Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: LONE TREE POINT‐RODEO RODEO, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

January 2018 This page intentionally left blank

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: LONE TREE POINT‐RODEO RODEO, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Submitted to:

East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605 Attention: Jim Townsend, ACME Consulting

Prepared by:

LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810

Project No. BKF 1702

January 2018 This page intentionally left blank P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i FIGURES AND TABLES ...... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1‐1 1.1 Contact Person(s) ...... 1‐1 1.2 Project Location ...... 1‐1 1.3 Environmental Setting ...... 1‐1 1.4 Project Description ...... 1‐7 1.4.1 Project Characteristics ...... 1‐7 1.4.2 Construction ...... 1‐11 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 2‐1 2.1 Aesthetics ...... 2‐1 2.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ...... 2‐5 2.3 Air Quality ...... 2‐8 2.4 Biological Resources ...... 2‐15 2.5 Cultural Resources ...... 2‐36 2.6 Geology and Soils ...... 2‐41 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 2‐46 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 2‐49 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 2‐55 2.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 2‐63 2.11 Mineral Resources ...... 2‐66 2.12 Noise...... 2‐67 2.13 Population and Housing ...... 2‐75 2.14 Public Services ...... 2‐77 2.15 Recreation ...... 2‐79 2.16 Transportation/Traffic ...... 2‐81 2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 2‐89 2.18 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 2‐91 2.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 2‐95 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...... 3‐1 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/PERSONS CONTACTED ...... 4‐1 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 5‐1

APPENDICES A: Air Quality Modeling Results B: Intersection Turning Movement Volumes C: Highway Capacity Manual Worksheets

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) iii P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location ...... 1‐3 Figure 2: Project Site ...... 1‐5 Figure 3: Proposed Project ...... 1‐9 Figure 4: Vegetation Types ...... 2‐17 Figure 5: Creeping Rye Grass Turf ...... 2‐31

TABLES Table 2.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day ...... 2‐11 Table 2.B: Special‐status Species Evaluated for the Lone Tree Point Project ...... 2‐21 Table 2.C: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Stationary Noise Sources1 ...... 2‐68 Table 2.D: Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors ...... 2‐70 Table 2.E: Construction Trip Generation ...... 2‐84 Table 2.F: Intersection Level of Service Summary ...... 2‐86 Table 2.G: Roadway ADT Summary ...... 2‐87 Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program ...... 3‐1

iv P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic ARB California Air Resources Board AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin Bay Trail San Francisco Bay Trail BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BMP Best Management Practice CAP Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CGP Construction General Permit CH4 Methane CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL community noise equivalent level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2e CO2 equivalents CoIMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans (CoIWMP) CWA Clean Water Act CWP County Watershed Program dB decibel dBA A‐weighted sound level District East Bay Regional Park District DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utilities District EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FCD Contra Costa County Flood Control District FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FHWA Federal Highways Administration

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) v P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GWP Global Warming Potential HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP/NCCP Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HP Horsepower kVA kilovolt‐amperes Ldn Day‐night average sound level Leq Equivalent continuous sound level Lmax Maximum instantaneous sound level LOS Level of Service LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Acts MLD Most Likely Descendant MPH Miles Per Hour NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NHPA National Historic Preservation Act N2O Nitrous Oxide NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Fisheries NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center O3 Ozone OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OS Open Space OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration Pb Lead PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PCE Passenger Car Equivalent PFCs Perfluorocarbons PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PM10 Coarse Particulate Matter ppm parts per million PR Parks and Recreation PRC Public Resource Code PRD Permit Registration Document RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model RDS Rodeo Sanitary District

vi P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SMARTS Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System Specific Plan Area New Pacific Properties Specific Plan Area SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SR State Route SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TACs Toxic Air Contaminants TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology UPRR Union Pacific Railway USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank VMS variable message sign VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds vph vehicles per hour WCCIWMA West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste Management Authority WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) vii P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

viii P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

INITIAL STUDY FORM

1. Project Title. San Francisco Bay Trail‐Lone Tree Point

2. Lead Agency Name and Address. East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605

3. Contact Person and Phone Number. Jim Townsend, ACME Consulting 510.813.5129 [email protected]

4. Project Location. Unincorporated community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County, and the City of Hercules APNs: 357‐371‐001, 357‐020‐024,404‐030‐045, 357‐020‐009, and 355‐020‐023

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address. East Bay Regional Park District 2940 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605

6. General Plan Designation. Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map Designations: Parks and Recreation (PR), Commercial Recreation (CR), Water (WA)

City of Hercules General Plan Land Use Map Designation: New Pacific Properties Specific Plan Area

7. Zoning. Contra Costa County Zoning Designation: Planned Unit District (P‐1)

City of Hercules Zoning Designation: Open Space/Parks (SP‐OS)

8. Description of Project. The East Bay Regional Park District (District) proposes to open approximately 2,750 feet (0.5 mile) of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) along the San Pablo Bay shoreline, north of the Lone Tree Point parking lot in the community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County, connecting to an existing segment of the Bay Trail in Hercules, California (proposed project). The Bay Trail is a planned and partially completed 500‐mile multi‐use trail connecting the shorelines of all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties and encircling San Pablo and San Francisco Bays. Over 350 miles

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 1‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

of the trail are currently completed and open for public use. The proposed project would connect to an existing segment of the Bay Trail in the City of Hercules, which ends approximately 1,000 feet northeast of Shoreline Park.

The project also proposes to repave an existing paved shoreline access trail, or ‘spur’ trail which is approximately 400 feet long. The spur trail begins at Pacific Avenue and provides access to Lone Tree Point and San Pablo Bay.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. The proposed trail alignment would parallel the Union Pacific railway (UPRR), east of the existing railroad tracks. The elevation would range from 11 to 37 feet NAVD88 along the proposed trail. According to the Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map (2017), the proposed trail alignment would be located within land designated as Parks and Recreation (PR). San Pablo Bay lies north and west of the trail alignment. The Rodeo Marina, a boat and recreation storage yard, is located at Lone Tree Point. Industrial development including the Rodeo Sewage Treatment Plant and the Conoco Phillips San Francisco Refinery are located north of the project site along the shoreline. High density single family residential development is located east and south of the proposed trail. Vegetation in the project area consists primarily of creeping rye grass turfs and wild oats grassland. Existing trees and shrubs consist of a mix of native and non‐ native species.

10. Agencies Whose Approval is Required.

 Contra Costa County

 City of Hercules

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

1‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18)

P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

1‐4 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross‐referenced, as discussed below).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identity the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 1‐5 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

1‐6 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The East Bay Regional Park District (District) proposes to open approximately 2,750 feet or 0.5 mile of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) along the San Pablo Bay shoreline north of the Lone Tree Point parking lot in the community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County, connecting to an existing segment of the Bay Trail in Hercules, California (proposed project). The Bay Trail is a planned and partially completed 500‐mile multi‐use trail connecting the shorelines of all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties and encircling San Pablo and San Francisco Bays. Over 350 miles of the trail are currently completed and open for public use. The proposed project would connect to an existing segment of the Bay Trail in the City of Hercules, which ends approximately 1,000 feet northeast of Shoreline Park. In addition, an existing access road known as the ‘spur trail’ providing access to the San Pablo Bay shoreline would be repaved as part of the project.

1.1 CONTACT PERSON(S) Any questions or comments regarding this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Jim Townsend ACME Consulting East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605 Phone/Email: 510‐813‐9129; [email protected]

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed trail alignment would begin at the Lone Tree Point staging area along the San Pablo Bay Regional Shoreline within the unincorporated community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County, and would connect with an existing segment of the Bay Trail northwest of the Victoria by the Bay residential community in Hercules, California (see Figures 1 and 2). The Lone Tree Point parking lot and staging area is located at 413 San Pablo Avenue, east of the Pacific Avenue/San Pablo Avenue intersection, and is owned and operated by the District. The existing Bay Trail segment in Hercules is paved and accessible in multiple locations, including at Shoreline Park in the residential community of Victoria by the Bay.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed trail alignment would parallel the Union Pacific railway (UPRR), east of the existing railroad tracks. The elevation would range from 11 to 37 feet NAVD88 along the proposed trail. According to the Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map (2017), the proposed trail alignment would be located within land designated as Parks and Recreation (PR). San Pablo Bay lies north and west of the trail alignment. The Rodeo Marina, a boat and recreation storage yard, is located at Lone Tree Point. Industrial development including the Rodeo Sewage Treatment Plant and the Conoco Phillips San Francisco Refinery are located north of the project site along the shoreline. High density single family residential development is located east and south of the proposed trail. Vegetation in the project area consists primarily of creeping rye grass turfs and wild oats grassland. Existing trees and shrubs consist of a mix of native and non‐native species.

This page intentionally left blank.

1‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) Project Vicinity

Project Site

Ave lo b a P

San

Project Site

San Pablo Bay

Parker A

ve ¨¦§80

San Pablo A

ÄÆ4

FIGURE 1

San Francisco Bay Trail - Lone Tree Point 0 1000 2000 Rodeo, Contra Costa County, California FEET Project Vicinity SOURCE: Esri World Street Map and National Geographic World Map Services. I:\BKF1702\GIS\Maps\Figure 1_Project Vicinity.mxd (12/14/2017) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

1‐4 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) Project Site

FIGURE 2

San Francisco Bay Trail - Lone Tree Point 0 1000 2000 Rodeo, Contra Costa County, California FEET Project Site SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo Quads - Mare Island, Calif. (1980) and Benicia, Calif. (1980).. I:\BKF1702\GIS\Maps\Figure 2_Project Site.mxd (12/14/2017) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The District proposes to open 2,750 feet of the Bay Trail to the public between Lone Tree Point and the end of an existing trail segment in the City of Hercules. The trail would traverse three parcels (APNs: 357‐371‐001, 357‐020‐024 and 404‐030‐045). The District owns the first two parcels and has an easement for the proposed trail for the latter parcel. The trail would begin at the Lone Tree Point Staging Area, and would cross a seasonal wetland. Culverts would be installed to allow for trail crossings of drainages. Existing fuel utility pipelines are located within and adjacent to the UPRR right‐of‐way and would remain in place. Utility poles and lines owned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) are also located within the proposed project area. Measures would be taken to protect the utility lines. In addition, an existing access road known as the ‘spur trail’ providing access to the San Pablo Bay shoreline would be repaved as part of the project. Each of these project components is shown in Figure 3 and described in more detail below.

1.4.1 Project Characteristics 1.4.1.1 Recreational Trail The proposed recreational trail would be 10 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders on either side of the trail resulting in a total clearance of 14 feet. The trail would be paved with asphalt on top of aggregate base. The shoulders would consist of native soils or decomposed granite. The proposed trail would be designed in accordance with the District’s standard for multi‐use trails. Currently the public accesses the project area via an informal, unmaintained and unpaved trail. The project would formalize the trail, making the area accessible to a variety of different users.

The staging area for the proposed trail segment would be located at the existing Lone Tree Point Staging Area at 413 San Pablo Avenue east of the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Pacific Avenue. In this area, a paved Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)‐compliant parking apron and paved access to the trail would be constructed at the parking lot. As part of the proposed project, the District may also include parking lot surface repair. The trail would cross Pacific Avenue at the terminus of San Pablo Avenue. Crosswalk striping, as well as two stop signs and two pedestrian crossing signs would be installed as part of the proposed project. The crossing at Pacific Avenue may require minor modifications to the road grade.

Installation of the proposed trail would require: grading to create/improve the trail surface and provide adequate drainage; tree trimming/vegetation removal to ensure sufficient horizontal and vertical clearance; installation of drainage crossing improvements (e.g., culverts, wetland crossing bridge), as described in Section 1.4.1.2 below; and construction of an at‐grade crossing of Pacific Avenue. Depth of excavation and fill for the trail bed would not exceed 10 feet.

Several areas along the trail have undocumented fill, and due to trail construction the fill would need to be removed and recompacted. The trail would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading including cut and fill in order to maintain an accessible trail, as well as installation of a retaining wall approximately 125 feet long with a maximum height of 10 feet. In order to meet accessibility guidelines, the trail, when completed, would have a grade of less than five percent.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 1‐7 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

1‐8 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) Union Pacific Railroad

Rodeo Ave

San Pablo Ave Parker Ave San Pablo Bay

Pacific Ave

1st St

Lake Ave

Garretson

Ave

2nd St

Harris Ave

Sharon Ave

3rd St

LEGEND FIGURE 3 Project Site Seasonal Wetland Proposed Trail Proposed Bridge San Francisco Bay Trail - Lone Tree Point Proposed Retaining Wall 0 150 300 Rodeo, Contra Costa County, California FEET Trail to be Repaved Proposed Project SOURCE: BKF Engineers (11/2017); USGS OrthoImabery (02/2015). I:\BKF1702\GIS\Maps\CEQA\Figure 3_Proposed Project.mxd (12/14/2017) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

1‐10 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Kinder Morgan, a utility infrastructure company, maintains two out of service petroleum pipelines located within the property adjacent to the UPRR right‐of‐way and generally paralleling the proposed trail alignment. The fuel pipelines will be potholed, as required where the trail crosses the pipelines.

Thirty (30), 15‐gallon coast live oak trees would be planted at the project site at a depth of 2‐3 feet. Watering of the trees would occur for two dry seasons. No trailhead improvements are proposed for the Victoria by the Bay trail connection.

1.4.1.2 Wetland Crossing As described above, the proposed trail alignment would include a total of three drainage crossings requiring culvert construction. Additionally, a large swale is located within the proposed trail alignment, and was likely once connected to San Pablo Bay. The swale is a seasonal wetland. A 200‐ foot long, 14‐foot wide prefabricated bridge with safety fencing and railings, would be installed for trail users to cross the wetland area. The proposed bridge structure would provide approximately 10 feet of vertical clearance to the wetland and the bridge abutments would be located at least 10 feet from the edge of the wetland. Because the bridge would clear span the wetland area, no wetland impacts would occur.

1.4.1.3 Spur Trail The project would include repaving an existing asphalt spur trail that runs from Pacific Avenue to the San Pablo Bay shoreline west of the UPRR tracks. The spur trail is not part of the Bay Trail spine, but would provide improved access to Lone Tree Point. The trail is approximately 12 feet wide and 420 feet long, and rehabilitation of the spur trail would not require new excavation. Improvements would include installation of a fence separating the trail from the existing railroad tracks, and replacement of the existing gate at the Pacific Avenue trail entrance.

1.4.2 Construction Project construction would last approximately three months. Construction access would be from Pacific Avenue near San Pablo Avenue, and from 2nd Street near Sharon Avenue. The construction staging area would be in the existing Lone Tree Point Staging Area or adjacent to Pacific Avenue at San Pablo Avenue. Access to the project location would be taken by existing public roads, including Pacific Avenue, San Pablo Avenue, and 2nd Street.

During the construction period, the staging area would likely be closed for public access. Signage would be placed at the staging area advising the public of the duration of construction activities and any closure restrictions. Sufficient on‐street parking is available to meet current demand during the construction period. Upon construction completion, the staging area would be returned to its original condition.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 1‐11 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

1‐12 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

2.1 AESTHETICS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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?

Affected Environment:

The proposed trail would traverse three parcels fronting San Pablo Bay. Aside from the UPRR tracks, an underground utility pipeline, and PG&E utility poles, the majority of the project site is undeveloped and vegetated with non‐native grasses and a few low trees and shrubs. Residential development is visible south and east of the project site. Industrial development, including the Conoco Phillips Refinery, is visible to the north. San Pablo Bay is located west of the site and views to the hillsides in Marin and Sonoma Counties across the Bay can be seen from the project site.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Contra Costa County 2020 General Plan Open Space Element1 identifies San Pablo Bay (the Bay) as a scenic waterway, and states that all new development along the San Pablo Bay shoreline should be reviewed for impacts on the visual and scenic aspects of the Bay. The proposed trail alignment generally follows the shoreline of the Bay; however, the majority of trail improvements would occur at grade, and therefore would not impair views of the Bay. Above‐grade improvements include:

 A prefabricated bridge providing 10 feet of vertical clearance over the wetland  A 10 foot tall, 125 foot long retaining wall  30 coast live oak trees  Wayfinding signage

1 Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan Conservation Element. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed September 29, 2017

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

The bridge would be located over an existing seasonal wetland. East of the bridge location is a group of dense trees, which currently impede views of the Bay. In addition, site topography generally slopes down toward the shoreline. Although the proposed project would change views in the project area, the project would not impact views of the Bay from adjacent uses. The elevation of the bridge and trail would fall below the sightlines from residential areas located south of the proposed project; therefore, scenic vistas would be retained. Installation of the proposed trail, including the bridge, would not obscure an existing view of the Bay due to site topography and existing vegetation at the project site.

The staging area is currently developed with fencing, utility poles, signage, and parking spaces. Views of the Bay from this location are not expansive due to trees and existing development at the Rodeo Marina. Therefore, proposed improvements would not obscure an existing view of the Bay due to existing development in the staging area.

The proposed retaining wall would not impact views of the Bay from the trail or from adjacent uses. As described above, the elevation of the trail would fall below the sightlines from residential areas located south of the proposed project; therefore, scenic vistas would be retained.

The proposed project includes the planting of 30 coast live oak trees at the project site. The trees would be planted primarily in locations adjacent to the existing staging areas. The remainder would be planted throughout the property at locations that would not significantly impede views of San Pablo Bay. Coast live oak trees are a California native species and their planting would contribute to the natural setting of the project site, providing shade and wildlife habitat to the project area. Planting of the trees would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and no mitigation is required.

The Contra Costa County General Plan encourages recreational uses in resource areas such as San Pablo Bay. Project elements would not include tall structures that might obscure views of the surrounding open space environment or of the Bay. The proposed trail would increase public access to the Bay, affording trail users scenic views from the proposed trail alignment. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and no mitigation is required.

(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Less Than Significant Impact. State Route 24 and Interstate 680 are officially designated state scenic highways within Contra Costa County as determined by the California Department of Transportation2. The project site is not visible from either of these state designated scenic highways due to distance, and therefore the project would not have a visual impact on these designated scenic routes.

2 California Department of Transportation, 2017. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Available online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic‐highways/ (Accessed September 29, 2017

2‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Vegetation clearing and removal would occur as needed and be minimal. The project site is undeveloped and no historic buildings are located onsite. As discussed in 2.1 (a), San Pablo Bay is considered a scenic resource, however the project site is separated from the Bay by the railway and no impacts to the Bay would occur as a result of the proposed project. Impacts related to this topic would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, providing public access to an open space area. Views of San Pablo Bay, as well as residential and industrial development, are available at the project site.

Construction activities and equipment could be visible from adjacent residential areas, resulting in temporary visual impacts during the construction phase of the project, approximately three months. Equipment required for trail construction would be removed following the completion of the trail. Upon construction completion, the Lone Tree Point Staging Area would be returned to its original condition.

Given physical constraints, construction of the proposed trail would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading including cut and fill in order to maintain an accessible trail, as well as installation of a retaining wall approximately 125 feet long with a maximum height of 10 feet. As part of the proposed project, erosion control netting and hydroseeding with grasses would be used to control erosion and sedimentation (see Section 2.6, Geology and Soils). In addition, all disturbed areas would be hydroseeded.

Although the proposed project would introduce new built elements into a currently largely undeveloped area, the project has been designed to preserve scenic views of the Bay by keeping the bridge elevation low and limiting grading to the extent feasible. The trail alignment would be located largely along the existing UPRR tracks, in an area characterized by existing infrastructure (e.g., railroad tracks, fencing) thereby preserving the visual quality of the most important visual feature of the project site – the Bay. Further, although the project site is largely undeveloped, adjacent lands are developed with residential, industrial and marina uses; therefore, construction of a trail within this landscape would not change its visual character or quality.

The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area, and conditions after project completion would be similar to the existing visual character of the project site. Therefore, impacts to visual character of the project site would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

No Impact. Surrounding land uses consist primarily of undeveloped open space, residential development, industrial uses, the Rodeo Marina, and the UPRR railroad corridor. Light sources in the project vicinity include lights associated with nearby residences, and existing streetlights on San Pablo Avenue adjacent to the Lone Tree Point Staging Area. The Rodeo Marina and the

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐3 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Conoco Phillips San Francisco Refinery also have security and parking lot lighting. Daytime sources of glare include reflections off of light‐colored surfaces, windows, and trains traveling on the railroad tracks.

No permanent sources of lighting or glare would be installed as part of the proposed project. Temporary construction‐related sources of light (if any) would be removed upon completion of construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect day or nighttime views in the area. There would be no impact related to this topic and no mitigation is required.

2‐4 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use?

Affected Environment:

The proposed project is a multi‐use trail which would cross through multiple parcels of land. The project site land use designation is Parks and Recreation (PR) according to the Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map3. The portion of the trail which crosses into the City of Hercules is within a planned residential community and is designated for Parks and Open Space in the community’s specific plan4. No recent history of intensive agricultural use of the land exists, nor does the land meet the definitions for prime agricultural land as defined by the California State Department of Conservation.

3 Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan Land Use Element. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed September 28, 2017). 4 PBR, 2000. New Pacific Properties Specific Plan. Available online at: http://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/index.aspx?page=200 (Accessed September 28, 2017).

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐5 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Impact Analysis: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

No Impact. The project is classified as “Urban and Built‐Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)5. Urban and Built‐Up land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10‐acre parcel. Therefore, the proposed project is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and the proposed project would not convert any farmland to a non‐agricultural use.

(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or open space use. The California Department of Conservation maps the project site as “Urban and Built‐Up Land”, and no portion of the project site would cross a parcel under a Williamson Act contract6. Additionally, the project is zoned for Parks and Recreation and Open Space. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. The project site is not currently used for timberland production, nor is it zoned for forest land or timberland. No forest lands or timberland are located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland.

(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the loss of any forest land or convert forestland to non‐forest use. Refer to Response 2.2 (c) above.

(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use?

5 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2014. Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2014. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/con14.pdf (Accessed September 26, 2017). 6 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2014. Contra Costa County Williamson Act FY 2014/2015. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Contra_Costa_12_13_WA.pdf (Accessed September 26, 2017).

2‐6 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any other changes to the existing environment that would convert farmland to a non‐agricultural use. Refer to Responses 2.2 (a) and 2.2 (b) above.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐7 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.3 AIR QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality 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 an applicable 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? (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Affected Environment:

The proposed project is located within the unincorporated community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County, and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955. Since that time, ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Rodeo, and the rest of the air basin, exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.

Within the BAAQMD, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. The BAAQMD is under State non‐attainment status for ozone and particulate matter standards. The BAAQMD is classified as non‐attainment for the federal ozone 8‐hour standard and non‐attainment for the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan/Regional Climate Protection Strategy serves as a roadmap for the BAAQMD to reduce air pollution and protect public health and the global climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes measures and programs to reduce emissions of fine particulates and toxic air contaminants. In addition, the Regional Climate

2‐8 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Protection Strategy is included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which identifies potential rules, control measures, and strategies that the BAAQMD can pursue to reduce greenhouse gases throughout the Bay Area.

Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan is determined by whether or not the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts or hinder implementation of control measures (e.g., excessive parking or preclude extension of a transit lane or bicycle path). The proposed project would construct 2,750 feet of the Bay Trail between Lone Tree Point and the end of an existing segment of the Bay Trail in the City of Hercules. The project would promote the BAAQMD initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and would increase the use of alternate means of transportation.

The project is a trail project that would contribute to the use of non‐motorized means of travel. In addition, as indicated in the analysis that follows, the proposed project would not result in significant operational and construction‐period emissions. Therefore, the proposed project supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with any of the control measures identified in the plan or measures designed to bring the region into attainment. Moreover, the proposed project would not substantially increase the population, vehicle trips, or vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would not hinder the region from attaining the goals outlined in the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not hinder or disrupt implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. This impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Both State and federal governments have established health‐based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria pollutants: CO, O3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

According to BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for operational‐related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:

 Generate average daily construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day;

 Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards; or

 Generate operation emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.

