of the buildings when they were received, and deferred maintenance, have resulted in the current dilapidated condition of the buildings. The agencies involved in this project would allow the buildings to be relocated to other sites; however, relocation is not guaranteed at this time, and also may not result in the restoration of the buildings. Therefore, demolition is assumed to be the result of the project.

Project Background

In 1984-1985, the District, working with the cities of Fremont and Newark and the then- owners of the land on which Ardenwood Historic Farm now is located (the Patterson family) agreed to the relocation of four buildings from developers of other building projects. The Mowry Schoolhouse was moved from Newark and the other two houses were moved from other locations in Fremont. Originally, a fourth building was also moved to the site. However, that building (the Tacchella Gomes House) was determined not to qualify for historic status and has since been demolished. At the time, it was hoped that the four buildings would become an education center with a historic village theme within Ardenwood Historic Farm. Ownership of the Mowry Schoolhouse was transferred to the City of Newark in 1997 and the intent was for the building to be relocated and restored in the City of Newark. A site had been identified for the relocated building. However, due to the high cost of renovation and lack of funding from the District, the City of Newark,

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 6 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 7 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

or the City of Fremont, the restoration of the buildings has become economically infeasible despite various intents and efforts to rehabilitate the buildings. The District and the City of Newark did intend to restore the buildings, with the District receiving grants for the restoration of the Brown House and the City including the Mowry Schoolhouse as a line item on its Capital Improvement Plan. However, none of the entities were able to accomplish the restoration of the buildings. These efforts will be described further in the EIR.

Ward Hill, an architectural historian, was retained by the District and the City of Newark to provide historic architecture assessments of all three buildings. He prepared studies in 1997, 2011, and 2012, as referred to below. The buildings are shown on Figure 2.

The Mowry’s Landing Schoolhouse The Mowry’s Landing School building (referred to herein as the “Mowry Schoolhouse”) was constructed in 1884 after an original school was destroyed by fire. The school served the local farming families, who were mostly Swiss and Portuguese immigrants who operated nearby dairies. The one room schoolhouse was remodeled as a residence in 1939. Prior to remodeling, it was the last one room school house in Washington Township, which was one of the six Townships that originally comprised Alameda County. Washington Township contains Union City, Newark, Fremont, and small unincorporated areas nearby. In the early 1980’s, the owner of the building attempted to gain approval for demolition; however, the building was granted historic designation by the Newark City Council in 1985 under the City’s adopted historic sites ordinance. The designation resulted in negotiations and efforts to move the building to Ardenwood Historic Farm, which was achieved in 1985. Ownership of the building was later transferred to the City of Newark in 1997. In a 2012 historical evaluation, commissioned by the City, the building was determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, under Criterion 3 – “the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction.” It is described as a “particularly rare surviving example of a

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 8 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 9 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

rural “one-room” school building in not only Washington Township, but also in Alameda County.”1

Bettencourt House The Bettencourt House was moved from a site in the Centerville area of Fremont, near Peralta Boulevard and Paseo Padre Parkway. It was originally adjacent to the Tacchela Gomes House, which was determined not to be historically significant and has been demolished. The house was originally owned by a local farmer, John Bettencourt, an immigrant from Portugal. The house has two main sections: the gable-roofed rear portion probably dating from late 1860s/early 1870s, and the large cross-gable, Queen Anne style, front portion dating from the late 1880s. The rear portion of the house was a simple, classical revival farm house common in Washington Township during the 1850s and 1860s. A 2011 historical evaluation of the building, which updated a 1997 evaluation, concluded that the Bettencourt House appears to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, under Criterion 3 – “the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction.” The house was described in that evaluation as a “particularly distinguished example of the Queen Anne Style in Washington Township” and a “rare and interesting example of how the form of a 19th [century] farm house grew and evolved over time…”2 The City of Fremont has not designated the Bettencourt House as a historic structure.

Brown House The Brown House is the only one of the three buildings that is associated with Ardenwood Historic Farm. It was said to have been built in the 1850’s by George Simpson, who was a squatter on Rancho Petrero de los Cerritos. Simpson eventually bought the land from the owner in 1862. The land was later purchased by William Patterson and the house was occupied by Joe Brown, one of the permanent ranch hands on the Patterson Ranch. The house

1 Ward Hill, Historic Architecture Assessment Mowry’s Landing School, Ardenwood Historic Farm, Fremont, California, May 25, 2012. 2 Ward Hill, Historic Architecture Assessment Three Houses at Ardenwood Historic Farm, Fremont, California, December 20, 2011.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 10 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

was said to have been moved to the northeast corner of Newark and Jarvis Streets, and later moved to Ardenwood Historic Farm in 1985. The City of Fremont has not designated the Brown House as a historic structure.

The Brown House was described in a 2011 update to a 1997 historical evaluation as a rare surviving example of box or vertical plan construction from the early years of Washington Township.3 The same evaluation concluded that the Brown House appears to be eligible for the California Register, under Criterion 3 - “the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction”. It was described as a particularly rare example of an early house in Washington Township and as one of the few surviving local examples of box construction. The report also concludes that the Brown House appears to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion A - “the resource is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local and regional history,” due to its associations with the history of the Patterson Ranch. Further, the report also states that it, therefore, contributes to the property’s National Register eligibility.4

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site, within Ardenwood, is bounded by the park’s open space and trees. Ardenwood is surrounded on all sides by suburban development. Single-family residences are located to the north, northwest and west of the project site. To the northeast is Interstate - 880, the Nimitz Freeway, and to the east is State Route 84, Decoto Road. Commercial and residential development is located farther east of Highway 84. Office parks and other commercial land uses are located to the south and southwest.

10. Construction Phasing: Demolition of the existing structures on the project site is estimated to occur in 2013 or early 2014. It is expected that the buildings would be removed in approximately one or more days. The buildings would be analyzed to determine if lead or asbestos was present. If so, Compliance

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 11 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

with lead-based paint regulation would similarly ensure that those materials would be disposed of appropriately and safely.

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Table 1. Project Approvals Agency/Provider Permit/Approval

East Bay Regional Park District Lead Agency: Certification of EIR for Bettencourt and Brown Houses Approval of Project for Bettencourt and Brown Houses City of Fremont Responsible Agency: Demolition permit. The City of Fremont owns the land on which the buildings are located. City of Newark Responsible Agency: Certification of EIR for Mowry Schoolhouse Approval of Project for Mowry Schoolhouse

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 12 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mandatory Findings of Significance Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation & Circulation Utilities & Service Systems

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 environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the attached sheet have been added to the project. 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 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 attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigates pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.

______Brian Wiese Date: Chief of Planning and GIS, EBRPD

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 13 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 14 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST The following checklist is formatted consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. The checklist analysis provides a detailed discussion of each of the environmental issue checklist questions. Four levels of impact significance are evaluated in this initial study:

 No Impact: No project-related impact to the environment would occur with project development. A “no impact” response indicates that the project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource.

 Less than Significant Impact: The impact would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment. A “less than significant” response indicates that, while there may be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures or regulations in place that would apply to the project and hence no mitigation is required.

 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that may have a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). However, the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the project-related impact to a less than significant level. This applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures may reduce an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." Mitigation measures and a brief explanation of how or whether they reduce the effect to a less than significant level are provided in the text of this report.

 Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that is "potentially significant" as described above, but for which mitigation measures cannot be

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 15 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

immediately suggested or the effectiveness of potential mitigation measures cannot be determined with certainty. In such cases, an EIR is required. Where appropriate, a Mitigation Measures section is included that lists mitigation measures for impacts identified as "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated." A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that the impact would exceed established thresholds and that the impact could not be avoided by utilizing standard operating procedures and regulations, program requirements, or design features incorporated into the project or that additional analysis is required in the EIR. These impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR prepared for this project.

A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence leading to a fair argument that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made without the possibility of mitigation, then an EIR is required.

