4.A AESTHETICS 4.A-1.1. Visual Character and Quality

Transcription

1 4.A AESTHETICS This section describes the existing aesthetic and visual resources in the Bollinger Valley Project Area and vicinity, and analyzes potential impacts to those resources with construction and operation of the Project and alternatives. Potential development impacts are evaluated from the perspective of public views from designated Scenic Corridors in Moraga and public viewing locations in Lafayette. Impacts to aesthetic and visual resources include changes to the visual character, scenic vistas, and the addition of light sources. Mitigation to address these impacts includes habitat restoration, including tree planting, site-specific design guidelines and requirements, and scenic corridor landscaping plans. 4.A-1 4.A-1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Visual Character and Quality The Bollinger Valley Project Area is undeveloped land used primarily for seasonal livestock grazing. The Project vicinity includes rangeland and low-density single-family residential development in Moraga, Lafayette, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. EBRPD owns and manages permanently preserved open space to the east and south in Bollinger Canyon and Las Trampas Ridge. Photographs depicting the existing visual character of the Project Area and vicinity are presented in Figures 4.A-1 and 4.A-2. There are no existing dedicated open space lands in the Project Area or immediate vicinity in Moraga or Lafayette. The Moraga 2002 General Plan designates the Project Area as Study, which requires additional study of development and conservation constraints and opportunities before designating a land use. There are undeveloped properties adjacent to the Project Area formerly used for agricultural uses. Las Trampas Creek flows to the south of Bollinger Valley and remains undeveloped, providing riparian woodland habitat, stormwater conveyance, and flood control in the area. The southern portion of the Project Area is primarily mixed oak woodland located along the tributaries of Las Trampas Creek (Figure 4.A-3). Oak woodland is also located at the northeast corner of the Project Area. The westerly boundary of the Project Area includes a minor ridgeline, Las Trampas Ridge, which screens the center portion of the Project Area. The western and northern boundaries of the Project Area include undulating hills that reach maximum elevations from 900 to 1,000 feet. The interior of the Project Area ranges in elevation from 775 feet near the oak woodland to 900 feet toward the north. Most of the Project Area is characterized by grasslands used for seasonal livestock grazing. There are also marsh and riparian areas along tributaries to Las Trampas Creek through the central, western, and southern portions of the Project Area. Few structures exist within the Project Area. The overall character of the Project Area is a natural grassland and oak woodland setting within a rural valley. Views from the Project Area are presented in Figures 4.A-1 and 4.A-2. Views from the site on the ridgeline of Las Trampas Ridge include grassland, oak woodland, and existing development at lower elevations in Moraga, including St. Mary s College. Views across the interior of the Project Area reveal undulating hills, grassland and pockets of oak woodland and riparian habitat. Barns and other agricultural structures are visible. Views toward the west from the eastern interior of the Project Area include oak woodland, grassland, and Las Trampas Ridge. View of central Moraga or development outside the Project Area are not visible from the eastern vantage point as the ridgeline and oak woodland obscure views west of the project boundary. Likewise, views looking east from the interior of the Project Area include grasslands, trees, and eastern ridgelines, although views from the eastern most boundary include 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 1

2 existing agricultural structures and homesites adjacent to the boundary, and views from the western ridge facing east look down upon the entire Project Area and beyond. Located in a topographic bowl, most of the acre Bollinger Valley Project Area is not visible from other portions of Moraga and Lafayette. Segments of the higher ridgelines bordering the north and west sides of the Project Area are visible from St. Mary s Road in Moraga and Lafayette, and the Burton Valley area of Lafayette. Dense coast live oak woodlands obscure views of Bollinger Valley up the Valley Hill Drive corridor from Bollinger Canyon Road. Most of the Project Area remains obscured by trees along Valley Hill Drive until actually entering the valley across an existing stream culvert. Views from Bollinger Canyon Road include oak woodland and grassland leading up to and ending at the Las Trampas ridgeline at the western boundary of the Project Area. The EVA route is visible from St. Mary s Road and portions of the Burton Valley residential areas in Lafayette along an open, grassy ridgeline. The EVA route includes hillsides with seasonal rangeland, transmission line towers, and existing unimproved ranch roads and fire access roads. Most of the EVA route passes through non-native annual grassland, with a small portion of coast live oak woodland near St. Mary s Road. Figure 4.A-1. Photographs of the Bollinger Valley Project Area and vicinity. Source: The Planning Team Views 1, 2, and 3 are looking to the west and southwest from the western ridgeline of Bollinger Valley looking towards St. Mary s College and central Moraga. View 4 is from St. Mary s Road looking east towards the northern ridgeline of Bollinger Valley, near the location of the EVA route in Lafayette. View 5 shows Valley Hill Drive looking towards Bollinger Valley. PAGE 4.A- 2 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

3 Figure 4.A-2. Photographs from the interior of Bollinger Valley. BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Source: The Planning Team View 6 is looking south down the valley towards Valley Hill Drive from a location near the terminus of the EVA route at the Project Area boundary with the City of Lafayette. Views 7, 8, 9, 10 are taken from the interior of Bollinger Valley, illustrating that most of the site is visually screened from other developed portions of Moraga and Lafayette by existing topography. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 3

4 Figure 4.A-3. Existing Aerial Photograph. Source: The Planning Team There are few existing sources of light or glare in the Project Area as there are few developed structures in the area. Some light is provided by a caretaker trailer onsite and minor glare or reflection may occur from onsite agricultural structures and fencing, however, existing lighting and glare are very minimal and not readily detected. 4.A-1.2 Designated Scenic Areas Designated Scenic Corridors within the Project Area include Bollinger Canyon Road. A portion of the Project Area includes an area identified as a significant hillside open space area or ridgeline as shown in Figure 4.A-4, the Scenic Corridor Map from Chapter 4.b Community Design in the 2000 General Plan Update EIR. There are no other designated scenic areas within the Project Area; however, the Project Area can be seen from other scenic corridors in Moraga, including the St. Mary s Road Scenic Corridor and the Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail and Lamorinda Trail Loop, which parallel St. Mary s Road. The EVA route crosses two Class II Ridgelines as designated by the City of Lafayette based on ridge height, location, significance in relation to topographical features, and scenic quality. Lafayette PAGE 4.A- 4 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

5 designates Class II Ridgelines for their scenic values and prohibits residential development within 250 feet of the crest but allows exemptions for public safety roads and recreational trails (Lafayette 2002a). The EVA primarily follows the route of an existing unimproved fire road, and intersects directly with St. Mary s Road. The nearest State Scenic Highways are State Route 4 and Interstate 680, which are not located within the vicinity of the Project Area. Figure 4.A-4. Scenic Corridors, Major Ridgelines, and Other Visual Resources in Moraga. MORAGA 2000 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Source: Moraga 2000 General Plan Update EIR. Gast-Hillmer Urban Design; August /18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 5

6 4.A-2 4.A-2.1a REGULATORY SETTING Moraga and Lafayette Zoning and General Plan Goals and Policies The Moraga and Lafayette General Plans set forth goals and policies that address aesthetics and the visual resources associated with open space and new residential development (Moraga 2002, Lafayette 2002a). Applicable Moraga 2002 General Plan Policies, and an evaluation of Project consistency with those policies, is provided in Table 4.A-3 below. The Project does not include or propose areas designated as open space under the Moraga Open Space Ordinance (MOSO), so MOSO Guidelines and Policies related to visual resources are not discussed here. Table 4.A-4 provides an evaluation of Project consistency with the Town of Moraga Design Guidelines (Moraga 2010) that are applicable to the Project. The Town of Moraga Design Guidelines (Moraga 2010) sets forth the design philosophy of the developed setting in Moraga. The Design Guidelines are set of principles meant to be an expression of the General Plan Community Design Element policies. Accordingly, the Design Guidelines assist with the implementation of Moraga 2002 General Plan policies related to the design of streetscapes, buildings, landscaping, and other elements. Procedurally, compliance with the Design Guidelines generally means that the Town is likely to approve the design components of a Project, and allows some Projects to be reviewed and approved at the staff level (Administrative Design Review). Under the Lafayette Zoning Ordinance , the City design review commission must first review and approve EVA road and grading plans on LR-zoned lands (Lafayette 1993). Under Lafayette Zoning Ordinance 6-20 Hillside Development, grading and cut and fill operations should: Be minimized and consistent with the retention of the natural character of hillsides; Maintain steep slopes, riparian areas and woodlands in as nearly natural a condition as is feasible; and Preserve the predominant views of hillsides. Lafayette exempts from design review projects that are required for public safety as approved by the City Manager (Ordinance [c]). 4.A-2.1b Scenic Corridors Moraga has designated the following Scenic Corridors in the Moraga 2002 General Plan and Municipal Code to strengthen community identity and reflect Moraga s semi-rural character: St. Mary s Road, Bollinger Canyon Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, and Donald Drive, along the ridgeline of Mulholland Hill. Land within 500 feet of Scenic Corridors is subject to MMC and developments and structural changes are subject to approval by the DRB. Under MMC 8.132, new developments should retain topography and vegetation, include adequate setbacks, enhance scenic views, create gateways with landscaping and signs, and be compatible with surrounding landscapes and developments. Upper slopes and ridgelines in the Project Area are visible from segments of St. Mary s Road. Proposed roads and PAGE 4.A- 6 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

7 residential development in the Project Area are more than 500 feet from St. Mary s Road, Bollinger Canyon Road, and other designated Scenic Corridors. For the purposes of managing and evaluating potential impacts to visual resources, Lafayette adopted a Lafayette Area Ridge Map, Hillside Overlay District Map, and Viewing Evaluation Sites list (Lafayette 2002b, 2006). The EVA route has a Lafayette General Plan Land Use Designation of Rural Residential Single Family (up to 0.1 dwelling unit per acre) and zoning of Low Density Residential (LR) (Open Space) (Lafayette 2002a, 1981, 1993). The EVA route follows primarily an existing unimproved ranch road alignment and crosses two Restricted Ridgeline Areas, which is within 250 feet of a Class II ridgeline designated in the Lafayette General Plan (2002a). Portions of the northern ridgeline of Bollinger Valley and the EVA route are potentially visible from segments of Lafayette Viewing Evaluation Streets, including 18-Florence Drive, 51-Rohrer Drive, 56-Silverado Drive, and 63-St. Mary s Road; and are potentially visible from Viewing Evaluation Sites, including 6-Burton Valley School, 9- Lafayette Community Park, and 10-Lafayette Moraga Regional Trail. 4.A-2.1c Tree Preservation The Moraga 2002 General Plan includes policies for the preservation of trees and tree-covered areas. Policy OS2.8 Tree Preservation states, Preserve and protect trees wherever they are located in the community as they contribute to the beauty and environmental quality of the Town. This policy is implemented through the Moraga Tree Ordinance. Policy OS2.9 Tree-covered Areas states, Preserve or substantially maintain in their present form certain tree-covered areas, especially with respect to their value as wildlife habitats, even if development in those areas is permitted. Give preference to the retention of original growth over replanting. Bollinger Canyon is identified as an applicable area. Ordinance 182 and Municipal Code Chapter 12 (Section ) establishes permit requirements for the removal of native trees, orchard trees, or trees of historic significance. A permit is required to remove native trees, orchard trees, or trees of historic significance having a trunk diameter of 5 inches or more measured 3 feet above the natural grade or tree having multiple trunks with a total perimeter of 40 inches or more. Section establishes that arborist reports are required when development or construction encroaches within the dripline of any regulated tree. The location of trees is required for grading plans and building permit applications. 4.A-2.2 Evaluation Criteria Table 4.A-1 presents criteria for analysis of potential impacts to aesthetics and visual resources. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 7

8 Table 4.A-1 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation Criteria 4.A-1. Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources (e.g., natural landforms, trees, rock outcrops and historic buildings along a scenic highway)? 4.A-2. Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings? 4.A-3. Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? As Measured by Physical alteration of landscape or placement of structures in a scenic vista. Physical change to visual quality as seen from key viewing corridors. New source of light and glare. Point of Significance Substantial modification of a scenic vista as seen from key viewing corridors. Substantial degradation of visual quality as seen from key viewing corridors or sites. Substantial new affect on day and nighttime views. Justification CEQA Checklist I (a,b); Moraga General Plan Policies LU1.3, LU1.9, CD1.1 CD1.3, CD1.5, CD1.6, CD4.4, OS2.8 OS2.9, and PS4.11; Town Zoning Ordinance. CEQA Checklist I (c); Moraga General Plan Policies LU1.3, LU1.9, CD1.1, CD1.3, CD1.5, CD1.6, CD1.8, CD3.2, CD3.5, H1.4, OS2.8, and PS4.11; Town Zoning Ordinance. CEQA Checklist I (d); Moraga General Plan Policies CD1.2, CD3.2, and CD3.5; Town Zoning Ordinance. 4.A-3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 4.A-2 presents potential impacts to aesthetics, open space, and visual resources, outlines points of significance, level and type of impact, and ranks the level of significance for the Project and Alternatives. Potential for aesthetics, open space, and visual resources open space conflicts is determined by the location of proposed land uses in proximity to critical viewsheds and residential increases in relation to open space potential. Table 4.A-2 Aesthetics, Open Space, Visual Resources, Impacts Impact 4.A-1. Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources (e.g., natural landforms, trees, rock outcrops and historic buildings along a scenic highway)? Point of Significance Substantial modification of a scenic vista as seen from key viewing corridors. Type of Impact 1 Level of Significance 2 P Project (126 units) Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) Alternative 5 (121 units) PAGE 4.A- 8 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

9 Table 4.A-2 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Aesthetics, Open Space, Visual Resources, Impacts Impact Point of Significance Type of Impact 1 Level of Significance 2 4.A-2. Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings? Substantial degradation of visual quality as seen from key viewing corridors. P Project (126 units) Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) Alternative 5 (121 units) 4.A-3. Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Substantial new affect on day and nighttime views. P Project (126 units) Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) Alternative 5 (121 units) Notes: 1. Type of Impact: 2. Level of Significance: C Construction/Temporary l Significant impact before and after mitigation P Permanent/Operation Significant impact before mitigation; less than significant impact after mitigation Less than significant impact; no mitigation proposed == No impact Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.A-1. Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources (e.g., natural landforms, trees, rock outcrops and historic buildings along a scenic highway)? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no changes to existing land uses or land use designations, and involves no ground disturbing activities or new construction. There would be no impact on scenic vistas and no mitigation is required. None required. Less than Significant Impact; Alternative 2 (8 units) Development under Alternative 2 (8 units) is limited to minor grading to improve existing ranch roads and house pads on minimum 5-acre lots. Alternative 2 (8 units) does not include mass grading for landslide remediation, water and wastewater utility infrastructure, improvements to Valley Hill Road, or the EVA. Construction of new homes is expected to substantially avoid impacts to existing landforms, natural topography, ridgelines, and coast live oak woodlands. Buildout would be similar to existing development in the Project vicinity with narrow, gravel roads and driveways leading to widely spaced (0.05 DUA) individual homes set within geotechnically stable areas in the topographic bowl of Bollinger Valley. Construction impacts to coast live oak woodlands, streams, wetlands, ponds, and riparian habitats are expected to be visually minor. Existing culverts or bridges would be retained or have minor improvements, and tree removal would be limited to a small number of individual trees. Very low density residential development without general road and utility infrastructure is expected to have a minor, less than significant impact on scenic vistas, and no mitigation is required. None required. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 9

10 Analysis: Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Residential development and road construction under the Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) may affect scenic vistas in Moraga and Lafayette. Mass grading and construction would alter landforms along ridgelines and place new homes in areas potentially visible from St. Mary s Road in Moraga and Lafayette, St. Mary s College, the Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail and Lamorinda Trail Loop paralleling St. Mary s Road, and portions of Burton Valley in Lafayette. There are no public parks in the vicinity of the Project Area. The western ridgeline is visible from properties in Moraga, and the northern ridgeline and EVA route is visible from properties in the southern portion of Lafayette. An evaluation of consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies and Design Guidelines related to scenic vistas is provided below in Tables 4.A-3 and 4.A-4, respectively. Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Applicable General Plan Policy LU1.3 Residential Building Height. Restrict residential building heights to limit visual impacts on adjacent properties and protect views. Residential buildings should not have more than one story or portion thereof directly over another story, inclusive of garages. Exceptions to this rule may be allowed in the specific plan areas. Project Consistency Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be in the lower portions of Bollinger Valley and would have no impacts to views, and homes would be built consistent with Town Design Guidelines (Moraga 2010). Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b requires project-specific design guidelines consistent with Policy LU1.3. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires a site-specific visual resource analysis and design review for building on lots visible from Scenic Corridors to ensure compliance with Policy LU 1.3. PAGE 4.A- 10 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

