Mission Peak Draft EIR

S TA N FO R D AV E N U E S TA G I N G A R E A
E X PA N S I O N P R O J E C T
D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PAC T R E P O RT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012102048
October 2015
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MISSION PEAK REGIONAL PRESERVE
STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT
State Clearinghouse Number: 2012102048
October 16, 2015
NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that the East Bay Regional Park District (District), as Lead Agency, has completed a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project (project). The Draft
EIR is available for public review and comment and this notice is provided pursuant to Section 21092 of the State Public
Resources Code.
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD: The public review for the Draft EIR is October 16 - November 30, 2015. The
District must receive all written comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR within this time period. Written
comments are encouraged and may be submitted by mail or by e-mail, and should be directed to:
Michelle Julene, Senior Planner
East Bay Regional Park District
PO Box 5381
Oakland, CA 94605-0381
Email: MJulene@ebparks.org
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the District has prepared a Draft EIR which analyzes the
potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project. A Final EIR will be prepared following
public review and comment. The District will consider this information when deliberating on the project. Following
certification of the Final EIR, the District may take action to approve the project.
PUBLIC MEETING: The District will hold an informational meeting on the Draft EIR on Monday, November 9 at 6:00 p.m.
at the Warm Springs Community Center, 47300 Fernald Street, Fremont. The District will present the project at this
public meeting and will accept verbal comments. The District will respond to comments in the Response to Public
Comments document that will be prepared at the end of the public review period as part of the Final EIR that will be
presented to the Districts Board of Directors.
A public hearing by the Districts Board of Directors to consider certification of the EIR and project approval is
anticipated in spring 2016. A separate notice of this meeting will be provided to those who comment on the Draft EIR
and posted on the Districts website when the date is determined.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Draft EIR is available online, and may be downloaded from the District website:
www.ebparks.org/parks/mission/Stanford_Avenue_Staging_Area_ Expansion_Project. Copies of the Draft EIR are also
available for review at District headquarters at the address listed above and at the Fremont Main Library Reference
Desk, 2300 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont.
PROJECT LOCATION: The project area is located at the western entrance to the Mission Peak Regional Preserve
(Preserve) at the terminus of Stanford Avenue in the City of Fremont, Alameda County. The existing Stanford Avenue
Staging Area (staging area) provides limited parking for 43 vehicles and serves as the primary access to the Hidden Valley
Trail and the Peak Meadow Trail which access the summit of Mission Peak.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better
accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. It is anticipated that
developing a new staging area at this location will help to reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on
neighborhood streets resulting from Preserve visitors parking on public streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area
and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms.
The Draft EIR fully analyzes the environmental impacts of two potential options for a staging area location, either of
which would provide a maximum of 300 new parking spaces within the existing Mission Peak boundaries. The options
are:
Option A: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located 250 feet to the northeast of the
existing staging area. The Option A site encompasses a total of 11.71 acres. Approximately 9.64 acres would be
permanently disturbed, 2.78 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces. The remaining 2.07 acres consist of
temporarily disturbed areas.
Option B: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located approximately 875 feet to the
southeast of the existing staging area. The Option B site encompasses a total of 16.76 acres. Approximately
10.45 acres would be permanently disturbed, 3.10 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces or bridge
structures. The remaining 6.31 acres consist of temporarily disturbed areas.
Each option would include a gate controlled access to the staging area, kiosk, new public restrooms, picnic tables, and
associated landscaping and utility improvements. Each option also would also include paved vehicle access roadways
from the existing staging area to the project as well as new graveled roadways and/or trail connections. Postconstruction stormwater controls would include treatment through bioretention within the staging area and
hydromodification management utilizing a detention pond.
Development of Option A would include a headwall repair to an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek.
Development of Option B would remove an existing culvert and restore the channel to its natural condition along a
different section of Agua Caliente Creek. Development of Option B would also include a new vehicular bridge and a trail
bridge at two separate locations over the creek.
ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The Draft EIR provides an evaluation of the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Potential significant impacts were identified for the following environmental topics: biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, and noise.
QUESTIONS: If you have questions about the Draft EIR, please contact Michelle Julene, Senior Planner, East Bay Regional
Park District, at 510-544-2351, or MJulene@ebparks.org.
S TA N FO R D AV E N U E S TA G I N G A R E A
E X PA N S I O N P R O J E C T
D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PAC T R E P O RT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012102048
Submitted to:
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
P.O. Box 5381
Oakland, California 95605-0381
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
510.540.7331
October 2015
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

OCTOBER 2015
STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR..................................................................................................... 1
B. REGIONAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 1
C. PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 3
D. EIR SCOPE......................................................................................................................... 4
E. REPORT ORGANIZATION .............................................................................................. 5
II.
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 7
A. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW ............................................................................................ 7
B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES....................................... 8
C. SUMMARY TABLE ........................................................................................................ 12
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 55

A. PROJECT AREA .............................................................................................................. 55
B. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 58
C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 62
D. PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................... 63
E. PROJECT APPROVALS AND USE OF THIS EIR ........................................................ 74
IV.
PLANNING POLICY ................................................................................................................ 77

A. CITY OF FREMONT GENERAL PLAN ........................................................................ 77
B. CITY OF FREMONT ZONING ORDINANCE .............................................................. 93
C. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT MASTER PLAN .................................... 94
V.
SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 105

A. LAND USE ..................................................................................................................... 109
B. VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 123
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 143
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 197
E. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................. 221
F. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 229
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................... 233
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................... 257
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................... 279
J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................................... 289
K. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 321
L. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................... 349
M. NOISE............................................................................................................................. 367
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................... 385
O. RECREATION ............................................................................................................... 389
P. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 403
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 415
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15)

OCTOBER 2015
VI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................... 425
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 427
B. REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE .............................................................. 431
C. PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE EXISTING STAGING AREA
ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................. 436
D. OFF-SITE PARKING ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................ 441
E. MAXIMUM PARKING ALTERNATIVE .................................................................... 445
F. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER
EVALUATION IN THIS EIR ........................................................................................ 450
G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE................................................ 457
VII. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 459

A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS................................................................................ 459
B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................ 460
C. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES .............................................................. 460
VIII. REPORT PREPARATION ...................................................................................................... 463
A. REPORT PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 463
B. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 464
C. COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................... 472
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Scoping Information
A-1: NOP and Comment Letters
A-2: Scoping Session Notes and Comments
A-3: District Master Plan Meeting Comments
Appendix B: Latent Visitor Demand Study
Appendix C: Geotechnical Report
Appendix D: Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix E: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Appendix F: Noise Data
ii

OCTOBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure I-1:
Figure III-1:
Figure III-2a:
Figure III-2b:
Figure III-3a:
Figure III-3b:
Figure V.A-1:
Figure V.A-2a:
Figure V.A-2b:
Figure V.A-2c:
Figure V.B-1:
Figure V.B-2a:
Figure V.B-2b:
Figure V.B-3a:
Figure V.B-3b:
Figure V.B-4:
Figure V.B-5:
Figure V.G-1:
Figure V.G-2:
Figure V.G-3:
Figure V.J-1:
Figure V.J-2:
Figure V.J-3:
Figure V.J-4:
Figure V.J-5:
Figure V.J-6:
Figure V.J-7:
Figure V.J-8:
Figure V.J-9:
Figure V.J-10:
Project Vicinity and Regional Location Map ........................................................... 2

Aerial View of the Project Area.............................................................................. 59
Option A Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................ 65
Option A Conceptual Site Sections ...................................................................... 66
Option B Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................ 67
Option B Conceptual Site Sections ...................................................................... 68
Aerial Photograph of the Project Area, Surrounding Land Uses and Photo
Location Map ........................................................................................................ 111
Existing Land Use Photos ..................................................................................... 112
Viewpoint Location Map ...................................................................................... 125
Viewpoint 1 Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option A) ............................. 127
Viewpoint 1 Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option B) ............................. 128
Viewpoint 2 Mission Peak Summit (Option A) ................................................. 129
Viewpoint 2 Mission Peak Summit (Option B) ................................................. 130
Viewpoint 3 Fence Line Option A .................................................................. 131
Viewpoint 4 Fence Line Option B .................................................................. 132
Map of Quaternary Faulting Conceptual Parking Options ................................ 239
Landslides and Related Features ........................................................................... 240
Regional Landslide Map ....................................................................................... 241
Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................... 290
Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................... 295
Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................ 297
Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................... 298
Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 299
Cumulative Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 301
Streets Most Heavily Used for Parking by Trail Users ......................................... 303
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................ 311
Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................ 312
Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 315
iii

OCTOBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
Table II-1:
Table II-2:
Table III-1:
Table III-2:
Table IV-1:
Table IV-2:
Table V.1:
Table V.A-1:
Table V.C-1:
Table V.C-2:
Table V.C-3:
Table V.C-4:
Table V.C-5:
Table V.G-1:
Table V.G-2
Table V.H-1:
Table V.J-1:
Table V.J-2:
Table V.J-3:
Table V.J-4:
Table V.J-5:
Table V.J-6:
Table V.J-7:
Table V.J-8:
Table V.J-9:
Table V.J-10:
Table V.J-11:
Table V.K-1:
Table V.K-2:
Table V.K-3:
Table V.K-4:
Table V.K-5:
Table V.K-6:
Table V.K-7:
Table V.K-8:
Table V.L-1:
Table V.L-2:
Table V.M-1:
Summary of Option A Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 13

Summary of Option B Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 34
Comparison of Option A and Option B Staging Areas ........................................... 64
Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................ 75
Relationship of Proposed Project to City of Fremont General Plan Policies .......... 80
Relationship of Proposed Project to East Bay Regional Park District
Master Plan ............................................................................................................. 97
Cumulative Projects .............................................................................................. 108
Stanford Avenue Staging Area and Environs Hours of Operation (20142015) ..................................................................................................................... 110
Plant Species Observed at the Project Sites .......................................................... 145
Wildlife Species Observed on or Adjacent to the Project Sites ............................ 148
Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the
Project Sites .......................................................................................................... 151
Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the
Project Sites .......................................................................................................... 157
Projects in the Fremont Region that May Contribute to Cumulative
Biological Resources Impacts ............................................................................... 195
Local Faults........................................................................................................... 234
Modified Mercalli Scale ....................................................................................... 236
Impaired Water Body Pollutants for South San Francisco Bay ............................ 261
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions............................................ 292
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ....................................... 292
Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project) .................. 300
Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project) ............ 302
Project Trip Generation Estimates ........................................................................ 309
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project
Conditions ............................................................................................................. 313
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project
Conditions ............................................................................................................. 313
Intersection Level of Service Summary Under Cumulative Conditions ............... 314
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ..................................................................... 316
Friday Parking Demand EstimatesExisting and Plus Project Conditions ........... 318
Saturday Parking Demand EstimatesExisting and Plus Project Conditions ....... 319
Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants........................................................ 322
Ambient Air Quality at the San Francisco Air Basin............................................ 328
State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................ 331
Bay Area Attainment Status.................................................................................. 336
Option A Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day ........................... 342
Option B Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day ........................... 344
Daily Project Operational Emissions .................................................................... 345
Annual Project Operational Emissions ................................................................. 346
Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases ................................................. 350
City of Fremont 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (MTCO2e) ............ 362
Definitions of Acoustical Terms ........................................................................... 369
iv

OCTOBER 2015
Table V.M-2:
Table V.M-3:
Table V.M-4:
Table V.M-5:
Table V.M-6:
Table V.M-7:
Table V.Q-1:
Table V.Q-2:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ....................................................................... 370

Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment............................. 371
Summary of EPA Noise Levels ............................................................................ 372
Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn ............................. 372
Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise Environments............... 374
Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax .......................... 380
Existing Water Supply .......................................................................................... 415
Water Treatment Facilities Characteristics ........................................................... 416

OCTOBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
vi
I. INTRODUCTION
A.
PURPOSE OF THE EIR
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this report describes the
environmental consequences of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project (proposed
project) located at Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve) in the City of Fremont
(City), Alameda County. Although Mission Peak is within the jurisdictional boundaries of Fremont, it
is operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District (District); therefore, the District is
the Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed project.
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is designed to inform District decision-makers, responsible
agencies, and the general public of the proposed project and the potential physical consequences of
project approval. This EIR also examines alternatives to the proposed project and recommends
mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant physical impacts. This EIR will be used
by the District and the public in their review of the proposed project and associated approvals,
including those described in Chapter III, Project Description.
B.
REGIONAL CONTEXT
The project area is located within Mission Peak, in the southeastern area of the City of Fremont.
Ohlone College, the City, and the District own portions of the lands within Mission Peak. However,
the District operates and maintains the park on Ohlone College and City-owned lands under
respective lease agreements. The project area is located on land owned by the City but within the
boundaries of Mission Peak and leased by the District. The project area is located within the vicinity
of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area which provides direct access to several trails within
Mission Peak. Figure I-1 shows the location and ownership boundaries of Mission Peak within the
local and regional context and identifies the location of the project area.
The District is a State-authorized independent special district operating 65 parks on approximately
119,000 acres of land in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The Districts core mission is to
acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of interconnected park lands
that balances public usage and education programs with protection and preservation of natural and
cultural resources. District facilities include over 1,250 miles of trails for hiking, biking, horseback
riding and nature study. The District also offers lakes, shorelines, campgrounds, visitor centers,
interpretive and recreation programs, picnic areas, indoor/outdoor rental facilities, and golf courses.
Mission Peak is located within this park system and is heavily used by visitors from throughout the
Bay Area, making Mission Peak (at an elevation of 2,516 feet) a regional destination.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\1-Introduction.docx (10/14/15)
24
PROJECT
LOCATION
Berkeley
Ohlone
College
Land
San Francisco
680
Sa
n
580
Fr
an
Hayward
ci
sc
o
Ba
880
Fremont
C
PA
San Mateo
IF
280
IC
Milpitas
OC
Palo Alto
EA
San Jose
N
9
Los Gatos
1
REGIONAL LOCATION
101
9
17
MISSION PEAK
REGIONAL
PRESERVE
OPTION A
City of
Fremont
Land
OPTION B
East Bay
Regional Park
District Land
FREMONT HILLS
OPEN SPACE
FIGURE I-1
Mission Peak Regional Preserve Boundary
Jurisdictional Boundaries
Option A and Option B Sites
SOURCES: EBRPD; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2015.
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_I1.ai (4/21/15)
Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIR

Project Vicinity and Regional Location Map

OCTOBER 2015
C.

I. INTRODUCTION
PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park
visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (staging area) at
Mission Peak. It is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this location will help to
reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing
staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of
parking and additional restrooms.
The new staging area is proposed to be developed at one of two potential locations within the Cityowned portion of Mission Peak on land leased by the District and near the existing Stanford Avenue
Staging Area. As such, this EIR analyzes the environmental impacts of two potential staging area
locations, either of which would provide a maximum of 300 new parking spaces within the existing
Mission Peak boundaries. The options are:
Option A: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located 250 feet to the
northeast of the existing staging area. The Option A site encompasses a total of 11.71 acres.
Approximately 9.64 acres would be permanently disturbed, 2.78 acres of which would
consist of paved surfaces. The remaining 2.07 acres consist of temporarily disturbed areas.
Option B: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located approximately

875 feet to the southeast of the existing staging area. The Option B site encompasses a total
of 16.76 acres. Approximately 10.45 acres would be permanently disturbed, 3.10 acres of
which would consist of paved surfaces or bridge structures. The remaining 6.31 acres
consist of temporarily disturbed areas.
Each option would include a gate controlled access to the staging area, kiosk, new public restrooms,
picnic tables, and associated landscaping and utility improvements. Each option would also include
paved roadways from the existing staging area to provide access to either location as well as new
graveled roadways and/or trail connections. Post-construction stormwater controls at each location
would include treatment through bioretention and hydromodification management utilizing a
detention pond.
Development of Option A would include a headwall repair to an existing culvert along a tributary to
Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. Development of Option B would include removal
of an existing culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails and restoration
of the channel to its natural condition along a different section of Agua Caliente Creek. Development
of Option B would also include development of a new vehicular bridge and a pedestrian bridge at two
separate locations over the creek.
The existing staging area would be retained under either option, resulting in a maximum of 343
parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The increase in the availability of
parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area is expected to better serve the demand for parking, and
according to surveys prepared for the District,1, 2, 3 could increase visitor demand by between
1
East Bay Regional Park District, 2007. Park Visitor and Vehicle Count, Mission Peak Stanford Staging Area.
August 11.

OCTOBER 2015

I. INTRODUCTION
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (See Section V.J., Transportation and
Circulation). This potential increase in visitation is also evaluated as part of the project in this EIR.
The District will utilize the environmental analysis provided in this EIR to inform and support any
decision to approve one of the two project options. The Districts Board may decide not to approve
either project option, and it could instead direct District staff to further analyze one of the alternatives
considered in this EIR. Refer to Chapter III, Project Description, for a complete description of the
proposed staging area development options and to Chapter V, Alternatives, for a description of the No
Project alternative and consideration of other project alternatives.
D.
EIR SCOPE
The following environmental topics are addressed in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures of this EIR:
Land Use
Visual Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Mineral Resources
Geology and Soils
Hydrology and Water Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Transportation and Circulation
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Noise
Population and Housing
Recreation
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Mission Peak Parking Use Survey, February-July.
BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study. June 29.

OCTOBER 2015

I. INTRODUCTION
The EIR also includes an evaluation of the projects consistency with applicable plans and policies
(see Chapter IV, Planning Policy) and an evaluation of alternatives to the project (see Chapter VI,
Alternatives).
E.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter I Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose, provides a summary of the
proposed project, and summarizes the organization of the EIR.
Chapter II Summary: Provides a summary of the proposed project and of the impacts that
would result from implementation of the proposed project, and describes mitigation
measures recommended to reduce or avoid significant impacts. A summary of alternatives
to the proposed project is also provided.
Chapter III Project Description: Provides a description of the project area, project
background, project objectives, required approvals, and details of the project itself.
Chapter IV Planning Policy: Identifies relevant regional and local plans and evaluates the
proposed project's consistency with these plans and policies.
Chapter V Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for all
environmental topics evaluated in this EIR: existing conditions (setting); potential
environmental impacts and their level of significance; and measures to mitigate identified
impacts. Potential adverse impacts are identified by level of significance, as follows: lessthan-significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable
impact (SU). The significance of each impact is categorized before and after implementation of any recommended mitigation measure(s). Each topical section also includes an
analysis of the cumulative effects of the project.
Chapter VI Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of five alternatives to the proposed

project options, including the No Project alternative.
Chapter VII Other CEQA Considerations: Provides additional required analyses of the
proposed projects growth-inducing effects and significant irreversible changes.
Chapter VIII Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the EIR, references used, and
persons and organizations contacted.
Appendices: The appendices contain the NOP and comments on the NOP, technical studies
and calculations, and other documentation prepared in conjunction with this EIR.

OCTOBER 2015

I. INTRODUCTION
II.
A.
SUMMARY
PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) describes the environmental consequences of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area
Expansion Project (proposed project) located at Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or
Preserve) in the City of Fremont (City), Alameda County. Although Mission Peak is within the
jurisdictional boundaries of Fremont, it is operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park
District (District); therefore, the District is the Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed
project.
The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (staging area) provides limited parking for 43 vehicles
and serves as the primary access to the Hidden Valley Trail and the Peak Meadow Trail which access
the summit of Mission Peak. The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and
restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing staging area. It
is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this location will help to reduce existing
noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area and
that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and
additional restrooms.

Each option would include a gate controlled access to the staging area, kiosk, new public restrooms,
picnic tables, and associated landscaping and utility improvements. Each option would also include
paved roadways from the existing staging area to provide access to either location as well as new
graveled roadways and/or trail connections. Post-construction stormwater controls at each location
would include treatment through bioretention and hydromodification management utilizing a
detention pond.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\2-Summary.docx (10/14/15)

OCTOBER 2015

II. SUMMARY
The existing staging area would be retained under either option, resulting in a maximum of 343
parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The increase in the availability of
parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area is expected to better serve the demand for parking, and
according to surveys prepared for the District,1, 2, 3 could increase visitor demand by between
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (See Section V.J., Transportation and
Circulation). This potential increase in visitation is also evaluated as part of the project in this EIR.
The District will utilize the environmental analysis provided in this EIR to inform and support any
decision to approve one of the two project options. The Districts Board may decide not to approve
either project option, and it could instead direct District staff to further analyze one of the alternatives
considered in this EIR. Refer to Chapter III, Project Description, for a complete description of the
proposed staging area development options and to Chapter V, Alternatives, for a description of the No
Project alternative and consideration of other project alternatives.
B.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect on the environment as a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project Therefore, in identifying the significant impacts of the project, this EIR
focuses on its substantial physical effects and mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or otherwise
alleviate those effects. This EIR examines the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impacts of the project and focuses primarily on changes in the environment that would result from
project development. This EIR examines all phases of the project including construction, operation,
and maintenance.
This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures. This summary includes a discussion of: 1) potential areas of controversy; 2)
significant project-level impacts; 3) cumulative impacts; 4) significant irreversible and unavoidable
impacts; and 5) alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or avoid the environmental
impacts of the project.
August 11.
2

OCTOBER 2015
1.

II. SUMMARY
Potential Areas of Controversy
The District circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on October 22, 2012 notifying responsible
agencies and interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the project and indicating the
environmental topics anticipated to be addressed in the EIR. A total of 20 comment letters were
received in response to the NOP in addition to verbal comments provided and comment cards
submitted at the public scoping session, held on November 8, 2012. Comments were received from a
variety of groups, including nearby neighbors and visitors to Mission Peak. A copy of the NOP and
each comment letter received is included in Appendix A of this EIR. Appendix A also includes a
summary of the verbal comments made at the scoping session and copies of the comment cards. In
the fall of 2012, the District also held a series of community meetings to gather input on revisions to
the District Master Plan, which at the time was under revision. Some of the comments submitted at
these meetings also pertained to the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project, and
these comments are also reproduced in Appendix A. Scoping comments generally included the
following concerns:
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and safety
Adequacy of existing and future parking supply to meet demand
Geotechnical and slope stability issues, including erosion
Ability of existing cattle operations to continue
Crime and safety and illegal littering
Overuse of the park and creation of illegal trails
Loss of habitat and open space
Access to existing hang gliding landing zones
Noise impacts to residents
Flooding and drainage issues
Impacts to natural springs
Cultural resource and artifacts
Air quality impacts associated with idling cars
Many of these concerns relate to the existing and future intensity of use at Mission Peak, and can be
summarized as relating to the carrying capacity of the park and the potential overuse of resources.
The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with anticipated increases in visitor use due
to the provision of additional parking. Existing and future operations of Mission Peak are currently
being addressed through ongoing maintenance and operations activities of the District, as discussed
further in Section V.P, Public Services. Furthermore, the District conducts ongoing public outreach
efforts to address a variety of issues including hiker safety; hiking with dogs and children; trail
restoration; consideration when parking in the neighborhoods; identification of other challenging
hikes at other District facilities; and parking at Ohlone College. One public outreach event was held
in 2013 and six were held in 2014 (refer to Chapter III, Project Description for additional
information).

OCTOBER 2015

II. SUMMARY
Many commenters also provided suggested alternatives to the proposed project. Project alternatives
are analyzed in Chapter VI, Alternatives of this EIR.
Due to high and ongoing public interest in the proposed project, comments regarding the proposed
project continue to be received by the District via email, at regularly scheduled District Board
meetings, and at City of Fremont City Council meetings.
2.
Significant Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project options for providing additional parking has the potential to
result in adverse impacts in several environmental areas. As shown in Tables II-1 and II-2 at the end
of this chapter, impacts in the following areas would be significant under both development options,
although all of these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of
the mitigation measures recommended in Chapter V:
3.
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Air Quality
Noise
Cumulative Impacts
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts. Section
15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project
when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. As discussed in
Chapter V, the proposed project would not result in any cumulatively considerable environmental
impacts.
4.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
As discussed in Chapter V, the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable
environmental impacts.
5.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe a
reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could attain most
of the projects basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly
adverse environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice. CEQA states that an EIR should not consider alternatives whose effect cannot be
ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
10

OCTOBER 2015

II. SUMMARY
The five alternatives to the proposed project options analyzed in Chapter VI of this EIR are
summarized below. These alternatives (with the exception of the CEQA-mandated No Project
alternative) were intended to achieve the key objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding
significant environmental effects. The following five alternatives were developed to reduce the
significant impacts of the project.
The No Project alternative, which assumes the continuation of existing conditions within
the project sites. No additional parking or restrooms would be constructed within the
vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This entrance to Mission Peak
would continue to be inadequately served by available parking and restrooms within the
Preserve. It is assumed that visitors to the Preserve would continue to park on adjacent
streets at the current levels and the associated issues such as noise, litter, and congestion
would continue at the current levels.
The Reduced Project Size alternative, which would construct a new staging area with
parking for approximately 225 vehicles and additional restrooms within a reduced area on
the same site as proposed project Option A site.
The Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area alternative, which would construct
a multi-story parking structure to provide approximately 300 parking spaces and additional
restrooms within the existing footprint of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
The Off-site Parking alternative, which would entail development of an off-site parking
area on a parcel owned by the City of Fremont that could provide up to 75 spaces outside of
the Preserve boundaries but within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging
Area.
The Maximum Parking alternative, which would construct staging areas on both the
Option A and Option B sites, for a total of 643 (new and existing) parking spaces and
additional restrooms provided at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve.
The No Project alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative in the strict sense
that while the existing condition in the neighborhood would continue, impacts to the physical
environment associated with its implementation would be the least of all the scenarios examined
(including the proposed project). However, the No Project alternative would fail to achieve any of the
projects objectives. Among the remaining alternatives, all would reduce some impacts and increase
others compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Size alternative would likely be considered the
environmentally superior alternative. However, while it would reduce impacts to cultural resources
and biological resources compared to the proposed project, it would result in continuing existing
noise, trash and other overflow parking issues to a greater extent than the proposed project, and would
not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
11

OCTOBER 2015
C.

II. SUMMARY
SUMMARY TABLE
As previously discussed, Tables II-1 and II-2 summarize the impacts and mitigation measures for
each environmental topic identified in Chapter V of the EIR. Table II-1 identifies the impacts and
mitigation measures associated with implementation of Option A and Table II-2 identified the
impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of Option B. Each table is arranged
in four columns: (1) impacts; (2) level of significance without mitigation; (3) mitigation measures;
and (4) level of significance after mitigation. Levels of significance are categorized as follows: SU =
Significant and Unavoidable; S = Significant; and LTS = Less Than Significant. For a complete
description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific
discussion in Chapter V of the EIR.
12

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Summary of Option A Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Environmental Impacts
A. LAND USE
There are no Option A impacts related to land use.
B. VISUAL RESOURCES
There are no Option A impacts related to visual resources.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Option A BIO-1: Development of the Option A site
could result in take of California tiger salamander,
California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped
racer.
Mitigation Measures
Option A BIO-1: The District shall implement the following

measures before, during, and after construction at the Option A site to
avoid significant impacts to individual California tiger salamanders,
California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Additional
measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) permitting process.
A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger
salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped
racers shall be present onsite during all ground disturbing
activities to search for salamanders and frogs that may be
unearthed during excavation. The biological monitor(s) shall have
the authority to halt work if a California tiger salamander,
California red-legged frog, or Alameda striped racer is found
onsite. California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders,
and/or Alameda striped racers shall be removed from the
construction area following the procedures specified in the State
and federal listed species permits (i.e., Incidental Take Permit
(section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7 Biological Opinion). The
District shall report all discoveries of listed species in the
construction areas to resource agencies according to the
procedures specified in the State and federal listed species
permits.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
13

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A BIO-1 Continued
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist
shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction
personnel, including all project representatives. Training sessions
shall also be required for any new construction personnel before
being allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall
include an overview of California tiger salamander, California
red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology (including
habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and
CESA, and project-specific avoidance measures being
implemented to avoid impacts on California tiger salamanders,
California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion
fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the work area to
prevent California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs,
Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work
area during construction. The fence must be constructed of a
material that is durable and has been approved by the USFWS
and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing frogs, salamanders, and
snakes from passing under, over, around, or through the fence.
The qualified biologist shall be on site during fence installation
and initial site clearing and grubbing activities. The biologist shall
inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing construction
activities to ensure it is properly maintained and functioning to
exclude California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs,
Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from the work area.
The fence shall remain in place until all construction is completed
and equipment is demobilized.
To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction,
all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 3-inches
deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by
plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more
escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a
slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be
thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
14

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall
(less than 0.25 inch per 24-hour period and less than 40 percent
chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the 72-hour
weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior
to the startup of any ground disturbing activities on the project
site. Construction activities shall cease 24 hours prior to a 40
percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction
may continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is
no precipitation in the 24-hour forecast. Contractor specifications
shall include the following worker restrictions and guidelines, at a
minimum:
o
Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within
designated work areas. Entry into adjacent Preserve lands or
established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.
o
All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All
trash (e.g., food scraps, cans, bottles, containers, wrappers,
cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed in
closed containers and properly disposed off-site.
o
No pets or firearms shall be allowed on site.
o
All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or
lubricated in a designated area at least 100 feet from aquatic
habitats.
o
In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or
injured or if a special-status species is observed to be injured,
dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall immediately notify
the District, work shall stop, and the District shall notify the
USFWS and CDFW.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
15

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY

would result in the permanent loss of upland habitat
for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped
racer
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
As part of the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) implementation, the District shall include in the
specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of natural
materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion
control to ensure that special-status species do not get trapped.
Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar
material shall be prohibited.
Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be
restored to pre-project grades and contours and stabilized to
prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized grass and
forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed
by the project. The seed shall be from sources that are regionally
appropriate for the site.
Option A BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of
California tiger salamander upland habitat and thus ensure Option A
will not have a substantial adverse effect on its habitat, the District
shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to
provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a minimum
3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation
may be accomplished through one of the following options:
Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off
site in a suitable location for California tiger salamander and
providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the
property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would
be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands
placed in a conservation easement must be documented to support
California tiger salamanders through observation of California
tiger salamander larvae in a breeding pond on or immediately
adjacent to the grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the
parcel to be acquired as mitigation, must also be preserved in a
conservation easement or other appropriate land use restriction
instrument or be located on preserved land (County or State park)
to ensure the viability of the grassland as California tiger
salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be documented to
regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to be
considered successful breeding ponds;
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
16

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee
program; or
Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved
conservation bank in Alameda County.
Option A BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda
striped racer habitat and thus ensuring Option A will not have a
substantial adverse effect on its habitat, the District shall preserve or
purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland
habitat for Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area
preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be
accomplished through one of the following options:
site in a suitable Alameda County location and providing adequate
funding for management and monitoring of the property in
perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would be placed
elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in
a conservation easement or other appropriate land use restriction
instrument must be documented to support Alameda striped racers
through observation of Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to
the grassland area;
program;
conservation bank in Alameda County; or
Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW
and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring
of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
17

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
may result in the destruction of burrows occupied by
burrowing owls, a California Species of Special
Concern.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
Option A 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). If no burrowing 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.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non-breeding season

(September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within the
construction footprint, individuals 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. Given
the availability of suitable burrows in lands adjacent to the Option A
site, passive relocation of burrowing owls at Mission Peak is not
expected to significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local
population. Any burrow exclusion efforts shall be monitored prior to,
during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to ensure
that substantial adverse effects are 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 any young of the year have fledged.
If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during
the breeding season, occupied burrows shall 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 at least 250 feet shall be maintained
during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing owls
present on site after February 1 shall 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.
18

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
could result in impacts to nesting loggerhead shrikes,
white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected
under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
California Fish and Game Code.

could result in impacts to three special-status
grassland plant species, if present.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
Option A BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities
shall occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January
31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting
season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in searching for
passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a
preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting
habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall
be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the
survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall
determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no
work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The
size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall
be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In
general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other
birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting
birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate,
depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated
near the nest.
Option A BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified
botanist shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree,
fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant within the construction
footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum of two
surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and roundleaved filaree and in late summer/early fall (AugustOctober) for
Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance
with CDFWs Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant

fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz tarplant is found during the focused
botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be reviewed to
evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants
cannot be avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage
and recovery plan for the affected species. The plan shall incorporate
the following, at a minimum:
19

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A BIO-6: Culvert repair activities associated

with Option A development could result in the
mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs,
Alameda striped racers, and/or western pond turtles
potentially occurring in the tributary to Agua Caliente
Creek.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation,
and monitoring plans;
Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined
goals focusing on plant establishment (stability, succession,
reproduction) and non-native species control measures;
Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or
seeds;
Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and
monitoring program by a qualified restoration team to ensure that
the project goals and performance standards are met. The
monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as
needed to correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report,
prepared by the District and subject to approval by CDFW, shall
document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If
replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and
monitoring shall be specified; and
Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements
and the responsibility for implementation.
Option A BIO-6: Construction activities within the tributary to Agua
Caliente Creek associated with development of Option A would be
subject to the following additional measures:
All work within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option
A culvert repair) shall be conducted between August 1 and
October 31, and typically subsequent to California red-legged
frogs breeding activity (egg deposition, tadpole development, and
metamorphism).
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
20

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
The USFWS and CDFW qualified biologist shall survey the inwater work areas within 48 hours before the initiation of
construction activities. If any life stage of California red-legged
frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is
found, District biologist shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to
determine if moving them is appropriate. If the agencies approve
relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a USFWS
and CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior to the
initiation of construction. The biologist shall maintain detailed
records of any individuals that are moved (e.g., size, coloration,
any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him or her in
determining whether translocated animals are returning to their
original point of capture.
The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be
diverted using gravity flow through temporary culverts/pipes or
pumped around the work area with the use of hoses, discharging
downstream to maintain flow.
Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel
locations and no more than 20 feet upstream or downstream of the
work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when construction of
the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be
constructed only from materials that will cause little or no
siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags (filled with clean sand),
or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and
downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent
seepage into or out of the work area. Cofferdams shall be placed
and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering system shall
remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows
shall be restored to the affected stream immediately upon
completion of work by removing the dewatering system.
The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh
not larger than 5 millimeters (mm) to prevent California redlegged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from entering the pump
system.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
21

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A BIO-7: Development of Option A would

impact a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, a
jurisdictional water of the United States.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
The contractor and qualified biologist shall check daily for
stranded aquatic life as the water level in the dewatering area
drops. All reasonable efforts shall be made to capture and move all
stranded, native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas.
Capture methods may include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets,
and or by hand. Captured native aquatic life shall be released
downstream of the dewatered area. The biologist shall permanently remove any individuals or exotic species, such as bullfrogs,
crayfish and centrarchid fishes, from the work area.
No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be
operated within the live stream.
Option A BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits
from the Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA
Section 401 water quality certification), and CDFW (Fish and Game
Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to
construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente
Creek and its tributary due to excess sedimentation shall be avoided
through the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The
SWPPP shall include the following major components:
A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting
areas to remain undisturbed and providing specifications for
revegetation of disturbed areas.
A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals,
and maintenance practices to be used during construction and the
specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release
and transport of these constituents in runoff.
Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management
practices (BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in
the construction phase.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
22

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
A program for monitoring all control measures that includes
schedules for inspection and maintenance and identifies the party
responsible for monitoring.
A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all
restricted areas to be left undisturbed.
Option A BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as recommended or required by the Water Board to protect water quality.
These measures shall include the following: 1) a moratorium on
grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and
sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain
storms; 3) prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within
vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the
minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event
and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action; 5)
delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent
construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to
control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing
plastic monofilament is prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8)
control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9) management of
temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10)
liquid waste management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation
wherever possible.
Option A BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by
construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to
their pre-project condition via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed
portions of the stream channel and banks shall be re-vegetated with
native riparian species.
Option A BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside
of, the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and
no fill shall be allowed to enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e.,
silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the construction
footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-qualified biological monitor for
California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog shall
oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically monitor the
work area to ensure avoidance of the stream channel.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
23

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A BIO-8: Option A could result in impacts to

trees protected under Fremonts Tree Preservation
Ordinance within the tributary to Agua Caliente
Creek.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Option A CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the
Option A site could adversely affect a prehistoric
archaeological deposit that qualifies as a historical
resource under CEQA.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Option A BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other
construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream
channel. All stockpiled fill and other materials shall be kept at least
50 feet from the channel edge.
Option A BIO-8: All impacted trees shall be mitigated at a minimum
1:1 replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in
accordance with the City of Fremonts tree ordinance, the District
shall plant trees of a species and in a location approved by the City. If
the site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings,
the District shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement
for each tree that is not replaced on site, which would be used to fund
tree planting by the City. For the proposed project, it is expected that
mitigation for tree removals under the Citys Tree Preservation
Ordinance can be accomplished concurrently with the riparian
restoration effort associated with the Option A culvert repair.
Option A CUL-1a: Prior to development of the Option A site, a
qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors
Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology shall prepare a
Treatment Plan (Plan) for the archaeological site identified at Option
A. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a guide to conducting data
recovery archaeological excavations and archaeological monitoring at
Option A to ensure Option A does not result in a substantial adverse
change in the significance of the historical resources. The Plan shall
include: 1) a description of the field and laboratory methods to be
used at Option A; 2) a research design detailing important questions
that can be addressed from investigation of Option A; 3) archaeological and Native American monitoring procedures to be used
during the construction of the project; and 4) protocols for treating
archaeological deposits and human remains identified during
construction. The Plan may also provide for reburial of the historical
resources at the location of their discovery or in a location near the
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
24

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A CUL-1 Continued
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
project site. An Ohlone representative or representatives shall be
consulted as part of the Plans preparation to interpret resources
found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native
American traditions and lifeway and to provide input to the District
regarding the treatment of these resources. The Plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the District prior to project ground disturbance. The
District shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation
and implementation of the Plan. The District shall be responsible for
implementing the Plan.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be

prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the District for
review and to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University, consistent with professional reporting standards in
cultural resources management.
Option A CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered
during project subsurface construction activities that is not associated
with treatments prescribed under Option A Mitigation Measure CUL1a, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected
and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors
Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to
assess the situation (if one is not already on-site), consult with
agencies as appropriate and an Ohlone representative, and make
recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be
significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources), the District shall be responsible for funding
and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not
result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the
historic resources. Such measures may include recording the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach.
25

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting
methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and
submitted to the District for review. Where consistent with the
recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall
be submitted to an appropriate curation facility or the District and
used for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in
coordination with an Ohlone representative.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the

project area for archaeological deposits and shall verify that the
following directive has been included in the appropriate contract
documents:
The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for
archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction and an archaeologist
is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall
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. Project
personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials.
Archaeological deposits can include shellfish remains; bones;
flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian, chert, and basalt; and
mortars and pestles.
26

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities
associated with development of the Option A site
could adversely affect paleontological resources.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
Option A CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered
during project subsurface construction activities, all grounddisturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified
paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies
as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the
discovery. For purposes of this mitigation, a qualified paleontologist shall be an individual with the following qualifications: (1) a
graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a
demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological
journals; (2) at least two years of professional experience related to
paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and
determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology,
stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting
vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be significant, and project
activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall
be implemented to ensure that Option A does not destroy the
paleontological resource. Measures may include monitoring,
recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report,
and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a
paleontological repository. Upon completion of the assessment, a
report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be
prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such
as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public
educational outreach may also be appropriate.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS

project area for paleontological resources and shall verify that the
documents:
27

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities

associated with development of the Option A site
could adversely affect Native American skeletal or
cremated remains.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are
encountered during project subsurface construction and a
paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within
25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted
to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and
make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project
personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials.
Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and
such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine
sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam
and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils
such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals
may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse,
and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints,
petrified wood, and animal tracks.
Option A CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project
ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its
contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains
by including the following directive in contract documents:
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
28

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
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. Work within
25 feet of the discovery can resume only after the MLD has
inspected the site, provided recommendations, and the remains
and associated grave goods removed from the site by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with the MLD
E. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

There are no Option A impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources.
F. MINERAL RESOURCES
There are no Option A impacts related to mineral resources.
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Option A GEO-1: Implementation of Option A could
S
Option A GEO-1a: The District shall conduct annual inspections of
result in adverse impacts associated with slope
the Option A staging area and document any indications of cracking
instability.
or deformation of pavements, flatwork, and slopes that may be the
result of slope instability. Any conditions that could result in hazards
to users shall be promptly repaired.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
29

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
Option A GEO-1 Continued
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Option A GEO-1b: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading
or building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be
prepared by a licensed professional, and submitted to the City of
Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding
that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of
the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation for the project and fully
complies with the CBC. In accordance with the CCR Title 14, Section
3724, prior to approving the project, the lead agency shall
independently review the geotechnical report to determine that the
nature and severity of the seismic hazards at the site have been
evaluated and addressed. This review shall be conducted by a
certified engineering geologist or registered civil engineer, having
competence in the field of seismic and slope stability hazard
evaluation and mitigation. All recommendations, design criteria, and
specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
and design-level geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition,
as a condition of approval for grading permits, a qualified and
licensed professional shall be required to be present as a construction
monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the
stripping of deleterious material and to provide consultation, as
required, to the grading contractor(s), ensuring compliance with the
CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations.
Implement Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1a.
Option A GEO-2: Implementation of Option A could

S
result in adverse impacts associated with expansive
soils
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
There are no Option A impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There are no Option A impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
There are no Option A impacts related to transportation and circulation.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
30

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
K. AIR QUALITY
Option A AIR-1: Construction of Option A would
generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air
quality standards.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
Option A AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow the
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when
required by the BAAQMD, including:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall
be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once
per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage of this measure 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 with the telephone number and person to
contact at the East Bay Regional Park District regarding dust
complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond
and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
L. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

There are no Option A impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.
31

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY
M. NOISE
Option A NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at
the Option A site would result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
Option A NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement
the following measures to reduce construction noise levels:
Construction of the project shall comply with the City of
Fremont's General Plan Policy 10-8.5 by:
o
Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate
sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and
used at all times such equipment is in operation;
o
Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from the closest off-site sensitive
receptors;
o
Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize
the distance between construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during
construction, which could reduce construction noise by as
much as 5 dBA;
o
Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as
needed, could reduce construction noise by as much as 5
dBA;
o
Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion
engines.
All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up
or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall
be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays,
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday
construction shall be prohibited.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING

There are no Option A impacts related to population and housing.
O. RECREATION
There are no Option A impacts related to recreation.
32

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-1:

II. SUMMARY

Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
P. PUBLIC SERVICES
There are no Option A impacts related to public services.
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There are no Option A impacts related to utilities and service systems.
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.
33

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Summary of Option B Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
A. LAND USE
There are no Option B impacts related to land use.
B. VISUAL RESOURCES
There are no Option B impacts related to visual resources.
Option B BIO-1: Development of the Option B site
could result in take of California tiger salamander,
California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped
racer.
Mitigation Measures
Option B BIO-1: The District shall implement the following measures

before, during, and after construction at the Option B site to avoid
significant impacts to individual California tiger salamanders,
California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Additional
measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of
the ESA and CESA permitting process.
A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers shall
be present onsite during all ground disturbing activities to search
for individuals that may be unearthed during excavation. The
qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work, if a
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, or
Alameda striped racer is found onsite. California red-legged frogs,
California tiger salamanders, and Alameda striped racers shall be
removed from the construction area following the procedures
specified in the State and federal listed species permits (i.e.,
Incidental Take Permit (section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7
Biological Opinion). The District shall report all discoveries of
listed species in the construction areas to resource agencies
according to the procedures specified in the State and federal
listed species permits.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
34

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Option B BIO-1 Continued
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist

shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction
personnel, including all project representatives. Training sessions
shall also be required for any new construction personnel before
being allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall
include an overview of California tiger salamander, California
red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology (including
habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and
CESA, and project-specific avoidance measures being implemented to avoid impacts on California tiger salamanders,
California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion
fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the work area to
prevent California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs,
Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work
area during construction. The fence must be constructed of a
material that is durable and has been approved by the USFWS
and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing California red-legged
frogs, California tiger salamanders, Alameda striped racers, and
other vertebrates from passing under, over, around, or through the
fence. The qualified biologist shall be on site during fence
installation and initial site clearing and grubbing activities. The
biologist shall inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing
construction activities to ensure it is properly maintained and
functioning to exclude California tiger salamanders, California
red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from
the work area. The fence shall remain in place until all construction is completed and equipment is demobilized.
To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction,
all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 3-inches
deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by
plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more
escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a
slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be
thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
35

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall

(less than 0.25 inch per 24-hour period and less than 40 percent
chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the 72-hour
weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior
to the startup of any ground disturbing activities on the project
site. Construction activities shall cease 24 hours prior to a 40
percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction
may continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is
no precipitation in the 24-hour forecast. Contractor specifications
shall include the following worker restrictions and guidelines, at a
minimum:
o
Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within
designated work areas. Entry into adjacent Preserve lands or
established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.
o
All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All
trash (e.g., food scraps, cans, bottles, containers, wrappers,
cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed in
closed containers and properly disposed off-site.
o
o
All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or
lubricated in a designated area at least 100 feet from aquatic
habitats.
o
In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or
injured or if a special-status species is observed to be injured,
dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall immediately notify
the District's construction inspector, who will stop work and
notify the USFWS and CDFW.
As part of the projects Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) implementation, the District shall include in the
specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of natural
materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion
control to ensure that special-status species do not get trapped.
Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar
material shall be prohibited.
36

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation

would result in the permanent loss of upland habitat
for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped
racer
Mitigation Measures
Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be

restored to pre-project grades and contours and stabilized to
prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized grass and
forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed
by the project. The seed shall be from sources that are regionally
appropriate for the site.
Option B BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of
California tiger salamander upland habitat, and ensure Option B
would not result in a substantial adverse effect on this habitat, the
District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is
known to provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a
minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to area impacted. Compensatory
mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following
options:
site in a suitable location and providing adequate funding for
management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally,
the conservation easement or other appropriate restriction would
be placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve.
Lands placed in a conservation easement or other appropriate
deed restriction must be documented to support California tiger
salamanders through observation of California tiger salamander
larvae in a breeding pond on or immediately adjacent to the
grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the parcel to be
acquired as mitigation, must also be preserved in a conservation
easement or be located on preserved land (County or State park)
to ensure the viability of the grassland as California tiger
salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be documented
to regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to
be considered successful breeding ponds;
program; or
conservation bank in Alameda County.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
37

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation

may result in the destruction of burrows occupied by
burrowing owls, a California Species of Special
Concern.
Mitigation Measures
Option B BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda

striped racer habitat, and ensure Option B will not have a substantial
adverse effect on this habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase
in-kind grassland habitat that is known to provide upland habitat for
Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to
area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished
through one of the following options:
site in a suitable location and providing adequate funding for
management and monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally,
the conservation easement or deed restriction would be placed
elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in
a conservation easement or deed restriction must be documented
to support Alameda striped racers through observation of
Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to the grassland area;
program;
conservation bank in Alameda County; or
Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW
and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring
of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity.
Option B 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). If no burrowing 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.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
38

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
If take avoidance surveys conducted during the non-breeding season

(September 1 to January 31) identify any burrowing owls within the
construction footprint, individuals 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. Given
the availability of suitable burrows in lands adjacent to the Option B
site, passive relocation of owls at Mission Peak is not expected to
significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local population.
Any burrow exclusion efforts shall be monitored prior to, during, and
after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows to ensure that
substantial adverse effects are 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
any young of the year have fledged.
If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during
the breeding season, occupied burrows shall 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 at least 250 feet
shall be maintained during the breeding season around active
burrows. Burrowing owls present on site after February 1 shall 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.
39

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation

could result in impacts to nesting loggerhead shrikes,
white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected
under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
California Fish and Game Code.

could result in impacts to three special-status
grassland plant species, if present.
Mitigation Measures
Option B BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities

shall occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January
31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting
season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in searching for
passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a
preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting
habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall
be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the
survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall
determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no
work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The
size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall
be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In
general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other
birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting
birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate,
depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated
near the nest.
Option B BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified
botanist shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree,
fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant within the construction
footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum of
two surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and
round-leaved filaree and in late summer/early fall (AugustOctober)
for Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance
with CDFWs Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant

fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz tarplant is found during the focused
botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be reviewed to
evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants
cannot be avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage
and recovery plan for the affected species The plan shall incorporate
the following:
40

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Option B BIO-6: Culvert removal and/or bridge

construction activities associated with Option B
development could result in the mortality or injury of
California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers,
and/or western pond turtles potentially occurring in
Agua Caliente Creek.
Mitigation Measures
Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the

development and implementation of native plant restoration,
mitigation, and monitoring plans;
Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined
goals focusing on plant establishment (stability, succession,
reproduction) and non-native species control measures;
Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or
seeds;
Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and
monitoring program by a qualified restoration team to ensure that
the project goals and performance standards are met. The
monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as
needed to correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report,
prepared by the District and subject to approval by CDFW, shall
document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If
replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and
monitoring shall be specified; and
Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements
and the responsibility for implementation
Option B BIO-6: Construction activities within Agua Caliente Creek
associated with development of Option B would be subject to the
following additional measures, at a minimum:
All work within Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option B culvert
removal and bridge crossings) shall be conducted between August
1 and October 31, when red-legged frogs are less likely to be
present.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
41

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
The USFWS- and CDFW- qualified biologist shall survey the inwater work areas within 48 hours before the initiation of
construction activities. If any life stage of California red-legged
frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is
found, the District biologist shall contact the USFWS and CDFW
to determine if moving them is appropriate. If the agencies
approve relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a
USFWS- and CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior
to the initiation of construction. The qualified biologist shall
maintain detailed records of any individuals that are moved (e.g.,
size, coloration, any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him
or her in determining whether translocated animals are returning
to their original point of capture.
The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be
diverted using gravity flow through temporary culverts/pipes or
pumped around the work area with the use of hoses, discharging
downstream to maintain flow.
Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel
locations and no more than 20 feet upstream or downstream of the
work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when construction of
the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be
constructed only from materials that will cause little or no
siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags (filled with clean sand),
or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and
downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent
seepage into or out of the work area. Cofferdams shall be placed
and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering system shall
remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows
shall be restored to the affected stream immediately upon
completion of work by removing the dewatering system.
The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh
not larger than 5 millimeters (mm) to prevent California redlegged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from entering the pump
system.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
42

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Option B BIO-7: Development of Option B would

impact Agua Caliente Creek, a jurisdictional water of
the United States.
Mitigation Measures
The contractor and/or biologist shall check daily for stranded

aquatic life as the water level in the dewatering area drops. All
reasonable efforts shall be made to capture and move all stranded,
native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas. Capture
methods may include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets, and or
by hand. Captured native aquatic life shall be released
downstream of the dewatered area. The qualified biologist shall
permanently remove any individuals of exotic species, such as
bullfrogs, crayfish and centrarchid fishes, from the work area.
No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be
operated within the live stream.
Option B BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits
from the Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA
Section 401 water quality certification), and CDFW (Fish and Game
Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to
construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente
Creek due to excess sedimentation shall be avoided through the
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The SWPPP shall include
the following major components:
A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting
areas to remain undisturbed and providing specifications for
revegetation of disturbed areas.
A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals,
and maintenance practices to be used during construction and the
specific control measures to be implemented to minimize release
and transport of these constituents in runoff.
Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management
practices (BMPs) for controlling drainage and treating runoff in
the construction phase.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
43

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
A program for monitoring all control measures that includes

schedules for inspection and maintenance and identifies the party
responsible for monitoring.
A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all
restricted areas to be left undisturbed.
Option B BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as
recommended or required by the Water Board to protect water
quality. These measures shall include the following: 1) a moratorium
on grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and
sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain
storms; 3) prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within
vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the
minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event
and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action; 5)
delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent
construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to
control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing
plastic monofilament is prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8)
control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9) management of
temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10)
liquid waste management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation
wherever possible.
Option B BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by
construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to
their pre-project condition via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed
portions of the stream channel and banks shall be re-vegetated with
native riparian species.
Option B BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside
of, the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and
no fill shall be allowed to enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e.,
silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the construction
footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-approved biological monitor for
California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog (see
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-1) shall oversee the installation of
the fencing and periodically monitor the work area to ensure
avoidance of the stream channel.
44

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Option B BIO-8: Option B would result in the

removal of approximately six coast live oaks
protected under Fremonts Tree Preservation
Ordinance and could also result in the removal of
other trees within the Agua Caliente Creek channel.
Option B CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the
Option B site could adversely affect a prehistoric
archaeological site (CA-ALA-431), that qualifies as a
historical resource under CEQA.
Mitigation Measures
Option B BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other

construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream
channel. All stockpiled fill and other materials shall be kept at least
50 feet from the channel edge.
Option B BIO-8: All impacted trees will be mitigated at a minimum
1:1 replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in
accordance to the City of Fremonts tree ordinance, the District shall
plant trees of a species and in a location approved by the City. If the
site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings, the
District shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement for
each tree that is not replaced on site. For the proposed project,
mitigation for tree removals under the Citys Tree Preservation
Ordinance can is expected to accomplished concurrently with the
riparian restoration effort associated with the Option B culvert
removal
Option B CUL-1a: Prior to development of Option B, a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional
Qualifications Standards for archeology shall prepare a Treatment
Plan (Plan) for CA-ALA-431. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a
guide to conducting data recovery archaeological excavations and
archaeological monitoring at CA-ALA-431 to ensure Option B does
not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the
historical resources. The Plan shall include: 1) a description of the
field and laboratory methods to be used at CA-ALA-431; 2) a
research design detailing important questions that can be addressed
from investigation of CA-ALA-431; 3) archaeological and Native
American monitoring procedures to be used during the construction
of the project; and 4) protocols for treating archaeological deposits
and human remains identified during construction. The Plan may also
include reburial of the historical resources at the location of their
discovery or in a location near the project site.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
45

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Option B CUL-1 Continued
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
An Ohlone representative or representatives shall be consulted as part

of the Plans preparation to interpret resources found during
construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American
traditions and lifeway and to provide input to the District regarding
the treatment of these resources. The Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the District prior to project ground disturbance. The
District shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation
and implementation of the Plan. The District shall be responsible for
implementing the Plan.
Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be
prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the District for
review and to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University, consistent with professional reporting standards in
cultural resources management.
Option B CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered
during project subsurface construction activities that is not associated
with treatments prescribed under Option B Mitigation Measure CUL1a, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected
and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors
Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to
assess the situation (if one is not already on-site), consult with
agencies as appropriate, and an Ohlone representative, and make
recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be
significant (i.e., eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources), the District shall be responsible for funding
and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not
result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the
historic resources. Such measures may include recording the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach.
46

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting

methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and
submitted to the District for review. Where consistent with the
recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall be
submitted to an appropriate curation facility or the District and used
for public interpretive displays, as appropriate and in coordination
with an Ohlone representative.
project area for archaeological deposits and shall verify that the
documents:
archaeological deposits. If archaeological deposits are
encountered during project subsurface construction and an
archaeologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within
25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted
personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials.
Archaeological deposits can include shellfish remains; bones;
flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian, chert, and basalt; and
mortars and pestles.
47

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Option B CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities

associated with development of the Option B site
could adversely affect paleontological resources.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Option B CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered

during project subsurface construction activities, all grounddisturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified
paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies
as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the
discovery. For purposes of this mitigation, a qualified paleontologist shall be an individual with the following qualifications: (1) a
graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a
demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological
journals; (2) at least two years of professional experience related to
paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the field and
determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology,
stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting
vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be significant, and project
activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall
be implemented to ensure that Option B does not destroy the
paleontological resource. Measures may include monitoring,
recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report,
and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a
paleontological repository. Upon completion of the assessment, a
report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be
prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such
as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public
educational outreach may also be appropriate.
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
48

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation

project area for paleontological resources and shall verify that the
documents:
paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are
encountered during project subsurface construction and a
paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within
25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted
personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials.
Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and
such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine
sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam
and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils
such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals
may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse,
and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints,
petrified wood, and animal tracks.
49

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Option B CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities

associated with development of the Option B site
could adversely affect Native American skeletal or
cremated remains.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Option B CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project

ground-disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its
contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains
by including the following directive in contract documents:
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
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 to inspect the site and provide recommendations for
the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
Work within 25 feet of the discovery can resume only after the
MLD has inspected the site, provided recommendations, and the
remains and associated grave goods removed from the site by a
qualified archaeologist in consultation with the MLD
There are no impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources.
There are no impacts related to mineral resources.
50

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY

Option B GEO-1: Implementation of Option B could
result in adverse impacts associated with slope
instability
Option B GEO-2: Implementation of Option B could

result in adverse impacts associated with expansive
soils
Option B HYD-1: Development of the bridges at
Option B could cause erosion in and near Agua
Caliente Creek and its tributaries.
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Option B GEO-1a: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading

or building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be
prepared by a licensed professional, and submitted to the City of
Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding
that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of
the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation for the project and fully
complies with the CBC. All recommendations, design criteria, and
specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
and design-level geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition,
as a condition of approval for grading permits, a qualified and
licensed professional shall be required to be present as a construction
monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the
stripping of deleterious material and to provide consultation, as
required, to the grading contractor(s), ensuring compliance with the
CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations.
Option B GEO-2: The District shall conduct annual inspections of the
Option B staging area and document any indications of cracking or
deformation of pavements or flatwork. Any conditions that could
result in hazards to users of the facility or could contribute to
continued deformation shall be promptly repaired.
LTS
Option B HYD-1: As a condition of approval of the final grading

plan, the District shall prepare and submit a detailed bridge design
report (for both the vehicular and pedestrian bridges) to the City of
Fremont for review and approval. The report shall be prepared by a
qualified professional engineer. The report shall present details of the
bridge design, including locations of abutments (and associated
piers), and ensure that the bridge does not encroach into the channel
of the creek or create an obstruction to the flow of water in the creek.
The report shall also include supporting calculations that confirm that
the channel and the proposed bridge configurations can pass the 100year flood flow and the SWPPP shall include measures to ensure that
grading and excavation does not encroach beyond the top of bank
(e.g., exclusion fencing, monitoring).
LTS
LTS
51

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Option B HYD-2: Development of Option B could

S
Implement Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
cause localized flooding by blocking flows in Agua
Caliente Creek
There are no Option B impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
There are no Option B impacts related to transportation and circulation.
K. AIR QUALITY
Option B AIR-1: Construction of Option B would
LTS
Option B AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow
generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when
quality standards.
required by the BAAQMD, including:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall
be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once
per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5
minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage of this measure 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
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
52

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Option B AIR-1 Continued

There are no Option B impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.
M. NOISE
Option B NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at
S
the Option B site would result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project.
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to

contact at the East Bay Regional Park District regarding dust
complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond
and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours.
Option B NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement

the following measures to reduce construction noise levels:
Construction of the project shall comply with the City of
Fremont's General Plan Policy 10-8.5 by;
o
Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate
sound muffling devices, which are properly maintained and
used at all times such equipment is in operation;
o
Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from the closest off-site sensitive
receptors;
o
Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize
the distance between construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during
construction which could reduce construction noise by as
much as 5 dBA; and
o
Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as
needed could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;
o
Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion
engines.
All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up
or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall
be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays,
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday
construction shall be prohibited.
LTS
53

OCTOBER 2015
Table II-2:

II. SUMMARY
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation

There are no Option B impacts related to population and housing.
O. RECREATION
There are no Option B impacts related to recreation.
P. PUBLIC SERVICES
There are no Option B impacts related to public services.
There are no Option B impacts related to utilities and service systems.
54
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter describes the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project (project) that is
evaluated in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the project is to provide
additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (staging area) at Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission
Peak or Preserve). It is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this location will help to
reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing
staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of
parking and additional restrooms.

Both options are evaluated fully in this EIR. The District will utilize the environmental analysis
provided in this EIR to inform and support any decision to approve one of the two project options.
The Districts Board may decide not to approve either project option, and it could instead direct
District staff to further analyze one of the alternatives considered in this EIR.
In addition to a description of both proposed project options, the following includes a summary
description of the proposed projects regional and local context, a detailed description of the planning
process, background, and objectives, as well as a discussion of the intended uses of the EIR and
required project approvals.
A.
PROJECT AREA
The following describes the geographic context of the two project option sites (referred to either as
the Option A site or the Option B site or collectively as the project area) evaluated in this EIR
and provides a brief overview of existing land uses within and around the project area. A more
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\3-ProjectDescription.docx (10/14/15)
55

OCTOBER 2015

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
detailed description of the local and regional context and environmental setting can be found within
each of the topical sections of Chapter V of this EIR.
1.
Regional Location and Access
The sites identified for potential development of either Option A or Option B are generally located at
the western entrance to Mission Peak at the terminus of Stanford Avenue in the City of Fremont
(City), Alameda County. Mission Peak consists of over 3,000 acres of open space consisting mostly
of open grasslands and oak woodlands. The Preserve provides recreational opportunities for hiking,
hike-in camping, and hang gliding/paragliding. Access to Mission Peak is primarily provided via the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, located immediately west and south of the project area, and
parking areas within Ohlone College, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project
area.
The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is accessed via Stanford Avenue and provides parking for
visitors accessing the popular and most challenging Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak
Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails that provide access to the summit of Mission Peak within the
Preserve. The staging area consists of 43 paved parking spaces (including two ADA-accessible
spaces1), a vault toilet restroom, three portable restrooms, and a picnic area. A bicycle rack is also
provided. The staging area is almost always full when the park is open (from 6:30 a.m. until sunset as
of August 2015) and parking availability is very limited; overnight parking is not allowed. Because
the existing staging area cannot accommodate the current demand for parking at this location (in
order to access the most popular trails), visitors to the Preserve often park in nearby residential areas
beginning at and west of Vineyard Avenue during the early morning hours and throughout the day.2
The gated entrance to Mission Peak from the staging area limits vehicular access to District
maintenance and cattle operations vehicles only. Visitor access to the lands within the Preserve that
are leased from the City is also prohibited when the staging area is closed.
Visitors to Mission Peak may also park their vehicles in public parking spaces at Ohlone College,
located at 43600 Mission Boulevard. Parking Lot G is generally accessed via Pine Street and
Witherly Lane off of Mission Boulevard and provides access to the Peak and Panorama trails within
Mission Peak. The College recently constructed a 900-space South Parking Lot structure and visitors
to Mission Peak are able to utilize the public spaces in this location as well.3 Ohlone College parking
is available daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As of August 15, 2015, the College charges a $4
parking fee Monday through Saturday when school is in session, and parking at this location is free
on holidays, after 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays when school is not in session. Parking is
usually available at the College lot, even on busy weekends.
1
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces are those that accommodate and are reserved for those with
disabilities.
2
Most of the residential areas that immediately border Mission Peak to the west are gated, and no public parking is
available in these neighborhoods. These streets include: Vinehill Court, Vinehill Terrace, Napa Court, Vinehill Circle,
Rutherford Terrace, Grapevine Terrace and Hidden Valley Terrace. Residential areas located along Saguare Court, Saguare
Commons, and Saguare Terrace are public roadways, but do not provide parking within easy walking distance of the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance because these roads do not provide direct access to Stanford Avenue.
3
Ohlone College, 2015. South Parking Structure. Website: www.ohlone.edu/core/mapsdirs/parking/

parkingstructure.html. (accessed September 9, 2015).
56

OCTOBER 2015

Mission Peak is also accessible from trails within Sunol Regional Wilderness via the Ohlone
Wilderness Trail to the east, and from trails that originate within Ed Levin County Park in Milpitas to
the south.
Regional vehicular access to Mission Peak is provided by Interstate 680 (I-680). Local access to both
the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the Ohlone College parking area is via Mission
Boulevard. Existing transit service in the area is provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit
District, and the closest bus stop is located on Mission Boulevard, near Paseo Padre Parkway,
approximately 0.75 miles southwest of the project area. An informal stop is also located at the
intersection of Stanford Avenue and Mission Boulevard. The Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) Station is located approximately 7 miles to the northwest. Refer to Section V.J
Transportation and Circulation for a detailed description of available public transportation
opportunities in the vicinity of the Preserve.
Figure I-1 in Chapter I, Introduction, depicts the project area and regional and local context. An aerial
view of the project area is shown in Figure III-1. Existing land uses within Mission Peak and the
surrounding areas are described in more detail in Section V.A, Land Use in this EIR.
2.
Location of Project Sites
Two potential sites are under consideration for the provision of additional parking and other staging
area facilities at Mission Peak. To provide visitor access to the most popular trails, both sites are
located near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area: the Option A site is located to the northeast
and the Option B site is located to the southeast (see Figure III-1).
(1) Option A Site. The Option A site is located near the entrance to Mission Peak, just north
of the existing Hidden Valley Trail, in a grassland area with a bowl-like topography. The total project
area for Option A encompasses 11.71 acres. Of this, approximately 9.64 acres would be permanently
disturbed in this location, including the addition of 2.78 acres of new impervious surfaces. The site
generally lies between 0 and 12 feet below the surrounding area.
The Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club operates a hang gliding operation under agreement with
the District. The landing zone for paragliding and hang gliding activities is located immediately east
of and uphill from, but not within, the Option A site as shown in Figure III-1.
(2) Option B Site. The Option B site is located approximately 875 feet southeast of the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area and west of the Peak Meadow Trail. The total project area for Option
B encompasses 16.76 acres. Of this, approximately 10.45 acres would be permanently disturbed in
this location, including the addition of 3.10 acres of new impervious surfaces. Grazing infrastructure
at Mission Peak is currently concentrated primarily within the Option B site. This site is currently
used by the Districts grazing contractor as a corral used for holding cows for immunizations,
weaning, and transportation of cows to other grazing sites via trucks a few times per year. A small
solar-powered pump, which provides water from the for the cattle operations, is located on the site.
The majority of the Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public.
The South Bay Soaring Society (SBSS) also operates radio-controlled gliders, under agreement with
the District, from a location near but not within the Option B site, as shown in Figure III-1.
57

OCTOBER 2015

Access to the Option B site is currently via an existing roadway which crosses over a culverted
portion of Agua Caliente Creek as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails. Vehicular
access is currently provided on this roadway only for District employees, emergency vehicles, and the
Districts grazing contractor.
B.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The following provides an overview of existing conditions related to operations and management of
Mission Peak, the existing and projected demand for parking facilities within the vicinity of the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area, and the process undertaken by District staff to address the need for
more parking facilities to accommodate visitor demand.
1.
Mission Peak Operations
Mission Peak is a heavily visited recreation and open space area and hosts thousands of visitors on the
weekends. Increased use of the Preserve over the last several years has resulted in an increase in
overflow parking on neighborhood streets. Residents experience vehicular and pedestrian traffic
congestion, as well as associated issues such as noise, litter, and light from headlamps and flashlights.
District staff currently maintains the Preserve and addresses issues in the surrounding neighborhoods
through ongoing operations and management efforts. Ongoing actions include:
1. Public outreach efforts to address a variety of issues including hiker safety; hiking with
dogs and children; trail restoration; consideration when parking in the neighborhoods;
identification of other challenging hikes at other District facilities; and parking at Ohlone
College. One public outreach event was held in 2013; six were held in 2014; and as of
September 2015, eight have been held in 2015 with two more planned. In addition to public
outreach events, the District continually updates the Mission Peak webpage with current
information, maintains a District-sponsored Mission Peak Facebook page, and maintains a
NING site as an open public forum.
2. Utilization of two trail counters, one located at the trailhead gate at the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area and one installed at the Peak Meadow Trail to better understand existing
visitor use trends,
3. Installation of signage and public outreach to encourage Mission Peak visitors to utilize
parking at Ohlone College.
4. Initiation of seasonal hours for the lands leased from the City of Fremont (which are
accessed only via the Stanford Avenue Staging Area) along with targeted enforcement of
the park curfew by the Districts Police Department (refer to Section V.A, Land Use, of this
EIR for additional information on park hours and enforcement).
5. Installation of portable restroom facilities to supplement the existing vault-toilet restrooms
at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
58
e
ircl
Vin e h i l l C
Unnamed Creek
OPTION A
Unnamed Creek
ap
a
N
ar d
Ave
e n Va
ce
rra
Te
Warm
Springs
Corral
MISSION
PEAK
REGIONAL
PRESERVE
e
ne
ha
r Rd
Sag u
gu
are
r un ne
dr
nt i
wy
Se
Pk
ne
l Dr
Pa
R oad
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III1.ai (9/10/15)
Sa
se
SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 8/29/12; LSA ASSOCIATES, 2015.
ar e
Ct
Co
Pa
feet
SBSS
Launch Site
Unnamed Creek
Sundance D
r
500
T r a il
R a in
Ct
dan c
e Rd
Option A
250
ve n
Ave
ord
dd
He a
ve
el A
OPTION B
Existing
Stanford Avenue
Staging Area
y
ll e
Meadow Trail
e
rs
Ho
ak
Pe
d Ave
for
an
Senti
ne l P l
Agua Caliente Creek
Hi d
Ct
ce
ra
er
ll T
y
Vine
ib
We
St
nf
ey
hill C t
Vine
Hi
Sta
a ll
de
n
eh i
Vin
A n t e l op e D r
Tr
ail
Wings of
Rogallo
Landing Area
Mission Peak Regional

Preserve Boundary
FIGURE III-1
Option B
Area covered by both
Option A and Option B

Aerial View of the Project Area

OCTOBER 2015

60

OCTOBER 2015

6. Trail restoration efforts to restore bootleg trails to natural conditions utilizing volunteers
from Irvington High School and the Mountain Goats mountain bike club. Specifically, in
2012, the District began a variety of operational measures including restoration work to
address the 15 bootleg trails within Mission Peak. In 2014, the District completed
restoration work on a 1,700-foot-long bootleg trail alongside the Peak Meadow Trail. This
restoration area has been fenced and signs are in place to remind visitors to stay on
designated trails. In 2015, the District monitored and made adjustments to the previous
years efforts in addition to installing exclusion fencing and wattles on two newly created
bootleg trails, one on the Horse Heaven Trail and one on the Hidden Valley Trail. Three
benches and two additional garbage cans were also provided at the base of the summit.
2.
Existing and Future Demand for Parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area
The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area currently provides 43 parking spaces4 for park visitors,
which is insufficient to meet existing visitor demand as demonstrated by the large number of visitors
parking in the neighborhood. The existing staging area and residential streets that surround the
existing staging area are congested, especially on weekends and holidays. The existing staging area
usually fills up early in the day and remains full throughout the day. Overflow parking on neighborhood streets frequently occurs throughout the night and during the early morning hours, resulting in
the above-described issues that affect neighborhood residents.
The District has conducted several park visitor surveys including one in 2007;5 a second in 2011;6 a
third in 2013 during a public outreach and information event; and a series of six surveys in 2014 that
were conducted during public outreach and information events. The City also conducted a survey to
determine demand for use of Mission Peak in 2012. All of these surveys have indicated the public
need and desire for additional parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance. In addition, at
its November 13, 2012 City Council Meeting, the City voted to support the District in pursing an EIR
for the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project.7 The addition of new parking
spaces at Mission Peak is also considered in the City of Fremonts General Plan, as follows:
The park includes a number of staging areas and trailheads, but there are no significant
improvements planned within its boundaries, with the exception of potential parking lot
expansion.8
Note that in a survey conducted in 2012, it was assumed that the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area provided
47 parking spaces. This was because at the time, 47 vehicles were observed to be parked within the staging area. Some of
these vehicles were however parked in unmarked spaces. The existing Staging Area currently provides 43 marked spaces for
vehicles.
5
August 11.
6
Fremont, City of, 2013. Fremont City Council Meeting, November 13, 2013, Minutes. November 13.
Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Community Plans Element. December.
61

OCTOBER 2015
3.

Site Selection and Project Design Process
The demand for more parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance is expected to be
addressed by the proposed project. While several potential locations were considered for development
of additional parking, the two project site options were selected for further evaluation in this EIR
because of the ability of each site to accommodate a sufficient number of parking spaces (in terms of
size and topography) to better accommodate parking demand. In addition, these sites are located
within lands operated and managed by the District pursuant to a lease agreement with the City. Other
parcels within Fremont in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area were also considered for
the development of a new staging area but were ultimately deemed to be infeasible. Also refer to
Chapter VI, Alternatives, which includes a discussion of the range of potential staging area locations
and other alternatives considered in addition to the two project site options. Preparation of this EIR to
analyze the two options for providing an expanded staging area near Stanford Avenue was authorized
by the District Board of Directors on September 4, 2012, Resolution No. 2012-09-224.
C.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Mission statement for the East Bay Regional Park District defines the essential role of the
District as follows:
The East Bay Regional Park District preserves a rich heritage of natural and cultural resources
and provides open space, parks, trails, safe and healthful recreation and environmental
education. An environmental ethic guides the District in all of its activities.9
Consistent with this essential role of providing open space, parks and trails, the purpose of the
proposed project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor
demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. It is
estimated that Mission Peak received nearly 270,000 visitors in 2014, at an average of over 22,000
visitors each month. Of these total visitors to the park, over 19,000 visitors each month used the trails
departing from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.10 With only 43 parking spaces available at this
location, visitors to Mission Peak generate a demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance that
exceeds the capacity of the existing parking area due to the popularity of the trails that originate at
this entrance and provide access to the summit of Mission Peak. It is anticipated that development of
additional parking at this location will help reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on
neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and that Mission
Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms.
The following project objectives have been identified for the project:
Objective 1: Develop additional parking on land leased from the City of Fremont.
East Bay Regional Parks District, 2013. Master Plan 2013. July 16.
10
BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29.
The Trail count numbers are based on TRAFFIX counters installed by the District.
62

OCTOBER 2015
D.

Objective 2: Develop additional parking that minimizes costs associated with construction,
operation, maintenance, and implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures to the
extent feasible while still achieving the purpose of the project.
Objective 3: Develop additional parking that incorporates best management and best
engineering principles into the design, particularly in the area of geologic stability and
stormwater management, avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts to the greatest
degree feasible.
Objective 4: Develop additional parking that serves the visitors to Mission Peak Regional
Preserve who want access to the most popular trails in keeping with the Districts mission
to provide open space, parks, and trails.
Objective 5: Develop additional parking that would help reduce parking on neighborhood
streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
Objective 6: Construct additional restroom facilities near the location of the Stanford
Avenue Staging Area to accommodate park visitors.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project includes development of an additional staging area on land owned by the City
and leased to the District to augment existing parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, which
provides access to the Preserves most popular trails. The new staging area would be developed at one
of two potential locations within Mission Peak, referred to as the Option A site and Option B site.
Each option would include a gated staging area with a maximum of 300 parking spaces, including 8
ADA parking spaces; traffic controller; bicycle parking; kiosk; new public restrooms connected to
sewer; replacement of the existing vault toilets at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area with two
flush toilets connected to sewer; picnic tables; and associated landscaping and utility improvements
and stormwater controls. Each option would also include paved roadways from the existing staging
area to provide access to each optional location as well as new graveled roadways and/or trail
connections.
Table III-1 provides a general comparison of the characteristics of each option. For example, it shows
that the Option A site would include 9.64 acres of permanently disturbed, 2.78 acres of which would
consist of paved surfaces and that the Option B site would include 10.45 acres of permanently
disturbed areas, 3.10 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces or bridge structures. Figures III2a and III-2b show the conceptual site plan and cross sections for the Option A site and Figures III-3a
and III-3b show the conceptual site plan and cross sections for the Option B site. General characteristics of both site options are discussed below and the following subsection fully describes the proposed
development programs for Option A and Option B.
63

OCTOBER 2015

Table III-1: Comparison of Option A and Option B Staging Areas

Use/Area
Total project area (acres)
Total area of permanent disturbance (acres)
Total paved area (acres)a
Total area of temporary disturbance (acres)
Total access roadways (linear feet)
Vehicular bridge length (linear feet)
Pedestrian bridge length (linear feet)
Culvert removal (diameter x length, feet)
Culvert repair (diameter)
Trees removed
Grading, cut (cubic yards)
Grading, fill (cubic yards)
Grading, off-haul (cubic yards)
Grading, import (cubic yards)
a
Includes new paved roadways.
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: East Bay Regional Park District, 2015.
Option A
11.71
9.64
2.78
2.07
630
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
0
35,000
12,000
23,000
0
Option B
16.76
10.45
3.10
6.31
990
120
80
5 x 60
N/A
6
12,000
30,000
0
17,000
Post-construction stormwater controls at both locations would include treatment and hydromodification management to meet all applicable stormwater requirements. Treatment would be incorporated
into parking area planters, and curb openings would direct sheet flow off the paved area and into
planter areas. Each planter would consist of a bioretention area sized to treat a minimum of 80 percent
of the tributary pavement runoff over the life of the project. Hydromodification management would
be implemented at each site using a detention pond with controlled discharge. All stormwater flows
from the staging area would be directed to bioretention areas and the detention pond. In addition, a
subdrain system would be provided along the back of keyway excavations for the fill slopes and
along toes of cut slopes to fulfill geotechnical requirements. The subdrain system would flow
unrestricted to the detention pond to quickly remove water from the soil at key locations for slope
stability. Both proposed options would also have secondary stormwater discharge locations due to
trail and road construction. Some of the stormwater would be captured by a swale on the uphill side
of the road and directed to the existing storm drain facilities at the top of Stanford Avenue. Sheet flow
would continue south towards Agua Caliente Creek, but at a reduced rate. Refer to Section V.H,
Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional details.
Potable water provided by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD) would be supplied to the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at either site for restroom facilities, drinking water, and
irrigation. A new pump near the Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom would be needed to provide
adequate water pressure for either the Option A or Option B site. Electrical services provided by
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) would be required to run the water pressure booster system.
Sewer connections to the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the new staging area would also
be provided by connections to Union Sanitary District lines located within Stanford Avenue.
Other than new restrooms and a new water pump to provide water to the staging area, no permanent
modifications to the existing staging area are currently proposed; however, it would be closed and
used for materials and equipment storage during construction of the proposed project, which is
expected to occur over a six month period. During this period, vehicular and pedestrian access to the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance to Mission Peak would be prohibited. All visitor access
would be directed to the Ohlone College parking areas and nearby trailheads for the duration of
construction.
64
F I G UR E I I I -2a
0
120
240
feet
SOURCE: EBRPD, JUNE 10, 2015.
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III2a 11x17.ai (7/15/15)
1
A-2
Corresponds to section locations show in Figure III-2b

Option A - Conceptual Site Plan
F I G UR E I I I -2b
0
60
120
feet
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III2b 11x17.ai (7/9/15)
Note: Section locations are identified in Figure III-2a.

Option A - Conceptual Site Sections
F I G UR E I I I -3a
0
120
240
feet
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III3a 11x17.ai (7/15/15)
2
B-2
Corresponds to section locations show in Figure III-3b

Option B - Conceptual Site Plan
F I G UR E I I I -3b
0
75
150
feet
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_III3b 11x17.ai (7/9/15)
Note: Section locations are identified in Figure III-3a.

Option B - Conceptual Site Sections

OCTOBER 2015

The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be retained under either option, resulting in a
maximum of 343 parking spaces at this entrance to Mission Peak (after construction of Option A or
B). While the purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better
accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, surveys
prepared for the District suggest that the provision of more parking and restrooms near the Stanford
Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and
38.8 percent over existing conditions (refer to Appendix B of this EIR for additional information).11
This projected increase in demand is evaluated in this EIR as part of the proposed project.
This projected increase in visitor demand is based on responses to a survey question that assumed
parking at the new staging area would be free. However, when respondents were asked about future
visits if a $5 parking fee were charged for the new staging area, this estimated latent demand for
parking disappeared, and in fact overall visitation was projected to decrease slightly compared to
current visitation rates. Because no decision has been made with respect to any future fees associated
with the staging area and, to be conservative in its analysis of environmental impacts, this EIR
analyzes potential impacts associated with a 38 percent projected increase in visitor demand.
1.
Option A
Development of Option A would result in construction of a new parking lot, a new vehicular
roadway, and a new trail connection. The conceptual development plan for Option A, including the
temporary limits of disturbance during construction, is depicted in Figure III-2a. Figure III-2b shows
the conceptual cross sections looking north and east. As shown in Table III-1, the total area of
disturbance for Option A would be 11.71 acres, consisting of 9.64 acres of permanent disturbance,
including 2.78 acres of paved (parking) surfaces, and 2.07 acres of temporary disturbance. A total of
630 feet of linear access roadways would be constructed. Areas of temporary disturbance would be
restored to natural conditions upon project completion.
Option A would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, from the summit of
Mission Peak, and from the main access trail from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Development
that would occur with implementation of Option A is described in detail below.
It should be noted that the existing landing zone for hang gliding and paragliding activities, which is
located approximately 250 feet east of the site, would not be directly disturbed by the project.
a.
Staging Area. The new staging area would be located within the existing bowl-like area on the
site and would include a gated surface parking lot with up to 300 new parking spaces, including 8
ADA-compliant spaces, and stormwater controls. Two new picnic tables, drinking fountains, and four
restrooms would be located at the southeast corner of the staging area.
b.
Access and Circulation. The new, two-way vehicular roadway to access Option A would be
approximately 24 feet in width and would consist of an approximately 630-foot linear connection
from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the new staging area. The roadway would consist
of asphalt paving and would have a maximum grade of 12 percent. A gate, traffic controller, and
kiosk would be installed at the entrance to the new vehicular roadway at the existing trailhead gate
11
69

OCTOBER 2015

accessed from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Fencing would be provided around the perimeter of
the new roadway, parking area, and bioretention areas.
Pedestrian access to Mission Peak from the existing staging area would continue to be provided by
the existing Hidden Valley Trail connection near the existing staging area restroom. A new 12-footwide trail connection would also provide access from the new parking area to the existing Hidden
Valley Trail. The new connection would be approximately 320 linear feet and would consist of
compacted aggregate base rock. The maximum grade of the new trail connection would be 5 percent.
c.
Culvert Repair. Development of Option A would include repair of an existing culvert along a
tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. The existing concrete headwall would
remain; however, a new rock-tail-wall and outfall would be installed at the existing 5-foot diameter
culvert. A 1.5-foot layer of rock (approximately 20 cubic yards) would also be installed over filtered
fabric. The total area of permanent disturbance would be about 600 square feet.
d.
Drainage and Landscaping. As shown in Figure III-2a, approximately 2.78 acres of new
impermeable pavement would result from development of the new roadway and staging area at
Option A. Vegetated bioretention areas would serve to capture parking area and roadway stormwater
run-off. A bioretention area would be developed along the north edge of the new vehicular access
roadway.
New storm drainage facilities would consist of bioretention areas within the parking area and a
detention pond at the north side of the parking area. After rainfall infiltrates through the filter medium
in the bioretention area, the treated runoff would be conveyed in perforated pipes that would be
buried near the bottom of the bioretention area to the detention pond. The system would be equipped
with overflow piping to convey water directly to the detention pond if the capacity of the bioretention
area were to be exceeded during intense runoff events. These facilities are designed to treat 80 percent
of the annual runoff from the paved areas and to restrict flows above critical erosive flows to
preconstruction conditions. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would be located just north
of the site (see Figure III-2a). The detention pond would have a storage capacity of approximately
40,000 cubic feet and would be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. Discharge from the
detention pond would be concentrated at an outfall into an existing earthen swale. The discharge point
would be armored with rock revetment designed to dissipate the energy and prevent erosion. A new
gravel road, 10-feet wide and 550 feet in length, would be developed to provide operation and
maintenance access from the staging area to the detention pond. A gate would control access to the
detention pond from the new staging area.
No trees would be removed with development of Option A. Landscaping would include new trees and
native grasses and shrubs within the parking area, as well as additional tree plantings around the
parking area to provide screening. Approximately 46 15-gallon sized coast live oak trees would be
planted as shown in Figure III-2a.
e.
Utilities. New water, sewer and electrical connections would be required to provide services to
the proposed Option A site. The existing water supply is not adequate to meet the requirements of the
proposed Option A staging area. In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed
parking area per Fire Code requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter main waterline would be
extended 480 feet up Stanford Avenue to reach the existing staging area. In order to provide adequate
water pressure for potable water and irrigation, a booster pump system would be installed near the
70

OCTOBER 2015

restroom in the existing staging area to boost the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe to
supply the Option A site, located at a higher elevation.
The proposed four-unit restroom located at the Option A site would be connected to a new 1,600 foot
long sewer line that would flow by gravity to the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard
Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed two-unit restroom installed in place of the existing
single-vault toilet at the existing staging area would also be connected to this new sewer line. Outdoor
lighting is typically not provided at District staging areas and is not proposed as part of this project.
However, new power would be required to operate the pressure booster system located near the
restroom in the existing staging area, and buried electrical line could be installed under the proposed
road to the Option A site to provide electrical power to the proposed restroom facilities.
Approximately 910 linear feet of a new 8-inch sewer line would also be installed to connect the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom facilities to the existing manhole at the intersection
of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 685 linear feet of a new 6-inch line would
continue beneath the new access roadway from the existing staging area to the new restrooms at the
Option A site.
f.
Grading and Construction. The total area of disturbance for development of Option A would
be 11.71 acres, including all roadways, trails, and graded areas. Once complete, the total area of
permanent disturbance would be 9.64 acres and would include the access road, parking area,
connecting trail, and stormwater detention pond. The total area of temporary disturbance would be
2.07 acres. An approximately 6-foot-tall earthen berm would be developed along the western border
of the new staging area, at the edge closest to existing homes, to provide visual screening. Grading
would require approximately 35,000 cubic yards of cut, 23,000 cubic yards of which would be offhauled. The remaining 12,000 cubic yards of soil would be balanced on site.
Construction would occur over a six-month period. The most intensive excavation and grading
activities would occur over a three- to four-month period. Construction activities would occur outside
of the rainy season, when feasible and in conformance with City of Fremont ordinances and
regulations. Construction and grading equipment is expected to include the use of earthmovers,
backhoes, rollers, and compactors. Public access to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak
would be prohibited during the construction period and visitors would be directed to the Ohlone
College parking area.
2.
Option B
Development of Option B would result in construction of a new staging area, a new vehicular access
road including a new vehicular bridge over Agua Caliente Creek, relocation of the Peak Meadow
Trail, and two new trail connections to the existing Hidden Valley Trail, including one new nonvehicular trail bridge. As shown in Table III-2, for Option B, the total area of disturbance would be
16.76 acres, consisting of 10.45 acres of permanent disturbance, including 3.10 acres of paved
(parking) surfaces, and 6.31 acres of temporary disturbance. A total of 990 linear feet of access
roadways would be constructed. The new vehicular bridge would span 120 feet and the new
pedestrian bridge would span 80 feet. Areas of temporary disturbance would be restored to natural
conditions upon project completion.
71

OCTOBER 2015

Option B would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, and from the
summit of Mission Peak. The conceptual development plan for Option B, including the limits of
temporary disturbance during construction, is depicted in Figure III-3a. Figure III-3b shows the
conceptual cross sections looking north and west. The proposed development plan is described in
detail below.
The existing corral in this location would be relocated to the southeast to provide the area required for
the Option B staging area. The corral structures and fencing within the Option B site would be
removed and the grazing area would be serviced by the new potable water system. Existing fencing
and corral areas to the southeast of the site would remain and new fencing would be installed south of
the Peak Meadow Trail. The new corral and livestock area would be approximately 5.5 acres in size.
a.
Staging Area. The new staging area would be located within the existing corral area and would
include a maximum of 300 parking spaces, including 8 ADA-compliant spaces. Two new picnic
tables, drinking fountains, and four restrooms would be located at the northeast edge of the staging
area.
b.
Access and Circulation. The new staging area would be accessed by a new paved two-way
vehicular access roadway of approximately 24 feet in width and 990 feet in length. The new roadway
would connect the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the Option B staging area and would
begin along the existing Hidden Valley Trail alignment, near the existing staging area restroom. The
vehicular access roadway would then divert from the existing trail south along a portion of the Peak
Meadow Trail and then begin a new alignment, crossing over Agua Caliente Creek with a new
vehicular clear span bridge before entering the new staging area. The vehicular access roadway would
consist of asphalt paving and the maximum grade would be 8 percent.
The new clear span vehicular bridge would cross Agua Caliente Creek to provide access to the Option
B staging area. The vehicular bridge would be approximately 25 feet in width, 120 feet in length, and
would be made of steel and/or concrete with concrete abutments.
A new section of sidewalk, approximately 5 feet in width and 130 feet in length, would continue from
the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area along the new roadway to connect with the section of the
Peak Meadow Trail that would be relocated to accommodate the new vehicular roadway. The
relocated section of the Peak Meadow Trail would begin on the existing Hidden Valley Trail, then
drop down the slope to roughly parallel the new vehicular access roadway. The maximum grade of
this new trail would be 12 percent. The relocated section of the Peak Meadow Trail would be
approximately 12 feet wide and 1,255 feet in length.
Two new trail connections would also be developed east of the Option B staging area to provide
access to the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails. The new connection to the
Hidden Valley Trail would extend to the north and cross over Agua Caliente Creek via a new 80-foot
long non-vehicular pedestrian bridge, of approximately 8 feet in width. This new trail connection
would also include new compacted gravel trail sections approximately 12 feet wide and a total of 300
linear feet. The connection to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails would extend to the east
approximately 190 feet before meeting the existing trail. This new trail connection would also be
approximately 12 feet wide and constructed of compacted gravel. Two sections of the existing Peak
Meadow Trail alignment would be abandoned and restored due to the realigned trail segments,
including 560 linear feet north of the Option B site and 630 linear feet east of the Option B site.
72

OCTOBER 2015

A gate, traffic controller, and kiosk would be installed at the entrance to the new vehicular roadway at
the existing trailhead gate accessed from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Fencing would be
provided around the perimeter of the new roadway, parking area, and bioretention areas.
c.
Culvert Removal. The existing 5-foot diameter, 60-foot-long culvert and crossing over Agua
Caliente Creek would be removed and the area restored as part of Option B. Adjacent willow tree
cuttings and boulders salvaged from culvert removal would be used to restore the creek to natural
conditions in this location. The total area of restoration would be about 5,000 square feet and a total
of 250 cubic yards of material would be removed.
d.
Drainage and Landscaping. As shown in Figure III-3a, approximately 3.10 acres of new
impermeable asphalt pavement would result from development of the new roadway and staging area
at Option B. Vegetated bioretention areas would serve to capture parking area and run-off. A
bioretention area would be developed at the uphill edge of the new access roadway.
New storm drainage facilities would consist of bioretention areas within the parking area and a
detention pond at the north side of the parking area. After rainfall infiltrates through the filter medium
in the bioretention area, the treated runoff, would be conveyed in perforated pipes that would be
buried near the bottom of bioretention area to the detention pond. The system would be equipped with
overflow piping to convey water directly to the detention pond if the capacity of the bioretention area
were to be exceeded during intense runoff events. These facilities are designed to treat 80 percent of
the annual runoff from the paved areas and to restrict flows above critical erosive flows to
preconstruction conditions. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would drain to an existing
concrete channel west of the site. The detention pond would be approximately 20,000 square feet in
size and would have a storage capacity of 65,000 cubic feet. Other than directing the proposed
incoming flow downstream, no modification to the existing ditch would be required.
Approximately six coast live oaks along the creek corridor would be removed with development of
Option B to allow for construction of the new vehicular bridge. While substantial tree pruning would
be required for installation of the pedestrian bridge, no trees would be removed. As described above,
willow cuttings would be salvaged as part of the creek culvert removal and would be used to restore
the channel to natural conditions in the vicinity of the new bridges. Landscaping would include new
trees and shrubs within the parking area, as well as additional tree plantings around the new parking
area to provide screening. Approximately 27 15-gallon sized new coast live oak trees would be
planted as shown in Figure III-3a.
e.
Utilities. New water, sewer and electrical connections would be required to provide services to
the proposed Option B site. The existing water supply is not adequate to meet the requirements of the
proposed Option B staging area. In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed
parking area per Fire Code requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter main waterline would be
extended 480 feet up Stanford Avenue to reach the existing Staging Area, then a 6-inch line would
continue up the new road another 600 feet to the proposed hydrant. In order to provide adequate water
pressure for potable water and irrigation, a booster pump system would be installed near the restroom
in the existing staging area to boot the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe to supply the
Option B site, located at a higher elevation.
73

OCTOBER 2015

The proposed four-unit restroom located at the Option B site would be connected to a new 2,600-foot
long sewer line that would flow by gravity to the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard
Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed two-unit restroom installed in place of the existing
single-vault toilet at the existing Stanford Staging Area would be connected to this new sewer line.
Outdoor lighting is typically not provided at District staging areas and is not proposed for this project;
however, new power would be required to operate the pressure booster system located near the
restroom in the existing staging area, and buried electrical lines could be installed under the proposed
road to the Option B site to provide electrical power to the proposed restroom facilities.
of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 1,700 linear feet of a new 6-inch line would
Option B site.
f.
Grading and Construction. The total area of disturbance for development of Option B would
be approximately 16.76 acres, including temporary construction disturbance and permanent disturbance. Once complete, the total area of permanent disturbance would be approximately 10.45 acres of
which approximately 3.10 acres would consist of new impervious pavement. Therefore, the total area
of temporary disturbance would be 6.31 acres. Grading would require approximately 12,000 cubic
yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of which would be off-hauled. Net import includes approximately
17,000 cubic yards of soil for fill and 13,000 cubic yards of building materials.
Construction would occur over a 6-month period. The most intensive excavation and grading
activities would occur over a 3- to 4-month period. Construction activities would occur outside of the
rainy season, when feasible. Construction and grading equipment is expected to include the use of
earthmovers, backhoes, rollers, and compactors. Public access to the Stanford Avenue entrance to
Mission Peak would be prohibited during the construction period and visitors would be directed to the
Ohlone College parking area.
E.
PROJECT APPROVALS AND USE OF THIS EIR
This EIR will provide environmental review for all discretionary and required approvals necessary for
implementation of either option. The Districts Board of Directors (Board) will consider the
information provided in the EIR, along with other information which may be presented, in deciding
whether or not to: 1) certify the EIR and; 2) approve the proposed project or direct further study of the
project alternatives. A list of the required permits and approvals that may be required by the Board
and other agencies is provided in Table III-2.
74

OCTOBER 2015
Table III-2:

Required Permits and Approvals
Agencies
Lead Agency
Responsible Agencies
City of Fremont
California Regional Water Quality Control Board

(Water Board)
State Water Resources Control Board
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Army Corps of Engineers
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Alameda County Water District
Alameda County Flood Control District
Union Sanitary District
City of Fremont Fire Department
Permit/Approval
Certification of EIR
Project approval
Environmental Impact Assessment Application

Preliminary Grading Plan
Building Permit
Grading Permit
Encroachment Permit
NPDES permit for stormwater discharge
Section 401 water quality certification
Construction General Permit
Possible Incidental Take Permits as part of Section 404
Section 404 Permit
Section 1602 Streambed Alteration permit
Approval of new water line and connections
Approval of bridge construction
Approval of new sewer lines and connections
Approval of site plan
75

OCTOBER 2015

76
IV.
PLANNING POLICY
This chapter discusses the proposed projects relationship with planning-related land use policies. A
projects inconsistency with a policy, per CEQA Guidelines, is only considered significant if that
policy was adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Policies are
described in select topical sections of the EIR where applicable policies relate to physical elements
and are intended to avoid or mitigate physical environmental effects.
In reviewing this chapter, it is important to understand that the determination of whether a project is
consistent with a specific policy can be subjective, and that consistency determinations are best made
with a broad understanding of the often-competing policy objectives in a planning document. As a
result, policy consistency determinations are ultimately made by the local decision-making body. As
previously discussed, the East Bay Regional Park District (District) is the lead agency for environmental review. Therefore, the Districts Board of Directors (Board) would determine the projects
consistency with District plans and policies. The City of Fremont (City) also has discretionary
authority over project approval and will evaluate the projects consistency with local plans and
policies. The analysis in this chapter is intended to provide decision-makers with a list of the goals
and policies that are pertinent to the project and project area, and a recommendation regarding
whether or not the proposed project would directly conflict with relevant planning directives. These
recommendations are intended to supplement decision-makers own understanding of the various
policy considerations. A conflict with an applicable policy is not itself a significant impact unless it
results in a significant environmental impact, as described below.
The main guiding documents regulating land use and planning within and around the project site are:
1) the City of Fremont General Plan; 2) the City of Fremont Zoning Ordinance; and 3) East Bay
Regional Parks District Master Plan.
A.
CITY OF FREMONT GENERAL PLAN
A description of the 2011 Fremont General Plan1 is provided below. An analysis of the projects
potential to conflict with relevant goals, policies, and implementation measures identified in the
General Plan is also provided. Refer to Table IV-1 for a list of relevant policies and the projects
relationship to those policies. Relevant goals, policies, and implementation measures from the City of
Fremont General Plan are also identified in the appropriate topical sections of this EIR (see Chapter
V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) to the extent that these policies relate to physical
environmental effects.
Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. December.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\4-Policy.docx (10/14/15)
77

OCTOBER 2015
1.

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Description
The Fremont General Plan acts as the constitution for the Citys development by providing
priorities and goals for the future of the City over a 25-year horizon. The City Council adopted the
most recent General Plan on December 13, 2011. The General Plan contains the seven required
elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety and also
includes seven optional elements: Sustainability, Community Character, Economic Development,
Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities, Community Plans, and Implementation. Each element
establishes goals to guide future land use activities and development within the City limits and Sphere
of Influence. The goals are followed by policies that provide implementation measures to accomplish
each goal. The General Plan Vision Statement acts as a general guideline in developing the goals and
policies within the General Plan. The Fremont General Plan Vision Statement is: Fremont will serve
as a national model of how an auto-oriented suburb can evolve into a sustainable, strategically urban,
modern city.
The Land Use Element establishes districts and policies to designate appropriate uses for those
districts. The project site is located within the Resource Conservation and Public Open Space (RCP)
designation. The RCP designation includes open spaces that are located below the Toe of the Hill
(TOH) and owned by public or quasi-public agencies. The purpose of this designation is to Preserve
natural open space and restore and enhance native habitat. This designation is assigned to land owned
by agencies other than the City. In this particular case, the project area is owned by the City but
managed by the District (refer to Figure I-1 in Chapter I, Introduction for jurisdictional boundaries
within Mission Peak).
With implementation of the proposed project, the project area would remain within the RCP land use
designation and no changes to the existing General Plan are proposed. Development of a staging area
within Mission Peak would not conflict with the intent of the RCP designation. The new staging area
would be constructed within existing open space areas within the existing Preserve and both site
options are located near the Preserves boundaries with urban areas. Conversion of either site option
from grassland areas to a new staging area would not result in a substantial reduction in the natural
open space areas or habitat available throughout the Preserve and would not conflict with the overall
intent of this designation because support facilities, such as a staging area, for open space uses are
allowed in the RCP-designated areas. Furthermore, implementation of either site option would result
in creek restoration activities, which would further the intent of the RCP designation.
2.
Potential Conflicts
Applicable General Plan policies are outlined in Table IV-1. The potential for the proposed project to
directly conflict with these policies is also described. General Plan policies applicable to the proposed
project address: land use classification, open space, conservation, parks and recreation, and community
character. The proposed project would expand the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area and include
a maximum of 300 additional parking spaces, restrooms, and picnic areas as well as associated
roadways and infrastructure to connect to the new staging area at either site option. The General Plan
considered expansion of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak in the Community Plans
Element, as follows:
78

OCTOBER 2015

IV. PLANNING POLICY
The park includes a number of staging areas and trailheads, but there are no significant
improvements planned within its boundaries, with the exception of potential parking lot
expansion.2
As discussed in Table IV-1, below, the proposed project would not directly conflict with any General
Plan policies adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding physical impacts to the environment.
Specifically, the project would not conflict with the General Plan policies related to community
preservation, adequate infrastructure, parking management, landscaping, and economic development.
One of the proposed projects objectives is to reduce existing noise, litter, and safety issues on
neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The project would
directly implement Land Use Policy 2-3.12, as implementation of the project is expected to reduce
noise, littering, traffic, and other activities that disrupt the adjoining Fremont neighborhood. The
proposed project would also not directly conflict with General Plan policies that relate to preservation
of open space and development within the Hill Areas of Fremont.
Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Community Plans Element,
79

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Relationship of Proposed Project to City of Fremont General Plan Policies
Policy
LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 2-1.3: Maintain
Fremonts Open Space Frame
Policy Text
Conserve the unique ecological characteristic of the Fremont Hills
and San Francisco Bay shoreline and wetlands and recognize the
contribution of these features to Fremonts identity and livability.
Future land use decision should ensure the long-term protection of
these areas as open space.
Policy 2-1.11: Infill Emphasis
Focus new development on under-developed or skipped over sites

that are already served by infrastructure and public streets. Strongly
discourage, and where appropriate prohibit, the conversion of open
space or underdeveloped land on the fringes of Fremont to urban
uses. All of the growth projected for Fremont over the next 20-25
years is anticipated take place within the existing urbanized area. By
growing more compactly, the City can preserve its hills and
Baylands as open space.
Policy 2-2.8: Constrained Land
Recognize certain areas as having natural constraints which preclude

their safe or environmentally sound development. These constraints
are discussed in the Safety and Conservation Elements of the
General Plan. The allowable density or intensity of development
shall be set to recognize such constraints. The designations on the
General Plan Land Use Map reflect this policy. Hillsides and
wetlands are generally designated as Open Space on the Map to
recognize ecological, safety, access, and aesthetic concerns. This
principle would be carried forward through zoning, and through
other City ordinances regulating development near earthquake faults,
in flood plains, and in other hazard-prone locations. The Safety and
Conservation Elements should be consulted for further guidance on
what constitutes constrained land.
Projects Relationship to Policy

The project area is located within and near the western boundary of
Mission Peak, in the Fremont Hills. Both project site options are
located in existing grassland areas that primarily serve as open
space, although the Option B site is often used as a corral and is not
open to the public. Although the project would develop existing
grassland areas at either site option with a new staging area, these
areas are located at the base of the hill areas and are immediately
adjacent to urban uses. Furthermore, the new staging area is intended
to serve the open space uses within Mission Peak. The remaining
open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to be
preserved. Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a
discussion of impacts to unique ecological features that would be
affected by the proposed project. As discussed, impacts to plant and
wildlife communities would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.
Mission Peak. Both project site options are located in existing
grassland areas that primarily serve as open space, although the
Option B site is often used as a corral and is not open to the public.
Infrastructure, including new roadways and utilities would be
extended onto either site to serve the new staging area. The proposed
project would not convert open space to an urban use, but instead
would convert an existing area within the Preserve to support the
continued use of the Preserve. The remaining open space areas
within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved.
The project area is designated as RCP in the Citys General Plan and
is zoned as Planned Development, Hillside Overlay District. As
discussed throughout Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures of this EIR, natural constraints, such as geologic
conditions, wetlands, hydrology, access etc. have been considered in
the project design. The project site options were chosen based on the
proximity to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance to Mission
Peak and because these two locations represented the fewest
constraints for development within the boundaries of Mission Peak
and within the Districts jurisdiction. Mitigation measures
recommended in this EIR, including Mitigation Measure GEO-1 in
particular, would ensure that development of either site option would
be appropriately designed to provide a safe and environmentally
sound development.
80

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 2-2.9: Adequacy of
Infrastructure
Policy Text
Allow new development to occur only when the public facilities
needed to serve that development are available or will be provided
by the development through the payment of impact fees.
Policy 2-3.12: Community

Preservation
Maintain community preservation and code enforcement programs

which protect health and safety and keep Fremont neighborhoods
free of nuisances and visual blight. These programs should also
abate excessive noise, illegal dumping, illegal signage, graffiti,
littering, and other activities that disrupt neighborhood quality of
life.