Public comments on this Initial Study should focus on the accuracy and completeness of the analysis contained herein so as to further refine the scope of the EIR.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 16 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

I. Aesthetics

Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a. Scenic Vista - No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views of a scenic vista. The proposed project consists of the demolition and removal of three buildings which have been stored in Ardenwood. The site is not located in an area that includes a designated scenic vista. The project would not affect a scenic vista. b. Scenic Highway - No Impact. A significant impact may occur only where scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings,

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 17 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist would be damaged or removed by a project within a state scenic highway. The proposed project is not located adjacent to or within the proximity of a state listed scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impacts would occur. c. Visual Quality - No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce incompatible visual elements on the project site or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site. The proposed project would remove the three dilapidated historic buildings being stored on the site, returning it to a more natural state. The proposed development would change the visual character of the area by removing the stored buildings. From a current street view, deteriorating historic buildings within a wooded area are visible; the proposed project would remove the buildings, leaving the trees and other vegetation, resulting in a more natural setting. d. Light and Glare – No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce new sources of light or glare on or from the project site which would be incompatible with the area surrounding the project site. The project would not result in new sources of light. No development is proposed in place of the existing stored buildings. No impacts would occur from building demolition as related to light and glare.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 18 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

II. Agricultural Resources

Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non- agricultural use? a, b, and c Farmland, Williamson Act, Cumulative Los of Farmland - No Impact. The proposed project is the removal of three buildings stored on the site of the historic farm. It would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use, but would allow agriculture to exist in this area of the park, if desired, in the future. No Williamson Act contracts apply to the site.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 19 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

III. Air Quality Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 20 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Background:

Area Air Quality Overview

Southwestern Alameda County

The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Basin). This subregion encompasses the southeast side of San Francisco Bay, from Dublin Canyon to north of Milpitas. The subregion is bordered on the east by the East Bay hills and on the west by the San Francisco Bay. Most of the area is flat. This subregion is indirectly affected by marine air flow. Marine air entering through the Golden Gate is blocked by the East Bay hills, forcing the air to diverge into northerly and southerly paths. The southern flow is directed down the bay, parallel to the hills, where it eventually passes over southwestern Alameda County. These sea breezes are strongest in the afternoon. The farther from the ocean the marine air travels, the more the ocean’s effect is diminished. Although the climate in this region is affected by sea breezes, it is affected less so than the regions closer to the Golden Gate.

The climate of southwestern Alameda County is also affected by its close proximity to San Francisco Bay. The Bay cools the air with which it comes in contact during warm weather, while during cold weather the Bay warms the air. The normal northwest wind pattern carries this air onshore. Bay breezes push cool air onshore during the daytime and draw air from the land offshore at night. Winds are predominantly out of the northwest during the summer months. In the winter, winds are equally likely to be from the east. Easterly-southeasterly surface flow into southern Alameda County passes through three major gaps: Hayward/Dublin Canyon, Niles Canyon and Mission Pass. Areas north of the gaps experience winds from the southeast, while areas south of the gaps experience winds from the northeast. Wind speeds are moderate in this subregion, with annual average wind speeds close to the Bay at about 7 miles per hour (mph), while further inland they average 6 mph.

As mentioned above, air temperatures are moderated by the subregion's proximity to the Bay and to the sea breeze. Temperatures are slightly cooler in the winter and slightly warmer in the summer than East Bay cities to the north. During the summer months,

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 21 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist average maximum temperatures are in the mid- 70’s. Average maximum winter temperatures are in the high-50's to low-60's. Average minimum temperatures are in the low 40's in winter and mid-50's in the summer.

Pollution potential is relatively high in this subregion during the summer and fall. When high pressure dominates, low mixing depths and Bay and ocean wind patterns can concentrate and carry pollutants from other cities to this area, adding to the locally emitted pollutant mix. The polluted air is then pushed up against the East Bay hills. In the wintertime, the air pollution potential in southwestern Alameda County is moderate. Air pollution sources include light and heavy industry, and motor vehicles. Increasing motor vehicle traffic and congestion in the subregion may increase Southwest Alameda County pollution as well as that of its neighboring subregions.5,6

Criteria Pollutants

Criteria pollutants are air pollutants regulated by the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. Below are descriptions of criteria pollutants of concern in the Air Basin.

Ozone (O3) Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is primarily a summer and fall pollution problem. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving other compounds that are directly emitted. These directly emitted pollutants (also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). The principal sources of ROG and NOX are the combustion of fuels and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. Motor vehicles are often the major generator of ozone precursors. The time required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to spread over a large area, producing a regional pollution problem. Ozone problems are the cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than the result of a few significant emission sources. Depending on meteorological conditions, ozone precursors can be transported well away from the source area before ozone concentrations peak.

5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), December 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans.

6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), May 2012. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 22 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

While ozone in the upper atmosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems such as forests and foothill communities, and damages agricultural crops and some man-made materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastics. Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. The Basin is nonattainment for federal and state ozone standards.

Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10. and PM2.5)

PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively. (A micron is one-millionth of a meter.) PM2.5 is a subset of PM10 and, therefore, is incorporated by reference in any mention of PM10. One common source of PM10 is diesel emissions. Traffic generates PM10 and PM2.5 emissions through entrainment of dust and dirt particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. PM10 also is emitted by burning wood in residential wood stoves and fireplaces, and from open agricultural burning. PM10 can remain in the atmosphere for up to seven days before gravitational settling, rainout, and washout remove it.

Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases; heart and lung disease; and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown a statistically significant, direct association between mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Additional effects include reduced visibility and soiling of buildings. State standards for PM10 and PM2.5 are periodically exceeded in the Basin.

Air Quality Monitoring Data The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants. Criteria air pollutants are regulated by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels (National Ambient Air Quality Standards). The criteria pollutants are particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. California also regulates criteria air pollutants with California Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are generally equal to, but in some cases are more restrictive than, the national standards.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 23 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

The Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for the State and federal 8-hour ozone standards, the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and the state standards for PM10, annual PM2.5, and 1-hour ozone. The Bay Area is designated “attainment” or “unclassified” with respect to the other ambient air quality standards.

Sensitive Receptors People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population at large include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants.

Regulatory Framework

Criteria Pollutants

The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other District responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air plans, and responding to citizen air quality complaints.

Air Quality Significance Criteria

In 1999, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to assist lead agencies with CEQA impact analyses7. The guidelines were revised in 2010, and included new impact significance thresholds; however, the BAAQMD’s 2010 significance thresholds were challenged in a lawsuit, and on March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complies with CEQA.

7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), December 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 24 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

In May 2012, to comply with the court’s order, the BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to include no reference of the BAAQMD’s adopted 2010 thresholds8). The revised 2012 guidelines indicate that lead agencies should examine substantial evidence in determining appropriate air quality thresholds, and identify the BAAQMD’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance as a source of information for thresholds of significance. In reviewing the basis for the BAAQMD 1999 Thresholds, the lead agency has found that the BAAQMD daily thresholds were based on the federal limits in the New Source Review (NSR) standards. Congress established the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program as part of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. NSR is a preconstruction permitting program that serves two important purposes.

 First, it ensures that air quality is not significantly degraded from the addition of new and modified factories, industrial boilers and power plants. In areas with unhealthy air, NSR assures that new emissions do not slow progress toward cleaner air. In areas with clean air, especially pristine areas like national parks, NSR assures that new emissions do not significantly worsen air quality.

 Second, the NSR program assures people that any large new or modified industrial source in their neighborhoods will be as clean as possible, and that advances in pollution control occur concurrently with industrial expansion.

Thus, the BAAQMD 1999 Thresholds were based on New Source Review levels appropriate for the background air quality in the air basin and they have been used for more than a decade on a variety of projects without any major controversy about their appropriateness. Given this information, the lead agency has determined that the BAAQMD’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance are supported by substantial evidence and therefore can be used as significance thresholds for this project.

The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not require quantification of construction emissions (demolition only for this project) and comparison to thresholds, but instead rely upon inclusion of feasible control measures for PM10. (fugitive dust). The analysis of operational impacts is not necessary because the project would only have a construction phase (e.g., building demolition) there would be no operational impacts after the demolition.

8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), May 2012. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 25 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Impact Analysis: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan - Less Than Significant Impact.