11 Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Applicable General Plan Policy LU1.9 Cluster Housing to Protect Open Space. Provide for the permanent preservation of open space by allowing clustered housing designs in areas designated MOSO Open Space or Non-MOSO Open Space or Residential on the General Plan Diagram. However, do not place cluster housing in locations that are visually prominent from the scenic corridor or where it would adversely impact existing residential areas. CD1.1 Location of New Development. To the extent possible, concentrate new development in areas that are least sensitive in terms of environmental and visual resources, including: a) Areas of flat or gently sloping topography outside of flood plain or natural drainage areas. b) The Moraga Center area and Rheem Park area. c) Infill parcels in areas of existing development. Project Consistency Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be clustered in the lower, less visible portions of Bollinger Valley. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Residential development would be clustered with more than half of Bollinger Valley maintained as permanently preserved open space (N-OS). With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a, new structures would not be visually prominent from Scenic Corridors, or from existing residential areas. This measure requires a site-specific visual resource analysis and design review for new structures potentially visible from Scenic Corridors. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be clustered in the lower, gently sloping portions of Bollinger Valley and would have minor effects on visual resources. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). New structures are concentrated on less environmentally and less visually sensitive portions of Bollinger Valley. Development on visible ridgelines and native tree removal is minimized. The EVA route was selected to minimize visual impacts in Lafayette. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires a site-specific visual resource analysis and design review for building on lots visible from Scenic Corridors to ensure consistency with Policy CD /18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 11

12 Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Applicable General Plan Policy CD1.2 Site Planning, Building Design and Landscaping. Retain natural topographic features and scenic qualities through sensitive site planning, architectural design and landscaping. Design buildings and other improvements to retain a low visual profile and provide dense landscaping to blend structures with the natural setting. Project Consistency Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be in the lower portions of Bollinger Valley and would retain topographic features and scenic qualities of the area. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). New structures are concentrated in the interior bowl of Bollinger Valley to maintain viewsheds and natural topography. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires a site-specific visual resource analysis and design review for building on lots visible from Scenic Corridors. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b requires Town review and approval of project-specific design guidelines, final grading plans, lots, landscaping, and lighting to maintain visual quality in Bollinger Valley. CD1.3 View Protection. Protect important elements of the natural setting to maintain the Town s semi-rural character. Give particular attention to viewsheds along the Town s scenic corridors [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive], protecting ridgelines, hillside areas, mature native tree groupings, and other significant natural features. Consideration should be given to views both from within the Town and from adjacent jurisdictions. Likewise, the Town should work with adjacent jurisdictions to protect views from Moraga to adjacent areas. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be in the lower portions of Bollinger Valley and would not affect ridgelines, hillside areas, or mature native tree groupings. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Development is concentrated on less environmentally and visually sensitive portions of Bollinger Valley. Development on visible ridgelines is minimized, floodplains are avoided, and native tree removal is minimized. The EVA route was selected to minimize visual impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires site-specific visual simulations for design level review and approval to ensure consistency with Policy CD1.3. Mitigation Measures 4.C-1a, -1b, and -1c require re-establishment of removed native vegetation. PAGE 4.A- 12 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

13 Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Applicable General Plan Policy CD1.5 Ridgelines and Hillside Areas. Protect ridgelines from development. In hillside areas, require new developments to conform to the site s natural setting, retaining the character of existing landforms preserving significant native vegetation and with respect to ridgelines, encourage location of building sites so that visual impacts are minimized. When grading land with an average slope of 20% of more, require natural contour grading to minimize soil displacement and use of retainer walls. Design buildings and other improvements in accordance with the natural setting, maintaining a low profile and providing dense native landscaping to blend hillside structures with the natural setting. CD1.6 Vegetation. Emphasize and complement existing mature tree groupings by planting additional trees of similar species at Town entries, along major street corridors, in and around commercial centers, in areas of new development, and along drainage-ways. Encourage the use of native, fireresistive, and drought-tolerant species. Project Consistency Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be in the lower, gently sloping portions of Bollinger Valley and would not affect ridgelines or hillside areas. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Development on visible ridgelines and native tree removal is minimized, but some grading and homes may be visible from Scenic Corridors. Building pads are clustered on less environmentally and visually sensitive areas. The potential visibility from offsite areas will not be known until final grading plans are prepared. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires site-specific visual simulations for design level review and approval to achieve consistency with Policy CD1.5. Natural contour grading with Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b, landscaping and construction design guidelines, maintain consistency with Policy CD1.5. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would avoid existing mature tree groupings. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Development avoids coast live oak woodlands to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b requires Town review and approval of final grading plans, lots, and landscaping with the use of use of native, fire-resistive, and drought-tolerant species. Mitigation Measures 4.C-1a, -1b, and -1c require re-establishment of removed native vegetation. CD1.8 Utility Lines. Whenever and wherever possible, convert overhead utility lines to underground and require underground utilities in areas of new development. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. New utilities would be installed underground. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 13

14 Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Applicable General Plan Policy CD3.2 Visual Character. Improve the visual character along Scenic Corridors [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive] with lighting, landscaping and signage. Project Consistency Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would not be visible from Scenic Corridors. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Development minimizes potential visibility of new structures from Scenic Corridors, maintain coast live oak woodlands to the extent feasible and, with Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b, would be consistent with Design Guidelines, with regard to lighting, landscaping, and signage. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires a site-specific visual resource analysis and design review for building on lots visible from Scenic Corridors. Mitigation Measures 4.C-1a, -1b, and -1c require reestablishment of removed native vegetation. CD3.5 Landscaping and Amenities. Use additional street tree planting, berms, fencing and ornamental landscaping to enhance the visual continuity along the Town s Scenic Corridors [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive]. Require appropriate landscaping for both public and private developments located on designated Scenic Corridors, including pedestrian lighting and street trees within existing commercial areas. Encourage use of native and drought-tolerant species and, where applicable, preservation of orchard trees. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), no tree removal would occur near Bollinger Canyon Road and no homes would be visible from Scenic Corridors. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Development minimizes tree removal near Bollinger Canyon Road for Valley Hill Drive improvements. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b requires Town review and approval of final grading plans, lots, landscaping, and lighting. Mitigation Measures 4.C-1a, -1b, and -1c require reestablishment of removed native vegetation. PAGE 4.A- 14 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

15 Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Applicable General Plan Policy CD4.4 New Residential Developments. Design new singlefamily developments to create high quality pedestrian environments with pathways to adjacent neighborhoods and, where feasible, commercial areas. Ensure that the layout of new residential lots respect the site topography and natural features. Where feasible, avoid standard repetitive lot sizes and shapes in hillside areas. H1.4 Design Excellence. Review the design of new housing developments to ensure that they are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood in which they are located and the semi-rural character of the Town as a whole, consistent with policies in the Town s Community Design Element. Strive to ensure that affordable housing developments are well designed and professionally managed so that they provide a high quality living environment and contribute to the overall quality of life in the Town. OS2.8 Tree Preservation. Preserve and protect trees wherever they are located in the community as they contribute to the beauty and environmental quality of the Town. Project Consistency Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Lot sizes are similar, but their orientation, shape, setbacks, and configuration are variable and based on topography and natural features. No sidewalks or pedestrian pathways are provided along roads in Bollinger Valley, but a sidewalk or trails would be provided along Valley Hill Drive. The traffic volumes on Project streets are expected to be low and not pose safety hazards to pedestrians. The Project includes a 5 ft. sidewalk and Alternatives 4 and 5 include a 6 foot trail along Valley Hill Drive. The lack of pedestrian pathways is considered a minor impediment to pedestrian uses and is considered a minor impact to the pedestrian environment as there are no commercial developments or adjacent neighborhoods for pedestrian connections. Mitigation Measure 4.A- 1b requires Town review and approval of final grading plans and lots. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. The design and sizes of lots and building pads, net residential density, and preserved open space are consistent with the low density, semi-rural character of Moraga. Residential density is consistent with the nearby Moraga Bluffs projects in Moraga. More than half of the site would be permanently preserved open space (N-OS). Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would remove no trees. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), residential development avoids tree removal. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Tree removal is minimized to the extent feasible. Landscaping in common areas includes native trees to replace trees removed during construction under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b. Biological Resource Mitigation Measure 4.C-1a requires replacement of oak woodland at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation Measure 4.C-8 requires tree preservation during construction. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 15

16 Table 4.A-3 Consistency Evaluation of General Plan Policies Applicable to Aesthetics Applicable General Plan Policy OS2.9 Tree-covered Areas. Preserve or substantially maintain in their present form certain tree-covered areas, especially with respect to their value as wildlife habitats, even if development in those areas is permitted. Give preference to the retention of original growth over replanting. These areas include, but are not limited to: d) Mulholland Hill (both northeast and southwest slopes) e) Indian Ridge f) Bollinger Canyon g) Sanders Ranch properties h) St. Mary s Road northeast of Bollinger Canyon Road i) The Black Forest area located northerly of the terminus of Camino Ricardo j) Coyote Gulch west of St. Mary s Road, to the north k) Wooded area to the east and south of St. Mary s Gardens l) Wooded area behind Donald Rheem School m) Wooded area on the ridge south of Sanders Drive. PS4.11 Retaining Walls. Discourage the use of retaining walls and other man-made grading features to mitigate geologic hazards, permitting them only when: Required to decrease the possibility of personal injury or property damage; Designed to blend with the natural terrain and avoid an artificial or structural appearance; Appropriately screened by landscaping; Designed to avoid creating a tunnel effect along roadways and to ensure unrestricted views for vehicular and pedestrian safety; and Designed to ensure minimal public and/or private maintenance costs. Project Consistency Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, removes no trees. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites are situated in areas not requiring tree removal. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Tree removal is minimized to the extent feasible. Coast live oak woodlands would be substantially maintained in their present form. Landscaping in common areas includes native trees to replace trees removed during construction under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b. Biological Resource Mitigation Measure 4.C-1a requires replacement of oak woodland at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation Measure 4.C- 8 requires tree preservation during construction. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) is not expected to require man-made grading features to mitigate geologic hazards. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). No retaining walls or other aboveground, visible artificial structures are included in Bollinger Valley or for EVA construction. Graded hillsides would use natural contour grading, be revegetated, and use earthen berms for aesthetic screening. Retaining walls and other structures would stabilize slopes for Valley Hill Road improvements. These structures would be used to minimize ground disturbance, tree removal, and other potential impacts to riparian habitats. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b requires Town review and approval of specific design features to ensure they meet current Town standards. PAGE 4.A- 16 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

17 Table 4.A-4 Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency SRC1 SRC7 Retain, protect, and utilize existing natural features, such as trees and other vegetation, interesting ground forms, rocks, water, and significant views in the design. New trees should be planted to compliment the natural pattern of tree placement. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Impacts to streams, coast live oak woodlands, and significant views are avoided to the extent feasible and most of these resources would be permanently preserved in N-OS land. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would not remove or plant trees. Alternative 2 (8 units) is not expected to remove trees for home sites or require planting of new trees. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Town-approved landscaping design guidelines would be adopted under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.C-1a requires restoration of removed coast live oak woodland habitats at a 2:1 ratio. RH1 Protect ridgelines from development. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses. Alternative 2 (8 units) would place new home sites in lower portions of Bollinger Valley, away from ridgelines as shown in Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Grading on ridgelines and future homes may be visible from Scenic Corridors. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires site-specific viewshed analysis and photosimulations to be completed before grading to demonstrate consistency with Guideline RH1. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 17

18 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency RH2 New development should be sited in areas that are least sensitive in terms of environmental and visual resources, including areas of flat or gently sloping topography. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses. Alternative 2 (8 units) would place new home sites in lower, gently sloping portions of Bollinger Valley. RH3 In hillside and ridgeline areas, building sites should be sited so that visual impacts are minimized. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Building pads are concentrated on less visual areas, mostly above over steepened lower slopes and below the ridgelines obscuring views of new structures from outside Bollinger Valley. Impacts to riparian corridors and coast live oak woodlands are minimized. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires site-specific viewshed analysis and photosimulations to be completed before grading to demonstrate consistency with Guideline RH2. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses. Alternative 2 (8 units) would place new home sites in lower, gently sloping portions of Bollinger Valley. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Building pads are concentrated on less visual areas, mostly above over steepened lower slopes and below the ridgelines obscuring views of new structures from outside Bollinger Valley. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires sitespecific viewshed analysis and photosimulations to be completed before grading to demonstrate consistency with Guideline RH2. PAGE 4.A- 18 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

19 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency RH5 Hillside buildings and other improvements should have a low visual profile. Dense native landscaping should be provided to blend structures with the natural setting. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be in the lower portions of Bollinger Valley with a low visual profile. RH6 Hillside grading shall blend with natural slopes and be contoured to achieve a natural appearance. The use of retaining walls and other man-made grading features to mitigate geologic hazards should be avoided. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Building pads are concentrated on less visual areas, mostly above over steepened lower slopes and below the ridgelines obscuring views of new structures from outside Bollinger Valley. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b requires Town approval for landscaping design guidelines. Mitigation Measure 4.A-1a requires sitespecific viewshed analysis and photosimulations to be completed before grading to demonstrate consistency with Guideline RH5. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses. Alternative 2 (8 units) requires no hillside grading. The Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) use natural contour grading techniques to blend with existing slopes and vary the appearance of the graded slopes. No retaining walls will be used in Bollinger Valley. Drainage ditches and catchments would conform to the Town Grading Ordinance (MMC ). Retaining walls will be used along Valley Hill Drive to preserve trees and minimize impacts to the stream channel and coast live oak woodlands. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 19

20 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency RH7 On hillside lots fire safe landscaping should be used. Landscaping should be distributed around structures to provide screening from off-site views. Adequate water supplies and fire-fighting access shall be provided. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), residential landscaping would be reviewed for consistency with Design Guidelines at the Building Permit stage. RH10 Preserve both close-up and distant views of the natural hillside and ridgeline landscape as seen from valley areas. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b provides for Town approval of landscaping design guidelines that meet fire safety and visual resource standards. Mitigation Measure 4.J- 1b(1): Fee Payment for Fire Protection Personnel, Equipment, and Facilities, and Fire Protection and Emergency Services Plan ensures adequate water supplies and fire-fighting access are provided. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), residential lots would be located in the lower portions of Bollinger Valley, preserving views of hillsides and ridgelines. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Substantial impacts to natural hillside and ridgeline views are largely avoided from scenic corridors by focusing development in the topographic bowl of Bollinger Valley. The full level of visibility, however, will not be known until final grading plans are completed and photosimulations can be conducted. Implementing Mitigation Measures 4.A-1a and 4.A-1b includes site-specific photosimulation and landscaping standards to meet Town approval before construction, and achieves consistency with RH10. PAGE 4.A- 20 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

21 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency SC1 SC2 SC3 SC7 A greenbelt should be established between the scenic corridor [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive] major road and a parking area or building that is located adjacent to the road. The greenbelt must be landscaped and appear to be natural (i.e. a high percentage of the ground area could be a mounded redwood bark or stone covered area as long as plants provide a reasonable amount of massing to create a screening effect). All landscaped areas shall be appropriately irrigated to maintain healthy plants while preventing runoff from over watering. Native grass areas are acceptable along the scenic corridor [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive] where formal landscaping is inappropriate. The greenbelt separating a single-family residence from a scenic corridor roadway [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive] should have a minimum depth of 20 feet. This depth can be lessened if mitigated by shrubbery, trees and/or other acceptable elements or landscaping. Religious or educational institutions, apartment complexes, professional buildings, commercial buildings, and residences along scenic corridors [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive] should have a minimum 15-foot greenbelt depth to the property line at adjacent streets (exclusive of sidewalk) with moderate landscaping. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Some development may be visible from two Scenic Corridors in Moraga: St. Mary s Road and Bollinger Canyon Road. Structures or parking areas are located more than 0.25 miles from Scenic Corridors. Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units) have no development visible from Scenic Corridors. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Some development may be visible from two Scenic Corridors in Moraga: St. Mary s Road and Bollinger Canyon Road. Structures or parking areas are located more than 0.25 miles from Scenic Corridors. Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units) have no development visible from Scenic Corridors. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Some development may be visible from two Scenic Corridors in Moraga: St. Mary s Road and Bollinger Canyon Road. Structures or parking areas are located more than 0.25 miles from Scenic Corridors. Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units) have no development visible from Scenic Corridors. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Some development may be visible from two Scenic Corridors in Moraga: St. Mary s Road and Bollinger Canyon Road. Structures or parking areas are located more than 0.25 miles from Scenic Corridors. Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units) have no development visible from Scenic Corridors. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 21

22 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency SC8 A property owner may be required to upgrade existing conditions when major work is accomplished on a parcel that is within 500 feet of the centerline of a major scenic corridor [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive]. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units involve no new development within 500 feet of a Scenic Corridor. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Valley Hill Drive improvements and utility infrastructure construction will occur within 500 feet of Bollinger Canyon Road, a designated Scenic Corridor. The Town would approve Project-specific design guidelines, including any necessary upgrades, under Mitigation Measures 4.A-1a and 4.A-1b. SC9 SC13 In order to enhance the landscaping along designated scenic corridors [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive], new development within 500 feet of these corridors should include trees and shrubs from the following list: [plant species listed] Viewsheds, including but not limited to close up and distant views, ridgelines, hillsides and mature native tree groupings should be protected along the Town s scenic corridors [St. Mary s Road, Canyon Road, Moraga Way, Moraga Road, Rheem Boulevard, Camino Pablo, Bollinger Canyon Road, Donald Drive] to retain the Town s semi-rural character. Consistent with Mitigation. Valley Hill Drive improvements and utility infrastructure construction would occur within 500 feet of Bollinger Canyon Road, a designated Scenic Corridor. The Town would approve projectspecific design guidelines, including any necessary upgrades, under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and would have no impacts on aesthetics. Under Alternative 2 (8 units), new residential home sites would be in the lower portions of Bollinger Valley and would have no impacts to views, and homes would be built consistent with Town Design Guidelines (Moraga 2010). Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Grading and future residential construction may be visible from St. Mary s Road, a designated Scenic Corridor. Valley Hill Drive improvements will remove native trees on or visible from Bollinger Canyon Road. The Town will approve Project design guidelines and sitespecific visual resource impacts under Mitigation Measures 4.A-1a and 4.A-1b to attain consistency with Guideline SC13. PAGE 4.A- 22 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