Development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option
B site would result in the construction of new infrastructure
including new access roadways, bridges, and extension of utility
services within the boundaries of Mission Peak. The new roadways
would be accessed via existing Stanford Avenue and the existing
Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New water, sewer, and electrical
connections would be required to provide water and sewer services
to on-site restrooms and other facilities and would connect to
existing infrastructure within Stanford Avenue. The District would
pay connection and other impact fees to Alameda County Water
District, Union Sanitary District, and PG&E, as required.
The project would provide additional vehicle parking for visitors to
Mission Peak, which is expected to help reduce existing noise, litter,
and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
Fremonts Community Development Department has a Community

Preservation Division that responds to citizen complaints and
proactively identifies violations of the Fremont Municipal Code. In
most jurisdictions, this operation is known as code enforcement. It
addresses businesses operating without permits, illegal or
unpermitted land uses, structures built without permits, unsafe or
unsanitary housing, illegal fences, vehicle hazards and similar issues.
Addressing these issues promptly is important to reducing blight and
maintaining the quality of life in the city.
81

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 2-6.2: Hill Area
Initiatives
Policy 2-6.7: Environmentally

Sensitive Use of Open Space
Policy Text
Adhere to the Fremont provisions of the 1981 voter-approved
Measure A Initiative and the 2002 voter-approved Measure T
Initiative, both of which are officially part of the Fremont Municipal
Code, when making land use decisions for the Fremont hill area.
These provisions impose more restrictive requirements on hill area
development than would otherwise apply in designated open space
areas. Adopted December 2011 Land Use | 2-69 General Plan
Measure A, approved by Fremont voters in 1981, formally amended
the text of the General Plan to add definitions of the Hill Area,
Ridgeline, Toe of the Hill, and Hill Face. The General Plan
Map was likewise amended to depict these features and reduce
allowable hillside densities. The intent of the ordinance was to
protect the agricultural, recreational, and low density character of the
Hill Area and provide special protection to visually sensitive features
such as the western hill face and ridgeline. The Measure generally
applied to land east and north of Mission Boulevard and I-680.
Measure T, approved by voters in 2002, established additional limits
on hillside development and incorporated further language into the
General Plan. The changes included new minimum parcel sizes for
the Hill Area and the Citys sphere of influence. Additional use
restrictions were established and further safeguards were placed on
areas of special environmental concern. The Measure included
provisions for clustering of allowable density, restrictions on lot line
adjustments and maximum floor area, and requirements for
conservation easements. The area covered by the Ordinance was
slightly different than the area covered by Measure T, focusing more
specifically on lands above the Toe of the Hill. See the Hill Area
Community Plan for the full adopted text of Measures A and T.
Regulate recreational and public facility development on lands
designated as open space to conserve the overall character of such
sites and minimize impacts on recreational activities, mature
landscaping, and environmentally sensitive areas.

The project site is located below the Toe of the Hill and within the
area established by Measure A. The proposed project would develop
a new staging area within the open space areas of Mission Peak and
near existing urban uses at the base of the hill to better accommodate
park visitor demand for parking. The proposed project would
support the continued use of Mission Peak as a recreation area that
serves users throughout the region. The new staging area would
consist of a surface parking lot with additional recreational amenities
and the extension of infrastructure. Project landscaping and grading
would serve as a buffer from adjacent residential uses and serve as
visual screening. No impacts to agricultural resources or visual
resources would result with implementation of the proposed project
(see Section V.B, Visual Resources and Section V.E, Agricultural
and Forestry Resources for a description of the projects less than
significant impacts related to these topics). The project area is not
located above the Toe of the Hill and is not subject to the
development standards and restrictions established by Measure T.
The project would develop parking and a recreational staging area to

allow public access to a regional destination. The project is designed
to conserve the overall character of the Mission Peak Preserve and
minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Impacts related
to biological resources would be less than significant with
82

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
MOBILITY
Policy 3-7.1: Parking
Management
Policy 3-7.4: Bicycle Parking

and Storage Facilities
Policy Text
Manage on-street parking to ensure the efficient use of curbside

space, avoid conflicts with residents and neighborhoods, and provide
adequate customer parking for local businesses.
The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is not currently

adequately served by on-site parking facilities and nearby residential
neighborhoods experience conflicts related to parking and traffic
congestion as visitors to Mission Peak often park within the
neighborhood. The project would provide a more appropriate level
of parking for the Preserve to reduce conflicts with adjacent
neighborhoods.
An existing bicycle rack is provided within the existing Stanford
Avenue Staging area and is available for use by Preserve visitors.
The new staging area at either site option would also include a new
bicycle rack for visitor use and the existing bicycle rack would
remain.
Require the provision of secured bicycle parking at (or near) all new
or substantially modified commercial or industrial development
projects, education and recreational facilities, and BART Stations
and transit centers. In commercial areas, bicycle parking may be
consolidated in racks serving multiple businesses to create a cleaner
and more attractive street appearance. At larger employment centers
and BART Stations, lockers and showers should be encouraged to
facilitate bicycle use. Bicycle parking facilities are important to
provide security and convenience for cyclists. The availability of
such facilities may influence the decision to bicycle to work, school,
shopping, or other destinations. Effective bicycle parking requires a
properly designed rack or locker in an appropriate location for the
adjacent land use.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Policy 4-1.1: Elements of City
Recognize the basic elements of city form community plan areas,
Form
neighborhoods, centers, corridors, employment districts, and open
spacesas the features that contribute to and define Fremonts sense
of place. Ensure that land use and transportation decisions, including
design review, zoning, capital improvements, and development
approvals, improve the visual qualities of these features and
strengthen their identity as distinct places.
Policy 4-1.6: Open Space
Frame
Protect Fremonts hills and baylands as an open space frame that

gives definition to the City and shapes its image and identity. See
also Land Use Policy 2-1.11 on focusing new development on infill
sites rather than expanding the Citys urban footprint.
Policy 4-5.3: Undergrounding

Utility Lines
Reduce the visual impacts of utility lines and poles along corridors
by continuing to underground overhead lines within existing
development, and by requiring underground utilities in new
development.
The proposed project would be developed within an existing open

space area that is immediately adjacent to low-density residential
uses. The new staging area at either location would be visible from
various nearby and distant vantage points, including from within the
Preserve and adjacent private residences. However, the visual
quality and character of the site would not be degraded and proposed
landscaping at either site would provide visual screening of the
parking area (also refer to Section V.B, Visual Resources.
Although the project would develop existing open spaces areas
within the Fremont hills at either site option, these areas are located
at the base of the hill areas and are immediately adjacent to urban
uses. Furthermore, the new staging area is intended to serve the open
space uses within Mission Peak. The remaining open space areas
within Mission Peak would continue to be preserved.
Proposed utility connections, including electrical services would be
underground.
83

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 4-5.7: Tree Planting and
Preservation
Policy 4-5.8: Landscape Design
Policy 4-6.10: Protection of

Native American Remains
Policy Text
Recognize trees as a valuable aesthetic, ecological, and economic
resource. Protect and preserve Fremonts existing trees and grow the
Citys urban forest by planting new trees on public property and
promoting tree planting and preservation on private property. New
street trees should be appropriate for the function of the street,
climate and soil conditions in the planting area, available space for
the canopy and root network, expected sidewalk activity, and other
factors.
Use landscape design to improve the visual appearance of streets,
enhance buildings, create and define public and private spaces,
create shade, screen unsightly uses, and provide environmental
benefits such as absorption of stormwater and air pollutants and
reduction of noise. Landscaping provides many benefits, including
improved visual appearance and shade. It should be designed to
enhance surrounding buildings and the natural environment.
Sustainable landscape measures such as the use of drought-tolerant
planting and rain barrels should be encouraged and should reinforce
green practices in the City
Coordinate with representatives of local Native American
organizations to ensure the protection of Native American resources
and to follow appropriate mitigation, preservation, and recovery
measures in the event such resources could be impacted by
development.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Policy 6-6.2: Fremont as a
Promote Fremont as a destination for non-residents, including both
Destination
visitors and Fremont employees, by offering regional shopping,
dining, and recreational amenities and opportunities.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Policy 7-1.1: Preservation of
Preserve and protect fish, wildlife, and plant species and their
Natural Habitat
habitats including wetlands, creeks, lakes, ponds, saltwater bodies
and other riparian areas. Maintain these areas for their critical
biological values and to help improve water quality.

Development of either site option could result in the potential
removal of or damage to existing trees within the open space areas
of the Preserve and/or within existing waterways. Both project site
options would include plantings of coast live oaks within and around
the perimeter of the proposed staging area. Mitigation Measure BIO8 would further ensure that impacts to protected trees would be less
than significant.
The project would include landscaping and trees that would create
shade, screen the proposed staging area, and provide stormwater
controls.
The District has consulted with representatives of local Native

American organizations as part of the EIR process (refer to Section
V.D, Cultural Resources for additional discussion). Known historic
and archaeological resources are present within both the Option A
and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1
through CUL-3 would ensure that Native American representatives
continue to be consulted as appropriate.
The project would expand an existing staging area to provide a more
adequate level of parking for the existing Mission Peak Regional
Preserve, a regional recreational amenity in Fremont.
The proposed project would result in the development of existing
grassland areas within the existing Preserve and would directly
affect wildlife and plant communities through removal of existing
habitat. The remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would
continue to be preserved. Refer to Section V.C, Biological
Resources for a discussion of impacts to wildlife habitats and plant
communities that would be affected by the proposed project. As
discussed, impacts to plant and wildlife communities and wetlands
would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.
84

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 7-1.2: Protection of
Species
Policy Text
Preserve and protect rare, threatened, endangered and candidate
species and their habitats consistent with State and Federal law.

Hill Areas
Preserve and protect the Hill Area woodlands and vegetative areas,
especially along the ridgeline, in canyons and on vegetated north
facing slopes.
Policy 7-1.4: Open Space

Frame
Maintain and expand the Open Space Frame
Policy 7-1.5: Promotion of

Interagency Coordination
Promote interagency coordination for the protection and preservation

of biological resources.
Policy 7-1.7: Mitigate

Development Impacts
Mitigate the impacts of development on the natural environment to

the extent possible through sound planning, design, and management
of development projects.

Water Resources
Water resources such as the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin,

wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space
and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as
valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement,
groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long term water resource
sustainability.
Policy 7-2.2: Low-Impact Hill

Area Development
Minimize the impact of Hill Area development on creeks and

riparian areas

Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of
impacts to wildlife habitats and plant communities that would be
affected by the proposed project. As discussed, impacts to plant and
wildlife communities and wetlands would be less than significant
with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.
The project area is located within the Hill Areas of Fremont. The
project would not be developed along the ridgeline, in canyons or on
vegetated north facing slopes. As discussed in Section V.C,
Biological Resources, impacts to plant and wildlife communities,
including trees and grassland habitat would be less than significant
with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.
The proposed project would develop a new staging area within an
existing open space area to support the ongoing use of this
recreational facility. The remaining areas of the Preserve would
continue to be maintained as open space.
As discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources, through
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, the
District would coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the California Fish and Wildlife Services, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the City of Fremont, as appropriate.
As discussed in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, all impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a
less than significant level with implementation of recommended
mitigation measures.
Development of a new staging area at either site option would
increase impervious surface cover at either site through the
introduction of new roadways and pavements. Stormwater features
would however preserve water quality and promote groundwater
recharge. As discussed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water
Quality, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than
significant. As discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8,
impacts to biological resources would also be less than significant.
Implementation of Option A would also result in repair of an
existing culvert within a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek.
Implementation of Option B would result in removal and restoration
of an existing culvert within the Agua Caliente Creek channel.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8,
impacts to creeks and riparian areas would be less than significant.
85

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 7-3.3:Enforce Water
Quality Requirement
Policy 7-6.1: Awareness of Soil
Conditions
Policy Text
Enforce Federal, State and locally issued mandates regarding water
quality such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements.
Ensure development projects take soil conditions into account
Policy 7-6.2: Minimize Soil

Erosion
SAFETY
Policy 10-1.1: Location of
Buildings and Structures
Eliminate soil erosion from development to the maximum extent

possible
Policy 10-1.2: Mitigation of

Hazards
Require proposed development in areas of potential land instability

to evaluate and sufficiently mitigate such hazards through site
planning, appropriate construction techniques, building design and
engineering.
Policy 10-2.1: Location of

Buildings and Structures
Regulate new development and redevelopment in a manner to

minimize potential damage and hazards related to expected seismic
activity.
Regulate new development and redevelopment in a manner that

avoids geologic hazards to life and property

As discussed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, the
proposed project would comply with NPDES permit requirements
and impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
Soil conditions within the project area were considered through the
site design process and were identified and evaluated in the
Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b,
impacts related to unstable soils that could result in landslides and
exposure to hazards associated with expansive soils would be less
than significant.
As discussion in Section V.G, Geology and Soils, impacts related to
soil erosion would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section V.G, Geology and Soils, existing geologic
hazards and conditions have been considered in the project design.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that
development of either site option would be appropriately designed
and monitored to avoid geologic hazards.
Hazardous conditions associated with soil instability within the
project area were considered through the site design process and
were identified and evaluated in the Geotechnical Report prepared
for the proposed project. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 a and GEO-1b, impacts related to unstable soils
that could result in landslides and exposure to hazards associated
with expansive soils would be less than significant.
Hazardous conditions that could result from a seismic event at the
project sites were considered through the site design process and
were identified and evaluated in the Geotechnical Report prepared
for the proposed project. As discussed in Section V.G, Geology and
Soils, these impacts would be less than significant.
86

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
COMMUNITY PLANS
Policy 11-5.2: Allowable Uses
in the Hill Area
Policy Text
Subject to the prohibitions, restrictions, densities, conditions and

requirements imposed by the 2002 Initiative, Hill Area generally
compatible uses are agriculture, recreation, and very low density
residential uses which comply with standards and densities set out in
the General Plan text. According to the 2002 Initiative, the following
uses and their normal and appropriate accessory uses and structures
(as well as uses preemptively authorized by Federal and State law)
are permitted in the Hill Area, if they comply with all of the
provisions of this plan and with other City prohibitions, restrictions,
regulations, conditions and requirements: a) One single family
residence on each legal parcel, secondary units to the extent required
by State law, and dwelling units for persons employed on the parcel,
or on a ranch or farm that includes the parcel. b) Rental of rooms,
including with board, not exceeding two units in a residence.
c) Agriculture including grazing, horticulture, floriculture and
arboriculture, but not including: 1) commercial feedlots, except for
livestock that primarily receive their sustenance in the Hill Area from
grazing on a ranch or farm that includes the parcel, 2) large or
medium-size pig farms, poultry ranches, or commercial vineyards, or
3) Christmas tree farms. d) Small-scale, low-intensity rearing,
custodianship, training or care of animals, other than ruminants
which shall be governed as agriculture by subsection (c), that does
not cause material environmental harm. e) Commercial uses, limited
to the following: 1) Outdoor recreation and pastimes predominantly
for active participants (this category of permitted uses does not
include, among other things, amusement or theme parks and motor
vehicle tracks, courses or recreational activities); 2) Nature observation, study or enjoyment; 3) Accommodations for short term
occupancy and for provision of food and drink (including lowintensity campgrounds and picnic facilities), predominantly for
persons engaged in outdoor recreation or nature observation, study or
enjoyment; 4) Uses in historic structures, incidental to preserving the
The proposed project consists of a low-density staging area that

would support an existing open space use. Specifically, the proposed
project would support outdoor recreation and pastimes
predominantly for active participants and nature observation, study
and enjoyment through increased access to the existing Preserve.
87

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 11-5.2 Continued
Policy Text
structures and their historic qualities and setting; 5) Home occupations and offices, subordinate to residential use and conducted
primarily by occupants of the property, that will have no deleterious
effects on the environment or visual qualities or materially increase
local traffic; 6) Neighborhood stores and services, predominantly to
serve the unmet agricultural and other needs of the population of the
Hill Area, that cannot practicably be met outside the Area;
7) Healthcare; 8) Cemeteries; 9) Packaging, processing, storage or
sale of agricultural produce or plants, a substantial portion of which
were grown in the Hill Area; 10) Small-scale extraction and
processing of rock, soil, or water; 11) Special, occasional short-term
events related to agriculture or animals that do not interfere substantially with the use of land for agriculture or cause lasting adverse
environmental harm or visual effects, provided that access for
vehicles and emergency equipment and for parking meet generally
applicable City standards. f) Institutional and other non-profit uses
that primarily serve Hill Area residents, or whenever and to the same
extent like commercial uses would be permitted. g) City and other
government facilities and infrastructure, and public utility facilities,
that are limited to meeting the needs created by uses permitted in the
Hill Area unless the City Council reasonably finds more extensive
public need, that cannot practicably be met outside the Hill Area.
However, this exception for more extensive public need shall not
apply to waste treatment and disposal or commercial electrical
power generating facilities. Publicly provided outdoor recreation and
nature observation and enjoyment and ancillary accommodations are
permitted whenever like commercial uses would be allowed.
88

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 11-5.5: Consistency of
Future Projects with Hill Area
Standards
Policy 11-5.9: Architectural

Review for Hill Area
Development
Policy Text
All rezonings (including Planned districts), permits and approvals
for subdivision maps, planned unit developments, grading,
conditional uses and all building permits, variances, and other
entitlements for use, shall be consistent with these requirements and
with the associated designations on the General Plan Summary Map
and Area Maps. This plan does not affect the validity of existing
parcels, development, structures, and uses that are legal at the time it
becomes effective. However, parcels, development, structures and
uses may not be expanded or changed in ways that are inconsistent
with the prohibitions, limits or requirements of this plan, except as
authorized by State law. The restrictions and requirements imposed
by this plan shall apply to proposed development that has not
received all necessary discretionary City and other authorizations
and approvals prior to the plans effective date, except to the extent
precluded by State law.
The City shall perform architectural review for any development in
the Hill Area in order to ensure consistency with the policies of the
General Plan. In addition, all development on the Ridgeline and Hill
Face shall be subject to discretionary review and must be approved
by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council on appeal.

Construction of the new staging area would require permits from the
City of Fremont and the site design would conform to applicable
City codes and standards for development within the Hill Area.
The project would be developed within the Hill Area and would be
subject to review by the Planning Commission.
89

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 11-5.10: Development
Standards for Hill Area Sites
Policy Text
Consistent with the Hill Area Initiative of 2002, all development
shall be designed to minimize disturbances of the natural terrain and
vegetation and to minimize visual impact. The following restrictions
shall apply to development in the Hill Area: a) No building site, in
whole or in part, may be located on a slope of thirty percent (30%)
or more. No building may be located on a site that has access over a
slope of thirty percent (30%) or more. No greenhouses, in whole or
in part, may be located on a slope of fifteen percent (15%) or more.
Cultivated agriculture may not be conducted on a slope of thirty
percent (30%) or more. b) Structures may not be located on
ridgelines or hilltops, or where they will project into the visual plane
of a ridgeline or hilltop, as viewed from public roads, trails, or other
public places, unless there is no other building site on the parcel or
on a contiguous parcel in common ownership when this ordinance
becomes effective or thereafter. c) New or reconfigured parcels,
including those resulting from lot line adjustments, must be created
or drawn to minimize visibility of development from public places.
d) To the extent practicable, structures shall be located, including by
setbacks from parcel boundaries, on that part of a parcel or on
contiguous parcels in common ownership that minimizes visibility
from public places, except agricultural structures necessary for
agricultural purposes may be located in more visible areas. e) In all
cases, appropriate landscaping, preservation of vegetation,
screening, and building materials shall be required by the City to
minimize the visual impact of development. Consistent with that
end, alteration of topography by grading, excavating, filling or other
development activity shall be minimized. Development shall be
subordinate to and blend with the natural and open space qualities of
the area where located, so as to be as unobtrusive as possible, and
not to impair those qualities. To the maximum extent practicable,
lighting must be located, designed and shielded so as to confine
direct rays to the parcel where the lighting is located. f) The height
of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. g) All buildings on a parcel
shall be placed within a contiguous development envelope not to
exceed two acres, except for buildings that must be located outside
the envelope for agricultural uses or security needs, or for
government or public utility facilities that the City Council
reasonably finds require a more extensive area. h) The maximum
aggregate floor area for all floors (regardless of composition) in
buildings on a parcel

The proposed project would consist of a low-density staging area
within existing open spaces areas located within the Hill Area of
Fremont. The new staging area would not be located on a slope that
exceeds 30 percent and would not be located on a ridgeline or
hilltop. New trees and other plantings would be located within and
around the perimeter of the new staging area to provide visual
screening and to ensure that the new parking facilities blend with
surrounding urban and open space uses and do not degrade the visual
character or quality of the site surroundings. Although grading and
excavation would be required, the new staging areas would conform
to the existing topography to the extent feasible and new berms
would be employed to also provide visual screening from adjacent
uses. The proposed project would generally conform to the
development standards for Hill Area sites.
90

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 11-5.10 Continued
Policy 11-5.13: Environmental

Assessments for Hill Area
Projects
Policy 11-5.18: Design

Sensitivity to Natural Features
Policy Text
may not exceed one percent (1%) of the parcels area, or 20,000
square feet, whichever is less, but for any parcel a minimum of
10,000 square feet shall be permitted. Greenhouses are subject to a
maximum aggregate floor area of one percent (1%) or 40,000 square
feet, whichever is less. Government facilities are not subject to the
aggregate limit to the extent that the City Council finds reasonably
that they are necessary to serve important public needs, that they
cannot practicably be located outside the Hill Area, and that they
must exceed the floor area maximum. The City Council may also
authorize a larger area if needed for housing for agricultural workers,
or for processing, packaging or storage of agricultural produce or
plants, a substantial portion of which were grown in the Hill Area, or
for other agricultural purpose.
Require early assessment of environmental constraints and resources
for any applications submitted for development in the hill areas.
Early consultation with the City regarding the implications of the
environmental assessment for proposed development is
recommended. Issues to be addressed include geology (e.g.,
seismicity, soils, slope), biology (e.g., wetlands, riparian zones,
landmark trees), mineral resources, and visual sensitivity. These
resources and constraints are roughly identified in the Natural
Resources and Safety Elements of the General Plan.
Design new development to be compatible with its natural

surroundings. Development shall be designed to maximize retention
of natural topographic features, such as drainage swales, slopes, rock
outcroppings, vistas, landmark trees, natural foliage and plant
formations, historical sites, riparian areas and areas of natural
beauty. Development shall minimize disturbances of any natural
watercourses or streams and wildlife breeding areas.
Mission Peak, within the Hill Area, and existing open space areas
within the Preserve would be developed with either site option. The
remaining open space areas within Mission Peak would continue to
be preserved. Natural and geologic constraints were considered in
the projects design. Environmental impacts associated with
development of the new staging area are the subject of this EIR.
Refer to Sections V.B, Visual Resources, V.C, Biological Resources,
V.G, Geology and Soils, and V.F, Mineral Resources, for a
discussion of impacts related to unique visual, geological,
ecological, and mineral resources that would be affected by the
proposed project. As discussed, impacts would be less than
significant with implementation of recommended mitigation
measures.
Natural and geologic conditions, including existing topography,
were considered in the projects design. As discussed throughout
Chapter V of this EIR, impacts to natural topographic features,
scenic vistas, trees, natural vegetation, historical sites, riparian areas,
and the natural open space characteristics of the Preserve would be
minimized and all such impacts would be less than significant with,
in some cases, implementation of recommended mitigation
measures.
91

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-1:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy 11-5.20: Minimization of
Hill Area Grading
Policy Text
Require development to conform to the natural grades and not scar
the existing terrain and vegetation by excessive grading. Buildings
should fit the land, not vice versa.
Policy 11-5.21: Minimization of

Hill Area Erosion and Pollution
Impacts
Require development to minimize erosion and pollution impacts

from construction.

Existing topography and landscape features were considered in the
design of the proposed project. Once completed, the new staging
area would fit within the natural topography that surrounds either
site option and new trees and plantings would blend with
surrounding open space uses.
As discussed in Sections V.G, Geology and Soils, V.H, Hydrology
and Water Quality, V.I, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and V.K,
Air Quality in this EIR, impacts related to construction-period
erosion and pollution would be less than significant with, in some
cases, implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Source: City of Fremont General Plan, 2011 and LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.
92

OCTOBER 2015

IV. PLANNING POLICY
B.
CITY OF FREMONT ZONING ORDINANCE
1.
Description
The Citys Zoning Ordinance is included in Title 18 Planning and Zoning, of the Fremont Municipal
Code. The Zoning Ordinance implements the goals and policies of the General Plan by regulating
land uses and structures within the City. City land is divided into zoning districts that specify
standards for new development such as minimum lot sizes, maximum densities, setbacks, heights, and
parking requirements. Allowed uses within each zoning district are also established in the Zoning
Ordinance which may either be permitted by right or permitted with a use permit or minor use permit.
The Zoning Map depicts the zoning districts throughout the City limits.
The project site is located within the Hillside-Combining District (H-I) and Planned (P) District. The
H-I District is used to promote safe development of hillside areas through the application of requirements set to meet the challenges associated with development of hillside areas. Development
standards for projects in this district are reviewed according to performance standards of the open
space district and supplemented with development standards for the H-I District. Performance
standards include limiting impervious coverage to 15 percent of the development area; retaining
natural vegetation; installing sediment basins; and minimizing visual impacts. Additional development standards for the H-I District include: minimizing grading and minimizing visual impacts. The
maximum height of a building within this district may not exceed 30 feet above grade. Within the H-I
District, projects are required to minimize grading by designing structures to fit the land instead of
modifying the land to fit the structure. The P District was established to encourage and allow
development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and conservation in the City through site-specific
planning that includes proper orientation, desirable design, and compatible land uses.
Over the last few decades, preservation of the natural features of hillside areas in the City have been
the subject of voter-approved measures that establish development standards for these areas and are
incorporated into the Fremont Zoning Ordinance. These are described below.
a.
Measure A. In 1981, Fremont voters approved Measure A and in 1982 the City amended the
Hillside District to further incorporate voter-approved development regulations. In addition to
protecting the hill face and ridgeline areas, Measure A established development limits on constrained
land and design review requirements for much of the Mission San Jos area. Measure A requirements
are codified within the Hillside-Combining Zoning District and are applicable to either Option A or
B.
b.
Measure T. Voters passed Measure T in 2002 which further changed the Hillside-Combining
District. Measure T established additional prohibitions above the Toe of the Hill, including buildings
or roads on slopes of 30 percent or more, buildings on visible ridgelines and hilltops, development in
riparian corridors, commercial vineyards and Christmas tree farms, and agricultural cultivation on
steep slopes. Measure T also limited the aggregate size of buildings on a parcel and the development
envelope on large tracts, with some exceptions for smaller sites. Additional language in the initiative
and implementing ordinances requires that visual impacts be minimized through site planning and
design. The project area is located below the Toe of the Hill and would not be subject to Measure T
development standards.
93

OCTOBER 2015
2.

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Consistency
Development of a new staging area within the P, H-1 Zoning District would not directly conflict with
any development standards outlined in the City of Fremont Zoning Ordinance. Development within
the P District is subject to discretionary review and is not subject to set standards. Within the H-1
District, the development of surface parking lots to serve existing open space uses are neither
permitted by right nor expressly prohibited. Impervious surface coverage on the project sites would
exceed 15 percent of the total disturbed area (for each site, permanent surface coverage would total
approximately 30 percent); however, surface coverage at each site would total about 3 acres, which is
approximately 0.1 percent of the total open space area within the 3,000-acre Preserve. Thus, the
proposed project would be consistent with the purposes of the Open Space (OS) District, including
use of open space lands as a limited and valuable resource; reasonable use of open lands while
protecting the public health, safety and welfare from the dangers of seismic hazards and unstable
soils; the continued availability of land in agricultural production and in its natural or near natural
state; and preservation of the topography of the city that shapes and gives its identity. The proposed
project would not result in any significant environmental impacts due to this increased surface
coverage with implementation of the project design measures and mitigation measures recommended
in this EIR. The projects stormwater treatment and infiltration features would ensure the project
would meet water quality standards and not result in significant hydrology impacts. Bioretention
areas and a detention pond would also be installed to ensure that water quality requirements are met.
Although some natural vegetation would be removed, including grassland habitats and trees, these
impacts would be less than significant with recommended mitigation measures. Grading would be
minimized and site design and development would conform to the existing topography to the extent
feasible. Visual impacts would also be less than significant and new trees and vegetation would
provide visual screening. Furthermore, the design standards set forth for the Hill Areas by Measure A
would also be implemented and were considered in site design (refer to Table IV-1 for additional
discussion).
C.
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT MASTER PLAN
1.
Description
The District Master Plan (Master Plan)1 defines the vision and the mission of the District and sets
priorities for the future. The Master Plan provides policies and guidelines for achieving the highest
standards of service in resource conservation, management, interpretation, public access, and
recreation. The policies applicable to the proposed project are included in Table IV-2 at the end of
this subsection, and the projects consistency with these policies is noted there. Park types and land
use designations are further addressed below.
a.
Park Types. The Master Plan discusses the types of parks within the Districts system. Types
of parks include: regional parks, regional preserves, regional recreation areas, regional shorelines, and
regional trails. The project site is within Mission Peak Regional Preserve.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Master Plan 2013. July 16.
94

OCTOBER 2015

IV. PLANNING POLICY
A Regional Preserve is an area with outstanding natural or cultural features that are protected for their
intrinsic value as well as for the enjoyment and education of the public. The essential features of a
Regional Preserve may be open space (wilderness, scenic beauty, flora and fauna), or archaeological,
historic or geological resources. Generally, the size of a Regional Preserve is determined by the
characteristics, nature, and needs of its special features. Mission Peak is 1 of 21 Regional Preserves
that the District manages. According to Master Plan Policy PRPT3, the primary objective of a
Regional Preserve is to preserve and protect significant natural or cultural resources. A Regional
Preserve must have great natural or scientific importance (for example, it may contain rare or
endangered plant or animal species and their supporting ecosystems, significant fossils, unique
geologic features, or unusual topographic features) or be of such significant regional historic or
cultural value as to warrant preservation.
b.
Land Use Designations. The District establishes Land Use Designations, also known as unit
designations, to indicate various levels of resource protection and recreational intensity in the parks.
Park lands include both Natural Units and Recreation/Staging Units. The District identifies areas
needing special protection or management as Special Protection Features (SPF) or Special
Management Features (SMF).
(1) Natural Units. Natural, open space, or wildland areas with lower intensity recreational
uses and facilities (primarily trails) will be designated as Natural Units. Natural Units will generally
comprise the majority of park land acreage, except in Regional Recreation Areas. Park lands will be
designated as Natural Units to maintain open space.
Regional Preserves are further subdivided into four categories: Natural, Cultural, Wilderness, and
Open Space preserves. The primary objective of a Regional Preserve is to preserve and protect
significant natural or cultural resources. The size of a Natural or Cultural Preserve must be sufficient
to ensure that its significant resource(s) can be managed so as to be protected and enjoyed. The
significant resource(s) consist of botanical, wildlife, geologic, topologic, archaeological, historic, or
other features. The Recreation/Staging Unit(s) providing public access and services should comprise
no more than 5 percent of the area.
An Open Space Preserve will generally consist of at least 200 acres of undeveloped open space land
within or bordering an urban area. An Open Space Preserve may be used for agriculture or passive
recreational activities that do not require substantial facilities or improvements.
(2) Recreation/Staging Units. Areas intended to provide automobile access to parks as well
as parking facilities are designated Recreation/Staging Units. These areas are generally located at the
edges of the parks but they may be located within a park in special circumstances.
Planning and Management Guidelines for Recreation/Staging Units:
Parks and trails should have at least one area that is suitable for staging/parking purposes;
selected staging areas may include horse-trailer parking. Recreation/Staging Units are to be
located at the edge of a Natural Unit whenever possible to minimize roads within the park.
The design and landscaping of all facilities will harmonize with the surrounding natural
landscape. Facilities will be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on natural resources.
95

OCTOBER 2015
2.

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Recreation/Staging Units will be located at strategic access points along a Regional Trail.
The District will consolidate staging facilities whenever possible with other regional
parklands as well as with local parks, schools, or other facilities. The Recreation/Staging
Unit for a Regional Trail will be developed with a primary focus on facilities that are
adequate and appropriate for trail users. These may include parking areas for automobiles
and/or horse trailers, equestrian centers, sanitary facilities, drinking water, picnic areas,
shelters and trailhead signs. A Recreational/Staging Unit may also contain additional
facilities that are not primarily oriented toward trail users; including play fields, fishing
areas, or landscaped areas as long as these facilities do not conflict with the primary
purpose of the Recreation/Staging Unit or conservation of the environment.
Consistency
As discussed in Table IV-2 below, the proposed project is intended to serve and support recreational
use of the Mission Peak Preserve, which is managed as a Regional Open Space Preserve. The
proposed staging area at either site option would be located at the edge of the Preserve and near
existing developed areas. The project would directly implement Master Plan Policy PA4, which seeks
to provide alternatives to parking on neighborhood streets where feasible. Development of the new
staging area would conform to District standards and potential impacts of the proposed project related
to biological resources, geologic conditions, historic and archaeological resources, and other features
would be less than significant with, in some cases, implementation of mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. The new staging area would be located near an existing staging area and would
provide direct access to trailheads with some modifications to the existing trail network. As discussed
in Table IV-2, below, the proposed project would not directly conflict with any Master Plan policies
adopted for the purpose of reducing or avoiding physical impacts to the environment.
96

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-2:
Policy
Policy PA4
Policy PA5
Policy PA6
Policy PA7
Policy RFA1

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Relationship of Proposed Project to East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan
Policy Text
The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the
level of expected use. Where feasible, the District will provide
alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets. The
District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional
park system by public transit.
The District will cooperate with local and regional planning efforts
to create more walkable and bikeable communities, and coordinate
park access opportunities with local trails and bike paths developed
by other agencies to promote green transportation access to the
Regional Parks and Trails.
The District will comply with the requirements of the American with
Disabilities Act and use the current edition of the California State
Parks Accessibility Guidelines as its standard for making the
improvements necessary to create accessible circulation, programs
and facilities throughout the Park District.
The District will evaluate and monitor the compliance level of
access routes from public transit stops into the parks and encourage
local agencies to make the improvements necessary to provide
compliant accessibility to the parks.
The District will provide areas and facilities that serve the
recreational needs of park users, in accordance with the plans,
policies, and park classifications adopted by the Board of Directors.
The District will generally not develop or provide facilities that are
more appropriately provided by local recreational and park agencies.
Where possible and appropriate, the District will provide multipleuse facilities to serve recreational needs.

The proposed project would consist of a new staging area within the
boundaries of the existing Mission Peak Preserve. The project is
intended to provide more on-site parking to better accommodate
park visitor demand for parking at this location. The project is
expected to help reduce existing overflow parking on neighborhood
streets which experience traffic and parking congestion, litter, and
noise generated by Preserve visitors. Although not specifically a part
of the project, during and after project implementation the District
will continue its existing efforts to encourage the use of public
transit, access to the Preserve via other entry points, and use of other
challenging trails within the District service area. These efforts are
aimed at reducing traffic and parking congestion within the vicinity
of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area although these efforts alone are
not sufficient to reduce parking conflicts on neighborhood streets.
The proposed project would include bicycle parking to promote
transportation access via alternative modes to Mission Peak.
Development of the new staging area at either site option would

conform to ADA requirements, including the provision of the
appropriate number of ADA-compliant parking spaces.
During and after project implementation the District will continue its
existing efforts to encourage the use of public transit to Mission
Peak.
The proposed project would provide additional parking and restroom
facilities at the Stanford Avenue access to the Mission Peak Preserve
to better accommodate park visitor demand.
97

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-2:
Policy
Policy RFA2
Policy RFA6
Policy KEP2
Policy PRPT3
Policy PRPT4
Policy PRPT21

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy Text
The District will provide a diverse system of non-motorized trails to
accommodate a variety of recreational users including hikers,
joggers, people with dogs, bicyclists, and equestrians. Both wide and
narrow trails will be designed and designated to accommodate either
single or multiple users based on location, recreational intensity,
environmental and safety considerations. The District will focus on
appropriate trail planning and design, signage and trail user
education to promote safety and minimize conflicts between users.
The District will continue to develop group and family picnic
facilities throughout the parks system and continue to improve the
reservation system.
All District planning documents will be developed and approved in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and when appropriate, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
The primary objective of a Regional Preserve is to preserve and
protect significant natural or cultural resources. A Regional Preserve
must have great natural or scientific importance (for example, it may
contain rare or endangered plant or animal species and their
supporting ecosystems, significant fossils, unique geologic features,
or unusual topographic features or be of such significant regional
historic or cultural value as to warrant preservation).
The size of a Natural or Cultural Preserve must be sufficient to
ensure that its significant resource(s) can be managed so as to be
protected and enjoyed. The significant resource(s) will consist of
botanical, wildlife, geologic, topographic, archaeological, historic, or
other features. The recreation/Staging Unit(s) providing for public
access and services will comprise no more than five percent of the
area.
Areas of higher level recreational use and concentration of service

facilities will be designated as Recreation/Staging Units. Where
possible, these areas will be clustered and located on the edges of the
park.

include reconfigured and new trail connections. All new trails and
trail connections would conform to existing design standards,
including trail widths. Signage for new trail connections would be
placed as appropriate and visitors would be directed to nearby
trailheads from the new staging areas.

result in new picnic facilities and drinking fountains to improve and
enhance the visitor experience at Mission Peak.
Development of the proposed project and its associated
environmental impacts are the subject of this EIR. The District
would comply with the requirements of CEQA, as required.
Potential impacts of the proposed project related to biological
resources, geologic conditions, historic and archaeological resources,
and other features would be less than significant with, in some cases,
implementation of mitigation measures recommended in this EIR.
Development of the proposed project would support the objectives
of the Regional Preserve designation.
Development of the new staging area would result in either 2.78
acres (Option A) or 3.10 acres (Option B) of paved surface parking
facilities within an existing open space area within the Preserve. The
remaining areas of permanent disturbance would consist of
landscaping, trail connections, and stormwater control features
(bioretention areas and detention pond). The Preserve consists of
approximately 3,000 acres of open space. Thus, development of the
proposed project would result in less than 0.1 percent of the existing
open space area of the Preserve. In addition, potential impacts of the
proposed project related to biological resources, geologic conditions,
historic and archaeological resources, and other features would be
less than significant with, in some cases, implementation of
mitigation measures recommended in this EIR.
The proposed project would result in the development of a new
staging area within the boundaries of the existing Preserve and at the
western edge of the open space area, adjacent to developed areas.
98

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-2:

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy
Policy PRPT24
Policy Text
The District will seek to locate facilities in a manner that preserves
open space whenever possible. The District will design proposed
facilities so that their color scale, style, and materials will blend with
the natural environment. Park improvements will be designed to
avoid or minimize impacts on wildlife habitats, plant populations
and other resources.
Policy RM1
The District will maintain an active inventory of its resources and

monitor their health and viability. When access to park areas by the
public, or other factors, are negatively impacting these resources, the
District may institute periodic closures of trails or staging areas to
allow these resources and their environs to rest and recover.
The District will specifically track and monitor the effects of
Climate Change on its resources, interceding when necessary to
relocate or protect in-situ resources that are being degraded or lost
by this shift in the environment.
The District will maintain, manage, conserve, enhance and restore
park wildland resources to protect essential plant and animal habitat
within viable, sustainable ecosystems.
Policy RM2
Policy NRM1
Policy NRM2
Policy NRM3
Plant and animal pest species will be controlled by using Integrated

Pest Management (IPM) procedures and practices adopted by the
Board of Directors. The District will employ IPM practices to
minimize the impact of undesirable species on natural resources and
to reduce pest-related health and safety risks to the public within
developed facilities and/or high-use recreational areas.
The District will manage park wildlands using modern resource
management practices based on scientific principles supported by
available research. New scientific information will be incorporated
into the planning and implementation of District wildland
management programs as it becomes available. The District will
coordinate with other agencies and organization in a concerted effort
to inventory, evaluate, and manage natural resources and to maintain
and enhance biodiversity of the region.

The proposed staging area would be located within an existing open
space area but at the edge of the Preserve boundaries near existing
developed areas. The low-scale use would conform to the natural
topography to the extent feasible and would include new plantings
including native trees and other vegetation. The new staging area
would blend with existing developed uses to the west and would be
screened by new plantings. Impacts to wildlife habitat and specialstatus species would be less than significant with implementation of
recommended mitigation measures.
The proposed project is intended to better accommodate the demand
for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The
District will continue its ongoing maintenance and restoration of the
Preserve, including restoration of trails and repair of areas that have
been utilized as bootleg trails.
The District will continue its ongoing maintenance, including the
protection of sites affected by climate change.
The proposed project would result in the development of existing

grassland areas within the existing Preserve and would directly
affect plant and animal communities through the removal of existing
habitat. The remaining open space area within Mission Peak would
continue to be preserved. Refer to Section V.C, Biological
Resources for a discussion of impacts. As discussed, impacts related
to plant and animal habitat would be less than significant with
The project is not inconsistent with this policy. The District will
continue to employ IMP procedures consistent with current District
practices and policies during and after project completion.
The project is not inconsistent with this policy. The District will
continue to manage the Preserve consistent with current District
practices and policies during and after project completion.
99

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-2:
Policy
Policy NRM4
Policy NRM5
Policy NRM6
Policy NRM7
Policy NRM8

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy Text
The District will identify, evaluate, conserve, enhance and restore
rare, threatened, endangered or locally important species of plants
and animals and their habitats, using scientific research, field
experience and other proven methodologies. Populations of listed
species will be monitored through periodic observations of their
condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and distribution. Conservation
of rare, threatened and endangered species of plants and animals and
their supporting habitats will take precedence over other activities, if
the District determines that the other uses and activities would have
a significant adverse effect on these natural resources.
The District will maintain and manage vegetation to conserve,
enhance and restore natural plant communities, to preserve and
protect populations of rare, threatened, endangered, and sensitive
plant species and their habitats, and, where possible, to protect
biodiversity and to achieve a high representation of native plants and
animals.
The District will evaluate exotic eucalyptus, Monterey pine and
cypress plantations, shrubland or woodland areas occurring along the
wildland/urban interface on a case-by-case basis for thinning,
removal and/or conversion to a less fire-prone condition, following
the methods laid out in the Fuels Management Plan. The District will
minimize the widespread encroachment of exotic and/or invasive
species such as coyote brush, poison oak, and broom, etc. on
parkland and work to preserve native plants where feasible.
The District will manage agricultural sites and cultivated areas in
accordance with appropriate agricultural or landscaping practices
and IPM methods to control noxious weed infestation, broom and
other invasive, non-native shrubs and to eventually replace these
invasive plants with desirable native species.
The District will conserve, enhance and restore biological resources
to promote naturally functioning ecosystems. Conservation efforts
may involve using managed conservation grazing in accordance with
the Districts Wildlife Management Policies and Guidelines,
prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, IPM, and/or habitat
protection and restoration. Restoration activities may involve the
removal of invasive plants and animals, or the reintroduction of
native or naturalized species, adapted to or representative of a given
site.

Refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources for a discussion of
impacts to special-status species that would be affected by the
proposed project. As discussed, impacts to plant and wildlife habitats
would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8.
The project is designed to conserve the overall character of the

Mission Peak Preserve and minimize impacts to environmentally
sensitive areas. Impacts related to plant and animal habitat would be
less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 through BIO-8.
The District would manage new landscaping, including trees, within
the Preserve according to current District practices and policies.
New trees located at the perimeter of the new staging area at either
site option would be located a sufficient distance away from nearby
residences to provide a fire break.
The District and its contractors will continue to manage the grazing
areas within the Preserve consistent with current District practices
and policies related to invasive plant species during and after project
completion.
100

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-2:
Policy
Policy NRM9
Policy NRM10
Policy NRM 11
Policy NRM 11b
Policy NRM12
Policy NRM 13

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy Text
The District will conserve and protect native animal species and
enhance their habitats to maintain viable wildlife populations within
balanced ecosystems. Non-native and feral animals will be managed
to minimize conflicts with native wildlife species. The District will
cooperate on a regular basis with other public and private land
managers, and recognized wildlife management experts to address
wildlife management issues on a regional scale.
The District will conserve, enhance and restore native fish and
amphibian populations and their habitats; will develop aquatic
facilities, where appropriate, to create a wide variety of fisheries;
will monitor fisheries resources to determine species composition,
size, population and growth rates; and will cooperate with the
CDFW to conserve, enhance and manage its fisheries resources for
ecological and recreational benefits.
Park water resources will be used for beneficial purposes. Water
quality will be monitored to comply with established standards. The
District will participate in cooperative effort to plan comprehensive
watershed management and will adopt best management practice
guidelines for District land use activities to minimize potential storm
water pollution. The District will monitor land use planning and
development activities by other agencies and cities to avoid potential
adverse impacts to parkland from pollutants generated by off-site or
upstream sources.
The District will pursue conservation and control technologies for
the use of potable and irrigation water. The District will seek to
reduce the use of imported water for uses other than human
consumption through conservation and by developing other sources
of water for irrigation and non-potable needs.
The District will manage riparian and other wetland environments
and their buffer zones to preserve and enhance the natural and
beneficial values of these important resources and to prevent the
destruction, loss, or degradation of habitat. The District will
participate in the preservation, restoration, and management of
riparian and wetland areas of regional significance, and will not
initiate any action that could result in a net decrease in park
wetlands. The District will encourage public access to the Bay/Delta
shoreline, but will control access to riparian and wetlands areas,
when necessary, to protection natural resources.
The District will protect important geological and paleontological
features from vandalism and misuse.

As discussed in Section V.C, Biological Resources, through

implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, the
District will cooperate with the California Fish and Wildlife Service,
as appropriate.
As discussed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality,

development of a new staging area at either site option would
comply with established standards and would ensure that potential
impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
The project would include a new connection to the existing main

water line in order to provide an adequate water supply for potable,
irrigation, and safety uses.
The proposed project would result in the development of a staging

area on an existing grassland area within the existing Preserve and
would directly affect wildlife and plant communities through
removal of existing habitat. The remaining open space areas within
Mission Peak would continue to be preserved. Refer to section V.C,
Biological Resources for a discussion of impacts to riparian and
other wetland environments that would be affected by the proposed
project. As discussed impacts to habitats would be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1
through BIO-8.
The District will continue to protect important geologic and
paleontological features within the Preserve consistent with current
District practices and policies during and after project completion.
101

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-2:
Policy
Policy CRM 1
Policy CRM 2
Policy CRM 3
Policy CRM 4
Policy CRM 5
Policy CRM 6

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy Text
The District will manage, conserve and work to restore parkland
cultural and historic resources and sites, to preserve the heritage of
the people who occupied this land before the District was established
and to encourage the cultural traditions associated with the land
today.
The District may acquire cultural and historic resource sites when
they are within lands that meet parkland acquisition criteria and will
maintain an active archive of its institutional history and the history
of its parklands and trails.
The District will maintain a current map and written inventory of all
cultural features and sites found on park land and will preserve and
protect these cultural features and sites in situ in accordance with
Board of Directors (Board) policy. The District will evaluate
significant cultural and historic sites to determine if they should be
nominated for California Historical Landmark status or for the
National Register of Historic Places.
The District will determine the level of public access to cultural and
historic resource using procedures and practices adopted by the
Board. The District will employ generally accepted best
management practices to minimize the impact of public use and
access on these resources, and to appropriately interpret the
significance of these resources on a regional scale.
The District will notify Native Americans and other culturally
associated peoples in a timely manner of plans which may affect
sites and landscapes significant to their culture and will include them
in discussions regarding the preservation and land use planning of
culturally significant sites and landscapes.
The District will strive to accommodate requests by Native
Americans, ranching or farming communities and other groups to
help maintain and use cultural sites and to play an active role in their
preservation and interpretation.

Known historic and archaeological resources are present within both
the Option A and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that these resources
are protected and that Native American representatives continue to
be consulted as appropriate.
Known historic and archaeological resources are present adjacent to
or within both the Option A and Option B sites. The location of
these resources would be documented by the District.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3
would ensure that these resources are protected.
these resources would be documented by the District.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3
would ensure that these resources are protected.

these resources would be documented by the District; however, due
to the sensitivity of the resources, the specific locations will not be
made available to the public.
American organizations as part of the EIR process. Known historic
and archaeological resources are present adjacent to or within both
Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that Native
American representatives continue to be consulted as appropriate.
American organizations as part of the EIR process (refer to Section
V.D, Cultural Resources for additional discussion. Known historic
and archaeological resources are present adjacent to or within both
Measures CUL-1a through CUL-3 would ensure that Native
American representatives continue to be consulted as appropriate.
102

OCTOBER 2015
Table IV-2:
Policy
Policy HR2
Policy FR1b

IV. PLANNING POLICY
Policy Text
The District will maintain a highly motivated and trained workforce
to manage, supervise, coordinate, and work on the Districts
activities; including park operations, maintenance, public safety,
environmental education, recreation, resource management, land
acquisition, development program services, and administration. The
District will also preserve and expand project opportunities for
interns that are both academic and operational in focus.
The District will not open new parkland for public use unless it has
adequate resources for planning and meeting the operational needs
for public safety, fire protection, resource stewardship, interpretation
and recreation services.

The District will continue to manage the Preserve consistent with
current District practices and policies during and after project
completion. Development of either site option would be performed
by District workers and/or designated District contractors.
The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be closed to the

public during the 6-month construction period. Once completed, the
new staging area would comply with all operational and safety
requirements and would be open to the public during designated
operating hours.
Source: East Bay Regional Park District, 2013 and LSA Associates, Inc., 2015.
103

OCTOBER 2015

IV. PLANNING POLICY
104
V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This chapter contains an analysis of potentially significant impacts in each of the topical areas
included in this EIR. Sections A through Q of this chapter describe the environmental setting of the
project as it relates to each specific environmental issues evaluated in the EIR and the impacts resulting from implementation of either project option. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts are
recommended where appropriate.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change
in the environment.1 The CEQA Guidelines direct that this determination be based on scientific and
factual data. Each impact evaluation in this chapter is prefaced by criteria of significance, which are
the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. These criteria of significance are
based on the CEQA Guidelines and applicable District policies. In determining whether a projects
impacts are significant, an EIR ordinarily compares those impacts with existing environmental
conditions which are referred as the baseline for the impact analysis. This EIR compares the project
impacts with environmental conditions in existence at the time this EIR was being prepared.
ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EIR

The following environmental issues are addressed in this chapter:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
Land Use
Visual Resources
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Geology and Soils
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Public Services
CEQA Guidelines, 2015. Section 21068.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5-SIMM.docx (10/14/15)
105

OCTOBER 2015

FORMAT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC SECTIONS

Each environmental topic considered in this chapter comprises two primary sections: (1) Setting and
(2) Impacts and Mitigation Measures. An overview of the general organization and the information
provided in the two sections is provided below:
Setting. The Setting section for each environmental topic generally provides a description
of the applicable physical setting for both project options and their surroundings at the
beginning of the environmental review process (e.g., existing land uses, existing soil
conditions, existing traffic conditions). An overview of regulatory considerations that are
applicable to each specific environmental topic is also provided.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The impacts and mitigation measures section for each
environmental topic presents a discussion of the impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project options. The impacts of expanding the existing Stanford
Avenue Staging Area to either the Option A or Option B sites are evaluated separately in
each section in order to address potentially different effects associated with the proposed
development program for each option. The section begins with the criteria of significance,
which are the thresholds used to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part
of this section presents the impacts from the proposed project options and mitigation
measures, if required. The impacts of the proposed project options are organized into
separate categories based on the criteria listed in each topical section. Cumulative impacts
are also addressed.
Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, are specified for either Option A or Option B, and the
corresponding mitigation measures are numbered and indented. Impacts and mitigation measures are
numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated
reference to the impact section (e.g., VIS). The following symbols are used for individual topics:
LU:
VIS:
BIO:
CUL:
AG:
MIN:
GEO:
HYD:
HAZ:
TRA:
AIR:
GHG:
NOI:
POP:
REC:
PUB:
UTL:
Land Use
Visual Resources
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Geology and Soils
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Public Services
106

OCTOBER 2015

Impacts are also categorized by type of impact, as follows: Less Than Significant, Significant, and
Significant and Unavoidable. The following notations are provided after each identified significant
impact and after identification of mitigation measures:
LTS:
S:
SU:
Less Than Significant

Significant
Significant and Unavoidable
CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS CONTEXT

CEQA defines cumulative as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable, or which can compound to increase other environmental impacts. Section 15130 of the
CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts when the projects
incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. These
impacts can result from a combination of the proposed project together with other projects causing
related impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present,
and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects.
The methodology used for assessing cumulative impacts typically varies depending on the specific
topic being analyzed. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be discussed using either a list of past,
present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or a summary of
projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or Statewide plan, or related planning document,
that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. This EIR uses both
approaches to evaluate cumulative impacts, and the particular approach used depends on the topical
area under consideration.
Generally, the City of Fremonts Development Activity List2 was used to determine past, present,
existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the proposed
project to evaluate cumulative impacts. Projects from the Citys Development Activity List that
pertain to the proposed project area are summarized in Table V.1, below. One project that is not
included in this list is the Ohlone College South Parking Structure, which will include approximately
900 new public for-fee parking spaces on the Ohlone College campus. This project is currently under
construction and is expected to be operational in the fall of 2015. However, for the purposes of the
analysis in this EIR, this project is considered to be part of future cumulative conditions since it was
not operational at the time that this EIR was prepared.
In addition, in some instances, the EIR uses the plan approach to evaluate cumulative impacts. For
example, the transportation analysis (and transportation-related noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas
emissions) uses the City of Fremont travel demand model. These plans also incorporate extensive
local information regarding the locations for expected growth and change within the City, including
Fremont, City of, 2015. Community Development Department, Development Activity WebTable. May 4.
107

OCTOBER 2015

past, present, existing, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the area that
surrounds the project site.
CEQA also specifies that lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the
cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. The
cumulative geographic context for most project impacts generally extends for a 2-mile radius around
the preserve. However, the geographic scope for each topical area may be different depending upon
the nature of the environmental impact being evaluated. For example, the geographic and temporal
(time-related) parameters related to a cumulative analysis of air quality impacts are not necessarily
the same as those for a cumulative analysis of noise impacts because the geographic area that relates
to air quality is much larger and regional in character than the geographic area that could be affected
by potential noise impacts from a proposed project and other cumulative projects/growth. The
cumulative noise impacts are more localized than air quality and transportation impacts, which are
more regional in nature. Accordingly, the parameters of the respective cumulative analyses in this
document are determined by the degree to which impacts from this project are likely to occur in
combination with other development projects.
CEQA recognizes that the existing conditions might change during the course of environmental
review analysis and preparation of the EIR. The major projects listed in Table V.1 are not inclusive of
all possible past projects. Projects no longer included on the list are part of the baseline assumptions
for analysis in the EIR.
Table V.1:
Cumulative Projects
Citys Cumulative Project List Number/Project Name

-Ohlone College South Parking Structure
43600 Mission Boulevard
21
Durham Market Place
Northwest corner of Durham Road and Sabercat
Road (1.87 acres)
PLN2013-00201
42
Mission Palms
PLN2014-00323
51
Osgood Retail Center
44009 Osgood Drive
PLN2014-00301
62
Sabercat Neighborhood Center
2501 Cormack Road (12.2 acres)
PLN2006-00153
64
Silicon Valley Development
43342 Bryant Street
PLN2015-00116
73
Treviso
PLN2014-00037
81
Warm Springs Station
44960 Warm Springs Boulevard
PLN2015-00174
Description
900 vehicle parking spaces
7,000 square feet of commercial space
158 multi-family residential units

3 residential units
16 residential units
1,000 multi-family residential units

Source: City of Fremont, May 2015.
108

OCTOBER 2015
A.

A. LAND USE
LAND USE
This section describes existing land uses within Mission Peak and on the Option A and B sites as well
as the surrounding area, and identifies potential land use impacts. The projects consistency with land
use policies adopted for the purpose of reducing physical environmental effects is discussed in
Chapter IV, Planning Policy.
1.
Setting
The project site is located within the Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve) on
land owned by the City of Fremont (City) and managed by the East Bay Regional Park District
(District). Access to Mission Peak is primarily provided via the existing Stanford Avenue Staging
Area, located immediately west and south of the project area, and parking areas within Ohlone
College, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project area. The following describes the
land uses within Mission Peak, the two staging areas that serve the Preserve, and the two project
option sites (referred to either as the Option A site or the Option B site). An overview of
surrounding land uses is also provided.
Land uses on and adjacent to the project sites are shown in Figure V.A-1 and are described in detail
below. Figures V.A-2a through V.A-2c depict the existing conditions at the existing Stanford Avenue
Staging Area (Photo 1), at various locations within Mission Peak (Photos 2 through 4), and at both
potential project sites (Photos 5 and 6); photo locations are shown in Figure V.A-1.
a.
Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Mission Peak consists of over 3,000 acres of open space
consisting mostly of open grasslands and oak woodlands. The topography is varied and the ascent to
the summit of Mission Peak is approximately 2,200 feet above the existing Stanford Avenue Staging
Area. Mission Peak includes a few springs and creeks, including Agua Caliente Creek (Photo 4). The
District contracts with a private contractor for cattle grazing operations, and grazing facilities such as
fences, gates, and feeding structures are located throughout the grassland areas within Mission Peak.
Mission Peak is a popular recreation and open space area and hosts thousands of visitors on the
weekends. The peak is served by three multi-use (hiking, biking and equestrian) trails from the
western face, including the Peak Trail and the Panorama Trail, which starts from Ohlone College and
heads southward towards the summit, and the more popular Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness (Photo
2) and Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails (Photo 3), all of which begin their ascent from the
Stanford Avenue staging area. Trails leading to the peak offer panoramic views of the Bay Area.
There are also a number of other formal and informal (i.e., bootleg) trails located throughout the park
as well as regional trails (i.e., Ohlone Wilderness Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail) that lead to other open
space areas. Backpack camping is available at the Eagle Springs Backpack Camp and is by
reservation only. Mission Peak is also a popular location for hang gliding and paragliding and for
launching remote-controlled aircraft. The Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club operates a hang
gliding operation under agreement with the District. The South Bay Soaring Society (SBSS) has a
launch site on Radio Control (R/C) Hill, which is also subject to agreement with the District. These
sites are shown on Figure V.A-1.
As previously discussed, Mission Peak is accessed via two existing staging areas: the existing
Stanford Avenue Staging Area and parking areas within Ohlone College. Existing conditions at these
locations are discussed below. Mission Peak is also accessible from Mill Creek Road (walk-in only,
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5a-LandUse.docx (10/14/15)
109

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
no parking), which forms the Preserves northern border, Sunol Regional Wilderness via the Ohlone
Wilderness Trail to the east, and from trails that originate from within Ed Levin County Park in
Milpitas to the south.
(1) Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (Photo 1)
serves as the primary access to the various trails located throughout Mission Peak. Direct access to
the Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails are provided from this
location. The staging area provides 43 paved parking spaces. Parking at the staging area is generally
very limited and overnight parking is not allowed. The gated entrance to Mission Peak from the
staging area limits vehicular access to District maintenance and cattle operations vehicles only. One
vault toilet restroom, three portable restrooms, one picnic table, and drinking water facilities are
located at the staging area. Although parking is limited, the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area
entrance to Mission Peak is popular with park visitors, offering direct ascent from the trailhead to the
summit, a challenging hike, and panoramic views along the way.
The Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the
lands leased from the City are open at
6:30 a.m. daily (as of September 29, 2014).
Closing time changes throughout the year in
correlation with sunset and daylight savings
time. The hours of operation for this area of
Mission Peak are shown below in Table
V.A-1. Violators are subject to citation
and/or arrest per the Districts Ordinance 38.
Table V.A-1: Stanford Avenue Staging Area

and Environs Hours of Operation (2014-2015)
Date Range
November 1 February 1
February 2 March 7
March 8 March 29
March 30 August 30
August 31 September 28
September 29 October 31
Open (a.m.)
6:30
6:30
6:30
6:30
6:30
6:30
Close (p.m.)
6:00
6:30
8:30
9:00
8:00
7:30
Source: East Bay Regional Park District, February 2015.
The hours shown in Table V.A-1 apply to lands leased from the City only (see Figure I-1 in Chapter I,
Introduction which delineates the land ownership boundaries within Mission Peak). Early morning
and late evening park access is available at all other access points, including from trailheads that
begin at Ohlone College.
(2) Ohlone College Parking Area. Visitors to Mission Peak may park their vehicles in
public parking spaces within the Ohlone College parking areas to access Mission Peak from the north.
Ohlone College is located at 43600 Mission Boulevard in Fremont. Parking Lot G is generally
accessed via Pine Street and Witherly Lane off of Mission Boulevard and provides access to the Peak
and Panorama trails within Mission Peak. The College recently constructed a 900-space South
Parking Lot structure and visitors to Mission Peak are able to utilize the public spaces in this location
as well.1 Ohlone College parking is available daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As of August 15,
2015, the College charges a $4 parking fee Monday through Saturday when school is in session.
Parking at this location is free on holidays, after 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays when
school is not in session. Parking lot vending machines accept cash and credit cards. Parking is usually
available at the College lot, even on busy weekends.
1
110
e
ircl
Vin e h i l l C
Unnamed Creek
ap
a
ar d
Ave
OPTION B
He a
ve n
ce
rra
Te
Meadow Trail
e
rs
Ho
ve
el A
Corral
Warm
Springs
MISSION
PEAK
REGIONAL
PRESERVE
T r a il
SBSS
Launch Site
R a in
Ct
dan c
e
ne
ha
e Rd
Senti
ne l P l
Sag u
Low Density
Residential
gu
are
r un ne
Pa
se
Pa
R oad
dr
nt i
wy
Se
Pk
ne
Sundance D
r
ar e
Sa
Co
r Rd
Unnamed Creek
Ct
l Dr
nf
Ave
ord
e n Va
y
ll e
ak
Pe
Low Density
Residential
(Gated
Community)
Existing
Stanford Avenue
Staging Area
dd
Hi
Sta
Ct
ce
ra
er
ll T
y
Vine
ib
We
St
Agua Caliente Creek
d Ave
for
an
ey
Hi d
hill C t
Vine
Low Density
Residential
a ll
de
n
eh i
Vin
Low Density
Residential
(Gated
Community)
A n t e l op e D r
Unnamed Creek
OPTION A
Tr
ail
Wings of
Rogallo
Landing Area
FIGURE V.A-1
Option A
0
250
500
feet
Option B
Area covered by both Option A
and Option B
SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 8/29/12; LSA ASSOCIATES, 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VA1.ai (9/10/15)

6
Viewpoint Locations

Aerial Photograph of the Project Area,
Surrounding Land Uses and Photo Location Map
Photo 1: Existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area
Photo 2: Mission Peak Regional Preserve -- Hidden Valley Trail
F IG U R E V. A-2 a
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2013.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Figs_VA2a-VA2c.indd (5/15/15)

Existing Land Use Photos
Photo 3: Mission Peak Regional Preserve -- Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail
Photo 4: Agua Caliente Creek
F IG U R E V. A-2 b


Photo 5: Option A Site and surrounding area looking eastward
Photo 6: Option B Site and surrounding area looking eastward
F IG U R E V. A-2 c



OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
b.
Project Sites. Both of the project site options are located near the existing Stanford Avenue
Staging Area entrance to Mission Peak. Existing land use conditions at the two project sites are
discussed below.
(1) Option A Site. The Option A site encompasses a total of 11.71 acres, which consists of
9.64 acres of permanent disturbance, including 2.78 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces,
and 2.07 acres of temporarily disturbed areas. The Option A site (Photo 5) is located approximately
250 feet north of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area near existing suburban development, just
north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail, in a grassland area with bowl-like topography. The site
generally lies between 0 and 12 feet below the surrounding area. No structures or trees exist on the
site. The site is open and may be accessed by grazing cattle and the public, although no trails traverse
the site of the Option A staging area. The Option A site includes a segment of the Hidden Valley
Trail, which is located immediately south of the Option A staging area site. The approximately 15foot-wide gravel trail provides access to the summit of Mission Peak and the Ohlone Wilderness
Trail. A small culverted segment of a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek is located near the Hidden
Valley Trail and is also part of the Option A site, as shown in Figure V.A-1.
(2) Option B Site. The Option B site encompasses a total of 16.76 acres, which consists of
10.45 acres of permanent disturbance, including 3.10 acres of which would consist of paved surfaces
or bridge structures, and 6.31 acres of temporarily disturbed areas. The Option B site (Photo 6) is
located approximately 875 feet southeast of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area near existing suburban
development and west of the Peak Meadow Trail in a grassland area. Grazing infrastructure at
Mission Peak is currently concentrated primarily within the Option B site. This site is currently used
by the Districts grazing contractor as a corral. The corral is used for holding cows for immunizations,
weaning, and transportation of cows to other grazing sites a few times per year. A small solarpowered pump, which provides water for the cattle operations, is located on the site. The majority of
the Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public.
Access to the Option B site currently includes crossing Agua Caliente Creek. Vehicular access is
currently provided for District employees, emergency vehicles, and the Districts grazing contractor
by an existing roadway which crosses over the culverted creek as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse
Heaven trails. Several trees are located on the Option B site, particularly within the creek areas.
c.
Surrounding Land Uses. Land uses that surround Mission Peak and the two project site
options primarily consist of single-family residential uses within the City (to the west) and open space
lands within the hillside areas of Fremont and Alameda County. Both project sites are below the Toe
of the Hill as defined by the City of Fremont General Plan (see Chapter IV, Planning Policy, for
additional discussion). The uses in close proximity to the project sites are summarized below. As
previously discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, visitors to the Preserve currently park in the
surrounding neighborhoods west of Vineyard Avenue, and these areas are often congested with traffic
and visitors to Mission Peak, particularly on weekends.2 Refer to Figure V.A-1 for an aerial
photograph of the project site and its immediate surroundings.
Most of the residential areas that immediately border Mission Peak to the west are gated, and no public parking is
available in these neighborhoods. These streets include: Vinehill Court, Vinehill Terrace, Napa Court, Vinehill Circle,
Rutherford Terrace, Grapevine Terrace and Hidden Valley Terrace. Residential areas located along Saguare Court, Saguare
115

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
(1) Option A Site. Land uses within the immediate vicinity of the Option A site include the
following:
North: Immediately north of the Option A site is an unnamed drainage channel and
grassland areas within Mission Peak. Approximately 500 feet north of the site are the
Preserve boundaries, which are fenced. Vineyard Heights, which consists of a gated lowdensity single-family residential development, directly abuts the Preserves boundaries to
the northwest. Lots within this neighborhood may range between 5,000 and 20,000 square
feet in size and homes that immediately border the site boundaries to the north are
concentrated along Rutherford Terrace and Grapevine Terrace. Roadways within this
development are not accessible to the public. Lands within Mission Peak continue further
to the northeast of the site and the residential development. The Ohlone College campus is
located beyond the Preserves boundaries approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the
Option A site.
East: Grassland and hillside areas within Mission Peak continue east of the project site.
The Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club landing zone for paragliding and hang gliding
activities is located immediately east of and uphill from the site. Beyond the boundaries of
Mission Peak are other open space areas (i.e., Sunol Regional Wilderness and the Fremont
Hills) within the City and unincorporated areas of Alameda County.
South: Low-density single-family residential development along the gated Hidden Valley
Terrace are located south of the Option A project area and immediately outside of the
Preserve boundaries. The Agua Caliente Creek drainage continues south of the site into the
residential area. Open space is generally located further to the south of the neighborhood.
West: Low-density, single-family residential uses within the gated community of Vineyard
Heights are located immediately west of the Option A site. Homes that immediately border
the site boundaries to the west are concentrated along Napa Court and Vinehill Circle.
Further west, and beginning at Vineyard Avenue approximately 1,000 feet from the Option
A site, are smaller lot (generally 6,000 to 8,000-foot) single-family residential subdivisions
with public roadways.
(2) Option B Site. Land uses within the immediate vicinity of the Option B site include the
following:
North: Immediately north of the Option B staging area site is Agua Caliente Creek.
Segments of this creek are also within the project area boundaries. The creek is characterized by dense trees and other vegetation and is culverted in one location near the site to
allow vehicular access from the existing staging area to the corral area and to provide
access to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails. Grassland areas within Mission Peak
continue north of the Option B site. The Hidden Valley Trail is located to the north and
provides access to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails (east of the site). Lowdensity residential development, including the Vineyard Heights gated community, and
Commons, and Saguare Terrace are public roadways, but do not provide parking within easy walking distance of the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area entrance because these roads do not provide direct access to Stanford Avenue.
116

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
Ohlone College are located further north beyond the Preserve boundaries. These uses are
located approximately 0.3 and approximately 1.5 miles north of the site, respectively.
2.
East: Grassland and hillside areas within Mission Peak continue east of the project site.
The approximately 12-foot wide dirt Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail provides access
to the summit of Mission Peak and generally borders the Option B site to the east. The
South Bay Soaring Club (SBSC) has a launch site on R/C Hill, east of and near the Option
B site. Beyond the boundaries of Mission Peak are other open space areas (i.e., Sunol
Regional Wilderness and the Fremont Hills) within the City and unincorporated areas of
Alameda and Santa Clara counties.
South. Immediately south of the Option B site are additional corral facilities used by the
cattle grazing contractor. Further to the south is an unnamed drainage channel. Grassland
areas within Mission Peak are located further south.
West: Low-density, single-family residential uses within gated areas are located west of the
site and are concentrated along Hidden Valley Terrace and Saguare Terrace (which is a
public roadway). Lots in these areas range from 5,000 to 20,000 square feet in size. Further
west are residential neighborhoods with public roadways.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to land use that could result from
implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which
establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section
presents the land use impacts that would result from development of a staging area at either of the
Option A or Option B sites. Please refer to Chapter IV, Planning Policy, for a complete discussion of
applicable land use-related policies and analysis of the projects consistency with these policies.
a.
Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to land
use if it would:
Physically divide an established community;
Result in a conflict between nearby and adjacent uses;
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, zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect, where the project will result in a significant environmental impact
as a result of the conflict; or
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts related to land
use. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by
impacts associated with Option B.
117

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
(1) Divide an Established Community. The physical division of an established community

typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, interstate highway, or railroad
tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility
within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the
construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one
side of the community to another; similarly, such construction could also impair travel to areas
outside of the community. Potential impacts associated with the division of an established community
are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result the division of
an established community and this impact would be less than significant.
Option A. Informal public access to the Option A development area is currently available
although no designated trails traverse the site. The nearest trail is the Hidden Valley Trail,
immediately south of the Option A site.
Development of Option A would include a maximum of 300 new parking spaces, restroom facilities,
kiosk, and a picnic area. Development of Option A would also include construction of a new
vehicular access road (approximately 630 linear feet) to connect the existing staging area and the new
staging area and a new 12-foot-wide trail connection from the new staging area to the existing Hidden
Valley Trail alignment. With the exception of this new connection, no modifications to existing trails
would occur except the culvert repair along a section of trail over Agua Caliente Creek. Hiker access
to Mission Peak would continue to be provided via the existing Stanford Avenue entrance and
trailheads via a new access gate. Vehicular access would be limited to providing access to and from
the new staging area. Existing roads/trails within the Preserve would continue to be accessed by
District staff, emergency personnel, and the cattle grazing contractor only. Park operating hours
would continue to be enforced for all public access at this entrance to the Preserve.
Development of the Option A site would not create a physical barrier to travel around the project site
or within Mission Peak, but would instead accommodate visitors to access Mission Peak from
Stanford Avenue (by the increased availability of parking). A new staging area with visitor amenities
(including additional restrooms and picnic areas) would enhance the overall visitor experience at
Mission Peak. The provision of additional parking for Mission Peak visitors would also reduce
vehicle and pedestrian congestion on the neighborhood streets west of Vineyard Avenue and improve
access and mobility for neighborhood residents. As such, the proposed project would not divide the
physical arrangement of an established community and would instead improve access and
connectivity within the area; therefore, this potential impact is less than significant for Option A.
Option B. The Option B site is currently fenced and is used as a cattle corral. Public access to
the grassland areas of the site is currently not available. Access to the Option B site is currently via an
existing roadway which crosses over a culverted portion of Agua Caliente Creek as part of the Peak
Meadow and Horse Heaven trails, which continue east of the site. Vehicular access is currently
provided on this roadway only for District employees, emergency vehicles, and the Districts grazing
contractor.
Development of Option B would include a maximum of 300 new parking spaces, restroom facilities,
and a picnic area. Development of Option B would also include construction of a new vehicular
access road (approximately 990 linear feet). The new roadway would connect the existing staging
area to the new staging area and would begin along the existing Hidden Valley Trail alignment, near
118

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
the existing staging area restroom. The vehicular access roadway would then divert from the existing
trail south along a portion of the Peak Meadow Trail and then begin a new alignment, crossing over
Agua Caliente Creek with a new 120-foot-long vehicular clear-span bridge before entering the new
staging area.
A new section of sidewalk, approximately 5 feet in width and 130 feet in length, would continue from
the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area along the new roadway to connect with the section of the
Peak Meadow Trail that would be relocated to accommodate the new vehicular roadway. The
relocated section of the Peak Meadow Trail would begin on the existing Hidden Valley Trail, then
drop down the slope to roughly parallel the new vehicular access roadway. The relocated section of
the Peak Meadow Trail would be approximately 12 feet wide and 1,255 feet in length (see Figure III3a).
Two new trail connections would also be developed east of the Option B staging area to provide
access to the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails. The new connection to the
Hidden Valley Trail would extend to the north and cross over Agua Caliente Creek via a new 80-foot
long non-vehicular pedestrian bridge, of approximately 8 feet in width. This new trail connection
would also include new compacted gravel trail sections approximately 12 feet wide and a total of 300
linear feet. The connection to the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails would extend to the east
approximately 190 feet before meeting the existing trail. Two sections of the existing Peak Meadow
Trail alignment would be abandoned and restored due to the realigned trail segments, including 560
linear feet north of the Option B site and 630 linear feet east of the Option B site.
With development of Option B, hiker access to Mission Peak would continue to be provided via the
existing Stanford Avenue entrance and trailheads via a new visitor kiosk and access gate. Vehicular
access would be limited and access would only be provided to the new staging area. Existing and
modified roads/trails within the Preserve would continue to only be accessed by District staff,
emergency personnel, and the cattle grazing contractor. Park operating hours would continue to be
enforced for all public access at this entrance to the Preserve.
In addition, the existing corral at the Option B site would be relocated to the southeast to provide the
area required for the Option B staging area. The corral structures and fencing within the Option B site
would be removed. Existing fencing and corral areas to the southeast of the site would remain and
new fencing would be installed south of the Peak Meadow Trail. The new corral and livestock area
would be approximately 5.5 acres in size. Cattle grazing operations and access would not be
substantially affected by development of the Option B site.
Development of the Option B site would not create a physical barrier to travel around the project site
or within Mission Peak, but would instead provide additional opportunities for visitors to access
Mission Peak from Stanford Avenue (via the increased availability of parking). Existing trails would
be realigned to form new connections to access the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven
trails. A new staging area with visitor amenities (such as restrooms and picnic areas) would enhance
the overall visitor experience at Mission Peak. The provision of additional parking for Mission Peak
visitors would also reduce vehicle and pedestrian congestion on the neighborhood streets west of
Vineyard Avenue and improve access and mobility for neighborhood residents. As such, the proposed
project would not divide the physical arrangement of an established community and would instead
119

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
improve access and connectivity within the area; therefore, this potential impact is less than
significant for Option B.
(2) Land Use Compatibility. The potential for development of a new staging area at either
site option to result in conflicts with nearby land uses is discussed below. As discussed, this impact
would be less than significant. Associated physical impacts that may result from land use
compatibility issues are discussed in more detail throughout this EIR under specific topical sections
(e.g., noise, biological resources).
Option A. Development of Option A would result in the location of a new staging area within
an existing grassland area of Mission Peak as well as new roadway and utility connections to serve
the new staging area and to provide access to the open space areas and trailheads within the Preserve
from Stanford Avenue. The introduction of a paved parking lot and associated improvements into an
undeveloped area would result in physical changes to the existing site. However, the new staging area
is intended to and would support the existing and continued use of the Preserve as a recreational open
space area and would not conflict with existing uses within the Preserve, including trails accessed by
hikers and bicyclists, the landing area used by the Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club, and
continued cattle grazing operations. Staging areas are typically located within or nearby most District
facilities and provide a means for visitor access to these areas, the primary purpose of which is to
provide open space and recreational opportunities for the regional visitors served by the District.
In addition, the location of a new staging area within the Option A site would not result in a
significant land use conflict with nearby residential uses, and is expected to reduce existing conflicts
with nearby uses related to visitor parking on neighborhood streets. As discussed in Section V.B,
Visual Resources, the District would plant trees and vegetation to screen views of the new staging
area. Fencing, topography, and new trees and other plantings also would buffer residential uses from
visual intrusion, light, glare, noise and other effects of parking lot operations. Furthermore, the
existing Stanford Avenue staging area is located near residential areas and, due to the existing
condition of Preserve visitors parking on residential streets, nearby residents (i.e., those not within
private gated communities) are substantially affected by noise, traffic, and other issues related to
overflow parking. Nearby residents also currently experience traffic and pedestrian congestion, noise,
litter, and light from headlights and flashlights on residential streets. The expansion of the staging
area facilities near Stanford Avenue and development of a maximum of 300 new parking spaces
dedicated to visitors of the Preserve would reduce the occurrence of these existing land use conflicts
and represent an improvement compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project
would generally be compatible with existing land uses on and within the vicinity of the Option A site
and would have a less-than-significant impact in terms of land use compatibility.
Option B. Development of Option B would result in the location of a new staging area within
an existing grassland area of Mission Peak as well as a new roadway, bridge and utility connections
to serve the new staging area and to provide access to the open space areas and trailheads within the
Preserve from Stanford Avenue. The introduction of a paved parking lot and associated improvements into an undeveloped area would result in physical changes to the existing site. However, the
new staging area is intended to and would support the existing and continued use of the Preserve as a
recreational open space area and would not conflict with existing uses within the Preserve, including
trails accessed by hikers and bicyclists, the radio-controlled glider area used by the SBSS, and
continued cattle grazing operations. Relocation of the corral facilities would also not affect existing
120

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
cattle operations as these operations would be moved to just south of the site. Staging areas are
typically located within or nearby most District facilities and provide a means for visitor access to
these areas, the primary purpose of which is to provide open space and recreational opportunities for
the regional visitors served by the District.
In addition, the location of a new staging area within the Option B site would not result in a
significant land use conflict with nearby residential uses, and is expected to reduce existing conflicts
with nearby uses related to visitor parking. As discussed in Section V.B, Visual Resources, the
District would plant trees and vegetation to screen views of the new staging area. Fencing,
topography, and new trees and other plantings also would buffer residential uses from visual
intrusion, light, glare, noise and other effects of parking lot operations. Furthermore, the existing
Stanford Avenue staging area is located near residential areas and, due to the existing condition of
Preserve visitors parking on residential streets, nearby residents are substantially affected by noise,
traffic, and other issues related to overflow parking. Nearby residents also currently experience traffic
and pedestrian congestion, noise, litter, and light from headlights and flashlights on residential streets.
The expansion of the staging area facilities near Stanford Avenue and development of a maximum of
300 new parking spaces dedicated to visitors of the Preserve would reduce the occurrence of these
existing land use conflicts and represent an improvement compared to existing conditions. Therefore,
the proposed project would generally be compatible with existing land uses on and within the vicinity
of the Option B site and would have a less-than-significant impact in terms of land use compatibility.
(3) Applicable Land Use Plans or Policies. As stated at the beginning of this section, the
proposed projects consistency with land use-related policies is discussed in Chapter IV, Planning
Policy. In summary, development of a new staging area at either site option (which are analyzed
together in the analysis) would not result in a direct conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
(4) Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plans. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or State habitat conservation plans applicable to the project area are discussed in Section V.C,
Biological Resources. As discussed in more detail in that section, this impact would be less than
significant.
121

OCTOBER 2015

A. LAND USE
122

OCTOBER 2015
B.

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
VISUAL RESOURCES
This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on visual resources and views within and in
the vicinity of Mission Peak and the Option A and B project sites. The analysis considers the visual
quality of the project area, and views to and from the project sites.
This section is based on: (1) field surveys of the project site; (2) a review of the data provided by the
Districts design staff, including conceptual designs and landscaping plans for each site option (refer
to Figures III-2a and III-3a); and (3) view simulations that show before and after representations
of Option A and Option B. View simulations have been prepared for representative vantage points in
the vicinity of each project site.
1.
Setting
The following section describes the visual character of Mission Peak itself, as well as the visual
character and quality of each site option and its surroundings, as well as views of the project sites
available to the public. Figure V.B-1 shows the locations of the four existing viewpoints depicted in
Figures V.B-2, V.B-3, V.B-4, and V.B-5. A description of the existing conditions shown in these
viewpoints is provided in this section. For a detailed description of the physical characteristics of the
project site, refer to Chapter III, Project Description and Section V.A, Land Use. This section also
provides a description of regulatory policies related to visual resources.
a.
Mission Peak. Mission Peak Regional Preserve consists of over 3,000 acres of open space
consisting mostly of open grasslands and oak woodlands. Mission Peak is part of a ridgeline that
includes Mount Allison and Monument Peak and forms the eastern boundary of Fremont and other
nearby unincorporated areas. The topography is varied and includes hilly terrain with steep valleys
and rocky outcrops. A few springs and creeks are located throughout, including Agua Caliente Creek,
which is located in the vicinity of the project sites. During the winter and spring months, the hillsides
are covered by tall green grasses, while scattered seasonal wildflowers may also appear. Cattle
grazing facilities are scattered throughout the park, and are concentrated at the Option B site, and
include various fences, gates, and feeding structures. Numerous hiking trails are located throughout
the Preserve and consist primarily of compressed gravel or dirt pathways of varying widths, which are
visible throughout the grassland areas.
Trails leading to the summit of Mission Peak offer panoramic views of the Bay Area; views from the
peak vary with weather conditions, but it is common to see the Bay and landmark peaks within the
region, including Mount Diablo, Mount Hamilton, and Mount Tamalpais. Views from the peak are
also of the cities of Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, and Fremont. On occasion, the Sierra Nevada
Mountain range can also be seen approximately 100 miles to the east.
While not the highest peak within the region, Mission Peak, at an approximate elevation of 2,516 feet
above sea level, is one of the most visible landmarks within the East and South Bays and can be seen
from miles around on a clear day. The foothill areas within the City of Fremont that immediately abut
Mission Peak to the west are developed with residential subdivisions, the closest of which offer
private views of the open spaces and hilly terrain within the park.
b.
Option A. The Option A site is located approximately 250 feet to the northeast of the existing
Stanford Avenue Staging Area, just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail. The site is located in a
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5b-VisualResources.docx (10/14/15)
123

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
grassland area with a bowl-like topography and generally lies between 0 and 12 feet below the
surrounding area. There are no trees or other distinguishing natural features on the site. No existing
trails are located on or pass through the site; therefore it is not easily accessible to the general public.
Option A is generally located at the western most edge of the park, just before the steep ascent to the
summit begins. Residential subdivisions are located to the west of Option A within a hilly area. The
Option A site generally borders the grassland open space areas that characterize portions of the
Preserve and is close to urban areas to the west. The development area for the Option A site is located
approximately 150 feet from the nearest residence and approximately 1,200 feet from the farthest
residence with views of the site.
c.
Option B. As previously discussed, the Option B site is located approximately 875 feet to the
southeast of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, south of the Peak Meadow and Horse
Heaven trails. The site is located in a generally level grassland area that is developed with grazing
infrastructure, including a corral that is used a few times a year. There are no trees or other
distinguishing natural features within the Option B site; however, this site is framed by trees and
brush, and access to the site requires crossing Agua Caliente Creek, immediately to the north. An
existing roadway currently crosses over the culverted creek as part of the Peak Meadow and Horse
Heaven trails and provides access from the Hidden Valley Trail to the Peak Meadow and Horse
Heaven trails. The creek channel is characterized by dense riparian vegetation and water flow is
generally low. There are no trails located on the Option B site and it is currently fenced to allow for
cattle enclosures; therefore, it is not generally accessible to the public.
Similar to Option A, Option B is generally located at the western edge of the Preserve, just before the
steep ascent to the Mission Peak summit begins. Residential subdivisions are to the west and within
hilly terrain. Option B is adjacent to a grassland open space area and is close to the urban areas to the
west. The proposed development area for Option B is located approximately 250 feet from the nearest
residence.
d.
Regulatory Framework. The City of Fremont General Plan and the Districts Master Plan
contain policies and implementation measures related to visual resources. These are discussed below.
(1) City of Fremont General Plan. The Community Character Element of the Fremont
General Plan contains the following policies and implementation measures related to visual resources
within the City.
Policy 4-1.6: Open Space Frame. Protect Fremonts hills and baylands as an open space frame that
gives definition to the City and shapes its image and identity.
Implementation 4-1.6.A: Respecting Natural Terrain and Landform. Accentuate Fremonts natural
features from public spaces through design and development. Development should be sited and
designed to retain public views of hillsides and ridgelines, enhance vistas to natural landmarks and
showcase important natural resources such as creeks and the baylands. Hillside protection has
been a priority in Fremont for several decades. The City also recognizes the importance of its
baylands and creeks as visual resources. These features should be protected by retaining them as
open space.
124
21
n
Missio
k
a
e
P
eW
ild
er
ne
ss
Tr
ai
Grapevine
e
ac
rr
Te
hl
on
Existing
Stanford Avenue
Staging Area
ap
a
Ct
Agua Caliente Creek
1
2
ee
rd AAvv
ord
fo
SStatannfo
Corral
a
Sag u
re
Ct S
ag
Peak M
eadow
MISSION
PEAK
REGIONAL
PRESERVE
Trail
are
Co
m
FIGURE V.B-1
Option A
0
250
500
feet
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2015.
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VB1.ai (7/16/15)
Option B
Viewpoint Locations

Viewpoint Location Map

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
126
Existing view from Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail
Conceptual simulation of Option A - initial planting (15-gallon trees)
Conceptual simulation of Option A - vegetation at 5 years
F IG U R E V. B -2 a
SOURCE: ANDREW McNICHOL, 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Figures_VB2a-VB3b-11x17.indd (7/31/15)

View point 1 Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option A)
Existing view from Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail
Conceptual simulation of Option B - initial planting (15-gallon trees)
Conceptual simulation of Option B - vegetation at 5 years
F IG U R E V. B -2 b


View point 1 Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail (Option B)
Existing view from Mission Peak Summit
Conceptual simulation of Option A - vegetation at 5 years
F IG U R E V. B -3 a


View point 2 Mission Peak Summit (Option A)
Existing view from Mission Peak Summit
Conceptual simulation of Option B - vegetation at 5 years
F IG U R E V. B -3 b


View point 2 Mission Peak Summit (Option B)
Existing view from fence line near Option A
F IG U R E V. B - 4

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Figures_VB4-VB5-11x17.indd (8/4/15)

View point 3 Fence Line - Option A
Existing view from fence line near Option B
F IG U R E V. B -5

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Figures_VB4-VB5-11x17.indd (8/4/15)

View point 4 Fence Line - Option B

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
Policy 4-1.8: Landmarks. Maintain recognizable or natural landmarks that create a reference point or
means of orientation within the City, and create a positive identity of an area or for the City as a whole.
In the context of this policy, landmarks refers not to historic buildings but the visual features and
cures that provide orientation and context within the City.
Implementation 4-1.8.A: Create a list of informal City landmarks for reference. Examples include
Mission Peak, the Niles hillside letters, the Niles gateway signs, the Irvington Monument, and
Mission San Jose.
(2) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Districts Master Plan1 includes the
following policy related to visual resources.
2.
Policy PRPT24. The District will seek to locate facilities in a manner that Preserves open space
whenever possible. The District will design proposed facilities so that their color, scale, style and
materials will blend with the natural environment. Park improvements will be designed to avoid or
minimize impacts on wildlife habitats, plant populations and other resources.
This section discusses potential impacts to visual resources that could result from implementation of
the proposed project. The section begins with the significance criteria, which establish the thresholds
used to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts
associated with the proposed project (either Option A or B) and identifies mitigation measures, as
appropriate.
To guide the assessment of whether the proposed project would create a significant adverse impact
when measured against the following criteria, the analysis includes computer-generated photo simulations illustrating before and after views and vistas of the Option A and Option B sites (see
Figures V.B-2 through Figure V.B-5).
a.
Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact on visual
quality if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. A scenic vista is defined as a publicly
accessible viewpoint that provides expansive views;
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
b.
Project Impacts. The following discussion describes the potential impacts to visual resources
that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Impacts associated with Option A are
generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.
133

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
(1) Scenic Vistas. Scenic vistas within the vicinity of the project sites consist of panoramic
views available from numerous public vantage points located throughout Mission Peak. Mission Peak
is well used and is a regional destination for hikers, bicyclists, and other recreationists because of its
scenic character and the expansive views of the East Bay and distant views of San Francisco offered
by the trail system. In addition, the topography and various rock outcroppings provide visual interest
and contribute to views from and within the Preserve. As previously discussed, Mission Peak can be
seen from various points throughout the Bay Area; however, views of the project sites are limited to
the immediate surroundings and from points within Mission Peak itself. Implementation of either site
option would not adversely affect distant views of Mission Peak that are available throughout the Bay
Area and, consistent with the Fremont General Plan, would not affect views from within the City of
Fremont of Mission Peak or hillsides and ridgelines, as further detailed below.
Impacts to private views of the Preserve that may be available from nearby homes are not considered
significant because impacts to private views are not considered impacts under CEQA; however,
changes to these views are described below for informational purposes.
In consultation with District staff, two viewpoint locations from public trails were selected for visual
simulations of the proposed project under both Options A and B. These visual simulations show
representative views from vantage points at the upper elevations of the Peak Meadow and Horse
Heaven trail and from the summit of Mission Peak (Viewpoints 1 and 2 as depicted in Figures V.B-2
and V.B-3). These locations were selected because they provide representative, publically-accessible
views of the sites from points that are open and not screened by vegetation or topography. Photos of
the sites were taken from varying distances to provide different perspectives. The views from the
Hidden Valley Trail would be similar to the views in the two simulations as both The Peak Meadow
and Hidden Valley trails climb the ridge and are roughly parallel. Views of the sites from other trails
within the Preserve would either be similar to the chosen viewpoints or would be less affected
because of their location and the topography of the area, which would screen the sites. In addition, for
informational purposes, for each option, a viewpoint is provided from the fence line of adjacent
properties to show a representative view from nearby adjacent residences (Viewpoints 3 and 4 as
depicted in Figure V.B-4 and V.B-5).
The visual simulations were prepared using computer modeling and rendering techniques, and are
based on site layout data and landscaping plans provided by the District (see Figures III-2a and III-3a
in Chapter III, Project Description). Project landscaping would consist of native plantings and new
trees would be coast live oaks; the simulations show two patterns of growth: 1) initial plantings of 15gallon sized trees at the beginning of project operation and 2) growth at 5 years. Figure V.B-1 shows
the viewpoint locations. Figures V.B-2 through V.B-5 show existing views of the sites (upper
photographs), visual simulations of the proposed site options at initial planting (middle photographs),
and visual simulations of the proposed site options at 5 years (bottom photographs) from each of the
selected viewpoints. As discussed in more detail below, while Option A and Option B would be
visible from public trails, they would not have a substantial adverse effect on the views seen from
public viewpoints as both sites are located on lower elevations of Mission Peak near dense urban
residential development, and the parking lots would not interfere with the distant scenic vistas visible
from the public viewpoints. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
134

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
The following includes a description of existing conditions for each of the representative vantage
points followed by an analysis of impacts to scenic vistas associated with the Option A and Option B
sites.
Viewpoint 1 Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint

1 is located on the upper elevations of the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail, about
1,500 feet to 1,675 feet from either site option and about 800 feet above either site option.
As shown in Figure V.B-2, from this location, expansive views of the lower elevations of
the hillside areas within Mission Peak are available, which include grassland areas and
trees and other vegetation primarily within the Agua Caliente Creek corridor. Various trails
within the Preserve are also visible. Distant views of the City of Fremont, San Francisco
Bay, and the Santa Cruz Mountain range are also available. The boundary of the open space
areas within Mission Peak is clearly defined as the open space area gives way to urban
development.
Viewpoint 2 Mission Peak Summit. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint 2 is located

at the summit of Mission Peak, about 4,075 feet to 4,375 feet from either site option and
about 2,000 feet in elevation above either site option. As shown in Figure V.B-3, from this
location, expansive views of the lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak
are available, which include grassland areas and trees and other vegetation primarily within
the Agua Caliente Creek corridor. Oak woodlands and trails within the park are also
visible. Distant views of the City of Fremont, San Francisco Bay, and the Santa Cruz
Mountain range are also available (although all are not necessarily visible within this
viewpoint). The boundary of the open space areas within Mission Peak are clearly defined
as the open space area gives way to urban development.
Viewpoint 3 Option A Fence Line. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint 3 is located

near the fence line of the nearest residential property to Option A. This viewpoint is
included for informational purposes to illustrate the potential changes to views from private
residences in the vicinity of Option A. As shown in the existing view depicted in Figure
V.B-4, the view from the fence line at this location (and presumably the similar private
views available from the rear yards of nearby residences) is of the open grassland areas at
the base of Mission Peak, which include the Option A site; however, the site itself is
located within a bowl-like area at a lower elevation, and due to the change in topography,
the grassland areas within the site are partially screened from view. The scenic ridgeline
and hillside areas within Mission Peak are also visible in the distance.
Viewpoint 4 Option B Fence Line. As shown in Figure V.B-1, Viewpoint 4 is located

near the fence line of the nearest residential property to Option B. This viewpoint is
included to illustrate the potential changes to views from private residences in the vicinity
of Option B. As shown in the existing view depicted in Figure V.B-5, the view from the
fence line at this location (and the similar private view available from the rear yard of the
nearest residence, which is located below the ground level) is of open grassland areas at the
base of Mission Peak, which include the Option B site. Direct and open views of the site
itself, which includes the corral, are available from this location. Trees and other vegetation
located along Agua Caliente Creek are also visible. The scenic ridgeline and hillside areas
within Mission Peak can be seen in the distance.
135

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
Option A. The Option A site is located in a grassland area with a bowl-like topography. The
staging area would be cut into the slope to a depth between 0 and 12 feet and would consist of an
approximately 2.78-acre surface parking lot, along with associated landscaping and other
improvements. Approximately 46 new coast live oak trees in addition to native shrubs and grasses
would be planted around the perimeter of and within the new staging area to provide visual screening.
Option A would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, from the summit of
Mission Peak, and from the main access trail from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The proposed
staging area for Option A is located approximately 150 feet from the nearest residence and about
1,200 feet from the farthest residence with views of the site.
As previously discussed, representative views of the Option A site are included in three visual
simulations (Viewpoints 1, 2, and 3) as depicted in Figures V.B-2a, V.B-3a, and V.B-4. Impacts of
Option A development from these vantage points are discussed below. In summary, while Option A
would be visible from public trails, development of this site with a new staging area would not result
in a substantial adverse effect on the views seen from public viewpoints as the site is located at a
lower elevation of the Preserve near dense urban residential development, and the parking lot would
not interfere with the distant scenic vistas visible from the public viewpoints. Although the proposed
staging area would initially be more visible when new plantings including trees and other vegetation
are first installed, Option A would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because
of the location of the staging area near existing urban uses and the focus of park users on the distant
scenic vistas, which would not be adversely affected. Furthermore, this condition would be temporary
and as the trees reach maturity (as shown in the visual simulations that depict 5 years of growth), the
staging area would blend to a greater degree with urban development to the west.
Viewpoint 1 Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail. As shown in the visual simulation of Option
A depicted in Figure V.B-2a, the proposed staging area would be visible from the upper elevations of
the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail. Because of its location near existing residential
development, a new staging area in this location would generally blend with the existing pattern of
urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the lower elevations
of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and other vegetation.
Option A would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay, San Francisco Bay and Santa Cruz
Mountains, the views hikers and bikers visit Mission Peak to see. Therefore, development of Option
A would not have a substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations
within the Preserve.
Viewpoint 2 Mission Peak Summit. Development of Option A would not have a substantial
adverse effect on scenic vistas available from the summit of Mission Peak. As shown in the visual
simulation of Option A and depicted in Figure V.B-3a, the proposed staging area would be visible
from the summit of Mission Peak, but the direct and open views would be attenuated by the distance
from the summit due to the broad viewshed available, and because, if developed, the site would be a
small element in that viewshed. A new staging area at this location would generally blend with the
existing pattern of urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the
lower elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and
other vegetation, and development of Option A would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay,
San Francisco Bay or Santa Cruz Mountains. Therefore, development of Option A would not have a
substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations within the Preserve.
136

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
Viewpoint 3 Option A Fence Line. As shown in the simulation of the project depicted in
Figure V.B-4, the proposed parking facilities at Option A would not be directly visible from this
specific location. As shown in the simulation, and also indicated in Figure III-2a in Chapter III,
Project Description, a 6-foot-tall berm would be constructed on the west side of the proposed staging
area and this, along with proposed trees and low-level vegetation and the existing low-lying
topography of the site, would provide screening of the staging area from view at the ground level in
this location. Figure III-2b also depicts the line of sight that would be available from the nearest
residence, looking east. As shown in the section depicted in Figure III-2b, with an assumed viewpoint
of 20 feet above the existing grade, (the assumed height of a second-story balcony), the proposed
berm, trees and other vegetation, and low-lying topography of the site would provide screening of
direct and open views of the staging area from the nearest residential properties. Therefore, it is
expected that the Option A staging area would be screened from view from second story windows of
the nearest residences. In addition, intermittent views of the distant hillsides would continue to be
available from this location although views would be partially blocked by new trees located at the
edge of the site. Although the view for some residents would be altered by the new vegetation, it
would not result in a significant environmental impact. While the proposed staging area may be
visible from other private residences located farther to the north, the distance from the site would
generally attenuate the view of the staging area, as it would be located further away and would blend
with surrounding development to the west. Direct and open views to the east of grassland and hillside
areas within Mission Peak would continue to be available from these locations. For these reasons,
although changes to existing views in the foreground from the nearby private residences that border
the Option A site (and those nearby) would be altered by the addition of new trees, the berm and
landscaping would screen the parking facilities both from ground level and second story windows,
and there would not be a substantial adverse impact on the visual character or scenic views of the
Preserve.
Option B. The Option B site would be developed in an open grassland area that includes
fencing and structures associated with cattle operations. The proposed staging area in this location
would consist of an approximately 2.78-acre surface parking lot, along with associated landscaping
and other improvements. Approximately 27 new coast live oak trees in addition to native shrubs and
grasses would be planted around the perimeter of and within the new staging area to provide visual
screening. Option B would be visible from the Hidden Valley Trail, the Peak Meadow Trail, and the
top of Mission Peak. The proposed staging area for Option B is located approximately 250 feet from
the nearest residence and about 500 feet from the farthest residence with views of the site.
As previously discussed, representative views of the Option B site are included in three visual
simulations (Viewpoints 1, 2, and 4) as depicted in Figures V.B-2b, V.B-3b, and V.B-5. Impacts of
Option B development from these vantage points are discussed below. In summary, while Option B
would be visible from public trails, development of this site with a new staging area and vehicular
roadway would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the views from public viewpoints as the
site is located at a lower elevation of the Preserve near dense urban residential development, and the
parking lot would not interfere with the distant scenic vistas visible from the public viewpoints.
Although the proposed staging area would initially be more visible when new plantings including
trees and other vegetation are first installed, Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista because of the location of the staging area near existing urban uses and the focus of
park users on the distant scenic vistas, which would not be adversely affected. Furthermore, this
condition would be temporary and as the trees reach maturity (as shown in the visual simulations that
137

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
depict 5 years of growth), the staging area would blend to a greater degree with urban development to
the west.
Viewpoint 1 Peak Meadow/Horse Heaven Trail. As shown in the visual simulation of Option
B depicted in Figure V.B-2b, the proposed staging area would be visible from the upper elevations of
the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail. Because of its location near existing residential
development, a new staging area in this location would generally blend with the existing pattern of
urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the lower elevations
of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and other vegetation.
Option B would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay, San Francisco Bay and Santa Cruz
Mountains, the views hikers and bikers visit Mission Peak to see. Therefore, development of Option
B would not have a substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations
within the Preserve.
Viewpoint 2 Mission Peak Summit. Development of Option B would not have a substantial
adverse effect on scenic vistas available from the summit of Mission Peak. As shown in the visual
simulation of Option B and depicted in Figure V.B-3b, the proposed staging area would be visible
from the summit of Mission Peak, but the direct and open views would be attenuated by the distance
from the summit due to the broad viewshed available, and because, if developed, it would be a small
element in that viewshed. A new staging area at this location would generally blend with the existing
pattern of urban development to the west. Trail users would still have expansive views of the lower
elevations of the hillside areas within Mission Peak, including grassland areas and trees and other
vegetation, and development of Option B would not affect the expansive views of the East Bay, San
Francisco Bay or Santa Cruz Mountains. Therefore, development of Option B would not have a
substantially adverse impact on this and similar scenic vistas from other locations within the Preserve.
Viewpoint 4 Option B Fence Line. As shown in the simulation of the project depicted in
Figure V.B-5, the proposed parking facilities at Option B would not be directly visible from this
location. As shown in the simulation, and also indicated in Figure III-3a in Chapter III, Project
Description, a detention pond would be located adjacent to a berm on the west side of the proposed
staging area. Due to the berm and proposed landscaping, screening, and grading the proposed
parking facilities would not be visible from this location. Figure III-3b also depicts the line of sight
that would be available from the two nearest residences, looking north and west. As shown in Figure
III-3b, in the view looking north, with an assumed viewpoint of 20 feet above the existing grade (the
assumed height of a second-story balcony), the proposed landscaping screening and berm would
screen direct and open views eastward toward the new staging area from the nearest residential
property, which is located adjacent to the fence line and Viewpoint 4. In addition, intermittent views
of the distant hillsides would continue to be available from this location although views would be
partially blocked by new trees located at the edge of the site. In Figure III-3b, in the view looking
west, with an assumed viewpoint of 20 feet above the existing grade (the assumed height of a secondstory balcony), the proposed landscaping screening and berm would screen direct and open northward
views of the new staging area from nearby residential properties. Although the proposed staging area
may be visible from some of these nearby residences, the site would be partially screened by natural
materials and the staging area would not dominate the view. Views of open grassland areas and the
ridgelines and hillsides within Mission Peak would continue to be available. For these reasons,
although existing foreground views from nearby private residences would be altered, the addition of
new trees, the berm and landscaping would screen views of the Option B staging area, both from
138

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
ground level and second story windows, and there would not be a substantial adverse impact on the
visual character or scenic views of the Preserve.
(2) Scenic Resources. Within the City of Fremont, Interstate 680 (I-680) and State Route 84
(SR-84) are officially designated scenic highways.2 The scenic portions of I-680 cross through the
Contra Costa Range through Mission Pass into the Sunol Valley. After crossing the Sunol Valley, the
scenic route passes through a narrow canyon of the Arroyo de la Laguna into the south end of the
Amador Valley terminating at the Bernal Avenue Interchange near the City of Pleasanton. The scenic
aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills of the Contra Costa range contrasted with the
flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and east. Mission Peak is within view of this
corridor. As discussed in more detail below, scenic resources within the view of a designated scenic
highway would not be adversely affected with implementation of either Option A or Option B and
this impact would be less than significant.
Option A. The Option A site is located over 1 mile from the nearest segment of I-680 and due
to the topography, distance, and location of the site within the grasslands at the base of Mission Peak,
the project site is not visible from any point along I-680. Additionally, scenic portions of SR-84 are
located over 7 miles from the project site and for these same reasons, the project site is not visible
from any point along SR-84. Therefore, development of Option A would not damage scenic resources
within view of a State scenic highway.
Option B. The Option B site is located over 1 mile from the nearest segment of I-680 and due
to the topography, distance, and location of the site within the grasslands at the base of Mission Peak,
the project site is not visible from any point along I-680. Additionally, scenic portions of SR-84 are
located over 7 miles from the project site and for these same reasons, the project site is not visible
from any point along SR-84. Therefore, development of Option B would not damage scenic resources
within view of a State scenic highway.
(3) Visual Character. The overall change to the visual character and quality of Mission
Peak and the adjoining residential neighborhoods would be generally similar with development of
either site option. As discussed in more detail below, impacts to the visual character of the Preserve
and surrounding area would not be adversely affected with implementation of either Option A or
Option B and this impact would be less than significant.
Option A. Introduction of a new staging area and new roadways within the Preserve as
proposed by Option A would alter the site but would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings given the location of the Option A site near
existing residential development and the remaining visible park acreage, grassland areas, trees, and
other vegetation.
Development of Option A would result in a new staging area with parking for up to 300 vehicles and
associated amenities such as picnic tables and restrooms near existing urban development. Nearby
views of the staging area would be screened by a berm, landscaping, and the existing or modified
topography, consistent with the Districts Master Plan Policy PRPT24. Specifically, 46 new coast live
2
California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 16, 2015). September 7.
139