The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone standards, for the State particulate matter (PM10. and PM2.5) standards, and the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard. As required by federal and State air quality laws, the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP) has been prepared to address ozone and particulate matter (mainly PM2.5) nonattainment issues, air toxics, and GHG. The 2010 CAP includes stationary and mobile source control strategies, transportation control measures, land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations incentive programs, and programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The BAAQMD implements a number of regulations and programs to reduce PM10. emissions; however, no PM10 plan has been prepared nor is one currently required under State air quality planning law.

A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment, or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled. Potential air quality impacts from the project would be primarily related to demolition activities; any increase in vehicle miles travelled from construction (e.g., demolition) would not be substantial. Thus, the project would not be in conflict with the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these air quality plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these air quality plans. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.

Air quality impacts are generally associated with both construction and operation of a project. This project would have air quality construction (demolition) impacts but no operational impacts. BAAQMD rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects. BAAQMD regulations applicable to the construction of the project relate to portable equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving materials. There are also rules for abatement of asbestos and lead- based paint (LBT) during building demolitions.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 26 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Asbestos Abatement BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 addresses asbestos materials in building to be demolished (BAAQMD, 2012). Demolition of the buildings at Ardenwood would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos- containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. The rule addresses the national emissions standards for asbestos along with some additional requirements. The rule requires the lead agency and its contractors to notify BAAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. Therefore, projects that comply with Regulation 11, Rule 2 would ensure that asbestos-containing materials would be disposed of appropriately and safely.

Lead-based Paint Abatement Contractors that have employees working on this project with potential lead-based paint exposure are required to assess lead exposure risk to their employees (as per Cal OSHA lead standard CCR Title 8 Section 1532.1).

Contractors whose employees disturb more than 100 square feet of lead-based paint (LBP) are required to submit written notification to Cal OSHA. The Cal OSHA LBP notification rule requires 24-hour advance notice prior to LBP disturbance.

The emissions generated from these construction activities (demolition) would include dust (including PM10. and PM2.5), primarily from “fugitive” sources. Fugitive dust could cause or contribute to exceedances of the State PM10. standard during project construction.

Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not call for quantification of construction emissions, but considers any project’s construction-related impacts to be less than significant with appropriate implementation of BAAQMD recommended dust control measures. The 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identify basic construction mitigation measures that take the place of the basic mitigation measures identified in 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, implementation of all relevant measures within Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (depending

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 27 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist on actual demolition measures used), which includes the basic mitigation measures identified in the 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, would ensure that short-term construction impacts would be mitigated and the impact would be potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The EBRPD shall require its construction contractor to implement a dust control plan that shall include the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (as appropriate for the building demolition plans) as recommended by the BAAQMD:

 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.  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 visible emissions evaluator. In addition to standard measures, the contractors will need to implement asbestos and LBP abatement measures as required by the pre-testing results and demolition techniques. Pre-tests on the Mowry Schoolhouse have indicated the presence of LBP in several paint samples and minimal amounts of asbestos (<2%) in samples of fiber board joint tape compound, and sheet rock and joint tape compound. 9,10 These results could

9 The Consulting Group (TCG), 2012. Lead Survey and Evaluation at the Mowry Schoolhouse at Ardenwood Park, May 24, 2012.

10 The Consulting Group (TCG), 2012. Asbestos Survey and Evaluation at the Mowry Schoolhouse at Ardenwood Park, May 25, 2012.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 28 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist be anticipated based on the age of the buildings. As discussed above, there are regulations in place that require contractors to protect workers and also regulations that require notification of BAAQMD and Cal OSHA prior to demolition of the structures.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: To address the potential for lead and asbestos in buildings to be demolished, the EBRPD shall:

 Use abatement contractors that are licensed by the State of California and registered with the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH).  Require contractors to remove prior to demolition asbestos-containing material that may be impacted during demolition, in accordance with local, state, and federal asbestos regulations.  Require that contractors who have employees working on this project with potential lead-based paint exposure are required to assess lead exposure risk to their employees (as per Cal OSHA lead standard CCR Title 8 Section 1532.1). Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 above would ensure that construction air quality impacts would be less than significant. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) - Less than significant.

The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that for any project that does not individually have significant air quality impacts, the determination of a significant cumulative impact can be determined based on consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. As disclosed in this air quality analysis, with mitigation, the project would not result in individual significant air quality impacts and the project would not conflict with the local general plan or regional air quality plan. Therefore, the project would not generate cumulatively considerable air emissions and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. d. Sensitive Receptors - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. It is likely that toxic air contaminants (TACs) would be generated by the use of diesel fueled construction equipment. Diesel particulate matter emissions can be carcinogenic over long exposure durations (i.e., most analyses consider exposure time frames of 10 to 70 years). However, for this construction, nearby receptors would be exposed to construction emissions for

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 29 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist only a few days; thus limiting exposure of any individual residential receptors. Also, as noted in item b) above, the project’s construction–related dust emissions would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. e. Odors - No impact. The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact. In general, the types of land uses that pose potential odor problems include refineries, chemical plants, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, and transfer stations. No such uses are proposed.

Diesel engines would be used for some construction (demolition) equipment. Odors generated by construction equipment would be variable, depending on the location and duration of use but would be only for the few days of demolition activity. Diesel odors are unlikely to be noticeable to any individuals outside of the construction area. There would be no impact.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 30 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

IV. Biological Resources Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to: marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 31 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan?

a. Effect on Protected Species - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The site is located in a developed, suburban environment. As such, it provides habitat to rodents, small mammals, birds and bats, typical of a suburban area. The buildings are located on the northeast corner of the property in a relatively flat, wooded area surrounded by Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata) and holly-leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia). The predominant understory vegetation is sparse and consists of annual grasses and poison oak shrubs (Toxicodendron diversilobum).

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 32 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

A biological resources report was prepared for this project, the results of which are described below.11

Methods

Research consisted of a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), CNDDB records within the Newark 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle, and eight surrounding quadrangles were reviewed for special status species that could occur within or near Ardenwood Historic Farm.

Biological surveys were focused on assessing the three historic buildings and the surrounding vegetation (that could be impacted during access and demolition of the buildings) for potential habitat for roosting bats and migratory birds. Daytime surveys were conducted on May 28 and May 30, 2013, and one nighttime bat emergence survey was conducted on May 30, 2013. All surveys were conducted by Patrick Kobernus. The bat emergence survey was conducted by Patrick Kobernus with assistance from Ira Bletz, Supervising Naturalist at Ardenwood Farm. Surveys were conducted during the bat breeding season, which is approximately (April 15 to August 15), but can vary depending on species.

For the daytime survey, all three buildings, Mowry Schoolhouse, Bettencourt House and Brown House were inspected for signs of bats (i.e. urine staining, guano). The exterior and interior of each building was searched using binoculars and flashlights. Surrounding vegetation immediately adjacent to the buildings was also searched for bat sign. For the nighttime survey, a bat emergence survey was conducted. The emergence survey was conducted from 30 minutes before dusk to 1 hour after dusk. Each surveyor was stationed to the east of the buildings looking westward to determine if any bats exited or entered the structures or adjacent vegetation. A handheld Wildlife Acoustics Echometer 3 bat detector was used to record bats during the emergence survey at each location. Bat acoustic recording data were analyzed using Sonobat 3.1. Weather during the surveys was clear and calm, with temperatures in the 70’s (F) during the day and in the 60’s (F) at night.

11 Coast Ridge Biology, Biological survey report and recommended mitigation measures for roosting bats and migratory birds at Ardenwood Historic Farm, Fremont, California, June 24, 2013.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 33 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Results

Special Status Species Review

Only one special status species, Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a locally unique species, was found to occur within the Ardenwood Historic Farm, (CNDDB Occurrence # 244). No other special status species were identified as having potential to occur within the demolition area.

Monarch Butterfly

Monarch butterfly is not a state or federally listed species; however, due to its unique life history and habitat requirements, it is given special consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. Winter roost sites extend along the western coast from Mendocino in northern California, south to Baja California, Mexico. Roost habitat consists of wind-protected tree groves, typically eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), with nectar and water sources nearby. Roost sites consist of congregations of several hundred to several thousand adult butterflies. Along the Central California coast, monarch butterflies typically roost between October and February.