23 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency ID1 ID3 Downhill or uphill portions of any project shall provide landscaped treatment to address potential erosion, to be in harmony with adjacent developments, and to provide a complimenting view from distant horizons. Dense native landscaping should be used to blend hillside structures with the natural setting. Wind barriers, shade, sound absorption, dust abatement, glare reduction, and proper drainage should be provided on site. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) involves no development on hillsides. Native grass and forb seeds would be planted to cover and stabilize graded slopes and blend in with the existing grasslands dominating the hillsides. Landscaping design guidelines would be approved by the Town under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b, and revegetation of other native vegetation would be required under Mitigation Measures 4.C-1a, -1b, -1c, and -1d. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) involves lowdensity development consistent with ID3. ID4 ID6 ID10.6 Buildings should be placed on the site so as to permit passive solar design, ample room for usable yard areas, adequate landscaping, and proper drainage between and around buildings. The level of lighting should not exceed the needs for security and safety or detract from the aesthetics of the development. Outdoor lighting should be related to the design of the structure. Outdoor light fixtures should be designed and mounted so that the source of light has minimal impact off site. Outdoor lighting should be directed inward toward the property and may require additional screening to avoid spillage onto adjacent residential properties. Preserve the natural topography of the land, especially at the horizon: Round off graded slopes, in a manner Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Landscaping design guidelines would be approved by the Town under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b to attain consistency with Guideline ID3, and revegetation of other native vegetation would be required under Mitigation Measures 4.C-1a, -1b, -1c, and -1d. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. The CDP permits passive solar design, ample room for usable yard areas, adequate landscaping, and proper drainage between and around buildings. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) includes no community or public lighting. Designs for individual homes would be reviewed for consistency at the Building Permit stage. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Lighting design guidelines will be approved buy the Town under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b to attain consistency with Guideline ID6. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 23

24 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency ID13.1 ID13.3 that conforms to the natural contours of the land and to the surrounding terrain. Sharp angles produced by earth moving, specifically at the top and toe of graded slopes shall be avoided. Slopes shall be contour graded to achieve a natural appearance. Slopes shall be blended with the contours of contiguous properties and create a smooth transition. Grading shall minimize scars due to cuts, fills, and drainage benches on natural slopes. Neither cuts nor fills shall result in slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), except where natural slopes are steeper. Where steeper slopes are unavoidable, special mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the design construction and maintenance of the slopes. Subdivision layout should retain natural topographic features and maintain the Town s semi-rural character. New road construction should adapt to topography and natural features. units) includes no grading of hillsides. Mass grading would use natural contour techniques to blend graded slopes to the existing topography. No slopes will be steeper than 3:1 after construction. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new development or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) would retain natural topographic features. Residential development would conform to topography, and more than half of the Project Area is retained as open space (N-OS). Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new development or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) would retain natural topographic features. New roads for residential development are placed to follow topographic contour lines to the extent feasible while providing adequate access to building pads and service roads. PAGE 4.A- 24 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

25 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency ID13.6 When appropriate, shared driveways should be used for neighboring clusters of houses and pervious parking areas shall be used. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new construction or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) would use shared driveways to the extent feasible. ID13.8 ID13.9 ID13.10 ID13.11 Utility lines for new subdivisions shall be installed underground to maintain natural vistas. Whenever possible, roads and driveways should be constructed parallel to existing topographic contours, and, if necessary, split in order to reduce the area of cut on hillsides or to preserve trees or other significant features. Street lighting in hillside and ridgeline areas should be unobtrusive and designed to reflect the natural surroundings. Hillside lots should be larger than lots on naturally level terrain. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). The Town would approve the project-specific design guidelines, including lot lines, building pads, use of shared driveways, and pervious pavement under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. New utility lines would be installed underground. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new development, or land uses, and Alternative 2 (8 units) would retain natural topographic features. Valley Hill Drive improvements and residential streets are designed to minimize impacts to trees and streams. Roads and lots are designed to conform to existing topography to minimize earth moving. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units) involve no street lighting. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Project-specific lighting design guidelines would be approved by the Town under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b to attain consistency with Guideline ID Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no development, and Alternative 2 (8 units) would create lots consistent with topography to facilitate the development of a single homesite on each lot. Residential lot sizes are consistent with developments in the vicinity. Lot sizes are designed to minimize grading and environmental effects of construction, and are clustered to retain more than half of Bollinger Valley as open space. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 25

26 Table 4.A-4 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Project Consistency with Design Guidelines Applicable to Aesthetics Guideline Text Project Consistency SFR1.2 Front setbacks should be varied, with no more than two adjacent units having the same setback. Setback variation shall be a minimum of three feet. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new development and Alternative 2 (8 units) would have variable setbacks and lot sizes. SFR1.6 SFR1.10 Development of residential lots should take advantage of natural features and unique topography of the site through split-level pads or natural contour grading. On padded lots there should be a minimum of 10 near level clearance area from any top or toe of a slope to any structure for access. 1 On padded lots there should be a minimum of 6 near level clearance area on any 3 sides of any building or structure. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Project-specific design guidelines would be approved by the Town under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b to attain consistency with Guideline SFR1.2. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Mass grading would apply natural contour grading and take advantage of natural features to the extent feasible. No lot or hillside grading would occur under Alternative 1 (No Project) or Alternative 2 (8 units). Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Residential lots have sufficient size to maintain appropriate setbacks. No lot or hillside grading would occur under Alternative 1 (No Project) or Alternative 2 (8 units). SFR1.11 SFR Clearance is measured from the exterior of the structure or any protruding portion (i.e., chimney, bay window, etc.) to the nearest point on the property line or change in slope, whichever is closer. There should be a near level area of at least 25' x 40', other than the front yard, for usable yard area. On padded lots walkways should be set back a minimum of one foot from the top of slope. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Residential lots have sufficient size to provide appropriate useable yard areas. No development would occur under Alternative 1 (No Project), and sufficient useable area if expected to be available for each lot under Alternative 2 (8 units). Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Residential lots have sufficient size to maintain appropriate setbacks. Alternative 1 (No Project) and Alternative 2 (8 units), no padded lots would be created. The Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) would use natural contour grading techniques to minimize earth moving and conform graded areas to natural topography, as required by the Town for grading on land with an average slope of 20% or more per policy CD1.5 and Design Guidelines RH6, ID10.6, and SFR1.6. Reseeding with native grass and forb species after PAGE 4.A- 26 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

27 grading using standard erosion control BMPs to stabilize slopes would re-establish vegetative cover in one to two years after construction (see Section Project Description, and Section 4.E- Geology, Mitigation Measure 4.E-1). Consequently, grading is expected to result in short term, less than significant changes to the scenic vistas of natural ridgelines, and no mitigation is required. According to the applicant, the proposed EVA route was selected through consultation with Lafayette planning staff. The EVA traverses an open hillside and crosses perpendicular to two Class II Ridgelines. The EVA route would be visible from St. Mary s Road and portions of Burton Valley in Lafayette. Lafayette requires setbacks of new development on Class II Ridgelines, but exempts emergency access roads such as the EVA from this requirement. Shorter, more direct routes for the EVA were available but not selected because they occur along on Class II Ridgelines, would have been more visible to public viewing locations in Lafayette, and would have required more earthmoving and a larger grading footprint on steeper slopes to meet emergency vehicle access standards. Most of the EVA route would occur on top of an existing unimproved ranch road. The EVA would constitute a minor change to existing scenic resources on hillsides and in grasslands by widening and providing a gravel surface. Grading would have a short term less than significant impact with contour grading techniques and reseeding with grass and forb species after construction. Consequently, EVA route construction in grasslands is expected to have a temporary, less than significant impact on scenic vistas, and no mitigation is required. The western end of the EVA near St. Mary s Road consists of mostly new alignment, and up to 53 native trees would be removed in 0.8 acre of coast live oak woodland (HortScience, Inc. 2007). The loss of long-lived, perennial vegetation such as native oak woodlands along a designated Scenic Corridor is considered a significant impact to scenic vistas, and mitigation is required. Improvements to Valley Hill Drive would be visible at its intersection with Bollinger Canyon Road; however these improvements will not change the existing vegetation in the roadway right-of-way for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 as the improvements would occur outside the existing right-of-way where tree removal is to be avoided. The roadway easement would be expanded onto land owned by the Project Applicant in order to maintain existing trees and vegetation where feasible, and reduce the visual impact of roadway improvements. The Project (126 units) would limit Valley Hill Drive improvements to the existing right-of-way, creating a wider roadway and adjacent swath of vegetation removal. Landscaping mitigation would be needed to reduce the visual impact of the roadway improvement tree removal. The Project includes a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.L-4) to improve Bollinger Canyon Road in areas where it does not currently meet Town standards. Improvements may include widening, re-striping, curve straightening, or other measures. This is a narrow roadway with vegetation directly adjacent to the pavement in several locations. Although the roadway from Joseph Drive to Valley Hill Drive would result in complete resurfacing, which would improve the overall visual quality of the roadway right-of-way in this location, the loss of vegetation is potentially significant to the visual quality of the scenic roadway. Potential visibility of homes and water tanks on the northern and western ridgelines of Bollinger Valley may have long term, significant impacts on scenic vistas, and mitigation is required. William Kanemoto and Associates, Inc. (2009) conducted a viewshed 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 27

28 analysis of the Project using computer viewshed projections from 10 section of the Project Area to identify portions of the Project most likely to be visible in Moraga and Lafayette and determine which lots in the Project could have structures visible from St. Mary s Road, a designated Scenic Corridor in Moraga, and Lafayette s Viewing Evaluation Sites. The viewshed analysis reviewed plans and CAD files provided by the Project Applicant to create a computer-generated viewshed (visibility) study of the Project and EVA based on a USGS 3-meter Digital Elevation Model. The visibility analysis assumed a 28-foot maximum roof height of future homes, consistent with Moraga s ordinance. The analysis identified streets and sites in Lafayette s Viewing Evaluation Sites (Lafayette 2006) list that fell to any degree within the mapped viewshed. Under Alternative 3 (37 units), homes are planned for the northern and eastern portions of the Project Area and no units are proposed along the western ridgeline. The water storage tanks would be located near the western ridge however. According to the viewshed analysis, water tanks and homes on up to 25 lots along the western ridgeline may be visible from St. Mary s Road in Moraga or Viewing Evaluation Sites in Lafayette. Alternative 4 (100 units) and Alternative 5 (121 units) would place home sites further back from the ridge and would include a berm graded along the ridgeline to reduce potential visibility. New structures may be visible from the following viewing site streets in Lafayette: 2-Bacon Court, 9-Camino Diablo, 11-Carol Lane, 13-Deer Hill, 16-El Nido Ranch Road, 20-Glen Road, 36-Mt. Diablo Boulevard, 40-Oak Hill Road, 41-Old Tunnel Road, 44-Pleasant Hill Road, 45-Quail Ridge Road, 46-Quandt Road, 48-Reliez Station Road, 55-Sierra Vista, 60-Springhill Road, 61-Stanley Boulevard, 62-St. Francis Drive, and 71-Via Roble. The extent of visibility of the water tanks and future homes (e.g., visual prominence on the existing ridgeline), and the impact to visual resources as seen from Moraga s Scenic Corridors and Lafayette s Viewing Evaluation Sites, cannot be determined until final grading elevations and building designs are developed at the GDP and PDP stages of the Project. An evaluation of Alternative 5 visibility revealed that, lots in the middle, south, and west of the project are not visible in Lafayette, except for lots 120 and 121. In general, however, all of the lots in the northernmost portion of the project, including all of the lots straddling the EVA, and at least the first two rows of homes north and south of the northernmost portions of the main access road i.e., 89, 98, 97, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 95, 94, 93, 92, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 91, 71, 37, 38, etc. would result in visibility to the north in Lafayette in the absence of screening. It should be noted that this is not all-inclusive, and individual projections were not made from all of these lots, but their visibility is indicated by inference from sample projections. Although the EVA and possibly some homes would be visible to the north, this does not necessarily imply they would be highly prominent. Consequently, impacts to scenic vistas associated with potentially visible homes, graded slopes, and water tanks along the northern and western ridgelines are considered a significant impact on aesthetics and mitigation is required. PAGE 4.A- 28 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

29 4.A-1a: Prepare, Review, and Approve Site-Specific Scenic Corridor Landscape Plan. Prior to the Town issuing a Grading Permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare detailed visual simulations of graded topography, water tanks, and homes that would be potentially visible from Scenic Corridors in Moraga and Viewing Evaluation Sites in Lafayette in order to test the effectiveness of the landscape plan and site design. The visual simulations shall be based on final grading plans and lot lines of the selected Project or Alternative that depict lot elevations and building pads to the nearest foot in elevation. Simulations shall use standard photographic simulation and visibility analysis modeling techniques. The planning staff in Moraga and Lafayette shall be consulted to determine appropriate assumptions for home designs, heights, widths, and locations within lots. Town and City staff shall approve of the number and locations of representative viewing sites to be used in the photosimulations to provide an accurate and representative number of views to determine Project consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies. The Project Applicant shall provide sufficient data and meta-data to establish the validity of the imagery, including: An oblique aerial or isometric view of the model that clearly distinguishes the portions of the terrain representing grading, in visible contrast to existing terrain (for example, in a different color), in order to facilitate review by Town staff and the Design Review Board for reasonable accuracy and completeness; Interim, wire-frame simulations of key views of grading and maximum building envelopes, overlaid on photographs of the site, to illustrate reasonable matching between the terrain model and existing terrain; Separate individual normal angle of views (equivalent to a roughly 50 mm focal length lens on a 35 mm film camera) with a standard pre-determined, explicitly stated horizontal angle of view for correct scale/camera matching; Clearly stated key assumptions depicted in the simulations, including assumed building dimensions, the Scenic Corridor Landscape Plan (SCLP), landscaping on individual parcels, tree heights, road geometry, and other factors; Visual simulation models that include all visible Project elements, such as primary units, second units, the EVA, water storage tanks or other associated infrastructure; and Submissions of digital files on commonly used photosimulation software. As determined necessary for consistency, planning staff shall recommend or require landscaping, pad elevations, or earthen berms to reduce the visibility of new structures. To maintain consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies and adopted Design Guidelines, planning staff shall recommend or require, as needed to attain consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan polices or design guidelines, standards for exterior materials, colors, roofing materials, glazing, lighting, massing, and roof heights for homes that remain visible from Moraga s Scenic Corridors or Lafayette s Viewing Evaluation Sites (See Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b). Moraga and Lafayette shall issue grading permits only after making a determination that grading and residential 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 29

30 development are found to be consistent with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies and ordinances (e.g., MMC Scenic Corridors) applicable to scenic vistas. The Scenic Corridor Landscape Plan (SCLP) shall be developed by the Project Applicant to maintain and enhance the visual quality of the Project Area and submitted to the Town s Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the Town issuing a Grading Permit for the Project. The SCLP shall be required to meet Town policies to improve visual quality in Scenic Corridors with new development, obscure building locations and graded slopes, and preserve visual access to the minor ridgeline and rock outcrops. The SCLP shall be incorporated as soon as feasible after Project grading is completed, and installed prior to the Town issuing Building Permits to individual future lot owners for new residential construction. The SCLP may extend throughout the undeveloped portions of the Project Area as needed or desired to enhance visual quality, obscure the visibility of roadways and structures in the Project Area, enhance the visual quality of scenic corridors, restore native vegetation communities and wildlife habitat, maintain slope stability, and manage fuel conditions in the wildland-urban interface. To be consistent with the Design Guidelines, the SCLP shall include the following elements: Plant species shall be derived from native, drought tolerant, and fire wise plant species listed in the Design Guidelines; While maintaining maintain visual access to the minor ridgeline and rock outcrops, landscaping shall blend naturally with the topography, and obscure building pad sites from Scenic Corridors and other designated viewing sites; Trees and shrubs shall vary in density and massing, and include at least four trees for each tree removed or adversely affected by the Project; Vegetation shall be located to disperse exhaust emissions from roadways, create shade along Project streets and Scenic Corridors, and control fugitive dust; Irrigation systems shall use efficient drip or similar systems, with automatic rain shut-off mechanisms, and operated to avoid or minimize evaporative loss, overspray, and runoff; Bioswales and other similar features to capture potential runoff and promote infiltration of irrigation water and stormwater shall be incorporated into the design; Landscape designs, locations, and maintenance measures shall be reviewed and approved by the MOFD as consistent with fuel management goals in wildland-urban interface settings; and Maintenance shall be provided through the Reciprocal Joint Roadway Maintenance, Grading, and Drainage Agreement (Maintenance Agreement) among future lot owners. 4.A-1b: Develop, Review, and Approve Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines. The Project Applicant shall develop and implement Project-specific design guidelines that would apply to residential architecture, lighting and landscaping, and infrastructure such as roads, curbs, gutters, and utility infrastructure. The design guidelines shall strive to reflect the existing visual character of the Project Area and vicinity with low-density, rural residential areas, agriculture, and open space. Strategies and measures to reduce adverse impacts associated with new sources of light and glare, including glazing, PAGE 4.A- 30 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