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
oak trees would be planted around the perimeter of and within the new staging area. Staging and
parking areas are commonly provided to allow access to and use of regional recreation facilities
within District parks. Visitors accessing and utilizing the facilities within the new staging areas would
not experience adverse effects to the visual quality of their immediate surroundings. Hang gliders that
currently utilize the landing zone near Option A would be landing closer to a developed area (if
Option A is chosen), and their views and experience when landing would be affected, but the regional
park setting, views, and overall open space setting would remain (refer to Section V.B, Recreation for
additional discussion). Thus, development of Option A would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site for hang gliders.
The project would also not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the residential
neighborhood and may improve the visual character by reducing the amount of litter, illegal parking,
and traffic congestion and the issue of cars blocking driveways. As described above and shown in
Figure V.B-4, development of Option A would not substantially alter the visual character for
neighbors immediately near the site, especially given the limited number of individuals and private
views that may be affected. Therefore, for the reasons described above, development of Option A
would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.
Option B. Introduction of a new staging area and associated roadways and bridges within the
Preserve as proposed by Option B would alter the site but would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings given the location of the Option B
near existing residential development and the remaining visible park acreage, grassland areas, trees,
and other vegetation.
Development of Option B would result in a new staging area with parking for up to 300 vehicles and
associated amenities such as picnic tables and restrooms. Nearby views of the staging area would be
screened by a berm, landscaping, and the existing or modified topography, consistent with the
Districts Master Plan Policy PRPT24. Staging and parking areas are commonly provided in District
parks to allow access to and use of regional recreation facilities. Visitors accessing and utilizing the
facilities within the new staging areas would not experience adverse effects to the visual quality of
their immediate surroundings.
The vehicular and pedestrian creek crossings proposed as part of Option B would not substantially
alter the character of Aqua Caliente Creek, given that these are typical facilities found within
recreational areas, even those managed as open space preserves, and these facilities would not be
highly visible except from within the immediate surroundings. Additionally, any tree removal
associated with development of Option B would be mitigated via new trees planted according to the
requirements of the City of Fremont (see discussion under Section V.C, Biological Resources).
Therefore, specific improvements associated with Option B would not generally result in more severe
impacts related to visual quality or character than Option A (see discussion above).
The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the adjacent residential
neighborhood and may improve the visual character of the residential area located north of Stanford
Avenue by reducing the amount of litter, illegal parking and traffic congestion and the issue of cars
blocking driveways. As described above and shown Figure V.B-5, development of Option B would
not substantially alter the visual character for neighbors near the site, especially given the limited
number of individuals and private views affected. Therefore, for the reasons described above,
140

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
development of Option B would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site or its surroundings.
(4) New Source of Light or Glare. Mission Peak is generally open for public use from
sunrise to sunset, seven days a week, and the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area does not include
any lighting fixtures. Access to the staging areas would be closed at sunset. New sources of light or
glare have the potential to disturb nearby residents and visitors to Mission Peak. However, no new
lighting is proposed as part of either site option. Potential impacts associated with new sources of
glare are discussed below and as discussed, this impact would be less than significant.
Option A. During daylight hours, hikers and other recreationists could experience some glare
due to light reflecting off vehicles parked within the Option A staging area; however, the glare would
be limited and would not substantially impact the visual experience of park users. When ascending
the trail, visitors backs are to the parking lot (including the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area)
and when descending, the trail visitors will likely focus their gaze on the trail or the scenic vista of the
East Bay rather than the staging area. Any minimal glare would be attenuated by the distance from
the cars and would be limited to certain times of day during certain times of year. Furthermore, glare
from vehicles within the staging area would generally blend with existing glare emitted from
surrounding development, including windows of the nearby residences that border Mission Peak.
Residents would also be minimally impacted from any effects of glare because of the hilly
topography of the neighborhood and intervening vegetation and trees that would be planted along the
perimeter of the staging area.
Option B. During daylight hours, hikers and other recreationists could experience some glare
due to light reflecting off vehicles parked within the Option B staging area; however, the glare would
be limited and would not substantially impact the visual experience of park users. When ascending
the trail, visitors backs are to the parking lot (including the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area)
and when descending, the trail visitors will likely focus their gaze on the trail or the scenic vista of the
East Bay rather than the staging area. Any minimal glare would be attenuated by the distance from
the cars and would be limited to certain times of day during certain times of year. Furthermore, glare
from vehicles within the staging area would generally blend with existing glare emitted from
surrounding development, including windows of the nearby residences that border Mission Peak.
Residents would also be minimally impacted from any effects of glare because of the hilly
topography of the neighborhood and intervening vegetation and trees that would be planted along the
perimeter of the staging area.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, when considered in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact to visual resources. As shown in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, there are few cumulative projects within the immediate vicinity of the site and these are
generally limited to small-scale urban infill projects. The recently constructed Ohlone College South
Lot Parking Garage is visible from elevated points within Mission Peak; however, the garage is built
into the natural slope of the surrounding hillside, blends with existing development that surrounds the
structure and, due to the distance, topography, and mature vegetation that surrounds the development,
is not prominently visible or within the same view as the proposed staging areas. Other cumulative
projects within the vicinity are not located on hillside areas or greenfield sites. Furthermore, foreseeable projects in the City would be designed or conditioned, in accordance with City policies, to avoid
141

OCTOBER 2015

B. VISUAL RESOURCES
significant adverse effects on visual quality or other elements of the aesthetic environment, including
limiting adverse effects associated with new sources of light and glare. In addition, the visual changes
associated with Option A and Option B are generally limited to the immediate surroundings within
Mission Peak and are not expected to result in additional impacts to the open space areas within
Mission Peak. Therefore, past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to result in a
significant cumulative impact to visual resources, and the project would not make a significant
contribution to such an impact.
142

OCTOBER 2015
C.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes existing biological resources in the project area, including potentially occurring
special-status species, special-status natural communities, and jurisdictional features; identifies
potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed projects
development of the Option A or Option B sites with a new staging area; and recommends mitigation
measures, where required to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
1.
Setting
This subsection describes: 1) the methods used to establish the baseline conditions for biological
resources in the project area; 2) the regulatory context related to biological resources; and 3) existing
biological resources occurring within and in the vicinity of the project sites.
a.
Methods. To identify special-status plant and animal species potentially occurring within the
project sites and the vicinity, LSA searched the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)1 and
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California2 for
known occurrences within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Niles quadrangle, in which
the sites are located, as well as the adjacent Calaveras Reservoir, Dublin, Hayward, La Costa Valley,
Las Trampas Ridge, Milpitas, Niles, and Oakland East quadrangles. LSA also reviewed District
information on known California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and California redlegged frog (Rana draytonii) occurrences within Mission Peak and adjacent lands, as well as the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford Avenue Municipal Golf Course, prepared in 1991.3
After reviewing the above sources, LSAs botanist and wildlife biologist conducted a reconnaissancelevel survey of the site on April 10, 2013, to identify existing plant and animal species, assess habitat
quality for special-status plant and/or animal species, and identify other sensitive biological resources
such as jurisdictional waters or wetlands, special-status natural communities, and/or nest sites for
raptors and other native birds. An LSA biologist also visited the site on May 4, 2015, with emphasis
on surveying areas added to the project site boundaries and that were not visited during the initial
April 2013 survey. An LSA soil scientist and biologist also conducted a wetland delineation at the
site on May 13, 2015, to determine the location and extent of jurisdictional areas on the project site.
Plant taxonomy and nomenclature in this document follows Baldwin et al.4 Common and scientific
names for herpetofauna, birds, and mammals conform to Crother,5 the American Ornithologists
Union (AOU) Check-list of North American Birds and supplements,6 and Baker et al.,7 respectively.
1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), commercial
version dated May 31, 2015. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento.
2
California Native Plant Society, 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-10b). California
Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Website: www.cnps.org/inventory (accessed July 15, 2015).
3
Wallace Roberts & Todd and CH2M HILL, 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Stanford Avenue Municipal
Golf Course. Prepared for City of Fremont Leisure Services Department. State Clearinghouse No. 9103086. December 16.
4
Baldwin, B.G., et al. eds., 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
5
Crother, B.I., ed., 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north
of Mexico. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) Herpetological Circular 39 and supplements.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5c-BiologicalResources.docx (10/14/15)
143

OCTOBER 2015

b.
Existing Conditions. Using all of the identification methods described in subsection 1.a.
above, the following section describes existing vegetation and wildlife habitat values, potentially
occurring special-status plant and animal species, sensitive vegetation types, and jurisdictional waters
within the project sites. Generally, existing conditions are similar at the Option A and Option B sites,
unless otherwise noted.
(1) Vegetation.Vegetation within the project area comprises two plant communities: nonnative grassland and riparian woodland (see Figures V-C.1a and V-C.1b). A list of plant species
observed on the site by LSA biologists is provided in Table V.C-1.
The non-native grassland consists of herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses and forbs.
Grasslands in the study area were classified as non-native annual grasslands. This community is the
dominant vegetation type in both the Option A and Option B sites (Figures V-C.1a and V-C.1b).
Non-native annual grassland species were also observed as understory vegetation on the upper banks
of the riparian woodland (see below). The dominant grass species observed at both sites include wild
oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and foxtail
chess (Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum). Herbaceous, non-grass plant species observed at both
sites include black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), redstem filaree
(Erodium cicutarium), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), and subterranean clover (Trifolium
subterranean).
The plant community classified as valley foothill riparian woodland occurs along Agua Caliente
Creek and its tributary in the northern portion of the Option B site (Figure V-C.1b) and is associated
with areas proposed for the clear-span vehicular bridge, culvert removal, and a separate pedestrian
bridge that would be developed with Option B. No riparian woodland is present at the Option A site,
but riparian understory vegetation is present where the culvert repair is proposed at the tributary
channel to Agua Caliente Creek. Native plant species unique to each site option are identified below.
Option A. Native plant species within the non-native grassland unique to the Option A site
include: blow wives (Achyrachaena mollis), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), and shining
peppergrass (Leidium nitidum). Blue-eyed grass was observed within the area of potential impact on
the north facing slope of Site A, but outside of the proposed grading limit. Non-native plant species
within the non-native grassland unique to the Option A site include scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis
arvensis), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), yellow
star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), prickly ox-tongue
(Helminthotheca echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha),
shepherds needle (Scandix pectin-veneris), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and spring vetch (Vicia
sativa).
American Ornithologists Union, 1998. Checklist of North American Birds and supplements. Seventh Edition.
American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C.
7
Baker, R.J., et al., 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas
Tech University Occasional Papers 229.
144

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.C-1: Plant Species Observed at the Project Sites

FAMILY/Species Name, Scientific
MAGNOLIIDS
LAURACEAE
FAMILY/Common Name
LAUREL FAMILY
Umbellularia californica
California laurel
EUDICOTS
ANACARDIACEAE
SUMAC/CASHEW
Toxicodendron diversilobum
Poison oak
APIACEAE
CARROT
Scandix pectin-veneris
Shepherds needle
ASTERACEAE
SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Achyrachaena mollis
Artemisia californica
Carduus pycnocephalus
Centaurea melitensis
Centaurea solstitialis
Cirsium vulgare
Helminthotheca echioides
Hypochaeris glabra
Lactuca serriola
Silybum marianum
Blow wives
California sagebrush
Italian thistle
Tocalote
Yellow star-thistle
Bull thistle
Bristly ox-tongue
Smooth cats ear
Prickly lettuce
Milk thistle
BRASSICACEAE
MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica nigra
Lepidium nitidum
Black mustard
Shining peppergrass
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus
Snowberry
CONVOLVULACEAE
MORNING GLORY
Convolvulus arvensis
Field bindweed
FABACEAE
LEGUME FAMILY
Acmispon americanus var. americanus

Lotus corniculatus
Medicago polymorpha
Trifolium hirtum
Trifolium subterraneum
Vicia sativa
Spanish lotus
Birds-foot trefoil
Bur-clover
Rose clover
Subterranean clover
Spring vetch
Nativity
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
FAGACEAE
OAK FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia
Coast live oak
GERANIACEAE
GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium cicutarium
Redstem filaree
GROSSULARIACEAE
GOOSEBERRY FAMILY
Ribes speciosum
Fuchiaflower gooseberry
LAMIACEAE
MINT FAMILY
Mentha canadensis
Mint
no
Anagallis arvensis
Scarlet pimpernel
no
MYRTACEAE
MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus globulus
Tasmanian blue gum
OLEACEAE
OLIVE FAMILY
Olea europaea
Cultivated olive
no
Bellardia trixago
Mediterranean linseed
no
OXALIDACEAE
OXALIS FAMILY
Oxalis pes-caprae
Bermuda buttercup
yes
no
yes
MYRSINACEAE
no
OROBANCHACEAE
no
145

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.C-1: Plant Species Observed at the Project Sites

FAMILY/Species Name, Scientific
PHRYMACEAE
FAMILY/Common Name
Nativity
Mimulus guttatus
Monkey flower
yes
Platanus racemosa
Western sycamore
yes
POLYGONACAE
BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum nudum
Rumex crispus
California buckwheat
Curly dock
RANUNCULACEAE
BUTTERCUP FAMILY
PLATANACEAE
Ranunculus californicus
California buttercup
ROSACEAE
ROSE FAMILY
yes
no
yes
Rosa gymnocarpa
Woodrose
SAPINDACEAE
BUCKEYE FAMILY
yes
Aesculus californica
California buckeye
SCROPHULARIACEAE
FIGWORT FAMILY
Scrophularia californica
Bee plant
SOLANACEAE
NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Solanum umbelliferum
Nightshade
yes
Stinging nettle
yes
Chlorogalum pomeridianum
Soap plant
yes
CYPERACEAE
SEDGE FAMILY
Cyperus eragrostis
Tall flatsedge
IRIDACEAE
IRIS FAMILY
Iris douglasiana
Sisyrinchium bellum
Douglas iris
Blue-eyed grass
POACEAE
GRASS FAMILY
Avena fatua
Brachypodium distachyon
Bromus diandrus
Bromus hordeaceus
Elymus triticoides
Festuca perennis
Hordeum brachyantherum
Hordeum marinum
Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum
Phalaris aquatica
Stipa pulchra
Common wild oat

False brome
Ripgut brome
Soft cheatgrass
Creeping wildrye
Italian ryegrass
Meadow barley
Mediterranean barley
Hare barley
Harding grass
Purple needlegrass
yes
yes
URTICACEAE
Urtica dioica
MONOCOTS
AGAVACEAE
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015. (April 10, 2013 and May 4 and 13, 2015 site visits).
In addition to the non-native grassland species identified for the Option A site, vegetation associated
with the headwall repair of the existing culvert at Option A also includes non-native grass and ruderal
plant species.
No riparian woodland trees were identified within the Option A site, but riparian understory
vegetation, such as poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), was identified along the tributary
channel to Agua Caliente Creek where the existing culvert would be repaired.
146

OCTOBER 2015

Option B. Native plant species within the non-native grassland unique to the Option B site
includes meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum) and Douglas iris (Iris douglasiana). Non-native
plant species within the non-native grassland unique to the Option B site include Italian thistle
(Carduus pycnocephalus), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), smooth cats ear (Hypochaeris glabra),
and cultivated olive (Olea europaea).
Riparian woodland occurs along Agua Caliente Creek and its tributary in the northern portion of the
Option B site (Figure V-C.1b) where the culvert and trail crossing removal, clear-span vehicular
bridge, and pedestrian bridge are proposed. The dominant native tree species in the riparian woodland
is coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Other native trees that occur within the Option B site, and are
commonly associated with riparian woodlands in the area, include California buckeye (Aesculus
californica), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and California bay (Umbellularia
californica). Two stands of non-native Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) occur within the
Option B site adjacent to the creek: south of the existing access road to Option B, and east of the
proposed pedestrian bridge.
The upper banks of the riparian woodland have an herbaceous understory consisting of non-native
grasses and forbs, as well as shrubby understory. Understory scrub species associated with the
riparian vegetation include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), fuchia flower gooseberry
(Ribes speciosum), woodrose (Rosa gymnocarpa), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), snowberry
(Symphoriocarpos albus var. laevigatus), and poison oak. The herbaceous understory layer, when
present, is a mix of grasses and forbs, commonly including ripgut brome, Italian wildrye (Lolium
multiflorum) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). A few herbaceous wetland plant were observed in the
creek channel, including tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), mint (Mentha canadensis), and monkey
flower (Mimulus guttatus).
(2) Wildlife. Wildlife species expected to occur within the project area are those adapted to
the non-native grassland and coast live oak riparian woodland communities of the Central Coast
Range foothills surrounding San Francisco Bay. Wildlife species observed by LSA biologists on
April 10, 2013, and May 4, 2015, are listed in Table V.C-2. The EIR assumes many additional species
are likely to occur on the site throughout the year based on the review of other databases.
(3) Non-Native Grassland Wildlife Species. The extensive annual grassland on both sites
provides habitat for a variety of native wildlife species. Common amphibians and reptiles expected to
occur (potentially occurring special-status species are discussed later in this section) include Sierran
treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), western toad (Bufo boreas), western fence lizard (Sceloporus
occidentalis), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus), California kingsnake (Lampropeltis
californiae), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and northern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus
oreganus). The openness of grasslands provides ideal foraging habitat for raptors such as golden
eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and
American kestrel (Falco sparverius).
147

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.C-2: Wildlife Species Observed on or Adjacent to the Project Sites

Common Name
Reptiles
Western fence lizard
Northern Pacific rattlesnake
Birds
Wild turkey
Turkey vulture
White-tailed kite
Coopers hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Band-tailed pigeon
Mourning dove
Annas hummingbird
Nuttalls woodpecker
American kestrel
Pacific-slope flycatcher
Black phoebe
Huttons vireo
Stellers jay
Western scrub-jay
Cliff swallow
Barn swallow
Bushtit
House wren
Bewicks wren
Western bluebird
American robin
European starling
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Spotted towhee
California towhee
Song sparrow
Dark-eyed junco
Red-winged blackbird
Brown-headed cowbird
Hooded oriole
Bullocks oriole
Lesser goldfinch
Scientific Name
Sceloporus occidentalis
Crotalus oreganus oreganus
Meleagris gallopavo
Cathartes aura
Elanus leucurus
Accipiter cooperii
Buteo lineatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Patagioenas fasciata
Zenaida macroura
Calypte anna
Picoides nuttallii
Falco sparverius
Empidonax difficilis
Sayornis nigricans
Vireo huttoni
Cyanocitta stelleri
Aphelocoma californica
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica
Psaltriparus minimus
Troglodytes aedon
Thryomanes bewickii
Sialia mexicana
Turdus migratorius
Sturnus vulgaris
Oreothlypis celata
Setophaga coronata
Pipilo maculatus
Melozone crissalis
Melospiza melodia
Junco hyemalis
Agelaius phoeniceus
Molothrus ater
Icterus cucullatus
Icterus bullockii
Spinus psaltria
Status
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R/N
R
R
R
R
R
S
R
R
R
R
S
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
W
R
R
R
R
R
R
S
S
R
Mammals
California ground squirrel
Bottas pocket gopher
Coyote
Spermophilus beecheyi
Thomomys bottae
Canis latrans
R
R/burrows
R/scat
R = Year-round resident; expected to nest/breed on the project site or vicinity

S = Spring/summer resident; may nest in the project site or vicinity
W = Winter resident; winters on or near site but migrates out of Bay Area to nest
N = Evidence of nesting observed
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015. (April 10, 2013 and May 4, 2015 site visits).
148

OCTOBER 2015

Smaller songbirds that use grasslands for foraging and/or nesting include western bluebird (Sialia
mexicana), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and western meadowlark (Sturnella
neglecta). Bottas pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi) appear to be the primary burrowing mammals on the site; gopher burrows were observed
along the southern edge of the woodland along Agua Caliente Creek north of Option B while ground
squirrel burrows were observed scattered throughout both sites. Ground squirrel burrows in Option A
were limited to a few burrow clusters around the topographic high point (i.e., western edge of
proposed staging area) while burrows in Option B consisted of more evenly distributed individual
burrows in the central, northern, and northeastern portions of the existing corral. Common mammals
expected to use the grassland portions of the site include deer mice (Peromyseus sp.), California vole
(Microtus californicus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), northern
raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).
(4) Riparian Woodland Wildlife Species. The greatest diversity of wildlife species
observed during the April 10, 2013 survey were detected in the riparian woodland along Agua
Caliente Creek, which supports a more diverse species assemblage than grassland due to increased
structural diversity of vegetation provided by trees, shrubs, and leaf litter. The increased leaf litter,
moisture content, and, in some areas, understory vegetation, of riparian woodland provides increased
foraging opportunities and cover for amphibians and reptiles. Many of the grassland species listed
above are also likely to occur in the woodland along Agua Caliente Creek, with the addition of
species that prefer leaf litter and woody ground cover such as arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris)
and California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus).
Common bird species observed in the riparian woodland include Annas hummingbird (Calypte
anna), Stellers jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), Bewicks wren
(Thryomanes bewickii), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and dark-eyed junco (Junco
hyemalis). These species also occur in adjacent residential neighborhoods. The woodland also
supports species more closely associated with more natural, undeveloped landscapes such as Pacificslope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), Huttons vireo (Vireo huttoni), western bluebird (Sialia
mexicana), orange-crowned warbler (Oreothlypis celata), and spotted towhee (Pipilo crissalis). The
numerous trees also provide migratory stopover habitat for species such as warbling vireo (Vireo
gilvus), black-throated gray warbler (Setophaga nigrescens), hermit warbler (Setophaga occidentalis),
yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), Wilsons warbler (Cardellina pusilla), black-headed grosbeak
(Pheucticus melanocephalus), and western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana). Although none of these
species were observed during LSAs site visit, they likely regularly occur in small numbers during
spring and fall migration. Larger trees and snags along the creek (including the numerous blue gums)
provide nesting habitat for raptors such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk
(Buteo lineatus), Coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii), barn owl (Tyto alba), and great horned owl
(Bubo virginianus). LSA observed an active red-tailed hawk nest (adult flying to nest) in a tall blue
gum behind the residence adjacent to the western boundary of the Option B site during the April 10
site visit; the nest has reportedly been active for several years.8
Gordon Willey, 2013. Park Supervisor. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. April 10.
149

OCTOBER 2015

Most of the same mammal species that occur in grassland are expected to use riparian woodland. The
linear nature of riparian woodlands facilitates movement and dispersal for these species through
Mission Peak as well as adjacent residential areas. Larger trees and snags along Agua Caliente Creek
may occasionally support bat species such as big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), hoary bat (Lasiurus
cinereus) (winter and migration only), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Brazilian free-tailed bat
(Tadarida brasiliensis), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis).
(5) Special-Status Species. For the purposes of the analysis contained in this document,
special-status species are defined as follows:
Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as
threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act or California
Endangered Species Act.
Plant species assigned to California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, or 2.
Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected Species 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.
Species considered as a taxon of special concern by local agencies.
Plants. Based on the results of the database search and literature review, LSA identified 39
special-status plant species as potentially occurring in the site vicinity (Table V.C-3). Of these
species, 33 are not expected to occur on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat. Six plant species
may occur or have a low potential to occur due to the presence of marginal habitat in riparian
woodland and grassland: bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), big-scale balsamroot
(Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), western
leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), and Santa Cruz tarplant
(Holocarpha macradenia). The April 10, 2013, reconnaissance survey coincided with the blooming
period for all the target species except three that had earlier or later blooming species, round-leaved
filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz tarplant. None of the target species that would have
otherwise been recognizable at the time of the April 10, 2013, survey were observed. All specialstatus plant species that potentially occur on the project site were included in Table V.C-3.
150

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.C-3: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Sites
Status
Species
Amsinckia lunaris
Bent-flowered fiddleneck
Arctostaphylos pallida
Pallid manzanita
(Federal/State/
CRPR)
//1B
FT/SE/1B
Astragalus tener var. tener

Alkali milk-vetch
//1B
Atriplex depressa
Britlescale
//1B
Atriplex minuscula
Lesser saltscale
//1B
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
var. macrolepis
Big-scale balsamroot
//1B
Habitat/Blooming Period
Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland; openings.
Elevation: 50-500 m.
Blooms: April-May
Habitat
Present?
Yes
Arctostaphylos pallida is found on shale barrens

and sandy and gravely soils in the East Bay Hills of
western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It
occurs in broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone
coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland,
and coastal scrub
Blooms: December - March
Occurs in playas, vernal pools, and depressions in
mesic alkaline and adobe clay soils within valley
and foothill grassland, wetlands, and wetlands
riparian areas.
Elevation: 1-60 m.
Blooms: March-June.
No
Alkaline soils and alkaline seeps in chenopod

scrub, meadows, playas, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools.
Elevation: 1-320 m.
Blooms: April-October
Occurs in playa habitat within chenopod scrub,
valley and foothill grassland and sandy areas.
Blooms: May-October
Thin rocky soil, grassy hillsides; foothill woodland,
chaparral; sometimes on serpentine.
Blooms: April to May
No
No
No
Yes
Discussion
Although suitable habitat is present, members of this genus
would have been recognizable at the time of the survey (plants
have a distinctive prickly appearance to the stem and leaves).
No species in the genus Amsinckia were observed during the
April 10th visit. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles.
No surveys for this species are recommended.
Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. This species
is only known from fewer than 10 occurrences in the Contra
Costa Hills of the Diablo Range (at a slightly higher elevation
range). No manzanitas were observed during the
reconnaissance visit, no CNDDB occurrences are recorded
within 5 miles, and no surveys for this species are
recommended.
Unlikely to occur due to the elevation of the site and lack of
suitable alkaline habitat. Closest CNDDB occurrence is
approximately 3.7 miles from the site. An extirpated record is
approximately 3.8 miles from the site in the vicinity of
Milpitas and a possibly extirpated occurrence is
approximately 4.7 miles from the site in the vicinity of Alviso.
approximately 3.2 miles from the site. No surveys for this
species are recommended.
Although suitable habitat may be present in the park, this
species would have been recognizable at the time of the
survey (rosettes of distinctive leaves appear prior to large
showy flowers). This species was not observed during the
April 10th reconnaissance survey. No CNDDB occurrences
are within 5 miles of the site. No surveys for this species are
recommended.
151

OCTOBER 2015

Status
Species
California macrophylla
Round-leaved filaree
(Federal/State/
CRPR)
//1B
Calochortus pulchellus
Mount Diablo fairy-lantern
//1B
Campanula exigua
Chaparral harebell
//1B
Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii
Congdons tarplant
//1B
Chloropyron maritimum
subsp. palustre
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
-/-/1B
Chorizanthe robusta
var. robusta
Robust spineflower
FE//1B
Clarkia franciscana
Presidio clarkia
FE/CE/1B
Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grasslands.
Elevation: 15 1200 m.
Blooms: March-May
Openings in wooded and brushy slopes/ chaparral,

coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and associated
grasslands;
Blooms: April to June
Chaparral (rocky, usually serpentinite)
Blooms: May-June
Occurs within grazed and un-grazed annual
grasslands. The soils are alkaline or saline and
sometimes described as heavy white clay (saline
clay soil.)
Elevation: 1-230 m.
Blooms: May-October (Nov.).
Coastal salt marshes and brackish marshes from
northern San Francisco Bay to Suisun Bay in Napa,
Solano, and Contra Costa Counties
Elevation:0-10 m.
Blooms: June-October
Occurs in sandy or gravelly openings on terraces
and bluffs in cismontane woodland, coastal dunes,
and coastal scrub;
Elevation: 3-300 m.
Blooms: April-September
Occurs almost exclusively in serpentine soils in
coastal scrub, and valley grasslands.
Blooms: May-July
Habitat
Present?
Yes
No
No
No
Discussion
species was not observed during the April 10, 2013
reconnaissance survey. This plant has conspicuously large
leaves that may be red in color. The April 10 survey may
have been too late to positively identify this species since a
dry water year (like the 2012/2013 season) may cause earlier
blooming in some species. No CNDDB occurrences are
within 5 miles of the site, yet surveys for this species are
recommended.
Unlikely to occur due to site elevation and the generally
disturbed quality of the woodland understory. No CNDDB
occurrences are recorded within 5 miles, and no surveys for
this species are recommended.
Unlikely to occur due to the elevation and lack of suitable
habitat. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5 miles,
and no surveys for this species are recommended.
Unlikely to occur due the lack of suitable alkaline grassland
habitat. Two CNDDB records are located approximately 2.3
miles from the site in undeveloped flatlands of the East
Industrial and Baylands districts. No surveys for this species
are recommended.
No

suitable marsh habitat. Closest CNDDB occurrence is an
extirpated record that is 4.72 miles from the site in the vicinity
of Alviso. No surveys for this species are recommended.
No
Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. Most

populations extirpated, and now known from only six
extended occurrences. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded
within 5 miles, and no surveys for this species are
recommended.
Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. Known from
fewer than five occurrences. Threatened by Army activities,
vehicles, urbanization, and non-native plants. No CNDDB
occurrences are recorded within 5 miles, and no surveys for
this species are recommended.
No
152

OCTOBER 2015

Status
Species
Dirca occidentalis
Western leatherwood
(Federal/State/
CRPR)
//1B
Eriogonum luteolum var.

caninum
Tiburon buckwheat
//1B
Eriogonum nudum var.

decurrens
Ben Lomond buckwheat
--/--/1B
Eryngium aristulatum
var. hooveri
Hoover's button-celery
//1B
Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
//1B
Fritillaria liliacea
Fragrant fritillary
//1B
Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian
forest, and riparian woodland on brushy slopes,
mesic sites.
Blooms: January-March (April)
Occurs almost exclusively in sandy to gravelly
soils that may be derived from serpentinite. It is
found in the following habitats: cismontane
woodland, coastal prairie, chaparral, and valley and
foothill grassland.
Elevation: 0-700 m.
Blooms: May-September
Occurs in chaparral, foothill woodland, Ponderosa
pine forest communities that are associated with
coastal areas of the Santa Cruz County sand hills.
Alkaline depressions, vernal pools, roadside ditches
and other wet places near the coast.
Elevation: 3-45 m.
Blooms: July.
Alkaline soils and alkaline seeps in chenopod
scrub, meadows, playas, and valley and foothill
grassland.
Elevation: 1-835 m.
Blooms: April-October
Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and
coastal prairie. Often on serpentine. Various soils
reported though usually clay.
Elevation: 3-410 m.
Blooms: February-April.
Habitat
Present?
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
(marginal)
Discussion
Although this species has the potential to occur in/near
woodland habitat, this species would have been recognizable
at the time of the survey (if not by its flowers then its fruits).
This species was not observed during the April 10th
reconnaissance survey. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5
miles of the site. No surveys for this species are
recommended.
Suitable soil types were not observed on the site. Not clearly
distinguishable from var. luteolum north of Tiburon. E.
luteolum is similar to E. gracile to the south and E. vimineum
to the northeast. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within
5 miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.
Unlikely to occur at the site due to lack of suitable habitat.

Known only to occur in Santa Cruz Sandhills in Santa Cruz
County near the towns of Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond,
Olympia, Zayante, Felton, Scotts Valley, Glenwood, and
Bonny Doon. No CNDDB occurrences are recorded within 5
miles. No surveys for this species are recommended.
Unlikely to occur due the lack of suitable alkaline habitat.
There is one CNDDB record attributed to an 1896 collection
located made by W. L. Jepson in the vicinity of Warm Springs
and another record from 2011, approximately 3.8 miles from
the site at the Pacific Commons Preserve, west of Fremont.
Although this species has the potential to occur in mesic,
annual grassland, it is unlikely to occur due to the lack of
associated plant species combined with heavy grazing. No
CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site, yet
surveys for this species may be warranted.
153

OCTOBER 2015

Status
Species
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
Hoita strobilina
Loma Prieta hoita
Holocarpha macradenia
Santa Cruz tarplant
(Federal/State/
CRPR)
//1B
//1B
FT/CE/1B
Horkelia cuneata
var. sericea
Kelloggs horkelia
//1B
Juglans hindsii
Northern California black
walnut
//1B
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE//1B
Malacothamnus fascicularis
(syn = M. arcuatus)
Arcuate bush mallow
//1B
Occurs in openings within broadleaved upland
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland.
Elevation: 60-13,000 feet
Blooms: March-June.
Occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland,
usually on soils that are underlain by ultramafic
rock.
Blooms: May-July (August-October)
Occurs in sandy-clay soil in coastal prairie, coastal
scrub, and in valley and foothill grassland.
Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime
chaparral, coastal scrub, dunes and coastal
sandhills; sandy or gravelly openings.
Blooms: February-July
Deep alluvial soil in riparian forest and riparian
woodland. Few extant native stands remain;
widely naturalized.
Elevation: 0-395 m.
Blooms: April-May
Valley and foothill grassland and cismontane

woodland in vernal pools, swales, and moist
depressions (alkaline grasslands). Extirpated from
most of its range; extremely endangered.
Elevation: 0-470 m.
Blooms: March-June
Occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub in gravelly
alluvium.
Habitat
Present?
Yes
No
Discussion
species would have been recognizable at the time of the
survey (rosettes of distinctive leaves appear prior to the large
showy flowers). This species was not observed during the
April 10, 2012 survey. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5
miles of the site. No surveys for this species are
recommended.
Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (serpentine
soils). No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site.
Yes
This species has the potential to occur in valley and foothill

grassland. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the
site, yet surveys for this species may be warranted.
No
No suitable habitat present. No CNDDB occurrences within 5

No
Juglans hindsii has been widely used as a rootstock for

grafting J. regia and has been planted extensively in many
parts of California for this purpose. It is now naturalized in
many areas where it apparently did not occur before the
introduction of commercial walnut growing. This species was
not found during floristic surveys. No CNDDB occurrences
recommended.
Unlikely to occur at the site due to the elevation of the site
and lack of suitable alkaline habitat. Closest CNDDB
occurrence is approximately 2.5 miles from the site. No
surveys for this species are recommended.
No
No
Unlikely to occur at the site due to the lack of suitable alkaline

habitat. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the
site. No surveys for this species are recommended.
154

OCTOBER 2015

Status
Species
Malacothamnus hallii
Halls bush mallow
(Federal/State/
CRPR)
//1B
Meconella oregana
White fairypoppy
//1B
Monolopia gracilens
Woodland wooly threads
//1B
Navarretia prostrata
Prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
//1B
Chaparral, coastal scrub. Some populations on
serpentine.
Blooms: May-September (October)
Coastal prairie, coastal scrub
Elevation:250-620 m.
Blooms: March-April
Occurs in grassy sites, in openings, sandy to rocky
soils in chaparral, serpentine grasslands,
cismontane woodland, broadleafed upland forests,
and north coast coniferous forests; often seen on
serpentine after burns.
Blooms: March-July
Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and
foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal pools/mesic,
Blooms: April-July
Occurs on grassy slopes with marine influence in
coastal prairie and in valley and foothill grassland;
Blooms: February-June
Habitat
Present?
No
No
No
No
Plagiobothrys diffuses
SanFrancisco popcornflower
/SE/1B
Plagiobothrys glaber
Hairless popcorn-flower
//1A
Coastal salt marshes, alkaline meadows, and seeps.

Blooms: March-May
No
//2
Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, lower montane

coniferous forest.
Occurs in wet meadows, chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland, and wetland-riparian areas with
coastal influence and often on serpentine.
Blooms: February-May
No
Polemonium Carneum
Oregon polemonium
Sanicula maritime
Adobe snakeroot
/SR/1B
No
No
Discussion
Unlikely to occur at the site due to lack of suitable habitat
(serpentine soils). No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles
of the site. No surveys for this species are
Unlikely to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat. No
CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the site. No
(rocky, sandy or serpentine soils). No CNDDB occurrences

(alkaline soils and vernal pools). Closest CNDDB occurrence
is approximately 2.6 miles from the site. No surveys for this
species are
Although this species has the potential to occur in mesic,
annual grassland, it is unlikely to occur due to the lack of a
marine influence. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles
of the site. No surveys for this species are recommended.
Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (alkaline).
This species is believed to be extinct in California. No
CNDDB records are within 5 miles. No surveys for this
Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. No CNDDB
records are within 5 miles. No surveys for this species are
recommended.
Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable coastally influenced
habitat. This species is known from fewer than twenty
occurrences and is considered extirpated from Alameda
County. No CNDDB occurrences are within 5 miles of the
site. No surveys for this species are recommended.
155

OCTOBER 2015

Status
Species
Streptanthus albidus ssp.
peramoenus
Most beautiful jewel flower
(Federal/State/
CRPR)
Stuckenia filiformis ssp.

alpina
Slender-leaved pondweed
Suaeda californica
California seablite
//1B
//2
FE//1B
Trifolium hydrophilum
Saline clover
//1B
Viburnum ellipticum
Oval-leaved viburnum
//2
Occurs in openings in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and valley and foothill grassland,
usually on rocky or serpentine soil.
Elevation: 94-1000
Occurs in ponds, marshes, and swamps.
Elevation: 300-2150
Blooms: May-July
Marshes and swamps (coastal salt).
Elevation: 0-15.
Blooms: July-October
Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland,
Vernal pools
Elevation: 0-300 m.
Blooms: April-June
Generally occurs on north facing slopes growing in
chaparral and Ponderosa pine forests.
Elevation 215-1400 m.
Blooms May-June
Habitat
Present?
No
No
Discussion
Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (rocky or
serpentine soils). Closest CNDDB record is attributed to an
occurrence at unknown location in serpentine habitat in
Mission Peak approximately 0.7 mile from the site. No
No

No
No suitable habitat present. Closest CNDDB occurrence is

No

CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank

Status Codes:
FE = federally listed as endangered
FT = federally listed as threatened
SE = State-listed as endangered
SR = State Rare
ST = State-listed as threatened
1A = California Rare Plant Rank 1A: considered extinct in California
1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B: considered rare/endangered in California elsewhere
2 = California Rare Plant Rank 2 rare/threatened/endangered in California, common elsewhere
Source:
LSA Associates, Inc., August 2015
156

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.C-4: Special-Status Animal Species Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Sites
Status
Species
Invertebrates
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
Bay checkerspot butterfly
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Fish
Steelhead (central California
coast DPS)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus
Amphibians and Reptiles
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
(Federal/
State/CDFW)
Habitat Requirements
Potential for Occurrence
FE//
Vernal pools.
Not expected to occur due to lack of vernal pools or other

seasonal wetlands that may provide potential habitat.
Not expected to occur due to lack of native grassland
supporting host plants.
FT//
Native grasslands near serpentine rock outcrops in the vicinity

of San Francisco Bay. Requires stands of Plantago erecta for
larval host plants; Orthocarpus densiflorus and O.
purpurescens are secondary host plants.
FT//CSC
Coastal rivers and streams with cold water and deep (3 feet or
greater) pools and runs; for spawning, requires clean, silt-free
gravel beds (0.5-5 inches deep), with clear flowing water and
shaded stream reaches. Spawning adults occur during winter
high water.
Not expected to occur. Agua Caliente Creek does not support a

known steelhead run.9
FT/ST
Grasslands and foothills that contain small mammal burrows

(for dry-season retreats) and seasonal ponds and pools (for
breeding during the rainy season).
May occur. No aquatic habitat on project site but known to

occur in stock ponds 1 mile northeast of the Option A site and
0.7 mile east of the Option B site.10 Individuals from these
sites could disperse across Sites A and B as well as use on-site
burrows during dry season.
Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San
Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.
10
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013a. Unpublished map of California tiger salamander occurrences on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. April 9.
157

OCTOBER 2015

Status
Species
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
(Federal/
State/CDFW)
FT//CSC
Ponds, streams, drainages and associated uplands; requires
areas of deep, still, and/or slow-moving water for breeding
Foothill yellow-legged frog

Rana boylii
//CSC
Partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky

substrate.
Western pond turtle

Actinemys marmorata
//CSC
Ponds, streams, drainages, and associated uplands.

May occur. Species has not been observed in Agua Caliente
Creek during District surveys11 but could occur during
dispersal events. Known to occur in stock ponds 0.5 mile and 1
mile northeast of the Option A site.12 Individuals from these
sites could disperse across the Option A and B sites during rain
events. California red-legged frog Critical Habitat Unit ALA-2
is located approximately 2 miles to the east of the project site
and encompasses the eastern section of Mission Peak Regional
Preserve (Figure V.C-2). Because this species is considered a
relatively good disperser and critical habitat is considered a
core area for this species, this species could occur at the
project site.
Not expected to occur. Low-quality habitat present in Agua
Caliente Creek and species distribution on District lands
limited to Alameda Creek watershed.13
May occur. Although habitat is present in Agua Caliente
Creek, it has not been recorded in the creek to date.14
11
Bobzien, Steve, 2013. Biologist, East Bay Regional Park District. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. April 10.
12
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013b. Unpublished map of known, potential, and unlikely California red-legged frog habitat on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve.
April 9.
13
Bobzien, S. and J.E. DiDonato, 2007. The Status of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii), Foothill
Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii), and other Aquatic Herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District, California. East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, CA.
14
Bobzien, Steve, 2013, op. cit.
158

OCTOBER 2015

Status
(Federal/
State/CDFW)
Chaparral and sage scrub with rock outcrops and an abundance
of prey species such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus
occidentalis). Also, frequents riparian habitat.

Unlikely to occur due to small size of scrub patches in the
Option B site (road cut below trail just north of proposed
pedestrian bridge) and limited rock outcrops. Could occur in
riparian woodland along Agua Caliente Creek due to the
presence of chaparral and sage scrub in the vicinity. Highquality habitat is present on the slopes east of the sites but
individuals potentially occupying these areas are not expected
to disperse onto the site due to limited habitat availability.
Alameda striped racer Critical Habitat Unit 5B is located
approximately 2 miles east of the project site and encompasses
the eastern section of Mission Peak (Figure V.C-2). Because
this species is considered a relatively good disperser and
critical habitat is considered a core area for this species, this
species could occur at the project site.
//CFP
Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes. Require dense-topped

trees or shrubs for nesting and perching.
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
//CSC
Nests in wet meadows and marshes, forages over open

grasslands and agricultural fields.
Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
//CFP
Rolling foothills and mountain areas. Nests in cliff-walled

canyons or large trees in open areas.
FD/SD/CF
P
A variety of open habitats including coastlines, mountains,

marshes, bay shorelines, and urban areas. Nest on cliffs,
bridges, and tall buildings.
Observed flying over the Option A site on April 10, 2013.

Numerous trees on site provide suitable nest sites and
grassland suitable for foraging.
May occur. Grassland suitable for foraging but lack of dense
ground cover and existing human disturbance precludes
nesting.
May occasionally forage over grassland but not expected to
nest in large trees along Agua Caliente due to existing human
disturbance.
May rarely forage over grassland but not expected to nest due
to lack of suitable nest sites. Rocky cliffs downslope of
Mission Peak summit may provide suitable nesting habitat.
More likely to occur along San Francisco Bay shoreline and
wetlands than inland foothills.
May occur. Has not been detected on site to date15 but ground
squirrel burrows and short grassland provide high-quality
habitat.
May occur. Numerous trees on site provide suitable nest sites
and grassland suitable for foraging.
Species
Alameda striped racer
(Alameda whipsnake)
Coluber lateralis
euryxanthus
Birds
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum
FT/ST/
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
//CSC
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
//CSC
15
Open habitats (e.g., grasslands, agricultural areas) with

mammal burrows or other features (e.g., culverts, pipes, debris
piles) suitable for nesting and roosting.
Open grasslands and woodlands with scattered shrubs, fence
posts, utility lines, or other perches. Nests in dense shrubs and
lower branches of trees.
Ibid.
159

OCTOBER 2015

Status
(Federal/
State/CDFW)
Species
Yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
brewsteri
//CSC
Salt marsh common

yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
//CSC
//CSC
Mammals
Townsends big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
Riparian woodland; nests in dense shrubs or small trees (e.g.,
willows).
Salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes; and riparian

woodlands. Nests on or near ground in low vegetation near
water.
Nests in dense vegetation near open water, forages in
grasslands and agricultural fields.
/CT/CSC
Roosts primarily in caves and abandoned mines, occasionally

in buildings, bridges, rock crevices, and hollow trees; forages
in open woodlands and along woodland edges.
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
//CSC
Roosts in caves, tunnels, buildings, under bridges, and in tree

hollows; forages over variety of habitats.
San Francisco dusky-footed

woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
//CSC
American badger
Taxidea taxus
//CSC
Occurs in forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to

dense understory. Also found in chaparral habitats. Feeds
mainly on woody plants: live oak, maple, coffeeberry, alder,
and elderberry.
Open, dry habitats (e.g., grasslands) with friable soils.

Unlikely to nest. Willows above existing Agua Caliente Creek
road crossing (Option B site) resemble breeding habitat but
narrow corridor width, existing human disturbance, and rarity
of breeding records around San Francisco Bay reduces
likelihood of presence.
Not expected to occur. Suitable dense vegetation near water
not present.
May occasionally forage over grasslands but not expected to
nest due to lack of dense freshwater marsh or extensive stands
of thistle, mustard, or other weeds.
Unlikely to occur. No caves or mines present onsite or in the
immediate vicinity, and no large hollows or cavities were
observed in on-site trees. Dispersing or migrating individuals
may occasionally fly or forage over site for brief periods, but
extended use and roosting not expected.
Unlikely to support a roost site (day, night, or maternity) as
there are no structures on the Option A or Option B sites. Tree
cavities in and along Aqua Caliente Creek, if present, could
provide locations for transient day and night roosting. No large
hollows or cavities were observed in on-site trees during
reconnaissance surveys. Individuals may fly or forage over site
for brief periods, especially within the riparian habitat.
Not expected to occur. Woodland along Agua Caliente
provides habitat but no stick nests observed during April 10,
2013, and May 4, 2015, site visits.
Not expected to occur. Although suitable habitat present in
grassland no potential dens observed during April 10, 2013,
and May 4, 2015, reconnaissance surveys.
DPS = distinct population segment

Status
FE = federally endangered
FT = federally threatened
FD = federally delisted
SE = State endangered
ST = State threatened
Source:
SD = State delisted
CT = Candidate threatened
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
CFP = California Fully Protected Species
LSA Associates, Inc., August 2015
160

OCTOBER 2015

Animals. Based on a review of the information sources listed above and LSAs habitat
observations during the April 10, 2013, site visit, LSA identified 21 special-status animal species as
potentially occurring in the site vicinity (Table V.C-4). Species associated with tidal marsh and other
Bay shoreline habitats (e.g., California Ridgways rail, salt marsh harvest mouse) were immediately
eliminated from consideration and are not included in Table V.C-4. The open grassland of the project
site provides foraging habitat for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos),
tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Townsends big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and
pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), but none of these species are expected to breed on site due to the
absence of suitable nest or roost sites. California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander are
both listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (tiger salamanders are also listed under the
California Endangered Species Act [CESA]) and are known to occur in nearby stock ponds so are
discussed in further detail below. Although Alameda striped racer (Coluber lateralis euryxanthus) is
unlikely to occur on the sites, it is also discussed below due to its listing status (federal and State
threatened) and the presence of limited scrub on the site. Four additional species, western pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), are also discussed below based on the presence of marginal
to high-quality habitat on the site. The remaining 10 species are not expected to occur based on the
absence of habitat and are not discussed further. All special-status animal species that potentially
occur on the project site were included in Table V.C-4.
California Tiger Salamander. California tiger salamanders occur in grassland and oak
woodland habitats of the Central Valley and coastal hills and valleys from Santa Rosa southward to
the Santa Rita Hills.16 During the dry summer months, adult and juvenile tiger salamanders remain
underground in small rodent burrows or soil cracks in order to survive the summer heat.17 After the
first autumn rains, adults emerge from underground to mate and lay their eggs in vernal pools, stock
ponds, and other ephemeral water bodies where fish and other predators of tiger salamander eggs and
larvae are absent. After hatching, larvae remain in the water during metamorphosis to juvenile form.
After metamorphosis is complete, juveniles disperse from the aquatic breeding site to underground
burrows or crevices for the summer. The distance between upland sites and aquatic breeding sites
depends on local topography, vegetation, and the distribution of rodent burrows. A recent study by
Trenham and Shaffer18 showed that 95 percent of adult tiger salamanders dispersed to within 2,034
feet of their breeding pond, and that 95 percent of sub-adults dispersed to within 2,067 feet. Another
recent five-year study found tiger salamander movements as potentially far as 1.3 miles to and from
breeding ponds.19
The CNDDB includes six tiger salamander occurrences within 3 miles of the project area (Figure
V.C-2), the closest of which is at Rancho Higuera Park approximately 1.1 miles to the southeast,
16
Stebbins, R.C., 2003. A Field Guide to Western Amphibians and Reptiles. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, Massachusetts.
17
Ibid.
18
Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer, 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population
viability. In Ecological Applications 15(4):11581168.
19
Orloff, S. 2007. Migratory movements of California tiger salamander in upland habitat a five-year study:
Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates LLC, Walnut Creek, CA.
161

OCTOBER 2015

where a single larva was collected from an artificial pond on May 9, 1998.20 In addition, the District
has observed tiger salamander larvae in stock ponds 1 mile northeast of the Option A site (upper end
of north fork of Agua Caliente) and 0.7 mile east of the Option B site.21 All three of these occurrences
are within the 1.3-mile maximum known dispersal distance of tiger salamanders.
Although potential California tiger salamander breeding habitat (i.e., stock ponds) is generally absent
from the project sites, the presence of suitable underground retreats (ground squirrel and gopher
burrows) on both sites and proximity of occupied breeding ponds make it possible for this species to
occur on site during dispersal events and/or the dry season. It is expected that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW would consider both sites as potentially occupied by
California tiger salamanders.
California Red-Legged Frog. California red-legged frogs occur in and along freshwater
marshes, streams, ponds, and other semi-permanent water sources. Optimal habitat contains emergent
or riparian vegetation closely associated with deep (i.e., greater than 2.3 feet), still, or slow-moving
water.22 Although the species can occur in intermittent streams and ponds, they are unlikely to
successfully breed in streams in which all surface water disappears.23 Suitable breeding ponds and
pools usually have a minimum depth of 20 inches, but California red-legged frogs do sometimes
breed successfully in pools as shallow as 10 inches.24 Regardless of water depth, breeding habitat
must contain water for egg, tadpole, and metamorphic development.
Limited information is available regarding California red-legged frog use of uplands and other nonbreeding habitats. In a recent study of California red-legged frog habitat use in coastal Marin County,
however, Fellers and Kleeman25 found that while some frogs remained at breeding sites year-round,
66 percent of female and 25 percent of male frogs moved to non-breeding areas, even when the
breeding site retained water. At all of their study sites, frogs moved primarily in one direction, often
toward the nearest riparian area. They concluded that non-breeding habitats must have the following
characteristics: 1) sufficient moisture to allow amphibians to survive throughout the non-breeding
season (up to 11 months); 2) sufficient cover to moderate temperatures during the warmest and
coldest times of the year; and 3) protection (e.g., deep pools in a stream or complex cover such as root
masses or thick vegetation) from predators such as raptors, herons, and small carnivores.
The only CNDDB occurrence within 3 miles of the site is a July 30, 1996 observation of an adult and
juvenile California red-legged frog in Agua Caliente Creek, approximately 0.5 mile southwest
(downstream) of the project area.26 California red-legged frogs are also known to occupy two stock
20
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015, op. cit. Occurrence No. 446.
21
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013a, op. cit.
22
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes, 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final
report to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova.
23
Ibid.
24
Fellers, G.M., 2005. California red-legged frog. M. Lannoo, editor. In Amphibian Declines: The Conservation
Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
25
Fellers, G.M. and P.M. Kleeman, 2007. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) movement and habitat use:
implications for conservation. In Journal of Herpetology 41(2):276286.
26
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015, op. cit.
162

OCTOBER 2015

ponds along the north fork of Agua Caliente Creek, 0.5 and 1 mile northeast of the Option A site,
respectively.27 There are no additional occurrences within 1 mile of the site, which is the distance at
which the USFWS evaluates a sites potential to support the species in its Revised Guidance on Site
Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.28 Aquatic features within 1 mile
of the sites include Laurel Creek (300 feet north of the Option A site), four stock ponds (including the
two mentioned above), Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries, and artificially constructed drainage
channels in the residential neighborhoods to the west.
Although California red-legged frogs have not been observed in the reach of Agua Caliente Creek
within the Mission Peak Regional Preserve, it is considered potential foraging and dispersal habitat by
District biologists.29 Although the creek contains several permanent pools, stream conditions in the
reaches adjacent to the Option A and B sites appear not to be suitable for egg disposition or
developing larvae. The grassland within the Option A and B sites is within dispersal distance of
occupied ponds and could thus be used by dispersing frogs.
Alameda Striped Racer. Alameda striped racer (or Alameda whipsnake) is found primarily in
areas that support scrub communities, including mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral, coastal
scrub, and annual grassland, oak woodlands, and valley foothill riparian scrub habitats. Within these
plant communities, specific habitat features needed by striped racers include, but are not limited to,
small mammal burrows, rock outcrops, talus, and cover types that provide temperature regulation,
shelter from predators, egg-laying sites, and winter hibernation refuges. Many of these same elements
are important in maintaining prey species (e.g., western fence lizards). Swaim30 described the concept
of core area in assessing Alameda striped racer habitat. A core area is an area of concentrated use
by one or more Alameda striped racers, and is believed to be centered on open-canopy scrub on east-,
southeast-, south-, and southwest-facing slopes or in grasslands near the scrub community with the
same aspects.31 Rock outcrops and woody debris are common components of core areas since they
provide cover for Alameda striped racers as well as western fence lizards, the principal food source for
the species.
The CNDDB contains a lone Alameda striped racer occurrence in the hills approximately 1 mile
northeast of the Option B site.32 Extensive stands of chaparral that provide high-quality Alameda
striped racer habitat are present on the slopes along the upper reaches of the central and south forks of
Agua Caliente Creek, approximately 0.2 mile east of the Option B site. Smaller stands of California
sage scrub are present on the slopes adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek approximately 200 feet east of
the Option B site, and sparse patches of sagebrush are present along an intermittent drainage and road
cut just north of the proposed pedestrian bridge at the northeastern corner of the Option B site.
27
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013b, op. cit.
28
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Revised guidance on site assessments and field surveys for the California
Red-legged Frog. Website: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/crf_survey
_guidance_aug2005.pdf. August.
29
30
Swaim, K., 1994. Aspects of the ecology of the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). M.S.
Thesis, California State University at Hayward. 140 pp.
31
Ibid.
32
163

OCTOBER 2015

Despite the presence of scrub within the Option B site, Alameda striped racer is unlikely to occur on
the project sites given the small size, scattered distribution, and openness of available scrub; existing
human disturbance levels (including predation pressure from dogs); and lack of scrub or chaparral
habitat to the west towards which Alameda striped racers from the east might disperse through the
Option A and/or B sites.
Western Pond Turtle. The western pond turtle is a California Species of Special Concern. Pond
turtles use permanent or nearly permanent water bodies in a variety of habitats. They can be found in
ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches within grasslands, woodlands, and open forests.
Basking sites such as logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks are necessary for
thermoregulation. Upland areas, frequently in grassland, are used for egg laying. Although pond
turtles have not been observed in Agua Caliente Creek to date, the creek, tributary, and adjacent
grasslands are considered potential habitat for the species.33
White-Tailed Kite. The white-tailed kite is a California Fully Protected Species. This species
nests in trees or large shrubs with dense foliage located near suitable foraging habitat (e.g.,
grasslands, marshes, agricultural fields). Preferred prey includes California voles and mice. LSA
observed a single white-tailed kite flying north across the western edge of the Option A site on April
10, 2013. Although no nests were found during the site visit, the numerous trees along Agua Caliente
Creek and its tributaries provide suitable nest sites and marginal foraging habitat is present in the
grassland. As such, this species may nest on the site in the future.
Burrowing Owl. Burrowing owls have undergone substantial population declines throughout
central and coastal California, primarily due to habitat loss.34 This species occurs in open, welldrained grasslands with abundant small mammal burrows, particularly those of California ground
squirrels. Burrowing owls also prefer areas with short vegetation so they can easily scan their
surroundings and spot potential predators.35
The CNDDB contains five burrowing owl records within 1 mile of the site, the closest of which is a
June 19, 2004, observation of five owls near the intersection of Osgood Road and Grimmer Boulevard
in the Warm Springs District of Fremont, approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest.36 The remaining
occurrences are also within the Warm Springs District, which is one of the few areas in western
Alameda County where burrowing owls persist. Burrowing owls have not been observed within the
project area to date,37 but the presence of multiple ground squirrel burrows and low grass height on
both sites provide ideal habitat conditions for the species. No owls or sign of their presence were
observed during LSAs reconnaissance survey, but burrowing owls may occur on site in the future.
33
34
DeSante, D. F., et al., 2007. A census of Burrowing Owls in central California in 1991. Pages 3848. J. L. Lincer
and K. Steenhof, editors. In The Burrowing Owl, Its Biology and Management: Including the Proceedings of the First
International Symposium. Raptor Research Report No. 9.
35
Zarn, M., 1974. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea). Habitat Management Series for Unique or
Endangered Species, Technical Report T-N-250. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
36
37
164

OCTOBER 2015

Loggerhead Shrike. The loggerhead shrike is a California Species of Special Concern. Shrikes
occur in open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, and other perches. They
primarily nest in the lower branches of dense shrubs and trees, although they have also been observed
nesting in buildings and debris piles. They feed primarily on large insects, small birds, and small
mammals. Although no shrikes were observed on the site during LSAs site visit, the numerous trees
and shrubs provide suitable nest and perch sites. This species may nest on the site in the future.
(6) Jurisdictional Waters. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) usually has
jurisdiction over the portion of a project site that contains waters of the United States and adjacent
wetlands. Corps regulation is intended to avoid adverse impacts on waters of the United States,
including wetlands. LSA completed a formal delineation of potential waters of the United States in
May 2015, which has not been verified by the Corps as of September 2015 (see Appendix C of this
EIR). The Corps would verify the wetland delineation as part of the regulatory permitting process.
Potential jurisdictional waters at both the Option A and B sites are discussed below.
Option A. Potential seasonal wetlands were observed near the proposed detention pond in the
northern portion of the Option A site (Figure V-C.1a). No depressions or drainages containing
potential wetland characteristics (e.g., hydrophytic vegetation, evidence of scour) were observed in
the other upland portions of the Option A site during LSAs wetland delineation. At the Hidden
Valley Trail, an existing 5-foot diameter culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek is included
as part of the Option A site (see Figure III-2a). The tributary to Agua Caliente Creek is expected to
qualify as waters of the United States since it is hydrologically linked to San Francisco Bay. The
tributary width at this location is approximately 15 feet from top-of-bank to top-of-bank with a stream
width of 4 feet.
Option B. The Option B site includes portions of Agua Caliente Creek, including areas for
proposed bridge crossings and culvert removal. Agua Caliente Creek is expected to qualify as waters
of the United States since it is hydrologically linked to San Francisco Bay. Agua Caliente Creek is
also expected to qualify as waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Water Board. The
approximate channel width is 20 feet at top-of-bank at the existing Peak Meadow Trail culvert
crossing over Agua Caliente Creek. The channel width is 30 to 40 feet at the location of the northern
proposed pedestrian bridge crossing in the north end of the Option B site and 60 feet at the location of
the southern proposed pedestrian bridge crossing in the middle of the Option B site. The width of the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream at this location is 4 feet. The stream substrate is
comprised primarily of exposed bedrock, boulders, and cobble. Approximately 300 linear feet of
Agua Caliente Creek (180 feet at downstream of Peak Meadow Trail crossing/culvert, 120 feet at
upstream crossing/pedestrian bridge) would be within the disturbed area for Option B as depicted in
Figure III-3a in the Chapter III, Project Description. The existing culvert at the Peak Meadow Trail
crossing is approximately 5 feet in diameter.
Agua Caliente Creek and its associated riparian woodland are also under CDFW jurisdiction pursuant
to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. CDFW jurisdiction extends to the outer dripline of
riparian woodland. Option B would impact approximately 0.3 acres of riparian woodland for the two
new creek crossings and the removal of the existing crossing.
165

OCTOBER 2015

(7) Special-Status Natural Communities. The CNDDB contains records for five specialstatus natural communities in the site vicinity: northern coastal salt marsh, northern maritime
chaparral, serpentine bunchgrass, sycamore alluvial woodland, and valley needlegrass grassland.
None of these communities occur on or adjacent to the site.
c.
Regulatory Context. Relevant regulations concerning biological resources are summarized
below.
(1) Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The federal ESA protects listed animal species
from harm or take which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be
defined as take even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less
protection than listed wildlife species.
The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife and plant
species under the ESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and candidate species. Species
on these lists are not legally protected under the ESA, but may become listed in the near future and
are often considered in their review of a project.
(2) California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is
administered by CDFW and prohibits the take of plant and animal species identified as either
threatened or endangered in the State of California by the Fish and Game Commission (Fish and
Game Code Section 2050-2089). "Take" means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture or kill. Sections 2081 and 2080.1 of the CESA allow CDFW to authorize
exceptions to the prohibition of take of the State-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal
species for purposes such as public and private development.
(3) California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines
provides that a species not listed on the federal or State lists of protected species may be considered
rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have
been modeled after the definitions in the ESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and
Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the
guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may
have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW.
(4) Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States.
Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include
streams that are tributary to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not
adjacent to waters of the United States are termed isolated wetlands and, depending on the
circumstances, may also be subject to Corps jurisdiction.
In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of the
United States. The type of permit depends on the acreage involved and the purpose of the proposed
fill. Minor amounts of fill can be covered by a Nationwide Permit. An Individual Permit is required
for projects that result in more than a minimal impact on jurisdictional areas.
166

OCTOBER 2015

(5) California Water Quality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs.Pursuant to Section

401 of the federal Clean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the Corps must obtain water quality
certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). This certification
ensures that the project will meet State water quality standards. The Water Board has a policy of nonet-loss of wetlands and typically requires the identification of mitigation for all impacts to wetlands
before it will issue water quality certification.
When reviewing applications, the Water Board focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely
affect the beneficial uses associated with waters of the State. Generally, the Water Board defines
beneficial uses to include all of the resources, services, and qualities of aquatic ecosystems and
underground aquifers that benefit the State. For most construction projects, the Water Board seeks to
protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of water quality control measures into
projects that will result in discharge into waters of the State. The Water Board typically requires the
use of construction and post-construction best management practices (BMPs) to protect and maintain
water quality.
(6) Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits
the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or
their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term take is defined as to pursue, hunt, shoot,
capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context
otherwise requires. Most bird species native to North America are protected under this act.
(7) California Fish and Game Code. CDFW is also responsible for enforcing the California
Fish and Game Code, which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects.
For example, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code governs the issuance of Streambed Alteration
Agreements. Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities substantially
divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river,
stream, or lake designated as such by CDFW.
The Fish and Game Code also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which
may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these
species except for necessary scientific research or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for
the protection of livestock. Fully Protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700
(mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code, while
Protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42.
Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the
nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction
of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their nests.
These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds.
Non-native species, including European starling, house sparrow, and rock pigeon, are not afforded
any protection under the MBTA or California Fish and Game Code.
(8) East Alameda County Conservation Strategy and Associated Biological Opinion.
The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a multi-agency/jurisdiction cooperative
effort to address conflicts between development and infrastructure maintenance activities and the
continued survival of endangered and threatened species. The EACCS is intended to better coordinate
mitigation requirements for habitat preservation and to help focus mitigation measures for strategic
167

OCTOBER 2015

biological value. The District is a partner in the EACCS, but the City of Fremont is not. The EACCS
was developed in close coordination with the USFWS, the CDFW, and the Water Board. The EACCS
includes goals, objectives, and mitigation guidance for endangered and threatened species based on
the needs of these species and their habitat, and serves to streamline the permitting processes for
projects. The Biological Opinion for the EACCS was issued by the USFWS in 2012, and was
developed with the Corps as a tool to implement the EACCS. The Biological Opinion was issued to
the Corps for permit, enforcement actions, and mitigation bank projects under Corps jurisdiction and
includes general and species-specific minimization measures to minimize adverse effects to listed
species and their habitats. The project sites are located just west of the EACCS study area boundary.
(9) City of Fremont General Plan Policies. The Conservation Element of the City of
Fremonts General Plan includes policies encouraging the protection of biological resources. The
primary biological resources policies applicable to the proposed project include the following:
Policy 7-1.1: Preservation of Natural Habitat. Preserve and protect fish, wildlife, and plant species
and their habitats including wetlands, creeks, lakes, ponds, saltwater bodies and other riparian areas.
Maintain these areas for their critical biological values and to help improve water quality.
Policy 7-1.2: Protection of Species. Preserve and protect rare, threatened, endangered and candidate
species and their habitats consistent with State and federal law.
Policy 7-1.3: Preservation of Hill Areas. Preserve and protect the Hill Area woodlands and
vegetative areas, especially along the ridgeline, in canyons and on vegetated north-facing slopes.
Policy 7-1.5: Promotion of Interagency Coordination. Promote interagency coordination for the
protection and preservation of biological resources.
o
Implementation 7-1.5.A: Maximize the biological values of publicly owned lands, consistent
with other public purposes (recreation, flood control, groundwater recharge, etc.) when
opportunities for preservation occur.
Policy 7-1.7: Mitigate Development Impacts. Mitigate the impacts of development on the natural
environment to the extent possible through sound planning, design, and management of development
projects.
(10) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Districts Master Plan38 policies
most pertinent to biological resources in the project area are excerpted and/or summarized, below, as
appropriate.
Policy NRM1. The District will maintain, manage, conserve, enhance and restore park wildland
resources to protect essential plant and animal habitat within viable, sustainable ecosystems.
Policy NRM2. Plant and animal pest species will be controlled by using Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) procedures and practices adopted by the Board of Directors. The District will employ IPM
practices to minimize the impact of undesirable species on natural resource and to reduce pestrelated health and safety risks to the public within developed facilities and/or high-use recreational
areas.
Policy NRM3. The District will manage park wildlands using modern resource management
practices based on scientific principles supported by available research. New scientific information
will be incorporated into the planning and implementation of District wildland management
38
168

OCTOBER 2015

programs as it becomes available. The District will coordinate with other agencies and organization
in a concerted effort to inventory, evaluate, and manage natural resources and to maintain and
enhance biodiversity of the region.
Policy NRM4. The District will identify, evaluate, conserve, enhance and restore rare, threatened,
endangered or locally important species of plants and animals and their habitats, using scientific
research, field experience and other proven methodologies. Populations of listed species will be
monitored through periodic observations of their condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and
distribution. Conservation of rare, threatened and endangered species of plants and animals and their
supporting habitats will take precedence over other activities, if the District determines that the other
uses and activities would have a significant adverse effect on these natural resources.
Policy NRM5. The District will maintain and manage vegetation to conserve, enhance and restore
natural plant communities, to preserve and protect populations of rare, threatened, endangered, and
sensitive plant species and their habitats, and, where possible, to protect biodiversity and to achieve a
high representation of native plants and animals.
Policy NRM6. The District will evaluate exotic eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress plantations,
shrubland or woodland areas occurring along the wildland/urban interface on a case-by-case basis
for thinning, removal and/or conversion to a less fire-prone condition, following the methods laid out
in the Fuels Management Plan. The District will minimize the widespread encroachment of exotic
and/or invasive species such as coyote brush, poison oak, and broom, etc. on parkland and work to
preserve native plants where feasible.
Policy NRM7. The District will manage agricultural sites and cultivated areas in accordance with
appropriate agricultural or landscaping practices and IPM methods to control noxious weed
infestation, broom and other invasive, non-native shrubs and to eventually replace these invasive
plants with desirable native species.
Policy NRM8. The District will conserve, enhance and restore biological resources to promote
naturally functioning ecosystems. Conservation efforts may involve using managed conservation
grazing in accordance with the Districts Wildlife Management Policies and Guidelines, prescribed
burning, mechanical treatments, IPM, and/or habitat protection and restoration. Restoration activities
may involve the removal of invasive plants and animals, or the reintroduction of native or
naturalized species, adapted to or representative of a given site.
Policy NRM9. The District will conserve and protect native animal species and enhance their
habitats to maintain viable wildlife populations within balanced ecosystems. Non-native and feral
animals will be managed to minimize conflicts with native wildlife species. The District will
cooperate on a regular basis with other public and private land managers, and recognized wildlife
management experts to address wildlife management issues on a regional scale.
Policy NRM10. The District will conserve, enhance and restore native fish and amphibian
populations and their habitats; will develop aquatic facilities, where appropriate, to create a wide
variety of fisheries; will monitor fisheries resources to determine species composition, size,
population, and growth rates; and will cooperate with the CDFW to conserve, enhance and manage
its fisheries resources for ecological and recreational benefits.
Policy NRM12. The District will manage riparian and other wetland environments and their buffer
zones to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of these important resources and to
prevent the destruction, loss, or degradation of habitat. The District will participate in the
preservation, restoration, and management of riparian and wetland areas of regional significance,
and will not initiate any action that could result in a net decrease in park wetlands. The District will
encourage public access to the Bay/Delta shoreline, but will control access to riparian and wetlands
areas, when necessary, to protection natural resources.
169

OCTOBER 2015

(11) Other Statutes, Codes, and Policies. This section describes three additional agency
policies or designations that are relevant to the project site: California Rare Plant Ranks, specialstatus natural communities, and the City of Fremonts Tree Preservation Ordinance.
California Rare Plant Ranks. Special-status plants in California are assigned to one of five
California Rare Plant Ranks by a collaborative group of over 300 botanists in government,
academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. This effort is jointly managed by
the CDFW and the CNPS. The five California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) currently recognized by the
CNDDB are:
Rare Plant Rank 1A presumed extinct in California.
Rare Plant Rank 1B rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
Rare Plant Rank 2 rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common
elsewhere.
Rare Plant Rank 3 a review list of plants about which more information is needed.
Rare Plant Rank 4 a watch list of plants of limited distribution.
All of the plant species on List 1A, List 1B, and List 2 meet the requirements of Section 1901,
Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species
Act) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for State listing. Therefore, plants appearing on
Lists 1A, 1B, or 2 are considered to meet CEQAs Section 15380 criteria and effects to these species
would be considered significant for the purposes of CEQA.
Special-Status Natural Communities. 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 most recent list of vegetation alliances/natural
communities recognized in California,39 alliances with a NatureServe State ranking code of S1
through S3 are considered to be highly imperiled and impacts to stands of these vegetation
types/natural communities may be considered significant under CEQA. These special-status natural
communities are sometimes considered by lead or trustee agencies, but generally are not afforded the
same protection as CNPS List 1B and 2 plant species. Many special-status natural communities
support special-status plants and animals and are addressed under CEQA as habitat for those species.
Most types of wetlands and riparian communities are also considered special-status natural communities due to their limited distribution in California. While impacts to such communities would be
considered significant under CEQA, wetlands and riparian communities are also afforded legal
protection under Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of California
Fish and Game Code (see above). Project proponents impacting wetlands and/or riparian communities
must therefore obtain permits from the Corps, Water Board, and/or CDFW as well as comply with
CEQA. As such, these communities are typically addressed separately from non-jurisdictional
special-status natural communities when evaluating project impacts under CEQA.
39
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2010. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life
Form. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Available online at: www.dfg.ca.gov/
biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf (accessed July 2015). September.
170

OCTOBER 2015

City of Fremont Tree Protection Ordinance. Chapter 18.215 of the Citys municipal code
(Tree Preservation Ordinance) regulates the removal of Protected and Landmark Trees and makes
provisions for native tree and forest retention and mitigation. Protected Trees include: 1) any tree
having a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 6 inches or more and located on a vacant or undeveloped
lot; 2) any tree having a DBH of 6 inches or more and located on a developed lot which is the subject
of a contemplated or pending application for a development project; 3) any native tree or tree of
exceptional adaptability to the Fremont area having a DBH of 10 inches or more; 4) any tree having a
DBH of 18 inches or more; 5) any tree that was required by the City to be planted or retained as
mitigation for the removal of a tree; 6) any tree planted or retained as a condition of any Cityconferred development project approval, including approvals conferred prior to adoption of the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, or 7) one of six or more trees of the same species that are located on the
same lot and that each have 6 or more inches in DBH.40 Landmark Trees are those designated by the
City Council as having cultural, historic, or social value to Fremont that receive protection beyond
that of other Protected Trees. Under the ordinance, mitigation is required for each tree removed and is
accomplished by planting of one replacement tree of a species and in a location approved by the City.
If the property cannot fully accommodate the mitigation, the applicant can pay the City a fee in lieu of
on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site. When a fee payment is received, the City
uses the proceeds to plant or upgrade street trees throughout the City, to plant trees in public places,
such parks and open spaces, and to fund administrative activity related to the tree protection
ordinance and other activities that will benefit the Citys urban forest. The amount of the fee shall be
equal to the number of trees impacted multiplied by the per unit cost to the City for a planted tree as
established by the Citys last award of a contract following a competitive bid for such work.
2.
The following section identifies potential impacts to biological resources that could result from the
development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option B site. This section first lists the
criteria by which significance is determined, followed by a discussion of impacts and mitigation
measures, as necessary.
a.
Significance Criteria. The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological
resources if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS;
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act or State-protected wetlands as defined through the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means;
40
Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Section 18.215.050.
171

OCTOBER 2015

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;
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the
City's tree preservation ordinances;
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans; or
Result in a substantial conversion of oak woodlands.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to biological
resources. Potential impacts associated with development of the Option A site are discussed first,
followed by potential impacts at the Option B site. As discussed in more detail below, development of
the Option A site would permanently impact 9.49 acres of grasslands, 0.004 acre of riparian
woodland, 0.004 acre of ornamental trees, and 0.15 acre of existing developed areas. Development of
the Option B site would permanently impact 9.35 acres of grasslands, 0.28 acre of riparian woodland,
0.002 acre of ornamental trees, and 0.79 acre of existing developed areas.
(1) Adverse Effects to Special-Status Species. Implementation of the proposed project at
either site could adversely affect special-status plant and animal species, as discussed below. Additional impacts to special-status species could occur with culvert repair or removal as part of Option A
or Option B development, due to construction activities occurring within Aqua Caliente Creek or its
tributary. These impacts are also identified in this subsection. As discussed, all impacts associated
with adverse effects to special-status species would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of recommended mitigation measures by ensuring the project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any special-status species, their habitat, or protected wetlands.
Option A. Development of the Option A site could adversely affect California tiger
salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer, all of which are listed under the
federal ESA (California tiger salamanders and Alameda striped racers are also listed under CESA).
The project could also affect three CRPR 1B plant species (round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary,
and Santa Cruz tarplant), if present. Specific impacts to these species and mitigation measures
recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level are described below.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would ensure that Option A would not
result in a substantial adverse effect on these species.
Option A Impact BIO-1: Development of the Option A site could result in take of California
tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped racer. (S)
The Option A site is within dispersal distance of ponds known to support breeding California tiger
salamanders, and the multiple rodent burrows within the site provide suitable underground retreats
during the dry season. However, relocation of California tiger salamanders is not proposed prior to
construction due to the distance of the site from the occupied breeding ponds. California red-legged
frogs could occur in uplands adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek especially considering the presence of
occupied ponds in the vicinity. Because Alameda striped racers may occur in riparian habitats and are
known to occur in scrub habitat near the project area, this species could occur in the riparian habitat
along Agua Caliente Creek. Grading and other construction activities could result in mortality of
172

OCTOBER 2015

individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and/or Alameda striped racers
using burrows, soil crevices, or other retreats within the grading footprint of both sites.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential direct impacts to
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer to a less-thansignificant level by ensuring that development of the proposed Option A site would not have a
substantial adverse effect on these species.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The District shall implement the following measures
before, during, and after construction at the Option A site to avoid significant impacts to
individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped
racers. Additional measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permitting
process.
A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger salamanders, California red-legged

frogs, and Alameda striped racers shall be present onsite during all ground disturbing
activities to search for salamanders and frogs that may be unearthed during excavation. The
biological monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt work if a California tiger salamander,
California red-legged frog, or Alameda striped racer is found onsite. California red-legged
frogs, California tiger salamanders, and/or Alameda striped racers shall be removed from
the construction area following the procedures specified in the State and federal listed
species permits (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7
Biological Opinion). The District shall report all discoveries of listed species in the
construction areas to resource agencies according to the procedures specified in the State
and federal listed species permits.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction personnel, including all project representatives.
Training sessions shall also be required for any new construction personnel before being
allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall include an overview of
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology
(including habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and CESA, and
project-specific avoidance measures being implemented to avoid impacts on California
tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed
around the perimeter of the work area to prevent California tiger salamanders, California
red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work area
during construction. The fence must be constructed of a material that is durable and has
been approved by the USFWS and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing frogs, salamanders,
and snakes from passing under, over, around, or through the fence. The qualified biologist
shall be on site during fence installation and initial site clearing and grubbing activities.
The biologist shall inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing construction activities
to ensure it is properly maintained and functioning to exclude California tiger salamanders,
California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from the work area.
The fence shall remain in place until all construction is completed and equipment is
demobilized.
173

OCTOBER 2015

To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction, all excavated, steepwalled holes or trenches more than 3-inches deep shall be covered at the close of each
working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps
constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches
are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall (less than 0.25 inch per 24hour period and less than 40 percent chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the
72-hour weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior to the startup of
any ground disturbing activities on the project site. Construction activities shall cease 24
hours prior to a 40 percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction may
continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is no precipitation in the 24-hour
forecast. Contractor specifications shall include the following worker restrictions and
guidelines, at a minimum:
Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within designated work areas. Entry into
adjacent Preserve lands or established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.
All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All trash (e.g., food scraps, cans,
bottles, containers, wrappers, cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed
in closed containers and properly disposed off-site.
All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or lubricated in a designated area at
least 100 feet from aquatic habitats.
In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or injured or if a specialstatus species is observed to be injured, dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall
immediately notify the District , work shall stop, and the District shall notify the
USFWS and CDFW.
As part of the projects Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implementation,

the District shall include in the specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of
natural materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion control to ensure
that special-status species do not get trapped. Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control
matting) or similar material shall be prohibited.
Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be restored to pre-project

grades and contours and stabilized to prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized
grass and forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed by the project.
The seed shall be from sources that are regionally appropriate for the site. (LTS)
Option A Impact BIO-2: Development of the Option A site would result in the permanent loss
of upland habitat for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer (S).
The grassland on the Option A site provides upland habitat for California tiger salamanders,
California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers. Individual California tiger salamanders from
nearby breeding ponds may use the available ground squirrel burrows as dry-season retreats and may
also move onto the site during dispersal events. Alameda striped racers could also occur in the
grasslands on the project site due to the proximity suitable riparian woodland along Agua Caliente
Creek. The presence of designated critical habitat for Alameda striped racers just 2 miles east of the
174

OCTOBER 2015

site (Figure V.C-1) also makes it possible that racers could occasionally occur in the upland portions
of the project sites.
Development of the Option A site includes construction of a new staging area and associated
improvements within a 9.64-acre area, 2.78 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces
(e.g., pavements) and 9.49 acres of impact to grassland (the remaining 0.15 acres consists of existing
developed areas). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 11.71 acres.
The loss of 9.49 acres of grassland associated with the Option A site would constitute a permanent
loss of upland habitat for the species. However, the remaining pervious surface acreage (e.g.,
landscaping, trails and unpaved roadways, and storm drainage facilities) may continue to provide
habitat for California tiger salamanders and Alameda striper racers, although the permanent removal
of 9.49 acres of grasslands would continue to be significant. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of California tiger
salamander upland habitat and thus ensure Option A will not have a substantial adverse effect
on its habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to
provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area
preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the
following options:
Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off site in a suitable location

for California tiger salamander and providing adequate funding for management and
monitoring of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would be
placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation
easement must be documented to support California tiger salamanders through observation
of California tiger salamander larvae in a breeding pond on or immediately adjacent to the
grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the parcel to be acquired as mitigation, must
also be preserved in a conservation easement or other appropriate land use restriction
instrument or be located on preserved land (County or State park) to ensure the viability of
the grassland as California tiger salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be
documented to regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to be considered
successful breeding ponds;
Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program; or
Purchasing credits in a USFWS and CDFW approved conservation bank in Alameda

County.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda
striped racer habitat and thus ensuring Option A will not have a substantial adverse effect on its
habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to
provide upland habitat for Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to
area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following
options:
Establishing a conservation easement or deed restriction on or off site in a suitable

Alameda County location and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring
of the property in perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement would be placed elsewhere
in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement or other
175

OCTOBER 2015

appropriate land use restriction instrument must be documented to support Alameda striped
racers through observation of Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to the grassland area;
Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program;

County; or
Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW and providing adequate
funding for management and monitoring of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity.
(LTS)
Option A Impact BIO-3: Development of the Option A site may result in the destruction of
burrows occupied by burrowing owls, a California Species of Special Concern. (S)
Although burrowing owls have not been detected at the Option A site to date, the site contains
potential habitat (i.e., ground squirrel burrows within short vegetation). If burrowing owls occupy the
site(s) in the future, project construction and grading could result in the destruction of occupied
burrows and consequent mortality of adults and/or young. Implementation of Option A Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The primary intent of this
mitigation measure is to avoid substantial adverse effects to burrowing owls during project
construction. Because burrowing owls and California tiger salamander have similar upland habitat
requirements (grasslands containing abundant small mammal burrows), lands preserved as California
tiger salamander habitat under Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-2 are also expected to benefit
burrowing owls provided that burrows are present and vegetation height is kept short during the
burrowing owl breeding season (March through August).
Option A 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).41 If no burrowing 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 the construction footprint, individuals 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. Given the availability of suitable burrows in
lands adjacent to the Option A site, passive relocation of burrowing owls at Mission Peak is not
expected to significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local population. Any burrow
exclusion efforts shall be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls
from burrows to ensure that substantial adverse effects are 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 any young of the year have fledged.
41
California Department of Fish and Game, 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
176

OCTOBER 2015

If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during the breeding season,
occupied burrows shall 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 at
least 250 feet shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing
owls present on site after February 1 shall 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. (LTS)
Option A Impact BIO-4: Development of the Option A site could result in impacts to nesting
loggerhead shrikes, white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. (S)
Construction activities in and adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek to address the culvert headwall repair
may result in the removal of trees and other vegetation that could be used by nesting birds, including
special-status species such as loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite. Although development of the
Option A site would not remove any trees or shrubs, grading activities could result in the destruction
of ground-nesting birds such as western meadowlark and killdeer. If conducted during the nesting
season (February 1 to August 31), such activities could directly impact nesting birds. Constructionrelated disturbance (e.g., noise, vehicle traffic, personnel working adjacent to nesting habitat) could
also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nests in nearby trees or other
vegetation, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential. Implementation of the
following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant
level by ensuring the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on these protected birds.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall
occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction
activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in
searching for passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a
preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet
of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of
work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an
appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young
have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and
shall be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes
of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial
disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate,
depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. (LTS)
Option A Impact BIO-5: Development of the Option A site could result in impacts to three
special-status grassland plant species, if present. (S)
Although the April 10, 2013, reconnaissance survey was within the time frame of expected blooming
for round-leaved filaree (MarchMay), the early spring in 2013 may have resulted in the species
going undetected due to early blooming. In addition, the survey was conducted outside the peak
blooming period for fragrant fritillary (FebruaryApril) and Santa Cruz tarplant (JuneOctober).
177

OCTOBER 2015

Habitat for all three species is present in the grassland within the Option A site, and grading activities
could result in the loss of populations of these species, if present. Implementation of the following
mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring the project
would not have a substantial adverse effect on these grassland plant species.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist
shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz
tarplant within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum
of two surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and round-leaved filaree and
in late summer/early fall (AugustOctober) for Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with CDFWs Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.42
If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz
tarplant is found during the focused botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be
reviewed to evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants cannot be
avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage and recovery plan for the affected
species. The plan shall incorporate the following, at a minimum:
Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of

native plant restoration, mitigation, and monitoring plans;
Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined goals focusing on plant
establishment (stability, succession, reproduction) and non-native species control measures;
Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or seeds;
Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and monitoring program by a

qualified restoration team to ensure that the project goals and performance standards are
met. The monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as needed to
correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report, prepared by the District and subject
to approval by CDFW, shall document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If
replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and monitoring shall be
specified; and
Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements and the responsibility
for implementation. (LTS)
Option A Impact BIO-6: Culvert repair activities associated with Option A development could
result in the mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and/or
western pond turtles potentially occurring in the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek. (S)
The tributary to Agua Caliente Creek may support dispersing, foraging, and/or resting California redlegged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and western pond turtles, even though no CNDDB occurrences
42
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special
Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24.
178

OCTOBER 2015

of these species have been recorded in this stream reach to date.43 Culvert repair activities may result
in substantial adverse effects to individual California red-legged frogs and/or Alameda striped racers
if appropriate avoidance and minimization measures or not implemented. Therefore, implementation
of the following mitigation measure would be required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level and ensure the Option A would not have a substantial adverse effect on these protected species.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Construction activities within the tributary to Agua
Caliente Creek associated with development of Option A would be subject to the following
additional measures:
All work within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option A culvert repair) shall be
conducted between August 1 and October 31, and typically subsequent to California redlegged frogs breeding activity (egg deposition, tadpole development, and metamorphism). .
The USFWS and CDFW qualified biologist shall survey the in-water work areas within 48
hours before the initiation of construction activities. If any life stage of California redlegged frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is found, District biologist
shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to determine if moving them is appropriate. If the
agencies approve relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a USFWS and
CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior to the initiation of construction. The
biologist shall maintain detailed records of any individuals that are moved (e.g., size,
coloration, any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him or her in determining whether
translocated animals are returning to their original point of capture.
The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be diverted using gravity
flow through temporary culverts/pipes or pumped around the work area with the use of
hoses, discharging downstream to maintain flow.
Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel locations and no more than 20
feet upstream or downstream of the work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when
construction of the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be constructed
only from materials that will cause little or no siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags
(filled with clean sand), or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and
downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent seepage into or out of the
work area. Cofferdams shall be placed and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering
system shall remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows shall be
restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work by removing the
dewatering system.
The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5
millimeters (mm) to prevent California red-legged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from
entering the pump system.
The contractor and qualified biologist shall check daily for stranded aquatic life as the
water level in the dewatering area drops. All reasonable efforts shall be made to capture
and move all stranded, native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas. Capture
43
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial version
dated May 31, 2015. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento.
179

OCTOBER 2015

methods may include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets, and or by hand. Captured native
aquatic life shall be released downstream of the dewatered area. The biologist shall
permanently remove any individuals or exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and
centrarchid fishes, from the work area.
No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be operated within the live
stream. (LTS)
Option B. Development of the Option B site could adversely affect California tiger
salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer, all of which are listed under the
federal ESA (California tiger salamanders and Alameda striped racers are also listed under CESA).
The project could also affect three CRPR 1B plant species (round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary,
and Santa Cruz tarplant), if present. Specific impacts to these species and mitigation measures
recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level are described below.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would ensure that Option B would not
result in a substantial adverse effect on any protected species, habitat, or protected wetlands.
Option B Impact BIO-1: Development of the Option B site could result in take of California
tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and/or Alameda striped racer. (S)
The Option B site is within dispersal distance of ponds known to support breeding California tiger
salamanders, and the multiple rodent burrows within the site provide suitable underground retreats
during the dry season. However, relocation of California tiger salamanders is not proposed prior to
construction due to the distance of the site from the occupied breeding ponds. California red-legged
frogs could occur in uplands adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek especially considering the presence of
occupied ponds in the vicinity. Because Alameda striped racers may occur in riparian habitats and are
known to occur in scrub habitat near the project area, this species could occur in the riparian habitat
along Agua Caliente Creek. Grading and other construction activities could result in mortality of
individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and/or Alameda striped racers
using burrows, soil crevices, or other retreats within the grading footprint of both sites.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential direct impacts to
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer to a less-thansignificant level by ensuring the development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse
effect on these protected species.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The District shall implement the following measures
before, during, and after construction at the Option B site to avoid significant impacts to
individual California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped
racers. Additional measures may be required by the USFWS and/or CDFW as part of the ESA
and CESA permitting process.
A qualified biologist, experienced with California tiger salamanders, California red-legged

frogs, and Alameda striped racers shall be present onsite during all ground disturbing
activities to search for individuals that may be unearthed during excavation. The qualified
biologist shall have the authority to halt work, if a California tiger salamander, California
red-legged frog, or Alameda striped racer is found onsite. California red-legged frogs,
California tiger salamanders, and Alameda striped racers shall be removed from the
construction area following the procedures specified in the State and federal listed species
180

OCTOBER 2015

permits (i.e., Incidental Take Permit (section 2081 permit) and/or Section 7 Biological
Opinion). The District shall report all discoveries of listed species in the construction areas
to resource agencies according to the procedures specified in the State and federal listed
species permits.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction personnel, including all project representatives.
Training sessions shall also be required for any new construction personnel before being
allowed access to the site. At a minimum, the training shall include an overview of
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and Alameda striped racer biology
(including habitat preference), their legal status under the federal ESA and CESA, and
project-specific avoidance measures being implemented to avoid impacts on California
tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs, and Alameda striped racers.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed
around the perimeter of the work area to prevent California tiger salamanders, California
red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from entering the work area
during construction. The fence must be constructed of a material that is durable and has
been approved by the USFWS and/or CDFW as suitable for preventing California redlegged frogs, California tiger salamanders, Alameda striped racers, and other vertebrates
from passing under, over, around, or through the fence. The qualified biologist shall be on
site during fence installation and initial site clearing and grubbing activities. The biologist
shall inspect the fence daily during ground disturbing construction activities to ensure it is
properly maintained and functioning to exclude California tiger salamanders, California
red-legged frogs, Alameda striped racers, and other wildlife from the work area. The fence
shall remain in place until all construction is completed and equipment is demobilized.
To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during construction, all excavated, steepwalled holes or trenches more than 3-inches deep shall be covered at the close of each
working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps
constructed of earth fill or wooden planks with a slope of 2:1. Before such holes or trenches
are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.
Construction activities shall be limited to periods of low rainfall (less than 0.25 inch per 24hour period and less than 40 percent chance of rain). The project biologist shall consult the
72-hour weather forecasts from the National Weather Service (NWS) prior to the startup of
any ground disturbing activities on the project site. Construction activities shall cease 24
hours prior to a 40 percent or greater forecast of rain from the NWS. Construction may
continue 24 hours after the rain ceases provided that there is no precipitation in the 24-hour
forecast. Contractor specifications shall include the following worker restrictions and
guidelines, at a minimum:
Construction personnel and vehicles shall stay within designated work areas. Entry into
adjacent Preserve lands or established exclusion zones shall be strictly prohibited.
All work areas shall be maintained in clean condition. All trash (e.g., food scraps, cans,
bottles, containers, wrappers, cigarette butts, and other discarded items) shall be placed
in closed containers and properly disposed off-site.
181

OCTOBER 2015

All vehicles and equipment shall be refueled and/or lubricated in a designated area at
least 100 feet from aquatic habitats.
In the event a special-status species is inadvertently killed or injured or if a specialstatus species is observed to be injured, dead, or entrapped, the contractor shall
immediately notify the Districts construction inspector, who will stop work and notify
the USFWS and CDFW.
As part of the projects Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implementation,

the District shall include in the specifications a requirement to use tightly woven fiber of
natural materials (e.g., coir rolls or mats) or similar material for erosion control to ensure
that special-status species do not get trapped. Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control
matting) or similar material shall be prohibited.
Upon completion of construction, construction work areas shall be restored to pre-project

grades and contours and stabilized to prevent erosion. A seed mix of native and naturalized
grass and forb species shall be applied to all of the grassland areas disturbed by the project.
The seed shall be from sources that are regionally appropriate for the site. (LTS)
Option B Impact BIO-2: Development of the Option B site would result in the permanent loss of
upland habitat for California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer (S).
The grassland on the Option B site provides upland habitat for California tiger salamanders and
Alameda striped racer. Individual California tiger salamanders from nearby breeding ponds may use
the available ground squirrel burrows as dry-season retreats and may also move onto the site during
dispersal events. Alameda striped racers could also occur in the grasslands on the project site due to
the proximity suitable riparian woodland along Agua Caliente Creek. The presence of designated
critical habitat for Alameda striped racers just 2 miles east of the site (Figure V.C-1) also makes it
possible that racers could occasionally occur in the upland portions of the project sites.
Development of the Option B site includes construction of a new staging area and associated
improvements within a 10.45-acre area of permanent disturbance, 3.10 acres of which would consist
of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements, bridges) and a 9.35 acre loss of grassland habitat (the
remaining 1.1 acres consists of existing developed areas). The total area of both permanent and
temporary disturbance would be 16.76 acres. The loss of 9.35 acres of grassland associated with the
Option B site would constitute a permanent loss of upland habitat for the species. However, the
remaining pervious surfaces (e.g., landscaping, trails and unpaved roadways, and storm drainage
facilities) may continue to provide habitat for California tiger salamanders and Alameda striped
racers, although the permanent removal of 9.35 acres of grasslands would continue to be significant.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To compensate for the permanent loss of California tiger
salamander upland habitat, and ensure Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect
on this habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to
provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area
preserved to area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the
following options:
182

OCTOBER 2015


and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in
perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement or other appropriate restriction would be
placed elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation
easement or other appropriate deed restriction must be documented to support California
tiger salamanders through observation of California tiger salamander larvae in a breeding
pond on or immediately adjacent to the grassland area. The breeding pond, if not on the
parcel to be acquired as mitigation, must also be preserved in a conservation easement or be
located on preserved land (County or State park) to ensure the viability of the grassland as
California tiger salamander upland habitat. Breeding ponds must be documented to
regularly produce California tiger salamander metamorphs to be considered successful
breeding ponds;
Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program; or

County.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: To compensate for the permanent loss of Alameda
striped racer habitat, and ensure Option B will not have a substantial adverse effect on this
habitat, the District shall preserve or purchase in-kind grassland habitat that is known to
provide upland habitat for Alameda striped racers at a minimum 3:1 ratio of area preserved to
area impacted. Compensatory mitigation may be accomplished through one of the following
options:

and providing adequate funding for management and monitoring of the property in
perpetuity. Ideally, the conservation easement or deed restriction would be placed
elsewhere in the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Lands placed in a conservation easement
or deed restriction must be documented to support Alameda striped racers through
observation of Alameda striped racers on or adjacent to the grassland area;
Depositing funds into an USFWS and CDFW approved in-lieu fee program;

County; or
Entering into a mitigation agreement with USFWS and CDFW and providing adequate
funding for management and monitoring of the terms of the agreement for perpetuity.
(LTS)
Option B Impact BIO-3: Development of the Option B site may result in the destruction of
burrows occupied by burrowing owls, a California Species of Special Concern. (S)
Although burrowing owls have not been detected at the Option B site to date, the site contains
potential habitat (i.e., ground squirrel burrows within short vegetation). If burrowing owls occupy the
site(s) in the future, project construction and grading could result in the destruction of occupied
burrows and consequent mortality of adults and/or young. Implementation of Option B Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The primary intent of this
mitigation measure is to avoid substantial adverse effects to burrowing owls during project
construction. Because burrowing owls and California tiger salamanders have similar upland habitat
183

OCTOBER 2015

requirements (grasslands containing abundant small mammal burrows), any lands preserved as
California tiger salamander habitat under Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-2 are also expected to
benefit burrowing owls provided that burrows are present and vegetation height is kept short during
the burrowing owl breeding season (March through August).
Option B 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).44 If no burrowing 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 the construction footprint, individuals 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. Given the availability of suitable burrows in
lands adjacent to the Option B site, passive relocation of owls at Mission Peak is not expected
to significantly reduce the reproductive potential of the local population. Any burrow exclusion
efforts shall be monitored prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from burrows
to ensure that substantial adverse effects are 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 any young of the year have fledged.
If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during the breeding season,
occupied burrows shall 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 at
least 250 feet shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrows. Burrowing
owls present on site after February 1 shall 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. (LTS)
Option B Impact BIO-4: Development of the Option B site could result in impacts to nesting
loggerhead shrikes, white-tailed kites, and other native birds protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. (S)
Construction activities in and adjacent to Agua Caliente Creek associated with construction of bridges
and culvert removal/restoration may result in the removal of trees and other vegetation that could be
used by nesting birds, including special-status species such as loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite.
Although development of the Option B site would not remove any trees or shrubs, grading activities
could result in the destruction of ground-nesting birds such as western meadowlark and killdeer. If
conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), such activities could directly impact
44
California Department of Fish and Game, 2012, op. cit.
184

OCTOBER 2015

nesting birds. Construction-related disturbance (e.g., noise, vehicle traffic, personnel working adjacent
to nesting habitat) could also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nests in
nearby trees or other vegetation, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to
a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of Option B would not result in a substantial
adverse effect on these protected birds.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall
occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction
activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in
searching for passerine nests in oak woodland and other habitats) shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits
of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the
survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately
sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based
on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet
for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to
nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the
bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. (LTS)
Option B Impact BIO-5: Development of the Option B site could result in impacts to three
special-status grassland plant species, if present. (S)
Although the April 10, 2013, reconnaissance survey was within the time frame of expected blooming
for round-leaved filaree (MarchMay), the early spring in 2013 may have resulted in the species going
undetected due to early blooming. In addition, the survey was conducted outside the peak blooming
period for fragrant fritillary (FebruaryApril) and Santa Cruz tarplant (JuneOctober). Habitat for all
three species is present in the grassland within the Option B site, and grading activities could result in
the loss of populations of these species, if present. Implementation of the following mitigation measure
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of Option B
would not result in a substantial adverse effect on these protected grassland plant species.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist
shall conduct a focused survey for round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and Santa Cruz
tarplant within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming periods. A minimum
of two surveys shall be conducted: in March for fragrant fritillary and round-leaved filaree and
in late summer/early fall (AugustOctober) for Santa Cruz tarplant. The surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with CDFWs Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.45
If an individual or population of round-leaved filaree, fragrant fritillary, and/or Santa Cruz
tarplant is found during the focused botanical survey, the proposed development plan shall be
reviewed to evaluate if the individual or population can be avoided. If the plants cannot be
45
185

OCTOBER 2015

avoided, the District shall develop and implement a salvage and recovery plan for the affected
species The plan shall incorporate the following:
Preparation by a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of

native plant restoration, mitigation, and monitoring plans;
Salvage and/or recovery requirements, including clearly defined goals focusing on plant
establishment (stability, succession, reproduction) and non-native species control measures;
Locations and procedures for restoration of salvaged materials or seeds;
Specification of a five-year post-construction maintenance and monitoring program by a

qualified restoration team to ensure that the project goals and performance standards are
met. The monitoring program shall include provision for remedial action as needed to
correct deficiencies. Annual reports and a final report, prepared by the District and subject
to approval by CDFW, shall document the success of the salvage and replanting effort. If
replanting is not successful, an additional period of correction and monitoring shall be
specified; and
Salvage and recovery plan shall specify maintenance requirements and the responsibility
for implementation. (LTS)
Option B Impact BIO-6: Culvert removal and/or bridge construction activities associated with
Option B development could result in the mortality or injury of California red-legged frogs,
Alameda striped racers, and/or western pond turtles potentially occurring in Agua Caliente
Creek. (S)
Agua Caliente Creek may support dispersing, foraging, and/or resting California red-legged frogs,
Alameda striped racers, and western pond turtles, even though no CNDDB occurrences of these
species have been recorded in the creek to date.46 Culvert removal and bridge construction activities
may result in substantial adverse effects to individual frogs and/or striped racers if appropriate
avoidance and minimization measures or not implemented. Therefore, implementation of the
following mitigation measure would be required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Construction activities within Agua Caliente Creek
associated with development of Option B would be subject to the following additional
measures, at a minimum:
All work within Agua Caliente Creek (i.e., Option B culvert removal and bridge crossings)
shall be conducted between August 1 and October 31, when red-legged frogs are less likely
to be present.
The USFWS- and CDFW- qualified biologist shall survey the in-water work areas within
48 hours before the initiation of construction activities. If any life stage of California redlegged frog and/or Western pond turtle, or Alameda striped racer is found, the District
biologist shall contact the USFWS and CDFW to determine if moving them is appropriate.
If the agencies approve relocation, the qualified biologist shall move them to a USFWSand CDFW-approved site in Agua Caliente Creek prior to the initiation of construction.
46
186

OCTOBER 2015

The qualified biologist shall maintain detailed records of any individuals that are moved
(e.g., size, coloration, any distinguishing features, photos) to assist him or her in
determining whether translocated animals are returning to their original point of capture.
The in-stream work area shall be dewatered. Stream flow shall be diverted using gravity
flow through temporary culverts/pipes or pumped around the work area with the use of
hoses, discharging downstream to maintain flow.
Cofferdams shall be constructed at the appropriate channel locations and no more than 20
feet upstream or downstream of the work area(s). Flows shall be diverted only when
construction of the diversion coffer structure is completed. Cofferdams shall be constructed
only from materials that will cause little or no siltation, such as clean gravel, sandbags
(filled with clean sand), or sheet piling. Cofferdams shall be installed both upstream and
downstream of the work area, in a manner adequate to prevent seepage into or out of the
work area. Cofferdams shall be placed and removed by hand. The cofferdam dewatering
system shall remain in place until all creek work is complete. Normal flows shall be
restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work by removing the
dewatering system.
The pump intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters (mm) to prevent California red-legged frogs and other aquatic vertebrates from
entering the pump system.
The contractor and/or biologist shall check daily for stranded aquatic life as the water level
in the dewatering area drops. All reasonable efforts shall be made to capture and move all
stranded, native aquatic life observed in the dewatering areas. Capture methods may
include fish landing nets, dip nets, buckets, and or by hand. Captured native aquatic life
shall be released downstream of the dewatered area. The qualified biologist shall permanently remove any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and centrarchid
fishes, from the work area.
No heavy construction equipment, except for the pumps, shall be operated within the live
stream. (LTS)
(2) Adverse Effects on Sensitive Natural Communities. Potential impacts to sensitive

natural communities are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. There are no special-status natural communities present on the Option A site.
Therefore, development of the Option A site would not result in an impact to special-status natural
communities.
Option B. The only special-status natural community on the site is the riparian woodland along
Agua Caliente Creek. Culvert removal and bridge construction activities associated with development
of the Option B site may involve minor trimming and/or removal of existing riparian trees and shrubs.
However, the long-term benefit of restoring the creek channel at the culvert crossing to a more natural
condition (including re-planting of native riparian trees and shrubs) is expected to offset the short-term
loss of riparian vegetation so that Option B would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian
woodland. No other special-status natural communities are present on the site and this impact would
be less than significant.
187

OCTOBER 2015

(3) Adverse Effects on Wetlands. Impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters
associated with development of Option A and B are discussed below.
Option A. The wetland areas located north of the Option A site would not be affected by
development at the Option A site. Culvert repair activities at the Option A site could result in impacts
to jurisdictional waters. As discussed below, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures by ensuring that development of
Option A would not result in a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands.
Option A Impact BIO-7: Development of Option A would impact a tributary to Agua Caliente
Creek, a jurisdictional water of the United States. (S)
Although the project would not result in any permanent fill of jurisdictional wetlands or other waters
of the United States, the proposed culvert repair activities associated with development of the Option
A site would result in temporary minor impacts to the upstream tributary of Agua Caliente Creek. Up
to 30 linear feet of channel could be temporarily impacted under Option A. Option A will likely
require dewatering of the work area, re-grading of the existing streambed and banks, and potential
sedimentation of receiving waters. If left unchecked, grading and other construction activities in the
vicinity of the stream could cause indirect impacts to water quality through the deposition of excess
sediment into the channel. Implementation of the following measures would reduce temporary impacts
to the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that development of
Option A would not result in a substantial adverse effect on this tributary to Agua Caliente Creek.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits from the
Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA Section 401 water quality certification),
and CDFW (Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to
construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek and its tributary due
to excess sedimentation shall be avoided through the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The SWPPP shall include the following major
components:
A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed
and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas.
A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices
to be used during construction and the specific control measures to be implemented to
minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff.
Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for
controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase.
A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and
maintenance and identifies the party responsible for monitoring.
A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all restricted areas to be left
undisturbed.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as recommended or
required by the Water Board to protect water quality. These measures shall include the
following: 1) a moratorium on grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and
188