Construction and operation emissions associated with the proposed project are analyzed below. As discussed, the proposed project would not generate significant operation‐period emissions and, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, the project would not generate

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐9 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

construction‐period emissions in excess of established standards. Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Construction Impacts. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by grading, hauling, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, ROG, directly‐emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Site preparation and project construction would involve grading, paving, and other activities. Construction‐related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 (Roadmod) as recommended by the BAAQMD for linear construction projects. Construction‐related emissions are presented in Table 2.A. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix A.

2‐10 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 2.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day

Project Construction ROG NOx Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.6 8.0 0.3 0.3 Grading/Excavation 3.7 40.7 1.9 1.7 Drainage/Utilities/Sub‐Grade 2.6 26.8 1.4 1.3 Paving 1.0 10.2 0.6 0.5 Maximum (pounds/day) 3.7 40.7 1.9 1.7 Average Daily (pounds/day) 2.7 27.9 1.5 1.2 BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: LSA Associates Inc., November 2017.

As shown in Table 2.A, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant for ROG, NOx, PM2.5 and PM10 exhaust emissions. As indicated in Table 2.A, construction of the proposed project would not exceed daily emissions thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.

The BAAQMD requires the implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction dust impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 would reduce construction dust and NOx emissions to a less‐than‐significant level.

Mitigation Measure AIR‐1: Consistent with the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures required by the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be incorporated into construction contracts and specifications for the project:

 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day with reclaimed water, if available.

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

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

 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

 Structural pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐11 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

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

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

 A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at Contra Costa County regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Operational Emissions – Regional Emissions Analysis. Long‐term air emission impacts are associated with stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source emissions result from the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips and result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. As discussed above, the proposed project would construct approximately 2,750 feet of trail to improve access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians along the Bay Trail and to create better access and a more pedestrian‐friendly environment. Thus, the project would not generate a significant number of vehicle trips that would increase air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not be a significant source of operational emissions and this impact would be less than significant.

Localized CO Impacts. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. The BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Guidelines include recommended methodologies for quantifying concentrations of localized CO levels for proposed transportation projects. A screening level analysis using guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was performed to determine the impacts of the project. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less‐than‐ significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:

 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans.

 Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

 The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g.,

2‐12 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below‐grade roadway).

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Contra Costa County Countywide Transportation Plan for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other agency plans. The project site is not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing of air is substantially limited. The project would not increase traffic volumes at intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour and intersection level of service associated with the project would not decline with the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards and this impact would be less than significant.

(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 2.3b, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, construction of the proposed project would not result in significant levels of criteria air pollutants or pollutant precursors. Long‐term operation of the proposed trail would not generate air emissions. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would not significantly contribute to cumulative levels of pollution in the Air Basin. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1.

(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non‐cancer health risks.

According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or 3 an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m ). A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project in combination with other projects located within a 1,000‐foot radius of the project site would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 on an annual average basis. Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed below and would be less than significant.

The closest sensitive receptors include the single‐family residential uses located approximately 45 feet southeast of the proposed project. An elementary school, the Rodeo Hills Elementary

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐13 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

school is located approximately 0.4 miles south of the project site. As described in Section 2.3b, above, construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel‐fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR‐1. With implementation of this mitigation measure, project construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and, once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial emissions. In addition, individuals using the trail would not be impacted by existing roadway emissions due to the short‐term nature of trail use. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction or operation, and potential impacts would be considered less than significant.

(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact. During project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. The proposed project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, the project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and this impact would be less than significant.

2‐14 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (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 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Affected Environment:

Methods. To identify special‐status plant and animal species known to occur or potentially occurring in the project site vicinity, LSA queried the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2017) for species records within a 5‐mile radius of the project site using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software. LSA also queried the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2017) for records of special‐status plant species in the Benicia, Briones Valley, Cordelia, Cuttings Wharf, Mare Island, Petaluma Point, Richmond, San Quentin, and Sears Point 7.5‐minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles.

LSA biologists conducted field surveys on June 7, and November 14, 2014, and on April 10, August 7, September 29, and November 28, 2017. LSA collected preliminary information on vegetation types, wildlife habitat, and potential jurisdictional features (e.g., seasonal wetland) on June 7, 2014 and April 10, and November 28, 2017. An LSA senior botanist/arborist visited the site on November 14, 2014, to collect more detailed information on existing vegetation and to assess habitat suitability for

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐15 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

special‐status plants, and identify trees potentially subject to local tree protection ordinances. An LSA botanist conducted a protocol‐level plant survey on September 29, 2017.

LSA conducted a jurisdictional wetland investigation at the project site on August 7, 2017. The field investigations of potentially jurisdictional wetlands occurring on the site were conducted using the routine determination method given in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the revised procedures in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Arid West Supplement) (Corps 2008). Boundaries were determined by following a combination of the limits of hydrophytic vegetation, the limits of observed wetland hydrology, topographic breaks, and aerial orthophoto interpretation.

Vegetation and Cover Types. Vegetation types on the project site were classified according to A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009), which is based on the National Vegetation Classification Hierarchy. Four vegetation types occur on the project site: creeping rye grass turfs (Elymus [Leymus] triticoides Herbaceous Alliance), wild oats grassland (Avena fatua Semi‐ Natural Herbaceous Stands), pale spike rush marsh (Eleocharis macrostachya Herbaceous Alliance) (hereafter referred to as seasonal wetland), and arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance) (Figure 4). Several native and non‐native trees and shrubs occur on the project site but are too sparsely distributed to categorize into distinct vegetation types, with the exception of arroyo willow thickets. Other cover types on the site include paved and graveled hardscape, which are mapped as Developed.

Two vegetation types dominate the project site: creeping rye grass turfs (3.1 acres) and wild oats grassland (5.3 acres). The density and composition of the creeping rye grass turfs vegetation type is variable depending on its location; near the seasonal wetland and arroyo willow thickets, creeping rye grass comprises nearly 100 percent cover while in upland areas, creeping rye grass ranges in cover between 15 and 50 percent with non‐native annual grass and forb species, such as wild oats and bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus) comprising the remaining cover. Other non‐native herbaceous species observed within creeping rye grass turfs include milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), poverty weed (Eva axillaris), prickly ox‐tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes‐caprae), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), sorghum (Sorghum halipense), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and salsify (Tragopogon porrifeus). The wild oats grassland comprises the same species as the creeping rye grass turfs, with the non‐native wild oats dominating over the creeping rye grass.

The 1.3‐acre seasonal wetland is dominated by pale spike rush with a significant amount of fat hen (Atriplex prostrata) and common lippia (Phyla nodiflora). Stands of cattails (Typha latifolia) and dense creeping rye grass dominate the perimeter of the wetland. Other species observed in the seasonal wetland include smooth cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and fiddle dock (R. pulcher). Two arroyo willow thickets (totaling 0.3 acre) are located within the seasonal wetland; one on the northern end, and one on the southern end.

2‐16 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) Union Pacific Railroad

Rodeo Ave

San Pablo Ave Parker Ave San Pablo Bay

Pacific Ave

1st St

Lake Ave

Garretson

Ave

2nd St

Harris Ave

Sharon Ave

3rd St

LEGEND Land Cover Types FIGURE 4 Project Site Wild Oats Grassland Proposed Trail Creeping Rye Grass Turfs Proposed Bridge Arroyo Willow Thickets San Francisco Bay Trail - Lone Tree Point Proposed Retaining Wall Pale Spike Rush Marsh 0 150 300 Rodeo, Contra Costa County, California FEET Seasonal Wetland Trees and Shrubs Vegetation Map SOURCE: BKF Engineers (11/2017); USGS OrthoImabery (02/2015). Developed/Landscaped I:\BKF1702\GIS\Maps\CEQA\Figure 4_Vegetation Map.mxd (12/14/2017) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

2‐18 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Tree and shrub species observed within the project site include black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), English walnut (Juglans regia), shiny privet (Ligustrum japonicum), horticultural rose (Rosa sp.), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Washington fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). With the exception of coast live oak, arroyo willow, and toyon, all of these species are non‐native ornamentals that were either planted on site or have colonized the site from adjacent landscaped areas.

Wildlife. LSA biologists detected the following wildlife species on or adjacent to the project site during their field surveys: western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Pacific treefrog (Hyliola regilla), white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), American coot (Fulica americana), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), double‐crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), California scrub‐ jay (Aphelocoma californica), rock pigeon (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Eurasian‐collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), California gull (Larus californicus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), ruby‐crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), yellow‐rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), red‐winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), golden‐crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), white‐crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus), California vole (Microtus californica), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).

Trees and shrubs on the project site provide nesting habitat for resident bird species such as white‐ tailed kite, bushtit, and California scrub‐jay and installed nest boxes and open terrain provide ideal conditions for nesting western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana). Nest material from an unidentified bird species was observed in one of the nest boxes during the November 2017 survey. The open grassland provides habitat for ground‐nesting passerines such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), although non‐native predators from nearby developments and regular mowing may limit reproductive success. During the winter, the resident bird community may be supplemented by species that breed further north or at higher elevations.

The seasonal wetland provides seasonal breeding habitat for Pacific treefrog and other common amphibians such as California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) and arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris) that may also breed under rocks, leaf litter, woody debris, or other surface objects on or adjacent to the project site. Nearby grassland provides foraging habitat for these species as well as common reptiles such as southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), western skink (Plestidon skiltonianus), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).

Common mammal species likely to occasionally forage on and/or move through the project site include northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (scent/odor detected during the November 2017 survey), and black‐tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). LSA observed sign of

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐19 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Botta’s pocket gopher (burrows) and California vole (runways) within the grassland. Other small mammal species likely to occur on site include house mouse (Mus musculus) and roof rat (Rattus rattus). The grassland also provides foraging habitat for common bat species such as big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and Brazilian free‐tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), although roosting habitat (e.g., abandoned buildings or bridges, trees with large decaying hollows) is absent.

Impact Analysis:

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. For the purpose of this report, special‐ status species are defined as follows:

 Species that are listed, formally proposed for listing, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA);  Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA);  Plant species on California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants;  Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);  Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines; and  Species considered being a taxon of special concern by the relevant local agencies.

Based on the results of the database searches, observed habitat conditions, and LSA’s knowledge of biological resources in western Contra Costa County and adjacent San Pablo Bay waters, LSA identified 40 special‐status species (19 plants, 21 animals) as potentially occurring in the project vicinity (Table 2.B). The CNDDB (CDFW 2017) and CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2017) identify 29 additional special‐status plants as occurring within the nine‐quad search region but these species were eliminated from consideration based on the lack of chaparral, vernal pools, or serpentine rock outcrops in the project vicinity.

2‐20 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 2.B: Special‐status Species Evaluated for the Lone Tree Point Project

Species Status1 Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion PLANTS Amsinckia lunaris 1B Coastal bluff scrub, Not likely to occur due to lack Bent‐flowered fiddleneck cismontane woodland, valley of suitable grassland habitat. and foothill grassland; Valley and foothill grassland openings. habitat type refers to Elevation: 3‐500 meters (m). bunchgrass prairie habitat. Blooms: March–June. Nearest occurrence is at Sobrante Ridge Regional Preserve, approximately 5 air‐ miles to the south. Arctostaphylos pallida FT, SE, 1B Shale or thin chert substrates No manzanita plants observed Pallid manzanita in deciduous and coniferous at project site. Nearest forests and woodlands, remaining natural occurrences chaparral, or coastal scrub. are in Sobrante Ridge Regional Known from fewer than 10 Preserve, approximately 4.5 occurrences in the Diablo air‐miles to the northeast. Range. Elevation: 185‐465 m. Blooms: December–March. Calystegia purpurata subsp. 1B North Coast coniferous forest, Not likely to occur due to lack saxicola coastal dunes, and coastal of forest, dune, or coastal Pink creamsacks scrub. scrub habitat. Elevation: 10‐105 m. Blooms: May–September. Carex lyngbyei 2B Freshwater or brackish Not likely to occur. Suitable Lyngby sedge wetlands in coastal prairie, habitat may have been present marshes and swamps. prior to the development and Elevation: 0‐10 m. fill of Lone Tree Point, but Blooms: April–August. current conditions not suitable. The closest CNDDB occurrence (#10, possibly extirpated) is an 1866 record from an unspecified “swamp” location in San Francisco, approximately 10 air‐miles to the west. Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii 1B Grazed and ungrazed annual Not likely to occur due to lack Congdon’s tarplant grassland. Alkaline or saline of suitable alkaline or saline soils sometimes described as substrates. No tarplant‐like heavy white clay (saline clay plants observed during soil). appropriately timed protocol‐ Elevation: 1‐230 m. level surveys. Blooms: May–October. Centromadia parryi subsp. parryi 1B Vernally mesic areas in valley Low‐quality habitat present Pappose tarplant and foothill grasslands, adjacent to on‐site seasonal meadows and seeps, coastal wetland. None observed in salt marsh; often on alkaline November 2014 and sites in chaparral and coastal September 2017 when plant prairie. would have been identifiable, Elevation: 2‐420 m. however. As such, species Blooms: May–November. presumed absent. Chloropyron maritimum subsp. 1B Marshes and swamps (coastal Not likely to occur due to lack

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐21 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Species Status1 Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion palustre salt). of tidal salt marsh. [Cordylanthus maritimus subsp. Elevation: 0‐10 m. palustris] Blooms: June–October. Point Reyes salty bird's‐beak Chloropyron molle FE, SR, 1B Coastal salt marshes and Not likely to occur due to lack [Cordylanthus mollis subsp. brackish marshes from of tidal salt marsh. mollis] northern San Francisco Bay to Soft bird's‐beak Suisun Bay in Napa, Solano, and Contra Costa Counties. Elevation: 0‐3 m. Blooms July–September. Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi 2B Freshwater or brackish Low‐quality habitat present in Bolander’s water hemlock wetlands in coastal prairie, on‐site seasonal wetland. No marshes and swamps. plants in the carrot family Elevation: 0‐200 m. observed in November 2014 Blooms: July–September. and September 2017. Species presumed absent. Extriplex (Atriplex) joaquinana 1B Chenopod scrub, meadows Not likely to occur due to lack San Joaquin spearscale and seeps, playas, valley and of habitat. foothill grassland/alkaline. Elevation: 1‐835 m. Blooms: April–October. Fritillaria liliacea 1B Coastal scrub, valley and Low‐quality habitat present in Fragrant fritillary foothill grassland, and coastal mesic grasslands. Closest prairie. Often on serpentine CNDDB occurrence (#43) is a soils. Other various soils possibly extirpated 1875 reported, though usually clay. record from Mare Island, Elevation: 3‐410 m. approximately 3 air‐miles to Blooms: February–April. the north. Regular mowing may preclude occurrence. Protocol‐level survey to be conducted in March 2018 to confirm absence. Helianthella castanea 1B Rocky soils in chaparral/oak Not likely to occur due to lack Diablo helianthella woodland interface. of suitable chaparral/oak Elevation: 60‐300 m. woodland habitat and Blooms March–June. elevation (too low). Nearest CNDDB occurrence (#59) is 1.8 air‐miles to the northeast. Holocarpha macradenia FT, SE, 1B Clay and sandy soils in coastal Not likely to occur. Closest Santa Cruz tarplant prairie, coastal scrub, and CNDDB occurrence (#16) is valley and foothill grassland. from an extirpated population Elevation: 10‐220 m. approximately 3.3 air‐miles to Blooms June–October. the southwest, which was the last remaining natural population in the Bay Area. Isocoma arguta 1B Alkaline sites in valley and Not likely to occur due to lack Carquinez goldenbush foothill grassland and other of bunchgrass grassland with sub‐saline sites. alkaline soils. Nearest CNDDB Elevation: 1‐20 m. occurrence (#14) from Blooms: August–December. undisclosed location approximately 0.05 air‐miles to the northeast.

2‐22 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Species Status1 Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii 1B Freshwater and brackish Not likely to occur due to lack Delta tule pea marsh. of suitable tidal channel Elevation: 0‐5 m. substrate. Blooms: May–June. Lilaeopsis masonii SR, 1B Tidal zone of brackish and Not likely to occur due to lack Mason’s lilaeopsis freshwater marshes and of suitable tidal channel swamps, riparian scrub. substrate. Elevation: 0‐10 m. Blooms: April–November. Senecio aphanactis 2B Alkaline flats and rocky areas Not likely to occur due to lack Chaparral ragwort in cismontane woodland and of cismontane woodland and coastal scrub; Elevation: 15‐ coastal scrub. Nearest CNDDB 800 m. occurrence (#15) from an 1874 Blooms: January–April. collection from a rocky escarpment on Mare Island, approximately 2.6 air‐miles to the north. Suaeda californica FE, 1B Margins of coastal salt marsh. Not likely to occur due to lack California seablite Elevation: 0–15 m. of tidal salt marsh. Blooms: July–October. Symphyotrichum lentum (Aster 1B Brackish and freshwater Marginal habitat present at lentus) marshes and swamps. southeast end of on‐site Suisun marsh aster Elevation: 0‐3 m. seasonal wetland. Species is Blooms: June–October. very rare and was believed extinct until rediscovered in the 1990s (CNPS 2008). The closest CNDDB occurrence (#17) is a presumed extant population growing in Southampton Marsh, southwest of Benicia. Not observed during focused survey conducted in September 2017. ANIMALS Fish Green sturgeon (southern DPS2) FT Estuaries, lower reaches of No suitable aquatic habitat Acipenser medirostris large rivers, and salt or present. May occasionally visit brackish water off river open waters of San Pablo Bay mouths. Ascends far up adjacent to project site. Trinity and Klamath rivers. Delta smelt FT, SE Open brackish and fresh No suitable aquatic habitat Hypomesus transpacificus water of large channels. present. Not likely to occur adjacent to site since San Pablo Bay waters are outside known range. Longfin smelt FC, ST, CSC Bays, estuaries, and No suitable aquatic habitat Spirinchus thaleichthys nearshore coastal waters present. May occur in open from San Francisco Bay north water habitat adjacent to to Lake Earl, near the Oregon project site. Border. Spawn in low‐salinity or freshwater reaches of coastal rivers and tributary streams.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐23 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Species Status1 Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Steelhead (central California FT, CSC Anadromous. Coastal streams No suitable aquatic habitat coast DPS) from Russian River south to present. Migratory individuals Oncorhynchus mykiss Aptos Creek (Santa Cruz Co.), may occasionally visit open including streams tributary to waters of San Pablo Bay San Francisco and San Pablo adjacent to project site Bays. between August and March. Steelhead (Central Valley DPS) FT Anadromous: adults begin No suitable aquatic habitat Oncorhynchus mykiss spawning migration to present. Migratory individuals freshwater tributary streams may occasionally visit open of Sacramento and San waters of San Pablo Bay Joaquin Rivers between adjacent to project site August and October. between August and October. Chinook salmon (Sacramento FE Anadromous: adults begin No suitable aquatic habitat River winter‐run ESU3) spawning migration to present. Migratory individuals Oncorhynchus tshawytscha tributary streams of may occasionally visit open Sacramento River between waters of San Pablo Bay November and June. adjacent to project site between November and June. Chinook salmon (Central Valley FT Anadromous: adults begin No suitable aquatic habitat spring‐run ESU) spawning migration to present. Migratory individuals Oncorhynchus tshawytscha tributary streams of may occasionally visit open Sacramento River in spring waters of San Pablo Bay and early summer. adjacent to project site between spring and early fall. Amphibians and Reptiles California red‐legged frog FT, CSC Ponds, streams, drainages Unlikely to occur. Seasonal Rana draytonii and associated uplands; wetland suitable for resting requires areas of deep, still, and foraging but not for and/or slow‐moving water for breeding due to limited breeding hydroperiod. Wetland also isolated from occupied habitat in vicinity (i.e., Refugio Creek, Rodeo Creek) by intervening unsuitable development. Western pond turtle CSC Ponds, streams, drainages, Not likely to occur due to lack Emys marmorata and associated uplands. of perennial streams and/or ponds and site’s isolation from occupied habitat in vicinity (i.e., Rodeo Creek). Alameda striped racer FT, ST Chaparral and sage scrub with Not likely to occur due to lack (=whipsnake) rock outcrops and an of chaparral and scrub. Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus abundance of prey species such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Birds White‐tailed kite CFP Open grasslands, meadows, Observed foraging over Elanus leucurus or marshes. Require dense‐ grasslands on the site during topped trees or shrubs for the November 2017 survey. nesting and perching. Blue gum and willow trees suitable for nesting, but no nests observed in these trees during any of LSA’s surveys.

2‐24 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Species Status1 Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Northern harrier CSC Nests in wet meadows and May occasionally forage over Circus hudsonius marshes, forages over open on‐site grassland but not likely grasslands and agricultural to nest due to lack of dense fields. ground vegetation and nearby disturbance. California black rail ST, CFP Salt marshes bordering larger Not likely to occur due to lack Laterallus jamaicensis bays, also found in brackish of tidal salt or brackish marsh. coturniculus and freshwater marshes. California Ridgway’s (=clapper) FE, SE, CFP Tidal salt marshes with Not likely to occur due to lack rail sloughs and substantial of tidal salt or brackish marsh. Rallus obsoletus obsoletus cordgrass (Spartina sp.) cover. Burrowing owl CSC Open habitats (e.g., Migratory individuals may Athene cunicularia grasslands, agricultural areas) occasionally occur on site for with mammal burrows or very brief periods but limited other features (e.g., culverts, California ground squirrel pipes, debris piles) suitable burrows or burrow surrogates for nesting and roosting. (i.e., culverts, pipes) likely preclude long‐term use. However, this species could occur in the future if ground squirrels colonized the site. San Francisco (=salt marsh) CSC Salt, brackish, and freshwater Unlikely to occur. Seasonal common yellowthroat marshes; and riparian wetland vegetation and Geothylpis trichas sinuosa woodlands. Nests on or near willows suitable for nesting, ground in low vegetation. but small size of patch and abundance of generalist predators due to adjacent development substantially reduces likelihood of occurrence. Samuels (=San Pablo) song CSC Tidal and muted salt marshes Not likely to occur due to lack sparrow on the fringes of San Pablo of tidal salt or brackish marsh. Melospiza melodia samuelis Bay, Tomales Bay, and Richardson Bay. Nests primarily in pickleweed and gumplant. Mammals Suisun shrew CSC Salt marshes of northern San Not likely to occur due to lack Sorex ornatus sinuosus Pablo and Suisun Bays. of tidal salt marsh. Require dense low‐lying cover and driftwood or other litter about the high tide line for nesting and foraging. San Pablo vole CSC Tidal marshes around the Not likely to occur. Site outside Microtus californicus mouth of San Pablo Creek and known range of this sanpabloensis adjacent upland grasslands. subspecies. Pallid bat CSC Roosts in caves, tunnels, Not likely to roost near site due Antrozous pallidus buildings, under bridges, and to lack of suitable roosting in tree hollows; forages over habitat. variety of habitats.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐25 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Species Status1 Habitat/Blooming Period Discussion Salt‐marsh harvest mouse FE, SE, CFP Tidal salt marshes of San Not likely to occur due to lack Reithrodontomys raviventris Francisco Bay and its of tidal salt marsh on or tributaries. Requires tall, adjacent to the site. dense pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) for cover.

1 Status Codes: FE = federally endangered; FT = federally threatened; SE = State endangered; ST = State threatened; 1B = California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere); 2B = CRPR 2B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere); CSC = California Species of Special Concern; CFP = California Fully Protected Species 2 DPS = distinct population segment 3 ESU = evolutionarily significant unit

Special‐Status Plants. None of the special‐status plant species listed in Table 2.B was observed during LSA’s focused plant surveys conducted in November 2014 and September 2017. The November 2014 survey coincided with the blooming period for the following species: Bolander’s water hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii), pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. parryi), hayfield tarweed (Hemizonia congesta subsp. congesta), and Carquinez goldenbush (Isocoma arguta). The September 2017 survey coincided with the blooming period for the Suisun Marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum). None of these plant species was observed during the surveys. Both of the focused plant surveys, however, were conducted outside the blooming period for fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), which could occur based on the presence of suitable habitat. Although regular mowing of the project site reduces the likelihood that fragrant fritillary is present, this species occurs in mesic grasslands similar to those adjacent to the seasonal wetland and therefore, an additional plant survey will be conducted in March 2018 to confirm its absence from the project site.