The project area is a known Monarch roost site, and suitable Monarch roosting trees are present in the surrounding area. Depending upon the year, the site can support little or no Monarch butterflies or can support up to several thousand during the fall/winter months (October – February). No Monarch butterflies are expected to utilize the trees adjacent to the structures proposed for demolition, based on observations of where Monarchs have roosted in previous years, according to District staff12.

Daytime Bat Survey

Each room within the structures was inspected for bat sign using a flashlight and binoculars and no signs of bats (e.g. urine staining, guano) was observed within any of the buildings. All of the buildings have openings to the outside where bats could get in (through broken windows, vents, or holes in the exterior), and it does not appear that bats are using any of the interior areas of the buildings at this time. For one building, the

12 Personal Communication, Patrick Kobernus and Ira Bletz, Supervising Naturalist, East Bay Regional Park District, May, 2013.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 34 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Bettencourt building, the attic space was not accessible and there is some potential for bats to be roosting in the attic or within the roof of this building.

Nighttime Bat Emergence Survey

In addition to the daytime survey, a bat emergence survey was conducted at the site. The emergence bat survey was conducted from 8:00 p.m. to 9:24 p.m. (Sunset was at 8:24 p.m.. During this period, no bats were observed to exit or enter the Mowry Schoolhouse, Bettencourt House or Brown House. Several bats however were detected acoustically and were observed flying /foraging in the area. Near the Brown and Bettencourt buildings, 71 bat passes were recorded; and near the Mowry Schoolhouse, 19 bat passes were recorded. Almost all bat calls recorded were identified as Myotis species (Myotis yumanensis, Myotis californicus, or unidentified Myotis). Two bat calls were identified as Mexican free tail (Tadarida brasiliensis). No special status bat species were detected. Trees adjacent to the structures are small-limbed eucalyptus trees, and based on the lack of cavities and peeling bark, it is unlikely that bats are roosting within the trees immediately adjacent to the structures.

Bats have been recorded and documented on the Ardenwood Farm in the past, and the Blacksmith building located within the main center of Ardenwood is a known bat roost site.13 One bat, likely a Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) was observed roosting above the door within the Blacksmith building during the daytime biological survey on May 28, 2013. There was also abundant guano on the front door and walls, indicating an active roost site. The Blacksmith building is located approximately 600 - 900 meters from the three buildings proposed for demolition. Demolition would not impact this building.

Regulations

Bats and Monarch Butterflies

Some species that are otherwise not protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and do not have a special California Fish and Wildlife Code designation (e.g., fully protected) may still, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), be determined to be significantly impacted by a project. For example, if a project were to destroy or disturb a roosting site for either a

13 Personal Communication, Patrick Kobernus and Jessica Shepard, East Bay Regional Parks District, May 2013..

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 35 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist bat maternity colony or a wintering monarch butterfly colony, it could significantly impact the local and/or regional population of either species. Although loss of an individual bat or monarch butterfly would likely be considered an insignificant impact, loss of a roost site where multiple individuals are present may be considered significant. This is because roost sites may be limited in availability and often have very specific habitat and/or microclimate conditions. When a roost site is lost, individuals may not be able to find an alternate roost in sufficient time for protection from the elements before expiring. However, unless a roost site has already been studied and the local population of the subject species is well known, the significance of the loss cannot be readily evaluated. In order to avoid a potential finding of significant impact to roosting bats or monarchs, all potential habitats should be seasonally avoided or field surveys should be completed to determine presence/absence.

Migratory Birds

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Section 3500 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code protect active nests of migratory and other birds, and provide criminal penalties for take of hawks, owls, and take or disturbance of all bird nests or eggs. Potential impacts to other special status or otherwise sensitive species must be disclosed and evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Conclusions Bats were detected in the area surrounding the Mowry Schoolhouse, Bettencourt House and the Brown House. Surveys were not exhaustive and were mainly conducted to determine if a significant bat roost was present within the structures. No bats were observed to enter or exit the buildings; however the attic space/roof of the Bettencourt building may need further surveys to clarify if a bat roost is present. Based on the lack of structure (e.g. cavities/ loose bark) for bats within the tree limbs, it is unlikely that bats are roosting within the trees immediately adjacent to the structures.

No nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or evidence of protected nesting birds were observed within the buildings proposed for demolition. A bee hive (European honeybee) was observed within the Bettencourt House, within a gap between glass window panes.

Due to the potential for raptors and passerines to nest in the trees found on the site, and for special-status bats to inhabit the trees or vacant buildings, the project, without the

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 36 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist incorporation of mitigation measures, could have a significant impact on some candidate, sensitive, or special status species recognized by state and federal law, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the California Fish and Game Code.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Since the historic structures on site provide potential habitat for bats, bats could become established within the structures at any time. A follow up bat survey shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist within three weeks prior to demolition to determine if any roosting bats are present within the Mowry Schoolhouse, Bettencourt House or Brown House. Bat surveys shall consist of a minimum of one daytime survey and two nights of emergence surveys. If no active roosts of protected or special-status species of bats are found, then no further action would be warranted. If a qualified biologist identifies evidence of roosting bats and either a maternity roost or hibernacula (structures used by bats for hibernation) of protected or special-status species of bats is present, the District shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding appropriate protective measures. The following shall be implemented:

a) If a bat roost is detected, the bat biologist shall assess the colony to determine if non-volant (young of the year) bats are present. If young are not present, exclusion may proceed as follows: A qualified bat biologist shall exclude the bats from the structures by installing one-way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the cavities, the bat biologist shall plug the cavities. The demolition contractor shall only remove structures after the bat biologist verifies that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning, usually in seven to 10 days.

b) If non-volant bats are determined to be present, the biologist shall only conduct bat exclusion and eviction from February 15 through April 15 and from August 15 through October 30 to avoid impacts on non-volant bats.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: If demolition activities occur outside of the nesting bird season (September 1 – January 31), no pre-demolition surveys for migratory birds are necessary. If demolition is scheduled during the migratory bird breeding season (February 1 to August 31), The EBRPD shall ensure that, no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of demolition of the structures and/or tree removals or pruning;or other activities related to the demolition, a

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 37 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

qualified biologist shall perform a pre-construction survey for nesting migratory passerines and raptors. If the biologist detects no nesting or breeding activity, work may proceed without restrictions. All active passerine and raptor nests identified within 100 and 250 feet of the limits of work, respectively, shall be mapped and CDFW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) migratory bird department shall be contacted for guidance to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species.

Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of the mitigation measures above would reduce potential impacts related to candidate, sensitive, and special status species to a less-than-significant level. b. and c. Riparian and Wetlands - No Impact. No federally-protected wetlands exist on the site (as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act).14 d. Riparian Corridors - No Impact. The project site is located in a park within a suburban area. It is not adjacent to any natural areas or riparian corridors. This site was previously farmed. It therefore does not provide any migration corridors or substantive wildlife nursery areas. e. Local Policies/Ordinances - Less Than Significant Impact. One or more Eucalyptus trees or holly-leaf cherry may need to be trimmed and it is possible that a tree would be removed as part of the removal of the buildings. The City of Fremont’s Municipal Code includes tree preservation regulations as Chapter 5. A tree removal permit would be required if the tree proposed to be removed is:

 18" Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) (trunk diameter measured 4.5 feet from ground level). For multi-trunk trees, DBH is the sum of all trunks added together (measured 4.5 feet from ground level) or larger of any species, except commercial-type fruit or nut-bearing trees (except Black Walnuts and European Olives, which are protected and do require permits for approval);  10" DBH or larger if native to Fremont; or  6" DBH if on undeveloped or vacant land.

