HomeMy WebLinkAbout012324 - 04.1 WITH ATTACHMENTS A-D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4.1
TO: Chair and Planning Commission January 23, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2024-02, approving Major Subdivision (SD 9594)
Development Plan (DEV22-0009), and Tree Removal (TR24-0003) requests
to subdivide a seven-acre parcel to allow for a 167-unit multifamily
development. The development would include 124 for-sale townhouse
units and 43 for-rent apartment units. The site is located at 3020 Fostoria
Way (also known as the Borel property). The property owner is East Bay
Regional Park District, and the applicant is Trumark Homes. The project is
Statutorily Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the development of a seven-acre parcel with 167
multifamily housing units. The development would include 124 for-sale townhouse units
and 43 for-rent apartment units.
The 124 townhouse units would be constructed by Trumark Homes. The 43 apartments
would be constructed and managed by Pacific West Companies, a below market rate
housing builder. All 43 apartments would be made affordable to low or very low-income
households.
The Tree Removal request would allow for the removal of nine Town-protected trees.
This development application is subject to State Law SB 330 requirements, including a
streamlined review and approval process. The application is also subject to the State Density
Bonus Law. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the applicant is requesting several
concessions to otherwise applicable Town development standards, including the allowance
for all three-story buildings in the project.
As a previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) site, the site is considered a ‘use
by right,’ and is therefore not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND
This site is part of what was once the 66-acre Borel family parcel. Most of the Borel property
was developed with residential and commercial uses in the 1980s and early 1990s. The
3020 Fostoria Way 2 January 23, 2024
seven-acre site is part of a larger 17-acre site now owned by the East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD). The EBRPD intends to retain the remaining 10 acres and develop it as an
interpretive park related to the historic walnut farming use of the site.
The seven-acre site was identified as a multifamily site as part of the Town’s 5th Cycle
Housing Element update and was redesignated from commercial to multifamily housing in
2013 to help the Town meet its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). That housing
element assumed a range of 165 to 200 units would be constructed on the site. As the site
was not developed during the 5th Cycle, the site is considered part of the Town’s housing
inventory and counts toward the Town’s current 6th Cycle RHNA, representing 150 of the
Town’s minimum 2,241 allocated housing units.
Project architecture, site design, and landscape plans were reviewed by the Town’s Design
Review Board (DRB) on October 26, 2023, and November 30, 2023. The DRB recommended
approval of these aspects of the project.
EVALUATION
Conformance with General Plan
The site includes two different General Plan land use designations. The northerly two acres
are designed Residential – Multifamily – High/Medium Density, requiring a range of 20-25
units per acre. The southerly five acres are designated Residential – Multifamily – High
Density, requiring a range of 25-30 units per acre.
As proposed, the northerly two acres would have a density of 22.8 units per acre, and the
southern seven acres would have a density of 25.1 units per acre, both within the required
density range.
Zoning
The site is zoned P-1; Planned Unit Development District, based on the approval of PUD 13-
0001 in 2013. The PUD requires that units within the northerly two-acre portion of the site
be limited to 35 feet and two stories in height, unless otherwise approved by the Planning
Commission. Under the zoning, the remaining five-acre portion of the site is not limited to
two stories but is limited to 35 feet in height.
Density Bonus
The applicant is requesting a density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law. Trumark is
not requesting extra units but is requesting waivers from the otherwise required height and
stories requirements.
3020 Fostoria Way 3 January 23, 2024
For most of the project, the proposed buildings are proposed to be three stories and a
maximum of 36’ and 11” in height. The two apartment buildings are proposed to be three
stories and 40 feet in height.
Under State law, these waivers can only be denied if the Town finds that these waivers
would result in specific, adverse impacts upon health and safety.
Parking
The proposed project includes a two-car parking garage for all the townhouse units. Some
of these garages provide tandem parking. For the apartment units, all parking is provided
as uncovered surface parking.
Under the State Density Bonus Law, the Town may not require a greater parking ratio than
one space per unit for one-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces for two and three-bedroom units.
As a result, the required parking for the project is 242 spaces. As proposed, the project would
include 289 parking spaces, assuming only one parking space each for the units with tandem
garages. Should the tandem spaces be maintained to be available for two-car parking, the
total on-site spaces would be 351 parking spaces. A recommended condition of approval
would require that the project CC&Rs require all garages be maintained to allow for the
parking of two vehicles, should the owner have more than one vehicle.
Studies and Reports
Although not subject to CEQA, the following studies were prepared for the project:
Traffic
A Transportation Impact Analysis for the project was prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated May
6, 2022 (see Attachment C). The report found that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would have
a significant impact if not mitigated. These measures are included as conditions of approval
within Resolution No. 24-02.
The project plans include the creation of a four-way stop at the project’s main entrance as
well as a pedestrian crosswalk. The project would also extend a sidewalk along the frontage
of the 10-acre East Bay Regional Park District parcel all the way to Fostoria Way. This would
create a safe connection between the project, and existing neighborhoods to the north, and
the Iron Horse Trail.
Noise
An Acoustical Analysis for the project was prepared by Veneklasen Associates, dated June
3020 Fostoria Way 4 January 23, 2024
18, 2021. The report concluded that noise would not have significant noise impacts given
the construction of a 10-foot wall between the project and the freeway, and implementation
of building code requirements related to the roof assembly and window design.
Biology
A Biological Constraints Analysis was prepared for the project by Live Oak Associates,
dated June 21, 2021. An arborist report was also prepared for the project and is dated June
4, 2021 (see Attachment D).
The Biological report indicates that the project site characteristics are not likely to support
special status plant and animal species. Should any be discovered during construction, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board would be the lead agencies for CEQA as they have their own permitting
processes. Recommended conditions of approval prohibit tree removal during the raptor
nesting season.
The Arborist report found that there are nine Town-protected trees on the site that are
proposed for removal. All other non-protected trees, including the walnut trees, would be
removed. Recommended conditions of approval would require implementation of on-site
mitigation, or the payment of off-site mitigation fees, related to the removal of Town-
protected trees.
Hydrology
A Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan for the project was prepared by MacKay & Somps,
dated September 2023. The Town hired Harrison Engineering, Inc. to peer review the report.
The report concluded that the hydraulic plans meet excepted standards. The plans would
be finalized as part of the Town’s review of improvement plans prior to the recordation of
the subdivision map.
Other Reports
Air Quality, Cultural, and Geotechnical studies were also prepared for the project. None of
these studies discovered any barriers to the development of the project as proposed.
Affordable Housing
Buildings 16 and 17, located along Camino Ramon, would be built as for-rent apartments.
The units would be built and maintained by Pacific West Companies, an affordable housing
builder. All of these 43 units would be made available to low or very low-income households
(i.e., below 80% and 50% of the County median income, respectively). The term of
3020 Fostoria Way 5 January 23, 2024
affordability would be 55 years. The exact income distribution of the affordable units is not
defined at this time. However, the percentage of affordable units (25.7%), level of
affordability, and term of affordability far exceed the requirements under the Town’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or State Density Bonus Law.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public notice of the January 23, 2023, meeting was mailed to property owners within 750
feet of the site. A total of 128 notices were mailed. Posting of the meeting agenda serves as
notice to the general public.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2024-02, approving Major Subdivision (SD 9594) Development Plan
(DEV22-0009), and Tree Removal (TR24-0003) requests to subdivide a seven-acre parcel to
allow for a 167-unit multifamily development. The development would include 124 for-sale
townhouse units and 43 for-rent apartment units. The site is located at 3020 Fostoria Way
(also known as the Borel property). The property owner is East Bay Regional Park District,
and the applicant is Trumark Homes. The project is Statutorily Exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Prepared by:
David Crompton
Chief of Planning
Attachments: A - Resolution No. 2024-02
B – Public Notification, Notification Map and Notification List
C – Traffic Report
D - Biological/Arborist Report
E – Project Civil Drawing, Architectural, Mitigation Plan, and Landscape
Plans
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
APPROVING MAJOR SUBDIVISION (SD 9594), DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DEV22-
0009), AND TREE REMOVAL (TR24-0003) REQUESTS TO SUBDIVIDE A
SEVEN-ACRE PARCEL TO ALLOW FOR A 167-UNIT MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCLUDE 124 FOR-SALE
TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND 43 FOR-RENT APARTMENT UNITS. THE SITE IS
LOCATED AT 3020 FOSTORIA WAY AND IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE BOREL
PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK
DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT IS TRUMARK HOMES. THE PROJECT IS
STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
(APN: 216-090-034 – TRUMARK HOMES)
WHEREAS, Trumark Homes, LLC (Applicant and Property Owner) has requested
approval of a Major Subdivision, Development Plan, and Tree Removal permit on a
seven-acre parcel; and
WHEREAS, The Major Subdivision would subdivide the site to allow for a 167-unit
multifamily development, including 124 for-sale townhouse units and 43 for-rent
apartment units; and
WHEREAS, the Development Plan request would approve the architectural, landscape
and site design of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Removal Permit would allow for the removal of nine Town-
protected trees; and
WHEREAS, Trumark Homes, invoked the State Density Bonus Law, although not
requesting any additional density. However, Trumark is requesting waivers related to
project stories and height; and
WHEREAS, the seven-acre site is located at 3020 Fostoria and is further identified as
Assessor’s Parcel Number APN: 216-090-034; and
WHEREAS, the application is a housing application under State Law SB 330 and the
Town deemed these applications complete on January 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the 43 apartment units would serve as the development’s affordable
component as all 43 units would be made available to qualifying low and very low
income households; and
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
WHEREAS, as a site that was counted as a housing site necessary to meet the Town’s
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 housing cycle, the
project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the requests; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending that the Danville Planning
Commission approve the requests; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was noticed as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered all information and
testimony contained within the staff report and presented at the public hearing; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Danville approves Major
Subdivision SD 9594, Development Plan DEV 22-0009, and Tree Removal TR 24-0003 and
makes the following findings in support of this action:
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
Major Subdivision/Development Plan
1.The proposed subdivision and Development Plan are in conformance with the
goals and policies of the Danville 2030 General Plan and the site’s Residential –
Multifamily High Density (25-39 units per acre) and Residential – Multifamily –
High/Medium Density (20-25 units per acre) land use designations.
2.The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Town’s
2014-2022 Housing Element and draft 2023-2031 Housing Element in that the site
has been identified as a housing site necessary to meet the Town’s RHNA
assignment.
3.The design of the subdivision, development and the type of associated
improvements will not likely cause serious public health problems because water
and sanitary facilities and services will be available to the proposed lots.
4.The density of the development is physically suitable for the subject site and
surrounding neighborhood because the proposed development is similar in size
and density to other developments in the vicinity of the site.
PAGE 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
5.The design of the proposed subdivision, development and improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or subsequently injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat, in part because the project site is within an area where
development has previously occurred.
6.The design of the proposed subdivision, development and proposed
improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. There are
currently no existing public easements for access through or use of the subject
properties.
Tree Removal Permit
1.Necessity. The primary reason for removal of the nine trees is that preservation of
those trees would be inconsistent with the improvements and buildings as part of
the development of the property.
2.Erosion/surface water flow. Removal of the nine Town-protected trees would not
cause significant soil erosion or cause a significant diversion or increase in the flow
of surface water.
3.Shade. Removal of the nine trees, including nine Town-protected trees would not
significantly affect off-site shade as the trees are not generally in the vicinity of
surrounding properties. Proposed new trees and mitigation trees will provide for
new shade trees over time.
State Density Bonus Law
1.Pursuant to the State Density Bonus law (i.e., Government Code Section 65915),
the applicant is entitled to waivers of development standards if application of
those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of
development at the density permitted by the statute. The Town may refuse any
such requested waiver if there is substantial evidence that such a waiver would
have specific, adverse impact upon the health or safety of the community or the
physical environment. The applicant has requested waivers to the number of
stories and height of the buildings. There is no evidence that these waivers will
have an adverse effect on the health or safety of the community.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of approval with an asterisk (“*”) in the left-hand column are standard project
conditions of approval.
PAGE 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
Unless otherwise specified, the following conditions shall be complied with prior to the
Town Council approval of the Final Map or issuance of a grading permit or building
permit for the project. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Danville
Development Services Department unless otherwise specified.
A. GENERAL
1.This approval is for a Major Subdivision (SD 9594), Development Plan
(DEV22-0009) and Tree Removal (TR24-0003) requests to subdivide a
seven-acre parcel to allow for a 167-unit multifamily development. The Tree
Removal request would allow for the removal of nine Town-protected
trees. The site is located at 3020 Fostoria Way and is also known as the Borel
property. Development shall be as shown on the project drawings as
follows, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein:
a.Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Civil Plan, Architectural Plan, and
Landscape Plans, as prepared by MacKay & Somps, SDG Architects,
and Gates & Associates labeled “Borel Property,” dated December
22, 2023.
b.Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated
May 6, 2022.
c.Acoustical Analysis, prepared by Veneklasen Associates, dated June
18, 2021.
d.Biological and Arborist Report prepared by Live Oak Associates,
date June 4, 2021.
e.Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan as prepared by MacKay &
Somps, dated September 2023.
f.Air Quality Assessment as prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
dated August 30, 2021.
g.Cultural Resources Analysis prepared by Stantec, dated June 4, 2021.
h.Preliminary Geotechnical Report, prepared by ENGEO, dated
revised on June 2, 2021.
2.The applicant shall pay any Town and related fees applicable to the
property. These fees shall be based on the current fee schedule in effect at
PAGE 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
the time relevant permits are secured and shall be paid prior to the issuance
of said permit.
The following fees are due at final map approval for the above-mentioned
project and are subject to annual increases:
1. Base Map Revision Fee (28 parcels) ........................... $ 2,856.00
2. Map Check Fee (28 parcels) ......................................... $ 5,833.00
3. Improvement Plans Check Fee ..................3% of cost estimate
4. Engineering Inspection Fee ........................5% of cost estimate
5. Storm Water Control Plan Review ... consultant fee plus 33%
6. Excavation Mitigation Fee (Flood Control) ............$ 20,983.00
7. Park Land in Lieu Fee (167 units)....................... $ 1,280,890.00*
*The applicant may request the waiver of fees for the 43 BMR units
associated with the Town Council’s review and approval of the
Affordable Housing Agreement.
The applicant may request a deferment schedule for payment of these
fees.
The following fees are due at building permit issuance for the above-
mentioned project and are subject to annual increases:
1.Childcare Facilities Fees ......................................... $ $115/unit
2. Finish Grading Inspection....................................... $ 222/bldg.
3. Stormwater Pollution Control Inspection .............$ 228/bldg.
4. SCC Regional Fee ......................................................$ 1,676/unit
5. SCC Sub-Regional Fee ............................................. $ 4,624/unit
6. Residential TIP Fee ................................................... $ 1,400/unit
7. Tri-Valley Transportation Fee ................................ $ 4,095/unit
* 3. Concurrent with the initial submittal of the Final Map, grading plans,
and/or building permits, the applicant shall submit a written Compliance
Report detailing how the conditions of approval for this project have been,
or will be, met. This report shall list each condition of approval followed
by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of existing
or future compliance with that condition. The report shall be signed by the
applicant to attest its accuracy and completeness. The report shall be subject
to review and approval by the Danville Development Services Department,
and may be rejected by the Town if it is not comprehensive with respect to
the applicable conditions of approval.
PAGE 6 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
* 4. Prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of grading or building
permits (whichever comes first) the applicant shall submit written
documentation that all requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District (SRVFPD) have been met to the satisfaction of SRVFPD.
* 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the Town of Danville to confirm that the school
mitigation fees have been paid to the San Ramon Valley Unified School
District (SRVUSD) pursuant to the criteria set forth within California
Government Code Section 65995.
6.The developer shall implement a watering program which incorporates the
use of a dust suppressant, and which complies with Regulation 2 of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District shall be established and
implemented for on- and off-site construction activities.
7.Dust-producing activities shall be discontinued during high wind periods.
8.Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the
wind shall be covered.
9.The applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with the point of contacts
(name, number, and email) for the project superintendent and for the Town
of Danville regarding dust complaints. The project superintendent shall
take appropriate corrective action within 48 hours of receiving a dust
complaint. The phone number for the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) shall also be clearly displayed on the publicly visible
project sign to direct concerned parties to the BAAQMD with an intent to
help ensure compliance with applicable air quality construction activity
regulations.
10.Prior to demolition activities, the applicant shall secure a J Permit from the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
11.All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall
be covered.
12.All building pads shall be laid as soon as reasonably feasible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
13.Idling times of construction equipment shall be minimized either by
shutting equipment off when not in use or by reducing the maximum idling
PAGE 7 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage stating these operation standards shall be provided by the
applicant for construction workers at all project access points.
14.Prior to construction activity, construction equipment shall be checked by
a certified visible emissions evaluator. All construction equipment shall be
maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer
specifications.
15.Prior to any construction work on the site, including grading, the applicant
shall install a minimum 3’ x 3’ sign at the project entry which specifies the
allowable construction work days and hours, and lists the name and contact
person for the overall project manager and all contractors and sub-
contractors working on the job. Construction activity shall be restricted to
the period between the weekday hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Monday
through Friday), unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Engineer
for general construction activity and the Chief Building Official for building
construction activity.
16.Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. All internal
combustion engine-driven equipment utilized on the project site and all
stationary noise sources shall be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers
that are maintained in good condition and are equipment-specific
accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations for the respective
equipment utilized.
17.The applicant shall take reasonable efforts to assure unnecessary idling of
internal combustion engines is minimal.
18.Stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as reasonably
feasible from sensitive receptors.
19.Construction traffic to and from the construction sites shall be routed as
directed by the City Engineer and the Transportation Manager of the
Danville Development Services Department. Construction-related heavy
truck traffic is prohibited from traveling through residential areas and shall
be routed onto major roadways and as far from sensitive receptors as
feasible.
20.To the extent feasible, the project shall make use of quiet construction
PAGE 8 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
equipment, particularly air compressors. Air compressors and pneumatic
equipment shall be equipped with mufflers, and impact tools shall be
equipped with shrouds or shields. [Note: “Quiet construction equipment”
is considered to be equipment that typically generates noise levels 5 dBA
lower than that of comparable equipment.]
21.A noise construction liaison shall be designated by the applicant to ensure
coordination between construction staff and property owners and
residential and commercial tenants within 300-foot radius from the external
boundaries of the project site. These property owners and tenants shall be
notified in writing of the contact information for the construction liaison a
minimum of 15 days prior to the initiation of construction or pre-
construction activity.