The proposed project may impact fragrant fritillary plants (a CRPR 1B species), if present. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused survey for fragrant fritillary within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming period (February to April). The survey will be conducted in accordance with the CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009).

If fragrant fritillary are observed within the project site and cannot be avoided during construction, fragrant fritillary plants shall be salvaged and relocated to a protected on‐site mitigation area suitable for this species. The planting area shall be flagged and documented in the field using a sub‐meter accuracy global positioning system (GPS) unit. Bulbs and seeds shall be collected by hand. The average depth at which bulbs are collected shall be recorded so that they can be replanted at the same average depth in the on‐site mitigation area. If bulbs and seeds cannot be replanted by November 1, they will be properly stored in a cool and dry location and replanted the following fall (September 1 to October 31).

2‐26 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

The following summarizes specific monitoring and performance criteria for the mitigation for the fragrant fritillary:

 Areas replanted with fragrant fritillary bulbs and seeds shall be monitored for a minimum period of 2 years.  Flowering fragrant fritillary shall be surveyed annually within the mitigation area. The number of detectable fragrant fritillary in leaf and/or flower is expected to vary in the mitigation area from year to year, depending on precipitation, herbivory and other ecological variables.  Mitigation will be considered to have been a success if the number of individual fragrant fritillary in the mitigation area is equal to the number of plants impacted by the project.  If the number of plants does not reach the performance criterion, then adaptive management actions shall be developed and supplemental activities may be performed. These adaptive management actions could include seed collection and plant propagation, or seed collection and direct sowing.

Special‐Status Animals. Of the 21 special‐status animal species identified in Table 2.B, habitat is present on or near the site for nine species: green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), California Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River winter‐run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), California Central Valley Chinook salmon, California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and white‐tailed kite. The five anadromous fish species may occasionally stray into the open waters of San Pablo Bay adjacent to the project site during their respective migratory periods, but such occurrences are likely rare. No suitable aquatic or spawning habitat is present within the project site. Burrowing owls are unlikely to nest or winter in the project site due to the limited number of small mammal burrows or burrow surrogates (e.g., culverts, debris piles), although migratory individuals may rest or forage for brief periods and a few active California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows occur in and adjacent to the project site. Burrowing owls could occur more regularly if ground squirrels colonized the project site in the future, however. White‐tailed kites require shrubs or trees for nesting and the scattered trees and shrubs within the project site provide suitable nest sites. A foraging white‐tailed kite was the only special‐status species observed during LSA’s surveys, but this bird was observed during the non‐nesting season and no kite nests or suitable‐ sized raptor nests were observed in any of the trees during the surveys.

The seasonal wetland and associated arroyo willow thickets are physically suitable for foraging and resting California red‐legged frogs but the shallow depth and limited hydroperiod of the wetland likely preclude breeding. Therefore, the pond does not provide suitable breeding habitat for California red‐legged frogs. Ponds and pools that are suitable for California red‐ legged frog breeding usually have a minimum depth of 20 inches, but California red‐legged frogs do sometimes breed successfully in pools as shallow as 10 inches (Fellers 2005). Regardless of water depth, suitable breeding habitat must contain water during the entire development period for eggs and tadpoles, which is considered to be around 5 months during the winter and spring. Also, California red‐legged frogs from nearby locations in Refugio Creek (CNDDB

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐27 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Occurrence No. 407, 1.4 miles south) and Rodeo Creek (CNDDB Occurrence No. 309, 1.9 miles southeast) are unlikely to disperse to on‐site seasonal wetland due to intervening residential development which is unsuitable as foraging or movement habitat and forms a barrier to dispersal from occupied habitat.

None of the remaining species are likely to occur due to a lack of habitat (e.g., tidal marsh) and/or the project site’s isolation from undeveloped lands with occupied habitat (e.g., lands east and southeast of Hercules and Pinole).

White‐tailed Kite and Other Nesting Birds. The proposed project may impact nesting white‐ tailed kites and other special‐status or common nesting bird species. Although the proposed project will only remove one oak tree near Pacific Avenue and San Pablo Avenue, construction of the project may indirectly impact active white‐tailed kite nests and other active bird nests that may be nesting in the trees and shrubs adjacent to the construction area. Ground‐nesting birds may also be directly impacted by construction if active nests are present.

The proposed project may impact active white‐tailed kite nests and other bird nests protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, if present during construction of the project. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐2: If any construction activities (e.g., grubbing, grading, removal of one tree) are scheduled during the bird nesting season (typically defined by CDFW as February 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for white‐tailed kites and other nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall delineate a buffer zone where no construction will occur until the biologist has determined that all young have successfully fledged. The size of the buffer(s) shall be determined by the project biologist and be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. Typical buffer zones are 50 to 100 feet for passerines and up to 300 feet for white‐tailed kites and other raptors. Nests shall be monitored regularly to determine if construction activities are affecting the nesting activities and when young birds have fledged.

Burrowing Owl. LSA did not observe any evidence of burrowing owl use (i.e., prey remains, droppings, feathers) during the 2014 and 2017 reconnaissance surveys and regular recreational use of the project site likely precludes long‐term use by burrowing owls. No ground squirrel burrows were observed along the main trail alignment during LSA’s surveys but a few burrows were along the shoreline near the spur trail. However, in the future, ground squirrels could colonize the habitat along the trail alignment and burrowing owls could occupy resulting burrows. To confirm the absence of burrowing owls prior to development, a burrowing owl take avoidance survey in accordance with CDFW guidelines (CDFG 2012) should be conducted prior to construction.

The project may impact burrowing owls, if present on the project site, by disrupting nesting and foraging activities or through injury or mortality. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

2‐28 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Mitigation Measure BIO‐3: No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction/take avoidance survey for burrowing owls using methods described in Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report) (CDFG 2012). If no owls are detected during the initial take avoidance survey, a final survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that owls are still absent.

If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non‐breeding season (September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within or adjacent to the project site, burrowing owls may be excluded from burrows using one‐way doors, provided that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Any burrow exclusion efforts will be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to document that take is avoided. If burrow exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season, daily monitoring shall be conducted for one week prior to the exclusion to confirm that young of the year have fledged.

(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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The CDFW tracks the occurrences of natural plant communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. In the CDFW’s Natural Communities List (CDFG 2010), vegetation alliances with State rarity rankings of S1–S3 are considered “highly imperiled” and project impacts to “high‐quality occurrences” of these alliances could be considered significant under CEQA. Most types of wetlands and riparian communities are also considered special‐status natural communities due to their limited distribution in California. The CNDDB identifies only one special‐status natural community, northern coastal salt marsh, within 5 miles of the site. The project site does not contain any tidal salt marsh plant communities.

Creeping rye grass turfs have a State rarity ranking of S3 in the CDFW Natural Communities List (CDFG 2010) and certain stands of this community within the project site (i.e., slopes adjacent to seasonal wetland) may qualify as “high‐quality occurrences” due to the lack of non‐native species. The project may permanently impact approximately 0.2 acre and temporarily impact approximately 0.8 acre of creeping rye grass turfs.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐29 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Other sensitive natural communities within the project site include arroyo willow thickets, which comprise a native riparian plant community, and the seasonal wetland. The proposed trail will avoid impacts to the arroyo willow thickets and seasonal wetland.

Given the location of the creeping ryegrass turfs on the project site, avoidance is not possible. The proposed project will permanently impact approximately 0.2 acre and temporarily impact approximately 0.8 acre of creeping rye grass turfs (Figure 5). With implementation of the below mitigation measure, significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐4: Permanently impacted creeping rye grass turfs shall be mitigated on‐site by removing the rye grass plugs or sod prior to construction and replanting it in suitable adjacent on‐site mitigation areas that currently support non‐native wild oats grassland.

Topsoil with creeping rye grass turfs shall be salvaged in areas that will be permanently impacted. If topsoil cannot be transplanted immediately, topsoil shall be stockpiled and covered with weed‐free straw or jute blankets outside of the work area and watered to retain moisture. For areas that will be temporarily impacted, the topsoil shall be removed and replaced to the approximate location of its removal after construction has been completed or covered. In general, the top 6‐12 inches shall be removed and salvaged, but the actual depth to be salvaged shall be determined by the project biologist.

The mitigation area shall be prepared by removing the top soil of the wild oats grassland of the equivalent size as the removed creeping rye grass turfs and transplanting the salvaged topsoil. The replanted area shall be graded to match the pre‐existing natural grade. Topsoil shall be dry and spread over the prepared area during dry weather.

The following summarizes specific monitoring and performance criteria for the mitigation for the creeping rye grass turfs:

 Areas replanted with creeping rye grass turfs shall be monitored for a minimum period of 2 years.

 Creeping rye grass turfs shall be surveyed annually within the mitigation areas.

 Mitigation will be considered to have been a success if , the relative cover of creeping rye grass turfs in the mitigation areas is equal to or greater to the existing adjacent creeping rye grass turfs at the site.

If cover does not reach the performance criterion, then adaptive management actions shall be developed and supplemental activities may be performed. These Impacts and Mitigation adaptive management actions could include rye grass plug collection and plant propagation, or plug collection and direct planting of plugs.

2‐30 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) Union Pacific Railroad

Rodeo Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Bay

Pacific Ave

1st St

Lake Ave

Garretson Ave

2nd St

Harris Ave

Sharon Ave

Land Cover Types Wild Oats Grassland

3rd St Creeping Rye Grass Turfs Arroyo Willow Thickets Pale Spike Rush Marsh Trees and Shrubs Developed/Landscaped

LEGEND FIGURE 5 Project Site Seasonal Wetland Proposed Mitigation Areas for Creeping Rye Grass Turfs Proposed Trail Creeping Rye Grass Turfs Impacts (0.8 acre) San Francisco Proposed Bridge Permanent (0.8 acre) Note: Location of Mitigation Areas may be adjusted in the field. Bay Trail - Proposed Retaining Wall Temporary (0.2 acre) Lone Tree Point 0125250 Trail to be Repaved Rodeo, Contra Costa County, California FEET Creeping Rye Grass Turf Impacts and Mitigation SOURCE: BKF Engineers (11/2017); USGS OrthoImabery (02/2015). I:\BKF1702\GIS\Maps\CEQA\Figure 5_Creeping Rye Grass Turfs Impacts and Mitigation.mxd (1/5/2018) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

2‐32 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Other temporarily impacted creeping rye grass turf grass adjacent to the trail alignment shall be protected by placing construction mats over the rye grass turfs.

To ensure that the avoided creeping rye grass turfs will remain undisturbed during construction, the following avoidance measure will be implemented:

To prevent construction workers and equipment from entering the creeping rye grass turfs, orange plastic construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the creeping rye grass turfs so that it is easily visible to workers as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). The fencing shall be installed under the guidance of a qualified biologist practiced in the identification of creeping rye grass turfs.

(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The seasonal wetland on the project site is likely under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. For a given feature to be designated as a wetland of the United States, three indicators must be present: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. LSA conducted a formal delineation to confirm the jurisdictional status and boundary of the seasonal wetland and submitted a request for verification to the Corps. The wetland would also fall under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which is responsible for issuing State water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

The proposed project will not impact the seasonal wetland since the proposed trail will completely span the wetland by installing a prefabricated bridge over the wetland and constructing bridge abutments approximately 10 feet from the wetland’s edge. The proposed project, however, could indirectly or temporarily impact the seasonal wetland during construction of the project without implementing standard avoidance measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs).

The proposed project could indirectly impact the seasonal wetland during construction of the project. With implementation of the below mitigation measure, significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐5: To reduce potential short‐term impacts to the seasonal wetland, the contractor will implement the following avoidance measures and BMPs:

 Install temporary silt fencing beyond the outer edge of the seasonal wetland boundary to prevent entry of fill into the wetland during construction. Temporary silt fencing will also reduce the likelihood of aquatic wildlife species, such as Pacific treefrog from entering the work area.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐33 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

 Place temporary Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing where needed to prevent construction equipment and workers from entering the seasonal wetland.

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

 Prior to being brought on site, inspect all vehicles and machinery for fuel leaks. No vehicles or machinery exhibiting signs of leaking fluid will be brought on site.

 All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 65 feet from the seasonal wetland. Prior to the onset of work, a plan shall be prepared for implementing a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

 To reduce the potential for erosion after work is completed, disturbed areas shall be revegetated with an appropriate seed mix suitable for the area.

 Install rice straw or native duff to cover bare soil after work is completed. Avoid use of plastic mesh netting as this can entrap animals.

(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Impacts to wildlife movement and native wildlife nursery sites are described below.

Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife movement includes migration (i.e., usually annual roundtrip), inter‐population movement (i.e., long‐term genetic flow), and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement corridors within an animal’s territory). While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connection between outlying populations and the main corridor, permitting an increase in gene flow among populations. In the San Francisco Bay Area, landscape elements that facilitate local and/or regional wildlife movement include stream drainages, canyons, ridges, or other prominent natural or man‐made landscape features.

The proposed project will not substantially interfere with wildlife movement or corridors. Because of the densely developed areas on both sides of the project site, the extent of terrestrial or amphibian wildlife movement is limited. Wildlife that currently move through the site will likely continue to move through the site during and after construction of the project since most of the species that likely occur in the area are generalists that are adept at moving through urban landscapes. Therefore, impacts to wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

2‐34 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Nursery Sites. Nests of all native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. The trees and shrubs on the site provide nesting habitat for resident bird species such as white‐tailed kite (a California Fully Protected Species), California scrub‐jay, northern mockingbird, and house finch, among others. If conducted during the nesting season (typically defined as February 1 to September 1), project activities could impact nesting birds by removing vegetation containing active nests and/or causing nest abandonment and subsequent reproductive failure due to prolonged loud construction noise.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐2, above, would reduce potential impacts to nursery sties and nesting birds to less than significant.

(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less Than Significant Impact. The blue gum eucalyptus and arroyo willows are considered protected trees as defined by Contra Costa County’s Protected Tree Ordinance (Contra Costa County Code [CCCC] Title 8, Chapter 816‐6).7 Construction of the project would involve the removal of one coast live oak tree near the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Pacific Avenue. A permit would be obtained from the County for removal of the tree. Furthermore, thirty (30) coast live oak trees will be planted at the project site as part of the project, rendering the removal of one tree less than significant.

The Conservation Section of the Contra Costa County General Plan lists numerous goals and policies that protect biological resources, such as wetlands, but the proposed project is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to these biological resources and would not be in conflict with these goals and policies.

(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. The project site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan.

7 Trees protected by ordinance ‐ CCCC Title 8, Chapter 816‐6 defines a protected tree as any native tree measuring 6.5‐inches or greater diameter at breast height (DBH), any multi‐stemmed tree with the sum of the circumferences measuring 13 inches or greater in diameter at DBH, or any significant grouping of trees, including groves of four or more trees.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐35 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Affected Environment:

LSA conducted a cultural resources study for the proposed project (LSA 2017) consisting of background research, literature review and a field survey. The results of the study are summarized below.

Background Research. LSA conducted background research for this study, including a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC); a Sacred Lands File search at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); and a literature and map/photograph review. The purpose of the background research was to identify recorded cultural resources and/or human remains in or adjacent to the project corridor, as well as to assess the potential that such resources and remains may exist based on the nature of prior land use. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resources records and reports for Alameda County. The NAHC is a State agency that maintains the Sacred Lands File, an official list of sites that are of cultural and religious importance to California Native American tribes. LSA also reviewed local, state, and federal cultural resource inventories, historic‐period U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, and aerial photographs. The records search identified three previously recorded cultural resources within or adjacent to the project corridor:

 P‐07‐000138/CA‐CCO‐258 is a precontact archaeological site, comprising large deposits of clam, mussel, and oyster shell, and can also contain animal bones, artifacts, as well as human burials.

 P‐07‐004530/HER33 is a historic‐period archaeological site consisting of a cluster of steel pipes that formerly denoted the northern boundary of a larger historical resource, the Hercules Powder Company (P‐07‐001006).

 P‐07‐000813 is a linear built environment resource consisting of the Southern Pacific railroad (also previously named the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroad).

2‐36 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Field Survey. On November 27, 2017, LSA archaeologist Ryan Gross, M.A., RPA, conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire project corridor. One historic‐period cultural resource was identified as a result of the field survey: a concrete foundation wall associated with the Western Division of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The resource was designated as LSA‐BKF1702‐01 and appropriately recorded. No archaeological cultural resources or human remains were identified as a result of the field survey. No evidence of previously recorded resource P‐07‐000138/CA‐CCO‐258 was identified during the field survey.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A historical resource defined by CEQA includes one or more of the following criteria: 1) the resource is listed, or found eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.(a)). Under CEQA, historical resources include built‐environment resources and archaeological sites.

The cultural resources study prepared for the proposed project identified one historic‐period cultural resource within the project corridor, LSA‐BKF1702‐01, which consists of a foundation wall associated with the Southern Pacific Railroad (P‐07‐000813). As part of this study, LSA‐ BKF1702‐01 was evaluated for California Register eligibility. While LSA‐BKF1702‐01 appears to be significant under Criterion 1 for its association with P‐07‐000813, the Southern Pacific Railroad, it cannot convey this significance due to a lack of integrity; therefore, it is not eligible for inclusion in the California Register for this reason. As such, impacts to this resource would not be significant.

However, project activities could result in impacts to historical or unique archaeological resources, and/or human remains. Despite the negative results of the study, the potential for encountering intact archaeological deposits and/or human remains during project construction cannot be ruled out. Any impacts to such resources would be significant under CEQA. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources or their accidental discovery during project construction to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CULT‐1a: A qualified archaeologist should be retained to monitor project ground‐disturbing activities east of the Pacific Avenue and San Pablo Avenue junction due to the proximity of the precontact site P‐07‐000138/CA‐CCO‐258, and the elevated potential for encountering historic period deposits in the vicinity of LSA‐ BKF1702‐01 and the former site of the Rodeo train depot (Attachment A: Figure 3). Archaeological monitors should be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐37 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

resource while the finds are being evaluated. Monitoring should continue until, in the archaeologist’s judgment, cultural resources are not likely to be encountered.

If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project monitoring, all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with agencies as appropriate, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposits should be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are eligible, impacts to the deposits should be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility.

Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report should be submitted to the District, the City of Rodeo, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University upon completion of the resource assessment.

Mitigation Measure CULT‐1b: If archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction when an archaeological monitor is not present, all ground‐ disturbing activities within 25 feet should be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. The District should inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological deposits. The District and the County of Contra Costa should verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel should not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked‐stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat‐affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains.”

2‐38 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if these qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2). Three previously recorded cultural sites were identified within or adjacent to the project corridor; however, no archaeological cultural resources or human remains were identified as a result of the field survey. As described in Response 2.5(a), unknown archaeological resources or artifacts associated with previously identified resources could be discovered during construction. Mitigation Measures CULT‐1a and CULT‐1b require monitoring during ground disturbance in particularly sensitive areas with requirements to halt work and consult a qualified archaeologist if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction. Therefore, adherence to the requirements in Mitigation Measures CULT‐1a and CULT‐1b would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. LSA conducted background research and a paleontology database search at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) for the proposed project. The project is located on land that overlays outcrops of Quaternary Alluvium, Neroly Sandstone, and Pinole Tuff bedrock. Areas within the project corridor mapped as Quaternary Alluvium have a low paleontological sensitivity, while areas mapped as Neroly Sandstone and Pinole Tuff have a high paleontological sensitivity. According to the UCMP database search, both Neroly Sandstone and Pinole Tuff have produced large quantities of fossil material, and it is possible that ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project could impact paleontological resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resource to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CULT‐2: Ground disturbing activities within geologic formations with high paleontological sensitivity (Pinole Tuff and Neroly Sandstone) shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. At the discretion of the paleontologist, the level of monitoring may be adjusted depending on the specific excavation activities taking place and their corresponding parameters. If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of an appropriate repository facility. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐39 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find and consult with agencies, as appropriate.

(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Despite the negative results of the cultural resources study, the potential for encountering intact archaeological deposits and/or human remains during project construction cannot be ruled out. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to human remains or their accidental discovery during project construction to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CULT‐3: Any human remains encountered during project ground‐ disturbing activities should be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The District and the County of Contra Costa should verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

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

2‐40 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (b) 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 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‐ 1‐B 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Affected Environment:

A geotechnical investigation8 was conducted for the project site by ENGEO Incorporated (ENGEO), and included site reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, laboratory soils testing, and engineering analysis. A report was prepared evaluating existing geologic conditions on the project site, specifically the location of the proposed bridge. The report also provides recommendations for project design. The results of the investigation are summarized below.

The project site is underlain by Later Tertiary sedimentary rocks. These rocks include Miocene‐aged marine sandstone, tuffaceous9 sandstone, and Pliocene‐Pleistocene age non‐marine siltstone, claystone, and sandstone of the Montezuma Formation10. Along the majority of the trail alignment,

8 ENGEO Incorporated, 2017. Lone Tree Point Trail Bridge Foundation Report. December 7. 9 Tuff is a type of rock made from volcanic ash ejected from a vent during a volcanic eruption. Rock that contains more than 50 percent tuff is considered tuffaceous. 10 IBID.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐41 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

surface soil consists of two to four feet of moderately‐ to highly‐plastic clay overlying a bedrock formation. Near the swale, the surface clay is thicker, and mapped as deposits of colluvium. The floor of the seasonal swale is underlain by alluvium consisting of organic silty to sandy clay. The alluvium is estimated to be 10‐14 feet thick.

Two exploratory borings were drilled to obtain soil samples from the proposed bridge location. Analysis of the samples concluded that the soil at the west abutment location consists of four feet of fill over bedrock. Soil at the east abutment location consists of six feet of colluvium over bedrock. Testing of surface soils indicate a high possibility of shrink‐swell potential.

Impact Analysis:

(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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. Fault rupture occurs when the ground’s surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. The location of surface fault rupture generally can be assumed to be along an active or potentially active major fault trace. The State of California enacted the Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zoning Act in 1972, requiring the State Geologist to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) along known active faults that have high potential for fault rupture. State regulations prohibit habitable structures from being sited within 50 feet of an active fault.

The project site is not within a state designated EFZ11. The closest EFZ to the project site is located along the Hayward Fault, approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the Lone Tree Point Staging Area. Other active faults in the region include the West Napa Fault located approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the project site, the Concord‐Green Valley Fault located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the project site, and the San Andreas Fault located approximately 23 miles southwest of the project site.

Because the project site is not located within a state designated EFZ, the potential for fault rupture is low. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death due to rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts related to the topic would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

11 ENGEO Incorporated, 2017. Lone Tree Point Trail Bridge Foundation Report. December 7.

2‐42 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site, similar to the entire San Francisco Bay Area, is located within a seismically active region subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions.