OCTOBER 2015

sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain storms; 3) prohibiting erosion
or sediment control measures within vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to
the minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event and the minimum area
needed to complete the proposed action; 5) delineating and protecting environmentally
sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to
control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing plastic monofilament is
prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8) control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9)
management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10) liquid waste
management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation wherever possible.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by
construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to their pre-project condition
via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed portions of the stream channel and banks shall be revegetated with native riparian species.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside of,
the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill shall be allowed to
enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e., silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the
construction footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-qualified biological monitor for California
tiger salamander and California red-legged frog shall oversee the installation of the fencing and
periodically monitor the work area to ensure avoidance of the stream channel.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other
construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream channel. All stockpiled
fill and other materials shall be kept at least 50 feet from the channel edge. (LTS)
Option B. Culvert removal, stream restoration, and bridge construction activities at the Option
B site could result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. No other wetlands are present on the Option B
site. As discussed below, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Implementation of these measures would
ensure that development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on protected
wetlands.
Option B Impact BIO-7: Development of Option B would impact Agua Caliente Creek, a
jurisdictional water of the United States. (S)
Although the project would not result in any permanent fill of jurisdictional wetlands or other waters
of the United States, the proposed culvert removal and restoration activities associated with development of the Option B site would result in temporary minor impacts to the upstream tributary of Agua
Caliente Creek. Up to 155 linear feet of channel could be temporarily impacted under Option B.
Option B will likely require dewatering of the work area, re-grading of the existing stream bed and
banks, and potential sedimentation of receiving waters. If left unchecked, grading and other construction activities in the vicinity of the stream could cause indirect impacts to water quality through the
deposition of excess sediment into the channel. Implementation of the following measures would
reduce temporary impacts to Agua Caliente Creek to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that
development of Option B would not result in a substantial adverse effect on this tributary to Agua
Caliente Creek.
189

OCTOBER 2015

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7a: The District shall apply for and obtain permits from the
Corps (CWA Section 404 permit), Water Board (CWA Section 401 water quality certification),
and CDFW (Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) prior to
construction. Indirect impacts to the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek due to excess
sedimentation shall be avoided through the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and Water Board requirements. The SWPPP shall include the following major
components:
A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan, depicting areas to remain undisturbed
and providing specifications for revegetation of disturbed areas.
A list of potential pollutants from building materials, chemicals, and maintenance practices
to be used during construction and the specific control measures to be implemented to
minimize release and transport of these constituents in runoff.
Specifications and designs for the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for
controlling drainage and treating runoff in the construction phase.
A program for monitoring all control measures that includes schedules for inspection and
maintenance and identifies the party responsible for monitoring.
A site map that locates all water quality control measures and all restricted areas to be left
undisturbed.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7b: The District shall implement BMPs as recommended or
required by the Water Board to protect water quality. These measures shall include the
following: 1) a moratorium on grading during a rain event; 2) a requirement that erosion and
sediment control measures be installed prior to unseasonable rain storms; 3) prohibiting erosion
or sediment control measures within vegetated areas; 4) limiting the extent of disturbed soil to
the minimum area that can be protected prior to a forecasted rain event and the minimum area
needed to complete the proposed action; 5) delineating and protecting environmentally
sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts; 6) installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to
control sediment and erosion (use of erosion control fabric containing plastic monofilament is
prohibited); 7) spill and litter control; 8) control of fuels and other hazardous materials; 9)
management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts; 10) liquid waste
management; and 11) preserving existing vegetation wherever possible.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7c: All jurisdictional areas temporarily disturbed by
construction (i.e., Agua Caliente Creek channel) shall be restored to their pre-project condition
via grading and re-contouring. Disturbed portions of the stream channel and banks shall be revegetated with native riparian species.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7d: All stream channel portions adjacent to, but outside of,
the construction footprint shall be avoided during construction and no fill shall be allowed to
enter these areas. Exclusion fencing (i.e., silt fence) shall be installed to mark the limits of the
construction footprint. The USFWS- and CDFW-approved biological monitor for California
tiger salamander and California red-legged frog (see Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-1) shall
oversee the installation of the fencing and periodically monitor the work area to ensure
avoidance of the stream channel.
190

OCTOBER 2015

Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7e: During project construction, no soil or other

construction materials shall be stored in or allowed to enter the stream channel. All stockpiled
fill and other materials shall be kept at least 50 feet from the channel edge. (LTS)
(4) Interfere with Wildlife Movement or Use of Nursery Sites. Potential impacts to
wildlife movement and nursery sites associated with development of the Option A and Option B sites
would be less than significant, as discussed below.
Option A. Although the project has the potential to impact the nests of native birds,
implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike
would also serve to protect the nests of all native birds. The project is not likely to result in a barrier
to movement across the Option A site, except temporarily during construction activities. Therefore,
Option A would not interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife, and impacts to wildlife
movement or use of nursery sites would be less than significant.
Option B. Similar to Option A, although the project has the potential to impact the nests of
native birds, implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for white-tailed kite and
loggerhead shrike would also serve to protect the nests of all native birds. The project is not likely to
result in a barrier to movement across the Option B site, except temporarily during construction
activities. Therefore, Option B would not interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife, and
impacts to wildlife movement or use of nursery sites would be less than significant.
(5) Conflict with Local Biological Resource Policies or Ordinances. Potential impacts
associated with biological resource policy conflicts are discussed below. The only relevant local
ordinance is the City of Fremont Tree Preservation Ordinance, with which both Option A and Option
B would comply. As discussed, impacts associated with Option A and Option B development would
be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Option A. Implementation of Option A would include compliance with the City of Fremonts
Tree Preservation Ordinance, if trees are impacted during culvert repair activities.
Option A Impact BIO-8: Option A could result in impacts to trees protected under Fremonts
Tree Preservation Ordinance within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek. (S)
Culvert repair activities associated with Option A development could affect riparian woodlands
within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek and tree trimming could be required. Approximately 30
linear feet of the riparian woodland along the Agua Caliente Creek tributary may be impacted by
development of Option A. The precise number of impacted trees cannot be determined at this stage of
design and development. While removal of trees would be avoided where possible, trees may need to
be removed with implementation of Option A. Implementation of the following mitigation measures
would ensure that Option A does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources and that impacts to protected trees at the Option A site would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level. Also, as shown on Figure III-2a, new coast live oak trees would be planted
at the Option A site, which would likely compensate for any minimal loss of trees.
Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-8: All impacted trees shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1
replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in accordance with the City of
Fremonts tree ordinance, the District shall plant trees of a species and in a location approved
by the City. If the site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings, the District
191

OCTOBER 2015

shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site,
which would be used to fund tree planting by the City. For the proposed project, it is expected
that mitigation for tree removals under the Citys Tree Preservation Ordinance can be
accomplished concurrently with the riparian restoration effort associated with the Option A
culvert repair. (LTS)
Option B. Implementation Option B could conflict with the City of Fremonts Tree
Preservation Ordinance, depending on the amount of tree removals required to accommodate the two
new bridges across Agua Caliente Creek, as discussed below.
Option B Impact BIO-8: Option B would result in the removal of approximately six coast live
oaks protected under Fremonts Tree Preservation Ordinance and could also result in the
removal of other trees within the Agua Caliente Creek channel. (S)
Approximately six coast live oaks are located within the vicinity of the proposed vehicular bridge that
could be affected by development of Option B. In addition, culvert removal and restoration activities
associated with Option B development could affect riparian woodlands within Agua Caliente Creek
and tree trimming could be required. At this time, it is unknown if any trees would be removed.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that Option B does not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts to protected trees at
the Option B site would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. As shown on Figure III-3a, new
coast live oak trees would be planted at the Option B site. Prior to the removal of any protected trees,
the District shall secure a tree removal permit from the City of Fremont. Implementation of the
following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-8: All impacted trees will be mitigated at a minimum 1:1
replacement ratio. For each protected tree that is removed, in accordance to the City of
Fremonts tree ordinance, the District shall plant trees of a species and in a location approved
by the City. If the site cannot fully accommodate the required mitigation plantings, the District
shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of on-site replacement for each tree that is not replaced on site.
For the proposed project, mitigation for tree removals under the Citys Tree Preservation
Ordinance can is expected to accomplished concurrently with the riparian restoration effort
associated with the Option B culvert removal. (LTS)
(6) Conflict with Adopted Conservation Plans. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or State habitat conservation plans applicable to the project area are discussed below. As discussed,
development of either Option A or Option B would not result in a significant impact related to this
issue.
Option A. The project area is not currently subject to any adopted habitat conservation plans or
natural community conservation plans. The project site is located just west of the EACCS study area
boundary, so this strategy does not apply to the Option A site. Therefore, the proposed project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans and this
potential impact would be less than significant.
192

OCTOBER 2015

Option B. Similar to Option A, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans and this potential impact would be less than
significant.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. The loss of 9.49 acres of grassland and 0.004 acre of riparian woodland,
and the temporary impacts to up to 30 linear feet of stream channel under Option A or the loss of 9.35
acres of grassland and 0.28 acre of riparian woodland, and the temporary impacts to up to 155 linear
feet of stream channel under Option B would contribute to the cumulative loss of annual grassland,
riparian woodland, and stream channel in the Fremont region. These grasslands, riparian woodland,
and stream channel may also provide habitat for special-status species such as California red-legged
frog, California tiger salamander, Alameda striped racer, and burrowing owl.
The City lists 82 projects with development activity as of May 4, 2015.47 Projects within a 2-mile
radius of the project area are identified in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures. Most of the 82 projects within the City are situated within vacant lots in the urban
developed areas of the City. These lots often contain ruderal, non-native grassland fields, but they do
not support high quality habitat for special-status species due to their isolation from other large open
spaces, human disturbance (e.g., mowing, disking, firebreak construction), and lack of connection to
essential habitats such as breeding ponds. Because they fly, burrowing owls are likely the only
special-status species that would occupy these isolated grasslands. Protocol-level burrowing owls
surveys have been conducted on some of these sites, and burrowing owls have been observed.48
Terrestrial species including amphibians, reptiles, and mammals are unlikely to be able to cross the
dense urban areas that surround many of these in-fill sites due to the general unsuitable nature of the
urban environment for these species. For example, due to their isolated location from occupied
breeding habitat, these urban project sites would not support California tiger salamanders which are
dependent on breeding ponds and undisturbed uplands to maintain viable local populations. These
urban lots also would not provide suitable habitat for Alameda striped racer due to the lack of
chaparral and grassland habitat and connectivity to other occupied habitat that provides suitable
foraging and sheltering habitat or California red-legged frogs due to lack of suitable aquatic habitat
and adjacent uplands.
Table V.C-5 lists the 15 projects that have the potential to impact special-status species and habitats
that may occur within the project area. All of these sites support non-native grasslands and may
support burrowing owls. Three of the sites (Project No. 17, 34, and 39) have the potential to support
California tiger salamander and Alameda striped racer. Two of the sites (Project No. 34 and 39) have
riparian woodlands and creeks that may also support California red-legged frog and western pond
turtle. The closest City project to the Stanford Avenue project area is a proposed mixed-use
development project (Project No. 81. Warm Springs Station), which occurs on a site that supports
only ruderal/non-native grasslands, approximately 1.4 miles to the west (refer to Table V-1 in Chapter
V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures). Although, these sites are relatively small compared to
the adjacent open space that supports most of the aforementioned biological resources in the projects
47
City of Fremont. 2015. Development Activity Amended through May 4, 2015. Community Development
Department - Planning Division.
48
LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Personal Observations.
193

OCTOBER 2015

vicinity, and the regulatory agencies will likely require compensatory mitigation, the cumulative
impacts to biological resources from these 15 projects and the proposed project could be significant
when the biological impacts from all the projects are considered together.
However, neither Option A nor Option B would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
this potential cumulative impact on biological resources. Option A and Option B would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts on grasslands, stream channels or riparian
woodlands or to the special-status species that rely on grassland or other habitat provided by the
proposed project. Given the small scope of the project and limited amount of disturbance to
grasslands, riparian woodlands and the stream channel, and the extensive mitigation proposed for the
project to ensure the project will not adversely impact these habitats or the special-status species that
rely on these habitats, Option A and Option Bs incremental effects on these habitats would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Grassland within either of the site options (Option A or B) provides habitat for California red-legged
frog, California tiger salamander, Alameda striped racer, burrowing owl, and other native plants and
animals. The conversion of this habitat to a staging area that includes an asphalt parking lot would
contribute to an overall decrease in grassland in the Coast Range foothills east of San Francisco Bay.
However, the incremental loss of grassland habitat within the vicinity of the urban boundary would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended
under the grasslands. Inherent in such mitigation is the fact that the managed mitigation habitat would
provide greater benefit to the wildlife and plant populations than the removed grassland that affords
only marginal habitat for these species. Likewise, the project mitigation measures for all specialstatus species and the project mitigation measure to protect sensitive habitat would eliminate or
reduce the potentially significant biological impacts to such a great extent that the incremental effect
of either Option A or Option B, when viewed in connection with the other projects in the area, would
not be significant.
194

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.C-5: Projects in the Fremont Region that May Contribute to Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
California
Tiger
Salamander
N/A
Potential
California
Red-legged
Frog
N/A
(No CNDDB
Records)
N/A
Potential
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Potential
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Potential
34. Mill Creek Chateau
(No CNDDB
Records)
(No CNDDB
Records)
Potential
Potential
39. Mission Clay Reclamation Plan
(No CNDDB
Records)
(No CNDDB
Records)
Project No./Name
6. Bellaire At Patterson Ranch
17. Deer Road Homes
18. Delta Americas Headquarters
19. Dias Planned District
20. Dumbarton Quarry Park
28. Hobbs Residential Property
Alameda
Western Pond
Striped Racer
Turtle
N/A
N/A
Burrowing
Owl
Potential
Grasslands
Present
Creeks/
Streams
N/A
Riparian
Woodland
N/A
N/A
Potential
Present
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Present
Present
Present
Present
Potential
Potential
Potential
Present
Potential
Potential
Potential
Present
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Present.
Potential
Impacts
Present.
Potential
Impacts
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Present.
Potential
Impacts
Present.
Potential
Impacts
N/A
Potential
Present
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Potential
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
56. Patterson Ranch Tentative Map

N/A
N/A
N/A
& 2014 DA Review
62. Sabercat Neighborhood Center
N/A
N/A
N/A
65. Silicon Valley Logistics Park
N/A
N/A
N/A
66. Springhill Suites Fremont
N/A
N/A
N/A
76. US Gypsum Site
N/A
N/A
N/A
80. Warm Springs Lennar
N/A
N/A
N/A
81. Warm Springs Station
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable, Species or habitat does not occur on the site.
Potential = Species may be present on the site based on the presence of suitable habitat.
Present = Habitat type is known to be present on the site.
CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database.
Source: City of Fremont, 2015.
195

OCTOBER 2015

196

OCTOBER 2015
D.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes existing cultural resources conditions in the project vicinity, identifies potentially significant impacts on such resources that may result from project implementation, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have traditional or
cultural value for their historical significance. Cultural resources include a broad range of resources,
examples of which include archaeological sites, historic roadways and railroad tracks, and buildings
of architectural significance. For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e.,
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and defined as such by CEQA), it
generally must be 50 years or older1 and 1) be listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission; 2) be
included in a local historical register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) identified
as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the
Public Resources Code; or 3) be determined by the lead agency to be a historical resource pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 (a).
Under CEQA, paleontological resources are a subset of cultural resources and include fossil plants
and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. Ancient marine sediments may
contain invertebrate fossils representing snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and
vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Terrestrial sediments may contain fossils
that represent such vertebrate land mammals as mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison.
1.
Setting
This section: 1) describes the methods used to establish the baseline conditions for cultural resources
in the project area; 2) provides a brief historical overview of the project area; 3) includes the State and
local legislative regulatory context for cultural resources; and 4) describes the cultural resources
identified at the Option A and Option B sites and their significance under CEQA.
a.
Methods. The cultural resources analysis includes archival records searches, a literature
review, and a field survey. This work was done to establish the baseline conditions for cultural
resources in the project site and vicinity.
(1) Records Searches. Records searches were conducted to identify cultural resources
within and adjacent to the project area. Records searches were conducted at the Northwest
Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma
State University, Rohnert Park; the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
Sacramento; and the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), Berkeley. 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 maintains the
Sacred Lands File, which includes the locations of sites with cultural significance to Native American
1
California Office of Historic Preservation, n.d.. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for
purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5d-CulturalResources.docx (10/14/15)
197

OCTOBER 2015

groups. The UCMPs database includes information on locations where fossils have been identified,
the taxa of fossils found at a particular location, and the geological formations associated with a fossil
locality.
In addition, the Districts Cultural Resource Site Atlas2 was also reviewed. The Cultural Resource
Site Atlas indicates the locations of recorded prehistoric and historic cultural resources on District
land and is consulted for land management and planning purposes.
As part of the records search, the following State of California inventories were also reviewed for
cultural resources in and immediately adjacent to the project sites:
California Inventory of Historic Resources;3
California Historical Landmarks;4
California Points of Historical Interest;5
Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California;6 and
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File.7 The directory includes the
listings of the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, the
California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and
California Points of Historical Interest.
(2) Literature Review. Publications, maps, and aerial photographs were reviewed for
archaeological, ethnographic, historical, and environmental information about the project sites and
vicinity. The purpose of this review was to: 1) identify cultural resources within the project sites, and
2) identify the potential for the project sites to contain such resources.
The 1878 Thompson and West Historical Atlas Map of Alameda County depicts the project area as
owned by Leland Stanford, former governor of California (1862-1863). Leland Stanford founded a
winery just west of the project area (California Historical Landmark #642) in 1869. Although no
buildings or structures are depicted within the project area on the 1878 map, the area may have been
planted with orchards and vineyards associated with the Stanford Winery.
A review of U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers topographic maps published
from 1906 to 1961 did not indicate any cultural features (e.g., buildings and roads) within the project
East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Cultural Resource Site Atlas. East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California
Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
4
California Office of Historic Preservation, 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks
and Recreation, Sacramento.
5
California Office of Historic Preservation, 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
6
California Office of Historic Preservation 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California.
California Office of Historic Preservation, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. April 5.
198

OCTOBER 2015

area. Aerial photographs dating from 1948 indicate the project sites were not developed during the
second half of the twentieth century.
Paleontological and geological literature relevant to the project sites and vicinity were also
reviewed.8,9 This review identified the project area as being underlain by Holocene alluvium, Pliocene
(2.6 to 5.3 million years old) Orinda Formation deposits, and Pleistocene to Late Pliocene (10,000 to
5.3 million years old) Santa Clara Formation deposits. The Orinda Formation and Santa Clara
Formation are known to contain fossils.
The literature review and archival research confirmed that prehistoric archaeological site CA-ALA431 is within the project area (see below for a description of this resource). The Fremont Plain was
occupied during the ethnographic period by the Tuibun and Alson tribelets.10 The Plano Topografico
de la Mision de San Jos of 1824 depicts the Christian Village of Agua Caliente. It is not possible
to determine the exact location of this Ohlone village from this map, although, presumably it was at,
or in the vicinity of, Mission Peak Regional Preserve.
(3) Field Survey and Presence/Absence Excavation. On April 10, 2013, an LSA
archaeologist conducted an intensive pedestrian field survey of the project area, including all areas of
permanent and temporary disturbance within the Option A and B sites (including roads, trails,
bridges, and culverts). The survey included the horizontal extent of proposed ground disturbance for
the project, including all areas of temporary disturbance potentially affected during project
construction. The ground surface was examined by walking transects at approximate 10- to 15-meter
intervals. Ground visibility was fair at the time of the survey, with weeds, grasses, and leaves
covering much of the surface of the Option A and B sites. The ground surface was occasionally
scraped free of vegetation to better view soils and possible archaeological deposits. Animal burrows
and backdirt were examined for archaeological deposits.
Additional archaeological fieldwork was conducted in 2015 for the projects environmental analysis.
A field survey was completed of the proposed stormwater detention pond at the Option A site on May
5, 2015. An excavation was also conducted at this time to determine the presence/absence of
archaeological deposits at the Option A site. The results of this survey and excavation are discussed
below under the subsection entitled Project Area Cultural Resources.
b.
Cultural Resources Overview. This subsection briefly describes the prehistory and ethnography, history, and paleontology of the project site vicinity as determined by the records searches and
literature review described above.
8
Dibblee, Jr., and W. Thomas, 2005. Geologic Map of the Niles Quadrangle. Electronic document: ngmdb.usgs.gov/
ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34356 (accessed July 19, 2013).
9
Bell, Christopher J., et al., 2004. The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages. In Late Cretaceous
and Cenozoic Mammals of North America, edited by M.O. Woodburne, 232-314. Columbia University Press, New York.
10
Milliken, Randall, 2006. The Central California Ethnographic Community Distribution Model, Version 2.0, with
Special Attention to the San Francisco Bay Area. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.
199

OCTOBER 2015

(1) Prehistory and Ethnography. The Archaic-Emergent cultural sequence developed by

Fredrickson,11 recalibrated by Milliken et al. (2007),12 is commonly used to interpret the prehistoric
occupation of the San Francisco Bay area. The recalibrated sequence is broken into two broad
periods: the Archaic Period, consisting of the Early Holocene Lower Archaic (8000-3500 cal B.C.),
Middle Archaic (3500-500 cal B.C.), Initial Upper Archaic (500 cal B.C.-cal A.D. 430), and Late
Upper Archaic (cal. A.D. 430-1050); and the Emergent Period, consisting of the Lower Emergent
Period (cal A.D. 1050-1550), and Terminal Late (or Upper Emergent) Period (cal. A.D. 1550historic).
Archaeological excavations done in the vicinity of Mission Peak Regional Preserve offer a limited
view of pre-contact Ohlone lifeways. These excavations indicate that this was an area that the Ohlone
inhabited and used for resource collection and processing, and burial of their dead. At CA-ALA514/H, at least three Native American skeletal remains have been recovered, along with shell beads
and pendants, a historic-period mortar, and faunal remains.13 A radiocarbon date from this site and
temporally diagnostic shell beads indicate this deposit dates from approximately A.D. 300 to A.D.
700, indicating occupation of this area during the Upper Archaic Period. At CA-ALA-431,
investigations have identified chert and obsidian flaked-stone debris, marine shell, bedrock mortars,
groundstone, (e.g., pestles and charmstones), and bone tools. Although deposits from CA-ALA-431
have not been dated, a Late Period (Emergent Period) occupation has been suggested.14
Present-day Fremont is within a region occupied for thousands of years by speakers of East Bay
Costanoan (also commonly referred to as Ohlone). Six related Ohlone languages were spoken from
the northern and southern edge of the Carquinez Strait to portions of the Big Sur and Salinas rivers
south of Monterey Bay, and to approximately 50 miles inland from the coast.15 The project area lies
near the boundary of the Chochenyo and Tamyen dialects of the East Bay Costanoan language. The
exact boundary is unknown.
Approximately 58 tribes have been grouped today under the name Ohlone. Sometimes referred to
by anthropologists as tribelets, due to their relatively small populations, the East Bay had
approximately 25 such independent tribal groups with well-defined homelands. Each tribes
leadership and culture varied and each had three to five village locations. Village populations ranged
from about 40 to 200. Individuals commonly spoke multiple languages and marriages occurred
11
Fredrickson, David A., 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
In Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):4153.
12
Milliken, Randall, et al., 2007. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California
Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A Klar, pp 99124. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham,
Maryland.
13
Fong, Michael R., Angela M. Banet, and James C. Bard, 1990. Analysis of Native American Skeletal Remains
Recovered During Emergency Disinterment at CA-ALA-514/H, City of Fremont, Alameda County, California. Basin
Research Associates, San Leandro, California.
14
Porter, J., et al., 1982. Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-ALA-431, on file at Northwest Information
Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
15
Shipley, William F., 1978. Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8:
California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
200

OCTOBER 2015

among neighboring groups. 16 The project area is likely within the homeland of the Alson (aka
Patlan), who held the low marshlands at the very southern end of San Francisco Bay, probably
including present-day Newark, Milpitas, and Alviso; less likely the homeland of the Tuibun, located
at the mouth of Alameda Creek and the Coyote Hills. 17 Their nearest neighbor was the Causen, a
tribe or a single village in the Sunol Valley. Contradictory mission documents indicated that the
Alson may have been at Mission Santa Clara prior to their being noted on Mission San Jos baptismal
records from 1797 to 1801. Members of the Tuibun are noted on Mission San Francisco and San Jos
baptismal registers from 1797 to 1804.18
(2) Project Vicinity History. Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to traverse
Alameda County, including the Portola (1769), Fages (1770), and Fages Crespi (1772) expeditions. In
1776 the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition traveled along the East Bay foothills, and a portion of his
route is now a National Historic Trail that follows Mission Boulevard west of Mission Peak. In 1797,
Mission San Jos was established near the project sites. During the Mexican Period (1822-1846), vast
tracts of land were granted to individuals, including former mission lands which had reverted to
public domain. The project sites are situated within the Rancho Agua Caliente, which was originally
granted in 1836 to Antonio Sunol and released shortly thereafter to Fulgencio Higuera. Higuera and
his family lived on his rancho until the late 1870s. A portion of Higueras rancho was purchased by
Clemente Columbet in 1850, who erected a popular resort at Warm Springs. Columbets resort was
largely destroyed by an earthquake in 1868. Governor Leland Stanford purchased Columbets resort
property in 1869, and Lelands brother, Josiah, planted vineyards and orchards on the property. The
project sites may have been planted with vineyards and orchards during the Stanfords ownership of
the property.
Phylloxera19 damage to Stanfords vineyards in the 1880s and the onset of Prohibition brought an end
to Stanfords winery by the 1920s. The Stanford family sold their property in 1923 to Frank Kelly,
who wanted to put a racetrack on the property. Subsequently, the Sisters of Holy Names acquired the
property for a college that was never built. Currently, the project sites and vicinity are managed by the
District as part of the Mission Peak Regional Preserve.
(3) Paleontology. The project area lies on the eastern edge of the Fremont Plain near the
eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. The sediments that underlie both project sites include Holocene
(10,000 years B.P. to present) alluvial deposits laid down by Agua Caliente Creek, Pliocene (2.6 to
5.3 million years old) Orinda Formation deposits, and Pleistocene to Late Pliocene (10,000 to 5.3
million years old) Santa Clara Formation deposits. Holocene alluvial gravels, sand, and clay eroded
from the East Bay Hills and, transported by creeks, formed the plains along eastern San Francisco
16
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Master Plan 2013, p. 49, based on Milliken 1995:21-24, 228-261.
17
Milliken, Randall, 1995:229, 235, 258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San
Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
18
Milliken, Randall, 1995:258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco
Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
19
Phylloxera is a nearly microscopic root insect, similar to an aphid, that primarily attacks the roots of Vitis vinifera
grape vines. Once infested with the Phylloxera louse, the grape vine's root system can become severely impaired, making it
difficult for the plant to absorb the needed water and nutrients to sustain a vine.
201

OCTOBER 2015

Bay. These Holocene deposits are too recent to contain significant paleontological resources (fossils).
Specific conditions at each site are discussed below.
Option A Site. The Santa Clara Formation, locally known as Irvington Gravels, is mapped at
the western half of the project area, encompassing most of the Option A site. The Irvington Gravels
consist of Poorly to well consolidated, distinctly bedded pebbles and cobbles, gray pebbly sand, and
gray, coarse-grained, cross-bedded sand.20 This geologic unit is paleontologically sensitive, and the
Irvingtonian Mammal Age has been named after the prehistoric fauna recovered from gravel pits in
Fremont.21 These now abandoned gravel pits, portions of which are overlain by I-680, have yielded
numerous fossilized mammals, including ground sloth, dire wolf, giant short-faced cave bear,
sabercat, and mammoth.
Option B Site. The Orinda Formation, mapped at the eastern half of the project area and
encompassing much of the Option B site, consists of sandstone and pebble conglomerate of
Franciscan detritus.22 The Orinda Formation is known to contain vertebrate and invertebrate fossils,
including horses, mastodons, shell, and plants.23
c.
Regulatory and Legislative Context. The following describes the State, City, and District
regulatory and policy requirements for cultural resources that are relevant to the proposed project.
(1) CEQA Requirements. CEQA defines a historical resource as a resource that is:
1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the
requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by a projects
lead agency (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). A
historical resource consists of:
Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically
significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3).
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a significant effect on the environment. Significant impacts under
20
Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb, 1996:13. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock
Formations in Alameda County, California: Derived from the Digital Database Open-File 96-252. U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C.
21
Bell, Christopher J., et al., 2004:269.
22
Dibblee, Jr., Thomas W., 2005, op. cit.
23
University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2013. UCMP Localities. Website: bscit.berkeley.edu/

ucmp/loc.html (accessed July 19, 2013).
202

OCTOBER 2015

CEQA require that specific, feasible mitigation measures be developed to improve adverse environmental conditions.
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition
of a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or neither (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(c)). Prior to considering potential impacts, the lead agency must determine whether an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(c)(1). If the archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource,
then it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical
resource, then the lead agency determines if it meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource as defined at CEQA Section 21083.2(g). In practice, however, most archaeological sites that
meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical
resource.24 Should the archaeological cultural resource meet the definition of a unique archaeological
resource, then it must be treated in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.2. If the archaeological
cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource or an archaeological resource,
then effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).
(2) Health and Safety Code: Human Remains. The California Health and Safety Code
(HSC) Section 7050.5 states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in
any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the
county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to
the coroners authority. 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.
(3) Public Resources Code: Cultural and Paleontological Resources. California Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural and paleontological
resources. This PRC section prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological and paleontological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
(4) City of Fremont General Plan (2011). The City of Fremonts General Plan Community
Character Element includes Goal 4-6, which provides preservation policies and implementation
measures for cultural measures. Most of these policies relate to the preservation and documentation of
historic built-environment resources in Fremont. One policy, Policy 4-6.10, does include Native
American resources, which may be affected by the project. This policy is included below.
Policy 4-6.10: Protection of Native American Remains. Coordinate with representatives of local Native
American organizations to ensure the protection of Native American resources and to follow
24
Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-Step Guide on how
to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California.
203

OCTOBER 2015

appropriate mitigation, preservation, and recovery measures in the event such resources could be
impacted by development.
(5) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Districts Master Plan (Master
Plan)25 defines the long-term vision for lands managed by the District. The Master Plan provides a
decision-making framework for District management, and identifies policies that will achieve districtwide objectives. Park development objectives, land use classifications, and planning and management
guidelines are established by the Master Plan. Policies for the preservation and interpretation of
cultural resources are woven throughout the Master Plan, including provisions for public
participation, interpretation, environmental compliance, open space protection, land acquisition, land
use planning, and facility development. Those policies most pertinent to cultural resources in the
project area are excerpted and summarized below, as appropriate.
Policy NRM 13. The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from
vandalism and misuse.
Policy CRM 1. The District will manage, conserve and work to restore parkland cultural and historic
resources and sites, to preserve the heritage of the people who occupied this land before the District
was established and to encourage the cultural traditions associated with the land today.
Policy CRM 2. The District may acquire cultural and historic resource sites when they are within lands
that meet parkland acquisition criteria and will maintain an active archive of its institutional history
and the history of its parklands and trails.
Policy CRM 3. The District will maintain a current map and written inventory of all cultural features
and sites found on park land26 and will preserve and protect these cultural features and sites in situ in
accordance with Board policy. The District will evaluate significant cultural and historic sites to
determine if they should be nominated for California Historical Landmark status or for the National
Register of Historic Places.
Policy CRM 4. The District will determine the level of public access to cultural and historic resource
using procedures and practices adopted by the Board. The District will employ generally accepted best
management practices to minimize the impact of public use and access on these resources, and to
appropriately interpret the significance of these resources on a regional scale.
Policy CRM 5. The District will notify Native Americans and other culturally associated peoples in a
timely manner of plans which may affect sites and landscapes significant to their culture and will
include them in discussions regarding the preservation and land use planning of culturally significant
sites and landscapes.
Policy CRM 6. The District will strive to accommodate requests by Native Americans, ranching or
farming communities and other groups to help maintain and use cultural sites and to play an active role
in their preservation and interpretation.
(6) East Bay Regional Park District Ordinance 38, Sections 805-807. Portions of the
Districts Ordinance 38 address the disturbance of objects or features of cultural significance. Each
section is briefly summarized below.
25
26
Pursuant to this policy, the District maintains a cultural and historical resources database.
204

OCTOBER 2015

Section 805. This section states that no person shall damage, injure, collect or remove earth, rocks,
sand, gravel, fossils, minerals, features of caves, or any article or artifact of geological interest or value
located on District parklands.
Section 806. This ordinance states that no person shall damage, injure, collect or remove any object of
paleontological, archaeological or historical interest or value located on District parklands. In addition,
any person who willfully alters, damages, or defaces any object of archaeological or historical interest
or value or enters a fenced and posted archaeological or historical site shall be arrested or issued a
citation pursuant to California Penal Code 622.5.
Section 807. This ordinance states that special permission may be granted to remove, treat, disturb, or
otherwise affect plants or animals or geological, historical, archaeological, or paleontological materials
for research, interpretive, educational, or park operational purposes.
(7) East Bay Regional Park District Standard Contract Provision. In addition to the
policies included in the Districts Master Plan, the Districts standard contract provision for cultural
resources is included in construction documents and applied, as appropriate. The standard contract
provision is included below.
Article 22: Protection of Historic Resources and Human Remains. The Contractor shall, during all
work, be alert for indicators of historic resources (i.e.; bivalve shells or fragments, stone tools, old
china objects or fragments, old glass objects or fragments, old foundations and old privy deposits) and
human remains. If such indicators are uncovered, all work within 50 feet shall be halted and the
District Inspector immediately notified. The District will have the find evaluated by the proper
authorities or professionals. Only the balance of that work day shall be compensated by the District if
the Contractor cannot perform work elsewhere on the project. Recommendations from the qualified
authorities or professionals may result in a change of work and a change order may be issued.
(8) East Bay Regional Park District Board Resolution No. 198-4-124. This resolution,
adopted on April 18, 1989, establishes the Guidelines for Protecting Parkland Archaeological Sites.
The Guidelines state the District will directly consult with and involve the descendants in preserving
and interpreting the sites. Such consultation has occurred for this project and is summarized in the
Project Site Cultural Resources section, below. The Guidelines further state that in situ preservation is
the preferred manner of avoiding adverse environmental impacts to these sites, and that this is best
accomplished by capping. If in situ preservation is not feasible, a salvage excavation plan should be
prepared in consultation with concerned Native Americans. Mitigation measures proposed in this
chapter are consistent with the Districts Guidelines.
d.
Project Area Cultural Resources. Cultural resources identified through field surveys and
excavation at the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below.
Option A Site. A previously unrecorded scatter of sparse shell was identified during LSAs
survey conducted on April 10, 2013, consisting of five small shell fragments (possibly clam)
observed in a rodent backdirt pile at the Option A site. In addition, an area of dark, ashy, midden-like
soil was noted at the Option A site during the same survey. Although no constituents were observed
with these soils (e.g., shell, bone, flaked stone, or fire-affected rock), these resemble the peripheral
midden27 noted at CA-ALA-431 (see discussion below for the Option B site). No other surface
27
A weakly developed midden soil with few or no archaeological materials.
205

OCTOBER 2015

cultural materials were identified, although the presence of marine shell in a rodent burrow suggests
the potential of a subsurface archaeological deposit at Option A.
LSA archaeologists conducted a Presence/Absence excavation at Option A on May 5, 6, and 9, 2015.
Native American representative Ramona Garibay of the Ohlone Tribe was on site to monitor the
excavation. The purpose of the excavation was to determine the extent of the deposit within the
proposed Option A site and to identify the cultural materials associated with the deposit. The
excavation consisted of three shovel test pits (STPs), 11 auger units (AUs), and two combination
STP/AUs. Placement of STPs and AUs was aligned to magnetic north, 10 meters apart along north/
south and east/west axes in the vicinity of the shell fragments identified during the survey. The STPs
measured 50 centimeters in length by by 50 centimeters in width and varied in depth from 40
centimeters to 100 centimeters. The AUs were 10 centimeters wide and varied in depth from 80
centimeters to 120 centimeters where cultural deposits were present.
The excavation was done with shovels, a breaker bar, and an auger in 20 centimeter levels. Excavated
soil was screened through 6 millimeter wire mesh to capture archaeological materials.
A single STP excavated at the area of midden-like soil noted during the 2013 survey did not
identify archaeological materials. Based on the results of the excavation, the soil noted at the surface
of this location is not indicative of an archaeological deposit.
The STPs and AUs excavated in the vicinity of the shell fragments identified during the 2013 survey
yielded 31 mussel (Mytilus californianus) fragments from five excavation units, indicating a lowdensity archaeological site at Option A. The majority of the shell fragments were identified in a single
STP (STP-A), at a depth of 60 to 100 centimeters, in a soil horizon consisting of light yellowishbrown silty loam. No archaeological materials (e.g., obsidian or groundstone) other than shell
fragments were identified during the excavation.
No other cultural resources were identified in the Option A site; however, the potential for
encountering fossils during construction cannot be ruled out due to the presence of fossiliferous
Irvington and Orinda formations at the Option A site. This issue is addressed below under the impact
evaluation (refer to Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-2).
Option B Site. The background research and field survey conducted for the proposed project
identified one previously recorded cultural resource within the Option B site. Archaeological site CAALA-431 was originally recorded in 1982 by anthropology students from California State University
(CSU) Hayward, who identified four charmstonesthree deer scapula serrates, pestles and pestle
fragments, bone awl fragments, obsidian and chert points and blades, thermally altered sandstone,
oyster shell, Cerithidea californica [California horn snail], and disturbed human bone.28
Archaeologist George Miller suggested that these artifacts may have been associated with a human
burial that had been exposed by erosion.29 CSU Hayward students also identified bedrock mortars
(BRMs) and a possible house pit depression.
28
Porter, J., et al., 1982, op. cit.
29
Banks, Peter, 1985:26. A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont,
Alameda County, California. California Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Oakland.
206

OCTOBER 2015

In 1985, archaeologist Peter Banks recorded CA-ALA-431 for the District.30 Mr. Banks conducted
hand auger excavations at the site to define the depth and contents of the site. Based on the surface
survey and auger excavation, Banks identified midden to a depth of nearly one meter (about three
feet) below the surface at portions of the site. Banks recorded three midden loci at the site, two
BRMs, and a surface scatter of fire-cracked rock and grinding tool fragments. A detailed sketch map
of the site was also prepared, showing the locations of midden loci, auger excavations, a fire-cracked
rock and groundstone locus, BRMs, surface artifacts, and an old road that transects the boundary of
CA-ALA-431.
In 1991, Holman and Associates conducted an archaeological field survey for the proposed Stanford
Avenue Golf Course project.31 The archaeological field survey included the project area and CAALA-431. Holman and Associates field survey identified CA-ALA-431, and an auger excavation
was conducted to better define the sites boundary. Their investigation characterized CA-ALA-431 as
an extensive site measuring 290 meters by 115 meters (951 feet by 377 feet) that includes three
developed midden areas, a more extensive peripheral midden, grinding equipment, projectile
points, and flaked stone debris (debitage). Holman and Associates also re-identified the old road
identified by Banks in 1985. Holman and Associates propose that this road once linked the Warm
Springs Resort complex and Stanford Winery west of the project with surrounding fields, orchards,
and vineyards during the nineteenth century.
LSAs field survey of the project area re-identified CA-ALA-431 at the Option B site. The survey
confirmed the previous findings of Holman and Associates from 1991 as to the resources location,
loci, and surface boundary. LSAs field survey identified BRMs, shell (California horn snail), midden
loci, fire-affected rock, and chert debitage at CA-ALA-431.
No other cultural resources were identified in the Option B site; however, the potential for
encountering fossils during construction cannot be ruled out due to the presence of fossiliferous
Irvington and Orinda formations. This issue is addressed below under the impact evaluation (refer to
Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-2).
e.
Tribal Outreach. The District conducted initial tribal outreach for the project in 2013. The
purpose of this outreach was to identify sites of Native American interest or concern that may be
impacted by the proposed project and to solicit opinions for avoiding or mitigating potential impacts
to such sites. The District obtained a list of tribal contacts for the project area from the National
American Heritage Commission. A total of six contacts were provided. The District mailed a letter
describing the project, the project location, background, known cultural and/or historic records,
District contact information, and graphic indicating the approximate location of both Option A and
Option B to each of the six contacts. The District also offered a site meeting for interested individuals,
separate from any public meetings. The District did not receive any responses to the Districts tribal
outreach effort or offer for a site meeting.
30
Banks, Peter, 1985. Archaeological Site Record for CA-ALA-431. On file, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
31
Ambro, Richard D., 1991. Inventory of Potential Cultural Resources within the Proposed Stanford Avenue Golf
Course Area, Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont, Alameda County, California. Holman and Associates, San
Francisco, California.
207

OCTOBER 2015

In accordance with the Districts Master Plan policies and the Districts Guidelines for Protecting
Parkland Archaeological Sites, the District conducted a second focused tribal outreach effort. The
District organized two on-site meetings, on May 26 and 28, 2015, for local Native American tribes
and representatives. Outreach letters were also sent to 19 individuals, including those on the original
NAHC list, seeking Native American input on the project. The May 26 meeting was attended by five
Native American representatives; the May 28 meeting was attended by 13 representatives. Meeting
participants expressed concerns related to the presence of known and unknown cultural resources at
both project site options and general concerns related to the ongoing activities at the Preserve,
including cattle grazing
f.
Significance of Cultural Resources under CEQA. For purposes of this project, the District as
lead agency considers the newly identified resource at Option A and the CA-ALA-431 site at Option
B to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4 due to their ability to yield
information important in prehistory. This assessment is based on previous archaeological surveys and
excavation at the Option A and Option B project sites that have identified midden, groundstone,
flaked stone, shell, andas noted in 1982 by CSU Hayward studentshuman remains. These
materials and human remains have the potential to provide information on ancestral Ohlone lifeways.
This information can address questions related to ancestral Ohlone chronology and culture history;
subsistence and settlement behaviors; technology; and social interaction and exchange.
As noted by Holman and Associates:
Faunal and floral remains [at CA-ALA-431] can be used to reconstruct past diet and
seasonality. An adequate sample of stone, bone, and other artifactswould provide data on
economic patterns, technology, and chronology. Charcoal in hearths and roasting features may
be radiocarbon dated. Obsidian tools can be dated by obsidian hydration, and also sources to
provide information on chronology and trade patterns. Any human burials would provide data
on genetics, diet, health, and longevity of the population. The associated artifacts accompanying burials are units on contemporaneity, and are valuable in chronological discussions,
especially when shell beads are present. All these data could help to refine our understanding of
the chronology, seasonality, economic, social, and trade patterns of the site.32
Under CEQA, the lead agency is responsible for first determining if an archaeological site qualifies as
a historical resource as defined in the CEQA Guidelines at Section 15064.5(a). Only if a site does
not qualify as a historical resource is it then evaluated to determine if it qualifies as a unique
archaeological resource (PRC Section 21083.2(g)). In practice, most archaeological sites that are
significant under CEQA qualify as historical resources and not unique archaeological resources.
The newly identified archaeological deposit at the Option A site and the CA-ALA-431 resource at the
Option B site are historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) due to
their eligibility for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4. 33 Eligibility requirements for
32
Ambro, Richard D., 1991:20.
33
Under CEQA, cultural resources are typically evaluated using the eligibility criteria of the California Register.
With a few notable exceptions, resources that are eligible for listing in the California Register would also qualify for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places.
208

OCTOBER 2015

the California Register and National Register of Historic Places are substantially similar. Due to this
resources eligibility under Criterion 4 of the California Register, it should also be considered eligible
for listing under National Register of Historic Places Criterion D for its ability to yield information
important in prehistory.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(A-B), preservation in place is the preferred manner of
mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. As noted in the CEQA Guidelines, there are four methods
of preservation that a lead agency should consider:
Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space;
Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building
tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site (also known as capping); and
Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
The District has considered the feasibility of these four methods of preservation in order to protect
intact archaeological deposits and features at both the Option A and Option B sites. Neither avoiding
these sites, nor incorporating these sites within permanent open space or a conservation easement are
feasible. In order to meet the demand for more parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area and to
satisfy the projects objectives, the two project sites were selected by the District after consideration
of other potential locations (refer to discussion in Chapter III, Project Description and Chapter VI,
Alternatives). Furthermore, the design and on-site locations of the proposed staging areas at Options
A and B could not be modified or moved elsewhere within the Preserve to avoid archaeological sites
due to potential topographic (i.e., steeply sloped terrain) or geologic constraints.
Capping of the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil could not occur as the
project sites are not level and would require extensive grading to construct the proposed staging area.
This grading would result in material impairment of historical resources as described in the Impacts
and Mitigation Measures section below.
In summary, although it is the Districts preference to preserve historical and archaeological resources
in situ (consistent with District Board Resolution No. 198-4-124), for the reasons stated above and
reiterated in this impacts analysis presented below, archaeological sites could not be preserved in
place for this project.
2.
The following section describes potentially significant project impacts to cultural resources. This
section first lists the criteria by which significance is determined, followed by a discussion of impacts
and mitigation measures, as necessary. Mitigation recommendations are made to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate such impacts where possible.
a.
Criteria of Significance. Implementation of the proposed project would have a significant
impact on cultural and/or paleontological resources if it would:
209

OCTOBER 2015

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Specifically, substantial adverse changes include
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially
impaired;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource

pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic

feature; or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to cultural
resources. Potential impacts associated with development of the Option A site are discussed first,
followed by potential impacts at the Option B site.
(1) Historical and Archaeological Resources. Development of either the Option A site or
the Option B site would include grading for the construction of a new staging area, new vehicular
roadways, and new trail connections or modifications. The project would have a significant impact
related to historical and archaeological resources if these ground-disturbing activities were to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource. A substantial
adverse change in the significance of these resources would occur from their demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings in a manner that the
significance of the resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)).
Potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources within and in the vicinity of the Option A
and B sites, are discussed below. As discussed, with the implementation of recommended mitigation
measures, these impacts would be less than significant for both project site options.
Option A. Development of the Option A site includes construction of a new staging area and
associated improvements within a 9.64-acre area, 2.78 acres of which would consist of new
impervious surfaces (e.g., pavement). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance
would be 11.71 acres. These ground-disturbing activities have the potential to impact a prehistoric
archaeological site at the Option A site.
Option A Impact CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the Option A site would adversely
affect a prehistoric archaeological deposit that qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA.
(S)
The archaeological resource that exists at the Option A site is a historical resource under CEQA as it
is assumed eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 4 (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(a)(3)(D)). This resources significance is due to its potential to yield information important
in prehistory, including information that could address questions related to chronology and culture
history, subsistence and settlement, technology; and social interaction and exchange. Destruction of
this resource from project ground disturbance would result in material impairment and compromise
the ability of the site to yield information important in prehistory.
210

OCTOBER 2015

Under CEQA, preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological
sites (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(A)). Capping would not be feasible because the
project site is not level and would require extensive grading and excavation (ground disturbance at the
Option A site would result in approximately 35,000 cubic yards of cut, 23,000 cubic yards of which
would be off-hauled). Nor are any of the other methods of preservation in place feasible. Option A
could not be constructed so as avoid the known historical resource. As discussed in Chapter VI,
Alternatives, construction of the project on the portion of the Option A site that does not have a
known historical resource is infeasible because it would not meet the purpose of the project and
project objectives. Similarly, incorporating the site of the historical resources within open space or
placing the site under conservation easement would preclude development of the project and would
not achieve any of the project objectives. Thus these measures are also infeasible.
Implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, below, would more effectively mitigate
this impact than preserving resources in place by enabling scientists to study the historical resources
and enabling the public to learn more about Native American life through the Districts consultation
with Native Americans to interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to precontact Native American traditions and lifeways. The Districts consultation could provide
information regarding the integral place on the cultural landscape occupied by tribes in a manner that
incorporates data gleaned from scientific analysis to augment traditional tribal perspectives. In turn,
the District could utilize this information in interpretive material for public education, consistent with
District objectives, in a more immersive approach than would otherwise be achievable through
capping and preservation in place. Therefore, implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure CUL1a, below, would reduce this potential impact to prehistoric archaeological deposits to a less-thansignificant level. This mitigation is consistent with relevant policies of the Districts Master Plan,
including policies CRM 5 and CRM 6; District Ordinance 38, Section 807; and District Resolution
No. 198-4-124.
Although no archaeological sites have been identified at Option A other than what has been described
in this section, there is a potential that previously unrecorded deposits that qualify as historical or
unique archaeological resources under CEQA could be encountered during construction. Should
project construction encounter such resources, a substantial adverse change in their significance (e.g.,
their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation
of Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1b would reduce significant impacts to archaeological sites
that qualify as historical or archaeological resources at the Option A site to a less-than-significant
level.
Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Prior to development of the Option A site, a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards for
archeology shall prepare a Treatment Plan (Plan) for the archaeological site identified at Option
A. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a guide to conducting data recovery archaeological
excavations and archaeological monitoring at Option A to ensure Option A does not result in a
substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resources. The Plan shall
include: 1) a description of the field and laboratory methods to be used at Option A; 2) a
research design detailing important questions that can be addressed from investigation of
Option A; 3) archaeological and Native American monitoring procedures to be used during the
construction of the project; and 4) protocols for treating archaeological deposits and human
remains identified during construction. The Plan may also provide for reburial of the historical
211

OCTOBER 2015

resources at the location of their discovery or in a location near the project site. An Ohlone
representative or representatives shall be consulted as part of the Plans preparation to interpret
resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American
traditions and lifeway and to provide input to the District regarding the treatment of these
resources. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the District prior to project ground
disturbance. The District shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation and
implementation of the Plan. The District shall be responsible for implementing the Plan.
Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist and submitted to the District for review and to the Northwest Information Center
at Sonoma State University, consistent with professional reporting standards in cultural
resources management.
Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered
during project subsurface construction activities that is not associated with treatments
prescribed under Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, all ground-disturbing activities within
25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors
Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to assess the situation (if one is
not already on-site), consult with agencies as appropriate and an Ohlone representative, and
make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant (i.e.,
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the District shall be
responsible for funding and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not
result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resources. Such
measures may include recording the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and
public outreach. Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting methods,
findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review.
Where consistent with the recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall
be submitted to an appropriate curation facility or the District and used for public interpretive
displays, as appropriate and in coordination with an Ohlone representative.
The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological
deposits and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate
contract documents:
The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for archaeological deposits. If
archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction and an
archaeologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall 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.
Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials. Archaeological
deposits can include shellfish remains; bones; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian,
chert, and basalt; and mortars and pestles. (LTS)
212

OCTOBER 2015

Option B. Development of the Option B site includes construction of a new staging area and
associated improvements within a 10.45-acre area, 3.10 acres of which would consist of new
impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements, bridges). The total area of both permanent and temporary
disturbance would be 16.76 acres. In addition to the ground-disturbing activities that would occur
with development of the Option B site, new vehicular and pedestrian bridges across Agua Caliente
Creek would also be constructed with implementation of Option B. An existing culvert along Agua
Caliente Creek would also be removed, and the Creek would be restored to its natural condition.
These project ground-disturbing activities could impact CA-ALA-431 within the vicinity of the
Option B site.
Option B Impact CUL-1: Ground-disturbing activities at the Option B site would adversely
affect a prehistoric archaeological site (CA-ALA-431), that qualifies as a historical resource
under CEQA. (S)
Development of Option B would have a significant impact on CA-ALA-431 due to project grounddisturbing activitiesincluding excavation, grading, site compaction, and pavingthat would
destroy or displace archaeological materials. These archaeological materials have the potential to
yield information important in prehistory (California Register Criterion 4), and project impacts would
potentially destroy their provenience and integrity, which are critical to the sites information
potential. As described above, CA-ALA-431 qualifies for listing in the California Register and is,
therefore, considered a historical resource by the District for purposes of this project.
Under CEQA, preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological
sites (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(A)). Capping would not be feasible because the project
site is not level and would require extensive grading and excavation (ground disturbance would result
in approximately 12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of which would be off-hauled). Nor are
any of the other methods of preservation in place feasible. The project could not feasibly be
constructed so as avoid the historical resource CA-ALA-431. Similarly, incorporating the site of the
historical resource within open space or placing the site under conservation easement would not
achieve any of the project objectives and is thus also infeasible.
Implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, below would more effectively mitigate this
impact than preservation in place by enabling scientists to study the historical resources and enabling
the public to learn more about Native American life through consultation with Native Americans to
interpret resources found during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American
traditions and lifeways. This consultation would provide information regarding the integral place on
the cultural landscape occupied by tribes in a manner that incorporates data gleaned from scientific
analysis to augment traditional tribal perspectives. In turn, the District could utilize this information
in interpretive material for public education consistent with District objectives, in a more immersive
approach than would otherwise be achievable through capping and preservation in place Therefore,
implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, below, would reduce the potential impact
to CA-ALA-431 to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation is consistent with relevant policies of
the Districts Master Plan (2013), including policies CRM 5 and CRM 6; District Ordinance 38,
Section 807; and District Resolution No. 198-4-124.
Although no archaeological sites other than CA-ALA-431 have been identified at Option B, there is a
potential that previously unrecorded deposits that qualify as historical or unique archaeological
213

OCTOBER 2015

resources under CEQA could be encountered during construction. Should project construction
encounter such resources, a substantial adverse change in their significance (e.g., their disturbance or
destruction) would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of Option B
Mitigation Measure CUL-1b would reduce significant impacts to archaeological sites that qualify as
historical or archaeological resources at the Option B site to a less-than-significant level.
Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Prior to development of Option B, a qualified
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards for
archeology shall prepare a Treatment Plan (Plan) for CA-ALA-431. The purpose of the Plan is
to serve as a guide to conducting data recovery archaeological excavations and archaeological
monitoring at CA-ALA-431 to ensure Option B does not result in a substantial adverse change
in the significance of the historical resources. The Plan shall include: 1) a description of the
field and laboratory methods to be used at CA-ALA-431; 2) a research design detailing
important questions that can be addressed from investigation of CA-ALA-431; 3)
archaeological and Native American monitoring procedures to be used during the construction
of the project; and 4) protocols for treating archaeological deposits and human remains
identified during construction. The Plan may also include reburial of the historical resources at
the location of their discovery or in a location near the project site. An Ohlone representative or
representatives shall be consulted as part of the Plans preparation to interpret resources found
during construction of the project relative to pre-contact Native American traditions and
lifeway and to provide input to the District regarding the treatment of these resources. The Plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the District prior to project ground disturbance. The District
shall set aside funds to be used exclusively for preparation and implementation of the Plan. The
District shall be responsible for implementing the Plan.
Once the Plan has been implemented, a report of findings shall be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist and submitted to the District for review and to the Northwest Information Center
at Sonoma State University, consistent with professional reporting standards in cultural
resources management.
Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Should an archaeological deposit be encountered during
project subsurface construction activities that is not associated with treatments prescribed under
Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be
redirected and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional
Qualifications Standards for Archeology contacted to assess the situation (if one is not already
on-site), consult with agencies as appropriate, and an Ohlone representative, and make
recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant (i.e., eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), the District shall be responsible for
funding and implementing appropriate measures to ensure the project does not result in a
substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resources. Such measures may
include recording the archaeological deposit, data recovery and analysis, and public outreach.
Upon completion of the selected measures, a report documenting methods, findings, and
recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review. Where consistent
with the recommended treatments, significant archaeological materials shall be submitted to an
appropriate curation facility or the District and used for public interpretive displays, as
appropriate and in coordination with an Ohlone representative.
214

OCTOBER 2015

The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological
deposits and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate
contract documents:
The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for archaeological deposits. If
archaeological deposits are encountered during project subsurface construction and an
archaeologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be
redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with
Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials. Archaeological
deposits can include shellfish remains; bones; flakes of, and tools made from, obsidian,
chert, and basalt; and mortars and pestles. (LTS)
(2) Unique Paleontological Resources or Sites or Geologic Features. The proposed
project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or geologic feature, as described below. There are no unique
geologic features on the Option A or Option B sites and no mitigation measures are required to
address impacts to geologic features at either site. Although no paleontological resources have been
identified within either project site, the presence of fossiliferous Orinda and Irvington geological
formations underlying the project sites indicate paleontological sensitivity. These two geologic
formations are known to contain significant paleontological resources. As discussed below, with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, this impact would be less than significant
with development of either site option.
Option A. Impacts to paleontological resources that could result with the development of the
Option A site are discussed below.
Option A Impact CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the
Option A site could adversely affect paleontological resources. (S)
Should project construction encounter paleontological resources, a substantial adverse change in their
significance (e.g., their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a significant impact under
CEQA. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would prevent any significant impacts to
paleontological resources at the Option A site and would reduce this potential impact to a less-thansignificant level by ensuring Option A does not destroy paleontological resources.
Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered during
project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be
redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies
as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of
this mitigation, a qualified paleontologist shall be an individual with the following
qualifications: (1) a graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a
demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological journals; (2) at least two
years of professional experience related to paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils
in the field and determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and
biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be
significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall be
215

OCTOBER 2015

implemented to ensure that Option A does not destroy the paleontological resource. Measures
may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report,
and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon
completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations
shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleontological materials are
recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of
Paleontology. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate.
The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate
contract documents:
The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If
paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a
paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be
redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with
Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological
resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as
tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam
and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and
sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber
tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints,
petrified wood, and animal tracks. (LTS)
Option B. Impacts to paleontological resources that could result with the development of the
Option B site are discussed below.
Option B Impact CUL-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the
Option B site could adversely affect paleontological resources. (S)
Should project construction encounter paleontological resources, a substantial adverse change in their
significance (e.g., their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a significant impact under
CEQA. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would prevent any significant impacts to
paleontological resources at the Option B site and would reduce this potential impact to a less-thansignificant level by protecting the paleontological resources so that they are not destroyed.
Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Should paleontological resources be encountered during
project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be
redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies
as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. For purposes of
this mitigation, a qualified paleontologist shall be an individual with the following qualifications: (1) a graduate degree in paleontology or geology and/or a person with a demonstrated
publication record in peer-reviewed paleontological journals; (2) at least two years of
professional experience related to paleontology; (3) proficiency in recognizing fossils in the
field and determining their significance; (4) expertise in local geology, stratigraphy, and
biostratigraphy; and (5) experience collecting vertebrate fossils in the field. If found to be
216

OCTOBER 2015

significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, measures shall be
implemented to ensure that Option B does not destroy the paleontological resource. Measures
may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report,
and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Upon
completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations
shall be prepared and submitted to the District for review, and, if paleontological materials are
recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of
Paleontology. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate.
The District shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources and shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate
contract documents:
The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If
paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a
paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be
redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with
Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological
resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as
tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam
and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and
sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber
tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints,
petrified wood, and animal tracks. (LTS)
(3) Disturb Human Remains. The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it results in disturbance to human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. Native American skeletal remains have been identified at the Option B site at CA-ALA431 and have also been unearthed near the project area along Agua Caliente Creek at CA-ALA514/H. The possibility of encountering such remains, either in isolation or with prehistoric
archaeological deposits, during ground-disturbing activities at either site is high. However, as
discussed below, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, this impact would
be less than significant with development of either site option.
Option A. Impacts to human remains that could result with the development of the Option A
site are discussed below.
Option A Impact CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the
Option A site could adversely affect Native American skeletal or cremated remains. (S)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with
the disturbance of human remains at the Option A site to a less-than-significant level.
Option A Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project grounddisturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its
217

OCTOBER 2015

contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains by including the following
directive in 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. Work within 25 feet of the
discovery can resume only after the MLD has inspected the site, provided
recommendations, and the remains and associated grave goods removed from the site by
a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the MLD. (LTS)
Option B. Impacts to human remains that could result with the development of the Option B
site are discussed below.
Option B Impact CUL-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the
Option B site could adversely affect Native American skeletal or cremated remains. (S)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with
the disturbance of human remains at the Option B site to a less-than-significant level.
Option B Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Any human remains encountered during project grounddisturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(d). The District shall inform its
contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project sites for human remains by including the following
directive in 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 to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Work within 25 feet of the discovery
can resume only after the MLD has inspected the site, provided recommendations, and
the remains and associated grave goods removed from the site by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with the MLD. (LTS)
218

OCTOBER 2015

c.
Cumulative Impacts. The disturbance of prehistoric archaeological sites that underlie the
project sites, and potential disturbance of paleontological resources and human remains, could have a
cumulatively significant impact when considered with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
projects in Fremont.
The cumulative geographic context for the project site considered as part of this analysis generally
extends for a 2-mile radius around the Preserve. Environmental documents available on the City of
Fremonts website were reviewed for projects identified in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts
and Mitigation Measures, to assess the projects potential to cause a cumulatively considerable
impact. Development within the immediate vicinity include infill projects within the City of Fremont
were reviewed, and no documentation was identified that indicates any of these projects would impact
a known prehistoric archaeological site. As is the case with the current project, projects identified in
Table V-1 have the potential to result in unanticipated discoveries of historical and archaeological
resources, paleontological resources, and human remains during ground disturbance. These
developments could adversely affect buried cultural resources through their destruction or
disturbance. Before mitigation, therefore, developments within the Districts jurisdiction, as well as
other local recent and current developments, have the potential to cause adverse cumulative impacts
to cultural resources due to their destruction or loss of historical integrity.
However, it should be noted that each development that the District or the City oversees would
undergo environmental review, consistent with the District and Citys current procedures, and would
be subject to the similar mitigation measures as those recommended above and the applicable lead
agencys standard mitigation measures or conditions of approval. Projects under City of Fremont
review generally incorporate mitigation measures for accidental discoveries of buried cultural
resources. The closest cumulative project to the project area (Warm Springs Station), for example,
incorporates mitigation measures for preconstruction studies and procedures for treating unanticipated
buried cultural resources identified during construction. Therefore, implementation of project-specific
mitigation measures described herein and appropriate District and City policies and measures and
conditions would reduce any potential cumulative impacts related to cultural resources to a less-thansignificant level. Furthermore, because the mitigation for this project reduces impacts related to the
historic integrity of identified resources to ensure the project does not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of cultural resources, the proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact to cultural resources.
219

OCTOBER 2015

220

OCTOBER 2015
E.

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section describes existing agricultural and forestry resources within and in the vicinity of the
project area, and evaluates potential impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that could result
from implementation of the proposed project.
1.
Setting
The project sites are located within the City of Fremont, in southwestern Alameda County. The Citys
land use pattern is defined by past agricultural uses, which have steadily declined over time as the
City developed with more urban uses. As of 2009 (the year for which the most recent data was
available), approximately 5,438 acres (9.5 percent) of land in the City was in agricultural use.1 This
land generally supports salt ponds and grazing areas, including grazing land within the boundaries of
Mission Peak. Only a very limited amount of agricultural land in Fremont is used for field crops or
orchards. No large-scale commercial agricultural production facilities are located within the City.
Additionally, no land is currently zoned specifically for agricultural uses within the City of Fremont;
however, agriculture is an allowed use within the hillside and open space areas of the City, including
lands within the Private Open Space, Hill Face Open Space, Hillside Open Space, and General Open
Space land use designations. There are no existing uses or zoning designations within the City that
support the preservation or production of forestry resources.
a.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources within the Site Vicinity. The lands within Mission
Peak, including both project sites, are designated as Resource Conservation/Public on the Citys
General Plan Land Use Map2 and are zoned as either Planned Development or Open Space within the
Hillside Overlay areas. Neither site supports agricultural or forestry resource operations, and the lands
within Mission Peak are not zoned for these uses.
Approximately 6,000 cattle, and 1,000 sheep, and 1,000 goats are spread out over about half of the
Districts 65 parks. Cattle grazing takes place within Mission Peak under contract with the District.
Cattle grazing within the Preserve is used as a vegetation management tool to maintain and improve
habitat conditions for plants and animals and to prevent wildfires. As of the year 2015, an
approximate average of 200 cattle are grazed within four designated grazing fields on the lands within
Mission Peak at any given time.3 A total of approximately 3,000 acres of the Preserve are subject to
cattle grazing. Between 0 and 50 cattle are generally grazed within the Stanford field (in the vicinity
of Option A and Option B sites) primarily in the late spring and early summer.4 Existing conditions
related to agricultural and forestry resources at each project site option are discussed below.
(1) Option A. The Option A site is located near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission
Peak and encompasses a grassland area located 250 feet to the northeast of the existing staging area
Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Land Use Element.
Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Land Use Map.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Denise Defreese, Wildland Vegetation Manager. Written communication
with Michelle Julene, Park Planner. July 27.
4
Ibid.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5e-AgResources.docx (10/14/15)
221

OCTOBER 2015

and just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail. Cattle currently graze within this area. There are no
existing trees within the development footprint of the Option A site.
(2) Option B. The Option B site is located near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission
Peak and encompasses a grassland area located approximately 875 feet to the southeast of the existing
staging area and near the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trail. The site is currently used by the
Districts grazing contractor as a corral. The corral is used for holding cows for immunizations,
medical treatment, livestock evaluations, branding, and transportation of cows to other grazing sites a
few times per year. A small solar-powered pump located on the site provides water for the cattle
operations. The majority of the Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public.
There are several trees located within the development footprint of the Option B site, including 6 trees
that would be within the permanent development area and several others located within the temporary
area of disturbance, including several within the Agua Caliente Creek corridor.
b.
Regulatory Context. This section describes the regulatory context related to agricultural and
forestry resources within the State and the City of Fremont.
(1) California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The California Department
of Conservations Division of Land Resource Protection established the State Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMMP) in 1982. The FMMP conducts comprehensive mapping of State
farmland. The intent of the FMMP is to provide decision-makers with information regarding State
agricultural resources, including data on existing farmland, and farmland development trends. The
FMMP compiles maps depicting important farmland, based on United State Department of
Agriculture soil surveys and other physical data, such as climate, growing season, and water supply.
The FMMP divides land into seven categories, including: 1) Prime Farmland; 2) Farmland of
Statewide Importance; 3) Unique Farmland; 4) Farmland of Local Importance; 5) Grazing Land;
6) Urban and Built-Up Land; and 7) Other Land. Lands within Mission Peak, including both project
sites, are classified as Grazing Land by the FMMP.5 According to the FMMP, Grazing Land
consists of land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Lands to the
west and north of the project sites, within the residential neighborhoods located in the City of
Fremont, are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The Urban and Build Up Land designation
applies to developed areas with a building density of at least 1 unit per 1.5 acres.
(2) Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) was
passed by the Legislature in response to rapidly increasing agricultural land prices (and, by extension,
property taxes) that made it difficult for many farmers to remain in agriculture, along with concerns
that prime agricultural land and open space were being irreplaceably lost to urban sprawl. This
voluntary program allows property owners to have their property assessed on the basis of its
agricultural production value rather than at the current market value. The property owned is thus
relieved of paying higher property taxes, as long as the land remains in agricultural production. The
purpose of the Williamson Act is to encourage property owners to continue to farm their land, and to
prevent the premature conversion of farmland to urban uses.
5
California, State of, 2014. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program, Alameda County Important Farmland 2012 Map. April.
222

OCTOBER 2015

Participation in the Williamson Act in Alameda County generally requires that the area consist of a
minimum of 20 contiguous acres for high-intensity farming or 50 contiguous acres for low-intensity
farming, such as grazing operations, on land under one or more ownerships. Land within an approved
preserve is restricted to agricultural and compatible uses for a period of 10 years. Williamson Act
contracts are automatically renewed annually for an additional one-year period, unless the property
owner applies for non-renewal or early cancellation. There are limited provisions for cancellation of
contracts, specific findings regarding the non-viability of the agricultural use must be made, and a
substantial penalty is assessed for the cancellation.
Lands within Mission Peak, including the project sites, are not under a Williamson Act contract.6 The
nearest Williamson Act contract land (Non-prime agricultural land) is approximately 0.5 miles
south of the existing staging area. This land is designated as Hillside on the General Plan Land Use
Map. A Williamson Act land designated Non-Renewal is located approximately 1.5 miles east of
the existing staging area.
(3) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plans Land Use Element
establishes goals, policies, and implementation methods related to the preservation and management
of agricultural resources.
Policy 2-6.6: Agriculture. Allow most agricultural uses in the Citys open space districts, and allow
community gardening and urban agriculture in a wide range of settings. As defined by zoning,
more intense agricultural uses in the hills may require a conditional use permit, consistent with the
Hill Area Initiative of 2002.
Policy 2-6.10: Sphere of Influence. Advocate for open space conservation and resource protection in
the unincorporated areas east of the Fremont city limits but within the Citys sphere of influence.
These areas should remain in agricultural and open spaces uses for the lifetime of this General Plan.
(4) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District's Master Plan includes the
following policy related to agricultural resources.
2.
Policy NRM7. The District will manage agricultural site and cultivated areas in accordance with
appropriate agricultural or landscaping practices and Integrated Pest Management (IMP) methods to
control noxious weed infestations, broom, and other invasive, non-native shrubs and to eventually
replace these invasive plants with desirable native species.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to agricultural and forestry
resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the
criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant.
The latter part of this section presents the agricultural and forestry resources impacts that would result
from implementation of either Option A or Option B.
6
California, State of, 2013. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Alameda County
Williamson Act Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Map. April.
223

OCTOBER 2015

a.
Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to
agricultural and forestry resources if it would:
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 a non-agricultural use;
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract;
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as define 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));
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or
Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to agricultural
and forestry resources. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each
topic, followed by impacts associated with Option B.
(1) Conversion of Farmland. Potential impacts associated with the conversion of farmland
to a non-agricultural use are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would
not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance to a non-agricultural use. In addition, the project would not involve other changes in the
existing environment which could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Therefore, as discussed in more detail below, impacts to agricultural resources would be less than
significant.
Option A. The Option A site is not designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The
FMMP designates the entire project site as Grazing Land. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,
or Farmland of Local Importance to a nonagricultural use.
The District currently allows cattle grazing to take place within Mission Peak, including the Option A
site, under contracts with the grazing operators. The District and its contractors would continue to
manage the grazing area within the Preserve consistent with current District practices and policies
during and after project completion. In addition, the Option A site is designated in the Fremont
General Plan as Resource Conservation and Public Open Space, which permits grazing, but does not
require it. Development of the Option A site would result in the permanent conversion of 9.64 acres
of existing grazing area to allow for the new vehicular roadway, staging area, and storm drainage
facilities. Approximately 2.78 acres of this permanently converted area would consist of paved and
other impervious surfaces. The perimeter of the new vehicular roadway leading from the existing
Stanford Avenue Staging Area to the new staging area, the parking area, and storm drainage areas
would all be fenced and cattle would not have access to these areas. Although development of the
Option A site would permanently remove existing grazing area within this area of Mission Peak and
224

OCTOBER 2015

the total number of cattle may be reduced, the remaining grazing areas totaling nearly 3,000 acres of
the Preserve would continue to be open to cattle grazing. With development of the Option A site, no
changes would occur to the existing cattle grazing facilities and corral areas located near the Option B
site.
Therefore, given the above, development of the Option A site would not convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use or adversely affect
agricultural resources, including existing grazing activities. Thus, this impact would be less than
significant.
Option B. The Option B site in not designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The
FMMP designates the entire project site as Grazing Land. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,
or Farmland of Local Importance to a nonagricultural use.
The District currently allows cattle grazing to take place within Mission Peak on a seasonal basis
under contract with the grazing operator. The Option B site is currently used by the Districts grazing
contractor for cattle operations, including as a corral used for holding cows for immunizations,
medical treatment, livestock evaluations, branding, and transportation of cows by truck to other
grazing sites a few times per year. A small solar-powered pump located on the site also provides
water for the cattle operations. In addition, the Option B site is designated in the Fremont General
Plan as Resource Conservation and Public Open Space, which permits grazing, but does not require
it.
Development of the Option B site would result in the permanent conversion of 10.45 acres of existing
grazing area to allow for the new vehicular and pedestrian roadways, bridges, staging area, and storm
drainage facilities. Approximately 3.10 acres of this permanently converted area would consist of
paved and other impervious surfaces. The existing corral and associated structures would be relocated
to the southeast to provide the area required for the new staging area. The corral structures and
fencing within the Option B site would be removed; however, the on-site solar-powered well would
remain and may be connected to the new water system. Existing fencing and corral areas to the
southeast of the site would remain and new fencing would be installed south of the Peak Meadow
Trail. The new corral and livestock area would be approximately 5.5 acres in size. In addition, the
perimeter of the new vehicular roadway leading from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to
the new staging area, the parking area, and storm drainage areas would all be fenced and cattle would
not have access to these areas. New and restored trail connections would not be fenced.
Development of the Option B site would result in the relocation of the existing corral facilities to an
area that is already subject to grazing activities. The remaining nearly 3,000 acres of the Preserve,
including grazing areas within the Option A site, would continue to be open to cattle grazing. The
relocation of the corral and associated facilities would not substantially affect grazing operations
within the Preserve, as these activities would continue to occur within the immediate vicinity of the
existing facilities and would continue without interruption once the new facilities are installed.
Therefore, given the above, development of the Option B site would not convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use or adversely affect
225

OCTOBER 2015

agricultural resources, including existing grazing activities. Thus, this impact would be less than
significant.
(2) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson Act Contract. Potential conflicts
associated with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts are discussed below. As discussed,
the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, agricultural land or
conflict with a Williamson Act contract; therefore, conflicts related to existing agricultural resources
would be less than significant.
Option A. The Option A site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside Combining District). This
zoning district is intended to encourage desirable development and conservation in the City and
promote the orderly development of hillside areas. Lands within Mission Peak, including the Option
A site, are not within the Citys A (Agricultural) zoning district.7 In addition, the project site is not
enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.8 The project site is currently used as grazing land and is
located within an existing open space preserve managed by the District. Development of a new
staging area and associated improvements at this location would not conflict with zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, agricultural land or conflict with a Williamson Act contract and therefore this impact
Option B. The Option B site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside Combining District). This
zoning district is intended to encourage desirable development and conservation in the City and
promote the orderly development of hillside areas. Lands within Mission Peak, including the Option
A site, are not within the Citys A (Agricultural) zoning district.9 In addition, the project site is not
enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.10 The project site is currently used as a corral area to support
grazing activities and is located within an existing open space preserve managed by the District.
Development of a new staging area and associated improvements at this location would not conflict
with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, agricultural land or conflict with a Williamson Act contract,
and therefore this impact would be less than significant.
(3) Conflict with Zoning for or Result in Conversion of Forest Land. Potential impacts
associated with the conversion of forest or timberland to a non-forest use and related zoning conflicts
are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not conflict with zoning
for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to
a non-forest use, and no impacts would result related to forest uses.
Option A. As previously discussed, the Option A site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside
Combining District). Lands within the City of Fremont, including Mission Peak and the Option A
site, are not zoned for forest or timberland production.11 The project site is currently used as grazing
land and is located within an existing open space preserve managed by the District. Development of a
7
Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Zoning Atlas, page 590-C-368. June 2.
California, State of, 2013, op. cit.
Fremont, City of, 2015, Zoning Atlas, op. cit.
10
11
Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code, Title18: Planning and Zoning. Revised through June 2.
226

OCTOBER 2015

new staging area and associated improvements at this location would not conflict with zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land because no such zoning exists within the City or within Mission Peak.
Furthermore, no trees are currently present on the project site and therefore no trees would be affected
by construction of the proposed staging area at the Option A site. Therefore, development of Option
A would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland or result in the
loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use and no impacts would result related to forest uses.
Option B. As previously discussed, the Option B site is zoned P, H-I (Planned, Hillside
Combining District). Lands within the City of Fremont, including Mission Peak and the Option B
site, are not zoned for forest or timberland production.12 The project site is currently used as a corral
to support grazing activities at Mission Peak and the site is located within an existing open space
preserve managed by the District. Development of a new staging area and associated improvements at
this location would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land because no such
zoning exists within the City or within Mission Peak. Although approximately 6 trees would be
removed with development of the Option B site and several other trees within the Agua Caliente
Creek corridor would be substantially pruned, none of these trees are part of a designated forest land.
Therefore, development of Option B would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land or timberland or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use and no impacts
would result related to forest uses.
c.
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulative impact to
agricultural or forestry resources. This is primarily because these uses are either already limited or do
not exist within the City of Fremont or immediately surrounding areas, and no such impacts to these
resources would occur with implementation of the proposed project. As shown in Table V-1 in
Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, there are few cumulative projects within the
immediate vicinity of the site and these are generally limited to small-scale urban infill projects.
Other cumulative projects within the vicinity are not located on hillside areas that could support
grazing activities. In addition, although the proposed project would slightly change the location of
grazing activities at the site and the location of grazing support facilities, these uses would not be
substantially affected once the project is operational and these changes would be limited to the
immediate vicinity of the project sites. Therefore, past, present, and future projects in the area are not
expected to result in a significant cumulative impact to agricultural or forestry resources, and the
project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such impact.
12
Ibid.
227

OCTOBER 2015

228

OCTOBER 2015
F.

MINERAL RESOURCES
This section describes existing mineral resources within and in the vicinity of the project area, and
evaluates potential impacts to mineral resources that could result from implementation of the
proposed projects development of the Option A or Option B sites with a new staging area.
1.
Setting
Mineral resources have long been a part of Fremonts land resources and the Citys history includes
areas of former quarries, salt ponds, and other mineral deposits that have been mined and are
considered an important resource in Fremont. Mineral resources within Fremont include construction
aggregate (sand, gravel, and crushed rock); salt; and other resources (clay, mineral springs, and
limestone). However, there are currently no active mining activities taking place in Fremont and none
are planned.
a.
Mineral Resources within the Site Vicinity. As depicted on the Fremont General Plan
Conservation Map (Diagram 7-4), Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate resources (Sectors I
and LL) are located within Fremonts East Hills, adjacent to (but outside of) the Mission Peak
Preserve and other preserves and public open space areas.1 Sector I is located approximately 0.25
miles south of the project sites and extends south into the City of Milpitas. Sector LL is located
approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the project sites and consists of three formations along Mill
Creek Road. There are no known mineral resources located within or in the immediate vicinity of the
project sites and these areas were not previously used for mineral extraction activities.
b.
Regulatory Context. This section describes the regulatory context related to mineral resources
within the State and within the City of Fremont.
(1) Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) was enacted in 1975 to address the need for continuing supply of mineral resources, and to
prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the
environment. SMARA includes a process called classification-designation. The purpose of this
process is to provide local agencies with information about the location, need and importance of
various mineral resources within their jurisdiction, and to ensure this information is used in local land
use decisions. The City of Fremont General Plan (discussed below) reflects these designations and
locations of known resources.
(2) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plans Conservation
Element establishes goals, policies, and implementation methods related to the preservation and
management of mineral resources.
Policy 7-5.1: Protect Mineral Resources. Protect identified state designated mineral resources from
incompatible development whenever feasible consistent with the Citys long range development
plans.
1
Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan. Mineral Resources and Sites Subject to the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act (Diagram 7-4). December.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5f-MineralResources.docx (10/14/15)
229

OCTOBER 2015
2.

Policy 11-5.13: Environmental Assessments for Hill Area Projects. Require early assessment of
environmental constraints and resources for any applications submitted for development in the hills
areas. Early consultation with the City regarding the implications of environmental assessment for
proposed development is recommended. Issues to be addressed include geology (e.g., seismicity,
soils, slope), biology (e.g., wetlands, riparian zones, landmark trees), mineral resources, and visual
sensitivity. These resources and constraints are roughly identified in the Natural Resources and
Safety Elements of the General Plan.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to mineral resources that could
result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of
significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter
part of this section presents the mineral resources impacts that would result from implementation of
either Option A or Option B.
a.
mineral resources if it would:
Result in the loss availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State; or
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.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to mineral
resources. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed
by impacts associated with Option B.
(1) Loss of Mineral Resources Valuable to the State or Region. Potential impacts
associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents
of the State are discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result in
an impact to known mineral resources of value to the region or the State and this impact would be less
than significant.
Option A. The Option A site does not contain mineral resources that are significant to the
State or Region.2 The nearest State-designated, regionally significant mineral resources are located
approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site (Sector I as depicted on the City of Fremont
General Plan Conservation Map, Diagram 7-4). The proposed project does not include activities that
would affect these mineral resources. Development of the Option A site includes construction of a
new staging area and associated improvements within a 9.64-acre area, 2.78 acres of which would
consist of new impervious surfaces (i.e., pavements). The total area of both permanent and temporary
disturbance would be 11.71 acres. The Option A site is not within or near Sector I. No known mineral
resources of value to the region or the State would be affected by development of the proposed
project.
Ibid.
230

OCTOBER 2015

Option B. The Option B site does not contain mineral resources that are significant to the State
or Region.3 The nearest State-designated, regionally significant mineral resources are located
approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site (Sector I). The proposed project does not include
activities that would affect these mineral resources. Development of the Option B site includes
construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 10.45-acre area, 3.10 acres
of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (i.e., pavements, bridges). The total area of both
permanent and temporary disturbance would be 16.76 acres. The Option B site is not within or near
Sector I. No known mineral resources of value to the region or the State would be affected by
development of the proposed project.
(2) Loss of Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site. Potential impacts
associated with the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site are
discussed below. As discussed, development of either site option would not result in an impact to a
known mineral resource recovery site and this impact would be less than significant.
Option A. The Fremont General Plan Conservation Element describes former quarries, salt
ponds, and other mineral deposits that have been mined as important resources within the City. These
locally important mineral resources are the same as identified State- and regionally-important mineral
resources. The Option A site does not contain mineral resources that are of local significance.4
Locally significant mineral resources comprised of construction aggregate are located approximately
0.25 miles south of the project site. The proposed project does not include activities that would affect
these mineral resources. Development of the proposed project within Mission Peak would not
interfere with current or future mineral extraction activities within the vicinity. Furthermore, the site
is located within an open space preserve and is within the immediate vicinity of residential neighborhoods. No mining activities occur or would occur in the future at or within the vicinity of the project
site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource of value to the region or residents of the State.
Option B. The Fremont General Plan Conservation Element describes important mineral
resources within the City. The Option B site does not contain mineral resources that are of local
significance.5 The proposed project does not include activities that would affect these mineral
resources. Similar to Option A, the proposed project at the Option B site also does not include
activities that would affect these mineral resources. Development of the Option B site within Mission
Peak would not interfere with current or future mineral extraction activities within the vicinity.
Furthermore, the site is located within an open space preserve and is within the immediate vicinity of
residential neighborhoods. No mining activities occur or would occur in the future at or within the
vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State.
c.
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable
3
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
231

OCTOBER 2015

impact to mineral resources. As shown in Table V-1 in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, there are few cumulative projects within the immediate vicinity of the site and these are
generally limited to small-scale urban infill projects. Other cumulative projects within the vicinity are
not located on hillside areas that could contain mineral resources. Furthermore, foreseeable projects in
the City would be designed or conditioned, in accordance with City policies, to avoid significant
adverse effects to mineral resources and development within these areas is generally not permitted.
The project itself would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, past,
present, and future projects in the area are not expected to result in a significant cumulative impact to
mineral resources, and the project would not make a significant contribution to such an impact.
232

OCTOBER 2015
G.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section describes the existing geologic environment within and in the vicinity of the project area
and evaluates potential impacts related to geology and soils that could result from implementation of
the proposed project. This section starts with a description of the geologic conditions of the project
area based on published and unpublished reports and maps of the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), and a site-specific preliminary geotechnical
investigation (Geotechnical Investigation).1 Information from the Geotechnical Investigation was
considered in developing the site-specific setting and impact analysis. Mitigation measures for the
identified significant impacts are provided, as necessary.
1.
Setting
This section describes the existing geologic and seismic conditions of the project and the vicinity and
the associated hazards.
a.
Geologic Conditions. The topography, geology, sources of seismicity, and soils of the project
area and vicinity are described below.
(1) Topography. The project area is located in the foothill area between the valley floor (to
the west) and the steeper mountain uplands (to the east). Elevations range from approximately 380
feet above mean sea level (msl) at the western portion of the Option A site to approximately 500 feet
msl at the upper eastern portion of the Option B site. The Option A site is centered on a hill that is
relatively level at the top and slopes gently downward to the north, south, and west. The northern
portion of the Option A site includes the southern slope of a relatively broad swale, with the steepest
slope at approximately 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). The Option B site is located on the flank of a gently
westward sloping hillside (approximately 6:1). Though gently sloping, the Option B site has
relatively little internal topographic relief (e.g., hummocks, swales).
(2) Geology. The project is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, a
relatively geologically young and seismically-active region.2 The Coast Ranges are characterized by
northwest trending faults, mountain ranges, and valleys which mimic the prevailing structural trends
of the underlying bedrock. In general, the Coast Ranges are composed of sedimentary bedrock with
layers of recent alluvium filling the intervening valleys.
The following discussion of the project area geology is based on the summary included in the
Geotechnical Investigation.3 Regional geologic maps4,5,6 indicate that the project area is underlain by
1
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Feasibility Study, Mission Peak
Regional Preserve, Fremont, California. August 13.
2
California Geographic Survey, 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit.
Graymer, R.W., et al., 1994, Preliminary geologic map of the Niles 7.5-minute quadrangle, Alameda County,
California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-94-132, scale 1:24,000.
5
Dibblee, T.W., 1980. Preliminar- geologic map'of the Niles quadrangle, Alameda County, California: U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-80-533-C, scale 1:24,000.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5g-Geology.docx (10/14/15)
233

OCTOBER 2015

two geologic units: the Orinda formation and the Santa Clara formation. The Orinda formation is a
series of sedimentary deposits consisting of sand, silt and clay that were deposited in a shallow sea
during the Pliocene to Late Miocene Epoch of geologic time, roughly 10 to 25 million years before
present. The Santa Clara formation represents a much younger period of sedimentation during the
Early Pleistocene, roughly 50,000 to 125,000 years before present. The project area is located on the
west side of the Tularcitos Syncline (a U-shaped fold) which trends northwest below the ridgeline.
The regional mapping shows that sedimentary beds are dipping (or tilted) into the hillside at various
inclinations between about 30 and 50 degrees.
(3) Faulting. Neither the Option A nor Option B sites is located within a mapped AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A-PEFZ) and no evidence of recent or active faulting at either site was
identified in the literature. The State of California considers a fault active if it has demonstrated
activity within Holocene time, roughly the past 11,000 years.
The geologic map prepared by Graymer shows the Warm Springs Fault crossing the Option A site.
Evidence for the presence of the fault includes observed lateral and vertical offsets in the streams
(including Agua Caliente Creek and Aliso Creek) and groundwater level offsets noted in local wells.7
The Warm Springs Fault (and the nearby Mission Creek fault) are not considered active by the State
of California (as they are not included in an A-PEFZ program).
The five nearest active faults, including their distance from the project area and their associated
Moment Magnitude8 are summarized in Table V.G-1.
Table V.G-1: Local Faults

Fault Name
Hayward
Calaveras
Monte Vista-Shannon
Mount Diablo
Greenville
Approximate Distance
from Project Area (miles)
0.9
3.7
16
16
17
Moment Magnitude
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.7
7.0
Source: Modified from Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015.
(4) Soils. Both sites are underlain by Diablo Clay soils.9 These soils are mapped as having
low infiltration capacity and have moderate to high plasticity indices which indicate that they could
be subject to shrink-swell hazards. Soils subject to shrink-swell expand and contract in response to
6
Dibblee, T.W. and J.A. Minch, 2005. Geologic map of the Niles quadrangle, Alameda County, California: Dibblee
Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-151, scale 1:24,000.
7
Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California, February.
The moment magnitude (denoted as MW or M) is used by seismologists to measure the size of earthquakes in
terms of the energy released. The estimated moment magnitude for each fault is calculated based on fault length and depth
and expected slippage.
9
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed July 7, 2015).
234

OCTOBER 2015

changes in soil moisture, most notably when near surface soils change from saturated to a low
moisture content condition, and back again. Expansion and contraction of soils is a negligible hazard
in moderate to deep soils where minimal moisture changes and overlying material loads limit
movement. The near-surface Diablo Clay soils are prone to expansion or contraction as moisture
levels change.
b.
Seismic and Geologic Hazards. The following section describes existing seismic and geologic
hazards present at the project area.
(1) Surface Rupture. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault
movement during an earthquake. Surface rupture generally can be assumed to occur along an active
major fault trace. No active faults have been mapped at the project site, and the site-specific
Geotechnical Investigation found no evidence of recent or active faulting in the literature or during
field work; therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the project site is negligible.
(2) Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of
the earths 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. The Modified Mercalli
Intensity Scale (MMI) is the most commonly used scale for measurement of the effects of earthquake
intensity (see Table V.G-2, below). According to regional mapping, the project area would be subject
to very strong ground shaking during a 7.0M earthquake on the Hayward Fault.10
A related concept, acceleration, is measured as a fraction or percentage of the acceleration under
gravity (g).11 Estimates of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) have been made for the United States
based on probabilistic models that account for multiple seismic sources. Under these models,
consideration of the probability of expected seismic events is incorporated into the determination of
the level of ground shaking at a particular location. The expected PGA (with a 10 percent chance of
being exceeded in the next 50 years) generated by any of the seismic sources potentially affecting the
project site is estimated by USGS as 0.7 (g).12 This corresponds to level VIII on the MMI (Table V.G2), which indicates the type of damage expected, which would include: slight damage in specially
designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in
poorly built structures. People driving cars would be disturbed.
10
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake Hazard Program, Interactive Mapping. Website:
gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards (accessed July 9, 2015).
11
The acceleration due to gravity, denoted g (also gee) is a unit of acceleration defined as approximately 32 ft/s2,
which is the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface at sea level.
12
U.S. Geological Survey, 2015. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Custom Mapping Page. Website: geohazards.usgs.gov/
hazards/apps/cmaps (accessed July 9, 2015).
235

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.G-2 Modified Mercalli Scale

Ma Category Definition
I
Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances.
3
II
Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects
may swing.
III
Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it
as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration
estimated.
4
IV
During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors
disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars
rocked noticeably.
V
Felt by nearly everyone, many awaken. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked
plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed.
Pendulum clocks may stop.
5
VI
Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen
plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.
6
VII
Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to
moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some
chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars.
VIII
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial
collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys,
factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small
amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars disturbed.
7
IX
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of
plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground
cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken.
8
X
Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with
foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes.
Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks.
XI
Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground.
Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent
greatly.
XII
Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on
ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted.
a
Richter magnitude correlation.
Source: California Geological Survey, 2002b. How Earthquakes and Their Effects are Measured.
(3) Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of

loose, saturated granular sediments from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground
shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes transient loss of strength, which commonly causes ground
displacement or ground failure to occur. Saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction.
Soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential
than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. Lateral spreading is a form of horizontal displacement of soil toward an open channel or other free face, such as an excavation boundary.
In a lateral spreading failure, a layer of ground at the surface is carried on an underlying layer of
liquefied material over a nearly flat surface toward a river channel or other bank.13 The lateral spreading hazard will tend to mirror the liquefaction hazard for a site.
13
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2001. The REAL Dirt on Liquefaction, A Guide to the Liquefaction Hazard
in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Area. February.
236

OCTOBER 2015

Based on mapping maintained by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the project
area susceptibility to liquefaction is very low.14 The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
encountered clay-rich cohesive materials to the full depth explored, conditions generally not
susceptible to liquefaction,15 confirming the ABAG finding of low liquefaction hazard at the project
area. Lateral spreading hazards typically mimic liquefaction hazards and therefore, the lateral
spreading hazard is considered negligible.
Due to the lack of a permanent elevated groundwater table and the lack of identification of materials
susceptible to liquefaction in soil borings and test pits, the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
concluded that the potential for the project area to be subject to liquefaction and lateral spreading was
negligible.16
(4) Landslides and Slope Stability. The strong ground motions that occur during
earthquakes are capable of inducing landslides, generally where unstable slope conditions already
exist. In addition, heavy precipitation events can induce earthflows or debris flows in areas where
soils and rock on a hillslope or in a stream channel becomes saturated and unstable. Slope failure can
occur as either rapid movement of large masses of soil (landslide) or slow, continuous movement
(creep). The primary factors influencing the stability of a slope are: 1) the nature of the underlying
soil or bedrock; 2) the geometry of the slope (height and steepness); 3) rainfall; and 4) the presence of
previous landslide deposits.
The upland areas east of Fremont are prone to slope instability due to large deep-seated landslides,
which include both potentially fast-moving block slides and creeping earthflows. A major landslide
that occurred in March 1998, referred to as the Mission Peak Landslide, represented the partial
reactivation of a very large bedrock landslide complex that has developed beneath Mission Ridge
over a period of tens of thousands of years. This landslide complex extends from just below the ridge
crest, down to the approximate position of Mission Boulevard. However, the nearest portion of
the1998 landslide, which was just a portion of the larger landslide complex, is more than 0.5 miles to
the north of the project area. In other words, the 1998 landslide to the north and the landslide deposits
that occur at the Option A site are all part of the greater landslide complex, but just a portion of this
complex failed in 1998, and this failure did not directly affect or include the Option A or Option B
sites. Several regional landslide mapping efforts have been conducted over the years in the vicinity,
including the following:
Herd, D. (Herd), 1977. Map of Quaternary faulting along the Hayward and Calaveras fault
zones, Niles and Milpitas 7 1/2' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey, OpenFile Report OF-77-645, scale 1:24,000.
Rogers, D.; Drumm, P.; Chin, F.; Rogers, R. (Rogers), 2000. Executive Summary, Mission
Peak Landslide, Fremont, California, February.
14
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Interactive Liquefaction
Susceptibility Mapping, Website: gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility (accessed July 7, 2015).
15
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit., page 13.
16
Ibid.
237

OCTOBER 2015

Wiegers, M. (Wiegers), 2011. Landslide Inventory Map of the Milpitas and Nile
Quadrangles, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California, California Geological Survey
Landslide Inventory Map Series.
Each of these mapping efforts covers the project area and surrounding vicinity. The portions of the
maps that show the landslide conditions at the project area are shown on Figures V.G-1 through
V.G-3. Landslide potential and locations at the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below.
In addition to the large deep-seated landslides discussed above, which include both potentially fastmoving block slides (e.g., the 1998 Mission Peak landslide) and creeping earthflows, the project area
and surrounding vicinity are also subject to debris flows. Debris flows (also referred to as mudslides,
mudflows, or debris avalanches) are a common type of fast-moving landslide that generally occurs
during intense rainfall on water-saturated soil. They usually start on steep hillsides as soil slumps or
slides that liquefy and accelerate to speeds as great as 35 miles per hour or more. They continue
flowing down hills and into channels and deposit sand, mud, boulders, and organic material onto
more gently sloping ground. Based on mapping by Rogers, the debris flow hazard in the project area
is confined to the channel of Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries and would not directly affect the
Option A or Option B sites.17
Option A. All three maps indicate that the Option A site is underlain by a landslide. On the
Wiegers map, the landslide is shown to be about 6,000 feet long and 3,000 feet wide, extending from
about the top of the ridge to about the center of the Option A site. The Herd map shows the landslide
extending about 2,500 feet further downslope than shown on the Wiegers map, encompassing all of
the Option A site. The Rogers maps shows coalesced smaller landslides, with distinct landslide
features at the northern and southern portions of the Option A site. Both the Herd and Wiegers maps
show that the landslides southern terminus is along Agua Caliente Creek. The Geotechnical
Investigation, which included detailed site-specific analysis, including drilling of soil borings,
excavation of test pits, and testing of soil samples, agrees with the interpretation that the Option A site
is underlain by landslide deposits. In addition, review of historic aerial photographs indicates that the
landslide material at the Option A site has not substantially moved during recent above-average
rainfall years (1982-83 and 1997-98) and appears to be relatively stable.18
Option B. Both the Herd and Wiegers maps show that the above-described landslides
southern terminus is along Agua Caliente Creek and does not extend to the Option B site. However,
the Rogers map shows that the landslide activity extends to the south side of Agua Caliente Creek,
encompassing all of the Option B site. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, which agrees
with the Herd and Wiegers mapping that indicates the Option B site is not underlain by landslide
deposits, addresses this apparent conflict by noting that the Rogers conclusions were based on
reconnaissance-level mapping, while the Geotechnical Investigation was based on more detailed sitespecific analysis, including drilling of soil borings, excavation of test pits, and testing of soil samples.
Based on interpretation of the aerial photographs combined with the findings from the exploratory
17
Rogers, D., et.al., 2000, Volume 2 Technical Data Report, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, CA, Map 4B.,
February.
18
Sheilds, Craig, 2015. Professional Engineer and Principal Geotechnical Engineer with Rockridge Geotechnical,
Inc., written communication with Bruce Abelli-Amen of BASELINE Environmental Consulting, August 20.
238
OPTION A
OPTION B
BASE: PORTIONS OF MAP OF QUATERNARY FAULTING ALONG THE HAYWARD AND CALAVERAS
FAULT ZONES, NILES AND MILPITAS 7 1/2-MINUTE QUADRANGLES, CALIFORNIA BY HERD,
DARRELL G., 1977, OPEN-FILE REPORT SERIES NUMBER 77-645
FIGURE V.G-1
1000
2000
feet
SOURCE:
ROCKRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL, AUGUST 2015.
0
2000
Stanford Conceptual
Avenue StagingParking
Area Expansion
Project EIR
Options
Map of
Quaternary
Faulting Stanford Avenue
Staging
Area Expansion
EBRPD Mission
Peak
Regional
Preserve
Conceptual Parking Options
Stanford Avenue
Fremont, California
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VG1.ai (8/25/15)
1"=2000'
DATE: 4-29-14
Project No. 14-617
Figure 6
OPTION A
OPTION B
CROWN OR HEAD SCARP:

Zone of depleon, dashed
where approximate (old).
QUESTIONABLE LANDSLIDE
ACTIVE RAVELING & SLOPE CREEP
EARTHFLOW
AREA LIMITS OF 1998 MISSION PEAK LANDSLIDE
OLDER EARTHFLOWS
SAG PONDS AND STOCK PONDS
DEFINITE or PROBABLE LANDSLIDE
FIGURE V.G-2
1000
2000
feet
SOURCES: GEOLITH CONSULTANTS, 2000; CITY OF FREMONT, 2015.

Landslides and Related Features
OPTION A
OPTION B
LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY
LANDSLIDE MATERIALS TYPES
ACTIVE OR HISTORIC:
THE LANDSLIDE APPEARS TO BE CURRENTLY MOVING
(AT THE TIME THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN
OR FIELD OBSERVATION OCCURRED) OR TO HAVE
MOVED WITHIN HISTORIC TIME.
ROCK SLIDE
DORMANT - YOUNG
THE OBSERVED LANDFORMS RELATED TO THE
LANDSLIDE ARE FRESH OR UN-ERODED, BUT THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE OF HISTORIC MOVEMENT.
EARTH FLOW
SOIL SLIDE
CONFIDENCE OF INTERPRETATION
DEFINITE
DORMANT - MATURE
LANDSLIDE HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED AND SUBDUED BY
EROSION AND VEGETATION.
DORMANT - OLD
LANDSLIDE HAVE BEEN GREATLY ERODED INCLUDING
SIGNIFICANT GULLIES OR CANYONS CUT INTO THE
LANDSLIDE MASS AND/OR MAIN SCARP BY SMALL
STREAMS.
PROBABLE
QUESTIONABLE
2000
1"=2000'
BASE: PORTIONS OF MARK O. WIEGERS, JUNE 2011, LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP OF THE
MILPITAS AND NILES QUADRANGLES, ALAMEDA AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES,
Conceptual Parking Options
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP SERIES
Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion

EBRPD Mission Peak RegionalFIGURE
Preserve
Stanford Avenue
Fremont, California
DATE: 4-29-14
0
feet
Drrrr
LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP OF THE
1000
2000
MILPITAS AND NILES QUADRANGLES, ALAMEDA AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES,
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP SERIES
SOURCE: ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, AUGUST 2015.