22.Exterior building assemblies shall be sound-rated as deemed necessary by
the project acoustical engineer to reduce transportation noise to the CNEL
45 dB interior noise goal set forth in the Danville 2030 General Plan for
residential uses. Sound-rating assemblies for windows and exterior doors
shall be as called for in Figure 2 of the project’s Environmental Noise
Assessment, unless otherwise dictated by the project acoustical engineer at
the time of submittal for building permits. Sound insulation ratings shall
be for the complete window and door assembly, including glass and frame,
as based on laboratory test reports of similar sized samples from an NVLAP
accredited lab. Windows and exterior doors shall be assembled with sound
insulation ratings of up to Sound Transmission Class (STC) 37, as
applicable.
23.In the event that subsurface archeological remains are discovered during
any construction or pre-construction activities on the site: (a) all land
alteration work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted; (b) the Town of
Danville Development Services Department shall be notified; and (c) a
professional archeologist, certified by the Society of California Archeology
and/or the Society of Professional Archeology, shall be notified. Site work
in this area shall not occur until the archeologist has had an opportunity to
evaluate the significance of the find and to outline appropriate mitigation
measures, if they are deemed necessary. If prehistoric archaeological
deposits are discovered during development of the site, local Native
American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making
resource management decisions If subsurface deposits believed to be
cultural or human in origin are discovered during the construction of the
project, all work shall halt within a 200-foot radius of the discovery and a
qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification
PAGE 9 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeologist, shall be retained at the
applicant’s expense to evaluate the significance of the find. Work shall not
continue at the discovery site until the archaeologist conducts sufficient
research and data collection to make a determination that the resource is
either: (a) not cultural in origin; or, (b) not potentially significant or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the California
Register of Historical Resources. If a potentially eligible resource is
encountered, then the archaeologist, lead agency and applicant shall
arrange for either: (a) total avoidance of the resource, if possible; or (b) test
excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, data recovery as
mitigation. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and
submitted to the lead agency and filed with the Northwest Information
Center as verification that the provisions in this mitigation measure have
been met.
24. If human remains of any kind are found during construction activities, all
activities shall cease immediately, and the Contra Costa County Coroner be
notified as required by state law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety
Code). If the coroner determines the remains to be of Native American
origin, he or she shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the most likely descendant(s)
(MLD) to be consulted regarding treatment and/or reburial of the remains
(Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). If an MLD cannot be
identified, or the MLD fails to make a recommendation regarding the
treatment of the remains within 48 hours after gaining access to the remains,
the Town shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated
grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further subsurface disturbance. Work can continue once the
MLD’s recommendations have been implemented or the remains have been
reburied if no agreement can be reached with the MLD (Section 5097.98 of
the Public Resources Code).
* 25. The applicant shall provide security fencing, as deemed necessary and to
the satisfaction of the Danville Development Services Department, around
the construction site during construction of the project. All security fencing
shall be fitted with woven polyethylene privacy and windscreen fabric, 85%
minimum closed mesh with grommets for securing to chain link fabric.
* 26. Prior to approval of the Final Map the applicant shall reimburse the Town
for notifying surrounding neighboring residents of the public hearing. The
fee shall be $448.72 ($130.00 plus 167 notices X $0.83 per notice X 3
mailings).
PAGE 10 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
27.The applicant shall create a construction staging plan that addresses the
ingress and egress location for all construction vehicles, parking and
material storage area. This plan shall be subject to review and approval by
the Danville Development Services Department prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit or a grading permit. All construction staging shall be
done on-site. The construction staging plan shall indicate that construction
vehicle access route.
28. The applicant or its designee shall work with the Town to prepare an
affordable housing agreement (Agreement) for the project, addressing the
development, retention, and tenant occupancy of the 43 apartments. The
agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Council
prior to recordation of the Final Map for the project.
29. Construction of the below market rate units (BMRs) shall be subject to the
following construction schedule:
a. In order for the developer to receive building permits for the 63rd non-
BMR unit, the BMR units shall have been issued at least a grading
permit by the Town.
b.In order for the developer to receive building permits for the 92nd non-
BMR unit, the BMR units shall have been issued full building permits
by the Town and commenced construction.
c.In order for the developer to receive certificate of occupancy for the
105th non-BMR unit, the BMR units shall be 50% complete with
construction as evidenced by a) the most recent draw to the construction
lender indicating total construction costs incurred relative to total
construction costs, or b) such other documentation as the Town may
reasonably request and accept to assure that the 50% completion
milestone has been achieved for the BMR units.
d.In order for the developer to receive certificate of occupancy for the
120th non-BMR unit, the BMR units shall be 75% complete with
construction as evidenced by a) the most recent draw to the construction
lender indicating total construction costs incurred relative to total
construction costs, or b) such other documentation as the Town may
reasonably request and accept to assure that the 75% completion
milestone has been achieved for the BMR units.
PAGE 11 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
e.In order for the developer to receive certificate of occupancy for the
124th non-BMR unit, 100% of the BMR units shall have received
certificates of occupancy from the Town. A temporary certificate of
occupancy shall suffice for these purposes provided that all life-safety
requirements have been met and the BMR units are suitable for
occupancy.
* 30. If the applicant intends to construct the project in phases, then the first
submittal for building permits shall be accompanied by an overall phasing
plan subject to review and approval by the Danville Development Services
Department. This plan shall address: (a) off-site improvements to be
installed in conjunction with each phase; (b) erosion control for
undeveloped portions of the site; (c) timing of delivery of emergency
vehicle access connections; and (d) phasing of project grading. No structure
shall be occupied until construction activity in the adjoining area is
complete and the area is safe, accessible, provided with all reasonably
expected services and amenities, and appropriately separated from
remaining additional construction activity. Prior to initiation of each
discrete phase of construction activity, the applicant shall provide
documentation verifying that construction phases (e.g., grading, utility
installation, paving, building construction, etc.) are not conflicting and do
not inappropriately overlap.
31.If requested by directly adjacent property owners, the applicant shall be
responsible for washing the exterior of abutting residences, and cleaning
pools, patios, etc. at the completion of each phase of project mass grading
activity.
32.If demolition or construction activity (e.g., tree removal, grading, road
construction, home construction, etc.) is to occur within the raptor nesting
season (i.e., between February 1 and July 31), a pre-construction survey of
the property for nesting raptors shall be conducted, with such survey to
occur a minimum of 15 days prior to planned commencement of demolition
or construction activity. The nesting survey shall include examination of all
trees within 200 feet of the area proposed for demolition or construction
activity. If birds are identified nesting on or within the zone of proposed
demolition or construction activity, a qualified biologist shall establish a
temporary protective nest buffer around the nest(s). Where protective nest
buffering is deemed necessary, the nest buffer(s) shall be staked with
orange construction fencing or orange lath staking. The buffer shall be of
sufficient size to protect the nesting site from demolition or construction
related disturbance and shall be established by a qualified ornithologist or
PAGE 12 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
biologist with extensive experience working with nesting birds near
construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 50 feet from the
nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds, and up to 250 feet for sensitive
nesting birds that include several raptor species known in the region of the
project site. No demolition, construction or earth-moving activity shall
occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified
biologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight
skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by July 15th
of each year. This date may be earlier or later and shall be determined by
the qualified ornithologist or biologist.
B. SITE PLANNING
1. All buildings shall be designed so that reflective surfaces are limited, and
exterior lighting is down-lit and illuminates the intended area only. Prior
to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an exterior
lighting plan for review and approval by the Danville Development
Services Department that includes the following requirements: (a) exterior
lighting shall be directional; (b) the source of directional lighting shall not
be directly visible; and (c) vegetative screening shall be installed, where
appropriate.
* 2. Prior to approval of the project improvement plans, the location of any
above-grade mounted electrical transformers shall be subject to review and
approval by the Danville Development Services Department. To the extent
feasible, such transformers shall not be located between any street and the
front of a building.
3. If project entry signage for the development is desired, a Sign Review
permit shall be submitted to the Town for consideration under a separate
application prior to sign installation.
C. LANDSCAPING
* 1. Final landscape and irrigation plans (with planting shown at 1”=20’ scale)
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board.
The plan shall include common names of all plant materials and shall
indicate the size that various plant materials would achieve within a five-
year period of time.
* 2. All plant material shall be served by an automatic underground irrigation
system and maintained in a healthy growing condition. Irrigation and
PAGE 13 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
planting design shall comply with EBMUD Section 31 Outdoor Water Use
regulations and the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(MWELO).
3.All trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon container size. All trees shall be
properly staked. All remaining shrubs used in the project, which are not
used as ground cover, shall be a minimum of five gallons in size. A
minimum of 25% of the true shrubs planted in the project shall be 1-gallon
container size shrubs.
* 4. All landscaped areas not covered by shrubs and trees shall be planted with
live ground cover. All proposed ground cover shall be placed so that they
fill in within two years.
5.This approval authorizes the removal of nine Town-protected trees.
Consistent with the requirement of the Town’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance, the applicant shall calculate the total inches of diameter of
Town-protected trees to be removed, as of the date of the grading or
demolition permit application (i.e., the “Total Inches”), and submit that
calculation to the Planning Division. The applicant shall be required to
replace the identified Town-protected trees to be removed with a number
and size of oak trees equal to the total inches of the diameter of the trees to
be removed. The required tree planting may be part of the project’s
landscape plan.
It is currently estimated that all mitigation oak trees cannot be
accommodated onsite. Onsite mitigation trees shall be either 15-gallon size
trees (credited at a ratio of 2” per tree toward the aggregate replacement
planting) or 24-inch box size trees (credited at a ratio of 4” per tree toward
the aggregate replacement planting). Tree mitigation planting that cannot
be accommodated onsite shall be handled through the applicant’s payment
of an in-lieu fee, which shall be made payable to the Town of Danville. This
in-lieu fee shall be in the amount of $250.00 per off-site mitigation tree. This
mitigation fee is based on a $250.00 installed cost per 15-gallon tree
indicated in recently approved Town-sponsored capital improvement
projects. The in-lieu mitigation funds received by the Town will be applied
to an account chosen by the Town for use by the Danville Maintenance
Department staff to allow the purchase and planting of beautification trees
within the Town of Danville.
6.The applicant shall work with the Town to preserve tree # 65. If a feasible
solution is found, the tree shall be preserved.
PAGE 14 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
D. ARCHITECTURE
* 1. All ducts, meters, air conditioning and/or any other mechanical equipment
whether on the structure or on the ground shall be effectively screened from
view with landscaping or materials architecturally compatible with the
main structures.
* 2. The street numbers for each building in the project shall be posted so as to
be easily seen from the street at all times, day and night by emergency
service personnel. If the street numbers are less than four inches in height,
they shall be illuminated consistent with the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code.
* 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, final architectural elevations and
details shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review
Board (DRB). Seven full size sets of construction drawings and one 11” x
17” set of construction drawings for the project shall be submitted to the
Danville Development Services Department for DRB prior to, or concurrent
with, the applicant initiating the building permit plan check process with
the Building Division of the Danville Development Services Department
plan check process.
* 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, samples of final exterior building
materials and the proposed color palette shall be submitted for review and
approval by the DRB.
E. GRADING AND SOILS
* 1. Any grading on adjacent properties would require prior written approval
of those property owners affected.
* 2. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall
post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the
exterior boundary of the project site, to the homeowner associations of
nearby residential projects and to the Danville Development Services
Department, a notice that construction work will commence. The notice
shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and
area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall
be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of
persons with authority to initiate corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for dust, noise and
PAGE 15 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice.
* 3. Development shall be completed in compliance with a detailed soils report
and the construction grading plans prepared for this project. The
engineering recommendations outlined in the project specific soils report
shall be incorporated into the design of this project. The report shall include
specific recommendations for foundation design of the proposed buildings
and shall be subject to review and approval by the Engineering and
Planning Divisions of the Danville Development Services Department.
* 4. Where soils or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil report, a revised soils report shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Danville Development
Services Department. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and
geological opinion as to the safety of the site from settlement and seismic
activity.
* 5. All development shall take place in compliance with the Town Erosion
Control Ordinance (Ord. 91-25). Restrictions include limiting construction
primarily to the dry months of the year (May through October). If all or part
of the construction does occur during the rainy season, the applicant shall
submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Danville Development Services
Department for review and approval. This plan shall incorporate erosion
control devices such as, the use of sediment traps, silt fencing, pad berming
and other techniques to minimize erosion. All visible mud or dirt track-out
onto adjacent private or public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers, with a minimum frequency of at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping for this cleaning is expressly
prohibited.
* 6. All new development shall be consistent with modern design for resistance
to seismic forces. All new development shall be in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code and Town of Danville Ordinances.
* 7. All cut and fill areas shall be appropriately designed to minimize the effects
of ground shaking and settlement.
* 8. If toxic or contaminated soil is encountered during construction, all
construction activity in that area shall cease until the appropriate action is
determined and implemented. The concentrations, extent of the
contamination and mitigation shall be determined by the Contra Costa
County Health Department. Suitable disposal and/or treatment of any
PAGE 16 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
contaminated soil shall meet all federal, state and local regulations. If
deemed appropriate by the Health Department, the applicant shall make
provisions for immediate containment of the materials.
* 9. Runoff from any contaminated soil shall not be allowed to enter any
drainage facility, inlet or creek.
* 10 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall retain a
specialist to assess rodent control impacts anticipated to be associated with
grading activity and installation of subdivision improvements. As deemed
appropriate, following the Danville Development Services Department’s
review of the specialist’s assessment, the applicant shall develop and
implement the corresponding rodent control plan to reduce impacts to
surrounding properties to the extent reasonably possible for the time
periods of heavy construction activity. The report shall include a schedule
for regular rodent inspections and mitigation based on the development
schedule for the project. This rodent control plan is subject to review and
approval by the Danville Development Services Department.
F. STREETS
* 1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering
Division prior to commencing any construction activities within any public
right-of-way or public easement.
2.Regulatory signage/curb painting for the non-parking side of the interior
public and private roadways shall be provided, as may be deemed
necessary and appropriate, to the satisfaction of the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District and the Danville Transportation Division.
* 3. Street signing shall be installed by the applicant as determined to be
necessary by the Danville Development Services Department during the
Town’s review of the project improvement plans. Traffic signs and parking
restriction signs shall also be subject to review and approval by the Danville
Transportation Division and the Danville Police Department.
4.Any damage to street improvements found existing on or adjacent to the
project site shall be repaired by the applicant to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Division. As may be determined warranted by the Engineering
Division, such repair may include slurry seal; pavement overlay; and/or
street reconstruction. Prior to commencement of any site work, the
applicant shall establish baseline preconstruction roadway conditions in a
PAGE 17 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
manner satisfactory to the Danville Development Services Department.
* 5. To facilitate the Town’s review of the project improvement plans, that
applicant shall submit an up-to-date title report for the subject property to
the Danville Development Services Department. All improvements within
the public right-of-way, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways,
paving and utilities, shall be constructed in accordance with approved
standards and/or plans and shall comply with the standard plans and
specifications of the Danville Development Services Department and
Chapters XII and XXXI of the Town Code.
* 6. Private streets shall be improved to public street structural standards.
Private street improvements, and their dimensions, shall be as shown on
the project plans identified in #A.1. above and shall conform to Standard
Plan 104 a & b.
* 7. The applicant shall make a provision to stripe curbs and install any
necessary parking or circulation signage, as determined by the
Transportation Division.
8.The project site plan shall include pedestrian-scale design with direct access
to the primary pedestrian attractions (transit stops), as well as include
welcoming elements such as planters, widened sidewalks, benches, etc.
9.The project applicants shall subsidize transit passes for residents.
Unbundled parking costs may be used to fund the transit passes.
10.The project applicant shall provide do-it-yourself bicycle repair stands with
an air pump and basic tools to keep your bike in great shape, including
Phillips/Flat-Head Screwdrivers, 15/32mm Combination Wrench,
8/9/10/11mm Combination Wrenches, Tire Levers, Torque Wrench and
Allen Wrenches.
11.The applicant shall install “No Outlet” signage at the Project’s entrances to
discourage non-project related trips from entering the project site.
12. The project’s northern driveway shall be modified from full access to right-
in/right-out and include a stop sign along the Project driveway, if
determined necessary by the Town.
13.Project landscaping within internal intersections and at the Project
driveway at the Camino Ramon and Camino Ramon Place intersection shall
PAGE 18 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
be maintained to avoid sight distance conflicts. Shrubs should not be higher
than approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be approximately
six feet from the ground.
G. INFRASTRUCTURE
* 1. Domestic water supply shall be from an existing public water system.
Water supply service shall be from the East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD) water system in accordance with the requirements of EBMUD.
* 2. All wastewater shall be disposed into an existing sewer system. Sewer
disposal service shall be from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
sewer system in accordance with the requirements of the District.
* 3. All runoff from impervious surfaces shall be intercepted at the project
boundary and shall be collected and conducted via an approved drainage
method through the project to an approved storm drainage facility, as
determined by the Danville Development Services Department.
Development which proposes to contribute additional water to existing
drainage systems shall be required to complete a hydraulic study and make
improvements to the system as required to handle the expected ultimate
peak water flow and to stabilize erosive banks that could be impacted by
additional storm water flow.
* 4. Roof drainage from structures shall be collected via a closed pipe and
conveyed to an approved storm drainage facility in the street curb. No
concentrated drainage shall be permitted to surface flow across sidewalks.
* 5. Any portion of the drainage system that conveys runoff from public streets
shall be installed within a dedicated drainage easement, or public street.
* 6. If a storm drain must cross a lot, or be in an easement between lots, the
easement shall be equal to or at least double the depth of the storm drain.
* 7. The applicant shall furnish proof to the Danville Development Services
Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site temporary or permanent
road and drainage improvements.
* 8. All new utilities required to serve the development shall be installed
underground in accordance with the Town policies and existing
ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility
easements, sited to meet utility company standards, or in public streets.
PAGE 19 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
9. Easements marked to be quitclaimed on the Vesting Tentative Map shall be
quitclaimed and recorded prior to Final Map approval.
10.The applicant shall prepare and submit a final detailed
hydrology/hydraulic report for the project for review and approval by the
Danville Development Services Department. The report shall be submitted
to the Town in conjunction with the applicant’s initial submittal of project
improvement plans and the submittal of the Final Stormwater Control Plan
for the project.
H. MISCELLANEOUS
* 1. The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor modifications in the
design, but not the use, may be approved by staff. Any other change would
require Planning Commission approval through the revised Development
Plan review process.
* 2. Pursuant to Government Code section 66474.9, the applicant (including the
applicant or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the Town of Danville and its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the Town or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Town’ approval
concerning these development applications, which action is brought within
the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The Town would
promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and
cooperate fully in the defense.
* 3. Use of any private gated entrance in the project is expressly prohibited.
* 4. The proposed project shall conform to the Town’s Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ord. No. 2004-06) and all applicable
construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the site. For example,
construction BMPs may include, but are not limited to: the storage and
handling of construction materials, street cleaning, proper disposal of
wastes and debris, painting, concrete operations, dewatering operations,
pavement operations, vehicle/equipment cleaning, maintenance and
fueling and stabilization of construction entrances. Training of contractors
on BMPs for construction activities is a requirement of this permit. At the
discretion of the Danville Development Services Department, a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may be required for projects
under five acres.