31 architectural coatings, vegetative cover, and exterior lighting shall be addressed in the Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines. The Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines shall require the use of contour grading and shall encourage varying setbacks and rooflines to discourage repetitive, unarticulated building forms. Vegetation removal and construction within riparian corridors and wetlands shall be limited as feasible. To further enhance the Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines, the Moraga 2002 General Plan Guidelines (Municipal Code Scenic Corridors), including requirements for structural size, setback, positioning, screening, lighting, and overall architectural compatibility, shall be incorporated. The Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines shall include limitations on future building heights, lot coverage, and floor area ratio (FAR) to minimize future aesthetic impacts. Two-story units shall be prohibited on lots along ridgelines to protect views from scenic corridors, and the setback from the rear property line along the ridgeline shall be expanded to avoid the appearance of development on the ridgeline. These guidelines shall require the retention and integration of existing topography, vegetation, and scenic features, thereby promoting the importance of natural features. The Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines shall additionally address treatment of retaining walls and the placement and orientation of solar panels on lots. Future improvements within Bollinger Valley will also need to comply with Town Design Guidelines. The Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines shall include measures requiring structures visible from surrounding areas to have low profiles, and shall also include measures regarding contoured grading on all slopes, dense native landscaping, and blended rooflines to reduce visibility of the structure in favor of the existing natural features. Within the scenic corridors, design should integrate greenbelts between the roadways and developments, with sizing of these greenbelts both in compliance with the General Plan Design Guidelines and in correlation with proposed structural sizing by use type. In addition, adequate setbacks should be established near the riparian corridor to protect habitat and drainage patterns. The guidelines shall require the retention and integration of existing topography, vegetation, and scenic features where feasible to reduce the visibility of structures while promoting the visual importance of natural features. The Town shall review and approve the Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines and shall not approve the vesting tentative map or record the final map until making a determination that implementing the Projectspecific design guidelines would result in consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies related to the visual character of new residential development, the Town s Design Guidelines, and MMC Scenic Corridors. The Project Applicant shall implement the Bollinger Canyon Design Guidelines approved by the Town. 4.A-1c: Ridgeline and Water Tank Screening. As part of the Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines or Scenic Corridor Landscape Plan, the Project Applicant shall implement site screening along the ridgelines and around the water storage tanks. Screening may include the use of vegetated berms, trees and other landscaping, and setbacks. Trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants used for landscape screening or on the vegetated berms shall be native species. Screening measures also include the use of appropriate paint colors on the water tank. Appropriate paint colors shall include natural shades representative of the adjacent vegetation, such as dark greens, browns, or other neutral earth-tone colors that blend with the surrounding environment. The screening measures shall be accurately planned and illustrated for Town approval. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 31

32 After 4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. Please refer to Section 4.C, Impact 4.C-1 for a description of mitigation measure 4.C-1a. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. Please refer to Section 4.C, Impact 4.C-1 for a description of mitigation measure 4.C-1b. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. Please refer to Section 4.C, Impact 4.C-1 for a description of mitigation measure 4.C-1c. Less than Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The development, review, and approval of detailed visual simulations for the Project and incorporation of design guidelines, requirements, and site screening as necessary to maintain consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies applicable to scenic vistas reduces potential impacts to less than significant. Implementing Mitigation Measures 4.C1a, -1b, and -1c would re-establish coast live oak woodland, northern coyote brush, and Central Coast riparian scrub habitats such that the visual quality in the vicinity of the EVA would be restored in the long-term. Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.A-2. Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no changes to existing land uses or land use designations, and involves no ground disturbing activities or new construction. The No Project Alternative would have no impact on the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings and no mitigation is required. None required. Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Development under Alternative 2 (8 units) would be limited to minor grading to improve existing ranch roads and house pads on minimum 5-acre lots. Alternative 2 (8 units) does not include mass grading for landslide remediation, water and wastewater utility infrastructure, water tanks, improvements to Valley Hill Road, or the EVA. Construction is expected to substantially avoid impacts to existing landforms, topography, ridgelines, and coast live oak woodlands. Buildout is expected be similar to existing development in the Project vicinity with narrow, gravel roads and driveways leading to widely spaced (0.05 DUA) individual homes set within geotechnically stable areas in the topographic bowl of Bollinger Valley. Existing culverts or bridges would be retained or have minor improvements, and tree removal would be limited to a small number of individuals. Construction impacts to coast live oak woodlands, streams, wetlands, ponds, and riparian habitats are anticipated to be visually minor as these areas are associated with costly mitigation as a result of disturbance or removal; however, the lack of site plans results in speculation and it is unknown if these sensitive areas will be fully avoided. Without site plans it is unclear whether the proposed units would integrate into the surrounding PAGE 4.A- 32 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

33 After environment and remain hidden from views behind landscaping and topography or whether the units would be located prominently, thereby altering the rural character of the area. Very low-density residential development without roads and other infrastructure would be capable of having a minor, less than significant impact on the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings; however, this cannot be guaranteed due to the lack of site plans, and development guidelines should be implemented to ensure units are appropriately located and designed to maintain the rural character and scenic quality of the area. The Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) will substantially alter the visual character of Bollinger Valley by conducting mass grading to remediate landslides, creating geotechnically stable roads and home sites, excavating stormwater drainage basins, installing large water storage tanks and constructing utility infrastructure. An evaluation of consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies and Design Guidelines related to visual character of the landscape and new residential development is provided below in Tables 4.A-3 and 4.A-4, respectively. There are no single-family residential developments in Bollinger Valley. Existing land uses include agriculture and open space with residential development on minimum 5.0- acre parcels. Existing roads do not meet current access standards and do not have curbs or gutters. Development would improve existing roads or construct new roads to current access standards, which would generally require wider paved sections and curve radii. Upgrading Valley Hill Drive would require removal of approximately 3-5 acres of coast live oak woodlands, including mature native oak trees. This constitutes a significant change to the existing visual character of Bollinger Valley, and mitigation is required. 4.A-1b: Develop, Review, and Approve Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines. Please refer to Impact 4.A-1 above for a description of mitigation measure 4.A-1b. 4.C-1a: Restore Coast Live Oak Woodland Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. Please refer to Section 4.C, Impact 4.C-1 for a description of mitigation measure 4.C-1a. 4.C-1b: Restore Northern Coyote Brush Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. Please refer to Section 4.C, Impact 4.C-1 for a description of mitigation measure 4.C-1b. 4.C-1c: Restore Central Coast Riparian Scrub Habitat at a 2:1 Ratio. Please refer to Section 4.C, Impact 4.C-1 for a description of mitigation measure 4.C-1c. Less than Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The development, review, and approval of Project-specific design guidelines that are consistent with applicable Moraga 2002 General Plan policies and Design Guidelines reduces potential impacts to the visual character of the Project Area and vicinity to less than significant. Implementing Mitigation Measures 4.C1a, -1b, and -1c would reestablish coast live oak woodland, northern coyote brush, and Central Coast riparian scrub habitats such that the visual quality of oak woodlands in Bollinger Valley would be restored in the long-term. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 33

34 Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.A-3. Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no changes to existing land uses or land use designations, and involves no ground disturbing activities or new construction. There would be no impact on light and glare and no mitigation is required. None required. Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Development under Alternative 2 (8 units) would be limited to minor grading to improve existing ranch roads and house pads on minimum 5-acre lots. This alternative would not include mass grading for landslide remediation, water and wastewater utility infrastructure, street lighting, improvements to Valley Hill Road, or the EVA. Construction is expected to substantially avoid impacts to existing landforms, topography, ridgelines, and coast live oak woodlands. Buildout is expected to be similar to existing development in the Project vicinity with narrow, gravel roads and driveways leading to widely spaced (0.05 DUA) individual homes set within geotechnically stable areas in the topographic bowl of Bollinger Valley. Construction impacts to coast live oak woodlands, streams, wetlands, ponds, and riparian habitats are expected to be visually minor. With widely-spaced homes, retained trees, no paved streets or street lighting, and topographic barriers, development under Alternative 2 (8 units) is not expected to have a significant impacts on light and glare; however, without site plans it cannot be guaranteed that individual units will adequately screen lighting in an area that currently produces little to no light or glare, and this impact is potentially significant. Residential development under the Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) would involve substantial new sources of potential light and glare in the Project Area and vicinity. Residential street lights, entrance gate lighting, and lighting and glazing on individual homes could result in substantial new sources of light and glare and adverse impacts to nighttime views in the Project Area and vicinity. An evaluation of consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies and Moraga Design Guidelines related to new sources of light and glare and impacts on nighttime views is provided in Tables 4.A-3 and 4.A-4, respectively. Impacts to light and glare are considered a significant impact and mitigation is required. 4.A-1b: Develop, Review, and Approve Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines. Please refer to Impact 4.A-1 above for a description of mitigation measure 4.A-1b. 4.A-3: Light and Glare Minimization. The Project Applicant shall prepare a lighting plan within the Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines that would be reviewed and approved by the Town. The plan shall outline the extent of illumination that would be projected from proposed outdoor lighting and include lighting guidelines to increase lighting efficiency while preventing light spillage. To further minimize light and glare disturbance, the Project Applicant shall incorporate the following into the Design Guidelines Lighting Plan: Utilize lighting that relates to the scale and design of the structure, with intensities just high enough to maintain safety. PAGE 4.A- 34 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

35 Intermix large canopy trees with structures to reduce glare. Ensure all exterior structural coatings and materials are low reflectance, including roofing materials. Ensure exterior structural colors are low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The Town shall review and approve the lighting plan within the Bollinger Valley Design Guidelines and shall not approve the vesting tentative map or record the final map until making a determination that implementing the Project-specific design guidelines would result in consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies related to the visual character of new residential development, the Town s Design Guidelines, and MMC Scenic Corridors. The Project Applicant shall implement the lighting plan approved by the Town. After Less than Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The integration of measures to minimize potential adverse effects associated with light and glare in the Project design guidelines ensures consistency with Moraga 2002 General Plan policies and Town Design Guidelines related to light and glare and would reduce impacts to less than significant. 4.A-4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Aesthetics and Visual Resources Chapter sections 4.A-1 and 4.A-2 identify several potential impacts to scenic vistas and the visual character of the area. When considered with other planned, proposed, or approved development projects in Moraga (Palos Colorados, Rancho Laguna, MCSP, Rheem Valley Estates, Hetfield Estates), the Project would reduce the rural character of the Town. Development in Bollinger Valley would contribute to the overall urbanization of Moraga, reducing undeveloped in-fill areas and altering the natural aesthetic values of undeveloped parcels. Impacts can be reduced through careful landscaping, setbacks, lighting restrictions, contour grading, structural blending, and other measures identified in the Town s Design Guidelines; however, the changes associated with the Project (126 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units), in combination with other developments in Moraga, would be noticeable, particularly from ridgelines and onto hillsides. New residential developments within areas of natural vegetation and hillsides are in contrast to the semi-rural character of the Town by contributing to general urbanization. The Moraga 2002 General Plan and Design Guidelines include several policies related to visual quality and guidelines for new development to maintain standards for the desired aesthetic resources. The development of Project-specific design guidelines under Mitigation Measure 4.A-1b ensures that the Project will be consistent with community design standards. However, due to the large scale and existing rural aesthetic value of the Project Area, approval of the Project would contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact. 2/18/13 AESTHETICS PAGE 4.A- 35

36 4.A-5 4.A-5.1 PREPARERS Preparers Trevor Burwell, Ph.D., Hauge Brueck Associates 4.A-5.2 Reviewers Christy Consolini, Hauge Brueck Associates Rob Brueck, Hauge Brueck Associates PAGE 4.A- 36 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

37 4.B AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section describes current air quality analyzes potential impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from of the construction and operation of the Bollinger Valley Project and Alternatives. This air quality and GHG analysis was prepared in accordance with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2011). Air quality impacts that would result from the Project include increases in air emissions, particularly ozone and particulate matter during construction, and carbon monoxide during operations. Mitigation measures to address these impacts would include fugitive dust control measures and exhaust minimizing measures during construction, energy saving residential design features, enhanced transit service, and roadway improvements. Impacts in regard to greenhouse gases and compliance with the Clean Air Plan are significant and unavoidable, despite implementation of mitigation measures that would reduce air emissions. 4.B-1 4.B-1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Air Pollution Climatology The Project Area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The quality of the air in a region is determined by several factors, including weather conditions, prevailing climate, topography, and the amount and type of pollutants emitted. Air basins have natural characteristics that limit the ability of natural processes to either dilute or transport air pollutants. The major determinants of transport and dilution are climatic and topographic factors such as wind, atmospheric stability, terrain that influences air movement, and sunshine. Winds and terrain can combine to transport pollutants away from upwind areas, while solar energy can react with pollutants in the air to create secondary, photochemical pollutants such as ozone (O 3 ). Moraga is located in the southwest edge of the Diablo Valley. The Oakland Hills to the west partially block the flow of marine air from the west, giving the area a warmer, less cloudy climate in the summer and cooler temperatures in the winter, compared to cities on San Francisco Bay. As with most interior valleys, winds are generally light, with wind speeds averaging about five miles per hour annually. Pollution potential is relatively high. On winter evenings, light winds combined with surface-based temperature inversions and terrain that restrict airflow can cause pollutant concentrations to increase in valleys. In the summer months, prevailing onshore winds often transport O 3 and O 3 precursors into Moraga from urban Bay Area sources to the west. 4.B-1.2 Air Pollution and Air Quality Standards The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (amended in 1977 and 1990) established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and the 1969 Mulford-Carrol Act and California Clean Air Act (CCAA) established California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for criteria air pollutants (CAPs). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has established NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), O 3 ; nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), suspended respirable particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 microns (PM 10 ), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and lead (Pb). Air quality studies generally focus on the most commonly measured and regulated CAPs: CO, O 3, NO 2, SO 2, and suspended particulates (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). CAPs regulated under the CCAA are similar to those regulated under the FCAA. CAAQS are generally more stringent than NAAQS. State and federal 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 1

38 ambient air quality standards for CAPs, and SFBAAB attainment status, and are shown in Table 4.B-1. CAPs of regulatory concern in the Project Area and vicinity are described below. Table 4.B-1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and SFBAAB Attainment Status Criteria Air Pollutant Ozone (O 3) Carbon monoxide (CO) Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Respirable particulate matter (PM 10 ) Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) Lead (Pb) Averaging Time 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 1-hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour California Standard 0.07 ppm (137 µg/m 3 ) 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m 3 ) 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) 20 ppm (23 mg/m 3 ) 0.30 ppm (57 µg/m 3 ) 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m 3 ) State Attainment Status* N (serious) A A 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m 3 ) National Standard Primary ppm (147µg/m 3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) 35 ppm (40 mg/m 3 ) ppm (100 µg/m 3 ) A A 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m 3 ) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m 3 ) 3-hour 1-hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m 3 ) 20 µg/m 3 N Secondary Same as primary Same as primary Federal Attainment Status** N U/A U/A Same as primary Same as primary U/A A A 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m 3 ) A Same as primary 24-hour 50 µg/m 3 N 150 µg/m 3 Same as primary U Annual Arithmetic 12 µg/m 3 3 Same as N 15 µg/m primary Mean U 3 Same as 24-hour 35 µg/m primary N Calendar 1.5 µg/m 3 Same as quarter primary 30-day 1.5 µg/m 3 A A U Source: BAAQMD *State Attainment Status: Unclassified (U): data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment. Attainment (A): the State standard for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a 3-year period. Nonattainment (N): at least one violation of a standard for that pollutant in the area. **National Attainment Status: Nonattainment (N): does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. Attainment (A): meets the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. Unclassifiable (U): cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. PAGE 4.B- 2 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