14 United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/sec404.cfm, accessed July 1, 2013.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 38 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Trees native to Fremont (these species regulated from 10" DBH and above) include: Oak, Redwood, Buckeye, Madrone, Redbud, Sycamore, Bay, and Big-leaf Maple. Non-native trees that have exceptional adaptability to Fremont, and are treated as native trees, (these species regulated at 10" DBH and above) include: Fremont Cottonwood, European Olive, California Pepper, and Black Walnut. The project may only affect One or more Eucalyptus trees or holly-leaf cherry and would not affect any trees native to Fremont. If necessary and required by the City of Fremont, due to the size of the tree affected by the project, the District would apply for a tree removal permit. Impacts would be less than significant. f. Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan - No Impact The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan because the site is not subject to any such plan and the project would not affect any such plan.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 39 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

V. Cultural Resources Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic features? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a. Historic Resources - Potentially Significant Impact. CEQA Statutes Section 21084.1 identifies historic resources as those listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, based on a range of criteria, including association with events or patterns of events that have made significant contributions to broad patterns of historical development in the United States or California, including local, regional, or specific cultural patterns (California Register Criterion 1), structures which are directly associated with important persons in the history of the state or country (Criterion 2), which embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or other aesthetic importance (Criterion 3), or which have the potential to reveal important information about the prehistory or history of the state or the nation (such as archaeological sites)

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 40 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

(Criterion 4). In addition to meeting at least one of the above criteria, the structure must typically be over 50 years old (a state guideline rather than a statutory requirement) and have retained historic integrity sufficient to be clearly evident as a historic resource through a combination of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association with historic patterns. The definition of “integrity” in this context is based on criteria established by the National Register of Historic Places.

The CEQA definition of historic resources further states that resources included in a local register of historic resources are presumed to be historically or culturally significant, unless there is a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. Although CEQA also states, in both the Statutes and the Guidelines, that omission from the California Register or any local register of historical resources “shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be a historical resource” (Section 21084.1), the principal guidance provided by CEQA is that the agency should consider any potential resource to be significant “unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(2).) Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part, “if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.”

Historic and architectural resource evaluations were prepared for the three buildings by Ward Hill, as discussed in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. Each building has been determined to be potentially eligible for the California Register and the Brown House has been determined to be potentially eligible as a Contributor to Ardenwood’s National Register status. These evaluations will be discussed in greater detail in the EIR.

The Mowry Schooling building was granted historic designation by the Newark City Council in 1985 under the City’s adopted historic sites ordinance. Ownership of the building was later transferred to the City in 1997. In a 2012 historical evaluation, the building was determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, under Criterion 3 – “the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction.” It is described as a “particularly rare

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 41 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist surviving example of a rural “one-room” school building in not only Washington Township, but also in Alameda County.”15

The Bettencourt House was assessed in a 2011 historical evaluation of the building, which updated a 1997 evaluation. The report concluded that the Bettencourt House appears to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, under Criterion 3 – “the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction.” The house was described in that evaluation as a “particularly distinguished example of the Queen Anne Style in Washington Township” and a “rare and interesting example of how the form of a 19th [century] farm house grew and evolved over time…”16

The Brown House was described in a 2011 update to a 1997 historical evaluation as a rare surviving example of box or vertical plan construction from the early years of Washington Township. The same evaluation concluded that the Brown House appears to be eligible for the California Register, under Criterion 3 - “the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction”. It was described as a particularly rare example of an early house in Washington Township and as one of the few surviving local examples of box construction. The report also concludes that the Brown House appears to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion A - “the resource is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local and regional history,” due to its associations with the history of the Patterson Ranch. Further, the report also states that it, therefore, contributes to the property’s National Register eligibility.17

The demolition of the building or buildings would result in a significant, unmitigable impact, under CEQA. This issue will be addressed in greater detail in the EIR.

15 Ward Hill, Historic Architecture Assessment Mowry’s Landing School, Ardenwood Historic Farm, Fremont, California, May 25, 2012. 16 Ward Hill, Historic Architecture Assessment Three Houses at Ardenwood Historic Farm, Fremont, California, December 20, 2011. 17 Ward Hill, Historic Architecture Assessment Three Houses at Ardenwood Historic Farm, Fremont, California, December 20, 2011.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 42 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist b. Archaeological Resources – Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The National Register Nomination Inventory form prepared in 1985 for Ardenwood indicates that a recorded Native American archaeological site exists on the historic farm, although not at the site where the buildings are being stored. No earthmoving activities are planned for the demolition project and the buildings have been stored above the ground on cribbing. However, due to the project’s proximity to a known archaeological site and in the event that demolition equipment and trucks result in the inadvertent disturbance of an unknown site, the following mitigation measure is being included to mitigate any potential impacts to Native American and historical archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-1: Contract specifications shall state that the District shall inform all personnel connected with construction of the project of the possibility of finding archaeological resources. If such resources are encountered during construction, all work shall be halted within a 50-foot radius of the findings and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to ascertain the nature of the discovery, the significance of the find, and provide proper management recommendations. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources found. Prehistoric cultural material includes, but is not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, human burials, shell midden deposits, hearth remains, and stone and/or shell artifacts. Historic material, including but not limited to, stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square nails, whole or fragmentary ceramic, glass or metal objects, wood, nails, brick, or other materials may occur within the project area in deposits such as old privies, dumps, or even as part of the fill. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms.

Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of Mitigation Measure CULTURAL- 1 would reduce potential impacts related to unique archaeological resources to a less- than-significant level. c. Paleontological Resources – No Impact. No grading or other earth-moving activity is proposed as part of the project. Because the project would not entail excavation, the likelihood of it affecting any paleontological resources is minimal.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 43 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist d. Human Remains - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. No earthmoving activities are planned for the demolition project and the buildings have been stored above the ground on cribbing. No evidence of human remains is known to exist for the site where the buildings are being stored. However, in the unlikely event that during demolition activities, human remains of Native American origin are discovered on the site during project demolition, it would be necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Public Resources Code Section 5097). In addition, State law (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) requires that the following mitigation be implemented.

Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2: If human remains are found during project demolition and construction activities, the project proponent must contact the Alameda County Coroner who in turn must contact the NAHC within 24 hours if it is determined that the finds are of Native American origin. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted. The NAHC shall provide the District with the contact information for the most likely descendant who will have the opportunity to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC as to how the remains shall be treated.

Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of Mitigation Measure CULTURAL- 2 would reduce potential impacts related to human remains to a less-than-significant level.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 44 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

VI. Geology and Soils Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslide? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 45 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in table 18-1b of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a. i and ii. Fault Rupture, Ground Shaking – Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within a seismically active region and will therefore experience the effects of future earthquakes. As for all sites in the Bay Area, the project site can be expected to experience at least one moderate to severe earthquake shaking event during the lifespan of the project. The project site is approximately four miles southwest of the South Hayward fault and fifteen miles southwest of the Northern Calaveras fault. The project is not located in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone.18 However, the project proposes the removal of buildings and no construction is proposed as part of the project. a. iii and iv Liquefaction, Landslides – No Impact. The project site is located in an area designated with a high susceptibility to liquefaction; however, no construction is proposed for the project.19 There is no risk of landslide as the terrain is flat. b,c,d. Soil Erosion, Unstable Soil, Expansive Soil – No Impact. The site is relatively flat and does not involve earth-moving activities or construction. No erosion would occur

18 Association of Bay Area Governments, Fault Zone Map, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/FaultZones/index.html, accessed July 8, 2013. 19 City of Fremont, General Plan, Safety Element, http://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4674.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 46 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist and unstable soils would not result. No new buildings are proposed; thus no buildings would be affected by unstable or expansive soils. e. Inadequate Soils for Disposal - No Impact. The project would not require septic tanks or water disposal systems as no buildings are proposed.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 47 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a and b) Generate Greenhouse Gas and Conflict with Greenhouse Gas Plan – Less Than Significant Impact.

Greenhouse Gas Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHG emissions has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 48 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities result in the generation of GHG emissions.

The major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased GHG emissions and long term global temperature increases. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, more drought years, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.

In California, GHGs are defined to include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and hydrofluorocarbons. To account for the warming potential of GHGs, GHG emissions are quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The effects of GHG emission sources (i.e., individual projects) are reported in metric tons per year of CO2e.

Regulatory Framework In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., also known as AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

In June, 2008, CARB published its Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan (CARB, 2008a). The Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan reported that CARB met the first milestones set by AB 32 in 2007. The Scoping Plan also developed a list of early actions to begin sharply reducing GHG emissions; assembled an inventory of historic emissions; and established the 2020 emissions limit. After consideration of public comment and further analysis, CARB adopted the plan in December (CARB, 2008b).