PAGE 20 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
* 5. All grading activity shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) concerns. Specific measures to control sediment runoff,
construction pollution and other potential construction contamination shall
be addressed through the Erosion Control Plan (ECP) and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall supplement the
Erosion Control Plan and project improvement plans. These documents
shall also be kept on-site while the project is under construction. A NPDES
construction permit may be required, as determined by the Danville
Development Services Department.
* 6. Prior to commencement of any sitework that will result in a land
disturbance of one acre or more in area, the applicant shall submit evidence
to the Town that the requirements for obtaining a State General
Construction Permit have been met. Such evidence may be the copy of the
Notice of Intent (NOI) sent to the State Water Resources Control Board.
7.Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall prepare and submit
a detailed Operation and Maintenance Agreement to the Development
Services Department for review and approval. The Operation and
Maintenance Agreement shall identify the maintenance and funding for
proposed storm water management features at the project site (i.e., bio-
retention facility, storm water detention basin). All features shall be
maintained and funded by the local homeowners’ association (HOA). The
maintenance protocols shall address both routine and non-routine
maintenance activities and shall explicitly identify monitoring and
reporting requirements. These protocols shall include an estimate of annual
monitoring and maintenance costs.
* 8. The location, design and number of grouped mailbox structures serving the
project shall be subject to review and approval by the Danville
Development Services Department and the local Postmaster.
* 9. The project homeowner’s association, through project-specific covenants,
conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), shall be responsible for maintenance
of all common landscape areas and common fencing. Draft project CC&Rs
shall be submitted to the Town of Danville for review and approval a
minimum of 45 days prior to approval of the Final Map.
10.Project CC&Rs shall include a requirement that residents maintain garages
to accommodate two vehicles as intended. The CC&Rs shall include an
PAGE 21 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02
effective enforcement mechanism.
APPROVED by the Danville Planning Commission at a regular meeting on January 23,
2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
City Attorney Chief of Planning
ATTACHMENT B
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: May 6, 2022
To: Heide Antonescu, Trumark Homes
From: Sarah Chan, PE, TE, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Transportation Impact Analysis for the Borel Site in Danville, California
WC21-3818.00
This memorandum presents the results of a transportation analysis prepared for the proposed
Borel Site Project, herein referred to as the Project, in Danville, California, a town in Contra Costa
County (County). The primary purpose of this evaluation is to estimate trip generation, identify
potential VMT impacts of the Project on the surrounding transportation system, and review the
Project’s site access and circulation. This memorandum describes the Project, and presents the
methodology, results, and findings.
Project Description
The 7-acre Armand Borel Site Project is located at 3020 Fostoria Way in the Town of Danville,
bounded by Interstate 680 (I-680) to the west, Camino Ramon to the east, and an existing
residential subdivision to the north. This site is located within the existing 17-acre Armand Borel
Property and has been identified as a Special Concern Area in the Town of Danville’s 2030 General
Plan. Currently an inactive walnut orchard, this site is designated for residential use, including five
acres of Residential Multifamily-High Density (25-30 units per acre) and two acres of Residential
Multifamily – High/Medium Density (20-25 units per acre), with the allowance of an averaged
density if the result is a superior site plan.1
This Project proposes to construct a combination of 160 two- and three-story multifamily
residential units. The conceptual site plan is provided as Attachment A.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating how much vehicular traffic a project would add
to the surrounding roadway system. Project trip generation estimates are typically prepared for a
1 See Danville 2030 General Plan, Chapter 3, page 54.
ATTACHMENT C
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 2 of 12
24-hour weekday period as well as the one-hour weekday morning and evening commute peak
periods, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically the highest. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) published trip generation rates in their Trip Generation Manual,
11th Edition. This manual is a national compilation of trip generation statistics for land uses of
various sizes and types. Our assessment makes use of data compiled for the “Multifamily Housing
(Low-Rise)” (ITE Code 220) land use. Rates from this reference were used to assess the total
number of trips associated with the proposed Project. Table 1 presents the results of the trip
generation analysis performed for the proposed Project. As shown, the Project is estimated to
generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, 60 morning peak hour trips, and 80 evening peak
hour trips.
Table 1: Project Trip Generation Summary
ITE
Code Land Use Dwelling
Units
Daily Vehicle Trips AM Vehicle Trips PM Vehicle Trips
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
220
Low-Rise
Multifamily
Residential
160 539 539 1,078 15 49 64 52 30 82
Notes:
1.Trip Generation Calculations
Daily: T=6.74*X; 50% inbound, 50% outbound
AM Peak Hour: T=0.40*X; 24% inbound, 76% outbound
PM Peak Hour: T=0.51*X; 63% inbound, 37% outbound
Source: Fehr & Peers; Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition
Vehicle Miles of Travel Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were updated in December 2019 per
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to remove Level of Service (LOS) from CEQA analysis and require the use
of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) to evaluate a project’s environmental impact on the
transportation system. VMT measures the amount of driving generated by the project and
thereby the effects on the environment from those miles traveled. SB 743 changes the focus of
transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts on drivers to measuring the
environmental impact of driving.
The relevant CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Transportation Section checklist questions are:
Would the project:
a.Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b.Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c.Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 3 of 12
d.Result in inadequate emergency access?
Criterion B is the formal implementation of the SB 743 requirement to analyze VMT as part of the
CEQA Transportation section. Under SB 743, congestion-related project effects (such as those
measured by LOS or similar metrics) are deemed an unsuitable basis on which to determine a
significant environmental effect. The relevant subsection of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)
for the project reads as follows:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance
may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing
major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be
presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle
miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to
have a less than significant transportation impact.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to
evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in
absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use
models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect
professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate
vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and
explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy
in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.
As noted in subsection (4), the Town of Danville, using its discretion as lead agency, has the ability
to select the methodology and CEQA significance criteria for use in the CEQA Transportation
section. At this time the Town of Danville has not formally adopted locally applicable CEQA
metrics, methodologies, or significance criteria, and instead relies on the VMT methodology and
significance thresholds adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in July 2020.
CCTA’s VMT methodology and thresholds are specified for a variety of uses, including residential
projects, as described in further detail in the sections below.
Methodology
CCTA requires that VMT analysis be prepared using the Regional Travel Behavior Model (CCTA
Model). For housing projects, home-based VMT per capita is used as the analysis metric. VMT
calculations were prepared for the following four scenarios:
•Baseline No Project: VMT was calculated using the year 2020 CCTA Model.
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 4 of 12
•Baseline Plus Project: VMT was calculated using the year 2020 CCTA Model with the
Project land use added into transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 40053.3
•Cumulative No Project: VMT was calculated using the year 2040 CCTA Model. This
horizon year of the model incorporates land use forecasts from the Town of Danville’s
adopted General Plan and Plan Bay Area 2040. TAZ 40053 was assumed to have the same
land uses between Baseline No Project and Cumulative No Project.
•Cumulative Plus Project: VMT was calculated using the year 2040 CCTA Model with the
Project land use added into TAZ 40053.
The CCTA Model was used to assess the home-based per capita VMT. The CCTA Model assigns all
predicted trips within, across, or to or from the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region onto
the roadway network and the transit system by mode (single-driver and carpool vehicle, biking,
walking, or transit) and transit carrier (bus, rail) for a particular scenario. The Town of Danville is
represented geographically by numerous transportation analysis zones (TAZ).
Significance Criteria
Impacts are identified based on the Project’s VMT compared against a percentage of a baseline
value of VMT. The model VMT metric estimates are key in setting baseline values to be used in
CEQA thresholds. It is noted, however, that the “base year” thresholds rely on a rolling baseline—
that is, the base year baseline metric value should be reconsidered on a project-by-project basis
when each project’s Notice of Preparation is released.
Based on the proposed Project description, the “Residential Projects” threshold of significance
applies. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant impact if the Project site TAZ exceeds
85% of the above Baseline town-wide average home based VMT per resident, or if the Project site
TAZ exceeds 85% of the above Baseline county-wide average home based VMT per resident,
whichever is less stringent. Table 2 summarizes the Town of Danville and county-wide average
home-based VMT per resident and threshold.
3 The CCTA Model area is divided into geographic sub-areas called TAZs. TAZs are used in the CCTA Model
to connect the land uses to the roadway network. Each TAZ includes land use information for that
geographic sub-area within the model. The Project is located in TAZ 40053.
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 5 of 12
Table 2: Baseline (2020) Residential Project Threshold
Location Baseline No Project VMT per
Resident VMT per Resident Threshold1
Town of Danville 22.3 19.0
Contra Costa County 17.3 14.7
Notes:
1.Threshold is based on 85% of the home-based VMT per resident in the subject municipality or county-wide average.
Source: CCTA Model and Fehr & Peers, August 2021.
Based on the findings summarized in Table 2, the less stringent significance threshold is the Town
of Danville threshold. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant impact if the Project site
TAZ exceeds 19.0 VMT per resident.
Project Land Use Changes
Table 3 summarizes the land use changes made in the CCTA Model to reflect the Project.
Table 3: Multifamily Residential Land Use Assumptions
Scenario TAZ No Project Land Use
(MFDU)
Plus Project Land Use
(MFDU) Difference1
Baseline 40053 62 220 +165
Cumulative 40053 62 227 +165
Notes:
1.Fehr & Peers performed the trip generation analysis assuming 165 multifamily dwelling units based on prior site
plans. The higher unit count is not expected to change the conclusions of this assessment.
Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2021.
VMT Results
The analysis scenarios were analyzed using the methodologies described above. The VMT analysis
results for the Project TAZ are summarized in Table 4 below.
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 6 of 12
Table 4: VMT Analysis Summary for Project TAZ
Scenario No Project
(VMT per Resident)
Baseline
Threshold
Plus Project
(VMT per Resident) Difference
Baseline 19.4 19.0 19.1 +0.1 (+1%)
Cumulative 17.6 19.0 17.2 -1.8 (-10%)
Notes:
1.Based on the CCTA VMT Threshold. Baseline Threshold is 85% of the Town-wide average home based VMT per
resident
Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2021.
Based on the Town of Danville VMT impact threshold described above, the Project would result in
a significant VMT impact if the Project VMT would exceed 85% of town-wide average VMT per
resident in the Baseline (No Project) conditions. The Project is expected to result in a VMT of 19.1
VMT per resident, which exceeds the 19.0 VMT per resident threshold by approximately one
percent. While the addition of the Project reduces the TAZ VMT per resident, the Project exceeds
the significance thresholds and would result in a significant impact in Baseline conditions, and
mitigation measures would be required, described in the section below
Under Cumulative conditions the Project would result in 17.2 VMT per resident, approximately ten
percent under the baseline threshold; therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-
significant impact under Cumulative conditions. Cumulative conditions reflect the buildout of a
more diverse land use program and transportation network envisioned in the City’s General Plan.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume the proposed Project is in line with the planned multifamily
residential growth in the Town of Danville; thus, mitigation measures would not be required
under cumulative conditions.
VMT Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential mitigation measures the Project should consider in order to
reduce the Project’s Baseline VMT impact.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
For residential-focused land uses, such as the proposed Project, mitigation measures tend to
focus on reducing residential trips through implementation of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Programs. TDM refers to strategies that motivate alternatives to automobile
travel, either through positive incentives for walking, biking, and transit, or through adding
additional costs to automobile use at the project site. Fehr & Peers developed TDM+, a tool that
estimates a percent reduction in VMT due to a single TDM strategy as well as for a combination
of multiple TDM strategies. TDM+ incorporates the effects of numerous land use and design
strategies as well as various travel incentives and disincentives. The VMT reductions applied in
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 7 of 12
TDM+ are based on strategies identified in the Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions,
Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association, 2021).4
The TDM+ tool was used to analyze the Project’s VMT reduction potential in a suburban
multifamily residential environment. The recommended TDM measures include reducing the
parking supply, incorporating pedestrian-oriented design features, providing transit subsidies to
residents, as well as providing public bicycle repair stations. Outputs from the TDM+
measurement of feasible TDM measures to reduce Project VMT and their estimated percent VMT
reductions are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5: TDM Measures and VMT Reduction
Measure Description Potential Effectiveness
Reduced Parking
Project applicants shall reduce parking to discourage
drive-alone commuting by limiting an abundance of
easy and convenient parking options.
High
Pedestrian Oriented
Design
Project site plan shall include pedestrian-scale design
with direct access to the primary pedestrian
attractions (transit stops), as well as include
welcoming elements such as planters, widened
sidewalks, benches, etc.
High
Resident Transit
Subsidies
Project applicants shall subsidize transit passes for
residents. Unbundled parking costs may be used to
fund the transit passes. Percent of subsidy covered
can alter the measure's effectiveness.
Medium/High
Public Repair Stations
Project applicants shall provide do-it-yourself bicycle
repair stands with an air pump and basic tools to keep
your bike in great shape, including Phillips/Flat-Head
Screwdrivers, 15/32mm Combination Wrench,
8/9/10/11mm Combination Wrenches, Tire Levers,
Torx Wrench and Allen Wrenches.
Low
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2022.
The reduced parking and pedestrian-oriented design TDM measures should be implemented into
the site plan design, while ongoing TDM measures, including resident transit subsidies and public
repair stations, should be implemented and managed by the designated TDM coordinator.
Implementing the strategies in Table 5 would reduce the Project’s VMT reduction between one
percent and seven percent. A one percent reduction assumes a conservative reduction, suitable
4 This report is a resource for local agencies to quantify the benefit, in terms of reduced travel demand, of
implementing various TDM strategies.
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 8 of 12
for use in environmental documents. As documented in Table 4, the Project VMT exceeds the
significance thresholds by one percent; therefore, implementation of a TDM program would result
in an impact that is less-than-significant with mitigation under Baseline conditions.
Site Plan Review
Site access and internal circulation were reviewed for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and
emergency vehicles entering and exiting the Project. Recommendations are provided to improve
wayfinding, reduce driver confusion, and denote efficient linkages between the Project and
existing transportation network. It is recommended that the conceptual site plan continue to be
evaluated as the site’s design plans progress. When available, the final site improvement plans
should also be reviewed by Town of Danville staff to identify and address additional
transportation issues that cannot be identified based on a review of the current site plan, before
the Project is built. A summary of the site plan review is included as Attachment B.
Vehicle Access and Circulation
Access to the site would be provided via two driveways, the first is located at the existing Camino
Ramon and Camino Ramon Place intersection. This driveway would provide access to the Project
only and is not proposed to connect to adjacent streets. Based on estimated peak hour traffic
volumes, it is anticipated that the Project driveway intersection at Camino Ramon would not meet
peak hour traffic signal warrants, and therefore can remain an all-way stop-controlled
intersection. A second driveway is proposed, just north of the main driveway, which is also
proposed as a full access driveway.
The following improvements are recommended to enhance vehicular access and circulation
throughout the Project site:
• Project driveway should align with the existing all-way-stop controlled intersection at
Camino Ramon and Camino Ramon Place. The Project driveway should include a stop
sign. In addition, include marked crosswalks across all four approaches.
• Consider installing intersection controls, such as stop signs, to manage traffic within the
Project site.
• Install “No Outlet” signage at the Project’s entrance to discourage non-project related
trips from entering the project site
• Consider modifying the northern driveway from full access to right-in/right-out and
include a stop sign along the Project driveway.
Sight Distance Assessment
The Project, as currently proposed, provides access to the public circulation system from one
internal roadway that connects to Camino Ramon. It is recommended that the conceptual site
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 9 of 12
plan continue to be evaluated as the site’s design plans progress, with more detailed drawings
being provided. Using these detailed drawings can allow for a more thorough sight distance
assessment. Using the posted speed limit on Camino Ramon, stopping sight distance and corner
sight distance should be measured from the Project’s driveway and Camino Ramon.
The posted speed limit along Camino Ramon in the vicinity of the Project site is 35 miles per hour.
According to Table 201.1 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the stopping sight distance at
35 miles per hour is 250 feet. Additionally, per Table 405.1A of the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual, the corner sight distance at 35 miles per hour is 385 feet for left-turning vehicles and 335
feet for right-turning vehicles. It is strongly recommended that the final site improvement plan be
reviewed for potential sight distance impediments including new signs, above ground utility
boxes, or landscaping proposed in the sight triangle.
The following improvements are recommended to enhance sight distances throughout the
Project site:
• Maintain landscaping within internal intersections and at the Project driveway at the
Camino Ramon and Camino Ramon Place intersection to avoid sight distance conflicts.
Shrubs should not be higher than approximately 30 inches and tree canopies should be
approximately six feet from the ground.
• Consider restricting parking within 20 feet of all crosswalks to improve visibility and
daylight pedestrian activity.
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
The proposed site plan shows a sidewalk network along Project roadways and along the
perimeter of the planned development. This proposed sidewalk would connect to an existing
four-foot-wide sidewalk located along the west side of Camino Ramon, just north of the Project
site. There is currently no sidewalk along the west side of Camino Ramon south of the Project site,
and providing a continuous sidewalk connection from Fostoria Way in the south to Franciscan
Drive north of the Project site would improve pedestrian access. As stated previously, it is
recommended the Project driveway intersection include marked crosswalks across all four
approaches to better identify pedestrian walk paths.
• Include a minimum six-foot-wide sidewalk along the Project frontage and an internal
pedestrian network, as feasible given potential environmental and design constraints.
• In coordination with Town of Danville engineering staff, consider providing a six-foot
wide sidewalk connection from the Project site sidewalk to Fostoria Way, as feasible given
potential environmental and design constraints. The sidewalk would bridge the
connection from Franciscan Drive to Fostoria Way, thereby improving pedestrian access
to the site.
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 10 of 12
• Provide crosswalks at the Camino Ramon Place/Project Driveway intersection for all four
approaches to better identify pedestrian walk paths.
Bicycle Access and Circulation
The Project site is located along Camino Ramon, which is designated as a future proposed Class
IIIB bicycle boulevard in the Town of Danville’s Bicycle Master Plan.5 It is recommended that the
Project work with Town of Danville staff to implement the proposed bikeway improvements along
the Project frontage as doing so would improve cyclist access to the site.
• In coordination with Town of Danville engineering staff, implement the planned Class IIIB
bicycle boulevard along Camino Ramon, thereby improving cyclist access to the
Project site.
Emergency Vehicle Access
Several factors determine whether a project has enough access for emergency vehicles, including:
1. Number of access points (both public and emergency access only)
2. Width of access points
3. Width of internal roadways
The Project driveways described in the Vehicular Site Access and Circulation section above would
serve as access points for emergency vehicles. An emergency vehicle turning assessment is
recommended to ensure adequate EVA access to and throughout the Project site.