39 4.B-1.3 Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs) Carbon Monoxide. A colorless and odorless gas, CO interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. It can cause dizziness and fatigue, and can impair central nervous system functions. CO is emitted almost exclusively from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Automobile exhaust and residential wood burning in fireplaces and woodstoves are the main sources of CO emissions in the SFBAAB. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly, therefore ambient CO concentrations generally follow spatial and temporal distributions of vehicle traffic. The highest CO concentrations measured in the SFBAAB are typically recorded during the winter when atmospheric emissions prevent dissipation of emissions from vehicles and wood burning from localized areas. Ozone. A colorless toxic gas, O 3 is the chief component of urban smog. O 3 enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of oxygen, depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. O 3 also damages vegetation by inhibiting growth. Not directly emitted, O 3 forms in the atmosphere through a chemical reaction between reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) with sunlight. ROG and NO x are primarily emitted from automobiles and industrial sources. O 3 is present in relatively high concentrations in portions of the SFBAAB. Highest O 3 concentrations occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Nitrogen Dioxide. Reddish-brown gas, NO 2 irritates the lungs, and can cause breathing difficulties at high concentrations. Like O 3, NO 2 is not directly emitted, but is formed through a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO 2 are collectively referred to as NO x and are major contributors to O 3 formation. NO 2 also contributes to the formation of PM 10 (see below). Levels of NO 2 in the SFBAAB are relatively low. Sulfur Oxides. Sulfur oxides, primarily SO 2, are a product of high-sulfur fuel combustion. The main sources of SO 2 are coal and oil used for industrial chemical manufacturing and electricity generation in power stations. SO 2 irritates the throat and lungs, and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. Due to a lack of high-sulfur coal and oil sources in California, SO 2 is found at low concentrations in the SFBAAB. Suspended Particulate Matter. Suspended particulate matter (PM) consists of very small liquid and solid particles suspended in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. PM also forms when gases emitted from industry and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Respirable PM 10 is less than 10 microns in diameter, about one/seventh the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM 10 include motor vehicles, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture, wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, windblown dust from open lands, and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM 2.5 is 2.5 microns or less in diameter, and results primarily from diesel fuel combustion (from motor vehicles, power generation, industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. PM 2.5 is formed in the atmosphere from gases such as SO 2, NO x, and volatile organic compounds. PM 10 and PM 2.5 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM 10 and PM 2.5 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body s ability to fight infections. Whereas larger particles tend to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM 2.5 is small enough to penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 3

40 4.B-1.4 Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the CAPs listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and emission sources include industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter and benzene near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Statewide average). Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program (CARB 2005). California adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program. The US EPA adopted low sulfur diesel fuel standards that reduce diesel particulate matter substantially. In cooler weather, smoke from residential wood combustion can be an important source of TACs. Localized high TAC concentrations can result when temperature inversions occur during calm atmospheric conditions in the winter, trapping smoke near the ground that can persist for many hours, especially in valleys. Wood smoke is also a substantial source of PM 10 and PM 2.5. Wood smoke is an irritant and is implicated in worsening asthma and other chronic lung problems. CARB data indicate that the cancer health risk from TACs in Moraga is less than 500 chances per million, while the risk in urbanized areas in the SFBAAB exceeds 1,000 chances per million. This risk is expected to decrease substantially in the future due as emission sources are reduced through regulation (CARB 2005). 4.B-1.5 Air Pollution Potential The clear skies with relatively warm conditions that are typical in summer combine with localized air pollutant emissions to elevate O 3 levels. Air quality standards for O 3 are typically exceeded when relatively stagnant conditions occur for periods of several days during the warmer months of the year. Weak wind flow patterns combined with strong inversions substantially reduce atmospheric mixing. Key components of ground-level O 3 formation are sunlight and heat; therefore, substantial O 3 formation occurs during the months from late spring through early fall. Air pollution potential in the Project Area is not as high as other parts of the SFBAAB because winds generally do not transport enough of the precursor pollutants into the area. The highest concentrations occur at monitoring stations in the eastern and southern portions of the SFBAAB that are downwind of the major urban areas. 4.B-1.6 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are people who are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of air pollution, including: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. NAAQS and CAAQS were developed with the intent to protect sensitive receptors from the adverse impacts of air pollution. PAGE 4.B- 4 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

41 4.B-1.7 Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming The burning of carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood and removal of vegetation increases the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. GHGs retain heat in the atmosphere and contribute to increases in atmospheric temperatures and climate change. Eleven of the 12 years before 2006 are among the 12 warmest years on record (since 1850), with the warmest two years being 1998 and Other aspects of climate change associated with global warming are expected to include changes in the temporal and spatial patterns of precipitation, reduced snowfall, reduced snow and ice cover, reduced stream base flow, and sea level rise. If GHG emissions continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase 3.2ºF to 7.2ºF (or higher) above 1990 levels by the year Less well known and more difficult to predict, however, are potential changes to temperature and precipitation patterns in any specific location. The primary GHG is carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Several atmospheric gases, such as methane (CH 4 ) are considered GHGs and have varying levels of global warming potential in terms of their contribution to climate change. For example, one molecule of CH 4 is approximately 23 times more effective at causing the greenhouse effect as CO 2. For regulatory purposes and for the impact analysis in this EIR, CO 2 is considered along with other GHGs and standardized into carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO 2 e) on their potential contribution to global climate change. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions California GHG emissions, expressed as CO 2 e emissions, were approximately 549 million tons in One metric ton is the equivalent of 2,200 pounds and one U.S. ton (short ton) is 2,000 pounds, resulting in a conversion of million metric tons to 549 million tons. Over 87% of GHG emissions in California occur from energy production and consumption, with electricity generation comprising 20% (100 million metric tons) and road transportation comprising 33% (167 million metric tons) (BAAQMD 2011). Table 4.B-2 provides estimates of 2004 California GHG emissions by sector. Table 4.B-2 California 2004 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Category CO 2 e (million metric tons) % of Total Emissions Energy Total % Energy - Electricity Generation % Energy - Road Transportation % Energy - All Other % Industrial Processes and Product Use % Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use % Waste Total % Waste Solid Waste Disposal % Waste - Wastewater Treatment and Discharge % Total (gross) % Sinks and Sequestrations % Total (net) Source: California Air Resources Board /18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 5

42 Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration refers to the storage of carbon, primarily in vegetation and soil that accumulates through photosynthesis. Atmospheric CO 2 is taken up through leaves and becomes carbon in the biomass of vegetation. Approximately half of vegetation mass (biomass) is carbon. When vegetation dies and decays, some of this carbon makes its way into soils; however, carbon (in the form of CO 2 ) can return to the atmosphere when biomass decays, burns, or is tilled up for agriculture. Vegetation and agricultural soils can both sequester and release CO 2 and the net effect is dependent upon site-specific circumstances. The term sinks is used to refer to forests, croplands, and grazing lands, and their ability to sequester carbon. A carbon sink occurs when carbon sequestration is greater than carbon releases. Carbon sequestration rates vary by tree species, soil type, regional climate, topography, and land management practice. Carbon can be sequestered in forests/woodlands over decades or centuries, until mature ecosystems reach a stage of carbon saturation. As natural decay or other events such as fire or harvesting occur, carbon is released back to the atmosphere as CO 2. Carbon from forests can be stored in wood products like furniture and housing lumber, but much of the carbon in wood products eventually decays and is released to the atmosphere as CO 2. In terms of its global warming impact, one unit of CO 2 emission has the same effect regardless of the emission source. Likewise, CO 2 removed from the atmosphere through tree planting can have the same benefit as reducing an equivalent amount of CO 2 released from a power plant. The climate benefits of sequestration practices can be partially or completely reversed because terrestrial carbon can be released back to the atmosphere through decay or disturbances. Vegetation that sequesters carbon is subject to natural disturbances and harvests, which could release carbon back to the atmosphere. If carbon sequestration practices in agriculture, such as reduced tillage, are abandoned or interrupted, accumulated carbon can be quickly released. Some sequestration practices, like tree planting and improved soil management, reach a point where additional carbon accumulation is no longer possible. For example, forests generally do not sequester additional carbon after trees have reached mature sizes, and mature trees would need to be sustained to maintain the level of accumulated carbon (CARB 2005). Project Area Electricity Supply and Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions and sequestration inventories are not available specifically for Contra Costa County, Moraga, or the Project Area. Considering Statewide emissions and percentages in Table 4.B-2, it is expected that the largest sources of GHG emissions in the Project Area and vicinity are exhaust from transportation sources (trucks, trains, ships, and personal automobile use), electricity consumption, and livestock grazing. Electricity is supplied to the Project Area by Pacific Gas & Electric Co (PG&E.) The CO 2 emissions rate of PG&E-owned electric generation in 2005 was 44 pounds per megawatt-hour (lbs/mwh), while the independently certified CO 2 emissions rate associated with the power sold by PG&E to its customers was 489 lbs/mwh (PG&E 2007). The national average was 1,363 lbs/mwh, and the California average was 879 lbs/mwh (PG&E 2007). Moraga contains approximately 9.5 square miles of land area (6,080 acres), with about half of the Town s land area in residential use. Open Space use is the next largest land use at approximately 34% of the Town s land area. The Town s 110 acres (2%) of commercial land uses are clustered PAGE 4.B- 6 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

43 around two intersections: Rheem Boulevard/Moraga Road and Moraga Way/Moraga Road. Institutional land uses, including St. Mary s College and Moraga School District properties, cover 495 acres (8% of the Town) (Moraga 2000 General Plan Update EIR 2000). Transportation, energy use, and other activities associated with existing and planned commercial and residential uses result in GHG emissions typical of suburban community activities. Vegetation cover in Moraga s open space creates a continuous cycle of CO 2 uptake and release with the growth and decay of plant material. It is assumed that the cycle of CO 2 uptake and release is balanced with a limited, if any, net absorption of CO 2 in woodland, chaparral, and riparian habitats in Moraga. Livestock grazing on grasslands likely results in net generation of CO 2 and other GHGs such as CH 4. 4.B-1.7 Air Monitoring Data The nearest monitoring station to Moraga to measure CAPs is Concord. Table 4.B-3 shows measured pollutant levels at the Concord monitoring station for the period For the entire San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, the one-hour O 3 CAAQS was exceeded an average of 4-18 days and the 8-hour standard was exceeded 9-22 days annually. The O 3 NAAQS was exceeded on 1-12 days annually. The PM 10 CAAQS was exceeded 1-15 days, and the PM 2.5 NAAQS was exceeded days annually. Ambient air quality has generally improved in the SFBAAB over the last decade according to monitoring data. This is due to ongoing reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of emissions control measures on mobile and stationary sources. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 7

44 Pollutant Average Time Table 4.B-3 Air Pollutant Monitoring Data Measured Air Pollutant Levels (highest/average) Concord (closest ambient air quality monitoring station to Moraga) O 3 CO NO 2 PM 2.5 PM 10 1-Hour ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm 8-Hour ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm 1-Hour 1.7 ppm 2.2 ppm 1.6 ppm 1.8 ppm 1.2 ppm 8-Hour 1.3 ppm 1.4 ppm 1.1 ppm 1.1 ppm n/a 1-Hour ppm ppm ppm ppm n/a Annual ppm ppm ppm ppm n/a 24-Hour 62.1 µg/m µg/m µg/m µg/m µg/m 3 Annual 9.3 µg/m µg/m µg/m µg/m µg/m 3 24-Hour 81 µg/m 3 52 µg/m 3 51 µg/m µg/m µg/m 3 Annual 18.5 µg/m µg/m µg/m µg/m µg/m 3 Bay Area (Basin Ambient Air Quality Summary) Total Days Over Standard O 3 CO NO 2 PM 2.5 PM 10 California 1-Hour California 8-Hour Nat/Cal Standard Nat/Cal Standard National Standard California Standard n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sources: BAAQMD 2012 and California Air Resources Board Notes: ppm = parts per million; n/a = data not available 4.B-2 4.B-2.1 REGULATORY SETTING Federal The US EPA administers the federal CAA and is responsible for establishing NAAQS. The US EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside State waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in States other than California. PAGE 4.B- 8 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

45 4.B-2.2 State of California The CCAA establishes air quality standards and regulations more stringent than national standards. CARB, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for meeting the State requirements of the federal CAA, administering the CCAA, establishing CAAQS, and monitoring air quality. The CCAA requires air districts to endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS, including standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles, and sets emission standards for vehicles, consumer products, and certain off-road equipment sold in California. CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts (APCDs) and air quality management districts (AQMDs), which administer air quality activities at regional and county levels. 4.B-2.3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for attaining CAAQS and NAAQS in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD adopts and enforces rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, permits and inspects stationary sources of air pollutants, responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awards grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducts public education campaigns. BAAQMD has developed thresholds of significance specifically for local plans and project-level CEQA compliance. Local plans must be consistent with regional air quality plans and criteria in the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP) (BAAQMD 2011). BAAQMD does not have authority to regulate emissions from motor vehicles. 4.B-2.4 Town of Moraga Goals, Objectives and Policies Moraga s 2002 General Plan has several policies addressing air quality under Goal OS4 Air Quality: Preservation and maintenance of air quality. These policies, and an evaluation of Project consistency with policies related to air quality, are provided in Table 4.B-8 below. 4.B-2.5 Attainment Status for CAAQS and NAAQS BAAQMD is in non-attainment status of NAAQS and CAAQS for O 3 and PM 2.5. Under the federal CAA, the US EPA has designated BAAQMD as in marginally non-attainment for the 8-hour O 3 standard, and required BAAQMD to adopt a plan that to bring it into attainment. The US EPA lists the BAAQMD as in attainment for CO and is unclassified (i.e., likely meets the NAAQS) for other air pollutants, which include PM 10 and PM 2.5. BAAQMD is in serious non-attainment for O 3 and non-attainment for PM 10 based on CAAQS. The State requires the BAAQMD to adopt plans on a triennial basis that show progress towards meeting the State O 3 standard. The area is considered attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. 4.B-2.6 Regional Air Quality Planning The Project is located in the SFBAAB, which is a State and federal non-attainment area for O 3 and a State non-attainment area for PM 10. The BAAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the ABAG, is updated the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy in its adopted 2010 CAP. The CAP serves to update the Bay Area O 3 plan in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. In summary, the CAP: Updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2005) in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement all feasible measures to reduce 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 9

46 ozone; Provides a control strategy to reduce O 3, PM, air toxics, and GHGs 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 timeframe. The CAP sets forth policies for achieving compliance with the State 1-hour O 3 standard as expeditiously as practicable and how the region will reduce transport of O 3 and O 3 precursors to neighboring air basins. Although the CCAA does not require the region to submit a plan for achieving the State PM 10 standard, the CAP is expected to contribute towards reducing PM 10 especially those associated with vehicle exhaust. The CAP contains mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures (TCMs), and voluntary programs (such as Spare the Air) to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal O 3 standards. The plans are based on population and employment projections provided by local governments, usually developed as part of the General Plan update process. Some programs rely on local governments for implementation. A key element in air quality planning is to make reasonably accurate projections of future human activities that are related to air pollutant emissions. Most important is vehicle activity. BAAQMD uses population projections made by ABAG and vehicle use trends made by the MTC to formulate future air pollutant emission inventories. The basis for these projections comes from cities and counties. To provide the best plan to reduce air pollution in the SFBAAB, accurate projections from local governments are necessary. When General Plans are not consistent with these projections, they cumulatively reduce the effectiveness of air quality planning in the region. The BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for construction and operation-related emissions to determine the significance of project-related impacts in CEQA documents (BAAQMD 2011). These guidelines are used in this EIR to establish levels of significance, and are shown in Table 4.B-4. Tables 4.B-5 and 4.B-6, below, provide impact evaluation criteria used in this EIR. Pollutant Table 4.B-4 BAAQMD Project-Level CEQA Thresholds of Significance Construction emissions (lbs./day) Average daily emissions (lbs./day) Operation Emissions Maximum annual emissions (tons/year) ROG NO x PM 10 Exhaust Related 82* PM 2.5 Exhaust Related 54* PM 10 - PM 2.5 (as fugitive dust) Apply BMPs - - CO - Local Concentrations ppm (8-hour avg.), 20.0 ppm (1-hour avg.) GHGs Mobile Sources - Qualified Climate Action Plan compliance, or 1,213 tons of CO 2 e/year GHGs Stationary Sources - 11,023 tons of CO 2 e/year Source: BAAQMD Notes: *Applies to vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions only. CO 2e = CO 2 or CO 2 equivalent PAGE 4.B- 10 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

47 4.B-2.7 Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change Federal and State GHG regulations are summarized in Table 4.B-5. Table 4.B-5 Greenhouse Gas Regulations Summary Regulation Federal GHG Regulations Summary The US EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs under the federal CAA and has taken actions to regulate, monitor, and potentially reduce GHG emissions. On September 22, 2009, US EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large emission sources. On April 23, 2009, the US EPA published the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the CCA (Endangerment Finding) in the Federal Register, which directs the US EPA to regulate and develop standards for emission[s] of air pollution from any class of classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. The US EPA proposed the finding that atmospheric concentrations of GHGs endanger the public health and welfare within the meaning of federal CCA 202(a). The US EPA also proposed the finding that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines are contributing to air pollution, which is endangering public health and welfare. State GHG Regulations Assembly Bill 1493 (2002) Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008) AB 1493 required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State. To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding GHG emissions standards to California s existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. AB 32 requires the reduction of Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, an approximately 15% reduction compared to existing Statewide GHG emission levels or a 30% reduction from projected 2020 business as usual emission levels. The required reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable Statewide cap on GHG emissions beginning in In December 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce 169 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2 e, or some 30% below the projected 2020 emission level of 596 MMT of CO 2 e under a businessas-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMT CO 2 e, or almost 10%, from average emissions). 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 11