Project No. 14-617
V.G-3
Figure 5

Regional Landslide Map

OCTOBER 2015

242

OCTOBER 2015

test pits excavated at the Option B site, the Geotechnical Investigation concludes that the materials
underlying the Option B site are not consistent with landslide deposits and thus Option B is not
located on an existing landslide.
(5) Settlement and Differential Settlement. Settlement and/or differential settlement may
occur if buildings or other improvements are built on low-strength soil foundation materials or if
improvements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials. The sitespecific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that native soils encountered in borings and test pits
installed in the project area are not susceptible to cyclic densification (also known as differential
compaction or differential settlement) because of the cohesion of the materials.19
(6) Expansive Soils. Expansion and contraction of soil volume can occur when expansive
soils undergo alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles, the
volume of the soil changes markedly. Soils subject to shrink-swell expand and contract in response to
changes in soil moisture, most notably when near surface soils change from saturated to a low
moisture content condition, and back again. Expansion and contraction of soils is a negligible hazard
in moderate to deep soils where minimal moisture changes and overlying material loads limit
movement. As a consequence of such volume changes, structural damage to buildings and infrastructure may occur if the potentially expansive soils are not considered in project design and during
construction. The Diablo Clay soils that occur at both the Option A and Option B sites have moderate
to high plasticity indices which indicates they are likely subject to shrink-swell hazards.
c.
Regulatory Context. The regulatory context related to geology and soils within the project
area is discussed below, including federal, State, and local requirements
(1) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. The National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established by the U.S. Congress when it passed the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law (PL) 95124. In establishing NEHRP, Congress
recognized that earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction
methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early-warning
systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and involvement programs.
The four basic NEHRP goals remain unchanged:
Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their
implementation.
Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems.
Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use.
Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four primary
NEHRP agencies:
19
Ibid.
243

OCTOBER 2015

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce
National Science Foundation (NSF)
United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland

Security
Implementation of NEHRP priorities is accomplished primarily through original research,

publications, and recommendations to assist and guide state, regional, and local agencies in the
development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning.
(2) California Building Code. The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) is another name
for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2,
which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The CBC incorporates by
reference the International Building Code (the widely adopted model building code in the United
States) with necessary California amendments. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building
Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under
State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable.
Compliance with the 2013 CBC requires that (with very limited exceptions) structures for human
occupancy be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions. The Seismic
Design Category for a structure is determined in accordance with either CBC Section 1613 Earthquake Loads or American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard No. 7-05, Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. In brief, based on the engineering properties and
soil-type of soils at a proposed site, the site is assigned a Site Class ranging from A to F. The Site
Class is then combined with Spectral Response (ground acceleration induced by earthquake)
information for the location to arrive at a Seismic Design Category ranging from A to D; D being the
most severe conditions. The classification of a specific site and related calculations must be
determined by a qualified person and are site-specific.
(3) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PEFZA). Surface rupture is the most
easily avoided seismic hazard. The A-PEFZA was passed in December 1972 to mitigate the hazard of
surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Hayward Fault A-PEFZA designated fault
zone is located about one mile west of the project area.
(4) Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). In 1990, following the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, the California Legislature enacted the SHMA to protect the public from the effects of
strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides and other seismic hazards. The SHMA established a
State-wide mapping program to identify areas subject to violent shaking and ground failure; the
program is intended to assist cities and counties in protecting public health and safety. The SHMA
requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties,
and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. As a
result, the CGS is mapping SHMA Zones and has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions
of California most susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides: primarily the San
Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles basin. Portions of the project area have been designated as
being subject to landslide hazards (but not liquefaction hazards) under SHMA mapping.
244

OCTOBER 2015

In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.7, Section 2697,
cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a
geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
and related regulations establish a statewide minimum public safety standard for mitigation of
earthquake hazards. This means that the minimum level of mitigation for a project should reduce the
risk of ground failure during an earthquake to a level that does not cause the collapse of buildings for
human occupancy, but in most cases, not to a level of no ground failure at all.
The States minimum criteria required for project approval within zones of required investigation are
defined in CCR Title 14, Section 3724(c), which states that, prior to approving the project, the lead
agency shall independently review the geotechnical report to determine the adequacy of the hazard
evaluation and proposed mitigation measures and to determine the requirements of Section 3724(a),
are satisfied. Such reviews shall be conducted by a certified engineering geologist or registered civil
engineer, having competence in the field of seismic hazard evaluation and mitigation.
The CGS Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California recognizes that
effective evaluation and mitigation ultimately depends on the combined professional judgment and
expertise of the evaluating and reviewing professionals.20
(5) City of Fremont Building Code. The City of Fremont Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10,
adopts the 2013 CBC, with amendments, as the Fremont Building Code. The Building and Safety
Division is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Fremont Building Code.
(6) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plans Safety Element sets
forth the following goals, policies, and implementation measures related to geology, soils, and
seismicity that are relevant to the proposed project.
Goal 10-1: Geologic Hazards. Minimum feasible risk to life and property resulting from land
instability and other geologic hazards
Policy 10-1.1: Location of Buildings and Structures. Regulate new development and redevelopment
in a manner that avoids geological hazards to life and property.
Implementation 10-1.1.B: Limit Development in Areas of Land Instability. Prohibit development

in areas of potential land instability identified on State and/or local geologic hazard maps, or
identified through other means, unless a geologic investigation demonstrates hazards can be
mitigated to an acceptable level as defined by the State of California.
Implementation 10-1.1.D: Mitigation Hazards to Acceptable Levels. Ensure all development

impacts associated with geologic hazards are mitigated to an acceptable level as defined by the
State of California.
Policy 10-1.2: Mitigation of Hazards. Require proposed development in areas of potential land
instability to evaluate and sufficiently mitigate such hazards through site planning, appropriate
construction techniques, building design and engineering.
20
California Geological Survey, 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,
Special Publication 117A.
245

OCTOBER 2015

Implementation 10-1.2.A: Site Specific Geologic Studies. Require site-specific geologic and
geotechnical studies for land development or construction in areas of potential land instability as
shown on the State and/or local geologic hazard maps or identified through other means.
Implementation 10-1.2.B: Peer Review of Site Specific Geologic Studies. Require City initiated
peer review of all geologic and geotechnical hazard studies provided by project applicants.
Policy 10-1.3: Limits on Grading. Prohibit excessive and unnecessary grading activity, especially in
areas of potential landslide risk as identified on State and local geologic hazard area maps or as
identified during site reconnaissance.
Implementation 10-1.3.A: Grading Ordinance Consistency. Ensure all grading activity within
the City is consistent with the Grading Ordinance.
Goal 10-2: Seismic Hazards. Minimum feasible risk to life and property resulting from seismic
hazards
Policy 10-2.1: Location of Buildings and Structures. Regulate new development and redevelopment
in a manner to minimize potential damage and hazards related to expected seismic activity.
Implementation 10-2.1.A: Consistency with Seismic Safety Criteria. Ensure all proposed
development complies with the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and all other seismic safety criteria established by the
City of Fremont.
Implementation 10-2.1.B: Mitigate Seismic Impacts. Ensure all development impacts associated
with seismic hazards are mitigated to an acceptable level as defined by the State of California.
Policy 10-2.2: Building Setbacks from Faults. Prohibit construction of structures for human
occupancy (as defined by the State) including attached garages within 50 feet of an identified main
fault trace, unless a setback less than 50 feet is approved through site specific geological studies and
associated peer review.
Policy 10-2.3: Soil Engineering Standards. Maintain and continually update construction and soil
engineering standards that minimize seismic hazards to structures and building occupants.
Implementation 10-2.3.A: Seismic Mitigation. Require appropriate engineering and design

mitigation measures to reduce hazards for structures located in seismic hazard zones and other
areas outside identified seismic hazard zones if information suggests there are seismic issues.
following policy related to geology and soils.
Policy NRM13. The District will identify existing and potential erosion problems and take corrective
measures to repair damage and mitigate its causes. The District will manage the parks to assure that
an adequate cover of vegetation remains on the ground to provide soil protection. Where vegetative
cover has been reduced or eliminated, the District will take steps to restore it using native or
naturalized plants adapted to the site. The District will minimize soil disturbance associated with
construction and maintenance operations, and will avoid disruptive activities in area with unstable
soils whenever possible. The District will arrest the progress of active gully erosion where practical,
and take action to restore these areas to stable conditions. The District will notify adjacent property
owners of potential landslide situations and risks on District lands, and will conform with applicable
law. The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and
misuse.
246

OCTOBER 2015
2.

The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to geology and soils that could
result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of
part of this section presents the impacts related to geology and soils that would result from
implementation of either Option A or Option B.
a.
geology and soils if it would:
Expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Rupture of a known active or potentially active 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;
Strong seismic ground shaking;
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and
Landslides;
Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil;
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 an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5 of the 2010 California Building
Code, creating substantial risks to life or property; or
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.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to geology
and soils. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed
by impacts associated with Option B.
(1) Fault Rupture. Potential impacts related to fault rupture at the Option A and Option B
sites are described below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement
during an earthquake. Surface rupture generally can be assumed to occur along an active major fault
trace. No known active faults cross the Option A site, and therefore impacts associated with fault
rupture would be less than significant.
Option B. Similar to Option A, no known active faults cross the Option B site; therefore,
impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant.
(2) Ground Shaking. Potential impacts related to ground shaking, including shakinginduced liquefaction and ground failure, at the Option A and Option B sites are described below. As
discussed, these impacts would be less than significant. The potential for the Option A and Option B
247

OCTOBER 2015

sites to be affected by landslides, including seismically-induced landslides, is described under

subsection 4, Unstable Soils, below.
Option A. All structures and improvements in the Bay Area could potentially be affected by
ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The amount of ground shaking that would occur
depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of earth
materials in between. Very strong ground shaking could occur at the Option A site during expected
earthquakes on the Hayward Fault. The proposed development at Option A, which includes a paved
parking area, restroom facilities, subsurface utilities, and access roads and trails, would not be
particularly susceptible to ground shaking damage, and users of the new staging area and associated
facilities would not be at an elevated risk of harm (especially when compared to users of residential or
commercial structures that would be occupied by people for extended periods of time). Open space is
one of the safer environments for people to be located during an earthquake event.
Regardless, the design and construction of all improvements would be completed in accordance with
the current seismic design codes included in the currently adopted version of the California Building
Code. Design and construction of proposed project improvements in accordance with current building
codes would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than
significant.
Based on regional mapping and results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for
liquefaction (and related ground failure) at the Option A site is negligible, and therefore potential
impacts related to liquefaction and ground failure would be less than significant.
Option B. Similar to Option A, very strong ground shaking could occur at the Option B site
during expected earthquakes on the Hayward Fault and design and construction in accordance with
current building codes would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would
be less than significant. Also the proposed development at Option B, which includes a paved parking
area, restroom facilities, subsurface utilities, and access roads and trails, would not be particularly
susceptible to ground shaking damage, and users of the new staging area and associated facilities
would not be at an elevated risk (especially when compared to users of residential or commercial
structures that would be occupied by people for extended periods of time). Open space is one of the
safer environments for people to be located during an earthquake event.
Based on regional mapping and results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for
liquefaction (and related ground failure) at the Option B site is negligible, and therefore potential
impacts related to liquefaction and ground failure would be less than significant.
(3) Erosion. Excavation, grading, and construction on the project site would require
temporary disturbance and exposure of shallow soils through removal of existing vegetative cover,
potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Operation of the parking
facility could also increase erosion potential. However, as discussed below, these impacts would be
less than significant.
Option A. Construction- and operation-period erosion impacts that could result with
implementation of Option A are described below.
248

OCTOBER 2015

Construction-Period Erosion Impacts. Proposed excavation and grading at the Option A site
would remove vegetative cover and expose soils, including soil stockpiles and excavations, to runoff
and, if not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in the nearby
creeks. As described in more detail in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would
comply with existing regulations, including the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit,
which requires the District or its contractor to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts from erosion to surface water
quality during the project construction period. The SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP
Developer and include the minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs), which will ensure Option
A does not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Examples of the types of BMPs that are
required under the Construction General Permit are listed in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water
Quality (refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources; Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7b).
Under the SWPPP, inspections would be conducted to ensure the BMPs are adequate, maintained,
and in place at the end of the construction day. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would be
responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP would also be responsible for
performing all required monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair activities. Full
implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementation of a
SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts related to erosion and siltation and associated effects to
water quality during the construction-period would be less than significant.
Operation-Period Erosion Impacts. During the operation period of the project, the majority of
the site would be paved and an integrated drainage system installed, essentially eliminating the
potential for operation-period erosion within the parking area. The surrounding areas and slopes
temporarily disturbed by grading activities that would not be paved could be subject to erosion.
However, the proposed constructed slopes surrounding the Option A parking facility would be
relatively gentle (maximum of 3:1), which would reduce the erosion potential. In addition,
compliance with NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires stabilization of graded slopes
with hydroseeding or mulching (or equivalently effective measure) would ensure that the erosion
potential in these areas would be minimized.
As summarized in Chapter III, Project Description, construction and operation of the Option A site
would likely increase the demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area by between
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions, increasing the use of the Mission Peak
trail segments that originate in the project area (i.e., the Hidden Valley Trail and Peak Meadow and
Horse Heaven Trails). This increased usage could result in trail degradation and increased erosion
within the Preserve. However, these issues are already addressed through ongoing operations and
management efforts by District staff (refer to Chapter III, Project Description for a more detailed
summary of the measures the District takes to address trail erosion within the park). Since issues
related to trail erosion are already being addressed and will continue to be addressed by existing
District programs and operations, the potential impact related to trail erosion due to increased use
Option B. Construction- and operation-period erosion impacts that could result with
implementation of Option B are described below.
249

OCTOBER 2015

Construction-Period Erosion Impacts. Proposed excavation and grading at the Option B site
would remove vegetative cover and expose soils, including soil stockpiles and excavations, to runoff
and, if not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in the nearby
creeks. As described in more detail in Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would
comply with existing regulations, including the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit,
which requires the District or its contractor to prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce
potential adverse impacts to surface water quality from erosion during the project construction period.
The SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and include the minimum BMPs,
which will ensure Option B does not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Examples of
the types of BMPs that are required under the Construction General Permit are listed in Section V.H,
Hydrology and Water Quality (refer to Section V.C, Biological Resources; Option B Mitigation
Measure BIO-7b).Under the SWPPP, inspections would be conducted to ensure the BMPs are
adequate, maintained, and in place at the end of the construction day. A Qualified SWPPP
Practitioner (QSP) would be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP would also
be responsible for performing all required monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair
activities. Full implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts related to erosion and siltation and
associated effects to water quality during the construction-period would be less than significant.
Operation-Period Erosion Impacts. During the operation period of the project, the majority of
the site would be paved and an integrated drainage system installed, essentially eliminating the
potential for operation-period erosion within the parking area. The surrounding areas and slopes
temporarily disturbed by grading activities that would not be paved could be subject to erosion.
However, the proposed constructed slopes surrounding the Option B parking facility would be
relatively gentle (maximum of 3:1), which would reduce the erosion potential. In addition,
compliance with NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires stabilization of graded slopes
with hydroseeding or mulching (or equivalently effective measure) would ensure that the erosion
potential in these areas would be minimized.
As summarized in Chapter III, Project Description, construction and operation of the Option A site
would likely increase the demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area by between
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions, increasing the use of the Mission Peak
trail segments that originate in the project area (i.e., the Hidden Valley Trail and Peak Meadow and
Horse Heaven Trails). This increased usage could result in trail degradation and increased erosion
within the Preserve. However, these issues are already addressed through ongoing operations and
management efforts by District staff (refer to Chapter III, Project Description for a more detailed
summary of the measures the District takes to address trail erosion within the park). Since issues
related to trail erosion are already being addressed and will continue being addressed by existing
District programs and operations, the potential impact related to trail erosion due to increased use
(4) Unstable Soils and Landslides. Potential impacts related to unstable soils that could
result in subsidence (also referred to as settlement or differential settlement), collapse, and/or on- or
off-site landslides at the Option A and Option B sites are described below. Differential settlement or
ground subsidence may occur if buildings or other improvements are built on low-strength foundation
materials or if improvements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials.
The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation concludes that native soils and rock materials in the
250

OCTOBER 2015

project area would not be unstable or result in ground surface settlement.21 Collapse is a geologic
hazard that can occur when voids are present in the subsurface and the surface experiences an abrupt
collapse of the ground cover. This phenomena is more common in karst terrain (which is not present
in the project area), where underground voids have developed due to dissolution of the limestone
materials by flowing water or in previously mined areas where underground tunnels have been
excavated.
As discussed below, with implementation of construction- and operation-period measures, impacts
related to landslides would be less than significant with development of either site option. The
potential for liquefaction (and related lateral spreading) to occur in the project area is discussed above
under subsection 2, Ground Shaking.
Option A. There are no known conditions at the Option A site that would have created
underground voids. Therefore, the potential impacts related to settlement and collapse would be less
than significant. However, slope instability (i.e., landslide) is an impact that could affect the Option A
site.
Option A Impact GEO-1: Implementation of Option A could result in adverse impacts
associated with slope instability (S)
Based on regional mapping and the results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the Option
A site is located on the toe (lower end) of a massive landslide complex. Though it is not known how
recently the portion of the landslide underlying the Option A site experienced activity (i.e., moved
downslope), it is known that a portion of this landslide complex about 0.5 miles to the north
experienced a major event in 1998. Construction of the staging area at the Option A site would
require grading and excavation within the landslide mass. The site-specific Geotechnical
Investigation concludes that the comparatively small amount of cuts and fills planned for the
proposed Option A parking lot will have a negligible impact on the stability of the existing landslide
for both static and seismic conditions.22
Landslide activity is related to driving forces which tend to increase landslide hazards and
resisting forces which tend to decrease landslide hazards. The main driving force is gravity (which
works to pull materials downslope). Slope angle, climate, nature of the geologic materials, water, and
seismic shaking can all contribute to the effect of gravity and the driving force. Resisting forces
oppose the driving forces. The resistance to downslope movement is dependent on the shear strength
of the geologic material, which is a function of cohesion or the ability of particles to attract and hold
each other together and internal friction, which is the friction between grains within a material.
The landslide underlying the Option A site is an existing condition, and the proposed grading is
relatively minor compared to the mass of the landslide. Because of the large differences in mass, the
impact of the parking lot cuts and fills on the driving and resisting forces acting on the landslide mass
would be minimal. Further, the grading plan for the Option A site specifies that material would be cut
21
22
251

OCTOBER 2015

(i.e., excavated) from the upslope area of the parking lot and placed on the downslope portion of the
parking lot. Since this action would move material downslope and slightly increase the thickness of
the geologic material at the lower portion of the landslide, the project would slightly decrease driving
forces and increase resisting forces, very slightly reducing the risk of landslide reactivation.23 Based
on this conclusion, the potential impacts related to activating the existing landslide and causing
damage to downslope properties would be less than significant because project implementation would
not increase the probability of landslide activation.
The Option A site is located near the downslope terminus of the overall landslide complex. At this
location, slope gradients are relatively small compared to the slope gradients in the upper portions of
the landslide complex. Because of: 1) the relatively gentle slope gradients; and 2) the lack of observed
movement during recent above-average rainfall years (1982-83 and 1997-98) based on review of
historic aerial photographs, the risk of fast-moving catastrophic slope failures that could potentially
result in injuries or fatalities of users of the facility is negligible (i.e., the potential impact of injury or
death related to fast-moving landslide activity is less than significant).24 In addition, since the debris
flow hazard mapping indicates that the Option A site is not likely to be affected by debris flows, this
hazard is also less than significant.
However, because of the presence of the landslide, the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
concludes that site improvements cannot feasibly stabilize or improve the landslide conditions and,
therefore, we conclude there is an elevated risk of damage to the proposed improvements [emphasis
added] due to earthquake-induced reactivation of all or part of the existing landslide underlying the
Option A site.25 Any activity within the landslide mass underlying the completed Option A parking
facility could damage pavements, the restroom facilities, and utilities. This damage could include
buckled pavement, cracks, and disruption of utility service and potentially create hazards for users of
the staging area if not addressed. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level with implementation of Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1a (below) as
regular inspections and repairs of any damage will ensure that structures and pavements are safely
maintained and people are not exposed to trip and fall injuries associated with cracks and buckled
pavements.
As part of grading and leveling of the Option A site to create the new staging area, the project would
create new slopes around the facility perimeter. These slopes could be subject to instability and
failure if not properly designed and constructed. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation included
a preliminary analysis of the stability of the proposed slopes using a computer-based slope stability
analytical program called SLOPE/W (version 6.02) by Geo-Slope International and concluded that
the factor of safety for constructed slopes would exceed 2.0 under static (i.e., non-seismic) conditions
at the Option A site (the standard of practice generally considers a slope with a factor of safety of 1.5
or higher to be sufficiently stable). The analysis indicated that the factor of safety of the proposed
slopes under seismic conditions would be above 1.5 provided the slopes were to be constructed in
accordance with the recommendations included in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation. These
23
Ibid.
24
Sheilds, Craig, 2015, op. cit.
25
252

OCTOBER 2015

recommendations include, but are not limited to, stripping of vegetation and topsoil, moisture
conditioning, and appropriate levels of compaction. Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1b shall be
implemented to ensure that the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation are implemented.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1a and GEO-1b would reduce this potentially
significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1a
would also reduce impacts associated with Option A Impact GEO-2 (identified below) to a less-thansignificant level.
Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: The District shall conduct annual inspections of the
Option A staging area and document any indications of cracking or deformation of pavements,
flatwork, and slopes that may be the result of slope instability. Any conditions that could result
in hazards to users shall be promptly repaired.
Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1b: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or
building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional,
and submitted to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding
that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation for the project and fully complies with the CBC. In accordance with the
CCR Title 14, Section 3724, prior to approving the project, the lead agency shall independently
review the geotechnical report to determine that the nature and severity of the seismic hazards
at the site have been evaluated and addressed. This review shall be conducted by a certified
engineering geologist or registered civil engineer, having competence in the field of seismic
and slope stability hazard evaluation and mitigation. All recommendations, design criteria, and
specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation and design-level
geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition, as a condition of approval for grading
permits, a qualified and licensed professional shall be required to be present as a construction
monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the stripping of deleterious
material and to provide consultation, as required, to the grading contractor(s), ensuring
compliance with the CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations. (LTS)
Option B. There are no known conditions at the Option B site that would have created
underground voids. Therefore, the potential impacts related to settlement and collapse would be less
than significant. However, slope instability (i.e., landslide) is an impact that could affect the Option B
site.
Option B Impact GEO-1: Implementation of Option B could result in adverse impacts
associated with slope instability (S)
Based on regional mapping and the results of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation, the Option
B site is underlain by alluvial fan deposits and not located on an existing landslide. Therefore,
potential impacts related to project grading and operation activating existing landslide materials is
less than significant. In addition, since the debris flow hazard mapping indicates that the Option B site
is not likely to be affected by debris flows, this hazard is also less than significant.
Similar to the Option A site, as part of grading and leveling/terracing of the Option B site to create the
new staging area, the project would create new slopes within and around the facility perimeter. These
slopes could be subject to instability and failure if not properly designed and constructed. The site-
253

OCTOBER 2015

specific Geotechnical Investigation included a preliminary analysis of the stability of the proposed
slopes using a computer-based slope stability analytical program called SLOPE/W (version 6.02) by
Geo-Slope International and concluded that the factor of safety for constructed slopes would exceed
2.0 under static (i.e., non-seismic) conditions at the Option B site (the standard of practice generally
considers a slope with a factor of safety of 1.5 to be sufficiently stable under static conditions). The
analysis indicated that the factor of safety of the proposed slopes under seismic conditions would be
above 1.5 provided the slopes are constructed in accordance with the recommendations included in
the preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. These recommendations include, but are not limited to,
stripping of vegetation and topsoil, moisture conditioning, appropriate levels of compaction, and
additional soil testing. Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-1a shall be implemented to ensure that the
recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation are implemented and that the actual
site conditions are inspected by a qualified professional during grading. Implementation of Option B
Mitigation Measure GEO-1a would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or
building permits, a design-level geotechnical plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional,
and submitted to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The plan shall include a finding
that the proposed development incorporates all recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation for the project and fully complies with the CBC. All recommendations,
design criteria, and specifications set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation and
design-level geotechnical plan shall be implemented. In addition, as a condition of approval for
grading permits, a qualified and licensed professional shall be required to be present as a
construction monitor during clearing and grading of the project site to observe the stripping of
deleterious material and to provide consultation, as required, to the grading contractor(s),
ensuring compliance with the CBC and design-level geotechnical report recommendations.
(LTS)
(5) Expansive Soils. Potential impacts related to expansive soils at the Option A and Option
B sites are described below. As discussed below, with implementation of the mitigation measures
proposed for slope instability, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant with
development of either site option.
Option A. The Diablo Clay soils that occur the Option A site have a moderate to high plasticity
indices which indicates they are likely subject to shrink-swell hazards.
Option A Impact GEO-2: Implementation of Option A could result in adverse impacts
associated with expansive soils (S)
Based on the confirmed presence of expansive soils at the Option A site, the site-specific
Geotechnical Investigation recommends that foundation and slabs be designed and constructed to
resist the effects of the expansive clay by moisture conditioning the expansive clay, providing select,
non-expansive fill below concrete slabs-on-grade, and either supporting foundations below the zone
of severe moisture change or providing a stiff, shallow foundation that can limit deformation of the
superstructure as the underlying soil shrinks and swells. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
concludes that even with proper moisture conditioning and compaction of the underlying soil and
placement of one foot of select fill beneath the slabs, some movement and cracking of concrete
254

OCTOBER 2015

flatwork may occur due to differential wetting of the soil, which is unavoidable for the proposed
improvements. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by regularly inspecting and repairing cracking as required with implementation of Option A
Mitigation Measure GEO-1a, above.
Option B. The Diablo Clay soils that occur at the Option B site have a moderate to high
plasticity indices which indicates they are likely subject to shrink-swell hazards.
Option B Impact GEO-2: Implementation of Option B could result in adverse impacts
associated with expansive soils (S)
Based on the confirmed presence of expansive soils at the Option B site, the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation recommends that foundation and slabs be designed and constructed to resist the
effects of the expansive clay by moisture conditioning the expansive clay, providing select, nonexpansive fill below concrete slabs-on-grade, and either supporting foundations below the zone of
severe moisture change or providing a stiff, shallow foundation that can limit deformation of the
superstructure as the underlying soil shrinks and swells. The site-specific Geotechnical Investigation
concludes that even with proper moisture conditioning and compaction of the underlying soil and
placement of one foot of select fill beneath the slabs, some movement and cracking of concrete
flatwork may occur due to differential wetting of the soil, which is unavoidable for the proposed
improvements. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by regularly inspecting and repairing cracking as required with implementation of Option B
Mitigation Measure GEO-2.
Option B Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The District shall conduct annual inspections of the
Option B staging area and document any indications of cracking or deformation of pavements
or flatwork. Any conditions that could result in hazards to users of the facility or could
contribute to continued deformation shall be promptly repaired. (LTS)
(6) Septic and/or On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems. Potential impacts related to onsite wastewater treatment systems at the Option A and Option B sites are described below. As
discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. Development of Option A would result in the conversion of the existing vault toilet
at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to a restroom facility with sewer connections. In addition, new
sewer lines would be extended to the Option A staging area to serve the new restroom facilities. No
septic systems or on-site wastewater treatment systems are proposed at the Option A site therefore,
Option B. Development of Option B would result in the conversion of the existing vault toilet
at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area to a restroom facility with sewer connections. In addition, new
sewer lines would be extended to the Option B staging area to serve the new restroom facilities. No
septic systems or on-site wastewater treatment systems are proposed at the Option B site therefore,
255

OCTOBER 2015

c.
Cumulative Impacts. Impacts related to geologic hazards are generally site specific, rather
than cumulative in nature, because each project area has unique geologic considerations that would be
subject to uniform site development and construction standards. Therefore, the potential for
cumulative impacts is limited. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or
other conditions occur at individual building sites. These effects are sitespecific, and impacts would
not be compounded by additional development. Even if there were cumulative geologic hazards
impacts, given the mitigation measures described above and the design features and nature of the
project (i.e., staging area rather than a habitable structure), implementation of the project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to geologic hazards, and the cumulative impact
256

OCTOBER 2015
H.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes the existing hydrologic conditions for the project area, including runoff,
drainage, and water quality characteristics, based on available information provided within published
reports. Data gathered as part of a site reconnaissance conducted in May 2015 was also used to
prepare this analysis. This section also identifies potentially significant impacts on hydrological
resources that may result from project implementation, and recommends mitigation measures to
reduce identified impacts to a less-than-significant level.
1.
Setting
This subsection provides a brief description of the existing hydrological setting at and near the project
area; the regulations affecting water resources at the federal, State, and local level; and local policies
and programs related to hydrology and water quality.
a.
Climate. The climate of the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized as Mediterranean, with
cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the project area,
for the period between 1996 and 2015, was approximately 16 inches, with rainfall occurring primarily
from November through March. During the period of record, annual rainfall has varied from about
8.4 inches (2007) to about 26.2 inches (1998). The weather station that reports these precipitation
statistics is located approximately 8 miles northwest of the project area on the valley floor on Central
Avenue between Blacow Road and I-880 in Fremont. Since the project area is at the base of the
mountain uplands (northwestern portion of the Diablo Range), topographic effects are likely to
slightly increase rainfall quantities in the vicinity of the project area. Analysis of long-term
precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the
region. Data from a rain gage located near the mouth of the Niles Canyon (which has a much longer
historic record than the Fremont rain gage) indicates that 35.2 inches of rain fell during the 1998
water year.1
b.
Runoff and Drainage. The project area is located in the foothill area between the valley floor
(to the west) and the steeper mountain uplands (to the east). Elevations range from approximately 380
feet above mean sea level (msl) at the western portion of the Option A site to approximately 500 feet
msl at the upper eastern portion of the Option B site. Agua Caliente Creek, which flows generally east
to west, is the main surface water feature in the project area (see Figure III-1 in Chapter III, Project
Description). In the vicinity of the project area, Agua Caliente Creek is vertically incised; in some
areas, eroded vertical banks exceed 10 feet in height. Two distinct seasonal tributary streams join
Agua Caliente Creek just north of the Option B site. During the reconnaissance of the project area in
late May 2015, Agua Caliente Creek had a small amount of flow (less than 1cubic foot per second)
and the two tributaries were dry. Another unnamed creek, which flows northeast to southwest, is
located north of the Option A site.
In an undeveloped setting, such as the project area, when rainfall intensities exceed the infiltration
capacity of surface soils, runoff flows over the ground surfaces toward established natural drainages.
Under current conditions, runoff from the Option A site flows both to the north (to the unnamed
Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California. February.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5h-Hydrology.docx (10/14/15)
257

OCTOBER 2015

stream that joins Agua Caliente Creek downstream) and to the south (to Agua Caliente Creek). All the
runoff from the Option B site flows toward Agua Caliente Creek.
Access to the Option B site currently requires crossing Agua Caliente Creek using an existing
roadway which crosses over the culverted creek (a 5-foot corrugated metal culvert) as part of the Peak
Meadow and Horse Heaven Trail.
c.
Flooding. The project area is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).2 In addition, the project area is not located within
an area subject to inundation related to dam failure.3
d.
Coastal Hazards. Due to the location and elevation of the project area, approximately 8 miles
east of the San Francisco Bay and at a minimum elevation of 380 feet msl, the project area would not
be subject to inundation as a result of tsunami, sea level rise, or extreme high tides. In addition, the
project area is not located near any open water bodies that would be subject to seiches (an oscillation
of a body of water that occurs most frequently in enclosed or semi-enclosed basins such as lakes,
bays, or harbors), and therefore inundation hazards from seiches are not a concern.
e.
Groundwater, Recharge, and Springs. The project area is located along the eastern edge of
the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin (Basin),4 a regionally significant managed groundwater supply
basin. The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) provides water service to approximately
340,000 people in the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City. The portion of ACWDs water
supply produced from wells in the Basin has historically been between 30 and 62 percent annually,
depending upon seasonal and annual demand requirements.5
Based on regional geologic mapping, the Option A site is underlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks
and Quaternary alluvial gravels in a clay matrix,6 with surface soils mapped as Diablo Clay.7 The
Option B site is underlain by Tertiary sedimentary rocks, and a combination of surficial soils,
including Diablo Clay, Los Osos silty clay loam, and Milshoam silt loam. The soils at both sites are
mapped as having low infiltration capacity. These soils are mapped as Hydrologic Group C and D
soils which are defined as follows:8
2
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community-Panel Numbers
06001C0468G and 06001C0469G, Alameda County, California. August 3, 2009.
3
Fremont, City of, 2011. City of Fremont General Plan, Safety Element, pp. 10-23. December.
Alameda County Water District, 2015. Water Resources Department, Groundwater Resources Division.
Groundwater Monitoring Report 2014. January 31.
5
Ibid.
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Feasibility Study, Mission Peak
Regional Preserve, Fremont, California. August 13.
7
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/
HomePage.htm (accessed May 19, 2015).
8
Ibid.
258

OCTOBER 2015

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of
soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine
texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high
water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are
shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water
transmission.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings or test pits completed as part of the
preliminary geotechnical investigation (the boring and pits ranged in depth from 7.0 to 21 feet below
the ground surface [bgs]) prepared for the proposed project.9 Available historic groundwater
information for the site and vicinity indicate historic high groundwater to be about 10 to 20 feet bgs.10
A small solar-powered pump located on the Option B site is used as a water source for cattle grazing.
This pump provides water from the Alameda County Water District system to the site.
Based on many of the place names in the site area vicinity that refer to both springs and warm water
(e.g., Warm Springs, Rancho Agua Caliente, Agua Caliente Creek), springs are a part of Fremonts
history. A spring occurs when the side of a hill, a valley bottom, or excavation intersects the local
groundwater table. A spring discharges water onto the land surface. They can range in size from
intermittent seeps, which flow only after much rain, to substantial year-round flows.
In the vicinity of the project area, it is likely that any spring flow is related to faults, fractures and
joints in the underlying highly-deformed geologic units. Water moves through these fractures and
where the fractures intersect the surface, water flows onto the land. Spring activity just south of the
terminus of Hidden Valley Terrace Road (see Figure III-1 in Chapter III, Project Description)
(approximately 500 feet south of the Option A site and 500 feet west of the Option B site) was
mapped by previous investigators in a report published in 2000.11 No project area springs were
identified during the May 2015 site reconnaissance conducted to support the preparation of this EIR
(with the exception of flow in the main stem of Agua Caliente Creek, which is likely supported by
spring flow higher up in the watershed). This lack of any observable indication of springs in May
2015 may be due to the extended drought that has been occurring in California.
f.
Regulatory Context. The regulatory context related to hydrology and water quality is
discussed below, including federal, State, and local requirements.
(1) Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) of 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is authorized to
regulate the discharge of pollutants in the waters of the United States and to regulate water quality
standards for surface waters. The USEPA has delegated authority for implementing water quality
9
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015, op. cit.
10
Ibid.
11
Rogers, David, et al., 2000, op. cit.
259

OCTOBER 2015

regulations to the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), which has
nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The State Water Board and Regional Water Quality
Control Boards were established by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The project area
is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional
Water Board), which is responsible for implementation of State and federal water quality protection
statutes, regulations, and policies in the project area.
(2) San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan. The Regional Water Board
implements the San Francisco Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), a master policy
document for managing water quality in the region.12 The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses
for waterways and water bodies within the region. The Niles Cone Groundwater Subbasin, which
underlies the project area, is listed in the Basin Plan as providing existing and potential beneficial
uses of municipal and domestic water supply, industrial process water supply, industrial service water
supply, and agricultural water supply. At its closest, the South San Francisco Bay margin is located
approximately 8 miles west of the project area and is listed as providing the existing beneficial uses of
industrial service supply, commercial and sport fishing, shellfish harvesting, estuarine habitat, fish
migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spawning, wildlife habitat, water contact
and noncontact recreation, and navigation.
(3) Section 303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Loads. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires
each state to identify water bodies that are impaired, and which consequently require further action to
support their beneficial uses. Once a water body is identified as impaired, the state is required to
establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant that is a source of impairment. A
TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still
meet water quality standards, which will ensure the protection of beneficial uses. The Basin Plan
establishes TMDLs and the attainment strategies that need to be implemented in order to meet the
standards. TMDL attainment strategies are implemented by the Regional Water Board through
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which are described below.
The project area drains to Agua Caliente Creek which in turn drains ultimately to South San
Francisco Bay. The South San Francisco Bay is on the 303(d) list of water bodies that have been
identified as impaired. Table V.H-1 below summarizes the pollutants/stressors and their respective
sources.13
(4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Pursuant to Section 402
of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in
the City of Fremont are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted October
14, 2009 (MRP). The MRP is enforced by the Regional Water Board. The City of Fremont is a
12
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Basin (Region
2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Available online at: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/
basin_plan/docs/basin_plan07.pdf (accessed July 2015).
13
State Water Resources Control Board, 2010. Integrated Report, (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b)
Report) Statewide. Website: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml (accessed July 7,
2015).
260

OCTOBER 2015

member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP), which assists
municipalities and other agencies in Alameda County with implementation of the MRP. MRP
Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development
and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area.
Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment
measures into development projects in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater
runoff and non-stormwater discharges and to prevent increases in runoff flows. Low Impact
Development (LID) methods are required to be the primary mechanism for implementing such
controls.
Table V.H-1: Impaired Water Body Pollutants for South San Francisco Bay
Pollutant/Stressor
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Dioxin Compounds
Furan Compounds
Invasive Species
Mercury
PCBs
PCBs (dioxin-like)
Selenium
Source(s)
Nonpoint source
Nonpoint source
Nonpoint source
Atmospheric deposition
Atmospheric deposition
Ballast water
Industrial point source; municipal point source; recourse extraction;
atmospheric deposition; natural source; nonpoint source
Unknown nonpoint source
Unknown nonpoint source
Agriculture; domestic use of groundwater
DDT = Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls
Source: State Water Board, 2010.
MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This MRP provision requires that
stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the
existing condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project
runoff not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume
is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or
other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. The Hydromodification
Management Susceptibility Map developed by the ACCWP indicates that the project area drains
primarily to earthen channels and therefore the project area is subject to hydromodification
management requirements.14
In addition, projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to comply
with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General
Permit). Construction General Permit activities are regulated at a local level by the Regional Water
Board.
14
Alameda County Clean Water Program, 2007. Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map. Available
online at: www.cleanwaterprogram.org/uploads/I-ACCWP_C3TechGuide_HM-entire_appendix.pdf (accessed July 2,
2015).
261

OCTOBER 2015

To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project sponsor must provide a Notice
of Intent, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other documents required by
Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. Activities subject to the Construction General
Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as grubbing or excavation. The
permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects such as pipeline installations.
The Construction General Permit uses a risk-based permitting approach and mandates certain
requirements based on the project risk level (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3). The project risk level
is based on the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk. The sediment discharge risk
depends on project location and timing (i.e., wet season versus dry season activities). The receiving
water risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment-sensitive receiving water.
The performance standard in the Construction General Permit is that dischargers minimize or prevent
pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges through the use of
controls, structures, and best management practices (BMPs). A SWPPP must be prepared by a
Qualified SWPPP Developer that meets the certification requirements in the Construction General
Permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants
that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges; and 2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as nonstormwater discharges resulting from construction activity so that no significant impacts to hydrology
or water quality occur. Operation of BMPs must be overseen by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner that
meets the requirements outlined in the permit.
(5) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFC). The
ACFC is responsible for protecting county citizens from flooding by maintaining flood channels and
natural creeks within Alameda County. As a condition of receiving a drainage permit, drainage plans
for development projects must be reviewed by the ACFC to ensure that they are consistent with its
policies and regulations pertaining to runoff, stormwater management and detention, flooding, and
erosion. In addition, development projects that involve work within the ACFC right-of-way or that
involve construction, modification, or connection to ACFC facilities are required to obtain a Flood
Encroachment Permit and must comply with ACFC standards and specifications.
(6) Alameda County Water District (ACWD). The Alameda County Groundwater
Protection Act authorizes the ACWD to take action to protect the quality of the local groundwater
supply within the ACWD service area by adopting, updating, and revising regulations and standards.
Under the Replenishment Assessment Act, the ACWD also has authority to collect fees for water
extracted from water supply wells, dewatering wells, and water quality monitoring/treatment wells.
The ACWD uses the fees to manage and replenish the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. ACWD
Ordinance No. 2010-01 requires a permit to be obtained for the construction, repair, inactivation or
destruction of any well or exploratory hole, or any excavation that has the potential to impact a
groundwater aquifer. There are no known wells on the Option A or Option B sites.
(7) City of Fremont Municipal Code. Various portions of the City of Fremont Municipal
Code address hydrology and water quality, as follows. The proposed project would comply with these
regulations as further discussed below in the impact discussion.
262

OCTOBER 2015

Chapter 18.205 Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. The purpose of this chapter is to
ensure that future development is performed in a manner that does not strip or remove soil
from lands, protects water quality from nutrients and sediments, and retains existing
vegetation to the extent practical. The chapter also establishes grading permit requirements.
Chapter 18.210 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The purpose of this
chapter is to reduce non-stormwater discharges to the City stormwater drainage system to
the maximum extent practicable and to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharge to the
maximum extent practicable. The chapter establishes stormwater discharge regulations and
requirements, as well as inspection and enforcement actions.
(8) City of Fremont General Plan. The following goals and policies from the City of
Fremont General Plans Safety and Conservation Elements related to hydrology and water quality
pertain to the proposed project. The General Plan also contains one or more implementing actions for
each policy.
Goal 10-3: Flood Hazards. Minimum feasible risks to life and property resulting from flooding and
flood induced hazards.
Policy 10-3.2: Design to Minimize Flooding. Design new development and redevelopment projects
to minimize hazards associated with flooding and limit the amount of runoff that contributes to
flooding.
Goal 7-2 Water Resources. A protected water resource system that offers natural habitat and
enhances the biological value of the City.
Policy 7-2.1: Preservation of Water Resources. Water resources such as the Niles Cone Groundwater
Basin, wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space and native habitats should
be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality
improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long term water resource sustainability.
Policy 7-2.3: Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Maintenance. Maintain the Niles Cone Groundwater
Basin as a reliable water source.
Goal 7-3: Water Quality. High quality water protected from pollutants and managed to improve the
quality of the San Francisco Bay and groundwater resources.
Policy 7-3.1: Protect and Improve Water Quality. Protect and improve water quality in all Fremonts
creeks, streams, water courses and water bodies.
Policy 7-3.2: Groundwater Resources. Protect groundwater from contamination, specifically, the
Niles Cone Groundwater Basin.
Policy 7-3.3: Enforce Water Quality Requirements. Enforce Federal, State and locally issued
mandates regarding water quality such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements.
Goal 7-4: Water Conservation. A water conservation program with measurable results consistent
with Alameda County Water Districts Urban Water Management Plan and with the Citys
greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Policy 7-4.1: Water Conservation. Maximize community water conservation.
Policy 7-4.2: Reclaimed Water. Encourage the use of reclaimed water for irrigation, industrial
purposes and in City operations.
263

OCTOBER 2015

Policy 7-4.3: Water Conservation in City Operations. Maximize water conservation in City
operations.
Goal 7-6: Soil Resources. Urban development consistent with soil conditions to minimize erosion
and protect health and property.
Policy 7-6.2: Minimize Soil Erosion. Eliminate soil erosion from development to the maximum
extent possible.
following policy related to hydrology and water quality.
2.
Policy NRM 11. Park water resources will be used for beneficial purposes. Water quality will be
monitored to comply with established standards. The District will participate in cooperative effort to
plan comprehensive watershed management and will adopt best management practice guidelines
for District land use activities to minimize potential storm water pollution. The District will monitor
land use planning and development activities by other agencies and cities to avoid potential adverse
impacts to parkland from pollutants generated by off-site or upstream sources.
Policy NRM 11b. The District will pursue conservation and control technologies for the use of
potable and irrigation water. The District will seek to reduce the use of imported water for uses other
than human consumption through conservation and by developing other sources of water for
irrigation and non-potable needs.
Policy NRM 13. The District will identify existing and potential erosion problems and take
corrective measures to repair damage and mitigate its causes. The District will manage the parks to
assure that an adequate cover of vegetation remains on the ground to provide soil protection. Where
vegetative cover has been reduced or eliminated, the District will take steps to restore it using native
or naturalized plants adapted to the site. The District will minimize soil disturbance associated with
construction and maintenance operations, and will avoid disruptive activities in areas with unstable
soils whenever possible. The District will arrest the progress of active gully erosion where practical,
and take action to restore these areas to stable conditions. The District will notify adjacent property
owners of potential landslide situations and risks on District lands, and will conform with applicable
law. The District will protect important geological and paleontological features from vandalism and
misuse.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to hydrology and water quality that
could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of
part of this section presents the impacts related to hydrology and water quality that would result from
a.
hydrology and water quality if it would:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater

recharge such that there would be a significant net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level;
264

OCTOBER 2015

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
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;
Create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems and/or increase upstream or downstream flooding and require
or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
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;
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows;
Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or
Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, extreme

high tides, and/or sea level rise.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to hydrology
and water quality. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic,
followed by impacts associated with Option B.
(1) Water Quality Standards. Excavation, grading, and construction activities in the project
area would require temporary disturbance and exposure of shallow soils through removal of existing
vegetative cover, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Operation of
the parking facility at both sites could contribute pollutant to runoff, degrading receiving water
quality. As discussed below, the project includes implementation of construction- and operationperiod measures in compliance with applicable law and with all City regulations and requirements.
Thus, these water quality impacts would be less than significant with development of either site
option.
Option A. Construction- and operation-period impacts to water quality that could result with
implementation of Option A are described below.
Construction-Period Water Quality Impacts. Depending on project timing and duration of
grading, soil stockpiles and excavations associated with Option A could be exposed to runoff and, if
not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in water courses at,
and away from, the Option A site. The accumulation of sediment could result in blockage of flows,
potentially causing increased localized ponding or flooding. The potential for chemical releases is
present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents
could be transported to the nearby creek in stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water,
265

OCTOBER 2015

potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. A detailed SWPPP would address these
potential impacts.
In accordance with existing regulations (the Statewide Construction General Permit), the District or
its contractor would prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to
surface water quality during the project construction period. SWPPPs have two major objectives: 1)
to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater
discharges; and 2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce to an insignificant
level or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater discharge so that
construction does not substantially degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. The SWPPP must include BMPs that address source control, BMPs
that address pollutant control, and BMPs that address treatment control.
Under the requirements of the General Permit, the SWPPP would include the following objectives
and/or measures to be implemented by the District or its contractor:
Schedule grading activities outside the typical rainy months (October to April), to the
extent feasible;
Control pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with grading
and all other activities associated with construction activity;
Where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Board permit, identify and
either eliminate, control, or treat all non-stormwater discharges; and
Implement BMPs that are effective and result in the reduction to an insignificant level or
elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater
discharges from construction activity.
Examples of the types of BMPs that are required under the Construction General Permit include:
A moratorium on grading during a rain event;
A requirement that erosion and sediment control measures be installed prior to

unseasonable rain storms;
Prohibiting erosion or sediment control measures within vegetated areas;
Limiting the extent of disturbed soil to the minimum area that can be protected prior to a
forecasted rain event and the minimum area needed to complete the proposed action;
Delineating and protecting environmentally sensitive areas to prevent construction impacts;
Installing natural fiber rolls as appropriate to control sediment and erosion (use of erosion
control fabric containing plastic monofilament is prohibited);
Implementing spill and litter controls;
Proper management of fuels and other hazardous materials;
Management of temporary sewage facilities to prevent water quality impacts;
Liquid waste management; and
Preserving existing vegetation wherever possible.
266

OCTOBER 2015

The above-noted BMPs are also included in Option A Mitigation Measure BIO-7b (refer to Section
V.C, Biological Resources) and are required to be implemented to ensure that impacts to
jurisdictional waters are reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The SWPPP would be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and would include the minimum
BMPs required for this type of project (based on final determination of the projects Risk Level
status, to be determined as part of the Notice of Intent for coverage under the Construction General
Permit); these include: BMPs for erosion and sediment control, site management and housekeeping,
waste management, management of non-stormwater discharges, runon and runoff controls, and BMP
inspection/maintenance/repair activities.
The SWPPP would include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for
dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending
on the project Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. Under the SWPPP,
inspections would be conducted to ensure the BMPs are adequate, maintained, and in place at the end
of the construction day. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would be responsible for
implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP would also be responsible for performing all required
monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair activities.
Full compliance with and implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts to water quality
during the construction-period at the Option A site would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality and thus would be less
than significant.
Operation-Period Water Quality Impacts. During the operation period, the proposed project
would generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff,
or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek. In addition, runoff from
the project could alter the rate, volume, or duration of discharges into Agua Caliente Creek, which
could cause substantial erosion and siltation and contribute to stream channel hydromodification
impacts.
Development of Option A would increase the impervious area in the project area by 2.78 acres
compared to the existing condition, which is unpaved and covered with herbaceous ground covers
including annual grasses. The project would be a potential source of pollutants such as sediment;
metals; organic compounds such as pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and oil and
grease; pathogens; nutrients; and trash and debris. If not properly controlled, these pollutants could
accumulate on impervious surfaces, come into contact with stormwater runoff, and be discharged into
Agua Caliente Creek and the unnamed creek to the north, thereby increasing the pollutant loading to
the creeks compared to the existing condition.
The project proposes to manage stormwater runoff during the operation period at the Option A site
through a combination of in-parking lot bioretention areas and a detention pond (refer to Figure III-2a
in Chapter III, Project Description). Precipitation that falls directly onto the paved areas of the
parking facility would be directed toward the stormwater planters, where runoff would infiltrate
through a specially-designed soil medium that filters pollutants from the runoff. Near the base of the
267

OCTOBER 2015

stormwater planters, a perforated drainage pipe system would collect the treated water and convey it
to the detention pond. Runoff from the adjacent unpaved slopes would not be directed to the inparking area stormwater planters, but would be conveyed directly to the detention pond by newly
constructed stormwater swales and pipelines.
The Option A facility would include a detention pond (see Figure III-2a) designed to address potential
hydromodification impacts. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would be located just north
of the site (see Figure III-2a). The stormwater detention pond would have a storage capacity of
approximately 40,000 cubic feet and would be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. Discharge
from the pond would be concentrated at an outfall into an existing earthen swale. The discharge point
would be armored with rock revetment designed to dissipate the energy and prevent erosion. The
storage volume and metered discharge piping associated with the detention pond would be sized
using the Bay Area Hydraulic Model (BAHM) which simulates preconstruction and post-construction
stormwater flows, as directed by the Clean Water Program. The software uses long term rainfall
records and schematic drainage models to generate continuous flow duration curves of project runoff.
The requirement is that hydromodification management controls limit post-construction flows - above
the critical flow to flows lower than pre-construction conditions. This requirement would be
accomplished by detaining water and releasing at lower flows - below the critical flow - over a longer
period of time. The critical flow is taken as 10 percent of the 2-year flow, which is considered low
enough to not contribute to creek bank erosion.15
Development of Option A would include repair of an existing culvert along a tributary to Agua
Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. The existing concrete headwall would remain;
however, a new rock-tail wall and outfall would be installed at the existing 5-foot diameter culvert. A
1.5-foot layer of rock (approximately 20 cubic yards) would also be installed over filter fabric.
In addition to the parking facilities, the project also proposes the construction of a new access road
and trail segments. Runoff from these road and trail segments would be managed by collecting runoff
on the uphill side of the road in a swale before it crosses the road. This stormwater would be
conveyed to the existing storm drain inlet and discharged without treatment. Stormwater that falls
directly on the road would sheet flow across the road and overland through grassland and trees (with a
minimum of 150 feet before reaching the creek). Runoff from trails would discharge to the
surrounding open space areas and infiltrate into soils.
In addition to the post-construction stormwater control BMPs described above, Option A would also
include a design-level stormwater control plan (SCP) that complies with existing NPDES regulations,
which require that the District or its contractor comply with the applicable requirements of Provision
C.3 of the MRP. Implementation of the SCP would ensure Option A complies with all standards and
stormwater management requirements and that the project does not substantially degrade water
quality. The SCP for the project would include:
15
East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Mission Peak Post Construction Stormwater Controls, Revised 06-052015. June 5.
268

OCTOBER 2015

LID design details. LID features, include minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover
and then storing, detaining, evapotranspiring, and/or biotreating stormwater runoff are
required by the MRP. In accordance with the existing regulations, the proposed projects
conceptual design, which includes biotreatment in stormwater planters, would be designed
and sized in accordance with the MRP, section C.3.c.i.2(b).
Measures to address potential stormwater contaminants. These measures will include

regular street sweeping to remove sources of stormwater pollutants from the paved surfaces
at the project site or other practices to removed sources of stormwater pollutants.
Detailed detention pond design. In accordance with the MRP, the proposed detention pond
would be designed and operated such that stormwater discharges from the project would
not cause an increase in the erosion potential of Agua Caliente Creek over the pre-project
(existing) condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume would be managed so that postproject runoff would not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such
increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek
beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to
increased erosive force. The District must demonstrate to the City that post-project
stormwater runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project runoff rates and durations by one
of the methods included in the MRP (section C.3.g.ii).
Long-term funding and maintenance responsibilities. In accordance with the MRP and the
ACCWP, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, funding for long-term maintenance of all
BMPs must be specified. The District would enter into a maintenance agreement with the
City to ensure long-term maintenance of treatment BMPs and detention pond. After the
maintenance agreement is executed the District would begin to implement the maintenance
plan and inspection reports would be submitted to the City as required by the maintenance
agreement. In accordance with the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, the maintenance
plan must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate to the municipality that stormwater
treatment measures and detention pond will receive adequate inspections and maintenance
to continue functioning as designed over the life of the project. The C.3 Stormwater
Technical Guidance includes specifications and requirements for operations and
maintenance of flow-through planters and a detention pond (the types of stormwater
management features proposed by the project) that must be implemented in accordance
with existing regulations.
Full implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for preparation and implementation of a SCP and compliance with the MRP) would ensure that potential impacts to water quality
during the Option A site operation-period would be less than significant.
Option B. Construction- and operation-period impacts to water quality that could result with
implementation of Option B are similar to those described for Option A, as discussed below.
Construction-Period Water Quality Impacts. Depending on project timing and duration of
grading, soil stockpiles and excavations associated with Option B could be exposed to runoff and, if
not managed properly, runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in water courses at,
and away from, the Option B site. The accumulation of sediment could result in blockage of flows,
potentially causing increased localized ponding or flooding. The potential for chemical releases is
present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents
269

OCTOBER 2015

could be transported to the nearby creek in stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water,
potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. A detailed SWPPP would address these
potential impacts.
In accordance with existing regulations (the Statewide Construction General Permit), the District or
its contractor would prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to
surface water quality during the project construction period. The requirements for the SWPPP to be
prepared for the Option B site are identical to those described above under Option A. In addition, the
above-noted BMPs are also included in Option B Mitigation Measure BIO-7b (refer to Section V.C,
Biological Resources) and are required to be implemented to ensure that impacts to jurisdictional
waters are reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Full compliance with and implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP) would ensure that potential impacts to water quality
during the construction-period for Option B would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality and thus would be less than
significant.
Operation-Period Water Quality Impacts. During the operation period, the proposed project
would generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff,
or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of Agua Caliente Creek. In addition, runoff from
the project could alter the rate, volume, or duration of discharges into Agua Caliente Creek, which
could cause substantial erosion and siltation and contribute to stream channel hydromodification
impacts.
Development of Option B would increase the impervious area in the project area by 3.10 acres
compared to the existing condition, which is unpaved and covered with herbaceous ground covers
including annual grasses. The project would be a potential source of pollutants such as sediment;
metals; organic compounds such as pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and oil and
grease; pathogens; nutrients; and trash and debris. If not properly controlled, these pollutants could
accumulate on impervious surfaces, come into contact with stormwater runoff, and be discharged into
Agua Caliente Creek and the unnamed creek to the north, thereby increasing the pollutant loading to
the creeks compared to the existing condition.
The project proposes to manage stormwater runoff during the operation period at the Option B site
through a combination of in-parking lot bioretention areas and a detention pond (see Figure III-3a in
Chapter III, Project Description). Precipitation that falls directly onto the paved areas of the parking
facility would be directed toward the stormwater planters, where runoff would infiltrate through a
specially-designed soil medium that filters pollutants from the runoff. Near the base of the stormwater
planters, a perforated drainage pipe system would collect the treated water and convey it to the
detention pond. Runoff from the adjacent unpaved slopes would not be directed to the in-parking area
stormwater planters, but would be conveyed directly to the detention pond by newly constructed
stormwater swales and pipelines.
270

OCTOBER 2015

The Option B facility would include a detention pond (see Figure III-3a) designed to address potential
hydromodification impacts. The controlled outflow of the detention pond would drain to an existing
concrete channel west of the site. The detention pond would be approximately 20,000 square feet in
size and would have a storage capacity of 65,000 cubic feet. Other than directing the proposed
incoming flow downstream, no modification to the existing ditch would be required. According to
conceptual design information provided by District engineering staff, the storage volume and metered
discharge piping associated with the detention pond would be sized using the Bay Area Hydraulic
Model (BAHM) which simulates preconstruction and post-construction stormwater flows, as directed
by the Clean Water Program. The software uses long term rainfall records and schematic drainage
models to generate continuous flow duration curves of project runoff. The requirement is that
hydromodification management controls limit post-construction flows - above the critical flow to
flows lower than pre-construction conditions. This requirement is accomplished by detaining water
and releasing at lower flows - below the critical flow - over a longer period of time. The critical flow
is taken as 10 percent of the 2-year flow, which is considered low enough to not contribute to creek
bank erosion.16
In addition to the parking facilities, the project also proposes the construction of a new access road
and trail segments, including a new vehicle bridge and a new pedestrian bridge. According to
conceptual design information provided by District engineering staff, runoff from these road and trail
segments would be managed by collecting runoff on the uphill side of the road in a swale before it
crosses the road. This stormwater would be conveyed to the existing storm drain inlet and discharged
without treatment. Stormwater that falls directly on the road would sheet flow across the road and
overland through grassland and trees (with a minimum of 75 feet before reaching the creek). Runoff
from trails would discharge to the surrounding open space areas and infiltrate into soils. In addition,
for development of Option B, the existing creek culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and
Horse Heaven trails would be removed and the channel would be restored to its natural condition.
In addition to the post-construction stormwater control BMPs described above, Option B would
include a design-level stormwater control plan (SCP) that complies with NPDES regulations, which
require that the District or its contractor comply with the applicable requirements of Provision C.3 of
the MRP, including the preparation of a design-level SCP. Implementation of the SCP would ensure
that Option B would not substantially degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements. The measures to be implemented are identical to those identified under
the discussion for Option A. Full implementation of existing regulations (NPDES requirements for
preparation and implementation of a SCP and compliance with the MRP) would ensure that potential
impacts to water quality during the operation-period at Option B would be less than significant.
(2) Groundwater Supplies. Potential impacts to groundwater resources for Option A and
Option B are described below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. Option A development does not propose to use local groundwater supplies (i.e., the
project would not deplete groundwater supplies by directly extracting groundwater using a water
supply well), but does include new impervious cover that could reduce the infiltration of precipitation
and recharge of the underlying aquifer.
16
East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015, op. cit.
271

OCTOBER 2015

The soils at Option A are mapped as Hydrologic Group C and D soils which are characterized by
slow to very slow infiltration rates. They consist chiefly of clayey soils or soils having a layer that
impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. Based
on the low infiltration capacity of the existing soils, placement of pavement at the Option A site
would not significantly decrease recharge of the underlying aquifer and thus would not affect aquifer
volume or the groundwater table level. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater would be less than
significant.
Option B. Similar to Option A, Option B development does not propose to use local
groundwater supplies (i.e., the project would not deplete groundwater supplies by directly extracting
groundwater using a water supply well), but does include new impervious cover that could reduce the
infiltration of precipitation and recharge of the underlying aquifer.
The soils at Option B are mapped as Hydrologic Group C and D soils which are characterized by
slow to very slow infiltration rates. They consist chiefly of clayey soils or soils having a layer that
impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. Based
on the low infiltration capacity of the existing soils, placement of pavement at the Option B site
would not significantly decrease recharge of the underlying aquifer and thus would not affect aquifer
volume or the groundwater table level. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater would be less than
significant.
(3) Alter Drainage Patterns and Cause Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site. Excavation,
grading, and construction in the project area would alter the existing drainage patterns potentially
causing erosion on- and off-site. Impacts associated with development of the Option A site would be
less than significant. Impacts to Agua Caliente Creek could result with development of the Option B
site; however, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, this impact would be
Option A. Option A would not change the course of a stream or river. Erosion impacts during
construction are described above under the impact discussion for Water Quality Standards. However,
if not properly managed, the change in drainage patterns, which would include new impervious cover,
could increase the velocity and volume of stormwater discharges. This increase in velocity and flow
volume could cause hydromodification impacts such as stream bank erosion in Agua Caliente Creek
and its tributaries, which have unprotected earthen banks.
In addition, the development of the Option A site would include repair of an existing culvert along a
tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail.
The project would address potential hydromodification impacts related to alteration of drainage
patterns by construction a detention pond. Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond
and then released at a lower flow over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of
erosive flows from exceeding predevelopment conditions. As previously described, the District would
fully address hydromodification requirements under existing regulations.
272

OCTOBER 2015

Repair of the existing culvert would contribute to channel stability and decrease erosion potential
over time. Therefore, Option A would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
in a manner that results in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Thus, this impact would be
Option B. Option B would not change the course of a stream or river. However, if not properly
managed, the change in drainage patterns, which would include new impervious cover, could increase
the velocity and volume of stormwater discharges. This increase in velocity and flow volume could
cause hydromodification impacts such as stream bank erosion in Agua Caliente Creek and its
tributaries, which have unprotected earthen banks. In addition, under the development of the Option B
site, the existing creek culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven trails would
be removed and the channel would be restored to its natural condition.
The project would address potential hydromodification impacts related to alteration of drainage
patterns by construction a detention pond. Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond
and then released at a lower flow over a longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of
erosive flows from exceeding pre-development conditions. As previously described, the District
would fully address hydromodification requirements under existing regulations.
Removal of the existing culvert would contribute to channel stability and decrease erosion potential
over time by removing the natural channel to culvert transitions where localized erosion is more
likely to occur.
Impacts associated with the new vehicular and pedestrian creek crossings could result with
development of Option B, as discussed below.
Option B Impact HYD-1: Development of the bridges at Option B could cause erosion in and
near Agua Caliente Creek and its tributaries. (S)
The Option B site includes a new vehicular access bridge and a new pedestrian trail bridge at two
separate locations that cross Agua Caliente Creek. Construction of these creek crossings would
require excavation, grading, and construction of foundations near the creek banks. If not properly
managed, the near-creek earthwork could result in exposure of creek banks and erosion on-site and
sedimentation off-site.
The project would construct a new clear span vehicular bridge that would cross Agua Caliente Creek
to provide access to the Option B staging area. The vehicular bridge would be approximately 25 feet
in width, 120 feet in length, and would be made of steel and/or concrete abutments. In addition, the
proposed new trail connection to the Hidden Valley Trail from the new staging area would extend to
the north and cross over Agua Caliente Creek via a new 80 foot long non-vehicular trail bridge, of
approximately 8 feet in width. Similar to the vehicular access bridge, the pedestrian bridge would
clear span the creek. By clear spanning the creek, also referred to as free-span, no excavation within
the creek channel would be required and post-construction obstructions to flow in the channel would
be minimized at the two bridge locations.
273

OCTOBER 2015

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would be required to ensure that this impact
would be less than significant. In addition, implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1
would be required to reduce Option B Impact HYD-2 (discussed in detail below) to a less-thansignificant level.
Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1: As a condition of approval of the final building permit,
the District shall prepare and submit a detailed bridge design (for both the vehicular and
pedestrian bridges) to the City of Fremont for review and approval. The design shall be
prepared by a qualified professional engineer. The report shall present details of the bridge
design, including locations of abutments (and associated piers), and ensure that the bridge does
not encroach into the channel of the creek or create an obstruction to the flow of water in the
creek. The report shall also include supporting calculations that confirm that the channel and
the proposed bridge configurations can pass the 100-year flood flow and the SWPPP shall
include measures to ensure that grading and excavation does not encroach beyond the top of
bank (e.g., exclusion fencing, monitoring). (LTS)
Project features that address hydromodification (such as the stormwater detention pond), compliance
with existing regulations, and Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 ensure Option B would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that results in substantial
erosion or siltation on or off-site. Thus, impacts related to hydromodification and channel erosion
(4) Alter Drainage Patterns and Cause Flooding On- and Off-Site. Excavation, grading,
and construction at either of the project sites could alter the existing drainage patterns potentially
causing flooding on- and off-site. Impacts associated with development of the Option A site would be
less than significant. Impacts to Agua Caliente Creek could result with development of the Option B
site; however, with implementation of recommended Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1, this
impact would be less than significant, as discussed below.
Option A. Implementation of Option A would change the existing drainage patterns on the site
by installing new pavement and stormwater controls as part of the new staging area and repair of an
existing culvert along a tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, near the Hidden Valley Trail. Implementation of Option A would not change the course of a stream or river or otherwise substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The change in drainage patterns from development of the
Option A staging area would not obstruct flows (obstructions could result in localized flooding) or
substantially increase runoff rates or volumes (which could contribute to downstream flooding)
because the detention pond would store then release stormwater at a lower flow rate over a longer
period of time, which would reduce the potential of erosive flows to exceed predevelopment
conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Option B. Similar to Option A, described above, implementation of Option B would alter the
existing drainage patterns by installing new pavement and stormwater controls as part of the new
staging area, removal of the existing creek culvert and trail crossing for the Peak Meadow and Horse
Heaven trails, and restoration of the channel to its natural condition. Implementation of Option B
would not change the course of a stream or river or otherwise substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area. The change in drainage patterns on the site would not substantially increase
runoff rates or volumes (which could contribute to downstream flooding) because the detention pond
274

OCTOBER 2015

would store and then release stormwater at a lower flow rate over a longer period of time, which
would reduce the potential of erosive flows to exceed pre-development conditions. Therefore, impacts
related to changes in drainage patterns would be less than significant.
Localized flooding impacts associated with the new vehicular and pedestrian creek crossings could
result with development of Option B, as discussed below.
Option B Impact HYD-2: Development of Option B could cause localized flooding by blocking
flows in Agua Caliente Creek. (S)
It is possible that the proposed vehicular and pedestrian bridge spans associated with Option B would
be placed at an elevation that may block channel flow during intense runoff events. If high-velocity
flows were blocked by one or both of the bridge spans, flood waters could back up around the
bridge(s) causing localized flooding. Implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would
ensure the bridge would be designed to not encroach into the creek channel, not obstruct creek flows,
and be able to withstand a 100-year flood event. With implementation of this mitigation measure,
Option B would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or create an
obstruction in a manner that would result in flooding and this impact would be less than significant.
(5) Storm Drainage System Capacity. A project-related increase in discharge related to
placement of new impervious surfaces could exceed the capacity of downstream storm drainage
conveyance systems. Development of both site options would alter the existing drainage patterns by
installing new pavement and stormwater collection and treatment facilities. If not properly managed,
the change in drainage patterns, which would include a substantial amount of new impervious cover,
could increase the velocity and volume of stormwater discharges. This increase in discharge could
exceed the capacity of downstream storm drainage conveyance systems. As discussed below, this
impact would be less than significant for both site options.
Option A. The Option A project would manage runoff by directing it to a detention pond.
Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond then released at a lower flow rate over a
longer period of time, which would reduce the potential of erosive flows to exceed pre-development
conditions. As previously described, the District would fully address hydromodification requirements
by complying with existing laws, regulations, and requirements. By addressing hydromodification
impacts, which would ensure that post-construction stormwater discharges do not exceed preconstruction stormwater discharges, flows to downstream drainage systems would not substantially change.
Therefore, Option A would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems, increase upstream or downstream flooding, or require or
result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Option B. The Option B project would manage runoff by directing it to a detention pond.
Stormwater runoff would be stored in the detention pond then released at a lower flow rate over a
longer period of time, which would reduce the potential for erosive flows to exceed predevelopment
conditions. As previously described, the District would fully address hydromodification impacts by
complying with existing laws, regulations, and requirements. By addressing hydromodification
impacts, which would ensure that post-construction stormwater discharges do not exceed preconstruction stormwater discharges, flows to downstream drainage systems would not substantially change.
275

OCTOBER 2015

Option B would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems, increase upstream or downstream flooding, or require or result in the
construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.
(6) Place Housing within a Flood Hazard. Potential impacts related to placement of
housing in a flood hazard area are described below. As discussed, development of either site option
would not result in an impact related to placing housing within a flood hazard area.
Option A. Option A development does not propose construction of new housing. In addition,
the Option A site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, implementation of Option A would not place
housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and no impact would result.
Option B. Similar to Option A, Option B development does not propose construction of new
housing. In addition, the Option A site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, implementation of Option B
would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and no impact would result.
(7) Seiche, Tsunami, Extreme High Tides, and Sea Level Rise. Potential impacts related
to inundation by coastal hazards are described below. As discussed, development of either site option
would not result in an impact related to hazards associates with seiche, tsunami, extreme high tides, or
sea level rise.
Option A. Option A development would occur at a minimum elevation of 380 feet above sea
level and there are no surface water bodies (i.e., lakes or bays) in the vicinity. As a result, implementation of Option A would not expose people or structures to a substantial risk of inundation by seiche,
tsunami, extreme high tides, and/or sea level rise and no impact would result.
Option B. Option B development would occur at a minimum elevation of 400 feet above sea
level and there are no surface water bodies (i.e., lakes or bays) in the vicinity. As a result, implementation of Option B would not expose people or structures to a substantial risk of inundation by seiche,
tsunami, extreme high tides, and/or sea level rise and no impact would result.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. Stormwater within the City of Fremont, including the project area,
ultimately discharges to the San Francisco Bay. Stormwater discharges are affected by urban
pollutants that would contribute to impairment of the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. Urban
pollutants in stormwater include petroleum hydrocarbons, sediments, metals, and trash. Stormwater
regulations have become progressively more stringent since the passage of the federal CWA, and
current requirements now require new developments to manage and treat all significant sources of
stormwater pollutants; in particular stormwater runoff from past, present, and existing development is
managed in accordance with NPDES requirements. As such, a reduction in overall pollutant loads in
stormwater is anticipated over time. However, the South San Francisco Bay is listed as water-quality
impaired for chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, furan compounds, invasive species,
mercury, PCBs, PCBs (dioxin-like), and selenium (see Table V.H-1), indicating that relative to these
compounds and constituents, the carrying capacity of the Bay has already been exceeded and a
cumulative impact is occurring. The project would not use, handle, or store any of these compounds
276

OCTOBER 2015

or constituents, and therefore, the projects contribution to this cumulative water quality impact would
not be considerable.
The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in discharge or runoff that could
exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system downstream because the stormwater detention
ponds would be designed to release runoff at rates and volumes similar to existing conditions. Future
projects in the affected drainage area may contribute discharges that could result in exceedance of
drainage system capacity and increase the potential for flooding, resulting in a significant cumulative
impact. The proposed project includes stormwater controls that would be designed and operated to
release runoff at rates and volumes that do not exceed pre-development conditions, and therefore, the
projects contribution to this significant cumulative impact would not be considerable. Thus, the
potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would
277

OCTOBER 2015

278

OCTOBER 2015
I.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes the potential presence of hazards and hazardous materials on and near the
project area and evaluates the projects potential impact to public health and safety and the
environment. The evaluation presented in this section was based on a visual site reconnaissance of the
project area and the review of historical aerial photos and other published materials. This section also
identifies potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that may result
from project implementation, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts to a
less-than-significant level.
Because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of a staging
area with up to 300 parking spaces and associated facilities, potential impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials would be the same under either option. Therefore, the analysis in this section
does not generally differentiate between the two project options.
1.
Setting
This section describes existing conditions in the project vicinity and summarizes pertinent federal,
State, and local agency laws, regulations, and programs related to hazards and hazardous materials.
As used in this chapter, the term hazardous materials is defined as any material that, because of its
quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential
hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the
environment.1
a.
Existing Conditions.The following section summarizes existing conditions for hazardous
materials released into environment and hazards associated with sensitive school receptors, aviation,
emergency response plans, and wildland fire. Existing conditions at either project site options would
be similar and are therefore not discussed separately.
(1) Hazardous Materials Release Sites. Based on review of the State Water Resources
Control Boards (State Water Boards) GeoTracker database and the Department of Toxic Substances
Controls (DTSCs) EnviroStor database, there are no hazardous materials release sites reported on or
adjacent to the project area. The project area has been under almost continuous use for open grazing
since the late 1930s.2 Based on review of historical aerial photographs between 1948 and 2012, the
project area has never been developed or used for row crop agriculture.3 No evidence of hazardous
materials use that could have resulted in releases to project areas soils was observed in the historic
aerial photographs.
During a visual reconnaissance performed in late May 2015, the vicinity of the project area was
observed to be essentially undeveloped land with access roads and hiking trails. Cattle fencing and
water troughs were observed on the Option B site where cattle grazing occurs. No storage or use of
hazardous materials was observed within the project area.
1
California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501.
Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California. February.
Historical Aerials, 2015. Website: www.historicaerials.com (accessed June 18)
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5i-Hazards.docx (10/14/15)
279

OCTOBER 2015

(2) Sensitive School Receptors. Based on a review of federal records for public and private
schools with grades ranging from pre-kindergarten to 12, there are no schools located within 0.25
miles of the project area.4
(3) Aviation Hazards. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and
Santa Clara County ALUC have adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for areas surrounding
public-use airports within their respective counties. The nearest public-use airport to the project is the
Norman Y. Mineta San Jos International Airport, which is located approximately 9 miles southwest
of the project area. The project area is not located within any protected airspace zones for public-use
airports defined by the ALUCs.5,6 In addition, there are no private airstrips mapped within 2 miles of
the project area.7
(4) Wildland Fire Hazards. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) has mapped areas in Alameda County with significant fire hazards based on fuels,
terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones, are classified by the CAL FIRE Director in accordance with Government Code
Sections 51175-51189 to assist responsible local agencies, such as the Fremont Fire Department,
identify measures to reduce the potential for losses of life, property, and resources from wildland fire.
The project area is not located in or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapped by
CAL FIRE8; however, the City of Fremont has adopted an ordinance that designates areas within the
City as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones that were not identified by CAL FIRE. The project
area is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone identified by the City.9
b.
Regulatory Context. Products as diverse as gasoline, paint, solvents, household cleaning
products, refrigerants, and radioactive substances are categorized as hazardous materials. The proper
management of hazardous materials is a common concern for all communities. Beginning in the
1970s, governments at the federal, State, and local levels became increasingly concerned about the
effects of hazardous materials on human health and the environment. Numerous laws and regulations
were developed to investigate and mitigate these effects. As a result, the storage, use, generation,
transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are highly regulated by federal, State, and local laws
and regulations. These agencies and information about the laws, regulations, and programs they
administer are summarized below.
4
National Center for Education Statistics, 2015. School search tool for public and private schools. Website:
nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch (accessed July 23).
5
Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2015. General Plans, Ordinances & Policies; California
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Website: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/airportlandplans.htm.
(accessed July 23).
6
Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission. Website:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx, (accessed July 23).
7
Federal Aviation Administration, 2015. Airport Data & Contact Information. Website: www.faa.gov/airports/
airport_safety/airportdata_5010 (accessed: July 23, 2015).
8
California, State of, 2008. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in
LRA; Alameda County. September 3.
9
280

OCTOBER 2015

(1) Federal and State Regulations. Federal and State regulations that apply to hazardous
materials are described below. These include regulations related to hazardous materials management,
documentation of release sites, transportation, worker health and safety, and wildland fire protection.
Hazardous Materials Management. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
the lead agency responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations governing hazardous materials
that affect public health or the environment. In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) was enacted to provide a general framework for the USEPA to regulate hazardous waste
from the time it is generated until its ultimate disposal. In accordance with RCRA, facilities
(including construction contractors) that generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are
required to ensure that the wastes are properly managed from cradle to grave by complying with the
federal waste manifest system.
Hazardous Materials Release Sites. In California, the USEPA has granted most enforcement
authority of federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal/EPA). Under the authority of Cal/EPA, the State Water Board and DTSC are
responsible for overseeing the remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater sites. The
provisions of Government Code 65962.5 (also known as the Cortese List) require the State Water
Board, DTSC, the California Department of Health Services, and the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery to submit information pertaining to sites associated with solid
waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal, and/or hazardous materials releases to Cal/EPA.
Hazardous Materials Transportation. The California Highway Patrol, the California
Department of Transportation, and DTSC are responsible for enforcing federal and State regulations
pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials. If a discharge or spill of hazardous materials
occurs during transportation, the transporter is required to take appropriate immediate action to
protect human health and the environment (e.g., notify local authorities and contain the spill), and is
responsible for the discharge cleanup.10
Worker Health and Safety. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) is
the federal agency responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations
pertaining to worker health and safety. Under OSHA jurisdiction, the Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response regulations require training and medical supervision for workers at
hazardous waste sites.11 State worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities
are enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). Regulations
include requirements for protective clothing, training, and limits on exposure to hazardous materials.
Wildland Fire Protection. As described above, in accordance with California Public Resource
Code Sections 42014204 and Government Code Sections 5117551189, the CAL FIRE has mapped
areas of Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The law requires only identification of Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in local responsibility areas, and the Preserve is not located in such a designated zone.
10
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Social Security, Section 66260.10 et seq.
11
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Section 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response.
281

OCTOBER 2015

(2) Regional and Local Regulations. Regional and local regulations that apply to hazardous
materials are described below. These include regulations that apply to hazardous materials emissions,
permitting, and emergency response. City of Fremont General Plan policies related to hazardous
materials are also discussed.
Hazardous and Acutely Hazardous Emissions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) oversees the protection of air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin,
which includes the project area. Hazardous and acutely hazardous emissions during construction are
subject to health risk assessment regulations and permitted conditions of operation to protect nearby
sensitive receptors.
Hazardous Materials Permitting. In California, hazardous waste and material handling and
storage are regulated under the Unified Program, which ensures consistency throughout the State with
regard to administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement. Cal/EPA oversees the
program as a whole, and certifies 83 local government agencies known as Certified Unified Program
Agencies (CUPA) to implement the hazardous waste and materials standards set by five different
State agencies.
The Fremont Fire Department is the CUPA that oversees the implementation and enforcement of
permitting requirements for the routine management of hazardous materials in the City of Fremont.
As established by Cal/EPA, the Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the
administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following six
environmental and emergency response programs:
Hazardous Waste Generator Program (H&SC Chapter 6.5)
Hazardous Waste Tiered Permitting (H&SC Chapter 6.5)
Underground Storage Tank (H&SC Chapter 6.7)
Aboveground Storage Tank SPCC Plan (H&SC Chapter 6.67)
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (H&SC Chapter 6.95)
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (H&SC Chapter 6.95)
The purpose of the Unified Program is to ensure that facilities properly manage and disclose
hazardous materials used to minimize the risk of a hazardous materials release and improve
emergency response actions in the event of a release.
Emergency Response. The Citys 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan evaluates potential risks
and impacts posed by natural and manmade disasters (earthquakes, wildland-urban interface fires,
landslides, flooding, tsunamis, and climate change) and identifies the Citys mitigation strategy to
reduce these impacts. The Fremont Fire Department provides emergency response and implements
programs outlined in the 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, such as disaster preparedness and
response, outreach and education, and regional collaboration planning.
282

OCTOBER 2015

City of Fremont. The Safety Chapter (Chapter 10) of the City of Fremont General Plan,12
contains the following goals, policies, and implementation measures related to hazardous materials,
fire, and emergency response/evacuation that would apply to the project:
Goal 10-4: Fire Hazards. Minimum risk to life and property resulting from fire hazard.
Policy 10-4.1: Fire Safety and Prevention. Promote fire safety and fire prevention in the community.
o
Policy 10-4.2: Development Standards. Maintain development standards that limit potential health
and safety risks, and the risks of structure damage and severe economic loss due to fire hazards.
o
Implementation 10-4.2.A: Fire Code Compliance. Require all new development and renovations
to comply with the California Building Code, Fire Code, and all local ordinances for
construction and adequacy of water flow and pressure, ingress/egress and other measures for
fire protection.
Implementation 10-4.2.B: Designation of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Designate
areas of the City due to location, topography, vegetative cover, or other physical characteristics
as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Require these areas to meet more stringent building
code standards for exterior materials and construction methods for wildfire exposure.
Policy 10-4.3: Access and Clearance. Require adequate access and clearance for fire equipment, fire
suppression personnel, and evacuation for new development.
o
Implementation 10-4.3.A: Development Review. Review new projects for necessary fire access,
street widths and clearances.
Implementation 10-4.3.B: Development Criteria. Require all development to provide adequate

access and clearance and other fire safety measures as appropriate, and require additional
vehicular access or clearance areas as determined by the Fire Department and local amendments
to the Fire Code.
Implementation 10-4.3.C: Fire Resistant Construction. Enforce regulations related to fire

resistant construction, sprinkler systems and early warning fire detection system installation.
Maintain accurate information on construction methods of structures and location and number
of structures on a site.
Policy 10-4.4: Supplemental Fire Mitigation. Require supplemental fire mitigation measures in new
development proposed above the Toe of the Hill or other locations which are outside a 6 minute 40
second response time area. Limit development in those areas where, despite fire mitigation
measures, an acceptable level of protection is considered unattainable.
o
12
Implementation 10-4.1.C: Fire Safety Evaluation. Perform necessary evaluations to focus fire
prevention activities on current fire safety problems in Fremont.
Implementation 10-4.4.A: Supplemental Mitigation. Require supplemental mitigation measures

such as wetbands, fire resistant landscaping, defensible space, fire resistant construction,
sprinkler systems, vegetation management, and early warning fire detection systems for
properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or as determined necessary by the Fire
Department.
Goal 10-6: Hazardous Materials and Waste. Minimum feasible risks to life, property and the
environment resulting from the use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials.
Fremont, City of, 2011, op. cit.
283

OCTOBER 2015
Policy 10-6.1: Hazardous Material Regulation. Maintain sufficient regulation of land use and
construction to minimize potential health and safety risks associated with future, current or past use
of hazardous materials in Fremont.
o
Implementation 10-6.1.A: Land Use Evaluation. Periodically evaluate and update existing land
use designations and regulations to minimize risks associated with hazardous materials.
Policy 10-6.4: Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Comply with State law requiring adoption of a
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
o

Implementation 10-6.4.A: County Plan as City Plan. Maintain the Alameda County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan as the Citys Plan.
Policy 10-6.5: Hazardous Material Oversight. Maintain sufficient oversight regarding the storage,
transport and handling of hazardous materials within the City.
o
Implementation 10-6.5.A: Hazardous Material Enforcement. Enforce the provisions of the

Citys Fire and Building Codes, Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) elements and
related Hazardous Materials Ordinances.
Implementation 10-6.5.C: Truck Route Review. Periodically review and evaluate the Citys
truck routes to ensure minimum possible risk to the community from the transport of hazardous
materials on City streets.
Policy 10-6.7: Emergency Action Plan. Maintain City Emergency Action Plans and sufficient
response capability to respond to a hazardous material emergency.
o
Implementation 10-6.7.A: Hazardous Material Emergency Response. Respond to hazardous

materials related emergencies according to the guidelines in the Hazardous Materials Area Plan.
As noted previously, the City of Fremont has adopted an ordinance that designates areas within the
City as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and the project area is located within a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone as identified by the City.13
East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The Districts Master Plan contains the
following policy related to hazards that would apply to the project:
2.
Policy NRM6: The District will evaluate exotic eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress plantations,
shrubland or woodland areas occurring along the wildland/urban interface on a case-by-case basis
for thinning, removal and/or conversion to a less fire-prone condition, following the methods laid out
in the Fuels Management Plan. The District will minimize the widespread encroachment of exotic
and/or invasive species such as coyote brush, poison oak and broom, etc. on parkland and work to
preserve native plants where feasible.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials
that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of
significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. Because
13
284

OCTOBER 2015

potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be substantially similar for either
project site options, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options.
a.
Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment;
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,

or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled

pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment;
Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response

plan or emergency evacuation plan;
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; or
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.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials for either Option A and Option B and does not generally
differentiate between the two options as hazardous materials-related impacts would essentially be
identical with development of either site option.
(1) Routine Management of Hazardous Materials. Potential impacts related to the
management of hazardous materials during construction and operation for either site option are
described in this section. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant.
Project construction activities at either project option site are expected to involve the routine
management of hazardous materials (e.g., fuels and lubricants) that could pose a significant threat to
human health or the environment if not properly managed. Workers handling hazardous materials are
required to adhere to OSHA and Cal/OSHA health and safety requirements. During operation, it
would be expected that small quantities of cleaning and landscaping chemicals would be used (at the
restroom facilities and the landscaped areas, respectively). Workers handling hazardous materials are
required to adhere to OSHA and Cal/OSHA health and safety requirements.
Compliance with federal and State worker health safety requirements would ensure potential impacts
related to the management of hazardous materials are less than significant and no mitigation measures
would be required.
285

OCTOBER 2015

(2) Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials. Potential impacts related to the accidental
release of hazardous materials during construction and operation for either site option are described
below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant.
Project construction activities at either project option site would include the management of hazardous
materials, such as motor fuels, oils, solvents, and lubricants. Common construction activities, such as
fueling, maintenance, and operation of construction equipment, could result in an accidental release of
hazardous materials into the environment. The use of hazardous materials would be subject to existing
hazardous materials laws and regulations, and adherence to these standards would minimize the
potential occurrence of an accidental release. In addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) must be prepared for coverage under the Construction General Permit in accordance with the
requirements of the State Water Board. The SWPPP requires implementation of Best Management
Practices for hazardous materials storage and soil stockpiles, inspections, maintenance, training of
employees, and containment of releases to prevent runoff into existing stormwater collection systems
or waterways. Since compliance with existing regulations is mandatory and the regulations ensure the
project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment, any impact related to the accidental release of hazardous
materials would be less than significant.
(3) Sensitive School Receptors. The handling or emission of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials near schools must consider potential health effects to school children, who are considered
sensitive receptors. Neither site option is located within 0.25 miles of an existing school and would
not emit hazardous materials. Therefore, this potential impact would be less than significant.
(4) Government Code Section 65962.5. Neither site option is included on the Cortese List
in accordance with Government Code section 65962.5. In addition, based on review of historical
aerial photographs there is no evidence of former hazardous materials uses on either project option
site. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
(5) Emergency Response/Evacuation Plans. Potential impacts related to interference with
emergency access and/or evacuation plans for either option is described below. As discussed, this
Development of either option site would result in the construction of a new roadway within the
Preserve to access the new staging area. This roadway would be open to emergency vehicles and the
general public, with access via a gate and kiosk at the existing terminus of the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area. Fire hydrants would be placed within a minimum of 1,000 feet of the proposed staging
area. The construction and operation of the project at either site would not be expected to impair
implementation of or interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans in the project area
vicinity. The project would not affect the configuration of neighborhood or regional roadways that
would be used for emergency evacuation. The projects additional parking is expected to reduce the
number of vehicles, congestion, and illegally parked cars currently in the neighborhoods and thus
reduce current potential interferences with emergency access. Additionally, the project would comply
with City General Plan Policy 10-4.3, which requires adequate access and clearance for fire
286

OCTOBER 2015

equipment, fire suppression personnel, and evacuation for new development.14 Therefore, this
potential impact would be less than significant.
(6) Aviation Hazards. The project area is located approximately 9 miles northeast of the
Norman Y. Mineta San Jos International Airport and is not located within the Airport Influence
Area; therefore, structures on either option site would not be considered a potential obstruction to
aircraft using the Mineta San Jos International Airport. In addition, the sites are not located near any
private use airstrips. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the
navigable airspace of nearby airports.
(7) Increased Risk of Exposure to Wildland/Urban Fires. Potential impacts related to
increased wildfire hazards associated with either option are described below. As discussed, this
The area surrounding both option sites is designated by the City of Fremont as a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone.15 The proposed project, which would include construction of a staging area
with a parking lot and restrooms, would not represent a land use particularly sensitive to wildfire.
As summarized in the Chapter III, Project Description of this EIR, construction and operation of
either option could increase visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area by
between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (see Section V.J, Transportation
and Circulation), increasing the use of the trails within Mission Peak, particularly those that originate
near the entrance to the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (i.e., Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow
and Horse Heaven trails). This increased usage could result in an overall increase in the recreational
use of Mission Peak, which could potentially increase the likelihood of incidental fires. However,
based on information provided by District staff, no fires have occurred at Mission Peak in the past
year, and no fires have been started by hikers in Mission Peak or any other District parks. Thus an
increase in visitors at Mission Peak is not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
The City of Fremont and the District have adopted policies and implementation measures to address
potential fire hazards as discussed above in the Regulatory Context section. These policies and
implementation measures include supplemental measures for properties in Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones such as wetbands,16 fire resistant landscaping, defensible space, fire resistant
construction, sprinkler systems, fuel and vegetation management, and early warning fire detection
systems. The project itself would not create any new impacts or make potential impacts from
wildland fires more likely, and implementation of City and District policies would ensure potential
impacts from wildland/urban fires are less than significant by ensuring people and structures are not
exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
A wetband is placed around developed areas to provide fire resistance and may consist of moist vegetation.
287

OCTOBER 2015

c.
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts occur when impacts from a proposed project
combine with similar impacts from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in a similar
geographic area. The geographic context for cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts is
the project area and adjoining areas that could be affected by releases of hazardous material or
hazards that could migrate across property lines.
No impacts were identified that would be compounded by additional projects that may be
implemented in the project vicinity (i.e., those identified in Table V-1). Although the development of
other projects in the vicinity of the project area could result in similar potential impacts, those impacts
would not intensify the potential impacts of the proposed project, and the proposed project would not
intensify the potential impacts at other locations in the project vicinity. Compliance with existing
regulations would reduce any potential hazards impacts related to hazardous materials during the
project construction from affecting adjoining areas. Routine operation of the project would not
contribute to any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials because no use of
hazardous materials (beyond minor quantities of cleaning chemicals and landscaping materials)
would occur during the operational phase of the project, and implementation of the Citys policies
and implementation measures and Districts Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management
Plan would ensure potential impacts from wildland/urban fires are less than significant. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
to cumulative impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials, and the cumulative impact would
288

OCTOBER 2015
J.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This section describes the existing transportation, circulation and parking conditions in the vicinity of
the project site and addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project in terms of intersection
level of service as well as trip generation, traffic distribution, traffic assignment, and potential
intersection and roadway improvements to mitigate expected future deficiencies. The projects
potential effects on parking, transit services, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the project area are
also evaluated. The discussion below is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis1 prepared for the
project and included in Appendix E of this EIR.
Because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of up to 300
new parking spaces within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, potential offsite impacts to transportation and circulation would be the same under either option. Therefore, the
analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options.
1.
Setting
The setting for the transportation and circulation issues and the scope of the analysis documented in
this section are described below. The remainder of this section presents the analysis methodologies
and a discussion of the existing setting and future background conditions.
a.
Scope of Study. Figure V.J-1 shows the location of the proposed project and the adjacent street
network. The proposed project would generate vehicular trips that would in turn increase traffic
volumes on the nearby street network. The potential traffic impacts related to the proposed project
were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Fremont.
Significant traffic impacts due to the project were determined based on weekday AM, weekday PM,
and Saturday AM peak hour levels of service at seven signalized and unsignalized (indicated by *)
intersections study intersections. The study intersections are:
1. Mission Boulevard/Grimmer Boulevard/Antelope Drive
2. Mission Boulevard/Stanford Avenue
3. Mission Boulevard/Paseo Padre Parkway
4. Weibel Drive/Antelope Drive*
5. Weibel Drive/Stanford Avenue*
6. Vineyard Avenue/Antelope Drive*
7. Vineyard Avenue/Stanford Avenue*
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015. Stanford Avenue Staging Area, Transportation Impact Analysis.
October 12.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5j-Transportation.docx (10/14/15)
289
FIGURE V.J-1
not to scale
SOURCE: HEXAGON, JULY 2015.
I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_VJ1.ai (7/21/15)

Site Location and Study Intersections

OCTOBER 2015

Because the project would generate fewer than 100 weekday PM peak-hour trips, an Alameda County
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) analysis is not required. Traffic conditions at the study
intersections and street segments were analyzed for the Friday AM and PM peak hours and for the
Saturday AM peak hour. The weekday AM peak hour is generally between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.,
and the weekday PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Saturday AM peak
hour is generally between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. The Friday AM and PM peak hours represent the
peak period of adjacent street traffic, and the Saturday AM peak hour represents the peak period of
trip generation for the site. It is during these periods that the existing street traffic volumes combined
with the Mission Peak park demand are highest. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following
scenarios:
Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new traffic counts
conducted on May 1 and 2, 2015.
Existing Plus Project Conditions. Projected peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by
adding the additional traffic generated by the project to existing traffic volumes. Existing
Plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine
impacts of the project.
Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions represent forecasted future (year 2035)

traffic conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes (without the project) were estimated using
the City of Fremonts Travel Demand Model, based on the land use development assumed
in the Citys General Plan.
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative with project traffic volumes were
estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the project to cumulative traffic
volumes. Cumulative Plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative
conditions in order to determine project impacts.
The traffic analysis also includes an evaluation of parking conditions on-site and on the adjacent
residential streets.
b.
Methodology. This section presents the methods used to evaluate the traffic conditions for each
scenario described above. Traffic conditions in the study area are assessed through the evaluation of
peak hour levels of service (LOS) at critical intersections and roadway segments. The LOS concept
qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions associated with varying levels of traffic congestion based
on a measurable estimate of delay. The various analysis methods are described below. All of the
study intersections and street segments are located in the City of Fremont and are subject to the City
of Fremont Level of Service Standards for intersections, which is LOS D or better.
(1) Signalized Intersections. Level of service at signalized intersections in the City of
Fremont is based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM) method. TRAFFIX software is
used to apply the 2000 HCM operations method for evaluation of conditions at signalized
intersections. The 2000 HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of
average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Control delay is the amount of delay
that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection, and includes initial
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The correlation
between average delay and LOS is shown in Table V.J-1.
291

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.J-1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions

Level of
Service
A
Description
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green
phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very
low vehicle delay.
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths.
More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle
delay.
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths.
Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles
stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without
stopping.
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result
from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or
high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle
failures are noticeable.
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be
major contributing causes of such delay levels.
Average Control
Delay per Vehicle
(sec.)
10.0 or Less
10.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 55.0
55.1 to 80.0
Greater than 80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, pp. 10-16.
(2) Unsignalized Intersections. Level of service for unsignalized intersections was

determined using TRAFFIX based on the 2000 HCM methodology. All four unsignalized study
intersections are two-way stop-controlled intersections. For the purpose of this study, the level of
service is reported for both the overall average delay and for the worst movement on the side street at
the intersection. The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table V.J-2.
The City of Fremont does not have formal impact criteria for unsignalized intersections. This
condition is common for many jurisdictions because it is generally not the unsignalized intersections
that limit the overall capacity of a roadway.
Table V.J-2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions

Level of
Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Description
Little or no traffic delay
Short traffic delays
Average traffic delays
Long traffic delays
Very long traffic delays
Extreme traffic delays
Volume-to-Capacity
Ratio
10.0 or Less
10.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 50.0
Greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
292

OCTOBER 2015

c.
Existing Traffic Conditions. The following section generally describes the transportation
system in the project study area, including key facilities of the roadway, transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle network. Existing lane geometry, peak hour volumes, and level of service conditions for each
of the study intersections and roadway segments are also described.
(1) Existing Street Network. Access to Mission Peak would not be altered with
development of the proposed project and ingress and egress would continue to be provided by
Stanford Avenue. Regional access to Mission Peak is provided via Interstate 680 (I-680). Local
access to the site is provided via Mission Boulevard, Grimmer Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway,
Antelope Drive, Weibel Drive, Vineyard Avenue, and Stanford Avenue. These roadways are
described below.
Interstate 680. I-680 is a north/south freeway extending from I-280 in San Jose at the
south, to I-80 in Fairfield at the north. I-680 is predominantly six lanes in the study area,
with three mixed-flow lanes northbound and three mixed-flow lanes southbound. However,
the southbound direction also has an express/toll/HOV lane and an additional auxiliary lane
over numerous lengthy sections of freeway. The closest access to I-680 from the proposed
project would be via the I-680 interchange at Mission Boulevard.
Mission Boulevard. Mission Boulevard (also State Route [SR] 238 and SR-262 over
portions) is a predominantly north-south, major arterial extending from I-880 in south
Fremont to I-580 in Castro Valley. Mission Boulevard is four-lanes wide over most of its
length, including in the vicinity of the project. Within the vicinity of the project site,
Mission Boulevard has sidewalks on the east side of the street and on the west side over the
segment south of Paseo Padre Parkway. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the street.
Mission Boulevard provides direct access to the site via Stanford Avenue. Mission
Boulevard is also part of SR-238 from I-680 to SR-92 in Hayward, and serves as SR-262
between I-680 and I-880.
Grimmer Boulevard. Grimmer Boulevard has two sections: the southern part, nearest to the
site, called South Grimmer Boulevard, and the northern part, called simply Grimmer
Boulevard. South Grimmer Boulevard intersects Mission Boulevard at its eastern end,
where it becomes Antelope Drive. South Grimmer Boulevard runs east-west and is two
lanes wide between Mission Boulevard and Osgood Road/Warm Springs Boulevard and is
four lanes wide to Auto Mall Parkway where South Grimmer Boulevard becomes Grimmer
Boulevard. The eastern part of South Grimmer Boulevard, in the vicinity of the site, is
located in a residential area where it has sidewalks on both sides of the street. South
Grimmer Boulevard provides access to the site via Antelope Drive and Vineyard Avenue,
and via Mission Boulevard.
Paseo Padre Parkway. Paseo Padre Parkway is primarily an east-west arterial in the
vicinity of the project site. It forms a three-quarter loop around Fremont, extending from
Warren Avenue at Warm Springs Boulevard at the very southern end of Fremont, to SR-84
into Newark. Paseo Padre Parkway is four lanes wide and has sidewalks on both sides of
the street in the vicinity of the site. It provides access to the site via Mission Boulevard.
Stanford Avenue. Stanford Avenue is a two-lane, east-west residential street that extends
from Mission Boulevard to the project site. Stanford Avenue provides the only direct
access to the site. Stanford Avenue has a sidewalk on the north side of the street over its
entire length from Mission Boulevard to the project site, and on the south side of the street
between Mission Boulevard and a point just before Weibel Drive.
293

OCTOBER 2015

Antelope Drive. Antelope Drive is a two-lane, east-west residential street that extends from
Mission Boulevard eastward to Boar Circle. Antelope Drive changes to South Grimmer
Boulevard west of Mission Boulevard. Antelope Drive provides access to the site via
Vineyard Avenue and Weibel Drive. Antelope Drive has sidewalks on both sides of the
street over its entire length between Mission Boulevard and Boar Circle.
Vineyard Avenue. Vineyard Avenue is a two-lane, north-south residential street that

extends from Antelope Drive to Stanford Avenue. Vineyard Avenue provides access to the
site via Stanford Avenue. Vineyard Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the street over
its entire length between Antelope Drive and Stanford Avenue.
Weibel Drive. Weibel Drive is a two-lane, north-south residential street that extends from
Antelope Drive to Stanford Avenue. Weibel Drive provides access to the site via Stanford
Avenue. Weibel Drive has sidewalks on both sides of the street over its entire length
between Antelope Drive and Stanford Avenue.
(2) Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicycle facilities are divided into three
classes. Class I bikeways are separate bike paths that are physically separated from motor vehicles and
offer two-way bicycle travel on a separate path. Class II bikeways are striped bike lanes on roadways
that are marked by signage and pavement markings. Class III bikeways are bike routes and only have
signs to help guide bicyclists on recommended routes to certain locations. The Fremont Bicycle Master
Plan Update2 describes the existing bicycle network in the City of Fremont. The existing bicycle
facilities in the vicinity of the project site are described below and shown in Figure V.J-2.
Mission Boulevard: Existing Class II bicycle lanes from Paseo Padre Parkway to Telles
Lane located just south of I-680 at the northern interchange with Mission Boulevard.
Grimmer Boulevard: Existing Class II bicycle lanes from Paseo Padre Parkway (north, at
Lake Elizabeth) to Mission Boulevard.
Paseo Padre Parkway: Existing Class II bicycle lanes from I-680 (north) to Warren
Avenue at I-680 (south).
Stanford Avenue: Existing Class II bicycle lanes eastbound from Mission Boulevard to the
project site. In the westbound direction there are bicycle lanes only from a point 200 feet
west of Weibel Drive to Mission Boulevard.
Hidden Valley Trail: Unpaved bicycle and pedestrian path from the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area to the summit of Mission Peak.
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of sidewalks along the streets near the
existing staging area. Sidewalks are found along virtually all previously-described local roadways and
streets in the study area, except as noted in the previous descriptions of the roadways. Crosswalks are
provided at the intersections on Mission Boulevard.
Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Bicycle Master Plan. January 17.
294
FIGURE V.J-2
not to scale

Existing Bicycle Facilities

OCTOBER 2015

(3) Existing Transit Service. Existing transit service in the study area is provided by the
Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District. The transit service provided in the study area is
described below and shown in Figure V.J-3.
Line 210. The 210 line runs between Union Landing Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road
in Union City and Ohlone College on a daily basis.
Line 217. The 217 line provides service between the Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) station, Ohlone College, and the Great Mall Light Rail station via Mission
Boulevard. The line operates with 30-minute weekday commute-hour headways and 40minute headways on weekends. Line 218 also runs between BART and Ohlone College.
Line 239. The 239 line provides service between the Fremont BART station and the
intersection of Milpitas Boulevard and Dixon Landing Road via S. Grimmer Boulevard and
Mission Boulevard, with 45- minute weekday commute-hour headways. The 239 line does
not provide weekend service.
The closest bus stop to the existing staging area is located on Mission Boulevard near Paseo Padre
Parkway, approximately 0.75 miles from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The Fremont
BART station is located northeast of Paseo Padre Parkway between Walnut Avenue and Mowry
Avenue, approximately 6.5 miles from the Preserve.
Information regarding public transit is posted on the Districts Mission Peak webpage with links to
www.transit.511.org and to the Transit and Trails link that provides transit, biking, and walking
directions to a variety of parks, including Mission Peak. Public transit information is also printed on
the map page of the Mission Peak brochure.
(4) Existing Parking and Ride Locations. Several park and ride lots are located within the
City of Fremont. The following provides a description of these lots.
Mission Boulevard/Callery Court. This park and ride lot is located approximately 2.3 miles
northeast of Ohlone College and 4.2 miles to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This lot is
adjacent to Mission San Jose Community Park and includes 22 parking spaces and four
bike lockers.
I-680. This lot is located at the junction of I-680 and Mission Boulevard, approximately 1.4
miles from Ohlone College and approximately 3.3 miles from the Stanford Avenue Staging
Area. This lot provides 133 spaces.
Ardenwood Boulevard. This lot is located on Ardenwood Terrace approximately 10.9 miles
from Ohlone College and approximately 11.3 miles from the Stanford Avenue Staging
Area. This lot provides 400 parking spaces as well as 4 bike locks and 20 bicycle parking
spaces.
(5) Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes. The existing lane configurations
at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field. The existing intersection lane
configurations are shown on Figure V.J-4. Existing peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections
were obtained from manual turning-movement counts conducted in May 2015 at the study intersections. The existing peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure V.J-5. Traffic count data is
included in Appendix E.
296
FIGURE V.J-3
not to scale

Existing Transit Service
FIGURE V.J-4
not to scale

Existing Lane Configurations
FIGURE V.J-5
not to scale

Existing Traffic Volumes

OCTOBER 2015

(6) Existing Intersection Levels of Service. The results of the signalized intersection level
of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table V.J-3. The results show that,
measured against the City of Fremont Level of Service Standards, all of the signalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the Friday AM and
PM peak hours and the Saturday AM peak hour of traffic. The level of service calculation sheets are
included in Appendix E.
Table V.J-3: Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project)

Intersection
1. Mission/Grimmer/Antelope
2. Mission/Stanford
3. Mission/Paseo Padre
a
b
Peak Hour a
AM
PM
Sat
AM
PM
Sat
AM
PM
Sat
Count Date
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
05/01/2015
Average
Delay b
23.0
15.0
12.9
10.7
9.1
8.7
27.9
30.4
22.1
LOS
C
B
B
B
A
A
C
C
C
AM and PM peak hours pertain to Friday. Saturday peak hour is between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
Signalized intersection level of service is based on average control delay for the entire intersection.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2015.
(7) Observed Traffic Conditions. Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to
identify any existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of
service. The purpose of this effort was to: 1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be
directly related to intersection level of service, and 2) to identify any locations where the LOS calculation does not accurately reflect level of service as observed in the field.
Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during the study periods, and the level of service
analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations
showed that the following operational issue warrants mention:
Mission Boulevard and Grimmer Boulevard/Antelope Drive. During the weekday PM peak
hour, the queue of northbound through vehicles occasionally backed up past the end of the
northbound left-turn pocket thereby preventing northbound left-turning vehicles from
entering the pocket. However, even on these occasions, all northbound left-turning vehicles
appeared to successfully pass through the intersection in a single cycle.
Aside from these conditions, peak-hour traffic operations at the intersections appeared to be satisfactory.
(8) Cumulative Traffic Conditions. It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation
network under cumulative conditions would be the same as described under existing conditions.
Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated using projections from the City of Fremonts Travel
Demand Model based on land use development assumed in the Citys General Plan. Traffic volumes
were forecast for the future year 2035. The cumulative (without project) intersection traffic volumes are
shown on Figure V.J-6 and cumulative level of service conditions are shown below in Table V.J-4.
300
FIGURE V.J-6
not to scale

Cumulative Traffic Volumes

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.J-4: Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service (Without Project)

Intersection
2. Mission/Stanford
a
b
Peak
Hour a
AM
PM
Sat
AM
PM
Sat
AM
PM
Sat
Average
Delay b
25.7
17.4
13.2
8.9
10.1
10.7
31.9
25.6
25.2
LOS
C
B
B
A
B
B
C
C
C
d.
Existing Parking Conditions. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area contains a surface
parking lot with 43 parking spaces.3 Two of the 43 spaces are ADA-accessible spaces and the
remainder are standard parking spaces.
With only 43 parking spaces available at this location, visitors to Mission Peak generate a demand for
parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance that exceeds the capacity of the existing lot due to the
popularity of the trails that originate at this staging area and provide access to the summit of Mission
Peak. Visitors park on the public streets (i.e., those that are not gated) in the residential neighborhoods generally west of Vineyard Avenue. Streets that are most heavily used by visitors to Mission
Peak are shown in Figure V.J-7. As described previously, public streets west of Mission Peak are
under the jurisdiction of the City of Fremont. On-street parking is enforced by the City of Fremont
Police. Currently, City of Fremont Police can issue citations for parking along red curbs, in front of
fire hydrants, and blocking driveways. On-street public parking is currently allowed on these streets
except for posted times for street cleaning.
Per trail counter data provided by the District,4 trail usage in May is nearly as high as trail usage in
the summer months. In summer, however, ambient traffic levels on public streets are significantly
lower than in May because school is not in session and people take vacations. When considering the
combined effects of both ambient commute traffic and traffic generated from the existing Stanford
Avenue Staging Area, it was determined that May would be the most representative time of year to
evaluate traffic and parking conditions because both park traffic and ambient street traffic are near
their peaks.
3
Note that in a survey conducted in 2012, it was assumed that the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area provided
47 parking spaces. This was because at the time, 47 vehicles were observed to be parked within the staging area. Some of
these vehicles were however parked in unmarked spaces. The existing Staging Area currently provides 43 marked spaces for
vehicles.
4
BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29. The
Trail count numbers are based on TRAFFIX counters installed by the District.
302
FIGURE V.J-7
not to scale
SOURCE: HEXAGON, SEPTEMBER 2015.