• Provide emergency vehicle turning analysis that demonstrates the ability of a standard
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) Fire Truck to maneuver throughout
the Project site, looking specifically at the Project driveways as well as all hammerhead
turnaround designs.
Vehicle Parking Requirements
Off-street parking requirements and design guidance are outlined in the Town of Danville
Municipal Code of Ordinances Section 32-24.9. The Town’s Municipal Code requires 1.5 off-street
parking spaces per multifamily dwelling unit with one bedroom, 2 off-street parking spaces per
multifamily dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms, and 0.25 parking spaces per unit (provided
as either on-street or off-street parking) for guest parking. Table 6 summarizes the Town of
Danville’s parking requirements and Table 7 summarizes the parking proposed by the Project
versus the Town of Danville’s parking requirements.
5 See Town of Danville Bicycle Master Plan, pg. 82-86
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 11 of 12
Table 6: Town of Danville Parking Requirements
Bedrooms Dwelling Units Proposed Residential Parking
Requirement1
Guest Parking
Required1, 2
Total
Parking
Required1
1 24 36 6 42
2 38 76 10 86
3 94 188 24 212
4 4 8 1 9
Total 160 308 402 348
Note:
1.Town of Danville Municipal Code Ordinances, Section 32-24.9
2.Guest parking rounded to the nearest whole number, which shows that the sum of guest parking spaces totals 41;
however, based on the total number of units proposed, the total number of guest parking spaces required is 40.
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2022.
Table 7: Alternate Option A Parking Provisions vs Parking Requirements
Type Parking Provided Parking Requirement1 Difference
Residential 296 308 -12
Guest 40 40 0
Total 336 348 -12
Note:
1.Town of Danville Municipal Code Ordinances, Section 32-24.9
Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2022.
As shown in Table 7, the Town’s parking code requires 308 off-street parking spaces for residents
and 40 guest parking spaces, for a total of 348 parking spaces. The Project proposes 296 off-
street parking spaces and 40 on-street, guest parking spaces, proposing a total of 336 parking
spaces. Compared to the Town’s parking code requirement, the Project provides 12 fewer off-
street residential parking spaces but meets the guest parking minimum. However, the reduction
in parking spaces is consistent with the reduced parking strategy described in Table 5 which will
assist the Project in meeting its VMT reduction goals. Additional parking recommendations are
noted below to ensure parking demand does not overflow to guest parking spaces.
Recommendation
To ensure on-street parking is available for guests’ vehicles, the Project may consider requiring all
future residents who own vehicles to park their vehicles in their respective garages. The
Homeowners Association would be responsible for enforcing the restriction should issues arise.
Heide Antonescu | Trumark Homes
May 6, 2022
Page 12 of 12
•Consider requiring all vehicles owned by residents to be parked in their respective
garages. The Homeowners Association would be responsible for enforcing the restriction
should issues arise.
This completes our analysis of the Borel Site Project in Danville. Please call Sarah Chan or Ellen
Poling at (925) 930-7100 if you have any questions or comments on the information presented in
this memorandum.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Conceptual Project Site Plan
Attachment B: Site Plan Recommendations
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
A
DA
T
E
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
NO.
CH
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
:
DA
T
E
:
SC
A
L
E
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
SHT
PROJECT NO.
OF
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
11
DA
N
V
I
L
L
E
H
H
AA
C
C
E
E
H
H
F
F
A
A
B
B
AA
B
B
DD
GG
HH
JJ
KK
L
L
M
M
N
N
H
H
G
G II
Additional Recommendations:
• Consider intersection controls along minor
Project driveways.
• Implement proposed Class IIIB bicycle
boulevard along Camino Ramon.
• Include a minimum 6' sidewalk along the
Project frontage and internal
pedestrian network where feasible.
• In coordination with Town of Danville
engineering sta, consider providing a
6-foot wide sidewalk connection from the
Project site sidewalk to Fostoria Way,
thereby bridging the sidewalk connection
from Franciscan Drive to Fostoria Way and
improving pedestrian access to the site.
• Maintain landscaping within internal
intersections to reduce sight
distance conicts.
• The Project site plan should continue to be
evaluated as designs progress.
• Consider restricting parking within 20 feet
of all crosswalks to improve visibility and
daylight pedestrian activity
• Provide emergency vehicle turning
movement analysis that demonstrates the
ability of a standard San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District (SRVFPD) Fire Truck to
maneuver through Project site.
Consider including intersection controls,
such as stop signs, to manage trac
within the Project site
The Project driveway should align with existing
all-way-stop controlled intersection at Camino
Ramon and Camino Ramon Place. The Project
driveway should include a stop sign. In
addition, include marked crosswalks
across all four intersection approaches.
Consider right-in/right-out access for the
secondary driveway. The secondary driveway
should also include a stop-sign.
Include a "No Outlet" sign for vehicles
turning into the Project site
Include a "No Outlet" sign for vehicles
turning into the Project site
Maintain landscaping at Project
intersection to reduce sight
distance conicts. Shrubs should
not be higher than approximately
30 inches and tree canopies
should be approximately six feet
from the ground
Project Site Plan RecommendationsAttachment B
WC21-3818_AttachmentB
Site Plan Source:
MacKay & Somps, April 2022
BOREL PROPERTY
BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
TOWN OF DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Rick A. Hopkins, Ph.D., Principal/Senior Conservation Biologist
Davinna Ohlson, M.S., Director of Ecological Services/Plant and Wetland Ecologist
Arren Allegretti, Ph.D., Senior Project Manager/Plant and Wetland Ecologist
Prepared for
Trumark Homes, LLC
Attn: Heide Antonescu
3001 Bishop Drive, Suite 100
San Ramon, CA 94583
June 21, 2021 PN 2490‐03
ATTACHMENT D
This page intentionally left blank.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Live Oak Associates, Inc., investigated the biological resources of an approximately 7.4‐acre
portion of the Borel property and analyzed potential biological constraints associated with future
site development as a residential subdivision. The site is currently owned by the East Bay
Regional Park District and is located at the northwest corner of Camino Ramon and Fostoria Way
in the Town of Danville.
The site predominantly consists of an inactive walnut orchard with a dense layer of non‐native
grasses. A small area of riparian woodland associated with San Ramon Creek immediately west
of the site is also present. San Ramon Creek may serve as a movement corridor for local wildlife,
but the site itself does not function as a movement corridor.
Special status plants are not expected to occur on the site.
Project‐related activities are not anticipated to result in impacts to waters of the U.S., waters of
the State, or riparian vegetation. Should project plans change such that impacts to regulated
waters or riparian habitat occur, then appropriate permits would need to be obtained from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Special status wildlife that could occur on the site include the white‐tailed kite, yellow warbler,
western mastiff bat, western red bat, and pallid bat. Pre‐construction surveys for nesting birds
and roosting bats, along with avoidance and minimization measures to protect birds or bats that
might be present, are summarized herein. The California red‐legged frog and San Francisco
dusky‐footed woodrat are unlikely to occur on the site; however, their presence could constrain
development along San Ramon Creek. Avoidance and minimization measures for these species
are also provided.
A formal survey of all non‐orchard trees occurring on or adjacent to the site was completed by
HortScience. Of the twenty‐three trees that were surveyed, nine trees met the Town definition
of a protected tree. The removal and preservation of non‐orchard trees should occur pursuant
to the Town of Danville’s tree ordinance and according to HortScience’s tree preservation
guidelines, and tree replacement would likely be needed for any non‐orchard trees that are
removed. The removal of orchard trees is not expected to constrain development.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 1
1.2. PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.4. STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 3
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 SITE HISTORY AND REGIONAL SETTING............................................................................ 4
2.2 SOILS ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 BIOTIC HABITATS AND LAND USES ................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Inactive Orchard .................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Riparian Woodland ................................................................................................ 6
2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS .......................................................................... 7
2.5 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT .................................................................................... 18
2.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES .............................................................................. 18
2.7 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ............................................................................... 19
2.8 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS .............................................................................................. 20
3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 21
3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) .................................................... 21
3.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................................................... 22
3.3 MIGRATORY BIRDS ......................................................................................................... 22
3.4 BIRDS OF PREY ............................................................................................................... 22
3.5 BATS ............................................................................................................................... 23
3.6 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS ................................................................... 23
3.6.1 Clean Water Act, Section 404 .............................................................................. 23
3.6.2 Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Act/Clean Water Act, Section 401 ....................... 26
3.6.3 California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602 ..................................................... 26
3.7 TOWN OF DANVILLE ORDINANCES ................................................................................ 27
3.7.1 Tree Ordinance .................................................................................................... 27
3.7.2 Creek setback ...................................................................................................... 27
3.8 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS ................................................................................... 27
4 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................... 28
4.1 OVERVIEW OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ........................................................................ 28
4.1.1 Special Status Plants ............................................................................................ 28
4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife ......................................................................................... 28
4.2 OVERVIEW OF LEVELS OF CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................... 28
4.3 HIGH LEVEL OF CONSTRAINT ......................................................................................... 30
4.4 MEDIUM LEVEL OF CONSTRAINT ................................................................................... 30
4.4.1 Regulatory Habitats: Riparian Woodland and Waters of the State ...................... 30
4.5 LOW LEVEL OF CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................ 30
4.5.1 Regulatory Habitats: Waters of the U.S. .............................................................. 30
4.5.2 California Red‐legged Frog (CRLF) ........................................................................ 31
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
ii
4.5.3 Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors ................................................................... 31
4.5.4 Roosting Bats ....................................................................................................... 32
4.5.5 San Francisco Dusky‐footed Woodrat ................................................................. 32
4.5.6 Tree Removal ....................................................................................................... 32
4.5.7 Creek Setback ...................................................................................................... 33
5 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 34
APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................... 36
APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STUDY AREA ..................................................................... 38
APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT (HORTSCIENCE 2021) ........................................ 39
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA), investigated the biological resources of an approximately 7.4‐acre
portion of the Borel property (“project site” or “site”) and analyzed potential biological
constraints associated with future site development as a residential subdivision (“project”).
This report identifies possible constraints to future site development related to sensitive biotic
resources, significant biotic habitats, regional fish and wildlife movement corridors, and existing
local, state, and federal natural resource protection laws regulating land use. Provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), federal Clean Water Act (CWA), state and federal
Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively), California Fish and Game Code, and
California Water Code could affect project buildout and/or costs, depending on the natural
resources present on the site. The primary objectives of this report are as follows:
Describe the site’s existing biological resources and summarize other site‐specific
information related to biological resources;
Make reasonable inferences about sensitive species or habitats that could occur onsite
based on habitat suitability and the proximity of the site to a species’ known range;
Summarize all local, state, and federal policies and laws regulating biological resources
that may be relevant to the project;
Identify and discuss biological resource issues specific to the site that could constrain
future development; and
Identify potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation options that could reduce the
magnitude of any likely impacts to biological resources associated with future site
development.
1.2. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is an approximately 7.4‐acre subset of a larger, approximately 17‐acre parcel
(APN 218‐090‐031) currently owned by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and located
at the northwest corner of Camino Ramon and Fostoria Way in the Town of Danville (Figure 1).
The site is bounded by single‐family residences to the north; Camino Ramon to the east; an
inactive walnut orchard to the south, which is the remainder of the Borel property; and San
Ramon Creek to the west.
The site is located in the Diablo 7.5‐minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle in the
southeast quarter of section 4, township 2 south, range 1 west on the Mount Diablo Base and
Meridian.
1.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Trumark Homes is exploring plans to develop the entire, approximately 7.4‐acre site with homes
and associated parking and drive aisles. Site improvements would include the realignment of an
existing service road along the east side of San Ramon Creek so that it occurs outside of the
Project
site
N
Project location
Vicinity Map Regional Map
See Site Location
Map (above)See
Vicinity Map
(left)
Not to scaleSan Jose
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
Project #Date Figure #
1
Site / Vicinity Map
280
880
880
280
580
580
80
80
680
92
101
238
680
Site Location Map
Upper
San Leandro
Reservoir
680
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
a
m
o
n
3 miles 3 miles
approximate scale
0
5/18/2021 2490-03
Borel Property
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
3
proposed parcel boundary. Surface runoff would drain off the property via a tie‐in to the
stormwater system along Camino Ramon.
1.4. STUDY METHODOLOGY
The analysis of potential project constraints, as discussed in Section 4 of this report, is based on
the known and potential biotic resources of the site, discussed in Section 2, and the regulatory
framework described in Section 3. Thus, the site’s broader environmental setting is described to
provide context for the discussion more specifically related to threatened and endangered
species, wetlands, and other sensitive habitats. The biotic habitats observed on the study area,
along with their constituent plants and animals, are also described. As such, the following were
completed for this biological evaluation:
Background review. LOA reviewed resource agency data and literature, including, but not
limited to, the following:
The California Natural Diversity Database Rarefind 5 (CNDDB; CDFW 2021);
The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of
California (CNPS 2021);
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service
Custom Soil Resource Report for Contra Costa County, California (NRCS 2021); and
Manuals and references related to plants and animals of Contra Costa County.
Field survey. LOA ecologists Davinna Ohlson and Arren Allegretti conducted a field survey of the
site on May 12, 2021. The field survey included the identification of onsite biotic habitats and
land uses and a delineation of the riparian edge of San Ramon Creek. All identifiable plants and
animals observed on the site were recorded.
A preliminary delineation of jurisdictional boundaries for San Ramon Creek was previously
completed by LOA plant ecologist Wendy Fisher on December 22, 2020.
A survey of all non‐orchard trees occurring on or immediately adjacent to the site was completed
by certified arborist Pamela Nagle (#WE‐9617A) of HortScience|Bartlett Consulting on May 24,
2021.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
4
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 SITE HISTORY AND REGIONAL SETTING
The site is part of the larger Borel property located at Danville’s southern limit at the northwest
corner of Camino Ramon and Fostoria Way, immediately east of Highway 680. Prior to its
conveyance to the EBRPD in 2009, the Borel property was farmed for many decades as a
productive walnut orchard.
The property is completely surrounded by intensive residential and commercial development,
particularly to the north, east, and south. West of the site is Highway 680. Development is less
intensive in the foothills west of Highway 680. San Ramon Creek, a perennial creek that is part
of the Walnut Creek watershed, occurs immediately west of the site, between the site and
Highway 680.
Like much of California, the project site experiences a Mediterranean climate with dry, hot
summers and cool, wet winters. Annual precipitation in the general vicinity of the site is highly
variable. Average annual rainfall is approximately 22 inches, most of which occurs from October
to April (WRCC 2021).
The site’s topography is relatively level, ranging in elevations from 465 ft to 473 ft National
Geodetic Vertical Datum.
2.2 SOILS
Only one soil type—Garretson loam, 0 to 2% slopes—occurs on the site. The Garretson series
consists of well drained soils with moderate permeability that formed in medium textured
alluvium, dominantly from sedimentary formations (NRCS 2021).
Garretson soils are not considered hydric, although hydric inclusions may occur within the study
area. The Garretson series is slightly acidic through most of its profile (NRCS 2021). Because it is
not alkaline, it would preclude plant species adapted to alkaline soils from successfully
maintaining populations on the site. Serpentine soils are also absent from the site, and plants
adapted to such soils would not have colonized the site in the past or under current conditions.
2.3 BIOTIC HABITATS AND LAND USES
For the purposes of this analysis, two biotic habitats and/or land uses were identified on the site;
these are 1) inactive walnut orchard and 2) riparian woodland (Figure 2). These habitats and land
uses and their constituent plant and animal species are described in more detail in the following
subsections. A list of the vascular plant species observed on the project site is provided in
Appendix A. Selected photographs of the project site are presented in Appendix B.
2.3.1 Inactive Orchard
The site almost entirely consists of an inactive walnut (Juglans regia) orchard (Figure 2). A short
segment of a service road associated with San Ramon Creek also enters and exits the
northwestern part of the property.
Although the orchard is no longer in production, the walnut trees are still extant throughout the
site. Several non‐orchard trees are also present on the site and are mostly clustered in the site’s
T
o
p
o
f
B
a
n
k
/
E
d
g
e
o
f
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
Approx
i
m
a
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
680
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
Project #Date Figure #
2
Biotic Habitats
5/18/2021 2490-03
200'
LEGEND
Approximate Project Boundary
Top of Bank / Edge of Riparian
Riparian Woodland
Inactive Orchard
Culvert
approximate scale
0
Borel Property
Aerial Photo courtesy of U.S.D.A. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP)
Aerial Photo Field Office 8/25/2020
200 feet100'
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
6
southwest corner. A few coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and an olive (Olea europaea) occur
along the western fence line, and a coast live oak also occurs within the orchard. A silk tree
(Albizia julibrissin) is present along the northern fence line.
The inactive orchard is overgrown with non‐native grasses and forbs. Dominant grasses on the
site include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oats (Avena fatua), and Italian ryegrass
(Festuca perennis). Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), field hedge parsley (Torilis arvensis),
spring vetch (Vicia sativa), clover (Trifolium sp.), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) are
also present. Brush piles and stacks of pipes occur at several locations within the orchard.
Because of its dense herbaceous layer, the inactive orchard has similar functions to a non‐native
grassland, which can provide important habitat to many terrestrial vertebrates. However, a
particular habitat’s importance to the wildlife of a region can be affected by many factors
including the proximity of suitable nesting sites, the amount of available escape cover, the
availability of water and food, and the extent of human disturbance. The Borel property is fenced
and completely surrounded by urban development and is located in a portion of Danville that has
already experienced intensive residential and commercial development. With minimal
availability of undisturbed habitat in the vicinity and none on the property itself, the site has
limited potential to support a diversity of wildlife typically found in grassland habitats in the
region.
Although San Ramon Creek occurs immediately adjacent to the site’s western boundary,
amphibians are not expected to occur in the inactive orchard because no aquatic features are
present. Reptiles such as western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and southern alligator
lizards (Elgaria multicarinata) would be expected to occur onsite, and western fence lizards were
observed on the site utilizing the brush piles for cover.
Red‐tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), and a mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura) were observed flying over the site. Other raptors and passerines, such white‐
tailed kites (Elanus leucurus), swallows, and house sparrows (Passer domesticus), may also forage
over the site or nest in trees on or adjacent to the site.
Because the Borel property is completely fenced and surrounded by urban development,
mammals expected to occur on the site would be limited to smaller species such as Botta’s pocket
gophers (Thomomys bottae), whose burrows were observed on the site, Norway rats (Rattus
norvegicus), and house mice (Mus musculus). California ground squirrels (Spermophilus
beecheyi) and their burrows were not observed on the site. Feral house cats (Felis catus) are also
likely to occur on the site. Bat species such as the Mexican free‐tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)
may forage over the site for flying insects.