48 Table 4.B-5 Greenhouse Gas Regulations Summary BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Regulation Senate Bills 1078 and 107 and Executive Order S Senate Bill 1368 (2006) Senate Bill 97 (2007) Senate Bill 375 (2008) Executive Order S-3-05 (2005) Executive Order S (2008) Executive Order S-1-07 (2007) Summary SB 1078 requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20% of their supply from renewable sources by SB 107 changed the target date to Executive Order S expands the State s Renewable Energy Standard to 33% renewable power by SB 1368 required the CPUC and California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish GHG emission standards for baseload generation from investor owned utilities and local publicly owned utilities. The legislation further requires that electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet the standards set by the PUC and CEC. SB 97 acknowledges climate change is a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. SB 97 directed the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare guidelines for mitigating GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning, GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. As part of the alignment, SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), which prescribes land use allocation in that MPO s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SB 375 extends the minimum time for the RHNA cycle from 5 years to 8 years for local governments located in an MPO that meets certain requirements. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed California vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and established targets for GHG emissions that include reducing GHG emissions to the 2000 level by 2010, to the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80% below the 1990 level by EO S directed California to develop methods for adapting to climate change through preparation of a Statewide plan, including land use planning guidance related to sea level rise and other climate change impacts by May 30, 2009, a State Climate Adaptation Strategy by June 30, 2009, and to convene an independent panel to complete the first California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report. EO S-1-07 established a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by a minimum of 10% by EO S-1-07 established a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the CalEPA to develop and propose protocols for measuring the life-cycle carbon intensity of transportation fuels. PAGE 4.B- 12 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

49 BAAQMD Regulation Table 4.B-5 Greenhouse Gas Regulations Summary BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Summary The BAAQMD established a climate protection program to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the SFBAAB. The climate protection program includes measures that promote energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and develop alternative sources of energy all of which assist in reducing emissions of GHG and in reducing air pollutants that affect the health of residents. 4.B-2.7 Evaluation Criteria Table 4.B-7 presents evaluation criteria and points of significance used for analysis of air quality impacts. The criteria are based on CEQA Guidelines. Table 4.B-6 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance Evaluation Criteria 4.B-1. Will the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 4.B-2. Will the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Clean Air Plan? 4.B-3. Is the Project consistent with the Clean Air Plan population and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assumptions and Transportation Control Plans (TCMs)? 4.B-4. Will the Project result in a substantial net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality As Measured by Project-related emissions Consistency with air quality plan Project related population growth and VMT increase. Project-related emissions for each criteria pollutant in lbs./day and tons/year Point of Significance Exceedence of NAAQS, CAAQS, or BAAQMD Air Quality Standard Non-conformance with BAAQMD Clean Air Plan Non-conformance with BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and VMT; Exceedence of population growth projections in CAP and if VMT growth is greater than population growth rate More than 54 lbs./day or 10 tons/year ROG or NO x emissions; lack of fugitive dust BMPs, more than 84 Justification CEQA Checklist III(b); EPA, CARB emission standards; Moraga General Plan Policy OS4.2, BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines CEQA Checklist III(a); CAP; Moraga General Plan Policies OS4.1 OS4.9; OS5.1 OS5.3, BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and 2011 CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Checklist III(a); BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Checklist III(c); BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines; Moraga General Plan Policy OS4.2. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 13

50 Table 4.B-6 Evaluation Criteria with Points of Significance BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation Criteria standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? As Measured by Justification 4.B-5. Will the Project result in a significant impact to local air quality? 4.B-6. Does the Project provide buffer zones around existing and proposed land uses that emit odors and/or toxic air contaminants? 4.B-7. Will the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 4.B-8. Will the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions? CO concentration at closest sensitive receptor Buffer zone sizes Estimated GHG emissions and Project elements constituting feasible GHG reduction strategies. Estimated GHG emissions and Project elements constituting feasible GHG reduction strategies. Point of Significance lbs./day or 15 tons/year of PM 10, more than 54 lbs./day or 10 tons/year of PM 2.5 CO concentrations greater than 9.0 ppm (8-hour avg.), 20.0 ppm (1-hour avg.) Lack of adequate buffer zones to avoid odor/toxics impacts Noncompliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan or more than 1,213/11,023 tons of CO 2 e/year from mobile/ stationary sources Noncompliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan or more than 1,213/11,023 tons of CO 2 e/year from mobile/ stationary sources CEQA Checklist III(d); BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines; Moraga General Plan Policies CEQA Checklist III(d-e); BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Checklist VII(a); AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act), BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Checklist VII(b); AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act), BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines. 4.B-2.8 Methods URBEMIS-2007 Version 9.2.4, a computer model endorsed by the BAAQMD, was used to estimate emissions from the construction and operation of the Project and Alternatives. URBEMIS-2007 contains default values for much of the information needed to calculate emission estimates, but project-specific, user-supplied information can be applied when available. The model combines proposed land use development scenarios with vehicle emissions factors developed by the CARB EMFAC2007 motor vehicle emissions model. Major sources of construction related emissions include fugitive dust from grading operations and exhaust from construction vehicles and equipment. Major sources of operationrelated emissions would be from household energy consumption and exhaust from new vehicle trips (VMTs and average daily trips [ADTs]) and landscape maintenance equipment. Household energy consumption would generate local emissions from natural gas and wood burning appliances, as well as emissions at distant sources for electricity generation from fossil fuel power plants. Based on the existing CDP, the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) are considered to have substantively similar amounts of grading acreage (e.g., acres) for generating construction-related emissions. Operation-related emissions in terms of energy consumption and new vehicle trips are also expected to be substantively similar. While Alternative 4 (100 units) and PAGE 4.B- 14 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

51 Alternative 5 (121 units) would generate mathematically smaller emissions based on model outputs, the scale of the construction and operation of the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) are expected to result in quantitatively similar impacts on air quality, and are therefore analyzed together. 4.B-3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 4.B-6 presents potential air quality impacts, outlines points of significance, level and type of impact, and ranks the level of significance for the Project and Alternatives. Table 4.B-7 Air Quality Impacts All Alternatives Impact 4.B-1. Will the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 4.B-2. Will the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Clean Air Plan? 4.B-3. Is the Project consistent with the Clean Air Plan population and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assumptions and Transportation Control Plans (TCMs)? 4.B-4. Will the Project result in a substantial net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4.B-5. Will the Project result in a significant impact to local air quality? Point of Significance Exceedence of Federal, State, or BAAQMD Air Quality Standard Non-conformance with air quality plan Non-conformance with CAP and VMT; Exceedence of population growth projections in CAP and if VMT growth is greater than population growth rate More than 54 lbs./day or 10 tons/year ROG or NO x emissions; lack of fugitive dust BMPs, more than 84 lbs./day or 15 tons/year of PM 10, more than 54 lbs./day or 10 tons/year of PM 2.5 CO concentrations greater than 9.0 ppm (8-hour avg.), 20.0 ppm (1-hour avg.) Type of Impact 1 Level of Significance 2 C, P Project (126 units) Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) Alternative 5 (121 units) C, P Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l P Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l C, P Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) l Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l C, P Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) l Alternative 3 (37 units) l Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 15

52 Impact 4.B-6. Does the Project provide buffer zones around existing and proposed land uses that emit odors and/or toxic air contaminants? 4.B-7. Will the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 4.B-8. Will the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions? Table 4.B-7 Air Quality Impacts All Alternatives Point of Significance Lack of adequate buffer zones to avoid odor/toxics impacts Noncompliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan or more than 1,213/11,023 tons of CO 2 e/year from mobile/stationary sources Noncompliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan or more than 1,213/11,023 tons of CO 2 e/year from mobile/stationary sources BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Type of Impact 1 Level of Significance 2 C, P Project (126 units) Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) Alternative 5 (121 units) C, P Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l C, P Project (126 units) l Alternative 1 (No Project) == Alternative 2 (8 units) Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 4 (100 units) l Alternative 5 (121 units) l Notes: 1. Type of Impact: 2. Level of Significance: C Construction/Temporary l Significant impact before and after mitigation P Permanent/Operation Significant impact before mitigation; less than significant impact after mitigation Less than significant impact; no mitigation proposed == No impact Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.B-1. Will the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no construction activities or changes to existing land uses, and will not generate new air pollutant emissions. None required. Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The Project Area is located in the SFBAAB, which is currently in non-attainment status for O 3, PM 2.5, and PM 10. O 3 precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO x ) and PM 10 are pollutants that affect the entire region. Direct and indirect emissions of O 3 precursor pollutants from Project construction and operation could contribute to O 3 formation in downwind areas that currently experience unhealthy O 3 levels. Emissions of PM 10 or pollutants that lead to secondary formation of PM 10 could affect air quality in local and downwind areas. Table 4.B-7 below provides estimates of construction and operation related CAP emissions for which the BAAQMD has significance thresholds. Project construction and operation would generate new sources of SO 2 but potential emission sources of SO 2 are below thresholds of environmental significance and the SFBAAB is not at risk of non- PAGE 4.B- 16 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

53 attainment. CO is a regulatory concern where people are exposed to unhealthy high concentrations in localized settings, such as congested traffic intersections. CO is addressed below under Impact 4.B-5. Construction Impacts Construction activities, mostly grading and paving, would generate temporary PM 2.5 and PM 10 emissions of fugitive dust from wind erosion and disturbance to exposed areas, and construction vehicle exhaust. Vehicle and equipment exhaust would be sources of ROG, NO x, and other O 3 precursors. If uncontrolled, construction emissions could lead to short-term health and nuisance impacts to nearby residential areas in the Project vicinity, and exacerbate violations of existing air quality standards in the SFBAAB. If residences are constructed in separate phases on the Project site, emissions from construction activities could affect sensitive receptors within existing residences in the Project Area. The BAAQMD has identified fugitive dust control BMPs that are normally required to be implemented during ground disturbing activities. These BMPs, when properly implemented, are well-established practices that effectively maintain PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions at less than significant levels. BMPs prevent visible dust clouds from spreading beyond the construction site and affecting nearby residences. Construction equipment emits O 3 precursor pollutants, mainly NO x, and diesel exhaust is a substantial source of PM 2.5 and PM 10. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment could expose existing and future residents to substantial levels of TACs for short periods. Due to the relatively small-scale of the Project, diesel PM 2.5 and PM 10 emissions are expected to be too low to exceed significance thresholds, but exhaust control measures to reduce levels should be implemented during construction to avoid contributing to the existing non-attainment status of the SFBAAB. Other sources of construction emissions, such as asphalt coatings that can emit VOCs and may contain TACs, should be applied in accordance with BAAQMD regulations and guidelines to avoid significant exposures to sensitive receptors. Operation Impacts Operation-related emissions were calculated for buildout of the Project and Alternatives during the summer season, when O 3 levels are highest. Emissions of PM 10 from mobile sources are not affected substantially from season to season. Emissions of PM 10 from stationary sources are higher in the winter season than in summer due to the use of woodburning devices in residential units. The URBEMIS-2007 calculations show that significance thresholds are not expected to be exceeded for ROG, NO x, or PM 10 with construction or operation of the Project (126 units) or Alternatives. Although the emissions are expected to be below the BAAQMD daily and annual emission thresholds, Bollinger Valley is located in an existing nonattainment area, and therefore new emissions exacerbate the non-attainment status and this impact is considered significant. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 17

54 Table 4.B-8 Exhaust Emissions Associated with the Project and Alternatives ROG NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Construction (lbs./day) Project (126 units) and Alternatives 4 and Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 2 (8 units) BAAQMD Threshold Operation (lbs./day) Project (126 units) and Alternatives 4 and Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 2 (8 units) BAAQMD Threshold Operation (tons/year) Project (126 units) and Alternatives 4 and Alternative 3 (37 Units) Alternative 2 (8 units) BAAQMD Threshold Source: URBEMIS B-1: Reduce Dust Generation and Diesel Exhaust During Construction. Standard air pollution reduction measures shall be adopted by the Project Applicant and incorporated into Grading Plan contractor specifications. The Project Applicant shall include dust control BMPs in the PDP based on the most recent guidelines from the BAAQMD. The Town shall verify that appropriate air pollution reduction strategies have been incorporated into the Project grading and construction plans prior to issuing a Grading Permit. The Project Applicant is responsible for ensuring that the contractor reduces fugitive dust, PM 10, PM 2.5, ROG, NO x, and CO emissions by complying with BAAQMD air pollution control strategies. Theses strategies are expected to include, but are not limited to, the following based on the BAAQMD guidelines: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Measures Cover trucks hauling construction and demolition debris. Water on a continuous as-needed basis all earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earthmoving, and other site preparation activities. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or breakup of pavement. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on unpaved parking areas and staging areas. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) paved and staging areas. Provide daily clean up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets. PAGE 4.B- 18 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

55 Renovation, demolition activities, removal, or disturbance of any materials that contain asbestos, lead paint, or other hazardous pollutants will be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. Properly maintain construction equipment. For construction sites near sensitive receptors (e.g., adjacent existing residential areas or occupied homes from a previous Project phase): Install wheel washers for exiting trucks or wash off the tires or tracks of trucks and equipment leaving the site. Suspend dust-producing activities when instantaneous gusts exceed 25 mph when dust control measures are unable to avoid visible dust plumes. Minimize areas of the Project site subject to excavation, grading, and other construction or demolition activity at any one time. For sites greater than four (4) acres: Apply soil stabilizers to previously graded areas inactive for more than 10 days or cover or seed these areas. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Construction Exhaust Mitigation Measures Potential impacts from TAC emissions from construction equipment and operations will be reduced with compliance with the BAAQMD air pollution control strategies. Contractors shall be required to post signs of possible health risk during construction. The Project Applicant is responsible for compliance with the BAAQMD rule regarding cutback and emulsified asphalt paving materials. Construction contractors will implement a plan to use newer construction equipment, manufactured during or after 1996, that meets the NO x emissions standard of 6.9 grams per brake-horsepower hour for work conducted within 200 feet of residences. After Less than Significant; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The BMPs listed above are consistent with those prescribed by the BAAQMD to ensure the impact is reduced to less than significant. The Town shall verify that appropriate air pollution reduction strategies are incorporated into the Project before issuing a Grading Permit. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 19

56 Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.B-2. Will the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Clean Air Plan? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no construction activities or changes to existing land uses, and will not generate new air pollutant emissions. None required. Less Than Significant Impact; Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) are considered consistent with Moraga 2002 General Plan Policies applicable to air quality and GHGs (Table 4.B-8). Consistency with the Clean Air Plan is assessed by the following tests: The Project incorporates measures consistent with TCMs in the BAAQMD 2010 CAP. The Project includes adequate buffers to avoid impacts of TACs and odors to sensitive receptors. These buffers include separating potential sources of air contaminants or odors from residential land uses in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. The population and vehicle use projections would not exceed those assumed when developing the BAAQMD 2010 CAP (see also the discussion in Section 4.B-4 Cumulative Impacts). TCMs are included in clean air planning efforts implemented by local governments. The latest adopted TCMs are described in the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2011). Existing major sources of TACs are not located near the Project and are not expected to result in significant health risks for new residences. The closest existing large sources of TACs are freeways such as I-580, I-680, SR 13, and SR 24. The closest freeway, SR 24, is five miles from the Project Area. Concentrations of exhaust emissions from roadways are expected to be sufficiently dispersed before reaching the Project Area such that no adverse health effects are expected. There are no existing sources of odors that would affect residential areas of Bollinger Valley. Odors are required by the BAAQMD to remain onsite. Residential land uses in Bollinger Valley are not expected to generate new odors or similar nuisances in the Project Area or vicinity. In the event that odor complaints are received by the BAAQMD from outside sources, the agency will investigate and require odor abatement, if necessary under the provisions of BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. The population and associated vehicle use projections for Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) are within the assumptions in the BAAQMD 2010 CAP. The number of dwellings and associated population would be within the build-out assumptions of the Moraga 2002 General Plan, which identifies the Project Area as Study Area, and would be within the population and unit assumptions in the 2010 CAP, which utilizes 2002 and 2007 ABAG projections. Since these assumptions would not be exceeded, the impact would be less than significant. None required. PAGE 4.B- 20 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

57 Analysis: Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The Bollinger Valley Project is considered consistent with Moraga 2002 General Plan Policies applicable to air quality and GHGs (Table 4.B-8). Consistency of the Bollinger Valley Project with the Clean Air Plan is assessed by the following tests: The Project incorporates measures consistent with TCMs in the BAAQMD 2010 CAP. The Project includes adequate buffers to avoid impacts of TACs and odors to sensitive receptors. These buffers include separating potential sources of air contaminants or odors from residential land uses in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. The population and vehicle use projections would not exceed those assumed when developing the BAAQMD 2010 CAP (see also the discussion in Section 4.B-4 Cumulative Impacts). After TCMs are included in clean air planning efforts implemented by local governments. The latest adopted TCMs are described in the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2011). Existing major sources of TACs are not located near the Project and are not expected to result in significant health risks for new residences. The closest existing large sources of TACs are freeways such as I-580, I-680, SR 13, and SR 24. The closest freeway, SR 24, is five miles from the Project Area. Concentrations of exhaust emissions from roadways are expected to be sufficiently dispersed before reaching the Project Area such that no adverse health effects are expected. There are no existing sources of odors that would affect residential areas of Bollinger Valley. Odors are required by the BAAQMD to remain onsite. Residential land uses in Bollinger Valley are not expected to generate new odors or similar nuisances in the Project Area or vicinity. In the event that odor complaints are received by the BAAQMD from outside sources, the agency will investigate and require odor abatement, if necessary under the provisions of BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. However, the population and associated vehicle use projections for the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) would exceed the projections assumed in the BAAQMD 2010 CAP. The number of dwellings and associated population would exceed the build-out assumptions of the Moraga 2002 General Plan, which identifies the Project Area as Study Area, and would exceed the population and unit assumptions in the 2010 CAP, which utilizes 2002 and 2007 ABAG projections. Since these assumptions would be exceeded, the impact would be significant. None available. Significant and Unavoidable; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) No mitigation is available that would reduce this impact to less than significant and this impact remains significant and unavoidable for the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 21