Streets Most Heavily Used for Parking by Trail Users

OCTOBER 2015

304

OCTOBER 2015

Surveys were conducted in May 2015 to determine both: 1) the existing trip generation, and 2) the
number of vehicles parked in the surface lot and on the surrounding residential streets during each
hour. The peak period of parking accumulation (total number of cars parked at a given time) on a
weekday was found to be Friday evening around 7:00 p.m. The peak period of parking accumulation
on the weekend was found to be Saturday morning around 9:00 a.m.
(1) Weekday Peak Conditions. The survey showed that on Friday, May 1, 2015, the
maximum parking accumulation was 104 vehicles at 7:00 p.m. Because the existing surface lot
contains 43 parking spaces, there were 61 vehicles parked on the surrounding streets. Most of those
vehicles (46 vehicles) were parked on Vineyard Avenue, with the remainder (15 vehicles) parked on
Stanford Avenue.
(2) Saturday Peak Conditions. The survey showed that on Saturday May 2, 2015, the
maximum parking accumulation was 464 vehicles at 9:00 a.m. At that time, there were 42 vehicles
parked in the Stanford Avenue Staging Area surface lot. The remaining 422 vehicles were parked on
the adjacent streets. These vehicles were parked on every available (i.e., non-gated) residential street
east of Mission Boulevard within about 0.65 miles walking distance from the trail entrance. Two of
the four streets Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue were completely filled with parked
vehicles. Please note that cars were not parked on Stanford Avenue directly west of the existing
staging area because that portion of the street is signed no parking, and cars are not parked on
Vinehill Terrace or Hidden Valley Terrace (those streets closest to the existing staging area) as those
streets are private and gated. The time profile of vehicle parking accumulation indicates that most
vehicles arriving between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday would find the existing 43-space lot to
be full, and would therefore have to park on the street.
e.
Regulatory Context. The following is a summary of State, regional, County, and City
regulations that apply to transportation and circulation within the study area. All study intersections
are under the jurisdiction of the City of Fremont.
(1) State Regulations. The California Department of Transportations (Caltrans)
responsibilities include the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of interstate freeways as
wells as State highways. Within this study area, I-680, SR-238, and SR-262 fall under Caltrans
jurisdiction. Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December, 2002)
identifies the information that Caltrans requires in evaluating the effect of local development and land
use changes on State highway facilities.
(2) Senate Bill 743. On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743.
Among other things, SB 743 creates a process to change the way transportation impacts are analyzed
under CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 and following). Currently, environmental review
of transportation impacts focuses on the delay that vehicles experience at intersections and on
roadway segments. Delay is often measured using level of service, or LOS as described previously.
Mitigation for increased delay associated with a new project often involves increasing capacity (i.e.,
the width of a roadway or size of an intersection), which may increase auto use and emissions and
discourage alternative forms of transportation. Under SB 743, the focus of transportation analysis will
305

OCTOBER 2015

shift from driver delay to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, creation of multimodal networks
and promotion of a mix of land uses.5
The Governors Office has submitted for review a preliminary discussion draft for how future
development projects should be analyzed under CEQA. The guidelines are not finalized. The latest
update was provided by the Governors Office on May 1, 2015, and describes the various comments
on the draft guidelines, but provides no indication of when final guidelines will be released. The draft
guidelines propose that a new methodology based on vehicle miles traveled would replace traditional
level of service metrics. At a minimum, the new method would apply for areas that are located within
0.5 miles of a major transit stop once the guidelines are adopted. Because the proposed project is not
be located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop and the draft guidelines are not adopted, the
changes proposed in SB 743 do not currently apply to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion
project.
(3) Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission. (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the San
Francisco Bay Area. The MTC functions as both the State-mandated regional transportation planning
agency and the federally-mandated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region. As
such, it is responsible for regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive
blueprint for the development of transportation facilities within the region. The Commission also
screens requests from local agencies for State and federal grants for transportation projects to
determine their compatibility with the Plan.
(4) Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. The Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (CMA) manages the County's blueprint to reduce congestion and improve air
quality. In this role, the CMA makes decisions on what local projects can utilize federal and State
funding. The CMA prepares, adopts and updates the Countys CMP and the Countywide Transportation Plan, last updated in October 2013 and June 2012, respectively.
(5) Local Regulations. The City of Fremonts General Plan was adopted in December 2011.
The General Plan provides a blueprint for future growth and development within the City with a 2035
year time horizon. The transportation goals outlined in the plan include providing: an efficient, safe, and
environmentally sustainable transportation system; increasing transit usage; and improving the
pedestrian environment. The General Plan identifies an acceptable standard of LOS D for intersection
performance levels.
Article 20 of the City of Fremont Zoning Ordinance provides regulations for parking. The purpose of
the regulations are to: 1) provide for suitable off-street vehicular parking facilities, 2) ensure the safe
movement of traffic on the public streets, 3) protect adjacent residential and institutional uses from
the adverse impacts of vehicular traffic and parking congestion generated by various uses, 4) establish
minimum standards for the development of parking areas, and 5) regulate the location and storage of
5
Governors Office of Planning and Research, 2014. Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA
Guidelines. Available online at www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_Preliminary_Discussion_Draft_of_Updates_Implementing_SB
_743_080614.pdf (accessed July 24, 2015). August 6.
306

OCTOBER 2015

recreational vehicles. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide provisions for establishing parking
supply for park uses.
East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan. The following policies related to
transportation and circulation are located in the East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan.
2.
Policy PA4: The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use.
Where feasible, the District will provide alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets. The
District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional park system by public transit.
Policy PA5: The District will cooperate with local and regional planning efforts to create more
walkable and bikeable communities, and coordinate park access opportunities with local trails and bike
paths developed by other agencies to promote green transportation access to the Regional Parks and
Trails.
Policy PA6: The District will comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
use the current edition of the California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines as its standard for making
the improvements necessary to create accessible circulation, programs, and facilities throughout the
Park District.
Policy PA7: The District will evaluate and monitor the compliance level of access routes from public
transit stops into the parks and encourage local agencies to make the improvements necessary to
provide compliant accessibility to the parks.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to transportation and circulation
that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of
part of this section presents the impacts related to the proposed project. As previously discussed,
because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of up to 300
parking spaces within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, potential impacts to
transportation and circulation would be the same under either option. Therefore, the analysis in this
section does not differentiate between the two project options.
a.
Criteria of Significance. The project would have a significant impact on transportation and
circulation if it would:
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;
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;
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;
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
307

OCTOBER 2015

Result in inadequate emergency access; or
Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
A description of the analysis methodologies for the signalized intersection analysis, the unsignalized
intersection analysis, the parking analysis, and the Existing Plus Project intersection analysis is
discussed below.
(1) Signalized Intersection Analysis. To determine whether the project would conflict with
an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy, establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, this analysis used City of Fremont Level of Service Standards to determine
significant impacts on signalized intersections. The project would create a significant adverse impact
on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if, for any peak hour:
1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under
no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under Project conditions, or
2. The intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under no project
conditions, and the addition of the project causes the intersection average control delay to
increase by more than 4 seconds per vehicle.
A significant impact at a signalized intersection would be satisfactorily mitigated if measures are
implemented that would restore intersection levels of service to an acceptable LOS or restore the
intersection to operating levels that are better than no project conditions.
(2) Unsignalized Intersection Analysis. As previously discussed, the City of Fremont does
not have formal impact criteria to apply to unsignalized intersections, as is common for many
jurisdictions because it is generally not the unsignalized intersections that limit the overall capacity of
a roadway. The analysis of unsignalized intersections is typically evaluated by considering overall
LOS, movement delay, availability of alternate routes, intersection spacing, and an analysis of traffic
signal warrants.
b.
Existing Plus Project Conditions Analysis. The following includes an analysis of Existing
Plus Project impacts. The discussion begins with a description of the proposed projects trip
estimates, trip generation, and trip distribution and assignment. Impacts to signalized and
unsignalized intersections are also discussed and these impacts would be less than significant.
(1) Trip Estimates. The magnitude and location of traffic produced by a new development
or by a change in the infrastructure are estimated using a three-step process: 1) trip generation, 2) trip
distribution, and 3) trip assignment. To determine the number of new trips generated by the project,
the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the peak study periods. As part
of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions which the project trips would
travel to and from the project site. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to
specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described further below.
(2) Trip Generation. Trip generation for the project could not be estimated using standard
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates because there are no published trip generation rates
for a project of this type. Therefore, for this study, the trip generation was determined from infor-
308

OCTOBER 2015

mation gathered from surveys conducted at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area (at the trailhead
to Mission Peak) in May 2015. The surveys entailed collecting data of two types: 1) counting the
numbers of visitors entering and exiting the Preserve at this location on foot during the peak two-hour
periods, and 2) observing the numbers of people arriving in vehicles destined for the park (to obtain an
estimate of average vehicle occupancy). In addition, the District provided mode split data for the park
so that users who walked, biked, or utilized transit could be considered. From these data, the existing
trip generation for the Stanford Avenue Staging Area was determined.
The project trip generation was estimated based on latent demand for the proposed additional parking
at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. From the estimates of latent demand, which were provided by
BAE Urban Economics,6 estimates could be made of how much additional traffic would be generated
as a result of adding up to 300 parking spaces near the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak.
As described in Chapter III, Project Description, according to surveys prepared for the District
suggest that the provision of more parking and restrooms near the Stanford Avenue entrance to
Mission Peak could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over
existing conditions,7 for a maximum increase of approximately 18,777 visitors compared to existing
conditions (refer to Appendix B of this EIR for additional information).8 The project traffic demand
was estimated by applying the maximum percentage increase (38.8 percent) to the existing traffic
demand. The resulting project trip generation is shown in Table V.J-5. It shows that the project would
generate 21 new peak-hour trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 16 new trips during the PM
peak hour. The project would generate 121 new trips during the Saturday AM peak hour.
Table V.J-5: Project Trip Generation Estimates

Intersection
Existing Trip Generation a
Additional Project Trips
Caused by Latent Demand b
a
b
Friday
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
33
20
53
28
12
40
13
21
11
16
Saturday
AM Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
104
207
311
41
80
121
Obtained from surveys conducted at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area on May 1 and 2, 2015.
Based on the results of the latent demand survey, the proposed increase in parking supply would likely increase
demand up to 38.8 percent.
As described in Chapter III, Project Description, this projected increase in visitor demand is based on responses to a
survey question that assumed parking at the new staging area would be free. However, when respondents were asked about
future visits if a $5 parking fee were charged for the new staging area, this estimated latent demand for parking disappeared,
and in fact overall visitation was projected to decrease slightly compared to current visitation rates. Because no decision has
been made with respect to any future fees associated with the staging area and, to be conservative in its analysis of
environmental impacts, this EIR analyzes potential impacts associated with a 38 percent projected increase in visitor
demand.
8
BAE Urban Economics, 2015. op. cit.
309

OCTOBER 2015

(3) Trip Distribution and Assignment. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic
to and from the project area was developed based on a zip-code survey conducted by the District in
2014. The zip code survey data show approximately where existing trail users are coming from to
access the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The trip distribution data showed that approximately 70
percent of the project trips would be directed to and from Mission Boulevard to the south, 22 percent
to and from Mission Boulevard to the north, 4 percent to and from S. Grimmer Boulevard, 2 percent
from Paseo Padre Parkway to and from the west, and 2 percent from Paseo Padre Parkway to and
from the east and south. The project trips were then assigned to the roadway system in accordance
with the directional distribution described above. The project distribution and assignment of the
project trips to the roadways and intersections are shown on Figure V.J-8.
(4) Parking Analysis. The City of Fremont does not have established parking standards for
open space uses. Parking deficiencies are not themselves CEQA impacts unless they result in physical
impacts to the environment such as noise and air quality impacts from idling cars and additional
traffic on neighborhood streets. Even though the proposed project is expected to improve the existing
condition by reducing the number of vehicles parking on neighborhood streets and thus not result in
any CEQA impacts associated with parking, this topic is addressed in this section for informational
purposes.
c.
Project Impacts. The proposed projects potential to result in transportation and circulation
related impacts is discussed below. This impact assessment applies to both Options A and B, unless
otherwise noted.
(1) Conflict with Circulation System Performance Standards. The proposed projects
potential to conflict with adopted measures of effectiveness for the transportation circulation system
is discussed below. As discussed, this impact would be less than significant.
Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis. Project impacts were evaluated by comparing
existing traffic volumes to Existing Plus Project traffic volumes on the existing street system. For the
Existing Plus Project scenario, projected peak hour traffic volumes with the project were estimated by
adding to existing traffic volumes the traffic generated by the proposed project. The Existing Plus
Project traffic volumes at the study intersections and roadway segments are shown on Figure V.J-9.
The results of the level of service analysis for the signalized intersections under Existing Plus Project
conditions are summarized in Table V.J-6. The results show that, measured against the City of
Fremont Level of Service standards, all of the signalized study intersections would operate at
acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the Friday AM and PM peak hours and the
Saturday AM peak hour of traffic under Existing Plus Project conditions. Therefore, according to
Fremont Level of Service Standards, the proposed project would not create any level of service
impacts at the signalized intersections, and this impact would be less than significant. The detailed
level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix E of this EIR.
310
FIGURE V.J-8
not to scale

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
FIGURE V.J-9
not to scale

Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.J-6: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Average
Average
a
Delay b
Delay b
LOS
LOS
Intersection
AM
23.0
C
23.1
C
PM
15.0
B
15.0
B
Sat
12.9
B
12.8
B
AM
10.7
B
10.9
B
2. Mission/Stanford
PM
9.1
A
9.2
A
Sat
8.7
A
9.3
A
AM
27.9
C
27.8
C
PM
30.4
C
30.4
C
Sat
22.1
C
21.8
C
a
b
Peak Hour
In addition, at all of the unsignalized intersections analyzed, the volumes on the side streets are too
low (no greater than 100 peak-hour vehicles) to meet the peak-hour signal warrant. The intersection
level of service results for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown in Table V.J-7. The results
show that all of the unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS B or better under Existing
Plus Project conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and the Saturday AM peak hour.
Given that LOS B is considered a very good level of service and that none of the unsignalized study
intersections would meet traffic signal warrants, the proposed projects impact on unsignalized
intersections would be less than significant.
Table V.J-7: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary, Existing Plus Project
Conditions
Existing
Peak
Existing
Plus Project
Hour a
Average Delay b
Roadway
Count Date Average Delay b
LOS
AM
05/01/15
2.6/9.8
A/A
2.6/9.8
Weibel/Antelope
PM
05/01/15
1.2/9.2
A/A
1.2/9.2
Sat
05/02/15
1.6/9.5
A/A
1.5/9.6
AM
05/01/15
2.8/8.7
A/A
2.5/8.7
Weibel/Stanford
PM
05/01/15
2.7/8.7
A/A
2.4/8.7
Sat
05/02/15
2.2/9.0
A/A
1.7/9.5
AM
05/01/15
0.4/9.3
A/A
0.4/9.3
Vineyard/Antelope
PM
05/01/15
0.9/8.9
A/A
0.8/8.9
Sat
05/02/15
3.1/9.0
A/A
3.1/9.1
AM
05/01/15
2.1/8.8
A/A
1.9/9.0
Vineyard/Stanford
PM
05/01/15
2.1/8.9
A/A
2.0/9.0
Sat
05/02/15
3.7/9.0
A/A
2.7/9.6
a
b
Side street stop controlled intersection level of service is based on average delay reported as follows: overall
intersection delay / worst approach delay.
LOS
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
A/A
313

OCTOBER 2015

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Analysis. Cumulative traffic volumes with the proposed
project were estimated by adding the traffic generated by the proposed project to the cumulative
without project traffic volumes. The Cumulative Plus Project intersection traffic volumes are shown
on Figure V.J-10.
The intersection level of service results under cumulative conditions are summarized in Table V.J-8.
The results show that, measured against the City of Fremont Level of Service Standards, all of the
signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) under
cumulative conditions with and without the project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and
the Saturday AM peak hour. Therefore, according to Fremont Level of Service Standards, the
proposed project would not create any level of service impacts at the signalized intersections under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions and this impact would be less than significant. The detailed level
of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix E.
Table V.J-8: Intersection Level of Service Summary Under Cumulative Conditions

Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Peak
Avg.
Avg.
Hour a
Delay b
Delay b
Intersection
LOS
LOS
AM
25.7
C
25.7
C
Mission/Grimmer/Antelope
PM
17.4
B
17.5
B
Sat
13.2
B
13.3
B
AM
8.9
A
9.2
A
Mission/Stanford
PM
10.1
B
10.3
B
Sat
10.7
B
11.2
B
AM
31.9
C
31.9
C
Mission/Paseo Padre
PM
25.6
C
25.7
C
Sat
25.2
C
25.2
C
a
b
In addition, at all of the unsignalized intersections analyzed, the volumes on the side streets are too
low (no greater than 100 peak-hour vehicles) to meet the peak-hour signal warrant. The intersection
level of service results for Cumulative Plus Project conditions are shown in Table V.J-9. The results
show that all of the unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS B or better under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and the Saturday
AM peak hour. Given that LOS B is considered a very good level of service and that none of the
unsignalized study intersections would meet traffic signal warrants, the proposed projects impact on
unsignalized intersections would be less than significant.
314
FIGURE V.J-10
not to scale

Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.J-9: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

Cumulative
Peak
Cumulative
Plus Project
Hour a
Avg. Delay b
Avg. Delay b
LOS
Roadway
Count Date
LOS
AM
05/01/15
2.8/10.6
A/B
2.8/10.6
A/B
Weibel/Antelope
PM
05/01/15
1.2/9.7
A/A
1.2/9.7
A/A
Sat
05/02/15
1.7/10.2
A/B
1.6/10.3
A/B
AM
05/01/15
2.8/8.9
A/A
2.6/9.0
A/A
Weibel/Stanford
PM
05/01/15
2.7/8.8
A/A
2.6/8.9
A/A
Sat
05/02/15
2.3/9.4
A/A
1.9/10.0
A/A
AM
05/01/15
0.4/9.8
A/A
0.4/9.8
A/A
Vineyard/Antelope
PM
05/01/15
0.9/9.1
A/A
0.9/9.1
A/A
Sat
05/02/15
3.2/9.5
A/A
3.3/9.5
A/A
AM
05/01/15
2.2/9.1
A/A
2.0/9.2
A/A
Vineyard/Stanford
PM
05/01/15
2.2/9.1
A/A
2.1/9.2
A/A
Sat
05/02/15
3.8/9.4
A/A
3.1/10.1
A/A
a
b
Side street stop controlled intersection level of service is based on average delay reported as follows: overall
intersection delay / worst approach delay.
(2) Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Agency Program. The

proposed project would generate 100 peak hour trips; therefore, impacts to a CMP-designated road or
highway would not result from the proposed project.
(3) Air Traffic Patterns. The San Jos International Airport, which is the closest airport to
the project area, is located approximately 9 miles to the southwest. The proposed project includes the
development of a new staging area and would not include any tall buildings or other hazards that
would affect the operation of air traffic patterns, therefore, no impact would result.
(4) Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature. Neither Option A nor Option B would
increase traffic hazards as a result of the projects design features or incompatible uses. The proposed
staging areas would provide parking spaces, public restrooms, picnic tables, associated landscaping and
utility improvements, a paved roadway from the existing staging area to the new staging area, and new
trail connections. Development of Option A would include a culvert repair along a trail section that
crosses Aqua Caliente Creek and development of Option B would include development of a new
vehicular bridge and pedestrian bridge at two locations over Agua Caliente Creek. None of these design
features substantially increases traffic hazards. The proposed project does not create any sharp curves,
dangerous intersections, or other traffic hazards. The connecting roadway between the existing staging
area and proposed project was included to avoid potential hazards that could occur from cars repeatedly
entering and exiting different staging areas as they search for parking within the boundary of Mission
Peak. Nor do any design features result in traffic hazards due to incompatible uses such as would occur
with a project that resulted in farm equipment on roadways. The reduction in the number of vehicles
parking on neighborhood streets as a result of the project will reduce the number of pedestrians on
neighborhood streets, which will reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. This condition will
also reduce conflicts between bicycles and vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians as parking vehicles
often block the path of bicycles and result in accidents due to inattention to bicyclists while parking.
The bike racks or other bike parking facilities at the staging area will also reduce hazards from conflicts
between vehicles and bicycles, and between bicycles and pedestrians. Therefore, impacts associated
with traffic hazards from design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant.
316

OCTOBER 2015

(5) Inadequate Emergency Access. The proposed staging areas and vehicular access for
both Site A and Site B have been designed to allow turning areas and access for emergency vehicles.
The conceptual designs for Option A and Option B comply with all known City of Fremont
Ordinances and Design Guidelines, including the Fire Code. City staff will review the final design of
this project during the permitting phase, including plans for the construction phase, to ensure that the
local requirements are met. Furthermore, the reduction in the number of vehicles parking on
neighborhood streets as a result of the project will reduce potential congestion that could interfere
with emergency access. Thus, there would be no impacts related to inadequate emergency access
associated with development of the project.
(6) Alternative Modes of Transportation. Potential impacts associated with the projects
effects on pedestrian, transit, and bicycle facilities are discussed below. As discussed, this impact
Pedestrian Facilities. As described previously, the majority of the non-gated neighborhood
streets - Stanford Avenue, Vineyard Avenue, Antelope Drive, and Weibel Drive have adjacent
sidewalks. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street on all of these streets except for one portion
of Stanford Avenue. Stanford Avenue has sidewalks only on the north side of the street and on the south
side of the street west of Weibel Drive. Stanford Avenue has no sidewalks east of Weibel Drive.
The abundant use of the residential streets for parking creates a significant amount of pedestrian
traffic in the un-gated neighborhood generally west of Vineyard Avenue, and residents from within
both the gated and un-gated communities experience congested travel lanes as they navigate
surrounding streets, particularly Stanford Avenue. Visitors may park up to 1 mile from the Preserve
and then travel on foot to the trailheads. Observations in the field revealed that some pedestrians that
park in the neighborhood walk in the street instead of using sidewalks. The number of pedestrians,
and hence the number of pedestrians walking in the street, is directly correlated with the number of
parked cars on the streets. Because the project would reduce overall parking on public streets, it
would also have the beneficial effect of reducing both the number of pedestrians on the neighborhood
sidewalks and the pedestrians that walk in the street.
Transit and Bicycle Facilities. The proposed project, the expansion of the parking supply at
the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, is designed to serve motor vehicles. However, the project also
would provide bike racks. The bicycle facilities in the area are adequate to accommodate an increase
in bicycle trips that could result from implementation of the project. In addition, the project would not
result in the removal of, or preclude future planned changes to, any bike or transit facilities. For these
reasons, the project would not result in any significant impacts to bike or transit facilities.
Parking Discussion. The proposed project would add up to 300 new parking spaces at either of
the proposed site options. As described previously, the latent demand survey data showed that the
project could increase demand by up to 38.8 percent relative to existing demand. Therefore, the
project-related parking demand was estimated by applying this percentage to the existing parking
demand.
The parking conditions with the project can be summarized as follows:
Friday Parking Demand (Existing Plus Project Conditions): Based on the analysis
conducted for this EIR, the proposed project could accommodate all park visitors on
317

OCTOBER 2015

Fridays. The maximum parking accumulation with the project on Friday is estimated to be
144 vehicles, based on an estimated 38.8 percent increase in the existing demand of 104
vehicles at 7:00 p.m. The estimated parking demand on Friday would therefore be
accommodated by the 343 parking spaces provided with construction of the proposed
project. Therefore, the project is estimated to reduce parking on neighborhood streets
during the peak weekday use from the existing level of 61 vehicles, down to zero vehicles
after the project is constructed (see Table V.J-10, below)
Saturday Parking Demand (Existing Plus Project Conditions): Compared to Existing

Conditions, the project will reduce the number of vehicles parking on neighborhood streets
on Saturday mornings when Mission Peak has the greatest number of visitors. The
maximum parking accumulation with the project on Saturday is estimated to be 644
vehicles, based on an estimated 38.8 percent increase in the existing demand of 464
vehicles at 9:00 a.m. The parking demand on Saturday would therefore exceed the 343
parking spaces provided with construction of the proposed project. Based on the analysis
conducted by Hexagon traffic consultants, it is estimated that there would be a maximum
accumulation of approximately 301 vehicles parked on the residential streets on Saturday
after the project is completed. Therefore, the project is estimated to reduce parking on
neighborhood streets from the existing 464 cars on a Saturday morning down to 301 cars, a
35 percent decrease. Under existing Saturday conditions, park users arriving at the site
generally park in the neighborhood all day, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
With the proposed project, it is projected that park users arriving at the site would park in
the neighborhood between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., because before 7:00 a.m. and after
12:00 p.m. the new parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate projected demand.
However, there will still be cars parked on the street after 12:00 p.m. that arrived during the
peak period. Therefore, although there would still be Preserve visitors parking in adjacent
neighborhoods on Saturday, with construction of the project, the overall number of parked
vehicles on neighborhood streets would be substantially reduced (see Table V.J-11).
Table V.J-10: Friday Parking Demand EstimatesExisting and Plus Project Conditions
Time
a
b
Existing Parking Demand

Total
On-Site a
On-Street
6:00 a.m.
12
11
1
7:00 a.m.
47
41
6
8:00 a.m.
58
40
18
9:00 a.m.
83
40
43
10:00 a.m.
97
41
56
11:00 a.m.
87
37
50
12:00 p.m.
82
40
42
1:00 p.m.
65
37
28
2:00 p.m.
56
41
15
3:00 p.m.
56
40
16
4:00 p.m.
52
40
12
5:00 p.m.
67
41
26
6:00 p.m.
96
41
55
7:00 p.m.
104
43
61
Existing lot capacity is 43 spaces.
Parking lot capacity would be 343 spaces with the project.
Parking Demand Plus Project

Total
On-Site b
On-Street
17
65
81
115
135
121
114
90
78
78
72
93
133
144
17
65
81
115
135
121
114
90
78
78
72
93
133
144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
318

OCTOBER 2015

Table V.J-11: Saturday Parking Demand EstimatesExisting and Plus Project Conditions
Time
a
b
Existing Parking Demand

Total
On-Site a
On-Street
6:00 a.m.
43
0
43
7:00 a.m.
347
41
306
8:00 a.m.
444
41
403
9:00 a.m.
464
42
422
10:00 a.m.
409
43
366
11:00 a.m.
359
41
318
12:00 p.m.
267
40
227
1:00 p.m.
220
40
180
2:00 p.m.
192
40
152
3:00 p.m.
148
43
105
4:00 p.m.
130
41
89
5:00 p.m.
135
43
92
6:00 p.m.
127
41
86
7:00 p.m.
123
41
82
Existing lot capacity is 43 spaces.
Parking lot capacity would be 343 spaces with the project.
Parking Demand Plus Project

Total
On-Site b
On-Street
60
482
616
644
568
498
371
305
266
205
180
187
176
171
60
343
343
343
343
343
299
262
244
196
178
187
176
171
0
139
273
301
225
155
72
43
22
9
2
0
0
0
As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the estimated 33 to 38 percent increase in visitor
demand only appeared in the survey results when no cost was assumed for visitors to park at the new
staging area. Survey data also showed that if a fee of $5 were charged to park in the new lot, there
was no projected increase in visits and in fact visitation was projected to decrease by 13 percent
compared to current conditions. With 300 new parking spaces, a decrease in visitation of 13 percent
would result in a reduction of overflow parking during peak Saturday morning hours, from 421 cars
currently down to 61 cars with the project. As discussed in Chapter VI, Alternatives, the District may
consider this operational measure separately from the proposed project. However, to be conservative
this EIR analyzes the potential impacts of constructing the new staging area with an assumed 38
percent increase in visitation due to latent demand.
The City of Fremont does not have established parking standards for open space uses. The proposed
project is intended to increase the supply of parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to better
serve existing demand and allow access to the most popular trails. It is expected that the provision of
additional parking will alleviate overflow parking (and associated noise, litter, and safety impacts) on
the surrounding residential streets. Although the proposed project is not likely to accommodate all of
the existing and future demand for visitor parking, the project would substantially reduce the number
of existing vehicles parked on neighborhood streets and circling to look for parking. The project also
would reduce the physical impacts associated with insufficient parking, including those due to
increased air quality emissions as visitors look for parking, and noise and safety impacts.
319

OCTOBER 2015

320

OCTOBER 2015
K.

K. AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
This section has been prepared using the methodologies and assumptions contained in the Bay Area
Air Quality Management Districts (BAAQMD) Air Quality CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines).1 In keeping with these guidelines, this section describes existing air quality and the
regulatory framework for air quality including the litigation status of the BAAQMDs CEQA
Guidelines. The section also describes the potential effects of the project on air quality, including the
effects of project construction and operational traffic on regional pollutant levels and health risks.
Mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts are identified, where
appropriate to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Air quality modeling results are included
in Appendix F of this EIR.
1.
Setting
This section describes existing air quality conditions in the project vicinity, beginning with a
discussion of typical air pollutant types and sources, health effects, and climatology relating to air
quality.
a.
Air Pollutants and Health Effects. Both State and federal governments have established
health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants:2 carbon monoxide (CO),
ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter
(PM). In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and
visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the
populace with a reasonable margin of safety. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of criteria
pollutants may result in adverse health effects. However, emission thresholds established by an air
district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin based on the air basins
attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual
projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations and could adversely
affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants.
Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual project
emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related
health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially
true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone
precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG).
Occupants of facilities such as schools, day care centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and
nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air
pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.
Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality.
Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.
Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established
ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5k-AirQuality.docx (10/14/15)
321

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with
greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered
sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality
conditions associated with exercise.
Air pollutants and their health effects, and other air pollution-related considerations are summarized
in Table V.K-1 and are described in more detail below.
Table V.K-1: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants

Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Ozone
(O3)
Sources
Incomplete combustion of fuels and
other carbon-containing substances,
such as motor exhaust.
Natural events, such as decomposition
of organic matter.
Motor vehicle exhaust.
High temperature stationary combustion.
Atmospheric reactions.
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
Lead
(Pb)
Contaminated soil.
Suspended Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5 and PM10)
Stationary combustion of solid fuels.

Construction activities.
Industrial processes.
Atmospheric chemical reactions.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil

fuels.
Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
Industrial processes.
Primary Effects
Reduced tolerance for exercise.
Impairment of mental function.
Impairment of fetal development.
Death at high levels of exposure.
Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).
Aggravation of respiratory illness.
Reduced visibility.
Reduced plant growth.
Formation of acid rain.
Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.
Irritation of eyes.
Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
Plant leaf injury.
Impairment of blood functions and nerve construction.
Behavioral and hearing problems in children.
Reduced lung function.
Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.
Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases.
Increased cough and chest discomfort.
Soiling.
Reduced visibility.
Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
Reduced lung function.
Irritation of eyes.
Reduced visibility.
Plant injury.
Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2012.
(1) Ozone. Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex
series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. The main sources of ROG and NOx, often
referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle
engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. In the Bay Area, automobiles are the
single largest source of ozone precursors. Ozone is referred to as a regional air pollutant because its
precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production through the
photochemical reaction process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortness of
breath and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
322

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
(2) Carbon Monoxide. CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the
incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles. While CO
transport is limited, it disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested
roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors
(e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations
are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or
with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygencarrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue, impair central
nervous system function, and induce angina (chest pain) in persons with serious heart disease.
Extremely high levels of CO, such as those generated when a vehicle is running in an unventilated
garage, can be fatal.
(3) Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of heterogeneous solid and liquid airborne particles from manmade and natural sources. Particulate matter is
categorized in two size ranges: PM10 for particles less than 10 microns in diameter and PM2.5 for
particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter. In the Bay Area, motor vehicles generate about half of the
air basins particulates, through tailpipe emissions as well as brake pad and tire wear. Wood burning in
fireplaces and stoves, industrial facilities, and ground-disturbing activities such as construction are
other sources of such fine particulates. These fine particulates are small enough to be inhaled into the
deepest parts of the human lung and can cause adverse health effects. According to the California Air
Resources Board (ARB), studies in the United States and elsewhere have demonstrated a strong link
between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits,
and asthma attacks, and studies of childrens health in California have demonstrated that particle
pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in children. The ARB also reports that
Statewide attainment of particulate matter standards could prevent thousands of premature deaths,
lower hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disease and asthma-related emergency
room visits, and avoid hundreds of thousands of episodes of respiratory illness in California.3
(4) Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion
processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its
contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high
concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a
coloring component on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2
decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. On January 22, 2010, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) strengthened the health-based National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for NO2.
(5) Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless acidic gas with a strong odor. It is produced by the
combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO2 has the potential to damage
materials and can cause health effects at high concentrations. It can irritate lung tissue and increase
the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease.4 SO2 also reduces visibility and the level of sunlight
at the ground surface.
3
California Air Resources Board, 2011. Fact Sheets. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/htm/fslist.htm#Health.pdf. October.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, op.cit.
323

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
(6) Lead. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources.
As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of
lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery factories.
Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air.
In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content
in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic
converters. The U.S. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995.
As a result of the U.S. EPAs regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from
the transportation sector and overall levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.
(7) Odors. Odors are also an important element of local air quality conditions. Specific
activities can raise concerns related to odors on the part of nearby neighbors. Major sources of odors
include restaurants and manufacturing plants. Odor sources near the project site are limited and
include those associated with cattle grazing and similar operations. While sources that generate
objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the publics sensitivity to locallyproduced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds.
(8) Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic
Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Some examples of TACs
include: benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. Potential human health effects of
TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different
types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they
present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than
another.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards, but are regulated by the U.S. EPA, ARB, and the
BAAQMD. In 1998, ARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. ARB
has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities
and land uses that are characterized by use of diesel-fueled engines.5 High-volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution
centers, truck stops) were identified as posing the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other facilities
associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from
TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure.
Monitoring data and emissions inventories of TACs helps the BAAQMD determine potential health
risks to Bay Area residents. Ambient monitoring concentrations of TACs indicate that pollutants
5
California Air Resources Board, 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division. Risk
Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.
324

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
emitted primarily from motor vehicles (1,3-butadiene and benzene) account for slightly over 50
percent of the average calculated cancer risk from ambient air in the Bay Area.6
Unlike TACs emitted from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel particulate
matter is emitted from mobile sources primarily off-road sources such as construction and mining
equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck-mounted refrigeration units, as well as trucks and buses
traveling on freeways and local roadways.
Agricultural and mining equipment is not commonly used in urban parts of the Bay Area, while
construction equipment typically operates for a limited time at various locations. As a result, the
readily identifiable locations where diesel particulate matter is emitted in the City of Fremont include
high-traffic roadways and other areas with substantial truck traffic.
Although not specifically monitored, recent studies indicate that exposure to diesel particulate matter
may contribute significantly to cancer risk (a risk of approximately 500 to 700 in 1,000,000) that is
greater than all other measured TACs combined.7 The technology for reducing diesel particulate
matter emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and federal agencies are
moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and remediate diesel
emissions. The ARB anticipates that by 2020, average Statewide diesel particulate matter
concentrations will decrease by 85 percent from levels in 2000 with full implementation of the ARBs
Diesel Risk Reduction Plan,8 meaning that the Statewide health risk from diesel particulate matter is
expected to decrease from 540 cancer cases in 1,000,000 to 21.5 cancer cases in 1,000,000. It is likely
that the Bay Area cancer risk from diesel particulate matter will decrease by a similar factor by 2020.
(9) High Volume Roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens
vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps
the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentrations. Air quality
research consistently demonstrates that pollutant levels are substantially higher near freeways and
busy roadways, and human health studies have consistently demonstrated that children living within
100 to 200 meters (328 to 656 feet) of freeways or busy roadways have reduced lung function and
higher rates of respiratory disease.9 At present, it is not possible to attribute the effects of roadway
proximity on non-cancer health effects to one or more specific vehicle types or vehicle pollutants.
Engine exhaust, from diesel, gasoline, and other combustion engines, is a complex mixture of
particles and gases, with collective and individual toxicological characteristics.
Federal and State regulations control air pollutants at the regional level by limiting vehicle and
stationary source emissions. However, air quality regulations have not limited the use of vehicles and
6
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2007. Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual Report 2003
Volume 1. August.
7
Ibid.
California Air Resources Board, 2000, op. cit.
Delfino, RJ., 2002. Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages Between
Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health Perspectives.
325

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
generally have not protected sensitive land uses from air pollution hot spots associated with
proximity to transportation facilities.
b.
Existing Climate and Air Quality Conditions. Regional air quality, local climate, and air
quality in the East Bay region, and air pollution climatology are described below.
(1) Local Climate and Topography. Fremont is located within the nine county San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The climate of Fremont is characterized by warm dry
summers and cool moist winters. The proximity of the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean has a
moderating influence on the climate. Fremont is located in the climate subregion of the Bay Area
known as Southwestern Alameda County. The BAAQMD monitors air quality in the basin through a
regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards
for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved.
Southwestern Alameda County encompasses the southeast side of San Francisco Bay, from Dublin
Canyon to north Milpitas. The subregion is bordered on the east by the East Bay hills and on the west
by the Bay. Most of the area is flat. This subregion is indirectly affected by marine air flow. Marine
air entering though the Golden Gate is blocked by the East Bay hills, where it eventually passes over
Southwestern Alameda County. These sea breezes are strongest in the afternoon. The further from the
ocean the marine air travels, the more the oceans effect is diminished. Although the climate in this
region is affected by sea breezes, it is affected less so than the regions closer to the Golden Gate.
The climate of Southwestern Alameda County is also affected by its close proximity to San Francisco
Bay. The Bay cools the air with which it comes in contact during warm weather, while during cold
weather the Bay warms the air. The normal northwest wind pattern carries this air onshore. Bay
breezes push cool air onshore during the daytime and draw air from the land offshore at night.
Winds are predominantly out of the northwest during the summer months. In the winter, winds are
equally likely to be from the east. Easterly-southeasterly surface flow into southern Alameda County
passes through three major gaps: Hayward/Dublin Canyon, Niles Canyon and Mission Pass. Areas
north of the gaps experience winds from the southeast, while areas south of the gaps experience winds
from the northeast. Wind speeds are moderate in this subregion, with annual average wind speeds
close to the Bay at about 7 miles per hour (mph), while further inland they average 6 mph.
Air temperatures are moderated by the subregions proximity to the Bay and to the sea breeze.
Temperatures are slightly cooler in the winter and slightly warmer in the summer than East Bay cities
to the north. During summer months, average maximum temperatures are in the mid-70s. Average
maximum winter temperatures are in the high-50s to low-60s. Average minimum temperatures are in
the low-40s in winter and mid-50s in the summer.
Pollution potential is relatively high in this subregion during the summer and fall. When high pressure
conditions dominate, low mixing depths and Bay and ocean wind patterns can concentrate and carry
pollutants from other cities to the Fremont area, adding to the locally emitted pollutant mix. The
polluted air is then pushed up against the East Bay hills. In the wintertime, the air pollution potential
in southwestern Alameda County is moderate. Air pollution sources include light and heavy
industrial, and motor vehicles. Increasing major vehicle traffic and congestion in the subregion may
increase Southwest Alameda County pollution as well as that of its neighboring subregions.
326

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
(2) Air Monitoring Data. Air quality monitoring stations are located around the SFBAAB
and collect data to determine regional air quality. The closest monitoring station to the site is located
at 3466 La Mesa Drive in Hayward. The only criteria pollutant measured at this site was ozone as
shown in Table V.K-2. Data for other pollutants is representative of the SFBAAB. Data indicates that
ozone exceeded Federal and State standards for the years 2012 through 2014. PM2.5 exceeded Federal
standards and PM10 exceeded State standards for the years 2012 through 2014. The Federal standard
for NO2 was exceeded in 2012.
c.
Regulatory Framework. Air quality standards, the regulatory framework, and State and
federal attainment status are discussed below.
The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources
(e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as for
monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. The BAAQMDs jurisdiction encompasses seven
counties Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa and
portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The ARB and the U.S. EPA regulate direct emissions from
motor vehicles.
(1) United States Environmental Protection Agency. At the federal level, the U.S. EPA
has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPAs air quality mandates
are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA
was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990.
The FCAA required U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to
prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Federal Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (FCAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to
revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is
periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and
regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. U.S. EPA has responsibility
to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the FCAAA and determine if
implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the U.S. EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area, which imposes
additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the
mandated timeframe may result in sanctions on transportation funding and stationary air pollution
sources in the air basin.
The U.S. EPA is also required to develop National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
which are defined as those which may reasonably be anticipated to result in increased deaths or
serious illness and which are not already regulated. An independent science advisory board reviews
the health and exposure analyses conducted by the U.S. EPA on suspected hazardous pollutants prior
to regulatory development.
327

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Table V.K-2: Ambient Air Quality at the San Francisco Air Basin
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) a
Number of days exceeded:
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm)
Ozone (O3)
Standard
State: > 20 ppm
Federal: > 35 ppm a
State: > 9 ppm
Federal: > 9 ppm a
State: > 0.09 ppm

State: > 0.07 ppm
Federal: > 0.08 ppm
Coarse Particulates (PM10)

Maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3)
State: > 50 g/m3

Federal: > 150 g/m3
Annual arithmetic average concentration (g/m3)
Exceeded for the year:
State: > 20 g/m3
Federal: > 50 g/m3
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3)
Federal: > 35 g/m3
Federal Annual arithmetic average concentration (g/m3)
State: > 12 g/m3
Federal: > 15 g/m3
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State: > 0.250 ppm
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm)
Federal: > 0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) b
State: > 0.25 ppm
Federal: > 0.50 ppm
State: > 0.04 ppm
Federal: > 0.14 ppm
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm)
Federal: > 0.030 ppm
a
Results based on Alameda County monitoring.
a
Results based on 1100 21st Street, Oakland monitoring station.
2012
2013
2014
2.9
0
0
2.4
0
0
3.8
0
0
2.6
0
0
3.0
0
0
2.6
0
0
0.102
3
0.09
8
4
0.096
3
0.079
3
3
0.097
3
0.080
10
5
59.6
1
0
18.8
ND
ND
58.1
5
0
22.2
ND
ND
61.3
1
0
20.0
ND
ND
38.4
3
9.5
ND
ND
57.7
13
12.8
ND
ND
60.4
3
12.0
ND
ND
0.124
0
0.015
1
0.0726
0
0.016
0
0.0837
0
0.014
0
0.068
0
ND
ND
0.008
0
0.008
ND
0
0.050
0
ND
ND
0.007
0
0.007
ND
0
0.017
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.003
ND
0
ppm = parts per million

g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ND = No data. There was insufficient (or no) data to determine the value.
Source: ARB, EPA, and BAAQMD, 2015.
328

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
(2) California Air Resources Board. In 1992 and 1993, the ARB requested delegation of
authority for the implementation and enforcement of specified New Source Performance Standards
and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the BAAQMD. U.S. EPAs review
of the State of Californias laws, rules, and regulations showed them to be adequate for the implementation and enforcement of federal standards, and the U.S. EPA granted the delegations as
requested.
The ARB is the agency responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution
control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted
in 1988. The CCAA requires that all air districts in the State achieve and maintain the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that
districts should focus on reducing the emissions from transportation and air-wide emission sources,
and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.
ARB is also primarily responsible for developing and implementing air pollution control plans to
achieve and maintain the NAAQS. ARB is primarily responsible for Statewide pollution sources and
produces a major part of the SIP. Local air districts provide additional strategies for sources under
their jurisdiction. ARB combines this data and submits the completed SIP to U.S. EPA.
Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS (which in
many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS), determining and updating area designations and
maps, and setting emissions standards for mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines,
and off-road vehicles. The ARBs Diesel Risk Reduction Plan10 is intended to substantially reduce
diesel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through introduction of ultra-low-sulfur
diesel fuel a step already implemented and cleaner-burning diesel engines.
The State of California's regulatory efforts for toxic air contaminants are embodied in the Tanner
Bill11 (effective 1984), which defines a process for the identification and control of toxic air contaminants. The ARB identifies the most important toxic pollutants by considering risk of harm to public
health, amount or potential amount of emissions, manner of usage of the substance, its persistence in
the atmosphere, and its concentration in outdoor air. The California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment prepares health assessment documents that outline the toxicity of compounds.
After a pollutant is listed as a toxic air contaminant, control measures are developed by the ARB and
local air districts.
Other relevant legislation is the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act12 (AB2588).
This bill was enacted in 1987 with the objective of collecting information concerning industrial
emissions of toxic air contaminants and making the information available to the public. The bill
established a formal regulatory program for site-specific air toxics emissions inventory and health risk
10
California Air Resources Board, 2000, op. cit.
11
California Air Resources Board, 1997. Technical Support Document, Proposed Identification of Inorganic Lead
as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part A Exposure Assessment. March.
12
AB 2588, Connelly, 1987. Chaptered in the California Health and Safety Code Section 44300, et al.
329

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
quantification that is managed by California air districts. Under this program, a wide variety of
industrial, commercial, and public facilities are required to report the types and quantities of toxic
substances their facilities routinely release into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program are to collect emissions data, identify facilities with potential for localized health impacts,
ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of risks that are determined to warrant such notification,
and reduce significant risks.
Because of the robust evidence relating proximity to roadways and a range of non-cancer and cancer
health effects, the ARB also created guidance for avoiding air quality conflicts in land use planning in
its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.13 In its guidance, the
ARB advises that new sensitive uses (e.g. residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and
hospitals) not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads carrying 100,000 vehicles per
day, or within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (warehouse) that accommodates more than 100
trucks or more than 90 refrigerator trucks per day.
ARB guidance suggests that the use of these guidelines be customized for individual land use
decisions, and take into account the context of development projects. The Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook specifically states that these recommendations are advisory and acknowledges that land
use agencies must balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
(3) National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970,
the U.S. EPA established NAAQS. The NAAQS were established for major pollutants, termed
criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State
governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in
order to protect public health.
Both the U.S. EPA and the ARB have established ambient air quality standards for the following
common pollutants: CO, O3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and PM. In addition, the State has set standards for
sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are
designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. These
ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects
associated with each pollutant.
Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards establish limits to
protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and
the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against
decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.14 State and federal
standards for the criteria air pollutants are listed in Table V.K-3.
13
California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.
14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Website: www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed August 6 2015).
October.
330

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Table V.K-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant
Ozone
(O3)
Averaging
Time
1-Hour
8-Hour
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24-Hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
8-Hour
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)h
1-Hour
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
1-Hour
30-day
average
Lead
(Pb) j,k
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)i
VisibilityReducing
Particlesl
Sulfates
California Standardsa
Concentrationc
Methodd
0.09 ppm
(180 g/m3)
Ultraviolet
Photometry
0.07 ppm
(137 g/m3)
50 g/m3
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
20 g/m3
Primary
No Federal
Standard
0.075 ppm
(147 g/m3)
150 g/m3
No Separate State Standard
35 g/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
12 g/m3
15 g/m3
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
None
12 g/m3
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
0.03 ppm
(57 g/m3)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
0.18 ppm
(339 g/m3)
1.5 g/m3
c,e
Federal Standardsb
Secondaryc,f
Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
53 ppb
(100 g/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
100 ppb
(188 g/m3)
None
1.5 g/m
(for certain
areas)k
Calendar
Quarter
Rolling 3month
averagei
0.15 g/m3
24-Hour
0.04 ppm
(105 g/m3)
0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)i
3-Hour
1-Hour
0.25 ppm
(655 g/m3)
0.5 ppm
(1300 g/m3)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
8-Hour
24-Hour
Atomic
Absorption
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196 g/m3)
0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)i
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per

kilometer - visibility of 10 miles or more
(0.0730 miles or more for Lake Tahoe)
due to particles when relative humidity is
less than 70 percent. Method: Beta
Attenuation and Transmittance through
Filter Tape.
3
25 g/m
Hydrogen
0.03 ppm
1-Hour
Sulfide
(42 g/m3)
Vinyl
0.01 ppm
24-Hour
Chloridej
(26 g/m3)
Table notes included on next page.
Ion
Chromatography
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Gas
Chromatography
Methodg
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
High-Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
No
Federal
Standards
331

OCTOBER 2015
d
e
f
g
h

K. AIR QUALITY
California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen
dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be
exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of
Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean)
are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour
concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the
24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration
above 150 g/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily
concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification
and current federal policies.
Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon
a reference temperature of 25C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be
corrected to a reference temperature of 25C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by
volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the
level of the air quality standard may be used.
National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public
health.
National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An equivalent method of measurement may be used but must have a
consistent relationship to the reference method and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.
To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion
(ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the
California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100
ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.
On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were
revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual)
remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated
nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain
the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California
standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standards to the California
standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for
adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the
ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard
(1.5 g/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard,
except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until
implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
In 1989, the ARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility
standard to instrumental equivalents, which are extinction of 0.23 per kilometer and extinction of 0.07 per kilometer
for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
C = degrees Celsius
ARB = California Air Resources Board
U.S. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
ppb = parts per billion
Source: ARB, 2015.
332

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
(4) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The BAAQMD seeks to attain and
maintain air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin through a comprehensive
program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and education. The clean air
strategy includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption
and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. The
BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air
quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law.
BAAQMD Regulation 7 places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission
limitations on certain odorous compounds.15 This regulation limits the discharge of any odorous
substance which causes the ambient air at or beyond the property lineto be odorous and to remain
odorous after dilution with four parts of odor-free air. The BAAQMD must receive odor complaints
from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period in order for the limitations of this regulation to
go into effect. If this criterion has been met, an odor violation can be issued by the BAAQMD if a test
panel of people can detect an odor in samples collected periodically from the source.
Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan16 which guides
the regions air quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS. The BAAQMDs 2010 Clean Air Plan
is the latest Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor
emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx), particulate matter, and greenhouse gas emissions. The BAAQMD is
in the process of updating this plan and will release the 2015 Clean Air Plan later this year.
The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on September 15, 2010 by the BAAQMDs
board of directors:
Updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the
California Clean Air Act to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone;
Provides a control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, TACs, and greenhouse gases in a single,
integrated plan;
Reviews progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
Establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012

timeframe.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were prepared
to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area.
The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the
environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended
thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also
include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions.
In June 2010, the BAAQMDs Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an
15
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1982. Rules and Regulations, Regulation 7: Odorous Substances.
Amended March 17.
16
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September.
333

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines17 were
amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified procedures for
assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD
had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on
their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court
issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination
of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. BAAQMD has appealed the Alameda County
Superior Courts decision. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District,
reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California
Supreme Court, which granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending as of December
2013.18
In view of the courts order, the BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the thresholds of
significance from the 2010 CEQA Guidelines be used as a generally applicable measure of a projects
significant air quality impacts.19 Following the courts order, the BAAQMD released revised CEQA
Guidelines in May of 2012 that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining
information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation
measures, and which set aside the significance thresholds. The BAAQMD recognizes that lead
agencies may rely on the previously recommended Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA
Guidelines adopted in 1999.20
Although reliance on the 2010 thresholds is no longer required, local agencies still have a duty to
evaluate impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, CEQA grants local
agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresholds
previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts as long as they are supported
by substantial evidence.21 Accordingly, the District is using the BAAQMDs 2010 Draft CEQA
Guidelines for thresholds and other guidance to evaluate project impacts in order to protectively
evaluate the potential effects of the project on air quality. The District believes that these protective
thresholds and other guidance are appropriate in the context of the size, scale, and location of the
project in close proximity to sensitive residential uses.
17
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, op. cit.
18
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Updated CEQA Guidelines. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/
Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. March.
19
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2013. Plans & Climate. Website: baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planningand-Research/CEQA-Guidelines.aspx (accessed March 26, 2015) December 6.
20
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts
of Projects and Plans. December.
21
Public Resources Code Section 21082: 14 Cal. Code Regs. And Section 15064.7, 15064.4 (addressing greenhouse
gas emissions impacts). See also Citizens for Responsible and Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista
(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th.327 (upholding citys greenhouse gas emissions threshold based on Assembly Bill 32 compliance).
334

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
The District also notes that the Alameda County Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside
the thresholds, did not address the merits of the science or evidence supporting the thresholds. The
District finds that, despite the court ruling, the science and reasoning contained in the BAAQMD
2010 CEQA Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available. For that reason,
substantial evidence supports continued use of the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines.
(5) Attainment Status Designations. The ARB is required to designate areas of the State as
attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each State standard. An attainment designation for an
area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate pollutant standards. A nonattainment
designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding
those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An
unclassified designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment
status. The law divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with
increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The U.S. EPA designates areas nonattainment, not applicable, unclassified, or attainment. In
1991, new nonattainment designations were assigned to areas for PM10 based on the likelihood that
they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated unclassified. Table V.K4 provides a summary of the attainment status for the San Francisco Bay Area with respect to national
and State ambient air quality standards.
(6) City of Fremont General Plan. The Conservation Element of the City of Fremonts
General Plan addresses air quality emissions and includes policies to improve existing air quality
environments around the City. Polices applicable to the proposed project are included below.
Goal 7-7: Air Quality. Air quality improved over current conditions that meets or exceeds State
and Regional standards.
Policy 7-7.1: Cooperation to Improve Regional Air Quality. Support and coordinate air quality
planning efforts with other local, regional, and state agencies to improve regional air quality.
Policy 7-7.2: Reduce Air Pollution Levels. Reduce City of Fremont air contaminant levels and
particulate emissions below BAAQMD attainment levels, in particular, ozone and particulate matter
levels.
Policy 7-7.3: Land Use Planning to Minimize Heath Impacts from Toxic Air Contaminants.
Coordinate land use planning with air quality data and local transportation planning to reduce the
potential for long-term exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) from permanent sources that affect
the community.
335

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Table V.K-4: Bay Area Attainment Status

Pollutant
Ozone
(O3)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Averaging
Time
8-Hour
1-Hour
8-Hour
1-Hour
1-Hour
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
24-Hour
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
1-Hour
California Standards a
Attainment
Concentration
Status
0.070 ppm
(137g/m3)
0.09 ppm
(180 g/m3)
9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
0.18 ppm
(339 g/m3)
0.030 ppm
(57 g/m3)
0.04 ppm
(105 g/m3)
0.25 ppm
(655 g/m3)
National Standards b
Attainment
Concentration c,j
Status
Nonattainment h
0.075 ppm
Nonattainment d
Nonattainment
Not Applicable
Not Applicable e
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
Attainment f
Attainment
0.100 ppm
Unclassified
Not Applicable
0.053 ppm
(100 g/m3)
Attainment
Attainment
0.14 ppm
(365 g/m3)
Attainment
Attainment
Not Applicable
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Annual
0.030 ppm
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Attainment
Arithmetic
(80 g/m3)
Mean
Annual
Particulate
Arithmetic
20 g/m3
Nonattainment g
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Matter
Mean
Coarse (PM10)
24-Hour
50 g/m3
Nonattainment
150 g/m3
Unclassified
Annual
Particulate
Arithmetic
12 g/m3
Nonattainment g
12 g/m3
Attainment
Matter
Mean
Fine (PM2.5)
24-Hour
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
35 g/m3 i
Nonattainment
a
California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except in the Lake Tahoe air basin), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be
exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to
be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and
the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that
ARB determines would occur less than once per year on average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level onethird the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.
b
National standards shown are the primary standards designed to protect public health. National standards other than for
ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone
standard is attained if, during the most recent 3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly
concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than 1. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year
average of the fourth highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained
when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 g/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5
standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 g/m3. Except for the national particulate
standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual
particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard
is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially-designed clusters of sites falls below
the standard.
c
National air quality standards are set by U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate
margin of safety.
d
In June 2004, the Bay Area was designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the national 8-hour ozone standard. U.S.
EPA lowered the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.80 to 0.75 PPM (i.e., 75 ppb), effective May 27, 2008.
e
The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005.
f
In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard.
Table notes continued on next page.
336

OCTOBER 2015
g
h
i

K. AIR QUALITY
In June 2002, ARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10.
The 8-hour California ozone standard was approved by the ARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17,
2006.
U.S EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 g/m3 to 35 g/m3 in 2006. The U.S. EPA designated the Bay
Area as nonattainment for the 35 g/m3 PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation is
December 14, 2009, and the BAAQMD has 3 years to develop a plan called a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
demonstrates how the Bay Area will achieve the revised standard by 2014. The SIP for the new standard must be
submitted to the U.S. EPA by December 14, 2012.
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor
within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010).
Lead (Pb) is not listed in the above table because it has been in attainment since the 1980s.
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Attainment Status, 2015.
2.
This section provides an assessment of the potential adverse impacts related to air quality associated
with the proposed project. It begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for
determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the air qualityrelated impacts that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B.
a.
Criteria of Significance. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD and Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment related
to air quality if it would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Air Quality Plan;
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation by:
Contributing to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;
Generate average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 greater than 54
pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or
Generate operational 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.
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);
Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial pollutant concentrations by:
Individually exposing sensitive receptors (such as residential areas) to toxic air

contaminants in excess of the following thresholds:
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);
337

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 g/m3 annual average; or
Cumulatively exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants in excess of the

following thresholds:
Increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million;
Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic); or
Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 g/m3 annual average; or
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The emission thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the air basin for specific
criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health
with an adequate margin of safety according to the U.S. EPA, these emission thresholds are regarded
as protective.
b.
Project Impacts. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would primarily
occur over the short-term in association with construction activities, including excavation and
vehicle/equipment use. Long-term operational emissions would result from vehicle trips to and from
the project site. As described in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, the proposed project is
anticipated to increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing
conditions. The following is a description of potential air quality impacts that could occur as a result
of the proposed project including short-term construction emissions, such as fugitive dust, and longterm operational emissions. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each
(1) Consistency with the BAAQMD Plan. The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD
2010 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on September 15, 2010. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. Consistency with the Clean Air
Plan can be determined if the project does the following: 1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan;
2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not disrupt or hinder
implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. The projects consistency with
these objectives is described below, and as discussed, this impact would be less than significant. The
conclusions would be the same for development occurring at both of the project sites, as summarized
at the end of this subsection.
Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to: attain
air quality standards; reduce population exposure to air pollutants and protect public health in the Bay
Area; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate.
The BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational
impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an
adverse impact on the regions attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds
were established to help protect public health. As discussed later in this section of the EIR, development of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant construction and operational
emission impacts.
338

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Clean Air Plan Control Measures.The control strategies of the 2010 Clean Air Plan include
measures in the following categories: stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and
transportation control measures. The latest Clean Air Plan also identifies two additional subcategories
of control measures, which are land use and local impact measures and energy and climate measures.
Stationary source measures in the Clean Air Plan such as those implemented to control emissions
from metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces are not applicable to the
proposed project. Therefore, consistency with the Clean Air Plan stationary source measures is not
evaluated further in this EIR.
Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures. The transportation control measures in
the 2010 Clean Air Plan are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle
trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in addition to vehicle idling and traffic congestion.
Construction of the proposed project at either site option would reduce overall vehicle miles traveled
while looking for parking, idling, and emissions by increasing the parking capacity at the Stanford
Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. There would be approximately 300 new parking spaces for visitors
in this area. Visitors would not have to drive through the nearby neighborhoods and or idle in the
existing staging area to find parking, thus reducing tailpipe emissions. Additionally, the District
provides information that encourages visitors to Mission Peak to access additional parking facilities
within the Ohlone College campus, to reduce congestion and parking demand at the Stanford Avenue
entrance. These efforts would continue with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plans Transportation Measures.
Land Use and Local Impact Measures. The BAAQMDs 2010 Clean Air Plan includes Land
Use and Local Impact Measures to achieve the following: ensure that planned growth is focused in a
way that protects people from exposure to air pollution associated with stationary and mobile sources
of emissions; and promote mixed-use, compact development to reduce motor vehicle travel and
emissions. The proposed staging area at either site option does not directly relate to the Land Use and
Local Impact Measures but would increase access to outdoor recreational areas. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with this measure.
Energy Measures. The BAAQMDs 2010 Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate
Control Measures (ECM), which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants
and reduce emissions of CO2. Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy
conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms of
energy production, reduce the urban heat island effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs and
parking lots, and promote the planting of (low volatile organic compound emitting) trees to reduce
biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air pollutants. ECM-4, Shade
Tree Planting, includes voluntary approaches to reduce the heat island effect by increasing shading in
urban and suburban areas through the planting of trees. The proposed project would include
approximately 2.78 acres of paved area in Option A and approximately 3.10 acres of paved area in
Option B which could result in a heating effect. However, the proposed project includes landscaping
with trees and shrubs to shade the proposed staging areas at both locations. With development of
Option A no existing trees would be removed and 46 additional trees and other vegetation would be
planted near the new staging area. Option B would require approximately six trees to be removed for
the Agua Caliente Creek crossing and some pruning in other areas of the Creek; however, an
additional 27 trees would be planted near the proposed Option B staging area. Therefore, both project
site options would be consistent with ECM-4, Shade Tree Planting, to reduce the heat island effect.
339

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Clean Air Plan Implementation. As summarized in the discussion above and below,
implementation of either project option would not result in obstruction of Clean Air Plan
implementation and this impact would be less than significant.
Option A. As discussed above, development of Option A would generally implement the
applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including transportation control measures and
energy measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control
measure from the Clean Air Plan and would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan.
Option B. As discussed above, development of Option B would generally implement the
applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including transportation control measures and
energy measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control
measure from the Clean Air Plan and would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan.
(2) Air Quality Standards. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, to meet air
quality standards for operational-related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project
must not:
Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;
Generate average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 (exhaust) greater
than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or
Generate operational 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.
The following section describes the projects CO impacts and construction- and operation-related air
quality impacts. Because both site options would increase the number of operational vehicle trips to
the site by introducing 300 new parking spaces at either location, the discussion for localized CO
impacts and operational emissions analyzes the impacts of both project site options together. The
conclusions are summarized at the end of each subsection. As discussed, impacts for either site option
would be less than significant for localized CO emission and operational emissions. Impacts
associated with construction-period emissions would be less than significant with implementation of
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 BAAQMDs 2010 CEQA Guidelines include recommended methodologies for quantifying
concentrations of localized CO levels for proposed transportation projects. Guidance is not provided
for evaluation of projects that provide parking. However, in order to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the potential impacts of the project on air pollution, a screening level analysis using
guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was performed. The screening methodology
provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result
in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project
would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
340

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
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.,
tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below-grade
roadway).
Option A. Implementation of Option A would not conflict with the Alameda County
Transportation Commissions Congestion Management Program 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. In addition, traffic volumes on roadways
in the vicinity of the project site are less than 44,000 vehicles per hour (refer to Section V.J,
Transportation and Circulation, for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards and this impact would
Option B. Implementation of Option B would not conflict with the Alameda County
Transportation Commissions Congestion Management Program 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. In addition, traffic volumes on roadways
in the vicinity of the project site are less than 44,000 vehicles per hour (refer to Section V.J,
Transportation and Circulation, for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards and this impact would
Construction Period 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 excavation,
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 TACs such
as diesel exhaust particulate matter.
Site preparation and project construction at either site option would involve clearing, cut-and-fill
activities, grading, and building activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the
proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase because most engine emissions
are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of soils on the site. If not properly
controlled, these activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5, and to a lesser extent CO, SO2,
NOx, and volatile organic compounds. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the
construction sites and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. 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, the 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
341

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
from the construction site. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area
surrounding the construction sites.
The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5 and
PM10) including the use of water or other soil stabilizers. With the implementation of standard
construction measures such as frequent watering (e.g., two times per day at a minimum), fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.22 Constructionperiod impacts associated with development of the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below.
As discussed, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, these impacts would be
Option A. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the development of the Option A
site includes construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a 9.64-acre area,
2.78 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements). The total area of
both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 11.71 acres. Project grading would require
approximately 35,000 cubic yards of cut, and 23,000 cubic yards would be off-hauled. The remaining
12,000 cubic yards of soil would be balanced on site. The construction period would occur over six
months and the most intensive excavation and grading activities would occur over a three to four
month period. Construction and grading equipment is expected to include the use of earthmovers,
backhoes, rollers, and compactors. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate
air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards, as discussed below.
Option A Impact AIR-1: Construction of Option A would generate air pollutant emissions that
could violate air quality standards. (S)
The proposed construction schedule for Option A is estimated to be approximately six months.
Construction emissions were estimated for the project using emission factors by equipment type and
duration provided by the District with ARBs EMFAC 2011 model and U.S. EPAs off-road engine
Tier Standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 1039.102). Construction-related emissions
are presented in Table V.K-5 for Option A. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F.
Table V.K-5: Option A Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day

Source
Construction Equipment
Trucks Off-Site
Trucks On-Site
Total Emissions
BAAQMD Thresholds
Exceed Threshold?
ROG
0.24
1.18
0.01
1.43
54.0
No
NOx
3.69
15.44
0.10
19.23
54.0
No
Exhaust PM2.5
0.23
0.26
0.0
0.49
54.0
No
Exhaust PM10
0.23
0.26
0.00
0.49
82.0
No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015
22
342

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
As shown in Table V.K-5, construction emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and
particulate matter would not exceed the BAAQMDs threshold for average daily construction
emissions.
The effects of construction activities would be increased dust and locally elevated levels of PM10
downwind of construction activity. Although ROG, NOx and exhaust emissions would not exceed the
established thresholds, the BAAQMD requires the implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures to reduce construction impacts to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the
following mitigation measure would require implementation of the BAAQMDs Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures and would reduce diesel PM exhaust emissions as well as construction dust
(PM10 and PM2.5) impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Option A Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow the Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when required by the BAAQMD, including:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as

possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage of this measure shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the East Bay
Regional Park District regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person
shall respond and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours. (LTS)
Option B. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the development of the Option B
site would result in the construction of a new staging area and associated improvements within a
10.45-acre area, 3.10 acres of which would consist of new impervious surfaces (e.g., pavements,
bridges). The total area of both permanent and temporary disturbance would be 16.76 acres. Project
grading would include 12,000 cubic yards of cut, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill, and 2,000
cubic yards would be off-hauled. The construction period would occur over six months and the most
intensive excavation and grading activities would occur over a three to four month period. Construction and grading equipment is expected to include the use of earthmovers, backhoes, rollers, and
343

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
compactors. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to generate air pollutant emissions
that could violate air quality standards, as discussed below.
Option B Impact AIR-1: Construction of Option B would generate air pollutant emissions that
could violate air quality standards. (LTS)
The proposed construction duration for Option B is approximately six months. Construction
emissions were estimated for the project using emission factors by equipment type and duration
provided by the District with ARBs EMFAC 2011 model and U.S. EPAs off-road engine Tier
Standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 1039.102). Construction-related emissions for
Option B are presented in Table V.K-6. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix F.
As shown in Table V.K-6, construction emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and
particulate matter would not exceed the BAAQMDs threshold for average daily construction
emissions.
Table V.K-6: Option B Construction Emissions in Average Pounds Per Day

Source
Construction Equipment
Trucks Off-site
Trucks On-Site
Total Emissions
BAAQMD Thresholds
Exceed Threshold?
ROG
0.25
1.60
0.01
1.86
54.0
No
NOx
3.81
20.59
0.16
24.56
54.0
No
Exhaust PM2.5
0.23
0.37
0.0
0.60
54.0
No
Exhaust PM10
0.23
0.37
0.0
0.60
82.0
No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2015
The effects of construction activities would be increased dust and locally elevated levels of PM10
downwind of construction activity. Although ROG, NOx and exhaust emissions would not exceed the
established thresholds, the BAAQMD requires the implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures to ensure construction impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Implementation
of the following mitigation measure would require implementation of the BAAQMDs Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures and would reduce diesel PM exhaust emissions as well as
construction dust (PM10 and PM2.5) impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Option B Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The District and project contractor shall follow Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures as designed and when required by the BAAQMD, including:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
344

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as

possible. Restroom building pad(s) shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage of this measure shall be provided for construction workers at all access
points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the East Bay
Regional Park District regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person
shall respond and take corrective action in regard to complaints within 48 hours. (LTS)
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. Based on the traffic study prepared for
proposed project (see Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, Table V.J-7), development of
either site option is projected to generate 121 additional peak hour trips on Saturdays, 21 additional
Friday morning peak hour trips, and 16 additional Friday afternoon peak hour trips during the busiest
summer months. The project would not be a source of stationary source emissions.
Trip generation from May 2015 counts (see discussion in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation)
were used to estimate annual emissions for purposes of this analysis. Actual annual trips would likely
be lower due to lower visitation levels in the winter months. An analysis of the air quality impacts
from additional trips was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
Results of the analysis for daily emissions are shown in Table V.K-7, while annual project emissions
are shown in Table V.K-8. Results indicate that a new staging area at either site option would not
exceed the BAAQMDs significance criteria for operation related criteria air pollutants and this
Table V.K-7: Daily Project Operational Emissions
Sources
Project Emissions
Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold? (Yes/No)
ROG
16.5
54.0
No
Pollutant Emissions
(Pounds/Day)
NOx
PM10
3.9
3.0
54.0
82.0
No
No
PM2.5
0.8
54.0
No
345

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Table V.K-8: Annual Project Operational Emissions

Sources
Project Emissions
Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold? (Yes/No)
ROG
3.0
10.0
No
Pollutant Emissions
(Tons/Year)
NOx
PM10
0.6
0.5
10.0
15.0
No
No
PM2.5
0.1
10.0
No
Option A. Based on the above, the results shown in Tables V.K-7 and V.K-8 indicate that a new
staging area with 300 parking spaces at the Option A site would not exceed the BAAQMDs
significance criteria for operation related criteria air pollutants and this impact would be less than
significant.
Option B. Based on the above, the results shown in Tables V.K-7 and V.K-8 indicate that the
new staging area with 300 parking spaces at the Option B site would not exceed the BAAQMDs
significance criteria for operation related criteria air pollutants and this impact would be less than
significant.
(3) Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. 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 an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3
g/m3.23 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
g/m3 on an annual average basis.24 Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed
below. As discussed below, this impact would be less than significant.
Option A. Residential structures are located approximately 160 feet from the Option A staging
area construction and approximately 150 feet from the construction limits of the new two-way access
road. Construction activities associated with the project may expose these residents to airborne
particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of
construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) on a short-term basis. As shown
in Tables V.K-5 and V.K-6, the project would have PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that are well below the
BAAQMDs significance criteria. Additionally, implementation of the best management practices
required in Option A Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce construction-related emissions to a
less-than-significant level, thus minimizing possible exposure of these sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
23
24
Ibid.
346

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
Option B. Residential structures are located approximately 210 feet from the Option B site and
100 feet from the construction limits of the new two-way access road. Construction activities
associated with the project may expose these residents to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as
well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., dieselfueled vehicles and equipment) on a short-term basis. As shown in Tables V.K-5 and V.K-6, the
project would have PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that are well below the BAAQMDs significance
criteria. Additionally, implementation of the best management practices required in Option B
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce construction-related emissions to a less-than-significant
level, thus minimizing possible exposure of these sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
(4) Odors. During construction, the various diesel powered vehicles and equipment in use at
both project sites could create localized odors. Potential impacts are discussed below and would be
Option A. Construction-period odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable
for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore
considered less than significant. Odors from the existing uses, including the existing vault toilet, are
not generally noticeable beyond the site boundary. The proposed project would include restrooms
with plumbing that would reduce odors that may be associated with existing facilities at the existing
Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New restroom facilities at the Option A staging area would also
connect to the sewer system and would be regularly inspected and cleaned. In addition, with
development of Option A, cattle grazing would be moved away from the fence line at the western
boundary of this area of Mission Peak, which may further reduce offensive odors to nearby residents.
Other proposed uses that would be developed within the project site would be similar to existing uses
with the addition of open space, and are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result
in frequent odor complaints. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Option B. Construction-period odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable
for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore
considered less than significant. Odors from the existing uses, including the existing vault toilet, are
not generally noticeable beyond the site boundary. The proposed project would include restrooms
with plumbing that would reduce odors that may be associated with existing facilities at the existing
Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New restroom facilities at the Option B staging area would also
connect to the sewer system and would be regularly inspected and cleaned. In addition, with
development of Option B, the existing cattle corral would be moved away from the fence line at the
western boundary of this area of Mission Peak, which may further reduce offensive odors to nearby
residents. Other proposed uses that would be developed within the project site would be similar to
existing uses with the addition of open space, and are not expected to produce any offensive odors
that would result in frequent odor complaints. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. According to the BAAQMD, regional air pollution is largely a
cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to independently create regional nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a projects individual emissions contribute to existing
cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, if daily average or annual emissions
of construction- or operational-related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold
established by the BAAQMD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant
347

OCTOBER 2015

K. AIR QUALITY
impact.25 As shown in Table V.K-7 and Table V.K-8 the proposed project would not exceed the daily
or annual emission thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Therefore the proposed project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts, and the
cumulative impact would be less than significant.
25
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010, Sections 2.1 and 2.6.1, op. cit.
348

OCTOBER 2015
L.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section summarizes existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and discusses global climate
change, its causes, and the contribution of human activities. The section estimates the likely GHG
emissions that would result from construction and operational activities including vehicular traffic,
energy consumption and other emission sources associated with the project and describes the criteria
for determining the significance of climate change impacts. Mitigation measures are recommended,
as necessary, to reduce project-related impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Because implementation of either Option A or Option B would result in development of up to 300
parking spaces within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, potential impacts to
greenhouse gas emissions, which occur on a global basis, would be the same under either option.
Therefore, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options.
1.
Setting
This section describes existing greenhouse gas emissions in the City of Fremont and the Bay Area,
beginning with a discussion of typical greenhouse gas types and sources, impacts of global climate
changes, the regulatory framework surrounding these issues, and current emission levels.
a.
Greenhouse Gases. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature
of the Earths atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. Global surface temperatures have risen by
0.74C (0.18C) over the last 100 years (19062005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is
almost double that over the last 100 years.1 The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that
most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased
amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are the primary causes of the humaninduced component of warming. Greenhouse gases are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land
clearing, agriculture, and other activities and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.2
Greenhouse gases 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 the following:
Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
2
The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the "greenhouse effect." Just as the glass in
a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth
would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming, the naturally occurring
greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5l-GHG.docx (10/14/15)
349

OCTOBER 2015

Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of greenhouse gases to be released
into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global
warming. While manmade greenhouse gases include naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as
CO2, CH4, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are completely new to the atmosphere.
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. For this reason, and because its
atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, water vapor is excluded from
the list of greenhouse gases. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time,
contributing to climate change in the long term.
These gases vary considerably in terms of global warming potential (GWP), which is a concept
developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas 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 greenhouse gas. The
definition of the GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of
the greenhouse gas to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period.
Greenhouse gas emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalents
(CO2e). Table V.L-1 shows the GWPs for each type of greenhouse gas. For example, SF6 is 22,800
times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO2.
Table V.L-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases

Gas
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
HFC-23
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4)
PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6)
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
50-200
12
114
270
14
1.4
50,000
10,000
3,200
Global Warming Potential

Relative to Carbon Dioxide
(100-year Time Horizon)
1
25
298
14,800
1,430
124
7,390
12,200
22,800
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six greenhouse gases.
(1) Carbon Dioxide (CO2). In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form
as CO2. Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals and plants,
volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter, and evaporation from the oceans. Human
caused sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral
production, and deforestation. Natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land and oceandwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO2, and, consequently,
the gas is building up in the atmosphere.
350

OCTOBER 2015

In 2002, CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion accounted for approximately 98 percent of manmade CO2 emissions and approximately 84 percent of California's overall greenhouse gas emissions
(CO2e). The transportation sector accounted for Californias largest portion of CO2 emissions, with
gasoline consumption making up the greatest portion of these emissions. Electricity generation was
Californias second largest category of greenhouse gas emissions.
(2) Methane (CH4). Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments
lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Decomposition
occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH4 emissions in California and
in the United States as a whole. Agricultural processes such as intestinal fermentation, manure
management, and rice cultivation are also significant sources of CH4 in California. Methane
accounted for approximately 6 percent of gross climate change emissions (CO2e) in California from
1990 to 2004.
Total annual emissions of methane are approximately 500 million tons, with manmade emissions
accounting for the majority. As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric methanea
chemical breakdown in the atmospherecannot keep pace with source emissions, and methane
concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.
(3) Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological
sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the
majority of natural source emissions. Nitrous oxide is a product of the reaction that occurs between
nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and
the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device
used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel
combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. Nitrous oxide
emissions accounted for approximately 8 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) in
California from 1990 to 2004.
(4) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6). Hydrofluorocarbons are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated
under the Montreal Protocol.3 Perfluorocarbons and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes,
including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and
distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California;
however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry leads to greater use of PFCs. Hydrofluorocarbons, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions
(CO2e) in California from 1990 to 2004.
b.
Impacts of Climate Change. The potential impacts of global climate change are described in
the following section.
3
The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was designated to
protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be
responsible for ozone depletion.
351

OCTOBER 2015

(1) Temperature Increase. The latest projections, based on state-of-the art climate models,
indicate that temperatures in California are expected to rise 3 to 10.5F by the end of the century.4
Because greenhouse gases persist for a long time in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are
generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere cannot be tied to a specific point of emission.
The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global temperature. The
impact of human activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the observational record.
For example, surface temperature data show that 11 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 rank among
the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record for global surface temperature.5
Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which would induce additional
changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate
system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include but are not limited to the
following:
The loss of sea ice and mountain snowpack resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea
surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to
the atmospheres ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;
Rise in global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers
and ice caps in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;
Changes in weather that include widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and
wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy
precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones;
Decline of the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for a significant amount of the surface
water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;
Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent

(depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas of Los Angeles and the
San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century; and
High potential for erosion of Californias coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Delta
and levee systems due to the rise in sea level.
(2) Precipitation and Water Supply. Most of Californias precipitation falls in the northern
part of the State during the winter. A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and
transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers, as the greatest demand for water
comes from users in the southern part of the State during the spring and summer.6 The current
distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and
summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could
severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.
California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July.
California, State of, 2008. California Energy Commissions Public Interest Energy Research Program. The Future
is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. September.
6
California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit.
352

OCTOBER 2015

Some models predict drier conditions and decreased water flows, while others predict wetter
conditions in various parts of the world. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more
precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, thus
reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent over the next 100 years.
The extent to which various meteorological conditions will impact groundwater supply is unknown.
Warmer temperatures could increase the period when water is on the ground by reducing soil freeze.
However, warmer temperatures could also lead to higher evaporation or shorter rainfall seasons,
shortening the recharge season. Warmer winters could increase the amount of runoff available for
groundwater recharge. However, the additional runoff would occur at a time when some basins,
particularly in Northern California, are being recharged at their maximum capacity.
Where precipitation is projected to increase in California, the increases are focused in Northern
California. However, various California climate models provide mixed results regarding changes in
total annual precipitation in the State through the end of this century; therefore, no conclusion on an
increase or decrease can be made. Considerable uncertainties about the precise effects of climate
change on California hydrology and water resources will remain until there is more precise and
consistent information about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change.7 The
Alameda County Water District (ACWD) supplies water for the City of Fremont, including the
project site. The ACWD provides water to the Cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. ACWDs
local sources include fresh groundwater from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, brackish groundwater desalination, and surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir.8 The ACWD addresses the
potential effects of climate change of future water supplies and found that much of ACWDs
imported water supplies is held in storage in winter and spring as snowpack in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains. With a diminished snowpack, the water supply yield of the State Water Project and San
Francisco Regional System may be significantly impacted.9 As such, the District is developing
measures to increase the reliability of their water supply.
(3) Sea Level Rise. Rising sea level is one of the major areas of concern related to global
climate change. Two of the primary causes for a sea level rise are the thermal expansion of ocean
waters (water expanding as it heats up) and the addition of water to ocean basins by the melting of
land-based ice. From 1961 to 2003, global average sea level rose at an average rate of 0.07 inches per
year, and at an accelerated average rate of about 0.12 inches per year during the last decade of this
period (1993 to 2003).10 Over the past 100 years, sea levels along Californias coasts and estuaries
have risen about seven inches.11
7
California, State of, 2006. Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into
Management of Californias Water Resources. July.
8
Alameda County Water District. Urban Water Management Plan 2010 2015. Website: www.acwd.org/
index.aspx?NID=365 (accessed July 27, 2015).
9
Ibid.
10
11
Ibid.
353

OCTOBER 2015

Sea levels could rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century as global climate change
continues.12 Although these projections are on a global scale, the rate of sea level rise along
Californias coast is relatively consistent with the worldwide average rate observed over the past
century. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that changes in worldwide sea level rise will also be
experienced along Californias coast.13
Sea level rise of this magnitude would increasingly threaten Californias coastal regions with more
intense coastal storms, accelerated coastal erosion, threats to vital levees, and disruption of inland
water systems, wetlands, and natural habitats. Rising sea levels and more intense storm surges could
increase the risk for coastal flooding. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) employed geographic information system software to identify the shoreline
areas likely to be most impacted by a one meter rise in sea level.14
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the background rate of sea level rise has been estimated to be
approximately 0.079 inch per year over the past 100 years.15 An increased rate of sea level rise is
anticipated in the near future due to projected global climate change. Although the rate of increase has
not been precisely modeled and cannot be known with certainty, several projections predict a rise in
sea level of at least 50 centimeters (approximately 20 inches) and as much as 200 centimeters
(approximately 80 inches) by the year 2100.
(4) Water Quality. Water quality depends on a wide range of variables such as water
temperature, flow, runoff rates and timing, waste discharge loads, and the ability of watersheds to
assimilate wastes and pollutants. Climate change could alter water quality in a variety of ways,
including higher winter flows that reduce pollutant concentrations (through dilution) or increase
erosion of land surfaces and stream channels, leading to higher sediment, chemical, and nutrient loads
in rivers. Water temperature increases and decreased water flows can result in increasing concentrations of pollutants and salinity. Increases in water temperature alone can likely to lead to adverse
changes in water quality, even in the absence of changes in precipitation.
Land and resource use changes can have impacts on water quality comparable to or even greater than
those from global climate change. The net effect on water quality for rivers, lakes, and groundwater in
the future is dependent not just on climate conditions, but also on a wide range of other human actions
and management decisions.
(5) Public Health. Global climate change is anticipated to result in not only changes to
average temperature but also to more extreme heat events.16 These extreme heat events increase the
risk of death from dehydration, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress, especially with people
who are ill, children, the elderly, and the poor, who may lack access to air conditioning and medical
12
13
14
California, State of, 2009. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Climate Change.
Website: www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/climate_change.shtml (accessed July 2015).
15
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 2007. Mean Sea Level Trend (station) 9414290 San Francisco,
California. Website: tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 (accessed July 2015).
16
354

OCTOBER 2015

assistance. According to the California Climate Change Center, more research is needed to understand the effects of higher temperatures and how adapting to these temperatures can minimize health
effects.
c.
Regulatory Framework. The federal and State regulatory framework related to greenhouse
gas emissions is described below.
(1) Federal Regulations. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled [549
U.S. 497 (2007)] that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has the authority to
regulate CO2 emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). While there currently are no
adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. EPA
commenced several actions in 2009 to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change,
including the ones described below.
On September 22, 2009, the U.S. EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases
from large greenhouse gas emission sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting
requirement will provide the U.S. EPA with accurate and timely greenhouse gas emissions data from
facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This publicly-available data will allow
the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying
cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except
that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases, along with vehicle and engine
manufacturers, will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85 percent of the total U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this rule.
On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed a final action under the FCAA, finding
that six greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) constitute a threat to public health and
welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles contribute to global climate change.
This U.S. EPA action does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, the
findings are a prerequisite to finalizing the greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles
discussed further below. The U.S. EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July
29, 2010, U.S. EPA denied these petitions.
On April 1, 2010, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a final joint rule to establish a national program
consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. U.S. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national
greenhouse gas emissions standards under the CAA, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average
Fuel Economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The U.S. EPA greenhouse
gas standards require light-duty vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of
250 grams of CO2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon.
In December 2010, the U.S. EPA issued its plan for establishing greenhouse gas pollution standards
under the FCAA in 2011. The agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on
greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries two of the largest
industrial sources, representing nearly 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.
On August 9, 2011, U.S. EPA and the NHTSA announced the first-ever standards to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. The final
355

OCTOBER 2015

combined standards of the Heavy-Duty National Program will reduce CO2 emissions by about 270
million metric tons (MMT) and save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles built for
the 2014 to 2018 model years. The heavy duty sector addressed in the U.S. EPA and NHTSA rules
(including the largest pickup trucks and vans, semi-trucks, and all types and sizes of work trucks and
buses in between) accounts for nearly 6 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 20 percent
of transportation emissions. In addition, air quality will continue to improve as less fuel use leads to
reduced ozone and particulate matter.
(2) State Regulations. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is typically the lead
agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. There are many regulations and
statutes in California that address, both directly and indirectly, greenhouse gas emissions, such as
renewable portfolio standards (SB 1078, SB 107, SB 2(1X)) and energy efficiency standards (Title
24, Cal. Code Regs.). Key State regulatory activities specifically addressing climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions are discussed below.
Assembly Bill 1493 (2002). In a response to the transportation sectors significant contribution
to Californias CO2 emissions, AB 1493 (Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires the
ARB to set greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other
vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in
2009 and all subsequent model years. These standards (starting in model years 2009 to 2016) were
approved by the ARB in 2004, but the needed waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption was not granted
by the U.S. EPA until June 30, 2009. The ARB responded by amending its original regulation, now
referred to as Low Emission Vehicle III, to take effect for model years starting in 2017 to 2025.
Executive Order S-3-05 (2005). Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S3-05 on June 1, 2005, which proclaimed that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change. To combat those concerns, the executive order established Californias greenhouse gas
emissions reduction targets, which established the following goals:
Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010;
Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and
Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency is required to coordinate efforts of
various State agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce greenhouse gases. A biannual
progress report must be submitted to the Governor and State Legislature disclosing the progress made
toward greenhouse emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted
illustrating the impacts of global warming on Californias water supply, public health, agriculture, the
coastline, and forestry, and report possible mitigation and adaptation plans to address these impacts.
Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act. Californias major
initiative for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is AB 32, passed by the State Legislature on August
31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The ARB
has established the level of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT CO2e. The emissions
target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the States projected business-as-usual
2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 required the ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the
main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to
356

OCTOBER 2015

global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11, 2008, and
contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve the reduction of approximately 169
MMT of CO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the States projected 2020 emission level of 596
MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10
percent from 2002-2004 average emissions). The Scoping Plan also includes ARB-recommended
greenhouse gas reductions for each emissions sector of the States greenhouse gas inventory. The
Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to be achieved by
implementing the following measures and standards:
Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT
CO2e);
The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);
Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of
combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e); and
A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e).
Senate Bill 97 (2007). SB 97, signed by the Governor in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of
2007; Public Resources Code, Sections 21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges climate change is a
prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directed the State Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Natural
Resources Agency guidelines for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse
gas emissions, as required by CEQA.
The California Natural Resources Agency adopted the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines in
January 2010, which went into effect in March 2010. The amendments do not identify a threshold of
significance for greenhouse gas emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or
specific mitigation measures. The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in
performing a CEQA analysis, but preserve the discretion granted by CEQA to lead agencies in
making their own determinations based on substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage
public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs when they perform
individual project analyses.
(3) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air
pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The BAAQMD regulates greenhouse gas
emissions through the following plans, programs, and guidelines.
Clean Air Plans. BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with
the State and federal Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to
improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health through implementation of a control strategy
designed to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants. The most recent
clean air plan also includes measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
BAAQMD Climate Protection Program. The BAAQMD established a climate protection
program to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The climate protection program includes measures that promote
energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy, all of
357

OCTOBER 2015

which assist in reducing emissions of greenhouse gas and in reducing air pollutants that affect the
health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate protection programs in the region
and to stimulate additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local
governments and other interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. As described in Section V.K, Air Quality, the
2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of
projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines also include recommended
assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. As described
previously, the BAAQMD recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended
Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted in 1999. However,
the 1999 CEQA Guidelines do not contain a threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. The 2010
CEQA Guidelines include a quantitative threshold for project level analyses based on estimated
greenhouse emissions as well as per capita metrics.
(4) City of Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plan was adopted in
December 2011 and addresses climate change through policies, goals, and implementation actions.17
General Plan policies addressing greenhouse gas emissions relate to climate change adaptation,
transit-oriented development, mixed-use development, green buildings, waste reduction and
recycling, water quality and conservation/recycling, energy conservation and renewable energy, and
waste reduction and recycling. The proposed project would develop a new staging area, including
additional parking, restrooms, and associated facilities; therefore, the General Plan policies related to
climate change are specifically applicable to the proposed project.
The City of Fremont has established green building requirements and in 2006 the City adopted a
Sustainability Policy that called for all new City buildings over 10,000 square feet in size to be LEED
Silver certified. Additionally the City has adopted a solid waste goal to divert 57 percent of solid
waste generated in Fremont from the landfill.
(5) City of Fremont Climate Action Plan. The City of Fremonts Climate Action Plan
(CAP) was adopted in November, 2012. The CAP is consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan and reinforces the principal of sustainability in the City of Fremont. There are two
overarching goals of the Fremont CAP:
17
To identify specific and achievable actions for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
within the City. The actions are organized within a three-tier implementation time frame:
Short-term (1-3 years from Plan adoption, 61 actions);
Medium-term (3-5 years from Plan adoption, 16 actions); and
Long-term (5-10 years from Plan adoption, 8 actions).
To serve as a resource for continued engagement, education, motivation, and inspiration of

the community and City organization to work together. The CAP is meant to provide a
358

OCTOBER 2015

roadmap, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to opportunities, such as partnerships

and funding mechanisms, when they arise. 18
The City Council has adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020 from
2005 baseline conditions by implementing the actions from their three-tiered program. The City
hopes to achieve a reduction of 730,000 MTCO2e from business as usual projections for 2020
resulting in a goal of 1,249,000 MTCO2e 2020 CO2 emissions.19 Municipal and community-wide
activities supporting this goal include land use and mobility measures, energy measures to maximize
energy efficiency and reducing energy use, solid waste measures, water conservation measures, and
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pertaining to municipal services and operations, as
follows.
Land Use and Mobility. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by facilitating transitoriented development, conducting outreach and educational efforts to promote behavior
change, and creating the conditions that support peoples ability to make choices which
support this goal.
Energy. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency strategies,

community education, and collaboration with PG&E and other energy program providers.
Solid Waste. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by decreasing the amount
of solid waste sent to landfills through increased voluntary and mandatory recycling,
composting, and other materials management strategies, and from methane gas capture and
recovery.
Water. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through water conservation and efficient use of
water resources, collaboration efforts with other public agencies, outreach and educational
efforts to promote behavior change, and creating the conditions that support peoples
ability to make choices which support this goal.
following policy related to greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy RM1. The District will maintain an active inventory of its resources and monitor their health
and viability. When access to park areas by the public, or other factors, are negatively impacting
these resources, the District may institute periodic closures of trails or staging areas to allow these
resources and their environs to rest and recover.
Policy RM2. The District will specifically track and monitor the effects of Climate Change on its
resources, interceding when necessary to relocate or protect in-situ resources that are being degraded
or lost by this shift in the environment.
(7) Emissions Inventories An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary
human-generated sources and sinks of greenhouse gases is a well-recognized and useful tool for
addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on global, United States,
California, and local greenhouse gas emission inventories.
18
Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Climate Action Plan. November, 13.
19
Ibid.
359

OCTOBER 2015

Global Emissions. Worldwide net emissions (including the effects of land use and forestry) of
greenhouse gases in 2010 were 46 billion metric tons20 of CO2e per year.21 This represents a 35
percent increase from 1990.
United States Emissions. In 2012, the United States emitted about 6.5 billion metric tons of
CO2e or about 21 metric tons per year per person. The total 2012 CO2e emissions represent a 5
percent increase since 1990 but a 10 percent decrease since 2005. Of the six major sectors nationwide
residential, commercial, agricultural, industry, transportation, and electricity generation electricity
generation accounts for the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 (approximately
32 percent), with transportation being a close second at 27 percent since 1990; these emissions are
generated entirely from direct fossil fuel combustion.22
State of California Emissions. The ARB is responsible for developing the California
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of greenhouse gases
emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the State and supports the
AB 32 Climate Change Program.
According to ARB emission inventory estimates, California emitted approximately 460 million
metric tons of CO2e emissions in 2012.23 California ranks second in the nation in terms of total
greenhouse gas emissions (Texas is highest), with a per-capita greenhouse gas emission rate of
approximately 12 metric tons per person (43 percent less than the national average in 2012); only 5
other states (all in the northeast) have lower per-capita greenhouse gas emissions.24
California greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sectorstill the States largest single
source of greenhouse gases, contributing 36 percent of total emissionsdeclined modestly compared
to 2011; however, over the past 7 years, transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions have
dropped 12 percent.25 The ARB attributes much of this decrease to the growing Statewide fleet of
fuel-efficient vehiclesthe hybrid vehicle market share increased in 2012 to 7.4 percent from the
2011 level of 5.4 percent.26
20
A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons.
21
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Global
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Website: www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html
(accessed June 23, 2014).
22
Ibid.
23
California Air Resources Board, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data for 20002012.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).
24
California Air Resources Board, 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2012: Trends of
Emissions and Other Indicators. 13 May. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
360

OCTOBER 2015

ARB staff has projected 2020 unregulated greenhouse gas emissions, which represent the emissions
that would be expected to occur in the absence of any greenhouse gas reduction actions, would be 507
MMT of CO2e.27 The total emissions are lower than originally forecast (596 MMT) in the AB32
Scoping Plan to account for new estimates for future fuel and energy demand and accounting for the
recent economic recession.
Greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 from the transportation sector as a whole are expected to increase
to 184 MMT of CO2e (2012 inventory is 167 MMT of CO2e). The industrial sector consists of large
stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions and includes oil and gas production and refining
facilities, cement plants, and large manufacturing facilities. Emissions for this sector are forecast to
grow to 91.5 MMT of CO2e by 2020, an increase of approximately 3 percent from the 2012 emissions
inventory level. The commercial and residential sectors are expected to contribute 45.3 MMT of
CO2e, or about 9 percent of the total Statewide greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.28
San Francisco Bay Area Emissions. The BAAQMD established a climate protection program
in 2005 to acknowledge the link between climate change and air quality. The BAAQMD regularly
prepares inventories of criteria and toxic air pollutants to support planning, regulatory and other
programs. The most recent emissions inventory estimates greenhouse gas emissions produced by the
San Francisco Bay Area in 2011.29 The inventory, which was published January 2015, updates the
BAAQMDs previous greenhouse gas emission inventory for base year 2007.
In 2011, 86.6 million metric tons of CO2e of greenhouse gases were emitted by the San Francisco Bay
Area. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector was the single largest source of the San
Francisco Bay Areas greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The transportation sector (including on-road
motor vehicles, locomotives, ships and boats, and aircraft) contributed 39.7 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions and the industrial and commercial sectors (excluding electricity and agriculture)
contributed 35.7 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area. Energy production activities
such as electricity generation and co-generation were the third largest contributor with approximately
14 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Off-road equipment such as construction, industrial,
commercial, and lawn and garden equipment contributed 1.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
City of Fremont Emissions. The City of Fremont, in partnership with ICLEI Local
Governments for Sustainability, prepared the City of Fremont Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventory to determine the levels of greenhouse gas emissions that the City emits in its base year,
2005, for both community-side and municipal sources.30 The baseline inventory was compiled using
ICLEIs Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software. The community-wide sources within the
CACP software are intended to represent greenhouse gas emission from the following sectors:
residential, commercial, and industrial energy use, transportation, and solid waste.
27
California Air Resources Board, 2013. Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 2020 Emissions Forecast.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).
28
Ibid.
29
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
January.
30
Fremont, City of, and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. 2008. Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory Report. June.
361

OCTOBER 2015

While the baseline inventory is meant to capture

emissions that physically occur in Fremont as a direct
result of activities within the community, it also includes
some of the emissions in other jurisdictions caused as an
indirect result of activities within Fremont for which
adequate data exists (e.g., electricity use, waste water).
Other indirect emissions, such as transportation beyond
City limits, air travel by Fremont residents, and the
production and transportation of goods consumed in
Fremont, are not included in the emission inventory
because of their difficulty to accurately quantify.
Table V.L-2: City of Fremont 2005

Inventory (MTCO2e)
Sector
Transportation
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Waste
Total
Source:
GHG Emissions
1,116,416
276,172
405,996
63,641
1,862,221
Fremont, City of, and ICLEI Local

Governments for Sustainability. 2008.
Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory Report. June.
The 2005 baseline greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the City of Fremont is 1,862,221 metric
tons of greenhouse gas emissions. As shown in Table V.L-2, approximately 60 percent of the
greenhouse gas emissions are related to transportation. This percentage reflects vehicles traveling on
State highways and local roads.
2.
This section evaluates significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that could result from
the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures where appropriate. The section begins
with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is
significant. The latter part of this section presents the GHG-related impacts that would result from
implementation of the proposed project. The consistency of the project with plans adopted for the
purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also discussed.
A single project typically does not generate a sufficient quantity of greenhouse gas emissions to affect
global climate change; therefore, the global climate change impacts of the proposed project are
discussed in the context of cumulative impacts, per the approach recommended by the BAAQMD.
Therefore, this section begins by establishing the thresholds to determine whether an impact is
significant. The latter part of this section identifies greenhouse gas emissions associated with existing
operations within the project area and evaluates the greenhouse gas emissions expected to result from
the project. Because GHG impacts occur on a cumulative basis and would be the same for both
project site options, the analysis in this section does not differentiate between the two project options.
a.
Criteria of Significance. This section evaluates impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions
and global climate change that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Section
15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based
to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. In performing that analysis, the lead agency has
discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions,
or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to
the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project
may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting,
whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines
applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements
adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions.
362

OCTOBER 2015

The BAAQMD has adopted greenhouse gas thresholds of significance for operational emissions in its
2010 CEQA Guidelines.31 The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds for construction emissions but
recommends quantification and disclosure of these emissions. Local agencies are encouraged to adopt
feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions. This EIR analyzes whether the
projects greenhouse gas emissions would be cumulatively significant, and if so the project would
then result in significant adverse impacts on global climate change if it would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment. The project would not have a significant effect on the
environment if it would meet one of the following criteria:
Result in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons of
CO2e a year; or
Result in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 4.6 metric tons of
CO2e per capita service population (employees plus residents) per year.
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases.
These significance thresholds were adopted as part of the BAAQMDs May 2010 CEQA Guidelines.
CEQA grants local agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to
rely on thresholds previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts so long as
they are supported by substantial evidence. The BAAQMDs approach to developing a quantitative
threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 was to identify the emissions level for
which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation
and policy adopted to reduce Statewide greenhouse gas emissions. According to the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines, if a project would generate greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold level, it
would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered
significant. The Alameda County Superior Court did not question the science behind the thresholds or
their merit. For that reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the 2010 BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines and the significance thresholds contained therein.
b.
Project Impacts. Potential greenhouse gas emissions and impacts associated with the proposed
project are discussed below. As previously noted, impacts are not differentiated for either site option
as the impacts would occur on a cumulative level and would be the same under either option.
(1) Generate Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project would
generate emissions during construction and operation. However, as demonstrated in the following
analysis, these emissions would not contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or violate
any greenhouse gas emission standard or plan. Therefore, the projects impacts would be less-thansignificant for both project options as described below.
Construction Emissions. Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, 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
31
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June.
363

OCTOBER 2015

sources. During construction of the project, greenhouse gases would be emitted through the operation
of construction equipment and haul trucks, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate.
The combustion of fossil-based fuels would create greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, and N2O.
Furthermore, CH4 would be emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from
on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
The total construction period anticipated for both project options is approximately six months. Using
emission factors from ARBs EMFAC 2011 model and U.S. EPAs off-road engine Tier Standards
(Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 1039.102) by each piece of construction equipment, it is
estimated that total project construction activities would emit approximately 482 metric tons of CO2e
for Options A and B. Model output sheets are included in Appendix F.
The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related
greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the threshold is based on a qualitative evaluation of whether the
project implements applicable BAAQMD Best Management Practices. Implementation of the
construction practices proposed by the project and required by Option A and Option B Mitigation
Measure AIR-1 (for either option) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the amount of
construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. Therefore, the
construction impacts of the proposed project on global climate change would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG
emissions from mobile sources. The project would generate minimal emissions associated with
energy consumption and water consumption associated with the new restroom facilities (refer to
Section V.Q, Utilities for additional information). The primary source of greenhouse gas emissions
would result from project-generated vehicle trips.
Based on the traffic study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D and Section V.J,
Transportation and Circulation of this EIR), the project under both options would generate 121
additional peak hour trips on Saturdays and 16 additional Friday PM peak hour trips during the
busiest months. Based on ITE data for regional parks, PM peak hour trips would be 2.63 percent of
the daily weekday trips, while Saturday peak hour trips would be 18.45 percent of the total daily
Saturday trips. Therefore it is estimated that the project would generate 608 weekday trips and 656
Saturday trips. Sunday trips were estimated to be equal to Saturday trips for purposes of the air
quality and greenhouse gas assessment.
An analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from these additional trips was conducted
using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Results of the analysis indicate the
project would generate 517 metric tons CO2e per year. Motor vehicle emissions are the primary
source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. Additional calculation details are
provided in Appendix F. Annual emissions of operational-related greenhouse gases for the proposed
project would not exceed the significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year; therefore,
the operations of the project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the
impact of the proposed project on greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.
(2) Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. The applicable greenhouse gas
emission reduction plan is the City of Fremonts Climate Action Plan which identifies a set of
emission reduction measures. Consistency with the Climate Action Plan can be determined if the
project does the following: 1) supports the goals of the Climate Action Plan; 2) includes applicable
364

OCTOBER 2015

control measures from the Climate Action Plan; 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any
control measures from the Climate Action plan. The projects consistency with these objectives is
described below.
The primary goal of the 2012 Climate Action Plan is to reduce the Citys greenhouse gas emissions
25 percent by 2020 from a 2005 baseline.32 The City has established a summary of proposed actions
for community-wide emission reduction. These actions are divided into the following actions: land
use and mobility, energy, solid waste, water, and municipal services and operations. The project will
be operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Parks District, and therefore is not considered a
City of Fremont municipal service or operation per the Climate Action Plan.
The proposed project would include development of a new staging area and parking lot to increase
the parking capacity for visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. Increasing the
number of available parking spaces would provide more readily available parking for the community,
and would in turn reduce the tile pipe emissions and idling from cars driving through the area to find
an available parking spot. The proposed project would result in a minimal increase in water and
energy consumption associated with new restroom. The project would require a small amount of
electricity for lighting and possibly hand driers. Additionally, all toilets would be low-flow, consistent
with the latest building standards. Minimal water and electricity use would not result in substantial
greenhouse gas emissions that would hinder the goals of the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with the mobility measures in the Climate Action Plan.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past,
present, or future projects, that when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate
change is a global environmental problem in which: (a) any given development project contributes
only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute
large amounts of greenhouse gasses around the world. Land use projects may contribute to the
phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some
specific effects felt in California. However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link
between individual land use project impacts and global warming.
The combination of greenhouse gas emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes
substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts.
No individual project would result in a measurable impact on global climate change. Therefore, this
analysis has addressed climate change primarily as a cumulative impact. As noted above, in
developing the threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions, the BAAQMD identified the
emissions level for which a project would conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce Statewide greenhouse gas emissions. According to the BAAQMD, if a project would generate
greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially
to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.33 As indicated in the analysis presented
above, the proposed project would not exceed the project-level significance criteria established by the
BAAQMD and therefore the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact related
to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.
32
33
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines Section 2.2. May.
365

OCTOBER 2015

366

OCTOBER 2015
STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA PARKING EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

M. NOISE
M. NOISE
This section describes existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the project sites, describes criteria
for determining the significance of noise impacts, and estimates noise levels that would result from
implementation of the proposed project. Where necessary, mitigation measures are recommended to
reduce project-related noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Noise modeling data is provided
in Appendix G.
1.
Setting
The section begins with an introduction to several key concepts and terms that are used in evaluating
noise and vibration, a related issue. This setting section concludes with a description of current noise
sources that affect the project area and noise levels that are experienced in the vicinity of the project
sites.
a.
Characteristics of Sound. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any
sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication,
work, rest, recreation, and sleep.
To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is the number
of complete vibrations or cycles per second of a wave that results in the range of tone from high to
low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment, and it is
measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound
waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how
hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sounds effect. This characteristic
of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise
environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effects on adjacent sensitive land
uses (e.g., residences, nursing homes, schools).
b.
Measurement of Sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of
oscillation (frequency) of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests in the wave,
the speed that it travels, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. The sound pressure
level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness (or amplitude) of an
ambient sound, and the decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. A decibel (dB) is a unit
of measurement which indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the dB scale is based
on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less
are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a
change of 3 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in
outdoor environments.
Because sound can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, a
logarithmic loudness scale1 is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable
level. Thus, a 10 dBA (see below for a description of dBA) increase in the level of a continuous
1
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a
sharply rising curve. The logarithmic decibel scale allows an extremely wide range of acoustic energy to be characterized in
a manageable notation.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5m-Noise.docx (10/14/15)
367

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
noise represents a perceived doubling of loudness, while a 20 dBA increase is 100 times more
intense, and a 30 dBA increase is 1,000 times more intense. As noise spreads from a source, it loses
energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived
noise level. Noise levels diminish or attenuate as distance from the source increases based on an
inverse square rule, depending on how the noise source is physically configured. Noise levels from a
single-point source, such as a single piece of construction equipment at ground level, attenuate at a
rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance (between the single-point source of noise and the noisesensitive receptor of concern). Heavily traveled roads with few gaps in traffic behave as continuous
line sources and attenuate roughly at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all pitches (sound frequencies) within the entire spectrum, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity
in a process called A-weighting, expressed as dBA. The dBA or A-weighted decibel refers to a
scale of noise measurement that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of
different frequencies. Table V.M-1 contains a list of typical acoustical terms and definitions. Table
V.M-2 shows some representative noise sources and their corresponding noise levels in dBA.
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise
affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound, including during sensitive times of
the day and night. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time
varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities
in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night
average level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise
occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale,
but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn
are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to
the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours. Typical A-weighted sound levels from
various sources are identified in Table V.M-2.
When assessing the annoyance factor, other noise rating scales of importance include the maximum
noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time averaged sound level that occurs during a
stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax for short-term noise impacts. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and
addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise.
Noise impacts can be organized into three categories. The first category comprises audible increases
in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of
3.0 dBA or greater, since, as described earlier, this level has been found to be barely perceptible in
exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level
between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA. 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 dBA that are inaudible
to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered
potentially significant.
368

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
Table V.M-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms

Term
Decibel, dB
Frequency, Hz
A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
L01, L10, L50, L90
Equivalent
Continuous Noise
Level, Leq
Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
Day/Night Noise
Level, Ldn
Lmax, Lmin
Definitions
A unit that denotes the ratio between two quantities proportional to power; the number of decibels is
10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.
Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e.,
number of cycles per second).
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low
and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of
the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this section
are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.
The fast A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level for 1 percent, 10
percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period.
The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same Aweighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition
of 5 decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the
addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition
of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a
designated time interval, using fast time averaging.
Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually a
composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is
dominant.
Intrusive
The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative
intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and
tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: Harris, Cyril M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.
c.
Physiological Effects of Noise. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Developments 1985 Noise Guidebook,2 permanent physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 to 90 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our
entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and
thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the ear, and the nervous system. In comparison,
extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the
noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term
exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. To avoid adverse effects on human
physical and mental health in the workplace or in communities, the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the protection of workers from
hearing loss when the noise exposure equals or exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA.3
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1985. The Noise Guidebook. May.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2011. Regulations, Standards 29 CFR, Occupational Noise
Exposure 1910.95.
369

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
Unwanted community effects of noise occur at levels much lower than those that cause hearing loss
and other health effects. Noise annoyance occurs when it interferes with sleeping, conversation, and
noise-sensitive work, including learning or listening to the radio, television, or music. According to
World Health Organization (WHO) noise studies, few people are seriously annoyed by daytime
activities with noise levels below 55 dBA, or are only moderately annoyed with noise levels below 50
dBA.4
Table V.M-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2009.
d.
Characteristics of Groundborne Vibration. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground
radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. As
the vibration propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the building, the vibration
of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration from the rattling of windows or a rumbling noise.
The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. When
assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square
4
World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Website: www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/
guidelines2.html.
370

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
(rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from
noise levels, the unit is written as VdB. Human perception to vibration in indoor environments
starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential
settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people
who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of the building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction.
In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration
has the potential to cause structural damage to
buildings. Construction vibration impacts on
building structures are generally assessed in terms
of peak particle velocity (PPV). Common sources of
groundborne vibration include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and
operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Typical
vibration source levels from construction equipment
are shown in Table V.M-3.
e.
Existing Noise Environment. The most
significant noise sources that contribute to the
existing noise environment in the City of Fremont
are transportation noise from vehicular traffic,
railroad and train noise, industrial uses, and
mechanical equipment.5 The proposed project is
located in a residential and recreational area where
industrial, mechanical, and railroad noises
contribute little, if any, to the ambient noise levels.
Table V.M-3:
Typical Vibration Source
Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Pile Driver Upper range
(impact)
Typical
Pile Driver Upper range
(sonic)
Typical
Clam shovel drop
(slurry wall)
Hydromill
In soil
(slurry wall) In rock
Vibratory roller
Hoe ram
Large bulldozer
Caisson drilling
Loaded trucks
Jackhammer
Small bulldozer
Source:
PPV at
25 ft
(in/sec)
1.518
0.644
0.734
0.170
Approximate
VdB at 25
feet
112
104
105
93
0.202
94
0.008
0.017
0.210
j.089
0.089
0.089
0.076
0.035
0.003
66
75
94
87
87
87
86
79
58
Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise

and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.
(1) Existing Ambient Noise Levels. Existing noise sources at and around the project site are
generated by neighborhood traffic and traffic from Mission Peak visitors. There are no existing
stationary noise sources in the project site vicinity. Parking lot noise, including engine sounds, car
doors slamming, car alarms, music, and people conversing, occurs in the project vicinity and on
nearby streets as visitors park cars to visit the Preserve. Existing traffic data, as described in Section
V.J, Transportation and Circulation, was used to calculate existing noise levels in the area. Under
existing conditions, visitors park on the residential streets approximately 50 feet from residential
structures. Noise caused by doors slamming and typical parking activities ranges from 60 dBA to 70
dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. However, when averaged over a 24 hour period, the instantaneous
spikes in ambient noise levels from doors slamming do not cause ambient noise levels to exceed the
Citys 60 dBA CNEL daily threshold.6
Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code.
371

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
Under existing conditions visitors sometimes

arrive before the park opens and congregate
on the neighborhood streets. Noise generated
from these activities is an existing issue for
nearby residences.
(2) Existing Aircraft Noise Levels.
The Norman Y. Mineta San Jos International
Airport is the closest airport to the project area
and is located approximately 9 miles southwest of the proposed project area. While
aircraft noise is occasionally audible within
the project area, the project sites do not lie
within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours of
any airport. The project area is not located in
an airport land use plan or within two miles of
a public or public use airport or within the
vicinity of a private airstrip.
f.
Regulatory Framework. The
following section summarizes the regulatory
framework related to noise, including federal,
State and City of Fremont plans, policies and
standards.
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA). In 1972, Congress
enacted the Noise Control Act. This act
authorized the U.S. EPA to publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish
levels of sound requisite to protect the public
welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
These levels are separated into health (hearing
loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels)
categories, as shown in Table V.M-4. The
U.S. EPA cautions that these identified levels
are not standards because they do not take into
account the cost or feasibility of the levels.
For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent
of the population would be protected if sound
levels are less than or equal to an Leq(24) of 70
dBA. The (24) signifies Leq duration of 24
hours. The U.S. EPA activity and interference
guidelines are designed to ensure reliable
Table V.M-4:
Effect
Hearing loss
Outdoor
activity interference and
annoyance
Summary of EPA Noise Levels

Level
Leq(24) < 70 dB
Ldn < 55 dB
Leq(24) < 55 dB
Indoor activity
interference
and annoyance
Source:
Leq < 45 dB
Leq(24) < 45 dB
Area
All areas.
Outdoors in residential
areas and farms and
other outdoor areas
where people spend
widely varying amounts
of time and other places
in which quiet is a basis
for use.
Outdoor areas where
people spend limited
amounts of time, such
as school yards, playgrounds, etc.
Indoor residential areas.
Other indoor areas with
human activities such
as schools, etc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. March.
Table V.M-5: Summary of Human Effects in

Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn
Type of Effects
Speech
Indoors
Speech
Outdoors
Average
Community
Reaction
Complaints
Annoyance
Attitude
Towards Area
Source:
Magnitude of Effect
100 percent sentence intelligibility (average) with a 5 dB margin of safety.
100 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 1.4 feet.
99 percent sentence intelligibility
(average) at 3.2 feet.
95 percent sentence intelligibility
(average) at 11.5 feet.
None evident; 7 dB below level of
significant complaints and threats of
legal action and at least 16 dB below
vigorous action.
1 percent dependent on attitude and other
non-level related factors.
17 percent dependent on attitude and
other non-level related factors.
Noise essentially the least important of
various factors.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. March.
372

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
speech communication at about 5 feet in the outdoor environment. For outdoor and indoor
environments, interference with activity and annoyance should not occur if levels are below 55 dBA
and 45 dBA, respectively.
The noise effects associated with an outdoor Ldn of 55 dBA are summarized in Table V.M-5. At 55
dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 feet, and no substantial
community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and
17 percent may indicate annoyance.
(2) State of California. The State of California has established regulations that help prevent
adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. The State Noise Insulation
Standard requires noise-sensitive land uses to meet performance standards through design and/or
building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the building. The State has also
established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified
land uses. The City of Fremont has adopted the States land use compatibility guidelines, as discussed
below and shown in Table V.M-6.
(3) City of Fremont Municipal Code. The City of Fremont Municipal Code7 specifies that
construction activity for development projects in any zoning district on any property within 500 feet
of one or more residences, lodging facilities, nursing homes, or inpatient hospitals shall be limited to
weekday hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and Saturday and holiday hours between 9:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m.; Sunday construction is not allowed. Construction activity for projects not located
within 500 feet of residences, lodging facilities, nursing homes, or inpatient hospitals shall be limited
to weekday hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and Saturday or holiday hours between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. In addition, the performance standards of Section 17.25 of the Municipal Code require
that residential lots adjacent to the right-of-way of recreational land uses (among other types of land
uses) shall be protected by suitable noise attenuation structures and/or design features, including but
not limited to walls, fences and mounds, which are capable of reducing the noise levels to 60 dBA
CNEL or lower at these residences. The Citys Municipal Code noise level metric quantifies noise
levels using CNEL, which accounts for the increased sensitivity to noise levels during evening and
morning hours and is further described in the Measurement of Sound subsection above.
(4) City of Fremont General Plan. The Health and Safety Element of the City of Fremonts
General Plan8 has established a goal to have acceptable noise levels throughout the community with
an objective to have noise environments which meet City noise standards. According to the land use
compatibility standards, the maximum acceptable noise level in residential areas is 60 dBA Ldn. This
level is intended guide the design and location of future development, and is a goal for the reduction
of noise in existing development. A 60 dBA Ldn goal will be applied where outdoor use is a major
consideration (e.g., backyards in single-family housing developments and recreation areas in multifamily housing projects). Projects that increase existing noise environments by more than 5 dBA but
remain below 60 dBA Ldn, projects that increase existing noise environments by more than 3 dBA and
exceed the 60 dBA Ldn noise threshold, and projects that would result in a significant adverse
7
City of Fremont Municipal Code, op. cit.
373

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
community response due to the unusual character of the noise, are required, by the City, for noise
evaluation and mitigation measures.
Table V.M-6:
Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise Environments
Land Use Category
<55
55
Exterior Noise Exposure (Ldn)

60
65
70
75
80
>80
Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential

Hotels, Motels and other lodging
Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Neighborhood
Parks and Playgrounds
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals,
Personal Care, Meeting Halls, Churches
Office Buildings, Business, Commercial, and
Professional
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE:
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special insulation requirements
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE:
Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.
UNACCEPTABLE:
New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with
noise element policies
Source: Fremont, City of, 2011. General Plan, Chapter 10 Safety, Figure 10-4. December.
Applicable goals and policies from the General Plans Safety Element are included below.
Goal 10-:8 Noise and Vibration. Minimal impacts to residents and property due to noise and
ground vibration sources.
Policy 10-8.1: Site Development Acceptable Noise Environment. A noise environment which meets
acceptable standards as defined by the State of California Building Code and local policies contained
herein.
Policy 10-8.2: Acceptable Noise Environment. If an area currently is below the desired noise
standards, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. The impact of
a proposed project on an existing land use should be evaluated in terms of potential for adverse
community response based on a substantial increase in existing noise levels, regardless of the
compatibility guidelines.
Policy 10-8.3 Noise Environment Protection. Protect existing residential neighborhoods from noise.
In general, the City will require the evaluation of mitigation measures for projects under the
following circumstances:
374

OCTOBER 2015
2.