2.3.2 Riparian Woodland
The edge of a small section of riparian woodland (less than 1,500 sq ft) occurs just west of the
existing service road within the northwestern portion of the study area (Figure 2). This riparian
vegetation is associated with the upper bank of San Ramon Creek, which is adjacent to and
parallels the site’s western boundary, and consists of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), coast live
oak, and white alder (Alnus rhombifolia). The understory consists of California blackberry (Rubus
ursinus), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), greater periwinkle (Vinca major), and non‐native
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
7
grasses and forbs similar to that in the adjacent, inactive orchard. Offsite, upstream and
downstream reaches of San Ramon Creek have experienced disturbance as a result of
development pressure, and woody vegetation that would typically make up the riparian corridor
has been reduced or eliminated in these places.
Riparian systems typically exhibit structural complexity, support high plant and wildlife diversity,
and serve as movement corridors for species traversing or migrating between other habitat
types. However, the riparian function of this reach of San Ramon Creek is limited because of its
proximity to surrounding development.
The small area of riparian habitat occurring on the site is located along the creek’s upper bank
next to the orchard. Therefore, while amphibians such as the Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla)
might inhabit San Ramon Creek, they are unlikely to occur along the riparian edge. Reptiles,
birds, and small mammals occurring in the adjacent orchard are also likely to occur in the onsite
riparian area. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are a common predator whose diet includes amphibians
and other aquatic organisms and would also be expected to occur in this habitat.
2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Many plant and animal species in California have naturally low populations, limited distributions,
or both. Such species are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and
the habitats these species occupy are converted to urban, agricultural, and other human uses.
Plant and wildlife species have also experienced an anthropogenic decline in population numbers
due to habitat loss and degradation, climate change, the introduction of non‐native competitors,
hunting, and other factors.
Federal and state endangered species legislation provides a legal mechanism for conserving and
protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations.
As described more fully in Section 3.2, state and federal laws provide the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for
conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. Many
native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under
state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as candidates for
such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants
considered rare, threatened, or endangered (CNPS 2019). Collectively, these plants and animals
are referred to as “special status species.”
The California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2021) and the California Native Plant Society’s
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2021) were queried for
special status species occurrences in the Diablo USGS 7.5” quadrangle in which the project site
occurs and for the eight surrounding quadrangles (Antioch South, Las Trampas, Clayton, Dublin,
Hayward, Livermore, Tassajara, and Walnut Creek). These species and their potential to occur
on the project site are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. This information was used to evaluate the
potential for special status plant and animal species to occur on the project site. Other factors
considered in this evaluation include the ability of the habitats occurring on the site to support
the species, geographical distance of the project site from known populations or occurrences of
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
8
the species, and ability of the species to travel from areas of known populations or occurrences
to the project site. Figure 3 displays the location of special status species reported in the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).
Because serpentine and alkaline soils are absent from the site, those species that are uniquely
adapted to these soil conditions are also considered to be absent. These include the alkali milk‐
vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), lesser saltscale (Atriplex
minuscula), Oakland star‐tulip (Calochortus umbellulatus), serpentine collomia (Collomia
diversifolia), Mt. Diablo bird’s‐beak (Cordylanthus nidularius), San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex
joaquiniana), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliaceae) woodland woollythreads (Monolopia
gracilens), chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis), most beautiful jewel‐flower (Streptanthus
albidus ssp. peramoenus), and caper‐fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum).
Other plant species occur in habitats that are not present on the site (e.g., chaparral, dunes, etc.)
and, therefore, are also considered absent from the project site. These species include the Mt.
Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata), Contra Costa manzanita (Arctostaphylos
manzanita ssp. laevigata), Brewer’s calandrinia (Calandrinia breweri), chaparral harebell
(Campanula exigua), Bolander’s water‐hemlock (Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi), Franciscan
thistle (Cirsium andrewsii), Lime Ridge eriastrum (Eriastrum ertterae), Hospital Canyon larspur
(Delphinium californicum ssp. interius), minute pocket moss (Fissidens pauperculus), Toren’s
grimmia (Grimmia torenii), Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii), Lime Ridge navarretia
(Navarretia gowenii), Antioch Dunes evening‐primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii),
prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), Mt. Diablo phacelia (Phacelia
phacelioides), hairless popcorn‐flower (Plagiobothrys glaber), Oregon polemonium (Polemonium
carneum), California alkali grass (Puccinellia simplex), Lobb’s aquartic buttercup (Ranunculus
lobbii), slender‐leaved pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis), coastal triquetrella (Triquetrella
californica), and oval‐leaved Viburnum (Viburnum ellipticum).
Wildlife that would also be treated as absent from the site due to unsuitable habitat conditions
include the Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), which is restricted to
outcrops of serpentine soil.
F i v e K i l o m e t e r (3 .1 m i l e ) r a d i u s
Project
Site
680
680
2 miles 2 miles
approximate scale
0
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
Project #Date Figure #
x
Special-status Species
LEGEND
Sources:California Dep. of Fish & Wildlife Natural Diversity DatabaseU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S.F.W.S. Critical Habitat
(Polygon extents can reflect location uncertainty)
Special-status Species
5/18/2021 2490-03
Borel Property
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
10
Table 1. Special status plant species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021; CNPS 2021).
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts
Common and scientific names Status
General habitat description
and blooming period *Occurrence in the study area
Large‐flowered fiddleneck
Amsinckia grandiflora
FE, CE,
CRPR 1B
Habitat: Cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grasslands.
Elevation: 275‐550 meters.
Blooms: April–May.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from
the site and the nearest documented
occurrences are more than ten miles
from the site or study area.
Palmate‐bracted bird’s‐beak
Chloropyron palmatum
FE, CE,
CRPR 1B
Habitat: Alkaline soils of
chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grasslands.
Elevation: 5‐155 meters.
Blooms: May–October.
Life form: Annual herb
(hemiparasitic).
Absent. Suitable habitat and alkaline
soils are absent from the study area.
Santa Cruz tarplant
Holocarpha macradenia
FT, CE,
CRPR 1B
Habitat: Coastal prairie,
coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grasslands, often on
clay or sandy soils.
Elevation: 10‐220 meters.
Blooms: June–October.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. The study area occurs too far
inland (i.e., more than ten miles) from
the known range of this species.
Contra Costa goldfields
Lasthenia conjugens
FE, CRPR
1B
Habitat: Cismontane
woodlands, alkaline playas,
valley and foothill
grasslands, and vernal pools;
occurs in mesic soils.
Elevation: 0‐470 meters.
Blooms: March–June.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable habitat and alkaline
soils are absent from the study area.
Rock sanicle
Sanicula saxatilis
CR, CRPR
1B
Habitat: Rocky soils of
broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, and valley and
foothill grasslands.
Elevation: 620‐1175 meters.
Blooms: April–May.
Life form: Perennial herb.
Absent. The study area occurs at an
elevation well below the known range
for this species, lacks rocky soils and
does not have the habitat to support
this species.
PLANTS (adapted from CDFW 2021 and CNPS 2021)
Other special status plants listed by CNPS
Bent‐flowered fiddleneck
Amsinckia lunaris
CRPR 1B Habitat: Coastal bluff scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill
grasslands.
Elevation: 3‐500 meters.
Blooms: March–June.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. The site supports, at best,
marginal habitat for this species. This
species was not observed on the site
during the May 2021 field survey, when
it would have been in bloom and
identifiable.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
11
Table 1. Special status species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021; CNPS 2021).
Other special status plants listed by CNPS
Common and scientific names Status
General habitat description
and blooming period *Occurrence in the study area
Big‐scale balsamroot
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill grassland,
sometimes on serpentine.
Elevation: 90‐1555 meters.
Blooms: March–June.
Life form: Perennial herb.
Absent. Serpentine soils and suitable
habitats to support this species are
absent on the site. This species was
not observed on the site during the
May 2021 field survey, when it would
have been in bloom and identifiable.
Big tarplant
Blepharizonia plumosa
CRPR 1B Habitat: Valley and foothill
grassland.
Elevation: 30‐505 meters.
Blooms: July–October.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. The site supports, at best,
marginal habitat for this species. The
nearest documented occurrences are
more than ten miles north of the site.
Mt. Diablo fairy lantern
Calochortus pulchellus
CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
riparian woodland, and
valley and foothill grassland.
Microhabitats include
wooded and brushy slopes.
Elevation: 30‐840 meters.
Blooms: April–June.
Life form: Perennial
bulbiferous herb.
Unlikely. While the presence of
riparian woodland provides some
suitable habitat, most of the site
consists of inactive orchards that would
not serve as suitable habitat for this
species. The nearest documented
occurrence is 4.6 miles northeast of the
site near Mt. Diablo.
Congdon’s tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
CRPR 1B Habitat: Valley and foothill
grassland on alkaline soils,
swales, terraces, floodplains,
grasslands, disturbed sites.
Elevation: 1‐230 meters.
Blooms: May–November.
Life form: Annual herb.
Unlikely. While alkaline soils do not
occur onsite, the disturbed nature of
the site may provide marginal habitat.
However, this species was not
observed on the site during the May
2021 field survey, when it would have
been identifiable. This species has
been documented half a mile east of
the site.
Hoover’s cryptantha
Cryptantha hooveri
CRPR 1A Habitat: Inland dunes and
valley and foothill grasslands
on sandy soils.
Elevation: 9‐150 meters.
Blooms: April–May.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable habitat and coarse,
sandy soils are absent from the study
area. The nearest and most recent
occurrence of this species is from 1908.
Western leatherwood
Dirca occidentalis
CRPR 1B Habitat: Broadleafed upland
forest, closed‐cone
coniferous forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
North Coast coniferous
forest, riparian forest, and
mesic riparian woodlands.
Elevation: 25‐425 meters.
Blooms: January–April.
Life form: Perennial
deciduous shrub.
Unlikely. While riparian woodlands
within the study area provide some
suitable habitat, most of the site
consists of inactive orchards that would
not serve as suitable habitat for this
species. The nearest documented
occurrences of this species are more
than 10 miles northwest of the site
(Graves and Shrader 2008).
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
12
Table 1. Special status species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021; CNPS 2021).
Other special status plants listed by CNPS
Common and scientific names Status
General habitat description
and blooming period *Occurrence in the study area
Mt. Diablo buckwheat
Eriogonum truncatum
CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland; typically occurs
on dry, exposed clay or
sandy substrates.
Elevation: 3‐350 meters.
Blooms: April–December.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable soils and habitat for
this species are absent from the study
area. This species has been
documented approximately four miles
east of the site.
Diablo helianthella
Helianthella castanea
CRPR 1B Habitat: Broadleaved upland
forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland.
Elevation: 60‐1300 meters.
Blooms: March–June.
Life form: Perennial herb.
Unlikely. The riparian woodlands and
orchard provide marginal habitat for
this species. The nearest documented
occurrence of this species is
approximately five miles northeast of
the site. This species was not observed
on the site during the May 2021 field
survey, when it would have been in
bloom and identifiable.
Brewer’s western flax
Hesperolinon breweri
CRPR 1B Habitat: Usually occurs on
serpentine soils of chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation: 30‐945 meters.
Blooms: May–July.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Serpentine soils are absent
from the study area. The nearest
documented occurrences of this
species are more than six miles
northwest of the site.
Loma Prieta hoita
Hoita strobilina
CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and
riparian woodland; usually
occurs on serpentinitic or
mesic soils.
Elevation: 30‐860 meters.
Blooms: May–October.
Life form: Perennial herb.
Absent. The study area does not
support serpentine soils. The only
documented occurrence in the region
is from 1865.
Carquinez goldenbush
Isocoma arguta
CRPR 1B Habitat: Valley and foothill
grassland on alkaline soils.
Elevation: 1‐20 meters.
Blooms: August–December.
Life form: Perennial shrub.
Absent. Suitable habitat and alkaline
soils are absent from the study area.
The nearest documented occurrence of
this species is more than nineteen
miles north of the site.
Northern California black walnut
Juglans hindsii
CRPR 1B Habitat: Riparian forest and
riparian woodland.
Elevation: 0‐440 meters.
Blooms: April–May.
Life form: Perennial
deciduous tree.
Unlikely. While the riparian woodlands
on the study area provide some
habitat, majority of the site consists of
inactive orchards with cultivated
walnut trees known to hybridize with
this species (Potter et al. 2018). The
nearest documented occurrence is 2.3
miles southwest of the site near
Bollinger Canyon Creek. However, only
one confirmed native occurrence
appears viable as of 2003 located
approximately 73 miles north of the
site near Jericho Valley, CA.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
13
Table 1. Special status species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021; CNPS 2021).
Other special status plants listed by CNPS
Common and scientific names Status
General habitat description
and blooming period *Occurrence in the study area
Showy golden madia
Madia radiata
CRPR 1B Habitat: Cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grassland; mostly
occurs on adobe clay.
Elevation: 75‐1220 meters.
Blooms: March–May.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. There is no suitable habitat
onsite and the last known occurrence
of this species in the region was from
1941.
Hall’s bush‐mallow
Malacothamnus hallii
CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and
coastal scrub.
Elevation: 10‐760 meters.
Blooms: May–October.
Life form: Perennial
deciduous shrub.
Absent. There is no suitable habitat
present on the study area for this
species. The nearest documented
occurrences of this species in the
region are more than five miles
northeast of the site.
Mt. Diablo cottonweed
Micropus amphibolus
CRPR 3 Habitat: Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill grassland;
occurs on rocky soils.
Elevation: 45‐825 meters.
Blooms: March–May.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable habitat and rocky
soils known to support this species are
absent from the study area.
Shining navarretia
Navarretia nigelliformis ssp.
radians
CRPR 1B Habitat: Cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools;
sometimes occurs on clay
soils.
Elevation: 76‐1000 meters.
Blooms: April –July.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from
the study area and the nearest
documented occurrence of this species
is more than five miles northeast of the
site near Mt. Diablo.
Mt. Diablo jewel‐flower
Streptanthus hispidus
CRPR 1B Habitat: Chaparral and valley
and foothill grassland on
rocky soils.
Elevation: 365‐1200 meters.
Blooms: March–June.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable habitat and rocky
soils known to support this species are
absent from the study area.
Additionally, the study area is situated
at an elevation below those at which
this species is known to occur.
Saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
CRPR 1B Habitat: Marshes and
swamps, valley and foothill
grasslands on mesic or
alkaline soils, and vernal
pools.
Elevation: 0‐300 meters.
Blooms: April–June.
Life form: Annual herb.
Absent. Suitable habitat and soils are
absent from the study area. The
nearest documented occurrence of this
species is more than eight miles
southeast of the site.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
14
Table 2. Special status wildlife species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021).
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts
Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT Vernal pools of California’s
Central Valley.
Absent. Vernal pools are absent from
the site. The nearest documented
occurrences of this species are more
than twelve miles northeast of the site.
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
FE Deep vernal pools
containing clear to highly
turbid water in unplowed
grasslands of the Central
Valley.
Absent. Vernal pools are absent from
the Project Site. The nearest
documented occurrence of this species
is approximately 15 miles northeast of
the site.
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
FT, CT Breeds in vernal pools and
stock ponds of central
California. Adults
oversummer in grassland
habitats adjacent to
breeding sites. Orloff (2011)
found that CTS are capable
of migrating up to 1.3 miles
from their breeding sites to
aestivate.
Absent. The site does not have habitat
to support this species. The nearest
documented occurrence of this species
was from 1952, approximately 2.25
miles northeast of the site, and is
considered extirpated. All other
records of CTS in the region are east of
the Hwy 680 corridor and well beyond
the 1.3‐mile migration radius of CTS.
California red‐legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT, CSC Rivers, creeks and stock
ponds of the Sierra foothills
and coast range, preferring
pools with overhanging
vegetation.
Unlikely. The inactive orchard is not
suitable habitat for the species.
Significant barriers to movement in the
form of urban development and road
crossings are present between known
occurrences of CRLF and the site.
However, CRLF are known to occur in
Bollinger Creek and Crow Creek, both
of which are tributaries to San Ramon
Creek. Therefore, while much of San
Ramon Creek flows through urban
areas and is culverted at road and
highway crossings, it is possible that
CRLF could reach the site. Breeding
habitat does not occur on the site, but
the small area of riparian woodlands
onsite offers limited and marginal
habitat for escape cover and foraging.
The closest known occurrence of CRLF
is at a stock pond approximately 1 mile
west of the site and west of Hwy 680.
The site does not occur within critical
habitat designated by the USFWS for
this species.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
15
Table 2. Special status wildlife species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021).
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts
Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area
Alameda whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
FT, CT Ranges from the inner coast
range in western and central
Contra Costa and Alameda
counties. Typically occurs in
chaparral and scrub habitats
with rock outcrops and talus
pilings. Also occurs in
adjacent grasslands, oak
savanna, and oak/bay
woodlands.
Unlikely. The site does not provide
suitable habitat for this species. The
nearest record for this species is
approximately 2.73 miles to the
northwest near the Las Trampas
Regional Wilderness.
Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
CT Nests in trees usually
positioned within close
proximity of grassland
and/or agricultural areas.
Forages over wide open
habitats.
Unlikely. The nearest documented
record of this species was from 1898
and is more than seven miles northeast
of the site near Mt. Diablo. The site
occurs outside of the known range of
this species.
Townsend’s big‐eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
CTC, CSC Primarily a cave‐dwelling bat
that may also roost in
buildings. Occurs in a
variety of habitats of the
state.
Unlikely. Potential foraging habitat is
present on the site. Existing structures
directly adjacent to the site may
provide potential roosting habitat.
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
FE, CT Frequents annual grasslands
or grassy open stages with
scattered shrubby
vegetation; needs loose‐
textured, sandy soils for
burrowing and suitable prey
base. This species uses
enlarged (4 to 10 inches in
diameter) ground squirrel
burrows as denning habitat;
may forage in adjacent
agricultural habitats.
Absent. The site does not provide
suitable denning and foraging habitat
for this species. There have been three
documented occurrences within ten
miles of the site since 1975. The
nearest observation of this species was
documented approximately 3.5 miles
northeast of the site in 1989. No
occurrences have been documented
west of Hwy 680. Lands immediately
north and east of the site (i.e., along
the I‐680 corridor) have been
developed, serving as a barrier to
dispersal. Kit foxes are presumed
absent from the site, and the site is
considered to be outside of its historic
and existing range.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
16
Table 2. Special status wildlife species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021).
California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species
Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area
Foothill yellow‐legged frog
Rana boylii
CSC Frequents partly shaded,
shallow, swiftly‐flowing
streams and riffles with
rocky substrate in a variety
of habitats.
Absent. The site does not provide
suitable habitat. This species has
disappeared from much of its historic
habitat within Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties during the past 40
years. The nearest documented
occurrences are more than ten miles
from the site.
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
CSC An aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, slow‐moving
rivers, streams and irrigation
ditches with aquatic
vegetation. Needs basking
sites and sandy banks or
grassy open fields for egg
laying.