An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude within the San Francisco Bay Area could generate significant ground shaking at the project site. The most significant adverse impact associated with strong seismic ground shaking is potential damage to structures and subsequent injury to people inside or nearby those structures. The proposed project includes construction of a bridge, the damage of which could adversely affect people crossing the bridge during an earthquake. To mitigate shaking effects, the proposed project would be designed in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), which requires that structures be able to resist minor earthquakes without damage, resist moderate earthquakes without structure damage, but with some non‐structural damage, and resist major earthquakes without collapse. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 would ensure that the proposed project would be designed and constructed to reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death due to ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure GEO‐1: Project activities associated with site preparation and grading, placement and compaction of fill materials, seismic design criteria, geotechnical engineering, drainage and maintenance shall be performed in accordance with recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by ENGEO, dated December 7, 2017. The geotechnical consultant shall review the preliminary and final plans for conformance with the intent of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. During grading and construction, the geotechnical consultant shall provide intermittent geotechnical engineering observations, along with necessary field and laboratory testing to ensure conformance with recommendations and to modify recommendations, as needed.

iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the transformation of loose, fine‐grained sediment to a fluid‐like state similar to quicksand. This phenomenon occurs due to strong seismic activity, and lessens the soil’s ability to support a structural foundation. The primary factors affecting the possibility of liquefaction in soil are: 1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking; 2) soil type and relative density; 3) overburden pressures; and 4) depth to groundwater. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, fine‐grained sands and non‐plastic silts that are saturated. The results of the Geotechnical Investigation conclude the potential for liquefaction at the project site is low, as the soils on site consist of a highly‐ plastic colluvial deposit underlain by bedrock12. Therefore, impacts related to seismic‐

12 ENGEO, 2017. Lone Tree Point Trail Bridge Foundation Report. December 7.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐43 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

related ground failure including liquefaction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

iv) Landslides?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed trail alignment is located on relatively rolling terrain. No evidence of past landslide activity is present on the project site. The proposed trail alignment is not close to existing slopes that present evidence of instability. The potential for seismically induced landslides on the site is low. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities would include vegetation removal and clearing, grading, trenching and backfilling. Such activities have the potential to disrupt soil and cause erosion. As discussed in Section 2.3 Air Quality, Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 requires the construction site to be watered twice per day as a fugitive dust control measure, preventing loss of topsoil in the form of construction‐caused dust.

Loss of topsoil during construction can also occur during a storm event, which accelerates erosion due to disrupted drainage patterns during construction. Section 2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, addresses water quality impacts and specifies erosion control measures to be implemented during construction, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP outlines measures to reduce erosion impacts, thereby also preventing significant loss of topsoil. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 and Compliance Measure WQ‐1, impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Scour is an engineering term for erosion of soil located around a bridge foundation. Scour occurs as a result of flowing water excavating and carrying away material from the streambed and banks around the piers and abutments of a bridge foundation system. The project scope includes the construction of a prefabricated bridge over a wetland. Scour potential would be evaluated at the abutment locations, and foundations would extend below the depth of any scour. As required with Mitigation Measure GEO‐1, the project would be designed and constructed, using site‐specific engineering techniques as recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 would ensure scour impacts associated with the proposed bridge would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

2‐44 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. Lateral spreading is commonly associated with liquefaction, causing soil mass to move down slopes. As discussed above in 2.6(a)(iv), the potential for liquefaction at the site is low.

Subsidence is the vertical displacement of the ground’s surface, caused by the extraction of large volumes of fluid (water or petroleum products) from deep in the ground, or caused by the collapse of underground mines. No extraction or mining activities take place in the vicinity of the project site; therefore the potential for subsidence is low.

As discussed above in 2.6 (a)(iii) and (iv), impacts related to landslides and liquefaction would be less than significant. The proposed project does not include a housing component, nor would the project result in permanent occupation of the project site. Existing undocumented fill would be removed and recompacted, improving soil stability. Furthermore, the project would be designed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), and the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation report. Therefore, impacts related to this topic would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes and can cause heaving and cracking of flatwork and pavement. Changes in soil volume could result in significant expansion pressure on proposed improvements at the project site including damage to the bridge foundation and the trail alignment, unless properly treated during construction using methods such as water conditioning, over excavation, and appropriate foundation design.

Results of soils testing at the project site indicate highly expansive soil is present along the project alignment. As required by Mitigation Measure GEO‐1, the proposed project would be designed and constructed using site‐specific engineering techniques, as recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur and no mitigation is required.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐45 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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?

Affected Environment:

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human‐induced global climate change are:

 Carbon dioxide (CO2);

 Methane (CH4);

 Nitrous oxide (N2O);  Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);  Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and

 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).

Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally‐occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases are synthetic and include HFCs, PFCs, and SF6.

Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmos‐ phere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short‐lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one

2‐46 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

Impact Analysis:

(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. The following section describes the proposed project’s construction‐ and operation‐related GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change. As discussed below, the proposed project would not generate substantial GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Construction Emissions. Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, use of on‐ site heavy‐duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction of the proposed project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil‐based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil‐based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on‐site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using the Road Construction Emissions Model, it is estimated that the project would generate approximately 115 metric tons of CO2 during construction of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, as discussed in Section 2.3(b), would further reduce construction GHG emissions by limiting construction idling emissions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, construction emissions would be considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Operational Emissions. The proposed project would construct 2,750 feet of the Bay Trail between Lone Tree Point and the end of an existing trail segment in the City of Hercules, to improve access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians along the Bay Trail and to create better access and a more pedestrian‐friendly environment. Implementation of the project would likely result in new vehicle trips to the project site that would contribute to a nominal increase in GHG emissions. However, as described in Section 2.16, Transportation/Traffic, this increase in vehicle trips would be small and likely to occur only on weekends, therefore contributions to GHG emissions would be less than significant. The project would not generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts related to this topic would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐47 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in 2015, addresses local climate change and includes GHG reduction targets to comply with Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The CAP strategy is primarily based upon the land use, transportation, and conservation policies that are included in the General Plan. The CAP demonstrates that through land use planning/density choices, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and energy conservation measures, the county contributes to the State greenhouse gas reduction targets. The CAP has been determined to be a “Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy” as defined by the BAAQMD guidelines. As such, it serves as a guidance document for local decision makers and staff to ensure that future actions and land use decisions are also consistent with State and local greenhouse gas reduction goals as they relate to climate change and CEQA.

As discussed above, the long‐term use of the project is for a pedestrian and bicycle trail. The CAP includes Measure LUT 1.1, which states that the County will collaborate with local transportation, land use agencies, nonprofits, and other stakeholders to expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities and existing public transportation. Additionally, Strategy Measure LUT 1.5 of the CAP states the County will work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to improve access to community‐wide bicycle and pedestrian networks by closing gaps in the network, removing barriers, and providing additional bike‐ and pedestrian‐oriented infrastructure. The project is consistent with these policies as it would extend the existing trail, enhancing safety and efficiency of trail use for bicycle transportation.

The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions and, therefore, is consistent with the CAP and would not generate emissions that would exceed the project‐level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD. The project would also be consistent with the strategies and policies included in the CAP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

2‐48 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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

Affected Environment:

Heavy industrial development, which may be associated with hazardous materials, occurs along the north and west shorelines of Contra Costa County near the project area. These industrial developments include:

 The Conoco Phillips San Francisco Refinery, located at 1290 San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo approximately 0.75 mile north of the Lone Tree Point Staging Area; and

 Nu Star Energy, an oil and natural gas company facility, located at 90 San Pablo Avenue in Crockett, approximately 1.39 miles northeast of the Lone Tree Point Staging Area.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐49 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

The presence of heavy industry facilities poses a risk to public safety because of the hazardous nature of chemical and petroleum materials found at these industrial facilities. Potential hazards include explosion, fire, and chemical toxicity exposure. Natural gas is considered to be less of a hazard than petroleum because it is transported at lower pressures, and when released, natural gas rises and disappears into the atmosphere. Unlike natural gas, when petroleum is released it flows on the ground and could more easily spread fires to nearby properties13.

Additionally, the Kinder Morgan Petroleum Pipeline runs parallel to the proposed trail, as do tracks for the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), which transport a variety of potentially hazardous materials including military weapons. Hazardous materials associated with the railroad corridor14 could potentially have leached into shallow soils. At its closest, the construction area is located within approximately 53 feet of the railroad tracks, and stormwater runoff from the tracks could potentially carry contaminants from the tracks to the project corridor. If this has occurred, shallow soils along the project corridor could potentially hold contaminants related to railroad activity.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous substances include chemicals regulated under both the United States Department of Transportation15 and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)16 “Hazardous Materials” regulations. Hazardous waste requires specific handling and disposal procedures because of potential damage to public health and the environment.

During construction, small quantities of commercially available hazardous materials could be used by construction vehicles (e.g., oil, gasoline), and drips and small spills of solvents, lubricants, and adhesives could occur. Any release of these hazardous materials that occurs in close proximity to a sensitive habitat (e.g. a wetland) could have a significant impact on the environment, if not properly controlled. The District will be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009‐0009‐ DWQ, as amended by Orders No. 2010‐0014‐DWQ and 2012‐0006‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit), as specified in Compliance Measure WQ‐1 in the

13 Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan Safety Element. Available online at: http://ca‐ contracostacounty2.civicplus.com/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed September 29, 2017). 14 Hazardous materials that could potentially be present in the adjoining rail corridor due to construction and operation of the railroad tracks include metals, contaminated imported fill or ballast used during construction of the railroad tracks, spilled or leaked total petroleum hydrocarbons, spilled cleaning solvents and detergents, herbicides, arsenic, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, historically used to treat and waterproof railroad ties (TDART, 2004). 15 United States Department of Transportation. Regulations. Available online at: http://phmsa.dot.gov/regulations (Accessed September 29, 2017). 16 Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Hazardous Waste Regulations. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/lawsregs/regs‐haz.htm (Accessed September 29, 2017).

2‐50 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Hydrology and Water Quality section. Adherence with Compliance Measure WQ‐1 would reduce the potential for hazardous materials releases to occur during construction, and would reduce the potential for spills to impact sensitive habitat or human health, to less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project (i.e., use of the proposed trail by cyclists and pedestrians) would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to this topic would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities may involve the use of commercially available hazardous materials. Use of such materials would be in compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project (i.e., use of the proposed trail by cyclists and pedestrians) would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to this topic and no mitigation is required.

(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. Several schools are located within the proposed project vicinity including Rodeo Hills Elementary School located at 545 Garretson Avenue in Rodeo, approximately 0.40 mile southeast from the Lone Tree Point Staging Area. However, no portion of the proposed trail would be located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed project would not routinely emit hazardous emissions, and handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste on the project site (if any) would be temporary and cease upon project completion. Therefore, the proposed project would not 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?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker website17 identifies the following cleanup sites within 1,000 feet of the proposed trail alignment:

 Rodeo Marina, 13 Pacific Avenue. Cleanup Program Site‐Completed (Land Use Restrictions)  Rodeo Marina UST, 13 Pacific Avenue. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)‐Completed

17 State Water Resources Control Board, 2014. GeoTracker website. Available online at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (Accessed September 27, 2017).

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐51 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

 Wells Fargo Bank, 190 Parker Avenue. LUST‐Completed  Gozzano Property, 701 San Pablo Avenue. LUST‐Completed  Southern Pacific Pipelines‐2nd Street. Cleanup Program Site‐Open‐Inactive Cleanup program sites are “non‐federally owned” sites that are regulated under the SWRCB’s site cleanup program. Such sites vary and include but are not limited to rail yards, ports, refineries, landfills, and some brownfields.18

Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup sites include underground storage tank (UST) sites that have had an unauthorized release (leak or spill) of a hazardous substance, usually fuel hydrocarbons. The sites with a ‘Completed’ status indicates that regulatory requirements for response actions such as site remediation have been complete and therefore potential migration of residual contaminants within the project site (if any) does not likely pose a risk to human health or the environment.

The Southern Pacific Pipelines site is located near the now closed Pacific Refinery where the Victoria by the Bay residential community is located. In 1988, a pipeline owned by Southern Pacific Pipelines had been observed seeping hydrocarbons along the edge of San Pablo Bay. Site remediation consisting of containment and cleanup occurred, including a boom system off‐ shore to prevent contaminants from entering the Bay. Water sampling took place and hydrocarbons were not detected in the samples. The site has a status of ‘Open‐Inactive’ on the SWRCB GeoTracker website. An ‘Open‐Inactive’ project status indicates that no regulatory oversite activities are being conducted by the Lead Agency.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor website19 does not identify any listed hazardous sites within 1,000 feet of any portion of the project site.

The proposed trail alignment is located adjacent to the existing UPRR tracks – at the closest point, the trail is approximately 53 feet from the tracks. Railways have high potential for the unintentional release of hazardous materials due to transportation and accidental spills. Construction of the proposed trail may release hazardous material while earthwork is being conducted. A Phase I environmental assessment has not been conducted for the proposed project, and will be deferred until construction‐related ground disturbing activities, including grading, occur, at which point the District will collect a shallow soil sample for testing. Should the soil testing results exceed Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) environmental screening levels (ESLs) for the proposed trail, the contaminated soil would be removed and either treated or exported off‐site to an approved contaminated waste facility consistent with County requirements.

18 State Water Resources Control Board, 2014. GeoTracker website. Available online at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/site_type_definitions (Accessed September 27, 2017). 19 Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2007. EnviroStor website. Available online at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (Accessed September 27, 2017).

2‐52 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1: Prior to commencement of grading activities, the project contractor shall collect shallow soil samples. The samples shall be analyzed for heavy metals identified in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. The samples shall also be analyzed for diesel motor oil, organochlorine pesticides (OCP), and semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOC). The soil sampling report indicating the results of the sampling shall be submitted to the District for review and approval.

If soil testing results exceed Regional Water Quality Control Board environmental screening levels (ESLs) for the proposed recreational use, a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered during construction activities.

Appropriate soil testing, characterization, storage, transportation, and disposal procedures shall be specified in the SMP. The sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk‐based screening levels in the SMP. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with construction activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to the commencement of grading.

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public airports to the project site are the Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately 12 miles east of the site in Concord, and the Napa County Airport, approximately 12 miles north of the project site in Napa. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an airport‐related safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area. No impact relating to this topic would occur and no mitigation is required.

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest private airstrip to the project is the Brookside Hospital Helipad located approximately seven (7) miles southeast of the project site in the City of San Pablo. The proposed project would not result in an airport‐related safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact relating to this topic would occur and no mitigation is required.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐53 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. The proposed project is the construction of a multi‐use trail recreational facility and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact related to this topic would occur and no mitigation is required.

(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less Than Significant Impact. A wildland fire is a fire occurring in a suburban or rural area which contains uncultivated land, timber, range, brush, or grasslands. Wildland fires are primarily a concern in areas where there is a mix of developed and undeveloped lands.

Much of the proposed trail alignment is within the Wildland Urban Interface, or areas identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection20 as fire threatened communities. The proposed project would not construct residential or commercial structures, or any other habitable structures. The proposed project would not result in permanent occupation of the project site. Operation of construction equipment could spark a wildfire in this area that could threaten people and structures. Construction contractors are required to comply with fire prevention measures identified in California Public Resource Code Sections 4428‐4442. The proposed project would also result in the introduction of trail users who could spark a fire in the project area. However, the risk of wildland fire from such a source would be minimal. Compliance with the existing fire prevention regulations would reduce the risk of increasing wildland fires to a less than significant level. No mitigation is required.

20 California Department of Forestry, 2003. State Responsibility Areas. Available as part of the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Earthquake and Hazards Program:. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wildfires/ (Accessed September 1, 2017).

2‐54 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐ site. (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 storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (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 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?

Affected Environment:

The project site is located within the Rodeo Creek Watershed, which flows into San Pablo Bay. The watershed totals 6,657 acres, and includes Rodeo and the City of Hercules, serving approximately 8,900 people21. The watershed includes Rodeo Creek, which empties into San Pablo Bay approximately 900 feet northeast of the Lone Tree Point Staging Area. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is administered in California by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) on behalf of

21 Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 2003. Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas. Available online at: http://cocowaterweb.org/ (Accessed October 3, 2017).

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐55 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The CWA mandates the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for all point sources of discharge into waters of the United States, including municipal storm drains and storm drain systems. The County Watershed Program (CWP) is responsible for ensuring compliance with NPDES permitting requirements for municipal stormwater discharge in Contra Costa County. The storm drain system in Contra Costa County is permitted as a MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) NPDES permit.

The CWP has two current NPDES permits including the Municipal Regional Permit for discharges into the San Francisco Bay, and the East Contra Costa County Permit for discharges into the Delta. The latter permit applies to the Cities of Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood, as well as unincorporated Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (FCD).

Under CWA section 303(d), states are required to submit a list of waterbodies not meeting water quality standards to the USEPA. In California, this list is compiled by the RWQCBs. According to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Region 2) 2016 Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report)22, Rodeo Creek, in Contra Costa County, is listed as an impaired water body, contaminated with diazinon from urban runoff. A waterbody listed as impaired triggers development standards and implementation plans known as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for each water quality pollutant, and these standards and plans are ultimately codified in amendments to the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pollutants of concern during project construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream compared to existing conditions. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, construction‐related pollutants such as chemicals, liquid and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete‐related waste could be spilled, leaked or transported via storm runoff into adjacent drainages and into downstream receiving waters. Any of these pollutants has the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would disturb greater than one (1) acre of soil and would therefore be subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General

22 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2016. Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) 2016 Integrated for the San Francisco Bay Region. Available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist.shtml (Accessed September 8, 2017).

2‐56 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009‐0009‐DWQ, as amended by 2010‐0014‐DWQ and 2012‐0006‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit), as specified in Compliance Measure WQ‐1, below.

In compliance with the Construction General Permit, the Construction Contractor would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implement construction BMPs during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs, designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.

Compliance Measure WQ‐1: Prior to commencement of construction activities, the proposed project shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit [CGP]) Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ, as amended by 2010‐0014‐DWG and 2012‐ 0006‐DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, or any other subsequent permit. To obtain coverage, the District shall submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is obtained from SMARTS. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented to address all construction‐related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, and spills is minimized and to control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff as a result of construction activities.

(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)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within the boundaries of a groundwater basin23. In addition, the proposed project would not result in the construction of large areas of impervious surfaces that would prevent groundwater from infiltrating into the ground, nor would it result in direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater. Additionally, groundwater was not encountered during the geotechnical investigation24 due to the method of drilling used. However, fluctuation in groundwater levels can be expected during seasonal changes or over a period of years due to precipitation changes and changes in

23 California Department of Water Resources, 2017. Water Management Planning Tool. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/ (accessed December 1, 2017). 24 ENGEO, 2017. Lone Tree Point Trail Bridge Foundation Report. December 7.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐57 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

irrigation and drainage patterns. As described in the geotechnical investigation, the base of the wetlands occurs at approximately 10 feet (NAVD 88) and it is anticipated that bridge abutment construction would occur above the elevation of the wetlands. However, if excavation and construction extends to the ground elevation of the wetland, or if drilled, cast‐in‐place piers are used to support the pedestrian bridge, ground water may be encountered and dewatering would be required. Groundwater dewatering activities would be temporary in nature and would cease following completion of construction. It is not anticipated that the volume of groundwater extracted during dewatering activities, if needed, would be substantial.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During construction and grading activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, resulting in an increased potential for soil erosion and the transport of sediment downstream compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed in Response 2.9(a) and specified in Compliance Measure WQ‐ 1, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. Through adherence with Compliance Measure WQ‐1, construction of the project would result in a less than significant impact related to erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐ site.

Post‐construction erosion can occur from poorly designed or maintained drainage structures. The project would include three culverts and a 200‐foot long pedestrian bridge. The culverts and bridge would provide crossings for trail users while maintaining drainage within the project area. These drainage structures would maintain the existing drainage pattern.

The project would increase impervious surface area along the project alignment due to the construction of a paved trail and installation of pavement at the existing Lone Tree Point Staging Area. This increase in impervious surface area could increase the volume of runoff during a storm event, resulting in changes to the existing drainage pattern. The proposed trail would include two foot‐wide pervious shoulders on either side of the trail, as well as the drainage structures (three culverts) discussed above. Runoff into adjacent pervious areas is expected to mitigate any potential impacts from trail paving. The spur trail is currently paved, and repaving of the spur trail would not result in an increase in impervious surface area. Upon project completion drainage along the spur trail would be the same as existing conditions. Additionally, Compliance Measure WQ‐1 addresses impacts to erosion and siltation due to change in drainage patterns and would be implemented on‐site, minimizing the potential for on‐ and off‐site erosion and siltation. Furthermore, the project would not alter the course of a stream or river.

2‐58 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Therefore, impacts to this topic would be rendered less than significant implementation of Compliance Measure WQ‐1.

(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?

Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, soil would be disturbed and compacted and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, which can increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff and increase the potential for localized flooding compared to existing conditions. As discussed in 2.9(a), Compliance Measure WQ‐1, requires the preparation of a SWPPP and the implementation of BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on‐site, thereby reducing impacts associated with on‐ or off‐site flooding. Construction activities would be short‐ term and would be limited to the dry season. Therefore, adherence to Compliance Measure WQ‐1 would ensure that construction of the project would result in a less than significant impact related to surface runoff, resulting in flooding on‐ or off‐site. No mitigation is required.

Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surface area along the proposed alignment by placing a paved trail in an area that is currently undeveloped and paving the existing gravel parking area. The trail would include two‐foot wide pervious shoulders on both sides and the surrounding vegetation would remain, allowing stormwater to continue to infiltrate into the ground and maintaining the existing drainage patterns. Drainage improvements, including the installation of three culverts, would maintain the flow of stormwater on‐site, reducing the potential for on‐ or off‐site flooding. Because the existing drainage pattern would be maintained and the proposed project includes drainage improvements, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to this topic. No mitigation is required.

(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response 2.9(c), above, construction activities could compact soil, which could increase stormwater runoff during construction, temporarily altering drainage patterns during grading and other construction activities, and spill, leak, or transport construction‐related pollutants such as liquid and petroleum products and concrete waste via stormwater runoff into adjacent drainages and downstream receiving waters. As specified in Compliance Measure WQ‐1, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements set forth in the Construction General Permit, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to control stormwater runoff. With adherence to Compliance Measure WQ‐1, impacts related to the creation or contribution of runoff that would exceed the capacity of the storm water drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

As discussed in Response 2.9(a) and 2.9(d) above, pollutants of concern during operation of the proposed trail include suspended solids/sediment, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria and virus),

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐59 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

pesticides, and trash and debris. The project would increase impervious surface area; however, this increase in impervious surface area would not substantially increase the amount of pollutants discharged into the downstream receiving waters compared to the existing condition. The proposed trail would include two‐foot wide pervious shoulders to capture and infiltrate surface runoff and the existing surrounding vegetation would remain on‐site. Through project design, impacts related to the creation or contribution of runoff, which would exceed the capacity of the existing storm water drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 2.9(a) above.

(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 map?

No Impact. The proposed project would consist of a multi‐use trail and the proposed project does not include a housing component. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps Nos. 06013C0042H and 06013C0044H,the project site is not located within a 100‐year flood hazard area (i.e., an area in which there is a one percent chance per year of a flood occurring), and is in an area of minimal flooding hazard25. Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area. No mitigation is required. h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood hazard area, and the proposed project would not include any structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the proposed project would not place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. No mitigation is required.

(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?

Less Than Significant Impact. A levee is a type of long continuous dam that runs along a river or canal and provides flood protection. Levee system failure is primarily a concern in eastern Contra Costa County in the California Delta Area. The project site is located in western Contra Costa County, along the Bay; therefore, impacts related to this topic would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

25 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Available as part of the Association of Bay Area Government Resilience Program http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/floods/ (Accessed September 21, 2017).

2‐60 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Dam failure is defined as the structural collapse of a dam that releases the water stored in a reservoir behind the dam. Dam failure is usually the result of the age of the structure, inadequate spillway capacity, or structural damage caused by an earthquake or flood. Maintenance and safety of small, privately owned dams used for stock watering and agricultural activities is a private concern, and seismic activity is not considered a significant hazard for these small types of dams.