M. NOISE
The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 5 dBA or more but would remain below 60 dBA,
or;
The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3 dB(A) or more and exceed 60 dB(A), or;
The project has the potential to generate significant adverse community response due to the
unusual character of the noise.
Policy 10-8.5: Construction Noise Levels. Control construction noise at its source to maintain
existing noise levels, and in no case to exceed the acceptable noise levels.
Implementation 10-8.5.A: Noise Ordinance. Consider creating and adopting a noise ordinance to
control noise generating activities such as construction activity, heavy industrial equipment,
roadway noise, horns, engines, loudspeakers, leaf blowers, and other sources.
Implementation 10-8.5.B: Construction Noise Mitigation. Continue to apply the construction

hours ordinance to new development to limit noise exposure created by construction activity.
Apply best practices to further limit noise in sensitive areas and long-term projects, such as
maintaining construction equipment in good condition and use of mufflers on internal
combustion engines, installation of temporary noise barriers, prohibiting extended idling time of
internal combustion engines, locating staging areas away from sensitive receptors and other
feasible best management practices.
Policy 10-8.6: Sensitive Uses. Protect schools, hospitals, libraries, places of religious worship,
convalescent homes, and other noise sensitive uses from noise levels exceeding those allowed in
residential areas.
This section evaluates potential noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project
and mitigation measures to address these impacts, where appropriate. The section begins with the
criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant.
The latter part of this section presents the noise-related impacts that would result from implementation of either Option A or Option B.
a.
Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant noise effect if it would
substantially increase the existing ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted
environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of
Fremont. The proposed project would result in a significant noise impact if it would result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne

noise levels;
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project;
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential noise impacts. Impacts
associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts
associated with Option B.
375

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
(1) Applicable Noise Level Standards. The proposed project is located in a relatively quiet
area with noise levels falling within the normally acceptable category according to the City of
Fremonts noise compatibility guidelines, as there are no substantial noise generators in the area and
existing pass-through traffic levels produce low levels of noise. Neighbors do, however, hear engine
sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, music, and people conversing at the existing staging area and
from visitors parking on neighborhood streets (as discussed under subsection e., Existing Noise
Environment, above).
Implementation of the proposed project could expose existing nearby residences to noise generated
from parking lot activities at either of the project site options. The performance standards of Section
17.25 of the City of Fremont Municipal Code require that noise levels emanating from recreational
land uses or rights-of-way should be controlled or mitigated so as to not exceed 60 dBA CNEL as
measured at adjacent residential property lines. As discussed below, the project would not expose
people or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in Fremonts General Plan and thus
these impacts would be less than significant. In addition, existing noise impacts to residential uses on
neighborhood streets are expected to be reduced with implementation of the proposed project at either
site option.
The proposed project aims to reduce on-street parking on neighborhood streets by providing
additional off-street parking in the Preserve for visitors to Mission Peak. This EIR analyzes potential
noise generated by the proposed project (i.e., noise levels generated from the proposed staging areas
at Option A and Option B sites). Existing noise from cars and visitors parking on neighborhood
streets would be reduced with implementation of the proposed project such that the new parking areas
would locate parking activities away from sensitive receptors. The City quantifies noise impacts in
CNEL which measures daily noise levels. Noise from cars and visitors parking on neighborhood
streets waiting for the Preserve to open is part of the baseline existing noise conditions. The project
would have a beneficial effect by reducing noise levels on some neighborhood streets.
Parking lot noise, such as car doors slamming and people conversing, would generate the highest onsite noise levels. These activities may produce noise that could affect noise-sensitive receptors in the
project vicinity. In general, noise studies have shown that activities at parking lots can generate noise
levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. As discussed below, the nearest sensitive
receptors to the proposed project are further than 50 feet away, at between 160 to 210 feet. Parking lot
noise is a point source and therefore would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA in noise reduction for every
doubling of distance.
New parking facilities at either site option would include up to 300 new parking spaces, for a total of
343 parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. As discussed in Section V.J,
Transportation and Circulation, the proposed project would provide additional parking for visitors
within the Preserve and is expected to reduce the number of visitors currently parking on public
streets. There would be a resulting reduction in noise associated with visitors parking on the
surrounding roadways. As discussed above, this EIR analyzes the impacts of the proposed staging
area; the City quantifies noise in CNEL, which is a daily noise measurement, and it would be lowered
as part of this proposed project.
Option A. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Option A site are residential homes on
Napa Court and Vinehill Circle, with the closest property line approximately 160 feet from the
376

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
proposed staging area. At Option A, the project would include the construction of a 6-foot-high berm
that would block the line of sight to the residential properties west of Option A. In addition to visual
shielding, this berm would be expected to provide a minimum of a 5 dBA noise reduction of parking
lot activity noise levels. Parking lots generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax
at 50 feet. Therefore, based on attenuation and shielding, parking lot noise levels at 160 feet from the
parking lot for Option A would be between 45 and 55 Lmax.
The Fremont Municipal Code addresses noise in terms of community noise equivalent levels;
therefore, to analyze the 24-hour noise impact of the proposed project, park open-hours were used.
During the summer months, the park is open from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The day-night average
during these months would result in noise levels up to 55.7 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential
property line. During winter months (park hours between 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) project noise
levels would be approximately 54.9 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential property line. Therefore, the
proposed staging area activities associated with Option A would not exceed the Municipal Codes
regulations for maximum day-night average sound level of 60 dBA CNEL at adjacent residential
property lines and this impact would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation, the construction of the proposed staging
area at Option A would decrease the number of cars parking on residential streets directly adjacent to
noise-sensitive receptors during Preserve open hours, and therefore would result in an overall
reduction in ambient noise levels for residential receptors affected by the existing on-street parking
conditions.
Ongoing maintenance of the existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the occasional use
of vegetation management equipment and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities are not
expected to result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time, nor would
they result in noise levels that would exceed the Citys performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as
measured at the nearest residential property line.
Therefore implementation of Option A would not result in the generation of noise levels in excess of
applicable noise level standards, and this impact would be less than significant.
Option B. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Option B site are residential land uses on
Hidden Valley Terrace,9 with the nearest property line located approximately 210 feet from the
proposed staging area. Parking lots generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at
50 feet. Given the distance of nearby residents and the resulting noise attenuation, staging area
activity noise levels could range up to 58 dBA Lmax at the property line.
The day-night average during the summer months (when the Preserve is open from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00
p.m.) would result in noise levels up to 58.3 dBA CNEL at the nearest property line. During winter
months (Preserve operational hours are between 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) project noise levels would
be approximately 57.5 dBA CNEL at the nearest property line. Therefore, implementation of Option
9
The reader should note that the homes on Hidden Valley Terrace are in a gated community with private streets and
Preserve visitors are not allowed to park on these roadways. Therefore, these residents do not experience, to the same degree
as residents with homes on public streets, the noise and nuisance associated with visitor on-street parking.
377

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
B would not exceed the Municipal Codes standard of 60 dBA CNEL at adjacent residential property
lines, and this impact would be less than significant.
As with Option A, the construction of the proposed staging area at Option B would decrease the
number of cars parking on residential streets directly adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors during
Preserve open hours, and therefore would result in an overall reduction in ambient noise levels for
residential receptors affected by the existing on-street parking conditions.
Ongoing maintenance of the existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the occasional use
of vegetation management equipment and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities are not
expected to result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time nor would
they result in noise levels that would exceed the Citys performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as
measured at the nearest residential property line.
Therefore implementation of Option B would not result in the generation of noise levels in excess of
applicable noise level standards, and this impact would be less than significant.
(2) Groundborne Vibration and Groundborne Noise. Potential impacts related to
groundborne vibration and noise are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than
significant.
Option A. No permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive groundborne
vibration or noise levels would be located at the Option A site. The proposed project would not
require the use of pile driving during construction and operation activities associated with the
proposed project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within or around the
project site to excessive groundborne vibration or noise and this impact would be less than
significant.
Option B. No permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive groundborne
vibration or noise levels would be located at the Option B site. The proposed project would not
require the use of pile driving during construction and operation activities associated with the
proposed project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within or around the
project site to excessive groundborne vibration or noise and this impact would be less than
significant.
(3) Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise. Potential impacts related to a permanent
increase in ambient noise levels are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than
significant. In addition, existing noise impacts to residential uses on neighborhood streets would be
reduced with implementation of the proposed project at either site option.
Option A. As discussed above, parking lot noise generated within the new staging area at the
Option A site would be below the Citys applicable standards and would not create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, the proposed project would relocate the
majority of Mission Peak visitors from on-street parking, which is approximately 35 feet from
sensitive receptors, to parking areas within the Preserve, which are each more than 100 feet from
378

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
sensitive receptors (the nearest sensitive receptor to the Option A site is 160 feet); thereby reducing
the exposure of surrounding residential uses to the adverse effects associated with noise generated by
vehicle parking and visitors.
Implementation of the proposed project would generate an increase in traffic noise on local roadways
in the vicinity of the project site due to the potential increase in visitor demand; with project trips
utilizing Stanford Avenue from Mission Boulevard to access the new staging area. In acoustics,
doubling the amount of equal sound energy results in a 3 dBA increase in the combined noise level
(3 dBA represents the lowest noise level increase that is perceptible by humans outside of a
laboratory environment). A project would result in a significant noise increase of 3 dBA, if it would
double existing traffic levels. As discussed in Section V.J., Transportation and Circulation, surveys
prepared for the District suggest that the proposed project could increase visitor demand by between
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions. The increased traffic from the increased
visitor demand would not double existing traffic levels and thus would not result in a perceptible
traffic noise level increase.
The proposed project would support the continued use of Preserve trails by recreationists. Existing
noise associated with recreationists such as hikers and bicyclists may include the intermittent sound
of voices. Daily recreational use activities associated with the increase in visitors would not result in
an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time. Ongoing maintenance of the
existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the occasional use of vegetation management
equipment and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities would not result in an increase in
ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time nor would they result in noise levels that would
exceed the Citys performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as measured at the nearest residential
property line. Therefore, operational noise generated by the project would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project, and thus is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.
Option B. As discussed above, parking lot noise generated within the new staging area at the
Option B site would be below the Citys applicable standards and would not create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, the proposed project would relocate the
majority of Mission Peak visitors from on-street parking, which is approximately 35 feet from
sensitive receptors, to parking areas within the Preserve, which are each more than 100 feet from
sensitive receptors (the nearest sensitive receptor property line to the Option B site is 210 feet);
thereby reducing the exposure of surrounding residential uses to the adverse effects associated with
noise generated by vehicle parking and visitors.
Implementation of the proposed project would generate an increase in traffic noise on local roadways
in the vicinity of the project site; with project trips utilizing Stanford Avenue from Mission Boulevard
to access the new staging area. As discussed in Section V.J., Transportation and Circulation, surveys
prepared for the District suggest that the proposed project could increase visitor demand by between
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions. The increase in visitation would not
result in a doubling of traffic and thus would not result in a perceptible traffic noise level increase.
The proposed project would support the continued use of existing trails by recreationists. Existing
noise associated with recreationists such as hikers and bicyclists may include the intermittent sound
of voices. Daily recreational use activities associated with the increase in visitors would not be
379

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
anticipated to result in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time. Ongoing
maintenance of the existing and proposed staging areas and trails includes the periodic use of
vegetation management tools and service trucks. Intermittent maintenance activities would not result
in an increase in ambient noise levels for a substantial period of time nor would they result in noise
levels that would exceed the Citys performance standard of 60 dBA CNEL as measured at the
nearest residential property line. Therefore, operational noise generated by the project would not
result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project, and thus is considered a less-than-significant impact.
(4) Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise. Implementation of the proposed project would
include construction activities that would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the project site vicinity. Construction is expected to occur for a six month period for either
site option. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise
levels in the project site vicinity but would be limited to the six month construction period.
Construction of the proposed project under
both options is expected to require the use of
front-end loaders, compactors, hydraulic
backhoes, and haul trucks among other
construction equipment. Typical operating
cycles for these types of construction
equipment may involve one or two minutes of
full-power operation followed by three or four
minutes at lower power settings. Impact equipment such as pile drivers would not be used
during construction of this project. Typical
maximum noise levels generated by rollers,
backhoes, front-end loaders, or similar heavy
construction equipment range from 80 dBA to
88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the
operating equipment. Typical construction
noise levels are shown in Table V.M-7.10
Table V.M-7: Typical Construction

Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax
Suggested
Range of
Maximum Sound
Maximum Sound
Levels for
Levels
Analysis
Type of Equipment (dBA at 50 feet)
(dBA at 50 feet)
Pile Drivers
81 to 96
93
Rock Drills
83 to 99
96
Jackhammers
75 to 85
82
Pneumatic Tools
78 to 88
85
Pumps
74 to 84
80
Scrapers
83 to 91
87
Haul Trucks
83 to 94
88
Cranes
79 to 86
82
Portable Generators
71 to 87
80
Rollers
75 to 82
80
Dozers
77 to 90
85
Tractors
77 to 82
80
Front-End Loaders
77 to 90
86
Hydraulic Backhoe
81 to 90
86
Hydraulic Excavators
81 to 90
86
Graders
79 to 89
86
Air Compressors
76 to 89
86
Trucks
81 to 87
86
Each doubling of the sound sources with equal

strength would increase the noise level by 3
dBA. Assuming each piece of construction
equipment operates at some distance apart
Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for
from the other equipment, the worst-case
Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.
combined noise level during this phase of
construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a
distance of 50 feet from multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operating simultaneously at
full power. Sound from a point source, such as the center of an active construction area, attenuates at
a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
10
Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.
380

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
Potential temporary noise impacts associated with construction activities at the Option A and B sites
are discussed below. As discussed, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, these
impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. Implementation of Option A would temporarily raise ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project during the construction period, as discussed below. However, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, this impact would be less than significant by ensuring
the project does not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Option A Impact NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at the Option A site would result in
a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. (S)
The closest property line for noise-sensitive receptors to the Option A site are residential land uses on
Napa Court and Vinehill Circle, approximately 160 feet from the proposed staging area. While, the
closest residential faade is located approximately 150 feet from the construction limits of the new
two-way vehicular access road that would be constructed generally along the existing alignment of
the Hidden Valley Trail. Assuming a direct line of sight, at a distance of approximately 150 feet from
active construction equipment, construction noise levels could range up of up to 82 dBA Lmax. At a
distance of approximately 160 feet maximum construction levels would be 81 dBA Lmax.
Project construction would result in relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing
intermittent noise nuisance, however these noise events would be temporary and limited to the six
month construction period. Construction activities at the Option A site would occur within 500 feet of
residential receptors, potentially resulting in a significant noise impact. Implementation of Option A
Mitigation measures NOI-1 would require the project to implement and comply with the policies and
ordinances of the Citys General Plan and Municipal Code to reduce short-term construction noise
impacts to a less-than-significant level by reducing the sound levels and duration.
Option A Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement the
following measures to reduce construction noise levels:
Construction of the project shall comply with the City of Fremonts General Plan Policy
10-8.5 by:
Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate sound muffling devices,
which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation;
Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
the closest off-site sensitive receptors;
Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between

construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site
during construction, which could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;
381

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as needed, could reduce
construction noise by as much as 5 dBA; 11 and
Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion engines.
All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment

and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday construction shall
be prohibited. (LTS)
Option B. Implementation of Option B would temporarily raise ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project during the construction period, as discussed below. However, with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, this impact would be less than significant
by ensuring Option B does not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Option B Impact NOI-1: Noise from construction activities at the Option B site would result in
a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. (S)
The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Option B site are residential land uses on Hidden Valley
Terrace, with the closest property line approximately 210 feet from the proposed staging area. While,
the closest residential faade is located approximately 100 feet from the construction limits of the new
two-way access road that would be constructed generally along the existing alignment of the Hidden
Valley Trail. Assuming a direct line of sight, at a distance of approximately 150 feet from active
construction areas, construction noise levels could be up to 82 dBA Lmax. At a distance of
approximately 210 feet maximum construction levels would be 79 dBA Lmax.
Project construction would result in relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing
intermittent noise nuisance, however these noise events would be temporary and limited to the six
month construction period. Construction activities at the Option B site would occur within 500 feet of
residential receptors, potentially resulting in a significant noise impact. Implementation of Option B
Mitigation measures NOI-1 would require the project to implement and comply with the policies and
ordinances of the Citys General Plan and Municipal Code and reduce short-term construction noise
impacts to a less-than-significant level by reducing sound levels and duration.
Option B Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The District or project contractor shall implement the
following measures to reduce construction noise levels:
Construction of the project shall comply with the City of Fremonts General Plan Policy
10-8.5 by;
Ensuring that all construction equipment utilize appropriate sound muffling devices,
which are properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation;
11
Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, Users Guide. January 2006. Available
online at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf
382

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
Placing stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
the closest off-site sensitive receptors;
Locating on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between

construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site
during construction, which could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA;
Installing temporary noise barriers, such as sound cloths, as needed, could reduce
construction noise by as much as 5 dBA; 12 and
Prohibiting extended idling time of internal combustion engines.
All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment

and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and holidays. Sunday construction shall
be prohibited. (LTS)
c.
Cumulative Impacts. Impacts related to noise are generally localized, rather than cumulative
in nature, because each project area has a unique noise environment that is subject to existing noise
standards and regulations that are imposed on new developments. The proposed project is located
within the Preserve and adjacent to a residential neighborhood where the primary sound sources in the
area are traffic on local streets and the Preserve visitors. No other nearby projects will contribute to
the noise impacts resulting from the proposed project. Even if there were significant noise impacts,
the potential noise impacts discussed in this EIR would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to existing noise levels in the area. The proposed project would not exceed thresholds
established by the Municipal Code for noise emanating from recreational land uses at nearby
residential property lines for either project site options. The project would reduce on-street parking
during hours the Preserve is open by adding up to 300 parking spaces and locating car and visitor
noise further from sensitive receptors. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to increases in ambient noise levels, and the cumulative
12
Federal Highway Administration, op. cit.
383

OCTOBER 2015

M. NOISE
384

OCTOBER 2015
N.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes population and housing statistics in the City of Fremont and Alameda County
and evaluates potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed projects
development of the Option A or Option B sites with a new staging area.
1.
Setting
The following section utilizes data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) and the City of Fremonts
General Plan Housing Element.1
a.
Population. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the population of the City of Fremont
(City) was 214,089 in 2010.2 Between 2000 and 2010, the Citys population grew by 10,676
residents, approximately 5.2 percent. During that decade, the Citys population growth was consistent
with Alameda Countys population growth of approximately 4.6 percent. For the year 2013, it is
estimated that the Citys population increased by 2.7 percent to 219,926.3
b.
Housing. In 2010, the housing stock within the city consisted of approximately 73,989 housing
units.4 Households are considered to be occupied housing units. The Census estimated 71,004
households existed in the city during that time. The majority of these households lived in owner
occupied housing units (62.2 percent) with the remainder living in renter-occupied housing units
(37.4 percent). The average household size within the city was approximately 2.99 persons. For the
year 2013, it is estimated that the Citys average household size increased to 3.05 persons, which is
slightly higher than the Alameda County average of 2.75 persons per household.
c.
Project Area. The project area is located within Mission Peak Regional Preserve, which is
managed by the District. The project site is located within the Resource Conservation and Public
Open Space (RCP) designation on the City of Fremonts General Plan Land Use Map. The RCP
designation includes open spaces that are located below the Toe of the Hill (TOH) and owned by
public or quasi-public agencies. In addition, the project site is located within the Planned Development (P) and Hillside-Combining (H-I) zoning districts. There is no existing housing or other
infrastructure that serves housing or other development within the project area. Residential areas to
the west of the Preserve are currently built out and no undeveloped lands designated for future
development are within the immediate vicinity of the site.
d.
Regulatory Setting. The provision of housing within Fremont is influenced by the Association
of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Needs Allocations and the City of Fremont Housing
Element. The proposed project does not include the development of housing and therefore, no
policies related to the provision of housing would apply.
Fremont, City of, 2014. City of Fremont General Plan, Housing Element. December.
United States Census Bureau, 2010. Summary File 1 (SF 1) for Fremont City, California, 100-Percent Data, Table
United States Census Bureau, 2010, op. cit.
DP-1.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5n-PopHousing.docx (10/14/15)
385

OCTOBER 2015
2.

The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to population and housing that
could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of
part of this section presents the population and housing-related impacts that would result from
a.
population and housing if it would:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure);
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere; or
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts related to
population and housing. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each
(1) Induce Substantial Population Growth. The proposed project would develop a new
staging area at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. The project proposes to develop a
maximum of 300 new parking spaces, public restrooms, picnic areas, and other facilities to serve
visitor demand for recreational uses within the Preserve. The development of housing is not included
as part of the proposed project. An extension of roadways and utility infrastructure is proposed to
provide access to the new staging area and to allow for the development of public restrooms and
provide drinking water within the new staging area. These connections would exclusively serve the
proposed project and would not enable further development with the vicinity. Impacts associated with
direct and indirect population growth are discussed below for each site option and, as discussed,
Option A. Development of the Option A site would construct a new staging area, including
additional parking, restrooms, kiosk, and associated infrastructure. These facilities would better
accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at
Mission Peak. The new staging area would support an existing recreational use and does not propose
new housing or other development. Associated infrastructure improvements include an extension of a
new roadway to access the new staging area, stormwater controls, and water, sewer, and electrical
connections. Utility connections would be limited to the new staging area and would connect to
existing infrastructure at Stanford Avenue. The extension of the new roadway and utility infrastructure into the Preserve would not result in indirect population growth in the vicinity. Lands to the east
of the site are also within the Preserve and are not proposed for future development. Furthermore,
access to developable hillside areas from the project area is limited due to topography (development
of these areas is also regulated by Measures A and T, as further described in Chapter IV, Planning
386

OCTOBER 2015

Policy). Therefore, development of the Option A site would not result in direct or indirect impacts to
population growth and no impact would occur.
Option B. Development of the Option B site would construct a new staging area, including
additional parking, restrooms, kiosk, and associated infrastructure. These facilities would better
accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at
Mission Peak. The new staging area would support an existing recreational use and does not propose
new housing or other development. Associated infrastructure improvements include an extension of
new roadways and bridges to access the new staging area, stormwater controls, and water, sewer, and
electrical connections. Utility connections would be limited to the new staging area and would
connect to existing infrastructure at Stanford Avenue. The extension of the new roadway and utility
infrastructure into the Preserve would not result in indirect population growth in the vicinity. Lands to
the east of the site are also within the Preserve and are not proposed for future development.
Furthermore, access to developable hillside areas from the project area is limited due to topography
(development of these areas is also regulated by Measures A and T, as further described in Chapter
IV, Planning Policy). Therefore, development of the Option B site would not result in direct or
indirect impacts to population growth and no impact would occur.
(2) Displace Existing Housing or People. Impacts associated with the displacement of
housing or people are discussed below for each site option and, as discussed, would be less than
significant.
Option A. The project site does not contain existing housing. The site is within the Mission
Peak Regional Preserve and is located on a grassland area approximately 250 feet northeast of the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Surrounding residential uses would remain and would not be
affected by development of the Option A site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would
not displace existing housing or people and no impact would occur.
Option B. The project site does not contain existing housing. The site is within the Mission
Peak Regional Preserve and is located on a grassland area approximately 875 feet southeast of the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The project site is currently used by the Districts grazing
contractor as a corral, which would be relocated to the south. Surrounding residential uses would
remain and would not be affected by development of the Option B site. Therefore, development of the
proposed project would not displace existing housing or people and no impact would occur.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. As discussed above, the proposed project does not include the
development of housing, would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the City, and
would not displace housing or people. The proposed project includes development of new facilities to
support an existing recreational use. Therefore, the proposed project would not combine with past,
present, or reasonably foreseeable projects within the vicinity to result in cumulative impacts related
to population and housing, and the projects contribution to any such impact is not cumulatively
considerable. Thus, no cumulative impact would occur.
387

OCTOBER 2015

388

OCTOBER 2015
O.

O. RECREATION
RECREATION
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on parks and recreation facilities.
Potential impacts that could result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A or
B sites are identified and mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate.
1.
Setting
The East Bay Regional Park District (District) and the City of Fremont (City) own and operate parks
and recreational facilities that serve the project area. The project site itself is located within the
Mission Peak Regional Preserve (Mission Peak or Preserve). These facilities are discussed below.
a.
East Bay Regional Parks District. The District operates and maintains 65 parks and 29
regional inter-park trails covering more than 119,000 acres in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
The District also manages 40 miles of accessible shoreline including 3 bay fishing piers. The District
operates swimming areas, campsites, golf courses, picnic areas, as well as educational centers and
banquet facilities. The District maintains its natural areas, park areas, trees, landscaping, buildings,
and other structures at the Districts park sites and facilities. Approximately 322 operations and
maintenance staff are employed by the District.1
The District distinguishes parkland by type including: regional parks, regional preserves, regional
recreation areas, regional shorelines, and regional trails. The District operates six open space and
recreational facilities within the City of Fremont. The project site is located within the boundaries of
Mission Peak, in the southeastern area of Fremont. District facilities are discussed below.
(1) Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Mission Peak consists of over 3,000 acres of open
space consisting mostly of open grasslands and oak woodlands. The topography is varied and the
ascent to the summit of Mission Peak is approximately 2,200 feet above the existing Stanford Avenue
Staging Area. Mission Peak includes a few springs and creeks, including Agua Caliente Creek. The
District contracts with a private contractor for cattle grazing operations, and grazing facilities such as
fences, gates, and feeding structures are scattered located the grassland areas within Mission Peak.
It is estimated that Mission Peak received nearly 270,000 visitors in 2014, at an average of over
22,000 visitors each month. Of these total visitors to the park, over 19,000 visitors each month used
the trails departing from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.2 Access to the summit of Mission Peak
is provided by three multi-use (hiking, biking and equestrian) trails from the western face, including
the Peak Trail and the Panorama Trail, which starts from Ohlone College and heads southward
towards the summit, and the Hidden Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven
Trails, all of which begin their ascent from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Trails leading
to the peak offer panoramic views of the Bay Area. Regional trails (i.e., Ohlone Wilderness Trail, Bay
Area Ridge Trail) lead to other open space areas that are managed by the District. Backpack camping
is available at the Eagle Springs Backpack Camp and is by reservation only. Mission Peak is also a
1
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Municipal Service Review. Prepared for the Local Agency Formation
Commission of Alameda County. January 8.
2
BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29. The
Trail count numbers are based on TRAFFIX counters installed by the District..
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5o-Recreation.docx (10/14/15)
389

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
popular location for hang gliding and paragliding and for launching remote-controlled aircraft. The
Wings of Rogallo Hang-Gliding Club operates a hang gliding operation under agreement with the
District, and the landing zone is located east of the Option A site. The South Bay Soaring Society
(SBSS) has a launch site on Radio Control (R/C) Hill, which is also subject to agreement with the
District and is near the Option B site. These sites are shown on Figure V.A-1 in Section V.A, Land
Use.
Increased use of the Preserve over the last several years has resulted in an increase in overflow
parking on neighborhood streets. Residents experience vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion, as
well as associated issues such as noise, litter, and light from headlamps and flashlights. District staff
currently maintains the Preserve and addresses issues in the surrounding neighborhoods through
ongoing operations and management efforts. Ongoing actions include:
1. Public outreach efforts to address a variety of issues including hiker safety; hiking with
dogs and children; trail restoration; consideration when parking in the neighborhoods;
identification of other challenging hikes at other District facilities; and parking at Ohlone
College. One public outreach event was held in 2013; six were held in 2014; and as of
September 2015, eight have been held in 2015 with two more planned. In addition to public
outreach events, the District continually updates the Mission Peak webpage with current
information, maintains a District-sponsored Mission Peak Facebook page, and maintains a
NING site as an open public forum.
2. Utilization of two trail counters, one located at the trailhead gate at the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area and one installed at the Peak Meadow Trail to better understand existing
visitor use trends,
3. Installation of signage and public outreach to encourage Mission Peak visitors to utilize
parking at Ohlone College.
4. Initiation of seasonal hours for the lands leased from the City of Fremont (which are
accessed only via the Stanford Avenue Staging Area) along with targeted enforcement of
the park curfew by the Districts Police Department (refer to Section V.A, Land Use, of this
EIR for additional information on park hours and enforcement).
5. Installation of portable restroom facilities to supplement the existing vault-toilet restrooms
at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
6. Trail restoration efforts to restore bootleg trails to natural conditions utilizing volunteers
from Irvington High School and the Mountain Goats mountain bike club. Specifically, in
2012, the District began a variety of operational measures including restoration work to
address the 15 bootleg trails within Mission Peak. In 2014, the District completed
restoration work on a 1,700-foot-long bootleg trail alongside the Peak Meadow Trail. This
restoration area has been fenced and signs are in place to remind visitors to stay on
designated trails. In 2015, the District monitored and made adjustments to the previous
years efforts in addition to installing exclusion fencing and wattles on two newly created
bootleg trails, one on the Horse Heaven Trail and one on the Hidden Valley Trail. Three
benches and two additional garbage cans were also provided at the base of the summit.
The District also provides information on Mission Peaks webpage and brochure regarding other
challenging hikes within the District for visitors who enjoy the Hidden Valley Trail.
390

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
In addition to long-term maintenance, restoration, and operations of the Preserve, the Preserve is
staffed by a ranger on a daily basis and facilities including the existing staging area parking lot and
restroom and picnic areas are maintained throughout the day. Refuse is also collected on a daily basis.
Mission Peak is served by two parking areas: Stanford Avenue Staging Area and Ohlone College
Parking Area. Access to and facilities at these locations are discussed below.
Stanford Avenue Staging Area.The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area serves as the
primary access to the various trails located throughout Mission Peak. Direct access to the Hidden
Valley/Ohlone Wilderness, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven trails are provided from this location.
It is approximately 3 miles to the summit of Mission Peak from this location. An average of 40,000
visitors access Mission Peak from this staging area each month.3 The staging area provides 43 paved
parking spaces. Parking at the staging area is generally very limited and overnight parking is not
allowed. The gated entrance to Mission Peak from the staging area limits vehicular access to District
maintenance and cattle operations vehicles only. One vault toilet restroom, three portable restrooms,
and one picnic table are located at the staging area.
The Stanford Avenue Staging Area and the lands leased from the City are open at 6:30 a.m. daily (as
of September 29, 2014). Closing time changes throughout the year (from between 6:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m.) in correlation with sunset and daylight savings time. For the years 2014 through 2015, the hours
of operation for this area of Mission Peak are shown in Table V.A-1 in Section V.A, Land Use.
Violators are subject to citation and/or arrest per the Districts Ordinance 38.
The hours shown in Table V.A-1 apply to lands leased from the City only (see Figure I-1 in Chapter I,
Introduction which delineates the jurisdictional boundaries within Mission Peak). Early morning and
late evening park access is available at all other access points, including from trailheads that begin at
Ohlone College.
The Option A and Option B sites are located within the vicinity of and are accessed via the Stanford
Avenue Staging Area. A brief description of recreational use of the two project site options, is
provided below.
Option A. The Option A site is located approximately 250 feet north of the existing Stanford
Avenue Staging Area, just north of the existing Hidden Valley Trail, in a grassland area with bowllike topography. The site is open and may be accessed by grazing cattle and the public, although no
trails traverse the site of the proposed staging area. The Option A site includes a segment of the
Hidden Valley Trail, which is located immediately south of the proposed staging area site. This
approximately 15-foot wide gravel trail provides access to the summit of Mission Peak and the
Ohlone Wilderness Trail. The Wings of Rogallo, a hang gliding club, operates a landing area east of
the Option A project site.
Option B. The Option B site is located approximately 875 feet southeast of the Stanford
Avenue Staging Area and west of the Peak Meadow Trail in a grassland area. The majority of the
Option B site is fenced and is not currently accessible to the public. Grazing infrastructure at Mission
3
BAE Urban Economics, 2015, op. cit.
391

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
Peak is currently concentrated primarily within the Option B site. This site is currently used by the
Districts grazing contractor as a corral. The Peak Meadow and Horse Heaven Trail is immediately
east of the site and provides access to Mission Peak. The South Bay Soaring Society operates a
launch site west of the Option B site.
Ohlone College Parking Area. Mission Peak is also accessible from Ohlone College to the
north of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Visitors to Mission Peak may also park their vehicles in
public parking spaces at Ohlone College, located at 43600 Mission Boulevard. Parking Lot G is
generally accessed via Pine Street and Witherly Lane off of Mission Boulevard and provides access to
the Peak Trail, Panorama Trail, Dry Creek Trail, Bay Area Ridge Trail, Spring Valley Trail, and YSC
Trail, which are all within Mission Peak. The College recently constructed a 900-space South Parking
Lot structure and visitors to Mission Peak are able to utilize the public spaces in this location as well.4
Ohlone College parking is available daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. As of August 15, 2015, the
College charges a $4 parking fee Monday through Saturday when school is in session, and parking at
this location is free on holidays, after 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays when school is not in
session. Parking lot vending machines accept cash and credit cards. Parking is usually available at the
College lot, even on busy weekends.
The District has encouraged Mission Peak visitors to park at Ohlone College through the Districts
webpage on Mission Peak and informational signs at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
(2) Ardenwood Historic Farm. Ardenwood Historic Farm consists of approximately 205
acres and is a working farm that also exhibits the Victorian-era lifestyle. The Farm operates a produce
stand outside the main gate and sells organic vegetables grown on-site. The Farm is located at 34600
Ardenwood Boulevard in northern Fremont. The Farm operates year round and charges an entrance
fee from $2 to $6 dollars depending on the day, season, and age of the visitor. The Farm features
educational programs, a farm train, Victorian garden, animal farms, and the Patterson House.
(3) Coyote Hills Regional Park. Coyote Hills Regional Park consists of approximately 978
acres of open space along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The park is located at 8000 Patterson
Ranch Road in northwest area of the City. The park features a visitor center with educational displays
and exhibits; Tuibun Ohlone village site; picnic areas; group camp sites; and a variety of trails. The
park has trails that provide access to the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge,
which is south and west of the park.
(4) Ohlone Regional Wilderness. The Ohlone Regional Wilderness is 9,737 acres of
parkland that is accessible only by the Ohlone Wilderness Trail. The Ohlone Wilderness Trail is
approximately 28 miles within southern Alameda County. A hiking permit is required for day use and
camping and may be purchased from the District. The permit fee ranges from $2 to $4 per person per
year. Overnight camping is permitted along the Ohlone Wilderness Trail at designated campgrounds
and by reservation only. The Ohlone Regional Wilderness is accessible from Del Valle Regional Park
near Livermore, Sunol Regional Wilderness near Pleasanton, and Mission Peak Regional Preserve.
4
392

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
(5) Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area. The Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area
is a water-oriented recreation area that features picnicking, boating, swimming, fishing, and hiking.
Quarry Lakes is located at 2100 Isherwood Way in northern Fremont. The Park is open seven days a
week and charges an admission entrance fees that range from $2 to $3. Parking is available at Quarry
Lakes for a $5 parking fee. The park is open year round with hours that vary depending on the season.
(6) Vargas Plateau Regional Park. The Vargas Plateau Regional Park is located in the
Fremont Hills. Currently, the Morrison Canyon Staging Area is being developed. The staging area
will include a 25-vehicle parking area, picnic benches, drinking water, and vault toilets. The park is
planned to open in late 2015 after the Morrison Canyon Staging Area is constructed.
b.
City of Fremont. The City operates a variety of park and recreational facilities including
citywide parks, neighborhood parks, mini parks, historic parks, civic parks, and linear parks. Citywide
parks are intended to serve the entire Fremont community and are typically greater in size to allow for
more active play. These parks may also include special cultural facilities such as theaters or museums.
Neighborhood parks provide space for daily recreation activities such as picnicking or informal play
for residents in the area of the park. Mini parks provide very limited recreation opportunities due to
their size or configuration. Historic parks are established around important historic buildings or
structures and provide an opportunity to preserve these sites. Civic parks are outdoor public spaces
that are typically paved areas that contain trees and ornamental landscaping. These outdoor spaces are
located in urban areas and also provide space for the occasional outdoor concert or festival. Linear
Parks are paved paths with landscaping the provide opportunities for walkers, runners, and cyclists.
These parks are typically constructed on former rail corridors, utility corridors, or similar areas. The
following provides a description of City parks that are located within 1.5 miles of the project sites.
(1) Old Mission Park. Old Mission Park is located at 1000 Pine Street within the Mission
San Jos neighborhood of Fremont. The park consists of approximately 27 acres and includes
playgrounds, basketball courts, a grassy area, picnic tables with barbeque pits, and restrooms.
(2) Arroyo Agua Caliente Park. Arroyo Agua Caliente Park is located at Gardenia Way
and Paseo Padre Parkway in the Mission San Jose neighborhood of Fremont. The park consists of
approximately 9 acres and includes a playground, basketball courts, and a grassy area.
(3) Rancho Higuera Historical Park. The Higuera Adobe is located in Rancho Higuera
Historical Park at the foot of Mission Peak in the Warm Springs area of Fremont. The park is located
approximately 1 mile south of the project site. It is the last of seven adobes built between 1830 and
1840 on Fulgencio Higuera's ranch. The structure consists of a large main room and two small
bedrooms with dirt floors, and a stable. The Adobe has been restored and furnished with handcrafted
redwood furniture. The park is about 14 acres in size.
(4) Warm Springs Park. Warm Springs Park is located at 47300 Fernald Street in the Warm
Spring neighborhood of Fremont. The park consists of approximately 12 acres and includes
basketball courts, tennis courts, playground, picnic tables, bathrooms, and a community center. The
community center includes a multi-purpose room, two meeting rooms, and an outdoor patio and can
be rented out by the public.
393

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
c.
Regulatory Context. This section describes the regulatory context related to parks and
recreation within the City and within the Districts jurisdiction.
(1) General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plans Parks and Recreation Element
establishes goals, policies, and implementation methods related to the provision of parks and
recreational facilities. Applicable policies and implementation measures are identified below.
Policy 8-1.2: Acreage Standards for Park Acquisition and Development. Acquire and develop park
land using a standard of five acres per 1,000 residents.
Policy 8-3.1: Recreational Offerings and Facilities from other Agencies. Encourage other land and
resource agencies to maintain and expand their offerings of recreational opportunities in Fremont.
o
Implementation 8-3.1.A: Existing and Future Regional Parks and Trails. Work with [the East
Bay Regional Park District] and others to ensure recreational opportunities at existing parks
(Ardenwood Historic Farm, Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Coyote Hills Regional Park, and
Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area), as well as future parks (such as Vargas Plateau
Regional Park and planned park at the former Dumbarton Quarry), and trails (such as Alameda
Creek Trail, Ridge Trail, and Bay Trail).
Implementation 8-3.1.G: Regional Trail Facilities. Encourage Regional Agencies to provide

restrooms, parking, and staging facilities at trailheads of regional trails.
(2) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District Master Plan5 includes the
following policies related to the provision of open space and recreational resources.
Policy PA4: The District will provide access to parklands and trails to suit the level of expected use.
Where feasible, the District will provide alternatives to parking on or use of neighborhood streets.
The District will continue to advocate and support service to the regional park system by public
transit.
Policy RFA1: The District will provide areas and facilities that serve the recreational needs of park
users, in accordance with the plans, policies, and park classifications adopted by the Board of
Directors. The District will generally not develop or provide facilities that are more appropriately
provided by local recreational and park agencies. Where possible and appropriate, the District will
provide multiple-use facilities to serve recreational needs.
Policy RFA2: The District will provide a diverse system of non-motorized trails to accommodate a
variety of recreational users including hikers, joggers, people with dogs, bicyclists, and equestrians.
Both wide and narrow trails will be designed and designated to accommodate either single or
multiple users based on location, recreational intensity, environmental and safety considerations. The
District will focus on appropriate trail planning and design, signage and trail user education to
promote safety and minimize conflicts between users.
Policy PRPT3: The primary objective of a Regional Preserve is to preserve and protect significant
natural or cultural resources. A Regional Preserve must have great natural or scientific importance
(for example, it may contain rare or endangered plant or animal species and their supporting
ecosystems, significant fossils, unique geologic features, or unusual topographic features or be of
such significant regional historic or cultural value as to warrant preservation.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. District Master Plan 2013. July 16.
394

OCTOBER 2015
2.

O. RECREATION
Policy PRPT21: Areas of higher level recreational use and concentration of service facilities will be
designated as Recreation/Staging Units. Where possible, these areas will be clustered and located on
the edges of the park.
Policy PRPT24: The District will seek to locate facilities in a manner that preserves open space
whenever possible. The District will design proposed facilities so that their color scale, style, and
materials will blend with the natural environment. Park improvements will be designed to avoid or
minimize impacts on wildlife habitats, plan populations and other resources.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to recreation that could result from
implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which
establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section
presents the impacts related to parks and recreation that would result from development of a new
staging area at either the Option A or the Option B site.
a.
Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to parks
and recreation if it would:
Result in a substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the
need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or
other performance objectives for park services;
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; or
Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational

facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to recreation.
Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts
associated with Option B.
(1) Provision of Park and Recreational Services. Potential impacts associated with the
provision of, or the need for, new park or recreational facilities as a result of the development of a
new staging area at the Option A or Option B sites are discussed below. As discussed, this impact
Option A. Development of a new staging area at the Option A site would not result in a
substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically
altered park or recreational facilities. The purpose of the project is to provide additional parking and
restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford
Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. It is anticipated that development of a new staging area at this
location would help to reduce existing noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the
vicinity of the existing staging area and that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more
appropriate level of parking and additional restrooms. Existing recreational use of the Preserve would
be supported and enhanced by the proposed project and existing recreational facilities (such as the
Wings of Rogallo landing area that is located approximately 250 northeast of the site) would not be
395

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
physically impacted by development of a new staging area at the Option A site. Although the existing
landing zone would not be directly physically impacted by the project, hang gliders may experience
altered wind and thermal currents due to the new surface parking area and vegetation at the Option A
site. These conditions may affect typical landing patterns and hang gliders would need to be careful to
direct their landings away from the parking area, similar to how existing landings must be directed
away from nearby residential uses. The new staging area would be a sufficient distance away (250
feet) from the existing landing area to allow for appropriate landing maneuvers. In the unlikely event
that hang gliders are unable to avoid the new staging area, the staging area would not present a hazard
to the safety of these recreationists, given that no tall buildings or other large, permanent structures
would be located at the Option A site.
The Preserve is bordered on the west and north by existing residential subdivisions and on the east
and south by open space lands within unincorporated Alameda County. The boundaries of the
Preserve would not change with implementation of Option A, although new roadways and trails
would extend from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to provide access to the site.
Development of the Option A site would not directly or indirectly induce population growth such that
the demand for recreational facilities at or near the Preserve would increase. Increases in future
demand associated with development of the new staging area and provision of increased visitor
access and related increases in use are further discussed below. The project itself would not require
the construction of new recreational facilities to serve demand for recreational and open space
opportunities in the same way that a residential or mixed-use project would because the project is
intended to serve an existing regional and local population and enhance access to existing facilities.
District operations and maintenance staff would continue to patrol and maintain this area. Development of the new staging area at the Option A site would be unlikely to increase the use of nearby
open space and recreational facilities within the City of Fremont as these facilities serve the local
community and Mission Peak and other District open space lands are intended to serve the region as a
whole (also refer to discussion below). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant as Option
A would not result in the need for new or physical improvements to governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
Option B. Development of a new staging area at the Option B site would not result in a
substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically
altered park or recreational facilities. Like the discussion above for the Option A site, the purpose of
the project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor demand
for trail access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. Existing recreational
use of the Preserve would be supported and enhanced by the proposed project and existing recreational facilities (such as the existing South Bay Soaring Society launch site that is located approximately 1,000 feet from the site) would not be physically impacted by development of a new staging
area at the Option B site.
The boundaries of the Preserve would not change with implementation of Option B, although new
roadways, bridges and trails would extend from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to provide
access to the site. Development of the Option B site would not directly or indirectly induce population
growth such that the demand for recreational facilities at or near the Preserve would increase.
Existing District operations and maintenance staff would continue to patrol and maintain this area and
new staff would not be required to serve the proposed staging area. Increases in future demand
associated with development of the new staging area and provision of increased visitor access and
396

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
related increases in use are further discussed below. Development of the new staging area at the
Option B site would be unlikely to increase the use of nearby open space and recreational facilities
within the City of Fremont as these facilities serve the local community and Mission Peak and other
District open space lands are intended to serve the region as a whole (also refer to discussion below).
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, as Option B would not result in the need for
new or physical improvements to governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts.
(2) Increased Use of Existing Park and Recreational Facilities. The increase in use of
recreational facilities can result in the accelerated deterioration of such facilities if adequate maintenance or infrastructure is not present to accommodate demand. As discussed below, the proposed
staging area at either the Option A or Option B site is intended to serve visitor demand for parking
and would also result in an increase in use of the Preserve due to the increased availability of parking;
however, this impact would be less than significant as discussed in more detail below.
Option A. The existing 3,000-acre Mission Peak Regional Preserve is currently open to the
public and offers a variety of trails for use by hikers and bicyclists. Hang gliding and remotecontrolled aircraft enthusiasts also utilize various areas of the Preserve. Visitors to the Preserve
currently park at either the Stanford Avenue Staging Area or the Ohlone College parking areas.
Development of the Option A site with a new staging area that includes up to 300 new parking spaces
(for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) is expected
to better serve visitor demand for parking at this location; and according to surveys prepared for this
EIR, the availability of more parking could increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and
38.8 percent over existing conditions (see Chapter III, Project Description and Section V.J,
Transportation and Circulation). Survey data shows that the increased availability of on-site parking
spaces would likely attract new visitors to the Preserve and existing visitors would visit the Preserve
on a more frequent basis with easier access to parking.
The increase in the number of visitors to the Preserve would result in an increase in use of existing
trails that originate at the Stanford Avenue entrance (i.e., the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and
Horse Heaven Trails) as well as other trails throughout the park. In addition, these visitors could
increase the use of connecting trail systems that lead to other regional recreational facilities, including
those that connect to the Ohlone Regional Wilderness. The trails can accommodate the increased
number of users, but the increased number of visitors and use of the existing trail system could result
in deterioration of the trail system over time as well as the creation of bootleg trails as visitors leave
established trails on a more frequent basis. The District maintains Mission Peak as a regional
preserve, the primary objective of which is to preserve and protect significant natural and cultural
resources (District Master Plan Policy PRPT3). As such, the District regularly conducts trail and
natural area restoration efforts to maintain the natural condition of the Preserve and would continue to
do so after construction of the proposed project. These efforts are part of the Districts ongoing
operations and management efforts. Mission Peak operations are described in detail in Chapter III,
Project Description. Specifically, trail restoration efforts to restore bootleg trails to natural conditions
are conducted utilizing volunteers from Irvington High School and the Mountain Goats mountain bike
club. For example, in 2012, the District began a variety of operational measures including restoration
work to address the 15 bootleg trails within Mission Peak. In 2014, the District completed restoration
work on a 1,700-foot-long bootleg trail alongside the Peak Meadow Trail. This restoration area has
been fenced and signs are in place to remind visitors to stay on designated trails. In 2015, the District
397

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
monitored and made adjustments to the previous years efforts in addition to installing exclusion
fencing and wattles on two newly created bootleg trails, one on the Horse Heaven Trail and one on
the Hidden Valley Trail. Three benches and two additional garbage cans were also provided at the
base of the summit. The District will continue these maintenance and restoration activities as part of
its normal operations.
In addition, Preserve lands within the City of Fremont that are accessed via the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area are subject to specified operating hours that vary throughout the year. These hours
currently prohibit access during the nighttime hours which also reduce the potential for park visitors
to damage natural areas or to cause disturbances to nearby residential areas. Thus, Option A and the
increased use of the Preserve that could result from construction of the new staging area would not
result in substantial physical deterioration or accelerate deterioration of the Preserve.
Development of a staging area at the Option A site would be located approximately 250 feet from the
existing Wings of Rogallo landing area, an existing use in Mission Peak. The development of Option
A would not increase the use of this landing area and thus require the landing area to expand or be
relocated.
Furthermore, due to the size of the Preserve, the extensive trail system and linkages, and the daily
hours of operation, visitors are somewhat dispersed over time on any given day, and after
construction of the project visitors themselves would continue to be dispersed throughout the Preserve
along the trails. Therefore, for this reason as well, the increase in use of the Preserve due to the
construction of new amenities and enhanced access is not expected to result in a substantial impact to
the existing trail system or recreation resources of the Preserve.
Development of a new staging area within Mission Peak is not anticipated to increase the use of other
nearby regional or local recreational or park space. It is not anticipated that other regional facilities or
local parks within the City of Fremont would experience an increase in use due to construction of the
new staging area and the resulting anticipated increase in use of the Preserve.
Given the above, increased access for low intensity uses to and throughout the Preserve provided by
the new staging area at the Option A site would not increase the use of the Preserve to a level that
would result in a substantial or accelerated physical deterioration of the Preserve or other parks and
recreational facilities and this impact would be less than significant.
Option B. Similar to Option A, development of the Option B site with a new staging area that
includes up to 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford
Avenue entrance to the Preserve) is expected to better serve visitor demand for parking at this
location; and according to surveys prepared for this EIR, the availability of more parking could
increase visitor demand by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent over existing conditions (see
Chapter III, Project Description, and Section V.J, Transportation and Circulation). Survey data shows
that the increased availability of on-site parking spaces would likely attract new visitors to the
Preserve and existing visitors would visit the Preserve on a more frequent basis with easier access to
parking.
The increase in the number of visitors to the Preserve would result in an increase in use of existing
trails that originate at the Stanford Avenue entrance (i.e., the Hidden Valley, Peak Meadow, and
398

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
Horse Heaven Trails) as well as other trails throughout the park. In addition, these visitors could
increase the use of connecting trail systems that lead to other regional recreational facilities, including
those that connect to the Ohlone Regional Wilderness. The trails can accommodate the increased
number of users. Although the use of the Preserve would increase with development of the proposed
project, this increase in use is not anticipated to occur at such a rate that substantial physical
deterioration of the Preserve would occur or be accelerated. Due to the size of the Preserve, the
extensive trail system and linkages, and the daily hours of operation, it is likely that the arrival of
visitors would be dispersed over time on any given day, and the visitors themselves would be
dispersed throughout the Preserve and nearby connecting recreational facilities. In addition, as
discussed above under Option A, any potential deterioration in the trails or recreation facilities from
the increased number of visitors at the Preserve will be managed through the Districts ongoing
maintenance and restoration program. Therefore, the increase in use of the Preserve due to the
construction of new amenities and enhanced access is not expected to result in a substantial impact to
the existing trail system or recreation resources of the Preserve.
Development of a staging area at the Option B site would be located approximately 1,000 feet from
the existing South Bay Soaring Society launch site, an existing use in Mission Peak. The development
of Option B would not increase the use of this landing area and thus require the landing area to
expand or be relocated.
Also similar to the discussed above under Option A, construction of a new staging area within
Mission Peak is not anticipated to increase the use of other nearby regional or local recreational or
park space with development of the Option B site.
Given the above, increased access for low intensity uses to and throughout the Preserve provided by
the new staging area at the Option B site would not increase the use of the Preserve to a level that
would result in a substantial physical deterioration of the Preserve or other parks and recreational
facilities and this impact would be less than significant.
(3) Construction of Recreational Facilities. The proposed project consists of construction
of a new staging area to support continued use of recreational use of Mission Peak. Impacts associated
with construction of recreational facilities for the Option A and Option B sites are discussed below and
Option A. Development of the proposed project at the Option A site would result in the
construction of a new staging area to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate
visitor demand at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New trail connections would also be constructed
to provide access from the new staging area to the existing trail system. The potential constructionand operation-related impacts of development of a new staging area at the Option A site are the
subject of this EIR and are addressed within the appropriate topical sections as part of the assessment
of overall project impacts. For example, construction-period impacts to sensitive receptors (which
primarily consist of adjacent residential uses and recreationists hiking and biking within the Preserve)
are addressed in Sections V.K, Air Quality and V.M, Noise. Impacts associated with constructionperiod air quality and noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the
mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. Furthermore, construction activities would be
concentrated at the Option A site and it is not expected that park visitors would experience adverse
399

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
effects associated with construction activities (e.g., dust and noise) such that the use and enjoyment of
other nearby trails within the Preserve (accessed from the northwest) would be adversely affected.
The Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and access to the trailheads in this location (i.e.,
access to the Hidden Valley Trail, Peak Meadow, and Horse Heaven Trails) would be prohibited
during the approximately 6-month construction period. While park visitors would be temporarily
inconvenienced during the construction period, access to the Ohlone College entrance and parking
areas would continue during this period and signs would be places at and near the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area to direct visitors to the Ohlone College access point. In addition, the Districts website
would also be updated to advise visitors of this temporary closure as is the Districts practice when
District facilities are closed for maintenance, construction, or other reasons. Hang gliding activities
may also be temporarily suspended near the Wings of Rogallo landing area due to the proximity of
the landing area to the Option A site and due to the limited access to the jumping off point that would
occur with the closure of the Stanford Avenue entrance. However, this reduced access would be
temporary.
Therefore, construction of new facilities that would support the continued use of the Preserve for
recreational purposes would be temporary and, in and of itself, the construction and operation of the
new staging area at the Option A site would not result in a significant impact on the environment and
Option B. Similar to Option A, development of the proposed project at the Option B site
would result in the construction of a new staging area to provide additional parking and restrooms to
better accommodate visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New
bridge and trail connections would also be constructed to provide access from the new staging area to
the existing trail system. The potential construction- and operation-related impacts of development of
a new staging area at the Option B site are the subject of this EIR and are addressed within the
appropriate topical sections as part of the assessment of overall project impacts. For example,
construction-period impacts to sensitive receptors (which primarily consist of adjacent residential
uses and recreationists hiking and biking within the Preserve) are addressed in Sections V.K, Air
Quality and V.M, Noise. Impacts associated with construction-period air quality and noise impacts
would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
EIR. Furthermore, construction activities would be concentrated at the Option B site and it is not
expected that park visitors would experience adverse effects associated with construction activities
(e.g., dust and noise) such that the use and enjoyment of other nearby trails within the Preserve
(accessed from the northwest) would be adversely affected.
Similar to construction activities described above for the Option A site, the Stanford Avenue entrance
to Mission Peak and access to the trailheads in this location (i.e., access to the Hidden Valley, Peak
Meadow, and Horse Heaven Trails) would be prohibited during the approximately 6-month
construction period for the Option B site. While park visitors would be temporarily inconvenienced
during the construction period, access to the Ohlone College entrance and parking areas would
continue during this period and signs would be places at and near the Stanford Avenue Staging Area
to direct visitors to the Ohlone College access point. In addition, the Districts website would also be
continuously updated to advise visitors of this temporary closure as is the Districts practice when
District facilities are closed for maintenance, construction, or other reasons. Activities at the South
Bay Soaring Society launch site may also be temporarily suspended due to the proximity of this area
400

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
to the Option B site and due to the limited access to this area that would occur with the closure of the
Stanford Avenue entrance. However, this reduced access would be temporary.
Therefore, construction of new facilities that would support the continued use of the Preserve for
recreational purposes would be temporary and, in and of itself, the construction and operation of the
new staging area at the Option B site would not result in a significant impact on the environment and
c.
Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, combined with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not contribute to cumulative effects related to recreation.
Cumulative recreational impacts would result from substantial increases in population in the Districts
service area of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties or within the City of Fremont. However, the
Districts Master Plan acknowledges population growth within its service area and the associated
need for more open space and recreational resources. The Master Plan is intended to address the
increase in population within its service area and provide additional opportunities for new open space
and recreational resources. In addition, development projects within the City of Fremont would not
result in a cumulative impact because these developments and associated increases in population are
anticipated and addressed in the Districts Master Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts to regional
recreational resources would not be significant. Even if cumulative recreational impacts were
significant, because, as discussed above, the proposed project does not contribute to the recreational
impacts or its contribution is so minimal, the projects impact is not cumulatively considerable.
401

OCTOBER 2015

O. RECREATION
402

OCTOBER 2015
P.

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
PUBLIC SERVICES
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on public services, including: fire
protection; police services; and schools. Impacts related to park services and recreation are addressed
in Section V.O, Recreation in this EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the analysis below focuses on the
potential for the project to create physical environmental impacts associated with the provision of
these services. Physical environmental impacts are those that would result from construction of new
facilities (such as a new fire station or new police station) that would need to be constructed with the
project in order to meet response time goals or other performance objectives. Potential impacts that
could result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option B site are
evaluated and discussed.
1.
Setting
This discussion addresses public services that currently serve Mission Peak and the project sites,
including fire, police, and school services. As previously discussed, the Stanford Avenue entrance and
immediately adjacent lands of Mission Peak are within the City of Fremont but are operated and
maintained by the District. The remaining lands within Mission Peak are also operated and
maintained by the District. Fire and police services to the project area are provided by both the
District and the City of Fremont. Existing service locations, capacities, and other existing conditions
for each service provider are discussed below.
a.
Fire. The project site is served concurrently by the District Fire Department and the City of
Fremont Fire Department. Fremont Fire Department is the first to respond at Mission Peak. Services
provided by both fire departments are discussed below.
(1) East Bay Regional Park District Fire Department. The Districts Fire Department
works with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as well as local
municipal fire departments (including the City of Fremont Fire Department), to protect the wildlandurban interface areas as well as more remote wilderness areas within the District. The District Fire
Department provides fire suppression, search and rescue, fuels management, emergency medical
services (EMS), and hazardous material response to the regional parkland within Alameda and Contra
Costa counties. The Fire Department serves the 65 regional parks including 119,000 acres of parkland
that are managed by the District. The Fire Department operates within the East Bay Regional Parks
Public Safety Department which is located at 17930 Lake Cabot Road in Castro Valley. Existing
staffing, facilities, and services provided by the District Fire Department are discussed below.
Staffing. The Department is organized into three teams: Administrative Staff, Firefighter and
Lifeguard Personnel, and Dispatch. Administrative Staff includes the Assistant General Manager for
the Public Safety Division, Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, and Assistant Chief of Lifeguard Service
as well as support staff. The Fire Department employs 18 full-time, year-round personnel, three shortterm (nine-month) employees, and up to 190 seasonal lifeguards for fire, EMS, and aquatic response.
Additionally, 48 firefighters are considered to be paid and on-call to assist the department during
periods of high wildland fire danger or periods of extraordinary visitor use.1
1
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5p-PublicServices.docx (10/14/15)
403

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
Facilities and Equipment. The District Fire Department operates 10 fire stations (six in
Alameda County and four in Contra Costa County) and 14 engines that serve all District facilities.
Fire Station 1, the Districts main operations station, is located in the East Bay Hills and operates
seven days a week during daylight hours during wildland fire season. The Fire Department
administrative headquarters are located in Castro Valley at Fire Station 10 which is also staffed yearround. The remaining fire stations serve as substations where engines, water tenders, and other safety
equipment are stored. Firefighters use the fires stations for overnight fire watches and as rest and
recovery areas following fire incidents. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station 7,
located at Garin/Dry Creek Pioneer Regional Parks. This station is staffed on an as-needed basis.
Equipment utilized by the District Fire Department includes a Type 3 Fire Engine (used for off-road
conditions), a Type 4 Fire Engine (a smaller engine used for rapid response), an urban search and
rescue engine, a water tender, and a helicopter. The District helicopter is used to respond to search
and rescue in order to rapidly transport critical patients from remote locations or to avoid
transportation delays. It is also used to transport water and contain fires.2
The Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak provides access for fire and emergency personnel and
vehicles to paved roadways and trails within the Preserve. The Districts helicopter also may land on
available open land within the Preserve to provide access for helicopter rescue operations that
originate at other locations within the Preserve. Currently, Option A site and Option B site both
provide a suitable area large enough for helicopter landing, as well as surrounding areas.
Response Times. The Department receives approximately 900 calls for service annually in
response to incidents related to fire, emergency medical services, hazardous materials, and mutual
aid.3 The majority of these calls occur during warm weather months at the peak of park visitation and
wildfire conditions. The Districts response zones include urban areas, suburban or rural areas, and
wildland areas. Response times differ depending on the areas classification; average response times
are not equivalent to urbanized areas of municipal jurisdictions. The average response times for the
Districts Fire Department are: 11 minutes for medical aid calls; 16 minutes for wildland fires; 9
minutes for vehicle fires, and 12 minutes for injury accidents. The District is capable of delivering an
injured person to the appropriate hospital via helicopter within eight minutes from anywhere within
the Districts service boundary.4
In 2014, approximately 40 calls were received by the District for emergency medical or personal
injury related issues within Mission Peak.5 Response times to Mission Peak generally conform to
average District-wide response times.
2
East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Fire Department Operations. Website: www.ebparks.org/about/fire/Fire_
Department_Operations#stations (accessed August 3, 2015).
3
4
Ibid.
McCormick, Dan, East Bay Regional Parks District Fire Chief, 2015. Personal communication with District Police
Lieutenant Lance Brede. March 9.
404

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
(2) City of Fremont Fire Department. The Fremont Fire Department (FFD) provides rapid
delivery of fire, medical, rescue, and life safety emergency services within the City of Fremont.
Administrative headquarters are located at 3300 Capitol Avenue. FFD operates 11 Fire Stations
throughout the City.
Staffing. FFD is organized into four divisions: Administrative, Operations, Fire Prevention,
and Training/Emergency Medical Services. The Administrative division consists of a business
manager as well as five support staff. The Operations division is divided into South Battalion and
North Battalion. The South Battalion consists of a Chief, 21 Captains, 21 Engineers, and 21
Firefighters. The North Battalion consists of a Chief, 18 Captains, 18 Engineers, and 18 Firefighters.
The Fire Prevention division consists of the Fire Marshal as well as four staff positions related to code
enforcement. The Training/Emergency Medical Services division is comprised of a Deputy Fire Chief
and four staff positions related to training and medical education.
Facilities and Equipment. FFD operates an on-duty force of 11 fire engines, two aerial ladder
trucks, one specialized hazardous materials unit, and one heavy-duty rescue unit, with oversight from
two battalion chiefs. Each engine and truck company has at least one certified paramedic. A Special
Operation Task Force within the Operations division provides hazardous materials and rescue
services.
The project site is within the service area for Fire Station 5 and this station would be the first
responder to the project area in instances where calls are directed to the FFD or requests for assistance
are made by the District Fire Department. Fire Station 5, located at 55 Hackamore Lane, is
approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the project area. Station 4 is located at 1000 Pine Street,
approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the project area, and is the second closest station to the project
site.
Response Times. The project area is located in the Hill Area of Fremont which generally has a
higher anticipated response time rate than average for the FFD. However, the project area itself is
generally easily accessible via Stanford Avenue and is more accessible than other Hill Area
properties. In 2010, the FFD responded to 12,958 calls for service within the city, including 360 fire
incidents and 8,700 EMS/rescue incidents.6 In 2014, the FFDs average response time to Mission
Peak was approximately 13 minutes and 46 seconds7.
b.
Police Services. The project site is served concurrently by the District Police Department and
the Citys Police Department when assistance is requested by the District. Services provided by both
police departments are discussed below.
Fremont, City of, 2011. Draft General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. July.
Thurston, Amiel, Acting Deputy Fire Chief, Fremont Fire Department, 2015. Personal communication with Dan
McCormick Fire Chief, East Bay Regional Parks District. August 14.
405

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
(1) East Bay Regional Parks District Police Department. The District provides patrol for
all of the Districts parkland as well as East Bay Municipal Utilities District watershed and recreation
facilities, San Francisco Public Utilities Commissions watershed, and State parklands within the East
Bay. Existing staffing and patrols, facilities, and services provided by the District Fire Department are
discussed below.
Staffing and Patrol Areas. The Districts Police Department is comprised of 60 sworn police
officers, 28 authorized civilian staff, and approximately 200 Volunteer Trail Safety Patrols.8 The
Police Department operates within the Districts Public Safety Department which is headquartered at
17930 Lake Cabot Road in Castro Valley. The Police Department operates substations at the San
Pablo Reservoir in Orinda and the Contra Long Regional Park in Antioch. The Department is
comprised of the following units: Patrol Operations, Special Enforcement Unit, Air Support Unit,
Investigations Unit, and contract policing. The Police Department also operates an Air Support Unit
at the Hayward Municipal Airport.
The project site is located within patrol Beat 4, the southwestern area of the District. Beat 4
boundaries are generally Lake Chabot to the north, the San Francisco Bay to the west, Mission Peak
to the south, and Bishop Ranch and Garin/Dry Creek/Pioneer Park to the east.
Response Times. The average response time for the District Police Department in both
counties was 28 minutes for the month of July in 2011 compared with 19 minutes in July 2002. The
District Police Departments jurisdiction covers vast land and geography and, in many cases,
helicopters provide faster service. The District Police Departments average response times for
emergency calls within Beat 4 are17 minutes and 24 minutes for emergency and non-emergency calls,
respectively. Response times vary and are dependent on traffic and availability of officers.9
Districtwide, primary law enforcement issues include auto burglaries, armed robberies, or organized
criminal activities in transitory hot spots. In 2014, the District Police Department responded to a
total of 8,125 calls for service throughout the District.10 There were 47 911 calls, 800 alarm calls
and 5,995 other types of calls. A large proportion of workload for the Department is based on officer
observation. There were 937 calls or criminal violations observed by officers in 2011. Officerinitiated activity included 1,134 warnings, 397 arrests and 3,995 citations.
In 2014, approximately 176 calls for police services were received for Mission Peak. These calls are
generally related to medical emergencies and personal injuries (40 calls), 11 burglaries (4 calls),
animal-related incidents (20), or missing persons (5).12 Response times to Mission Peak generally
conform to average District-wide response times.
8
9
Albonico, Stephen, Public Safety Systems Administrator, East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Personal
communication with Michelle Julene, Senior Planner, East Bay Regional Park District. August 11.
10
Ibid.
11
The 40 medical calls that were discussed in the District Fire Department section are included in the total 176 call
received by the District. All calls for service, whether they are for Fire or Police go through the same dispatch.
12
Ibid.
406

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
(2) Fremont Police Department. The Fremont Police Department (FPD) is located at 2000
Stevenson Boulevard in Fremont. The FPD is comprised of the Administrative Office, Patrol
Division, and Special Operations Division. Existing staffing and patrols, facilities, and services
provided by the FPD are discussed below.
Staffing and Patrol Areas. The FPD is comprised of 188 sworn officers and maintains an
average of approximately 0.89 officers per 1,000 citizens.13 The city is divided into three zones each
of which has three patrol teams for each shift (day, swing, mid-night). Each patrol team has both
sworn officers and professional staff and is supervised by a Police Sergeant. The number of officers
assigned to a shift is based on staffing levels, criminal activity, calls for services, and other
information that helps to determine patrol strategies. The project site is located within the Vineyards/
Avalon neighborhood service area within Zone 3, South Fremont.
Response Times. The FPD has set a response time goal of 5 minutes for emergency calls. As
of August 2015, the FPD has received an average of 360 incoming calls for service per day and
handled approximately 300 incidents per day.14
c.
Schools. The project site is within the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) boundary. The
FUSD operates 42 schools within the city including: 29 Elementary schools; 5 junior high school; 5
comprehensive high schools; and 3 alternative and extension education facilities. FUSD serves over
34,000 students in grades K-12.
d.
Regulatory Framework. The City of Fremont General Plan and the Districts Master Plan
contain policies and implementation measures related to the provision of public services. These are
discussed below.
(1) Fremont General Plan. The City of Fremont General Plans Public Facilities and Safety
Elements include the following policies and programs related to public services:
Policy 9-1.2: Public Safety Facilities. Ensure public safety facilities are added or expanded as
necessary to keep pace with population growth and meet operational needs. Take into account the
availability of both capital and operating funds when determining the timing of new and expanded
facilities.
Policy 10-4.2: Development Standards. Maintain development standards that limit potential health
and safety risks, and the risks of structure damage and severe economic loss due to fire hazards.
o
Implementation 10-4.2.A: Fire Code Compliance. Require all new development and renovations
to comply with the California Building Code, Fire Code, and all local ordinances for
construction and adequacy of water flow and pressure, ingress/egress and other measures for
fire protection.
13
Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Table of Organization 2014-2015. Website:
www.fremontpolice.org/DocumentCenter/View/40 (accessed July 31, 2015).
14
Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Communications Center Services. Website:
www.fremontpolice.org/index.aspx?NID=129 (accessed July 31, 2015).
407

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
Implementation 10-4.2.B: Designation of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Designate
areas of the city due to location, topography, vegetative cover, or other physical characteristics
as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Require these areas to meet more stringent building
code standards for exterior materials and construction methods for wildfire exposure.
Policy 10-4.3: Access and Clearance. Require adequate access and clearance for fire equipment, fire
suppression personnel, and evacuation for new development.
Policy 10-5.2: 6 Minute 40 Second Response Time. Strive to maintain a 6 minute 40 second
response time for areas below the Toe of the Hill.15
Policy 10-9.7: Crime Prevention Design. Apply site and building design techniques and standards
that are intended to deter criminal activity in new development and redevelopment projects.
o
Implementation 10-9.1.A: Police Department Review. Include the Police Department in the
review of development projects and solicit comments regarding implementation of crime
prevention and Crime Prevention Though Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts.
(2) East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan. The District Master Plan16 includes the
following policies related to public services.
2.
Policy HR2: The District will maintain a highly motivated and trained workforce to manage,
supervise, coordinate, and work on the Districts activities; including park operations, maintenance,
public safety, environmental education, recreation, resource management, land acquisition,
development program services, and administration. The District will also preserve and expand
project opportunities for interns that are both academic and operational in focus.
Policy FR1b: The District will not open new parkland for public use unless it has adequate resources
for planning and meeting the operational needs for public safety, fire protection, resource
stewardship, interpretation and recreation services.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to public services that could result
from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance,
which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this
section presents the impacts to public services that would result from development of a new staging
area at either the Option A site or Option B site.
a.
Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to fire
protection, police protection, school, and other public services if it would:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
15
Note that Mission Peak is located below the Toe of the Hill. See Chapter IV, Plans and Policies.
16
408

OCTOBER 2015
Fire protection;
Police protection;
Schools; or
Other public facilities.

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
Please refer to Section V.O, Recreation for an evaluation of potential impacts to park and recreational
services.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to public
services. Impacts associated with Option A are discussed first under each topic, followed by impacts
associated with Option B. It should be noted that the analysis below focuses on the potential for the
project to create physical environmental impacts associated with the provision of these services.
Physical environmental impacts are those that would result from construction of new facilities (such
as a new fire station) that may be necessary in order to meet response time goals or other performance
objectives.
(1) Fire Protection. Potential impacts to fire protection services are discussed below for the
Option A and Option B sites. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. As discussed in Chapter V.J., Transportation and Circulation, development of the
Option A site with a new staging area that includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total
of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) could result in an
increase in visitation to the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to
existing conditions. This increase is anticipated based on survey data that shows that the increased
availability of on-site parking spaces would likely attract new visitors to the Preserve and that existing
visitors would visit the Preserve on a more frequent basis with easier access to parking. The increase
in visitation to the Preserve could increase the demand for fire and particularly emergency medical
services as more hikers and bicyclists would be present within the Preserve, resulting in more injuries
and a higher level of calls for service.
The District and City of Fremont Fire Departments regularly review staffing and facilities needs at all
District parks and within the city. The District regularly assesses anticipated increased need for
staffing based on the opening of new parks and expected visitation patterns. In addition, independent
of this proposed project at Mission Peak, the District is currently planning to construct new public
safety buildings at its existing campus located near Lake Chabot.17 While the District will continue to
assess the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional
staffing needs would be accommodated by the Districts facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no
new facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire
services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option A site.
17
East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Lake Chabot Campus Modernization Project Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Available online at: www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/Park_Planning/Lake+Chabot+Campus/
NOI+MND+IS.pdf. June 12.
409

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
Access to the Option A site for emergency personnel would continue to be provided via the Stanford
Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new staging area is operational. Fire and emergency
personnel would access the Option A site via a new roadway that would connect the existing staging
area to the new one. In addition, although Option A site is a potential landing area for helicopters,
surrounding areas also provide suitable landing sites. Emergency helicopters would continue to land
near the Option A site as needed to address emergency situations Response times to the Stanford
Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would not be affected as the Option A site is within close proximity
to the existing staging area.
With development of the Option A site, a new fire hydrant would be installed at the existing Stanford
Avenue Staging Area; this hydrant would be within 1,000 feet of the Option A site and would meet
Fire Code requirements. The new hydrant would be connected to the Alameda County Water District
(ACWD) water system and existing water lines within Stanford Avenue. Adequate infrastructure,
including fire hydrants, water pressure and supply would be available to serve the new staging area at
the Option A site. Refer to Section V.Q, Utilities and Service Systems for addition information. Also
refer to Section V.I for a discussion of potential fire hazard risks at the project site.
During construction of the new staging area, the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would be
used as a construction staging area for equipment and materials storage. However, access to the
Mission Peak gate would still be available for fire and other emergency personnel and helicopter
access to the vicinity of the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public
access to the construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve
would be prohibited during the six-month construction period, limiting the number of emergency
situations that would occur in this area compared to existing conditions or conditions that would
occur when the project is operational. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak may experience
increased demand for fire and emergency services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to the
Preserve during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared to
existing conditions and would be temporary.
Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option A site would not result in adverse
physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives as existing facilities are adequate to
support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for fire services. Therefore,
includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the
Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) would increase the use of the Preserve by between
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to existing conditions (refer to Chapter III, Project
Description). The increased use of the Preserve would likely increase the demand for fire and
particularly emergency medical services as more hikers and bicyclists would be present within the
Preserve and more calls for emergency service would likewise occur.
As previously discussed, the District and City of Fremont Fire Departments regularly review staffing
and facilities needs at all District parks and within the City. While the District will continue to assess
the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional staffing
needs would be accommodated by the Districts facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no new
410

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire
services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option B site.
Access to the Option B site for emergency personnel would continue to be provided via the Stanford
Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new staging area is operational. Fire and emergency
personnel would access the Option B site via a new roadway and bridge that would cross over Agua
Caliente Creek and connect the existing staging area to the new one. The existing helicopter landing
area at the Option A site would not be affected and would continue to be used with development of
the Option B site. Response times to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would not be
affected as the Option B site is within close proximity to the existing staging area.
With development of the Option B site, two new fire hydrants would be installed, one at the existing
staging area and a second located approximately mid-way along the roadway. In addition, a new fire
line (400 linear feet) would be installed along the new roadway to connect with the new hydrant. This
hydrant would be within 1,000 feet of the Option B site and would meet Fire Code requirements. The
new hydrants would be connected to the ACWD water system and existing water lines within
Stanford Avenue. Adequate infrastructure, including fire hydrants, water pressure and supply would
be available to serve the new staging area at the Option B site. Refer to Section V.Q, Utilities and
Service Systems for addition information. Also refer to Section V.I for a discussion of potential fire
hazard risks at the project site.
Mission Peak gate would still be available for fire and other emergency personnel and helicopter
access to the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public access to the
construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve would be
prohibited during the six-month construction period, limiting the number of emergency situations that
would occur in this area compared to existing conditions or conditions that would occur when the
project is operational. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak may experience increased
demand for fire and emergency services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to the Preserve
during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared to existing
conditions and would be temporary.
Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option B site would not result in adverse
support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for fire services. Therefore,
(2) Police Protection.Potential impacts to police protection services are discussed below for
the Option A and Option B sites. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. As discussed in Chapter V.J., Transportation and Circulation, development of the
Option A site with a new staging area that includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total
of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) could result in an
increase visitation to the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to
existing conditions. This increase is anticipated based on survey data that shows that the increased
411

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
availability of on-site parking spaces would likely attract new visitors to the Preserve and existing
visitors may visit the Preserve on a more frequent basis with easier access to parking. The increase in
visitation to the Preserve could increase the demand for police services as more hikers and bicyclists
would be present within the Preserve, resulting in a higher level of calls for service.
As previously discussed, the District and City of Fremont Police Departments regularly review
staffing and facilities needs at all District parks and within the City. While the District will continue
to assess the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional
staffing needs would be accommodated by the Districts facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no
new facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire
services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option A site.
In addition, existing issues related to noise, litter, and illegal parking within the residential
neighborhoods west of Vineyard Drive would likely decrease as park visitors would have access to a
more dedicated parking within the Preserve boundaries.
In addition, the District and City of Fremont Police Departments regularly review staffing and
facilities needs in light of the number of calls for service received and the population served within
each jurisdiction. No new facilities would be required to be constructed in order to serve the increase
in demand for police services that would result from development of the new staging area at the
Option A site.
The Option A site would be developed within a bowl-like topography and the perimeter and interior
of the new staging area would be planted with new trees to provide screening and visual interest.
However, plantings would be spaced to allow visibility of the staging area from nearby trails and
from other points within the Preserve and the area would be regularly monitored by District staff,
including District police patrols. Access to the Option A site for emergency personnel would continue
to be provided by the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new staging area is
operational. Response times to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would not be affected
as the Option A site is within close proximity to the existing staging area.
Mission Peak gate would still be available for police and other emergency personnel and helicopter
access to the vicinity of the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public
access to the construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve
would be prohibited during the six-month construction period and this area would be fenced and
closed when construction activities are not occurring. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak
may experience increased demand for police services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to
the Preserve during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared
to existing conditions and would be temporary.
Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option A site would not result in adverse
physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered police service facilities, the
support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for police services.
412

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
includes a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the
Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve) would increase the use of the Preserve by between
approximately 33 and 38.8 percent compared to existing conditions (refer to Chapter III, Project
Description). The increased use of the Preserve would likely increase the demand for fire and
particularly emergency medical services as more hikers and bicyclists would be present within the
Preserve and more calls for emergency service would likewise occur.
As previously discussed, the District and City of Fremont Fire Departments regularly review staffing
and facilities needs at all District parks and within the City. While the District will continue to assess
the need for staffing at Mission Peak to maintain adequate response times, any additional staffing
needs would be accommodated by the Districts facilities at the Lake Chabot Campus, and no new
facilities would need to be constructed in order to serve any increase in demand for police or fire
services that would result from development of the new staging area at the Option B site.
In addition, existing issues related to noise, litter, and illegal parking within the residential
neighborhoods west of Vineyard Drive would likely decrease as park visitors would have access to a
more dedicated parking within the Preserve boundaries.
In addition, the District and City of Fremont Police Departments regularly review staffing and
facilities needs in light of the number of calls for service received and the population served within
each jurisdiction. No new facilities would be required to be constructed in order to serve the increase
in demand for police services that would result from development of the new staging area at the
Option B site.
The Option B site would be developed within an area that is currently used for cattle grazing and new
roadways and bridges over Agua Caliente Creek would be required to access to the Option B site. The
perimeter and interior of the new staging area would be planted with new trees to provide screening
and visual interest. However, plantings would be spaced to allow visibility of the staging area from
nearby trails and from other points within the Preserve and the area would be regularly monitored by
District staff, including District police patrols. Access to the Option B site for emergency personnel
would continue to be provided by the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak once the new
staging area is operational. Response times to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would
not be affected as the Option B site is within close proximity to the existing staging area.
Mission Peak gate would still be available for police and other emergency personnel and helicopter
access to the Option A site would also continue to be available. In addition, public access to the
construction area from both the Stanford Avenue area and from within the Preserve would be
prohibited during the six-month construction period and this area would be fenced and closed when
construction activities are not occurring. The Ohlone College entrance to Mission Peak may
experience increased demand for police services as visitors would be directed to this entrance to the
Preserve during the construction period; however, this increase would likely be minor compared to
existing conditions and would be temporary.
413

OCTOBER 2015

P. PUBLIC SERVICES
Given the above, development of a new staging area at the Option B site would not result in adverse
support the provision of these services even with an increase in demand for police services.
(3) School Impacts. Potential impacts related to school services are discussed below. As
discussed, the proposed project would not impact these services.
Option A. Development of the Option A site with a new staging area that includes a maximum
of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford Avenue entrance
to the Preserve) would increase the use of the Preserve by between approximately 33 and 38.8 percent
compared to existing conditions (refer to Chapter III, Project Description). However, the project is
intended to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail access from the existing Stanford
Avenue Staging Area to Mission Peak, a regional preserve and recreational area, which is generated
by the existing population throughout the region. No housing would be developed with the proposed
project and therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for school services and
there would be no impact related to school services.
Option B. Similar to development of the Option A site, development of the Option B site with
a maximum of 300 new parking spaces (for a total of 343 public parking spaces at the Stanford
Avenue entrance to the Preserve) is intended to better accommodate park visitor demand for trail
access from the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area to Mission Peak. No housing would be
developed with the proposed project and therefore, the proposed project would not increase the
demand for school services and there would be no impact related to school services.
(4) Other Public Services. Potential impacts related to the provision of other public
services, which consist of those provided by District operations and maintenance staff, are discussed
in Section V.O, Recreation of this EIR. As discussed, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact to these services.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, combined with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not contribute to cumulative effects related to the provision of fire,
police, or school services. Cumulative public service-related impacts are those that would result from
substantial increases in population in the Districts service area of Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties or within the City of Fremont. Growth within these service areas is planned for through the
Districts Master Plan and the City of Fremont General Plan. In addition, service providers regularly
review service needs within their respective jurisdictions to accommodate increased growth and
evaluate the need for new facilities. The proposed project is intended to serve an existing recreational
use and would not induce population growth. Existing facilities that provide fire, police, and school
services would not be physically altered and no new facilities would be required to be constructed to
provide these services as a result of the proposed project. Existing service levels and standards would
continue to be achieved within existing facilities with the proposed project. Therefore, no new
facilities, the construction of which could result in physical environmental impacts would occur as a
result of the project. The minor increase in demand for public services associated with development
of a new staging area at the Option A or Option B sites would not be cumulatively considerable.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to public services would not be significant.
414

OCTOBER 2015
Q.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section describes the existing utility systems (water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy) that
serve the project area and identifies the potential impacts to utility services that could result from
development of a new staging area at either the Option A or Option B sites.
1.
Setting
This section addresses the following utilities: water supply, treatment, and distribution; wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal; solid waste; and energy.
a.
Water Service. The following describes the existing water supply sources, water treatment
facilities, and the water distribution system that serve the project area. Water service is not currently
provided to the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area although a pumping facility is located near the
Option B site. Information in this section is based on the Alameda County Water Districts (ACWD)
website1 and Urban Water Management Plan,2 unless otherwise noted.
(1) Water Supply. The ACWD provides
Table V.Q-1: Existing Water Supply
water to the Cities of Fremont, Newark and
Amount
Union City. ACWD has three primary water
Supply Component
(in acre feet/year)
supply sources including: the State Water Project
Imported Supplies
(SWP); San Franciscos Regional Water System
State Water Project
27,500
(SFRWS); and local supplies. The SWP water is
San Francisco Regional
15,400
Water System
obtained in other parts of California and is
Total Imported Supplies
42,900
pumped from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta
Local Supplies
through the South Bay Aqueduct. Water from
Groundwater Recharge
24,500
SWP comprises approximately 40 percent of the
Del
Valle
Reservoir
5,800
Districts total water supply. The SFRWS water
Desalination
5,100
comprises approximately 20 percent of ACWDs
Total Local Supplies
35,400
water supply. This supply is primarily from the
TOTAL SUPPLY
78,300
Sierra Nevada and travels through the Hetch
Source: Alameda County Water District, 2015.
Hetchy Aqueduct, but also includes water that is
treated by the San Francisco Public Utility
Commission from local watersheds. ACWDs local water supplies consists of groundwater from the
Niles Cone Groundwater Basin (underlying the ACWD service area), desalinated brackish
groundwater, and surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir. ACWD holds the water rights for
approximately 42,900 acre feet per year for imported water and local supplies consist of
approximately 35,400 acre feet per year. Table V.Q-1 provides a summary of ACWD water supplies.
Population growth, recurring drought conditions and the need to set aside water to protect fisheries
are making it more challenging than ever for water purveyors to ensure adequate supplies. ACWD
will increasingly rely on conservation and use of recycled water to meet customer needs.
Alameda County Water District, 2015. Website: www.acwd.org/ (accessed July 31, 2015).
Alameda County Water District, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan 2010-2015.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\5q-Utilities.docx (10/14/15)
415

OCTOBER 2015

(2) Water Treatment Facilities. ACWD operates two treatment plants (Mission San Jos
Plant and Plant #2), the Newark Desalination Facility, and a Blending Facility. The two treatment
plants treat SWP and local surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir. The Newark Desalination
facility treats brackish groundwater and recently expanded from 5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 10
mgd in 2010. The Blending Facility combines local water supplies with imported supplies to maintain
uniform water quality throughout ACWDs service area. Table V.Q-2 describes each water treatment
facilitys treatment process, and capacity.
Table V.Q-2: Water Treatment Facilities Characteristics

Water Treatment
Facility
Mission San Jos
Plant
Treatment Process
Treats surface water from the South Bay Aqueduct
Plant #2
Treatment process involves two upflow clarifiers, three 200-micron

premembrane strainers, and six ultrafiltration (UF) membrane
storage with post-filter addition of fluoride and sodium hydroxide.
Treats water from the South Bay Aqueduct
Newark Desalination
Facility
Conventional ozone plant uses chemical additions (carbon dioxide,

chloramines pre-ozone, ozone, ferric chloride). Two separate
process trains consisting of six flocculation basins, four
sedimentation basins and six dual media filters with post-filter
addition of chlorine, ammonia, fluoride, and sodium hydroxide.
Treats brackish groundwater through reverse osmosis membrane
filtration process
Blending Facility
Chlorine, ammonia, fluoride, and sodium hydroxide are added as

finished water chemicals
Combines ACWDs production well water with softer SFRWS
water using three parallel in-line static mixers
Daily
Capacity
8.5 mgd
28 mgd
(Sustainable
Production
Rate is 22
mgd)
10 mgd
60 mgd
Note: mgd represents million gallons per day

Source: Alameda County Water District, 2015.
(3) Water Distribution System and Facilities. ACWDs water conveyance system consists
of 825 miles of pipes and 11 reservoirs and tanks. In 2010, ACWDs total distribution was approximately 47,000 acre-feet. Local water supplies stored in the Del Valle Reservoir flow into either of the
two treatment plans, Alameda Creek, or into percolation ponds for ground water recharge. Water
supplies from SFRWS flow to the Blending Facility to be combined with local supplies.
Existing infrastructure within the vicinity of the project site includes a 12-inch water main line that
terminates at the end of Stanford Avenue. In addition, an existing solar powered pump is located at
the Option B site. This pump is served by ACWD metered water and boosts the pressure to fill a
water tank for the cattle troughs in this area.
Although the current water distribution network is capable of meeting existing needs, significant
increases in demand or new special water service requirements could require distribution system
upgrades such as new or increased treated water storage, larger pipes, pumps, pressure regulators,
and/or other infrastructure depending on the location and service requirements.
416

OCTOBER 2015

b.
Wastewater. The following provides background information on the wastewater system
operated by the Union Sanitary District (USD). Information in this section is based on the USDs
Sewer System Management Plan,3 unless otherwise noted. The USD is an independent service district
that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to the Cities of Fremont,
Newark, and Union City. The USD service area covers approximately 60 square miles.
(1) Wastewater Collection. USD operates a collection system of approximately 783 miles
of sewers that utilize gravity and force mains. The project site is within the Hill Area and some
developments in these areas are served by septic systems; however, the residential subdivisions
within the vicinity of the site are connected to the existing sewer system via an existing line and
manhole on Vineyard Avenue. The areas of Mission Peak are also within the USDs sewer service
district. Currently, the existing staging area contains one vault restroom and is not connected to
USDs sewer.
The USD sewer system is divided into three drainage areas: Irvington, Newark, and Alvarado.
Wastewater generated in each area travels to a major pumping station near the San Francisco Bay.
The project site is within the Irvington drainage area and would be served by the USD Alvarado
Treatment Plant.
(2) Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. The Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant is
located in Union City and has the capacity to treat 30 mgd of average dry weather flow. On average,
this plant receives 24.5 mgd of wastewater flows. Once treated, water from the Alvarado Treatment
Plan is recycled onsite for facility usage or passes through seven miles of pipelines for disposal in San
Francisco Bay, north of the Oakland International Airport.
c.
Solid Waste. Republic Services provides curbside pick-up of recyclables, organics, and
garbage in the City of Fremont. The existing staging area contains garbage and recycling receptacles.
District ordinances prohibit public littering or dumping of any material within Mission Peak. Illegal
trash is removed from Mission Peak by District maintenance crews on a regular basis. The District
currently contracts to Republic Services to provide waste management services at Mission Peak.
Republic Services is located at 42600 Boyce Road in Fremont. Municipal solid waste is transported
by Republic Services to Altamont Landfill near Livermore. The Altamont Landfill has a maximum
permitted daily throughput of 11,500 tons and a maximum permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic
yards. As of 2005, the year for which the most recent reporting data was available, the remaining
capacity of Altamont Landfill is approximately 45,720,000 cubic yards.4
d.
Energy. The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas
service to the City of Fremont and to the residential areas near the project sites. PG&E charges
connection and user fees for new development, in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural
gas service based on use. PG&E produces much of its energy from renewable sources and has plans
in place to increase reliance on renewable energy sources. Of the energy provided to PG&E
3
Union Sanitary District, 2006, Union Sanitary District Management Plan.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2015. Solid Waste Information System
(SWIS), Facility/Site Search. Website: calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0009/Detail/ (accessed June 23,
2015).
417

OCTOBER 2015

customers in 2012 (the year that the most recent data was available), approximately 21 percent of
energy came from nuclear generation; 21 percent was from unspecified sources; 27 percent was from
natural gas; 11 percent was from large hydroelectric facilities; and 19 percent was from renewable
resources (e.g., wind, geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectric sources, and solar). In 2012, PG&E
delivered 76,205 gigawatt-hours of electricity to its 5.2 million electrical customers.5
The existing staging area is not served currently served by PG&E as it does not require the use of
electricity due to its operating hours. Electrical services are provided to the existing surrounding
subdivisions and existing infrastructure is located on Stanford Avenue.
e.
Regulatory Framework. The City of Fremont General Plans Public Facilities Element
includes the following policy and implementation measure related to utility services.
Policy 9-3.1: Long Range Planning. Work with the Alameda County Water District, Union Sanitary
District, and Alameda County Flood Control District to ensure their long range plans are consistent
with the Fremont General Plan.
o
2.
Implementation 9-3.1.D: ACWD Development Requirements. Individual development projects

shall conform to Alameda County Water Districts development specifications and standard
specifications for water main installation and applicable ACWD policies related to development
and redevelopment.
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to utility services, including water,
wastewater, solid waste, and energy services, that could result from implementation of the proposed
project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to
determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts to
public services that would result from development of a new staging area at either the Option A site
or Option B site. Please see Section V.H, Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of impacts
related to stormwater.
a.
utilities and infrastructure if it would:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality

Control Board;
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or

expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements;
5
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2015. Clean Energy Solutions. Website: www.pge.com/mybusiness/
environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml (accessed August 6, 2015).
418

OCTOBER 2015

Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in
addition to the providers existing commitments;
Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects

solid waste disposal needs; or
Fail to comply with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste.
b.
Project Impacts. The following section describes the projects potential impacts to utilities and
service systems. Impacts associated with Option A are generally discussed first under each topic,
followed by impacts associated with Option B.
(1) Water. Potential impacts related to water supplies, water infrastructure and water
treatment facilities are discussed below. As discussed, impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. New water connections would be required to provide services to the proposed
Option A site. The existing water distribution infrastructure is not adequate to transport water to the
proposed Option A staging area. In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed
staging area per Fire Code requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter water main would be extended
480 feet up Stanford Avenue to reach the existing staging area. In order to provide adequate water
pressure for potable water and irrigation, a booster pump system would be installed near the restroom
in the existing staging area to boost the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe supplying the
Option A site, which would be located at a higher elevation.
The proposed project would generate demand for water supplies to serve the restrooms, landscaping
irrigation, and required fire supply at the existing staging area and the Option A site. The project also
would include the extension of water delivery infrastructure to the Option A site. In the context of the
existing available water supply, this increase would be minimal. The proposed project would be
subject to applicable water conservation measures, including those imposed by federal, State, and
local regulations such as CALGreen. Measures include installation of low-flow water fixtures and
toilets, Bay-friendly and drought-tolerant landscaping. It is therefore not anticipated that new or
expanded entitlements for water supplies would be required to serve the proposed staging area
facilities associated with development of the Option A site and this impact would be less than
significant.
Furthermore, due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that would serve the
proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and no new water
supply, treatment, or delivery infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be required.
Impacts associated with the construction of new water lines within Stanford Avenue and within
project roadways that would lead to the Option A site are identified in the appropriate topical sections
of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended
Option B. New water connections would be required to provide water services to the proposed
Option B site. The existing water delivery infrastructure is not adequate to transport water to the
proposed Option B staging area. An existing solar-powered pump is located within the Option B site.
This pump connects to the ACWD system and provides water to serve cattle operations within the
419

OCTOBER 2015

vicinity. No changes to this pump or the water system in this area are proposed, although the water
delivery system proposed to serve the Option B site may tie into this existing infrastructure, if
appropriate. This connection is not required to serve the new staging area facilities.
In order to provide a fire hydrant within 1,000 feet of the proposed parking area per Fire Code
requirements, the existing 12-inch diameter main waterline would be extended 480 feet up Stanford
Avenue to reach the existing Staging Area, then a 6-inch line would continue up the new road another
600 feet to a new hydrant. In order to provide adequate water pressure for potable water, irrigation,
and fire service, a booster pump system would be installed near the restroom in the existing staging
area to boot the water pressure in a new 3-inch diameter pipe to supply the Option B site, which is
located at a higher elevation.
Similar to the discussion above for the Option A site, the proposed project would generate demand for
water supplies to serve the existing staging area and the Option B site and would include the
extension of water delivery infrastructure to the Option B site. In the context of the existing available
water supply, this increase would be minimal. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to
applicable water conservation measures, including those imposed by federal, State, and local
regulations such as CALGreen. Measures include installation of low-flow water fixtures and toilets,
Bay-friendly and drought-tolerant landscaping. It is therefore not anticipated that new or expanded
entitlements for water supplies would be required to serve the proposed staging area facilities
associated with development of the Option B site and this impact would be less than significant.
Furthermore, due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that would serve the
proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and no new water
supply, treatment, or delivery infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be required.
Impacts associated with the construction of new water lines within Stanford Avenue and within
project roadways that would lead to the Option B site are identified in the appropriate topical sections
of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of recommended
(2) Wastewater. Potential impacts related to wastewater generation, infrastructure and
treatment facilities are discussed below. As discussed, impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is currently served by one restroom
facility with a vault toilet and three portable restrooms. Sewer services are not currently provided to
the existing staging area or to the Option A site. The proposed four-unit restroom located at the
Option A site would be connected to a new 1,600 foot long sewer line that would flow by gravity to
the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed twounit restroom installed in place of the existing single-vault toilet at the existing staging area would
also be connected to this new sewer line. Approximately 910 linear feet of a new 8-inch sewer line
would also be installed to connect the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area restroom facilities to
the existing manhole at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 685
linear feet of a new 6-inch line would continue beneath the new access roadway from the existing
staging area to the new restrooms at the Option A site.
420

OCTOBER 2015

The proposed project would generate demand for wastewater services to serve the existing staging
area and the Option A site and would include the extension of wastewater collection systems to the
Option A site. In the context of the existing available wastewater treatment facility capacity (the
facility processes an average of 24.5 mgd per day with a total capacity of 30 mgd per day), this
increase would be minimal. Due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that
would serve the proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and
no new wastewater treatment or collection infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be
required. Impacts associated with the construction of new wastewater lines within Stanford Avenue
and within project roadways that would lead to the Option A site are identified in the appropriate
topical sections of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of
Option B. The existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area is currently served by one restroom
facility with a vault toilet and three portable restrooms. Sewer services are not currently provided to
the existing staging area or to the Option B site. The proposed four-unit restroom located at the
Option B site would be connected to a new 2,600-foot long sewer line that would flow by gravity to
the existing manhole at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Stanford Avenue. The proposed twounit restroom installed in place of the existing single-vault toilet at the existing Stanford Staging Area
would be connected to this new sewer line. New power would be required to operate the pressure
booster system located near the restroom in the existing staging area, and buried electrical lines could
be installed under the proposed road to the Option B site to provide a small amount of power to the
proposed restroom facilities.
of Stanford Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. An additional 1,700 linear feet of a new 6-inch line would
Option B site.
The proposed project would generate demand for wastewater services to serve the existing staging
area and the Option B site and would include the extension of wastewater collection systems to the
Option B site. In the context of the existing available wastewater treatment facility capacity (the
facility processes an average of 24.5 mgd per day with a total capacity of 30 mgd per day), this
increase would be minimal. Due to this minimal increase in demand, existing infrastructure that
would serve the proposed facilities would be adequate to serve the proposed staging area facilities and
no new wastewater treatment or collection infrastructure beyond that identified in this EIR would be
required. Impacts associated with the construction of new wastewater lines within Stanford Avenue
and within project roadways that would lead to the Option B site are identified in the appropriate
topical sections of this EIR. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of
(3) Solid Waste. Potential impacts related to solid waste are discussed below. As discussed,
impacts would be less than significant.
Option A. Regular trash collection services are provided to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area
and public littering or dumping of any material onto the Preserve is prohibited. Illegal trash is
removed from the Preserve by District maintenance crews and properly disposed of. Although use of
421

OCTOBER 2015

the Preserve would increase with development of a new staging area, new trash and recycling
receptacles would be provided to serve the increased demand. These facilities would be located at the
Option A site as well as the existing staging area. Because the amount of solid waste generated by the
project would be small and because the District would properly dispose of any illegal littering, the
proposed project would not affect landfill capacity and would comply with all statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.
Option B. Similar to the discussion above for the Option A site, although use of the Preserve
would increase with development of a new staging area, new trash and recycling receptacles would be
provided to serve the increased demand. These facilities would be located at the Option B site as well
as the existing staging area. Because the amount of solid waste generated by the project would be
small and because the District would properly dispose of any illegal littering, the proposed project
would not affect landfill capacity and would comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.
(4) Energy. Potential impacts related to the provision of electrical services to the project
sites and energy consumption are discussed below. As discussed, impacts would be less than
significant.
Option A. New electrical connections would be required to serve the Option A site in order to
provide pressure to the proposed water pressure booster system. No lighting is proposed for the new
staging area at the Option A site or at the existing staging area. Overall, the level of public energy
required to serve the proposed project would be minimal and would not violate applicable federal,
State, or local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards or exceed PG&Es service capacity
or require new or expanded facilities. The proposed project would also be subject to Title 24 energy
efficiency standards. Improvements to and extensions of existing PG&E infrastructure required to
accommodate the proposed project would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior to
installation. Finally, while development of the Option A site would result in an incremental increase
in demand for electrical energy, consumption associated with the project would be negligible (also
see discussion in Section IV.L, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Therefore this impact would be less than
significant.
Option B. Similar to the Option A site, new electrical connections would be required to serve
the Option B site in order to provide pressure to the proposed water pressure booster system. No
lighting is proposed for the new staging area at the Option B site or at the existing staging area.
Similar to the discussion above for the Option A site, while development of the Option B site would
result in an incremental increase in demand for electrical energy, consumption associated with the
project would be negligible (also see discussion in Section IV.L, Greenhouse Gas Emissions).
Therefore this impact would be less than significant.
c.
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative infrastructure-related impacts would result from substantial
increases in population in the Districts service area of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties or within
the City of Fremont. Growth within these service areas is planned for through the Districts Master
Plan and the City of Fremont General Plan. In addition, service providers regularly review service
needs within their respective jurisdictions to accommodate increased growth and evaluate the need for
new facilities. The proposed project is intended to serve an existing recreational use and would not
induce population growth. The minor increase in demand for utility services associated with
422

OCTOBER 2015

development of a new staging area at the Option A or Option B sites would not be substantial in the
context of cumulative regional and local service needs. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to water, wastewater, solid waste, or energy service
impacts; thus the projects cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems would not be
significant.
423

OCTOBER 2015

424
VI.
ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe a
range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that would feasibly
attain most of the project's basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the
significantly adverse environmental effects of the project. An EIR does not need to consider every
conceivable alternative to a project; rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The range of
alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason.
The proposed project involves the development of a new staging area within the Preserve boundaries
and near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The new staging area is proposed to be
developed at one of two potential locations (Option A or Option B) and would provide up to 300 new
parking spaces, as described in detail in Chapter III, Project Description. The potential environmental
effects of implementing the proposed project are analyzed in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures. The proposed project has been described and analyzed in the previous chapters
with an emphasis on determining and evaluating potential significant impacts resulting from the
project and identifying mitigation measures to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant
level. The following discussion identifies and discusses five feasible alternatives to the proposed
project, compares the impacts of each alternative to the impacts of the project, and determines
whether the alternatives meet the project objectives.
The five alternatives to the proposed project that are discussed and evaluated in this chapter are the
following:
The No Project alternative, which assumes the continuation of existing conditions within
the project sites. No additional parking or restrooms would be constructed within the
vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This entrance to Mission Peak
would continue to be inadequately served by available parking and restrooms within the
Preserve. It is assumed that visitors to the Preserve would continue to park on adjacent
streets at the current levels and the associated issues such as noise, litter, and congestion
would continue at the current levels.
The Reduced Project Size alternative, which would construct a new staging area with
parking for approximately 225 vehicles and additional restrooms within a reduced area on
the same site as proposed project Option A site.
The Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area alternative, which would construct
a multi-story parking structure to provide approximately 300 parking spaces and additional
restrooms within the existing footprint of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
The Off-site Parking alternative, which would entail development of an off-site parking
area on a parcel owned by the City of Fremont that could provide up to 75 spaces outside of
the Preserve boundaries but within the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging
Area.
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\6-Alternatives.docx (10/14/15)
425

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
The Maximum Parking alternative, which would construct staging areas on both the
Option A and Option B sites, for a total of 643 (new and existing) parking spaces and
additional restrooms provided at the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve.
The fundamental purpose of the project and the project objectives are identified in Chapter III, Project
Description. To assist in evaluating project alternatives, the purpose and objectives are repeated
below. The Mission statement for the East Bay Regional Park District defines the essential role of
the District as follows:
The East Bay Regional Park District preserves a rich heritage of natural and cultural resources
and provides open space, parks, trails, safe and healthful recreation and environmental
education. An environmental ethic guides the District in all of its activities.1
Consistent with this essential role of providing open space, parks and trails, the purpose of the
proposed project is to provide additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate park visitor
demand for access to trails from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area at Mission Peak. As discussed in
Chapter III, Project Description, it is estimated that Mission Peak received nearly 270,000 visitors in
2014, at an average of over 22,000 visitors each month. Of these total visitors to the park, over 19,000
visitors each month used the trails departing from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area.2 With only 43
parking spaces available at this location, visitors to Mission Peak generate a demand for parking at
the Stanford Avenue entrance that exceeds the capacity of the existing parking area due to the
popularity of the trails that originate at this entrance and provide access to the summit of Mission
Peak. It is anticipated that development of additional parking at this location will help reduce existing
noise, trash, and safety issues on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing staging area, and
that Mission Peak visitors would be better served by a more appropriate level of parking and
additional restrooms. The following project objectives have been identified for the project:
Objective 1: Develop additional parking on land leased from the City of Fremont.
Objective 2: Develop additional parking that minimizes costs associated with construction,
operation, maintenance, and implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures to the
extent feasible while still achieving the purpose of the project.
Objective 3: Develop additional parking that incorporates best management and best
engineering principles into the design, particularly in the area of geologic stability and
stormwater management, avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts to the greatest
degree feasible.
Objective 4: Develop additional parking that serves the visitors to Mission Peak Regional
Preserve who want access to the most popular trails in keeping with the Districts Mission
Statement.
Objective 5: Develop additional parking that would help reduce parking on neighborhood
streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area.
East Bay Regional Parks District, 2013. Master Plan 2013, page 18. July 16.
BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study, page 3. June 29.
426

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
Objective 6: Construct additional restroom facilities near the location of the Stanford
Avenue Staging Area to accommodate park visitors.
The purpose of this discussion of alternatives to the project is to enable decision-makers to evaluate
the project by considering how alternatives to the project as proposed might reduce or avoid the
project's impacts on the physical environment. The analysis in this chapter provides a qualitative
evaluation of the environmental impacts that could be associated with each alternative and compares
those potential impacts to those identified for both proposed project Option A and Option B as
described in Chapter V of this EIR.
If District decision-makers were to decide to move forward with one of the alternatives identified in
this chapter, additional engineering and design work and analysis would be required for the
environmental impacts associated with the alternative, and specific mitigation measures for each
potentially significant impact would need to be developed and considered.
A.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The following provides a description of the No Project alternative and its anticipated environmental
impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the
No Project alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The
discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Project alternative would reduce,
eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the
objectives of the project.
1.
Principal Characteristics
The No Project alternative assumes that neither the Option A nor Option B sites would be developed
and that both sites and the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would generally remain in their
current condition. The available parking supply at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak
would continue to provide an inadequate number of parking spaces to meet visitor demand for
parking. Thus, parking and associated issues on the surrounding residential streets would likely
continue at existing levels, including extensive overflow parking on the neighborhood streets,
vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion, noise, litter, and lights from headlamps and flashlights.
Under the No Project alternative, the District would not develop any additional parking for visitors to
Mission Peak. In addition, no visitor-serving site improvements would be made, such as construction
of additional restrooms, kiosk, drinking water sources, and picnic tables. Culvert repair associated
with Option A and the culvert removal and channel restoration associated with Option B also would
not occur.
The No Project alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project.
Specifically, it would not develop additional parking on lands leased by the District, would not
provide parking to serve existing visitors, would not reduce the occurrence of overflow parking on
neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, and would not
construct additional restroom facilities to accommodate visitors.
427

OCTOBER 2015
2.