Unlikely. The inactive orchards of the
site do not provide suitable habitat for
feeding, basking, and
aestivation/hibernation. Moreover, the
riparian woodlands occupying a very
small portion of the site offer marginal
nesting habitat for this species. The
nearest documented occurrence of this
species is approximately 3.25 miles
southwest of the site.
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra pulchra
CSC Sparsely vegetated areas of
beach dunes, chaparral,
pine‐oak woodlands, desert
scrub, sandy washes, and
stream terraces with
sycamores, cottonwoods, or
oaks.
Absent. Sandy washes preferred by
this species are absent from the site.
The nearest documented occurrence of
this species is more than fourteen
miles northeast of the site.
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
CSC Grasslands, scrublands, oak
woodlands, etc. of central
California. Common in
sandy washes with scattered
shrubs.
Unlikely. The study area provides
marginal to poor habitat for this
species. The nearest documented
occurrence of this species is more than
eight miles northeast of the site.
White‐tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
CP Open grasslands and
agricultural areas
throughout central
California.
Possible. Tall trees adjacent to the site
provide suitable nesting habitat, and
the inactive orchard offers marginal
foraging habitat for this species. The
closest documented occurrence is
approximately 5.5 miles southeast of
the site.
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
CSC Frequents meadows,
grasslands, open
rangelands, freshwater
emergent wetlands;
uncommon in wooded
habitats.
Unlikely. Breeding habitat is absent,
and the site offers marginal foraging
habitat for this species. The closest
documented occurrence is
approximately 7 miles southeast of the
site.
Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
CP Typically frequents rolling
foothills, mountain areas,
woodland areas, sage‐
juniper flats, and desert
habitats.
Unlikely. Although the study area
provides some foraging habitat, there
is no suitable breeding habitat present
onsite and golden eagle nests were not
detected during the May 2021 survey.
Golden eagles are known to occupy a
nest site approximately 6.5 miles
southeast of the site.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
17
Table 2. Special status wildlife species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021).
California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species
Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
CSC Open, dry grasslands,
deserts and ruderal areas;
requires suitable burrows.
This species is often
associated with California
ground squirrels.
Unlikely. While this species has been
documented 1.5 miles southeast of the
study area, the site does not provide
suitable breeding habitat. The inactive
orchards onsite provide some foraging
habitat for this species. Ground squirrel
burrows were not observed at the time
of the field survey.
Yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
CSC Nests in riparian thickets,
especially in willows. Also
frequents shrubby areas and
old fields.
Possible. Potentially suitable breeding
and foraging habitat for this species is
present on the study area, particularly
in the riparian woodlands.
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
CSC Breeds near fresh water,
primarily emergent
wetlands, with tall thickets,
typically of cattails or
bulrushes. Forages in
nearby grassland and
cropland habitats.
Unlikely. The riparian woodlands and
inactive orchards of the study area
provides marginal nesting and foraging
habitat, respectively. The nearest
documented occurrence of this species
is approximately 9 miles south east of
the site.
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
CSC Grasslands, chaparral,
woodlands, and forests of
California. Most common in
dry rocky open areas that
provide roosting
opportunities.
Possible. Foraging habitat is present
on the study area, however suitable
roosting habitat is absent. The nearest
documented occurrence is
approximately 3 miles northeast of the
site.
Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
CSC Roosts primarily in trees.
Prefers habitat edges and
mosaics with trees.
Possible. Potential foraging habitat
and present on the study area. The
nearest documented occurrence of this
species is from 1998, and was located
approximately 7 miles northeast of the
site.
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
CSC Forages over many habitats.
Requires tall cliffs or
buildings for roosting.
Possible. Foraging habitat is present
on the study area. Structures adjacent
to the site may provide marginal
roosting habitat for this species.
Big free‐tailed bat
Nyctinomops macrotis
CSC Need high cliffs or rocky
outcrops for roosting sites.
Unlikely. Roosting habitat is absent
from the study area. The nearest
documented occurrence of this species
is from 1979, more than 7 miles north
of the site.
San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
CSC Hardwood forests, oak
riparian and shrub habitats.
Unlikely. Although woodrat nests
were not observed at the time of the
field survey, the riparian woodlands on
the study area provide some suitable
habitat for this species. The nearest
documented occurrence of this species
is more than 6 miles south of the site.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
18
Table 2. Special status wildlife species that could occur on the project site and vicinity (CDFW 2021).
California Species of Special Concern and Protected Species
Common and scientific names Status General habitat description *Occurrence in the study area
American badger
Taxidea taxus
CSC Drier open stages of most
shrub, forest and
herbaceous habitats with
friable soils.
Unlikely. The site would not be
considered suitable habitat for this
species because it is completely
surrounded by development. The
closest documented occurrence is five
miles southeast of the study area.
Ringtail
Bassariscus astutus
CP Rocky or talus slopes in
semi‐arid or riparian
habitats.
Unlikely. Suitable habitat is restricted
to the small amount of riparian
woodlands onsite, which are of
marginal quality for this species.
*Explanation of Occurrence Designations and Status Codes
Present: Species observed on the Project Site at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Likely: Species not observed on the Project Site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.
Possible: Species not observed on the Project Site, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Species not observed on the Project Site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the Project Site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.
STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPE Federally Endangered (Proposed) CR California Rare
FC Federal Candidate CP California Protected
CTC California Threatened (Candidate)
CSC California Species of Special Concern
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 3 Plants about which we need more
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in information – a review list
California and elsewhere 4 Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere
2.5 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The USFWS often designates areas of critical habitat when it lists species as threatened or
endangered. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for
the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special
management and protection.
There is no designated critical habitat for any species on or adjacent to the project site (Figure 3).
2.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
California contains a wide range of natural communities, or unique assemblages of plants and
animals. These communities have largely been classified and mapped by CDFW as part of its
natural heritage program. Natural communities are assigned state and global ranks according to
their rarity and the magnitude and trend of the threats they face. Natural communities with a
state rank of 1‐3 (on a 1‐5 scale) are considered sensitive and must be considered in CEQA review.
Examples of sensitive natural communities include various types of wetlands and riparian habitat.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
19
Riparian woodlands are a considered a rare and sensitive natural community by CDFW based on
their range, limited distribution, rarity, and threats from development (CDFW 2021). The edge
of a small section of riparian woodland (less than 1,500 sq ft) occurs just west of the existing
service road within the northwestern portion of the study area (Figure 2).
2.7 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Wildlife movement corridors are areas where regional wildlife populations regularly and
predictably move during dispersal or migration. Landscape linkages refer to areas that allow for
the movement of wildlife and plant species from a specific area of suitable habitat to another
(Ament et al. 2014). A linkage can vary from a narrow strip of habitat that functions as a conduit
for movement (i.e., a corridor) or a large area of intact habitat that can allow for daily travel by
animals throughout their home ranges, accommodate migration to support life history needs
(e.g., breeding or foraging), support genetic diversity, and provide ability for species to adapt to
climate change (Nathan et al. 2008). Many landscape linkages are broad areas of regional
movement corridors for wildlife that generally include a wide swath of land used for movement
between two or more core areas for multiple regional species (Bastille‐Rousseau and Wittemyer
2020).
Landscape linkages are vital to terrestrial animals for connectivity between core habitat areas
(i.e., larger intact habitat areas where species carry out their life cycle). Connections between
two or more core habitat areas help ensure that genetic diversity is maintained, thereby
diminishing the probability of inbreeding depression and geographic extinctions. Linkages
between core habitat areas allow wildlife to access key locations containing diverse biological
resources essential for survival and maintenance of their life cycles.
In California, movement corridors are typically associated with valleys, rivers and creeks
supporting riparian vegetation, and ridgelines. Corridors containing higher‐quality habitat have
minimal human footprints (e.g., roads and buildings) and are preferable to wildlife over corridors
supporting little cover (i.e., sparse vegetation) and development (e.g., high‐density roads).
The importance of an area as a movement corridor depends on the wildlife species being
considered and their consistent use patterns. Animal movements generally can be divided into
three major behavioral categories:
Movements within a home range or territory;
Movements during migration; and
Movements during dispersal.
Lands surrounding the site have been intensively developed with residential and commercial
development, and Hwy 680 is west of the site. The site and larger Borel property is also
completely fenced. These factors greatly constrain the movement of wildlife between the site
and more open lands, the nearest of which occurs to the east of Hwy 680 approximately 0.4 mi
from the site. San Ramon Creek adjacent to the site can serve as a movement corridor for local
wildlife species that persist in nearby lands, particularly for wildlife that are adapted to urban
environments. Wildlife occurring in open lands around Danville would have to travel through
several miles of urban creeks in order to access the site. Upon reaching the site, larger mammals
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
20
utilizing this creek corridor would likely have difficulty accessing it due to the fencing around the
property.
Movements on and across the site consist of typical movements associated with an individual
animal’s home range. There are no unique features on the site itself that would lend it to
facilitating wildlife movements in a disproportionate way as to function as a wildlife movement
corridor. In fact, existing development around the site may deter through‐movements, and
wildlife moving onto the site would likely disperse back towards the direction from which they
came.
2.8 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Jurisdictional waters include rivers, creeks, and drainages that have a defined bed and bank and
which, at the very least, carry ephemeral flows. Jurisdictional waters also include, but are not
limited to, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. Such waters may be subject to the regulatory
authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
San Ramon Creek, which flows parallel to the site just outside the site’s western boundary, is a
known water of the U.S. that drains into Suisun Bay via Walnut Creek and Pacheco Creek. The
limit of USACE jurisdiction, as well as that of the RWQCB, over the creek is the ordinary high water
(OHW) mark. The OHW mark of San Ramon Creek is well outside the site’s boundaries; thus, it is
our opinion that areas of USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction do not occur on the site itself.
San Ramon Creek is subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFW up to the top of bank or the edge of
associated riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Recently, the CDFW has also attempted to
exert jurisdiction over the 100‐year floodplain of creek channels where the floodplain extends
beyond the riparian limits of that channel.
The edge of a small section of riparian woodland (less than 1,500 sq ft) occurs just west of the
existing service road within the northwestern portion of the study area. This area would be
subject to the CDFW’s jurisdiction. The CDFW may also claim jurisdiction over any portion of the
100‐year floodplain that occurs on the site.
No other jurisdictional waters or wetlands are present on the site.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
21
3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section discusses the regulatory framework within which the project must be implemented.
This includes a summary of the federal, state, and local laws regulating biological resources and
any other environmental policies and plans relevant to this analysis.
3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
In California, any project carried out or approved by a public agency that will result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must comply with CEQA. The
purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a project’s potential impacts on the environment are
evaluated, and methods for avoiding or reducing these impacts are considered, before the
project is allowed to move forward. A secondary aim of CEQA is to provide justification to the
public for the approval of any projects involving significant impacts on the environment.
According to 2019 CEQA Status and Guidelines (2019), a significant effect on the environment
means “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient
noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest.” Although the lead agency may set its own
CEQA significance thresholds, project impacts to biological resources are generally considered to
be significant if they would meet any of the following criteria established in Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service;
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means;
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites;
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; and
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a project may trigger the
requirement to make a “mandatory findings of significance” if the project has the potential to:
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
22
Substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels;
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
Achieve short‐term environmental goals to the detriment of long‐term environmental goals.
Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable,
meaning that the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
Produce environmental effects that cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
3.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided the CDFW and USFWS with a
mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or
low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the
state and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of
special concern, and some plants listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are
collectively referred to as “species of special status.” Permits may be required from both the
CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the take of a listed
species. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the state of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch,
capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” said species (California Fish and
Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act
to include “harm” of a listed species (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3).
Furthermore, the CDFW and the USFWS are responding agencies under CEQA. Both agencies
review CEQA documents to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species
issues and to make project‐specific recommendations for their conservation.
3.3 MIGRATORY BIRDS
State and federal laws also protect most bird species. The State of California signed Assembly Bill
454 into law in 2019, which clarifies native bird protection and increases protections where
California law previously deferred to Federal law. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA:
16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except
in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses
whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
3.4 BIRDS OF PREY
Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code,
Section 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order
Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of
any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant
thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
23
of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.
Additionally, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C., scc. 668‐668c) prohibits anyone
from taking bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs, unless authorized under a
federal permit. The act prohibits any disturbance that directly affects an eagle or an active eagle
nest as well as any disturbance caused by humans around a previously used nest site during a
time when eagles are not present such that it agitates or bothers an eagle to a degree that
interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury,
death or nest abandonment.
3.5 BATS
Section 2000 and 4150 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take or
possess a number of species, including bats, without a license or permit, as required by Section
3007. Additionally, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations states it is unlawful to harass,
herd, or drive a number of species, including bats. To harass is defined as “an intentional act
which disrupts an animal's normal behavior patterns, which includes, but is not limited to,
breeding, feeding or sheltering.” For these reasons, bat colonies in particular are considered to
be sensitive and therefore, disturbances that cause harm to bat colonies are unlawful.
3.6 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS
Jurisdictional waters include waters of the United States subject to the regulatory authority of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and waters of the State of California subject to the
regulatory authority of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
3.6.1 Clean Water Act, Section 404
The USACE regulates the filling or grading of Waters of the U.S. under the authority of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Drainage channels and adjacent wetlands may be considered
“waters of the United States” or “jurisdictional waters” subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE.
The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations and clarified in
federal courts.
The definition of waters of the U.S. have changed several times in recent years. In January 2020,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE jointly issued the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule. The new rule was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2020, and took
effect on June 22, 2020.
The Navigable Waters Protection Rule (33 CFR §328.3(a)) defines waters of the U.S. as:
Territorial Seas and Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs)
The territorial seas and traditional navigable waters include large rivers and lakes and
tidally‐influenced waterbodies used in interstate or foreign commerce.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
24
Tributaries
Tributaries include perennial and intermittent rivers and streams that contribute surface
flow to traditional navigable waters in a typical year. These naturally occurring surface
water channels must flow more often than just after a single precipitation event—that is,
tributaries must be perennial or intermittent.
Tributaries can connect to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year
either directly or through other “waters of the United States,” through channelized non‐
jurisdictional surface waters, through artificial features (including culverts and spillways),
or through natural features (including debris piles and boulder fields).
Ditches are to be considered tributaries only where they satisfy the flow conditions of the
perennial and intermittent tributary definition and either were constructed in or relocate
a tributary or were constructed in an adjacent wetland and contribute perennial or
intermittent flow to a traditional navigable water in a typical year.
Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments of Jurisdictional Waters
Lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters are jurisdictional where they
contribute surface water flow to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical
year either directly or through other waters of the United States, through channelized
non‐jurisdictional surface waters, through artificial features (including culverts and
spillways), or through natural features (including debris piles and boulder fields).
Lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters are also jurisdictional where
they are flooded by a water of the United States in a typical year, such as certain oxbow
lakes that lie along the Mississippi River.
Adjacent Wetlands
Wetlands that physically touch other jurisdictional waters are “adjacent wetlands.”
Wetlands separated from a water of the United States by only a natural berm, bank or
dune are also “adjacent.”
Wetlands inundated by flooding from a water of the United States in a typical year are
“adjacent.”
Wetlands that are physically separated from a jurisdictional water by an artificial dike,
barrier, or similar artificial structure are “adjacent” so long as that structure allows for a
direct hydrologic surface connection between the wetlands and the jurisdictional water
in a typical year, such as through a culvert, flood or tide gate, pump, or similar artificial
feature.
An adjacent wetland is jurisdictional in its entirety when a road or similar artificial
structure divides the wetland, as long as the structure allows for a direct hydrologic
surface connection through or over that structure in a typical year.
The Navigable Waters Protection Rule also outlines what do not constitute waters of the United
States. The following waters/features are not jurisdictional under the rule:
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
25
Waterbodies that are not included in the four categories of waters of the United States
listed above.
Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems, such
as drains in agricultural lands.
Ephemeral features, including ephemeral streams, swales, gullies, rills, and pools.
Diffuse stormwater run‐off and directional sheet flow over upland.
Many farm and roadside ditches.
Prior converted cropland retains its longstanding exclusion, but is defined for the first
time in the final rule. The agencies are clarifying that this exclusion will cease to apply
when cropland is abandoned (i.e., not used for, or in support of, agricultural purposes in
the immediately preceding five years) and has reverted to wetlands.
Artificially irrigated areas, including fields flooded for agricultural production, that would
revert to upland should application of irrigation water to that area cease.
Artificial lakes and ponds, including water storage reservoirs and farm, irrigation, stock
watering, and log cleaning ponds, constructed or excavated in upland or in non‐
jurisdictional waters.
Water‐filled depressions constructed or excavated in upland or in non‐jurisdictional
waters incidental to mining or construction activity, and pits excavated in upland or in
non‐jurisdictional waters for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel.
Stormwater control features excavated or constructed in upland or in non‐jurisdictional
waters to convey, treat, infiltrate, or store stormwater run‐off.
Groundwater recharge, water reuse, and wastewater recycling structures, including
detention, retention and infiltration basins and ponds, that are constructed in upland or
in non‐jurisdictional waters.
Waste treatment systems have been excluded from the definition of waters of the United
States since 1979 and will continue to be excluded under the final rule. Waste treatment
systems include all components, including lagoons and treatment ponds (such as settling
or cooling ponds), designed to either convey or retain, concentrate, settle, reduce, or
remove pollutants, either actively or passively, from wastewater or stormwater prior to
discharge (or eliminating any such discharge).
All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. are subject
to the permit requirements of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Such permits
are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in
no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued without a CWA Section 401
Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activity
will meet state water quality standards (Section 3.6.2).
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
26
3.6.2 Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Act/Clean Water Act, Section 401
There are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) statewide; collectively, they
oversee regional and local water quality in California. The RWQCB administers Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act and the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The RWQCB for a given
region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the State through the issuance of
various permits and orders.
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the RWQCB regulates waters of the State that
are also waters of the U.S. Discharges into such waters require a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the RWQCB as a condition to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a Clean
Water Act Section 404 permit (Section 3.6.1). Discharges into all Waters of the State, even those
that are not also Waters of the U.S., require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or a waiver
of WDRs, from the RWQCB.
The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code Section 13260, requires that “any
person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect
the ‘waters of the State’ to file a report of discharge” with the RWQCB. Waters of the State as
defined in the Porter‐Cologne Act (Water Code Section 13050[e]) are “any surface water or
groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” This gives the RWQCB
authority to regulate a broader set of waters than the Clean Water Act alone; specifically, in
addition to regulating waters of the U.S. through the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
process, the RWQCB also claims jurisdiction and exercises discretionary authority over “isolated
waters,” or waters that are not themselves waters of the U.S. and are not hydrologically
connected to waters of the U.S.
The RWQCB also administers the Construction Stormwater Program and the federal National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Projects that disturb one or more
acres of soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Stormwater
Program. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects that discharge wastewater,
stormwater, or other pollutants into a Water of the U.S. may require a NPDES permit.