The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan includes recommended actions that were developed to reduce GHG emissions from key sources and activities while improving public health, promoting a cleaner environment, preserving our natural resources, and ensuring that the impacts of the reductions are equitable and do not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. These measures, shown below in Table GHG-1 by sector, also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 49 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist reducing California’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. These measures were presented to and approved by CARB on December 11, 2008.20

TABLE GHG-1 LIST OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY SECTOR GHG Reductions Measure (Annual Million No. Measure Description Metric Tons CO2e) Transportation T-1 Pavley I and II – Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards 31.7 T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action) 15 T-31 Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5 T-4 Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 T-5 Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) 0.2 T-6 Goods Movement Efficiency Measures. 3.5  Ship Electrification at Ports  System-Wide Efficiency Improvements T-7 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure – 0.93 Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action) T-8 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization 0.5 T-9 High Speed Rail 1 Electricity and Natural Gas E-1 Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand) 15.2  Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs  More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs E-2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh (Net 6.7 reductions include avoided transmission line loss) E-3 Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3 E-4 Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar Initiative, New Solar 2.1 Homes Partnership and solar programs of publicly owned utilities)  Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020 CR-1 Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms Reduced Consumptions) 4.3  Utility Energy Efficiency Programs  Building and Appliance Standards  Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs

20 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October, 2008, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 50 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

GHG Reductions Measure (Annual Million No. Measure Description Metric Tons CO2e) CR-2 Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) 0.1 Green Buildings GB-1 Green Buildings 26 Water W-1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4† W-2 Water Recycling 0.3† W-3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0† W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2† W-5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9† W-6 Public Goods Charge (Water) TBD† Industry I-1 Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits for Large Industrial Sources TBD I-2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I-3 GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I-4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 I-5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery Regulations 0.01 Recycling and Water Management RW-1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1 RW-2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane TBD†  Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture RW-3 High Recycling/Zero Water 9†  Commercial Recycling  Increase Production and Markets for Compost  Anaerobic Digestion  Extended Producer Responsibility  Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Forests F-1 Sustainable Forest Target 5 High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases H-1 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction of Refrigerant 0.26 Emissions from Non-Professional Services (Discrete Early Action)

H-2 SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor Applications 0.3 (Discrete Early Action) H-3 Reduction of Perfuorocarbons in Semiconductor Manufacturing 0.15

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 51 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

GHG Reductions Measure (Annual Million No. Measure Description Metric Tons CO2e) (Discrete Early Action) H-4 Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early Action 0.25 (Adopted June 2008) H-5 High GWP Reductions from Mobile Sources 3.3  Low GWP Refrigerants for New Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems  Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog Check  Refrigerant Recovery from Decommissioned Refrigerated Shipping Containers  Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during Servicing or Dismantling of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems H-6 High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources 10.9  High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program: o Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program o Specifications for Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Systems  Foam Recovery and Destruction Program  SF Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications  Alternative Suppressants in Fire Protection Systems  Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Program H-7 Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases 5 Agriculture A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0†

1This is not the SB 375 regional target. CARB will establish regional targets for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) region following the input of the regional targets advisory committee and a consultation process with MPO’s and other stakeholders per SB 375. † GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculating the total reductions needed to meet the 2020 target. 21Ibid. It is important to evaluate the air quality and public health benefits of the Scoping Plan in the context of the State’s on-going air quality improvement efforts. California’s long- standing air pollution control programs have substantially improved air quality in the state and will continue to do so in the future. By 2020, these programs will deliver reductions in statewide NOx emissions of 441 tons per day and direct fine particle emission reductions of 34 tons per day. Through 2020, three key CARB efforts will deliver deep reductions in air pollutant emissions despite continuing growth:

21 Ibid.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 52 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

1. Diesel Risk Reduction Plan

2. Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan

3. 2007 State Implementation Plan

Measures in these plans will result in the accelerated phase-in of cleaner technology for virtually all of California’s diesel engine fleets including trucks, buses, construction equipment, and cargo handling equipment at ports. Adoption and implementation of these and other measures are critical to achieving clean air and public health goals statewide. The City of Fremont Climate Action Plan was reviewed for policies and requirements relevant for the EBRPD building demolition project. The key requirement is the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance, described below. City of Fremont Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance Effective in 2009, the Council adopted this ordinance to decrease materials sent to landfills by targeting all demolition projects and larger construction projects (as defined by permit valuation). All asphalt and concrete, and at least 50 percent of the remaining debris from the project must be recycled. The Fremont Climate Action Plan estimates that increasing construction and demolition recycling could reduce GHG emissions by 193 metric tons of CO2e per year. Compared to other potential reductions, the reductions from increased demolition recycling are minor improvements.22

Significance Criteria The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not address GHG emissions and the BAAQMD 2010 thresholds that have been set aside by the writ of mandate do not require quantification of GHG emissions from construction. This analysis will identify the project construction and/or as project operational emissions as significant if the project emissions would conflict with the AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The potential for the project to conflict with AB 32 goals is assessed by determining if the project would: 1) conflict with any of CARB’s 39 recommended actions (Table GHG-1); 2) result in emissions that would be equivalent to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e) to the State and Federal governments; 3) be inherently energy efficient; or 4) conflict with an applicable

22 City of Fremont, Climate Action Plan, November, 2012, http://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19837.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 53 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

As described above, four types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could conflict with the State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows:

1. Any potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions (Table GHG-1).

2. The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e)23 to the State; and the project size will be compared to the estimated GHG reduction state goal of 174 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020. As noted above, the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project’s total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up six percent of all stationary source emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects generally would not conflict with the State’s ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. In reaching its goals, CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions.

3. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project; to determine whether the project design is inherently energy efficient.

4. Potential conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Impact Analysis Primarily, because of the small size of the project, the project would not conflict with implementation of State goals for reducing GHG emissions and would thereby not have a negative effect on Global Climate Change.

23 The State of California has not provided guidance as to quantitative significance thresholds for assessing the impact of GHG emissions on climate change and global warming concerns. Nothing in the CEQA Guidelines directly addresses the significance thresholds.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 54 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

The project would result in a relatively small construction crew working for a limited time to demolish the buildings at Ardenwood Park. As with other individual and relatively small projects (i.e., projects that are not cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, or hydrogen plants or other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e), the specific emissions from this project would not be expected to individually have an impact on Global Climate change. Furthermore, GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective24

With regard to GHG significance threshold Item A, the project does not pose any apparent conflict with the CARB recommended actions (see Table GHG-1).

With regard to GHG significance threshold Item B, potential GHG emission impacts from the project are mainly related to demolition activity including disposal of waste materials. On the basis of comparisons to other minor construction projects, and depending on the actual demolition methods the project, the emissions would probably generate total GHG emissions in the range of 10 – 50 metric tons of CO2e. The project would not be classified as a major source of GHG emissions (actually construction emissions from the construction would be only one percent of the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e). When compared to the overall State reduction goal of approximately 174 million metric tons/year of CO2e, the construction plan GHG emissions for the project (maximum estimated 50 metric tons/year of CO2e or less than 0.0001 percent of the State reduction goal) are quite small and would not conflict with the State’s ability to meet the AB 32 goals or City of Fremont Climate Action Plan goals.

With regard to GHG significance threshold Item C, the project would be inherently energy efficient by complying with the City of Fremont Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance. With regard to GHG significance threshold Item D, by complying with the City of Fremont Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance, the project would not conflict with any local or state GHG plans, policies, or regulations.

The review of GHG significance threshold Items A, B, C, D indicates that the project would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32 or any applicable plans, and therefore, these impacts would be less than significant.

24California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association, CEQA and Climate Change, January, 2008, http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 55 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 56 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

a. Hazardous Materials - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is the demolition of three buildings and no new construction is proposed. It would not include the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials unless lead and/or asbestos required removal. Any transport of hazardous materials to the site and removal of hazardous wastes from the site would comply with state and federal regulations and thus would be a less than significant impact. Manifested haulers would be used for removal of any hazardous wastes identified during demolition or pre-demolition activities (see Mitigation Measure AQ-2). The licensing and experience of the hazardous waste haulers and compliance with state and

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 57 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist federal regulations would make this a less than significant impact of the project after mitigation. b. Hazardous Emissions - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, the proposed project would not involve hazardous materials and no hazard to the public or environment is foreseen. However, impacts could result when the existing buildings are demolished and/or salvaged. The existing structures on the site may contain harmful lead-based paint (LBP). Lead paint materials, and LBP- contaminated dust and soil in or near the structures, is considered to be a hazardous condition if children under the age of seven chew or mouth surfaces exposed to LBP, or if occupants or workers are exposed over prolonged periods of time to airborne LBP - contaminated dust. Oil-based paints used before 1980 are most likely to contain lead.