VI. ALTERNATIVES
Analysis of the No Project Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the No Project alternative compared to the impacts associated
with development of the Option A or Option B sites are described below.
a.
Land Use. The No Project Alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions at
the project sites. This alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community and no new land uses would be introduced to the project sites. The Option A
site would remain as undeveloped open space open to cattle grazing and the Option B site would
remain as an existing cattle corral. Similar to impacts associated with development of Option A and
Option B, implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any significant land use
impacts or impacts related to policy consistency. With this alternative, the existing conflicts with
nearby residential uses from overflow parking on the public residential streets in the vicinity of the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area would continue, along with the existing contribution to issues
including noise, trash, and safety issues. Visitors would continue to be inadequately served by
appropriate levels of available parking and restrooms.
b.
Visual Resources. Under the No Project alternative, the visual quality of both the Option A
and Option B sites natural terrain would remain unchanged and views from existing trails and other
scenic vistas available from within the Preserve would not be altered. Views from private residences
within the vicinity of the Option A and B sites would also remain unchanged. Implementation of the
No Project alternative would result in no visual impacts, compared to the less-than-significant
impacts associated with development of the Option A or Option B sites.
c.
Biological Resources. Under the No Project alternative, neither the Option A nor Option B
sites would be developed and both sites would remain in their natural condition. Impacts to biological
resources identified for development of either the Option A or Option B sites would not occur.
Specifically, impacts to special-status wildlife and native species and their habitat and nursery sites
would not result from implementation of the No Project alternative. Impacts to special-status
grassland plant species, jurisdictional waters and protected trees would not occur. Similar to the
proposed project, there would be no conflict with an adopted conservation or natural community plan.
There would be no effects to sensitive natural communities. As such, none of the mitigation measures
identified for implementation with Option A or Option B would be required with the No Project
alternative.
d.
Cultural Resources. Under the No Project alternative, neither the Option A nor the Option B
sites would be developed and existing historical and archaeological resources known to be located
within each of these sites would not be disturbed by construction activities. Likewise, no unidentified
paleontological resources or Native American skeletal remains would have the possibility of being
disturbed. As such, none of the mitigation measures identified for implementation with Option A or
Option B would be required with the No Project Alternative.
e.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The No Project alternative would result in the
continuation of existing conditions at the project site and, similar to the proposed project, no
significant impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would result. Under this alternative, the
Option A site would continue to be utilized as grazing land and the Option B site would continue to
be used as a cattle corral. Existing cattle infrastructure on the Option B site would not need to be
relocated. With this alternative impacts related to agricultural resources associated with development
428

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
of Option A and Option B would be less than those associated with the proposed project. The
implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any significant impacts related to
agriculture or forestry resources.
f.
Mineral Resources. The No Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing
conditions at the project site and, similar to the proposed project, no significant impacts to mineral
resources known to be of value to the region or the State would result.
g.
Geology and Soils. Under the No Project alternative, the existing topography of the Option A
and Option B sites would be retained and no ground-disturbing activities, such as soil excavation or
grading, would result. Potentially significant impacts related to existing geologic and soils conditions
identified for development of either the Option A or Option B sites would not occur and none of the
mitigation measures identified for implementation of Option A or Option B would be required with
the No Project Alternative.
h.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the No Project alternative, the project sites would be
subject to existing hydrologic conditions and both sites would remain entirely covered in pervious
surfaces. The less than significant construction and operation-period impacts associated with water
quality, groundwater supplies, and storm drainage system capacity identified for the Option A and
Option B sites would not occur. Similar to the proposed project, the no impact determination
associated with flood hazards or coastal hazards would be the same with implementation of the No
Project alternative.
The less-than-significant impacts associated with culvert repair that could cause erosion and siltation
or localized flooding at the Option A site would not occur with implementation of the No Project
alternative. Additionally, the beneficial impact of repairing the existing culvert at Option A would not
occur with implementation of the No Project alternative. The potentially significant impacts related to
erosion and siltation and localized flooding identified as a result of work to be conducted within Agua
Caliente Creek as part of the Option B site development would not occur with the No Project
alternative and implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would not be required.
Additionally, the beneficial impact of removing the existing culvert at Option B and restoring the
channel to a natural condition would not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative.
i.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the No Project alternative, the project sites would
remain in their current natural condition, no construction activities would take place, and automobiles
and landscape maintenance chemicals would not be introduced to either site. The less than significant
construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and accidental
release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a result of
wildland/urban fires would not result with the No Project alternative. Similar to the proposed project,
no impact would result related to aviation hazards.
j.
Transportation and Circulation. Under the No Project alternative, the existing on-site
parking area would continue to be inadequate to serve demand. Existing public residential streets
within the vicinity of the site would continue to be congested with pedestrian and vehicle traffic and
on-street parking spaces would continue to be utilized by visitors to Mission Peak.. The less-thansignificant impacts associated with the increase in vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area
429

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions due to latent demand would
not occur with implementation of the No Project alternative.
k.
Air Quality. Under the No Project alternative, construction activities at the project sites would
not occur and the potentially significant impact associated with construction-period air quality
emissions would not result; therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would not be
required.
The less-than-significant project impacts related to consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management Districts (BAAQMDs) Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air
emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could
affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also not occur with implementation of the No Project
alternative because the latent demand associated with the Project would not occur.
l.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the No Project alternative, construction activities at the
project sites would not occur and no greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted. The less-thansignificant impacts associated with construction- and operation-period greenhouse gas emissions, and
consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans, would not occur with implementation of the No
Project alternative.
m. Noise. Under the No Project alternative, construction activities at the project sites would not
occur and therefore no noise impacts associated with construction would occur and implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would not be required to reduce construction-period noise levels. As such,
although impacts related to construction-period noise identified for the proposed project would be less
than significant with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would not occur with
implementation of the No Project alternative and no mitigation would be required. In addition, the
less-than-significant impacts associated with operation of the new parking lot would not occur with
implementation of the No Project alternative. Similar to the proposed project, the no impact
determination associated with groundborne vibration or noise would be the same for the No Project
Alternative.
Existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods that is generated by visitors to the
Preserve would continue to be experienced by residents with implementation of the No Project
alternative. Without the provision of additional parking near or at the existing Stanford Avenue
Staging Area, visitors would likely continue to park on the public residential streets and the existing
issues including noise would likewise continue.
n.
Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not
include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project
alternative would not result in any significant population, housing or employment-related impacts.
o.
Recreation. Under the No Project alternative, the project sites would remain undeveloped and
the existing staging area would continue to provide an inadequate supply to serve visitor demand for
parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak. No new visitor amenities such as
restrooms, drinking water, or picnic tables would be built and the Preserve would continue to provide
an inadequate level of services for visitors. The less-than-significant impacts related to the provision
430

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
of recreational facilities identified for the proposed project would not occur with implementation of
the No Project alternative.
p.
Public Services. Similar to the proposed Project, under the No Project alternative, there would
be no impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, similar to the
proposed project, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the No Project
alternative.
q.
Utilities and Service Systems. Under the No Project alternative, the site would remain
undeveloped and no new connections to existing utility infrastructure would be required and no new
infrastructure would be expanded onto the project site. No increase in the demand for water,
wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, or electricity services would result. The less-thansignificant project impacts associated with the provision of water supplies and adequate water,
wastewater, solid waste, and energy infrastructure and services would not result with implementation
of the No Project alternative.
B.
REDUCED PROJECT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
The following provides a description of the Reduced Project Size alternative and its anticipated
environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the
Reduced Project Size alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion
includes a determination of whether or not the Reduced Project Size alternative would reduce,
eliminate, or create new significant impacts.
1.
The Reduced Project Size alternative would construct a new staging area within the general
boundaries of the Option A site,3 but at a reduced size and with fewer parking spaces compared to the
proposed project. This alternative would be designed to avoid sensitive cultural resources that are
known to be present within the footprint of the proposed Option A site. The permanent area of
disturbance would be approximately 9.14 acres in size and the total area of new impervious surface
would be approximately 2.28 acres, compared to a slightly larger 9.64 total acres of permanent area of
disturbance and 2.78 acres of impervious surfaces for the proposed project at this location, and a
maximum of approximately 225 new parking spaces, or 75 fewer parking spaces than proposed under
either project option, would be provided.
Similar to the proposed projects Option A development, the staging area that would be developed
with the Reduced Project Size alternative would include new picnic tables, kiosk, drinking fountains,
and restrooms. A new vehicular access roadway and new trail connections would also be required to
provide access to the new staging area and existing trails and these facilities would be similar to
Option A site development. New stormwater controls, landscaping, and utilities infrastructure would
3
This Reduced Project Size alternative was sited at the location of proposed Option A because cultural resources
could be avoided on the Option A site, whereas it is not possible to avoid impacts to cultural resources on the site proposed
for Option B.
431

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
also be developed and would be similar to the improvements proposed as part of the proposed
projects development of the Option A site. Repair of the existing culvert within a segment of the
tributary to Agua Caliente Creek would occur under this alternative, and would be the same as the
proposed project.
The Reduced Project Size alternative would achieve most of the Districts project objectives.
However, given visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak, the
reduced amount of additional parking spaces that would be provided by this alternative would not
maximize on-site parking potential nor minimize overflow parking on the public residential streets to
the same extent that the proposed project would.
2.
Analysis of the Reduced Project Size Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the Reduced Project Size alternative are described below.
a.
Land Use. The Reduced Project Size Alternative would result in the development of the Option
A site with a new staging area, but within a smaller footprint than the proposed project. Similar to the
proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community. Expanded facilities, including a larger staging area with vehicle parking
spaces and other amenities intended to serve the existing recreational use of Mission Peak would be
introduced to the site, similar to the proposed project. The Option B site would remain as an existing
cattle corral. Similar to impacts associated with development of Option A and Option B, implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
land use and policy consistency.
b.
Visual Resources. The Reduced Project Size alternative would develop the Option A site with
a new staging area and associated infrastructure and landscaping similar to the proposed projects
Option A development, but within a smaller footprint than proposed by the project. Similar to the
proposed project, this new staging area would be visible from existing trails and other scenic vistas
available from within the Preserve. Implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative would
very slightly reduce the less-than-significant impacts associated with development of the proposed
project at this location due to the smaller footprint of development. Implementation of the Reduced
Project Size alternative would therefore result in less-than-significant impacts related to: views from
scenic vistas; potential damage to scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway; degradation of the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings; and light and glare.
c.
Biological Resources. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, the same impacts to
biological resources identified for development of the Option A site would occur under this alternative although these impacts may be slightly reduced due to the alternatives reduced development
footprint compared to the proposed project. Specifically, potentially significant impacts to specialstatus wildlife and native species, such as California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog,
Alameda striped racer, and burrowing owls and nesting birds such as loggerhead shrikes, white tailed
kites, and other native birds, and their habitat and nursery sites would result from implementation of
the Reduced Project Size alternative and project Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4,
and BIO-6 would be required. Impacts to special-status grassland plant species would also occur and
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would be required. Potentially significant impacts to
jurisdictional waters and protected trees would also result because, similar to the proposed project,
work would also occur within the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek and protected trees could be
432

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
removed or otherwise damaged by construction activities; therefore, implementation of Mitigation

Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8 would be required. As such, although impacts to biological resources
identified for the proposed project would be somewhat less than the proposed project, the same
mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts associated with this alternative to a less than
significant level. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not
conflict with an adopted conservation or natural community plan or result in adverse effects to
sensitive natural communities.
d.
Cultural Resources. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, it is anticipated that with a
reduced footprint for the proposed staging area at the Option A site, existing historical and archaeological resources known to be located within this site would not be disturbed by construction
activities; therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1a would not be required and this impact would be less
than significant. Since construction activities would still occur, the potential to uncover previously
unidentified archaeological, paleontological or Native American skeletal remains would result with
implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. Thus implementation of proposed project
Mitigation Measures CUL-1b, CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be required. As such, although impacts to
cultural resources identified for the proposed Reduced Project Size alternative would be reduced
compared to the proposed project, overall impacts to cultural resources would continue to be less than
significant with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative.
e.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources. With the Reduced Project Size alternative the Option A
site would be developed with a new staging area but within a smaller footprint than that proposed by
the project. Existing cattle grazing areas within this area would be reduced, but to a lesser degree than
the proposed project. Similar to the proposed Option A project, this impact would be less than
significant. Also similar to the proposed project, impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would
f.
Mineral Resources. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Site alternative
would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to the region or
the State.
g.
Geology and Soils. The Reduced Project Size alternative would result in development of the
Option A site similar to the development proposed by the project, but within a smaller footprint.
Similar impacts as those identified for development of the proposed projects Option A site would
occur, although impacts may be slightly reduced due to the smaller development footprint; therefore
the area affected by potential slope instability would be less. Although development within proximity
to existing landslide areas and on expansive soils may be reduced with this alternative, these existing
conditions would not be entirely avoided within a reduced development footprint. Adverse impacts to
geology and soils from implementation of the proposed Option A project associated with unstable
soils and slope instability and expansive soils that could occur during project operation would result
with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative, and implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 would be required. Less-than-significant project impacts related to fault rupture,
seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would occur with
implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. These less-than-significant impacts would
not require mitigation.
433

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
h.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Similar to the development of the proposed Option A project,
the less-than-significant impacts associated with construction and operation-period impacts related to
water quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized flooding, and storm drainage
system capacity would occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. Similar to
the proposed project, the no impact determination associated with flood hazards or coastal hazards
would be the same with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative.
i.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, the less than
significant construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and
accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a
result of wildland/urban fires would result with the Reduced Project Size alternative, although to a
somewhat lesser extent due to the smaller project footprint and smaller construction area. Similar to
the proposed project, no impact would result related to aviation hazards.
j.
Transportation and Circulation. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, similar to the
proposed Option A project, visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase
with the provision of new on-site parking facilities due to latent visitor demand. However, because
approximately 75 fewer parking spaces would be provided compared to the proposed project, it is
anticipated that the increase in on-site parking supply would not serve visitor demand for access to
trails to the same extent that the proposed Option A project would. Existing public residential streets
within the vicinity of the site would continue to be congested with pedestrian and vehicle traffic and
on-street parking spaces would continue to be utilized by visitors to Mission Peak to a greater extent
than with the proposed Option A project, although to a lesser extent than under existing conditions.
Under the Reduced Project Size alternative the less-than-significant impacts associated with the
increase in vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions would be similar to the proposed project but the increase in
visitors and trips would likely be less compared to the proposed Option A project because the
Reduced Size alternative staging area provides 75 fewer parking spaces.
k.
Air Quality. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, construction activities at the Option A
project site would occur and similar construction-period air quality emissions would result from
project development, although to a slightly lesser extent due to the smaller development footprint;
therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be required. The number of vehicle
trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase compared to existing conditions
but would likely not increase as much as with the proposed Option A project as this alternative
provides fewer parking spaces than the proposed project. The less-than-significant project impacts
related to consistency with the BAAQMDs Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air
emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could
affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also occur with implementation of the Reduced Project
Size alternative. However, as visitors continue to search for available parking spaces due to
insufficient parking availability, vehicle emissions would continue to be generated and would likely
be greater than those generated by the proposed Option A project.
l.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, construction
activities at the project sites would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted, although to
a lesser extent than the proposed Option A project due to the smaller development footprint. The
number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would increase similar to
434

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
the proposed Option A project but may not increase as much as with the proposed project as this
alternative provides fewer parking spaces. The less-than-significant project impacts related to
construction- and operation-period greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas
reductions plans would also occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative.
m. Noise. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, construction activities at the project site
would occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise levels would result within the
vicinity of the Option A site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to
reduce construction-period noise levels. As with the proposed Option A project, potential noise
associated with the new parking lot would occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size
alternative. As with the proposed project, these impacts would be less than significant due to the
distance of the site in relation to sensitive receptors. Similar to the proposed Option A project, no
impacts related to groundborne vibration or noise would result.
Existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods that is generated by visitors to the
Preserve would continue with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative. Without the
provision of the maximum amount of additional parking near or at the Stanford Avenue Staging Area,
visitors would likely continue to park on the public residential streets and the existing issues
including noise would likewise continue. These existing conditions would be lessened with
implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative but not to the same extent that would occur
with the proposed Option A project.
n.
Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed Option A project, the Reduced Project Size
alternative would not include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed
Option A project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not result in any significant population,
housing or employment-related impacts.
o.
Recreation. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, approximately 75 fewer parking
spaces would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the proposed Option A project.
Therefore, compared to existing conditions and the proposed Option A project, the Reduced Project
Size alternative would not serve visitor demand for parking to the same degree when compared to the
proposed Option A project. Similar to the proposed Option A project, new amenities such as
restrooms and picnic tables would be built at the new staging area. The less-than-significant impacts
related to the provision of recreational facilities identified for the proposed Option A project would
occur with implementation of the Reduced Project Size alternative.
p.
Public Services. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative, the Option A site would be
developed with a new staging area and visitor demand could increase compared to existing
conditions, thereby increasing the demand for police, fire, and emergency services. However, similar
to the proposed Option A project, the Reduced Project Size alternative would not require new or
physically altered government facilities and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the
proposed Option A project, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the Reduced
Project Size alternative.
q.
Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Reduced Project Size alternative and similar to the
proposed Option A project, the site would be developed with a new staging area that would include
new restrooms and other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater, and electrical
435

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
systems within the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New connections to existing utility
infrastructure would be required and new infrastructure would be expanded onto the project site. The
increase in demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, or electricity services
would be similar to the proposed Option A project. The less-than-significant project impacts
associated with the provision of water supplies and adequate water, wastewater, solid waste, and
energy infrastructure and services would result with implementation of the Reduced Project Size
alternative similar to implementation of the proposed Option A project.
C.
PARKING STRUCTURE AT THE EXISTING STAGING AREA

ALTERNATIVE
The following provides a description of the Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area (Parking
Structure) alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on
comparing the anticipated impacts of the Parking Structure alternative to the impacts associated with
the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Parking Structure
alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts.
1.
The Parking Structure alternative considers construction of a parking structure at the location of the
existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This alternative assumes construction of a multi-level
structure that would provide a maximum of 300 parking spaces. Construction of the structure would
likely require excavation of the slope at the northeast end of Stanford Avenue to minimize
disturbance within the Preserve.
The Parking Structure alternative would incorporate a living roof and living walls to help screen the
structure visually from adjacent residences. This alternative would include construction of new
restrooms. Water, sewer, and electrical services would be extended from Stanford Avenue to serve
the new restroom facilities, provide potable drinking water, and irrigation. New stormwater controls
would also be installed to manage runoff. Vehicle access for District staff and emergency personnel
would be maintained from the Stanford Avenue entrance to the Preserve.
The Parking Structure alternative would achieve some of the District's project objectives (specifically,
Objectives 1, 4, 5, and 6) but would not meet the objectives relating to minimizing costs and reduced
environmental impacts, as discussed below.
Development of a parking structure would be significantly more expensive, and thus less cost
effective, than developing surface parking. The cost for design, construction, and materials for such a
structure would be far greater than for development of a staging area with a surface parking lot.4 In
addition, factors such as the area's high potential for seismic activity and unstable soil conditions, as
4
Some experts estimate that the costs per parking space is at least five times higher for a new parking structure
compared to a new surface parking lot. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., 2012. Parking Structure Technical
Report: Challenges, Opportunities, and Best Practices, prepared for Valerie Knepper, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Regional Parking Initiative. Available online at: www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/612/MTC_Parking_Structure.pdf (accessed October 13, 2015). June.
436

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
discussed in Section V.G, Geology and Soils, would greatly increase construction costs for such a
structure. For these reasons, this alternative would not support Objective 2, which aims to develop
additional parking that minimizes costs to the extent feasible while still achieving the purpose of the
project.
Furthermore, as discussed in more detail below, the Parking Structure alternative would not avoid or
minimize environmental impacts to the same extent as the proposed project (Objective 3).
2.
Analysis of the Parking Structure at the Existing Staging Area Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the Parking Structure alternative are described below.
a.
Land Use. The Parking Structure alternative would result in the development of the existing
Stanford Avenue staging area with a multi-story parking garage structure. The Option A and Option
B sites would remain in their current undeveloped conditions. Similar to the proposed project, this
alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The
new parking structure would be developed on the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area which
would place the multi-story parking structure within closer proximity to existing two-story low
density residential uses compared to the Option A or Option B sites. The size and bulk of the parking
structure would likely not be compatible with existing surrounding uses and would likely conflict
with adopted plans and policies and applicable zoning regulations (although applicable variances may
be requested). Compared to the proposed project, which would be compatible with surrounding land
uses, significant land-use related impacts would result with implementation of the Parking Structure
alternative.
b.
Visual Resources. The Parking Structure alternative would develop the existing staging area
with a multi-story parking structure, which would substantially alter existing visual conditions within
the immediate site and vicinity. Although the parking structure as described is assumed to include a
living roof and walls and associated landscaping, the height and massing of the new structure would
likely not be visually compatible with adjacent open space uses within the Preserve. Additionally,
existing public views from Stanford Avenue of Mission Peak and the Preserve may be affected by the
parking structure, possibly resulting in potentially significant visual impacts. The parking structure
would likely be highly visible from nearby areas including other public streets, adjacent residences
and trailheads within the Preserve that originate in the vicinity. Although the structure would likely be
visible from surrounding area, the structure would likely blend in somewhat with existing
surrounding development when viewed from more distant vantage points from within the Preserve
(i.e., as seen from the summit of Mission Peak or existing trails at higher elevations). Implementation
of the Parking Structure alternative would likely result in greater visual impacts related to degradation
of the visual quality or character of the site and surroundings in comparison to the proposed project.
The Parking Structure alternative would also be much more visible from public vantage points, and,
because of its height, would be more visible than the proposed project at either site.
c.
Biological Resources. Under the Parking Structure alternative several of the biological
resources related impacts that would result from development of the Option A or B sites would not
occur as construction would primarily take place within a developed area. Specifically, it is likely that
impacts to special-status wildlife and native species, such as California tiger salamander, California
red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer, and burrowing owls and their habitat and nursery sites would
be avoided and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-6 would not
437

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
be required. Impacts to special-status grassland plant species and jurisdictional waters would also not
occur and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-7 would not be required. Impacts
to nesting birds such as loggerhead shrikes, white tailed kites, and other native birds and protected
trees could however result with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative if existing trees
are removed or otherwise damaged by construction activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-4
and BIO-8 would still be required.
d.
Cultural Resources. Under the Parking Structure alternative no known historical or
archaeological resources would be affected by redevelopment of the existing staging area with a
multi-level parking structure. However, redevelopment activities and excavation could reveal
previously unidentified resources due to the known archaeological sensitivity of the project area and
vicinity. Mitigation Measure CUL-1b, or similar mitigation, would be required to ensure that these
impacts would be less than significant. Previously unidentified paleontological or Native American
skeletal remains could also be uncovered with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative
and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be required. Similar to the
proposed project, with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources
would be less than significant with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.
e.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The Parking Structure alternative would result in the
continuation of existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and no significant impacts to
agricultural or forestry resources would result. Existing cattle infrastructure on the Option B site
would not need to be relocated. Under this alternative, the existing staging area would be developed
with a new parking structure. The Parking Structure alternative would have no impact on agriculture
and forestry resources and thus have less of an impact than the proposed projects less than significant
impact on agriculture and forestry resources.
f.
Mineral Resources. The Parking Structure alternative would result in the continuation of
existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and development of a new parking structure at
the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Similar to the proposed project, the Parking Structure
alternative would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to
the region or the State.
g.
Geology and Soils. Under the Parking Structure alternative the existing topography of the
Option A and B sites would be retained and no ground-disturbing activities such as soil excavation or
grading would result at these locations. Potential impacts related to existing geologic and soils
conditions identified for development of the Option A and Option B sites would not occur. The
Parking Structure alternative would however result in excavation of possibly unstable soils that are
known to occur in the project area and construction of the structure would likely result in excavation
of the slope at the northeast end of Stanford Avenue Staging Area to minimize disturbance within the
Preserve. In addition, the severity of site hazards associated with exposure to a seismic event would
likely increase with development of the Parking Structure alternative because site users would be
located within a multiple-story structure rather than out in the open during such an event. Similar to
the proposed project, a design-level geotechnical report would be required and implementation of
Option A Mitigation Measure GEO-1, as may be modified to address site-specific geologic and soils
issues would also be required. Less-than-significant project impacts related to fault rupture, soil
erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would also occur with implementation of the Parking
Structure alternative.
438

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
h.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the existing
hydrologic conditions at the Option A and Option B sites would continue and the sites would remain
entirely covered in pervious surfaces. Impacts related to development of the Option B site would not
occur and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would not be required.
Similar to the development proposed by the project, less than significant construction and operationperiod impacts related to water quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized
flooding, and storm drainage system capacity would likely occur with implementation of the Parking
Structure alternative. Development under this alternative would comply with applicable stormwater
requirements. In addition, similar to the proposed project, no impacts related to flood hazards or
coastal hazards would occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.
i.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the less than
significant construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials use and
accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to hazards as a
result of wildland/urban fires would also result with the Parking Structure alternative, although to a
somewhat lesser extent concerning wildland fires because the parking structure would be located in a
developed area outside of the Preserve. Although inadequate air circulation within a closed parking
garage could create hazardous fumes due to vehicle exhaust, it is assumed that the parking structure
would be designed to provide adequate ventilation, consistent with applicable requirements. Similar
to the proposed project, no impact would result related to aviation hazards because no existing
airports are within close enough proximity to impose height restrictions on a multi-story structure
within this area.
j.
Transportation and Circulation. Under the Parking Structure alternative, similar to the
proposed project, visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak could increase by between
33 and 38.8 percent with the provision of new on-site parking facilities, due to latent visitor demand.
Similar to the proposed project, 300 parking spaces would be provided under this alternative. Under
the Parking Structure alternative the less-than-significant impacts associated with the increase in
vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative
Plus Project conditions would be similar to the proposed project.
k.
Air Quality. Under the Parking Structure alternative construction activities at the existing
staging area would occur and greater construction-period air quality emissions would result from
project development due to the need for more construction vehicles and hours for construction of a
parking garage as compared to construction of a surface parking lot. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure AIR-1 would be required to reduce impacts to an insignificant level. In addition, the number
of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would increase similar to the
proposed projects projected increase. The less-than-significant project impacts related to consistency
with the BAAQMDs Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air emissions associated
with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors,
and odors would also occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.
l.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Parking Structure alternative, construction activities at
the existing staging area would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted. The number of
vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would also increase similar to the
proposed project. The less-than-significant project impacts related to construction- and operation-
439

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
period greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans would also
occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.
m. Noise. Under the Parking Structure alternative construction activities at the project site would
also occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise levels would also result within the
vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The construction duration and type of
equipment and foundations are unknown but the overall duration would be expected to be similar to
or greater than the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, it is possible that pile driving would
be required for the Parking Structure. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be
required to reduce construction-period noise levels, with special provisions likely required to reduce
noise associated with pile driving. In addition, noise associated with the parking structure would be
concentrated within a smaller space and within closer proximity to existing sensitive receptors,
compared to the proposed project.
n.
Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Parking Structure alternative
would not include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed project, the
Parking Structure alternative would not result in any significant population, housing or employmentrelated impacts.
o.
Recreation. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the same number of vehicle parking
spaces would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the proposed project. Similar to the
proposed project, new amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables would be built within the
Preserve. The less-than-significant impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities identified
for the proposed project would also occur with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.
p.
Public Services. Under the Parking Structure alternative, the existing staging area would be
developed with a new parking structure and visitor demand would increase similar to the proposed
project, thereby potentially increasing the demand for police, fire, and emergency services. As with
the proposed project, no new or physically altered government facilities would be required for the
Parking Structure alternative. In addition, similar to the proposed project, there would be no impacts
to school services associated with the Parking Structure alternative.
q.
Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Parking Structure alternative and similar to the
proposed project, new restrooms and other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater,
and electrical systems would be located within the vicinity of the parking structure. New connections
to existing utility infrastructure would be required and new infrastructure would be expanded onto the
project site. Irrigation for landscaping, including the green roof and other landscaping would also be
required but would not be substantially greater than the proposed project. Therefore, the increase in
demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, or electricity services would be
similar to the proposed project. The less-than-significant project impacts associated with the provision
of water supplies and adequate water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy infrastructure and services
would also result with implementation of the Parking Structure alternative.
440

OCTOBER 2015
D.

VI. ALTERNATIVES
OFF-SITE PARKING ALTERNATIVE
The following provides a description of the Off-site Parking alternative and its anticipated
environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the
Off-site Parking alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion
includes a determination of whether or not the Off-site Parking alternative would reduce, eliminate, or
create new significant impacts.
1.
The Off-site Parking alternative would require the District to procure or lease an off-site parking area.
The City of Fremont owns a small 1.7-acre parcel immediately to the west of the Preserve boundary
in the vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. A parking area at this site would
accommodate a maximum of 75 parking spaces. The site is bisected by an underground San Francisco
Water District Aqueduct running in the north-south direction. Grading and construction is limited
above the aqueduct to prevent damage.
This alternative would provide additional parking within walking distance without affecting resources
within the Preserve. However, since the property is owned by the City of Fremont, the District would
need to negotiate and enter into a new agreement with the City of Fremont for its use. The Off-site
Parking alternative would achieve the Districts project objectives related to the provision of
additional parking to better accommodate demand for trail access, although to a far lesser extent than
the proposed project. However, Objective 1, which aims to develop parking on lands leased by the
District from the City, would not be achieved. Objective 6, construction of additional permanent
restroom facilities, would also not be achieved. In addition, given the visitor demand for parking at
the Stanford Avenue staging area , the additional 75 parking spaces would be inadequate to serve
visitor demand. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the project objectives of developing
additional parking within the District's leased lands to accommodate park users, would provide only
minimal help to reduce overflow parking on neighborhood streets in the surrounding area, and would
not construct additional restroom facilities to accommodate visitors.
2.
Analysis of the Off-site Parking Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the Off-site Parking alternative are described below.
a.
Land Use. The Off-Site Parking Alternative would result in the development of a new parking
area near the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, but outside of the Preserve boundaries. Similar
to the proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community, although connectivity to existing facilities within the Preserve (for which this
alternative is intended to serve) would be reduced due to the off-site location. The Option A and B
sites would remain in their current undeveloped condition. Similar to impacts associated with
development of Option A and Option B, implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to land use and policy consistency.
b.
Visual Resources. The Off-Site Parking alternative would develop a vacant off-site parcel of
land with a new surface parking lot. New landscaping would be installed, although new trees and
vegetation would be minimal to maximize the number of parking spaces on the site. It is not
anticipated that the new parking lot would be highly visible from points within the Preserve because
of the existing topography, landscaping including tall trees, and because the site is surrounded by
441

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
developed uses. Views of the site from Stanford Avenue and nearby residences would be similar to
views experienced by residents, motorists, and pedestrians of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging
Area. Implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative would very slightly reduce the less-thansignificant impacts associated with development of the proposed project. Implementation of the OffSite Parking alternative would therefore result in less-than-significant impacts related to views from
scenic vistas; potential damage to scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway;
degradation of the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings; and light and glare.
c.
Biological Resources. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, several of the biological
resources related impacts that would result from development of the Option A or B sites would not
occur as construction would primarily take place within a developed area, although the site is
currently vacant. Specifically, it is likely that impacts to special-status wildlife and native species,
such as California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer, and burrowing
owls and their habitat and nursery sites would be avoided and implementation of Mitigation Measures
BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-6 would not be required. Impacts to special-status grassland plant
species and jurisdictional waters would also not occur and implementation of Mitigation Measures
BIO-5 and BIO-7 would not be required. Impacts to nesting birds such as loggerhead shrikes, white
tailed kites, and other native birds and protected trees could result with implementation of the OffSite Parking alternative if existing trees are removed or otherwise damaged by construction activities.
Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-8 would still be required.
d.
Cultural Resources. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative no known historical or
archaeological resources would be affected by development of a new parking area on the currently
vacant site. However, site preparation activities which would include an excavation depth of
approximately 6 feet below the ground surface could reveal previously unidentified resources due to
the known archaeological sensitivity of the project area and vicinity. Mitigation Measure CUL-1b
would be required to ensure that these impacts would be less than significant. Previously unidentified
paleontological or Native American skeletal remains could be uncovered with implementation of the
Off-Site Parking alternative and Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be required.
Although impacts to cultural resources identified for the proposed project could be reduced compared
to the proposed project, overall impacts to cultural resources would likely be similar and, with
mitigation, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of the
Off-Site Parking alternative.
e.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The Off-Site Parking alternative would result in the
continuation of existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and no significant impacts to
agricultural or forestry resources would result. Existing cattle infrastructure on the Option B site
would not need to be relocated. Under this alternative, a vacant site would be developed with a new
surface parking lot. The Off-Site Parking alternative would have no impact on agriculture and forestry
resources and thus have less of an impact than the proposed projects less than significant impact on
agriculture and forestry resources.
f.
Mineral Resources. The Off-Site Parking alternative would result in the continuation of
existing conditions at the Option A and Option B sites and development of a new surface parking lot
within a vacant site. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site Parking alternative would not result
in any significant impacts to mineral resources known to be of value to the region or the State.
442

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
g.
Geology and Soils. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the existing topography of the
Option A and B sites would be retained and no ground-disturbing activities such as soil excavation or
grading would result. Impacts related to existing geologic and soils conditions identified for
development of the Option A and Option B sites would not occur. The Off-Site Parking alternative
would result in excavation of possibly unstable site soils that are known to occur in the project area.
The site topography is gently sloped and substantial grading would be required to reduce impacts
associated with potential landslide activity. Similar to the proposed project, a design-level
geotechnical report would be required and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, as may be
modified to address site-specific geologic and soils concerns, would be required. Similar to the
proposed project less-than-significant project impacts related to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking,
soil erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would occur with implementation of the Off-Site
Parking alternative.
h.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the Option A and
Option B sites would be subject to existing hydrologic conditions and the sites would remain entirely
covered in pervious surfaces. Impacts related to development of the Option B site would not occur
and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would not be required.
Similar to the development proposed by the project, less than significant construction and operationperiod impacts related to water quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized
flooding, and storm drainage system capacity would likely occur with implementation of the Off-Site
Parking alternative. Implementation of this alternative would comply with all stormwater regulatory
requirements. Similar to the proposed project, no impacts related to flood hazards or coastal hazards
would occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative.
i.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the less-thansignificant project construction- and operation-period impacts associated with hazardous materials
use and accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans; and exposure to
hazards as a result of wildland/urban fires would also result, although to a somewhat lesser extent
concerning wildland fires because the parking lot would be located outside of the Preserve. Similar to
the proposed project, no impact would result related to aviation hazards.
j.
Transportation and Circulation. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, similar to the
proposed project, visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would increase due to the
provision of new on-site parking facilities, although not to the same extent as the proposed project on
either site option because fewer parking spaces would be provided under this alternative. Because
approximately 225 fewer parking spaces would be provided, the increase in parking supplies would
not adequately serve demand to the same extent that the proposed project would. Existing public
roadways within the vicinity of the site would continue to be congested with pedestrian and vehicle
traffic and on-street parking spaces would continue to be overcrowded with visitors to Mission Peak,
to a somewhat lesser extent than existing conditions but to a greater extent compared to the proposed
project. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative the less-than-significant impacts associated with the
increase in vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions would be similar to the proposed project. Location of a surface
parking lot within this area could result in increased on- and off-site access and circulation impacts
compared to the proposed project due to the existing constraints and width of Stanford Avenue.
Specifically, it is likely that circulation conditions would worsen as vehicles would circulate between
443

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, the new parking area, and residential streets in search of
parking. It would not be possible to establish a vehicular connection between the two parking areas
and it is anticipated that vehicles would continually enter and exit Stanford Avenue from these
various locations. A pedestrian walkway would need to be developed to provide visitor access from
the Off-Site Parking area and the trailheads within the existing staging area, which may create more
pedestrian congestion on Stanford Avenue than would the proposed project.
k.
Air Quality. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative construction activities at the off-site vacant
parcel would occur and similar construction-period air quality emissions would result from project
development although to a lesser extent due to the smaller development footprint; therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would also be required. In addition, the number of
vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would initially increase similar to the
proposed projects projected increase but then would likely decrease compared to the proposed
project because this alternative provides less parking. The less-than-significant project impacts related
to consistency with the BAAQMDs Clean Air Plan, local and regional operation-period air emissions
associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive
receptors, and odors would also occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative.
l.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative construction activities at
the off-site vacant parcel would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted. The number
of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would also initially increase similar
to the proposed project but then would likely decrease compared to the proposed project because this
alternative provides less parking. The less-than-significant project impacts related to constructionand operation-period greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans
would also occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative.
m. Noise. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative construction activities at the off-site parcel would
occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise levels would also result within the
vicinity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1
would be required to reduce construction-period noise levels. In addition, noise associated with the
new parking lot would be concentrated in a new location within close proximity to existing sensitive
receptors with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative. Less than significant project
impacts related to project operations and the resulting increase in exposure to noise generating
activities and increases in ambient noise levels would therefore also occur with implementation of the
Off-Site Parking alternative. Similar to the proposed project, no impacts related to groundborne
vibration or noise would result. Existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods that is
generated by visitors to the Preserve would continue an issue with this alternative as visitors would
continue to park on public residential streets to a greater degree than with the proposed project
Existing noise issues would be lessened with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative but
not to the same extent that the proposed project would.
n.
Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site Parking alternative
would not include development of or displacement of housing. Under this alternative a new parking
area would be developed on an existing vacant parcel. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site
Parking alternative would not result in any significant population, housing or employment-related
impacts.
444

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
o.
Recreation. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, approximately 225 fewer parking spaces
would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the proposed project. Therefore, compared to
existing conditions and the proposed project, the Off-Site Parking alternative would not provide an
adequate level of parking when compared to the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, new
amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables would not be constructed due to the need to maximize
parking at this location and because the site is not within the Preserve boundaries. The less-thansignificant impacts related to the provision of recreational facilities identified for the proposed project
would also occur with implementation of the Off-Site Parking alternative although improvements that
would occur with the proposed project would not be implemented under this alternative.
p.
Public Services. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative, a vacant parcel of land would be
developed with a new surface parking lot and visitor demand would increase similar to the proposed
project, thereby increasing the demand for police, fire, and emergency services. As with the proposed
project, no new or physically altered government facilities would be required. In addition, similar to
the proposed project, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the Off-Site
Parking alternative.
q.
Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Off-Site Parking alternative and unlike the proposed
project, no new restrooms or other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater, or
electrical systems would be located on or within the vicinity of the off-site parcel. New connections to
existing utility infrastructure would not be required and new infrastructure would be expanded into
the Preserve. Therefore, there would be no increase in demand for water, wastewater, solid waste
collection and disposal, or electricity services and no impacts would result related to the provision of
these services.
E.
MAXIMUM PARKING ALTERNATIVE
The following provides a description of the Maximum Parking alternative, which would consist of
construction of both the Option A and Option B staging areas, and its anticipated environmental
impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the Maximum
Parking alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project, which consists of
development of a staging area at either Option A or Option B. The discussion includes a
determination of whether or not the Maximum Parking alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create
new significant impacts.
1.
The Maximum Parking alternative would result in construction of both project Option A and project
Option B within the Preserve near the Stanford Avenue trailhead for a total maximum of 600 new
parking spaces. These new parking spaces are assumed to be in addition to the existing 43 spaces at
the Stanford Staging Area, for a total of 643 spaces with implementation of the Maximum Parking
alternative. The areas of temporary and permanent disturbance would be the same as those identified
for development of the Option A and B sites throughout this EIR. The Maximum Parking alternative
would result in temporary disturbance of approximately 25 acres within the Preserve of which, there
would be a total area of approximately 20 acres of permanent disturbance. The total area of new
impervious surfaces would be 5.88 acres at both the Option A and Option B sites.
445

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
The Maximum Parking alternative would include new picnic tables, kiosk, drinking fountains, and
restrooms at both project Option A and project Option B sites. A new vehicular access roadway and
trail connections within the boundary of Mission Peak would be required to provide access to the new
staging areas. New stormwater controls, including detention ponds, landscaping, and utilities
infrastructure would be required and would be the same as the improvements proposed as part of the
projects development of the Option A and Option B sites. Repair of the existing culvert within a
segment of the tributary to Agua Caliente Creek associated with Option A and the culvert removal
and restoration to a natural condition associated with Option B would occur with the Maximum
Parking alternative. The vehicular bridge to access the Option B site and the trail bridge to access the
Hidden Valley Trail from the Option B site would be required with the Maximum Parking alternative.
The Maximum Parking alternative does not necessarily assume that both Option A and Option B
would be developed simultaneously. One of the sites could be developed initially and the remaining
site could be developed at a later date, should the need exist based on parking demand and availability
of funding. Regardless of timing, it is assumed that all elements associated with both the Option A
and Option B sites described in Chapter III, Project Description would be included in the Maximum
Parking alternative; all the potential environmental impacts associated with development of Option A
and Option B would result, and implementation of all the mitigation measures identified to ensure a
less-than-significant impact would be required.
The Maximum Parking alternative would achieve almost all of the project objectives, but would cost
significantly more than constructing just one of the two proposed options and therefore would not
meet Objective 2 which aims to minimize costs while achieving the project purpose. This alternative
would likely provide ample parking to meet visitor demand for parking at the Stanford Avenue
entrance to Mission Peak, even when considering the latent demand survey results associated with the
provision of additional parking spaces. The Maximum Parking alternative would help reduce
overflow parking on neighborhood streets to a greater extent than the proposed project. As described
below, this alternative would result in twice the amount of construction compared to the proposed
project and would thus result in greater impacts on the environment than construction of either option
alone. As with the proposed project, these impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
2.
Analysis of the Maximum Parking Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the Maximum Parking alternative compared to the impacts
associated with development of the Option A or Option B sites are described below.
a.
Land Use. The Maximum Parking alternative would develop both the Option A site and the
Option B site. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established community. Expanded facilities, including a larger staging area with
vehicle parking spaces and other amenities intended to serve the existing recreational use of Mission
Peak would be introduced at both project sites. The cattle corral at the Option B site would be
relocated. Similar to impacts associated with development of Option A and Option B, implementation
of the Maximum Parking alternative would not result in significant land use impacts or impacts
related to policy consistency.
b.
Visual Resources. The Maximum Parking alternative would develop both the Option A site
and the Option B site with new staging areas and associated infrastructure and landscaping. The new
staging areas would be more visible from existing trails and other scenic vistas available from within
446

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
the Preserve with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative as compared to development
of solely Option A or Option B. However, similar to the proposed project, because of the location of
the staging areas adjacent to urban development and the focus of park users on distant views, the
Maximum Parking alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related to views from
scenic vistas. As with the proposed project, the Maximum Parking alternative would not damage
scenic resources within view of a State scenic highway; and not result in significant impacts related to
degradation of the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings; and light and glare.
c.
Biological Resources. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, both the Option A site and the
Option B site would be developed with new staging areas and associated infrastructure and
landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian bridges, and storm drainage controls. Greater impacts to
biological resources would occur with the development of the Option A and Option B sites than with
development of just one of the options. Specifically, impacts to special-status wildlife and native
species such as California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer,
burrowing owls, nesting birds and their habitat and nursery sites would result from implementation of
the Maximum Parking alternative. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2,
BIO-3, BIO-4 and BIO-6 would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts to
special-status grassland plant species would also occur, and implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-5 could reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impact to jurisdictional waters and
trees would also result because, similar to the proposed project, work would also occur within the
tributary to Agua Caliente Creek, and trees could be removed or otherwise damaged by construction
activities. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8 would reduce these
impacts to less-than-significant levels. Although there would be more and a greater extent of impacts
to biological resources with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative, all impacts could
be reduced to a less-than-significant level. In addition, similar to the proposed project, the Maximum
Parking alternative would not conflict with an adopted conservation or natural community plan or
result in adverse effected to sensitive natural communities.
d.
Cultural Resources. Development of both Option A and Option B would result in greater
disturbance of existing historical and archaeological resources known to be located within the Option
A and Option B sites than would development of only Option A or only Option B. However
Mitigation Measure CUL-1a would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Construction activities associated with this alternative could uncover previously unidentified
archaeological, paleontological or Native American skeletal remains. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures CUL-1b, CUL-2 and CUL-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources could be reduced to a level of less-than-significant
with implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the development of the Option A and
Option B sites.
e.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The Maximum Parking alternative would result in the
development of both the Option A site and Option B site into new staging areas. Existing cattle
grazing areas would be reduced and the cattle corral on the Option B site would be relocated. Similar
to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related
agricultural resources.
447

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
f.
Mineral Resources. Similar to implementing the proposed projects Option A and Option B
development, the Maximum Parking alternative would not result in any significant impacts to mineral
resources known to be of value to the region or the State.
g.
Geology and Soils. As both the Option A and Option B sites would be developed under the
Maximum Parking alternative, there would be a larger development footprint and the area affected by
potential slope instability would be greater. Specifically, development within proximity to existing
landslide areas and on expansive soils would be increased with this alternative. Significant impacts to
the proposed parking areas and other facilities associated with unstable soils and slope instability and
expansive soils that could occur during project operation could also result with implementation of the
Maximum Parking alternative. However implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce
these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Less-than-significant project impacts related to fault
rupture, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, and other unstable soil conditions would also occur
with implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative.
h.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The Maximum Parking alternative would develop both the
Option A and Option B sites resulting in a larger area with impervious surfaces than the proposed
project. Less-than-significant construction and operation-period impacts related to water quality,
groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, localized flooding, and storm drainage system capacity
could occur with implementation of this alternative.
The less-than-significant impacts related to culvert repair that could cause erosion and siltation or
localized flooding at the Option A site would occur with the Maximum Parking Alternative. Impacts
related to erosion and siltation and localized flooding identified for Option B as a result of culvert
removal and restoration of the area to a natural condition within Agua Caliente Creek would occur,
and implementation of Option B Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would reduce these impacts to a lessthan-significant level. Potential impacts related to the alteration of a course of an existing water body
that would result with development of the Maximum Parking Alternative would be less than
significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Additionally, the beneficial impact of
repairing existing culverts associated with development of the Option A or B sites would occur with
implementation the Maximum Parking Alternative.
i.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. With implementation of the Maximum Parking
alternative, the less-than-significant construction- and operation-period impacts associated with
hazardous materials use and accidental release; alteration of emergency response/evacuation plans;
and exposure to hazards as a result of wildland/urban fires could result to a somewhat greater extent
due to the larger project footprint and larger construction area. Similar to the proposed project, no
mitigation measures would be necessary.
j.
Transportation and Circulation. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, visitors to the
Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak are assumed to increase due to the provision and attraction
of new on-site parking facilities. With a maximum of 600 new parking spaces, it is anticipated that
the increase in parking supplies would serve park visitor demand to a greater extent than would the
proposed project. Existing public roadways within the vicinity of the site would be congested with
pedestrian and vehicle traffic to a lesser degree than the proposed project and overflow parking on the
public neighborhood streets would be minimized to a greater extent than the proposed project. Under
the Maximum Parking alternative the impacts associated with the increase in vehicle trips to the
448

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
Stanford Avenue Staging Area during both Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions would be greater than the proposed project, and the increase in visitors would likely be
more in comparison to that anticipated with the proposed project as park visitors find the Maximum
Parking alternative provides sufficient parking.
k.
Air Quality. Under the Maximum Parking alternative construction activities at the project sites
would occur and similar construction-period air quality emission would result from the project
development although to a slightly higher extent due to the larger development footprint; therefore
implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
The less-than-significant impacts related to consistency with the BAAQMDs Clean Air Plan, local
and regional operation-period air emission associated with increased vehicle trips, substantial
pollutant concentrations that could affect sensitive receptors, and odors would also occur with
implementation of the Maximum Parking alternative. The number of visitors also could increase due
to parking availability, and the increase in vehicle emissions would likely be greater than those
generated by the proposed project, however this increase would not cause a significant impact.
l.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Under the Maximum Parking alternative construction activities at
the project sites would occur and greenhouse gas emissions would be emitted at a greater extent than
the proposed project due to the development of both project options and the larger development
footprint. The number of vehicle trips to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak would also
increase at a higher level than the proposed project due to a greater number of parking spaces
available. The less-than-significant project impacts related to construction- and operation-period
greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with greenhouse gas reductions plans would also result
m. Noise. Under the Maximum Parking alternative construction activities at both the Option A and
Option B sites would occur and therefore an increase in temporary ambient noise level would also
result within the vicinity of the Option A and Option B sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. In addition, as with the proposed
project, noise associated with the new parking lots would be located near sensitive receptors (i.e.,
residences that border the existing Preserve boundaries and that are in close proximity to the Option
A and Option B sites), however this impact would be less than significant due to noise attenuation.
Similar to the proposed project, no significant impacts related to groundborne vibration or noise
would result. However, existing noise within the nearby residential neighborhoods generated by
visitors to the Preserve would be reduced through the provision of additional parking within the
boundaries of the Preserve. The Maximum Parking alternative would lessen the existing noise
conditions on the public residential streets to a greater extent than would occur with the proposed
project.
n.
Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Maximum Parking alternative
would not include development of or displacement of housing. Similar to the proposed project, the
Maximum Parking alternative would not result in significant population, housing or employmentrelated impacts.
449

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
o.
Recreation. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, a total maximum of 600 additional
parking spaces would be provided to serve visitor demand compared to the 300 maximum spaces at
either Site A or Site B. The Maximum Parking alternative would provide additional parking in
addition to visitor amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables. The less-than-significant impacts
related to the provision of recreational facilities identified for the proposed project would also occur
p.
Public Services. Similar to development of either Site A or Site B, under the Maximum
Parking alternative, there would be no impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. In
addition, there would be no impacts to school services associated with the Maximum Parking
alternative.
q.
Utilities and Service Systems. Under the Maximum Parking alternative, both project Option A
site and Option B site would be developed with new staging areas that would include new restrooms
and other facilities that would connect to potable water, wastewater, and electrical systems within the
vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. New connections to existing utility infrastructure
would be required and new infrastructure would be expanded onto the project site. Although the
increase in demand for water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, and electricity services
would be slightly greater than that of development of either Site A or Site B, the increase in demand
for these utilities would be minimal and would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, the lessthan-significant project impacts associated with the provision of water, wastewater, solid waste, and
energy infrastructure and services would also result with implementation of the Maximum Parking
Alternative.
F.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER

EVALUATION IN THIS EIR
During the Notice of Preparation comment period, the District received numerous suggestions for the
identification and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project, both in writing and verbally at
the scoping hearing (see Appendix A of this EIR). The following provides a description of various
potential alternatives that were identified and considered, and the reasons why they were ultimately
not selected for further evaluation in this EIR.
Increased Public Education and Outreach. This alternative would continue and expand
the District's public education and outreach efforts to provide information to the public in
an attempt to influence parking behaviors, among other pertinent topics. Some visitors that
park in surrounding neighborhoods block driveways of residents, walk in the middle of the
street, are loud, and leave trash on the street and sidewalks. Parking at Ohlone College is
available to the public but current use of this off-site parking area has not alleviated
overflow parking and associated issues in the surrounding neighborhood. The new Ohlone
College parking structure would provide additional public parking, and its use could
decrease overflow parking. With this alternative, the District would continue to provide
information regarding etiquette when parking in surrounding neighborhoods and regarding
the availability of parking at Ohlone College.
450

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
The District already implements public education and outreach efforts associated with
Mission Peak, including the Mission Peak webpage,5 and use of social media such as
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to promote parking at Ohlone College. The new parking
garage at Ohlone College provides approximately 900 spaces available for public use
approximately 3 miles to the west of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Visitors
that park at Ohlone College can easily access existing trails within Mission Peak from this
location.
This alternative would expand on the District's current efforts by: (1) hosting additional
information events at Mission Peak to disseminate information about etiquette when
parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, availability of parking at Ohlone College,
observance of park rules, safe hiking including hiking with dog, bringing sufficient
amounts of water, and wearing appropriate shoes, as well as promoting hikes at other parks;
(2) developing and installing additional targeted informational signage to reinforce respect
for the neighbors when parking on residential streets, parking at Ohlone College, safety,
and observance of park rules; and (3) increasing the number of Volunteer Trail Safety
Patrol members, Park Ambassadors, and other volunteer groups to bolster the District's
public education and outreach efforts.
The District's existing efforts of public education and outreach have been successful in that
the number of park users using off-site parking at Ohlone College has increased in the past
year. Use of Ohlone College for parking has not increased enough to reduce overflow
parking on the public neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging
Area, as evidenced by the ongoing overflow parking condition and supported by the results
of the Latent Visitor Demand Study indicating that 37 percent of park users park their
vehicles in the neighborhood.6 The availability and promotion of parking at Ohlone College
does not guarantee that park users will use it, as evidenced by the fact that only 24 percent
of existing park users currently use off-site parking at Ohlone College.7 Also, during the
week and on Saturdays the College charges a parking fee, whereas parking in the
surrounding neighborhoods is free. This fee would likely deter many from using the Ohlone
College parking, as would the distance to the trailhead from the parking structure.
Therefore, continuing and increasing public education efforts, while helpful in many
respects, would not provide additional parking for park users or address the impacts of
overflow parking on the nearby public neighborhood streets. This alternative would not
meet the project objectives as it would not develop additional parking within the District's
leased lands to accommodate park users, would not adequately help reduce the occurrence
of overflow parking on neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging
Area; and would not construct additional restroom facilities to accommodate visitors.
Therefore, while the District may continue public outreach, signage, and education efforts,
this alternative would not meet the project purpose or objectives and was ultimately not
selected for further analysis in the EIR.
5
East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve. Website: www.ebparks.org/parks/mission
(accessed August 5, 2015).
6
BAE Urban Economics, 2015, op. cit.
Ibid.
451

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
Parking Fees at Existing Staging Area. Under this alternative the District would charge
visitors to park at the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area, with the intention that more
users would be incentivized to use the Ohlone College parking area and nearby trailheads.
Given that the District has 43 spaces in its existing parking lot at the Stanford Avenue
entrance, and there is free on-street parking in the adjacent neighborhood, this alternative
would most likely result in more park visitors parking in the adjacent neighborhood to
avoid the new fee. A substantial number of park users already park in the adjacent
neighborhood (approximately 37 percent in 2014, according to the Latent Demand Study)
and walk relatively far distances to use the Stanford Avenue entrance. A parking fee at the
Stanford Avenue Staging area is unlikely to result in park visitors using the Ohlone College
parking since a parking fee is charged there as well (except on Sunday) and visitors would
either have to access Mission Peak from the Peak Trail trailhead or walk approximately 3
miles to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. The parking fee alternative would not meet the
project objectives of developing additional parking within the District's leased lands to
serve the existing park users, would not reduce overflow parking on neighborhood streets
in the surrounding area, and would not construct additional restroom facilities to
accommodate visitors. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this operational
measure separately from the proposed project, this alternative was ultimately not selected
for further analysis in the EIR.
Parking Fees at New Staging Area. Under this alternative the District would construct the
new staging area and charge visitors to park in the new parking lot. A survey prepared for
the District found that charging visitors a $5 fee to park in a new 300 space parking area
would result in a 13 percent decrease in visitation compared to existing conditions.8 The
addition of 300 new parking spaces, combined with a 13 percent reduction in visitor
demand, would eliminate overflow parking on weekdays and would substantially reduce
overflow parking during Saturday peak hours, resulting in only 61 cars parked in the
neighborhoods, compared to 421 cars on Saturday mornings under existing conditions.
However, it is expected that this reduction of overflow parking would not occur if free,
unrestricted parking continues to be available in the surrounding neighborhoods. As
discussed above, it is the Districts experience that visitors will park and walk a greater
distance to avoid parking fees.
Because this suggested alternative would be the same as the proposed project except for the
additional operational and management measure of charging fees, this is not an alternative
to the proposed project. This alternative also would not reduce any potentially significant
impacts of the project. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this operational
measure separately from the proposed project, this alternative was ultimately not selected
Trail Use Fees. This alternative would require the District to charge a fee to visitors to use
the trails leading from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This would be expected to
reduce the number of visitors to the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and the
associated parking demand in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Implementation of this alternative would require installation of a kiosk staffed with District personnel
Ibid.
452

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
to collect the fee, along with extension of utilities to the kiosk for staff use. This alternative
would also require installation of extensive fencing and an entrance gate to prevent visitors
from accessing trails without paying the fee. This Trail Use Fee alternative would require a
substantial increase in ongoing District operational resources to manage and enforce the fee
program.
Charging fees for visitors to hike, bicycle, or ride horses in the park from the Stanford
Avenue Staging Area would be expected to result in a reduction in visitor demand at this
access point. A survey prepared for the District found that charging a trail use fee of $5 to
hike in the park would result in a 44 percent reduction in park visitor demand.9 Assuming
no new staging area, and assuming continued availability of unrestricted residential parking
in the neighborhoods, this projected 44 percent reduction in demand would reduce but not
eliminate overflow parking in the neighborhoods during peak visitation hours. Thus the
implementation of user fees without the provision of additional onsite parking or other
measures would be expected to meet one of the project objectives by helping to reduce
overflow parking in the neighborhoods.
However, the Trail Use Fee alternative does not meet any of the other project objectives,
and does not meet the fundamental purpose of the project, which is to provide additional
parking and restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand for access to trails from the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area. This project purpose is consistent with the Districts
essential role of providing parks, trails, and open space for public use. It is not part of the
District's mission to deny or substantially limit access to its parks or public resources. The
District must balance public access with the preservation of natural resources in parks,
particularly those located within designated regional preserves. Mission Peak and the
challenging trails and spectacular views from within the Preserve are a regional destination,
and according to District operational staff, Mission Peak has additional capacity for
additional users without damage to resources within the Preserve. Therefore the purpose of
the project is to provide a more appropriate level of parking and facilities to serve visitors,
not to keep visitors from coming to the park.
While the District may wish to consider this operational demand management measure
separately from the project, either as an interim or additional measure, because this
alternative did not meet the fundamental purpose of the project or the basic project
objectives, it was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.
Enhance Public Transit with District Shuttle Service. This alternative would encourage
increased use of existing public transit options and would provide a District shuttle service
from Ohlone College to the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Public transportation to
Mission Peak is provided by AC Transit routes 217 and 218 that run between the Fremont
BART station and Ohlone College. This service is provided seven days a week. AC Transit
route 217 also runs to Mission Boulevard and Stanford Avenue, roughly a half-mile walk
from the park entrance. Additionally, AC Transit route #210 runs between Union Landing
Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road in Union City and Ohlone College on a daily basis.
Information regarding public transit is posted on the District's Mission Peak webpage with
links to www.transit.511.org and to the Transit and Trails link that provides transit, biking,
Ibid.
453

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
and walking directions to a variety of parks, including Mission Peak. Public Transit
information is also printed on the map page of the Mission Peak brochure.
There are four existing park-and-ride lots in Fremont:
Mission Boulevard at Callery Court, provides 22 spaces. It is approximately 2.3 miles

to Ohlone College and approximately 4.2 miles to the Stanford Avenue staging area.
Highway I-680 at State Route 238, provides 133 spaces. It is approximately 1.4 miles
to Ohlone College and approximately 3.3 miles to the Stanford Avenue staging area.
Ardenwood Boulevard at State Route 84, provides 400 spaces and is approximately
10.9 miles to Ohlone College and approximately 11.3 miles to the Stanford Avenue
staging area.
Fremont BART station on Fremont Boulevard, 7 miles to Ohlone College and 7.25
miles to the Stanford Avenue staging area.
Because the District does not own land at Ohlone College or have a provision in its lease
relating to shuttle service, in order to implement a shuttle to serve Mission Peak visitors,
the District would need to negotiate an agreement with Ohlone College to run a shuttle
from the Ohlone College parking lots, or identify another off-site area for parking. The
District would also need to purchase shuttle vans and hire additional staff to operate them,
or enter into an agreement with a shuttle concessionaire. Fees could potentially be charged
for the shuttle service to help offset program costs. However, charging fees would likely
reduce ridership demand, particularly when combined with other existing fees for transit or
parking at off-site lots such as Ohlone College.
In theory, use of public transit combined with a shuttle service from Ohlone College would
remove both vehicle trips and parked vehicles from the adjacent neighborhood. In practice,
shuttle services are most effective when there is no available nearby parking, or no nearby
free parking. For most users, the time it takes to wait for the shuttle and ride the shuttle to
the Stanford Avenue trailhead would exceed the time it takes to park in the neighborhood
for free and walk to the trailhead. Thus, even with a shuttle service, overflow parking on
the public streets would likely continue with this alternative, as evidenced by the ongoing
overflow parking on the public neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area and supported by the Latent Demand Survey that indicated that only 24
percent of existing park users currently use off-site parking at Ohlone College.10 This
alternative would likely be more expensive over time and less effective than providing
additional parking spaces onsite, and therefore would not meet the project objective of
minimizing costs to the extent feasible while achieving the project objectives. The
operation of shuttle buses through the neighborhoods between Ohlone College and the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area could also introduce additional traffic, air quality, and noise
impacts not associated with the proposed project. This alternative would not meet the
primary purpose of the project to provide additional parking and restrooms within the
District's leased lands to better accommodate visitor demand for trail access from the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this
10
Ibid.
454

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
operational measure separately from the proposed project, either as an interim or additional
measure, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.
Establishment of Residential Permit Parking. For this alternative, the City of Fremont
would institute and implement a residential parking permit program in the neighborhoods
affected by overflow parking to restrict public parking during certain designated hours.
Requiring permits to park on residential streets would directly control overflow parking in
the neighborhoods. Some find residential parking permit programs inconvenient for
existing residents because they hinder guest parking on the street, although guest permits
are typically provided for residents. Also permit parking programs can have the effect of
moving the overflow parking onto other nearby streets where there are no parking
restrictions.
For purposes of this EIR, this alternative is infeasible because it cannot be implemented by
the District. The City of Fremont has regulatory authority over public City streets, and thus
establishment of residential parking permits on public streets is not within the District's
authority. At the time of preparation of this EIR, the District is discussing with the City of
Fremont a possible residential parking permit program. However, no such program has
been proposed or implemented. Even if implemented, this alternative would not achieve the
project objectives as it would not develop additional parking or restrooms within the
District's leased lands to accommodate visitor demand for trail access from the Stanford
Avenue Staging Area. However, if implemented in conjunction with the proposed project, a
residential permit parking program may help address most of the existing issues in the
neighborhood associated with overflow parking.
While the District will continue discussions with the City of Fremont to evaluate this
operational measure, this alternative does not meet the fundamental purpose of the project
or most of the basic project objectives and is not feasible for purposes of this EIR because
it is outside of the Districts regulatory authority. Therefore it was ultimately not selected
Expansion/Enhancement of the Peak Trail Trailhead at Ohlone College. This

alternative would improve the Peak Trail trailhead with the intention of making it more
attractive to park visitors, which could result in increasing use of the parking at Ohlone
College and reducing parking demand at the Stanford Avenue staging area. According to
District staff, hikers using the Peak Trail do not have the same user experience as when
they use the Hidden Valley Trail, the most popular trail accessed from the Stanford Avenue
Staging Area, because they are different hikes. The Hidden Valley Trail has unique
qualities including width to accommodate social interaction, steepness etc. that make
them better for fitness and training, and views. Even with changes to the Peak Trail
trailhead, the District could not duplicate the combination of trail width, level of difficulty,
and views provided by the Hidden Valley Trail. Thus, the District could expend significant
resources on both the trail and the Peak Trail trailhead, and users would likely still prefer
the Hidden Valley Trail.
In addition, the District does not own the land at the Peak Trail trailhead, and would need to
negotiate lease terms with Ohlone College before it could implement this alternative. This
alternative would not meet the project objectives as it would not develop additional parking
and restrooms within the District's lands leased from the City to accommodate visitor
demand for trail access from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. While the District could
455

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
consider whether to pursue these trailhead improvements separately from the project, this
alternative does not meet the fundamental project purpose and therefore was ultimately not
selected for further analysis in the EIR.
Temporary or Permanent Closures of Stanford Avenue Entrance. This alternative

would close the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak during certain hours, on
weekends, and/or holidays, for restoration activities, or to close the Stanford Avenue park
entrance permanently. This alternative would require blocking the pedestrian access from
the Stanford Avenue entrance to Mission Peak and/or closing the Stanford Avenue Staging
Area to vehicles during the designated periods. Permanent closure would require that the
Stanford Avenue Staging Area be demolished and that the entrance to Mission Peak would
be gated.
This alternative would not meet the fundamental purpose of the project of developing
additional parking within the District's leased lands to accommodate park visitors and
would not achieve any of the other project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was
ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.
Limitations on Number of People Accessing the Stanford Avenue Entrance. This

alternative would limit access at the Stanford Avenue entrance based on the limited parking
capacity of the existing Stanford Avenue Staging Area. Implementation of this alternative
could include installation of a kiosk staffed with District personnel, signs or real time
updates to the District's website to direct visitors to the Ohlone College parking area when
it is determined that the Stanford Avenue Staging Area is full, installation of vehicle
detection devices to discourage drivers from accessing the site when full, and use of
electronic or turnstile gates to prevent visitor access. This alternative would require a
capital investment and a substantial increase in operational and management costs.
The District must balance public access with the preservation of natural resources in parks
within its jurisdiction, particularly those located within designated regional preserves.
Mission Peak and the challenging trails and spectacular views from within the park are a
regional destination, and according to District operational staff, Mission Peak has capacity
for additional visitors without any increased damage to resources within the Preserve. It is
not part of the District's mission to deny or substantially limit access to its parks or public
resources. Therefore, while the District may wish to consider this operational measure
separately from the proposed project, either as an interim or additional measure, because
this alternative would not meet the project objectives of developing additional parking or
restrooms within the District's leased lands to accommodate visitor demand for access to
trails from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area, or minimizing costs while meeting project
objectives, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.
In summary, most of the above alternatives address the management and operation of Mission Peak,
including parking, and many are aimed at reducing visitor demand at the Stanford Avenue Staging
Area. Therefore as discussed above these alternatives would not meet the project's primary purpose of
providing additional parking and restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand for access to trails
from the Stanford Avenue Staging Area. As discussed above, many these operational measures would
also not meet most of the basic project objectives, including development of parking and restrooms
within the Districts leased lands, serving park visitors who want access to the most popular trails, or
456

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
minimizing costs while achieving the project objectives. Most of the operational measures would also
not reduce neighborhood overflow parking to any greater extent than the proposed project.
While the District could consider any of these operational measures separately from the project as
part of its ongoing management of the park, these measures do not provide feasible alternatives to the
project because they do not meet the projects primary purpose of providing additional parking and
restrooms to better accommodate visitor demand at this popular park. Therefore, the above
alternatives have been considered but ultimately were not selected for further analysis as alternatives
to the project.
G.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative in an EIR from among
the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. For this project, the No Project alternative
would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as environmental impacts associated
with the project would be reduced or avoided under this alternative. However, this alternative does
not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)(2) states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the
No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among
the other alternatives. Among the remaining alternatives, all would reduce some impacts and increase
others compared to the proposed project. The Reduced Size alternative would likely be considered the
environmentally superior alternative. However, while it would reduce impacts to cultural resources
and biological resources compared to the proposed project, it would result in continuing existing
noise, trash and other overflow parking issues to a greater extent than the proposed project, and would
not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
457

OCTOBER 2015

VI. ALTERNATIVES
458
VII. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),1 this chapter discusses the following types of impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed Stanford Avenue Staging
Area Parking Expansion Project at either of the potential site options: growth-inducing impacts;
significant unavoidable environmental impacts; and significant irreversible changes.
A.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
This section summarizes the projects potential growth-inducing impacts on the surrounding community. A project is typically considered growth-inducing if it would foster economic or population
growth or the construction of additional housing; if it would remove obstacles to population growth
or tax community services to the extent that the construction of new facilities would be necessary; or
if it would encourage or facilitate other activities that cause significant environmental effects.2
Examples of projects likely to have significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or
expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and
development of new residential subdivisions or industrial parks in areas that are currently only
sparsely developed or are undeveloped.
The proposed project would result in the development of a new staging area with 300 parking spaces,
restrooms, and picnic facilities within an existing open space area and associated roadways, trail
connections, bridges, and water and sewer line connections to serve this use. The proposed staging
area is intended to support the existing use of Mission Peak as a recreational facility and serve visitor
demand for parking facilities within the vicinity of Stanford Avenue. Development of the proposed
staging area at the Option A or Option B site would not directly result in population growth within the
City of Fremont as it does not propose new housing. In addition, the new parking facilities would be
maintained by existing District staff and would not generate job growth such that indirect population
growth could occur. The proposed project would provide additional parking within an existing
District facility and would not directly nor indirectly lead to substantial or unforeseen economic or
population growth. In addition, the proposed project would result in the extension of utilities for
restrooms and irrigation of landscaping at either the Option A or Option B site; however, these
extensions would be connected to existing infrastructure within the immediate vicinity and would
only serve the existing and proposed staging areas. The project sites are located within and at the
border of an existing open space area and are surrounded by either open space that is part of a
regional preserve, or existing residential subdivisions. No vacant land suitable for development is
located within the immediate vicinity of the sites. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly
or indirectly lead to the development of greenfield sites and no additional growth would occur as a
result of project implementation.
1
CEQA Guidelines, 2015. 15126.2.
CEQA Guidelines, 2015. 15126.2(d).
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\7-CEQA.docx (10/14/15)
459

OCTOBER 2015
B.

SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As discussed in Chapter V of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in
any significant and unavoidable impacts.
C.
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from
implementation of a proposed project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable
resources and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses.
CEQA dictates that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such
current consumption is justified.3 The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use that would commit future generations; 2) irreversible
changes from environmental accidents; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources.
1.
Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations
Both project site options are located within an existing open space preserve and are surrounded by
existing open space generally to the north and east and existing residential subdivisions to the west
and south. The project is intended to support demand for parking by visitors to this recreational area.
Because the proposed project would not result in the development of a new land use which could not
later be redeveloped with a different use (or converted back to open space), it would not commit
future generations to a significant change in land use.
2.
Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
No significant environmental damage, such as accidental spills or explosion of a hazardous material,

is anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in Section V.I, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials of this EIR, compliance with federal, State and local regulations would ensure
that the use of hazardous substances within the project site would not cause significant environmental
damage. As such, no irreversible changes such as those that might result from construction of a
large-scale mining project, a hydroelectric dam project, or other industrial project would result from
development of the proposed project at either the Option A or Option B site.
3.
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of

agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. As previously described throughout this EIR, the
project site is located within an existing open space area and the proposed development of a staging
area at either the Option A or Option B site is intended to support this existing recreational use.
Construction of the proposed project would require the use of energy, including energy produced from
non-renewable resources. Energy consumption would occur during the operational period of the
proposed project due to the use of automobiles and water pumping facilities. However, energy
consumption would be minimal.
3
CEQA Guidelines, 2015. 15126.2(c).
460

OCTOBER 2015

As discussed in the Section V.L, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would not result in
significant impacts associated with construction- and operational-related greenhouse gas emissions,
and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The
proposed project would not require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy as electric
service is already provided in the area. As discussed in Sections V.E, Agricultural Resources and V.F,
Mineral Resources, respectively, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of
agricultural uses to another use or loss of access to existing mining resources. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact associated with the consumption of nonrenewable
resources.
461

OCTOBER 2015

462
VIII. REPORT PREPARATION
A.
REPORT PREPARERS
LSA Associates, Inc.: Project Management and Report Production; Land Use; Visual Resources;
Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Agricultural and Forestry Resources; Mineral Resources;
Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Noise; Population and Housing; Recreation; Public
Services; Utilities and Infrastructure, and Alternatives
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Judith H. Malamut, AICP, Principal-in-Charge
Theresa Wallace, Associate/Project Manager
Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Specialist
Corissa Bellis, Air Quality/Noise Specialist
Emily Gerger, Assistant Planner
Patty Linder, Graphics Manager
Charis Hanshaw, Word Processor
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
Tim Lacy, Principal, Wildlife Biologist
Dan Sidle, Senior Biologist
Tim Milliken, Botanist
Neal Kaptain, Associate/Cultural Resources Manager
E. Timothy Jones, Senior Cultural Resources Manager
Gregory Gallaugher, GIS Specialist
Baseline Environmental Consulting: Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; and
5900 Hollis Street, Suite D
Emeryville, CA 94608
Bruce Abelli-Amen, Principal, Senior Hydrogeologist
Patrick Sutton, Environmental Engineer
Hexagon Transportation Consultants: Transportation and Circulation
7901 Stoneridge Drive Suite 202
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Brett Walinski, T.E., Vice President and Principal Associate
Steven Hough, T.E., Principal Associate
P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\8-ReportPreparers.docx (10/14/15)
463

OCTOBER 2015

BAE Urban Economics: Latent Demand Analysis

1285 66th Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Janet Smith-Heimer, President
Jessica Hitchcock, MCP, Senior Associate
Andrew McNichol: Visual Simulations
1760 Harbour Dr.
Coquitlam BC V3J-5W3 Canada
B.
REFERENCES
AB 2588, Connelly, 1987. Chaptered in the California Health and Safety Code Section 44300, et al.
Alameda County Clean Water Program, 2007. Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map.
Available online at: www.cleanwaterprogram.org/uploads/I-ACCWP_C3TechGuide_HMentire_appendix.pdf (accessed July 2, 2015).
Alameda County Community Development Agency, 2015. General Plans, Ordinances & Policies;
California Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Website:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/airportlandplans.htm. (accessed July 23).
Alameda County Water District, 2015. Water Resources Department, Groundwater Resources
Division. Groundwater Monitoring Report 2014. January 31.
Alameda County Water District, 2015. Website: www.acwd.org/ (accessed July 31, 2015).
Alameda County Water District. Urban Water Management Plan 2010 2015. Website:
www.acwd.org/index.aspx?NID=365 (accessed July 27, 2015).
Ambro, Richard D., 1991. Inventory of Potential Cultural Resources within the Proposed Stanford
Avenue Golf Course Area, Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont, Alameda County,
California. Holman and Associates, San Francisco, California.
American Ornithologists Union, 1998. Checklist of North American Birds and supplements. Seventh
Edition. American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2001. The REAL Dirt on Liquefaction, A Guide to the
Liquefaction Hazard in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Area. February.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Interactive
Liquefaction Susceptibility Mapping, Website:
gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility (accessed July 7, 2015).
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015. Earthquake Hazard Program, Interactive Mapping.
Website: gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards (accessed July 9, 2015).
BAE Urban Economics, 2015. Mission Peak Regional Preserve Latent Visitor Demand Study. June
29.
Baker, R.J., et al., 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003.
Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229.
464

OCTOBER 2015

Baldwin, B.G., et al. eds., 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Banks, Peter, 1985. Archaeological Site Record for CA-ALA-431. On file, Northwest Information
Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
Banks, Peter, 1985. A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mission Peak Regional Preserve,
Fremont, Alameda County, California. California Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Oakland.
Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-Step
Guide on how to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books,
Point Arena, California.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1982. Rules and Regulations, Regulation 7: Odorous
Substances. Amended March 17.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air
Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2007. Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual
Report 2003 Volume 1. August.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2013. Plans & Climate. Website:
baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-Guidelines.aspx (accessed March 26,
2015) December 6.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. January.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Updated CEQA Guidelines. Website:
www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQAGuidelines.aspx. March.
Bell, Christopher J., et al., 2004. The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages. In
Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America, edited by M.O. Woodburne, 232314. Columbia University Press, New York.
Bobzien, S. and J.E. DiDonato, 2007. The Status of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma
californiense), California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii), Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
(Rana boylii), and other Aquatic Herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District,
California. East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, CA.
Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.
California Air Resources Board, 1997. Technical Support Document, Proposed Identification of
Inorganic Lead as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part A Exposure Assessment. March.
California Air Resources Board, 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control
Division. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled
Engines and Vehicles. October.
465

OCTOBER 2015

California Air Resources Board, 2011. Fact Sheets. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/htm/fslist.htm

#Health.pdf. October.
California Air Resources Board, 2013. Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 2020 Emissions Forecast.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).
California Air Resources Board, 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2012:
Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. May 13. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/
data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).
California Air Resources Board, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data for 20002012.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed June 23, 2014).
California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California.
July.
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Social Security, Section 66260.10 et seq.
California Department of Fish and Game, 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2010. Natural Communities List Arranged
Alphabetically by Life Form. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and
Mapping Program. Available online at: www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/
natcomlist.pdf (accessed July 2015). September.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial
version dated May 31, 2015. Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2015. Solid Waste Information System
(SWIS), Facility/Site Search. Website: calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA0009/Detail/ (accessed June 23, 2015).
California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Website: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 16, 2015).
September 7.
California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.
California Geological Survey, 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California, Special Publication 117A.
California Geographic Survey, 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.
California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501.
California Native Plant Society, 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v710b). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Website: www.cnps.org/inventory (accessed
July 15, 2015).
466

OCTOBER 2015

California Office of Historic Preservation 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for
California.
California Office of Historic Preservation, 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California
California Office of Historic Preservation, 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California
California Office of Historic Preservation, n.d. California Register and National Register: A
Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Technical
Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
California Office of Historic Preservation, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento. April 5.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015. San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco
Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Available online at:
www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/basin_plan07.pdf (accessed
July 2015).
California, State of, 2006. Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate
Change into Management of Californias Water Resources. July.
California, State of, 2008. California Energy Commissions Public Interest Energy Research Program.
The Future is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for
California. September.
California, State of, 2008. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA; Alameda County. September 3.
California, State of, 2009. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Climate
Change. Website: www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/climate_change.shtml (accessed
July 2015).
California, State of, 2013. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
Alameda County Williamson Act Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Map. April.
California, State of, 2014. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Alameda County Important Farmland 2012 Map.
April.
CEQA Guidelines, 2015. 15126.2(c)(d); 21068.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Section 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response.
Crother, B.I., ed., 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North
America north of Mexico. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR)
Herpetological Circular 39 and supplements.
Delfino, RJ., 2002. Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages
Between Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health
Perspectives.
467

OCTOBER 2015

DeSante, D. F., et al., 2007. A census of Burrowing Owls in central California in 1991. Pages 3848.
J. L. Lincer and K. Steenhof, editors. In The Burrowing Owl, Its Biology and Management:
Including the Proceedings of the First International Symposium. Raptor Research Report No.
9.
Dibblee, Jr., and W. Thomas, 2005. Geologic Map of the Niles Quadrangle. Electronic document:
ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=34356 (accessed July 19, 2013).
Dibblee, T.W., 1980. Preliminary geologic map of the Niles quadrangle, Alameda County, California:
U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-80-533-C, scale 1:24,000.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2007. Park Visitor and Vehicle Count, Mission Peak Stanford
Staging Area. August 11.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2011. Cultural Resource Site Atlas. East Bay Regional Park District,
Oakland.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Municipal Service Review. Prepared for the Local Agency
Formation Commission of Alameda County. January 8.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Unpublished map of California tiger salamander occurrences
on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. April 9.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2013. Unpublished map of known, potential, and unlikely California
red-legged frog habitat on the Mission Peak Regional Preserve. April 9.
East Bay Regional Park District, 2015. Fire Department Operations. Website:
www.ebparks.org/about/fire/Fire_ Department_Operations#stations (accessed August 3, 2015).
East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Lake Chabot Campus Modernization Project Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Available online at: www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/
Park_Planning/Lake+Chabot+Campus/NOI+MND+IS.pdf. June 12.
East Bay Regional Parks District, 2015. Mission Peak Post Construction Stormwater Controls,
Revised 06-05-2015. June 5.
Federal Aviation Administration, 2015. Airport Data & Contact Information. Website:
www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010 (accessed: July 23, 2015).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), CommunityPanel Numbers 06001C0468G and 06001C0469G, Alameda County, California. August 3,
2009.
Federal Highway Administration, 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, Users Guide.
Available online at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf.
January.
Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.
Fellers, G.M. and P.M. Kleeman, 2007. California red-logged frog (Rana draytonii) movement and
habitat use: implications for conservation. In Journal of Herpetology 41(2):276286.
468

OCTOBER 2015

Fellers, G.M., 2005. California red-legged frog. M. Lannoo, editor. In Amphibian Declines: The
Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Fong, Michael R., Angela M. Banet, and James C. Bard, 1990. Analysis of Native American Skeletal
Remains Recovered During Emergency Disinterment at CA-ALA-514/H, City of Fremont,
Alameda County, California. Basin Research Associates, San Leandro, California.
Fredrickson, David A., 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North
Coast Ranges. In Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):4153.
Fremont, City of, 2011. Draft General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. July.
Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Bicycle Master Plan. January 17.
Fremont, City of, 2012. City of Fremont Climate Action Plan. November, 13.
Fremont, City of, 2013. Fremont City Council Meeting, November 13, 2013, Minutes. November 13.
Fremont, City of, 2014. City of Fremont General Plan, Housing Element. December.
Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Municipal Code.
Fremont, City of, 2015. City of Fremont Zoning Atlas, page 590-C-368. June 2.
Fremont, City of, 2015. Community Development Department, Development Activity WebTable.
May 4.
Fremont, City of, and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. 2008. Baseline Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory Report. June.
Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Communications Center Services.
Website: www.fremontpolice.org/index.aspx?NID=129 (accessed July 31, 2015).
Fremont Police Department, 2015. Fremont Police Department Table of Organization 2014-2015.
Website: www.fremontpolice.org/DocumentCenter/View/40 (accessed July 31, 2015).
Governors Office of Planning and Research, 2014. Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the
CEQA Guidelines. Available online at
www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_Preliminary_Discussion_Draft_of_Updates_Implementing_SB
_743_080614.pdf (accessed July 24, 2015). August 6.
Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb, 1996:13. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing
Bedrock Formations in Alameda County, California: Derived from the Digital Database OpenFile 96-252. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Graymer, R.W., et al., 1994, Preliminary geologic map of the Niles 7.5-minute quadrangle, Alameda
County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-94-132, scale 1:24,000.
Harris, Cyril M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015. Stanford Avenue Staging Area, Transportation Impact
Analysis. October 12.
Historical Aerials, 2015. Website: www.historicaerials.com (accessed June 18)
469

OCTOBER 2015

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes, 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in
California. Final report to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries
Division, Rancho Cordova.
Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of
steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary,
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.
McConnell, R., et al., 2006. Traffic, Susceptibility, and Childhood Asthma. Environmental Health
Perspectives.
Milliken, Randall, 1995:229, 235, 258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture
in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
Milliken, Randall, 1995:258. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San
Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
Milliken, Randall, 2006. The Central California Ethnographic Community Distribution Model,
Version 2.0, with Special Attention to the San Francisco Bay Area. Far Western
Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.
Milliken, Randall, et al., 2007. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In
California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A Klar, pp 99124. Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, Maryland.
National Center for Education Statistics, 2015. School search tool for public and private schools.
Website: nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch (accessed July 23).
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 2007. Mean Sea Level Trend (station) 9414290 San
Francisco, California. Website: tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid
=9414290 (accessed July 2015).
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2015. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/
app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed July 7, 2015).
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc., 2012. Parking Structure Technical Report: Challenges,
Opportunities, and Best Practices, prepared for Valerie Knepper, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Regional Parking Initiative. Available online at: www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/
smart_growth/parking/6-12/MTC_Parking_Structure.pdf (accessed October 13, 2015). June.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2011. Regulations, Standards 29 CFR, Occupational
Noise Exposure 1910.95.
parkingstructure.html (accessed September 9, 2015).
Orloff, S. 2007. Migratory movements of California tiger salamander in upland habitat a five-year
study: Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates LLC, Walnut Creek, CA.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2015. Clean Energy Solutions. Website: www.pge.com/
mybusiness/environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml (accessed August 6, 2015).
470

OCTOBER 2015

Porter, J., et al., 1982. Archaeological Site Survey Record for CA-ALA-431, on file at Northwest
Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
Public Resources Code Section 21082: 14 Cal. Code Regs. And Section 15064.7, 15064.4 (addressing
greenhouse gas emissions impacts). See also Citizens for Responsible and Equitable
Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th.327 (upholding
citys greenhouse gas emissions threshold based on Assembly Bill 32 compliance).
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2015. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Feasibility Study,
Mission Peak Regional Preserve, Fremont, California. August 13.
Rogers, David, et al., 2000. Executive Summary, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, California.
February.
Rogers, D., et.al., 2000, Volume 2 Technical Data Report, Mission Peak Landslide, Fremont, CA,
Map 4B., February.
Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission.
Website: www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx (accessed July
23).
Shipley, William F., 1978. Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians
Volume 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
State Water Resources Control Board, 2010. Integrated Report, (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List
/ 305(b) Report) Statewide. Website: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/
tmdl/integrated2010.shtml (accessed July 7, 2015).
Stebbins, R.C., 2003. A Field Guide to Western Amphibians and Reptiles. Third edition. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts.
Swaim, K., 1994. Aspects of the ecology of the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus). M.S. Thesis, California State University at Hayward. 140 pp.
Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer, 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for
population viability. In Ecological Applications 15(4):11581168.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1985. The Noise Guidebook. May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Website: www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed July
2015). January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Climate Change Indicators in the United States:
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Website:
www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/global-ghg-emissions.html (accessed June
23, 2014).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Revised guidance on site assessments and field surveys for the
California Red-legged Frog. Website: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/crf_survey_guidance_aug2005.pdf. August.
471

OCTOBER 2015

U.S. Geological Survey, 2015. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Custom Mapping Page. Website:
geohazards.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/cmaps (accessed July 9, 2015).
Union Sanitary District, 2006, Union Sanitary District Management Plan.
United States Census Bureau, 2010. Summary File 1 (SF 1) for Fremont City, California, 100Percent Data, Table DP-1.
University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2013. UCMP Localities. Website:
bscit.berkeley.edu/ucmp/loc.html (accessed July 19, 2013).
Wallace Roberts & Todd and CH2M HILL, 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Stanford
Avenue Municipal Golf Course. Prepared for City of Fremont Leisure Services Department.
State Clearinghouse No. 9103086. December 16.
World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Website: www.who.int/
docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html.
Zarn, M., 1974. Burrowing owl (Spetyto cunicularia hypugaea). Habitat Management Series for
Unique or Endangered Species, Technical Report T-N-250. Bureau of Land Management,
Denver, Colorado.
C.
COMMUNICATIONS
Albonico, Stephen, 2015. Public Safety Systems Administrator, East Bay Regional Park District.
Personal communication with Michelle Julene, Senior Planner, East Bay Regional Park
District. August 11.
Bobzien, Steve, 2013. Biologist, East Bay Regional Park District. Personal communication with LSA
Associates, Inc. April 10.
Defreese, Denise, 2015. Wildland Vegetation Manager, East Bay Regional Park District. Written
communication with Michelle Julene, Park Planner. July 27.
McCormick, Dan, 2015. East Bay Regional Parks District Fire Chief. Personal communication with
District Police Lieutenant Lance Brede. March 9.
Sheilds, Craig, 2015. Professional Engineer and Principal Geotechnical Engineer with Rockridge
Geotechnical, Inc. Written communication with Bruce Abelli-Amen of Baseline Environmental
Consulting, August 20.
Thurston, Amiel, 2015. Acting Deputy Fire Chief, Fremont Fire Department. Personal
communication with Dan McCormick Fire Chief, East Bay Regional Parks District. August 14.
Willey, Gordon, 2013. Park Supervisor. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. April 10.
472

Mission Peak Draft EIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mission Peak Draft EIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S TA N FO R D AV E N U E S TA G I N G A R E A

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012102048

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 55

PLANNING POLICY ................................................................................................................ 77

SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 105

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

VII. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 459

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

FIGURES AND TABLES

Project Vicinity and Regional Location Map ........................................................... 2

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

Summary of Option A Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 13

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ....................................................................... 370

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\0-Cover-TOC.docx (10/14/15)

PURPOSE OF THE EIR

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\1-Introduction.docx (10/14/15)

SOURCES: EBRPD; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2015.

I:\EBR1201 Stanford Ave\figures\Fig_I1.ai (4/21/15)

Stanford Avenue Staging Area Expansion Project EIR

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

Option B: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located approximately

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\1-Introduction.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

Geology and Soils

Hydrology and Water Quality

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Transportation and Circulation

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Population and Housing

Utilities and Service Systems

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\1-Introduction.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

This EIR is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter VI Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of five alternatives to the proposed

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\1-Introduction.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\1-Introduction.docx (10/14/15)

PROJECT UNDER REVIEW

Option B: Development of a new staging area on a grassland area located approximately

P:\EBR1201 Stanford Avenue\PRODUCTS\DEIR\PubReview\2-Summary.docx (10/14/15)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

STANFORD AVENUE STAGING AREA EXPANSION PROJECT EIR