Dam safety is regulated by the State Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. According to the department’s website, 25 large dams are located within Contra Costa County26, all of which have been examined and many of which have been strengthened for safety reasons. Each of these 25 dams receives a “satisfactory” rating except for one which receives a “fair” rating (or a 5 or 4 on a 1‐5 scale). A satisfactory rating indicates that no existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized. Acceptable performance is expected under all loading conditions (static, hydrologic, seismic). A fair rating indicates that no existing or potential dam safety deficiencies are recognized for normal loading conditions. Rare or extreme hydrologic or seismic events may result in dam safety deficiencies. For the reasons described above, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less Than Significant Impact. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities such as reservoirs and water tanks. Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. The project does not include a housing component and users of the trail would be at the project site for limited durations of time. The proposed trail is not located adjacent to a water retention facility, like a reservoir or water tank. Furthermore the project site is not mapped as a flood prone area and impacts related to inundation by seiche would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Tsunamis are generated wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the seafloor associated with shallow earthquakes, seafloor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. According to the California Emergency Management Agency tsunami inundation map, the project site is not within a tsunami inundation area27. Furthermore, the Safety Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan states that were a tsunami to occur in San Francisco Bay, the wave’s height would diminish by half in the time it takes for the wave to travel from the

26 California Department of Water Resources, 2017. Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California. Available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/damlisting/index.cfm (Accessed September 28, 2017). 27 California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map For Emergency Planning, Mare Island Quadrangle. Available online at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/ContraCosta (Accessed September 28, 2017).

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐61 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Golden Gate Bridge to Richmond, and would decrease further when it reached the Carquinez Strait28. Therefore impacts related to inundation by tsunami would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mudslides and flows are described as a shallower type of slope failure, usually affecting the upper soil mantle or weathered bedrock underlying natural slopes and triggered by surface or shallow subsurface saturation. Mudflows typically occur in mountainous or hilly terrain, where vegetation is not sufficient to prevent rapid erosion, but can occur on gentle slopes if other conditions are met. Other conditions are heavy precipitation in short periods of time and easily erodible source material. When completed, the trail would have a grade of less than five percent. Some gentle slopes are located east of the trail and a 125 foot long retaining wall would be installed in order to maintain slope integrity. The development of the proposed trail would not result in risk to property or public safety given that use of the trail would be for limited periods of recreation and no habitable structures are present at the project site. Therefore, impacts related to mudflows would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

28 Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan Safety Element. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed December 1, 2017).

2‐62 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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?

Affected Environment:

The proposed trail crosses through three parcels within unincorporated Contra Costa County and the City of Hercules. The District owns two of the parcels and has obtained an easement for the third parcel. The County of Contra Costa General Plan Land Use Map29 designates the portion of the project site within Rodeo as Open Space (OS). Land designated OS can include wetlands, tidelands, or lands which contain geologic hazards. According to the General Plan, permanent structures constructed on land designated OS must be oriented toward recreation or resource conservation.

The County of Contra Costa zoning designation30 for the project site is Planned Unit District (P‐1). The Planned Unit District is intended to allow diversification in the various land uses, lot sizes and open space, while complying with the General Plan. Allowable uses include any land uses permitted by an approved final development plan and are consistent with the General Plan.

According to the City of Hercules Land Use and Zoning map31, the portion of the project site within the City of Hercules jurisdiction is designated New Pacific Properties Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area). The Specific Plan Area is a planned residential community including parks, open space, and trails. This site was previously occupied by the Pacific Refinery Company petroleum refinery until the refinery’s closure in 1995. The land was turned over to the City in 200032.

Land uses within the Specific Plan Area are residential (single and multi‐family), and non‐residential (school, open space including parks and trails, and roads). The proposed project site is designated

29 Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐ costa.ca.us/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed September 28, 2017). 30 Contra Costa, County of Contra Costa County Municipal Code, Title 8‐Zoning. Available online at: https://library.municode.com/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code (Accessed September 28, 2017). 31 Hercules, City of, 2007. City of Hercules Land Use and Zoning Map. Available online at: http://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/index.aspx?page=196 (Accessed September 28, 2017). 32 PBR, 2000. New Pacific Properties Specific Plan. Available online at: http://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/index.aspx?page=200 (Accessed September 28, 2017).

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐63 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

for Parks and Open Space use, and zoned as Open Space/Parks (SP‐OS). This zoning district is intended for a variety of open space and park uses including active and passive recreational uses.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. Physically dividing an established community generally refers to installation of physically obstructive infrastructure such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of access such as a bridge or local road that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying areas. The project site is within designated Open Space and Park and Recreation land and there is no habitable development at the project location. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact relating to this topic would occur as a result of the proposed project.

(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?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Plan policies and regulations applicable to the proposed project include: the Contra Costa County General Plan, the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance, the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan, City of Hercules General Plan, the City of Hercules Zoning Ordinance, the City of Hercules New Pacific Properties Specific Plan, the San Francisco Bay Trail Design Guidelines, and the East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan.

The proposed project is generally in direct support of these plans and policies. The proposed project conforms to the District master plan policies regarding parking, staging areas, and connections to existing regional trails and parks within the East Bay. Examples include the following:

 The City of Hercules New Pacific Properties Specific Plan states that “The Shoreline Park/Trail will serve as a critical link in the regional bayshore trail system. The trail will allow for a connection to the existing Lone Tree Park in the community of Rodeo to the north and will extend to the south.”33

 Goals of the Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan include improving Lone Tree Point Park and improving access to Lone Tree Point Park for pedestrians and vehicles.34

 The Open Space Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan encourages the joint use of recreation facilities and identifies the potential for recreational trails along utility pipeline rights‐of‐way35.

33 Pbr, 2000. New Pacific Properties Specific Plan. Available online at: (Accessed September 28, 2017). 34 Contra Costa Community Development Agency, 1997. Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4747/Specific‐Plans (Accessed September 29, 2017).

2‐64 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Other applicable plans and policies support completion of missing Bay Trail segments. The proposed project adheres to applicable zoning codes and land uses. Additional relevant policies relate to the protection of natural resources, water quality, and provision of utilities. Many project impacts related to these topics are less than significant or limited to the short term construction phase of the project described in relevant sections of this IS/MND. With mitigation measures contained in this IS/MND, the proposed project is consistent with all the applicable regulations and policies contained in these documents. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to this topic.

No Impact. A federal habitat conservation plan (HCP) allows local agencies to permit projects and activities in endangered species’ habitats. Such projects must incorporate measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential adverse effects on natural communities and endangered species. A natural community conservation plan (NCCP) is the state equivalent to a HCP. The NCCP program conserves natural communities while allowing for compatible land uses and development. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy oversees protection of natural resources in the East Contra Costa County cities of Brentwood, Oakley, Clayton, and Pittsburg, through implementation of an HCP/NCCP. The project site is located in west Contra Costa County and not on land with an applicable HCP or NCCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan and no mitigation is required.

35 Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan Conservation Element. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed September 29, 2017

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐65 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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?

Affected Environment:

Minerals are any naturally occurring chemical elements or compounds, or groups of elements and compounds formed from organic processes and substances including, but not limited to, coal, peat, and oil bearing rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas, and petroleum. The mineral industry is responsible for much of the employment within Contra Costa County, and available minerals include crushed rock, shale, sand, and sandstone36.

Impact Analysis:

(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?

No Impact. The State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) identifies and protects California’s mineral resources by providing information regarding the location of mineral resources to local jurisdictions. According to the Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan,37 which identifies mineral resources throughout the unincorporated county, the proposed project site is not within a state‐designated mineral resource sector. Therefore, the proposed project would not 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?

No Impact. Refer to Response 2.11 (a). The proposed project would not 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.

36 Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan, Conservation Element. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed September 27, 2017). 37 IBID.

2‐66 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.12 NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (c) 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 adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Affected Environment:

A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the criteria in the County of Contra Costa General Plan Noise Element and City of Hercules General Plan Noise Element. Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that increase noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 decibels (dB) or greater since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, is the change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category is changes in noise level of less than 1.0 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant. For the purpose of this analysis, the proposed project creates a significant noise impact if the project‐related noise increase at an existing sensitive receptor is greater than 3 dB and the resulting noise level is greater than the standards cited below or if the project‐related increase in noise is greater than 5 A‐ weighted decibels (dBA), yet the resulting noise levels are within the applicable land use compatibility standards for the sensitive use.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐67 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

The proposed trail is located within the Contra Costa County jurisdiction and within the City of Hercules. Contra Costa County addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan.38 The Contra Costa County Noise Element sets noise and land use compatibility guidelines. The Contra Costa County Noise Element also contains goals and policies that seek to maintain appropriate noise conditions throughout the County. Policy 11‐8 requires construction activities to be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise‐sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods.

In addition, the City of Hercules addresses noise in the Noise Element,39 which also sets noise and land use compatibility guidelines. The Hercules Noise Element contains goals and policies that aim to ensure that all new development is compatible with the existing and future noise environment and prevent all new noise sources from increasing the existing noise level above acceptable standards. The City also sets maximum allowable noise levels for stationary noise sources, as shown in Table 2.C below.

Table 2.C: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Stationary Noise Sources1

Daytime5 Nighttime2,5

(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 3 Hourly Leq, dBA 50 45 Maximum Level, dBA3 70 65 Maximum Level, dBA Impulsive Noise4 65 60

Note: Stationary noise sources include all non‐transportation sources. 1 As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures. 2 Applies only where the receiving land use operates or is occupied during nighttime hours. 3 Sound level measurements shall be made with “slow” meter response. 4 Sound level measurements shall be made with “fast” meter response. 5 Allowable levels shall be raised to the ambient noise levels where the ambient levels exceed the allowable levels. Allowable levels shall be reduced 5 dBA if the ambient hourly Leq is at least 10 dBA lower than the allowable level.

In addition, Policy 6 of the Hercules Noise Element requires the control of noise at noise‐sensitive land uses generated by construction activities through implementation of the following measures:

 For construction near noise‐sensitive areas, as determined by the Community and Business Development Department, require that noisy construction activities (including truck traffic) be scheduled for periods, according to construction permit to limit impact on adjacent residents or other sensitive receptors.  Develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise impacts and accommodates particularly noise‐sensitive periods for nearby land uses (e.g., for schools, churches, etc.)  Where feasible, require that holes for driven piles be pre‐drilled to reduce the level and duration of noise impacts.

38 Contra Costa, County of, 2010. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 – 2020. July. 39 Hercules, City of, 1998. Hercules General Plan Noise Element. September 1998.

2‐68 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

 Where feasible, construct temporary solid noise barriers between source and sensitive receptor(s) to reduce offsite propagation of construction noise. This measure could reduce construction noise by up to 5 decibels.  Require internal combustion engines used for construction purposes to be equipped with a properly operating muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. Also, require impact tools to be shielded per manufacturer’s specifications.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. As noted above, the project site is located within unincorporated Contra Costa County and within the City of Hercules. The proposed project is surrounded by a mix of uses, including recreational, industrial, and residential uses. The closest sensitive receptors include the single‐family residential uses located approximately 45 feet southeast of the proposed project.

The primary existing noise sources contributing to ambient noise within the vicinity of the project sites are traffic associated with San Pablo Avenue and other noise from motor vehicles generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between the tires and the road, and vehicle exhaust systems. In addition, the proposed project parallels the Union Pacific railway (UPRR). Based on noise measurements conducted for the City of Hercules General Plan, the project site is exposed to noise 40 levels of approximately 66 dBA Ldn and 62 dBA Leq.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The following section addresses the short‐ term construction and long‐term operational noise impacts of the proposed project.

Short‐Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short‐term noise impacts on these adjacent land uses. Maximum construction noise would be short‐term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below.

Short‐term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Table 2.D lists typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction‐related short‐term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed.

40 Ibid.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐69 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 2.D: Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors Acoustical Predicted L at Actual Measured L at Equipment Description max max Usage Factor1 50 feet (dBA, slow)2 50 feet (dBA, slow)3 All Other Equipment > 5 HP 50 85 N/A4 Auger Drill Rig 20 85 84 Backhoe 40 80 78 Blasting N/A 94 N/A Chain Saw 20 85 84 Clam Shovel (dropping) 20 93 87 Compactor (ground) 20 80 83 Compressor (air) 40 80 78 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 85 79 Concrete Pump Truck 20 82 81 Concrete Saw 20 90 90 Crane 16 85 81 Dozer 40 85 82 Drill Rig Truck 20 84 79 Drum Mixer 50 80 80 Dump Truck 40 84 76 Excavator 40 85 81 Flat Bed Truck 40 84 74 Front‐End Loader 40 80 79 Generator 50 82 81 Grader 40 85 N/A Grapple (on backhoe) 40 85 87 Horizontal Boring Hydraulic Jack 25 80 82 Hydra Break Ram 10 90 N/A Jackhammer 20 85 89 Man Lift 20 85 75 Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 20 90 90 Paver 50 85 77 Pickup Truck 40 55 75 Pneumatic Tools 50 85 85 Pumps 50 77 81 Refrigerator Unit 100 82 73 Rivet Buster/Chipping Gun 20 85 79 Rock Drill 20 85 81 Roller 20 85 80 Scraper 40 85 84 Slurry Plant 100 78 78 Soil Mix Drill Rig 50 80 N/A Tractor 40 84 N/A Vacuum Excavator (Vac‐Truck) 40 85 85 Vacuum Street Sweeper 10 80 82 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 20 80 80 Vibratory Pile Driver 20 95 101 Welder/Torch 40 73 74 Source: FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1 (FHWA 2006).

2‐70 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 2.D: Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power. 2 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification (Spec.) 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project. 3 The maximum noise level was developed based on the average noise level measured for each piece of equipment during the CA/T program in Boston, Massachusetts. 4 Since the maximum noise level based on the average noise level measured for this piece of equipment was not available, the maximum noise level developed based on Spec 721.560 would be used. dBA = A‐weighted decibels N/A = not applicable HP = horsepower RCNM = Roadway Construction Noise Model L = maximum instantaneous noise level max VMS = variable message sign kVA = kilovolt‐amperes

Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 2.D, there would be a relatively high single‐event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet.

The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Table 2.D lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical maximum noise levels range up to 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full‐power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

The nearest sensitive receptors are the adjacent single‐family residences, located approximately 45 feet from the project site. At 45 feet, there would be an increase of approximately 1 dBA from the increased distance from the active construction area. Therefore, the closest off‐site sensitive receptors may be subject to short‐term construction noise reaching 88 dBA Lmax when construction is occurring at the project site boundary. This maximum noise level would exceed the City’s stationary noise standards of 70 dBA Lmax during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐71 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

and 65 dBA Lmax during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Based on this maximum noise level, construction of the proposed project would result in noise levels of 83 dBA Leq, which would also exceed the City’s noise level standard of 50 dBA Leq during the daytime and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime at receiving residential land uses.

As discussed above, construction noise would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. Implementation of the following mitigation measure for project construction would reduce potential construction period noise impacts for the indicated sensitive receptors to less‐than‐ significant levels.

Mitigation Measure NOI‐1: The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:

 Construction of the project shall comply with the City of Hercules Noise Element Policy 6 by:

o For construction near noise‐sensitive areas, as determined by the Community and Business Development Department, noisy construction activities (including truck traffic) shall be scheduled for periods, according to construction permit, to limit impact on adjacent residents or other sensitive receptors.

o Develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise impacts and accommodates particularly noise‐sensitive periods for nearby land uses (e.g., for schools, churches, etc.)

o Where feasible, holes for driven piles shall be pre‐drilled to reduce the level and duration of noise impacts.

o Where feasible, construct temporary solid noise barriers between source and sensitive receptor(s) to reduce offsite propagation of construction noise. This measure could reduce construction noise by up to 5 decibels.

o Require internal combustion engines used for construction purposes to be properly maintained and equipped with a properly operating muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. Also, require impact tools to be shielded per manufacturer’s specifications.

 Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.

 Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction.

 Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines.

2‐72 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

 Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.

Implementation of these measures would limit construction activities to the less noise‐sensitive periods of the day and would reduce construction impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.

Operational Noise Impacts. Operation of the proposed trail would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards in the local general plan, since the project is not expected to generate substantial vehicular traffic or other operational noise. Pedestrians or bicyclists may converse resulting in intermittent noise while using the trail; however, this noise level would be similar to existing conditions and would not generate noise levels that would exceed the applicable standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of local standards. This impact would be considered less than significant.

(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less Than Significant. Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low‐frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less, which is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

A significant vibration impact would occur if the project would expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Common sources of groundborne vibration and noise include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction of the proposed project would involve grading, site preparation, and construction activities but would not involve the use of construction equipment that would result in substantial groundborne vibration or groundborne noise on properties adjacent to the project site. No pile driving, blasting, or substantial grading activities are proposed. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial groundborne noise and vibration.

The proposed project would be located adjacent to the UPRR; however, the proposed pathway would be paved, smooth, and unlikely to result in significant groundborne vibration. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new buildings or sensitive receptors; therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of persons to or

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐73 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

generation of excessive groundborne noise and vibration. This impact would be less than significant.

(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant. The long‐term use of the project is for a multi‐use pathway. As discussed in Section 2.12(a), above, this land use would not generate increased ambient noise levels. No substantial long‐term increase in ambient noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation.

(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant. Although there would be temporary high intermittent construction noise at times in the project area during project construction, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not significantly affect land uses adjacent to the project sites. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels.

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The proposed project is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airports to the project site are the Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately 12 miles east of the site in Concord, and the Napa County Airport, located approximately 12 miles north of the project site in Napa. Aircraft flyover noise is occasionally audible at the project site, due to the flightpath of the regional airports in the vicinity; however, no portion of the project site lies within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of any public airport nor does any portion of the project site fall within two miles of any private airfield or heliport. Therefore, there would be no impact of noise levels from aviation sources.

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. As discussed above, the project is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport and would not expose future site users to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact.

2‐74 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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?

Affected Environment:

The proposed project is a multi‐use trail crossing through three parcels of land designated for Open Space and Parks and Recreation, and the rehabilitation of an existing paved access road. The proposed Bay Trail alignment and the existing paved access road are separated by the UPRR railroad tracks. Residential development is present east of the proposed Bay Trail, and is primarily composed of single family homes, which are visible from the proposed trail alignment. The proposed trail corridor consists of land vegetated with non‐native grassland and vacant of any habitable structures.

Impact Analysis:

No Impact. The proposed project would not induce population growth in the project area either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would not accommodate vehicle traffic, nor does the project propose the construction of any major infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed project would not facilitate development of any homes or commercial or industrial structures. Therefore, no impact relating to this topic would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.

(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. No housing exists along the proposed trail alignment and no residential property would be acquired for the implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, no habitable or commercial or industrial structures would be removed or constructed as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact relating to this topic would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐75 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

No Impact. Refer to Response 2.13 (b) above. The project would not displace any people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact relating to this topic would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation is required.

2‐76 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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? v) Other public facilities?

Affected Environment:

The following services are providing in the surrounding project area:

Fire Protection: The project area is located within the Rodeo‐Hercules Fire District. The nearest fire department is Hercules Fire Station #76 located at 1680 Refugio Valley Road, approximately 2.10 miles southeast of the terminus of the proposed trail near the Victoria by the Bay residential development in the City of Hercules.

Police Protection: The Contra Costa Sheriff’s Department provides police protection services for unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County including Rodeo. The closest Sheriff’s office is located five miles southwest of the terminus of the proposed trail at 555 Giant Highway in the City of Richmond. Police protection services in the City of Hercules are provided by the Hercules Police Department. The Hercules Police Department is located at 111 Civic Drive, approximately 1.70 miles southeast of the proposed trail terminus.

Additionally, the District’s Public Safety Division provides fire and police services for its parks and trails. During the peak summer season, the Public Safety Division is staffed with approximately 500 personnel including 40 industrial firefighters, 71 sworn police officers providing law enforcement through policing contracts, as well as approximately 200 members in the Volunteer Trail Safety Patrol. Emergency services including fire suppression, search and rescues, and pre‐hospital emergency medical care, are provided by the District’s Fire Department. The District’s Police Department headquarters are in Lake Chabot in Castro Valley, approximately 24 miles southeast of Lone Tree Point Staging Area.

Schools: The project area is served by the John Swett Unified School District and the West Contra Costa County Unified School District.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐77 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Parks: Refer to Section 2.15, Recreation, for information regarding parks and recreation facilities

Other Public Facilities: These could include facilities such as libraries, post offices, meeting rooms, or hospitals.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population or facilities that would require fire or police services, schools, parks, or other public facilities, or result in the need for physically altered facilities. The demand for public services would be the same under existing conditions and after the construction of the proposed project. No permanent or habitable structures are proposed as part of the project and users of the trail would be at the project location for a limited duration of time. Furthermore, the proposed trail alignment is located in a fairly urban area and easily accessible by road. In the event of an emergency, trail users would call 911 and emergency responders would be dispatched from the nearest facilities, which are located within 2.5 miles of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts to public services would occur and no mitigation is required.

2‐78 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.15 RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Affected Environment:

The proposed project would construct a half mile segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail). When completed, the Bay Trail will be a 500 mile recreational trail that encompasses the San Francisco Bay and crosses through all nine Bay Area Counties, 47 cities, and over seven toll bridges. The Bay Trail provides access to piers, shoreline, and marinas on the Bay for fishing, windsurfing, boating, and other water‐dependent recreational activities. Over 350 miles of the trail have been built since 1987, and are open to cyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers, users of wheelchairs, skateboards, scooters, and other users. Caltrain, Amtrak and BART stops are all easily accessible from the Bay Trail, as are natural areas such as the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

The District would facilitate the construction of this segment of the Bay Trail. The District is a California special district operating a system of parks in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in the East San Francisco Bay Area. The District manages the largest regional park system in the United States with 73 regional parks and recreation areas as well as 31 inter‐park trails41. The District owns and operates Lone Tree Point Park, consisting of a gravel parking lot that can accommodate approximately 20 vehicles, a small vegetated area with a few trees, and views of Lone Tree Point and San Pablo Bay.

The Shoreline Park/Trail at the Victoria by the Bay planned residential community was designed and constructed to connect to the Bay Trail and offers views of the San Pablo Bay Regional Shoreline. The Park is owned and operated by the City of Hercules and offers the following amenities: benches, restrooms, swings and play structures, barbeque pits, open lawn space and a walking path that circles the park and connects to the existing Bay Trail segment.

41 East Bay Regional Park District website. www.ebparks.org (Accessed September 28, 2017).

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐79 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Impact Analysis:

Less Than Significant Impact. Completion of the proposed project would enhance public access to Lone Tree Point, Shoreline Park and the Lone Tree Staging Area, and would complete a missing segment of the Bay Trail connecting these open space areas. The proposed project would not result in a population increase or corresponding increase in the use of recreational facilities within the community of Rodeo or City of Hercules. Use of existing parks or other recreational facilities would not increase such that substantial physical deterioration of a facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities and no mitigation is required.

(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is the expansion and construction of a recreation trail facility. Potential adverse effects of the proposed project on the environment have been addressed in this IS/MND. With implementation of mitigation measures identified in this document, all impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed trail would be reduced to less than significant. Impact related to this topic would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

2‐80 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (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 due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Affected Environment:

The San Francisco Bay Trail is an existing facility with access provided from Shoreline Park in the Victoria by the Bay neighborhood. The proposed project would extend the trail from its current end point just north of Shoreline Park to San Pablo Avenue east of Parker Avenue to the existing Lone Tree Point parking lot. This parking lot will undergo minor improvements (i.e., fencing, lot surfacing repair) and be shared by the existing park and the proposed trail. The proposed project will construct a wetlands crossing bridge for trail users and add a crosswalk at Pacific Avenue/San Pablo Avenue.

The proposed trail is primarily located within unincorporated Contra Costa County with a small portion of the trail within the City of Hercules. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is the County’s Congestion Management Agency and prepares the Congestion Management Program (CMP). No intersections or roadways in the vicinity of the project are monitored by the CMP.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐81 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Impact Analysis:

Less Than Significant Impact. CCTA has established a threshold of 100 net new peak‐hour trips for requiring preparation of a traffic impact analysis. LSA has examined the peak trip generation potential during the operational and construction periods, as described below.