58 Table 4.B-9 Evaluation of Consistency with 2002 General Plan Policies Applicable to Air Quality and GHGs Applicable General Plan Policy OS4.1 Development Design. Conserve air quality and minimize direct and indirect emissions of air contaminants through the design and construction of new development. For example, direct emissions may be reduced through energy conserving construction that minimizes space heating, while indirect emissions may be reduced through uses and development patterns that reduce motor vehicle trips generated by the project. OS4.2 Development Approval and Mitigation. Prohibit development projects which, separately or cumulatively with other projects, would cause air quality standards to be exceeded or would have significant adverse air quality effects through direct and/or indirect emissions. Such projects may only be approved if, after consulting with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Town Council explicitly finds that the project incorporates feasible mitigation measures or that there are overriding reasons for approving the project. OS4.3 Development Setbacks. Provide setbacks along high intensity use roadways to reduce resident exposure to air pollutants. OS4.4 Landscaping to Reduce Air Quality Impacts. Encourage the use of vegetative buffers along roads to assist in pollutant dispersion. OS4.5 Alternate Transportation Modes. Encourage transportation modes that minimize motor vehicle use and the resulting contaminant emissions. Alternate modes to be encouraged include public transit, ridesharing, combined motor vehicle trips to work and the use of bicycles and walking. OS4.6 New Transportation Technologies. Encourage use of new transportation technologies such as alternative fuel vehicles that may provide environmental benefits such as reduced air pollution, lower energy consumption, and less noise. Project Consistency Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new development and no new sources of air emissions. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). The Town will approve the PDP to ensure consistency, such as energy conserving and emission reducing appliances, passive and active solar designs, insulation, and Build It Green guidelines to reduce GHG emissions prior to the Town issuing Building Permits. The application of BAAQMD BMPs for reducing construction-related exhaust and fugitive dust emissions under Mitigation Measure 4.B-1 maintains consistency with Policy OS4.1. Consistent: Alternative 1 (No Project). Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no new development and no new sources of air emissions. Consistent with Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). Application of BAAQMD BMPs for reducing construction-related exhaust and fugitive dust emissions under Mitigation Measure 4.B-1 maintains consistency with Policy OS4.2. Operation emissions are considered minor due to small number of new vehicle trips and the application of Design Guidelines for energy conservation in new residential construction. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. The Project Area is set back from heavily used roadways and other sources of air pollutants. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. The Project Area is set back from heavily used roadways and other sources of air pollutants. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. New residential construction in the Project Area shall be built compatible with electric vehicle charging stations or other alternative vehicle infrastructure. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. New residential construction in the Project Area shall be built compatible with electric vehicle charging stations or other alternative vehicle infrastructure. PAGE 4.B- 22 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

59 Table 4.B-9 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Evaluation of Consistency with 2002 General Plan Policies Applicable to Air Quality and GHGs Applicable General Plan Policy OS4.7 Trip Reduction Programs. Encourage employers to foster employer-based transportation control measures such as ride-sharing, use of public transportation, bicycling and walking to work. OS4.8 Smoking in Public Areas. Discourage smoking in enclosed public places and work places. OS4.9 Public Information on Air Pollution. Encourage public education programs that demonstrate the benefits of reduced air pollution. OS5.1 Building Standards. Require that all new buildings and additions be in compliance with the energy efficiency standards of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). OS5.2 Energy Conservation Measures. Encourage energy conservation in new construction and through retrofitting of existing buildings, utilizing passive solar design, use of alternative energy systems, solar space and water heating, adequate insulation, and other measures where feasible and cost effective. OS5.3 Trip Reduction. Encourage energy conservation through measures that reduce automobile trips, such as transit supportive development, provisions for pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and promotion of home-based offices and telecommuting. Project Consistency Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Second units in the Project Area are expected to provide increased work at home opportunities, or local workforce or student housing, to reduce vehicle commuting. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. The Project Area contains no enclosed public places or work places. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. This EIR provides information to the public on measures to reduce air pollution associated with new residential development. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. The Town will approve the PDP to ensure compliance with Policy OS5.1 and prepare building and landscaping plans for review and approval by Moraga s Design Review Board prior to the Town issuing Building Permits. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. The Town will approve the PDP to ensure compliance with Policy OS5.2 through energy conserving and emission reducing appliances, passive and active solar designs, insulation, and Build It Green guidelines to reduce GHG emissions prior to the Town issuing Building Permits. Consistent: Project and Alternatives. Second units in the Project Area are expected to provide increased work at home opportunities, or local workforce or student housing, to reduce vehicle commuting. Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.B-3. Is the Project consistent with the Clean Air Plan population and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assumptions and Transportation Control Plans (TCMs)? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no construction activities or changes to existing land uses, and will not generate new air pollutant emissions. None required. Less Than Significant Impact; Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10 list Moraga 2002 General Plan policies that constitute implementation of the Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). For each TCM a description is provided and a listing of relevant Moraga 2002 General Plan policies or programs is given. The TCMs listed are those that identify cities as an 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 23

60 implementing agency. Other implementing agencies applicable to the Project Area include Contra Costa County, the BAAQMD, the MTC, CMAs, the Moraga School District (MSD), and Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD). The Bollinger Valley Project demonstrates reasonable efforts to implement the TCMs in the BAAQMD CAP. Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) meet criteria of consistency with the regional air quality plan, as shown in Table 4.B-9. The population and associated vehicle use projections for Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) are within the assumptions in the BAAQMD 2010 CAP. The number of dwellings and associated population would be within the build-out assumptions of the Moraga 2002 General Plan, which identifies the Project Area as Study Area, and would be within the population and unit assumptions in the 2010 CAP, which utilizes 2002 and 2007 ABAG projections. Since these assumptions would not be exceeded, the impact would be less than significant. The impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. None required. Table 4.B-10 Clean Air Plan Implementation: General Plan Transportation Control Measures TCM Description Relevant General Plan Policies/Programs 1. Expand Employee Assistance Program 9. Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations. Establish and maintain bicycle advisory committees in Bay Area Counties. Develop comprehensive bicycle plans. OS4.9 Public Information on Air Pollution. Encourage public education programs that demonstrate the benefits of reduced air pollution. C1.1 Roadway Engineering and Maintenance. Apply standard engineering principles in the design, construction, and maintenance of all roadways to make them safe for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. In support of community design and environmental goals, consider allowing narrower street widths, consistent with Town standards, when it can be demonstrated that public safety concerns are adequately addressed. 15. Local Clean Air Plans, Policies and Programs Encourage employers and developers to provide bicycle access and facilities. Improve and expand bicycle lane system. Incorporate air quality beneficial policies and programs into local planning and development activities, with a particular focus on subdivision, zoning C4.1 Pedestrian Circulation. Provide a safe, continuous and connected system of pedestrian pathways through the Town, including sidewalks, paths, trails and appropriate crosswalks along all principal streets, to link residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, community facilities such as schools and parks, and other important destinations. Link this network as appropriate with the regional trails system. C4.2 Bicycle Circulation. Develop a complete bicycle system with direct, continuous, interconnected pathways between residential and commercial areas, community facilities, commuter corridors and transit hubs. OS4.1 Development Design. Conserve air quality and minimize direct and indirect emissions of air contaminants through the design and construction of new development. For example, direct emissions may be reduced through energy conserving construction that minimizes space heating, while indirect emissions may be reduced through uses and development patterns that reduce motor vehicle trips generated by the project. PAGE 4.B- 24 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

61 Table 4.B-10 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Clean Air Plan Implementation: General Plan Transportation Control Measures TCM Description Relevant General Plan Policies/Programs 17. Conduct Demonstration Projects and site design measures that reduce the number and length of singleoccupant automobile trips. Promote demonstration projects to develop new strategies to reduce motor vehicle emissions. Projects include low emission vehicle fleets and LEV refueling infrastructure. OS4.2 Development Approval and Mitigation. Prohibit development projects which, separately or cumulatively with other projects, would cause air quality standards to be exceeded or would have significant adverse air quality effects through direct and/or indirect emissions. Such projects may only be approved if, after consulting with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Town Council explicitly finds that the project incorporates feasible mitigation measures or that there are overriding reasons for approving the project. OS4.5 Alternate Transportation Modes. Encourage transportation modes that minimize motor vehicle use and the resulting contaminant emissions. Alternate modes to be encouraged include public transit, ride-sharing, combined motor vehicle trips to work and the use of bicycles and walking. C4.3 Transit. Encourage the use of transit to and from the Lamorinda BART stations by providing: Ø Efficient, comfortable, frequent and reliable bus service; Ø Roadways that are properly designed to accommodate bus maneuvering, stopping and parking; Ø Adequate, free, convenient all-day park and ride facilities at major transit stops in the Town; Ø Public information programs to make the public aware of the service and promote its use; Ø Comfortable, safe, and attractive amenities at bus stops. C4.4 Trip-Reduction Strategies. Encourage development patterns and other strategies that may help reduce traffic trips, especially during the morning and afternoon peak hours. For example: Encourage home-based occupations and telecommuting; Encourage mixed use, small office, and live-work developments in centrally located areas of the Town (i.e., in the Specific Plan areas); Encourage higher density housing to locate near transit facilities; Encourage young people to bike, walk or take the school bus to school; and Encourage ridesharing. OS4.6 New Transportation Technologies. Encourage use of new transportation technologies such as alternative fuel vehicles that may provide environmental benefits such as reduced air pollution, lower energy consumption, and less noise. 19. Pedestrian Review/revise C4.1 Pedestrian Circulation. Provide a safe, continuous and connected 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 25

62 Travel Table 4.B-10 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Clean Air Plan Implementation: General Plan Transportation Control Measures TCM Description Relevant General Plan Policies/Programs 20. Promote Traffic Calming Measures general/specific plan policies to promote development patterns that encourage walking and circulation policies that emphasize pedestrian travel and modify zoning ordinances to include pedestrian-friendly design standards. Include pedestrian improvements in capital improvements programs. Designate a staff person as a Pedestrian Program Manager. Include traffic calming strategies in the transportation and land use elements of general and specific plans. Include traffic calming strategies in capital improvement programs. system of pedestrian pathways through the Town, including sidewalks, paths, trails and appropriate crosswalks along all principal streets, to link residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, community facilities such as schools and parks, and other important destinations. Link this network as appropriate with the regional trails system. C4.4 Trip-Reduction Strategies. Encourage development patterns and other strategies that may help reduce traffic trips, especially during the morning and afternoon peak hours. For example: Encourage home-based occupations and telecommuting; Encourage mixed use, small office, and live-work developments in centrally located areas of the Town (i.e., in the Specific Plan areas); Encourage higher density housing to locate near transit facilities; Encourage young people to bike, walk or take the school bus to school; and Encourage ridesharing. C1.1 Roadway Engineering and Maintenance. Apply standard engineering principles in the design, construction and maintenance of all roadways to make them safe for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. In support of community design and environmental goals, consider allowing narrower street widths, consistent with Town standards, when it can be demonstrated that public safety concerns are adequately addressed. C1.5 Collector Street Buffering. Design new areas of development so that residential areas are properly buffered from collector streets, with adequate distance, landscaping or other buffer to protect residences from adverse impacts. Traffic from major new residential developments should not be diverted through nor adversely affect existing neighborhoods. Analysis: Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10 list Moraga 2002 General Plan policies that constitute implementation of the Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). The Bollinger Valley Project demonstrates reasonable efforts to implement the TCMs in the BAAQMD CAP. The Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) meet criteria of consistency with the regional air quality plan, as shown in Table 4.B-9. However, the population and associated vehicle use projections for the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) would exceed the projections assumed in the BAAQMD 2010 CAP. The number of dwellings and associated population would exceed the build-out assumptions of the Moraga 2002 General Plan, which identifies the Project Area as Study Area, and would exceed the PAGE 4.B- 26 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

63 population and unit assumptions in the 2010 CAP, which utilizes 2002 and 2007 ABAG projections. Since these assumptions would be exceeded, the impact would be significant. After None available. Significant and Unavoidable; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) No mitigation is available to make anticipated population levels consistent with the CAP, therefore this impact is significant and unavoidable. Impact: 4.B-4. Will the Project result in a substantial 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)? Analysis: Analysis: No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) involves no construction activities or changes to existing land uses, and will not generate new air pollutant emissions. None required. Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The region currently exceeds State standards for O 3 and PM 10. O 3 precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO x ) and PM 10 affect the entire region. Direct and indirect emissions of O 3 precursor pollutants from construction and operation could contribute to O 3 formation at downwind areas that experience unhealthy O 3 levels. Emissions of PM 10 or pollutants that lead to secondary formation of PM 10 could affect both local air quality and air quality in downwind areas. Project emissions of air pollutants that affect regional air quality were estimated for the summer season, when O 3 levels are highest. Emissions of PM 10 from mobile sources are not affected substantially from season to season. Emissions of PM 10 from stationary sources are higher in the winter season than in summer due to the use of wood-burning devices in residential units. Results of the URBEMIS-2007 model estimates are summarized above in Table 4.B-7 under Impact 4.B-1. The calculations show that BAAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air contaminants (ROG, NO x, CO or PM 10 ) are not exceeded during construction or operation of the Project (126 units), or Alternatives. The SFBAAB is currently in a non-attainment status for O 3 and PM 10. Consequently, new sources of emissions of these pollutants are considered significant, and mitigation is required. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 27

64 4.B-4: Reduce Energy Consumption from Mobile, Stationary, and Area Sources. Measures are available that would reduce energy consumption and air pollutant emission rates from travel, heating and cooling, appliances, and lighting. These measures encourage alternative fuels, on-site energy production, and reuse of resources. These measures would be in addition to, and supplement, the required TCMs described under Impact 4.B-3 above. The Project Applicant shall develop measures in the PDP for Town approval prior to issuing a Grading Permit. Measures may include: Implement design measures to reduce vehicle trips and encourage other modes of travel, such as providing second units and pedestrian facilities and trails; Pay proportional fair share transportation impact fees to fund public transit service; Allow only wood-burning devices that comply with US EPA regulations; and Install solar and/or wind power sources on new residences. After Significant and Unavoidable; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the emission of CAPs that contribute to regional non-attainment status for O 3 and PM 10. These measures will also contribute towards reducing other pollutants such as GHGs from vehicles and electricity generation sources. However, the specific quantity of reduction cannot be estimated until specific design measures are known, therefore this impact is significant and unavoidable. Impact: 4.B-5. Will the Project result in a significant impact to local air quality? Analysis: Analysis: No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) does not change current transportation systems or include significant grading of the site, so no impacts to local air quality would result. None required. Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The BAAQMD has significance thresholds for CO emissions from stationary sources that do not apply to the Project. For residential development projects such as Bollinger Valley, the BAAQMD applies measured CO concentrations at CO hotspots associated with increased traffic rather than emission quantities. CO is a pollutant with site specific impacts normally associated with congested traffic areas, and is not a regional pollutant of concern due to dispersion and normally safe levels away from concentrated emission sources. Impacts to local air quality are determined by estimating CO concentrations in relation to BAAQMD ambient standards: 20 ppm for the 1-hour averaging period, 9.0 ppm for the 8-hour averaging period. Such concentrations normally result at street intersections operating at a Level of Service (LOS) of D or below. If intersections operate at a LOS of PAGE 4.B- 28 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

65 C or better, then it is assumed that local exceedances of the threshold for CO concentrations (CO hotspots ) will not occur. Section 4.L-Transportation, Circulation and Parking (Table 4.L-12) provides a detailed analysis of traffic related impacts to roads and intersections in Moraga, Lafayette, and Orinda. The Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) would worsen the LOS either from a current LOS C to LOS D or below, or from a current level of LOS D or below to LOS D, E, or F. These intersections include: Camino Pablo/Brookwood Road (intersection #5) Glorietta Blvd/Moraga Way (intersection #9) Deer Hill Drive/Oak Hill Road (intersection #13) Mt. Diablo Boulevard/Moraga Road (intersection #24) Moraga Road/Moraga Boulevard (intersection #25) Moraga Road/Brook Street (intersection #26) Moraga Road/School Street (intersection #27) Moraga Road/St. Mary's Road (North)(intersection #28) Glenside Drive/Reliez Station Road (intersection #39) Glenside Drive/Burton Drive (intersection #40) Pleasant Hill Road/Olympic Boulevard (intersection #44) Moraga Road/Corliss Drive (intersection #49) Glenside Drive/Los Palos Drive (intersection #52) Reliez Station Road/Olympic Boulevard (intersection #54) Based upon the reduction in LOS at intersections currently operating at poor levels, the impacts of the Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) to local air quality are considered significant and mitigation is required. 4.L-4: Enhance Transit Service in Lamorinda Area South of SR 24. Please refer to Section 4.L, Impact 4.L-4 for a description of mitigation measure 4.L-4. After 4.L-5: Provide for Lafayette Intersection Signals. Please refer to Section 4.L, Impact 4.L-5 for a description of mitigation measure 4.L-5. Significant and Unavoidable Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Transportation Mitigation Measures 4.L-4 and 4.L-5 that reduce traffic volume and vehicle delay can also reduce local air quality impacts and potential CO hotspots. However, Mitigation Measure 4.L-4 lessens, but does not fully mitigate traffic to levels at or below levels predicted under the General Plan buildout. Furthermore, is uncertain whether transportation Mitigation Measure 4.L-5 will be fully implemented with Lafayette adding intersection improvements to the Lamorinda Transportation Impact Fee (LTIF) program. If Lafayette does not add these intersection improvements, local air quality impact reductions would not occur. Therefore, it is uncertain whether CO concentrations will be maintained below BAAQMD significance thresholds, and the resulting impact to local air quality would be significant. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 29