3.6.3 California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602
The CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to
provisions of Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially
modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use of
any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of debris require a Notification of Lake or
Streambed Alteration. If the CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and
wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an
agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat
values of the lake or drainage in question.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
27
3.7 TOWN OF DANVILLE ORDINANCES
3.7.1 Tree Ordinance
The Town of Danville has a tree preservation ordinance (Chapter 32, Section 79 of the Municipal
Code) that regulates the removal and preservation of trees. The tree preservation ordinance
applies to “protected trees,” which include 1) certain species of native trees “having a trunk or
main stem which measures ten (10) inches or greater in diameter measured four and one‐half
(4‐1/2) feet above natural grade or, for a multiple trunked tree, a combination of trunks totaling
twenty (20) inches or greater in diameter measured four and one‐half (4‐1/2) feet above natural
grade;” 2) heritage trees, which have a trunk diameter of 36 inches or greater regardless of
species; 3) memorial trees as defined in the municipal code; 4) trees shown to be preserved on
an approved development plan or specifically required by the planning commission; and 5) trees
planted as mitigation for the removal of a protected tree.
Protected trees and heritage trees cannot be removed or destroyed without a Town‐approved
tree removal permit and are subject to all other provisions of the Town’s tree preservation
ordinance. Mitigation for removal of trees may be required and may include the on‐ or off‐site
planting of replacement trees “which are of a cumulative diameter necessary to equal the
diameter of the tree(s) which are approved for removal.”
3.7.2 Creek setback
The Town of Danville has an ordinance regulating structure setbacks along major creek channels,
which includes San Ramon Creek (Chapter 32, Section 22 of the Municipal Code). This ordinance
requires additions and/or new structures on properties that abut major channels to “meet
the creek current structure setback requirements as defined by Contra Costa County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District or as determined by the City Engineer.”
For properties that abut non‐major channels, all additions and/or new structures must meet the
structure setback requirements as defined in Chapter 31, Section 29 of the Municipal Code, as
determined by the City Engineer. In summary, new structures must be set back from the top of
bank of the channel by a required minimum amount based on the channel depth plus an
additional amount calculated by the channel’s side slopes and creek depth. The minimum
structure setback distance from the top of bank of any unimproved channel is 12 ft.
3.8 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
No known habitat conservation plans are in effect for this property. The property lies outside of
the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
area.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
28
4 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
This analysis assumes that the entire, approximately 7.4‐acre site would be developed with
homes and associated parking and drive aisles. Site improvements would include the
realignment of an existing service road along the east side of San Ramon Creek so that it occurs
outside of the proposed parcel boundary. Surface runoff infrastructure will tie in to the existing
stormwater system along Camino Ramon.
4.1 OVERVIEW OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Although the property is no longer in active cultivation, past agricultural use has greatly altered
or eliminated its native ecological characteristics. Moreover, the Borel property is located in an
area of Danville that has already experienced intensive residential and commercial development.
With minimal availability of undisturbed habitat in the vicinity and none on the property itself,
the Borel property has minimal potential to support special status species and other sensitive
biological resources and relatively low potential for adverse effects to biological resources
overall.
4.1.1 Special Status Plants
Special status plant species are considered either absent or unlikely to occur onsite for the
following reasons: 1) the site lacks habitat to support the occurrence of such species, 2) the
species has been extirpated and has not been observed in the site’s vicinity for many decades, 3)
there are no known populations in the site’s vicinity (i.e., within a three‐mile radius of the site),
and/or 4) the species was ruled out via field surveys conducted in May 2021 (Table 1). Therefore,
eventual site development would not be constrained by the presence of special status plants.
4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife
Most of the special status animal species known to occur in the region would not constrain future
site construction because habitats on the site are not suitable for them or the site is located
outside of the species’ known range (Table 2). Five special status animal species may occur on
the site. These include the white‐tailed kite (possible nesting and foraging habitat), yellow
warbler (possible nesting and foraging habitat), western mastiff bat (possible foraging habitat),
western red bat (possible foraging habitat), and pallid bat (possible foraging habitat). The
California red‐legged frog and San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat are species that are unlikely
to occur on the site but whose presence could constrain development. Section 4.5 discusses
these special status species in more detail along with the level of constraint that these species
may pose on the project.
4.2 OVERVIEW OF LEVELS OF CONSTRAINTS
Since the project proposes the complete development of the site, impacts to biological resources
are anticipated. Table 3 summarizes the level of constraint each biological resource may have on
the project and the mitigation strategies that would need to be employed if a particular biological
resource occurs on the site. Our determination for the level of constraint is based on the
probability of the biological resource to occur on the site, the effect of the constraint on the
project (e.g., construction delays), and the mitigation strategies to avoid and lessen impacts to a
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
29
less than significant level. The highest level of constraint are those biological resources where
the cost of mitigation could be high or where adverse effects could be so significant that the
Town may reject the project. LOA has not identified high constraints concerning biological
resources for this site.
Table 3. Summary of potential biological constraints for the Borel property.
The medium level of constraint are those biological resources that require permits and where
compensation may be necessary. We expect the cost of this compensation will be moderate but
could constrain the project. Regulated habitats such as riparian woodlands and waters of the
State pose a medium level of constraint to the project.
Biological
Resource
Occurrence* Level of
Constraint
Mitigation Strategies and Constraint Effect on the Project Agencies
Involved**
Regulated
Habitats: Riparian
woodland
Present Medium Permitting and compensatory mitigation. CDFW
Regulated
Habitats: Waters of
the U.S. and waters
of the State
Unlikely Low Permitting and compensatory mitigation. USACE and
RWQCB
California red‐
legged frog
Unlikely Low Possible permitting, preconstruction surveys, monitoring,
and other avoidance or minimization measures
USFWS and
CDFW
San Francisco
dusky‐footed
woodrat
Unlikely Low Preconstruction surveys, monitoring, and other avoidance
or minimization measures. Project delays could occur.
CDFW
Nesting migratory
birds and raptors
Possible Low Preconstruction surveys, monitoring, and other avoidance
or minimization measures. Project delays could occur.
CDFW
Roosting bats Possible Low Habitat assessment and preconstruction surveys. Project
delays could occur.
CDFW
Tree removal Present Low Compliance with Town’s tree ordinance. Town of
Danville
San Ramon Creek Present Low Compliance with Town’s creek setback ordinance. Town of
Danville
*Explanation of Occurrence Designations
Present: Biological resource identified or observed on the sites at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Likely: Biological resource not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.
Possible: Biological resource not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Biological resource not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Biological resource not observed on the site, and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.
**Agencies include:
CDFW – California Department of Fish and Wildlife
USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service
RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board
USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers
Town of Danville
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
30
The lowest level of constraint are those biological resources that would either be unlikely to occur
onsite or, if they occurred, standard avoidance and minimization measures would satisfactorily
resolve the issue. We expect the cost of these actions to be relatively low and would be
considered typical expected constraints that may affect construction timing. The potential
presence of certain wildlife species and tree removal pose low levels of constraints to the project.
4.3 HIGH LEVEL OF CONSTRAINT
LOA has not identified biological resources that pose a high‐level constraint to the project.
4.4 MEDIUM LEVEL OF CONSTRAINT
4.4.1 Regulated Habitats: Riparian Woodlands and Waters of the State
San Ramon Creek is a water of the State subject to the jurisdiction of the CDFW and RWQCB (see
Section 4.5.2 for a discussion of RWQCB permitting). A small amount of riparian woodland (less
than 1,500 sq ft) associated with San Ramon Creek occurs in the northwestern portion of the site.
The current project plans would site the project above the top of bank of San Ramon Creek and
avoid associated riparian vegetation. Realignment of the service road is not expected to impact
areas of CDFW or RWQCB jurisdiction.
If removal or pruning of riparian vegetation is needed to accommodate the realignment of the
service road, then a Streambed Alteration Agreement may need to be obtained from the CDFW
(Section 2.8).
CDFW permits are usually issued with the condition that a mitigation plan be prepared and
approved by the permitting agencies. Because the amount of impact would likely be small,
typical mitigation measures would include the creation of replacement habitat or habitat
enhancement at up to a 3:1 acreage ratio. Additionally, the CDFW typically requires mitigation
for the removal of native woody vegetation (i.e., trees and shrubs) located in the riparian
corridor. Mitigation for vegetation removal usually occurs in the form of replacement plantings
at a replacement‐to‐removal ratio specified by the CDFW in the Streambed Alteration Agreement
and depends on the size and species being removed.
4.5 LOW LEVEL OF CONSTRAINTS
4.5.1 Regulated Habitats: Waters of the U.S.
San Ramon Creek is a water of the U.S. subject to the USACE’s jurisdiction, which is the OHW
mark in the absence of adjacent wetlands. The current project plans would fully avoid waters of
the U.S. Realignment of the service road closer to the creek channel is not expected to impact
areas of USACE jurisdiction. Because project buildout and additional site improvements are
expected to avoid waters of the U.S., a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and a Clean Water
Act Section 401 water quality certification would not be necessary.
A formal aquatic resources delineation of San Ramon Creek may be warranted in the future
should the regulatory agencies (i.e., the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) require evidence that
waters of the U.S. have been avoided.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
31
If project plans change such that impacts to waters of the U.S. occur, then a Clean Water Act
Section 404 permit and a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification would need to
be obtained from the USACE and RWQCB, respectively. These permits are usually issued with
the condition that a mitigation plan be prepared and approved by the permitting agencies.
Because the amount of impact would be small, typical mitigation measures would include the
creation of replacement habitat or habitat enhancement at up to a 3:1 acreage ratio.
4.5.2 California Red‐legged Frog (CRLF)
CRLF are known to occur in tributaries to San Ramon Creek upstream of the site and could
possibly occur in San Ramon Creek itself, although they have not been documented in urban
reaches of the creek in the vicinity of the site. The site is not designated as critical habitat by the
USFWS.
The small area of riparian woodlands occurring onsite offers some marginal upland habitat that
could be used by CRLF for escape cover and foraging. However, realignment of the service road
is not expected to impact the bank or riparian vegetation of San Ramon Creek. Thus, the
proposed project is not expected to be constrained by the possible presence of CRLF in the creek.
If project plans change such that impacts to the creek or its associated riparian vegetation occurs,
project development could be constrained in the vicinity of the realignment work. If impacts to
the creek channel are restricted to the bank above the OHW (i.e., waters of the U.S. are
completely avoided), then it is our opinion that there would not be an adverse effect to CRLF and,
consequently, that take authorization from the USFWS would not be necessary so long as
reasonable avoidance and minimization measures are taken to protect CRLF and their habitat.
Such measures could include, but would not be limited to, construction personnel training, pre‐
construction surveys, exclusion fencing, an onsite biological monitor during construction, and
timing of construction to occur outside of the rainy season.
If project‐related impacts to waters of the U.S. were to occur, then such work would require CWA
Section 404 authorization from the USACE (Section 4.5.1). The USACE would likely seek take
authorization from the USFWS via an ESA Section 7 consultation. If a take permit is required, the
project is likely to qualify for the small effects programmatic Section 7 biological opinion for the
CRLF issued by the USFWS in 2014. This biological opinion is designed specifically for projects
typically authorized under certain Nationwide Permits.
4.5.3 Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors
The inactive orchard and riparian woodland on the study area serve as foraging habitat for
raptors and migratory birds. Onsite habitats also provide some potential nesting habitat for
migratory birds such as the yellow warbler (Table 2). All nesting raptors and migratory birds,
regardless of their status, are protected by state and federal laws. Therefore, construction
activities that result in mortality of individual birds or adversely affect the nesting success of
raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) constitute a violation
of state and federal laws.
Project‐related activities that occur during the breeding season could be constrained in the
vicinity of any active nests. If tree removal or ground disturbance activities are scheduled to
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
32
commence during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), preconstruction bird
surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify possible nesting activity. A
construction‐free buffer of suitable dimensions must be established around any active raptor and
migratory bird nests (typically up to 250 feet, depending on the location and species) for the
duration of the project or until it has been determined that the chicks have fledged and are
independent of their parents.
4.5.4 Roosting Bats
Bats could potentially roost in onsite trees having a dense canopy or cavities, which could
constrain project‐related activities in the vicinity of active roosts.
A habitat assessment of the onsite trees should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
their removal. A night emergence survey may be necessary if the biologist is not able to physically
access all potential roost areas for visual observation.
If a non‐breeding or non‐wintering bat colony is found, the individuals should be humanely
evicted via the partial dismantlement (two‐step removal) of the trees prior to their removal
under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure that no take would occur to any bats as a
result of demolition activities.
If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is identified on the site, then a construction‐free
buffer should be established around the tree(s) and remain in place until it has been determined
that the colony is no longer active. Tree removal should occur between March 1 and April 15 or
between August 15 and October 15 to avoid interfering with an active nursery and/or
overwintering bats.
4.5.5 San Francisco Dusky‐footed Woodrat
The San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat is a state species of special concern, and while this
species is unlikely to nest onsite (Table 2), the presence of San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat
nests could constrain development in the vicinity of the nests. Any construction activity that
results in harm or mortality to this species, or in nest abandonment, may be considered a
significant impact under CEQA and a violation of state law.
A qualified biologist would likely need to conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco
dusky‐footed woodrat nests no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities.
This survey timing allows for the scheduling of and deconstruction of woodrat nests, if necessary.
The survey should encompass all construction zones and surrounding lands within 50 feet.
Identified nests should be avoided, where possible. If avoidance is not possible, the nest(s) would
need to be manually deconstructed when helpless young are not present, typically during the
non‐breeding season (October through January).
4.5.6 Tree Removal
A formal tree survey of the site was conducted by HortScience (2021), at which time the species,
location, diameter at 54 inches above grade, health and structural condition, and suitability for
preservation of all non‐orchard trees occurring within and adjacent to the proposed
development footprint were recorded. HortScience’s preliminary arborist report is available as
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
33
Appendix C. In total, twenty‐three trees representing six species were surveyed. Based on the
Town of Danville’s criteria for protected and heritage trees (Section 3.7.1), nine protected trees
were present in the surveyed area (Table 4). Of these, two heritage trees were present.
Non‐orchard Trees. Nine non‐orchard trees occur on the site and fourteen other non‐orchard
trees are adjacent to the site, all of which could be impacted by site development (HortScience
2021). Most, if not all, of the onsite trees will likely be removed to accommodate future buildout
of the site. Damage may also occur to the trees adjacent to the project site. Removal of or injury
to non‐orchard trees on or adjacent to the project site could constrain site development.
Tree removal and preservation should occur pursuant to the Town of Danville’s tree ordinance
(Section 3.7.1) and according to the recommendations set forth in the arborist report
(HortScience 2021). The replacement of removed trees will likely be required as part of permit
conditions. The Town has specific tree replacement‐to‐removal ratios depending on the type
(e.g., native, non‐native, and orchard trees) and size of the tree being removed.
Orchard Trees. All of the orchard trees on the site are expected to be removed as part of site
development. Removal of these trees is not anticipated to require mitigation and would not be
expected to constrain project development. However, these trees should still be surveyed for
the presence of nesting birds or roosting bats (Sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.4, respectively).
4.5.7 Creek Setback
The project site is adjacent to San Ramon Creek. Therefore, development of the site would need
to conform to the Town’s creek setback ordinance.
Table 4. Summary of surveyed trees.
Location
Protected
Trees
Non‐protected
trees Subtotal
Onsite 6 3 9
Offsite but adjacent 3 11 14
TOTAL 9 14 23
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
34
5 LITERATURE CITED
Ament R.A., P. McGowen, M.L. McClure, A. Rutherford, C. Ellis, and J. Grebenc. 2014. Highway
mitigation for wildlife in Northwest Montana. Sonoran Institute, Bozeman. Retrieved
from http://largelandscapes.org/media/ publications/Highway‐Mitigation‐Wildlife‐NW‐
Montana_1.pdf
Bastille‐Rousseau, G., and G. Wittemyer. 2020. Characterizing the landscape of movement to
identify critical wildlife habitat and corridors. Conservation Biology. Accepted Author
Manuscript. DOI:10.1111/cobi.13519.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB), Rarefind 5. Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants.
Available online at: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi‐bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Accessed May
2021.
Graves, W.R. and Schrader, J.A., 2008. At the interface of phylogenetics and population
genetics, the phylogeography of Dirca occidentalis (Thymelaeaceae). American Journal of
Botany, 95(11), pp.1454‐1465.
HortScience Inc./Bartlett Consulting. 2021. Preliminary arborist report, Borel property, Camino
Ramon, Danville, California. Pleasanton, CA.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Contra Costa County, California, USDA.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed May 2021.
Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE. 2008. A movement
ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:19052–19059.
Orloff, S. G. 2011. Movement patterns and migration distances in an upland population of
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Herpetological Conservation and
Biology 6(2):266‐276.
Potter, D., Bartosh, H., Dangl, G., Yang, J., Bittman, R. and Preece, J., 2018. Clarifying the
conservation status of Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) using
microsatellite markers. Madroño, 65(3), pp.131‐140.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Department of the Army.
USACE and EPA. 2007a. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s
Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
35
________. 2007b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form
Instructional Guidebook. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Washington, D.C.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2021. Climate summary for Alamo 1 N, California.
WRCC: Reno, Nevada. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi‐bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0064. Accessed May
2021.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
36
APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE STUDY AREA
The plants species listed below were observed on the Borel site during the field survey conducted
by Live Oak Associates on May 12, 2021. The wetland indicator status of each plant as listed in
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2018 National Wetland Plant list is shown following its common
name (USACE 2018).
OBL ‐ Obligate
FACW ‐ Facultative Wetland
FAC ‐ Facultative
FACU ‐ Facultative Upland
UPL ‐ Upland
ASTERACEAE ‐ Sunflower Family
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort FAC
Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle UPL
Helminthotheca echioides* Bristly ox‐tongue FAC
APIACEAE – Carrot Family
Torilis arvensis* Field hedge parsley UPL
APOCYNACEAE – Dogbane Family
Vinca major* Greater periwinkle UPL
BETULACEAE – Birch Family
Alnus rhombifolia White alder FACW
BORAGINACEAE – Borage Family
Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck UPL
CONVOLVULACEAE – Morning‐Glory Family
Convolvulus arvensis* Field bindweed UPL
FABACEAE – Legume Family
Albizia julibrissin* Silktree UPL
Vicia sativa ssp. sativa* Spring vetch FACU
Trifolium sp.* Clover UPL
FAGACEAE – Oak Family
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak UPL
JUGLANDACEAE – Walnut Family
Juglans regia English walnut UPL
OLEACEAE – Olive Family
Olea europaea* Olive UPL
POACEAE ‐ Grass Family
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
37
Avena sp.* Wild oat UPL
Bromus diandrus* Ripgut brome UPL
Festuca perennis* Italian ryegrass FAC
Hordeum murinum* Foxtail barley FACU
ROSACEAE – Rose Family
Rubus ursinus California blackberry FAC
SALICACEAE – Willow Family
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow FACW
*Non‐native species
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
38
APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STUDY AREA
Photo 1: Inactive orchard with dense herbaceous layer of non‐native grasses.