Long‐Term Operational Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project could create new vehicle trips traveling to and from the project area to access the proposed trail. However, such an increase would be dispersed over many access locations and is expected to be negligible due to the fact that segments of the Bay Trail already exist and draw trail users to the area. The potential for increased traffic during the peak hours of a typical weekday would be limited by the existing parking spaces at Lone Tree Point, which would not be expanded by the proposed project. The District estimated that the Breuner Marsh Restoration and Public Access Project, which constructed 5,000 feet of the Bay Trail would generate up to 57 new bicycle trips per day. Using the same bicycle facility demand model, and given similar population density in the project area, the 2,750 feet of trail being constructed under the proposed project is anticipated to generate 31 new bicycle trips per day. A portion of these trips resulting from addition of the new trail segment may add nominal trips to the surrounding circulation system, but the quantity of additional traffic would likely occur within the daily variation in traffic and would not be distinguishable for drivers and would be less than the established threshold of 100 trips per hour. Additionally, the proposed trail would create an opportunity for residents to use alternative modes of transportation (i.e., bicycles), thereby reducing vehicle traffic on local roads. Therefore, it is expected that the long‐term operation of the proposed trail would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system for all modes of transportation.

Short‐Term Construction Impacts. As discussed in the project description, the construction of the proposed project includes creation of trail and an at‐grade crossing of Pacific Avenue. Short‐ term construction impacts are determined below using construction information provided by the project applicant.

Construction activities are scheduled to occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays for a total of three months. Ultimately, all construction activities will be conducted according to applicable local regulations and guidelines regarding hours of construction. The construction information outlines the duration, number of employees, and construction equipment for each of the following construction phases:

 Mobilization  Rough Grading  Retaining Walls

2‐82 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

 Fine Grading  Baserock  Bridge Footings  Bridge Placement  AC Placement  Signing and Striping

Each phase description includes a range of expected employees; in order to present the worst‐ case trip generation, the highest number of construction employees was used and no carpooling was assumed. Therefore, each employee was counted as a separate vehicle arriving during the a.m. peak hour and leaving during the p.m. peak hour.

The construction trailer and staging area would be located at or near the existing Lone Tree Point parking lot on San Pablo Avenue. Therefore, equipment would likely be delivered when each construction phase begins and removed when it ends. These days represent the highest trip generation since they include both employee and equipment delivery trips.

Because large trucks utilize more roadway capacity than passenger vehicles, passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors were applied to account for the difference in the operational characteristics of heavy vehicles. PCEs for construction‐related vehicles were determined using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board 2010) adjustments for heavy vehicles. The HCM recommends PCE conversion factors ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 depending on the size of the truck. To present a conservative analysis, LSA used a PCE conversion factor of 2.0 for all trucks larger than a pick‐up truck.

Based on the descriptions provided, the project trip generation has been estimated and is summarized in Table 2.E. As seen in Table 2.E, the peak trip generating construction phase is construction of the Bridge Footings, which is expected to generate 48 average daily traffic (ADT), 24 inbound trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 24 outbound trips during the p.m. peak hour. On a recurring basis, construction trip generation for every project phase is expected to be less than 100 peak hour trips, which is below the threshold for preparing a traffic impact analysis according to CCTA guidelines.

During construction, construction vehicles would utilize local roadways to access the construction site. As stated above, construction equipment would be staged at the Lone Tree Point parking lot on San Pablo Avenue. To access the project site, construction equipment would have to travel on local streets to access both ends of the proposed trail alignment, so that construction vehicles would not cross/impact the wetland area. The western portion (City of Hercules) of the project site can be accessed at the western terminus of 3rd street or 2nd Street and the northern terminus of Regatta Point. The eastern portion of the project site can be accessed at the western termini of 1st Street and San Pablo Avenue. Due to the expectation that construction vehicles may pass through neighborhoods, the following 9 intersections have been analyzed with the addition of the highest trip‐generating construction phase (Bridge Footings):

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐83 Table 2.E: SF Bay Trail at Lone Tree Point - Construction Trip Generation Vehicle Trip Generation PCE Trip Generation Construction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Phases Duration Vehicles Quantity Type PCE ADT In Out Total In Out Total ADT In Out Total In Out Total Employee 3 Passenger Car 1.0 6 3 0 3 0 3 3 6 3 0 3 0 3 3 Mobilization 1 Week Flatbed Trucks 2 Large Truck 2.0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 Total 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 14 7 0 7 0 7 7 Employee 5 Passenger Car 1.0 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 2 Dozers, Compactor 3 Large Truck 2.0 6 3 0 3 0 3 3 12 6 0 6 0 6 6 Rough Grading 4 Weeks 2 Water Trucks 2 Medium Truck 2.0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 Total 20 10 0 10 0 10 10 30 15 0 15 0 15 15 Employee 7 Passenger Car 1.0 14 7 0 7 0 7 7 14 7 0 7 0 7 7 Backhoe, Concrete 2 Large Truck 2.0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 Retaining Walls 3 Weeks Pumper 4 Cement Mixers 4 Medium Truck 2.0 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 16 8 0 8 0 8 8 Total 26 13 0 13 0 13 13 38 19 0 19 0 19 19 Employee 5 Passenger Car 1.0 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 Motor Grader, 2 Rollers, Fine Grading 1 Week 4 Large Truck 2.0 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 16 8 0 8 0 8 8 Front-end Loader Total 18 9 0 9 0 9 9 26 13 0 13 0 13 13 Employee 5 Passenger Car 1.0 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 Motor Grader, 2 Rollers, Baserock 1 Week 4 Large Truck 2.0 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 16 8 0 8 0 8 8 Front-end Loader Total 18 9 0 9 0 9 9 26 13 0 13 0 13 13 Employee 6 Passenger Car 1.0 12 6 0 6 0 6 6 12 6 0 6 0 6 6 Pier Driller, Backhoe, 3 Large Truck 2.0 6 3 0 3 0 3 3 12 6 0 6 0 6 6 Bridge Footings 4 Weeks Concrete Pumper 6 Cement Mixers 6 Medium Truck 2.0 12 6 0 6 0 6 6 24 12 0 12 0 12 12 30 15 0 15 0 15 15 48 24 0 24 0 24 24 Employee 8 Passenger Car 1.0 16 8 0 8 0 8 8 16 8 0 8 0 8 8 Bridge 1 Week 2 Cranes 2 Large Truck 2.0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 Placement Total 20 10 0 10 0 10 10 24 12 0 12 0 12 12 Employee 5 Passenger Car 1.0 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 Paver, 2 Rollers, Front- AC Placement 1 Week 4 Large Truck 2.0 8 4 0 4 0 4 4 16 8 0 8 0 8 8 end Loader Total 18 9 0 9 0 9 9 26 13 0 13 0 13 13 Employee 5 Passenger Car 1.0 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 10 5 0 5 0 5 5 Signing and 1 Week 2 Utility Trucks 2 Small Truck 1.0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 Striping Total 14 7 0 7 0 7 7 14 7 0 7 0 7 7 Note: - This phase has the potential to generate the greatest volume of construction traffic. Construction vehicle estimates obtained from the project applicant.

P:\BKF1702\Trip Gen.xlsx (11/9/2017) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

1. Garretson Avenue/Second Street 2. Parker Avenue/San Pablo Avenue 3. Parker Avenue/Second Street 4. Parker Avenue/Third Street‐Investment Street 5. Willow Avenue/San Pablo Avenue (City of Hercules) 6. Willow Avenue/I‐80 WB Ramps (City of Hercules) 7. Willow Avenue/I‐80 EB Ramps (City of Hercules) 8. Victoria Crescent West/Regatta Point (City of Hercules) 9. Victoria Crescent West/San Pablo Avenue (City of Hercules)

Existing peak‐hour traffic volumes were collected by an independent data collection company (National Data and Surveying Services [NDS]) on a typical weekday (Thursday, November 2, 2017) during peak commute hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). All intersection turning movement volumes are provided in Appendix B.

All construction‐related trips were conservatively assumed to be arriving at the project site during the a.m. peak hour and leaving the project site during the p.m. peak hour. Construction worker trips were distributed evenly from the north and south on Interstate 80. Since construction equipment could take various routes, all heavy vehicle trips were assigned to study area intersections assuming the highest possible volume at each intersection.

HCM methodology was used to determine levels of service (LOS) for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. HCM methodology analyzes delay experienced by vehicles at an intersection. Synchro 9.0 computer software was used in this analysis to determine the LOS at intersections based on the HCM 2010 methodology. All HCM worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

According to the CCTA Technical Procedures (2013), LOS A through D are considered satisfactory operations for intersections within the County’s jurisdiction. Impacts of project traffic are considered significant if project traffic causes any intersection to deteriorate from satisfactory (LOS A through D) to unsatisfactory LOS (LOS E or F). Table 2.F summarizes the LOS for the study area intersections in the existing baseline and existing plus construction conditions.

As seen in Table 2.F, all intersections are operating at a satisfactory LOS in the existing condition. With the addition of construction traffic, all 9 study area intersections are expected to continue to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, the addition of construction traffic is expected to have a less than significant impact on the surrounding circulation system in the existing condition. No mitigation is required.

(b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less than Significant. As previously mentioned, no intersections or roadways in the vicinity of the project are monitored by the CMP. The operation of the proposed project is not anticipated

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐85 Table 2.F: Intersection Level of Service Summary

Baseline Plus Construction Peak-Hour ∆ Study AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU or Delay Area ICU / ICU / ICU / ICU / Significant No. Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM Impact? 1 Garretson Ave/2nd Street unsignalized 9.4 A 9.1 A 9.6 A 9.2 A 0.2 0.1 No 2 Parker Ave/San Pablo Ave unsignalized 9.8 A 9.2 A 9.9 A 9.3 A 0.1 0.1 No 3 Parker Ave/2nd Street 14.9 B 15.2 B 15.1 B 15.3 B 0.2 0.1 No 4 Parker Ave/3rd St-Investment St unsignalized 14.4 B 15.0 B 14.7 B 15.1 C 0.3 0.1 No 5 Willow Ave/San Pablo Ave 9.7 A 17.8 B 9.7 A 17.9 B 0.0 0.1 No 6 Willow Ave/I-80 WB Ramps 6.6 A 6.2 A 6.7 A 6.2 A 0.1 0.0 No 7 Willow Ave/I-80 EB Ramps 14.7 B 17.5 B 14.7 B 17.6 B 0.0 0.1 No 8 Victoria Crescent W/San Pablow Ave 14.0 B 13.2 B 14.0 B 13.3 B 0.0 0.1 No 9 Victoria Crescent W/Regatta Point unsignalized 8.7 A 8.7 A 8.8 A 8.7 A 0.1 0.0 No

= exceeds Level of Service (LOS) criteria LOS = level of service ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization Delay is reported in seconds (sec).

P:\BKF1702\xls\Intersections.xlsx\Existing (11/20/2017) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

to substantially increase vehicle trips in the project area and may even result in a reduction in vehicle traffic. Construction traffic is not expected to cause an unsatisfactory LOS at any intersection providing access to the project site. Furthermore, the addition of construction traffic to surrounding roadways and intersections is a temporary condition that is anticipated to last approximately three months. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with an applicable congestion management program or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(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?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include any structures that would interfere with air traffic patterns, nor would it increase traffic levels. There would be no impact related to air traffic patterns.

(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less than Significant. The project construction trips would not cause any local roadway to exceed its capacity; however, construction vehicles would be added to roadways in residential neighborhoods. Four roadway segments that may experience an increase in heavy vehicle traffic were assessed. Existing roadway volumes were collected by NDS on Thursday November 2, 2017. As seen in Table 2.G, all roadways have low average daily traffic compared to their daily capacity of approximately 10,000 trips. The 36 daily construction vehicles could account for up to 12 percent of total vehicles on a local roadway during the busiest phase of construction, but would account for less than 1 percent of the roadway capacity. Although construction traffic would not cause an impact to level of service on roadways, it would likely be noticeable to residents especially during peak construction periods.

Table 2.G: Roadway ADT Summary

Segment Baseline Construction Percent No. Roadway Segment ADT Vehicle ADT Increase 1 Regatta Point Shelter Bar to Victoria Crescent 302 36 12% 2 Victoria Crescent Trellis Bay to Pebble Bay 2,646 36 1% 3 2nd Street Garretson Ave to Lake Ave 309 36 12% 4 3rd Street Garretson Ave to Lake Ave 524 36 7% ADT = average daily trips

While construction traffic on residential streets would be noticeable, this traffic would not constitute a hazard. Even with the addition of construction traffic, roadway volumes would be far below the roadway capacity. Construction vehicles would be traveling in designated travel lanes at speeds compatible with the typical use of the roadways. Furthermore, the addition of construction traffic to surrounding roadways and intersections is a temporary condition that is

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐87 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

anticipated to last approximately three months. Therefore, impacts associated with design hazards or incompatible uses would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, but would provide connections between existing recreational uses and trails. The proposed trail would not be designed to handle large, heavy emergency vehicles. However, the proposed project would provide a connection between two existing trails allowing for easier ingress and egress for pedestrians and bicyclists during an emergency. Therefore, the project’s impact to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would contribute to the use of non‐ motorized means of travel, by constructing a portion of the Bay Trail around San Francisco Bay and extending an existing trail. No bus lines or turnouts would be impacted by the proposed improvements, as there is no bus service in close proximity to the project area. The City of Hercules General Plan and the Contra Costa County General Plan include policies emphasizing pedestrian and bicycle travel, bus transit, and other modes of alternative transportation. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

2‐88 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) (b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Affected Environment:

The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the cultural resources assessment conducted by LSA for the proposed project. The consultation study area for tribal cultural resources is the area along the project alignment where ground‐disturbing activities would occur, and includes the maximum extent of ground disturbance, including staging, and work areas.

In December 2017, the District provided formal notification to those California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within which the proposed project is located pursuant to the consultation requirements of AB 52. Letters were sent to all tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. To date, the District received no responses from the tribal representatives; however, the consultation period is ongoing.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)

Less Than Significant Impact. LSA conducted a records search at the NWIC, which included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Places, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (Contra Costa County). LSA also reviewed local, state, and federal cultural resource inventories, historic‐ period U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, and aerial photographs. The records search identified three previously recorded cultural resources within or adjacent to the project corridor.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐89 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

On November 21, 2017, LSA sent an email to the NAHC in Sacramento describing the project and requesting a review of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for any Native American tribal cultural resources that might be impacted by the proposed project. Mr. Frank Lienert, NAHC Associate Governmental Program Analyst, responded to LSA via email on December 12, 2017, stating that a record search of the SLF was completed with “negative results.”

On November 27, 2017, LSA archaeologist Ryan Gross, M.A., RPA, conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire project corridor. One historic‐period cultural resource was identified as a result of the field survey: a concrete foundation wall associated with the Western Division of the Southern Pacific Railroad. However, this resource was determined not to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources due to a lack of integrity (LSA 2017). No archaeological cultural resources or human remains were identified as a result of the field survey.

As described above, the District has sent letters to tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission pursuant to the consultation requirements of AB 52. To date, the District received no responses from the tribal representatives; however, the consultation period is ongoing.

As described above, no California Native American tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), occurs in the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As described in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, LSA conducted background research, a literature and map/photograph review, and a field survey of the proposed trail alignment.

The records search identified three previously recorded cultural resources within or adjacent to the project corridor. In addition, one historic‐period cultural resource was identified as a result of the field survey. However, this resource has been determined to be ineligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources.

Despite the negative results of the cultural resources study, the potential for encountering intact archaeological deposits and/or human remains during project construction cannot be ruled out. Should such deposits exist intact and qualify as tribal cultural resources, their disturbance could result in a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT‐1a, CULT‐1b, and CULT‐3, described in the Section 2.5, Cultural Resources above, would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

2‐90 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(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 or collection 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 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 insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes.

Affected Environment:

The project site is located in both the City of Hercules and the unincorporated community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County. Various single and multi‐purpose districts provide and maintain utility and service system facilities associated with electricity, water, stormwater, wastewater, solid waste, communications, and natural gas for both the Hercules and Rodeo communities. The following utilities are provided in the surrounding project area:

Water: Water service for the project area in both Rodeo and Hercules is supplied by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EMBUD). The EBMUD is the largest water district in Northern California, and serves over one million residents in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Water is pumped through three 81 mile long aqueducts from the Mokelumne River into the East Bay.

Gas and Electric: These services are provided to both Rodeo and Hercules by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E).

Solid Waste and Recycling: Richmond Sanitary Service (as part of Republic Services) provides curbside collection of recycling and solid waste in Rodeo and Hercules.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐91 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Wastewater: The Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD) is responsible for wastewater treatment within the community of Rodeo. Wastewater is treated at the Rodeo Sewage Treatment Plant approximately 0.5 mile north of the Lone Tree Point Staging Area at 800 San Pablo Avenue.

Sewer systems in the City of Hercules are under local municipal responsibility and sewage is treated at the Pinole/Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) prior to being discharged into San Pablo Bay. The Pinole/Hercules WPCP is owned and operated by a Joint Powers Authority comprised of both the Cities of Pinole and Hercules.

Stormwater: Drainage and flood control in Rodeo is the responsibility of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which has adopted plans to serve cities within the County, as well as, the unincorporated areas.

Additional Utilities: Telephone land lines are maintained by American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), and cable and internet service is provided by Comcast.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

No Impact. The proposed project is a multi‐use trail for use by cyclists and pedestrians. The proposed project would not generate wastewater and would not be subject to the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB and no mitigation is required.

(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of a multi‐use trail for cyclists and pedestrians. Operation of the project would not require water or wastewater treatment as no potable water and/or toilets would be provided as part of the project. Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or collection facilities or require the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact related to this topic. No mitigation is required.

(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?

Less Than Significant Impact. Stormwater is the portion of rainfall that does not infiltrate into the groundwater basin and creates sheet flow runoff which flows into storm drains, channels, and pipes. Stormwater is primarily a concern in urbanized areas where the amount of impervious surface area limits infiltration of the groundwater basin. The proposed project is a

2‐92 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

paved multi‐use trail that would be 10 feet wide and paved with asphalt, resulting in an increase in impervious surface area at the project site. Two 2‐foot wide shoulders would border the trail and consist of either decomposed granite or native soils, both of which are pervious surfaces allowing for stormwater infiltration. Runoff from the site would be accommodated by drainage improvements in the form of three culverts, maintaining the existing drainage pattern at the site. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Environmental effects of the project have been analyzed in corresponding sections of this IS/MND. A less than significant impact related to this topic would occur and no mitigation is required.

(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily require small amounts of water for cleanup activities and dust control. During trail construction, water would be provided via a water truck, and use of water would cease upon construction completion. Sufficient water supplies are available to provide for the project’s minimal water needs during the construction phase of the project. No new or expanded entitlements would be required as a result of the proposed project.

(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include restrooms and operation of the project would not generate wastewater. The proposed project would not exceed existing capacity of the sanitary sewer delivery system or the existing capacity of treatment facilities in the area. No impact related to this topic would occur and no mitigation is required.

(f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project could generate a small amount of solid waste. The majority of construction waste would be organic materials such as excavated soil and vegetation from grading activities. Proposed improvements to the Lone Tree Point Staging Area include paving the existing gravel parking lot, which may result in construction debris. Trash generated from construction workers would also result from project construction. The generation of such solid waste would be temporary and cease upon construction completion. Existing facilities have the capacity to handle the small amount of construction waste generated by the proposed project.

Operation of the proposed project (i.e., trail use) is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of solid waste. Users of the proposed trail would dispose of garbage, but not in amounts that would exceed average per capita garbage generation rates. Waste receptacles would be located at the Lone Tree Point Staging Area, allowing the project to be in full compliance with waste diversion goals mandated by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐93 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Therefore, impacts related to solid waste and landfill facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes.

No Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires cities and counties to adopt and implement waste diversion plans known as a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans (CoIWMP). These plans describe local waste diversion and disposal conditions as well as create programs to meet state goals for diverting waste from landfills. Mandatory diversion goals of diverting 25 percent of waste from landfills by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000, and maintaining 50 percent thereafter were established.

Both the City of Hercules and the County of Contra Costa (including the community of Rodeo) are member agencies of the West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA), a joint powers authority responsible for implementation of AB 939 requirements and plans, as well as providing waste processing services through franchise contracts. West Contra Costa County met the 50 percent waste diversion goal in 2006, and WCCIWMA continues work to maintain this level of diversion42. The proposed project would comply with local WCCIWMA requirements related to solid waste, as well as any other applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulates related to solid wastes. No impact related to this topic would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

42 West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste Management Authority website. http://www.recyclemore.com/ (Accessed September 29, 2017).

2‐94 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

2.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Impact Analysis: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study would ensure that the construction and operation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat, population, or range of a plant or animal species; or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. The proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts to the seasonal wetland, by constructing a clear span bridge for trail users. Section 2.4, Biological Resources, includes mitigation measures to minimize impacts to special status plant species, nesting birds, burrowing owl, sensitive communities (e.g., creeping ryegrass turfs) and jurisdictional waters. Mitigation is provided in Section V, Cultural Resources, in the event that unanticipated archeological or paleontological resources and/or human remains are identified in the project area during construction. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to the quality of the environment. No additional mitigation is required.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 2‐95 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of significant environmental impacts that would result from project‐related actions in combination with “closely related past, present, and probably future projects: located in the immediate vicinity (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b][1][A]). Cumulative environmental impacts are those impacts that by themselves are not significant, but when considered with impacts occurring from other projects in the vicinity would result in a cumulative impact. Related projects considered to have the potential of creating cumulative impacts in association with the proposed project consist of projects that are reasonably foreseeable and that would be constructed or operated during the life of the proposed project.

The proposed project would be located in a highly developed urban area that is largely built out. Various projects, including the Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure project, which includes installation of concrete sidewalks and ADA‐compliant curb ramps at various locations along Pacific Avenue and Investment Street, a new ADA ramp at the Rodeo Creek Trail entrance and reconfiguration of the Pacific Avenue/Rodeo Avenue/2nd Street intersection (south of the project site)43 would occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. This project is anticipated to start in summer of 2018. No other construction projects are anticipated in the immediate area of the proposed trail.

As described in this Initial Study, the majority of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would be temporary, construction‐related and would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures contained herein. Therefore, the proposed project would not make a considerable contribution toward a cumulative impact related to construction. Additionally, the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions and would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to global climate change. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As described in this IS/MND, any potential environmental impacts from the project would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. With implementation of measures both incorporated into the project design and recommended as mitigations to reduce the impacts associated with air quality, cultural resources, hazards, and traffic, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings.

43 Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, 2016. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Road and Flood Control Projects website. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐ costa.ca.us/6732/Rodeo‐Downtown‐Infrastructure (Accessed December 14, 2017)

2‐96 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure compliance with the measures during project implementation. This MMRP addresses how the measures will be implemented and includes a table that will be utilized by the City to document compliance.