66 Impact: 4.B-6. Does the Project provide buffer zones around existing and proposed land uses that emit odors and/or toxic air contaminants? Analysis: No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) does not involve new construction, sources of odors or TACs, or changes in current land uses, so no impacts would result. None required. Analysis: Less than Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 2 (8 units), Alternative 3 (37 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The Moraga 2002 General Plan does not have heavy commercial or industrial land uses that emit substantial odors and/or TACs. Moraga consists of residential, light commercial and institutional land uses. According to BAAQMD significance criteria, General Plans should include buffers, where necessary, to ensure that sensitive receptors are not located adjacent to land uses that could emit odors or TACs. With no land uses (i.e., heavy commercial or industrial) that could emit odors or TACs, buffer zones are not necessary in the Moraga 2002 General Plan. The Bollinger Valley Project Area is located adjacent to agricultural land uses in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Ranching activities may generate odors associated with livestock or the application of chemical fertilizers or pesticides on rangelands. Such odors may be objectionable to some occupants of residential areas, but are normally expected to be temporary and safe from a human health standpoint. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. None required. Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.B-7. Will the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) does not involve new construction, sources of emissions, or changes in current land uses, so no impacts would result. None required. Less than Significant Impact; Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) The URBEMIS-2007 program was utilized to estimate operational emissions of GHGs. Alternative 2 (8 units) would generate up to 153 tons per year of CO 2 e from mobile sources and 31 tons of CO 2 e from stationary sources. Alternative 3 (37 units) would generate an estimated 708 tons per year of CO 2 e from mobile sources and 143 tons per year of CO 2 e from stationary sources. These Alternatives would generate GHG emissions below BAAQMD significance thresholds. This is considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. PAGE 4.B- 30 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

67 None required. Analysis: Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) The URBEMIS-2007 program was utilized to estimate operational emissions of GHGs. With estimated GHG emissions of up to 418 tons of CO 2 e per year from stationary sources, and 1,954 tons from mobile sources, the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) are expected to generate GHG emissions that exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for mobile sources during operation. Operation emissions include exhaust from vehicles and landscape equipment, and household energy consumption. Stationary source and short-term construction GHG emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust and from vegetation clearing are expected to remain below BAAQMD thresholds and be less than significant. Transportation, especially vehicle exhaust due to Project-generated traffic, is the largest source of GHG emissions, with other sources including on-site combustion of various fuels associated with maintenance, landscaping, natural gas consumption for heating and cooking, offsite electricity generation, and household wood burning appliances. Offsite electricity generation occurs at the source of production, sometimes hundreds of miles from the Project; nonetheless, these emissions are driven by electricity demand in the Project Area and contribute to global GHG emissions and climate change. Although Project-related emissions are a tiny percentage of worldwide GHG emissions and create no discernable effects, GHGs contribute to global climate change. For example, 2004 Statewide GHG emissions were estimated at 549 million tons, and 2005 U.S. GHG emissions were estimated at 7.92 billion tons. The impact analysis therefore considers if the Project contribution to a significant worldwide cumulative impact is itself cumulatively considerable. The Town is aware that the one [additional] molecule rule is not the law (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 120). As such, the Town declines to set no net increase as a CEQA threshold that must be met to avoid a finding of significant effect. Still, the Town is aware that the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a Project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant (Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 120). The Town therefore considers any appreciable net GHG emission increase to be cumulatively considerable. The Project description and mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR include several measures to promote alternative energy sources, reduce vehicle use, and maintain natural vegetation in open space. These mitigation measures address other Project impacts, but many increase energy conservation, reduce fuel-consumption and traffic, and other factors that serve to lower GHG emissions. Based on the Town s approach to assessing the significance of the Project s GHG emissions, implementation of measures to improve air quality will substantially lessen, but not avoid, Project-specific GHG emissions. GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. This impact analysis is conservative but reflects the severity of the climate change problem and is consistent with Moraga s interpretation of the legislative intent of AB 32. Consistent with long-standing CEQA methods developed for air pollutants, the GHG emission calculation method in this EIR treats Project GHG emissions as if they are all new emissions, and does not correct for the fact that many of the future residents 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 31

68 After generating GHG emissions associated with the Project could simply be moving from an existing location to the Project. Therefore, even recognizing that new structures generate new emissions from construction activities and power consumption, the Project s net contribution of GHG emissions is likely less than the estimates set forth in this EIR. The Project has no direct or indirect affect on human population change, such as affecting birth or death rates. Rather, the Project would provide existing human beings additional places to live and work. For similar reasons, the Project s proportion of global and Statewide emissions is less than described above. For these reasons, the Town has taken a conservative approach and in spite of the numerous mitigation measures proposed, has determined that the Project would create a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change. 4.B-4: Reduce Energy Consumption from Mobile, Stationary, and Area Sources. Please refer to Impact 4.B-4 for a description of mitigation measure 4.B-4. 4.B-7: Implement Air Pollution Reduction Measures in Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10. Please refer to Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10 above for the list of transportation control measures and air pollution reduction measures. Significant and Unavoidable; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Implementation of TCMs in Table 4.B-9 and 4.B-10 (Mitigation Measure 4.B-7) and Mitigation Measure 4.B-4 will substantially reduce GHG emissions, but emissions of GHGs may still exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for mobile sources and constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. Impact: Analysis: Analysis: 4.B-8. Will the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions? No Impact; Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) does not involve new construction, sources of emissions, or changes in current land uses, so no impacts would result. Less than Significant Impact; Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) Alternative 2 (8 units) and Alternative 3 (37 units) are not expected exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for mobile or stationary sources of GHGs. These alternatives would generate a minor amount of GHG emissions, and would not conflict with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan or Moraga 2002 General Plan, or Statewide efforts to comply with AB 32. This is considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. PAGE 4.B- 32 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

69 Analysis: Significant Impact; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Operation of the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) is expected to generate up to 1,954 tons of GHGs from mobile sources, which would exceed the BAAQMD mobile source GHG emission significance threshold. The Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units) and Alternative 5 (121 units) would generate less than significant short-term GHG emissions during construction. Another factor to consider is how well the Project accords with policies set forth in AB 32, which requires CARB to adopt lists, plans, and regulations to dramatically reduce GHG emissions by 2020 to 1990 levels or lower. California s reliance on fossil fuels for transportation and energy is the primary problem to be addressed to meet AB 32 objectives. Land use decisions can exacerbate climate change by contributing to the consumption of electricity and GHG-emitting vehicle fuels. Land use planning can only achieve limited results as long as the energy and transportation sectors remain highly dependent on fossil fuels. The Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units) and Alternative 5 (121 units) would constrain the ability of the Town, BAAQMD, and State to meet AB 32 GHG emission reduction targets. This is considered a significant impact. 4.B-4: Reduce Energy Consumption from Mobile, Stationary, and Area Sources. After Please refer to Impact 4.B-4 for a description of mitigation measure 4.B-4. 4.B-7: Implement Air Pollution Reduction Measures in Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10. Please refer to Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10 above for the list of transportation control measures and air pollution reduction measures. Significant and Unavoidable; Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) Implementation of TCMs in Tables 4.B-9 and 4.B-10 (Mitigation Measure 4.B-7) and Mitigation Measure 4.B-4 will substantially reduce GHG emissions, but the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) may still exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for mobile sources and constrain the ability of the Town, BAAQMD, and State to meet AB 32 GHG emission reduction targets. No other feasible mitigation measures are identified. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units). 4.B-4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts may occur with Project-specific impacts when considered in conjunction with similar impacts from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects. Potential cumulative air quality impacts from the project exists as a result of Project-related air pollutant emissions that could affect air quality, human health, or global warming in a manner that increases when considered in conjunction with air pollutant emissions from other projects. 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 33

70 Project impacts identified above in Section 4.B-3 have been considered in terms of potential to contribute to local and regional air quality emissions. This analysis concludes that GHG emissions from operation of the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) are anticipated to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Impacts 4.B-1 and 4.B-4 identify that Project-related vehicle trips and on-site emissions are expected to be less than BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for result in O 3 precursor and PM 10 emissions, but that Project-related emissions will contribute to regional air quality impacts. It is important to note that the BAAQMD developed project-specific significance thresholds in consideration of regional air quality and, therefore, already reflect cumulative impacts to the extent that past and present projects have and are contributing to degraded air quality in the region. Moraga is in a non-attainment area for State and federal O 3 and PM 10 standards. To improve air quality and attain health-based standards, reductions in emissions are necessary in the SFBAAB. The growth and combined population, vehicle usage, and business activity to which the Project would cumulatively contribute would either delay attainment of the standards or require the adoption of additional controls on existing and future air pollution sources to offset Project-related emission increases. Although Project-related emissions are below significance thresholds for CAPs, because the Project Area is situated in a non-attainment area for O 3 precursors and PM 10, the Project-level emissions are considered significant. In addition, the population growth under the Project (126 units) and Alternatives 4 and 5 exceed the population projections of the CAP, and contribute to a cumulative impact when combined with other growth levels not anticipated in the CAP. The Project is part of a long-term pattern of urbanization of the East Bay area. Developments such as the Bollinger Valley Project are located near employment centers but rely on automobiles for long-distance commuting. This Project, in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable development projects in Contra Costa County and neighboring East Bay areas, may result in regional air emissions increases in excess of BAAQMD O 3 precursor and PM 10 significance thresholds. Mitigation Measures 4.B-1, 4.B-4, 4.B-7, 4.L-4, and 4.L-5 reduce Project-related ROG, NO x (O 3 precursors), and PM 10 emissions; however, it is unclear whether these mitigation measures will reduce emissions to a level that would not constrain the SFBAAB from making progress towards achieving attainment status. Impacts 4.B-7 and 4.B-8 identify that operation of the Project (126 units), Alternative 4 (100 units), and Alternative 5 (121 units) would generate significant GHG emissions from mobile sources. While GHG emissions would be minor in relation to global, U.S., and Statewide emissions, GHG emissions are considered cumulatively considerable. While project-specific impacts associated with GHG emissions would be substantially reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.B-1, 4.B-4, 4.B-7, 4.L-4, and 4.L-5, it is anticipated that mobile sources would still generate cumulatively considerable GHG emissions. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, any substantial net increase in GHG emissions is considered cumulatively significant. No mitigation measure(s) have been identified that would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions with Project implementation. 4.B-5 4.B-5.1 PREPARERS Preparers Brian Farris, Hauge Brueck Associates PAGE 4.B- 34 AIR QUALITY 2/18/13

71 4.B-5.2 Reviewers Trevor Burwell, Ph.D., Hauge Brueck Associates Rob Brueck, Hauge Brueck Associates Christy Consolini, Hauge Brueck Associates 2/18/13 AIR QUALITY PAGE 4.B- 35

72 4.C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes vegetation, wildlife, habitats, and special-status species in the Project Area and addresses potential impacts to these resources. Impacts evaluated include potential loss of special-status species (endangered, threatened, rare, or protected species), loss of sensitive vegetation communities and wildlife habitats, blockage of wildlife migration corridors, and potential detrimental effects to nesting raptors and migratory birds. Implementation of identified mitigation measures will reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Reports prepared by Sycamore Associates, LLC to map and describe vegetation, wildlife habitats, and focused surveys for special-status wildlife and plant species (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a, 2003b, and 2003c); and by HortScience (HortScience, Inc. 2007) to inventory native trees in Bollinger Valley, along Valley Hill Drive, and along the emergency vehicle access (EVA) route in Lafayette are incorporated by reference and are available for review at the Moraga Planning Department. In developing the description of biological resources, biologists from Hauge Brueck Associates, LLC (HBA) reviewed and concurred with the materials and conclusions in these reports. Staff from HBA performed reconnaissance-level observations and visual inspections to confirm the habitat types present in the Project Area and vicinity, and conducted literature reviews to prepare the Draft EIR. 4.C-1 4.C-1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Community Types and Associated Wildlife Vegetation and wildlife habitats in the Project Area - which includes Bollinger Valley, the Valley Hill Drive corridor, and along the EVA - consists of non-native annual grasslands, coast live oak woodlands, northern coyote brush scrub, and Central Coast riparian scrub. An estimated 15,000 linear feet of ephemeral stream channels and up to 0.5 acre of wetlands (both seasonal and perennial), including ponds, marshes, springs and seeps, occur in the Project Area. Bollinger Valley and the EVA consist mostly of non-native annual grasslands, while the 3.5-acre Valley Hill Drive corridor consists primarily of coast live oak woodlands. Table 4.C-1 provides a summary of vegetation types and acreage. Figure 4.C-1 below provides a map of vegetation types in Bollinger Valley. Figure 4.F-1: Streams, ponds, and wetlands in Bollinger Valley in Section 4.F Hydrology and Water Quality, shows stream, pond, and wetland habitat features in Bollinger Valley. Non-Native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grasslands in the Project Area are typical of heavily grazed rangelands in the region. Most plant species, in terms of number of species and extent of vegetative cover, are invasive exotic annual grasses and forbs and other ruderal species (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a). Non-native annual grassland is an upland vegetation type commonly found on finetextured loams or clay soils in valleys and foothills in coastal and interior California (Holland 1986, Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995; Cowardin et al. 1979). 2/18/13 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PAGE 4.C- 1

73 Table 4.C-1 BOLLINGER VALLEY PROJECT Existing Vegetation in the Project Area (Bollinger Valley, Valley Hill Drive, and EVA Route) Total Habitat Type (acres) Non-Native Annual Grassland Central Coast Live Oak Woodland Central Coast Riparian Scrub 2.46 Northern Coyote Brush Scrub/Undifferentiated Scrub 3.00 Marshes and Ponds 0.26 TOTAL Sources: Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a, 2003b, and 2003c. Note: This acreage includes land outside, but adjacent to the EVA footprint. Therefore, the total acreage is greater than the actual Project Area. Non-native grassland covers approximately acres in the Project Area, dominating slopes and ridgelines (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a). Non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs dominate the cover. Scattered native wildflower and grass species occur but comprise a small percentage of total cover. Dominant species include rip-gut brome, wild oat, Italian ryegrass, yellow star thistle, field bindweed, bellardia, Italian thistle, milk thistle, bristly ox-tongue, black mustard, hedge parsley, bull thistle, medusahead, and artichoke thistle. Occasional perennial native species occur in grasslands, such as creeping ryegrass, blue wildrye, harvest brodiaea, summer lupine, checker mallow, woolly mule ears, fireweed, ookow, valley tassels, mugwort, fiddleneck, narrow-leaved milkweed, Kellogg s yampah, soap plant and Santa Barbara sedge (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a). A native rare plant, Diablo helianthella, occurs in grasslands near the EVA route (CDFG 2011a, 2011c; Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a). Amphibians and reptiles typical of non-native annual grasslands in the region include California slender salamander, arboreal salamander, Pacific treefrog, California toad, Coast Range fence lizard, southern alligator lizard, Skilton s skink, Pacific gophersnake, California kingsnake, racer, California red-sided gartersnake, and northern Pacific rattlesnake (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003b). Amphibian and reptile species observed during reconnaissance surveys were western fence lizard, and Pacific treefrog and California newt (Taricha torosa) (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a). Typical mammals include deer mouse, Botta s pocket gopher, California vole, striped skunk, black-tailed hare, and California ground squirrel. American badgers, red fox, and coyote may occur, and evidence of meadow voles and possibly bobcat were observed (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003b). Common passerines (perching birds) and raptors (birds of prey) known to forage in grasslands include the white-tailed kite, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, turkey vulture, western meadowlark, American crow, raven, and prairie falcon. Grassland nesting species with potential to occur include the horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, lark sparrow, and western meadowlark. Wildlife species observed in the grassland areas during the site reconnaissance include turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, western meadowlark, western bluebird, goldfinch, black-tailed deer, and pocket gopher (Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a). PAGE 4.C - 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2/18/13

74 Figure 4.C-1. Vegetation types in Bollinger Valley. Source: The Planning Team 2003; Loewke 2009; Sycamore Associates, LLC 2003a, 2003b, and 2003c. 2/18/13 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PAGE 4.C- 3