In addition to LBP, there may be asbestos-containing material (ACM) in the structures. Asbestos products were used heavily in building construction between 1960 and 1980, and to a lesser extent after 1980. Asbestos is a cancer-causing substance which may cause lung disease and other ailments in persons who have inhaled ACM dust and fiber particles, even after a latency period of up to 30 years. At this time, it is not known if any parts of the buildings contain asbestos.

The project site is located across the street and near to single-family residences. During demolition of the existing buildings, there could be a potentially significant impact if residents, as well as construction workers, were to be exposed to LBP or ACM particulates. The Mowry Schoolhouse building was tested for LBP and ACM. LBP was identified as existing in some of the paint chip samples. The building was not found to contain ACM in most samples, but did locate a small amount of ACMs in sheet rock, fiber board, and joint tape compound. The only hazardous materials of concern are asbestos containing materials and lead paint (see discussion in Air Quality Section). Asbestos containing materials and lead paint would be handled according to regulations prior to any demolition. See Mitigation Measures AQ-2. Compliance with state and federal regulations would make this a less-than-significant impact of the project, after mitigation. c. Hazardous Emissions Near Schools – No Impact. There are no schools within one- quarter mile of the project site. d. Hazardous Site List - No Impact. Government Code 65962.5 is known as the Cortese List. The Cortese database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 58 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with USTs having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostar database was searched on June 28, 2013 and no open hazardous sites were identified on the Ardenwood Historic Farm Regional Preserve property. There was one site, but it had been closed. There would be no impact. e. and f. Public Airport Hazards and Private Airport Hazards – No Impact. No new construction is use, other than open space, is proposed for the project site. The removal of the buildings would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, no impacts would be anticipated. g. Emergency Response Plan - No Impact. The project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan. During the removal of the buildings, all existing arterial streets in the vicinity of the project site would remain open to traffic and would be left in a serviceable condition. h. Wildland Fires - No Impact. The project site is located in an open space area, surrounded by suburban development and is not adjacent to any wildlands. No new construction is proposed. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of wildland fire.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 59 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

VIX. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level e.g., the

production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site?

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 60 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 61 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a, c., d., e. and f. Water Quality Standards and Drainage – No Impact. Drainage on the project site would be improved slightly by the removal of the buildings, allowing rain water to permeate directly into the ground, instead of flowing off of structures. The removal of the buildings on the site would not have adverse water quality impacts on neighboring properties, local roadways, or storm drainage facilities. No construction is proposed and no changes in surface water quality would result. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area or contribute to local or downstream flooding. b. Groundwater Supplies - No Impact. No new construction is proposed as part of the project and no new use of water is proposed. The project is not expected to deplete groundwater supplies and would have no impact on recharge or local groundwater table levels. g, h., i., j Flooding, Tsunami, Seiche, or Mudflow - No Impact. No new construction is proposed and the project does not propose housing within the 100-year flood hazard area. The site is not in a location where dam or levee failure would have adverse effects. No impacts would result from a tsunami or seiche. Inundation by mudflow is considered to be not probable due to the urbanized nature and flat topography of the project area.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 62 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

X. Land Use and Planning Potentially Environmental Factors and Potentially Significant Less Than No Focused Questions for Significant Unless Significant Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a. Division of Community – No Impact. The project is located in Ardenwood, a park and historic farm managed by the District, within the City of Fremont. The removal of the three buildings stored in the park would not physically divide a community. b. Plan Conflict - No Impact. The project site is currently zoned as Open Space with a General Plan Designation of Institutional Open Space. No change in designation or zoning is proposed.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 63 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist c. Habitat Plan Conflict - No Impact. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans which apply to the project site, and there would be no impact on such plans.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 64 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XI. Mineral Resources Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a. and b. Mineral Resources - No Impact. The site contains no known mineral resources. The Conservation Element of the City of Fremont General Plan identifies mineral resources in the vicinity of the project at the former Dumbarton Quarry on the west side of Fremont, covering approximately 91 acres adjacent to Coyote Hills Regional Park on the north and the Dumbarton Bridge on the south. The proposed project site has been previously used for agricultural uses and has not been mined for mineral resources. The removal of the buildings on the site would not affect the availability of a mineral resource, as no new construction is proposed and no known mineral resources are located at the site.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 65 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XII. Noise Potentially Environmental Factors and Potentially Significant Less Than No Focused Questions for Significant Unless Significant Impact Determination of Impact Mitigation Impact Environmental Impact Incorporated Would the project:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of the other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 66 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Introduction to Noise Concepts, Terms, and Descriptors 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. Table Noise-1 identifies decibel levels for common sounds heard in the environment.

Table Noise-1 Typical Noise Levels

Noise Level Outdoor Activity Indoor Activity decibels (dBA)

90+ Gas lawn mower at 3 feet, jet flyover at Rock Band 1,000 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 N/A Broadcast / recording studio

0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Lowest threshold of human hearing

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 67 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Source: (modified from California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement, October 1998)

The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA)25 is cited in most noise criteria. The most commonly used noise descriptors are the equivalent sound level over a given time period (Leq)26; average day-night 24-hour average sound level (Ldn)27; and community noise equivalent level (CNEL)28.

Fremont Construction Hours The City of Fremont enforces the following construction hours.

Construction more than 500 feet from Residential, Lodging, or Hospitals Construction activity for projects not located within 500 feet of residences, lodging facilities, nursing homes or inpatient hospitals shall be limited to the weekday hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the weekend or holiday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Construction within 500 feet of Residential, Lodging, or Hospitals For construction within 500 feet of sensitive noise receptors, activity shall be limited to weekday hours o f 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the Saturday or holiday hours o f 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday construction is not allowed.

Existing Conditions Noise sensitive receptors (land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise) typically include residential dwellings, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, and libraries. Sensitive receptors near the project construction site are residences north of the structures that would be demolished. Noise levels at the project site were measured to be 45- 50 dBA at 11 a.m. on May 28, 2013. It is a quiet area of the park. a, and d. Exposure to Noise - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.

25 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. 26 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. 27 Ldn is the day–night average sound level that is equal to the 24–hour A–weighted equivalent sound level with a ten– decibel penalty applied to night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 28 CNEL is the average A–weighted noise level during a 24–hour day, obtained by addition of five decibels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and an addition of a ten–decibel penalty in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 68 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Noise resulting from construction activity may be significant, but would be temporary, for the duration of the project, which is estimated to be one or more days.Single-family residences are located near the project site.

Impacts of Demolition Potentially Significant. Demolition activity noise levels at and near the demolition areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Demolition noise levels are likely to be similar to typical construction noise levels. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. At this location the attenuation would be 7.5 dBA, due to the sound-reducing nature of the large trees on the site.

Table Noise-2 shows that excavation and finishing are the loudest phases of typical construction; the noise from these phases of construction would be up to 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet. Intense demolition activity could generate periodic noise levels up to 89 dBA. If salvage techniques are used the noise levels would be greatly reduced, however the demolition would occur over a longer period of time.

TABLE NOISE-2 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS29

Noise Levela (dBA, Leq)

84 89 78 85 89

29 Cunniff, Patrick, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 69 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.

The nearest residences to the north are approximately 250 to 400 feet from the structures proposed for demolition. Assuming a standard 7.5 decibel reduction for each doubling of the distance, the maximum noise level at 250 feet would be 72 decibels and the maximum noise level at 400 feet would be 67 decibels. For a temporary demolition project, these noise levels would not be significant during the day but could be significant if the demolition activities occur outside of normal construction hours. Mitigation Measure Noise-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The applicant shall require its construction contractor to comply with City of Fremont hours of construction.