The table below identifies the impacts and mitigation measures, as well as standard compliance measures identified for the project. The information in this table is organized to correspond with environmental issues discussed in the Draft IS/MND. Information in this table is provided in five columns: 1) Environmental Impact, 2) Measure, 3) Responsibility and Method of Compliance, 4) Timing, and 5) Verification: Completion Date and Documentation. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended measures, please refer to the specific discussions in the Draft IS/MND.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

3‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date 2.1 Aesthetics There are no mitigation measures related to Aesthetics. 2.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources There are no mitigation measures related to Agricultural and Forest Resources. 2.3 Air Quality AIR‐1: Consistent with the Basic Construction  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Throughout the construction Verified by: Mitigation Measures required by the BAAQMD, the Condition of Approval. District (District) is period. following actions shall be incorporated into  Implementation actions are responsible for incorporating construction contracts and specifications for the Date: outlined in the measure. this measure into contract project: specifications and for  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, ensuring compliance during staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and construction. unpaved access roads) shall be watered two  The construction contractor times per day with reclaimed water, if is responsible for available. implementing this mitigation  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other measure. loose material off‐site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.  Structural pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at t Contra Costa County regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 2.4 Biological Resources BIO‐1: Prior to the initiation of construction, a  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Prior to construction activities, Verified by: qualified botanist shall conduct a focused survey for Condition of Approval. District (District) is and for 2 years after construction fragrant fritillary within the construction footprint completion.  Implementation actions are responsible for incorporating during the appropriate blooming period (February Date: outlined in the measure. this measure into contract to April). The survey will be conducted in specifications and for accordance with the CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying ensuring compliance during and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native construction. Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG  The botanist is responsible 2009). for conducting the survey If fragrant fritillary are observed within the project and, if necessary, salvaging site and cannot be avoided during construction, and relocating plants to the fragrant fritillary plants shall be salvaged and on‐site mitigation area. relocated to a protected on‐site mitigation area suitable for this species. The planting area shall be

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date flagged and documented in the field using a sub‐ meter accuracy global positioning system (GPS) unit. Bulbs and seeds shall be collected by hand. The average depth at which bulbs are collected shall be recorded so that they can be replanted at the same average depth in the on‐site mitigation area. If bulbs and seeds cannot be replanted by November 1, they will be properly stored in a cool and dry location and replanted the following fall (September 1 to October 31). The following summarizes specific monitoring and performance criteria for the mitigation for the fragrant fritillary:  Areas replanted with fragrant fritillary bulbs and seeds shall be monitored for a minimum period of 2 years.  Flowering fragrant fritillary shall be surveyed annually within the mitigation area. The number of detectable fragrant fritillary in leaf and/or flower is expected to vary in the mitigation area from year to year, depending on precipitation, herbivory and other ecological variables.  Mitigation will be considered to have been a success if, the number of individual fragrant fritillary in the mitigation area is equal to the number of plants impacted by the project.  If the number of plants does not reach the performance criterion, then adaptive management actions shall be developed and supplemental activities may be performed. These adaptive management actions could include seed collection and plant propagation, or seed collection and direct sowing.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐3 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date BIO‐2: If any construction activities (e.g., grubbing,  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park No more than 14 days prior to Verified by: grading, tree removal) are scheduled during the bird Condition of Approval. District (District) is commencement of construction nesting season (typically defined by CDFW as activities/throughout the  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating February 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall construction period. Date: of construction this measure into contract conduct a preconstruction survey for white‐tailed specifications. specifications and for kites and other nesting birds no more than 14 days ensuring compliance during prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the construction. presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall  A CDFW‐approved biologist delineate a buffer zone where no construction will is responsible for surveying occur until the biologist has determined that all the site and delineating a young have successfully fledged. The size of the buffer zone if necessary. buffer(s) shall be determined by the project biologist and be based on the nesting species and its  The Construction Contractor sensitivity to disturbance. Typical buffer zones are is responsible for 50 to 100 feet for passerines and up to 300 feet for implementing this measure. white‐tailed kites and other raptors. Nests shall be monitored regularly to determine if construction activities are affecting the nesting activities and when young birds have fledged. BIO‐3: No more than 14 days prior to any ground  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park No more than 14 days prior to Verified by: disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall Condition of Approval. District (District) is commencement activities/Within conduct a preconstruction/take avoidance survey 24 hours of ground disturbing  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating for burrowing owls using methods described in activities/Throughout the Date: of construction this measure into contract Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing construction period. specifications. specifications and for Owl Mitigation (Staff Report) (CDFG 2012). If no ensuring compliance during owls are detected during the initial take avoidance construction. survey, a final survey shall be conducted within 24  The biologist is responsible hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that for conducting the survey. owls are still absent.

3‐4 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. Any burrow exclusion efforts will be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to document that take is avoided. If burrow exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season, daily monitoring shall be conducted for one week prior to the exclusion to confirm that young of the year have fledged.

If owls are found within or adjacent to the project site during the breeding season, occupied burrows will be avoided by establishing buffers around the burrows in which no work shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest attempt has failed or that young have fledged and can forage independently of the adults. A minimum buffer of 250 feet will be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless focused monitoring by a qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl reproductive behavior indicates that the observed individual is unpaired or that egg‐ laying has not yet begun. A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan will be developed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation. BIO‐4: Permanently impacted creeping rye grass  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Upon construction completion. Verified by: turfs shall be mitigated on‐site by removing the rye Condition of Approval. District (District) is grass plugs or sod prior to construction and  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating replanting it in suitable adjacent on‐site mitigation Date: of construction this measure into contract areas that currently support non‐native wild oats specifications. specifications and for grassland. ensuring compliance during Topsoil with creeping rye grass turfs shall be construction. salvaged in areas that will be permanently  The biologist is responsible

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐5 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date impacted. If topsoil cannot be transplanted for preparing the mitigation immediately, topsoil shall be stockpiled and covered area and replanting, as well with weed‐free straw or jute blankets outside of the as post‐construction work area and watered to retain moisture. For areas monitoring. that will be temporarily impacted, the topsoil shall  The construction contractor be removed and replaced to the approximate is responsible for location of its removal after construction has been implementing this mitigation completed or covered. In general, the top 6‐12 measure. inches shall be removed and salvaged, but the actual depth to be salvaged shall be determined by the project biologist. The mitigation area shall be prepared by removing the top soil of the wild oats grassland of the equivalent size as the removed creeping rye grass turfs and transplanting the salvaged topsoil. The replanted area shall be graded to match the pre‐ existing natural grade. Topsoil shall be dry and spread over the prepared area during dry weather. The following summarizes specific monitoring and performance criteria for the mitigation for the creeping rye grass turfs:  Areas replanted with creeping rye grass turfs shall be monitored for a minimum period of 2 years.  Creeping rye grass turfs shall be surveyed annually within the mitigation areas.  Mitigation will be considered to have been a success if, the relative cover of creeping rye grass turfs in the mitigation areas is equal to or greater to the existing adjacent creeping rye grass turfs at the site.  If cover does not reach the performance criterion, then adaptive management actions shall be developed and supplemental activities may be performed. These impacts and

3‐6 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date mitigation adaptive management actions could include rye grass plug collection and plant propagation, or plug collection and direct planting of plugs. Other temporarily impacted creeping rye grass turf grass adjacent to the trail alignment shall be protected by placing construction mats over the rye grass turfs. To ensure that the avoided creeping rye grass turfs will remain undisturbed during construction, the following avoidance measure will be implemented: To prevent construction workers and equipment from entering the creeping rye grass turfs, orange plastic construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the creeping rye grass turfs so that it is easily visible to workers as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). The fencing shall be installed under the guidance of a qualified biologist practiced in the identification of creeping rye grass turfs. BIO‐5: To reduce potential short‐term impacts to  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Prior to and throughout the Verified by: the seasonal wetland, the contractor will implement Condition of Approval. District (EBRPD) is construction period. the following avoidance measures and BMPs:  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating Date:  Install temporary silt fencing beyond the outer of construction this measure into contract edge of the seasonal wetland boundary to specifications. specifications and for prevent entry of fill into the wetland during ensuring compliance during construction. Temporary silt fencing will also construction. reduce the likelihood of aquatic wildlife  The construction contractor species, such as Pacific treefrog from entering is responsible for the work area. implementing this mitigation  Place temporary Environmentally Sensitive measure. Area (ESA) fencing where needed to prevent construction equipment and workers from entering the seasonal wetland.  A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐7 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date practices used during construction, and the specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff shall be prepared.  Prior to being brought on site, inspect all vehicles and machinery for fuel leaks. No vehicles or machinery exhibiting signs of leaking fluid will be brought on site.  All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 65 feet from the seasonal wetland. Prior to the onset of work, a plan shall be prepared for implementing a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.  To reduce the potential for erosion after work is completed, disturbed areas shall be revegetated with an appropriate seed mix suitable for the area.  Install rice straw or native duff to cover bare soil after work is completed. Avoid use of plastic mesh netting as this can entrap animals. 2.5 Cultural Resources CULT‐1a: A qualified archaeologist should be  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Throughout the construction Verified by: retained to monitor project ground‐disturbing Condition of Approval. District (District) is period. activities east of the Pacific Avenue and San Pablo  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating Avenue junction due to the proximity of the Date: of construction this measure into contract precontact site P‐07‐000138/CA‐CCO‐258, and the specifications. specifications and for elevated potential for encountering historic period ensuring compliance during deposits in the vicinity of LSA‐BKF1702‐01 and the construction, and hiring a former site of the Rodeo train depot (Attachment A: qualified archaeologist. Figure 3). Archaeological monitors should be  The qualified archaeologist is

3‐8 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date empowered to halt construction activities at the responsible for evaluating location of a discovery to review possible any resources inadvertently archaeological material and to protect the resource found during construction; while the finds are being evaluated. Monitoring and identifying appropriate should continue until, in the archaeologist’s mitigation measures. judgment, cultural resources are not likely to be  The Construction Contractor encountered. is responsible for coordinating and If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological cooperating with the materials are encountered during project qualified archaeologist and monitoring, all work within 25 feet of the discovery with any stop‐work orders if should be redirected until the archaeologist assesses resources are discovered. the finds, consults with agencies as appropriate, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposits should be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are eligible, impacts to the deposits should be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report should be submitted to the EBRPD, the City of Rodeo, and the Northwest Information Center at

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐9 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date Sonoma State University upon completion of the resource assessment. CULT‐1b: If archaeological deposits are encountered  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Throughout the construction Verified by: during project subsurface construction when an Condition of Approval. District (District) is period. archaeological monitor is not present, all ground‐  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating disturbing activities within 25 feet should be Date: of construction this measure into contract redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted specifications. specifications and for to assess the situation, consult with agencies as ensuring compliance during appropriate, and make recommendations for the construction treatment of the discovery. The District should  The Construction Contractor inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the is responsible for redirecting project area for archaeological deposits. The Park construction if resources are District and the County of Contra Costa should verify discovered and contacting that the following directive has been included in the the qualified archaeologist. appropriate contract documents: “If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits  The qualified archaeologist is are discovered during project activities, all work responsible for identifying within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected appropriate mitigation and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the measures. situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel should not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked‐stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat‐affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains.” CULT‐2: Ground disturbing activities within geologic  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Throughout the construction Verified by: formations with high paleontological sensitivity Condition of Approval. District (District) is period.

3‐10 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date (Pinole Tuff and Neroly Sandstone) shall be  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. At of construction this measure into contract Date: the discretion of the paleontologist, the level of specifications. specifications and for monitoring may be adjusted depending on the ensuring compliance during specific excavation activities taking place and their construction and hiring a corresponding parameters. If paleontological qualified paleontological resources are encountered during the course of monitor. ground disturbance, the paleontological monitor  The qualified paleontological shall have the authority to temporarily redirect monitor is responsible for construction away from the area of the find in order monitoring the site and to assess its significance. Collected resources shall identifying mitigation be prepared to the point of identification, identified measures if resources are to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, found and documenting the and curated into the permanent collections of an findings. appropriate repository facility. At the conclusion of  The Construction Contractor the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be coordinating and prepared to document the results of the monitoring cooperating with the program. In the event that paleontological resources qualified paleontological are encountered when a paleontological monitor is monitor or contacting the not present, work in the immediate area of the find monitor if resources are shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be found when the contacted to assess the find and consult with paleontological monitor agencies, as appropriate. onsite.

CULT‐3: Any human remains encountered during  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Throughout the construction Verified by: project ground‐disturbing activities should be Condition of Approval. District (District) is period. treated in accordance with California Health and  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating Safety Code Section 7050.5. The District and the Date: of construction this measure into contract County of Contra Costa should verify that the specifications. specifications and for following directive has been included in the ensuring compliance during appropriate contract documents: construction. “If human remains are uncovered, work within 25  The Construction Contractor feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the is responsible implementing County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted—if one is

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐11 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date not already on site—to assess the situation and the mitigation measure. consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.” 2.6 Geology and Soils GEO‐1: Project activities associated with site  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Prior to issuance of a grading Verified by: preparation and grading, placement and compaction Condition of Approval. District (District) is permit and throughout the of fill materials, seismic design criteria, geotechnical construction period.  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating engineering, drainage and maintenance shall be Date: of construction this measure into contract performed in accordance with recommendations specifications. specifications and for contained in the geotechnical report prepared by ensuring compliance during ENGEO, dated December 7, 2017. The geotechnical construction and hiring the consultant shall review the preliminary and final geotechnical consultant. plans for conformance with the intent of the  The geotechnical consultant recommendations contained in the geotechnical is responsible for reviewing report. During grading and construction, the plans and providing geotechnical consultant shall provide intermittent construction observations, geotechnical engineering observations, along with and performing testing and necessary field and laboratory testing to ensure necessary. conformance with recommendations and to modify recommendations, as needed.  The Construction Contractor is responsible for cooperating with the geotechnical consultant. 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions There are no mitigation measures related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

3‐12 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ‐1: Prior to commencement of grading activities,  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Prior to issuance of a grading Verified by: the project contractor shall collect shallow soil Condition of Approval. District (District) is permit. samples. The samples shall be analyzed for heavy  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating metals identified in California Code of Regulations Date: of construction this measure into contract (CCR) Title 22. The samples shall also be analyzed for specifications. specifications and for diesel motor oil, organochlorine pesticides (OCP), ensuring compliance during and semi‐volatile organic compounds (SVOC). The construction. soil sampling report indicating the results of the  The Construction Contractor sampling shall be submitted to the District for is responsible for review and approval. implementing this mitigation If soil testing results exceed Regional Water Quality measure. Control Board environmental screening levels (ESLs) for the proposed recreational use, a Site  A qualified hazardous Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a materials consultant is qualified hazardous materials consultant to establish responsible for preparing a management practices for handling contaminated Site Management Plan (SMP) soil or other materials encountered during if necessary. construction activities. Appropriate soil testing, characterization, storage, transportation, and disposal procedures shall be specified in the SMP. The sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk‐based screening levels in the SMP. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with construction activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to the commencement of grading. 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality WQ‐1: Prior to commencement of construction  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Prior to and throughout the Verified by: activities, the proposed project shall obtain Condition of Approval. District (District) is construction period. coverage under the State Water Resources Control  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Date: of construction specifications this measure into contract System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water specifications and for

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐13 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date Discharges Associated with Construction and Land complying with the Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit Construction General Permit [CGP]) Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ, as amended by during construction. 2010‐0014‐DWG and 2012‐ 0006‐DWQ, NPDES No.  The Construction Contractor CAS000002, or any other subsequent permit. To is responsible for obtain coverage, the District shall submit Permit implementing this measure. Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is obtained from SMARTS. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented to address all construction‐related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, and spills is minimized and to control the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff as a result of construction activities. 2.10 Land Use/Planning There are no mitigation measures related to Land Use/Planning. 2.11 Mineral Resources There are no mitigation measures related to Mineral Resources. 2.12 Noise NOI‐1: The project contractor shall implement the  Include measure as  East Bay Regional Park Throughout the construction Verified by: following measures during construction of the Condition of Approval. District (District) is period. project:  Incorporate measure as part responsible for incorporating Date:  Construction of the project shall comply with of construction this measure into contract

3‐14 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date the City of Hercules Noise Element Policy 6 by: specifications. specifications and for o For construction near noise‐ ensuring compliance during sensitive areas, as determined construction. by the Community and Business  The construction contractor Development Department, noisy is responsible for construction activities (including implementing this mitigation truck traffic) shall be scheduled measure. for periods, according to construction permit, to limit impact on adjacent residents or other sensitive receptors. o Develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise impacts and accommodates particularly noise‐sensitive periods for nearby land uses (e.g., for schools, churches, etc.) o Where feasible, holes for driven piles shall be pre‐drilled to reduce the level and duration of noise impacts. o Where feasible, construct temporary solid noise barriers between source and sensitive receptor(s) to reduce offsite propagation of construction noise. This measure could reduce construction noise by up to 5 decibels. o Require internal combustion engines used for construction purposes to be properly maintained and equipped with a properly operating muffler of a

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐15 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date type recommended by the manufacturer. Also, require impact tools to be shielded per manufacturer’s specifications.

 Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.  Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐ sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction.  Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines.  Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. 2.13 Population and Housing There are no mitigation measures related to Population and Housing 2.14 Public Services There are no mitigation measures related to Public Services. 2.15 Recreation There are no mitigation measures related to Recreation. 2.16 Transportation/Traffic

3‐16 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Table 3.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Compliance Measure Verified By and Mitigation Measures Implementation Actions Responsible Party or Mitigation Measure Date There are no mitigation measures related to Transportation/Traffic. 2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources There are no mitigation measures related to Tribal Cultural Resources. 2.18 Utilities/Service Systems There are no mitigation measures related to Utilities/Service Systems.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 3‐17 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

3‐18 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS/PERSONS CONTACTED

LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801

Laura Lafler, Principal Tim Lacy, Principal/Biologist Andrew Pulcheon, Principal/Cultural Resources Dan Sidle, Associate/Wildlife Biologist Shanna Guiler, Associate/Senior Environmental Planner Lora Holland, Senior Cultural Resources Manager Ryan Gross, Cultural Resources Manager Kaitlin Zitelli, Environmental Planner Greg Gallaugher, GIS Specialist

5084 N. Fruit Avenue, Suite 103 Fresno, CA 93711

Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality & Noise Specialist Cara Carlucci, Air Quality & Noise Specialist

20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614

Arthur Black, Associate, Traffic Specialist Annaleigh Yahata, Assistant Traffic Specialist

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 4‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

4‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

5.0 REFERENCES

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air – Cool the Climate. 19 April. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans‐and‐climate/air‐ quality‐plans/current‐plans (Accessed November 14, 2017).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. CEQA Guidelines. May. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐ research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en (Accessed November 14, 2017).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2014. Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2014. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/con14.pdf (Accessed September 26, 2017).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2014. Contra Costa County Williamson Act FY 2014/2015. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Contra_Costa_12_13_WA.pdf (Accessed September 26, 2017).

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for_Surveying_and_Evaluating_I mpacts.pdf (accessed December 3, 2013).

California Department of Forestry, 2003. State Responsibility Areas. Available as part of the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Earthquake and Hazards Program:. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wildfires/ (Accessed September 1, 2017).

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. List of vegetation alliances and associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. September.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/BUOWStaffReport.pdf.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), commercial version dated November 7, 2017. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento.

California Department of Water Resources, 2017. Water Management Planning Tool. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/ (accessed December 1, 2017).

California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map For Emergency Planning, Mare Island Quadrangle. Available online at:

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 5‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/ContraC osta (Accessed September 28, 2017).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8‐03). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed November 3, 2017).

Carollo, 2013. Rodeo Sanitary District Wastewater Master Plan. Available online at http://rodeosan.org/ (Accessed September 29, 2017).

Contra Costa Community Development Agency, 1997. Rodeo Waterfront/Downtown Specific Plan. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4747/Specific‐Plans (Accessed September 29, 2017).

Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 2003. Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas. Available online at: http://cocowaterweb.org/ (Accessed October 3, 2017).

Contra Costa, County of, 2017. Contra Costa County Municipal Code, Title 8‐Zoning. Available online at: https://library.municode.com/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code (Accessed September 28, 2017).

Contra Costa, County of, 2005. 2020 General Plan. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐ costa.ca.us/4732/General‐Plan (Accessed September 27, 2017).

Contra Costa, County of, 2010. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 – 2020. July.

Contra Costa, County of, 2015. Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan. 15 December. Available online at: http://www.co.contra‐costa.ca.us/4554/Climate‐Action‐Plan (Accessed November 14, 2017).

Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, 2013. Update of the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. December 18.

Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, 2006. Technical Procedures Update (Section 5: Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines). July 19.

Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2007. EnviroStor website. Available online at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (Accessed September 27, 2017).

ENGEO, 2017. Lone Tree Point Trail Bridge Foundation Report. December 7.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical report Y‐87‐1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Hazardous Waste Regulations. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/lawsregs/regs‐haz.htm (Accessed September 29, 2017).

5‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Available as part of the Association of Bay Area Government Resilience Program http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/floods/ (Accessed September 21, 2017).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. FHWA‐HEP‐ 06‐015. DOT‐VNTSC‐FHWA‐06‐02, NTIS No. PB2006‐109012. August.

Fellers, G.M. 2005. California red‐legged frog. In M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hercules, City of, 2007. City of Hercules Land Use and Zoning Map. Available online at: http://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/index.aspx?page=196 (Accessed September 28, 2017).

Hercules, City of, 1998. Hercules General Plan Noise Element. September 1998.

LSA, 2017. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed San Francisco Bay Trail – Lone Tree Point Project (project), Contra Costa County, California (LSA Project BKF1702). 14 December.

Pinole, City of, 2010. General Plan Update, Infrastructure and Public Facilities Chapter. Available online at: http://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/planning/generalplan.html (Accessed September 27, 2017).

PBR, 2000. New Pacific Properties Specific Plan. Available online at: http://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/index.aspx?page=200 (Accessed September 28, 2017).

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2016. Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) 2016 Integrated for the San Francisco Bay Region. Available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist.s html (Accessed September 8, 2017).

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler‐Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 1300 pp.

State Water Resources Control Board, 2014. GeoTracker website. Available online at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (Accessed September 27, 2017).

Transportation Research Board, 2010. HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.

West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste Management Authority website. http://www.recyclemore.com/ (Accessed September 29, 2017).

United States Department of Transportation. Regulations. Available online at: http://phmsa.dot.gov/regulations (Accessed September 29, 2017).