Photo 2: Existing service road that parallels a section of the riparian woodland
associated with San Ramon Creek.
Borel Property PN 2490‐03
39
APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT (HORTSCIENCE 2021)
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Preliminary Arborist Report
Borel Property
Camino Ramon Danville, CA
PREPARED FOR Live Oak Associates, Inc. 6840 Via del Oro, Suite 220 San Jose, CA 95119
PREPARED BY: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 94566
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Preliminary Arborist Report Borel Property
Danville, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Protected Trees in Danville 4
Suitability for Preservation 4
Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 5
Estimate of Value 6
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees. 2
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. 5
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Assessment Form
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com
Preliminary Arborist Report Borel Property
Danville, CA
Introduction and Overview Live Oak Associates, Inc. is preparing environmental reports associated with development of the subject property located on Camino Ramon west of Camino Ramon Place in Danville, CA. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company) was asked to prepare an Arborist Report as a part of the application to the City of Danville. The 7-acre project site is a portion of an existing orchard bounded by a trail area and I-680 on the west side, Fostoria Way to the south, Camino Ramon to the east, and a residential neighborhood to the north.
This report provides the following information: 1.Assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed projectarea based on a visual inspection from the ground.2.Evaluation of the impacts to trees based on development plans provided by the client.3.Estimated value of trees based on the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisersmethodology.
4.Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases
of development.
Tree Assessment Methods Trees were assessed on May 24, 2021. The assessment included all non-orchard trees within or
adjacent to the project boundary with a diameter of 6” or greater. More than half the trees assessed were off-site (14 trees). Tree tag numbers started at #50. The assessment procedure
consisted of the following steps:
1.Identifying the tree species;
2.Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map;
3.Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; for off-site trees diameterswere estimated.
4.Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5 based on a visualinspection from the ground:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptom of disease, with
good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural
defects that could be corrected. 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of
crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 2
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
5.Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability forpreservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and itspotential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category. Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas.
Description of Trees Twenty (23) trees representing 6 species were evaluated (Table 1). Thirteen (13) trees were in fair condition, eight (8) were in poor condition, and two trees were in good condition. Fourteen off-site trees with canopies overhanging the property were included in the assessment. None of the orchard species were assessed. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees Borel Property, Danville, CA
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor (1-2) Fair (3) Good (4-5)
Silk tree Albizia julibrissin 1 - - 1
Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens 1 6 - 7
California black walnut Juglans hindsii 1 2 - 3
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 4 5 1 10
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - - 1 1
Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 1 - - 1
Total 8 13 2 23
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 3
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Coast live oak was the most frequently occurring species with ten (10) trees, or about 23% of the population (Photo 1). Eight trees were on the property, most of them clustered in the southwest corner, and trees #50 and 72 were just off-site. Trees ranged from young (8 inches diameter) to mature (36 inches). Five oaks were in fair condition, four were in poor condition and one was poor. Oak #51 was growing from the center of a split walnut tree trunk within.
Seven incense cedars were assessed, all growing off-site on residential properties north of the site. Six were in fair condition and one was in poor condition. Most had sparse crowns and candelabra-shaped upward curving branches typical of the species. Diameters ranged from 10 to 38 inches in diameter. Branches extended from 10 to 22 feet over the site. (Photo 2).
Three off-site California black walnuts were assessed, also growing on properties to the north. The walnuts were mature trees ranging from about 24 to 28 inches in diameter, and had wide spreading crowns overhanging the site by 8 to 13 feet. Two were in fair condition and one was in poor condition.
The remaining 3 species were represented by one tree each:
•Silk tree #59 had three stems between 6 and 7 inches in diameter and was in poorcondition. It was close to the north property fence and suppressed by off-site incense cedar#60.
•Off-site Siberian elm #63 was a large over-mature tree of about 34 inches diameter andmultiple branch attachments at 10 feet. It was in poor condition with a sparse crown andhistory of limb removal and failures (Photo 2).
•Off-site coast redwood #64 was a young tree with a 13-inch diameter trunk on a property atthe northwest corner of the site. It was in good condition with typical upright form butcrowded by elm #63 nearby.
Photo 1 (left). Coast live oaks #66 – 72 were growing together in the southwest corner of the property.
Photo 2. Off-site incense cedar #62 is in center of photo, and canopy of Siberian elm #63 is at upper left (yellow arrow). Orchard trees are visible at right. View is from west.
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 4
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Protected Trees in Danville
Town of Danville Tree Preservation Ordinance 32-79 defines certain species with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more measured at 54 inches above grade as Protected and a tree of any species with a trunk diameter of 36” or more as Heritage. Based on this definition, coast live oaks #50, 51, 65, 67, 69, 71 and 72 qualified as Protected. Incense cedar #61 and coast live oak #68 qualified as Heritage trees.
Permits and replacement tree planting are required for the removal of Protected and Heritage trees.
Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment, and perform well in the landscape.
Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability, and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health present a low risk of damage or injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure, and death should be allowed to continue. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
•Tree healthHealthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition ofexisting structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, off-site Siberian elm had a sparse crown with branchdieback. A tree in declining health would not be as tolerant of impacts as trees in goodhealth.
•Structural integrityTrees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot becorrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage topeople or property is likely. For example, silk tree #59 was leaning south and had multipleattachments rising from its base; these present structural defects that are difficult if notimpossible to correct in mature trees.
•Species responseThere is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts andchanges in the environment. Coast redwood is relatively tolerant to construction impacts,while California black walnut has poor tolerance to disturbance.
•Tree age and longevityOld trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limitedphysiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able togenerate new tissue and respond to change.
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 5
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
•Species invasivenessSpecies that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not alwaysappropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database http://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/lists species identified as being invasive. Danville is part of the Central West Floristic
Province. None of the species assessed are invasive.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment in Exhibits,
and Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas
where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation Borel Property, Danville, CA
High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Two tree had high suitability for preservation: coast
redwood #64 and coast live oak #72.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. These trees require more intense management and
monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Eleven (11) trees had moderate suitability for preservation.
Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure
that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either
characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Ten (10) trees had low suitability for preservation.
Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
The Tree Assessment Form was the reference point for tree health, condition, and suitability for preservation. I used the Unit Breakdown and Distribution plan provided by the developer (Borel Property Pre-App-Trumark Homes, Dahlin, 1/29/2021) to determine the project area and evaluate impacts to trees. The plans indicate demolition of the existing orchard and construction of a new housing development with internal access roads and parking. This report is preliminary because no site grading, utility, landscape or other construction plans were reviewed.
The site will be redeveloped from property line to property line and potential impacts to trees will be severe. Based on my assessment of the proposed plan and evaluation of the trees, I recommend removal of all nine trees on the site (#51, 59, and 65 – 71). Impacts from the proposed project are severe, making it unlikely that any of the trees can be retained.
Off-site trees on neighboring properties to the north (#52 – 58 and 62 – 64) are expected to experience minimal to significant impacts to their outer crowns and root systems, depending upon distance from north property fence. Off-site coast live oaks #50 and 72 can potentially preserved if
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 6
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
construction activity is kept out of their driplines (oak #50 is the closest to site, approximately 8 feet from southeastern edge of project limits).
Successful retention of the trees to be preserved will require adherence to the Tree Preservation Guidelines.
Estimate of Value
The Town of Danville requires establishing the value of all assessed trees. To accomplish this, I used the standard methods found in Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition (published in 2018 by the International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign IL). In addition, I referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. These two documents outline the methods employed in estimating tree value.
The reproduction cost of landscape trees is based upon four factors: size, condition, functional limitations and external limitations. Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54" above grade. Condition reflects the health and structural integrity of the individual, as noted in the Tree Assessment. Functional limitations consider the interaction of the tree with its planting site currently and for the foreseeable future. I did not identify any external limitations at this site.
The estimate of value for the 23 trees assessed in this report is $134,750. The value of the 9 trees being removed is $48,150. The value of the 14 trees that can potentially be preserved is $86,600. The estimated value of each tree is shown in the Tree Assessment Exhibit.
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to the existing trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.
Tree Protection Zones For off-site trees to the north, the TREE PROTECTION ZONE is the fence at the property line. For design purposes, the TREE PROTECTION ZONES for trees #50 and 72 shall be established 2 feet outside the driplines of both trees. a) Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior todemolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into theground or equivalent as approved by the City.
b) Fences must be installed prior to start of construction.
c)No grading, excavation, construction, storage, or dumping of materials shall occur withinthe TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
d) No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur withinthe TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
e)No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed inthe TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 7
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1.Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Keep the mulch6” from the base of tree trunks.
2.Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied backand protected from damage. Lower branches of off-site incense cedars #55 – 58 and 60-62may need to be pruned for construction clearance.
3.Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter,raise canopies as needed for construction activities.
a.All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49).All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordancewith the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society ofArboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American NationalStandard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
b.The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition.
4.Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition mustoccur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devicessuch as winding silt sock wattling around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks.
5.All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish andWildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning andremoval should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should beconducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing workbuffers for active nests.
6.Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTIONZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
7.All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to bepreserved.
8.Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTIONZONE. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of,and be supervised by, the Consulting Arborist.
9.All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible.The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREEPROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the ConsultingArborist.
10. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. If roots 2” and greater indiameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, theConsulting Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the treeand recommend treatment.
11.All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3
to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a
depth of 30”. Additional irrigation may be necessary for the coast redwoods to mitigate prior
root loss.
12.If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon aspossible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 8
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1.Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTIONZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
2.All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to bepreserved.
3.Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the workarea. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permissionof the Consulting Arborist.
4.Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE atall times.
5.Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and besupervised by the Consulting Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat andsmooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2” in diameter should be avoided.
6.If roots 2” and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut tocomplete the construction, the Consulting Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects onthe health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.
7.Any brush clearing required within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be accomplished withhand-operated equipment.
8.Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall away from TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoidpulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arboristmay require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grindingthe stump below ground.
9.All down brush and trees shall be removed from the TREE PROTECTION ZONE either by hand, orwith equipment sitting outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Extraction shall occur by lifting thematerial out, not by skidding across the ground.
10.Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTIONZONE. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of,and be supervised by, the Consulting Arborist.
11.Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREEPROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.
12.All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible.The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREEPROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the ConsultingArborist.
13.All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to adepth of 30”.
14.If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon aspossible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
15.No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or storedwithin the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
16.Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by aCertified Arborist and not by construction personnel.
17.Trees that accumulate a sufficient quantity of dust on their leaves, limbs and trunk as judgedby the Consulting Arborist shall be spray-washed at the direction of the Project Arborist.
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 9
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Maintenance of impacted trees Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.
Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.
If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Pam Nagle Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester Certified Arborist #WE-9617A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Preliminary Arborist Report – Borel Property, Danville Page 10
June 4, 2021
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Assessment
Tr
e
e
N
o
.
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
T
r
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
Tr
e
e
?
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1=
p
o
o
r
5=
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
a
i
s
e
d
Va
l
u
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
50
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
1
0
,
7
,
6
Y
e
s
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
2
,
0
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
.
C
o
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
t
e
m
s
a
r
i
s
e
a
t
b
a
s
e
a
n
d
3
'
;
lo
w
c
r
o
w
n
w
i
t
h
s
h
r
u
b
b
y form ; vi g orous.
51
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
1
2
Y
e
s
2
L
o
w
$
8
0
0
G
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
u
t
o
f
w
a
l
n
u
t
t
r
u
n
k
;
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
at
1
2
'
;
v
i
g or
o
u
s
.
52
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
b
l
a
c
k
wa
l
n
u
t
24
N
o
3
L
o
w
$
5
,
2
0
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
5'
;
s
p
a
r
s
e
w
i
t
h
b
r
a
n
c
h
d
i
e
b
a
c
k
;
9
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p ro
p er
t
y .
53
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
b
l
a
c
k
wa
l
n
u
t
26
N
o
2
L
o
w
$
3
,
6
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Multiple attachments at
5'
;
d
e
c
a
y
a
t
N
.
E
.
s
i
d
e
o
f
b
a
s
e
;
8
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p ro
p er
t
y .
54
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
b
l
a
c
k
wa
l
n
u
t
28
N
o
3
L
o
w
$
7
,
0
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Multiple attachments at
6'
;
w
i
d
e
s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
c
r
o
w
n
;
1
3
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p ro
p er
t
y .
55
I
n
c
e
n
s
e
c
e
d
a
r
1
7
N
o
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
2
,
6
0
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Codominant stems at 15';
up
r
i
g
h
t
n
a
r
r
o
w
f
o
r
m
;
1
4
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
56
I
n
c
e
n
s
e
c
e
d
a
r
1
0
N
o
2
L
o
w
$
5
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Crowded by #55 and 57;
na
r
r
o
w
u
p
r
i
g
h
t
f
o
r
m
;
s
p
a
r
s
e
;
1
1
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p ro
p er
t
y .
57
I
n
c
e
n
s
e
c
e
d
a
r
1
9
N
o
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
3
,
2
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
1' from fence; 1-sided to
N.
(lo
w
e
r
c
r
o
w
n
);
9
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g on p ro p ert y .
58
I
n
c
e
n
s
e
c
e
d
a
r
1
4
N
o
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
1
,
8
0
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
t
o
S
.
s
i
d
e
o
v
e
r
fe
n
c
e
;
s
p
a
r
s
e
c
r
o
w
n
;
1
-
s
i
ded to N. (lower crown);
10
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
59
S
i
l
k
t
r
e
e
7
,
7
,
6
N
o
2
L
o
w
$
6
0
0
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
me
n
t
s
a
r
i
s
e
f
r
o
m
b
a
s
e
;
l
e
a
n
s
S
.
;
1
'
fr
o
m
f
e
n
c
e
;
s
u
pp
re
s
s
e
d
b
y #60.
60
I
n
c
e
n
s
e
c
e
d
a
r
1
8
N
o
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
2
,
9
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Wide, crown with history
of
l
i
m
b
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
s
;
1
0
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Tr
e
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Bo
r
e
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Da
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
Ma
y
2
0
2
1
Tr
e
e
N
o
.
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Tr
u
n
k
Di
a
m
e
t
e
r
(i
n
.
)
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
Tr
e
e
?
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1=
p
o
o
r
5=
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
Su
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
a
i
s
e
d
Va
l
u
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Tr
e
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Bo
r
e
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Da
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
Ma
y
2
0
2
1
61
I
n
c
e
n
s
e
c
e
d
a
r
38
Y
e
s
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
1
2
,
1
0
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Upright structure with
sp
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
c
a
n
d
e
l
a
b
r
a
f
o
r
m
;
f
u
s
e
d
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
s
;
sl
i
g ht
l
y s
p ar
s
e
c
r
o
w
n
; 2
2
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g on p ro p ert y .
62
I
n
c
e
n
s
e
c
e
d
a
r
3
2
N
o
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
9
,
0
0
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Laterals to S. over fence;
up
r
i
g
h
t
p
y
r
a
m
i
d
a
l
f
o
r
m
;
s
p
a
r
s
e
c
r
o
w
n
;
1
5
'
ov
e
r
h
a
n
g o
n
p ro
p er
t
y .
63
S
i
b
e
r
i
a
n
e
l
m
3
4
N
o
2
L
o
w
$
7
,
2
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
Multiple attachments at
10
'
;
g
a
r
d
e
n
h
o
s
e
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
;
hi
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
l
i
m
b
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
s
a
n
d
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
s
;
s
p
a
r
s
e
w
i
t
h
br
a
n
c
h
d
i
e
b
a
c
k
; 1
8
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g on p ro p ert y .
64
C
o
a
s
t
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
1
3
N
o
4
H
i
g
h
$
2
,
4
5
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
;
t
a
g
o
n
f
e
n
c
e
.
4' from fence; typical
up
r
i
g
h
t
f
o
r
m
;
c
r
o
w
d
e
d
b
y
#
6
3
;
7
'
o
v
e
r
h
a
n
g
o
n
p ro
p er
t
y .
65
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
2
2
,
2
1
,
1
9
Y
e
s
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
1
3
,
8
0
0
M
u
l
t
i
p
le
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
2
'
w
/
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
b
a
r
k
a
n
d
se
a
m
s
;
v
a
s
e
f
o
r
m
w
i
t
h
l
o
w
b
r
a
n
c
h
i
n
g
;
v
i
g
o
r
o
u
s
.
66
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
8
N
o
2
L
o
w
$
4
5
0
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
e
a
n
N
.
;
v
i
g
o
r
o
u
s
c
r
o
w
n
.
67
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
1
3
Y
e
s
2
L
o
w
$
1
,
1
0
0
C
r
o
w
d
e
d
b
y
n
e
a
r
b
y
w
a
l
n
u
t
;
l
e
a
n
s
N
.
;
s
i
n
u
o
u
s
tr
u
n
k
.
68
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
3
6
Y
e
s
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
1
3
,
3
5
0
C
o
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
t
e
m
s
a
t
6
'
w
i
t
h
s
e
a
m
;
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
at
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
v
e
;
l
o
s
t
l
i
m
b
w
/
h
o
l
l
o
w
N
.
W
.
si
d
e
;
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
e
a
n
E
.
;
l
a
r
g
e
t
r
e
e
.
69
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
2
9
Y
e
s
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
9
,
0
5
0
C
o
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
t
e
m
s
a
t
9
'
w
/
s
e
a
m
;
d
i
e
b
a
c
k
i
n
so
m
e
l
o
w
e
r
b
r
a
n
c
h
e
s
.
70
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
8
,
4
N
o
2
L
o
w
$
5
5
0
C
o
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
t
em
s
a
t
3
'
;
c
r
o
w
d
e
d
;
u
p
r
i
g
h
t
n
a
r
r
o
w
fo
r
m
;
s
p ar
s
e
.
71
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
2
8
Y
e
s
3
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
$
8
,
4
5
0
C
o
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
t
e
m
s
a
t
6
'
w
/
s
e
a
m
a
n
d
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
at
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
v
e
;
c
r
o
w
d
e
d
;
l
e
a
n
s
S
.
E
.
72
C
o
a
s
t
l
i
v
e
o
a
k
2
5
,
2
4
,
2
4
Y
e
s
4
H
i
g
h
$
2
6
,
7
0
0
Of
f
-
s
i
t
e
.
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
3
'
;
v
a
s
e
f
o
r
m
;
vi
g or
o
u
s
; v
e
r
y l
a
r
g e
t
r
e
e
.
To
t
a
l
v
a
l
u
e
$1
3
4
,
7
5
0