For construction within 500 feet of any residences, construction hours shall be limited to weekday hours o f 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the Saturday or holiday hours o f 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Sunday construction is not allowed.

Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 would reduce potential impacts related to noise to a less-than-significant level. b. Exposure to Groundborne Noise and Vibration – No Impact. Depending on the construction equipment used, groundborne vibrations can be perceptible within 30 to 100 feet of a source. Any demolition activity would be more than 50 feet of any other buildings and no pile driving is proposed. Therefore, there would be no excessive groundborne vibration impacts or groundborne noise impacts. c. Increase in Noise – No Impact. No construction is proposed as part of the project and the open space use would continue. Therefore, the project would not cause an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 70 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist e. and f. Public and Private Airport Noise – No Impact. No structures are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not expose future residents to excessive noise levels.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 71 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XIII. Population and Housing Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly, (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a. Population Growth – No Impact. The project does not involve the construction of new structures or infrastructure and would not induce population growth. b. Displace Housing - Less Than Significant Impact. The project would demolish three buildings that were used as single-family residences in the past. However, the buildings have been vacant for over for approximately 30 years and are not currently habitable due to the deterioration of the structures. Removal of the buildings would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 72 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist c. Displace People - No Impact. The houses on the project site are not occupied and have not been occupied for over three years, thus construction of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of people.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 73 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XIV. Public Services Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) 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 public services: i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 74 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

v) Other public facilities?

a.i) Fire Protection - No Impact. The project site is served by the City of Fremont Fire Department. Small fires have been set at various times in the three buildings stored in Ardenwood and proposed for demolition. Removal of the buildings would eliminate the need for the City to respond to structural fires at the site. This would be a beneficial impact of the project, increasing public safety for nearby residences, park users, and employees. a.ii) Police Protection – No Impact. The project site would be served by the City of Fremont Police Department. Although the three buildings are locked by the District, trespassers have often broken into the buildings, damaging the interiors and removing item, such as cabinets, doors, and lighting. As discussed above regarding the fire department, removal of the buildings would eliminate the need for the City to respond to reports of trespassers at the site. This would be a beneficial impact of the project, increasing public security for nearby residences, park users, and employees. a.iii) Schools – No Impact. No new structures are proposed as part of the project. The project would not require the construction of new school facilities, or compromise the service level of the school districts. a.iv) Parks - No Impact. The removal of the three buildings would not represent a new burden on Ardenwood itself or other the park facilities. a.v) Other Public Facilities - No Impact. The removal of the buildings would not affect other public facilities.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 75 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XV. Recreation Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a. Increase Park Usage - No Impact. The project would not result in new residents or increase the use of Ardenwood or other parks, resulting in physical deterioration. No impact would result. b. No Impact. The project does not include any construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The open space of this area of Ardenwood would increase with the removal of the buildings.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 76 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XVI. Transportation and Traffic Potentially Environmental Factors and Potentially Significant Less Than No Focused Questions for Significant Unless Significant Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 77 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a. and b. Increase in traffic - Less Than Significant Impact. The project is the demolition of the three buildings on the site. Demolition or salvaging of the structures would occur over approximately one or two days. The buildings would be taken apart and removed by trucks. The project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic, either individually or cumulatively. No significant impacts are expected. c. Air Traffic Levels - No Impact. The proposed project would not alter or impact existing air traffic patterns. d. Hazards – No Impact. The project would not increase any hazards associated transportation systems. e. Emergency Access - No Impact. See item d, above. No impacts would result. f. Alternative Transportation Policies - No Impact. The project would not result in conflicts with adopted plans or programs supporting alternative.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 78 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Environmental Factors and Significant Focused Questions for Potentially Unless Less Than Determination of Environmental Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 79 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a. and e. Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements and Wastewater Service – No Impact. The project would not produce wastewater and no impacts would result. b. Exceed Wastewater Treatment Facility - No Impact. The project would not require the construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities. c. New Stormwater Facilities - No Impact. The removal of the three buildings would not result in the construction of new facilities which could cause significant environmental effects. d. Water Supplies - No Impact. No new construction is proposed and an increase in water use is not expected. f. Landfill Capacity - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The existing structures on the site would be relocated or dismantled for salvage, with some materials potentially disposed of in a landfill. The City of Fremont’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 Solid Waste, Recyclables and Organics Management mandates that all demolition projects that require a demolition permit within the city, regardless of value, comply with the requirements of this article. The ordinance requires the submittal of a Waste Handling Plan containing information about the volume or weight of demolition debris that would be produced by material type and the amount to be diverted from a landfill. The ordinance requires that the application “consider deconstruction, to the

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 80 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist maximum extent feasible, and shall where feasible make the materials generated available for salvage prior to demolition.”

The Altamont Landfill near Livermore would likely be utilized for the project. Such waste material is not expected to result in a significant impact to landfill capacity; however, a mitigation measure has been added to require the salvaging of materials from the buildings.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: If the buildings currently on the project site are demolished, the District shall comply with the requirements of the City of Fremont Municipal Code Section 8.40. The District shall require that the construction contractor salvage as much material as possible, including architectural features, doors, windows, fixtures, etc., to avoid placing such material into landfills. The materials shall be sold or donated by the construction contractor, as directed by the District. Contract specifications shall address this and shall be approved by the EBRPD.

Significance after Mitigation: The implementation of Mitigation Measure XVI.1 would reduce potential impacts related to solid waste to a less-than-significant level. g. Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations - No Impact. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relating to solid waste. The impact would be less than significant.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 81 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project:

a) Have the potential to degrade quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 82 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Biology Section of this Initial Study, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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. However, the buildings found on the site have been determined to be historic resources. The removal of those buildings, through relocation or demolition, could result in impacts to an example of a major period of California or national history. An EIR will be prepared for the project that will include an analysis of the project’s effects on historic resources. b. Potentially Significant Impact. The project could result in potential cumulative impacts to cultural resources. This issue will be discussed in the project’s EIR. c. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Prior to the incorporation of mitigation measures, the project could have potential environmental impacts that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The impact topic of cultural resources will be analyzed further and mitigation measures proposed in the project’s EIR. The following environmental issue areas would require mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, utilities and noise.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 83 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Report Preparers: Prime Consultant

Leann Taagepera, Principal, Leann Taagepera Environmental Planning 271 W G St. Benicia, CA 94510

Subconsultants

Air Quality, Noise, Hazards Paul Miller Principal, Environmental Services RCH Group 1640 Lead Hill Blvd., Suite 230 Roseville, CA 95661

Biological Resources Patrick Kobernus Senior Biologist/Owner Coast Ridge Ecology 1824 Noriega Street, Ste. 7 San Francisco, CA 94122

Peer Review Amy Skewes-Cox, AICP P.O. Box 422 Ross, CA 94957

Graphics Kim Patz Adanta, Inc. 828 School Street Napa, CA 94559

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 84 Initial Study July 2013

East Bay Regional Park District Initial Study Checklist

Information Sources:

Association of Bay Area Governments, Fault Zone Map, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/FaultZones/index.html, accessed July 8, 2013. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), December 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), May 2012. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, October, 2008, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf. City of Fremont, General Plan, Safety Element, http://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4674. City of Fremont, Climate Action Plan, November, 2012, http://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19837. Coast Ridge Ecology, Biological survey report and recommended mitigation measures for roosting bats and migratory birds at Ardenwood Historic Farm, Fremont, California, June 24, 2013. Cunniff, Patrick, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977.

Patrick Kobernus and Ira Bletz, Supervising Naturalist, East Bay Regional Park District, Personal Communication, May, 2013. Patrick Kobernus and Jessica Shepard, East Bay Regional Park District, Personal Communication, May, 2013. The Consulting Group (TCG), 2012. Lead Survey and Evaluation at the Mowry Schoolhouse at Ardenwood Park, May 24, 2012. The Consulting Group (TCG), 2012. Asbestos Survey and Evaluation at the Mowry Schoolhouse at Ardenwood Park, May 25, 2012. United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/sec404.cfm, accessed July 1, 2013.

Ardenwood Farm Historic Buildings Demolition Project Page 85 Initial Study July 2013