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) 5‐3 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

5‐4 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY MODELING RESULTS

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) A‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

A‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18)

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0

Daily Emission Estimates for -> Lone Tree Point Rodeo Trail - Unmitigated Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.64 3.15 8.03 10.33 0.33 10.00 2.36 0.28 2.08 0.01 1,071.87 0.25 0.01 1,082.15 Grading/Excavation 3.69 26.77 40.72 11.91 1.91 10.00 3.79 1.71 2.08 0.05 5,391.31 1.46 0.06 5,444.37 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.60 20.31 26.79 11.38 1.38 10.00 3.33 1.25 2.08 0.04 3,647.60 0.81 0.04 3,679.18 Paving 1.03 10.78 10.15 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.02 1,904.53 0.46 0.02 1,922.67 Maximum (pounds/day) 3.69 26.77 40.72 11.91 1.91 10.00 3.79 1.71 2.08 0.05 5,391.31 1.46 0.06 5,444.37 Total (tons/construction project) 0.09 0.65 0.92 0.33 0.05 0.28 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.00 126.26 0.03 0.00 127.45 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019 Project Length (months) -> 3 Total Project Area (acres) -> 11 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1 Water Truck Used? -> Yes Total Material Imported/Exported Daily VMT (miles/day) Volume (yd3/day) Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 0 0 0 200 40 Grading/Excavation 0 0 0 0 800 40 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 0 0 0 560 40 Paving 0 0 0 0 400 40 PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K. CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Lone Tree Point Rodeo Trail - Unmitigated Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 3.54 0.00 0.00 3.24 Grading/Excavation 0.05 0.35 0.54 0.16 0.03 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 71.17 0.02 0.00 65.20 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.03 0.23 0.31 0.13 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 42.13 0.01 0.00 38.55 Paving 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.43 0.00 0.00 8.63 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.05 0.35 0.54 0.16 0.03 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 71.17 0.02 0.00 65.20 Total (tons/construction project) 0.09 0.65 0.92 0.33 0.05 0.28 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.00 126.26 0.03 0.00 115.62 PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K. CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs. The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase. P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

A‐4 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

APPENDIX B INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT VOLUMES

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) B‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

B‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Garretson Ave & 2nd St Peak Hour Turning Movement Count

ID: 17-07920-001 Garretson Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM AM 0 16 3 0 18 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM PM 2 9 2 0 13 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1

8 0 6 WESTBOUND CONTROL 0 3 0 7 2nd St 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7

2 0 0 0 TEV 76 0 43 0 0 0 0 2nd St 2nd AM NOON PM 6 0 6 0 PHF 0.66 0.60 EASTBOUND 12 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 12 0 1 9 4 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 24 0 1 15 17 AM NORTHBOUND Garretson Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

Pedestrians (Crosswalks) PM NOON AM AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM 0 0 AM Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NOON AM AM NOON PM ` Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Parker Ave & San Pablo Ave Peak Hour Turning Movement Count

ID: 17-07920-002 Parker Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM AM 9 156 0 0 147 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM PM 12 95 0 0 170 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 0 24 WESTBOUND San Pablo Ave CONTROL 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 5 0 TEV 336 0 313 0 0 0 0 AM NOON PM

San Pablo Ave Pablo San 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.85 0.88 EASTBOUND 1 0 0 10 0 23 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 118 0 12 165 1 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 166 0 14 143 0 AM NORTHBOUND Parker Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

ID: 17-07920-003 Parker Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM AM 9 172 2 0 194 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM PM 7 141 1 0 238 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7

37 0 36 WESTBOUND CONTROL 0 2 0 2 2nd St 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8

10 0 9 0 TEV 425 0 435 0 0 0 0 2nd St 2nd AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.92 0.91 EASTBOUND 7 0 4 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 154 0 27 225 6 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 190 0 26 177 2 AM NORTHBOUND Parker Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

ID: 17-07920-004 Parker Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM AM 4 232 3 0 183 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM PM 4 172 4 0 257 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

39 0 57 WESTBOUND CONTROL 0 2 0 3 3rd 3rd St 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 20

3rd St 3rd 7 0 3 0 TEV 548 0 570 0 0 0 0 AM NOON PM 2 0 4 0 PHF 0.90 0.94 EASTBOUND 34 0 20 53 0 36 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 222 0 51 254 26 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 306 1 32 174 15 AM NORTHBOUND Parker Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

Pedestrians (Crosswalks) PM NOON AM AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM 0 0 AM Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NOON AM AM NOON PM ` Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Willow Ave & San Pablo Ave Peak Hour Turning Movement Count

ID: 17-07920-005 Willow Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM AM 308 410 0 0 568 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 212 376 0 0 782 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

526 0 346 WESTBOUND San Pablo Ave CONTROL 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

171 0 367 0 TEV 1661 0 1768 0 0 0 0 AM NOON PM

San Pablo Ave Pablo San 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.93 0.98 EASTBOUND 0 0 0 157 0 264 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 640 0 134 415 0 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 567 0 218 397 0 AM NORTHBOUND Willow Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

Pedestrians (Crosswalks) PM NOON AM AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM 0 0 AM Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NOON AM AM NOON PM ` Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Willow Ave & I-80 WB Ramps Peak Hour Turning Movement Count

ID: 17-07920-006 Willow Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM AM 366 427 0 0 692 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 325 430 0 0 681 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 211 WESTBOUND

772 0 590 I-80 Ramps WB CONTROL 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 168

0 0 0 0 TEV 2059 0 1790 0 0 0 0 AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0.96 I-80 WBRampsI-80 EASTBOUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 519 0 265 570 0 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 595 0 406 481 0 AM NORTHBOUND Willow Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

Pedestrians (Crosswalks) PM NOON AM AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM 0 0 AM Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NOON AM AM NOON PM ` Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Willow Ave & I-80 EB Ramps Peak Hour Turning Movement Count

ID: 17-07920-007 Willow Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM AM 95 321 125 0 889 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 72 236 164 0 834 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 305 0 240

219 0 256 WESTBOUND I-80 I-80 EB Ramps CONTROL 0 92 0 60

0 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 65

125 0 100 0 TEV 1806 0 1819 0 0 0 0 AM NOON PM 45 0 67

I-80 EB Ramps EB I-80 0 PHF 0.93 0.96 EASTBOUND 279 0 287 25 0 35 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 450 4 92 429 48 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 411 0 64 524 117 AM NORTHBOUND Willow Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

Pedestrians (Crosswalks) PM NOON AM AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM 0 0 AM Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NOON AM AM NOON PM ` Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services San Pablo Ave & Victoria Crescent (South) Peak Hour Turning Movement Count

ID: 17-07920-008 San Pablo Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM AM 37 480 28 20 340 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 32 249 31 9 629 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM Victoria (South) Crescent 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 62

103 0 189 WESTBOUND CONTROL 0 1 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 129

86 0 47 0 TEV 1272 0 1350 0 0 0 0 AM NOON PM 3 0 3 0 PHF 0.89 0.96 EASTBOUND 134 0 69 150 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 Victoria Crescent (South) Victoria

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 398 0 156 545 100 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 760 1 63 172 38 AM NORTHBOUND San Pablo Ave

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

Pedestrians (Crosswalks) PM NOON AM AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM 0 0 AM Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NOON AM AM NOON PM ` Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Regatta Point & Victoria Crescent Peak Hour Turning Movement Count

ID: 17-07920-009 Regatta Point Day: Thursday City: Rodeo SOUTHBOUND Date: 11/02/2017 COUNT PERIODS COUNT 07:15 AM - 08:15 AM AM 21 0 10 0 18 AM 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE

PEAK HOURS 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 16 0 3 1 26 PM 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 Victoria Crescent

39 0 35 WESTBOUND CONTROL 0 19 0 18

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 0 16 0 TEV 79 0 86 0 0 0 0 AM NOON PM 12 0 22 0 PHF 0.76 0.72 EASTBOUND

Victoria Crescent Victoria 25 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

Total Vehicles (AM) PM 0 0 0 0 0 PM Total Vehicles (AM)

NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON

AM 0 0 0 0 0 AM NORTHBOUND Regatta Point

Total Vehicles (NOON) Total Vehicles (NOON)

Pedestrians (Crosswalks) PM NOON AM AM NOON PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 PM NOON 0 0 NOON AM 0 0 AM Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM) AM 0 0 AM NOON 0 0 NOON PM 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NOON AM AM NOON PM ` Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Regatta Point Bet. Shelter Bay & Victoria Crescent Day: Thursday City: Rodeo Date: 11/2/2017 Project #: CA17_7921_001

NB SB EB WB Total DAILY TOTALS 165 137 0 0 302 AM Period NB SB EB WBTOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL 0:00 0 0 0 12:00 1 1 2 0:15 1 0 1 12:15 1 4 5 0:30 0 0 0 12:30 3 1 4 0:45 0 1 0 0 1 12:45 0 5 1 7 1 12 1:00 0 0 0 13:00 4 1 5 1:15 0 0 0 13:15 2 4 6 1:30 0 0 0 13:30 5 1 6 1:45 0 0 0 13:45 3 14 2 8 5 22 2:00 0 0 0 14:00 4 2 6 2:15 0 0 0 14:15 1 0 1 2:30 1 0 1 14:30 5 3 8 2:45 0 1 0 0 1 14:45 2 12 4 9 6 21 3:00 0 0 0 15:00 5 3 8 3:15 0 0 0 15:15 3 1 4 3:30 0 0 0 15:30 4 1 5 3:45 0 0 0 15:45 1 13 2 7 3 20 4:00 0 0 0 16:00 4 1 5 4:15 0 0 0 16:15 4 2 6 4:30 0 0 0 16:30 5 4 9 4:45 0 0 0 16:45 3 16 2 9 5 25 5:00 1 2 3 17:00 4 2 6 5:15 0 0 0 17:15 3 2 5 5:30 1 1 2 17:30 10 3 13 5:45 0 2 4 7 4 9 17:45 3 20 4 11 7 31 6:00 1 2 3 18:00 3 3 6 6:15 0 2 2 18:15 2 4 6 6:30 0 2 2 18:30 5 3 8 6:45 0 1 2 8 2 9 18:45 4 14 1 11 5 25 7:00 1 2 3 19:00 4 1 5 7:15 2 2 4 19:15 2 1 3 7:30 2 4 6 19:30 4 3 7 7:45 2 7 7 15 9 22 19:45 6 16 1 6 7 22 8:00 5 4 9 20:00 1 0 1 8:15 1 4 5 20:15 3 2 5 8:30 2 1 3 20:30 3 0 3 8:45 1 9 3 12 4 21 20:45 1 8 0 2 1 10 9:00 0 2 2 21:00 2 0 2 9:15 2 4 6 21:15 0 0 0 9:30 1 2 3 21:30 2 0 2 9:45 0 3 2 10 2 13 21:45 1 5 0 1 5 10:00 3 2 5 22:00 1 0 1 10:15 1 2 3 22:15 0 1 1 10:30 1 0 1 22:30 2 0 2 10:45 0 5 1 5 1 10 22:45 0 3 0 1 0 4 11:00 1 1 2 23:00 0 0 0 11:15 3 2 5 23:15 3 0 3 11:30 1 3 4 23:30 0 0 0 11:45 1 6 3 9 4 15 23:45 1 4 0 1 4 TOTALS 35 66 101 TOTALS 130 71 201 SPLIT % 34.7% 65.3% 33.4% SPLIT % 64.7% 35.3% 66.6% DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB Total 165 137 0 0 302

AM Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:30 PM Peak Hour 16:45 17:30 17:30 AM Pk Volume 11 19 29 PM Pk Volume 20 14 32 Pk Hr Factor 0.550 0.679 0.806 Pk Hr Factor 0.500 0.875 0.615 7 - 9 Volume 16 27 0 0 43 4 - 6 Volume 36 20 0 0 56 7 - 9 Peak Hour 7:15 7:30 7:30 4 - 6 Peak Hour 16:45 17:00 17:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 11 19 0 0 29 4 - 6 Pk Volume 20 11 0 0 31 Pk Hr Factor 0.550 0.679 0.000 0.000 0.806 Pk Hr Factor 0.500 0.688 0.000 0.000 0.596 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Victoria Crescent Bet. Trellis Bay & Pebble Bay Day: Thursday City: Rodeo Date: 11/2/2017 Project #: CA17_7921_002

NB SB EB WB Total DAILY TOTALS 0 0 1,375 1,271 2,646 AM Period NB SB EB WBTOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL 0:00 0 2 2 12:00 14 11 25 0:15 1 4 5 12:15 18 11 29 0:30 0 1 1 12:30 16 13 29 0:45 0 1 2 9 2 10 12:45 16 64 12 47 28 111 1:00 1 2 3 13:00 17 15 32 1:15 0 1 1 13:15 21 12 33 1:30 0 1 1 13:30 22 17 39 1:45 1 2 2 6 3 8 13:45 14 74 19 63 33 137 2:00 1 3 4 14:00 14 20 34 2:15 0 1 1 14:15 12 17 29 2:30 0 0 0 14:30 13 20 33 2:45 0 1 0 4 0 5 14:45 29 68 25 82 54 150 3:00 1 1 2 15:00 17 21 38 3:15 1 1 2 15:15 20 23 43 3:30 0 0 0 15:30 12 29 41 3:45 0 2 0 2 0 4 15:45 23 72 30 103 53 175 4:00 4 0 4 16:00 21 29 50 4:15 4 0 4 16:15 24 20 44 4:30 4 0 4 16:30 24 24 48 4:45 4 16 4 4 8 20 16:45 29 98 31 104 60 202 5:00 9 2 11 17:00 19 20 39 5:15 3 1 4 17:15 18 32 50 5:30 9 4 13 17:30 27 40 67 5:45 10 31 4 11 14 42 17:45 24 88 29 121 53 209 6:00 16 6 22 18:00 21 37 58 6:15 20 6 26 18:15 25 27 52 6:30 19 8 27 18:30 27 35 62 6:45 20 75 6 26 26 101 18:45 25 98 19 118 44 216 7:00 33 14 47 19:00 12 29 41 7:15 39 17 56 19:15 17 27 44 7:30 37 8 45 19:30 17 25 42 7:45 43 152 21 60 64 212 19:45 14 60 16 97 30 157 8:00 42 23 65 20:00 10 19 29 8:15 34 21 55 20:15 17 21 38 8:30 32 23 55 20:30 11 22 33 8:45 38 146 19 86 57 232 20:45 10 48 14 76 24 124 9:00 18 9 27 21:00 10 18 28 9:15 22 12 34 21:15 11 17 28 9:30 21 10 31 21:30 6 14 20 9:45 29 90 8 39 37 129 21:45 3 30 21 70 24 100 10:00 17 6 23 22:00 4 9 13 10:15 24 9 33 22:15 7 6 13 10:30 15 9 24 22:30 3 8 11 10:45 13 69 8 32 21 101 22:45 2 16 10 33 12 49 11:00 10 10 20 23:00 2 7 9 11:15 28 14 42 23:15 4 11 15 11:30 11 11 22 23:30 2 6 8 11:45 16 65 16 51 32 116 23:45 1 9 3 27 4 36 TOTALS 650 330 980 TOTALS 725 941 1666 SPLIT % 66.3% 33.7% 37.0% SPLIT % 43.5% 56.5% 63.0% DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 1,375 1,271 2,646

AM Peak Hour 7:15 7:45 7:45 PM Peak Hour 16:00 17:15 17:30 AM Pk Volume 161 88 239 PM Pk Volume 98 138 230 Pk Hr Factor 0.936 0.957 0.919 Pk Hr Factor 0.845 0.863 0.858 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 298 146 444 4 - 6 Volume 0 0 186 225 411 7 - 9 Peak Hour 7:15 7:45 7:45 4 - 6 Peak Hour 16:00 16:45 16:45 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 161 88 239 4 - 6 Pk Volume 0 0 98 123 216 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.936 0.957 0.919 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.845 0.769 0.806 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME 2nd St Bet. Garretson Ave & Lake Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo Date: 11/2/2017 Project #: CA17_7921_003

NB SB EB WB Total DAILY TOTALS 0 0 188 121 309 AM Period NB SB EB WBTOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL 0:00 0 0 0 12:00 2 2 4 0:15 1 0 1 12:15 4 1 5 0:30 0 0 0 12:30 3 2 5 0:45 0 1 0 0 1 12:45 1 10 0 5 1 15 1:00 0 0 0 13:00 2 4 6 1:15 0 0 0 13:15 1 2 3 1:30 0 0 0 13:30 3 0 3 1:45 0 0 0 13:45 6 12 1 7 7 19 2:00 0 1 1 14:00 3 2 5 2:15 0 0 0 14:15 4 4 8 2:30 0 0 0 14:30 3 3 6 2:45 0 0 1 0 1 14:45 9 19 4 13 13 32 3:00 0 0 0 15:00 5 2 7 3:15 0 0 0 15:15 2 2 4 3:30 0 0 0 15:30 1 2 3 3:45 2 2 1 1 3 3 15:45 3 11 3 9 6 20 4:00 1 0 1 16:00 3 1 4 4:15 1 0 1 16:15 3 3 6 4:30 2 0 2 16:30 1 3 4 4:45 2 6 0 2 6 16:45 1 8 0 7 1 15 5:00 1 1 2 17:00 2 1 3 5:15 0 0 0 17:15 5 5 10 5:30 0 0 0 17:30 3 4 7 5:45 3 4 0 1 3 5 17:45 2 12 4 14 6 26 6:00 3 0 3 18:00 2 0 2 6:15 2 0 2 18:15 5 4 9 6:30 1 0 1 18:30 3 3 6 6:45 1 7 0 1 7 18:45 2 12 2 9 4 21 7:00 2 0 2 19:00 4 2 6 7:15 1 0 1 19:15 1 0 1 7:30 5 1 6 19:30 1 2 3 7:45 5 13 2 3 7 16 19:45 0 6 2 6 2 12 8:00 4 3 7 20:00 2 1 3 8:15 5 4 9 20:15 1 0 1 8:30 7 5 12 20:30 2 1 3 8:45 9 25 2 14 11 39 20:45 2 7 1 3 3 10 9:00 2 3 5 21:00 1 0 1 9:15 3 0 3 21:15 1 1 2 9:30 1 1 2 21:30 0 0 0 9:45 5 11 4 8 9 19 21:45 0 2 1 2 1 4 10:00 1 4 5 22:00 0 0 0 10:15 1 3 4 22:15 1 1 2 10:30 2 1 3 22:30 0 0 0 10:45 1 5 1 9 2 14 22:45 0 1 0 1 0 2 11:00 3 2 5 23:00 1 0 1 11:15 3 1 4 23:15 0 1 1 11:30 2 1 3 23:30 1 0 1 11:45 4 12 2 6 6 18 23:45 0 2 1 2 1 4 TOTALS 86 43 129 TOTALS 102 78 180 SPLIT % 66.7% 33.3% 41.7% SPLIT % 56.7% 43.3% 58.3% DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 188 121 309

AM Peak Hour 8:00 7:45 8:00 PM Peak Hour 14:15 17:00 14:15 AM Pk Volume 25 14 39 PM Pk Volume 21 14 34 Pk Hr Factor 0.694 0.700 0.813 Pk Hr Factor 0.583 0.700 0.654 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 38 17 55 4 - 6 Volume 0 0 20 21 41 7 - 9 Peak Hour 8:00 7:45 8:00 4 - 6 Peak Hour 17:00 17:00 17:00 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 25 14 39 4 - 6 Pk Volume 0 0 12 14 26 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.694 0.700 0.813 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.600 0.700 0.650 Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME 3rd St Bet. Garretson Ave & Lake Ave Day: Thursday City: Rodeo Date: 11/2/2017 Project #: CA17_7921_004

NB SB EB WB Total DAILY TOTALS 0 0 222 302 524 AM Period NB SB EB WBTOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL 0:00 0 1 1 12:00 4 2 6 0:15 1 0 1 12:15 2 5 7 0:30 1 1 2 12:30 3 11 14 0:45 0 2 1 3 1 5 12:45 5 14 4 22 9 36 1:00 0 0 0 13:00 7 5 12 1:15 0 0 0 13:15 3 3 6 1:30 0 0 0 13:30 2 4 6 1:45 0 0 0 13:45 3 15 3 15 6 30 2:00 0 0 0 14:00 1 5 6 2:15 0 0 0 14:15 1 8 9 2:30 0 0 0 14:30 4 6 10 2:45 0 0 0 14:45 14 20 8 27 22 47 3:00 0 0 0 15:00 2 5 7 3:15 0 0 0 15:15 2 6 8 3:30 1 0 1 15:30 1 6 7 3:45 0 1 0 0 1 15:45 5 10 6 23 11 33 4:00 0 0 0 16:00 1 5 6 4:15 0 1 1 16:15 4 5 9 4:30 1 0 1 16:30 2 4 6 4:45 2 3 1 2 3 5 16:45 4 11 9 23 13 34 5:00 1 0 1 17:00 3 6 9 5:15 2 2 4 17:15 5 9 14 5:30 1 0 1 17:30 5 9 14 5:45 3 7 0 2 3 9 17:45 2 15 4 28 6 43 6:00 3 1 4 18:00 3 7 10 6:15 3 1 4 18:15 5 5 10 6:30 5 1 6 18:30 2 3 5 6:45 3 14 1 4 4 18 18:45 3 13 9 24 12 37 7:00 1 1 2 19:00 1 7 8 7:15 7 5 12 19:15 5 3 8 7:30 7 1 8 19:30 0 4 4 7:45 4 19 7 14 11 33 19:45 1 7 6 20 7 27 8:00 1 2 3 20:00 1 3 4 8:15 5 7 12 20:15 1 7 8 8:30 9 5 14 20:30 1 3 4 8:45 0 15 5 19 5 34 20:45 1 4 2 15 3 19 9:00 1 2 3 21:00 0 3 3 9:15 6 8 14 21:15 1 5 6 9:30 3 2 5 21:30 1 0 1 9:45 0 10 4 16 4 26 21:45 1 3 1 9 2 12 10:00 1 3 4 22:00 0 2 2 10:15 2 5 7 22:15 2 3 5 10:30 3 2 5 22:30 0 1 1 10:45 8 14 5 15 13 29 22:45 0 2 2 8 2 10 11:00 8 3 11 23:00 0 1 1 11:15 7 4 11 23:15 0 1 1 11:30 5 1 6 23:30 0 1 1 11:45 3 23 2 10 5 33 23:45 0 0 3 0 3 TOTALS 108 85 193 TOTALS 114 217 331 SPLIT % 56.0% 44.0% 36.8% SPLIT % 34.4% 65.6% 63.2% DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 222 302 524

AM Peak Hour 10:45 7:45 10:45 PM Peak Hour 14:30 16:45 16:45 AM Pk Volume 28 21 41 PM Pk Volume 22 33 50 Pk Hr Factor 0.875 0.750 0.788 Pk Hr Factor 0.393 0.917 0.893 7 - 9 Volume 0 0 34 33 67 4 - 6 Volume 0 0 26 51 77 7 - 9 Peak Hour 7:00 7:45 7:45 4 - 6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:45 16:45 7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 19 21 40 4 - 6 Pk Volume 0 0 17 33 50 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.679 0.750 0.714 Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.850 0.917 0.893 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/11/18) P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

APPENDIX C HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL WORKSHEETS

P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) C‐1 P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018

This page intentionally left blank

C‐2 P:\BKF1702 Lone Tree Point Rodeo\CEQA\Lone Tree_PublicReviewDraft_ISMND.docx (01/10/18) HCM 2010 TWSC HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Garretson Avenue & Second Street 2: Parker Avenue & San Pablo Avenue

,QWHUVHFWLRQ ,QWHUVHFWLRQ ,QW'HOD\VYHK ,QW'HOD\VYHK 0RYHPHQW (%/ (%7 (%5 :%/ :%7 :%5 1%/ 1%7 1%5 6%/ 6%7 6%5 0RYHPHQW (%/ (%5 1%/ 1%7 6%7 6%5 /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQV /DQH&RQILJXUDWLRQV 7UDIILF9ROYHKK 7UDIILF9ROYHKK )XWXUH9ROYHKK )XWXUH9ROYHKK &RQIOLFWLQJ3HGVKU &RQIOLFWLQJ3HGVKU 6LJQ&RQWURO )UHH )UHH )UHH )UHH )UHH )UHH 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6WRS 6LJQ&RQWURO 6WRS 6WRS )UHH )UHH )UHH )UHH 57&KDQQHOL]HG 1RQH 1RQH 1RQH 1RQH 57&KDQQHOL]HG 1RQH 1RQH

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Parker Avenue & Second Street 4: Parker Avenue & Third Street/Investment Street

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Willow Avenue & San Pablo Avenue 6: Willow Avenue & I-80 WB Ramps

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Willow Avenue & Driveway/I-80 EB Ramps 8: San Pablo Avenue & Victoria Crescent W

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Victoria Crescent W & Regatta Point

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 TWSC HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Garretson Avenue & Second Street 2: Parker Avenue & San Pablo Avenue

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Parker Avenue & Second Street 4: Parker Avenue & Third Street/Investment Street

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Willow Avenue & San Pablo Avenue 6: Willow Avenue & I-80 WB Ramps

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Willow Avenue & Driveway/I-80 EB Ramps 8: San Pablo Avenue & Victoria Crescent W

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Victoria Crescent W & Regatta Point

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([30 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 TWSC HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Garretson Avenue & Second Street 2: Parker Avenue & San Pablo Avenue

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Parker Avenue & Second Street 4: Parker Avenue & Third Street/Investment Street

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Willow Avenue & San Pablo Avenue 6: Willow Avenue & I-80 WB Ramps

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Willow Avenue & Driveway/I-80 EB Ramps 8: San Pablo Avenue & Victoria Crescent W

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Victoria Crescent W & Regatta Point

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([3$0 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 TWSC HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Garretson Avenue & Second Street 2: Parker Avenue & San Pablo Avenue

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Parker Avenue & Second Street 4: Parker Avenue & Third Street/Investment Street

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Willow Avenue & San Pablo Avenue 6: Willow Avenue & I-80 WB Ramps

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Willow Avenue & Driveway/I-80 EB Ramps 8: San Pablo Avenue & Victoria Crescent W

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

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Victoria Crescent W & Regatta Point

/RQH7UHH7UDLO3URMHFW %.) SP([330 6\QFKUR5HSRUW /6$$QDO\VW13 3DJH